Therapeutic Interventions for Mental Wellness in Correctional Facilities: A Systematic Review

The article includes a systematic review of therapeutic interventions being used to improve mental health of males and females incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons. Using pertinent keywords, we searched the following databases: SocINDEX, CINAHL Complete, Medline Complete, PsychINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text for studies published between 2010 and 2021. The initial search yielded 9,622 articles. After screening, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Review indicated use of a diverse range of interventions to address mental health outcomes including, but not limited to, PTSD, depression, and anxiety. A few studies did not focus on specific mental health outcomes, but rather on behavioral outcomes such as distress, affect, mood, time spent in the hospital, number of acts of self-injury, competency restoration, and wellbeing of the participants. The review includes implications for future research and practice.

Jail-Based Competency Restoration: What's Out There and What's Missing

Forensic systems have seen an increase in the number of defendants in need of competency restoration services. Traditionally, competency restoration services have occurred at state psychiatric hospitals. Unfortunately, the waitlists for hospital competency restoration are extensive and result in many defendants waiting in jail for more than 4 months for an inpatient bed. These waitlists have led to lawsuits forcing states to provide adequate treatment and evaluation services to mentally ill adults languishing in jails. To reduce waitlists for competency restoration and to combat the extensive delays in restoration, some states have implemented jail-based restoration to reduce hospital waitlists, restoration time, and costs to complete restoration. This review article discusses pros and cons of jail-based services and provides a framework for future services and research.

Guidelines for determining restorability of competency to stand trial and recommendations for involuntary treatment

Over 50,000 defendants are referred for competency to stand trial evaluations each year in the United States (Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers, New York, NY: The Guildford Press; 2018). Approximately 20% of those individuals are found by courts to be incompetent and are referred for "restoration" or remediation (Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers, 4th edn. New York, NY: The Guildford Press; 2018; Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1991;19:63-9). The majority of those incompetent defendants meet criteria for psychotic illnesses (J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35:34-43). Forensic mental health professionals frequently have such patients/defendants decline recommended treatment with psychotropic medication. For a significant minority of defendants diagnosed with psychotic disorders, treatment with medication is thought to be necessary to restore their competency to stand trial. Without psychiatric intervention to restore competency, defendants may be held for lengthy and costly hospitalizations while criminal proceedings are suspended. In these situations, clinicians are guided by the Supreme Court decision, Sell v. United States (2003). The Sell opinion describes several clinical issues courts must consider when determining whether a defendant can be treated involuntarily solely for the purpose of restoring his/her competency. This paper offers some guidance to clinicians and evaluators who are faced with making recommendations or decisions about involuntary treatment. Using a question and answer format, the authors discuss data that support a decision to request, or not request, court authorization for involuntary treatment. Specifically, eight questions are posed for forensic evaluators to consider in determining the prognosis or viability of successful treatment and restoration. Finally, a clinical vignette is also presented to highlight important factors to consider in Sell-related evaluations.

Jail-based competency treatment comes of age: Multi-site outcomes and challenges to the implementation of an evidence-based forensic continuum

The jail-based competency treatment (JBCT) model has become an established forensic practice across the country. From the perspective of implementation science and the three core elements of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Service (PARiHS) framework, the JBCT model is a remarkable example of how context (an unrelenting and overwhelmingly strong demand for forensic beds) has driven multiple state governments to facilitate implementation of a methodology in the absence of empirical evidence supporting its efficacy. This 7-year study of outcomes from four JBCT program sites provides this much-needed evidence by showing that JBCT restored 56% of 1553 male and 336 female patients over an average of 48.7 days. At the same time, the study highlights how variations in JBCT models, methods, and preadmission stabilization time present challenges to planned and effective implementation of evidence-based practice at the statewide system level. By identifying differential responsiveness to JBCT treatment by diagnosis and other factors, the study suggests preliminary implementation ideas for what types of patients are well served by the JBCT model as part of a continuum of restoration options that includes inpatient, outpatient and diversion. Significant findings showed that JBCT patients were restored at a higher rate and in a shorter time if they were female, < 20 years old (highest restoration rate; those < 60 years old also significantly better rates), free of co-occurring intellectual and cognitive deficits, and malingering. Of the major diagnoses, schizoaffective disorder required a significantly longer length of JBCT treatment for restoration, and lower restoration rates than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, although this was moderated by a significant interaction with abuse of amphetamines.

The question of sanity restoration in jail

Severe mental illness, especially psychotic disorders that are worsening, acute or complicated, normally require intensive psychiatric care and treatment that is most appropriately provided in a mental hospital. For criminal defendants, transfer to a forensic security hospital has traditionally been the means of achieving hospital care for mentally disordered defendants who have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. In recent years, with the shortage of intermediate and long-term hospital beds in the United States, including forensic security hospital beds, jail-based competency restoration programs are being established, seemingly obviating hospital transfer. Potential advantages of and concerns about jail-based, as opposed to hospital-based, competency restoration programs are discussed in the literature. If defendants with severe mental illness traditionally treated in a forensic security hospital for competency restoration are now treated for competency restoration in jail, it is not inconceivable that insanity acquittees could one day be treated in jail for sanity restoration. With the premise that it is better to consider the potential consequences before this becomes a serious proposal and is implemented, this analysis examine the advantages and concerns that have been put forth for jail-based competence restoration programs as they may or may not apply to jail-based sanity restoration programs. Substantial commonality is recognized, but also some differences, as well as reason for skepticism of the purported virtues of either alternative to care and treatment in forensic security hospitals.

Challenges to Reforming the Competence to Stand Trial and Competence Restoration System

Many mental health and justice professionals have noted that the system that manages both competence to stand trial (CST) evaluation and competence restoration (CR) processes in criminal cases is in crisis. Public mental health services often are inundated with court referrals and are challenged to address them in a timely manner, resulting in waits for competence-related services for people in jail as well as substantial risks to criminal defendants for whom competence issues are raised. In this review, the authors describe the current CST-CR system and offer preliminary solutions to its challenges. In addition, they examine published works on the legal foundation of CST to help support the basis for this analysis. The results of this review point to the need to more effectively address the complexities of the CST-CR systems and highlight the importance of collaboration across legal and clinical systems. Guidance to states can be best facilitated by support for empirical research on the individual- and system-level factors that contribute to the waitlists and system paralysis that have a negative impact on people with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system.

Offense Characteristics of Incompetent to Stand Trial Defendants Charged With Violent Offenses

The current study compared offender and offense characteristics of pretrial defendants found incompetent to stand trial (IST) against those described as general offenders by victims in the 2008 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey and evaluated factors that differentiated IST defendants who allegedly used weapons from those who did not during the course of a violent offense. IST defendants were older and used "weapons" more frequently than those reported in the BJS survey; however, other characteristics, including use of firearms, did not differ. No demographic, clinical, or legal factors differentiated pretrial defendants who used weapons from those who did not. Overall, pretrial defendants were frequently diagnosed with a comorbid substance use disorder, and were homeless, unemployed, and had an extensive history of psychiatric hospitalizations and prior arrests at the time of their alleged offenses. Such results indicate that models for comprehensive discharge planning may have utility in addressing the unique needs of this subgroup of mentally disordered offenders. The findings also raise questions about the federal and state prohibition of gun rights to all IST defendants.