Elsevier

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Volume 37, Issue 5, September–October 2014, Pages 464-472
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Mental health specialized probation caseloads: Are they effective?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.019Get rights and content

Abstract

With the large and growing number of persons with mental illnesses under probation supervision, a form of specialized probation called specialized mental health caseload (SMHC) has been implemented. This study explores the effectiveness of a prototypic SMHC implemented statewide. A quasi-experimental design was used to compare criminal justice, mental health, and community engagement outcomes among three caseloads: a newly established SMHC supervising no more than 30 clients per officer (N = 1367); an established SMHC supervising roughly 50 clients per officer (N = 495); and a traditional caseload of clients receiving mental health treatment and supervised by officers with average caseloads of over 130 clients (N = 5453). Using a mixed methods approach, we found that the SMHC was implemented with high adherence to fidelity, and comparisons based on different caseload samples generally support the effectiveness of the specialized mental health caseload, particularly on criminal justice outcomes. Future studies using random assignment are needed to examine the connection among mental health symptoms, compliance with treatment and probation supervision, and recidivism.

Introduction

Over the past 20 years, specialized interventions for justice-involved persons with mental illnesses have proliferated (Epperson et al., 2014). The majority of these interventions were implemented at the front-end of the criminal justice system — police, courts, and jail, with the intention of diverting people with mental illnesses to the mental health system (Sirotich, 2009). The design and development pattern of specialized interventions reflect the now-contested presumption, most commonly referred to as the criminalization hypothesis (Abramson, 1972), that individuals with mental illnesses were involved in the criminal justice system primarily because of symptoms related to un- or under-treated mental illness (Epperson et al., 2014, Skeem et al., 2011). For this reason, intervention development and dissemination waned in other areas of the criminal justice system, particularly probation supervision.

While presumption bias historically hampered development, the facts clearly support the need for specialized interventions at the back-end of the criminal justice system. Three facts are relevant here. First, the bulk of criminal justice supervision occurs in the area of community supervision and, more specifically, under the responsibility of probation. In 2011, of the 7.1 million people under correctional supervision in the US, 4.9 million (66.8%) were supervised in the community and the majority (4.1 million or 82.9%) by the probation service (Glaze, 2011). Second, mental disorder is over-represented among justice-involved persons. Approximately 1 in 7 people involved in the criminal justice system in the US is estimated to have serious mental illnesses (SMI) — major depression, bipolar, schizophrenia (Fazel and Danesh, 2002, Steadman et al., 2009), nearly three times the rate found in the general population (NIMH, 2010). Taken together, on an average day, approximately 574,000 people with SMI in the US are under probation supervision. In addition to SMI, these individuals are very likely to have a co-occurring substance abuse problem (Lurigio et al., 2003, Roskes and Feldman, 1999, Sirdifield, 2012, Teplin, 1994, Teplin et al., 1996), further complicating their supervision. And, third, while under probation supervision, people with SMI, compared to those without SMI, are more likely to fail — that is, have their community supervision term revoked because of a violation of the special conditions of probation (i.e., technical violation) or a new offense (Cloyes et al., 2010, Dauphinot, 1996, Eno Louden and Skeem, 2011, Porporino and Motiuk, 1995). Failure on probation pulls people with SMI deeper into the criminal justice system, further disrupting their already precarious living situations (Draine et al., 2002, Fisher et al., 2006) and fragile community ties (Draine et al., 2005, Skeem et al., 2009). In short, the stated aims of probation, namely rehabilitation and providing an alternative to incarceration, are less likely to be achieved among persons with SMI.

As early as 1994, attention was drawn to a perfect storm within community corrections. Veysey (1994) rang the alarm, describing a parole system that under-identified and underserved clients with SMI in large part because most parole officers were ineffective in responding to their unique set of needs. This was followed two years later by a call for a specialized response to people with SMI within community corrections. In a monograph entitled Community Corrections in America: New Directions and Sounder Investments for Persons with Mental Illness and Codisorders (Lurigio, 1996), the collective of authors recommended: (1) specialized units with smaller and exclusive caseloads for offenders with SMI (Latessa, 1996); (2) specialized training in mental illness for officers (Clear, 1996); (3) ongoing specialized training (Latessa, 1996) and cross-training (Veysey, 1996); (4) boundary spanning — collaboration among systems (Corbett, 1996, Davidson, 1996, Veysey, 1996); (5) services integration (Veysey, 1996); and (6) normalization of punitiveness — supervision that was no more punitive for clients with SMI who are supervised more intensively. It was further advanced that the “purpose of correctional services for offenders with mental illness should always be to maximize their potential for living and functioning effectively in the community” (Clear, 1996, p. 16). A philosophical shift from exclusively punishment and social control to conjointly include (re)habilitation and community engagement was seen as key to effectively supervise clients with SMI.

