Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in Scotland: national overview report 2023-24

5. MAPPA in Operation

MAPPA partner agencies work together to help reduce the risk posed by individuals and to keep the public safe. Managing that risk is a complex task and involves the coming together of Local Authorities, SPS, Police, Housing and Health – in conjunction with Duty to Cooperate (DTC) agencies and other third sector organisations. The successful operation of MAPPA is dependent on the cooperation, coordination and collaboration of all the partner agencies.

The case studies below offer a snapshot of some of the work undertaken by MAPPA regions over the reporting period, providing demonstrable real life examples of multi-agency partnership working which helps keep the public safe. Through alert and active management, MAPPA partners manage the risk of harm to the public - which also includes, providing support to victims, and managing the complex needs of vulnerable offenders by providing stability to reduce the risk they pose, which in turn helps to reduce reoffending rates.

Case Study 2

SouthWest Scotland

Person A had reached the end of his sentence and was released from prison. He had no statutory social work involvement and was managed by the Police under the Sex Offender Notification Requirements (SONR). He had a history of sexual offending in the context of intimate relationships and while in prison the man had formed a relationship with a woman in the community, who had agreed that he could live with her upon his release. The woman had young children and there were concerns for their welfare should the man be introduced into their home. The Police made a disclosure to the woman regarding the man’s previous offending; however, she decided to allow Person A to live with her following his release from prison.

Most of the concerns around Person A’s risk revolved around the protection of the children. As he was now living with the woman and her children, this risk was assessed as very high. Although there was no statutory social work involvement, the MAPPA agencies agreed that Social Work would be best placed to lead the risk management aspect of the case and so a senior member of social work staff with a wealth of child protection experience undertook the task of chairing the level 3 MAPPP (Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel).

All necessary child protection procedures were followed and a wraparound multi-agency RMP implemented. Gradually, the family began to welcome the support that they were offered, and the risks that were highlighted also gradually reduced. The case was eventually dropped from Level 3 to Level 2, social work stepped back from being the lead agency and the Police resumed responsibility. At time of writing, the family seemed to have benefited from the support offered and Person A remains fully compliant with his RMP.

Case Study 3

Lanarkshire

Person B was subject to a Supervised Release Order (SRO) and assessed as posing a high risk of perpetrating domestic abuse against a previous intimate partner. Prior to Person B’s release from custody, JSW, Police, and Aura Domestic Abuse Service all worked in close partnership to maximise safeguards for the victim. These safeguards included measures such as installation of cctv, video camera doorbell and panic alarms. A robust schedule of contact between agencies and the victim was devised with an emergency safety plan led by Aura. Scenario planning was explored with the victim and this increased her awareness of how to best protect herself if any contact was made by Person B.

It was agreed at the initial MAPPA Level 2 meeting that JSW would request additional SRO conditions including a geographical exclusion that prohibited Person B from entering an area the victim frequented. Despite the court deciding not to impose this condition, JSW chose to issue Person B a written instruction not to enter the area without prior approval of their supervising officer, given the level of assessed risk. The decision to provide this written instruction was supported by MAPPA partners and the chair. This proved to be an essential aspect of the RMP and subsequently led to a breach report being submitted to court, following evidence of Person B’s attempts to pursue the victim. Following this incident, the emergency victim safety plan was mobilised, with the victim being supported to access safe housing, and MAPPA partners collaborating closely to reduce the risk of further attempts of contact and re-traumatisation of the victim.

This practice example highlights a number of key challenges associated with managing MAPPA category 3 individuals subject to SROs. In particular (a) the securing of additional conditions through the court to strengthen risk management and (b) the length of time between submitting a breach report to court and the individual appearing at court. On this occasion, both challenges were overcome by active and alert partnership working.

Case Study 4

Tayside

Person C, a high risk individual, was released from custody and returned to his home town, where he presented as homeless. Through involvement with the housing SOLO, a place was located for him in a city centre homeless unit provided by the third sector.

Through previous management of Person C, he was known to be non-engaging and non-compliant, and there were concerns that he would return to drug misuse. However, both JSW and SOPU worked closely together scheduling office appointments with Person C and also conducting joint unannounced home visits. Through the management and support given to Person C, he quickly moved into a support flat within the homeless unit.

