This is an archive page. The links are no longer being updated.
Mental Health and Criminal Justice
Testimony by Bernard S. Arons, M.D.
Director, SAMHSA Center for Mental
Health Services
September 21, 2000
The number of persons with mental illness in U.S. jails
continues to grow. Currently the prevalence of active serious
mental illness among inmates admitted to U.S. jails is about
7 percent, which means that nearly 700,000 persons with active
symptoms of severe mental illness are admitted to jails annually.
For those persons in prison, recent Bureau of Justice Statistics
reports approximately 16% or about 233,000 are also similarly
diagnosed. About 75 percent of these people have a co-occurring
alcohol or drug use disorder. Criminal justice and mental
health professionals and advocates have called for diversion
efforts to link offenders with mental illness to community-based
services to break their continued cycling through the criminal
justice, mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems
and to reduce the number of people with mental illness in
jails.
In order to help address this problem, the SAMHSA Center
for Mental Health Services has supported a large scale study
of the effectiveness of pre - and post - booking diversion
models. While nowhere near a comprehensive approach to all
the issues involved in providing care and treatment to persons
with mental illness who become involved with the criminal
justice system, this is the area that appeared to offer the
best promising program models that could be evaluated for
their differential impacts.
For this reason, I will focus my background information
on our diversion program while only briefly referencing other
aspects of the issue which will, I expect, be addressed by
other witnesses. The second part of my testimony will offer
an approach to problem solving that could be useful to members
of Congress as well as local communities struggling to deal
with this growing crisis.
What is Jail Diversion?
Jail diversion generally refers to specific programs that
screen detainees in contact with the criminal justice
system for the presence of mental disorder; they employ mental
health professionals to evaluate the detainees and negotiate
with prosecutors, defense attorney, community-based mental
health providers, and the courts to develop community-based
mental health dispositions for mentally ill detainees.
The mental health disposition is sought as an alternative
to prosecution, as a condition of a reduction in charges,
or as satisfaction for the charges, for example, as a condition
of probation. Once such a disposition is decided upon, the
diversion program links the client to community-based mental
health services.
It is important to note that jail diversion services consist
of two broad interlocking areas of intervention. First is
the diversion mechanisms, or the means by which an individual
is identified at some point in the arrest process and diverted
into mental health services. Second is the system of integrated
mental health and substance abuse services to which the client
is diverted.
Broadly defined, diversion leads individuals with mental
illness or substance use problems away from criminal incarceration.
Diversion services may either prevent incarceration or cut
it short. Conceptually, then, the definition of diversion
could include many crisis services that are used to intervene
after the onset of acute symptoms but before an individual
has engaged in any criminal behavior, thus removing a basis
for arrest. Such a broad definition would make it very difficult
to differentiate crisis services from jail diversion because
one could never be sure that an arrest would otherwise have
occurred. Diversion could also be any planning for release
from jail, because a plan for community services after release
often facilitates a faster release, thus preventing extended
incarceration. Diversion programs can be operated by police,
pre-trial service agencies, courts (as part of a Mental Health
Court or otherwise), and from several parts of the jail system.
What makes jail diversion unique is that this service positions
itself within the criminal justice system as an immediate
alternative to incarceration. Individuals with mental illnesses
may be identified for diversion from the criminal justice
system at any point, including pre-booking interventions (before
formal charges are brought) and post-booking interventions
(after the individual has been arrested and jailed.
- Pre-booking diversion occurs at the point of contact
with law enforcement officers and relies heavily on effective
interactions between police and community mental health
services. Most diversion efforts in the United States are
post-booking programs, which can take place upon arraignment
in the courts or in the jail.
- A post-booking diversion program at either the
arraignment court or the jail is one that screens individuals
potentially eligible for diversion for the presence of mental
illnesses; evaluates their eligibility for diversion; negotiates
with prosecutors, defense attorneys, community-based mental
health providers, and the courts to produce a disposition
outside the jail in lieu of prosecution or as a condition
of a reduction in charges (whether or not a formal conviction
occurs); and links individuals to the array of community-based
services they require.
