Mental health and policing interventions: implementation and impact
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-10-2017-0046 |
| Published date | 11 June 2018 |
| Pages | 86-93 |
| Date | 11 June 2018 |
| Author | Eddie Kane,Emily Evans |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health |
Mental health and policing interventions:
implementation and impact
Eddie Kane and Emily Evans
Abstract
Purpose –Interactions between individuals experiencing mental health (MH) problems and the police are
complex and may affect the way in which both parties react to and experience the interactions. The purpose
of this paper is to examine three commonly used interventions to improve these interactions.
Design/methodology/approach –Mixed methods were used to examine embedded MH professionals in
commandand control rooms,Liaison and DiversionTeams andStreet Triage. Theauthors also reviewedthe use
of Section136 (s136) ofthe Mental Health Act1983 (2007) duringthe period theseinterventions weredeployed.
Findings –There was strong support for these interventions but also gaps, resource and operational issues that
need to be addressed if they are to have optimal effect on delivering appropriate diversion from the justice system,
reduce reoffending and improve MH outcomes for individuals. The use of s136 remained relatively constant.
Originality/value –Despite a recent increase in the level of investment related to these interventions the
evidence base remainslimited. This study provides baseline of research evidence for those whocommission
and provideservices for individualsexperiencing mentalill health and who are in contactwith the justice system.
Keywords Policing, Liaison and Diversion, Embedded staff, Section 136, Street Triage
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Police officers’encounters with people experiencing mental health (MH) problems can be particularly
challenging for both parties. For the police, these encounters: often take much more time than other
calls for service, require officers to have specific training and skills, and may depend on the availability
of community MH resources for successful outcomes. They also typically involve repeat contacts
with the same individuals who have unresolved MH needs, are mostly in response to a person with
mental illness committing a minor or “nuisance”offence and occasionally involve volatile situations,
risking the safety of all involved (Reuland et al., 2012). They may also require the use of police powers
under Section 136 (s136) Mental Health Act (MHA); this section gives the police the power to remove
a person from a public place, when they appear to be suffering from a mental disorder, to a place of
safety. The person will be deemed by the police to be in immediate need of care and control astheir
behaviour is of concern. It is important to point out that a person is not under arrest when the
decision is made to remove the person to a place of safety. The police power is to facilitate
assessment of their health and wellbeing as well as the safety of other people around them.
For many people with MH issues, these encounters are influenced by having previously had a
negative experience with the police or fear of being blamed or not believed because they have
MH problems. Individuals may also fear being sectioned under the MHA (Pettitt et al., 2013).
The police frequently fulfil the role of gatekeeper for those experiencing MH problems. Some
studies havefound that criminalisation mayresult if this policing role is notperformed appropriately
(Lamb and Weinberger, 2002). In other studies, mentally disordered suspects were found to be
significantly less likely to be arrested compared to non-mentally disordered suspects once other
factors known to affect officer decision making were simultaneously controlled for (Novak and
Engel, 2005). This finding is consistent with an earlier study (Engel et al.,2000).Morerecent
research has shownthat police interventions involving individuals withmental illness suspected of
Received 16 October 2017
Revised 7 February 2018
28 March 2018
Accepted 29 March 2018
This study was funded through a
grant from the Police Knowledge
Fund (HEFCE, College of Policing
and Home Office) award number:
RR4809. The funders of this study
had no role in the study design;
the collection, analysis and
interpretation of data; the writing of
the report; and the decision to
submit the paper for publication.
The corresponding author confirms
that he had full access to all the
data in the study and had final
responsibility for the decision to
submit for publication.
Eddie Kane is a Professor
Director at the Centre for
Health and Justice,
University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK.
Emily Evans is based at
the School of Medicine,
University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK.
PAG E 86
j
MENTALHEALTH REVIEW JOURNAL
j
VOL. 23 NO. 2 2018, pp. 86-93, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1361-9322 DOI 10.1108/MHRJ-10-2017-0046
To continue reading
Request your trial