MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Ministerial foreword by Gerry Sutcliffe MP
Making our communities safer and reducing re-offending is our highest priority and one of our biggest challenges. That is why the work undertaken through these multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) is so important. The supervision and management of sexual and violent offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm, whether in the community or in custody, is complex and challenging; and is an aspect of public service where the public rightly expects all reasonable action to be taken. Although we have made significant progress in the last five years with the development of MAPPA across England and Wales, the review this year of a number of tragic incidents where people have been murdered or seriously injured reminded us of the importance of reviewing performance, improving practice and learning lessons. It is vital that these tasks are undertaken by the probation, police and prison services, as well as by those other agencies that contribute to the assessment and management of offenders. The publication of MAPPA Business Plans by each Area in this year’s annual reports offers a helpful and necessary programme of local development and review and must lead to enhanced practice. It will be essential that this progress is transparent and shared with local communities. In addition to this, however, it is important that no opportunity is missed to consider other measures that will further enhance public safety. That is why we are undertaking the Child Sex Offender Review, to look at how a particular group of offenders, who provoke anxiety for many, are best managed in the community. The review is consulting a wide range of practitioners and key stakeholders including the MAPPA lay advisers, and will report around the end of the year. Finally, in commending this report to you, I want to take the opportunity to thank all those involved locally in working with sexual and violent offenders, or in ensuring that these arrangements are fit for purpose. Where MAPPA is working well it is based on maintaining high professional standards and effective multi-agency collaboration in the delivery of robust risk management plans. While it is not possible to eliminate risk entirely, where all reasonable action is taken the risk of further serious harm can be reduced to a minimum and fewer victims will be exposed to repeat offending.

Gerry Sutcliffe MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Criminal Justice and Offender Management

3

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................6 What are the MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements)? ......7
Are all dangerous people covered by the MAPPA? Are all offenders covered by the MAPPA? How are those offenders who come under the MAPPA dealt with? What is a Risk Assessment? Why aren’t all these offenders very high risk? How are offenders managed under the MAPPA? What are Risk Management Plans? Sexual Offences Prevention Orders Foreign Travel Orders Notification Orders Disclosure Recall to prison

What about the victims of serious crime?..........................................................12

Who’s Who in MAPPA? .............................................................................................13 The Responsible Authority
The Strategic Management Board Report by the SMB Chair Humberside Police National Probation Service - Humberside The Prison Service - Yorkshire and Humberside Area

‘Duty to Co-operate’ agencies
What must the “duty to co-operate’ agencies do? Youth Offending Teams Jobcentre Plus Local Housing Authority Registered Social Landlords Local Authority Social Services - Councils with Children Services and Community Care Responsibilities Local Education Authority Health Services

Key Progress and Achievements over the last year .........................................25 The coming year - Strengthening the MAPPA....................................................26 Statistics ......................................................................................................................29 Area MAPPA Business Plan 2006-2007 .................................................................31 MAPPA – THE FIRST FIVE YEARS: A National Overview of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements 2001 - 2006 .................................................................36 Strategic Management Board Members..............................................................46 Agency Contact Points .............................................................................................47

5

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Introduction
We are pleased to present the fifth annual report on the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in Humberside. Yet again the year has produced many challenges connected to this area of work and we wish to take this opportunity to restate our commitment to the MAPPA process. We believe that this process enables the effective management of risk from offenders and thereby prevents crime and protects victims. That commitment to MAPPA has been demonstrated locally through our provision of extra resources and nationally by enabling our staff to participate in, and be exposed to, external initiatives and workgroups aimed at developing and improving practice. The increase in local resources has resulted in allocation of extra staffing from across agencies and the provision of a dedicated work environment for those staff. This has enabled us to reach out to more of the agencies having contact with high risk offenders resulting in a greater sharing of appropriate information, resources and expertise. Our statistics show, that this has had a positive effect on our work to reduce risk from those offenders. An additional consequence of this increased involvement has been that MAPPA is more able to benefit the wide diversity of communities across Humberside. In respect of national developments Humberside staff have participated in national working parties to develop new initiatives and processes and have trailed proposed national documentation. This means that we are not only able to help shape national policy but we also ensure Humberside remains at the leading edge of this type of work. We are pleased to report that the involvement of lay members of the community on the Strategic Management Board continues and we intend to further develop this aspect of MAPPA in the forthcoming year. The consistency of membership on the Strategic Management Board has brought benefits in terms of experience, effectiveness and the ability to plan for the future. This introduction would not be complete if we did not offer our sincere thanks to all those staff who work so hard to protect the public. They are to be commended for their skills and dedication. We believe this report, yet again, contributes to the growing knowledge of, and confidence in, the MAPPA process, particularly for those who live and work within the communities we serve.

Tim Hollis Chief Constable Humberside Police

Stephen Hemming Chief Probation Officer National Probation Service – Humberside

Steve Wagstaffe HM Prison Service Area Manager Yorkshire and Humberside

6

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

What are the MAPPA?
Sexual and violent offences are dreadful crimes that deeply affect the lives of victims and their families and inspire fear in local communities. Their impact can be profound and long-lasting, leaving victims feeling unsafe even in their own homes. The Government continues to regard protecting the public from such sexual and violent crimes as one of its highest priorities. The Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) form the basis of that public protection through a genuinely multi-agency partnership throughout the 42 Police and Probation Areas of England and Wales. They developed as formal arrangements out of local initiatives following legislation in 2000* and are now defined by the Criminal Justice Act (2003) which came into effect on 5th April 2004. New National guidelines on implementing MAPPA were introduced in April 2004‡ and updated guidelines are expected during the coming year. MAPPA contribute significantly towards the integration of the work of a number of criminal justice agencies together with social care agencies such as health, social services and housing, in order to reduce serious offending, minimise serious harm to the public and assist in the early detection of repeat offenders. Over the period of this review, the police, prison and probation services have had a statutory responsibility to oversee these arrangements as the “responsible authorities” under the relevant legislation. In Humberside we undertake this joint work at two levels, through Local Risk Management Meetings (LRMMs, see later) and through Multi Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPP, see later). The administering of the MAPPA is undertaken by a central team led by a MAPPA Co-ordinator who work closely with the four Police Risk Management Units based in Hull, Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Market Weighton, the National Probation Service - Humberside teams based in Hull, Scunthorpe, Grimsby, Beverley, Goole and Bridlington and colleagues from the local prisons. Of course they could not carry out their work effectively without co-operation and input from other departments in their services or from other agencies.

Are all dangerous people covered by the MAPPA?
Currently MAPPA only applies to certain categories of individuals who have already been convicted of an offence. Some potentially dangerous people are not known to any local agencies, including police or probation. Therefore, although the MAPPA represents a significant strengthening of public protection, they cannot provide absolute protection.

Are all offenders covered by the MAPPA?
Not all offenders are covered by the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements so effective multiagency public protection needs to start with the efficient identification of those relevant offenders. Prompt and accurate identification then allows all agencies to gather and share relevant information and choose the appropriate risk management strategies.

* Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. ‡ The MAPPA Guidance (2003) Home Office

7

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Three categories of offenders are defined as falling within the remit of MAPPA; Category 1: Category 2: Category 3: Registered sex offenders, i.e. those convicted or cautioned for certain sexual offences who are required to register with the police. Violent and other sex offenders who generally have received a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more. Other offenders not in either of the above categories but who are considered to pose a risk of serious harm to the public. The inclusion of these offenders under MAPPA is based on two considerations. First it must be established that the individual has a conviction for an offence which indicates they are capable of causing serious harm to the public. Secondly it must be reasonably considered that they currently may cause serious harm to the public.

The statistics at the end of this report show the number of offenders in the three categories we have in Humberside.

How are those offenders who come under the MAPPA dealt with?
When offenders have been dealt with by the courts their assimilation back into the community is usually, but not always, overseen by the National Probation Service. This may start as soon as the offender leaves court if they have been made subject to a community penalty such as a Community Order or it may be delayed until the offender is released from prison if a custodial sentence is given. At the time an offender passes through the court process an assessment of the risk they present to the public in general or any individual in particular will usually have been undertaken by the probation service. If they are given a custodial sentence then that assessment will be reviewed during the time they are in prison under a shared risk assessment tool OASys*. The review will take into consideration information from prison and probation staff involved in any work they have undertaken on their offending behaviour whilst in prison, information from the police, from the probation Victim Liaison Officers and from the Offender Manager from the “home” probation area, so that when the offender is released to the community, agencies working with them will have an up to date indication of the risk the offender poses. Some offenders who do not come to the official notice of the probation service are assessed by the police, e.g. Registered Sex Offenders moving into the area, again by using Home Office approved Risk Assessment Tools.L

* Offender Assessment System (OASys) is a Home Office approved National risk assessment tool, electronically based and accessible to staff of both The Prison Service and The National Probation Service.
L

Risk Matrix 2000.

8

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

What is a Risk Assessment?
Risk assessment in our area of work can be considered as calculating how likely an event is to occur and, if it does, what the likely impact of that event will be, upon whom or what and with what consequences. The impact we are considering under MAPPA is serious harm to members of the public in general or to individuals in particular, that is harm that will be life threatening or traumatic and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible. Using the recognised risk assessment tools of the particular agency, offenders are assessed as presenting low, medium, high or very high risk of causing harm. In essence these levels of risk are defined as; Low: Medium: High: Very High: there are no significant current indicators of risk of harm there are identifiable indicators of harm. The offender has the potential to cause harm but is unlikely to do so unless there is a change of circumstances. there are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. The potential event could happen at any time and the impact would be serious there is an imminent risk of serious harm. The potential event is more likely than not to happen and the impact would be serious.

The purpose of the MAPPA is to establish arrangements to co-ordinate the effective management of that risk.

Why aren’t all these offenders very high risk?
Remember, risk is about the likelihood of something happening and the consequences or impact if it does happen. As past behaviour is a predictor to future behaviour, all offenders must be considered as presenting some risk of re-offending and causing harm. However the degree to which they pose a risk and the seriousness of any consequences of any further offending is something which is considered in the risk assessment process. Some may be considered as presenting a high risk of re-offending but the consequences of that behaviour, although perhaps causing nuisance, cost or indeed minor harm to the victim is not serious harm as we have defined it. Others may have committed a serious offence with tragic consequences, such as murder or manslaughter, which indicates they have the capacity to cause serious harm but the likelihood of a repeat of the circumstances in which the offence occurred is low. The majority of individuals who are assessed as possibly being a risk to others, willingly comply with any arrangements made to help them overcome problems and issues which led to offending. Perhaps their risk is to a specific individual and there can now be no contact with that individual. Or it relates to particular circumstances, which no longer exist. The offender may genuinely want to change the behaviour which led to their offending and willingly undertakes programmes provided by the prison or probation services to help them do that. These programs are in the main “cognitive-behavioural programmes” which have been identified and evaluated as the most effective treatment of both sexual and violent offenders, looking at the way a person’s thinking and behaviour are connected, and how changing one can affect the other.

