Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:00 pm
Time: 12:00 pm
Results for mentally ill offenders (u.k.)
9 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: A Joint Inspection on Work Prior to Sentence with Offenders with Mental Disorders Summary: This report focused on cases involving U.K. offenders who have been identified prior to sentence as having a mental disorder, and how these cases have been handled in practice. The joint inspection team found that although concerns about an individual's mental health, once identified, was followed up in almost all cases seen, communication between the criminal justice organizations could be made more systematic and effective. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2009. 56p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117573 Keywords: Mental Health Services (U.K.)Mentally Ill Offenders (U.K.)Prisoners (U.K.) |
Author: Centre for Mental Health Title: Mental Health Care and the Criminal Justice System: Revised and Fully Updated 2011 Summary: The population in custody has soared in the last decade and a significant proportion of those who end up in the criminal justice system have a mental health problem. Responsibility for prison health care lies with the NHS. It aims to give prisoners access to the same quality and range of health services as the general public receives in the community. This is an enormous challenge. Many prisoners have a combination of mental health problems, substance misuse and personality disorder, as well as a range of other issues to deal with. But the costs, both financial and social, of containing people in prison without access to appropriate health care are high. The Government has committed to developing diversion services to identify people with mental health problems in courts and police stations. This is vital to reduce the number of people with mental health difficulties in custody and to improve community services for offenders of all ages. Resettlement and rehabilitation are also essential to improve health and reduce further offending. Help with health, housing and employment make a big difference to offenders’ lives. This briefing paper examines the provision of mental health care for adults in the criminal justice system. It looks at what has been achieved to date and identifies priorities for further work. Details: London: Centre for Mental Health, 2011. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing 39: Accessed October 6, 2011 at: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/briefing_39_revised.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/briefing_39_revised.pdf Shelf Number: 122996 Keywords: Mental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Ramsey, Malcolm Title: The Early Years of the DSPD (Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder) Programme: Results of Two Process Studies Summary: This summary is based on two linked studies of an innovative programme which took place between 2006 and 2009. The first focused on the treatment delivered to and experienced by Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) prisoners/patients. It was called IDEA (Inclusion for DSPD: Evaluating Assessment and Treatment). The second study was concerned with management and staffing of the four high-secure DSPD units for men. It was called MEMOS (Management, Organisation and Staffing of DSPD). More detailed reports on each of these studies are available on request through the Personality Disorder website http://www.personalitydisorder.org.uk (Burns et al., 2011a; Burns et al., 2011b); Trebilcock and Weaver, 2011a). The conclusions showed the following results: There was a significant reduction in Violence Risk Scale (VRS) scores (which are known to be associated with subsequent violent offending) over time, but it is not possible to conclude that these were the result of treatment delivered under the DSPD programme. Sites delivered productive treatment, but organisational and therapeutic practice varied widely. Findings from both studies suggested that prison units were better placed to provide the right context for treatment delivery and with a lower ratio of staff to prisoners. Pathways out of the units were not well defined, and it was not clear how progress towards discharge was assessed. Good multi-disciplinary working was crucial to the success of the units. Good working relationships between staff and the treatment population helped reinforce the formal treatment provided. The units were successful in enabling the men to live well together, without resorting to institutional hierarchies, and irrespective of offending histories. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2011. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 4/11: Accessed October 25, 2011 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/early-years-dspd-programme-research-summary.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/early-years-dspd-programme-research-summary.pdf Shelf Number: 123143 Keywords: Correctional Treatment ProgramsInmates, Mental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.)PrisonersViolent Offenders |
