Publication - Advice and guidance

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

Published: 3 Mar 2016
Directorate:
Safer Communities Directorate
Part of:
Law and order
ISBN:
9781786520869

Ministerial guidance to responsible authorities on the discharge of their obligations under section 10 of the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Act 2005.

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA):national guidance 2016
MAPPA Document 11

MAPPA Document 11

MAPPA Case Audit Form

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

Instructions: Please circle the number relating to your finding

How timely was the initial referral?

Very timely

1

Should have been earlier by more than a month

2

Should have been earlier by three months or more

3

Were all relevant sections completed?

Yes, all the relevant sections completed

1

No, relevant sections were not completed

2

Was the referral of sufficient quality?

Yes, completely

1

Yes, good enough

2

No, not sufficient

3

No, poor

4

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

Very timely

1

Should have been earlier by a few days

2

Should have been earlier by more than a week

3

Should have been earlier by more than a month

4

Should haven earlier by three months or more

5

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

Yes, all the relevant people/agencies were invited

1

No, one relevant person/agency* was not invited

2

No, two or more relevant people/agencies* were not invited

3

Some people* were invited who should not have been

4

*Please list these people/agencies:

Did the nominated individuals attend the meeting?

Yes, all the relevant people attended

1

No, one relevant person/agency* did not attend

2

No, two or more relevant people/agencies did not attend

3

*Please list these people/agencies:

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

Yes, all

1

Yes, some

2

No evidence

Not applicable

3

4

Was a report provided from the lead agency?

Yes

1

No evidence

2

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

Yes

1

Yes, mostly

2

No, mostly not

No, lacked clarity

3

4

Do the minutes clearly record the MAPPA category?

Yes

1

No

2

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

Yes

1

No

2

N/A

3

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

Yes

1

No

2

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

Yes

1

Yes, mostly

2

No, mostly not

3

No, not at all

4

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

Yes

1

Yes, for most of the meeting

2

No, not for most of the meeting

3

No, not at all

4

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

Yes

1

No*

2

*If No, please describe any shortfall:

Do the minutes show that risk was properly assessed?

Yes

1

Yes, mostly

2

No, not very well

3

No, not well at all

4

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

Yes

1

Yes, for most of the meeting

2

No, not for most of the meeting

3

No, not at all

4

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

Yes

1

Yes, mostly

2

No, not very well

3

No, not well at all

4

N/A

5

Do the minutes show that potential victims were properly informed?

Yes, awareness of all risk to potential victims informs meeting

1

Yes, some awareness of risk to potential victims informs meeting

2

No, not enough

3

No, not at all

4

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

Yes, sufficiently

1

To some degree

2

Not addressed at all

3

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

Yes, completely

1

Yes, well enough

2

No, not sufficiently

3

No, links are poor

4

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

No, none

1

No, but a risk* could have been addressed better

2

Yes, some risks* not addressed properly

3

Yes, major risks* not addressed

4

*Please list those risks if applicable:

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

Yes

1

No

2

N/A

3

Do the actions plans have SMART objectives?

Yes, for all actions

1

Yes, for most actions

2

No, only for some actions

3

Not really

4

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

Yes, in all cases

1

Yes, mostly

2

No, mostly not

3

No, never

4

Is there a clear time frame for actions?

Yes, always

1

Yes, mostly

2

No, mostly not

3

Not usually

4

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

Yes

1

No

2

Were the nominated people invited to the review meeting?

Yes, all the relevant people attended

1

Yes, mostly

2

No, some relevant absences*

3

No, consistent relevant absences*

4

*Please list the absent agencies:

Was the action plan reviewed every time?

Yes, always

1

Yes, mostly

2

No, mostly not

3

No, never

4

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

Yes, every action, every time

1

Yes, every action for most reviews or most actions in every review

2

No, mostly not

3

Do the minutes show that updating information was shared?

Yes, at every review

1

Yes, at most

2

No, not at most

3

No, not at all

4

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

Yes

1

No

2

Was there a change to level of management?

Yes

1

No

2

N/A

3

Was the decision appropriate?

Yes

1

No*

2

*Please explain why the decision was not appropriate?

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

Yes

1

No

2

N/A

3

How well has this MAPPA case been managed?

Very well

1

Well enough

2

Not well enough*

3

Poorly*

4

*Please provide reasons:

Are all the decisions/actions noted "defensible"?

Yes

1

No*

2

*Please list decisions/actions:

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

Significantly

1

To a good degree

2

Not much

3

Not at all

4


Contact