Case Studies
The following case studies are provided to give the reader an insight into MAPPA in operation. Whilst the basis of the case studies reflects actual cases from the NSCJA area, they have been altered and anonymised for reasons of confidentiality.
Case study 1 - John
John was convicted of an offence which would give partner agencies concern in relation to risk to children. Following conviction, the sentencer requested reports from Criminal Justice Social Work (a Social Enquiry Report), Pathways Partnership Project (in relation to risk presented and assessment in relation to suitability for intervention) and Mental Health services (as John was an inpatient at the time of going to Court). These reports are routinely provided to inform the sentencers decision in relation to how best to dispose of the case. The Criminal Justice Social Worker ( CJSW) and Pathways worker undertake the interviews for their respective reports together and consult the police and any other source for information (including in this case John's partner) to inform their assessments. During the assessment process the CJSW and Pathways worker ascertained whether there were any identifiable children at risk and determined in John's case that there were no current child protection concerns.
The sentencer imposed a three year Probation Order with condition of attendance at Pathways. John was required to register with the police within 3 days of his appearance as Court as he was placed on the sex offenders register by the Court. John met the requirement to register.
The CJSW made notification to the MAPPA co-ordinator and followed this with a referral outlining the case. The referral includes information pertaining to convictions, details of risk assessments, risk factors identified, protective factors identified, highlights any child protection concerns and action taken, any violence towards staff and outlines the risk management plan currently in place. An initial level 2 MAPP meeting was convened with all relevant agencies ( NHS, CJSW, police, housing and Pathways) being invited. The CJSW making the referral and the MAPPA co-ordinator had determined that a level 2 MAPP meeting was appropriate given the active involvement of more than one agency. It was not considered from the risk assessments undertaken for John's appearance at Court that the complexity of the case required a referral at level 3.
At the MAPP meeting all agencies provided information and a consensus was reached in terms of the agreed MAPPA risk level, who was most at risk and a risk management plan was devised to seek to address the risk factors identified and to promote the protective factors indicated. Each action on the risk management plan was tasked to a specific person/people to complete and a timescale given. Actions included ensuring the psychiatrist was invited to the next meeting as it was considered that he could inform the risk management plan; also requested was a further joint risk assessment by Police and CJSW; the Police were tasked with certain monitoring functions and information gathering in terms of John's proposed leisure activities and the CJSW and the Pathways worker were required to continue to liaise with colleagues in mental health in relation to the stability of John in terms of undertaking the Community Sex Offender Groupwork Programme (C- SOGP). Ongoing contact with John's family was deemed essential to the risk management plan. Each agency's required level of contact with John was determined in line with level of risk. The chairperson concluded the meeting with a consensus from those present that a level 2 review should be held within 3 months. The decision about what level of meeting was required was informed by the risk level presented and the number of agencies involved.
Three months later a level 2 review was held. Action updates were provided by those with actions from the previous meeting and there was also a general information exchange. Any necessary changes were made to the risk management plan in view of any new information provided. As there is continued active involvement from more than one agency and in line with the assessed risk presented to the public, level 2 reviews have continued in respect of John.
Case study 2:
Ian followed a similar path into the MAPPA process as John in case study 1 in that his offence would give rise to concerns about risk to children and he went through the same process at Court (except reports from mental health as Ian did not have a mental health problem) prior to the Court imposing a three year Probation Order with condition to attend Pathways and to undertake unpaid work. Again similar to John, checks were made in relation to any specific children at risk and there were deemed to be no current specific child protection concerns.
Ian's case was referred as a level 2, again with all relevant parties being invited to the initial MAPP meeting. At the initial meeting a consensus was reached with regards the agreed MAPPA risk level, who was most at risk and a risk management plan was devised to seek to address the risk factors identified and to promote the protective factors indicated. Each action on the risk management plan was tasked to a specific person/people to complete and a timescale given. The risk management plan included: the offer of work with Ian's partner in order to enable her to greater understand the risks presented; inclusion in the C- SOGP; monitoring of acute risk factors through CJSW supervision and registration with the police. After taking into account the risk assessments and that Ian's case was predominantly being managed by CJSW, it was deemed appropriate for Ian's case to be managed at level 1. This means that Ian's case is discussed at the quarterly liaison meeting attended by manager grade staff from CJSW, Pathways, Police and Housing. The risk management plan is updated within this forum. Any adverse development would necessitate a referral back to level 2.
Case Study 3:
Ewan was referred to MAPPA by the Scottish Prison Service as his offences would give partner agencies concern in relation to risk to children. He was released on licence and subject to sex offender registration.
Ewan was referred and managed as a level 2 and a Risk Management Plan was agreed with clear actions and time scales for each agency involved.
During the MAPPA process, concerns arose regarding his contact with his partner's children. The Responsible Authorities and key agencies including social work, police and health (given his involvement with mental health agencies) were involved in a range of risk management meetings and MAPPA.
Further concerns arose regarding the care of the children resulting in their removal from the care of their mother. This increased Ewan's assessed level of risk and resulted in the convening of a level 3 MAPPP, and reports were submitted to the Parole and Life Sentences Review Commission resulting in Ewan being recalled to custody.