In a 1994 national survey, 34 percent of U.S. jails indicated
that they had some type of formal diversion program for mentally
ill detainees. However, in a follow-up telephone survey, only
18 percent of the jails that claimed to have such interventions
actually had programs that fit the definition provided above.
After researchers visited these sites, their final estimate
was that only about 50-55 true jail diversion programs for
mentally ill detainees exist nationwide.
When the major diversion programs were examined, five key
elements were associated with the programs that were perceived
to be most successful.
- All relevant mental health, substance abuse and criminal
justice agencies were involved from the start.
- Regular meetings between key personnel from the various
agencies were held.
- Integration of services was encouraged through the efforts
of a liaison person, or "boundary spanner," between the
corrections, mental health, and judicial staff.
- The programs had a strong leadership.
- Non-traditional case management approaches were used.
These approaches relied on staff that were hired less for
their academic credentials and more for their experience
across criminal justice, mental health, and substance abuse
systems.
The bottom line was that program effectiveness depended
on building new system linkages, viewing detainees as citizens,
and holding the community responsible for the full array of
services needed by the detainees.
Outcomes
Although jail diversion programs appear to have widespread
support, few outcome studies have systematically examined
the effectiveness of diversion programs using client outcome
data. The literature offers little information on whether
current programs benefit the targeted recipients in terms
of symptom stabilization, reduced jail time, higher level
community adjustment, and stable participation in community
mental health services. Torrey and colleagues noted that there
was not enough evidence about the comparative effectiveness
of alternative approaches to jail diversion to recommend one
approach over another.
Three modest outcome studies have been published. Lamb and
colleagues' study of a pre-booking diversion program in Los
Angeles sought to determine whether emergency outreach teams
composed of police officers and mental health professionals
could assess and make appropriate disposition decisions for
psychiatric crisis cases in the community, including situations
involving a threat of violence or actual violence. The study
included a six-month follow-up of all referrals to the specialized
outreach teams. Sixty-nine subjects encountered by the teams
were placed on involuntary 72-hour holds, 80 were transported
to hospitals, and 73 were actually hospitalized. Only two
subjects were taken to jail.
The researchers concluded that the team benefitted from
shared access to mental health and criminal justice records
in making disposition decisions. The trained police officers
provided security, transportation, law enforcement field resources,
and the knowledge about handling violence. The mental health
specialists provided knowledge about mental illness and experience
in diagnosis, crisis evaluation, and interacting with psychiatric
patients. Overall, the teams increased the percentage of mentally
ill persons who had access to the mental health system.
The study of the pre-booking diversion program by Steadman
and associates included two diversion sites - the community
service officer program in Birmingham, Alabama, and the crisis
intervention team in Memphis, Tennessee. The Birmingham community
service officer program is a police department-based program
staffed with in-house social workers. The Memphis crisis intervention
team is a police-department-based cadre of specially trained
officers who handle mental health crisis calls when the police
are the first line of response. For comparison, the study
included a traditional mental health emergency team - a mobile
crisis unit in Knoxville, Tennessee - which is based in the
county's mental health department and works with the Knoxville
police department.
The three programs had notable differences, partly due to
the program structure and staffing patterns. However, all
three showed great promise for diverting mentally ill people
from jail, keeping them in the community, and facilitating
access to treatment. Across all three sites, only 6.7 percent
of the "mental disturbance" calls resulted in arrest. The
Memphis crisis intervention team had an arrest rate of two
percent, which was comparable to that reported by Lamb and
colleagues for the pre-booking diversion program they studied.
These proportions compare to an 18 percent rate in a Chicago
study, where no specialized police mental health team was
available.
In more than half of the encounters examined in all three
programs, mentally ill subjects were either transported or
referred to treatment; in a third of the encounters, program
staff used specialized response procedures to provide crisis
intervention or resolve the incident on the scene. Of the
three programs, the Memphis crisis intervention team appeared
to make the management of crisis incidents easiest on police
by offering a no-refusal, 24-hour crisis drop-off center.
