Offender health and social care: a review of the evidence on inter-agency collaboration

Abstract

The involvement of health and social care agencies in crime reduction partnerships remains key to government strategy despite a growing awareness of the equivocal outcomes of inter-agency working in other settings. This paper reports findings from a literature review designed to assess the extent to which existing crime reduction partnerships have been able to overcome the barriers to joint working. The review focuses in particular on Drug (and Alcohol) Action Teams (D(A)ATs), Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), Multi-Agency Public Protection-Arrangements (MAPPAs) and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). A comprehensive review of published and unpublished literature suggests that these bodies have experienced similar difficulties to those highlighted in the broader partnership literature. The review further suggests that differences in ethical and professional outlook may be the most critical of these barriers as well as being the least explicitly addressed by recent government interventions. More work is required to build a consensus regarding the ethical underpinnings and fundamental objectives of partnerships across the care-control divide.

MAPPA and mental health — 10 years of controversy

“…A comprehensive review of the evidence on interagency collaborations in offender health and social care, including MAPPA, introduced by successive Labour administrations since 1997, revealed that although this subject area is awash with literature in the form of government policy, opinion and national evaluations, there is little independent research and systematic review. 4 The current evidence available confirms the presence of continued structural, procedural and cultural barriers that impede effective partnership working in interagency collaborations aimed at crime reduction. Key difficulties include conflicting targets imposed by individual agencies, and divergent ethical and professional values of the different agencies involved across the care control divide.…”

Individriktad brottsprevention : om SSPF och viljan att samverka

“…Även i andra länder i väst, särskilt i Storbritannien, har forum och modeller för samverkan med syfte att minska brottsligheten växt fram. Detta sker utifrån övertygelsen om vinsterna med interprofessionellt samarbete, men också utifrån att krympande resurser och specialisering inom välfärdssektorn kräver fler "händer" och kompetenser för att nå framgång (Danermark & Kullberg 1999, Forkby & Larsen 2005, Williams 2009, Lindberg 2009.…”

“…Detta gäller även för de samverkansformer som växt fram i brottsförebyggande syfte. Här betonas ofta även etiska problem som uppstår när information ska utbytas mellan samverkansaktörerna och man lyfter också fram de överlag ganska stora skillnader mellan professioner som gäller kultur, etik och ibland även hur av partnerskap och samverkan definieras av de olika aktörerna (Williams 2009). …”

“…Såväl nationella som lokala program tas fram och samverkan mellan kommun och polis betonas som framgångskoncept (Forkby & Larsen 2005, Edvall Malm 2012, Williams 2009, Kelly 2012. Samverkansavtalen mellan kommun och polis har i Sverige bidragit till att nyare modeller för samverkan mellan parterna också på individnivå provas runt om i landet.…”

Who decides? The decision-making process of juvenile judges concerning minors with mental disorders

“…A possible solution is that clear agreements are set down concerning what information can be exchanged between the two partners when a minor is admitted to a mental health service, as has been mentioned in previous research (Darlington et al, 2005;Lane & Turner, 1999). Certain conditions are required to facilitate this information exchange: establishing clear written protocols (Darlington et al, 2005;Lane & Turner, 1999); organising joint case conferences (Darlington & Feeney, 2008); shared information systems (Chuang & Wells, 2010); and negotiated professional values (Williams, 2009). However, since the different actors saw youth psychiatrists as being in an advisory role to the juvenile judge, more is needed than simply agreements on information exchange.…”