Mental illness-related stigma among probation officers.

BACKGROUND: Probation officers tend to hold stigmatising attitudes towards individuals on their caseload with mental illnesses. This can result in poor outcomes for justice-involved people with mental illnesses. Though anti-stigma interventions in the general public and among other criminal-legal professionals hold promise, these interventions have not been tested among probation officers. AIMS: To measure levels of stigma towards mental illnesses among probation officers before and after a brief online training related to mental illness. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-five probation and parole officers in one Midwest state completed a three-module online training programme designed to increase knowledge and skills for working with clients with mental illnesses. Officers completed a pre- and post-training assessment of level of stigmatising attitudes towards individuals with mental illnesses. RESULTS: Officer levels of stigma statistically significantly decreased from pre-test (8.22) to post-test (7.37; p < 0.001, t = 6.13). Nevertheless, pre-training stigma scores were the strongest predictor of stigma levels at post-test (p < 0.001, b = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: While basic training can significantly decrease mental disorder stigmatising scores for probation officers, the practical effect of this brief online experience was very small. Nevertheless, the fact that such brief and generalised input can have impact at all is encouraging. Implementation could be a useful preliminary to improving the quality of probation supervision of clients with mental illnesses.

Neighborhood Risk Factors for Recidivism: For Whom do they Matter?

Justice-involved people vary substantially in their risk of reoffending. To date, recidivism prediction and prevention efforts have largely focused on individual-level factors like antisocial traits. Although a growing body of research has examined the role of residential contexts in predicting reoffending, results have been equivocal. One reason for mixed results may be that an individual's susceptibility to contextual influence depends upon his or her accumulated risk of reoffending. Based on a sample of 2218 people on probation in San Francisco, California, this study draws on observational and secondary data to test the hypothesis that individual risk moderates the effect of neighborhood factors on recidivism. Results from survival analyses indicate that individual risk interacts with neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and disorder-and these factors increase recidivism among people relatively low in individual risk, but not those at higher risk. This is consistent with the disadvantage saturation perspective, raising the possibility that some people classified as low risk might not recidivate but for placement in disadvantaged and disorderly neighborhoods. Ultimately, residential contexts "matter" for lower risk people and may be useful to consider in efforts to prevent recidivism.

THE EFFECT OF HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES ON RECIDIVISM: Evidence From a Sample of People on Probation in San Francisco.

The relationships between housing circumstances and recidivism are well established among people released from prison. Despite probation being far more common than prison or parole, we know little about living situations, homelessness, and residential instability among people on probation, and we know even less regarding how these housing circumstances may affect their risk of recidivism. Using a unique dataset of 2,453 people on probation and longitudinal analyses, this study finds that housing insecurity is common and is associated with an increased risk of recidivism among people on probation, above and beyond an array of other recidivism risk factors. Furthermore, we find housing effects are particularly strong for relatively low risk people and for relatively low-severity offenses (i.e., property crimes, minor crimes, and revocations). Interventions that increase housing access for people on probation may reduce recidivism, especially for those who are relatively low risk and low-level reoffending.

"It's Not Like Therapy": Patient-Inmate Perspectives on Jail Psychiatric Services.

Jails may serve an important public health function by treating individuals with psychiatric problems. However, scholars debate the service qualities that can best achieve this aim. Some suggest the possibility of comprehensive psychiatric services in jails, while others recommend a narrower focus on basic elements of care (assessments, medication management, and crisis intervention). To date, this debate remains uninformed by service recipients. This qualitative study addresses this gap by illuminating patient-inmate perspectives on jail psychiatric services. Patient-inmate experiences indicate that the jail environment is incongruent with the provision of comprehensive psychiatric services. Thus, program administrators would best serve patient-inmates by strengthening basic services and connections to community-based providers who can provide comprehensive and effective care.

There goes the neighborhood? The public safety enhancing effects of a mobile harm reduction intervention.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is a gold-standard treatment for opioid use disorders, but most people with these disorders do not access it. Barriers to treatment access may be diminished by low-threshold mobile treatment programs but concern regarding their impact on local public safety challenges their adoption. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study uses difference-in-differences analyses to measure the impact of four mobile buprenorphine clinics in Pittsburgh on neighborhood arrest rates. The study period spans 2018 to 2022, with a pre-intervention period of 11 to 12 quarters and a post-intervention period of 7 to 8 quarters (dependent on neighborhood). A treatment group of 84 census block groups in the areas surrounding clinics during the time period after their establishment were compared to a control group of city census blocks not within one mile of a clinic plus treated block groups in the two years prior to clinic establishment. Outcome variables include drug, non-drug, and total arrests, measured quarterly per 100 in population. RESULTS: Compared to block groups further than 1 mile from a clinic, arrests fell by 34.13 % (b = -0.358, 95 % CI = -0.557, -0.158), drug arrests by 33.85 % (b = -0.087, 95 % CI = -0.151, -0.023), and non-drug related arrests by 22.29 % (b = -0.179, 95 % CI = -0.302, -0.057). Drug arrests declined significantly on days when the clinics were not present (b = -0.015, 95 % CI = -0.025, -0.006), with no significant change on clinic operational days (b = -0.002, 95 % CI = -0.016, -0.013). Total arrests declined significantly on days when clinics were and were not present (b = -0.045, 95 % CI = -0.078, -0.012; and b = -0.052, CI = -0.082, -0.023, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Mobile clinics providing medication for opioid use disorders were associated with reduced neighborhood arrest rates. Expansion of mobile services could promote health equity and public safety.