Lamb and colleagues examined outcomes from a post-booking
diversion program in Los Angeles County that provided mental
health consultation to a municipal court. Clinical and forensic
records of 96 individuals charged with misdemeanors and referred
to a clinical psychologist court consultant for evaluation
were studied. Follow-up information was collected one year
after arrest on each subject. Poor outcomes were defined as
psychiatric hospitalization, arrest, significant physical
violence against persons, or homelessness during the follow-up
year. Although 54 percent of the sample had a poor outcome,
a significantly larger proportion of subjects who were diverted
to receive judicially monitored treatment had a good outcome
compared with subjects who were not mandated to receive monitored
treatment. Also, subjects mandated to receive judicially monitored
treatment had significantly better outcomes than subjects
referred for treatment, but without court monitoring.
The three outcome studies described here offer some useful
information. However, they do not provide adequate data to
help answer the questions of a county executive, a sheriff,
or some other elected official who asks a diversion program
proponent to show how the proposed program will save the county
money or keep the streets safer. In the absence of more comprehensive
client outcome data and some cost-effectiveness information,
the creation of innovative programs to prevent the unnecessary
and often harmful incarceration of persons with serious mental
illness is severely compromised.
To produce such data is extremely difficult. In real-world
settings, random clinical trials are usually ethically impossible
or, if possible, are impractical given local politics and
the public's fears. Nonetheless, our current initiative holds
great promise for filling these empirical gaps with information
that will help communities in the design, implementation,
and operation of both pre-booking, police-department-based
diversion programs and post-booking, arraignment-court and
jail-based diversion programs.
The SAMHSA Jail Diversion Initiative
In September, 1997, The Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) funded a three-year Knowledge
and Development Application on jail diversion. The goal of
the Knowledge and Development Application program is to develop
new knowledge about ways to improve the prevention and treatment
os substance abuse and mental illness, and to work with state
and local governments as well as providers, families, and
consumers to apply that knowledge effectively in everyday
practice. Knowledge Development and Application grants do
not provide operating funds for service programs, except as
required by the knowledge development activity.
The jail diversion initiative moves beyond the three outcome
studies described above in four ways. First, it includes several
sites. Second, it is collecting extensive background and outcome
data on subjects who are diverted from jail and on comparison
subjects. Third, the study subjects constitute a diverse group.
About 70 percent of the subjects are expected to be men in
their mid 30s, most of whom have a mood disorder or schizophrenia.
Their charges are expected to be primarily nonviolent misdemeanors,
although a few are expected to have committed nonviolent felonies.
Fourth, the jail diversion initiative will gather some cost
data. The result will allow more sophisticated answers to
the core questions for diversion - what works, for whom, and
under what circumstances.
SAMHSA selected nine sites with established diversion programs
to assess the effectiveness of the three major types of jail
diversion programs -- pre-booking programs, court-based post-booking
programs; and jail-based post-booking programs. The sites
qualified for funding by submitting proposals describing strategies
to evaluate the relative effectiveness of fully-functioning
diversion models for individuals with co-occurring serious
mental illnesses and alcohol or other drug use disorders.
A total of four pre-booking programs are included in the
research initiative. Pre-booking programs in Memphis, Multnomah
County (Portland), Oregon, and Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
intensively train members of the police force to handle calls
that involve an individual with mental health or substance
abuse problems. Each site has a 24-hour crisis center with
a no-refusal policy that is available to receive persons brought
in by the police. A pre-booking program in Wicomico County,
Maryland, targets women.
A total of 11 post-booking programs are being studied. Most
of the post-booking programs are jail based, although five
of the Connecticut programs are court based. In the court-based
programs, mental health workers situated in the courthouse
identify clients while they are awaiting their hearing and
negotiate with the court to develop community-based alternatives
to jail.