9

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

How are offenders managed under the MAPPA?
Risk management is defined as harm reduction either through the reduction of the likelihood of a risk occurring or the reduction of its impact should it occur. The structure of risk management under MAPPA is intended to enable resources to be deployed to manage the risks identified in the most efficient and effective manner. There are three levels of risk management used under the MAPPA. Although generally the higher the assessed level of risk the higher the level of management required this need not always be the case. The risk management structure is based on the principal that cases should be managed at the lowest level consistent with providing a defensible risk management plan. The three levels are; Level 1: Ordinary risk management. This is the level used in cases in which the risks posed by the offender can be managed by an agency without significant active involvement of other agencies. The majority of cases supervised in the community by the police or the probation service or the Youth Offending Teams come into this level. Level 2: Local inter-agency risk management. This level of management is used where significant active involvement of more than one agency is required. In Humberside we use the acronym LRMM, for Local Risk Managment Meetings for this level and LRMMs are held monthly in each of the four Divisions at Scunthorpe, Hull, Grimsby and Beverley. Level 3: Multi Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs) This level deals with those “critical few” cases which are assessed as being a high or very high risk of causing serious harm; AND They present risks that can only be managed by a plan which requires co-operation at a senior level due to the complexities of the case and/or because of the unusual resource commitments required. Additionally cases which are exceptional because of the high media scrutiny or public interest or there is a need to ensure public confidence in the criminal justice system is sustained are dealt with at this level. MAPPPs are held fortnightly at the National Probation Service - Humberside Headquaters In Beverley. The two levels of meetings held under MAPPA result in clear actions which feed into the risk management plans which lay down specific objectives for the management of the risk the offender presents.

10

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

What are Risk Management Plans?
Risk management plans lay down specific objectives for the management of the risk the offender presents. Responsibilities and tasks are clearly defined and firm timetables established, i.e. who does what by when. The plan needs to be able to deal with changing circumstances of the case and should also integrate what are described as internal and external restraints on the offender. Internal restraints are the offender’s self-management, often learned through participation in offender behaviour programmes. External restraints can take the form of conditions placed on the offender to do or not do some specific activity. Some of these controls are set in place at the start of our work with an offender in the community eg. requirements can be attached to a Community Order by the court committing the offender to attend a programme, see a psychiatrist or engage in work to address their drug or alcohol abuse. Prior to an offender coming out of prison on a “license”, conditions can be attached to that license laying down certain activities the offender must or must not do, places they must not go or contacts they must not make. Other external restraints are; Sexual Offences Prevention Orders Sexual Offences Protection Orders can be taken out at any time where it can be proved that the subject has been convicted of certain sex offences and there is reasonable cause to believe that the Order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the offender. Foreign Travel Orders A foreign travel order bans those who have been convicted of a sexual offence against a child under 16 from travelling abroad in certain circumstances. An order if granted can ban an offender from travelling to a specific country (or countries) anywhere in the world, or anywhere in the world except to a specified country, or if necessary, from travelling abroad at all. Notification Orders Notification Orders can be applied for when a person resident in this country is known to have been convicted of a sexual offence overseas which, if it had been committed in this country, would have required them to register with the police. Such an order then requires that the offender does register with police and they can then be supervised and monitored by the police in this country. Disclosure There may, exceptionally, be some cases where management of an offender’s risk in the community cannot be carried out without the disclosure of some information to a third party outside of the usual MAPPA agencies. This may be, for example, where an employer, voluntary group organiser or church leader has a position of responsibility or control over the offender and other people who may be at serious risk from the offender. Disclosure to them of certain information about the offender may be the only way to manage that risk. Wherever possible the situation would be discussed with the offender and voluntary disclosure encouraged, with probation and/or police supporting them in this. Great caution is exercised when making such a disclosure and it is seen as an exceptional measure as the disclosure may be to individual members of the public. If such a course of action is required it is always as part of a risk management plan, which has been agreed at either of the two highest levels of MAPPA management, ie. LRMMs or MAPPPs. Recall to prison An ultimate external restraint for offenders who are subject to supervision under “licence” following their release from prison should they break their licence conditions or it is felt the risk they present is becoming unmanageable in the community can be the revocation of that licence and a recall to prison.

11

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

What about the victims of serious crime?
The probation service has a statutory responsibility to contact all victims of sexual and violent crime where the perpetrator has been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison*. In our area we have 3 specialist Victim Liaison Officers in the probation service covering the two geographic areas North and South of the Humber. The duties of those officers are to; • Make contact with relevant victims • Consult the victim about the release arrangements for the offender and make the victim’s views known to the probation Offender Manager, the local MAPPA co-ordinator, the prisoner authorities and, where relevant, the parole board; • Make recommendations about licence conditions or other aspects of the offenders release; • Advise probation colleagues and the MAPPA co-ordinator about any victim concerns relevant to the management of the individual offender; • Keep victims informed about any significant developments during sentence or after release, including notification of release dates and any additional measures being taken to increase their safety.

Naturally, it is up to victims to decide whether they wish to take up the offer of contact with the probation service and, if they do, how much and at what stages. The duration of contact with individual victims can last for several years. The probation service does not offer specialised counselling in regard to the physical and emotional effects the crime may have had on the victim, this is left to organisations better able to deliver this e.g. Social Services –Children Services, Victim Support and NCH the children’s’ charity. Therefore, although the primary focus of the MAPPA is properly placed upon the risk and behaviour of the offender as you can see from the above, the victims’ concerns are considered and reflected in risk assessments and risk management plans under the MAPPA.

*Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) sect 69.

12

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Who’s Who in MAPPA?
The Responsible Authority
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 charges the Police, the National Probation Service and the Prison Service with responsibility for establishing the MAPPA and refer to the three services as “The Responsible Authority”.

The Strategic Management Board (SMB)
The duties and obligations of the Responsible Authority are discharged through the Strategic Management Board. The current membership of the Humberside SMB is given at the end of this report. The broad brief of the SMB is to;

“Keep the arrangements (i.e. the MAPPA) established by it under review with a view to monitoring their effectiveness and making any changes to them that appear necessary or expedient.”
Overarching these activities is the role the SMB has to shape the MAPPA framework within the area. This involves determining the role and representation of different agencies within the framework. It also includes brokering the protocols and memoranda of understanding which formalise those roles. While some margin of discretion in defining the role is left with Area, the following core features are common to all SMBs: (i) monitoring (on at least a quarterly basis) and evaluating the operation of the MAPPA, particularly that of the MAPPPs; (ii) establishing connections which support effective operational work with other public protection arrangements, such as Area Child Protection Committees/Safeguarding Children Boards, Local Crime and Disorder Partnerships and local Criminal Justice Boards; (iii) preparing and publishing the Annual Report and promoting the work of the MAPPA in the Area; (iv) planning the longer-term development of the MAPPA in the light of regular (at least annual) reviews of the arrangements, and with respect to legislative and wider criminal justice changes; and, (v) identifying and planning how to meet common training and developmental needs of those working in the MAPPA.

13

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Report of the Strategic Management Board
This has been a busy year for all agencies involved in Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements as this year has seen an increase in the number of cases referred to Panels at both Level 2 and Level 3 requiring a significant amount of additional work. Staff from all agencies have responded to this challenge and once again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the individual staff within the three statutory agencies, Prison, Probation and Police and those from the “duty to co-operate” agencies who work with us, at times, beyond the call of duty, to try and make Humberside a safer area in which to live and work. This year has seen a significant amount of media attention at both a national and local level in terms of the management of offenders who pose a high risk to the public. Despite the focus this places on the work we do it would be wrong of me on behalf of the agencies involved in the Strategic Management Board to give an assurance that these risks can be wholly eliminated. However I can confirm that the Board continues to commit to the challenge of enabling all statutory and voluntary agencies who work with offenders to act in partnership with the local communities to ensure that these risks can be minimised. Angela Montgomery Chair Humberside Area Strategic Management Board

Humberside Police
A fundamental objective of any Police Service is the prevention and detection of crime. Humberside Police’s contribution to the MAPPA process helps the service work towards meeting that objective by ensuring public safety and the prevention and detection of crimes of a serious sexual or violent nature. Dedicated Risk Management Officers attached to the Family Protection Team in each of its four Divisions focus on public protection and the management of high risk offenders in the community. They carry out risk assessments on Registered Sex Offenders using a Home Office approved procedure (Risk Matrix 2000) and then develop plans to manage that risk drawing in co-operation of other agencies through the MAPPA process as appropriate. Risk Management Officers are core members of the meetings held under the MAPPA and act as the conduit for the flow of information and required actions between MAPPA and colleagues in polce operational and intelligence units. The police are the lead agency in Humberside for ViSOR (The Violent and Sex Offender Register), the computerised database providing a national oversight of offenders subject to MAPPA. Humberside police jointly resource the post of MAPPA Co-ordinator and have provided and equipped the premises for the MAPPA team. They have seconded a Detective Sergeant to that Team. The local Operational Superintendents are regular members of meetings held under MAPPA and chair the Local Risk Management Meetings in the absence of the MAPPA Co-ordinator. The Detective Chief Superintendent responsible for the MAPPA jointly chairs Level 3 MAPPPs.

National Probation Service - Humberside
The National Probation service – Humberside’s contribution to the workings of MAPPA is wide-ranging. It starts with the initial risk assessment of offenders who come before the courts for sexual or violent offences. The risk assessment process uses a Home Office approved procedure called the Offender Assessment System (OASys). The service then supervises and manages any such offenders placed on community orders, including action to return offenders to court if they fail to comply. As is perhaps to be expected the majority of offenders MAPPA works with have been sentenced to imprisonment for their offences and the probation Offender Manager picks up the case at that point and carries out pre-release work with those prisoners and then has responsibility for their supervision and management on licence following release. Again this would include requesting a revocation of the licence and a recall to prison if the offender failed to comply with their licence or the risk they presented became unmanageable in the community.

14

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

In carrying out their responsibilities, probation Offender Managers always notify MAPPA of the fact the offender is in our area and refer appropriate cases to one of the 2 levels of multi agency meeting under MAPPA where a significant input is required from other agencies in achieving the risk management plan. Those officers would then attend any meeting called under MAPPA in regard to the offender. National Probation Service - Humberside delivers specialist accredited programmes to address sexual and violent offending behaviour, including a nationally recognised Sex Offender Treatment Programme, Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme and an Anger Management Programme. The probation service manages two Approved Premises in Humberside for offenders who need an enhanced level of supervision. As well as its work with offenders the probation service also has a statutory responsibility to contact all victims of sexual and violent crime where the perpetrator has been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison*. In our area we have 3 specialist Victim Liaison Officers in the probation service covering the two geographical areas north and south of the Humber. The Victim Liaison Officers are core members of the meetings held under MAPPA and advise agencies about and victim concerns relevant to the management of the individual offender. The National Probation Service - Humberside has seconded a Senior Probation Officer to the post of MAPPA Co-ordinator and 2 Probation Officers to the MAPPA Team.

