7. Levels of Management (updated 2019)


7.1 There are three levels of MAPPA management designed to ensure resources are focused on those that require the greatest level of multi-agency co-operation. The MAPPA level is determined by a robust screening process, and should be regularly reconsidered throughout the MAPPA management period.

7.2 The three levels of MAPPA management are:

  • Level 1
  • Level 2
  • Level 3

Level 1

7.3 Level 1 management is where the risks posed by the offender are manageable by the lead agency without the need for formal multi agency meetings. This does not mean that other agencies will not be involved, only that once the formal screening process is complete, the lead agency is confident that their Risk Management Plan is sufficiently robust to manage the identified risks and that there are no barriers to the implementation of agreed multi-agency actions, and therefore it is not considered necessary to refer the case to a Level 2 or 3 MAPPA meeting. (See below for further information on levels of management.)

Level 2

7.4 Cases should be considered for Level 2 management where:

  • Formal multi-agency meetings would add value to the lead agency's management of the risk of serious harm posed;

and one, or more, of the following applies:

  • The offender is assessed as posing a high or very high risk of serious harm;
  • Exceptionally, the risk level is lower but the case requires the active involvement and co-ordination of interventions from other agencies to manage the presenting risks of serious harm;
  • The case has been previously managed at Level 3 but no longer requires Level 3 management.

Level 3

7.5 Level 3 management is for cases that meet the criteria for Level 2, but where management issues require senior representation from the Responsible Authority and Duty-to-Co-operate agencies. This may be when there is a perceived need to commit significant resources at short notice or where, although not assessed as high or very high risk of serious harm, there is a high likelihood of media scrutiny or public interest in the management of the case and there is a need to ensure that public confidence in the criminal justice system is maintained.