8.1 Managing Individuals who Pose a Risk to Children |
Contents
1. Identification of Individuals who Pose a Risk to Children
The terms Schedule One and Schedule One Offender are confusing and are no longer used in everyday practice. The term individuals who pose a risk is now used.
The Home Office have produced interim guidance on which offences would identify an offender who poses a potential risk of harm to children. These offences can be found in Home Office Circular 16/2005. Any individual who commits any of these offences, or any offence where a child was involved, should be regarded as posing a potential risk to harm.
A worker in direct contact with such an individual, or a child where such an individual has a significant level of contact, needs to gain an understanding of how much risk, if any, they pose. Specialist agencies such as the Probation and Prison Service will assess this risk using their assessment tools, e.g. Offender Assessment System (OASys) - a shared Prison Service and Probation Service computer based assessment and planning tool designed for use with all offenders, Risk Matrix 2000 - a shared Police, Probation and Prison Service risk assessment tool for offenders who commit sexual and violent offences) or Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) - risk assessment tool used on domestic violence perpetrators by the Probation Service and other agencies. All these tools use a range of static criteria (e.g. age at first offence) and dynamic ones (e.g. level of substance misuse) to reach a judgement on risk. The planning process then looks to manage risk where appropriate and identify which are the key dynamic criteria that can be changed in a positive direction and reduce risk levels.
A worker from another agency should contact the Probation Service to see if a relevant risk assessment has been undertaken. If not, they will need to form a judgement as to the risk posed on the basis of all information that can be reasonably obtained. This judgement will include evidence of a pattern of behaviour, similarity between the current context and the context of the offence/s, and the presence of any contextual factor such as isolation, stress, or substance misuse. Any evidence of grooming behaviour would immediately increase the assessed level of risk.
In some circumstances, an individual might reasonably be regarded as posing a risk to children without a conviction. Where there have been a number of allegations from unconnected victims, or repeated acquittals, particularly for reasons of legal procedure or where the vulnerability of the victim might reduce their credibility as a witness would be examples. In these circumstances considerable care needs to be exercised but reasonable actions can be taken to protect children. Clear guidance is not possible given the complexity of this area. Workers should consult their line manager and record the assessment made the evidence on which it is based and any actions agreed.
2. Management of Individuals who Pose a risk of Harm to Children
Effective arrangement of risk has to be based in inter agency working. A number of agencies have responsibility for the supervision of such individuals. These include the Probation Service, Prison Service, Youth Offending Teams and the Police. Staff in these agencies should ensure that they communicate all relevant information about the risk they pose, where they live and the children with whom they have contact to the relevant social care agency.
The social care agencies are responsible for assessing the information available to them and responding to protect children as required in line with these procedures.
All agencies have a responsibility to work together in this situation as in any other covered by the current legislation, Working Together to Safeguard Children and these procedures.
3. Other Multi-Agency Arrangements
There are a number of other arrangements that exist alongside the Child Protection process. Further details are available in Chapter 12 of Working Together to Safeguard Children, 2010.
3.1 MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements)
For detailed information regarding MAPPA in Leicester City, Leicestershire and Rutland please see Appendix 1.
Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements:
- Individuals need to have committed an offence covered by the statutory criteria to be subject to MAPPA
- Most individuals who have committed such an offence will not be assessed as posing sufficient risk, the nature of which requires either MAPPA Level 2 arrangements (management through the formal co-operation of two agencies) or MAPPA Level 3 arrangements (where they are identified as being currently one of the critical few who pose an immediate risk of serious harm).
- Only a small minority of people who pose a risk of harm to children will be covered by MAPPA. Not all MAPPA offenders pose any risk of harm to children.
- MAPPA will be involved with an individual who presents a risk for as long as it is assessed as being necessary. This may over time involve a number of potential or real victims.
- MAPPA will not protect an identified victim or potential victim if the risk is posed by anyone other than the person registered under MAPPA.
3.2 MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference)
Where MARAC is in place, it will respond to situations where there is a high risk of harm from domestic violence. It will co-ordinate services from a range of agencies as required by the situation. Child protection will frequently feature as a major element in the risk assessment of any given situation. It therefore provides a good forum to engage a wide range of agencies in protecting children as well as the other victims from domestic violence.
However, MARACs are designed to produce a speedy co-ordination of services to protect victims by maximising their impact. A situation will be assessed and a plan agreed. Implementation of the plan is monitored at the next meeting. The case then leaves the MARAC arena. It is an effective "quick hit" but does not provide a service that continues until the safety of the child is ensured.