Community corrections remained largely unchanged, with responses to clients with SMI repeatedly deemed “woefully inadequate,” although there was evidence of embryonic development of specialized efforts in Cook County Illinois, California, Baltimore, Maryland (Lurigio, 2001, Lurigio and Swartz, 2000) and Ohio (Latessa, 1996). In 2002, reform was recommended again, this time by the Council of State Governments (2002), which proposed a more systematic and focused response to clients under community supervision who have SMI; a response that targeted the special needs and issues of clients with SMI that were hindering their compliance with the special conditions of supervision. The recommended venue was specialized mental health caseloads (also referred to as specialized probation) — comprised of smaller, exclusive caseloads supervised by officers with special training in mental health and related areas of needs. Smaller more specialized caseloads managed by expert officers were expected to be more effective in securing needed resources (treatment, as well as social, housing, and public benefits) through advocacy and collaboration with collateral community agencies; working with mental health providers and clients towards goals of treatment compliance; and engaging clients through styles and patterns of interpersonal interactions that would increase compliance with the general and special conditions of supervision and, consequently, stabilize community living and promote public safety.

With these recommendations in mind, and given the dearth of information about specialized probation practices, a national survey of specialized probation agencies was conducted (Skeem, Emke-Francis, & Eno Louden, 2006). Of the 137 probation agencies found nationwide with a dedicated response to clients with mental illnesses, only 73 were “pure” forms of supervision, i.e., did not mix clients (e.g., sex offenders or other special needs groups), or comprised the efforts of a single officer. The defining characteristics of “prototypic” specialized probation were narrowed to five: (1) caseloads inclusive only of clients with mental illnesses; (2) smaller than average caseloads (average caseload of 43 to 45, compared to the normal caseload of over 100 for traditional officers); (3) specialized and continuous training of officers; (4) collaboration with and integration of internal and external resources; and (5) use of problem-solving methods to engage clients in compliance with special conditions (Skeem et al., 2006). These characteristics reflect the recommendations within the Community Corrections in America monograph and the report by the Council of State Governments, although neither of these sets of recommendations was based on research, but rather, on an understanding of the special needs of people with SMI who were failing at community supervision and needing help “to maximize their potential for living and functioning effectively in the community” (Clear, 1996, p. 16).

What remains unclear is whether these specialized caseloads work to achieve the twin-goals of enhanced compliance and improved community living, as research on specialized probation for persons with SMI is quite limited. Key characteristics and processes of specialized probation units have been studied only in recent years (Eno Louden et al., 2008, Eno Louden et al., 2012, Skeem et al., 2003, Skeem et al., 2007). Evaluation of specialized probation targeting people with SMI is in its infancy, and existing evidence to date bears numerous empirical limitations. Latessa (1996), using administrative data and a non-experimental comparison design, compared probation outcomes among clients from five specialized units: mental illness (supervised either by a specialized officer or unit); sex offender unit; drug offender unit; high risk offender unit; and traditional unit (i.e., those supervised by standard probation), with an average time under supervision of 13.5 months (mentally disordered group) to 18 months (sex offender group). Over the period of observation, clients with SMI had more officer contacts per month (4.1) than those clients under traditional supervision (1.3) but less than those in the drug offender group (5.1); were less likely to be arrested (26%) compared to all groups (ranging from 43 to 32%) except the traditional group (25%); were roughly equally likely to be charged with a technical violation (44%) compared to 41 to 45% for the other groups except for the sex offender group (23%); were more likely to be deemed successful on probation (63%), compared to the drug (41%) and high risk (46%) groups, but less successful than the sex offender group (78%).

