Probation, mental health, and mandated treatment: A national survey

A large number of probationers with mental illness (PMIs) are under supervision in the United States. In this national survey, we compared the supervision approaches of a matched sample of 66 specialty mental health and 25 traditional probation agencies. The prototypic specialty agency has five key features that distinguish it from the traditional model: (a) exclusive mental health caseloads, (b) meaningfully reduced caseloads, (c) sustained officer training, (d) active integration of internal and external resources to meet PMIs'needs, and (e) problem-solving strategies as the chief means for addressing treatment noncompliance. Probation supervisors perceived these specialty features as "very useful" and perceived specialty agencies as more effective than traditional ones for PMIs. However, the most important feature of the prototypic specialty agency may also be the most endangered: reduced caseloads. Implications for research and practice are presented

Mentally Disordered Offenders Under Community Supervision

Offenders with serious mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, major depression) are overrepresented in criminal justice settings. Most offenders – both with and without mental illness – are not incarcerated but instead are supervised in the community on probation and parole. Offenders with serious mental illness are more likely to fail on community supervision than their relatively healthy counterparts. With a focus on community supervision in North America, this entry distills research on (1) explanations for why offenders with mental illness are at increased risk for supervision failure and (2) promising- and evidence-based practices for reducing this risk

Comparing the predictive utility of two screening tools for mental disorder among probationers

To increase the likelihood that probationers with serious mental disorder can be identified by probation agencies, we tested the utility of two promising mental health screening tools, the K6 and the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen (BJMHS), in identifying probationers with DSM-IV Axis I mental disorders. In this study, 4,670 probationers completed the screening tools as part of routine intake procedures at a probation agency. We interviewed a subset of 149 probationers using a structured clinical interview to determine whether they met criteria for an Axis I anxiety, mood, or psychotic disorder at any point during their lifetimes. The BJMHS correctly identified 77% of probationers with mental disorder overall, and contrary to our hypotheses, the measure was as sensitive with women as it was with men. Adding items assessing posttraumatic stress disorder provided some incremental utility to the measure. The K6 demonstrated similar levels of sensitivity to the BJMHS when using a lower cutoff score informed by prior research with offenders. Contrary to prior research, we found that the BJMHS was sensitive to mental disorder among female probationers. We suggest that probation agencies implement either the BJMHS or the K6 as part of their intake procedures to identify probationers with serious mental disorder so the complex needs of this group can be better addressed

Offenders with mental disorder have criminogenic needs, too: Toward recidivism reduction.

Many programs for offenders with mental illness (OMIs) seem to assume that serious mental illness directly causes criminal justice involvement. To help evaluate this assumption, we assessed a matched sample of 221 parolees with and without mental illness and then followed them for over 1 year to track recidivism. First, compared with their relatively healthy counterparts, OMIs were equally likely to be rearrested, but were more likely to return to prison custody. Second, beyond risk factors unique to mental illness (e.g., acute symptoms; operationalized with part of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), OMIs also had significantly more general risk factors for recidivism (e.g., antisocial pattern; operationalized with the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004) than offenders without mental illness. Third, these general risk factors significantly predicted recidivism, with no incremental utility added by risk factors unique to mental illness. Implications for broadening the policy model to explicitly target general risk factors for recidivism such as antisocial traits are discussed