4. Legal and other Mechanisms for Managing Risk
Where an offender is subject to a community sentence or post release licence, the Probation Service has a series of powers and responsibilities in managing an individual's risk.
These may need to be enhanced. Frequently, there is no such statutory supervision. In these situations, a number of legal mechanisms are available.
The key resources include:
- Sex Offender Register and Notification Orders;
- Sexual Offences Prevention Orders;;
- Risk of Sexual Harm Orders;
- Disqualification Orders (disqualified from working with children);
- Independent Safeguarding Authority Barred List (replaced List 99, PoCA and PoVA);
- Criminal Records Bureau Disclosures.
In addition VISOR, a national database of individuals who pose a risk of serious sexual or physical harm to children or others, is under development and will increasingly make relevant information available through the Police Force.
5. Civil Orders for the Management of Offenders who Pose a Risk to Children
(The following is adapted from Home Office Guidance on the Criminal Justice System Sexual Offences Act 2004 which can be accessed at: Home Office website)
Sex Offender Registration, Sex Offender Restraining Orders and Sex Offender Orders
The notification requirements on sex offenders (or "sex offender registration" as the requirements are sometimes known) were introduced in Part 1of the Sex Offenders Act 1997.The 1997 Act established that offenders convicted of certain sexual offences (listed in Schedule 1 to that Act) would have to notify certain personal details to the police and any subsequent changes to these details. The Sex Offenders Act was implemented on 1 September 1997.The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced sex offender orders (SOOs).These were civil preventative orders imposed by the courts on convicted sex offenders on application from a chief officer of police. SOOs prohibit an offender from doing anything specified in the order, so long as it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the defendant. An offender made subject to an order is also subject to the notification requirements of the 1997 Act for the duration of the order (a minimum of 5 years).The Police Reform Act 2002 made amendments to the SOO, including introducing interim SOOs. Interim orders can impose suitable prohibitions on an offender whilst the main application is waiting to be determined.
In 2000 several changes were made to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 through the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (CJCSA) to strengthen the requirements on convicted sex offenders. The maximum penalty for a breach of the notification requirements was increased to 5 years imprisonment and sex offenders had to make their initial notification within 3 days (rather than 14 days) of their conviction, caution, finding etc. for a relevant sexual offence. The CJCSA 2000 introduced a requirement for registered sex offenders to notify the police if they intended to travel overseas for 8 days or more. In addition, the CJCSA 2000 introduced Sex Offender Restraining Orders. These orders are very similar to SOOs but can be imposed by a court at conviction for a relevant sexual offence, rather than through application by a chief officer of police.
Key changes introduced through the Sexual Offences Act 2003
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 repealed all of the above legislation and re-introduced most of the provisions with some improvements. Listed below are the key changes that have been made to the notification requirements:
- A conditional discharge is considered a conviction for the purposes of the notification requirements
- The notification period for a caution is reduced from 5 years to 2 years
- Offenders have to notify a change to their notified details (such as name or address) within 3 days of the change taking place (the previous period was 14 days)
- Offenders have to notify any address in the UK at which they reside for 7 days or more, whether that is 7 days consecutive or 7 days within any 12 month period (the previous period was 14 days)
- All offenders have to re-confirm their notified details annually ("periodic notification")
- All notifications have to be made in person and the police may take fingerprints and photographs at initial notification, whenever an offender notifies any changes to his details and at periodic notification
- Offenders have to notify their National Insurance numbers at initial notification.
- Those currently subject to the notification requirements have to provide such information when they first notify a change to their details after commencement of the 2003 Act or at their first periodic notification
- It is now possible to notify a change of details in advance of the change taking place
- Schedule 3, which lists the offences which trigger the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, includes most of the new sexual offences contained in Part 1 of the 2003 Act (some have disposal or other thresholds that must be met before notification is triggered).
