Getting Inside the Black Box: Understanding How Jail Diversion Works - Re-released June 2020 | Originally published August 2010 - Policy Research ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Getting Inside the Black Box:
Understanding How Jail Diversion Works
Re-released June 2020 | Originally published August 2010This document was originally developed in August 2010 by Policy Research
Associates. It has been rebranded for distribution to the field, but the content has not
been changed. This document should be viewed as a reference resource. For more
information, please contact pra@prainc.com.
Overview expect a reduction in arrests, fewer jail days, and
lower charge levels for subsequent arrests.
Over the past 20 years, jail diversion for persons
with mental illness and co-occurring substance Over 18 years, there has been dramatic
use disorders has become a widely accepted program growth, from 52 programs identified
part of the criminal justice system. The frequent in the initial 1992 national survey (Steadman,
contact with police by people with unmet mental Barbera & Dennis, 1994) to now some 560
health needs and the high rates of mental and programs operating across 47 states, based on
substance use disorders among correctional current estimates.
populations have created broad support for
diversion across criminal justice, health, and By connecting justice-involved people
advocacy lines. Jail diversion programs provide with a serious mental illness to
a way to redirect high-risk individuals from comprehensive and effective mental
justice settings into community-based services
health treatment in the community,
and supports, often with judicial supervision.
individuals would be stabilized and
The Targeted Capacity Expansion communities could expect a reduction in
Jail Diversion Program arrests, fewer jail days, and lower charge
levels for subsequent arrests.
The federal government has supported the
development and expansion of jail diversion
programming nationwide since 1992. After Convening the Experts
the initial 1997 Jail Diversion Knowledge In January 2010, a small, diverse group of
Development Application (KDA) demonstration researchers, policymakers, and jail diversion
project, expansion efforts included practitioners convened in Bethesda, MD, to
authorizations for the 2001 Targeted Capacity assess what conclusions could be derived from
Expansion (TCE) initiative and 2002-2007 TCE the TCE Jail Diversion cross-site evaluation
for jail diversion programs, followed by the 2008 project data. Present were representatives from
13-state Jail Diversion and Trauma-Recovery: Policy Research Associates, Inc., the Council
Priority to Veterans initiative. of State Governments (CSG), and Westat;
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health Federal representatives; program evaluators;
(2004) recommended jail diversion as a public psychiatrists; peer specialists; and criminal
health and public safety strategy. By connecting justice professionals from the bench, prosecution
justice-involved people with a serious mental and defence. The group was charged with the
illness to comprehensive and effective mental task of critiquing findings, using data from 14
health treatment in the community, individuals post-booking TCE I programs.
would be stabilized and communities could
Getting Inside the Black Box | 2Major Findings functioning with baseline reductions of -0.7
and -0.78 at 6 and 12 months from a mean
The TCE data showed the clearest impact 2.02 baseline (scale of 1-4). The Colorado
of jail diversion in the areas of drug and Symptom Index (CSI) demonstrated an
alcohol use, functionality in daily living, re- average 30 percent improvement in symptom
arrest history and jail days, and timely service reduction and well-being ratings.
linkage. Across each of these categories,
data showed improved outcomes for clients Public safety improvements were observed
involved in a diversion program. in 12-month data, with a 53-percent
decrease in arrests post-enrollment and a
Drug and alcohol use dropped dramatically corresponding reduction in jail days from 52
during the first 6 months. Self-report of any days pre-enrollment to 35 days at 1 year post-
alcohol use dropped by more than 50 percent, enrollment. Across charge history, 46 percent
while use of alcohol to intoxication and illegal of clients diverted on misdemeanor charges
drug use both decreased 70 percent from and 49 percent of those diverted on felony
baseline, with the decrease mostly sustained charges experienced no further arrests during
at 12 months. the following year, so that charge severity itself
made no difference to the likelihood of future
Assessment of individual improvement and
arrest or charge severity. Overall, diverted
capacity for independent living showed equal
clients had 44 percent fewer arrests and 33
improvement: the daily living/role functioning
percent fewer jail days (Case et al., 2009).
scale demonstrated improvements in
Jail Diversion Logic Model1
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Improved Mental
Diversion Identify and Linkage Comprehensive/ Health/Individual
Enroll People in Appropriate Outcomes
Target Group Community-
Based Services
Improved Public
Safety Outcomes
Input Black Box Output
1. From Case, B., Steadman, H.J., Dupuis, S., & Morris, L. (2009). Who succeeds in jail diversion programs for persons with mental illness?
A multi-site study. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(5).
Getting Inside the Black Box | 3Data analysis identified 3 outcome predictors evaluate diversion programs and those diverted
for future criminal activity: lengthier prior arrest to them as homogenous groups, there remains
history; gender (with women less likely to an extraordinary level of heterogeneity among
reoffend); and more illegal drug use. programs, dispositional practices, treatment
services provided, and individual performance.
