Unit III Literature Review

© 2020 The Follmer Group, Best Practices in Mental Health, Vol. 16, No. 2, Fall 2020

Mental health issues among marginalized populations such as persons with criminal charges and convictions have been considered a critical barrier for successful reintegra- tion. To address mental health issues of people behind bars, U.S. society experienced a three-phase conceptual shift: deinstitutionalization, criminalization, and decriminaliza- tion. As decriminalization is emphasized as a main response to justice-involved people with mental disorders, the models and programs helping those populations are gradu- ally following this precept. The result is that contemporary models are intersections between criminal justice and mental health systems. This article aims to shed light on what historical factors have influenced proposed solutions, distinguish these solutions in terms of their historical context, and describe contemporary models and associated programs for such marginalized groups with mental disorders. This article will also try to explain the theoretical frameworks or perspectives that are embedded in each pro- gram.

Keywords: criminal justice models, criminalization, decriminalization, deinstitutional- ization, jail diversion, mental health, mental health courts, specialty mental health pro- bation

Currently, more than 2.3 million people are incarcerated in prisons and jails in the United States (Frank et al., 2014). More than 600,000 people are released from prison every year, which means that approximately 1,600 people released from prison go back to their communities every day (Petersilia, 2003). A recidivism study reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics following the five years after the release of incarcerated individuals from 2005 to 2010 indicated that approxi- mately 76.6 percent of incarcerated individuals released from prisons were rear- rested (James, 2015). In the prison setting, 15 percent of incarcerated men and 31

Mental Health Policy for Justice-Involved Persons: Exploring History, Perspectives, and Models in the United States

Lewis H. Lee and Daphne S. Cain

Lewis H. Lee, PhD, MSW, is assistant professor in the School of Social Work, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Daphne S. Cain, PhD, LCSW, is professor and associate dean of Administrative Services, University of Alabama.

56 Best Practices in Mental Health

percent of incarcerated women are estimated to have a severe mental illness (Fisher, Roy-Bujnowski, et al., 2006; Steadman et al., 2009). Because incarcera- tion often aggravates symptoms of mental illness (Douglas et al., 2009), large pop- ulations of justice-involved persons suffer from mental illnesses (Frounfelker et al., 2011; Matejkowski et al., 2014).

As a result of incarceration, many people reenter communities with more severe mental illnesses than when they were incarcerated (Kinner et al., 2014). In the community setting, for instance, formerly incarcerated persons comprise 45 percent of new clients who visit outpatient mental health agencies (Theriot & Segal, 2005). Mental health issues among justice-involved people may be a criti- cal barrier for successful reintegration (Kinner et al., 2014). Therefore, improving the utilization of mental health services for justice-involved persons with psychi- atric disorders is a possible method to prevent or reduce their involvement in the criminal justice system (Shinkfield & Graffam, 2009).

The value of utilization of mental health services for justice-involved people is straightforward. To increase the use of mental health services among incarcerat- ed individuals with mental illness, the World Health Organization and International Committee of the Red Cross (2005) provide the following relevant principles:

1. People with mental disorders should be diverted to the mental health sys- tem, indicating that mental health policy should allow justice-involved per- sons with mental illness to receive treatment outside of prisons, such as in general hospital psychiatric facilities, at all stages within the criminal jus- tice system

2. Incarcerated individuals should be provided access to appropriate mental health treatment and care, meaning that general health services should include access to the assessment, treatment, and referral process

3. Access to acute mental health care in psychiatric clinic facilities should be provided so that incarcerated individuals with acute care needs can be tem- porarily transferred to appropriate treatment facilities

4. Psychosocial support and adequate prescriptions should be available to incarcerated individuals, indicating that they should have equal rights of access to psychotropic medication and psychosocial support for treatment that will improve their mental health status

These principles are embedded, but imperfectly, in contemporary programs for justice-involved persons with psychiatric disorders. Developed from different theo- retical models, these contemporary programs can be divided into two approaches: criminal justice models and mental health models (Skeem et al., 2011). As Longest (2010) explained, every policy has its own theory or hypothesis. Thus, understanding theories results in better comprehension of programs or services implemented by policies. Within this justification, the main purpose of the current conceptual article is to explore theoretical models reflected in programs for justice-

Mental Health Policy for Justice-Involved Persons 57

involved persons with mental illness as well as to describe contemporary programs in the context of criminal justice and mental health models. In the following sec- tion, this article will briefly review the history and perspectives surrounding men- tal health services mandated by health policy in the United States.