The Prison Service - Yorkshire and Humberside Area
The Prison Service plays an important role in protecting the public by keeping offenders in custody; helping them to address the causes of their offending behaviour; and by undertaking other work to assist their successful resettlement back into the community. There are four prisons within the Humberside Area, HMP Hull, HMP Everthorpe, HMP Wolds and HMP Full Sutton. Of course offenders from this area are also held in other prisons nationwide and are released to Humberside from them. The main focus of the Prison Service’s contribution to MAPPA is at an operational level and a number of measures are being put in place locally across the prison estate to ensure that this will be effective and result in: • Prompt identification of MAPPA offenders so that their details can be used in sentence planning arrangements, including interventions to manage and reduce risk • Regular monitoring of the behaviour of those assessed as presenting the highest risk, and sharing information with police and probation colleagues. • All relevant risk management information being provided to multi agency meetings which help plan an offender’s release and where appropriate attendance at those meetings by relevant prison staff. • At least three months notification to police and probation of the expected release dates of those offenders who have been released to the multi-agency protection panel (MAPPP), and at least six weeks notification of those being managed at level 2 risk meetings (LRMMs). • Timely notification of changes to release dates. • Consultation with Police and Probation and/or the MAPPP, for MAPPA offenders who are being risk assessed for early release under the Home Detention Curfew Scheme; suitability for open prison conditions; and for release on temporary licence.

* Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) sect 69.

15

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Case Study 1
Mr A was serving a custodial sentence for an offence against a woman who he had met casually but with whom he had no close relationship. During the commissioning of the offence the offender attacked the front door of the victim’s home with a weapon and made threats against her. He apparently described to the victim how he would kill her. The Police attended and removed him from the victim’s address; all the while he continued to make the threats to the victim and to police officers, at one point detailing how he was going to sexually assault a female Police Officer who was part of the arresting team. Throughout his custodial sentence the offender’s behaviour had been erratic. He had spent long periods of self inflicted isolation in the prison’s Separation & Care Unit. He had also been placed there on occasion in response to fears for staff safety. He had made threats against female members of staff and as his release date approached he increasingly voiced threats to the victim upon his release detailing where and when it would happen and the weapons he would use. It was decided that the risk this man presented on release needed managing at Level 3, Public Protection Panel level because of the level of resources likely to be required, the possible disclosures which would be necessary and perhaps a need for close monitoring by the police. As the offenders release date approached a Multi Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) was held to discuss how he would be managed in the community. Working with the probation Offender Manager, members of the MAPPP requested and supported the inclusion of strict conditions attached to the offender’s licence with the understanding that any contravention of those conditions would be dealt with promptly. These included requirements that he reside in Probation Service Approved Premises, that he refrain from drug misuse, and that whilst in the Probation Approved Premises he would be subject to drug tests. Additionally he was instructed not to seek any contact with his victim nor go within an exclusion zone around his victim’s home. Whilst being fully aware of the risk the offender posed to her on his release the victim did not feel she should be forced to move out of her home. Police therefore fitted her home with an alarm system, assisted with ensuring the premises were secure and ensured that local policing teams were aware of her situation. Mindful of the victim’s wishes, representatives from the local housing authority and from a housing authority out of our area nevertheless liaised to locate an address the victim could be quickly moved to as a temporary measure should this be needed. The offender was released, reported to the Probation Approved Premises and initially appeared of good behaviour. Police and probation officers nevertheless monitored his behaviour and maintained close contact with the victim. Two weeks after release his behaviour began to deteriorate and a drug test proved that he had returned to heroin abuse. The probation Offender Manager immediately initiated recall to prison and the offender was returned to custody. Prison staff, again working closely with MAPPA colleagues completed an up to date Risk of Harm Assessment and based on this and his previous history a referral to a Dangerous & Severe Personality Disorder Unit (DSPD) at a secure hospital was made. Staff from the unit were able to assess the offender and found him suitable for transfer under the Mental Health Act. The offender was successfully transferred to a high secure hospital under the Mental Health Act 23 days before his prison sentence expired and will now remain there until it is assessed that the risk he poses is reduced such that it is manageable in a community setting To date the offender has not given up his attempts to terrorise his victim, making threats and trying to write letters to her but of course these are not allowed out of the confines of the hospital. The victim of his offences has made the decision to move and start afresh and the Local Housing Authorities have assisted her in that.

16

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

“Duty to co-operate” agencies
The principal responsibility for protecting the public from sexual and violent offenders continues to rest with the criminal justice agencies. However, the effectiveness of public protection often depends on more than just a criminal justice response. It is well known that other agencies play an important role in helping offenders to resettle and avoid re-offending. For example, research has shown that offenders with jobs have one-third to one-half lower rates of re-offending than offenders without employment. Re-offending among offenders who have stable accommodation on release from custody is similarly lower. The important contribution other agencies can make is also highlighted in cases where offenders have mental health problems or where they pose a risk of harm to children. In acknowledgement of the above The Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposed a duty on various organisations providing public services to co-operate with the MAPPA. Over the last year we have continues to develop the involvement of what are referred to as “Duty to Co-operate” agencies. These agencies include; Youth Offending Teams Jobcentre Plus Local Housing Authority Registered Social Landlords Local Education Authority Local Authority Social Services Health Services Enabling the co-operation of all those agencies, which work with MAPPA offenders, is therefore vital. Placing that co-operation on a statutory basis underpins the good practice that has already developed; and locates it clearly within the established framework of the MAPPA.

What must the “Duty to Co-operate” agencies do?
The legislation does not define the activities the duty to co-operate involves nor does it require the agencies on which it is imposed to do anything other than what they are already required to do. The purposes of co-operation are: • to co-ordinate the involvement of different agencies in assessing and managing risk • to enable every agency, which has a legitimate interest, to contribute as fully as its existing statutory role and functions requires in a way that complements the work of other agencies

Agencies therefore participate through; • the identification of MAPPA offenders and the agencies with a specific responsibility for, or a broader interest in, the offender; • information sharing either specific to that offender or more general advice about an agency’s role and the type of services it provides. This can helpfully involve advice about how those services can be accessed and provide a point of contact for other agencies. • the formal assessment of risk and the contribution each agency can make to the interpretation of all the relevant information about an offender; and, • co-ordinating the plans to manage the identified risks so that each agency performs its role in a way which at best complements the work of other agencies, or at the least does not frustrate or compromise their work.

17

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Case Study 2
Mr B seriously assaulted a female stranger in the street. That woman’s young child was present. The offender received 36 months imprisonment. Although well known to the police and the National Probation Service previous offences had resulted in various community orders - the new offence was the most serious the offender had perpetrated. The offender, who led a chaotic lifestyle and often was of no fixed address, sleeping in the open and regularly abusing alcohol and drugs, was also well known to other local agencies and had previously threatened staff from those agencies during their dealings with him. The offender was assessed by police and probation officers as posing a high risk to the victim, the public and people in authority on release and was referred to MAPPA at Level 2, the Local Risk Management Meeting (LRMM) three months prior to his release. There were issues in regard to his mental health, his accommodation and employment/benefit and it was felt that these would again bring him to a point of conflict with supporting agencies. The risk management plan proposed by the probation Offender Manager therefore depended on input and co-operation from agencies such as local authority housing, community mental health services and the Job Centre. Following a lengthy discussion at the LRMM involving all of the agencies represented a decision was taken that the risk management plan depended on agencies providing services or resources which needed authorising at a senior management level and the case was referred to a Level 3 Multi Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) 2 months prior to his release. A comprehensive risk management plan was put in place. It was agreed that a probation Approved Premises would be used to accommodate the offender on release with strict curfew time being enforced and an application made for funding for extra staff for security whilst the offender was there. The local authority housing representative agreed that they would investigate obtaining stable, independent accommodation for the offender following a satisfactory period spent in the Approved Premises. The probation Victim Liaison Officer who was in direct contact with the victim from the point of sentencing provided vital information informing the risk management plan. A panic alarm would be installed in the victim's house and she would be given a mobile personal alarm. An exclusion zone was made covering the victim’s home address, workplace and her children's schools and a no contact condition was placed on the offender's release licence. Contact for the offender with agencies such as housing and employment were arranged at the probation office. All agencies present agreed a need to 'flag' on their systems the risk the offender posed to staff, specifically females. Prior to the offender's release a further level 3 meeting was held, all the actions from the previous meeting were carried out and all present were satisfied that the risk management plan was as comprehensive as possible. A further action was to ascertain the exact date and time of the offender's release from prison, how long it should take him to arrive at the Approved Premises and action which would be taken if the offender did not arrive as expected. Within days of his release the offender behaved violently at the hostel, seriously threatening staff and being suspected of again abusing alcohol and drugs. Police responded immediately to that violent incident and following the offender’s arrest recall to prison was initiated for breach of his licence conditions and the risk he posed. Following recall the offender was detained in prison for the maximum time possible, but of course again became eligible for release. Further level 3 meetings were held prior to that release and the previous risk management plan was revisited, found to be sound and agreed.

18

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Case Study 2
The offender was re-released but soon breached his licence again, this time by physically threatening his probation Offender Manager and refusing to comply with the requirements in regard to accommodation. He was therefore recalled for a second time. This robust action appeared to have some positive effect in regard to the offender’s attitude to his Offender Manager in particular and those in authority from other agencies in general. It was possibly the first time that firm boundaries in regard to his behaviour had been laid down and the fact that those agencies were actually trying to help and support him began to dawn. The offender would now be released at his “sentence expiry date” without any statutory supervision. The risk he presented did not of course end at that time and therefore the management of that risk was still undertaken through MAPPA, although the main responsibility moved from the National Probation Service to the police. The Offender Manager responsible for the case had developed a working relationship with the offender and the meeting agreed that it would be beneficial if that 'relationship' continued, at least for as long as the offender wanted it to. Independent accommodation was secured by the local council housing officer for the offender. Panic alarms were once again provided to the victim and the victim was reassured that if she contacted the police she would receive an immediate response. To date, some 12 months after release, the offender has not re-offended, remains in the accommodation provided, and has not attempted to approach the victim, despite her having seen him from a distance in the street on numerous occasions. The police have not received any intelligence to suggest that the offender is behaving in any criminal or anti social way.

