Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:46:45.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Principles and Practices of Risk Assessment in Mental Health Jail Diversion Programs

from Part II - Solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2021

By
Sarah L. Desmarais  and
Evan M. Lowder
Edited by
Katherine Warburton  and
Stephen M. Stahl
Katherine Warburton
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Stephen M. Stahl
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

Efforts are underway across the United States to reduce the population of individuals in our jails and prisons, such as through mental health diversion programs. Mental health diversion programs are now among the most common interventions for individuals with mental health problems who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Briefly, these programs divert individuals with mental health problems from traditional case processing into community-based behavioral health treatment and alternative case processing.

Type
Chapter
Information
Decriminalizing Mental Illness , pp. 115 - 126
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Case, B, Steadman, HJ, Dupuis, SA, Morris, LS. Who succeeds in jail diversion programs for persons with mental illness?: a multi-site study. Behav Sci Law. 2009; 27(5): 661–674.Google Scholar
US Department of Health & Human Services. Adult mental health treatment court locator. SAMHSA’s GAINS Center; 2019. www.samhsa.gov/gains-center/mental-health-treatment-court-locator/adults (accessed June 2020).Google Scholar
Monahan, J, Skeem, JL. Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016; 12: 489–513.Google Scholar
Casey, PM, Warren, RK, Elek, JK. Using Offender Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing: Guidance for Courts from a National Working Group. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts; 2011.Google Scholar
Desmarais, SL, Lowder, EM. Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools: A Primer for Judges, Prosecutors, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago, IL; 2019.Google Scholar
Barber-Rioja, V, Rotter, M, Schombs, F. Diversion evaluations: a specialized forensic examination. Behav Sci Law. 2017; 35(5–6): 418–430.Google Scholar
Talesh, S. Mental health court judges as dynamic risk managers: a new conceptualization of the role of judges. DePaul L Rev. 2007; 57: 93.Google Scholar
Ægisdóttir, S, White, MJ, Spengler, PM, et al. The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Couns Psychol. 2006; 34(3): 341–382.Google Scholar
Grove, WM, Meehl, PE. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychol Public Policy Law. 1996; 2(2): 293–323.Google Scholar
Grove, WM, Zald, DH, Lebow, BS, Snitz, BE, Nelson, C. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychol Assess. 2000; 12(1): 19.Google Scholar
Mamalian, CA. State of the Science of Pretrial Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance; 2011.Google Scholar
Singh, JP, Desmarais, SL, Sellers, BG, et al. From risk assessment to risk management: matching interventions to adolescent offenders’ strengths and vulnerabilities. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2014; 47: 1–9.Google Scholar
Vieira, TA, Skilling, TA, Peterson-Badali, M. Matching court-ordered services with treatment needs: predicting treatment success with young offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2009; 36(4): 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, GM, Paiva-Salisbury, ML, Cook, NE, Guy, LS, Perrault, RT. Impact of risk/needs assessment on juvenile probation officers’ decision making: importance of implementation. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2012; 18(4): 549–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, EG, Mercy, JA, Dahlberg, LL, Zwi, AB. The world report on violence and health. Lancet. 2002; 360(9339): 1083–1088.Google Scholar
Cartwright, JK, Desmarais, SL, Johnson, KL, Van Dorn, RA. Performance and clinical utility of a short violence risk screening tool in U.S. adults with mental illness. Psychol Serv. 2018; 15(4): 398–408.Google Scholar
Dolan, M, Doyle, M. Violence risk prediction: clinical and actuarial measures and the role of the Psychopathy Checklist. Br J Psychiatry. 2000; 177: 303–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, JP, Desmarais, SL, Hurducas, C, et al. International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: a global survey of 44 countries. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2014; 13(3): 193–206.Google Scholar
Viljoen, JL, McLachlan, K, Vincent, GM. Assessing violence risk and psychopathy in juvenile and adult offenders: a survey of clinical practices. Assessment. 2010; 17(3): 377–395.Google Scholar
Kraemer, HC, Kazdin, AE, Offord, DR, et al. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997; 54(4): 337–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klepfisz, G, Daffern, M, Day, A. Understanding protective factors for violent reoffending in adults. Aggress Violent Behav. 2017; 32: 80–87.Google Scholar
Webster, CD, Nicholls, TL, Martin, ML, Desmarais, SL, Brink, J. Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): the case for a new structured professional judgment scheme. Behav Sci Law. 2006; 24(6): 747–766.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. The uncritical acceptance of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law Hum Behav. 2000; 24(5): 595–605.Google Scholar