Brief History of American Mental Health in the Criminal Justice System

Colonial Period

According to the historical framework provided by Torrey and colleagues (2014), prisons and jails were a common way to incarcerate mentally disordered people, called madmen, during the colonial era. The first legislation addressing the neces- sity of confining persons with mental disorders in jail was passed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1694. This confinement was fee-for-service based; towns or family members of persons with mental disorders paid a fee to the jail administrator for confinement. This confinement practice was criticized as the prison reform movement gradually emerged from the mid to late 1700s. At that time, reformers sought humane methods for dealing with incarcerated individuals instead of practicing corporal or capital punishment (Burke & Tonry, 2006). Within criminal justice system reform, confining people with mental disorders to jail was seen as inhumane, and the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia was established in 1752 to respond to such sentiments. The hospital became the first psychiatric institution in the nation to which mentally disordered people were able to be admitted (Torrey et al., 2014).

1820 to 1970

Sentiments claiming that confinement to jail was inhumane and uncivilized con- tinued after the United States was established. Those sentiments intensified in the 1820s under the leadership of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, founded in 1825 (Torrey et al., 2014). Thanks to the advocacy efforts made by this organiza- tion, American society began to have a particular interest in improving hospitals for incarcerated individuals with mental illness, as well as prison and jail condi- tions more generally. The reform movement revealed that large numbers of per- sons with mental disorders were confined in degrading circumstances. For instance, in 1827 the Massachusetts legislature appointed Louis Dwight, a founder of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, as a committee member to inves- tigate conditions in the state’s jails. That committee recommended that the con- finement of mentally ill persons in prisons and jails be made illegal. That recom- mendation led Massachusetts to approve the construction of a state psychiatric hospital for 120 patients in Worcester in 1830. As soon as the hospital opened in 1833, more than half of the admissions during the first year were transfers from jails, prisons, and almshouses (Torrey et al., 2014).

Another pioneering reform effort was initiated by schoolteacher Dorothea Dix (Torrey et al., 2014; Trattner, 1999). While teaching at the Cambridge jail in

58 Best Practices in Mental Health

suburban Boston, Dix witnessed horrifying conditions among incarcerated indi- viduals with mental disorders. She immediately began investigating conditions in every Massachusetts jail, and then she began investigations in other states (Torrey et al., 2014). By 1847, Dix had visited 300 county jails and 18 state prisons. She concluded that conditions in each state for incarcerated mentally ill individuals were appalling and that using funds for the building of state psychiatric hospitals must be made an urgent policy priority (Torrey et al., 2014; Trattner, 1999). Dix’s investigation led legislatures to build 75 public psychiatric hospitals by 1880, and most mentally ill individuals who had previously been in prisons and jails were transferred to those hospitals (Torrey et al., 2014). The Boston Prison Discipline Society and Dix contributed to improving conditions for people with mental disor- ders who were previously systematically incarcerated in jails or prisons. American society accepted that such individuals did not belong in prisons and jails, but rather in mental hospitals. That assumption changed in the 1970s.

The Current Era

Deinstitutionalization characterized all mental health policies since the 1970s (Torrey et al., 2014). Social policy related to deinstitutionalization was poorly planned in the United States because the majority of patients were discharged from psychiatric hospitals without follow-up psychiatric care. Due to the lack of follow-up care, some patients committed crimes often associated with their untreated mental illness and were arrested. Deinstitutionalization produced a rapid increase in jail and prison populations and the criminalization of mentally disordered behavior. By the 1980s, policy makers in the criminal justice system agreed that deinstitutionalization was a major cause of the increasing number of individuals with mental disorders in the criminal justice system. Discharging indi- viduals with serious mental illnesses without ensuring proper treatment in the community increased the number of crimes committed by such populations.

Degrading conditions continued during the 1990s (Torrey et al., 2014). A 1992 survey, for example, reported how minor offenses associated with untreated mental illness caused many mentally ill individuals to be arrested. A 2006 report by the Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006) stated that 15 percent of inmates of state prisons and 24 percent of inmates in local jails were psychotic. However, as Torrey and colleagues (2014) pointed out, a major problem in the present situation is that few professional or public groups pay attention to such numbers. For example, even though the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on men- tal illness in U.S. prisons and jails in 2009, there was a paucity of media coverage.

Shift in Mental Health Policy: From Deinstitutionalization to Decriminalization

In the history of mental health service provision and the criminal justice system in the United States, there are two guiding concepts: deinstitutionalization and

Mental Health Policy for Justice-Involved Persons 59

criminalization. Beginning in the 1960s, mental health policies and services under deinstitutionalization were shaped by the question of “how we respond to the large numbers of people who are now in the community who once were, or would have been, under the custodial care of a long term hospital” (Draine et al., 2007, p. 159). There are a number of factors that led to deinstitutionalization, including legal advocacy on behalf of people in mental hospitals, the development of more effective psychotropic medications promising better symptom control, and federal legislation establishing community mental health centers to help released patients establish new lives in caring communities (Sentencing Project, 2002).

Deinstitutionalization paradoxically became a major cause for people with mental disorders to be reinstitutionalized, not into psychiatric hospitals but into jails or prisons. This clearly indicates that deinstitutionalization failed to achieve its original purpose. Rather, it increased the arrest rates for mentally ill people. At this point, the perspective on mental health in the United States shifted from dein- stitutionalization to criminalization, which means that involvement of agents of the mental health service was less frequent or more restricted, but new control systems, such as police and courts, could be more involved in handling such vul- nerable populations by labeling them criminals (Fisher, Silver, et al., 2006). In other words, this change in perspective was led by the policy arena in that police, courts, and legislatures adopted an increasingly punitive approach toward popu- lations that had deviated from societal norms (Sentencing Project, 2002). This approach was actually coupled with a conceptual shift from rehabilitation to pun- ishment rationalized by the conservative Reagan and Bush administrations during the 1980s and early 1990s. These administrations were “concerned about public safety, crime prevention, and the needs of victims” (Nunn, 2002, p. 388).

Criminalization of mental illness is linked to a punitive stance creating policies based in zero tolerance policing and mandatory sentences (Petersilia, 2003; Sentencing Project, 2002). Such criminalization implies that people who need to be properly treated through the mental health system are being inappropriately processed through the criminal justice system (Sentencing Project, 2002). Therefore, in terms of the mental health policy in the United States, scholars broadly agreed that society in the United States could hardly say that deinstitu- tionalization has taken place (Lamb, 2009) because people with mental disorders have been overly exposed to law enforcement since deinstitutionalization, which has led to the emergence of criminal targeting of the population.

In a study of imprisoned women, Douglas and colleagues (2009) found that incarceration aggravates people’s mental illnesses. Draine and colleagues (2007) argued that the present era should focus on decriminalization as “another institu- tional conundrum” (p. 160). In general, decriminalization is defined as the removal or reduction of criminal penalties from particular activities (Longazel, 2008). Related to mental health policy, decriminalization emphasizes that service interventions in criminal justice should be delivered to the population via collabo- ration with other service systems (e.g. mental health) to provide better treatments

60 Best Practices in Mental Health

(Douglas et al., 2009). The idea of this intersection of the criminal justice and mental health systems, according to Douglas and colleagues (2009), is developed on the premise that gaps in treatment access stemming from deinstitutionalization lead people with mental illnesses to be criminalized. Thus, decriminalization poli- cy interventions are expected to fill gaps between criminal justice and the mental health system.