19

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Youth Offending Teams
Local authorities across England and Wales have a statutory duty to establish Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). YOTs are themselves multi-agency partnerships in which police and probation play an important role but they are regarded as performing a ‘single agency’ risk assessment and management role. One of the YOT’s roles is to be responsible for the supervision of young people on community orders, whilst subject to detention and during their licence period following their release from detention. They have skilled, specialist staff who can manage risk effectively, whilst also addressing the vulnerability of the young people themselves. Most of the young offenders for whom YOTs have responsibility will not, by virtue of the type and length of sentence they receive fall within MAPPA but with the minority that do present a high risk YOT managers -who are now core members of the local risk management meetings – will refer them to MAPPA.

Jobcentre Plus
Jobcentre Plus is an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions formed in 2002 when the Employment Service, which ran Jobcentres, and those parts of the Benefits Agency which provided services to people of working age through social security offices, were combined. Jobcentre Plus aims to provide work for those who can, and support for those who cannot, by : • Helping disadvantaged people into work, as a route out of poverty; • Providing financial support as a safety net for people of working age while they are out of work; • Addressing inequalities of opportunity; • Protecting the integrity of the benefit system; and • Working with employers and partners to address market failure in the labour market.

All these activities underpin the Department for Work and Pensions’ purpose of promoting “opportunity and independence for all”. The priority customers, identified by the agency’s performance target structures, are those at greatest disadvantage in the labour market. These customers include people with specific disadvantages, such as ex-offenders, refugees, homeless people, drugs misusers and people without basic skills. Helping them contributes to wider goals, including cutting crime and re-offending rates. Freshstart is an initiative that builds on the close working links between Jobcentre Plus and the Prison Service. Evidence suggests that employment is a key factor in reducing the likelihood of re-offending. Effective links between Jobcentre Plus and the Prison Service can help to make an impact by guaranteeing that offenders about to be released are put in touch with Jobcentre Plus staff at the earliest opportunity. This will be specifically through a work focussed interview where customers can begin to explore job opportunities and help available through New Deal or other Jobcentre Plus programmes. For those unable to work, through disability or illness, claims to benefit can be made. There may be cases where MAPPA decides there is a need to notify local Jobcentre Plus offices that restrictions should be placed on an offender’s employment. In those rare cases only the identity of the offender and the nature of the employment from which the offender should be restricted will be disclosed to a senior manager and in most cases this would be done with the full knowledge and permission of the offender who would see the benefit of not being sent for interviews etc where wider disclosure of their offending may be required.

20

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Local Housing Authorities
The provision of accommodation for offenders released from prison presents a continuing challenge for those working in public protection. Close working ties, through MAPPA, are therefore invaluable in seeking to place offenders as sensitively and as safely as possible in their local communities. Local Housing Authorities have two functions that relate to the resettlement of offenders: the allocation of long-term accommodation and the provision of housing assistance for people who are homeless. Under homelessness legislation* local housing authorities must ensure that advice and information about homelessness, and preventing homelessness, is available to everyone in their district free of charge. They must also ensure that suitable accommodation is available for people who apply to them for housing assistance where the authority is satisfied that those people are eligible for assistance, have become homeless through no fault of their own and they fall within a priority need group. This is known as "the main homelessness duty". The priority need groups are specified in legislation and include, among others a person who is vulnerable as a result of time spent in custody. Clearly, given the importance of accommodation in the resettlement of offenders and hence in the assessment and management of risk, local authority housing representatives can make an important contribution to the MAPPA. As indicated above, this will not necessarily mean that they have a specific duty to accommodate an offender but their advice about accommodation and the procedures by which it is allocated and the suitability of particular housing stock will provide a valuable contribution.

Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)
Registered Social Landlord (RSL) is the technical name for social landlords that are registered with the Housing Corporation — most are housing associations, but there are also trusts, co-operatives and companies. Housing associations are run as businesses but they do not trade for profit. Any surplus is ploughed back into the organisation to maintain existing homes and to help finance new ones. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing. Most associations are small and own fewer than 250 homes but the larger ones can own 2,500 plus homes. Some were founded centuries ago, many trace their origins to the 1960s and over the last decade many new associations have been formed to manage and develop homes transferred to them by local authorities. Not all RSLs provide accommodation for MAPPA offenders, and it is only those which do that are required to co-operate in the MAPPA. MAPPA locally therefore only engages with those RSLs when they are giving consideration to accommodating a MAPPA offender or are asked for the provision of general advice in regard to accommodation.

Local Authority Social Services - Councils with Children Services and Community Care Responsibilities
There have recently been some amalgamations in regard to how social and community care services are delivered across our area but the links between the responsibilities of councils with social care responsibilities and the MAPPA are still mainly in the area of child protection and safeguarding children. The MAPPA authorities are members of the Local Safeguarding Children Boards and individual practitioners in police, probation and social services work together to manage the risk posed to children by particular dangerous offenders. As legislation which had its roots in the report which followed the Victoria Climbié Inquiry came into forceL there was be a greater expectation, indeed a duty, placed on other agencies to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However Childrens’ Services maintained their position as principal point of contact in regard to concerns about the welfare of children Local authorities have a duty, where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area, is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, to make such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any further action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. A ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ may arise because of the known presence of a dangerous offender in the area, and local authority staff work with staff from the MAPPA agencies to manage the risk that person poses to children.

*Housing Act, 1996 and Homelessness Act, 2002
L

Children Act, 2004.

21

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Children who witness violence are of course also clearly at risk of harm themselves, be it physical or psychological and this now has more statutory recognition* . As MAPPA becomes more involved with managing the risk posed by perpetrators of domestic violence then co-operation with staff from child protection agencies will increase as children’s services lean more towards MAPPA for the management of adult offenders in ways that will, through effective, multi agency risk assessment and management, reduce the risk of harm such offenders may present to children.

Local Education Authorities (LEA)
Again, whilst there have been changes in how services are delivered across our Area broadly speaking the role of those departments dealing with education remains four-fold: • school improvement; • special educational provision; • access to education; and, • strategic management of schools and the local education service.

Their ‘core business’ does not therefore involve them directly with the assessment and management of MAPPA offenders and their most likely involvement in the MAPPA is in cases which involve, either: (a) (b) a MAPPA offender aged under 18 and who is referred by the Youth Offending Team to the MAPPA at either Level 2 or Level 3; or a case where a MAPPA offender poses risks to young people for whom the LEA has a responsibility/duty of care which may be affected by the arrangements to manage the risks the MAPPA offender poses.

The LEA representative on MAPPA provides an insight into the workings of schools and the LEA and has some knowledge of child protection, information sharing protocols and current arrangements for risk assessment. The education service, particularly schools, can make a helpful contribution to the work of MAPPA because: • Schools are able to provide their pupils with programmes of child protection awareness training. This training can be re-enforced at times when there is a particular local risk. • School staff are well placed to be alert and aware regarding activities within the locality that could provide a threat to pupils. • In particular situations, and with the authorisation of MAPPA through the Police, schools are in a position to warn individuals or groups of pupils, parents or staff, regarding possible danger. • Schools are able to provide a safe environment during the daytime for children and young people. • The local school is often the first port of call for parents who want to voice their concern regarding worrying activities in the area. • Schools are often able to provide helpful information to assist the work of MAPPPs.

*Adoption and Children Act 2002

22

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Case Study 3
Mr C has an extensive history of committing sexual offences against young boys. Consequently he has received several custodial sentences, the first being in the 1970s. Following a further conviction imposed for Making Indecent Photographs of Children (Internet Offences) he was again sentenced to imprisonment and was released on licence just prior to this reporting period. Prior to his release a Risk Management Plan was formulated by his probation Offender Manager who involved colleagues from other appropriate agencies through a Level 2 Local Risk Management Meeting. In addition to probation supervising him on Licence the offender was also subject to close supervision by the police due to his being a Registered Sex Offender and the subject of a Sexual Offending Prevention Order (SOPO). A further concern was that despite the offender spending a number of years in prison he had never undertaken any offence focussed work relating to his abusive behaviour. Therefore upon his release the probation service contracted a specialist assessment which confirmed he had an entrenched deviant sexual attraction for young boys. Furthermore he demonstrated his distorted thinking by stating that he would not harm any of his victims because they were his “lovers”. Five months after his release, during which time he had complied with the conditions of his licence, he was permitted to move from probation Approved Premises to his own independent accommodation with the understanding that police and probation officers would maintain close contact with him until he demonstrated that the risk he presented was being reduced. As part of that monitoring process probation and police officers carried out a joint home visits and on one of these visits found that the offender had computer equipment which contravened one of his licence conditions. Police Intelligence also revealed that he had attempted to deceive the authorities by falsifying documents in order to conceal that he now owned a car. The licence condition contraventions and his deceitful behaviour indicated that the risk he presented was not manageable in the community and he was recalled to prison. The offender then exercised the rights available to him under current procedures and applied for a Parole Board Oral Hearing with the intention of again requesting his release on licence. A Level 3 Multi Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP). was held prior to the hearing at which all professional agencies expressed their concern in regard to managing the risk this man presented in the community. Acknowledging that the Parole Board has to take in all factors in deciding on suitability for release the Offender Manager presented a comprehensive risk management plan which could be implemented in the event of the offender’s release. The plan placed many restrictions on the offender aimed at restricting his opportunity to meet with and contact young boys and possessing any means of accessing the internet for either communication or to view websites which dealt with sexual exploitation of children. These restrictions included again residing in probation Approved Premises and his being electronically ‘tagged’. All agencies acknowledged and accepted the part they had to play in that plan. The offender was released but immediately showed a disregard for the conditions of his licence. He flouted the hostel rules, failed to keep appointments with his probation Offender Manager and was again found to be in possession of computer related equipment. Within 2 weeks of his re-release his licence was revoked and he was recalled to prison where he still remains it having been decided that he will not be released until the end of his sentence period when again management under MAPPA will continue.

23

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Health Services
MAPPA’s interaction with health services is as diverse as any adult offender’s contact with the service. It may be at the primary care level through for example a GP or pharmacist or at the secondary level through hospitals, consultants, etc. The “duty to co-operate” therefore whilst under the umbrella of a particular health Trust, operates at those various levels as needs arise. Clearly there are particular issues about working with health professionals and the sensitivities of information sharing and co-operation because of the very different relationship they have with their patients. However, all the advice and published guidance indicates that clarity about roles and the legal principles which enable information to be shared in certain circumstances, will avoid misunderstanding and disagreement. Reference is made to those principles in the section on information sharing in the MAPPA Guidance. As with all MAPPA cases the consent of the offender is obtained wherever possible for information to be sought or passed on. However situations where patient information may be passed on without consent include* ; • where serious harm may occur to a third party • where a doctor believes a patient to be a victim of abuse and the patient is unable to give or withhold consent • where, without disclosure a doctor would not be acting in the overall best interests of a child or young person who is his/her patient and incapable of giving consent • when, without disclosure the task of preventing, detecting or prosecuting a serious crime by the police would be prejudiced or delayed

Mental Health Trusts are perhaps the most significant health bodies on whom the duty to co-operate falls because most instances will involve mentally disordered offenders. However, the duty does apply to all health bodies and representatives from the various disciplines are core members at meetings held under MAPPA. The benefits for the health service for co-operation in MAPPA have been summarised as providing; • a source of information about patients • a conduit and framework for joint working • a useful source of advice on appropriateness and implications of various medical treatments and interventions • help in management of risk in complex cases.

