Treatment Attrition of Probationers With Mental Illness From an Enhanced Day Reporting Center

Abstract

Treatment completion is an important outcome for both mental health and criminal justice agencies tasked with managing offenders with mental illness in the community. Previous research has shown that greater degrees of criminogenic risk factors (e.g., specific criminal history variables) predict treatment non-completion among legally mandated populations. However, most studies were conducted with offenders without mental illness. In this study, demographic (e.g., age, gender), clinical (e.g., psychiatric diagnosis), and criminogenic risk factors (measured using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised [LSI-R]) were compared by treatment completion status using 167 probationers with mental illness treated at an enhanced day reporting center. Bivariate and multivariate (i.e., forward entry logistic regression) analyses revealed that while the LSI-R total score was unrelated to treatment completion, higher scores on the LSI-R Alcohol and Drug use subscale (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.01, 1.54]) and older age (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = [1.00, 1.09]) were significantly predictive of non-completion.

Better to Stay Home: Evaluating the Impact of Day Reporting Centers on Offending

“…More time in treatment, for example, has been shown to have a positive association with both successful completion and a reduction in recidivism (Craddock, 2009). Similarly, the services provided to CRC participants are more likely to contribute to the successful completion of the program when they are tailored to the unique risk-needs profile of the offender (Carr & Cassidy, 2016; Kim et al, 2007; Spence & Haas, 2015). This type of participation was not reflected in the available data.…”

“…Research on CRCs has largely focused on the offender characteristics that correlate with successful program completion (e.g., Carr & Cassidy, 2016; Craddock, 2004; Kim, Joo, & McCarty, 2008; Kim, Spohn, & Foxall, 2007; Roy & Grimes, 2002). While studies of this nature directly contribute to the development of more effective, targeted, and evidence-based enrollment and treatment protocols, they tell us little about the general impact of these programs using the metrics common in the correctional program evaluation literature.…”

A Systematic Review of Interventions Targeting Criminogenic Risk Factors Among Persons With Serious Mental Illness

“…Lamberti and colleagues (28) also examined a sample that was predominantly African American (73%), with lower proportions of White (19%) and Hispanic (8%) participants. Similarly, the sample examined by Carr and Cassidy (36) was predominantly African American (56%), followed by White (25%) and Hispanic (16%). The sample in a study by Wilson et al (27) was almost entirely African American (92%), with only 8% of participants identifying as White.…”

“…Our search identified 21 (27,28,(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50) studies evaluating nine programs that targeted criminogenic risk factors and were delivered to justice-involved persons with serious mental illness. Given the broad scope of this review, we organized its results into three overarching areas: methodological characteristics, intervention characteristics, and substantive findings.…”

“…Seventeen studies reported information regarding the specific mental disorder diagnoses of participating individuals. Nine studies reported that most participants met criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia (28, 32-35, 38-40, 48), two examining the same sample reported that participants were predominantly diagnosed as having depression (42,49), and five reported that their sample predominantly met criteria for a psychotic disorder (36,43,44,46,47) Quality. Studies were appraised with MMAT criteria specific to their design.…”