Decisions on disclosure to third parties made at MAPP meetings: opinions and practice
Open accessAbstract
Aims and method: We investigated how decisions regarding disclosure of an offender's history to a third party without the offender's consent are made at Multi-Agency Public Protection (MAPP) meetings. Ten questionnaires were sent to a level 2 MAPP meeting in each of the 33 police and probation areas in London, with a request that the MAPP meeting administrator hand them out to up to 10 regular attendees. Results: Of 321 questionnaires handed out, 196 were returned, giving a response rate of 61.1%. Seventy-six participants (37%) had made a disclosure without a MAPP meeting discussion in the past 12 months. A total of 109 participants (55.9%) reported that in their experience it had always been possible to reach a consensus on disclosure at MAPP meetings, but participants' responses to five hypothetical scenarios indicated a wide spread of opinions about when a disclosure should be made. Significant proportions of participants endorsed statements suggesting that people have a right to know offenders' histories. Clinical implications: Training on the evidence base, law and guidance relevant to disclosure decisions is necessary, and a governance system to monitor and improve decision-making should be considered. Advocacy for offenders may also improve practice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
MAPPA aims to protect the public from harm by sexual and violent offenders, who may have mental ill health.
“An example is the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) which aims to protect the public from harm by sexual and violent offenders, who may have mental ill health.84”
From Interagency collaboration models for people with mental ill health in contact with the police: a systematic scoping review (2018) · cites this paper as [84]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Square, T., London, & Wc, H. (1920) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.4.1.25 · Cited by 1,623 · see citing works
Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010) · Sexual Abuse · doi:10.1177/1079063210366039 · Cited by 960 · see citing works
Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model
Ward, T., & Stewart, C. (2003) · Psychology Crime and Law · doi:10.1080/1068316031000116247 · Cited by 406 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
11 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Kemshall H, Wood J. Child Sex Offender Review Public Disclosure Pilots: A Process Evaluation (2nd edn). Home Office, 2010.
- Morin JW, Levenson JS. Exhibitionism: assessment and treatment. In Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment (eds DR Laws, WT O'Donohue): 76-107. Guilford Press, 2008.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parker, A., Scantlebury, A., Booth, A., MacBryde, J. C., Scott, W. J., Wright, K., & McDaid, C. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019312 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“An example is the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) which aims to protect the public from harm by sexual and violent offenders, who may have mental ill health.(84) Agency composition includes the police, other law enforcement agencies and mental health services.”
Background
- Authors
- Penny, C., & Craissati, J.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Penny, Catherine
- ORCID
- Craissati, Jackie
- Venue
- The Psychiatrist
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 379-385
- ISSN
- 1758-3209 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-3217
- OpenAlex
- W2160241907
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Psychiatrist (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- third-party disclosure, consent, decision-making, offender rehabilitation, decision-making training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