*Royal College of Psychiatrists (2000) Good Psychiatric Practice: Confidentiality

24

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Key Progress and Achievements over the last year
There has been much work done throughout 2005 – 2006 to consolidate the Strategic Management Board (SMB) and to build upon existing good practice at the operational level of MAPPA. During 2005 – 2006 this has included: • The successful recruitment of one ‘Lay Advisor’ to the MAPPA Strategic Management Board MB. The role of the Lay Advisor is to challenge the SMB’s scrutiny & oversight of the MAPPA process as a “critical friend” and to ensure that their review of MAPPA work is rigorous. So far our Lay Advisor has attended National Lay Advisor training and has conducted ‘fact finding’ visits to MAPPA practitioners in the field, based at Police, NPS and HMP Hull. The Probation Officers attached to MAPPA have led on delivering training in Risk Assessment and Management and on Working with Sex Offenders to the police and probation services. Domestic Violence Awareness training has been rolled out to NPS Humberside staff. There is a proven link between offenders involved in domestic violence and an escalation in their offending to more serious violence. Staff trained to identify domestic violence can influence early intervention and hopefully reduce future violent offending and victims. The launch of the Yorkshire & Humberside Reducing Re-offending Action Plan has seen responsible authorities and duty to co-operate agencies working closer together in their joint aims to meet the requirements of the pathways to successful resettlement, these being; Accommodation, Education, Training & Employment, Finance, Benefits & Debt, Drugs & Alcohol, Physical & Mental Health, Voluntary & Community Sector, Attitudes, Thinking & Behaviour, Children & Families, and Prolific & other Priority Offenders & Public Protection. There has been much collaborative work between organisations in the delivery of the action plan. The provision of specific accommodation for the Humberside MAPPA Co-ordinator and his multidisciplinary team. Ex Police premises have been refurbished at minimal cost to provide sufficient facilities for the expanding team. An invitation from the Parole Board to role-play a Level 3 MAPPP received excellent feedback in July. The key players from the Police, Probation and Prison Service and Mental Health and Social Services who had been involved in the Level 3 MAPPP for a high-risk offender, re-enacted the panel in front of an audience of Parole Board members. The objective was to demonstrate how the MAPPP meetings are structured and to give an example of the kinds of risk issues raised. Humberside was selected to trial the new national MAPPA documentation. The new documentation standardises the way in which MAPPA information is collected, referrals made and MAPPP meetings minuted. Contact sheets also improve communication between the different agencies managing the case. The latter part of the year saw connectivity between National Probation Service - Humberside and HM Prison Service for OASys, the risk management tool. It is still early days and although the benefits of connectivity are obvious there are still problems of OASys ownership to be ironed out. On the whole however the fact that access to the OASys risk assessment is instantly available to Probation and Prison colleagues is entirely positive and will go a long way to ensuring that the MAPPA decision making process is well informed. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced new sentencing provisions for offenders considered to represent a continuing “significant” risk of serious harm to the public. These provisions came into effect on 4th April 2005 and their underlying ethos is one of public protection; the provisions separate out sexual and violent offences and give courts the powers to ensure that serious offenders are not released from prison until their risk is reduced and assessed as manageable in the community. The decision in regard to “significant” risk of serious harm is one for the court but probation reports contribute to providing the courts with information to assist in that decision. Other sources of information may be the defence, prosecution or other specialist reports etc. The Probation Officers attached to the MAPPA team have undertaken the delivery of training on these sentencing provisions to the police, prison and probation services and have worked with probation Offender Managers on preparing such reports for court for the purposes of sentencing for “public protection”. Sentences for public protection have been given in our area.

25

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

The coming year - Strengthening the MAPPA
It is good to reflect on the achievements of this year but it is also important to ensure that we plan for the year ahead. Much progress has been made and is commendable, however there is still much work to be done. The strategic aims for 2006 – 2007 have been charted more specifically in the Strategic Management Board’s Business Plan which can be seen to the rear of this report. In summary the aims of the Business Plan are to: • • • • To seek resources to bring secondees from HM Prison Service, Police and the Health Service into the MAPPA Team. To implement the new MAPPA guidance due for publication later this year. Seek to recruit a further Lay Advisor to the SMB and for all Lay Advisors to undergo further training. To move into the MAPPA Co-ordination Team’s new premises in Hull. With all of the team under one roof, co-ordination and consistency of MAPPA work will be enhanced and communication between the team much improved. The team now consists of the MAPPA Co-ordinator, a Detective Sergeant, an administrator and 2 seconded Probation Officers. This can only improve public protection. To plan and deliver a Strategic Management Board training event. To plan and deliver MAPPA awareness training to the Prolific & other Priority Offender Teams, Youth Offending Teams and Domestic Violence Teams. This will improve their understanding of the MAPPA process and improve their referrals of offenders to MAPPA. To plan for the change of chairmanship for the Strategic Management Board at the beginning of 2007 –2008. To evaluate the impact of the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection on the MAPPA process and to develop systems that prevent the continued recurrence of problems found during the evaluation. To maintain public confidence in the work of the MAPPA by ensuring effective communication of the work we do and that the public’s expectations in respect of MAPPA are informed and reasonable.

• •

• •

26

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

What do the Statistics tell us?
The statistical information published in this year's report is again substantially the same as last year’s with the work being done under MAPPA at level 2 (Local Risk Management Meetings) being included in addition to level 3 (MAPPPs) as well as the outcome measures from that activity. The total number of offenders coming under MAPPA this year was 1172 and should be viewed against a figure of 47653 across the 42 Areas of England and Wales. There are currently 715 Registered Sex Offenders living in our area against a figure of 645 for the previous year and 584 for 2003/4. An increase in numbers over last year, and indeed an increase for forthcoming years is inevitable at this stage because the numbers are cumulative as offenders are required to register for extended periods of time and currently the number of offenders who are required to register on conviction is greater than the number whose registration period has come to an end. The yearly increase of 70 is just over 10% which is above the anticipated national average. During the reporting period 30 of those Registered Sex Offenders were cautioned or convicted for breaching the requirements of their registration. The number of Category 2 offenders, i.e. violent and other sex offenders, recorded as living in this area in the reporting period is 391. It should be remembered that this is not the number of such offenders present on any one day but is the number who have lived in the area for any period, however short, at any time during the year. The recorded figure for last year, 2004/5, had jumped significantly from the previous year, the appointment of a MAPPA co-ordinator possibly enabling an area wide scrutiny of the figures last year. This year the figure appears to have settled, being 47 more than last year’s total of 344, the increase at 13% being in line with the national average. The number of Category 3 offenders dealt with during the reporting period is 66. This is a significant increase from last year’s figure of 35. However it was accepted that last years figure was low, falling as it did from 55 the previous year (2003/4) and the current figure is 5.8% of our Area’s MAPPA caseload against a national average of 7%. Conflicting influences continue to affect this figure. More focus is now directed on offences involving domestic violence and often the sentences for offences involving domestic abuse involve a Community Order with a requirement that the offender participates in a programme of work aimed at reducing the likelihood of their re-offending in such a way. Such sentences do not at this time meet the criteria for automatic consideration under MAPPA Category 2, Violent Offenders - a sentence of at least 12 months imprisonment is required - but nevertheless the offenders behaviour and attitude can still be such that there is considered to be a current risk of serious harm to their victims meeting the criteria for Category 3. As this report mentions it is important to remember that the majority of offenders who meet the criteria to be considered under MAPPA pose a risk which can appropriately and adequately be managed by the police and probation services or the Youth Offending Teams without significant active involvement of other agencies (Level 1, Ordinary Risk Management), in our area 83% of the MAPPA caseload was managed in this way. Where the level of risk or the complexity of the management of risk requires co-ordinated multi-agency input then the case is referred on to either of the two levels of multi-agency management as appropriate and again we have included details of the number and categories of those offenders dealt with under MAPPA at Level 2, Local Risk Management Meetings (LRMMs) and Level 3, Multi Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPPs). Across the area 157 offenders were dealt with at the lower level of multi-agency risk management, Level 2, Local Risk Management Meetings. This figure does not include those offenders who may have been managed at the higher level 3 at some point and who then have been returned to local jurisdiction. At 13.4% of our total MAPPA caseload (1172) this figure is again lower than the expectation that nationally cases managed at Level 2 will make up 26% of the total MAPPA caseload. As with the previous year there is no significant difference in the number of offenders from each Category managed at Level 2, Local Risk Management Meetings. In Humberside 34 Offenders were managed by Level 3 Multi Agency Public Protection Panels at some stage during the reporting period. At 2.9% of the total MAPPA caseload in this area this is again within the nationally predicted range of 3%. Again there is no significant difference in the number of offenders from each Category managed at Level 3.

