Comorbid mental illness and criminalness implications for housing and treatment

Juvenile Justice-Based Interdisciplinary Collective Care: An Innovative Approach

Mental health concerns among juvenile-justice-involved youth (JJIY) continue to be a major health crisis in the United States (US). While scholarship has explored mental health concerns among JJIY, and the link to negative life outcomes, there are gaps in the existing research, particularly in effective interventions and models aimed at addressing both the mental health concerns and criminogenic risk contributing to recidivism and other negative life outcomes of this population. In this paper, we present Justice-Based Interdisciplinary Collective Care (JBICC), an innovative framework to address both the mental health needs and delinquent behavior of youth offenders. The model bridges community partners, with the purpose of informing future interventions, implementations, and research in this area. Increased justice-based interdisciplinary collective collaboration between the juvenile justice system and community programs/organizations would be a major benefit to youth offenders and their families. We also focus on the need for cultural responsiveness to be interwoven throughout all aspects of treatment. JBICC offers an opportunity to expanded services outside traditional settings and methods to ensure that youth offenders and their families receive validating and culturally responsive access to services.

Criminal risk and mental illness in psychiatric inpatient units: An opportunity to provide psychological services for unmet criminogenic needs

Although the overrepresentation of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system is known, research is needed to identify the frequency of criminal justice involvement and criminogenic treatment needs in inpatient populations to improve continuity of care and access to appropriate treatments. The purpose of this study is to document the frequency of criminal justice involvement among people receiving inpatient community care, as has been done for persons with mental illness in correctional institutions, and to test the association between criminogenic risk and psychiatric symptomatology. The present study uses two samples (n = 94 and n = 142) of adults from two separate acute psychiatric inpatient hospitals in Texas. Data on psychiatric symptoms, mental health history, criminal risk, and criminal justice history were gathered from file review and self-report. Linear and negative binomial regressions were used to test associations of interest. In both samples, the frequency of prior criminal justice involvement was over 50%. The current results indicate there is a significant, positive association between measures of criminal risk and psychiatric symptoms. These findings highlight the need to address the reciprocal association between mental illness and criminal risk among people receiving inpatient psychiatric treatment with appropriate assessment and treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Criminogenic risk and mental health: a complicated relationship

The relationship between criminogenic risk and mental illness in justice involved persons with mental illness is complex and poorly understood by clinicians, researchers, administrators, and policy makers alike. Historically, when providing services to justice involved persons with mental illness, clinicians have emphasized mental health recovery (eg, psychiatric rehabilitation) at the exclusion of treatments targeted at criminogenic risk. More recently, however, researchers have demonstrated with great clarity that criminogenic risk not only contributes but is likely the leading factor in the criminal behavior committed by persons with mental illness. Yet, we still do not know the nature of this criminogenic-mental illness relationship, how this relationship impacts treatment needs, and of ultimate concern, what this relationship means in terms of individual and societal outcomes. In this paper we briefly define criminogenic risk and the research that demonstrates the role of criminogenic risk in criminal justice involvement of persons with mental illness. We also review prevalence rates of persons with mental illness justice involvement, and then discuss important factors to be considered when assessing risk to include both criminogenic and mental illness risk. We conclude this paper by reviewing treatment and management strategies for persons with mental illness that are criminal justice involved particularly reviewing and building off the recommendations put forth by Bartholomew & Morgan.

Dual diagnosis and mechanical restraint - a register based study of 31,793 patients and 6562 episodes of mechanical restraint in the Capital region of Denmark from 2010-2014

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether patients with dual diagnosis have a higher risk of being mechanical restraint compared to patients with only psychiatric diagnoses.

METHODS

Data on all patients admitted to a psychiatric ward from 2010-2014 in the Capital Region of Denmark was linked with information from the register of coercive measures. Patients were based on diagnosis divided into six groups. The three main patient groups were: only psychiatric diagnosis defined as all ICD-10 F-diagnosis except F10-F19, dual diagnosis (co-occurrence of diagnoses of harmful use or dependency and psychiatric diagnoses) and only other substance use diagnosis (i.e. other than harmful use or dependency). The risk of mechanical restraint was investigated by analyzing all first-time admissions in the period using Cox-proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

In the crude rates patients with dual diagnosis were more often mechanically restrained compared to patients with only psychiatric diagnoses or only other substance use diagnoses. However, this was attenuated when the characteristics of patients were accounted for. Patients with only other substance related diagnoses had the highest risk of being mechanically restrained.

CONCLUSION

When preventing mechanical restraint, the focus should be on actual use of substances or withdrawal effects and not on the dual diagnoses patients in them-self.