No one needed to tell Hillsborough County Jail Superintendent James O’Mara or New Hampshire District Court Judge James Leary that more people with serious mental illnesses were locked up in the local jail than ever before. What they didn’t know--until they requested an analysis from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) looking at who was admitted to the jail and how long they stayed--was what was driving that growth.

In a report prepared by the CSG Justice Center, which was made possible through BJA funding support, county officials learned that the average length of stay for pretrial detainees was three times longer than other pretrial detainees who were not identified as having a serious mental illness.

“The numbers were a slap in the face,” said Judge Leary. “We suspected that people with mental illnesses might stay in jail pretrial a little bit longer than the general population, but I don’t think anybody realized the extent of the difference.”

Further analysis demonstrated that this differential in length of stay existed regardless of whether the defendant was charged with a misdemeanor or a felony. In other words, people with mental illnesses were not staying in jail pending their trial simply because they were charged with committing more serious crimes than people without mental illnesses.

Hillsborough officials had different theories why it took three times longer to release a person with a serious mental illness on bond, sentence him or her to time served, or process him or her to state prison than it did for a person who was not identified as having a serious mental illness.

Defense attorneys noted that clients with mental illnesses often couldn’t make bail because they, and their families, lacked the resources to assist them. Corrections officials observed that defendants with serious mental illnesses frequently did not advocate effectively before the court for their pretrial release. Mental health professionals explained that the county’s lack of affordable housing and a shortage of short- and long-term psychiatric beds meant there were few options available to court officials other than releasing these defendants to the streets. At the same time, judges and prosecutors expressed concern that in many instances releasing people with serious mental illnesses to the community on personal recognizance could compromise public safety.

Whatever the reason, the additional length of stay was costing the county a lot of money without providing any commensurate increase in public safety, as the defendants, who had languished in jail for an additional 36 days on average, were returned to the community without the necessary connections to community-based mental health treatment and services.

“The report opened everyone’s eyes to issues we’ve been wrestling with for years,” said Superintendent O’Mara. “We realized we needed to pay closer attention to why they stayed so long prior to trial and what we could do to address the problem.”

Click here to continue reading about how Hillsborough County officials used these startling findings to tweak existing programs and develop new programs to provide a comprehensive, system-wide responses to the fact that people with mental illnesses stayed in jail so much longer.

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center recently released a guide for policymakers committed to reducing the likelihood that probationers will reoffend. A Ten-Step Guide to Transforming Probation Departments to Reduce Recidivism provides probation leaders with a roadmap to overhaul the operations of their agencies so they can increase public safety in their communities and improve rates of compliance among people they are supervising.

The first section describes how officials can engage key stakeholders, evaluate agency policies, and develop a strategic plan for implementing reform; the second section provides recommendations for redesigning departmental policies and practices; and the final section includes steps for making the department transformation permanent. The report provides numerous examples of how these steps were used in one probation department in particular (Travis County, Texas). Since transforming its operations between 2005 and 2008, the Travis County probation department has seen felony probation revocations decline by 20 percent and the one-year re-arrest rate for probationers fall by 17 percent (compared with similar probationers before the departmental overhaul).

To learn more and to download the report, click here.

This webinar reviewed the prevalence, impact, and treatment of trauma for youth involved in the juvenile justice system.

For people with serious mental illnesses (SMI) leaving jail and prison, Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income/Social Security Disability Insurance (SSI/SSDI) benefits can help ensure access to health care, housing, and other essential supports in the critical period immediately following release. The 2009 passage of healthcare reform legislation expands eligibility for Medicaid, making access to benefits even more important in the transition-to-community process. However, as many practitioners who work with these individuals know, benefits enrollment can be a complex and confusing process.

To improve how jurisdictions identify and enroll eligible individuals with SMI in benefits programs, the Council of State Governments Justice Center has released a policy brief, “Facilitating Medicaid Enrollment for People with Serious Mental Illnesses Leaving Jail or Prison: Key Questions for Policymakers Committed to Improving Health and Public Safety.” This brief provides guidance for elected officials and corrections and mental health directors to understand

1. what percentage of the corrections population is eligible for Medicaid and SSI/SSDI;
2. how to identify eligible individuals at intake to the facility; and
3. when to begin the application process for benefits program.

Click here to download this policy brief.

The Justice Center has published several resources on access to federal benefits, including most recently a set of frequently asked questions on healthcare reform and the new Medicaid eligibility criteria. The Justice Center has also developed an interactive chart comparing different benefits programs, a guide on why Medicaid matters for people with serious mental illness leaving jail, a series of case studies of states that ensure timely access to benefits, and more. These and other reentry resources are available here.