Community Behavioral Health Service Use and Criminal Recidivism of People With Mental, Substance Use, and Co-occurring Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the relationship between community behavioral health service (CBHS) use and criminal recidivism in a broad sample of potential beneficiaries and by diagnostic group. METHODS: Among a cohort of people on probation with any mental and/or substance use disorder (N=772), the study estimated the effect of CBHS use on rearrest with Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Service use significantly predicted reduced recidivism among people with any mental disorder (hazard rate=0.36, p=0.008), but not among those with any substance use disorder or co-occurring disorders. CONCLUSIONS: CBHS use in a given week predicted a 64% reduced recidivism risk during the following week among people with any mental disorder. However, CBHS use had no clear relationship with recidivism among people with co-occurring disorders or any substance use disorder. CBHS use may reduce recidivism, depending on recipient and service characteristics.

Risk Factors for Criminal Recidivism Among Persons With Serious Psychiatric Diagnoses: Disentangling What Matters for Whom.

Reducing criminal legal system involvement requires an understanding of the factors that promote repeat offending (i. e., recidivism), and the dissemination of relevant interventions to those most likely to benefit. A growing body of research has established common recidivism risk factors for persons with serious psychiatric disorder diagnoses. However, research to date has not examined the degree to which these risks apply to those with serious psychiatric disorders with and without co-occurring substance use disorders. To clarify what risk and need factors are greatest and for whom, this cross-sectional study drew from an original dataset containing data on 14 social and economic, psychological, and criminal risk areas for a cohort of people on probation (n = 4,809). Linear regression models indicated that, compared to those without a serious psychiatric disorder, people on probation with a serious psychiatric disorder are at greater risk in a minority of areas and those areas are mostly social and economic in nature. Meanwhile, those withco-occurring disorders are at relatively high risk across almost all areas. The results from this study suggest that justice involved persons with serious psychiatric disorders will benefit from interventions that increase social support and economic well-being and that interventions that broadly reduce risk among people with co-occurring serious psychiatric and substance use disorders will likely yield meaningful reductions in system involvement. Ultimately, understanding and intervening upon risk for recidivism among persons with serious psychiatric disorders requires differentiating between those with and without co-occurring substance use disorders.

An Assessment of Prisoner Reentry, Legal Financial Obligations and Family Financial Support: A Focus on Fathers.

Scholars have found that family support is an important facilitator of successful reentry from prison to the community. At the same time, they have argued that owing court-ordered fines or fees, also called legal financial obligations (LFOs), can act as an additional barrier to reentry, especially for parents. There remains a need to test how LFOs impact the financial support formerly incarcerated parents receive from their families. The current study responds to this gap by employing logistic regression analyses of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) data to test whether owing court fees is associated with formerly incarcerated fathers' (1) perceptions of available financial support from family and (2) receipt of financial support from family. We find that owing court fees is not associated with perceptions of available financial support. However, owing court fees has a positive, statistically significant association with receiving financial support from family during the first three months after prison release. This relationship remains after accounting for whether the person owes child support or sees their children monthly. Our results suggest that LFOs may create a greater need for financial support among formerly incarcerated fathers, making the financial challenges of reentry a consequence not just for those who were incarcerated but for their loved ones as well.

From Criminalized Patients to Risk-Exposed Agents: Reconceptualizing Carceral Involvement among Individuals with Psychiatric Diagnoses.

Individuals with serious mental disorder diagnoses (SMD) are overrepresented in U.S. jails and prisons, returning to custody more often and more quickly than those without these diagnoses. This paper examines the strengths and limitations of existing theoretical interpretations of justice involvement among those with SMD and presents results from in-depth interviews (n = 23) in an effort to direct an alternative theoretical path. Findings indicate people with SMD are not simply subject to the whims of their psychopathology, and instead are risk-exposed agents whose arrests are related to early institutionalization, interpersonal conflict, and life circumstances punctuated by socioeconomic marginality. Such findings suggest longitudinal and multi-level theoretical orientations are most appropriate for understanding carceral involvement among individuals with SMD.