"I was already there once": Cumulative attempt capital of marginalized women exiting substance use and street prostitution contributes to their recovery capital.

Despite a move to view substance use as a disease of the brain, relapse into drugs is still often viewed as a personal failure. Low recovery capital has been used to explain relapse among certain marginalized populations. Recovery capital is a recent framework that refers to the individual's sum of all internal and external assets that may assist in their recovery process. It includes four categories: physical, human, social, and cultural capital. However, this framework does not relate to the role of actual relapses in the recovery process, despite their common occurrence. To bridge this gap, in-depth interviews with 29 women formerly engaged in substance use and street prostitution in a large urban area were used to probe women about their relapse and recovery experiences. The current study demonstrates the value in repeat recovery setbacks, what I term "cumulative attempt capital": lessons learned from previous recovery attempts. I argue that previous attempts improve women's social and professional networks, help them learn from past mistakes, improve and maintain their health, and provide them with a sense of self-efficacy. This research expands our understanding of the positive role failed attempts play in one's recovery. Such reframing by service providers can alleviate a sense of shame and low self-worth for women in street prostitution and substance use and has implications for policy and program development.

Contexts shaping misdemeanor system interventions among people with mental illnesses: qualitative findings from a multi-site system mapping exercise.

BACKGROUND: People with mental illnesses are disproportionately entangled in the criminal legal system. Historically, this involvement has resulted from minor offending, often accompanied by misdemeanor charges. In recent years, policymakers have worked to reduce the footprint of the criminal legal system. This paper seeks to better understand how misdemeanor systems intervene in the lives of people with mental illnesses. METHODS: System mapping exercises were conducted with misdemeanor system stakeholders from the jurisdictions of Atlanta, Chicago, Manhattan, and Philadelphia. Narrative detail on decision-making and case processing, both generally and in relation to specific types of behavior, including trespassing, retail theft/shoplifting, and simple assault, were coded and analyzed for thematic patterns. Based on the qualitative analysis, this paper offers a conceptual diagram of contexts shaping misdemeanor system interventions among people with mental illnesses. RESULTS: All four sites have been engaged in efforts to reduce the use of misdemeanor charges both generally and in relation to people with mental illnesses. Decision-makers across all sites experience contexts that shape how, when, and where they intervene, which are: (1) law and policy environments; (2) location of the behavior; (3) expectations of stakeholders; (4) knowledge of mental illnesses; and (5) access to community resources. Law and policy environments expand or constrain opportunities for diversion. The location of offending is relevant to who has a stake in the behavior, and what demands they have. Clinical, experiential, and system-level knowledge of mental illnesses inform a chain of decisions about what to do. The capacity to address mental health needs is contingent on access to social services, including housing. CONCLUSION: People making decisions along the criminal legal continuum are critical to illuminating the dynamic, inter-related contexts that facilitate and frustrate attempts to address defendants' mental health needs while balancing considerations of public safety. Multi-sector, scenario-based or case study exercises could help identify concrete ways of improving each of the contexts that surround whole-of-system decisions.

Misdemeanor Charges Among Individuals With Serious Mental Illnesses: A Statewide Analysis of More Than Two Million Arrests.

OBJECTIVE: Reducing the overrepresentation of individuals with serious mental illnesses in the criminal legal system requires a better understanding of the charges for which they are most commonly arrested. This study aimed to compare violent offenses, penal code classifications, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) codes, and specific charges in arrests among individuals with and individuals without serious mental illnesses. METHODS: The authors analyzed all arrests (N=2,224,847) in New York State during 2010-2013. Medicaid data and the state mental health authority's records were used to create an indicator of serious mental illness for each arrest. RESULTS: Among arrests involving individuals with the serious mental illness indicator (N=91,363), 7.3% were for violent offenses, compared with 7.6% of arrests involving individuals without the indicator. Among 10 penal code classifications, class B felonies and class A misdemeanors were more likely in arrests among those with the indicator than among those without it. Of the 14 UCR codes examined, seven were more common in arrests with the serious mental illness indicator. Criminal trespass was among the most common charges in arrests involving individuals with the indicator. CONCLUSIONS: Most arrests involving people with serious mental illnesses were for misdemeanors, specifically class A misdemeanors, and this class comprised a larger proportion of arrests for those with the indicator than of arrests for those without it. New approaches are needed to address the situations-usually related to socioeconomic disadvantage-that result in individuals with mental illnesses receiving misdemeanor charges and cycling through the criminal legal system.

Augmenting substance use treatment in the drug court: A pilot randomized trial of peer recovery support.

INTRODUCTION: Peer recovery specialist (PRS) support has been used to varying degrees in community substance use and mental health treatment for a number of years. Although there has been some evidence of positive PRS impacts on client outcomes, previous research has shown inconsistent findings and methodological shortcomings. Given the high prevalence of substance use disorders among people involved in the criminal justice system, and limited available treatment opportunities, PRS support could provide a cost-effective opportunity to promote positive client outcomes. Drug courts, with their focus on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment, are an ideal laboratory to test the impacts of PRS on substance use recurrence and recidivism. METHODS: The present study is, to our knowledge, the first experimental test of the PRS model in a justice system setting. We implemented a pilot experiment in the Philadelphia Treatment Court, randomizing 76 drug court participants to be linked to a PRS or to services as usual, and analyzed client outcomes over a nine-month follow-up period. Most participants' drug of choice was marijuana. RESULTS: The results showed a reduction in rearrests and improvement in drug court engagement, but no impact on substance use recurrence or treatment engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The mixed findings suggest some promise for the PRS model in the drug court setting, but the need for further research with more diverse and higher-risk drug court populations.