To date, he is engaging and accepting of the support, seeking out help when needed and actively avoiding negative peers. He is now managed as a Level 1 medium risk RSO.

Case Study 5

Grampian

Person A, a young male subject to a hospital related order which was about to fall and who was to return to the community, had no experience of independent living and had learning difficulties. He was assessed as presenting a very high risk of serious harm to children, including his immediate family, and also to vulnerable adults. While a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) was sought and granted, he was not subject to statutory supervision nor in receipt of support from other agencies.

The case was raised to Level 3 MAPPP. Funding was agreed to provide supported accommodation with wrap-around staffing to enable a fully supported transition to the community, and with that agreement in place, his management level reduced to Level 2. However, Person A’s behaviours continued to be of concern. Although he was engaged in harm reduction program work, as support was reduced however, he quickly returned to prohibited behaviours and was reported for breaching the conditions of the SOPO.

Support services were sourced from third sector organisations and they worked in partnership with the Responsible Authorities to engage Person A in pro-social behaviours and activities. However, Person A’s behaviours continued to cause concern and while he had not committed any contact offences, he was exhibiting emboldened behaviours. A referral was made to the Edinburgh-based SOLS team, with request for them to review the MAPPA management and actions undertaken by the Responsible Authorities to identify any missed opportunities or learning. This review provided reassurance in terms of the actions taken to date and some alternative, more personalised, methods of engagement for agencies to use.

Over a considerable period of time, JSW, Police, learning disability services across two council areas, housing, NHS and third sector organisations worked collaboratively to stabilise Person A’s behaviours and reduce the risk of harm to the public. Whilst he has continued to offend on occasion (compliance breaches are sometimes a feature of close management as part of managing down risk) his offending has been non-contact, mostly for breach of court orders, and no harm is known to have been caused. In February this year, progress was deemed to have been sufficient to merit a reduction to management Level 1.

Case Study 6

Glasgow

Person B was shortly due for release from prison and in preparation for his release there were significant concerns raised regarding the risk presented by him due to the serious harm previously perpetrated.

There were gaps in the understanding of Person B due to a lack of engagement with services. This raised concerns over compliance and the associated risk. In preparation for liberation there was an active coordinated effort from professionals involved, to develop a positive working relationship with Person B and upon release there was significant engagement with him which was responsive. Professionals involved in the management of Person B positively collaborated to develop a relationship with him which supported his risk management in the community, which enabled the reduction in his risk and MAPPA level.

Case Study 7

Highland

Person C was convicted of possessing and distributing indecent photographs of a child and of several charges of lewd and libidinous conduct with a child. He was sentenced to serve a three year period of custody, indefinite registration requirements and an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO).

The SOPO contained numerous conditions prohibiting any unsupervised contact with children and young people and restricting his access to one internet accessible device and providing details surrounding that device (passwords/no encryption software or deletion of histories). This device would be available to agencies to check compliance on each and every contact - both announced and unannounced, with Person C. Police monitoring staff would inspect using specialist software identifying any inappropriate use. They would also check, in particular, for content relevant to persons under the age of sixteen.

A MAPPA Level 2 referral was submitted prior to Person C’s release from prison and a MAPPA meeting was convened to share information, assess the risks that he posed and to develop a comprehensive multi-agency risk management plan to manage the identified presenting risks. The plan was supported by offence focused intervention outcomes whilst in prison and a forensic psychology assessment. Person C was assessed as posing a ‘High Risk of Serious Harm’ on release and it was decided that he would continue to be managed at MAPPA Level 2.

Following his release from prison, Person C failed to attend his first and initial appointment with Criminal Justice Social Work Services (CJSW) sighting communication issues. Although he complied with subsequent appointments, his response to supervision was assessed as superficial at best and raised concerns. During the period of management in the community, his attendance at a local library had been raised and shared with MAPPA partners, and swift investigations occurred. It was established quickly that he had breached the conditions of his SOPO by attending a local library where children were in attendance and using the internet to access sites and social media platforms relative to persons under the age of 16 years.

Proceedings were hastily undertaken against him in respect of the breach of the SOPO and he was immediately detained in custody and subsequently sentenced to a further period of imprisonment.

Local learning was achieved in this case and Person C’s SOPO remains in force and his behaviours will continue to be monitored by the Responsible Authorities and DTC agencies under the MAPPA framework, when he is again residing in the community.