Author: Khanom, Husnara Title: A Missed Opportunity? Community Sentences and the Mental Health Treatment Requirement Summary: The Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) is one of 12 options (‘requirements’) available to sentencers when constructing a Community Order or a Suspended Sentence Order. The MHTR can be given to an offender with mental health problems who does not require immediate compulsory hospital admission under the Mental Health Act. If they give their consent, the MHTR requires them to receive mental health treatment for a specified period. At least 40% of offenders on Community Orders are thought to have a diagnosable mental health problem. Yet there has been very little uptake of the MHTR in England and Wales since its introduction in 2005. Only 686 MHTRs commenced in the year to 30 June 2008 out of a total of 221,700 requirements issued with Community Orders across the country. This compares with 12,347 requirements for drug rehabilitation and 3,846 for alcohol treatment. This report is based on an exploratory research project; the first to examine the way in which the Mental Health Treatment Requirement is issued and the processes involved. We interviewed 56 professionals working in the courts, in probation and in health services about their experiences and knowledge of the MHTR. Appropriate use of the MHTR depends on probation officers, defence solicitors and psychiatrists all being both familiar with and confident in using it. Our interviews have indicated that this is far from being the case in practice. Many professionals lacked direct experience of the MHTR, and some were not aware of it at all. Court and probation professionals varied widely in their knowledge of mental health issues and their confidence in dealing with them. Many did not feel the courts should get involved in mental health issues. Professionals had varied views about the purpose of the MHTR. Some felt it should help offenders who had fallen out of touch with mental health services to get back into contact. Others thought this was inappropriate, or that the MHTR should only be considered where mental illness had led the person to commit the offence of which they had been convicted. The criteria for who should receive an MHTR were not clear to the professionals we interviewed. Many felt that the MHTR was not suitable for people with personality disorders or those with depression or anxiety. The biggest barrier to the creation of an MHTR is the need for a formal psychiatric report. These are subject to lengthy delays as well as difficulties with costs. Some psychiatric reports do not provide the offer of treatment from local mental health services that is vital for the creation of an MHTR. Once an MHTR has begun, the main concern among professionals is about how to determine when an offender has breached the requirement and how to manage this. Missed appointments were widely held to constitute a breach of the MHTR, but non-compliance with treatment was more contested. Many court professionals were concerned about the impact of making an MHTR more onerous if it was breached. The MHTR relies on good communication between the courts, probation and health services. Poor communication between health and probation services can hinder its effectiveness. Yet the court diversion and liaison teams that we encountered rarely played an active role in the operation of the MHTR. For offenders with a dual diagnosis of drug misuse and mental health problems, the courts were much more likely to make a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) than an MHTR. This is because they are more familiar with the DRR, it has a dedicated staff team and the process for making and managing a DRR is clearer. Despite the challenges presented by the MHTR, we conclude that it has unfulfilled potential to offer offenders with mental health problems a robust alternative to a short prison sentence. That potential can be harnessed through practical improvements to the way the MHTR works on the ground and through improved communication between health and criminal justice agencies. Our recommendations include: Central government should provide practical guidance for criminal justice and health professionals on how to construct and manage MHTRs. Primary care trusts should commission services that enable the courts to issue MHTRs. The National Offender Management Service should provide detailed information for probation officers on how to manage the MHTR. Protocols need to be developed between the courts, probation and health services to enable the appropriate use of the MHTR. Diversion and liaison schemes should be involved in the MHTR to organise timely psychiatric reports and make sentencing recommendations. Details: London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental health, 2009. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2012 at: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf Shelf Number: 113925 Keywords: Drug TreatmentMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.)Sentencing, Mentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Senior, Jane Title: Alternatives to Custody for People with Mental Health Problems Summary: Current government policy is working toward the reduction of short term custodial sentencing where suitable community alternatives exist which both suitably and appropriately punish offenders and reduce the likelihood of re-offending. The Offender Health Research Network was commissioned by Offender Health at the Department of Health to examine the impact of a potential change in sentencing practices in terms of health and criminal justice services‟ responses to people with mental health problems who are in contact with the criminal justice system, making recommendations for improving current service provision. We conclude that the Mental Health Treatment