Contemporary Programs within Criminal Justice Models

As the notion of decriminalization has risen to the attention of scholars and poli- cy makers (Draine et al., 2007), major contemporary programs for justice- involved persons with mental illness have embraced humane solutions to crimi- nalization (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMH- SA], 2019). As previously explained, contemporary programs for justice-involved persons with mental illness are primarily delivered via two models. Criminal jus- tice models, promulgated by police, courts, and correctional institutions (Draine et al., 2007), include jail diversion, mental health courts, specialty mental health probation, or parole. Mental health models (Skeem et al., 2011) include forensic assertive community treatment (F-ACT) and forensic intensive case management (FICM).

Jail Diversion

Jail diversion programs are “programs that divert individuals with serious mental illness (and often co-occurring substance use disorders) away from jail and pro- vide linkages to community-based treatment and support services” (SAMHSA, 2019). Therefore, such individuals can avoid arrest or spend significantly reduced time in jail or prison on current charges or on violations of probation resulting from previous charges. According to Pfefferle and colleagues (2019), this program at the federal level has been supported through multiyear funding sponsored by SAMHSA since 1997. At the state level, the program has been launched under the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project, which is a national effort to develop specific recommendations for addressing the issue. Within this project, national, state, and local policy makers and criminal justice and mental health professionals can use jail diversion programs to improve the criminal justice sys- tem’s response to individuals with mental illness.

Jail diversion programs have a number of objectives: to provide effective men- tal health care; to enhance public safety by making jail space available for justice- involved persons with violent offenses; to provide judges and prosecutors alterna- tives to incarceration; and to reduce the cost of providing inappropriate services to individuals with mental health needs or no services at all (Pfefferle et al., 2019). Jail diversion can be broken down into two kinds of programs: pre-booking (or pre- arrest) and post-booking (Draine et al., 2007; Pfefferle et al., 2019).

In pre-booking strategies, law enforcement representatives (e.g., police officers) are the first point of contact with persons with mental illnesses. Law enforce-

Mental Health Policy for Justice-Involved Persons 61

ment’s initial interactions with a person with mental illness are critical to deter- mining whether or not this individual is jailed (Draine et al., 2007; Levesque, 2010; Pfefferle et al., 2019). Utilizing trained police officers who are knowledge- able about mental illness and de-escalating crisis situations are critical strategies to preventing arrest (Draine et al., 2007). The police-based approach makes an effort to provide mental health treatment alternatives to incarceration that are available in the community (Pfefferle et al., 2019). Examples of this strategy include police training to recognize the signs of mental illness, deployment of a mobile crisis response team that provides assistance and support to police and the individual, and transportation to mental health treatment facilities rather than jail. This strategy was theoretically developed by a crisis intervention team (CIT) and is known as the Memphis model (Draine et al., 2007; Pfefferle et al., 2019). It requires CIT officers not only to maintain their regular responsibilities but also to provide specialized responses to crisis calls. A local psychiatric emergency center often partners with the team to accept referrals from police personnel (Pfefferle et al., 2019).

Post-booking diversion programs are a more common type of jail diversion pro- gram (Pfefferle et al., 2019). In this model, individuals with mental illness are identified later in jail or prison; psychiatric services are delivered to these persons in the context of the criminal justice system, including during court proceedings, in jails or prisons, and during probation or parole (Draine et al., 2007). Negotiations with prosecutors, attorneys, courts, and mental health providers to dispose of the case without additional jail time may occur (Pfefferle et al., 2019). One model of the post-booking strategy is Maryland’s Phoenix Project. It targets women and children to be offered post-booking diversion services including the use of crisis and transitional housing. Phoenix Project participants can also par- ticipate in integrated mental health and substance use treatment and case man- agement (Pfefferle et al., 2019).

Mental Health Courts

Federal legislation from 2000 supports the creation of mental health courts in order to deal with the ever-growing problem of imprisoning persons with mental health disorders (Litschge & Vaughn, 2009). The law, known as America’s Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act (2000), was signed by President William J. Clinton on November 13, 2000. Before the law expired, President George W. Bush signed related federal legislation known as the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004. Following the 2004 report of President Bush’s New Freedom Commission (President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003), this law recommended using jail diversion and community re-entry programs as best practices in order to diminish the num- ber of incarcerated adults and juvenile justice-involved persons with mental illness.