Overall, the data demonstrated improvement in
mental health outcomes, with reduced symptoms
and improved well-being, and improvement in Ultimately, in analyzing the findings,
public safety outcomes, with reduced rearrest the 2010 expert group concluded the
rates, lower charges, and fewer jail days. These data provide enough evidence to define
data also suggest the predominant factor related the key ingredients within Stage 1 and
to public safety outcomes is past criminal
2 of the Jail Diversion Logic Model
behavior. However, prior arrest history is, by itself,
an insufficient determinant of future risk. Other necessary to create a competent system
compounding risk factors must be considered capable of meeting the Stage 3 public
and the treatment and supports occurring within health and public safety goals.
the black box of the jail diversion process must
be examined. In concept, the Jail Diversion Logic Model
hypothesizes a causal relationship that symptom
Beyond Data: The Black control would result in reduced recidivism
Box of Jail Diversion for justice-involved individuals with a mental
illness. However, research has shown mental
In science, the “black box” is an entity or system illness is not the dominant cause of arrest. In
that can be viewed solely in terms of its input, one metaanalysis, only 4 percent of arrests in a
output, and transfer characteristics, without any sample of jail divertees with mental illness were
knowledge of its internal workings. the direct effect of mental illness although 14.3
In the context of jail diversion, much is known percent were indirectly related. Substance abuse
about the demographics, charge level, and was the direct cause of arrest in 22.5 percent
treatment needs of people going in, and study of cases, with only 8.6 percent indirectly related
data reveal a fair amount about service retention (Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998). Additional research
and re-arrest history among people coming out. suggests mental illness may be only a modest
The black box represents variables or “change factor for recidivism and reveals justice-involved
components”—from evidence-based services people with mental illnesses meet many of the
to the perceived role of coercion in criminal “central eight” leading risk factors for future
justice supervision—that may provide clues criminal behavior (Andrews et al., 2006).
as to what works and why. Despite efforts to
Getting Inside the Black Box | 4…engage in offending and other forms of
deviant behavior not because they have
“Central Eight” Risk Factors
a mental disorder, but because they are
It is important to note high “central eight” risk
poor. Their poverty situates them socially
scores are shared by both individuals with a
mental illness and those without, suggesting an and geographically, and places them at
alternative view of the root of the problem for risk of engaging in many of the same
frequent criminal justice contact. Some people behaviors displayed by persons without
with serious mental illnesses may: mental illness who are similarly situated
(Fisher et al., 2006, pg. 553).
“Central Eight” Risk Factors2
Risk Factor Need
History of criminal behavior Build alternative behavior
Antisocial personality disorder Problem-solving skills, anger management
Antisocial cognition Develop less risky thinking
Antisocial peers Reduce association with criminal others
Family and/or marital discord Reduce conflict, build positive relationships
Poor school and/or work performance Enhance performance, rewards
Few leisure or recreation activities Enhance outside involvement
Substance abuse Reduce use
2. From Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and
Delinquency, 52(1).
Getting Inside the Black Box | 5Understanding the Black Box and and (2) outreach that could significantly reduce
noncompliance and technical revocations.
Fine-Tuning a Model
TCE data tell us little about effective service
Viewing the logic model stages as opportunity for ingredients: range of services, evidence-based
cause and effect, jail diversion data have a fairly practices, and the level of intensity at which they
robust effect in meeting public health and public need to be provided. Researchers believe service
safety goals via engagement, treatment, and answers would help define the process and
supervisory strategies in Stage 1 and 2, including: changes that occur in the black box and provide
assessment, admission decisions, individualized a standardized model for replication. However,
planning, intervention choices, community- it may be a moot question since the evidence
based supervision, and peer support. Despite suggests individualized plans and the dynamics
this, people still cycle back into contact with the of the supervisor-client relationship are, in fact,
justice system, which suggests the issue is not the keys to success (Skeem et al., 2007; Skeem
only a lack of access to services but a need for et al., 2011).
(1) access to evidence-based “competent care”
What Is in the Black Box of Jail Diversion?
