The effective assessment and management of sexual and potentially violent offenders in the community is an area that raises considerable public interest. Public Protection Panels bring together representation from police, probation, and other local agencies playing a key role in this area. However, little research has been done on their functions and operation. The intent of this report is to fill this void and assist those involved in the policy and practice of managing sexual and violent offenders in the community. This report presents the results of a study of multi-agency risk assessment and risk management procedures targeted at protecting the public from sexual, violent, and other potentially dangerous offenders. The specific aims for the study included: examining convergence and disparity in practice between areas, evaluating working practices and multi-agency co-operation and illustrating and advising on good practice, and to recommend improvements. The methods used were a collection of statistical and documentary material from relevant agencies, interviews with practitioners, and observations of panels. Overall, 147 interviews (64 police personnel, 53 probation staff, 10 social service staff, 12 housing staff, 5 psychiatrists, and 3 prison staff) were conducted with practitioners ranging from senior managers to front line staff. The risk assessment and management systems in operation were found to be highly diverse in structure and variable in quality. Some were largely led by police and others by probation. Police and probation were fully committed to partnership. The commitment and co-operation of other agencies was marginal in some areas. All areas suffered from resourcing problems and this increased as the numbers of registered sex offenders increased. Panels in some areas were swamped with too many cases. In relation to good practice in the management of Public Protection Panels, the following recommendations were made: (1) guidelines should be developed to promote more standardization and consistency; (2) resourcing for public protection work should be more clearly designated; and (3) more attention should be given to the managerial oversight, monitoring, and accountability of public protection systems. References