Research > Crime Solutions
Strengthening Multi-Agency Public Protection Agreements (MAPPAs)
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced a requirement for the police and National Probation Service to work together to make arrangements for assessing and managing risks posed by sexual or violent offenders, and other persons who may cause serious harm to the public. These arrangements are known as Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPAs). It is also a requirement of the Act that these arrangements are reviewed and monitored for their effectiveness. This report performs that function and outlines key messages for practitioners.
Title: Strengthening Multi-Agency Public Protection Agreements (MAPPAs)
Authors: Hazel Kemshall, Gill Mackenzie, Jason Wood, Roy Bailey and Joe Yates
Series: Home Office Development & Practice Report 46
Number of pages: 30
Date published: October 2005
Availability:
Download full report
PDF 193Kb
Before 1999 offender risk management was largely based on informal structures, processes and personal networks outside of agreed structures. Across England and Wales a three-tiered public protection structure has now been adopted, as recommended by MAPPA guidance. It relies on the active engagement of a range of partners from key agencies, with the police and National Probation Service acting jointly as the Responsible Authority. The naming of HM Prison Service as an additional Responsible Authority has strengthened these arrangements as has a 'duty to cooperate' on a range of other agencies through the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Agencies involved in the MAPPA process are now able to take decisions and develop risk management plans; where problems exist, areas are taking well-considered steps to address them.
Recommendations
Practice: Responsible Authorities and 'duty to co-operate' agencies
With the increasingly complex nature of MAPPAs, areas may need to review their coordination and administration arrangements.
All MAPPAs should be reviewed as to whether they are using their current coordination role to best effect, or whether changes are required to respond to increased demands. This may include the appointment of a dedicated person to this role where appropriate.
Appropriate resources for administrative support should be allocated to all areas as a priority.
Pre-meeting information requirements should be developed and implemented, setting out minimum expectations for what information should be available from all partner agencies at a MAPPA meeting.
Local information sharing and disclosure protocols should be reviewed and developed with 'duty to cooperate' agencies to ensure consistency in understanding and implementation. Such protocols should be agreed and signed by all agencies.
Duplication of inappropriate case recording should be avoided, and the format and completion of all records should be invesitgated.
Referrals to MAPPA from probation should include a full OASys form with the risk of harm section completed.
A standard template with minimum requirements for minute-taking and requests for information could be adopted.
Areas should be encouraged to meet the SMART criteria and consider the appropriateness of contingency planning in more cases.
Policy: Strategic Management Board
Strategic Management Board (SMBs) should produce annual business plans to assist with prioritisation of workloads and forward planning.
Strategic planning and working may benefit from MAPPA work being located alongside other public protection work, such as child protection or domestic violence.
Numbers of Level 2 offenders (violent and other sex offenders receiving a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, since April 2001) should be collated and reported in the annual report. Level 2 cases should be monitored at a local level to ensure there is management of the volume of offenders, and that the referral criteria at this level are consistent.
SMBs should review their databases and consider developing evaluation techniques for the work of MAPPA locally, including the use of case audits. This can then feed into future contingency planning work and a better understanding of the effects of the risk management strategies put in place.
A full audit of local procedural compliance with central government should be carried out at key developmental stages of the MAPPA, or on a periodic 'fitness check' cycle.
SMBs should formulate a training strategy appropriate to local needs and review it annually.
Policy: Home Office and National Offender Management Service (NOMS)
Further guidance should be provided setting out minimum expectations for what information needs to be available at a MAPPA meeting to provide consistency across areas.
Further guidance on information sharing and disclosure protocols should be provided – the Home Office has provided useful guidance for dealing with Domestic Violence.
Further guidance should be provided for case transfer across areas to ensure consistency of risk assessment and management.
Level 2 panels would benefit from re-definition in national guidance to provide a clearer statement of meaningful and active involvement of two or more agencies, as part of an inter-agency risk management strategy
A requirement should be made for Level 2 cases to be monitored and numbers reported in the annual report.
Standards for the conduct of Level 3 risk management cases (offenders who are considered to pose a ‘risk of serious harm to the public') should be developed nationally based upon the good practice identified in this report and elsewhere.
Further guidance and good practice should be provided on a core portfolio of mandatory training for those working in MAPPA, to ensure greater consistency across all areas.
A standard template with minimum requirements for minute-taking and requests for information could be developed and provided to all SMBs.
Last update: 09 November 2005