Search Results
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are now one of the central features of government policy in the UK for managing the risk presented by violent and sexual offenders. Although there has been research and debate concerning the use of MAPPA with adult offenders, their application to young people has received relatively little attention until now.
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements & Youth Justice extends the existing literature on public protection. It provides a detailed exploration of MAPPA policy and practice in order to prompt further debate about the implications of the risk paradigm for young people and youth justice practitioners.
In the book, key academics, practitioners and policy makers consider a range of theoretical and practical issues raised by the introduction of MAPPA including risk and children’s rights, the use of professional discretion by practitioners, alternative approaches to risk management and suggestions for future policy development. It will be of interest to both professionals and academics working with young offenders and in youth justice.
111 SIX Public protection in practice: Multi-agency Public Protection arrangements (MaPPa) Hazel Kemshall and Jason Wood1 introduction The late 1990s saw the development of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) in England and Wales (with slightly later developments in Scotland). These arrangements were given legislative force in the 2000 Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act (sections 67 and 68), with police, probation (and prisons added by the 2003 Criminal Justice Act; CJA) as ‘responsible authorities’ tasked with risk assessing and
11 1 Setting the scene: risk, welfare and rights Sarah Jones and Kerry Baker Introduction This chapter will provide a brief introduction to systems for responding to offending by children and young people in England and Wales, of which Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are one significant element. The aims of the chapter are to: • provide an overview of the youth justice system in England and Wales for readers who may be unfamiliar with it; • explain what MAPPA are and how they work; • begin to highlight some of the complexities of the
running Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) to work alongside one another, stemming from both historical trends and differing occupational cultures. This is not to say that all YOTs have problems working within the MAPPA framework; anecdotally we know that many YOTs operate very successfully in this area.However, the impression gathered from YOTs that took part in a recent research project (hereafter termed the Oxford MAPPA study) and reports from participants in a subsequent symposium was that this relationship can be problematic, and setting out
125 Conclusion Kerry Baker and Alex Sutherland ‘Is MAPPA for kids?’ (Whitty, this volume). Why, when Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are now an established and seemingly accepted part of the criminal justice system, does this question need to be asked? In fact, why devote a book to a rather specialist area of practice that only directly affects a small number of young people? Because, as the contributors to this volume have shown, debates about MAPPA require, and can also be a catalyst for, consideration of a range of significant
component of the policy and organisational response to high-risk offenders was the development of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) (see Kemshall, 2003, for a full review). By the late 1990s, MAPPA extended across England and Wales (with slightly later developments in Scotland and Northern Ireland). These arrangements were given legislative force in the 2000 Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (Sections 67 and 68) with the police and the probation service forming ‘Responsible Authorities’ (and the prison service being added as a statutory
vulnerability. While public protection is usually rightly equated most with preventing risk of serious harm to others, it must of course always be remembered that there should be a public protection pay-off through local youth justice providers’ statutory responsibility to prevent offending by children and young people.1 Moreover, young people themselves are part of the public (although perhaps not always seen as such) and therefore YOTs’ 60 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and Youth Justice attempts to work with others to minimise risks of vulnerability to
, 2006). However, instead of always making such assumptions, my argument is that it is more fruitful to explore the actual nature – and effects of co-existence – of risk and rights discourses in contemporary criminal justice settings in the UK (Murphy and Whitty, 2007). The focus of this book is the application of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) framework within the youth justice system. A critical scrutiny of the risk–rights relationship in this context raises some distinct, and particularly troubling, questions. As evidenced by the
75 Young people, serious offending and managing risk: a Scottish perspective Fergus McNeill Introduction This chapter explores some of the issues surrounding the assessment and management of young people who have been involved in serious offending in Scotland. It begins by outlining how Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) have been set up in Scotland and identifies some of the practical challenges and issues that have arisen in the early implementation of these arrangements. The second section of the chapter briefly reviews some of the
from serious offending ever since it took responsibility for the supervision of released prisoners in the 1960s’ (Merrington and Stanley, 2007, p 437). A long-running topic within the criminal justice literature has been what the state’s response should be to those individuals who threaten serious harm to others (see Bottoms, 1977). Current debates in criminology focus on security and the governance of criminal justice (Zedner, 2003; Loader and Walker, 2007). Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), as their name suggests, are a part of this debate