The jail-based post-booking programs involved in the research
initiative include New York City's NYC-LINK program, which
uses linkages between planners at the jail and transitional
mangers in the community to create community-based treatment
arrangements for offenders with mental illness. The two post-booking
programs at the Arizona sites identify offenders in jail and
can refer them to three tiers of diversion alternatives: release
from jail with conditions, deferred prosecution, and summary
probation.
Lane County, Oregon, has a unique program that involves
a psychiatric hospital located near the jail that offers detoxification
services. Diversion options in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
also include condition release with mental health services
or dropping of charges once the offender is identified as
a current mental health client. A third alternative in Montgomery
County is "coterminous diversion," in which police take the
offender into custody, then deliver the offender straight
to psychiatric treatment and also file charges. This arrangement
can result in a variety of dispositions, ranging from dropping
the charges to having the offender respond to the charges.
The post-booking program in Honolulu begins when detainees
are transported from holding cells in the local precincts
to the courthouse in the early morning, where they are seen
by a case coordinator who determines before arraignment whether
diversion is appropriate.
Each of the sites will conduct a process and outcome evaluation
of its jail diversion programs. The process evaluation focuses
on a detailed description of the pre- or post-booking interventions
at each site, a description of each subject's exposure to
the intervention, and a description of the community context
of the interventions and how it changes over time. Both self-report
and record-based data will be used.
The general hypothesis that will be tested in the cross-site
study is that diversion from jail to community mental health
and substance abuse services will reduce negative outcomes
such as recidivism, poor psycho social functioning, and psychiatric
hospitalizations while increasing the quality of life of mentally
ill detainees. The relative effectiveness of pre- versus post-booking
diversion will also be assessed.
A cost-effectiveness analysis will be carried out to determine
the cost savings to the criminal justice system; the benefits
to the individuals who are diverted, in the form of improved
individual outcomes; and the benefits to society as a whole,
in the form of decreased costs due to a reduction in criminal
victimization and property crimes and increased employment
of diverted subjects. Comparisons of costs and effects will
be made for pre- versus post-booking programs as well as for
both types of diversion programs versus incarceration.
Additional avenues to be explored that may well enhance
the role of standard treatment approaches are the adjunctive
use of self-help groups by consumers who are in jails and
prisons, specialized treatment groups within jails and prisons
that are integrated to address co-occurring problems of mental
illness and substance abuse, and focused group treatment approaches
for women in jails and prisons that address the co-occurring
issues in the context of histories of physical and sexual
abuse, need for improved parenting skills, etc. Some preliminary
study is underway in these areas to help define these issues
for careful exploration, and it appears that the use of group
treatment approaches is a viable and useful addition to more
traditional one-on-one services approaches.
The role of family members in the planning, implementation,
and support of services for a son or daughter or other family
member has also been an approach to building diversion programs
that are vitally related to communities. Families have been
vocal advocates for improved services for the mentally ill
in the criminal justice system. They are eager to assist in
building a more accessible and treatment - friendly system
both in the jail or prisons and in the community. Family members
as resources in this process are carving out responsibilities
that can relieve the overall burden on all concerned.
Diversion programs are thought to be the most effective
approach to integrate, at a community level, an array of mental
health, substance abuse, and other support services, including
group approaches, to break the cycle of repeated entry into
the criminal justice and mental health and substance abuse
treatment systems by persons with mental disorders. However,
very few systematic outcomes studies that address the effectiveness
of jail diversion programs have been conducted. Thus far no
research has systematically examined which types of programs
work best for whom. We do not know which are the most effective
programs and which are the most appropriate for certain communities
and for certain groups of detainees.
Available research findings suggest that at least two core
elements are necessary for diversion programs: aggressive
linkage to an array of community services, especially those
for co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders,
and nontraditional case managers. However, we have not determined
whether diversion programs are more effective than high-quality
jail-based programs at accomplishing the goals discussed above.
