Discretionary disclosure of information under MAPPA
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550507085682 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Discretionary disclosure of information under MAPPA
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) place a statutory duty on
police, prison and probation services to assess and manage the risks posed by
dangerous offenders in the community. MAPPA manages these offenders according
to a three-tier structure which aids resource targeting to those posing the highest risk.
Level 1 ‘Ordinary risk management’. Offenders managed at this level are
considered to present a low/medium risk of harm and are managed by the
responsible agency without substantial inter-agency involvement.
Level 2 ‘Local inter-agency risk management’. Here, a higher level of risk is
presented, and/or a complex management plan is required. More than
one agency is actively involved in management.
Level 3 ‘Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels’ (MAPPPs) are formed to
manage the ‘critical few’ who pose the highest level of risk. A range of
agencies are involved and MAPPPs require the attendance of senior
managers who are in a position to authorize additional resources to
strengthen these most complex risk management plans.
The system gives those managing sex offenders in the community the power to
undertake discretionary disclosures to third parties who are otherwise not involved.
Information about an offender and his/her offence can be made known to relevant
individuals in cases where a potential risk to children is identified. This arrange-
ment does not extend to provide wide-scale public disclosure of information such
as ‘Megan’s Law’ in the USA where members of the public have a right to request
details from the police.
This research is part of the Home Office review of the management of child
sex offenders to seek ways to improve child protection measures with a particular
focus upon the use of discretionary disclosure. The research aimed to explore the
current use of discretionary measures across police areas. In particular it examined:
under what circumstances disclosure had taken place; what information had been
shared with third parties; who these recipients of disclosure were; and, what were
the perceived consequences of disclosure. A self-completion questionnaire was
circulated to the MAPPA co-ordinators in the 43 police areas who were asked to
consider disclosures made between January–June 2006 (inclusive).
85
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2008 NAPO Vol 55(1): 85–93
DOI: 10.1177/0264550507085682
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Research
& reports
To continue reading
Request your trial