Requirement, available as part of the Community Order, has not been fully adopted by sentencers or mental health and criminal justice service professionals as a mechanism through which to better engage mentally ordered offenders with treatment services. The reasons for this are discussed and we suggest a number of adaptations to the current legislation and associated working practices which are designed to increase the uptake of, and benefits from, the Requirement. Details: Manchester, UK: Offender Health Research Network, Centre for Mental Health and Risk, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://www.networks.nhs.uk/nhs-networks/health-and-criminal-justice-liaison-and-diversion/documents/OHRN%20-%20Alternatives%20to%20Custody%20Report%20-%20Dec%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.networks.nhs.uk/nhs-networks/health-and-criminal-justice-liaison-and-diversion/documents/OHRN%20-%20Alternatives%20to%20Custody%20Report%20-%20Dec%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 125130 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Anderson, Sarah Title: Big Diversion Project Current State Analysis of Diversion Services in the North East Region – Final Report Summary: This report forms part of the North East’s Big Diversion Project. It outlines findings from an analysis of current regional provision of ‘diversion’ services for those with mental health problems or learning disabilities. As well as the six Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion (CJLD) in the region, the research also considered a range of other practice and provision for the identification and support of those with mental health problems or learning disabilities across the criminal justice pathway. Research involved interviews with regional stakeholders and national experts, focus groups, surveys and an analysis of documentary evidence and available data. Regional provision and key issues are mapped across the criminal justice pathway and overarching themes for service development were identified. CJLD services need to extend their coverage geographically, across the pathway and in terms of operational hours. They need to provide a broader response by opening up care pathways into a wider range of services. Courts need increased support and information from CJLD services to inform decision making. Responses to mental health crisis in the community require improvement through improved joint working between police and health agencies. There is poor awareness of service provision and referral pathways among a range of agencies. Data collection and monitoring requires significant improvement to inform service development. Finally, responses to learning disability, autism and related conditions need to be improved across the criminal justice pathway. The research also maps regional provision for service user involvement across a range of services that might be utilised in forthcoming work and a financial analysis of the potential impact of particular service changes is provided. Details: London: Revolving Doors Agency, 2012. 243p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2012 at: http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/documents/final-report-bdp/ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/documents/final-report-bdp/ Shelf Number: 125334 Keywords: Diversion from the Criminal Justice SystemLearning DisabilitiesMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Scott, Gael Title: The Mental Health Treatment Requirement: Realising a Better Future Summary: The Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) is one of twelve options available to magistrates and judges when they make a Community Order - a sentence served by an offender in the community. Given the prevalence of mental health problems within the criminal justice system, there has been a surprisingly low uptake of the MHTR to date - it represents fewer than 1% of all requirements made as part of Community Orders. The MHTR has unfulfilled potential to offer offenders with mental health problems the option of a sentence in the community which will enable them to engage with appropriate treatment and support. Wider use of the MHTR could result in improved health outcomes and reduced reoffending, cutting the costs of crime for the wider community. There have been a number of barriers to its effective use, including uncertainty as to who should receive an MHTR, how breaches of the order are managed and the need for a formal psychiatric report. Recent changes to the legal framework for the MHTR offer hope that it will become more flexible and therefore more effective as a form of diversion and rehabilitation. But there are concerns that the impact of other changes in policy and the current pressures on public spending may create further barriers to the effective use of the MHTR. This briefing examines these barriers and how they can be overcome. At a time where both the criminal justice and health systems are undergoing reform against a backdrop of significant cuts to public spending, the Criminal Justice Alliance and Centre for Mental Health believe now is an opportune time to raise the profile of the MHTR and consider how professionals can be supported to use the requirement effectively. Executive Summary This paper makes seven key recommendations to achieve this transition in the light of recent changes to health and criminal justice services. • The Government should develop clear guidance on the MHTR. • More training and information on