One of the first evaluations of specialized probation was conducted by Roskes and Feldman (1999), using a pre-post-study of 16 probationers with SMI. They found reduced rates of violation for the 13 probationers who remained on a specialized program. However, given non-random sample selection and the fact that 3 of the 16 participants were removed from the program due to non-compliance, this study's finding is quite preliminary and not generalizable. A second, larger study by Burke and Keaton (2004) involved random assignment of probationers with SMI to specialty probation and case management (n = 225) versus traditional probation (n = 224). Although the study demonstrated greater access to mental health services and lower likelihood of re-arrest for those on specialized probation, only 58% of the specialty probation sample completed the program, and “non-completers” were excluded from outcomes analyses, whereas non-completers of traditional probation were not excluded. Additionally, the follow-up period was limited (six months), and the specialized probation with case management was quite costly, more approximating assertive community treatment, and not likely to be replicated by probation jurisdictions (Skeem & Eno Louden, 2006).

An unpublished study cited by Skeem and Eno Louden (2006) involved 800 probationers with mental illnesses randomized to either specialized probation, traditional probation, or no probation with or without additional treatment. Initial results indicate that those on specialty probation received more mental health services, but were equally as likely to return to jail as those on traditional probation or case management services. However, because this study is as yet unpublished, important aspects of study design, such as measurement instruments, follow-up period, and use of control groups, are unknown. A retrospective, non-randomized study based on three years of arrest data of 241 probationers with mental illnesses participating in a specialized probation unit located in Chicago demonstrated reduced arrest rates comparing the period prior to and after specialized probation (Jesse, Bishop, Thomas, & Dudish-Poulsen, 2008).

While all these studies suggest that specialized probation may hold promise in producing positive mental health and criminal justice outcomes for probationers with SMI (Skeem & Eno Louden, 2006), these studies have significant limitations: a less than ideal comparison group based on a pre-post-non-randomized design or the exclusion of non-completers from the experimental group analyses. None of these evaluation studies addressed issues of selection bias or program fidelity, which limits the interpretation and generalizability of study findings.

The present study explores the effectiveness of a prototypic specialty mental health caseload (SMHC) implemented statewide. A quasi-experimental design was used to compare supervision, mental health, and community engagement outcomes among three caseloads: a newly established SMHC supervising no more than 30 clients per officer; an established SMHC supervising roughly 50 clients per officer; and traditional caseloads of clients receiving mental health treatment (diagnosis unknown) and supervised by officers with average caseloads of over 130 clients. Data for these comparisons are drawn from administrative data sets. Additional self-report data were obtained from a research sample of clients enrolled in the newly established SMHC and are used to verify findings from inter-group comparisons.

For this study, within the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine's evidence hierarchy, we are using a Level 2b design: quasi-experimental design — non-equivalent comparison group (Oxford Centre, 2012), the most common design used to study specialized interventions targeting justice-involved persons with mental illnesses (Sirotich, 2009). Issues of program fidelity and selection bias are explored as well. Our study, using both administrative and self-report data, tests three hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1

Clients with mental illnesses assigned to the SMHC will have fewer probation violations in the six months post-assignment to the SMHC and when compared to probation clients receiving mental health treatment but assigned to traditional probation supervision.

Hypothesis 2

Clients with mental illnesses assigned to the SMHC will have fewer jail days in the six months post-assignment to the SMHC and when compared to probation clients receiving mental health treatment but assigned to traditional probation supervision.

Hypothesis 3

Clients with mental illnesses assigned to the SMHC will have improved mental health outcomes six months post-assignment to the SMHC.

Section snippets

Methods

A quasi-experimental design was used to test the effectiveness of the SMHC in terms of criminal justice, behavioral health, and community stability outcomes for clients with mental illnesses. As with many evaluations of real-world interventions, randomization was not feasible (Skeem & Eno Louden, 2006).

Results

Table 1 compares the demographic and criminal history characteristics across the three administrative samples: grant caseload, pilot caseload, and traditional caseload. Compared to the traditional caseload, the grant caseload sample, on average, was more than one year older, while the pilot caseload sample was nearly two years older. A smaller percentage (5 to 10% less) of probationers is male on the grant caseload and pilot caseloads, compared to traditional supervision. There are more Black

Discussion

The results from comparisons based on different caseload samples and the research sample generally support the effectiveness of the specialized mental health caseload (SMHC) and the three hypotheses underpinning our analysis. In terms of probation violations, we hypothesized that clients with mental illnesses assigned to the SMHC (grant caseload) would have fewer probation violations in the six months post-assignment to the SMHC and compared to probation clients receiving mental health

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Justice (Grant #2010-SC-BX-0002).