Rutter, M. Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1987; 57(3): 316–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmarais, SL, Nicholls, TL, Wilson, CM, Brink, J. Using dynamic risk and protective factors to predict inpatient aggression: reliability and validity of START assessments. Psychol Assess. 2012; 24(3): 685–700.Google Scholar
Serin, RC, Chadwick, N, Lloyd, CD. Dynamic risk and protective factors. Psychol Crime Law. 2016; 22(1–2): 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowder, EM, Desmarais, SL, Rade, CB, Coffey, T, Van Dorn, RA. Models of protection against recidivism in justice-involved adults with mental illnesses. Crim Justice Behav. 2017; 44(7): 893–911.Google Scholar
Lowder, EM, Desmarais, SL, Rade, CB, Johnson, KL, Van Dorn, RA. Reliability and validity of START and LSI-R assessments in mental health jail diversion clients. Assessment. 2019; 26(7): 1347–1361.Google Scholar
Webster, CD, Martin, M-L, Brink, J, Nicholls, TL, Desmarais, SL. Manual for the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START). 1.1 edn. Coquitlam, Canada: British Columbia Mental Health and Addiction Services; 2009.Google Scholar
Yuan, Y, Capriotti, MR. The impact of mental health court: a Sacramento case study. Behav Sci Law. 2019; 37(4): 452–467.Google Scholar
Douglas, KS, Skeem, JL. Violence risk assessment: getting specific about being dynamic. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2005; 11(3): 347–383.Google Scholar
Osher, F, Steadman, HJ, Barr, H. A best practice approach to community reentry from jails for inmates with co-occurring disorders: the APIC model. Crime Delinq. 2003; 49(1): 79–96.Google Scholar
Douglas, KS, Skeem, JL. Violence risk assessment: getting specific about being dynamic. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2005; 11(3): 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, KL, Desmarais, SL, Grimm, KJ, et al. Proximal risk factors for short-term community violence among adults with mental illnesses. Psychiatr Serv. 2016; 67(7): 771–778.Google Scholar
Sadeh, N, Binder, RL, McNiel, DE. Recent victimization increases risk for violence in justice-involved persons with mental illness. Law Hum Behav. 2014; 38(2): 119–125.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A, Binder, R, Norko, M, Swartz, M. Psychiatric violence risk assessment. Am J Psychiatry. 2012; 169(3): 340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, DA, Bonta, J. Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2010; 16(1): 39–55.Google Scholar
Van Dorn, RA, Grimm, KJ, Desmarais, SL, et al. Leading indicators of community-based violent events among adults with mental illness. Psychol Med. 2017; 47(7): 1179–1191.Google Scholar
Van Dorn, RA, Andel, R, Boaz, TL, et al. Risk of arrest in persons with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in a Florida Medicaid program: the role of atypical antipsychotics, conventional neuroleptics, and routine outpatient behavioral health services. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011; 72(4): 502–508.Google Scholar
Van Dorn, RA, Desmarais, SL, Petrila, J, Haynes, D, Singh, JP. Effects of outpatient treatment on risk of arrest of adults with serious mental illness and associated costs. Psychiatr Serv. 2013; 64(9): 856–862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skeem, JL, Winter, E, Kennealy, PJ, Louden, JE, Tatar, JR. Offenders with mental illness have criminogenic needs, too: toward recidivism reduction. Law Hum Behav. 2014; 38(3): 212–224.Google Scholar
Honegger, LN, Honegger, KS. Criminogenic factors associated with noncompliance and rearrest of mental health court participants. Crim Justice Behav. 2019; 46(9): 1276–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeem, JL, Steadman, HJ, Manchak, SM. Applicability of the risk-need-responsivity model to persons with mental illness involved in the criminal justice system. Psychiatr Serv. 2015; 66(9): 916–922.Google Scholar
Hilton, NZ, Harris, GT, Rice, ME. Sixty-six years of research on the clinical versus actuarial prediction of violence. Couns Psychol. 2006; 34(3): 400–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, LS, Packer, IK, Warnken, W. Assessing risk of violence using structured professional judgment guidelines. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2012; 12(3): 270–283.Google Scholar
Fazel, S, Sing, JP, Doll, H, Grann, M. Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J. 2012; 345: e4692.Google Scholar
Guay, J-P, Parent, G. Broken legs, clinical overrides, and recidivism risk: an analysis of decisions to adjust risk levels with the LS/CMI. Crim Justice Behav. 2018; 45(1): 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F, Sinclair, SM, Thomasdóttir, S. Predictive validity of the youth level of service/case management inventory with youth who have committed sexual and non-sexual offenses: the utility of professional override. Crim Justice Behav. 2016; 43(3): 413–430.Google Scholar
Desmarais, SL, Johnson, KL, Singh, JP. Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in U.S. correctional settings. Psychol Serv. 2016; 13(3): 206–222.Google Scholar
Skeem, JL, Monahan, J. Current directions in violence risk assessment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011; 20(1): 38–42.Google Scholar
Broner, N, Mayrl, DW, Landsberg, G. Outcomes of mandated and nonmandated New York City jail diversion for offenders with alcohol, drug, and mental disorders. Prison J. 2005; 85(1): 18–49.Google Scholar
Webster, C, Douglas, K, Eaves, D, Hart, S. HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence (Version 2). Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; 1997.Google Scholar