At present, no single definitive model for organizing a
criminal justice-mental health diversion program exists. In
addition, little is known about which types of programs are
effective for detainees with co-occurring disorders or whether
programs actually benefit the targeted recipients, especially
in terms of symptom stabilization, reduced jail time, higher
levels of community adjustment, and stable participation in
community mental health and substance abuse services. The
SAMHSA jail diversion Knowledge and Development Application
is expected to provide data that can be used to answer these
pressing policy and clinical questions.
Other Key Challenges
Diversion is not the only key interface between the mental
health and criminal justice systems. There are persons with
mental illness who will become incarcerated who require treatment
in jail or prison. Other persons will be referred to treatment
by their probation or parole officer. Still others will complete
their jail or prison term and need to be reconnected to their
community mental health system. All of these crossroads between
criminal and justice and mental health present additional
challenges and opportunities for improving outcomes for people
with mental illness. Much is known about how to best provide
treatment in jail and prison; how to supervise conditions
of parole and probation, and how to facilitate community reentry.
I need not add to the important information and insights available
to the Committee from other sources in this testimony. Suffice
it to say that there will be many parts to a solution of the
problem we are addressing; we will want to take advantage
of the learning and insights available to us from all sectors
of both field.
Looking for Solutions
The mental health and criminal justice systems have a big,
common problem: persons with mental illness are increasingly
involved in the criminal justice system, resulting in greater
burden on criminal justice and less effective treatment for
persons with mental illness. While study is not yet complete,
we have invested in programs with a track record. We need
to learn from their experience, even as we await more complete
outcome data. Several of the programs already discussed make
it clear that joint partnership between both systems is required.
We need to emphasize that as a society we have created this
situation. Inadequate treatment and services leaves people
unprotected from the force of their illness, and we wait and
watch until they do something, often a non-violent misdemeanor,
to put them in trouble with the law. Jails and prisons are
not set up to help ameliorate the force of these illnesses,
and a vicious cycle is often set in place creating high rates
of recidivism for these people.
But, the existence of a common problem can be part of its
solution. I assume the issue comes down to creating the right
balance between providing treatment for illness and deterrence
from dangerous behavior. The more the balance tips away from
risk to public safety toward treatment goals, the sooner a
treatment alternative to Criminal justice system involvement
is indicated; the more there exists a serious public safety
concern, the more emphasis would be placed on protection,
at the expense of the most effective treatment. We can only
identify the proper balance if the two systems - criminal
justice and mental health - do it together. If we can agree
on common interests, we can seek common solutions.
Where does this take us? First, it seems clear that all
our interests can be at least partially addressed if more
people with serious mental illness get effective treatment.
Engagement in treatment represents achievement of the mental
health system's basic treatment mission while at the same
time it reduces the prospects of further demands on public
resources by persons with active illness who are unable to
work and maintain themselves independently. At the same time,
there is good evidence that decreased reliance on the criminal
justice system to handle persons with active mental illness
frees up critical resources for pursuing the criminal justice
system's basic mission to prevent societal harm caused by
criminal activity. It follows, therefore, that diversion of
non-dangerous persons with mental illness to effective treatment
would be one component of a common goal.
There is a growing body of knowledge about how successful
pre and post booking diversion programs work. SAMHSA'S multi-site
study of jail diversion is teaching us much about both the
ingredients necessary for an efficient diversion mechanism
and the treatment programming that is needed to yield improved
outcomes. Coupled with experience in many jurisdictions around
the country, including places where a variety of mechanisms
such as mental health courts, are being implemented, we have
a solid foundations for using diversion mechanisms everywhere
in the country.
There are, however, persons with mental illness who engage
in serious criminal activity that merits prosecution and imprisonment.
Just like any other group of people, there are some persons
with mental illness who are dangerous. In these circumstances,
a joint goal of protecting society and providing humane care
must be formulated if mental health and criminal justice are
to work together. While incarcerated, dangerous persons should
receive treatment for their mental illness. This goal, that
of humane deterrence, can be legitimized in both systems.
