Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA):national guidance 2016

MAPPA Document 11

MAPPA Case Audit Form

Name of auditor:
Date:
Offender's full name:
Referring agency:

Instructions: Please circle the number relating to your finding

How timely was the initial referral?

Very timely	1
Should have been earlier by more than a month	2
Should have been earlier by three months or more	3

Were all relevant sections completed?

Yes, all the relevant sections completed	1
No, relevant sections were not completed	2

Was the referral of sufficient quality?

Yes, completely	1
Yes, good enough	2
No, not sufficient	3
No, poor	4

How timely was the initial MAPPA meeting, after the initial referral?

Very timely	1
Should have been earlier by a few days	2
Should have been earlier by more than a week	3
Should have been earlier by more than a month	4
Should haven earlier by three months or more	5

Were the nominated people invited to the initial MAPPA meeting? ("Relevant" means general relevance to this type of case)

Yes, all the relevant people/agencies were invited	1
No, one relevant person/agency* was not invited	2
No, two or more relevant people/agencies* were not invited	3
Some people* were invited who should not have been	4

*Please list these people/agencies:

Did the nominated individuals attend the meeting?

Yes, all the relevant people attended	1
No, one relevant person/agency* did not attend	2
No, two or more relevant people/agencies did not attend	3

*Please list these people/agencies:

Did people who did not attend, but were directly involved in the case, provide written reports?

Yes, all	1
Yes, some	2
No evidence Not applicable	3 4

Was a report provided from the lead agency?

Yes	1
No evidence	2

Were the minutes of the initial MAPPA meeting clear and concise?

Yes	1
Yes, mostly	2
No, mostly not No, lacked clarity	3 4

Do the minutes clearly record the MAPPA category?

Yes	1
No	2

Do minutes clearly record the initial risk level the case should have been managed at?

Yes	1
No	2
N/A	3

Do the initial minutes evidence that a risk assessment tool has been completed by the referring agency?

Yes	1
No	2

Do the minutes show that the meeting addressed the standard agenda?

Yes	1
Yes, mostly	2
No, mostly not	3
No, not at all	4

Do the minutes show that there was effective sharing and consideration of information at the meeting?

Yes	1
Yes, for most of the meeting	2
No, not for most of the meeting	3
No, not at all	4

Do the minutes show that any diversity issues were properly addressed?

Yes	1
No*	2

*If No, please describe any shortfall:

Do the minutes show that risk was properly assessed?

Yes	1
Yes, mostly	2
No, not very well	3
No, not well at all	4

Do the minutes record defensible decisions to if disclosure should or should not be made?

Yes	1
Yes, for most of the meeting	2
No, not for most of the meeting	3
No, not at all	4

Where it is agreed that disclosure should take place is it clear what information will be disclosed, who to, when by and by whom?

Yes	1
Yes, mostly	2
No, not very well	3
No, not well at all	4
N/A	5

Do the minutes show that potential victims were properly informed?

Yes, awareness of all risk to potential victims informs meeting	1
Yes, some awareness of risk to potential victims informs meeting	2
No, not enough	3
No, not at all	4

Do the minutes show that the compliance of the offender was considered?

Yes, sufficiently	1
To some degree	2
Not addressed at all	3

Do actions in the plans link well to the identified risks?

Yes, completely	1
Yes, well enough	2
No, not sufficiently	3
No, links are poor	4

Are there any risks (identified at the MAPPA meeting or evident to you) which are not addressed properly?

No, none	1
No, but a risk* could have been addressed better	2
Yes, some risks* not addressed properly	3
Yes, major risks* not addressed	4

*Please list those risks if applicable:

Is there mention of involving the offender in actions to be taken and/or arrangement to notify the offender about the MAPPA meeting and relevant outcomes?

Yes	1
No	2
N/A	3

Do the actions plans have SMART objectives?

Yes, for all actions	1
Yes, for most actions	2
No, only for some actions	3
Not really	4

Are the individuals who are expected to take the actions clearly identified?

Yes, in all cases	1
Yes, mostly	2
No, mostly not	3
No, never	4

Is there a clear time frame for actions?

Yes, always	1
Yes, mostly	2
No, mostly not	3
Not usually	4

Did the reviews happen within the frequency required for the case?

Yes	1
No	2

Were the nominated people invited to the review meeting?

Yes, all the relevant people attended	1
Yes, mostly	2
No, some relevant absences*	3
No, consistent relevant absences*	4

*Please list the absent agencies:

Was the action plan reviewed every time?

Yes, always	1
Yes, mostly	2
No, mostly not	3
No, never	4

Is there evidence that every action has been addressed? (I.e. a real attempt has been made to undertake the action)

Yes, every action, every time	1
Yes, every action for most reviews or most actions in every review	2
No, mostly not	3

Do the minutes show that updating information was shared?

Yes, at every review	1
Yes, at most	2
No, not at most	3
No, not at all	4

Was the need to manage the case at level 2/3 reviewed?

Yes	1
No	2

Was there a change to level of management?

Yes	1
No	2
N/A	3

Was the decision appropriate?

Yes	1
No*	2

*Please explain why the decision was not appropriate?

Where management at level 2/3 was confirmed was a revised action plan put in place?

Yes	1
No	2
N/A	3

How well has this MAPPA case been managed?

Very well	1
Well enough	2
Not well enough*	3
Poorly*	4

*Please provide reasons:

Are all the decisions/actions noted "defensible"?

Yes	1
No*	2

*Please list decisions/actions:

In your view, has the MAPPA process been effective in providing protection for the public?

Significantly	1
To a good degree	2
Not much	3
Not at all	4