Strengthening multi-agency public protection arrangements
| Published date | 01 June 2006 |
| Author | Iolo Madoc-Jones |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050605300207 |
| Date | 01 June 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Strengthening multi-agency public protection
arrangements
This research presents the findings of a follow-up to a 2001 review of public
protection arrangements (Maguire et al., 2001). Whilst the 2001 review had been
positive about the direction in which developments had been going in the field of
assessing and managing high risk offenders, it found that the systems that were
in existence were diverse and variable in quality from area to area. The commit-
ment and cooperation of agencies other than police and probation was some-
times marginal and although some areas had efficient gate-keeping processes to
ensure resources were targeted appropriately, others were trying to manage very
large caseloads on limited resources. The 2001 report found that risk classifica-
tions were likely to be very variable from area to area and an additional concern
was that monitoring, review and evaluation procedures were very poorly
developed. The report recommended that a framework should be developed to
support coordinated and well-resourced multi-agency based approaches to
managing high risk individuals.
Five years on, and this review finds that many of the issues highlighted in
2001 have been addressed, primarily as a result of provisions contained in
on a questionnaire survey of the 42 MAPPA areas in England and Wales, docu-
mentation, annual reports, statistics and information from 98 case files and
interviews with 73 individuals, the report finds significant changes since the intro-
duction into law of a requirement for the Police and National Probation Service
(and later others) to act as responsible authorities in Multi-Agency Public Protec-
tion Panels (MAPPPs), and the introduction of a duty to co-operate with MAPPPs
on a range of statutory and other social care agencies.
In 2005 each area has a similar framework for MAPPPs involving a Strategic
Management Board overseeing a three-tiered system. At level one cases are dealt
with by a single agency, at level two by a small number of agencies working
together and at level three by a range of agencies. The tiered system ensures that
at level three the focus is on the ‘critical few’ whose management requires signifi-
cant inter-agency cooperation. The research finds that all areas have procedures
in place to manage risks at each level and the revised structure and offender risk
classification tools provides conceptual clarity in terms of assessing risk and gate
keeping through the system.
Involvement in managing high-risk cases is significantly improved on 2001,
with a broader range of individuals attending panel meetings. These individuals
are better placed than their counterparts were in 2001 to take decisions on behalf
of their agency and, if necessary, commit resources. Most areas have created a
MAPPA co-ordinator role and benefits are considered to derive from having an
individual acting as a centre point for risk assessment and management activities.
Overall decision-making shows improvement in so far as they are more likely
to be recorded and supported by evidence. Case reviews are regularly undertaken
and processes are in place for meetings to be called at short notice if necessary.
Probation Journal
170 53(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial