Who can write my DB?

Am J Psychiatry 166:1, January 2009 103

Article

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

This article is featured in this month’s AJP Audio, is the subject of a CME course (p. 123), and is discussed in an editorial by Dr. Lamb (p. 8).

Psychiatric Disorders and Repeat Incarcerations: The Revolving Prison Door

Jacques Baillargeon, Ph.D.

Ingrid A. Binswanger, M.D., M.P.H.

Joseph V. Penn, M.D.

Brie A. Williams, M.D., M.S.

Owen J. Murray, D.O.

Objective: A number of legal, social, and political factors over the past 40 years have led to the current epidemic of psy- chiatric disorders in the U.S. prison sys- tem. Although numerous investigations have reported substantially elevated rates of psychiatric disorders among prison in- mates compared with the general popu- lation, it is unclear whether mental illness is a risk factor for multiple episodes of in- carceration. The authors examined this association in a retrospective cohort study of the nation’s largest state prison system.

Method: The study population included 79,211 inmates who began serving a sen- tence between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007. Data on psychiatric dis- orders, demographic characteristics, and history of incarceration for the preceding 6-year period were obtained from state- wide medical information systems and analyzed.

Results: Inmates with major psychiatric disorders (major depressive disorder, bi-

polar disorders, schizophrenia, and non- schizophrenic psychotic disorders) had substantially increased risks of multiple incarcerations over the 6-year study pe- riod. The greatest increase in risk was ob- served among inmates with bipolar disor- ders, who were 3.3 times more likely to have had four or more previous incarcer- ations compared with inmates who had no major psychiatric disorder.

Conclusions: Prison inmates with major psychiatric disorders are more likely than those without to have had previous incar- cerations. The authors recommend ex- panding interventions to reduce recidi- vism among mentally ill inmates. They discuss the potential benefits of continu- ity of care reentry programs to help men- tally ill inmates connect with community- based mental health programs at the time of their release, as well as a greater role for mental health courts and other diversion strategies.

(Am J Psychiatry 2009; 166:103–109)

The epidemic of psychiatric disorders in the U.S. prison system represents a national public health crisis. Epidemiologic studies show that 15%–24% of U.S. inmates have a severe mental illness (1–3), and a recent report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that half of in- mates—over 1 million individuals—have at least one mental health condition (4). Several factors have synergis- tically led to the excess of mental illness in the U.S. correc- tional system. In the late 1960s, with the availability of new antipsychotic medications, a national movement resulted in the mass closing of public mental health hospitals (5–7). Many leaders in the psychiatric community argued that moving patients out of state hospitals and into commu- nity-based outpatient settings represented a humane al- ternative to overcrowded and understaffed institutions. Unfortunately, in most cases, the closing of state hospitals was not accompanied by the promised number of clinics and halfway houses necessary to care for released hospital patients (5–7). In subsequent years, health insurers re- stricted mental health coverage, private hospitals limited enrollment of psychotic patients, and civil commitment

laws became more restrictive (5). Additionally, beginning in the 1980s, the “war on drugs,” which led to an increase in drug-related arrests and an emphasis on mandatory and fixed sentencing, resulted in dramatic increases in the proportion of inmates with psychiatric disorders and sub- stance abuse problems (8, 9). All of these factors have cul- minated in a revolving-door phenomenon in which many mentally ill people move continuously between homeless- ness and the criminal justice system (5, 10).

Despite the magnitude of this problem, few studies have examined the association between psychiatric disorders and recidivism in correctional populations (11–13). Recid- ivism is generally defined as a relapse into previous crimi- nal behavior; in most published studies, it is operationally defined as a repeat arrest or incarceration. These studies, which have focused on relatively small and specific sub- groups of the correctional population, have found little or no association between psychiatric disorders and the risk of having a single repeat incarceration. To our knowledge, no study has examined the association of psychiatric dis- orders with multiple episodes of incarceration. This gap in

104 Am J Psychiatry 166:1, January 2009

PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS AND REPEAT INCARCERATIONS

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

the research is noteworthy given the cyclical nature of in- carceration and homelessness among many impoverished mentally ill people in the United States (5, 10). In this study, we examined whether inmates with one of four types of major psychiatric disorders had an increased risk of having multiple episodes of incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) prison system, the largest state correctional system in the United States (14).

Method

Design and Study Sample

This was a retrospective cohort study of all TDCJ inmates (N= 79,211) who began serving sentences between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007, in any of TDCJ’s 116 facilities throughout the state. The inmates’ history of previous TDCJ incarcerations was determined by examining a comprehensive electronic database containing all TDCJ incarceration records from September 1, 2000, through August 31, 2006. A previous incarceration was de- fined as an incarceration resulting from a distinct criminal of- fense; previous incarcerations resulting from parole violations were not included in our analysis. All members of the study co- hort underwent standard medical and psychiatric examinations during the intake process. This evaluation lasted approximately 60 minutes and consisted of a detailed medical history, a mental health screening, a physical examination, and a number of labo- ratory tests. The study was reviewed and approved by the Univer- sity of Texas Medical Branch Institutional Review Board.

Measures

The study was designed to compare the prevalence of having multiple episodes of incarceration among inmates with any of four types of major psychiatric disorders: major depressive disor- der, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, and nonschizophrenic psy- chotic disorders. Nonschizophrenic psychotic disorders included schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, substance-induced psychosis, and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. The mental health screening at the time of the intake evaluation was conducted in a standardized fashion across all prison sites by mental health nurses or mental health professionals. The screen- ing consisted of a standardized diagnostic interview and included assessment of the following: display of symptoms of psychiatric disease; history of mental health treatment; current suicidal ide- ation; prior suicidal gestures; display of unusual behavior; affec- tive distress; and unusual nature of criminal offense. The purpose of the intake screening was to determine whether an inmate should be referred for a formal mental health evaluation. If a re- ferral was made, the evaluation was conducted by master’s-level mental health professionals using a DSM-IV-guided interview structure. A diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder established during this evaluation was based on DSM-IV criteria and recorded in the inmate’s electronic medical record. All incoming inmates who had one of the four types of major psychiatric disorders under study, who reported a history of treatment with psychotropic medication, or who appeared to require such treatment were sub- sequently referred to a staff psychiatrist or a psychiatric midlevel practitioner for treatment. Diagnoses that were made or con- firmed by psychiatric providers were also based on DSM-IV crite- ria. Approximately 20% of all inmates were referred for psychiat- r i c e v a l u a t i o n d u r i n g th e i r i n c a rc e ra ti o n . A l l p s y c h i a t r i c diagnoses used in the analyses in this study were ascertained dur- ing the period from September 2006 through August 2007.

All demographic data (age, race/ethnicity, and gender) were based on inmate self-reports and maintained in a systemwide

electronic medical record that is routinely updated to ensure that the information reflects the inmates’ current health status. Infor- mation on correctional characteristics (criminal offense classifi- cation and length of prison sentence) was maintained in a sepa- rate electronic database. Criminal offense classification was based on the National Criminal Information Center criminal of- fense codes associated with the inmates’ current sentence. In- mates who had at least one violent criminal offense (i.e., homi- cide, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery assault, and terrorism) were classified as violent; inmates who had no such criminal of- fenses were classified as nonviolent. The two electronic data sets were linked using a common numeric identification variable.

Statistical Analyses

All statistical analyses were performed with SAS, version 8 (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). Logistic regression analysis was used to ex- amine differences in multiple episodes of incarceration across the subgroups and to calculate adjusted prevalence odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All logistic re- gression models were adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, criminal offense classification, and length of current prison sen- tence. Information on at least one of the aforementioned demo- graphic or correctional variables was unavailable in <1% of the study population; inmates with missing data were excluded from the analysis.

Results

Of the 71,333 inmates in the study cohort who did not have any of the four major types of psychiatric disorders, the vast majority were male (87.2%), were under 50 years old (90.1%), were currently incarcerated for a nonviolent offense (79.2%), had no history of a violent offense during the 2000–2006 period (79.4%), and had a current prison sentence of less than 2 years (60.1%). The three racial/eth- nic groups were distributed fairly evenly: 34.3% were non- Hispanic Caucasian, 30.0% were Hispanic Caucasian, and 35.7% were African American. A total of 7,878 inmates were diagnosed with major depressive disorder, a bipolar disor- der, schizophrenia, or a nonschizophrenic psychotic disor- der. There was substantial variation in several demo- graphic characteristics according to the psychiatric disorders under study (Table 1). Among inmates diagnosed with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorders, fe- males and non-Hispanic Caucasians were overrepresented and Hispanics and African Americans were underrepre- sented. Among inmates with schizophrenia and non- schizophrenic psychotic disorders, African Americans, in- mates age 50 or older, and inmates who had violent offense records (current or previous) were overrepresented.

The percentage of specific criminal offenses was calcu- lated according to the four major types of psychiatric dis- orders (Table 2). Assessment of the major violent offenses showed that, in comparison with inmates who had no psy- chiatric disorder, those who had any psychiatric disorder, a bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or a nonschizophrenic psychotic disorder had higher rates of assault; inmates who had schizophrenia or a nonschizophrenic psychotic

Am J Psychiatry 166:1, January 2009 105

BAILLARGEON, BINSWANGER, PENN, ET AL.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

disorder had higher rates of homicide; and inmates who had any psychiatric disorder, schizophrenia, or a non- schizophrenic psychotic disorder had higher rates of rob- bery. Assessment of major nonviolent offenses showed that, in comparison with inmates who had no psychiatric disorder, those who had any psychiatric disorder, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, or a nonschizophrenic psychotic disorder had lower rates of driving under the in- fluence; inmates who had schizophrenia or a nonschizo- phrenic psychotic disorder had higher rates of drug pos- session; and inmates in all major psychiatric disorder categories had higher rates of property offenses.

The prevalence of having previous incarcerations was calculated for inmates with each of the four major types of psychiatric disorders, using four different threshold val- ues: ≥1, ≥2, ≥3, and ≥4 incarcerations (Table 3). Odds ra- tios, adjusted for gender, age, race, current criminal of- fense classification (violent versus nonviolent), and length of current sentence, were then calculated to assess the risk of each threshold value among each of the four groups of psychiatric disorders. For three of the four categories of psychiatric disorders (bipolar disorders, schizophrenia,

nonschizophrenic psychotic disorders), the risk of having multiple incarcerations increased in a stepwise fashion according to the threshold value (Figure 1). For inmates with major depressive disorder, the risk of having previous incarcerations remained relatively stable across all four threshold values.

Discussion

Our study showed that Texas prison inmates with major psychiatric disorders were far more likely to have had pre- vious incarcerations compared with inmates without a serious mental illness. For three of the categories of psy- chiatric disorders under study (bipolar disorders, schizo- phrenia, and nonschizophrenic psychotic disorders), this risk increased in a stepwise fashion according to the threshold value for number of incarcerations. The risk of having four or more incarcerations in the 6-year study pe- riod was particularly high for inmates with a bipolar disor- der. In general, these findings suggest a substantially heightened risk of recidivism among released inmates with mental illness. As a result of the limited availability of

TABLE 1. Percent Distribution of Demographic and Criminal Offense Characteristics of the Study Population, by Psychiatric Disorder

Characteristic

No Psychiatric Disorder

(N=71,333)

Any Psychiatric Disorder

(N=7,878)

Major Depressive Disorder

(N=3,252)

Bipolar Disorders (N=2,402)

Schizophrenia (N=849)

Nonschizophrenic Psychotic Disorders

(N=1,375) Male 87.2 71.4 61.3 70.7 91.5 84.1 Race/ethnicity

Non-Hispanic Caucasian 34.3 51.7 53.5 69.2 24.5 33.6 Hispanic Caucasian 30.0 15.6 16.8 12.6 15.6 17.9 African American 35.7 32.7 29.7 18.1 60.0 48.5

Age (years) 16–29 40.5 26.5 25.8 31.1 18.1 25.1 30–49 49.6 62.5 62.0 62.5 62.3 63.6 ≥50 9.8 11.0 12.1 6.4 19.6 11.3

Current criminal offense Violent 19.8 20.6 17.9 19.4 26.6 25.3 Nonviolent 79.2 79.4 82.1 80.6 73.4 74.7

Previous criminal offense Violent 19.6 22.3 19.4 19.6 29.6 27.9 Nonviolent 79.4 77.7 80.6 80.4 70.4 72.1

Current sentence length <2 years 74.6 73.6 73.7 74.5 74.5 73.5 ≥2 years 25.3 24.6 26.3 25.4 25.5 26.5

TABLE 2. Percent Distribution of Specific Criminal Offenses of the Study Population, by Psychiatric Disorder

Offense

No Psychiatric Disorder

(N=71,333)

Any Psychiatric Disorder

(N=7,878)

Major Depressive Disorder

(N=3,252)

Bipolar Disorders (N=2,402)

Schizophrenia (N=849)

Nonschizophrenic Psychotic Disorders

(N=1,375) Violent offenses

Assault 13.0 16.4a 14.0 16.0a 21.7a 19.7a

Homicide 1.8 2.3 1.9 1.8 3.8 a 3.1a

Robbery 8.6 9.7a 8.2 8.1 12.1a 14.6a

Nonviolent offenses Driving under the influence 10.8 8.8b 9.3b 10.0 4.8b 8.1b

Drug possession 8.6 8.3 7.2 7.1 12.4a 10.5a

Drug delivery (dealing) 43.3 42.7 42.9 42.1 42.8 42.9 Property offenses 43.2 52.6a 50.5a 54.5a 53.6a 53.7a

a Exhibited a statistically significantly higher percentage of the criminal offense compared with inmates in the “no psychiatric disorder” group, as determined by assessing overlap of 95% confidence intervals.

b Exhibited a statistically significantly lower percentage of the criminal offense compared with inmates in the “no psychiatric disorder” group, as determined by assessing overlap of 95% confidence intervals.

106 Am J Psychiatry 166:1, January 2009

PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS AND REPEAT INCARCERATIONS

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

community-based mental health services, mass downsiz- ing of state psychiatric institutions, and a legal system with a limited capacity to discern underlying mental health problems, many people with serious mental illness move continuously between crisis hospitalization, home- lessness, and the criminal justice system (10, 15). To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the associa- tion of psychiatric disorders and multiple episodes of in- carceration in an entire state prison population.

Only a handful of studies (12, 13, 16, 17) involving cor- rectional populations have examined the association be- tween psychiatric disorders and the risk of having a single reincarceration. In contrast to our findings, each of these investigations found that inmates with mental disorders exhibited either comparable (16, 17) or lower (12, 13) rein- carceration rates for both violent and nonviolent offenses in comparison with inmates without psychiatric disor- ders. However, a direct comparison of our results with those of earlier studies is of limited value because of differ- ences in sample sizes and methods used to assess psychi- atric disorders and recidivism. Feder (16) examined rein- carceration rates among 547 inmates released from the New York State prison system in 1982 and 1983. Lovell et al. (17) examined reincarceration rates among 337 men- tally ill inmates released from Washington State prisons in 1996 and 1997. Teplin et al. (12) assessed violent repeat of- fenses among 728 male jail detainees in Chicago in 1983 and 1984. Porporino and Motiuk (13) examined all repeat offenses among 36 Canadian inmates with a major psy- chotic disorder and 36 comparison inmates with no psy- chiatric disorder. In each of these studies, findings of com- parable or lower reincarceration rates among mentally ill inmates may be due to several factors. For example, in- mates with psychiatric disorders are reported to stay in prison longer than others charged with similar crimes (18). The average time served for U.S. inmates with mental il lness is 103 months (8.6 years), compared with 88 months (7.3 years) for other prisoners (19). Another possi- ble factor may be geographic differences in the efficacy of community-based mental health programs and prison discharge planning programs in preventing criminal re- cidivism in former inmates (20).