mental health, including the MHTR, should be made available to criminal justice staff. Health professionals should also have more information on the MHTR and their role in delivering it. • For each local area, Her Majesty’s Court Service should work with the relevant mental health commissioners and service providers to establish an agreed protocol on the provision of mental health assessments and advice to the courts. • The Government should monitor levels of uptake of the MHTR. • Liaison and diversion schemes in courts should provide information to the courts for sentencing and support criminal justice professionals in responding appropriately to individuals with mental health problems. • Health and Wellbeing Boards and Clinical Commissioning Groups must consider how local commissioning plans will meet the mental health and other related needs of offenders. • There should be investment in research focusing on the mental health needs of offenders serving community sentences and how such individuals can be supported to reduce offending and improve their mental health. Details: London: Centre for Mental Health and Criminal Justice Alliance, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/MHTR_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/MHTR_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 127445 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Revolving Doors Agency Title: Inside Hope: Mental Health Projects in the Criminal Justice System Summary: In 2009, the Trusthouse Charitable Foundation funded ten projects across the UK under its themed grant programme of mental health projects in the criminal justice system. In 2011 Revolving Doors Agency1 was commissioned to undertake research with the beneficiaries of five of the projects - to extract learning from those projects and increase understanding of the dynamic between common mental health problems, social exclusion and offending through first-hand accounts. As a result of this work, we are able to deepen our knowledge of how activities focused on improving mental health may have a wide range of positive outcomes for participants. The five projects examined were: - Throughcare Project run by HOPE, Glasgow - Outlook Project run by New Pathways in Merthyr Tydfil - Bridge the Gap Project run by Plymouth and District Mind, Channings Wood Prison - Community Link Project run by Wish, London and Essex - Get into Reading Project run by the Reader Organisation, Greater Manchester. The research entailed six key strands of work that supported the successful completion of peer researcher interviewing across the five projects: - Peer researcher interview skills training - Visits and information gathering from the projects - Collection of questionnaire responses from project beneficiaries - Focus groups with project beneficiaries - Individual interviews with project beneficiaries - Peer researcher supervision and collection of feedback. Details: London: Revolving Doors Agency, 2013. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2013 at: http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/documents/hope-inside/ Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 131500 Keywords: Mental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Coles, Deborah Title: Deaths in Mental Health Detention: An investigation framework fit for purpose? Summary: INQUEST is the only charity working directly with the families of those who die in state detention and has a unique overview of the investigation and inquest process. For over 30 years INQUEST has drawn attention to the lack of public information about the number and circumstances of deaths in mental health settings and the closed nature of the investigation process. This is not a new problem but one largely hidden from public scrutiny, and the absence of transparency and accountability is a major cause for concern. INQUEST provides advice and assistance to an increasing number of bereaved families whose relatives have died in mental health detention and who are concerned about the treatment and care of the deceased and the lack of rigour of subsequent investigations and inquests. This report collates statistics, evidence and individual stories from INQUEST's monitoring, casework, research and policy work. It documents concerns about the lack of a properly-independent investigation system and the consistent failure by most NHS Trusts to ensure the involvement of families in investigations. Ultimately, it highlights the lack of effective public scrutiny of deaths in mental health detention that frustrate the ability of NHS organisations to learn and enact fundamental changes to policy and practice to protect mental health in-patients and prevent further fatalities. The report identifies three key themes: 1. The number of deaths and issues relating to their reporting and monitoring. 2. The lack of an independent system of pre-inquest investigation as compared to other deaths in detention. 3. The lack of a robust mechanism for ensuring post-death accountability and learning. Details: London: INQUEST, 2015. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2015 at: http://inquest.gn.apc.org/pdf/reports/INQUEST_deaths_in_mental_health_detention_Feb_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://inquest.gn.apc.org/pdf/reports/INQUEST_deaths_in_mental_health_detention_Feb_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 134643 Keywords: Deaths in CustodyMental HealthMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.) |