Book contents
- Decriminalizing Mental Illness
- Decriminalizing Mental Illness
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction/Description of the Problem
- Part II Solutions
- Chapter 10 Jail Diversion: The Miami Model
- Chapter 11 Jail Diversion: A Practical Primer
- Chapter 12 Principles and Practices of Risk Assessment in Mental Health Jail Diversion Programs
- Chapter 13 Decriminalization in Action: Lessons from the Los Angeles Model
- Chapter 14 Economics of Decriminalizing Mental Illness: When Doing the Right Thing Costs Less
- Chapter 15 Decriminalizing Severe Mental Illness by Reducing Risk of Contact with the Criminal Justice System, Including for Forensic Patients
- Chapter 16 The Cal-DSH Diversion Guidelines
- Chapter 17 Decriminalizing Mental Illness: Specialized Policing Responses
- Part III Psychopharmacological Treatment Considerations
- Part IV Nonpsychopharmacological Treatment Considerations
- Part V Criminal Justice and Social Considerations
- Index
- References
Chapter 11 - Jail Diversion: A Practical Primer
from Part II - Solutions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2021
Book contents
- Decriminalizing Mental Illness
- Decriminalizing Mental Illness
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction/Description of the Problem
- Part II Solutions
- Chapter 10 Jail Diversion: The Miami Model
- Chapter 11 Jail Diversion: A Practical Primer
- Chapter 12 Principles and Practices of Risk Assessment in Mental Health Jail Diversion Programs
- Chapter 13 Decriminalization in Action: Lessons from the Los Angeles Model
- Chapter 14 Economics of Decriminalizing Mental Illness: When Doing the Right Thing Costs Less
- Chapter 15 Decriminalizing Severe Mental Illness by Reducing Risk of Contact with the Criminal Justice System, Including for Forensic Patients
- Chapter 16 The Cal-DSH Diversion Guidelines
- Chapter 17 Decriminalizing Mental Illness: Specialized Policing Responses
- Part III Psychopharmacological Treatment Considerations
- Part IV Nonpsychopharmacological Treatment Considerations
- Part V Criminal Justice and Social Considerations
- Index
- References
Summary
The United States’ incarceration rate of its national population is the highest in the world. The percentage of incarcerated individuals with a mental illness is substantial, with 10% to 15% of inmates suffering from a serious mental illness. Two-thirds of sentenced jail inmates met criteria for drug dependence or abuse. Many inmates experience both mental illness and a substance use disorder as co-occurring conditions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Decriminalizing Mental Illness , pp. 106 - 114Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Walmsley, R. World prison population list.World Prison Brief. 12th edn. London, UK: Institute for Criminal Policy Research; 2018. www.prisonstudies.org (accessed August 10, 2019).Google Scholar
Hoge, SK, Buchanan, AW, Kovasznay, MB, Roskes, EJ. Outpatient Services for the Mentally Ill Involved in the Criminal Justice System. American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report: Washington, DC; 2009: 1–15.Google Scholar
Bronson, J, Stroop, J, Zimmer, S, Berzofsky, M. Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007–2009. NCJ250546. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2017.Google Scholar
Pinals, DA. Forensic services, public mental health policy, and financing: charting the course ahead. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014; 42(1): 7–19.Google Scholar
Dewa, CS, Loong, D, Grujillo, A, Bonato, S. Evidence for the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in decriminalizing mental illness: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2018; 13(6): e0199368.Google Scholar
Winick, B, Wexler, DB. Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Court. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press; 2003.Google Scholar
Munetz, MR, Griffin, PA. Use of the sequential intercept model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2006; 57(4): 544–549.Google Scholar
Livingston, JD. Contact between police and people with mental disorders: a review of rates. Psychiatr Serv. 2016; 67(8): 850–857.Google Scholar
Fisher, WH, Roy-Bujnowski, KM, Grudzinskas, A, et al. Patterns and prevalence of arrest in a statewide cohort of mental health care consumers. Psychiatr Serv. 2006; 56(11): 1623–1628.Google Scholar
Fuller, DA, Kamb, HR, Biasotti, M, Snook, J. Overlooked in the undercounted: the role of mental illness in fatal law enforcement encounters. Treatment Advocacy Center; . www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/evidence-and-research/studies.Google Scholar
Reuland, M, Schwarzfeld, M, Draper, L. Law Enforcement Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center; 2012.Google Scholar
Wood, JD, Watson, AC. Improving police interventions during mental health-related encounters: past, present and future. Policing Soc. 2017; 27: 289–299.Google Scholar
Dupont, R, Cochran, MJ, Pillsbury, S. Crisis Intervention Team Core Elements. The University of Memphis, School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, CIT Center. 2007: 1–20.Google Scholar