As a result, one can envision a two-pronged goal statement
for mental health and criminal justice vis-a-vis persons with
mental illness. It might be stated as follows:
In order to minimize involvement of persons with mental illness
in the criminal justice system while protecting the public,
the degree of criminal justice involvement should be directly
proportional to the extent to which an individual poses a
danger to society. Therefore, two compatible goals can be
stated:
- for persons with mental illness who are non-dangerous,
they should be diverted to effective treatment at the earliest
practical stage of the criminal justice process;
- for persons with mental illness who are dangerous, provide
humane care and treatment during incarceration and explicit
linkage to community-based treatment on release.
Several strategies can be deduced from this goal statement:
- criteria defining dangerous or non-dangerous persons
need to be formulated and adopted by consensus of both the
mental health and criminal justice systems and applied fairly;
- persons involved in the criminal justice system should
be screened for mental illness.
- an efficient diversion mechanism should be available;
- availability of effective community-based and humane jail/prison-based
treatment should be assured; and
- provision for necessary supervision should be arranged
through the criminal justice system.
Whether we agree on this particular approach or not, the
critical concern is that we seek a solution together. In my
view, the formation of local joint ventures
between the criminal justice and mental health systems holds
the most promise for a solution to the current dilemma. The
idea as well as the concrete characteristics of a joint venture
make sense as an overall approach.
The idea of a joint venture is slightly different and much
more concrete than the often repeated call for increased coordination,
collaboration or partnership. A joint venture is a entity
distinct from its component members. The entity has separate
governance and is chartered for a specific purpose, in this
case achievement of the common criminal justice system/mental
health goal referenced above. The entity has no other purpose
or responsibilities. It can be abolished without changing
the character of its components.
There are several advantages to this approach. First, the
entities entering into the joint venture must agree on the
purpose or goal of the venture and make specific commitments
with respect to achieving the goal. While most often financial,
these commitments can also include adoption of specific practices
and agreements to behave in specific ways under certain circumstances.
The joint venturers make their commitments at the beginning
of the venture before investments are made or any specific
tasks are performed. Joint mental health and criminal justice
ventures make up-front commitments to pool specific resources
and to employ the screening, diversion, treatment, supervision,
and reporting practices that are necessary to assure treatment
and provide security.
Second, since the joint venture is a discrete entity, the
role played by the criminal justice and mental health systems
can be defined independently of traditional roles and responsibilities
without abrogating those roles and responsibilities in the
underlying systems. The new entity is, therefore, released
from the bonds of history and precedent and given opportunity
to forge new relationships and rules of conduct. Power and
leadership rules can be radically redefined without compromising
the underlying systems. Joint mental health and criminal justice
ventures disregard historical differences, take advantage
of each system's strengths, make rules that are tailored to
the goals of the venture and create a direct link between
investments of resources and specific outcomes that benefit
both systems. The management style to create win-win conditions
for both systems. At the same time, the traditional systems
remain in place without the need for changes it would be naive
to expect.
The nature of the joint venture would help define its business
practices. Rather than institutionalizing a traditional bureaucracy,
a joint venture can, and should, adopt selected business practices
that can yield more focus on specific outcomes and improved
quality assurance and utilization review mechanisms. In addition,
the joint venture can adopt accounting procedures better tailored
to accommodating pooled funding and the corresponding tracking
requirements imposed by multiple categorical funding streams.
Finally, expectations change with respect to the accountability
mechanism that would be adopted by a joint venture, with a
premium placed on watching the bottom line, which in this
case would be specific targets related to engagement in treatment
and prevention of recidivism among the targeted populations.