References (53)

  • M. Epperson et al.

    Envisioning the next generation of behavioral health and criminal justice interventions

    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

    (2014)
  • S. Fazel et al.

    Serious mental disorder in 23,000 prisoners: A systematic review of 62 surveys

    The Lancet

    (2002)
  • F.J. Porporino et al.

    The prison careers of mentally disordered offenders

    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

    (1995)
  • M.F. Abramson

    The criminalization of mentally disordered behavior: Possible side effects of a new mental health law

    Hospital and Community Psychiatry

    (1972)
  • C. Burke et al.

    San Diego County's Connections Program: Board of Corrections final report

    (2004)
  • T.R. Clear

    The challenges of responding to persons with mental illness in the penal system community corrections

  • K.G. Cloyes et al.

    Time to prison return for offenders with serious mental illness released from prison: A survival analysis

    Criminal Justice and Behavior

    (2010)
  • R.P. Corbett

    Reengineering the delivery of services to mentally ill probationers and parolees

  • Council of State Governments

    Criminal justice/mental health consensus project

    Policy statements 16c, 22a

    (2002)
  • L.L. Dauphinot

    The efficacy of community correctional supervision for offenders with severe mental illness

    (1996)
  • C.E. Davidson

    From territoriality to collaboration: A multisystems response to offenders with mental illness

  • R.H. Dehejia et al.

    Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies

    The Review of Economics and Statistics

    (2002)
  • L.R. Derogatis

    A brief form of the SCL-90-R: A self-report symptom inventory designed to measure psychological stress: Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)

    (1993)
  • J. Draine et al.

    Role of social disadvantage in crime, joblessness, and homelessness among persons with serious mental illness

    Psychiatric Services

    (2002)
  • J. Draine et al.

    Understanding community re-entry of former prisoners with mental illness: A conceptual model to guide new research

    Behavioral Sciences & the Law

    (2005)
  • J. Eno Louden et al.

    Parolees with mental disorder: Toward evidence-based practice

    Bulletin of the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections

    (2011)
  • J. Eno Louden et al.

    Supervising probationers with mental disorder: How do agencies respond to violations?

    Criminal Justice and Behavior

    (2008)
  • J. Eno Louden et al.

    Supervision practices in specialty mental health probation: What happens in officer-probationer meetings?

    Law and Human Behavior

    (2012)
  • W.H. Fisher et al.

    Beyond criminalization: Toward a criminologically informed framework for mental health policy and services research

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research

    (2006)
  • L.E. Glaze

    Correctional population in the United States, 2010. BJS Bulletin

    (2011)
  • S. Guo et al.

    Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications

    (2010)
  • K. Jesse et al.

    Adult probation department mental health unit: An outcomes investigation

    Professional Issues in Criminal Justice

    (2008)
  • E.J. Latessa

    The supervision of persons with mental illness on probation supervision

  • A.J. Lurigio

    Effective services for parolees with mental illnesses

    Crime and Delinquency

    (2001)
  • A.J. Lurigio et al.

    Standardized assessment of substance-related, other psychiatric, and comorbid disorders among probationers

    International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

    (2003)
  • Cited by (32)

    • The relationship between mental health, risk, and community supervision outcomes

      2022, Journal of Criminal Justice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Subsequent research has remained relatively consistent with Ditton's (1999) findings, reporting estimates between 15% and 27% (Crilly et al., 2009; Lurigio et al., 2003; Van Deinse et al., 2019). Although the exact rates of individuals living with mental health conditions are unknown within the community-supervision population, research has consistently shown a relationship between living with a mental health condition and having a higher likelihood of community supervision non-completion (Baillargeon et al., 2009; Cloyes et al., 2010; Dauphinot, 1996; Ostermann & Matejkowski, 2012; Skeem et al., 2006; Van Deinse, Cuddeback, Wilson, & Burgin, 2018) and recidivism (Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998; Messina, Burdon, Hagopian, & Prendergast, 2004; Skeem & Louden, 2006; Skeem, Winter, Kennealy, Louden, & Tatar II, 2014; Wolff et al., 2014). Most commonly, recidivism or supervision non-compliance is due to technical violations, not re-offending (Eno Louden & Skeem, 2013; Van Deinse et al., 2018).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text