The Bradley Report

Roland Woodward, director of forensic services at Affinity Healthcare, this month looks at the release of The Bradley Report, published by the Government on April 30.

The Bradley Report explores mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system (CJS). With it, the Government published its response to the report.
This report has been eagerly awaited by all of the providers and watchers of mental health services to the CJS, as for many years now there has been a consensus that the way the mentally ill and those with learning difficulties are provided for in the CJS is unsatisfactory. It has been a common belief that both the reconviction rate and the costs of care could be reduced by more effective assessment and diversion at all stages of the criminal process. It was hoped by many that The Bradley Report would reinforce this view and point the way to achieving this. Were we disappointed?
As with all these types of reports there is a wish that our hopes will be fulfilled and money will be found to produce the ideal solution. There is always the desire that the author of the report will come up with a stroke of genius and present us with a solution of dazzling creativity, insight and wisdom. This rarely happens and so what we get is a reasonable, rational and pragmatic appraisal of the situation and solutions, that acknowledge the constraints of the world as it really is. In The Bradley Report we have a direction of travel which will move the system in a positive way over time without anything spectacular happening.
The key to this report’s future is in the Government’s response to it, which states specifically: “Given the current economic climate, there is a strong possibility that no new resources will be available for this work and existing resources may need to be reprioritised.”

Financial constraints
In essence, Bradley has made recommendations, which acknowledge the financial constraints and set out a plan that can be staged over time as new structures and reviews are put into place or completed.
Bradley sees the crucial first step as the setting up of the new National Programme Board (NPB) to develop a clear national approach to mental health/learning disability for offenders. This new body is to bring together the relevant government departments covering health, social care and criminal justice. The NPB is to be in place by the end of May and to publish its delivery plans by October 30. In order to assist it, a new advisory group to the NPB is to be set up. This advisory group is to provide evidenced-based advice to ministers and the board, to provide challenge to the development and progress of the work programme and to highlight examples of good practice, while commissioning in-depth studies of areas of particular interest.
The Government has accepted these first steps and is in the process of completing them. What follows on from this will be the working through of the rest of the Bradley recommendations according to the action plan that the NPB publishes. In essence, we have a new structure to guide the overall coordination of the existing agencies and service providers out of which it is hoped enough savings emerge, coupled with greater efficiency to provide better services.

Early intervention
What of the police? Section 2 of the report, ‘Early intervention, arrest and prosecution’, is the section in which the police role is reviewed and recommendations made. There are good practice examples of early diversion, for example the Islington Neighborhood Link worker pilot scheme and the Rainer Rapid Action Project run by Essex Police. The major issue seems to be the provision of good early assessment of mental health and learning disability state. The cost/benefits analysis of providing a triage and assessment process across all 43 police forces calculated that the cost would be between £3-£9 million depending on the level of assessment.
The one recommendation in this section th