Prisoners Transferred to Mental Hospitals

Monahan, John; Davis, Sharon K.; Hartstone, Eliot; Steadman, Henry J.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0351-8_8

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, because detainees tend to meet criteria for two or three co-occurring disorders, it is important to distinguish the mutual influences of the various disorders. Second, loglinear analysis is useful for testing whether variables known to be related to diagnostic status, such as age and race, have an effect (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; Monahan & Steadman, 1983; Regier et al, 1988). We used loglinear modeling because of its sensitivity to small sample size and its ability to handle categorical variables.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: Implications for public policy.

Abram¹,

Teplin²

1991

American Psychologist

435

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have demonstrated that police often arrest the mentally ill when treatment alternatives would be preferable but are unavailable. Thus, jails may contain disproportionate numbers of severely mentally ill persons who have co-occurring disorders. Data on the co-occurrence of severe mental disorder, substance abuse, and antisocial personality disorders were gathered from 728 randomly selected male urban jail detainees. Using difference of proportions tests and loglinear analysis, the authors demonstrated that most subjects with a severe mental disorder (schizophrenia or a major affective disorder) also meet criteria for a substance abuse or antisocial personality disorder. These findings suggest several changes in public policy regarding health care delivery in correctional settings and for the general population.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: Implications for public policy.

Abram¹,

Teplin²

1991

American Psychologist

435

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need for better understanding of MIOs is underscored by high prevalence rates of serious mental disorders in U.S. prisons. Available point prevalence estimates suggest that 6–16% of U.S. prisoners are mentally ill (Ditton, 1999; Monahan & Steadman, 1983; Steadman, 1982). U.S. Department of Justice reports that at yearend 2001 there were an estimated 1,406,031 inmates in state and federal prisons (Harrison & Beck, 2002), which yields an estimated 84,000 to 225,000 mentally ill prisoners.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forecasting Recidivism in Mentally Ill Offenders Released From Prison.

Gagliardi¹,

Lovell²,

Peterson³

et al. 2004

Law and Human Behavior

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little research has focused on assessing the risk of mentally ill offenders (MIOs) released from state prisons. Here we report findings for 333 mentally ill offenders released from Washington State prisons. Logistic regression identified sets of variables that forecasted felony and violent reconviction as accurately as state-of-the-art risk assessment instruments. Sums of simple recoded versions of these variables predicted reoffense as well as complex logistic regression equations. Five of these 9 variables were found to be relative protective factors. Findings are discussed in terms of the value of stock correctional variables in forecasting risk, the need to base actuarial risk assessments on local data, the importance of protective factors in assessing MIO risk, and the need for dynamic, situational, and clinical variables that can further sharpen predictive accuracy of emergent risk in the community.

show abstract

“…Police in that study frequently tried to have the mentally disordered offenders admitted to psychiatric hospital, but the hospitals refused. On the other hand, there is evidence that the net of those eligible for mental health services has been widened through the “psychiatrization of criminal behavior” (Cocozza, Melick, & Steadman, 1978; Monahan, Davis, Hartstone, & Steadman, 1983). According to this view, the scope of mental health intervention has expanded to include more forms of deviant behavior, and persons who would previously have been dealt with exclusively by the criminal justice system are now referred to mental health professionals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The treatment of mentally disordered offenders.

Rice¹,

Harris²

1997

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

However narrowly defined, mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) are heterogeneous in demographics, diagnoses, offense characteristics, risk, and clinical needs. Treatment planning for MDOs should begin with an assessment of risk of future violent behavior in the community and risk of violence toward self or others inside an institution. Purposes of treatment among MDOs include treatments both to reduce risk of future violence and to alleviate the mental disorder. Relevant outcome measures include criminal and violent behavior, psychiatric symptomatology, admission to correctional or psychiatric facility, and quality of life. Clinical problems include aggression and problems of institutional management, criminal propensity, life skills deficits, substance abuse, active psychotic symptoms, social withdrawal, and depression. Because evidence relating them to risk of future violence is highest for the first 4 problems, it is argued that inpatient treatments should especially target them. Whenever risk levels and legal circumstances permit, community treatment is to be preferred. Sex offenders are discussed as a group for whom specialized services are indicated. Relapse prevention and program development evaluation are recommended methods for guiding treatment planning at both individual and system levels. Obstacles to implementation of empirically based treatments are discussed, as are suggestions for overcoming such obstacles. Finally, promising directions for future research are suggested.The term mentally disordered offender encompasses a heterogeneous and poorly defined group. In its narrowest interpretation, the category is a legal one and includes insanity acquittees, persons found guilty but mentally ill, persons found unfit to stand trial, mentally disordered sex offenders, sexual predators, and prisoners transferred to mental health facilities. In a 1978 survey , 7% of all the offenders detained in the United States were officially designated as mentally disordered. Of these, 8% were insanity acquittees, 32% were incompetent to stand trial, 6% were mentally disordered sex offenders, and the majority (54%) were convicted prisoners who had been transferred to mental health facilities. By any definition, the overwhelming majority of mentally disordered offenders are men (e.g., Menzies, Chunn, & Webster, 1992;Steadman & Halfon, 1971). Even in its narrow interpretation, however, this population includes a diverse group with a wide range of treatment needs.Most would concede that the true number of mentally disordered offenders is many times higher than that described above. Studies of the prevalence of mental disorder among incarcerated offenders reveal a surprisingly high prevalence. In one study (Hodgins & Cote, 1990), which used the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (Robins, Helzer, Croughan, & Ratcliff, 1981) to establish diagnoses, only 5% of penitentiary inmates in one Canadian province were found not to have a mental

show abstract

Prisoners Transferred to Mental Hospitals

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: Implications for public policy.

Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: Implications for public policy.

Forecasting Recidivism in Mentally Ill Offenders Released From Prison.

The treatment of mentally disordered offenders.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About