Input What may occur in Output
the black box
Inclusionary criteria Judicial supervision and Mental health symptom control
mandated treatment or reduction
Voluntary admission Comprehensive needs Lower costs
assessment, including “central
eight” risk factors
Men/Women Service linkage and Fewer arrests
ancillary supports
Misdemeanor/felony charges Person-centered, individualized Reduction in charge severity
planning, choice
Prior arrest histories Tailored treatment and Fewer jail days
service intensity
Mental health diagnosis Trauma-informed care Improved quality of life
PTSD/trauma history “Change agent” providing “firm N/A
but fair” community supervision
Getting Inside the Black Box | 6Next Steps and Opportunities Drawing on this and what we know from risk
assessment and violence studies, the TCE
Collectively, the data provide a framework for data strongly suggest we are moving toward
future directions in policy and practice. The a more valid model of “what works” to reduce
data support the establishment of jail diversion criminal behavior. By introducing criminogenic
programs on the grounds of public health, public factors to the discussion, we see the similarities
safety, and individual success. It shows we can in risk factors for recidivism across offenders
be reasonably accurate in distinguishing people with and without mental illnesses. This finding
more or less likely to reoffend and the range and indicates a successful jail diversion model,
intensity of their service needs. However, prior in symmetry with reentry planning, hinges on
arrest history alone should not be interpreted as integrated, clientoriented community services and
a preclusion to diversion but instead as a helpful supports the argument for the use of evidence-
indicator of greater risk factors. based practices throughout mental health and
correctional settings.
Toward a More Valid Model of “What Works” to Reduce Criminal Behavior3
RNR: Risk-Need-Responsivity Model
Diversion/Sentence to
ACT: Assertive Community Treatment
Mandated Treatment
Mental Health Treatment IDDT: Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment
e.g., ACT, IDDT, others
shown to affect Small subgroup
EBP in Corrections
psychiatric outcomes.
e.g., RNR, firm but
fair relationships,
others shown to affect Fewer new crimes
Everyone else
recidivism. and new victims
3. Skeem, J., Peterson, J., & Silver, E. (2011). Toward research-informed policy for high risk offenders with serious mental illness. In B.
McSherry & P. Keiser (Eds.), Managing High Risk Offenders: Policy & Practice. New York: Routledge.
Getting Inside the Black Box | 7Policy Research Associates, Inc. Case, B., Steadman, H. J., Dupuis, S., & Morris,
L. (2009). Who succeeds in jail diversion
345 Delaware Avenue, Delmar, New York 12054 programs for persons with mental illness? A
www.prainc.com | pra@prainc.com multi-site study. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 27: 661-674.
About Policy Research Fisher, W. H., Roy-Bujnowski, K. M., Grudzinskas,
Associates, Inc. A. J. Jr., Clayfield, J. C., Banks, S. M., & Wolff.
Policy Research Associates, Inc. (PRA) is a N. (2006). Patterns and prevalence of arrest
Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) that in a statewide cohort of mental health care
is a national leader in behavioral health and consumers. Psychiatric Services, 57(11):1623-
research. PRA offers four core services that help 1628.
individuals with behavioral health needs achieve New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.
recovery. In partnership with its sister non-profit, 2004. Subcommittee on criminal justice:
Policy Research, Inc., PRA offers policy, research, Background paper. Rockville, MD: Department
technical assistance, and training services, of Heatlh and Human Services. Pub. No. SMA-
primarily in the content areas of behavioral health; 04-3880.
homelessness; income supports; criminal justice;
juvenile justice; education; service members, Skeem, J., Eno Louden, J., Polasheck, & Cap,
Veterans, and their families; recovery support; J. (2007). Relationship quality in mandated
consumers and family members; trauma; treatment: Blending care with control.
wellness; and systems mapping. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397-410.
Skeem, J., Manchak, S., & Peterson, J. (2011).
Suggested Citation Correctional policy for offenders with mental
Policy Research Associates, Inc. (2020). Getting disorder: Creating a new paradigm for
Inside the Black Box: Understanding How Jail recidivism reduction. Law and Human Behavior.
Diversion Works (2nd ed). Delmar, NY: Author. 35:110-126.
References Skeem, J., Peterson, J., & Silver, E. (2011).
Toward research-informed policy for high risk
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. (2006). offenders with serious mental illness. In B.
The recent past and near future of risk and/ McSherry & P. Keiser (Eds.), Managing High
or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, Risk Offenders: Policy & Practice (111-121).
52:7–27. New York: Routledge.
Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The Steadman, H. J., Barbera, S., & Dennis, D. (1994).
prediction of criminal and violent recidivism A national survey of jail diversion programs for
among mentally disordered offenders: A mentally ill detainees. Hospital and Community
metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, Psychiatry, 45(11):1109–1113.
123-142.
Getting Inside the Black Box | 8Acknowledgments
Forum Participants
January 14, 2010 | Bethesda, MD
Stephen Bush Stephanie LeMelle
Kevin Casey Ann-Marie Louison
Victoria Cochran Joseph Morrissey
Debra Ferguson Mary Anne Myers
Doyle Forrestal Fred Osher
David Fuller Travis Parker
Micah Haskell-Hoehl Susie Davidson Powell
Kirk Heilbrun Merrill Rotter
H. Richard Hopper Jennifer Skeem
Chandria Jones Bonita Veysey
Kathleen Lacey Douglas Wilson
J. Steven Lamberti David Wright
Steven Leifman
Getting Inside the Black Box | 9You can also read
