Affordability of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment Programs: A Return-on-Investment Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors assessed return on investment (ROI) associated with a forensic assertive community treatment (FACT) program. METHODS: A retrospective secondary data analysis of a randomized controlled trial comprising 70 legal-involved patients with severe mental illness was conducted in Rochester, New York. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either FACT or outpatient psychiatric treatment including intensive case management. Unit of service costs associated with psychiatric emergency department visits, psychiatric inpatient days, and days in jail were obtained from records of New York State Medicaid and the Department of Corrections. The total dollar value difference between the two trial arms calculated on a per-patient-per-year (PPPY) basis constituted the return from the FACT intervention. The FACT investment cost was defined by the total additional PPPY cost associated with FACT implementation relative to the control group. ROI was calculated by dividing the return by the investment cost. RESULTS: The estimated return from FACT was $27,588 PPPY (in 2019 dollars; 95% confidence interval [CI]=$3,262-$51,913), which was driven largely by reductions in psychiatric inpatient days, and the estimated investment cost was $18,440 PPPY (95% CI=$15,215-$21,665), implying an ROI of 1.50 (95% CI=0.35-2.97) for FACT. CONCLUSIONS: The Rochester FACT program was associated with approximately $1.50 return for every $1 spent on its implementation, even without considering potential returns from other sources, including reductions in acute medical care, crime-related damages, and public safety costs. ROI estimates were highly dependent on context-specific factors, particularly Medicaid reimbursement rates for assertive community treatment and hospital stays.

Psychosis, Mania and Criminal Recidivism: Associations and Implications for Prevention.

People with mental illness are overrepresented throughout the criminal justice system, including jail, prison, probation, and parole populations. Yet much disagreement remains about why this problem exists and how best to address it. This article specifically examines empirical evidence regarding the question of whether psychosis and mania are associated with criminal recidivism, and whether this association is predictive or causal in nature. Review of the current literature suggests that psychotic and manic symptoms are associated with increased likelihood of arrest and incarceration. In addition, current evidence shows that pharmacotherapy can reduce criminal recidivism among justice-involved adults with psychosis or mania. However, the extent to which the association between psychosis, mania, and criminal justice system involvement is causal remains uncertain. Also, the literature suggests that most crimes committed by people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or bipolar I disorder may be driven by factors other than their psychotic or manic symptoms. These established "criminogenic needs" are more common among people with severe mental disorders than in the general population. For optimal prevention, those who serve justice-involved adults with psychosis or mania in community settings should consider addressing the full range of factors that potentially drive their criminal justice system involvement.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Rochester Forensic Assertive Community Treatment Model.

OBJECTIVE: Forensic assertive community treatment (FACT) is an adaptation of the assertive community treatment model and is designed to serve justice-involved adults with serious mental illness. This study compared the effectiveness of a standardized FACT model and enhanced treatment as usual in reducing jail and hospital use and in promoting engagement in outpatient mental health services. METHODS: Seventy adults with psychotic disorders who were arrested for misdemeanor crimes and who were eligible for conditional discharge were recruited from the Monroe County, New York, court system. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either FACT (N=35) or enhanced treatment as usual (N=35) for one year. Criminal justice and mental health service utilization outcomes were measured by using state and county databases. RESULTS: Forty-nine participants (70%) completed the full one-year intervention period. Nineteen (27%) were removed early by judicial order, one was removed by county health authorities, and one died of a medical illness. Intent-to-treat analysis for all 70 participants showed that those receiving the FACT intervention had fewer mean±SD convictions (.4±.7 versus .9±1.3, p=.023), fewer mean days in jail (21.5±25.9 versus 43.5±59.2, p=.025), fewer mean days in the hospital (4.4±15.1 versus 23.8±64.2, p=.025), and more mean days in outpatient mental health treatment (305.5±92.1 versus 169.4±139.6, p<.001) compared with participants who received treatment as usual. CONCLUSIONS: The Rochester FACT model was associated with fewer convictions for new crimes, less time in jail and hospitals, and more time in outpatient treatment among justice-involved adults with psychotic disorders compared with treatment as usual.