https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856217711052 Australasian Psychiatry 2017, Vol 25(6) 609–613 © The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1039856217711052 journals.sagepub.com/home/apy 609 AUSTRALASIAN PSYCHIATRY M ental health Court Liaison Services (CLSs) emerged in Australia in the late 1990s to iden- tify mentally ill individuals at the post-charge, pre-sentence stage of the criminal justice pathway. Their key function is the timely provision of mental health assessments and court reports to support judicial deter- minations. They aim to reduce delays in court proceed- ings, to minimise remands in custody 1 and provide advice regarding mental health diversion options. The early identification and provision of care to men- tally ill people coming into contact with the criminal justice system is supported in national mental health policy, 2 however, there is limited research into how these services should be delivered and what models are effective. A recent national survey of CLSs 3 indicated that while there are differences among jurisdictions (e.g. size of service, geographic coverage, legislation for diver- sion), the aims and basic functions of each service are comparable. Given this, it becomes feasible to compare service performance of CLSs through a benchmarking process. For benchmarking to occur, key performance indicators (KPIs) need to be agreed by service providers. Why measure the performance of CLSs? The use of reliable and valid performance measures ena- bles services to determine whether their processes are working well. Increasingly there is an expectation that publicly funded services are efficient and accountable and the development and dissemination of performance measures can assist in communicating progress towards organisational goals. 4 Key performance indicators for Australian mental health court liaison services Fiona Davidson University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, and; Queensland Forensic Mental Health Service, Brisbane, QLD, and; NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Offender Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Ed Heffernan University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, and; Queensland Forensic Mental Health Service, Brisbane, QLD, and; NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Offender Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia David Greenberg NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Offender Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, and; Justice and Forensic Mental Health Network, State-wide Clinical Court Liaison Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia Tony Butler NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Offender Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Philip Burgess University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Abstract Objectives: The aim of this paper is to describe the development and technical specifications of a framework and national key performance indicators (KPIs) for Australian mental health Court Liaison Services (CLSs) by the National Mental Health Court Liaison Performance Working Group (Working Group). Methods: Representatives from each Australian State and Territory were invited to form a Working Group. Through a series of national workshops and meetings, a framework and set of performance indicators were developed using a review of literature and expert opinion. Results: A total of six KPIs for CLSs have been identified and a set of technical specifications have been formed. Conclusions: This paper describes the process and outcomes of a national collaboration to develop a framework and KPIs. The measures have been developed to support future benchmarking activities and to assist services to identify best practice in this area of mental health service delivery. Keywords: performance indicator, court liaison, diversion, benchmarking Corresponding author: Fiona Davidson, Queensland Forensic Mental Health Service, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Email: fiona.davidson@health.qld.gov.au 711052APY 0 0 10.1177/1039856217711052Australasian PsychiatryDavidson et al. research-article 2017 Forensic psychiatry