Crisis Intervention Training. National Curriculum. University of Memphis, CIT Center. http://cit.memphis.edu/curriculuma.php?id-0 (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Cuddeback, GS, Kurtz, RA, Wilson, AB, VanDeinse, T, Burgin, SE. Segmented versus traditional Crisis Intervention Team training. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2016; 44(3): 338–343.Google Scholar
Watson, AC, Ottati, VC, Morabito, M, et al. Outcomes of police contacts with persons with mental illness: the impact of CIT. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010; 37: 302–317.Google Scholar
Compton, MT, Bahor, M, Watson, AC, Oliva, JR. A comprehensive review of extant research on Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programs. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008; 36(1): 47–55.Google Scholar
Compton, MT, Bakeman, R, Broussard, B, D’Orio, B, Watson, AC. Police officers’ volunteering for (rather than being assigned to) Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training: evidence for a beneficial self-selection effect. Behav Sci Law. 2017; 35 (6–6): 470–479.Google Scholar
Strassle, CG. CIT in small municipalities: officer level outcomes. Behav Sci Law. 2019; 37(4): 342–352.Google Scholar
Steadman, HJ, Morrissette, D. Police responses to persons with mental illness: going beyond CIT training. Psych Serv. 2016; 67(10): 1054–1056.Google Scholar
Compton, MT, Halpern, B, Broussard, B, et al. A potential new form of jail diversion and reconnection to mental health services: 1. Stakeholders’ views on acceptability. Behav Sci Law. 2017; 35: 480–491.Google Scholar
Puntis, S, Perfect, D, Kirubarajan, A, et al. A systematic review of co-responder models of police mental health ‘street’ triage. BMC Psychiatry. 2018; 18(1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meehan, T, Brack, J, Mansfield, Y, Stedman, T. Do police-mental health co-responder programmes reduce emergency department presentations or simply delay the inevitable? Australas Psychiatry. 2019; 27(1): 18–20.Google Scholar
Scott, RL. Evaluation of a mobile crisis program: effectiveness, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction. Psychiatr Serv. 2000; 51(9): 1153–1156.Google Scholar
Steadman, HJ, Stainbrook, KA, Griffin, P, et al. A specialized crisis response site as a core element of police-based diversion programs. Psychiatr Serv. 2001; 52(2): 219–222.Google Scholar
Sirotich, F. The criminal justice outcomes of jail diversion programs for persons with mental illness; a review of the evidence. J Am Acad Psych Law. 2009; 37(4): 461–472.Google Scholar
Shafer, MS, Arthur, B, Franczak, MJ. An analysis of post-booking jail diversion programming for persons with co-occurring disorders. Behav Sci Law. 2004; 22: 771–785.Google Scholar
Gill, KJ, Murphy, AA. Jail diversion for persons with serious mental illness coordinated by a prosecutor’s office. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017: 7917616.Google Scholar
Salzberg, PM, Klingberg, CL. The effectiveness of deferred prosecution for driving while intoxicated. J Stud Alcohol. 1983; 44(2): 299–306.Google Scholar
Barnoski, R. Deferred prosecution of DUI cases in Washington State: evaluating the impact on recidivism, August 2008. www.wsipp.wa.gov (accessed August 21, 2019).Google Scholar
Fulkerson, A, Keena, LD, O’Brien, E. Understanding success and nonsuccess in the drug court. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2012; 57(10): 1297–1316.Google Scholar
Harrell, A, Roman, J. Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: the impact of graduated sanctions. J Drug Issues. 2001; 31: 207–232.Google Scholar
Lindquist, CH, Krebs, C, Lattimore, PK. Sanctions and rewards in drug court programs: implementation, perceived efficacy, and decision making. J Drug Issues. 2006; 36: 119–145.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, A. Drug treatment versus probation: an examination of comparative recidivism rates. Southwest J Crim Justice. 2012; 8: 30–45.Google Scholar
Goldkamp, JS, Irons-Guynn, C. Emerging judicial strategies for the mentally ill in the criminal caseload: mental health courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph; 2000. Pub no. NCJ 182504.Google Scholar
McNeil, DE, Binder, RL. Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. Am J Psychiatry. 2007; 164: 1395–1403.Google Scholar
Lowder, EM, Rade, CB, Desmarais, SL. Effectiveness of mental health courts in reducing recidivism: a meta-analysis. Psychiatr Serv. 2018; 69(1): 15–22.Google Scholar
Redlich, AD, Steadman, HJ, Monahan, K, Petrila, J, Griffin, PA. The second generation of mental health courts. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2005; 11(4): 527–538.Google Scholar
Yuan, Y, Capriotti, MR. The impact of mental health court: a Sacramento case study. Behav Sci Law. 2019; 37: 452–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinals, DA, Gaba, A, Clary, KM, et al. Implementation of MISSION – criminal justice in a treatment court: preliminary outcomes among individuals with co-occurring disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 2019; 70(11): 1044–1048.Google Scholar
Bazelon, D. Foreword. In: Donaldson K, Insanity Inside Out. New York: Crown University of Michigan; 1976.Google Scholar