全球智库信息集成服务系统

• L&D services succeeded in engaging people with a broad range of vulnerabilities.
• L&D services appear to intervene at a point of crisis.
• L&D services appear to increase diversion from custodial sentences.
• The interventions offered, and their uptake, varies by individual and by L&D site, and range from advice and brief interventions, to primary care referral, to detention for psychiatric assessment.
• Following L&D referral, there is a short-term increase in referral to mental health services.
• Drug and alcohol treatment referral and attendance may increase following L&D referral.
• Referral to L&D services does not appear to reduce offending.
• Court processes are not significantly affected by L&D services.
• The L&D programme contributes to savings in the criminal justice system between £13.1 million and £41.5 million through diversion from custody and consequent increases in productivity.

Liaison and Diversion (L&D) services identify and support people in the criminal justice system who have vulnerabilities such as mental and physical health issues and learning disabilities.

RAND's evaluation of the National Model for L&D was conducted at 27 sites in England using a novel, linked data set combining national level administrative data from both the healthcare and criminal justice sectors.

This evaluation examined the impact of the National Model for L&D on health service utilisation, reconviction, diversion from the criminal justice system and timeliness of court processes, as well as the economic effects of identified impacts.

Analyses conducted across the data sources consistently showed that L&D services are successfully engaging with a group of service users with a broad range of vulnerabilities, often at a time of acute crisis when they are most in need of support. The strongest effect appeared to be an increase in diversion from custodial sentences, although L&D services may also increase referrals to mental health and drug and alcohol treatment services.

There was no evidence of an impact on offending, but also no evidence that outcomes became worse due to L&D referral.

• Chapter One

  Evaluation context

• Chapter Two

  The methodological approach for the evaluation of the National Model for L&D

• Chapter Three

  Characteristics of people referred to L&D and of the evaluation cohort

• Chapter Four

  Accident & Emergency care utilisation

• Chapter Five

  Use of specialist mental health services

• Chapter Six

  Use of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies

• Chapter Seven

  Use of drug and alcohol treatment services

• Chapter Eight

  Offending

• Chapter Nine

  Diversion from the CJS

• Chapter Ten

  Court timeliness

• Chapter Eleven

  Summary of economic evaluation of the National Model for L&D

• Chapter Twelve

  References

• Annex A

  Implementation of the evaluation

• Annex B

  Data linkage and matching

• Annex C

  Development of the counterfactual

• Annex D

  L&D Programme minimum data set analyses

• Annex E

  Variation in evaluation outcomes between L&D sites

• Annex F

  Additional secondary analyses

• Annex G

  Team leader interview interviews

• Annex H

  Complete economic analysis

• Annex I

  Approvals and consent