Specialty Mental Health vs. Traditional Probation

+

Sarah Manchak, Jennifer Skeem, & Tracy Johnson Seattle, May 2008, MacArthur Research Network on Mandated Treatment

Specialty Mental

Health vs. Traditional Probation

+

Plan Background & Study Overview

Intermediate Outcomes (Services & Perceived Coercion/Adherence)

Clinical Outcomes (Symptoms, Functioning, QOL)

Criminal Justice Outcomes (Violence, Violations, Arrests, Revocation)

Statement of the problem

 Persons with mental disorder grossly overrepresented in the criminal justice system

  55-75% have co-occurring substance abuse disorder

  CJS essential component of de facto mental health system   Los Angeles County Jail   Riker’s Island Jail 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Pre

vale

nce

(%)

General population Incarcerated men Incarcerated women

Source: Teplin, 1990; Teplin, Abram, & McClelland, 1996

+ Corrections population now over 7.2 million

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007)

Total

3.2% of all adults in the United

States

+Probation the most common disposition

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007)

Probation

Prison

Parole Jail

+Statement of the problem

 Probationers with mental illnesses (PMIs) are highly likely to fail on supervision

Source: Dauphinot, 1999; see also Porporino & Motiuk, 1995

+

“The current situation not only exacts a significant toll on the lives of people with mental illness, their families, and the community in general, it also threatens to overwhelm the criminal justice system.”

-Council of State Governments Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project (2002)

+Statement of the problem

 A staggering number of individuals with serious mental illness are placed on probation each year. Most fail.

 Probation represents an unrealized opportunity to:   engage and work with high risk individuals who otherwise

might be inaccessible;

  facilitate these individuals’ exit from the criminal justice system and re-entry to the community

 How do we get there?

+How do we get there?

  Prepare conceptually and methodologically via:   Focus group study (“best bets”)

  National survey and follow-up survey (“lay of the land”)

  Dual role relationship quality study (caring & controlling)

  Specific aims of outcome study…

  To assess the effect of ___________ on probationers’ perceived coercion, treatment adherence and outcomes   POs’ strategies for monitoring and enforcing treatment mandates

  the relationship between POs and probationers (mediation)

  probation systems (specialty v. traditional)

+Method

 Prospective design (2+? years)  Interviews: Baseline, 6 mo, 12 mo  Record follow-up: 18 mo (services) & 24 mo (c.justice)

 Matched trial

 Specialty & traditional sites  Identified through national survey and follow-up visits

to 5 agencies  Best match (size, ethnicity, proximity, resources)

 Specialty: Dallas, TX  Traditional: Los Angeles, CA

+Participants

 Eligibility   18-65 years old, English-speaking, pass consent test   Mental disorder

  Dallas: specialty placement   LA: Screened in or officer referral

  On active supervision, completed > 1 initial meeting with officer, > 1 year remaining on term

 Matching   age, gender, ethnicity   index offense (person/other) & time on probation (under/over 1

year)

 Participants   PMIs and their POs (30/Dallas; 120+/LA)   Appx. 180 probationers per site (N=360)

+Specialty Recruitment (Dallas)

351 Enter MIMR

251 Eligible (72%)

183 Interviewed

(73%)

36 Refused (14%)

32 Expired (13%)

104 Ineligible

(28%)

Traditional Recruitment (Los Angeles)

861 Screened in or Referred

505 Eligible (59%)

312 Match (62%)

176 Interviewed

(56%)

115 Refused (37%)

21 Expired (7%)

193 Mismatch

(38%)

356 Ineligible

(41%)

Probationer Retention (5/08)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Specialty

Traditional

12 mo 6 mo Baseline

86%

90% (ongoing)

86%

90%

+Psychopathology (PAI)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Specialty Traditional Norm

Match Between Sites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Specialty

Traditional

No significant differences in all matching variables, including age

+Propensity Scores

  Likelihood of traditional supervision, given 40+ criminal, psychiatric, substance use, & personality features

  Nagelkerke R2 = .38; Classification accuracy=74%

+Events during follow-up

  Still on probation   At six months (90%)   At twelve months (80%)

  Same PO   At six months(77%)   At twelve months (66%)

  Time in jail or prison   At six months (25%)   At twelve months (29%)

  Less than 4% involved in MHC at any point

+


Intermediate Outcomes (Perceived Coercion/Adherence & Services)



+Perceived coercion and adherence

  Repeated measures MANCOVA with perceived coercion + procedural justice

  Specialty probationers experience significantly*** more procedural justice than traditional probationers; no site x time interaction

  Single-item self reports   Appointment adherence,

mixed across time (favor specialty, neither, and traditional)

  Medication adherence, favor specialty at follow-up (6 & 12)

  BMQ medication adherence favors specialty across time   Belief scale   Regimen scale

Perceived coercion Treatment Adherence, no Site X Time

*** p <.001, controlling for propensity

+Medication adherence (six months, shown)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Specialty

Traditional

Missed 0

Missed 1-2

Missed more

* p <.05, controlling for propensity

+Service similarities, inpatient

0 10 20 30 40

Phys Inpt

Sub Inpt

Ment Inpt

Traditional

Specialty

6 months, shown

+Service similarities, outpatient

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Phys Outpt

Sub Outpt

Traditional

Specialty

6 month shown

+Service differences

0 20 40 60 80 100

Specialty

Traditional

# Sig Discussions***

0 20 40 60 80 100

Specialty

Traditional

# Outpatient MH Sessions***

*** p <.001, controlling for propensity & jail time; #Sig Discussions 12 mo, p<.05

6 month shown

+Service differences

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DualDxSame

Specialty

Traditional

*

* p <.05, controlling for propensity & jail time; Note: ns at individual follow-ups

Full follow-up shown

+





+Change in symptoms (CSI) & functioning

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

CSI: No Site x Time GAF: Site x Time***

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

*** p <.001, controlling for propensity scores, in favor of Traditional

+Change in symptoms – PAI Cluster One***

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ARD DEP* SCZ** SOM* BOR

Specialty1

Specialty2

Traditional1

Traditional 2

*** p <.001, multivariate, controlling for propensity scores, in favor of Traditional

+Change in symptoms – PAI Cluster Two*

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ANT** AGG** PAR* MAN

Specialty1

Specialty2

Traditional1

Traditional 2

*p <.05, multivariate, controlling for propensity scores, in favor of Traditional

+Change in symptoms – PAI Cluster Three**

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

ALC** DRG*

Specialty1

Specialty2

Traditional1

Traditional 2

**p <.01, multivariate, controlling for propensity scores, in favor of Traditional

+Life satisfaction (“delighted-terrible” scale)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Base Six Twelve

Ns Site and Site x Time

+





+Violence at 12 months

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Minor Serious

Both Sites

Ns site differences, controlling for propensity scores and jail/prison days

+Recorded violations at 12 months

***p<.001; **p<.01, controlling for propensity scores

***

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

Specialty

Traditional

*** ***

**

+Self reported violations at 12 months

**p<.01; controlling for propensity scores

**

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

Traditional

Specialty

**

+Recorded arrests and revocation at 12 months

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Arrested Revoked

Specialty

Traditional

***

*

***p<.001, ** p <.05; controlling for propensity scores; no diff in violation type by revocation

+

Relative to traditional supervision, specialty supervision predicts Intermediately…

Greater procedural justice

More medication adherence

More mental health sessions & significant discussions with providers

Less improvement in functioning and symptoms over time

More recorded technical violations, but fewer arrests and revocations

Specialty Mental Health vs. Traditional Probation

Documents

Transcript of Specialty Mental Health vs. Traditional Probation