This webinar featured innovative collaborations between law enforcement and mental health agencies working to improve the response to people with mental illnesses through specialized policing response (SPR) programs.

This webinar reviewed key concepts of risk assessment and its implementation in juvenile justice agencies. Topics covered included how to select a tool, how risk assessment differs from mental health screening, how the approach should differ depending on the juvenile justice setting, and some key points for effective implementation.

The National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC)—which, like the Consensus Project, is coordinated by the CSG Justice Center—recently published a set of frequently asked questions on the substance use and mental and physical health of people involved with the criminal justice system. The FAQ was prepared by the NRRC’s Committee on Health, Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders.

Tragic incidents involving people with mental illnesses who are violent, although rare, tend to draw intense media and public attention. This can intensify existing misperceptions about the relationship between mental illnesses and violence. This feature, which draws from the recently published Responding to a High-Profile Tragic Incident Involving a Person with a Serious Mental Illness and corresponding webinar, highlights some key points regarding the relationship between mental illness and violence.

Presenters discussed the origins and applications of the toolkit Responding to a High-Profile Tragic Incident Involving a Person with a Serious Mental Illness, released by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors and the CSG Justice Center.

Once officials in Johnson County, Kan., recognized that they faced a major problem with the growing number of people with mental illnesses in the justice system, they were presented with a significant dilemma: How do you design a systemwide response in the absence of reliable data that demonstrates what type of intervention will have the greatest impact?

Different stakeholders had divergent feelings about what was most appropriate. Some advocated for starting a mental health court. (Officials in Wichita had just started the state’s first mental health court through a JMHCP grant.) Others pushed for opening crisis stabilization drop-off sites for police to transfer custody of people with mental illnesses more quickly than current protocols allowed.

"We knew we were facing some serious problems with the growing number of people with mental illnesses in our system. What we didn’t know was what the numbers really were," said Risë Haneberg, the county’s criminal justice coordinator. "We did not want to risk making bad decisions based on war stories or anecdotal evidence rather than hard data."

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a type of psychotherapeutic approach that emphasizes the impact of how we think and feel on what we do. CBT programs are frequently offered in correctional settings and by community-based providers who work with justice-involved populations. The programs target criminal thinking and criminogenic risk factors in a way that promotes improved behavior and decision making. The Consensus Project recently hosted a webinar on CBT.

Speakers presented cognitive behavioral interventions from the worlds of criminal justice and mental health that were created to specifically target the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with criminal justice recidivism.

In August, the Justice Center launched a new online discussion forum, where policymakers and practitioners from across the country can exchange ideas, direct questions to each other and national experts, offer comments and suggestions, and network around their collaborative criminal justice/mental health initiatives. The forum is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice. To access the forum, click here.

Take a look at what’s being discussed on the forum:

Question: "Can anyone point me in the direction of federal grants for CIT? The more specific the better."

Answer: "The federal funding cycle for FY10 is currently closed, although some RFPs for FY11 have been released. In particular, I would recommend looking into the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP) (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/) and possibly funding opportunities through the COPS (Community Orientated Policing Services) Office (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/)..."

To read more of this thread, or to post a response, please click here.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has developed and piloted a set of Performance Measurements for Mental Health Courts, which were released in October 2010. This webinar introduced the core and supplemental measures developed and piloted through the initiative and outlined "next steps" for the NCSC involving this initiative, as well as how interested courts can implement the proposed measures.

Each month, the Justice Center spotlights high-quality collaborative criminal justice/mental health initiatives that have received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP). Justice Center staff members ask the practitioners in these programs to discuss some successes and challenges they have encountered in the planning and implementation process. This month's profile is from the Alabama Department of Mental Health and the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts, a 2009 planning and implementation grantee.

Project Summary:
The Alabama JMHCP project aims to build capacity for state-level training and technical assistance for jurisdictions interested in or already operating mental health courts or mental health diversion programs. On October 13–15, 2010, the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Alabama Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) hosted the first Alabama Mental Health Court Conference. John Houston, commissioner of the Alabama Department of Mental Health (DMH), and Callie T. Dietz, administrative director of courts, opened the conference by stressing the importance of cross-system collaboration in times of jail and prison overcrowding and diminishing resources. About 150 judges, attorneys, treatment providers, and community corrections officers from around the state participated in two-and-a-half days of presentations and breakout sessions led by national experts and practitioners from existing Alabama mental health courts. The conference agenda is available here.

In the next year, the Alabama grantees will prepare for a second conference scheduled for the fall of 2011, continue development of a technical assistance "toolkit" that will include sample forms and access to existing state and national resources, and develop suggestions for standardized data collection across Alabaman mental health courts.