27

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Six of the 157 cases managed at Level 2, Local Risk Management, and 10 of the 34 cases managed at Level 3, Multi Agency Public Protection Panel were returned to custody for breaching the conditions of their licence; rather revocation of the licence and recall to prison should not be seen as a failure of the risk management process; it is an indication that those managing the offenders are prepared to take swift, decisive action when, by re-offending or through their behaviour, an offender indicates that the risk they present to the public in the community is unacceptable. Following the offender’s return to prison further work can be undertaken to address that behaviour or other risk management initiatives can be put in place. There can then be a consideration for further release when the risk presented by the offender is considered acceptable. There are in place procedures for the identification, notification and review of cases where offenders under probation supervision have been charged with committing a Serious Further Offence (SFO). This SFO notification and review procedure is intended to ensure robust and rigorous scrutiny of SFO cases and promote strong defensible practice in the management of risk of serious harm. Any failures can be identified and rectified, but also good practice, not withstanding the commission of a serious further offence, can be recognised and supported. The trigger factor for this process is the seriousness of the further offence committed not the level of supervision or risk management being applied so this is not purely a MAPPA initiative. However scrutiny of these cases should lead to learning and possible changes in service delivery relevant to all offenders including those managed under MAPPA. Sexual Offences Prevention Orders are obtained on application to a court. They place restrictions on an offender to prohibit access to certain places (e.g. schools) and to certain groups of people (e.g. children). The Order remains in place for a minimum of 5 years. In Humberside 37 Sexual Offences Prevention Orders were applied for during this review period. Twenty nine full Orders and 9 Interim Orders have been granted. The discrepancy between the applications made and Orders granted is due to our counting activities which commenced or were completed during the review period and of course some applications will have overlapped this period. The orders were made both at point of sentence for a sexual offence and as stand alone applications when concern has arisen about an offender’s behaviour. One offender has been taken to court and convicted of breaching the Order and is currently serving a custodial sentence for that breach. Notification Orders can be applied for when a person resident in this country is known to have been convicted of a sexual offence overseas which, if committed in this country, would have required them to register with the police. Such an Order then requires that the offender does register with police and they can then be supervised and monitored by the police. One Notification Order was successfully applied for in our Area during the reporting period. A Foreign Travel Order bans those who have been convicted of a sexual offence against a child under 16 from travelling abroad in certain circumstances. An order if granted can ban an offender from travelling to a specific country (or countries) anywhere in the world, or anywhere in the world except to a specified country, or if necessary, from travelling abroad at all. No such Orders were applied for in our Area during the reporting period. The MAPPA does not mean that there will be no risk from offenders supervised in the community. However it does enable that risk to be managed as robustly as possible. Working with the type of offenders we do, even the most diligent efforts of practitioners cannot prevent re-offending and serious harm. However we feel MAPPA continues to represent a significant strengthening of public protection in Humberside. We believe the statistics again confirm that the development of our work under MAPPA in the assessment and management of risk is reducing re-offending and thereby significantly preventing further serious harm by the most serious violent and sexual offenders in our community.

28

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Statistics
MAPPA ANNUAL REPORTS STATISTICAL INFORMATION For the reporting period 1st APRIL 2005 - 31st MARCH 2006 HUMBERSIDE AREA 1. Category 1 MAPPA offenders: Registered Sex Offenders (RSO)
i) The number of RSOs living in ourArea on 31st March 2006. This is information principally held by the police and is a snapshot of RSOs on 31/03/06. It does NOT include RSOs in prison. This is split by police Basic Command Units as follows; Hull Grimsby (North East Lincolnshire) Scunthorpe (North Lincolnshire) East Riding of Yorkshire a) The number of RSOs per 100’000 head of population. ii) The number of sex offenders having a registration requirement who were either cautioned or convicted for breaches of the requirement, between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006. Only those cautions that have actually taken place and breaches that have been successfully completed during the reporting period have been counted iii) The number of (a) Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) applied for (b) interim SOPOs granted and (c) full SOPOs imposed by the courts in our Area between 1st April 2005 and 31s March 2006 260 135 150 170 81 715

30

a) 37 b) 9 c) 29

iv) The number of (a) Notification Orders applied for (b) interim Notification Orders granted and (c) full Notification Orders imposed by the courts in our Area between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006

a) 1 b) 1 c) 1

v) The number of Foreign Travel Orders (a) applied for and (b) imposed by the courts in our Area between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006

a) 0 b) 0

2. Category 2 MAPPA offenders: Violent offenders and Other Sexual offenders (V&OS)
vi) The number of violent and other sexual offenders (as defined by Section 327 (3), (4) and (5) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) living in our Area between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 This figure includes only those Category 2 offenders who are living in our Area during the reporting period. It does NOT include those Category 2 offenders who are still in custody. It does NOT include any Category 1 offenders.

391

3. Category 3 MAPPA offenders: Other Offenders (OthO)
vii) The number of ‘other offenders (as defined by Section 325 (2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 This figure does NOT include any offenders who are included in either the Category 1 or 2 (i.e. (i) and (vi) above). 66

29

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

4. Offenders managed though Level 3 (MAPPP) & Level 2 (local inter-agency management)
(viii) The number of MAPPA offenders in each of the three Categories (i.e. (1)- RSOs, (2)- V&O and (3)- OthO above) have been managed through the MAPPP (level 3) and through local inter-agency risk management (level 2) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006. Level 2 RSO V&O Other 48 57 52 Level 3 12 8 14

The level 2 figure does NOT include those offenders who have been managed at level 3 at any point in the counting period & meet the criteria set out in the MAPPA Guidance as follows: (ix) Of the cases managed at levels 2 or 3 (i.e. (viii)) between 1st April 2005 and 31st March 2006 how many, whilst managed at that level: Level 2 (a) Were returned to custody for a breach of licence? (b) Were returned to custody for a breach of a restraining order or sexual offencesprevention order? (c) Were charged with a serious sexual or violent offence? 6 0 0 Level 3 10 1 0

Only relates to outcome measures appropriate to the level at which the offender was managed at the time of their breach/further offence (e.g. if an offender was initially managed at Level 3 but goes on to commit a serious further offence after they have been moved to Level 2, they are recorded in the ‘Level 2’ column for question (c) For the purpose of the report a serious sexual and violent offence is one of the following (i.e. the same offences as those used to used during the review period to trigger reporting in the National Probation Service as a ‘serious further offence’. a Murder; b Attempted murder; c Arson (where there is an intent to endanger life); d Manslaughter; e Rape; f Kidnap/abduction or attempted kidnap/abduction. g Any other very serious violent or very serious sexual offence, armed robbery (defined as robbery involving a firearm), assault with a deadly weapon or hostage taking. h Any other violent or sexual offence where the offender/ offence is likely to attract significant media interest or which raises wider issues of national interest. New procedures and definitions came into effect on 1st April 2006):

30

MULTI AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS AREA MAPPA BUSINESS PLAN 2006 - 2007

1. MAPPA DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
DELIVERY PLAN • Recruit and induct all MAPPA PSOs • Administration for all Level 3 MAPPPs to be devolved to the MAPPA PSOs June 2006 September 2006 0.5 PSO per Local Authority Area with additional (10 hours) for Hull. There is to be 9-5 cover for referrals MILESTONES RESOURCE OUTCOME
MAPPA

STRATEGIC AIM

Annual

Achieve dedicated devolved MAPPA Co-ordination and Administration locally to the four Local Authority Areas within Humberside

By April 2007 the Strategic Management Board to confirm that all posts are in place and that both Level 2 and Level 3 cases are administered at Local Authority level Implementation of new MAPPA Guidance

Report

31 • Promote full discussion/ consultation in respect of the revised MAPPA Guidance September 2006 SPOs in the Risk Management Working Group MAPPA Co-ordinator Senior Manager for Risk Chief Superintendent for MAPPA Training of staff in new MAPPA Guidance and revised Risk Policy • Promote full discussion/consultation in respect of the recommendations to Strategic Management Board and all member organisations September 2006 The Senior Management Team of each organisation to develop an Action Plan December 2006 • Risk Policy to be revised by Risk Working Party and MAPPA Co-ordinator

Engage in the consultation process in respect of the revised MAPPA Guidance

2005-2006

Implementation of Revised Risk Policy

Implement the recommendations of the HMI P/C MAPPA Thematic Inspection

Implementation of the recommendations

1. MAPPA DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
DELIVERY PLAN December 2006 Strategic Management Board Process for the collection and collation of Serious Case Data MILESTONES RESOURCE OUTCOME

STRATEGIC AIM

Serious Case Reviews – ensure that all agencies are involved in the review of serious cases

• Probation Service to implement the national guidance

MAPPA Annual

Report

32

• In respect of the duty of other agencies to review serious cases (child protection/mental health) there is an agreement that this requires co-ordination and monitoring in order for the Strategic Management Board to have an overview of both the number and category of cases

2005-2006

2. MONITORING AND EVALUATION STRATEGY
DELIVERY PLAN June 2006 Reports MAPPA Team Regular Performance MILESTONES RESOURCE OUTCOME

STRATEGIC AIM

Ensure that monitoring arrangements to support the production of the MAPPA Annual Report are in place June 2006 Reports MAPPA Team Reports Regular Performance MAPPA Team Regular Performance

• The MAPPA Team to provide the data to the Strategic Management Board quarterly meetings together with an analysis of the data

MAPPA

Measure attendance at MAPPP meetings

• A target of 75% attendance at Level 2/3 MAPPP by all agencies June 2006

Annual

Timescales to be set for MAPPA Referrals

• A target of 50% of all referrals to MAPPA to be made 4 months prior to release June 2006 Management Team Police Risk Reports

Report

33 September 2006 Health Prisons Police Probation June 2006 Strategic Management Board

Monitoring of police visits to Sex Offenders

• An independent record kept of all visits undertaken to sex offenders

Regular Performance

Regular Performance Reports

2005-2006

To develop a policy in respect of the transfer of high risk/MAPPA cases into and out of the Humberside Strategic Management Board area

• The responsible Authorities and Health Trusts together with the MAPPA Co-ordinator to develop a Protocol regarding such transfers

Regular Performance Reports

To ensure full commitment of all agencies to the Strategic Management Board

• A target of 75% attendance at Strategic Management Board of named agency representatives

3. COMMUNICATION AND STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS STRATEGY
DELIVERY PLAN June 2006 Strategic Management Board Annual Report to be produced by 2007
MAPPA

STRATEGIC AIM

MILESTONES

RESOURCE

OUTCOME

The Responsible Authorities withi MAPPA to publish th Annual Report

• Steering Group to be identified to manage and collate the data to produce the Annual Report December 2006 Senior Manager Risk Chief Superintendent MAPPA

Improved communications regarding MAPPA across Humberside September 2006 Senior Manager Risk Chief Superintendent MAPPA Senior Manager Risk Chief Superintendent MAPPA

• Briefings to be presented to Head Teachers, Councillors and MPs within Humberside

Improved communication and knowledge.