Our investigation’s novel findings may be attributable to a number of factors. One possibility is that the criminal

justice policies of Texas result in higher rates of incarcera- tion among persons with mental illness. Another is that community-based mental health systems in Texas may have been less effective in diverting persons with severe mental illness from the criminal justice system. However, Texas does have a state-sponsored continuity of care pro- gram that links inmates with serious mental illness who are about to be released to treatment resources in their home communities, including halfway houses and outpa- tient clinics. The program also provides inmates with a 10- day supply of their prescribed psychotropic medications. Unfortunately, few data on inmates’ participation in this program are currently available.

Several limitations should be considered in interpreting our study. We examined only incarcerations within the Texas prison system. If an inmate in our study population was previously incarcerated in another state, the episode was not included in our analysis. However, given the large geographic size of Texas and the limited mobility of our study population, it is unlikely that a substantial propor- tion of inmates had been incarcerated in another state’s prison system. Second, because relatively less severe psy- chiatric disorders such as anxiety disorders and axis II dis- orders are not rigorously evaluated in the TDCJ, during ei- ther the initial mental health screening or subsequent medical encounters, we restricted our analyses to four broad categories of severe psychiatric disorders. Addition- ally, information about a prisoner’s history of substance abuse is maintained in a separate, confidential TDCJ data- base that was not available for analysis. Thus, our ability to assess the extent to which either less severe psychiatric conditions or substance use disorders contributed, either independently or comorbidly, to repeat incarcerations was limited. Third, this investigation was subject to the se- lection biases associated with most retrospective study designs. Specifically, inmates who were incarcerated mul- tiple times may have had a greater probability of being di- agnosed with a serious mental illness. This bias was prob- ably mi ni mized by th e s t andard i zed me nt al healt h evaluation used at intake and by our decision to restrict our analysis to four categories of the most severe psychiat- ric disorders.

A fourth limitation of our study was that because of in- complete access to historical incarceration data, we could

TABLE 3. Risk of Previous Incarcerations Among Inmates, by Presence of a Psychiatric Disordera

≥1 Incarceration ≥2 Incarcerations ≥3 Incarcerations ≥4 Incarcerations

Disorder % Odds Ratio 95% CI %

Odds Ratio 95% CI %

Odds Ratio 95% CI %

Odds Ratio 95% CI

No major psychiatric disorder 38.7 Ref 12.2 Ref 3.6 Ref 1.1 Ref Any major psychiatric disorder 50.7 1.7 1.6–1.8 20.1 2.0 1.8–2.4 7.0 2.1 1.9–2.4 2.7 2.4 2.1–2.9 Major depressive disorder 48.5 1.5 1.4–1.6 17.9 1.5 1.4–1.7 5.5 1.5 1.4–1.8 2.0 1.6 1.3–2.1 Bipolar disorders 50.9 1.7 1.6–1.9 20.9 2.1 1.9–2.4 8.0 2.6 2.2–3.1 3.3 3.3 2.6–4.2 Schizophrenia 51.2 1.4 1.2–1.6 19.7 1.5 1.2–1.8 6.8 1.6 1.2–2.1 2.6 2.0 1.2–3.0 Nonschizophrenic psychotic disorders 54.8 1.8 1.6–2.0 23.9 2.1 1.8–2.4 8.7 2.2 1.8–2.7 3.2 2.4 1.7–3.5 a Odds ratios were adjusted for gender, age, race, current and previous violent criminal offense classification, current and previous drug-related

criminal offense classification, and length of current sentence.