- Where a disposal threshold has to be met before the notification requirements, the notification requirements do not apply unless s/he receives a sentence which meets that threshold
- The Secretary of State will have a power to amend the thresholds and offences in Schedule 3
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is also introducing new civil preventative orders:
Notification orders:
- This order can be made, on application by a chief officer of police, in respect of individuals who have been convicted, cautioned etc. abroad for sexual offences equivalent to the sexual offences listed in Schedule 3 of the 2003 Act
- The effect of the order is to make such offenders subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the 2003 Act as if they had been convicted, cautioned etc. in the UK of a relevant offence
Sexual offences prevention orders (SOPO):
- This order replaces both the sex offender order and the restraining order. Therefore, a SOPO can be made on application by a chief officer of police in respect of a convicted sex offender or by a court at conviction
- The SOPO is also an improvement on the sex offender order and the restraining order. A conditional discharge cannot be received as punishment for breach of a SOPO
- A SOPO may be made in respect of an offender convicted, cautioned etc. of certain violent offences listed in Schedule 5 where such an order is necessary to protect the public from serious sexual harm
Foreign travel orders:
- This order will enable the courts, in certain circumstances and on application by a chief officer of police, to prohibit those convicted of sexual offences against children aged under 16 from travelling overseas where there is evidence that they intend to cause serious sexual harm to children in a foreign country.
Risk of sexual harm orders (RSHOs):
- This order is similar to the SOPO and aims to restrict the activities of those involved in grooming children for sexual activity. A previous conviction, caution etc. for a sexual offence is not a prerequisite in applying for a RSHO.
(The following is adapted from Probation Service Circular 17/2005)
Disqualification Orders
Under Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 individuals convicted of one of a list of specified sexual and violent offences against a child or supplying Class A drugs to a child are liable to disqualification from working with children. The relevant offences are set out at Schedule 4 to the CJCSA 2000.
The only courts able to impose disqualification orders are the "Senior Courts" i.e. the Crown Court, Court of Appeal, a court martial or the Courts Martial Appeals Court.
The court is obliged to consider making an order if the sentence reaches a qualifying threshold as follows:
- 12 months or more imprisonment or detention;
- 12 months or more detention and training order;
- A hospital or guardianship order made within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The court must make a disqualification order in all relevant cases unless it considers that further offences against children are unlikely. If the court decides not to make an order it must record the reasons for that decision.
In addition to the above, Schedule 30 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has introduced a discretion for the court to make a disqualification order regardless of the sentence if it is believes that the offender is likely to commit a further offence against a child.
MISSED CASES
Since the requirement to consider disqualification orders came into force on 11 January 2001, there have been a number of cases in which orders should have been considered but were overlooked. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 has introduced a discretionary power for the CPS to make retrospective application to the court for an order in those cases.
Appendix 1 MAPPA in detail
Introduction
Work with convicted offenders who pose a risk to children is a crucial part of safeguarding children. Multi-agency work with offenders convicted of violent or sexual offences is provided through the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA).
Lead responsibility to co-ordinate this work is held by the police and probation service, together with the prison service. Other agencies, including health agencies, and adults' and children's social care, are subject to a statutory duty to co-operate.
Whilst most offenders covered by MAPPA are adults, the arrangements also include young people convicted of relevant offences. The lead agency in cases involving young offenders will usually be the youth offending service (YOS).
Where young people have not been convicted, but exhibit sexually abusive behaviour, the risks should be managed on a multi-agency basis. The Children using Abusive Behaviour Procedure provides a framework for this.
Child protection procedures provide a framework for identifying, assessing, managing risk and monitoring children whose carers either themselves pose a risk to them, or who are unable to safeguard their children from the risk posed by others.
The MAPPA cover convicted offenders identified as posing a risk of harm to other people. MAPPA provide a framework for identifying, assessing, managing risk and monitoring this group. It is important to keep in mind that many MAPPA offenders will not present a risk to their own or anyone else's child.
However, where the offences do include child protection issues, there can be considerable overlap between the child protection and MAPPA systems, as convicted offenders subject to MAPPA may include those convicted of:
- Violent or sexual offences against a child;
- Domestic violence offences;
- Sexual or violent offences which whilst not directly involving a child raise issues about their parenting capacity;
- Violent or sexual offences such that there is need to consider the safety of staff working with a family;
This list is not exhaustive but is indicative of the potential overlap.
It is important that, where there is overlap, there are explicit links between the risk management plans within each system, and that there is good understanding of how the risk management available via MAPPA can be best harnessed within child protection planning and vice versa.
Where concerns arise about the safety of a specific identified child, the first priority is to instigate child protection procedures by contacting the relevant Children's Social Care Services service. The MAPPA framework must not be used as an alternative to following child protection procedures. This is to ensure that the individual child is safeguarded without delay by the lead agencies for child protection work.
What follows is:
- A brief overview of the MAPPA framework;
- How this may assist in managing those who pose a risk to children;
- Responsibilities on those operating in child protection procedures to link with MAPPA and vice versa.
