Publication - 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.

201 page PDF

1.7 MB

201 page PDF

1.7 MB

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

201 page PDF

1.7 MB

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