Annual

• Briefings to LSCBs

Report

34 September 2006 September 2006

Improved communication and knowledge Improved communication and knowledge

• Briefings to LCJBs

2005-2006

Appointments of additional Lay Advisor

• Recruitment to take place

Responsible Authorities

Lay Advisor appointment

4. TRAINING STRATEGY
DELIVERY PLAN March 2007 Three Year Plan agreed by the Strategic Management Board Annual Objectives agreed by the MAPPA Team
MAPPA

STRATEGIC AIM Prison Service Probation Service

MILESTONES

RESOURCE

OUTCOME

To organise a development day with an outside facilitator for the Strategic Management Board and the MAPPA Team March 2007 MAPPA Co-ordinator Strategic Management Board Training Programme completed

• Identify a suitable facilitator, dates and venue

Local Induction Training for Lay Advisors

• MAPPA Co-ordinator to organise Training Programme March 2007 MAPPA Co-ordinator Training Managers

Annual

MAPPA Training

Report

35

• Development of a year Plan for MAPPA training for all agencies

Plan to be produced for approval by the Strategic Management Board

2005-2006

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

MAPPA – THE FIRST FIVE YEARS: A National Overview of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements 2001 - 2006
Introduction
It is now just over 5 years since the implementation of the Criminal Justice and Courts’ Services Act 2000 that led to the formation of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, commonly known as MAPPA. As the national strategic body overseeing the implementation and development of these arrangements it is important for us to review the progress made, to identify the challenges ahead and set out the national plans for improvement. It is also an opportunity for the first time to provide a national commentary on the MAPPA annual statistics and to explain what they are telling us about the growth and complexity of these arrangements. Much has been achieved in terms of enhancing public safety in the last 5 years and the arrangements are rightly described as world leading. Yet we are acutely conscious that a number of serious case reviews and other reports published this year indicate there is still much to do to ensure that the arrangements are fit for purpose and apply consistently across England and Wales. Unless those operating these arrangements ensure that all reasonable action is taken to reduce the harm caused by sexual and violent offenders they will have failed. While we recognise that it is never possible to eliminate risk entirely the public are entitled to expect the authorities to do their job properly. Making our communities safer and reducing re-offending is our highest priority and one of the greatest challenges facing the agencies and staff involved. Over the last year all agencies responsible for establishing, maintaining or contributing to these public protection arrangements have been extremely busy: the probation service, the prison service, the police service who form the Responsible Authority in each area, plus the range of agencies who have a duty to co-operate in these arrangements and include health, housing, education, social services, youth offending teams, Jobcentre Plus, and electronic monitoring services. In addition to the agencies, each area has this year benefited from the input of lay advisers. These are people recruited locally but appointed by the Secretary of State to offer key support to the strategic management of the MAPPA process. Their role is essentially to ask often fundamental questions of senior practitioners and bring a community perspective to a process that could otherwise lose sight of its main function: to protect members of the public from serious harm. Together, all of those inputting to MAPPA have ensured that more high risk sexual and violent offenders have been identified and proactively managed this year than ever before.

36

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

The National MAPPA Statistics
As the scale and complexity of MAPPA has increased so the analysis of the annual report statistics has become more important in understanding local and national developments in these arrangements. The national analysis offered below, based upon reports from the areas, highlights a number of important trends, particularly in respect of the volume of referrals for multi-agency management at Level 2 and Level 3 (MAPPP), and the outcomes of that management.

MAPPA Offenders
The number of offenders in the community that come within the remit of MAPPA increased this year, as anticipated, although the rate of that increase has slowed from last year (13% to 7%) - see Table 1. A number of factors may have contributed to this slow down. Firstly, the increase of registered sex offenders (RSOs) is much less than in previous years at just over 3%; secondly, fewer offenders than expected have been referred into MAPPA under Category 3. (These are those offenders who are neither registered sex offenders nor currently supervised by the probation service/ youth offending team but do have a history of physical or sexual violence and are considered by the Responsible Authority to pose a current risk of serious harm to the public.) The reasons for these variations from expectation are unclear but the RSO variation may in part be due to a number of areas last year (2004/5) incorporating offenders who were still in prison and to refinements areas have continued to make to referral procedures and the management of risk thresholds. Registered Sex Offenders continue to form by far the largest category – see Table 1.

Table.1 Total number of MAPPA Offenders in the Community by Category (% Change)
Category 1. Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) 2002/03 21513 2003/04 24572 14.22% 2. Violent Offenders and other sex offenders 29594 12754* -56.9% 3. Other offenders 1802 2166 20.2% Totals 52909 39492 -25.36% 2004/05 28994 18% 12662 -0.72% 2936 35.55% 44592 12.91% 2005/06 29973 3.38% 14317 13.07% 3363 14.54% 47653 6.86%

* In 2003/4 the criteria for Violent offenders (Category 2) changed to exclude those offenders held in custody.

37

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Chart. 1 Total number of MAPPA Offenders in the Community 2005/6 MAPPA Offenders by Category 2005/06
Category 1 Registered Sex Offenders 29973 63%

Category 3 All other offenders 3363 7%

Category 2 Violent and Non Registered Sex Offenders 14317 30%

Registered Sex Offenders
For the first time this year the MAPPA annual reports include a breakdown of the total RSO population for the basic policing units within each area (see individual area reports). This, together with the density of RSOs per 100,000 of the population, which ranges from 36/100,000 to 81/100,000 across the 42 Areas of England and Wales, illustrates the variable distribution of RSOs within the community. There are no obvious or simple explanations for the distribution of RSOs, which in any case is barely significant statistically.

MAPPA management levels
It is important to remember that the majority of offenders within MAPPA do not pose a significant risk of serious harm to the public and can therefore be properly managed through the normal supervision arrangements provided by the probation service, youth offending teams and by police sex offender registration This is described as level 1 management and accounts for about 71% of the MAPPA population. However, for offenders whose risk of serious harm is high or complex and requires active management by more than one agency, referral to Level 2 or Level 3 (MAPPP) meetings is vital. A case will generally only qualify for level 3 management where the intervention of senior agency representatives is required to effect the risk management plan with the authority to release or prioritise exceptional resources. Chart 2 shows the breakdown of management levels this year.

38

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Chart 2 Total number of MAPPA Offenders by Management Level MAPPA Offenders by Level 2005/06
Level 1 “Normal-Agency” 33870 71%

Level 3 The Critical Few” 1278 3%

Level 2 “Multi-Agency” 12505 26%

This is the second year in which both Level 2 and Level 3 (MAPPP) data has been available and Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the number of offenders now subject to collaborative/ multiagency risk management (29% of the MAPPA total). For each of these 13,783 offenders agencies will be required to meet on a number of occasions and to progress actions that reduce the likelihood of re-offending. The tables also provide a fuller picture of the commitment and resources being provided by the Responsible Authority and other partner agencies within MAPPA. The Level 3 MAPPP, the highest level of risk management, continues to focus on the most complex offenders, sometimes referred to as the ‘critical few’, and involves senior managers within each area. The use of Level 3 MAPPP has been refined over the last 3 years as part of a concerted effort to ensure that resources are focused where they can be most effective in enhancing public protection. This year they have been employed in under 3% of the total MAPPA caseload. At the same time, Level 2 risk management meetings, which are locally based, have increased in number (12,505) and become the engine room for MAPPA. Whilst there is an element of focus on level 3, all Areas have recognized the necessity of ensuring adequate management and administrative support for Level 2; and this is reflected in Business Plans.

39

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Table 2. Breakdown of Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPA Offenders for 2005/6
Category of Offender Level 2 (% of MAPPA Total) 1. Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) 2. Violent offenders and other sex offenders 3. Other offenders 6014 12.62% 4280 8.98% 2211 4.64% Total per Level 12505 26.24% Level 3 (% of MAPPA Total) 580 1.22% 506 1.06% 192 0.4% 1278 2.68% Total per Category (% of MAPPA Total) 6594 13.84% 4786 10.04% 2403 5.04% 13783 28.92%

Table 3. Offenders referred to Levels 2 and 3 - Comparison with last year (% Change)
Level 2 Category of MAPPA Offender 1. Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) 2004/05 5381 2005/06 6014 11.76% 2. Violent Offenders and other sex offenders 3615 4280 18.39% 3. Other offenders 2292 2211 -3.53% Totals 11288 12505 10.78% 1478 305 547 2004/05 626 Level 3 2005/06 580 -7.35% 506 -7.49% 192 -37.05% 1278 -13.53%

40

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Interventions and Outcomes
Information about the scale and categories of offender is complemented by information on direct interventions and outcomes for this MAPPA managed group (ie those under Levels 2 and 3). These measures deal with breaches of licence and court order, with sex offender registration requirements and related court orders, and with further offending – see tables 4 and 5. The headline figure is, no doubt, that reflecting the number of offenders who, while managed at levels 2 or 3, are charged with a serious sexual or violent offence. Compared with 2004/5, this year saw a reduction in the number of serious further offences in this population from 79 (0.6%) to 61 (0.44%) cases this year. And the biggest impact was where you would want and expect it – with the more intensively managed Level 3 cases. On the face of it the figures are encouraging but they should be treated with caution for 2 reasons. Firstly, we have only collected the data for 2 years; secondly, with such small numbers any change can trigger a wholly disproportionate, misleading percentage variation. What is apparent, however, is that the figure is low and whilst any serious re-offending is a matter of great concern, such a low serious reoffending rate for this particular group of offenders is to be welcomed and supports the view that MAPPA is making a real contribution to the management of dangerousness in communities. The data relating to breach of licence and court orders is positive as this reflects an increase in action taken in level 2 and 3 cases prior to them having opportunity to commit serious further harm; ie to recall offenders to prison. A similarly encouraging picture emerges from a reading of the data on various sex offender provisions – see table 5. Action taken to enforce the sex offender registration requirements through caution and conviction increased by 30% from last year and affected 1295 offenders, 4.3% of the total registered in the community. There was also considerable use made of the range of new civil orders available under the Sex Offences Act 2003(sexual offences prevention orders, notification orders, foreign travel orders). In total 973 orders have been granted this year an increase of 446.

Table 4. Outcome measures: Level 2 and Level 3 activity for 2005/6 (% Change)
Level 2 Level 3 2004/05 2005/06 Total of Level 2 & 3 2004/05 2005/06

Category of MAPPA Offender 1. Breach of License

2004/05

2005/06

1084

1321 21.86%

222

219 -1.35%

1306

1540 17.92%

2. Breach of Orders

55

82 49.09%

18

22 22.22%

73

104 42.47%

3. Charged with SFO

47

50 6.38%

32

11 -65.63%

79

61 -22.78%

41

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Table 5. Outcome measures: RSO arrests and Sex Offences Act Civil Orders 2004/5 and 2005/6 (% Change)
RSO Enforcement 1. Registered Sex Offenders (RSO) charged/cautioned Number of Offenders (04/05) 993 Number of Offenders (05/06) 1295 30.41%

Sex offences Act Orders 2. Sexual offences prevention orders (SOPOs) 3. Notification Orders (NOs) granted

Number of Orders (04/05) 503

Number of Orders (05/06) 933 85.49% 39 77.27%

22

4. Foreign Travel Orders (FTOs) granted

1

1 0%

Total Number of Orders

526

973 84.98%

A Year of Challenges
The raw data provided in the national statistics is helpful but necessarily quantitative. In order to get a better feel for the quality of MAPPA business it is necessary to work with other forms of analysis and, during the course of this year, a number of inspection reports and a small number of management reviews of specific cases have been published which have both detailed shortcomings in practice and highlighted many positive developments in public protection practice. It is essential that the product of these, and future, reviews and reports shape the development of MAPPA through central guidance and local practice and it is instructive to set out the lessons learned this year. Strengthening Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (Published in October 2005 and available on www.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/rds/pubsintro1.html) This research was undertaken by De Montfort University and found evidence of greater effectiveness and efficiency across MAPPA teams in England and Wales, compared to an earlier review of public protection arrangements, which had been conducted before the MAPPA legislation was introduced in 2001. It found that areas were meeting the MAPPA Guidance specification to a large extent. It also found that the arrangements had been strengthened by the inclusion of the Prison Service within the Responsible Authority and by the designation of a number of duty-to-cooperate agencies ( a consequence of the Criminal Justice Act 2003). The MAPPA process facilitated effective contributions by agencies so that representatives could make operational decisions and develop risk management plans.

