Deinstitutionalization and other factors in the criminalization of persons with serious mental illness and how it is being addressed.

One of the major concerns in present-day psychiatry is the criminalization of persons with serious mental illness (SMI). This trend began in the late 1960s when deinstitutionalization was implemented throughout the United States. The intent was to release patients in state hospitals and place them into the community where they and other persons with SMI would be treated. Although community treatment was effective for many, there was a large minority who did not adapt successfully and who presented challenges in treatment. Consequently, some of these individuals' mental condition and behavior brought them to the attention of law enforcement personnel, whereupon they would be subsequently arrested and incarcerated. The failure of the mental health system to provide a sufficient range of treatment interventions, including an adequate number of psychiatric inpatient beds, has contributed greatly to persons with SMI entering the criminal justice system. A discussion of the many issues and factors related to the criminalization of persons with SMI as well as how the mental health and criminal justice systems are developing strategies and programs to address them is presented.

Understanding and Treating Offenders with Serious Mental Illness in Public Sector Mental Health.

This article begins with the history of the rise and fall of the state hospitals and subsequent criminalization of persons with serious mental illness (SMI). Currently, there is a belief among many that incarceration has not been as successful as hoped in reducing crime and drug use, both for those with and those without SMI. Moreover, overcrowding in correctional facilities has become a serious problem necessitating a solution. Consequently, persons with SMI in the criminal justice system are now being released in large numbers to the community and hopefully treated by public sector mental health. The issues to consider when releasing incarcerated persons with SMI into the community are as follows: diversion and mental health courts; the expectation that the mental health system will assume responsibility; providing asylum and sanctuary; the capabilities, limitations, and realistic treatment goals of community outpatient psychiatric treatment for offenders with SMI; the need for structure; the use of involuntary commitments, including assisted outpatient treatment, conservatorship and guardianship; liaison between treatment and criminal justice personnel; appropriately structured, monitored, and supportive housing; management of violence; and 24-hour structured in-patient care. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Rediscovering the Concept of Asylum for Persons with Serious Mental Illness.

Treating persons with serious mental illness is a complex and challenging endeavor. One intervention that has received little attention in recent years is the need for asylum. Asylum means a sanctuary, a place that lowers levels of stress and provides protection, safety, security, and social support, as well as an array of treatment services. The concept of "asylum" may have lost favor because it was equated with the abysmal conditions found in the state psychiatric hospitals of the past. Among the reasons persons with serious mental illness have been arrested and incarcerated is society's failure to provide adequate levels of asylum. With the release of tens of thousands of mentally ill inmates from state and federal jails and prisons, it is time to revisit this concept, not only for these persons but for those who have not been criminalized. Asylum can be found in various settings, including with family in the patient's home, in a board-and-care facility, or in a psychiatric hospital if necessary. Not all persons with a major mental illness are capable of achieving high levels of social and vocational functioning; however, living in a place that provides asylum can promote a higher quality of life. The value of asylum for many persons with serious mental illness should not be underestimated.

Decarceration of U.S. jails and prisons: where will persons with serious mental illness go?

Decarceration (decreasing the number of persons incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons) has begun. It is estimated that more than 350,000 persons with serious mental illness (SMI) are among those incarcerated in the United States and that many thousands of them will probably be among those released. Currently, the prison population in general is being reduced as a consequence of concerns about overcrowding and of policies and programs such as reclassification of drug possession, which would affect many persons with mental illness. Court-ordered diversion and changes in sentencing guidelines are also serving to reduce prison populations. In recent years, the mental health system did not have to manage as large a number of persons with SMI, especially those who were among the most difficult and expensive to treat, because many of them were incarcerated in jails and prisons. Now, with decarceration and the release of many such persons, the mental health system may be expected to assume more responsibility for them and should be prepared and funded to meet their needs. This population of persons with SMI needs structure and treatment that, depending upon their individual needs, may include 24-hour supportive housing, ACT and FACT teams, assisted outpatient treatment, psychiatric medication, and psychiatric hospitalization.

Commentary: Evaluations of DOJ investigations of state psychiatric hospitals.

Geller and Lee use their study of Findings Letters, sent by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to the states after investigations of state psychiatric hospitals, as a way to study the investigation process itself. Their article serves as a useful program evaluation for DOJ and suggests important ways in which the investigations could be improved.

Some perspectives on criminalization.

In recently published articles, there has been an underemphasis on the role serious mental illness (SMI) plays in causing persons to be in the criminal justice system. Increasing attention has been paid to other factors, including criminogenic needs. While these needs may be present and contribute to criminal behavior, persons with SMI who are at greatest risk of criminalization are those who are not receiving adequate treatment, structure, social control, and, when necessary, 24-hour care in the mental health system. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been used to reduce recidivism for prisoners, including those with SMI, but persons impaired by their untreated psychotic symptoms may not be able to profit from it. The importance of psychiatric treatment must not be underestimated. Moreover, given their current constraints, correctional systems may not be able to continue accepting large numbers of persons with SMI. Many offenders with serious mental illness pose difficult and expensive problems in treatment and management, such as nonadherence to medication, potential for violence, and substance abuse. The mental health system needs to be given more funding and to take more responsibility for these challenging individuals.

Meeting the needs of those persons with serious mental illness who are most likely to become criminalized.