As a result of these policies, large numbers of people with mental illnesses involved in the criminal justice system have been referred to mental health courts

(Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2008). Mental health courts are types of specialty courts initiated in response to the ineffectiveness of traditional court processing (Draine et al., 2007), often signified by the term revolving door. In other words, even though people with mental illness continuously came in con- tact with courts, the court system was not prepared to deal with their underlying mental health issues. Further, incarceration alone did not resolve the underlying mental health issues. Reintegrated individuals often found themselves in illegal activities exacerbated by their mental health conditions, rearrested, before a court again, and re-incarcerated multiple times. People with mental illness who were treated in traditional case processing were forced to repeat the same processing without addressing the underlying problems that exacerbated their criminal behaviors (Skeem et al., 2011).

The major role of mental health courts is to respond to the disproportionate number of people with mental illnesses in criminal justice systems. According to the Council of State Governments Justice Center (2008), the majority of partici- pants in mental health courts suffer from serious mental illnesses. This includes conditions that involve long-term and profound impairment of functioning such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, severe depression, and anxiety disorders. Mental health courts provide mental health screening and assessments to identify the severity of mental illness among participants. Participants voluntarily join a judicially supervised treatment plan developed by a team of court staff and mental health professionals. Participants who adhere to the treatment plan receive incentives, whereas those who do not may be subject to sanctions. Mental health courts aim to improve results not only for participants, but also for victims and communities.

A theoretical approach embedded in mental health courts is problem-solving justice, which has six core principles (1) enhanced information, (2) community engagement, (3) collaboration, (4) individualized justice, (5) accountability, and (6) measured outcomes (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2008). Enhanced information refers to better staff training combined with better infor- mation (e.g., about litigants, victims, and the community context of crime) that can help improve the decision making of judges, attorneys, and other justice offi- cials. Community engagement refers to local problems that are connected to the criminal justice system and can be identified and prioritized by community stake- holder engagement. Community engagement leads to collaboration between the criminal justice system and a diverse range of people including government agen- cies and community organizations to develop collaborative efforts to improve pub- lic safety. Individualized justice stresses that the criminal justice system should use risk and needs assessment instruments that are validated by evidence-based prac- tice to link justice-involved persons to individually customized community-based services. Accountability emphasizes regular and rigorous compliance monitoring to show clear consequences of both compliance and noncompliance and thereby improve the accountability of justice-involved persons. Lastly, measured outcomes mean that the activity of ongoing data collection must be conducted to measure

62 Best Practices in Mental Health

Mental Health Policy for Justice-Involved Persons 63

the process, results, costs, and benefits of mental health courts in order to evalu- ate the effectiveness of operations.

Specialty Mental Health Probation or Parole

Specialty mental health probation or parole is based on the premise that people with mental illness have idiosyncratic characteristics and needs that cannot be met through traditional supervision, probation, and parole (Skeem et al., 2011). Common elements of this program include specialized caseloads including only justice-involved persons with serious mental illness (SMI), reduced caseloads, con- tinuous training on management of justice-involved persons with SMI, and inte- gration of criminal justice and treatment services (Skeem & Petrila, 2004). The prototypical specialty probation model is an example of the program (Skeem et al., 2006) in which the significant role of monitoring and enforcing the conditions of probation is assigned to probation officers with specialty caseloads. According to Skeem and Petrila (2004), there are two combining functions for these officers: gatekeeper for public safety and therapist for rehabilitation. That is, officers seek to assure both public safety in the traditional probation officer role and rehabilitation of the probationer in a therapeutic role (Skeem & Petrila, 2004).