The report made a number of recommendations for policy and practice development which are being taken forward through the revision of the MAPPA Guidance and the MAPPA business planning process.

42

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Managing Sex Offenders in the Community (A joint thematic inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorates of Probation and Police published in November 2005 and available on http://inspectorates.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/hmiprobation) This inspection found that there was greater focus by police and probation on improving the assessment and management of high risk sex offenders which offered the prospect of improved performance. However it noted a number of deficiencies in relation to MAPPA case management records; police home visits for registered sex offenders and training for both police and probation staff on assessment and management of risk of harm.

These deficiencies have been addressed through the National Offender Management Service Risk of Harm Improvement strategy and the development and imminent publication of the Police Public Protection Manual.
An Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence case: Damien Hanson and Elliot White published in February 2006 and available on http://inspectorates.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/hmiprobation) This was a report by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation into the murder of John Monckton and attempted murder of his wife Homeyra in November 2004 by two men under the supervision of the London Probation Area. The report identified overall failures and some specific deficiencies in the way the two cases were managed. Although neither offender was referred to MAPPA Damien Hanson, who was assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm, should have been. Importantly the report has established a number of principles against which future case management within MAPPA and the National Probation Service will be judged. Key amongst these is that the public is entitled to expect that the authorities will do their job properly i.e. to take all reasonable action to keep risk to a minimum.

In response to this report, an action plan was issued to the National Probation Services to ensure delivery of effective implementation of the report’s five ‘key’ recommendations and 31 practice recommendations.
An Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence case: Anthony Rice published in May 2006 and available on http://inspectorates.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/hmiprobation) This report was completed following the murder of Naomi Bryant in August 2005. The independent review was requested by the Responsible Authority for MAPPA in Hampshire who were concerned by a number of issues that had contributed to the risk management failure. The report details principal findings and recommendations for a range of agencies within and outside MAPPA. Each of which is being taken forward. Importantly it revealed the failure to manage the offender’s risk of harm to the public was not due to any single act of negligence or deficiency. Rather it was a cumulative failure of processes and actions throughout his sentence supervision, both in prison and in the community. This is an essential point to grasp and reinforces the importance of having an integrated offender management system from start to end of sentence with clear and consistent practice between the three core MAPPA agencies, prisons, probation and police.

The key recommendation for MAPPA was about maintaining a better balance between human rights of offenders and protecting the public, and using existing MAPPA guidance properly. Work is already underway to revise and strengthen national guidance and improve MAPPA’s foundations by way of the national and Area MAPPA business plans.
Joint Police/Probation/Prisons Thematic Inspection Report: Putting Risk of Harm Into Context – published in September 2006 and available on http://inspectorates.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/hmiprobation This report found that much had been achieved, including that planned interventions were generally effective in containing offending behaviour. There were also many areas for improvement and the report makes recommendations for the more consistent use of MAPPA and sharing of MAPPA good practice, improved risk of harm assessments and sentence planning and greater victim awareness. It is important to note that the fieldwork to support the inspection concluded in the autumn of 2005, prior to the launch of the Risk of Harm Improvement Action plan and other actions referred to in this overview. Nevertheless, the report has been welcomed and will be considered in further detail by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Risk of Harm Improvement Board as well as the Responsible Authority National Steering Group (RANSG).

43

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Actions to develop MAPPA
Effecting change to these public protection arrangements requires concerted action from a range of agencies and key stakeholders. MAPPA is not an agency but a set of national arrangements that requires each contributor to ensure that their own agency’s practice is fit for purpose and that the manner of their collaboration is effective in assessing and managing the risk posed by sexual and violent offenders. It is important to note that MAPPA has benefited significantly this year from the work undertaken by individual agencies; work that has a direct bearing on how dangerous offenders are assessed and managed. This includes the OASys Quality Assurance Programme implemented from July 2005; implementation of the offender management model from April 2006; the launch of the NOMS Risk of harm Guidance and Training resource pack June 2006; and the planned roll-out of the Police Public Protection Manual. MAPPA will increasingly benefit from the expansion of ViSOR (the Violent and Sex Offenders Register). ViSOR is an integral part of plans to strengthen public protection through improved risk assessment and management and will provide electronic support for MAPPA allowing efficient data sharing between Police, Probation and Prisons. The police have been using ViSOR since April 2005 and the system will be implemented into the prison and the probation service during 2006/7. For the first time the Responsible Authorities will be working together on the same I.T system to Reduce Re-offending.

The National MAPPA Business Plan
As the national coordinating body for the Responsible Authority, the RANSG, is tasked with exercising oversight of MAPPA and ensuring its continued development. To help meet these aims the RANSG published, in November 2005, a three year National MAPPA Business Plan 2005-8. The plan identifies four broad areas of MAPPA where significant and consistent improvement is necessary. These include the following; MAPPA Development Strategy • Achieve dedicated MAPPA coordination and administration capacity in all areas during 2006/7 (underway) • Develop RANSG to include national representation of Duty to cooperate agencies (achieved) • Revise and publish MAPPA Guidance (by April 2007 – see existing Guidance at: http://www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/output/page30.asp)

Monitoring and Evaluation • Areas to implement a MAPPA Business Plan for 2006/7 (achieved – see area annual reports) • Development of multi-agency public protection performance indicators (underway)

• Improve the recording and collation of data (underway) • Develop guidance for a serious case review process (planned for consultation later this year)

Communication and Strategic Partnerships • The publication of the MAPPA Annual report (achieved) • Development of the annual report to improve public understanding and engagement (ongoing) • National MAPPA conference (achieved – November 2005) • Develop a national communication strategy (issued in June, but Child Sex Offender Review may add further impetus)

44

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Training • Delivery of lay adviser national training (delivered but also developing so far) • National coordinators conference (delivered – May 2006) • Collate core training material (underway) • Areas to implement a training strategy for new practitioners, new members of the strategic management board and for coordinators and administrators (underway)

Areas have been asked to produce annual reports on this model and local business plans are attached to area annual reports for the first time. Future reports will record the progress that has been achieved.

Conclusion
The introduction of MAPPA enables agencies to work more closely than ever before to exchange information and manage offenders collaboratively, ensuring that potentially dangerous offenders are being properly risk assessed and robustly managed in the community. Effective management of high-risk offenders, as a discipline, is still relatively in its infancy. There is continuous development and the standards and good practice of tomorrow are likely to be different from today’s, achieved through experience and research. The challenge therefore is not only to match current practice with what we know, but also to respond rapidly to new learning. The Inspectorate helpfully suggests that what they are describing can be better understood as the identification of stages on a journey rather than a destination reached. Since their introduction in 2001, the 42 MAPPAs covering England and Wales have travelled a great distance in a short time to establish the new arrangements. The vital public protection work of MAPPA is undertaken by skilled and committed staff and everyone engaged in the arrangements acknowledges the need for constant vigilance and improvement. The journey is not easy, but communities are safer because, as this report demonstrates, the Responsible Authorities are travelling together in the right direction.

John Scott Head of the Public Protection and Licensed Release Unit National Offender Management Service

Terence Grange Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police and ACPO Public Protection Lead

Tony Robson Her Majesty’s Prison Service On behalf of the Responsible Authority National Steering Group

45

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Strategic Management Board Members
Angela Montgomery Solicitor & Secretary to Humberside Probation Board Senior Manager for Risk National Probation Service - Humberside 21 Flemingate BEVERLEY East Riding of Yorkshire HU17 0NP 01482 867271 angela.montgomery@humberside.probation.gsi.gov.uk Nigel Richardson Director of Children and Young Peoples Services Hull City Council Guildhall Alfred Gelder Street HULL HU1 2AA 01482 316325 nigel.richardson@hullcc.gov.uk

Julie Ogley John Godley MAPPA Co-Ordinator Crime Management Policy Unit Humberside Police Headquarters Priory Road Police Station Kingston upon Hull HU5 5SF 01482 334835 john.godley@humberside.pnn.police.uk Executive Director of Community Care N E Lincs Council Municipal Building Town Hall Square GRIMSBY DN31 1HU 01472 325456 julie.ogley@nelincs.gov.uk

Allison Watson John Crosse Assistant Chief Constable Humberside Police Headquarters Priory Road Police Station Kingston upon Hull HU5 5SF 0845 6060222 john.crosse@humberside.pnn.police.uk Head of Operations HMP Hull Hedon Road HULL HU9 5LS 01482 282204 allison.watson@hmps.gsi.gov.uk

Phil Edwards Andrew Williams Director of Children & Family Services ERY County Hall BEVERLEY East Riding of Yorkshire 01482 392000 andrew.williams@eastriding.gov.uk Head of Offender Management HMP Full Sutton Full Sutton YORK YO41 1PS 01759 475100 phillip.edwards@hmps.gsi.gov.uk

Mr Said Ali Richard Stiff Executive Director of Children’s Services North Lincolnshire Council Pittwood House Ashby Road SCUNTHORPE North Lincolnshire DN16 1AB 01724 296002 richard.stiff@northlincs.gov.uk Operational Manager Humber Centre for Forensic Psychiatry Beverley Road Willerby HU10 6XB 01482 336200 said.ali@humber.nhs.uk

46

MAPPA

Annual

Report

2005-2006

Agency Contact Points
Humberside Police Police Headquarters Priory Road Kingston–upon-Hull HU5 5SF 0845 60 60 222

National Probation Service – Humberside Head Office 21 Flemingate Beverley East Yorkshire HU17 0NP 01482 867271

HM Prison Service Yorkshire and Humberside Area Office Marston House Audby Lane Wetherb LS22 7SD 01937 544500

MAPPA Co-ordination Team c/o Crime Management Policy Unit Humberside Police Headquarters Priory Road Kingston-upon-Hull HU5 5SF 01482 334836

Victim Support Schemes Hull Haltemprice & Holderness East Yorkshire Goole and Pocklington Grimsby and Cleethorpes Scunthorpe and North East Lincolnshire National Victim Support Line 01482 587666 01482 307284 01262 401689 01405 767070 01472 250251 01724 871324 0845 30 30 900

47