Persons with serious mental illness are a heterogeneous group. A large majority recognize that they are mentally ill, and they are treatment adherent, often able to work, and do not have major problems with substance abuse and violence. However, a substantial minority exists who receive little attention in the literature. They may not believe that they are mentally ill (the possible result of anosognosia), are nonadherent to psychiatric treatment, may have acute psychotic symptoms and serious substance abuse problems, may become violent when stressed, and may show less potential for recovery. This minority is at most risk for criminalization. High degrees of structure may help reduce this risk. They need a range of outpatient and inpatient treatment, including assertive community treatment, intensive case management, assisted outpatient treatment, structured housing, co-occurring substance abuse treatment, pre- and postbooking diversion, and available hospital beds. The mental health system can reduce criminalization by taking greater responsibility for these challenging persons.

Treatment prospects for persons with severe mental illness in an urban county jail.

OBJECTIVE: A retrospective study of inmates with severe mental illness in a large, urban county jail aimed to obtain information about their psychiatric and criminal histories and status, the psychiatric services they used while incarcerated, and the challenges they might present in psychiatric treatment after release. METHODS: The authors ascertained demographic characteristics, diagnoses, psychiatric and legal histories, and current psychiatric condition and treatment from jail psychiatric records of a random sample of 104 male inmates with mental illness and from electronic county mental health records and state records of criminal histories. RESULTS: Seventy-eight inmates (75%) were diagnosed as having a severe mental illness. Of these, 59 (76%) required inpatient care or its equivalent for part of their time in jail for the current offense. Of the inmates with severe mental illness, 92% had a history of nonadherence to medications before this arrest, 95% had prior arrests, 72% had prior arrests for violent crimes against persons, and 76% were known to have a history of substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of persons with severe mental illness received their acute psychiatric inpatient treatment in the criminal justice system rather than in the mental health system. The persons with severe mental illness in this study would present a major challenge in treatment in any setting given their psychiatric and criminal histories. The resources of the mental health system need to be greatly expanded, with priority given to treating persons who are criminalized or who are in danger of becoming criminalized.

Commentary: on research and forensic patients' capacity.

The author agrees that McDermott and colleagues present evidence that may support and ethically facilitate clinical research in the forensic population. Such research is sorely needed if we are to better understand and find new ways to help this population.

One-year follow-up of persons discharged from a locked intermediate care facility.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined outcomes during a one-year follow-up for persons who were discharged from a locked intermediate care facility in an urban area in California. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which persons with severe mental illness can be successfully transferred from an intermediate care facility to lower levels of care. METHODS: A total of 101 persons consecutively discharged were studied by record review and by obtaining information from facility staff members, therapists, case managers, and other community caretakers. RESULTS: During the follow-up period 56 percent of the patients who were discharged from the intermediate care facility were not able to demonstrate even minimal functioning in the community. These persons spent 90 or more days in locked or highly structured institutions that provided 24-hour care (including jail) or had five or more acute hospitalizations. However, 44 percent spent less than 90 days in these institutions and had fewer than five acute hospitalizations. Thirty-three percent were not known to have spent any time in an institution or hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of recidivism shown in this cohort suggests that the current emphasis on transferring patients from more structured, intermediate inpatient services to lower levels of care is not effective for a majority of patients. Furthermore, the poor clinical outcomes found in this cohort did not seem to be offset by any reduction in overall governmental costs because of the high use of acute and intermediate hospitalization and the costs of the criminal justice system.

The shift of psychiatric inpatient care from hospitals to jails and prisons.

Far-reaching structural changes have been made in the mental health system. Many severely mentally ill persons who come to the attention of law enforcement now receive their inpatient treatment in jails and prisons, at least in part, because of a dramatic reduction of psychiatric inpatient beds. While more high-quality community treatment, such as intensive case management and assertive community treatment, is needed, the authors believe that for many, 24-hour structured care is needed in the mental health system for various lengths of time to decrease criminalization. Another central theme of this article is that when a mentally ill individual is arrested, that person now has a computerized criminal record, which is easily accessed by the police and the courts in subsequent encounters. This may influence their decisions and reinforce the tendency to choose the criminal justice system over the mental health system.

Mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system: some perspectives.

There is an increasing number of severely mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system. This article first discusses the criminalization of persons with severe mental illness and its causes, the role of the police and mental health, and the treatment of mentally ill offenders and its difficulties. The authors then offer recommendations to reduce criminalization by increased coordination between police and mental health professionals, to increase mental health training for police officers, to enhance mental health services after arrest, and to develop more and better community treatment of mentally ill offenders. The necessary components of such treatment are having a treatment philosophy of both theory and practice; having clear goals of treatment; establishing a close liaison between treatment staff and the justice system; understanding the need for structure; having a focus on managing violence; and appreciating the crucial role of case management, appropriate living arrangements, and the role of family members.

The police and mental health.

With deinstitutionalization and the influx into the community of persons with severe mental illness, the police have become frontline professionals who manage these persons when they are in crisis. This article examines and comments on the issues raised by this phenomenon as it affects both the law enforcement and mental health systems. Two common-law principles provide the rationale for the police to take responsibility for persons with mental illness: their power and authority to protect the safety and welfare of the community, and their parens patriae obligations to protect individuals with disabilities. The police often fulfill the role of gatekeeper in deciding whether a person with mental illness who has come to their attention should enter the mental health system or the criminal justice system. Criminalization may result if this role is not performed appropriately. The authors describe a variety of mobile crisis teams composed of police, mental health professionals, or both. The need for police officers to have training in recognizing mental illness and knowing how to access mental health resources is emphasized. Collaboration between the law enforcement and mental health systems is crucial, and the very different areas of expertise of each should be recognized and should not be confused.