Barber-Rioja, V, Dewey, L, Kopelovich, S, Kucharski, LT. The utility of the HCR-20 and PCL: SV in the prediction of diversion noncompliance and reincarceration in diversion programs. Crim Justice Behav. 2012; 39(4): 475–492.Google Scholar
Andrews, DA, Bonta, J. Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R): User’s Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2001.Google Scholar
Bonfine, N, Ritter, C, Munetz, MR. Exploring the relationship between criminogenic risk assessment and mental health court program completion. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2016; 45: 9–16.Google Scholar
Vincent, GM, Guy, LS, Grisso, T. Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A Guidebook for Implementation. Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; 2012.Google Scholar
Desmarais, SL. Commentary: risk assessment in the age of evidence-based practice and policy. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2017; 16(1): 18–22.Google Scholar
Levin, SK, Nilsen, P, Bendtsen, P, Bulow, P. Structured risk assessment instruments: a systematic review of implementation determinants. Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2016; 23(4): 602–628.Google Scholar
Desmarais, SL, Van Dorn, RA, Telford, RP, Petrila, J, Coffey, T. Characteristics of START assessments completed in mental health jail diversion programs. Behav Sci Law. 2012; 30(4): 448–469.Google Scholar
Proctor, E, Silmere, H, Raghavan, R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011; 38(2): 65–76.Google Scholar
Nonstad, K, Webster, CD. How to fail in the implementation of a risk assessment scheme or any other new procedure in your organization. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2011; 81(1): 94–99.Google Scholar
Hanley, D. Appropriate services: examining the case classification principle. J Offender Rehabil. 2006; 42(4): 1–22.Google Scholar
Spring, B. Sound health care economics: provide the treatment needed (not less, not more). Health Psychol. 2019; 38(8): 701–704.Google Scholar
Andrews, DA, Dowden, C. Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: a meta-analytic investigation. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2006; 50(1): 88–100.Google Scholar
Lowenkamp, CT, Latessa, EJ, Holsinger, AM. The risk principle in action: what have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime Delinq. 2006; 52(1): 77–93.Google Scholar
Hanson, KR, Bourgon, G, McGrath, RJ, et al. A Five-Level Risk and Needs System: Maximizing Assessment Results in Corrections through the Development of a Common Language. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center; 2017.Google Scholar
Andrews, DA, Bonta, J, Wormith, JS. The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime Delinq. 2006; 52(1): 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, MA, Canales, DD, Wei, R, et al. Multidimensional evaluation of a mental health court: adherence to the Risk-Need-Responsivity model. Law Hum Behav. 2015; 39(5): 489–502.Google Scholar
Andrews, DA, Bonta, J, Wormith, JS. The Level of Service/ Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2008.Google Scholar
Nelson, RJ, Vincent, GM. Matching services to criminogenic needs following comprehensive risk assessment implementation in juvenile probation. Crim Justice Behav. 2018; 45(8): 1136–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowden, C, Andrews, DA. The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: a meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2004; 48(2): 203–214.Google Scholar
Vergara, AT, Kathuria, P, Woodmass, K, Janke, R, Wells, SJ. Effectiveness of culturally appropriate adaptations to juvenile justice services. J Juv Justice. 2016; 5(2): 85.Google ScholarPubMed
Covington, SS, Bloom, BE. Gender responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. Women Ther. 2007; 29(3–4): 9–33.Google Scholar
Levenson, JS, Willis, GM. Implementing trauma-informed care in correctional treatment and supervision. J Aggress Maltreatment Trauma. 2019; 28(4): 481–501.Google Scholar
Heilbrun, K, Pietruszka, V, Thornewill, A, Phillips, S, Schiedel, R. Diversion at re-entry using criminogenic CBT: review and prototypical program development. Behav Sci Law. 2017; 35(5–6): 562–572.Google Scholar
Van Dorn, RA, Desmarais, SL, Rade, CB, et al. Jail-to-community treatment continuum for adults with co-occurring substance use and mental disorders: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017; 18(1): 365.Google Scholar
Skeem, JL, Manchak, S, Peterson, JK. Correctional policy for offenders with mental illness: creating a new paradigm for recidivism reduction. Law Hum Behav. 2011; 35(2): 110–126.Google Scholar
Young, S, Chick, K, Gudjonsson, G. A preliminary evaluation of reasoning and rehabilitation 2 in mentally disordered offenders (RR2M) across two secure forensic settings in the United Kingdom. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2010; 21(3): 336–349.Google Scholar
Wilson, CM, Desmarais, SL, Nicholls, TL, Hart, SD, Brink, J. Predictive validity of dynamic factors: assessing violence risk in forensic psychiatric inpatients. Law Hum Behav. 2013; 37(6): 377–388.Google Scholar
Sellers, BG, Desmarais, SL, Hanger, MW. Measurement of change in dynamic factors using the START: AV. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2017; 17(3): 198–215.Google Scholar
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention. The social-ecological model: a framework for prevention. Updated January 16, 2019. Accessed August 24, 2019.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×