Am J Psychiatry 166:1, January 2009 107

BAILLARGEON, BINSWANGER, PENN, ET AL.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

not fully examine the extent to which the duration of pre- vious incarcerations may have contributed to differential reincarceration rates between inmates with and without these mental illnesses over the 2000–2006 study period. Although it is possible that inmates with psychiatric disor- ders receive shorter sentences and therefore have greater opportunities to commit new criminal offenses and ulti- mately to be reincarcerated, this scenario is not supported by previous studies, which have consistently shown that mentally ill persons receive longer prison sentences and have a reduced likelihood of early parole compared with those who are not mentally ill (13, 19). These results are consistent with our own findings that TDCJ inmates with psychiatric disorders had a longer mean current prison sentence and were more likely than other inmates to be currently incarcerated for a violent crime. Assuming that these two variables would serve as reasonable proxies for previous prison sentence length, we adjusted for both cur- rent prison sentence length and current criminal offense classification in all statistical models and found that their inclusion in the models had only a minimal effect on the outcome of our analyses. Finally, our findings are highly dependent on the reliability and validity of the screening measures, the diagnoses of mental health professionals, and the accuracy of data entry into the electronic medical record. Although TDCJ has policies of universal and stan- dardized medical screening of all inmates at intake, as well as standardized and validated data entry procedures, it is possible that some inmates were misclassified or misdiag- nosed and that some data were entered incorrectly.

Despite these limitations, this is the first study to exam- ine the association between major psychiatric disorders and multiple episodes of incarceration within an entire state prison population. Because this investigation was carried out in the nation’s largest state prison system, these findings have a high degree of statistical power and are likely to be generalizable to other U.S. prison systems. It is important to recognize, however, that inmates with mental illness represent a small and distinct segment of the broader population of mentally ill adults in the United States and that the overall contribution of mental illness to criminal activity in our society is small (21).

The results of our study highlight the need to pursue al- ternatives to incarceration of persons with severe mental illness. One of the most promising alternatives is the di- version model, designed to prevent or minimize law en- forcement detention of the nonviolent mentally ill (22, 23). Based on a foundation of extensive interagency collabora- tion between mental health, law enforcement, and crimi- nal justice systems, the model draws on a wide range of strategies to divert persons with severe mental illness to appropriate community-based mental health services in lieu of incarceration (15, 24).

There are two major types of diversion programs. Pre- booking programs, which are designed to resolve psychi- atric emergencies without resorting to arrest, generally are based on formal liaisons between law enforcement and mental health personnel (23, 25). An example is the crisis intervention team, which utilizes specially trained police officers to redirect individuals with mental illness to treat-

FIGURE 1. Risk of Previous Incarcerations Among Texas Prison Inmates, by Presence of a Psychiatric Disorder

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

A d

ju st

e d

O d

d s

R a ti

o ( 9

5 %

C I)

Any Major Psychiatric Disorder

Major Depressive Disorder

Bipolar Disorder Schizophrenia Nonschizophrenic Psychotic Disorder

Psychiatric Disorders

≥1 Incarceration ≥2 Incarcerations ≥3 Incarcerations ≥4 Incarcerations

108 Am J Psychiatry 166:1, January 2009

PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS AND REPEAT INCARCERATIONS

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

ment instead of the judicial system (22). Preliminary data suggest that the crisis intervention team program is asso- ciated with lower arrest rates and criminal justice costs than other pre- and postdiversion programs (22).

Postbooking programs, as the term implies, attempt to divert mentally ill offenders to community-based services after they have been arrested. In contrast to prebooking programs, the criminal justice system plays a major role in postbooking diversion (26). One particularly promising postbooking program is the mental health court, which was designed to divert nonviolent mentally ill individuals from jails and prisons into closely supervised treatment programs (27, 28). The number of mental health courts in the United States has increased from two in 1997 to ap- proximately 120 today (27). Unlike traditional courts, mental health courts have therapeutic goals, such as in- creasing treatment adherence, and they are presided over by designated judges (18, 27). Preliminary evidence indi- cates that participation in a mental health court is associ- ated with longer periods without criminal recidivism (18). Another emerging diversion strategy is the forensic asser- tive community treatment model, which relies on 24-hour mobile services and comprehensive outreach modalities, such as mental health and addiction treatment, transpor- tation, economic assistance, and vocational training (24).