It is important to note that the MAPPA arrangements are targeted at the more serious convicted offenders (see categories below). There will be people who have access to children who do not meet the criteria for MAPPA management, but are still identified and assessed as presenting an actual or potential risk to children.
The MAPPA Framework
Local arrangements cover the same geographical areas as the child protection procedures i.e. Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. They provide a framework to identify all offenders who fall within the remit of MAPPA, and to put in place arrangements to share relevant information between agencies.
There are three types of offenders who are subject to MAPPA procedures.
| Mappa Category | |
| MAPPA category 1: Registered sex offenders in the community | These are identified and assessed by the police, using the risk matrix 2000 assessment tool. These offenders may also be current Probation cases, who will also have been assessed using their assessment tool (which is known as OASys), or, in the case of young offenders, under the supervision of YOS, who use an assessment tool known as ASSET. |
| MAPPA Category 2: Violent or sexual offenders who receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more - but only whilst they remain on post-custody licence. | These are subject to statutory supervision by the probation service or by YOS and are therefore identified and assessed by probation or YOS as above. |
| MAPPA Category 3: Other convicted offenders who are assessed as dangerous but do not fit into category 1 or 2. | This is a diverse group and may include: Current probation or YOS cases whose convictions are outside the criteria for category 1 or 2 but whose current or previous offences suggest that they may pose a risk to others Offenders whose period of post custody licence or time on the sex offender register has expired but who are assessed as still posing a high risk Other offenders e.g. mentally disordered offenders who did not become subject to probation or YOS supervision but who are assessed as high risk Those with serious historical convictions, e.g. predating sex offender registration, not currently involved with any criminal justice agency but whose current behaviour is causing concern |
The framework requires a common assessment of the level of risk of harm to others - low, medium, high or very high. It is necessary to ensure that all MAPPA offenders are managed at the appropriate level of a three-tier risk management structure. The level at which they are managed reflects their level of risk of harm.
Level 1: Management by a single agency.
Registered sex offenders who are assessed as "low" or "medium" risk are usually managed by officers in the Local Policing Unit that covers the area where the offender lives. Most MAPPA offenders who are on post-custody licence and assessed as low or medium risk, are managed through supervision by their probation officer or YOS supervisor.
Level 2: Multi-agency management.
Where it is necessary for a number of agencies to contribute to risk management, this is co-ordinated by "Risk Assessment and Management Panel" (RAMP meetings) RAMP meetings are normally convened and chaired by probation, the police, or YOS depending on which agency has current lead responsibility. For some mentally disordered offenders where no other agency has a statutory responsibility, meetings may be convened and chaired by the health service as "Risk Concerns Meetings" which are part of the Care Programme Approach (CPA) procedures.
MAPPA Level 2 meetings are normally chaired by middle managers. Practitioners from any agency working with the offender will be invited to attend. Initial meetings will normally be convened, within 15 working days of the offender being assessed as high risk.
Subsequently, regular review meetings will be held, and on each occasion a review of the risk assessment must be undertaken. This is necessary in order to decide whether the case should continue to be managed at this level or, if the risks have decreased, whether the case can revert to Level 1 management, or if they have significantly increased, whether the case should be referred to MAPPA Level 3.
Level 3: Multi Agency Management of the "critical few", very high risk offenders.
This is a multi-agency Panel system set up to provide assessment and management of risks posed by convicted dangerous offenders where it is judged that there is imminent risk of serious harm to others. The Panel consists of senior managers representing all key agencies who act as core panel members and consider all the cases. It is chaired by the Multi-Agency Public Protection (MAPPP) manager. It meets once a month for a full day.
Frontline practitioners from key involved agencies are invited to Panel meetings and contribute to the discussions; the key decision as to whether the offender meets the threshold for ongoing MAPPP oversight and management is taken by the core Panel members.
This process is reserved for the "critical few" most serious cases and a strict gate-keeping process is applied. Referrals are approved by the core panel member for the agency wishing to refer the individual to the MAPPP, and then screened by the MAPPP manager. Such individuals will normally have been considered by a Level 2 RAMP meeting.
If it is decided that MAPPP management is necessary, the case will be regularly brought back before the MAPPP for review. When the risks are assessed to have significantly reduced, the risk management automatically reverts to MAPPA Level 2.
The role of the MAPPA Co-ordinator
The MAPPA Co-ordinator is an independent, dedicated post, jointly funded by the founding MAPPP agencies (the police, probation and health services and Leicester City, Leicestershire and Rutland County Councils).