A theoretical underpinning reflected in the specialty mental health probation program is Klockars’s theory of effective supervision (Skeem, 2008). The main component of Klockars’s theory is the way in which the probation officer recon- ciles surveillance and rehabilitative goals to achieve effective supervision. The offi- cer synthesizes the roles through a series of social exchanges within a relationship called an iron triangle, consisting of the officer, offender (probationer), and agency. There are two mechanisms for effective supervision suggested by this theory. First, creating rapport is significant in encouraging justice-involved persons to tell everything, which expands the officers’ capacity to monitor rule compliance and intervene as appropriate on an ongoing basis. Through this mechanism, justice- involved persons are motivated by the agency’s sanctions to be law abiders and to collaborate with their officers to improve their lives (Skeem, 2008). Second, a pos- itive officer-probationer relationship may be therapeutic in itself. Such a relation- ship often has a strong effect on outcomes in psychotherapy, psychiatric treat- ment, substance abuse treatment, medical care, interventions for criminal behav- ior, and parole and probation supervision (Skeem, 2008).

Contemporary Programs within Mental Health Models

Forensic Assertive Community Treatment

Forensic assertive community treatment, which is based on the traditional assertive community treatment (ACT) model, is a program designed for people with SMI who are involved with the criminal justice system (Morrissey, 2013). In the late 1960s, the ACT model (sometimes called programs of assertive community treatment or PACT) evolved through the work of a group of medical

64 Best Practices in Mental Health

professionals including Arnold Marx, Leonard Stein, and Mary Ann Test in an inpatient research unit at the Mendota State Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin (Dixon, 2000). The program was devised based on the hypotheses that clients’ symptoms would be relieved by the hospital’s round-the-clock care and that it was important for patients to receive support and treatment following discharge (National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2017). In 1972, the researchers moved the hospital ward treatment staff into the community to test their hypothesis and thereby launched ACT.

Assertive community treatment is a “psychosocial intervention that was devel- oped for people with severe mental illness (a subset of serious mental illness marked by a higher degree of functional disability) who have significant difficulty living independently, high service needs, and repeated psychiatric hospitaliza- tions” (Morrissey, 2013, p. 1). The specified clinical model is delivered by a multi- disciplinary team, including psychiatry, nursing, addiction counseling, and voca- tional rehabilitation. Fidelity scales are implemented to assess the extent to which new or established teams adhere to the model.

By adding key components, F-ACT seeks to tap into the ACT model. It attempts to find crucial intercept points in the criminal justice processes to help people avoid future criminal justice involvement (Morrissey, 2013). Simply speaking, the F- ACT program aims to prevent recidivism (Skeem et al., 2011). Thus, only individ- uals with prior arrests and jail detentions can be enrolled, making rearrest pre- vention an explicit goal. The F-ACT team can use court sanctions to encourage participation, and probation and law enforcement officers are often invited to be members of the treatment team (Morrissey, 2013).

Because a primary goal of F-ACT is to prevent criminal recidivism, contempo- rary crime prevention theory can be applied to F-ACT model development (Lamberti & Weisman, 2010). To understand and prevent crime, the risk-need- responsivity (RNR) theory is often evoked (Looman & Abracen, 2013). With regard to risk, treatment should be reserved for higher risk groups of justice- involved persons as assessed by actuarial assessment instruments (Looman & Abracen, 2013). Eight factors related to need have been identified (Lamberti & Weisman, 2010; Looman & Abracen, 2013):

1. Antisocial personality patterns 2. Antisocial attitudes 3. Antisocial cognition 4. Substance abuse 5. Low levels of satisfaction or performance at work or school 6. Lack of healthy recreational pursuits 7. Problematic circumstances at home (family problems) 8. History of antisocial behaviors

Responsivity consists of two elements, general and specific responsivity. In the former, effective intervention should be based on cognitive, behavioral, and social

Mental Health Policy for Justice-Involved Persons 65

learning theories; in the latter, treatment should meet both criminogenic needs identified in need factors and individuals’ attributes and the context of cases (Looman & Abracen, 2013).