In addition to diversion strategies, the implementation or expansion of discharge planning or continuity of care programs for mentally ill inmates who are about to be re- leased appears warranted. Ideally, such programs should link released inmates with long-term, community-based outpatient services to help them manage their mental health problems and reduce their risk of recidivism. Be- sides providing outpatient treatment, there is evidence suggesting that community-based mental health pro- grams should make efforts to ensure that ex-inmates have access to acute psychiatric inpatient treatment for an ap- propriate duration. For example, one study (29) found that hospitalizations that are too brief may fail to stabilize es- calating psychiatric symptoms and increase the risk of criminal recidivism. Other studies have shown that co- morbid substance use among persons with mental illness also increases the risk of reincarceration (29, 30), suggest- ing that the inclusion of drug and alcohol screening and treatment in community settings may help reduce the rate of recidivism among mentally ill persons (29).

Finally, a substantial proportion of inmates with mental illness are incarcerated for violent crimes (20%–25% in our study), especially felony offenses. Because these individu- als are generally ineligible for diversion programs, consid- eration should be given to the development of alternative correctional facilities that would provide an appropriate clinical environment, including expanded opportunities for monitoring and treatment, for inmates suffering from severe mental illness (31, 32).

A recent study by the Pew Center on the States esti- mated that, for the first time in U.S. history, more than 1 in

100 adults are confined in an American jail or prison at any given time (14). This striking statistic does not reflect a parallel increase in crime; rather, it is a culmination of criminal justice policies that send more lawbreakers to prison for longer periods. Although the costs of incarcera- tion have increased dramatically, little progress has been made in reducing the rates of recidivism and reincarcera- tion, particularly among inmates with mental illness (14). Hence, our finding that inmates with psychiatric disorders have an increased risk of having multiple incarcerations has important policy implications. Addressing this public health crisis adequately will require the continued devel- opment of novel and integrated interventions, such as mental health courts, continuity of care programs, and the development of specialized correctional mental health fa- cilities. Given the scale and complexity of this problem, it is likely that a coordinated effort among criminal justice, mental health, and public health systems will be neces- sary to reduce the widespread criminalization of the men- tally ill in America.

Received March 20, 2008; revision received May 30, 2008; ac- cepted July 14, 2008 (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08030416). From the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health and the Correctional Managed Care Program, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston; Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora; and the Department of Medicine, University of Cali- fornia at San Francisco. Address correspondence and reprint re- quests to Dr. Baillargeon, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 Univer- sity Blvd., Galveston, TX 77555; [email protected] (e-mail).

All authors report no competing interests. The authors thank Leonard Pechacek for his editorial assistance.

References

1. Teplin LA, Abram KM, McClelland GM: Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women, I: pretrial jail detainees. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53:505–512

2. Diamond PM, Wang EW, Holzer CE III, Thomas C, des Anges C: The prevalence of mental illness in prison. Adm Policy Ment Health 2001; 29:21–40

3. National Commission on Correctional Health Care: The Health Status of Soon-to-Be-Released Inmates: A Report to Congress. Chicago, National Commission on Correctional Health Care, 2002

4. James DJ, Glaze LE: Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 213600. Washington, DC, US Department of Justice, Sept 2006. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf

5. Butterfield F: Asylums behind bars: a special report; prisons re- place hospitals for the nation’s mentally ill. New York Times, March 5, 1998

6. Kinsler PJ, Saxman A: Traumatized offenders: don’t look now, but your jail’s also your mental health center. J Trauma Disso- ciation 2007; 8:81–95

7. Lamb HR, Bachrach LL: Some perspectives on deinstitutional- ization. Psychiatr Serv 2001; 52:1039–1045

8. Boutwell A, Rich JD: HIV infection behind bars. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:1761–1763

9. Lurigio AJ, Swartz JA: Changing the contours of the criminal jus- tice system to meet the needs of persons with serious mental illness, in Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Jus-

Am J Psychiatry 166:1, January 2009 109

BAILLARGEON, BINSWANGER, PENN, ET AL.

ajp.psychiatryonline.org

tice System. Edited by Horney J. Washington, DC, Department of Justice, 2000, pp 45–108

10. Hoge SK: Providing transition and outpatient services to men- tally ill released from correctional institutions, in Public Health Behind Bars: From Prisons to Communities. Edited by Greifin- ger RB. Dobbs Ferry, NY, Springer, 2007, pp 461–477

