Police use of Out of Court Disposals to Support Adults with Health Vulnerabilities Final Report

By Lucy Strang, Jack Cattell, Eddie Kane, Emma Disley, Brenda Gonzalez-Ginocchio, Alex Hetherington, Sophia Hasapopoulos, Emma Zürcher  

Background to the Report RAND Europe, in partnership with Get the Data and Skills for Justice, was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in 2021 to conduct a study funded by the Shared Outcomes Fund on how police in England and Wales use options to resolve cases out of court to support adults (aged 18 or over) with health-related vulnerabilities.1 Following legislative reforms, a ‘two-tier plus’ framework for Out of Court Disposals (OOCDs; or Out of Court Resolutions2) is due to come into force nationally. This new framework consolidates the current statutory disposals into two primary options: Diversionary Caution and Community Caution. In advance of the implementation of the framework, this study aimed to provide an overview of how different police forces use OOCDs; to improve the use of OOCDs with conditions attached that address mental health and other health-related vulnerabilities; and to produce the foundations of practice change and improve the data collection methods to monitor their use and enable potential further research to explore their effectiveness. The study took place in three phases: • In Phase 1, the research team captured the current use of OOCD conditions to support adults with health vulnerabilities and relevant services available locally for each of the 37 police force areas in England and Wales participating in this study, including identifying any local gaps in service provision. • In Phase 2, the research team explored in greater depth how health vulnerabilities are identified, relevant conditions set, and progress is monitored, as well as perceptions of the effectiveness of the conditions set in a sample of seven police forces. • In Phase 3, the research team worked with seven3 police forces on a more detailed follow-up to co-produce the foundations of practice change, developing improved operational practice around the use of OOCDs, and creating supportive guidance, tools and training to enable effective application of OOCDs with health related conditions. In addition, the research team worked with these forces to improve data collection on the use of OOCDs with conditions attached to enable potential longer-term analytical work to isolate the short, medium- and long-term impacts of individual interventions on reoffending. This Report presents findings from all three Phases of this study. It is intended to be useful and relevant for frontline and operational police officers, service providers and policy stakeholders. 1.2 Key findings from this study Force-level approaches to OOCDs • Just over half (19) of the participating forces were using a two-tier OOCD model in March 2022, with a further 13 forces reported to be introducing two-tier in 2022 or working towards introducing it in 2023. • The OOCD processes and protocols used varied a great deal between forces and work with the case study forces identified significant missed OOCD opportunities, even in forces which had high levels of OOCD usage. • Across 37 forces, 189 services were identified that could be attached as conditions to OOCDs, with substance misuse and mental health services the most commonly available to be attached to OOCDs. • Nevertheless, most force areas reported that the local provision of mental health-related services generally was not sufficient for the needs of vulnerable offenders with OOCDs. • A range of funding models for available services were identified, the most common of which were police-funded, externally funded (for example, by local authorities) and offender-funded. • Of the forces that reported engaging with service providers as part of their OOCD process, relationships with service providers were generally maintained through some form of regular contact. • The training of police officers and staff on OOCDs, particularly in relation to conducting vulnerability assessments, was generally conducted on an ad hoc basis and was not available as a structured programme for most police forces, with staff turnover and inexperienced officers identified as key challenges. • Disproportionality in who received OOCDs was identified as a concern by some OOCD stakeholders. • Force use of OOCD scrutiny panels, which independently review anonymised cases, varied greatly across forces. Frontline approaches to OOCDs • Three levels of decision-makers at key OOCD decision gateways – the officer in charge (OIC), their supervisor and the force OOCD management and support functions – were identified. • Most police forces did not have a force-wide policy requiring a health vulnerability screening and assessment during the OOCD decision-making process and the use of a tool to assess health vulnerabilities was a well established process in only a minority of forces, usually those with a dedicated OOCD team. • The majority of forces were still reliant on frontline officers and their supervisors to make decisions regarding OOCD condition setting and deciding on any supportive interventions. • The most effective OOCD management processes and outcomes were found in those with a dedicated team. • The responsibility for monitoring compliance varied significantly between forces, with some assigning it, for example, to a dedicated OOCD team, and others to the OIC or an OOCD caseworker. 5 experiment and process evaluation would offer the most rigorous findings in the current context. 