Forensic Intensive Case Management

Forensic intensive case management (FICM) was developed due to practical con- cerns about the cost of F-ACT (Skeem et al., 2011). In this program, case man- agers still provide assertive and community-based services; however, unlike, F- ACT, FICM does not require a multidisciplinary team (Morrissey et al., 2007; Skeem et al., 2011). With reference to assertive, in vivo, and time-unlimited ser- vices, FICM predominantly mirrors ACT. However, because there is no multidisci- plinary team, FICM cannot provide direct services; instead, case managers use brokers with access to psychiatric treatment (Morrissey et al., 2007). Theoretically, FICM shares RNR with F-ACT.

Conclusions

Historically, mental health policy related to the criminal justice system in the United States has experienced a conceptual shift from deinstitutionalization to criminalization to decriminalization. Contemporary mental health programs delivered to people with mental disorders who have criminal justice involvement have developed in the context of this change. Each program has been designed according to different theoretical perspectives, and some share frameworks. This article has explored historical contexts surrounding mental health services for criminal-justice-involved persons with mental illnesses and described various pro- grams under each model. To enhance our knowledge of whether the programs work to achieve the goals of rehabilitation and reduce recidivism, a more advanced study based on empirical methods is necessary, particularly multiple evaluations of each model, including process, effectiveness, and impact (Royse et al., 2016). Such empirical knowledge will be critical for authorizing better mental health policies for people with criminal histories and mental disorders. This article contributes to the conceptualization of the variables needed for more rigorous empirical study to produce reliable evidence-based findings.

References America’s Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, P.L. 106-516, 114 Stat.

2399–2403 (2000). Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail

inmates [Special report]. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/ content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf

Burke, P., & Tonry, M. (2006). Successful transition and reentry for safer communi- ties: A call to action for parole. Center for Effective Public Policy.

66 Best Practices in Mental Health

http://newcepp.reclaimhosting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ Successful-Transition-and-reentry-for-safer-communities-a-call-to -action-for-parole.pdf

Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2008). Mental health courts: A primer for policymakers and practitioners. http://ojp.gov/newsroom/ testimony/2009/mentalhealthcourts.pdf

Dixon, L. (2000). Assertive community treatment: Twenty-five years of gold. Psychiatric Services, 51(6), 759–765.

Douglas, N., Plugge, E., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2009). The impact of imprisonment on health: What do women prisoners say? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 63(9), 749–754.

Draine, J., Wilson, A. B., & Pogorzelski, W. (2007). Limitations and potential in current research on services for people with mental illness in the crimi- nal justice system. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45, 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v45n03_07

Fisher, W. H., Roy-Bujnowski, K. M., Grudzinskas, A. J., Clayfield, J. C., Banks, S. M., & Wolff, N. (2006). Patterns and prevalence of arrest in a statewide cohort of mental health care consumers. Psychiatric Services, 57(11), 1623–1628.

Fisher, W. H., Silver, E., & Wolff, N. (2006). Beyond criminalization: Toward a criminologically informed framework for mental health policy and ser- vices research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 33(5), 544–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-006-0072-0

Frank, J. W., Wang, E. A., Nunez-Smith, M., Lee, H., & Comfort, M. (2014). Discrimination based on criminal record and healthcare utilization among men recently released from prison: A descriptive study. Health and Justice, 2(6). https://doi.org/1186/2194-7899-2-6

Frounfelker, R., Teachout, A., Bond, G. R., & Drake, R. E. (2011). Criminal justice involvement of individuals with severe mental illness and supported employment outcomes. Community Mental Health Journal, 47(6), 737–741.

James, N. (2015). Offender reentry: Correctional statistics, reintegration into the community and recidivism (Report RL34287). Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34287.pdf

Kinner, S. A., Dooren, K. V., Boyle, F. M., Longo, M., & Lennox, N. (2014). Development of an intervention to increase health service utilization in ex-prisoners. Health & Justice, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/2194- 7899-2-4

Lamb, H. R. (2009). Reversing criminalization. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(1), 8–10.

Lamberti, J. S., & Weisman, R. L. (2010). Forensic assertive community treat- ment: Origins, current practice, and future directions. In H. A. Dlugacz (Ed.), Reentry planning for offenders with mental disorders (pp. 2–27). Civic Research Institute.

