Risk, Response, and Mental Health Policy: Learning from the Experience of the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy makers in the United States and the United Kingdom recognize that mentally disordered offenders present special challenges to law enforcement, mental health, and social service systems, as well as the community. Although various policy initiatives have advanced over the past twenty years to improve the management of mentally disordered offenders, mental health policy has chronically failed in both countries. Because safety concerns have emerged as the mental health system has been "deinstitutionalized," debate is growing about whether the community-care approach works-for the community. This study argues that mental health policy fails because policy makers focus on the wrong risks and design policies that manage these risks in ways that increase the possibility of adverse clinical and economic outcomes. The argument made here uses the case of persons with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom as an example of the complex relationship between risk and policy making in democratic governance. Emphasis is on the nature of risk in mental health policy and how government responds to policy and political risks. Mental health policy in Britain is then analyzed in terms of its response to and management of risks. Mental health policy has historically mismanaged the risk issue in the United Kingdom and as such has set in motion the growing community-care backlash. The path to a better outcome lies in the responsible management of the right risks. Lessons from the United Kingdom experience can be usefully applied to mental health issues in many industrial democracies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".