Effective Practice in Mental Health Diversion and Liaison

Abstract

Many criminal justice mental health diversion and liaison teams are under threat of extinction. Nacro (2005) notes a steady decline in their number, despite the fact that these schemes in principle provide a valuable service and can fit any social inclusion or crime preventative agenda. In order for such teams and schemes to thrive they need to be strengthened urgently, a point concurred with by Jack Straw when he asked Lord Bradley to undertake a review into mental health diversion as a means of reducing the prison population. But before these schemes can thrive they must survive. We, therefore, argue that research into their sustainability is required and here we introduce a tool we developed (MHEP-AC) that is now in use for that purpose.

A site visit survey of 101 mental health liaison and diversion schemes in England

“…To assess to what extent these areas of practice are carried out in a sustainable and cost effective way, we test the absence or presence of six criteria of effective practice. These are Statement of Purpose, Policy, Management, Resourcing, Practice, and Continuous Professional Development (for further debate on these see Pakes and Winstone, 2008a). The evidence suggests that such elements are fundamental to the sustainable success of schemes (Winstone and Pakes, 2009).…”

“…That said we have argued elsewhere (Pakes and Winstone, 2008a) that these schemes have seen almost two decades of decline with their number dwindling and their work frequently unrecognised. The NACRO survey that was carried out in 2004 demonstrated this (NACRO, 2005).…”

Criminal Justice Diversion and Liaison Services: A Path to Success?

“…Lack of government guidelines, competing professional interests and tensions inherent in multi-agency working led to national differences in the development of CJLDS models (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, 2004; Brooker and Ullman, 2009; Pakes and Winston, 2009; James, 2010), including: single practitioners versus multi-agency schemes; part-time or on-call services compared with full-time dedicated teams; panel assessment schemes compared with front-line proactive teams; reactive compared with proactive screening; and variations in the services offered by a CJLDS which might include some or all of the following: mental health assessment in police stations, reports to court, providing recommendations on sentence and management, managing and sharing information with probation and prisons, short-term treatment and access to inpatient beds.…”

Tracing the Historical Development of a Service Model for Interagency Collaboration: Contradictions as Barriers and Potential Drivers for Change

“…The results demonstrated that L&D efforts had a substantial impact on decreasing the number of arrests (Bonkiewicz et al, 2014) and increasing positive outcomes for primary health care (Earl et al, 2015). However, organisational aspects behind L&D's influence were underexplored (Pakes & Winstone, 2009. This book chapter addresses this shortfall by grappling with L&D's organisational processes and work activity.…”