Regardless of the organizational vehicle, reducing the numbers
and percentages of persons with mental illness in the criminal
justice system will depend to a large extent on the willingness
of providers and managers in both systems to understand one
another. Those people who have experience in both systems
understand the strengths and weaknesses of each. There is
plenty of evidence that when the strengths of the fields are
exploited all aspects of the service systems improved. So,
police departments that have learned the advantages of mental
health crisis intervention techniques when forming Crisis
Intervention Teams have consistently improved both engagement
in treatment and prevention of criminal recidivism among persons
with serious mental illness. Mental health professionals who
understand how courts work and how judges use their authority
have been able to expand the availability of services to persons
with mental illness by taking advantage of the judicious use
of that power. The emerging principles of therapeutic jurisprudence
underscore the value of sharing learning and experience across
the two fields. There is no doubt that the principles underlying
Assertive Community Treatment and enlightened community supervision
practices within probation and parole share many similarities
and a common ancestry. Taking a strengths-based approach to
problem solving will be a key element of a success system
of care for persons with mental illness involved in the criminal
justice system.
More and more people with serious mental illness are entering
the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is
being overwhelmed by the burden of providing humane care and
management for persons with mental illness. This could be
an historic opportunity to change by improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of both systems. By agreeing upon a common
goal and forming joint ventures to solve problems traditionally
viewed as competing, the two systems can make a difference
in the lives of hundreds of thousands of persons who suffer
mental illness and associated criminal justice involvement.
It cannot happen too soon.
References
Torrey EF, Steiber J, Ezekiel
J., Wolfe SM, Sharfstein J., Noble JH, Flynn LM: Criminalizing
the Mentally Ill. Washington, DC: Public Citizen's Health
Research Group and the National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill, 1992
Steadman HJ, Barbera S, Dennis
D. A national survey of jail diversion programs for mentally
ill detainees. Hospital and Community Psychiatry
45:1109-1113, 1994
Teplin, L. Psychiatric and substance abuse disorders among
male urban jail detainees. American Journal of Public
Health 84:290-293, 1994
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Jails and jail inmates 1993-1994.
Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1995
Steadman
HJ, Morris SM, Dennis DL. The diversion of mentally ill persons
from jails to community-based services: A profile of programs.
American Journal of Public Health 85:1630-1635, 1995
Morris
SM, Steadman HJ, Veysey, BM. Mental health services in United
States jails: A survey of innovative practices. Criminal Justice
and Behavior 24:3-19, 1997
Teplin, L. The prevalence
of severe mental disorder among urban jail detainees: Comparisons
with the epidemiological catchment area program. American
Journal of Public Health, 80:663-669, 1990
Abram KM, Teplin LA.
Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees.
American Psychologist 46:1036-1045, 1991
Rogers
R, Bagby M. Diversion of Mentally disordered offenders: a
legitimate role for clinicians. Behavioral Science and
the Law. 10:407-418, 1992
Lamb
RH, Shaner R, Elliot DM, DeCuir W, Foltz J. Outcome for psychiatric
emergency patients seen
by an outreach police-mental health team. Psychiatric
Services. 46:1267-1271, 1995
Lamb RH, Weinberger LE, Reston-Parham
C. Court Intervention to address the mental health needs of
mentally ill offenders. Psychiatric Services 47:275-281,
1996
Deane MW, Steadman HJ,
Borum R, Veysey BM, Morrissey JP. Emerging partnerships between
mental health and law enforcement. Psychiatric Services.
In press, 1999
Borum R, Deane MW, Steadman H, Morrissey J. Police perspectives
on responding to mentally ill people in crisis. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law In press, 1999
HHS Home (www.hhs.gov) |
Topics (www.hhs.gov/SiteMap.html) |
What's New (www.hhs.gov/about/index.html#topiclist) |
For Kids (www.hhs.gov/kids/) |
FAQs (answers.hhs.gov) |
Site Info (www.hhs.gov/SiteMap.html) |
Disclaimers (www.hhs.gov/Disclaimer.html) |
Privacy Notice (www.hhs.gov/Privacy.html) |
FOIA (www.hhs.gov/foia/) |
Accessibility (www.hhs.gov/Accessibility.html) |
Contact Us (www.hhs.gov/ContactUs.html)
|