The main functions of the post are:
- To provide staff of partner agencies with information on MAPPA offenders - their MAPPA category, the level of MAPPA risk management, the managing agency and contact details of the case manager/keyworker;
- To provide advice and consultancy in relation to offenders;
- To process and approve referrals to the MAPPP (MAPPA Level 3);
- To convene and chair all MAPPP (MAPPA Level 3) meetings, including review panel meetings;
- To oversee the risk management arrangements of all offenders managed at MAPPA Level 3;
- To maintain a detailed database in relation to all offenders referred to and those managed by the MAPPP.
Using the MAPPA framework to protect children
Collaboration between MAPPA and child protection processes is vital in order to:
- Ensure that information exchange enhances assessment of risk in individual cases;
- Ensure that the two different procedures, each of which will properly have a different focus, do not act in ways which are contradictory or are in conflict with each other;
- Ensure that plans for individual children use the tools for risk management of adult offenders available through legislation;
- Discharge duties to co-operate with MAPPA.
Where there are concerns for a child and reason to consider that a significant person in the situation may be subject to the MAPPA framework, the MAPPA Co-ordinator can be contacted for information or advice on who to contact.
Contact should always then be made with the key worker/case manager. This is both to seek information about the assessment of the offender and to communicate information to the person co-ordinating work with the offender.
There are established links between the MAPPP Unit and the Child Protection Service Managers (Leicester City, Leicestershire and Rutland). Information on (Level 3) MAPPP-managed individuals is held by the Children's Social Care Services and flagged on the respective client data bases. The Service Managers are also available for consultation on the inter-relationship between the MAPPA and Child Protection processes, and act as a single point of contact for enquiries from other agencies regarding MAPPA offenders. Additionally, for Rutland, the Head of Inclusion can be contacted for advice or information on offenders living in Rutland.
As previously stated, where concerns arise about the safety of a specific identified child, the first priority is to instigate child protection procedures by contacting the relevant Children's Social Care Services service.
When the immediate protection of the child has been addressed, consideration should be given to whether the perpetrator(s) poses a more general, non-specific risk to other children. If so, consideration must be given as to whether to refer to the MAPPA framework.
Where a known or suspected child abuser is identified, but there are no current concerns about specific children, the MAPPA framework should be used.
- The MAPPA Co-ordinator should be contacted to establish whether the offender is currently being managed by another agency;
- If so, the case manager should be contacted and made aware of any information which may be of relevance to risk assessment or management ;
- Where there is no current contact with a MAPPA agency there should be discussion with the MAPPA Co-ordinator to decide how to proceed;
- Advice can also be sought from the Child Protection Service Managers or Head of Inclusion (Rutland).
The relationship between child protection conferences and MAPPA risk management meetings (RAMP; CPR MAPPP).
In some instances, there will be child protection plans in place which manage the risk of an offender in respect of an individual child and parallel risk-management processes as a part of the MAPPA framework.
The functions and focus of each process overlap but have distinct aspects. It is vital that the exchange of information is maintained in order to ensure that the focus of work and intervention is complementary and does not diverge over time.
The child protection key worker/offender case manager should each attend the review meetings within the other process whenever possible, and, if not possible, should submit information about the progress of the plan on which he/she is leading.
Workers need to be aware of some key differences in the processes. Level 2 and Level 3 MAPPA meetings are professionals-only meetings - more like child protection strategy meetings than child protection conferences. Although most offenders subject to Level 3 meetings are advised of the process, this may be after the meeting and, in exceptional circumstances, a decision may be taken not to disclose to the person concerned that meetings are taking place.
There can also be tensions between strategies to manage the risks to a child and other public protection aims. Keeping an adult offender in touch with their family may reduce the risks the adult poses generally because he/she has much needed support, but places a child in greater potential risk than ending the contact. In circumstances where there is potential conflict, it is even more important that communication is maintained and differences in approach discussed.
An additional advantage of a fully collaborative approach is that other forms of intervention may be available through statutory and legislative adult focused provision to manage risk, and this may be more effective in safeguarding the child than the intervention available under child protection procedures.
Sharing of relevant information
As well as sharing information between child protection and MAPPA agencies it may also be appropriate to notify non MAPPA organisations of the presence of an offender. This may include schools, nurseries and other early years providers. Decisions about such notifications will be made by the police and probation services in consultation with other members of the MAPPA Strategic Management Board.
End