Program Design Elements and Principles of Effective Community Corrections Responses

1. Program Design Elements and Principles of Effective Community Corrections Responses Jennifer Skeem, Ph.D. University of California, Irvine Gretchen Rohr DC Jail Advocacy Project, University Legal Services P&A George Keiser, National Institute of Corrections

2. Overview • Statement of the problem and research that can inform solutions • Communities’ response to the problem • Trends across the nation

3. Statement of the problem and research that can inform solutions

4. Burgeoning corrections population is now over 7.3 million 3.2% of all adults in the United States Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008)

5. People with serious mental illness are overrepresented in corrections Source: Teplin, 1990; Teplin, Abram, & McClelland, 1996

6. Most have co-occurring substance abuse disorders Source: The National GAINS Center, 2004

7. Most are supervised in the community Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007); Skeem, Emke-Francis, et al. (2006)

8. Many “fail” community supervision • Vidal, Manchak, et al. (2009) • Screened 2,934 probationers for mental illness; 13% screened in • Followed for average of two years • No more likely to be arrested… • But 1.38 times more likely to be revoked See also: Eno Louden & Skeem, 2009; Porporino & Motiuk, 1995

9. The perceived root of the problem • “People on the front lines every day believe too many people with mental illness become involved in the criminal justice system because the mental health system has somehow failed. They believe that if many of the people with mental illness received the services they needed, they would not end up under arrest, in jail, or facing charges in court”

10. Research suggests the root of the problem is more complex • Increased mental health services often do not translate into reduced recidivism, even for “state of the art” services • Caslyn et al., 2005; Clark, Ricketts, & McHugo, 1999; Skeem & Eno Louden, 2006; Steadman & Naples, 2005 • Untreated mental illness is a criminogenic need for only a small proportion of offenders with serious mental illness • Junginger et al. (2006), Peterson et al. (2009), Skeem, Manchak, & Peterson (2009) • Strongest criminogenic needs are shared by those with- and without- mental illness • Bonta et al., (1998); Skeem et al. (2009)

11. The “Central Eight” Andrews (2006)

12. Evidence-based corrections- Target: recidivism • Focus resources on high RISK cases • Target criminogenic NEEDS like anger, substance abuse, antisocial attitudes, and criminogenic peers (Andrews et al., 1990) • RESPONSIVITY - use cognitive behavioral techniques like relapse prevention (Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, 2002) • Ensure implementation (Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 2001)

13. Evidence-based mental health services - Target: symptoms & functioning • http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/cmhs/CommunitySupport/toolkits/about.asp • Assertive community treatment (ACT) • Integrated dual diagnosis treatment • Supported employment • Illness management and recovery • Family psycho-education • http://consensusproject.org/updates/features/GAINS-EBP-factsheets • Supported housing • Trauma interventions

14. High: Increase emphasis on EBP for mental health Integration of EBPs for mental health and corrections High: Increase emphasis on EBP for corrections

15. What to do… Screen and assess Target criminogenic risk & clinical needs with EBPs • Identify offenders with mental illnesses, using a validated tool like the K-6 or BJMHS • http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/k6_scales.php • http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/HTML/resources/MHscreen.asp • Or MAYSI, for youth http://www.maysiware.com/MAYSI2Research.htm • Assess risk of recidivism, using a validated tool like the LS/CMI (includes youth version)

16. What to do… Coordinate or Integrate Above all • Particularly for high risk, high need cases • But…target RISK • Avoid bad practices • Low thresholds for revocation • Threats • Authoritarian relationships Skeem, J., Manchak, S., & Peterson, J. (2009). Correctional policy for offenders with mental illness: Moving beyond the one-dimensional approach to reduce recidivism. Under review

17. Overview • Statement of the problem and research that can inform solutions • Communities’ response to the problem • Trends across the nation

18. 2. Communities’ response to the problem

19. University Legal Services P&A • ULA is a 40-year-old nonprofit that was designated in 1996 as DC’s disability protection advocacy agency under several federal statutes including the Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI), 42 U.S.C.A §§ 10801 et seq. • Organizational Mission: • Protect the human, legal, and service rights of DC residents with disabilities through legal services, advocacy, and direct monitoring and investigation into discrimination, abuse, and neglect. • Promote person-centered treatment for people with disabilities and independent community living in order to reduce DC’s reliance on institutions

20. Relevant Disability Protections • Probation and parole authorities must make reasonable modifications for individuals with psychiatric disabilities so as not to deny such individuals and equal opportunity to access and participate in various programs and services of community supervision • See: Title II of the 49 American and Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). • For agencies receiving federal financial assistance see: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R §§ 41.51 and 41.56. • Every state and locality has its own laws (e.g., DC Consumers’ Rights Protection Act, DC Code § 7-1231) which may extend additional protections for people with disabilities.

21. Relevant Disability Protections • Probation and parole authorities must make reasonable modifications for individuals with psychiatric disabilities so as not to deny such individuals and equal opportunity to access and participate in various programs and services of community supervision • See: Title II of the 49 American and Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). • For agencies receiving federal financial assistance see: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R §§ 41.51 and 41.56. • Every state and locality has its own laws (e.g., DC Consumers’ Rights Protection Act, DC Code § 7-1231) which may extend additional protections for people with disabilities.

22. Overview • Statement of the problem and research that can inform solutions • Communities’ response to the problem • Trends across the nation

23. 3. Trends across the nation

24. Who are we going to work with in the criminal justice system? • How do we plan for those who “belong” in the Criminal Justice System? • How do we challenge on behalf of those we don’t believe “belong.”

25. Evidence-based strategies, tactics, and tools • What strategies, tactics and tools are local jurisdictions implementing  with a goal of "fewer new crimes, fewer new victims" caused by this population?

26. Thank you For further information & conference presentations please visit www.consensusproject.org This material was developed by presenters for the July 2009 event: “Smart Responses in Tough Times: Achieving Better Outcomes for People with Mental Illnesses Involved in the Criminal Justice System.” Presentations are not externally reviewed for form or content and as such, the statements within reflect the views of the authors and should not be considered the official position of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Justice Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or funding agencies supporting the work.