1.3 Reflections and implications Overall, findings from the study indicate that there is significant variation across forces in England and Wales in their OOCD processes and in how well-developed and well-established these processes are. At the force level, it appeared that OOCDs were underused in many forces; across the 31 forces that shared information on outcomes given to offenders in 2021, on average only 8% of all offenders were given an OOCD, but this varied substantially between forces. Furthermore, significant gaps were identified across most force areas in the availability of interventions to meet the needs of vulnerable offenders. Furthermore, limited provision of training on OOCD use, staff turnover, high proportions of inexperienced officers, and the disproportionality in who receives OOCDs were identified as significant force-level challenges to making the best use of OOCDs to support adults with health vulnerabilities. At the frontline operational level, limited use of vulnerability assessments in the OOCD process and limited input from Liaison and Diversion (L&D) services were also widely reported. In relation to offender engagement and compliance with conditions, there is a lack of meaningful data available which creates challenges in understanding the effectiveness of their use. Overall, the existence of a dedicated OOCD team or independent entity was associated with strong and consistently applied OOCD processes. While most interventions identified in this study have not been rigorously evaluated, broader evidence from the UK and abroad suggests that OOCDs can address health vulnerabilities and reduce reoffending. In Section 5, we discuss how relevant data can be collated to facilitate the management, monitoring, and evaluation of OOCDs. Based on these reflections, our Phase 3 work produced a series of practice guides and tools to support forces to develop and maintain good practice in using OOCDs to support adults with health vulnerabilities. These guides and tools, listed below, are referred and linked to where appropriate throughout this report.    • Health Vulnerability Assessment Guide: to support forces in identifying the health vulnerability assessment process and enabling better decision-making throughout. This guide also includes good practice examples for working with Liaison and Diversion. • Quality Assurance Guide: discussing how forces can procure in a way that facilitates a good evidence base. • Auditing Missed Opportunities Guide: provides forces with a simple methodology for auditing OOCD decisions to identify learning. • Data collection tool prototype: to support forces in gathering and using OOCD data. In addition, the study team developed OOCD training resources for forces to support relevant officers and decision makers on setting conditions to OOCDs to address health vulnerabilities, and to support higher level decision makers on implementing OOCD processes. Implications Sections 3, 4 and 5 conclude with a series of implications for OOCD practitioners and stakeholders in light of the implementation of the statutory two-tier plus framework in 2023. At the force level (Section 3), these implications are: • Each force should review their current processes and protocols to ensure significant opportunities to use OOCDs for those with health vulnerabilities are not being missed. This could include offence type audits and more detailed scrutiny of cases given OOCD and equivalent cases where they were not. A guide developed as part of this study is available (see the Rand website). • Forces should analyse data on local needs to identify any gaps in service provision, and work with service providers to address these gaps. • Forces should build service provision for OOCDs and their relationships with service providers by piloting and scaling up services in response to identified local need (and informed by robust evidence of effectiveness – see Section 5 below (see the Rand website). • Where possible, forces should seek to identify and utilise service providers with stable sources of funding to help ensure resilience in service provision. This may mean that some services are funded by the police to provide this stability. Furthermore, reducing offender-pays services can remove some barriers to compliance. • Forces should establish consistent and standardised modes of communication with service providers, including on compliance with and breaches of conditions. This may be easier with a dedicated OOCD team. • Forces should facilitate good information sharing by integrating service providers into police IT systems (in compliance with relevant data protection regulations.) • Each force should review their current training arrangements to ensure all those involved in OOCD decision-making are suitably trained in this area. Forces can consider adopting/adapting the training model outlined in this guidance (see the Rand website). • Each force should review its current use of OOCD attached services aimed at those with health vulnerabilities to ensure that their current practice is not resulting in disproportionality in the use of OOCDs or discriminating against some individuals, groups or communities. • Each force should review their current adult OOCD scrutiny arrangements to ensure that their overall oversight and accountability mechanisms for OOCDs are more consistent and comprehensive, as well as able to address wider issues of disproportionality. At the frontline operational level (Section 4), these implications are: • Each force (where not already in place) should review its position on having a dedicated OOCD team and develop options to put one in place. • Each force should review their current approach to screening for and assessing health vulnerabilities as part of the OOCD decision making process including links to L&D or equivalent services in all relevant settings including for Voluntary Attendance. The research team has developed a guide on working with L&D for OOCDs (see the Rand website).  ....continued.....

London: UK Ministry of Justice, 2024. 150p.