11. Putkonen H, Komulainen EJ, Virkkunen M, Eronen M, Lönn- qvist J: Risk of repeat offending among violent female offend- ers with psychotic and personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160:947–951

12. Teplin LA, Abram KM, McClelland GM: Does psychiatric disor- der predict violent crime among released jail detainees? a six- year longitudinal study. Am Psychol 1994; 49:335–342

13. Porporino FJ, Motiuk LL: The prison careers of mentally disor- dered offenders. Int J Law Psychiatry 1995; 18:29–44

14. Pew Center on the States: One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Washington, DC, Pew Charitable Trusts, 2008. http:// www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=35904

15. Kanapaux W: Criminal Justice Primer for State Mental Health Agencies. Alexandria, VA, National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors and National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning , 2002. http:// www.nasmhpd.org/general_files/publications/ntac_pubs/ reports/Primer.pdf

16. Feder L: A comparison of the community adjustment of men- tally ill offenders with those from the general prison popula- tion. Law Hum Behav 1991; 15:477–493

17. Lovell D, Gagliardi GJ, Peterson PD: Recidivism and use of ser- vices among persons with mental illness after release from prison. Psychiatr Serv 2002; 53:1290–1296

18. McNiel DE, Binder RL: Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164:1395–1403

19. Ditton PM: Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Pro- bationers. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 172211. Washington, DC, US Department of Justice, July 1999. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhtip.pdf

20. Bonta J, Law M, Hanson K: The prediction of criminal and vio- lent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: a meta- analysis. Psychol Bull 1998; 123:123–142

21. Filley CM, Price BH, Nell V, Antoinette T, Pincus J, Bresnahan JF, Pincus JH, Gelbort MM, Weissberg M, Kelly JP: Toward an un-

derstanding of violence: neurobehavioral aspects of unwar- ranted physical aggression: Aspen Neurobehavioral Confer- ence consensus statement. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol 2001; 14:1–14

22. Compton MT, Bahora M, Watson AC, Oliva JR: A comprehensive review of extant research on crisis intervention team (CIT) pro- grams. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2008; 36:47–55

23. Steadman HJ, Morris SM, Dennis DL: The diversion of mentally ill persons from jails to community-based services: a profile of programs. Am J Public Health 1995; 85:1630–1635

24. Lamberti JS, Weisman R, Faden DI: Forensic assertive commu- nity treatment: preventing incarceration of adults with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2004; 55:1285–1293

25. Lamb HR, Weinberger LE, DeCuir WJ: The police and mental health. Psychiatr Serv 2002; 53:1266–1271

26. Draine J, Solomon P: Describing and evaluating jail diversion services for persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 1999; 50:56–61

27. Kuehn BM: Mental health courts show promise. JAMA 2007; 297:1641–1643

28. Thompson M, Osher F, Tomasini-Joshi D: Improving Responses to People With Mental Illness: The Essential Elements of a Men- tal Health Court. New York, Council of State Governments Jus- tice Center, 2007

29. Quanbeck CD, Stone DC, McDermott BE, Boone K, Scott CL, Frye MA: Relationship between criminal arrest and community treatment history among patients with bipolar disorder. Psy- chiatr Serv 2005; 56:847–852

30. Hartwell SW: Comparison of offenders with mental illness only and offenders with dual diagnoses. Psychiatr Serv 2004; 55: 145–150

31. Daigle MS, Daniel AE, Dear GE, Frottier P, Hayes LM, Kerhof A, Konrad N, Liebling A, Sarchiapone M: Preventing suicide in prisons, part II: international comparisons of suicide preven- tion services in correctional facilities. Crisis 2007; 28:122–130

32. Konrad N, Daigle MS, Daniel AE, Dear GE, Frottier P, Hayes LM, Kerkhof A, Liebling A, Sarchiapone M: Preventing suicide in prisons, part I: recommendations from the International Asso- ciation for Suicide Prevention Task Force on Suicide in Prisons. Crisis 2007; 28:113–121