20 years of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) – they are ‘underused’, and further improvements are needed

While the overall MAPPA caseload is up 70% since 2011, the proportion being managed through formal multi-agency forums has halved and is now less than two per cent of the total. Whilst multi-agency panels are adding value and improving public protection, for the rest of the MAPPA caseload, Level 1 status has little meaning and only enhanced the management of risk of harm in a third of the cases we inspected.

• there are approximately 238,000 people under probation supervision
• 87,657 offenders were under MAPPA arrangements as of March 2021
• 4 per cent are Level 1 cases (not requiring formal multi-agency meetings)
• MAPPA was previously inspected in 2011 and reviewed in 2015.

Twenty years on, are Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) working? That was the question posed by HM Inspectorate of Probation, alongside HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) for a joint inspection looking at the current effectiveness of MAPPA.

MAPPA is the process through which various agencies such as the police, the prison service and probation services work together – through collaboration and sharing information – to protect the public by managing the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders living in the community. MAPPA cases can also include people who are prison, preparing for release or in mental health facilities.

Chief Inspector of Probation, Justin Russell: “Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, when properly implemented can add significant value to the effective monitoring and management of high-risk offenders.

“However, it is not enough to just decide if a person should be under MAPPA arrangements. They must be properly managed and subject to regular reviews, informed by all the agencies involved.

“Right now, MAPPA use appears inconsistent. Some areas interpret the MAPPA criteria differently and aren’t referring enough cases for formal, multi-agency management. Essentially, they are underused: for cases managed at the lower Level 1, contact is not sufficient, reviewing is too often unsatisfactory and pre-release communication between prisons and community probation staff is limited and happening too late. Improvements to the management of this group, which makes up the vast majority of the MAPPA caseload are required and should be a priority for the future.”

Level 1 cases compared to Levels 2 and 3

The majority of MAPPA cases (98.4 per cent) are managed at Level 1. Having been convicted of serious sexual or violent offences, Level 1 cases should be subject to regular reviews, and the information gained shared between all agencies working with that person. Over a fifth of the Level 1 cases, we inspected, should have been managed at Level 2, which was a concern. For too many of the Level 1 caseload, this status has little meaning and only enhanced the management of risk of harm in 32 per cent of the cases we inspected.  In only 53 per cent of cases in the community was the level and nature of contact with the case sufficient to support the case management plan. Reviewing of these cases was satisfactory in under half the cases we inspected.

By contrast, the report concluded that for cases managed at Levels 2 and 3 (which involve formal multi-agency meetings), MAPPA largely achieves its aims of managing the risks that violent and sexual offenders pose to the public.

MAPPA is ‘marginalised, undervalued, and underused’ in some areas

Where probation or police are the lead agency, effective processes are in place to identify MAPPA-eligible cases automatically at the point of sentence. However, decisions about the appropriate management level are not always made in a timely way with a clear rationale, which can negatively affect risk management and release plans for individuals leaving prison. While case management at Levels 2 and 3 is subject to regular review through multi-agency meetings, not all areas have effective processes to review Level 1 cases.

Mr Russell continued: “We have seen cases where the threshold for using MAPPA, and escalating cases to Levels 2 and 3, are too high. Some cases are only moved to Level 2 if there are no other options available, rather than reflecting a person’s behaviour or circumstances. This means that complex cases are rejected when oversight and accountability are much needed. In areas with this practice, MAPPA is becoming marginalised, undervalued, and underused by practitioners.”

Data collection and sharing was also a continuing concern from this report. A database (called ViSOR), used to store shared information on all MAPPA cases, for the past 15 years, is not being used as intended. This inspection found that, even where required, not all MAPPA cases are being recorded, and that the police are the only agency reliably adding information. ViSOR is rarely used by prison and probation staff, and most are not clear on the benefits or purpose of the system. We have recommended that this is resolved at the earliest opportunity.

Is MAPPA keeping people safe?

While Level 2 and 3 MAPPA cases, are demonstrating that information sharing is succeeding in managing the most violent individuals, this is just a small percentage (less than 2 per cent) of the MAPPA caseload. Despite the positive potential of MAPPA, we found gaps in some cases – especially at Level 1. Too often, late pre-release planning for individuals being released from custody mean that important arrangements, such as accommodation, are not in place sufficiently early. Last-minute arrangements do little to ensure that individuals being released are informed about what is expected from them on release or to encourage compliance with licence conditions, and this is a potential danger to the public.

Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, said: “This timely report highlights inconsistencies in the way risky prisoners are managed – we saw some good examples of multi-agency work and some cases that were not getting the attention they deserved, particularly when there were shortages of staff.”

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, Wendy Williams, said: “While we saw some innovative practice across the sector, this report draws attention to a lack of consistency and coherency in MAPPA. To keep the public safe and adequately manage high-risk individuals, clear structure and governance needs to be put in place and these important arrangements regularly reviewed. We will continue to monitor progress in this area.”

ENDS

Notes to editor

1. This report will be published 00:01 14 July 2022 and can be accessed via our website: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/
2. HM Inspectorate of Probation is the independent inspector of youth offending and probation services across England and Wales.
3. This report analysed 107 MAPPA cases (people charged with violent or sexual offences and interviewed 67 probation practitioners.
4. The recommendations from this inspection can be found on page 12 of the report.
5. For media enquiries, please contact Head of Communications, Diane Bramall: 07929 790 564 or media@hmiprobation.gov.uk (E-mail address)