Levesque, S. (2010). Closing the door: Mental illness, the criminal justice system, and the need for a uniform mental health policy. Nova Law Review, 34(3), 711–738.

Litschge, C. M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2009). The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004: Problems and prospects. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20(4), 542–558.

Longazel, J. (2008). Decriminalization. In V. N. Parrillo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social problems. SAGE.

Longest, B. (2010). Health policymaking in the United States (5th ed.). Health Administration Press.

Looman, J., & Abracen, J. (2013). The risk need responsivity model of offender rehabilitation: Is there really a need for a paradigm shift? International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8(3-4), 30–36.

Matejkowski, J., Lee, S., & Han, W. (2014). The association between criminal his- tory and mental health service use among people with serious mental ill- ness. Psychiatric Quarterly, 85(1), 9–24.

Morrissey, J. (2013). Forensic assertive community treatment: Updating the evi- dence (Accession no. 02774). U.S. Department of Justice. https://nicic .gov/forensic-assertive-community-treatment-updating-evidence

Morrissey, J., Meyer, P., & Cuddeback, G. (2007). Extending assertive community treatment to criminal justice settings: Origins, current evidence, and future directions. Community Mental Health Journal, 43(5), 527–544.

National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2017). Assertive community treatment (ACT). https://namimn.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/188/2018/05/ Assertive-Community-Treatment_TreatmentOptions_2018.pdf

Nunn, K. B. (2002). Race, crime and the pool of surplus criminality: Or why the “war on drugs” was a “war on Blacks.” Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 6, 381–445.

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.

Pfefferle, S., Steverman, S., Gault, E., Karon, S., & Swan, H. (2019). Approaches to early jail diversion: Collaborations and innovations. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/ 262096/EarlyJail.pdf

President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). A report on the public comments submitted to the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/mentalhealthcommission/ reports/comments_011003.pdf

Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2016). Program evaluation: An introduc- tion to an evidence-based approach (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Sentencing Project. (2002). Mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system: An analysis and prescription. https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/01/Mentally-Ill-Offenders-in-the-Criminal-Justice- System.pdf

Mental Health Policy for Justice-Involved Persons 67

Shinkfield, A. J., & Graffam, J. (2009). Community reintegration of ex-prisoners: Type and degree of change in variables influencing successful reintegra- tion. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), 29–42.

Skeem, J. L. (2008). Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective super- vision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(3), 220–247.

Skeem, J. L., Emke-Francis, P., & Eno Louden, J. (2006). Probation, mental health, and mandated treatment: A national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(2), 158–184.

Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S., & Peterson, J. K. (2011). Correctional policy for offend- ers with mental illness: Creating a new paradigm for recidivism reduc- tion. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 110–126.

Skeem, J. L., & Petrila, J. (2004). Problem-solving supervision: Specialty proba- tion for individuals with mental illnesses. Court Review, 40(3-4), 8–15.

Steadman, H. J., Osher, F. C., Robbins, P. C., Case, B., & Samuels, S. (2009). Prevalence of serious mental illness among jail inmates. Psychiatric Services, 60, 761–765.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019). Law enforcement and behavioral health partnerships for early diversion. https:// www.samhsa.gov/gains-center/grants-grantees/early-diversion

Theriot, M. T., & Segal, S. P. (2005). Involvement with the criminal justice system among new clients at outpatient mental health agencies. Psychiatric Services, 56(2), 179–185.

Torrey, E. F., Zdanowicz, M. T., Kennard, A. D., Lamb, H. R., Eslinger, D. F., Biasotti, M. C., & Fuller, D. A. (2014). The treatment of persons with mental illness in prisons and jails: A state survey. Treatment Advocacy Center. https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/ treatment-behind-bars/treatment-behind-bars.pdf

Trattner, W. I. (1999). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America (6th ed.). Free Press.

World Health Organization and International Committee of the Red Cross. (2005). Mental health and prisons [Information sheet]. http://www.euro .who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/98989/WHO_ICRC_InfoSht_MNH _Prisons.pdf

68 Best Practices in Mental Health

Copyright of Best Practice in Mental Health is the property of Follmer Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.