Recommendations for Implementation

As discussed in the preceding policy statement, people with mental illness released to the community usually have a long, complicated list of needs; monitoring and facilitating the releasee's progress in the community is a complex, time-intensive responsibility.  It is unrealistic to assume that, in their current situation, community corrections officers will have the time or the expertise to devote to all these cases.

Specialized training for these supervision officers is essential (see Policy Statement 30: Training for Corrections Personnel, for more on specialized training for community corrections).  Supervision officers who are trained and experienced in working with offenders with mental illness are much more likely to be attuned to available treatment options, signals of distress, and signs of decompensation.  Under these circumstances, supervising officers are much more likely to seek out and arrange revised treatment options and other relevant remedies in lieu of issuing a warrant and instituting violation proceedings that would likely result in reincarceration.   It is also worth noting that parole officers who seek specialized training are especially interested in working with this population and thus are likely to engage them in a particularly constructive way.

Example:  Specialized Caseloads, New York State Division of Parole

The New York State Division of Parole (DOP), in conjunction with the New York Office of Mental Health (OMH), has established specialized caseloads in certain metropolitan areas to service parolees with mental illness.  Parole officers in this program receive specialized training on mental illness and carry a reduced caseload of approximately 25 cases.  The specialized parole officers work with community mental health agencies to link parolees to appropriate services.  (See also Policy Statement 20: Release Decision, for more on collaboration between the New York DOP and the New York OMH.

Example:  Special Management Unit, Connecticut Board of Parole

The Connecticut Board of Parole has established a Special Management Unit to supervise parolees requiring ongoing intensive supervision or specialized treatment.  The unit focuses primarily on supervision of paroled sex offenders but also works with parolees with severe mental illness.  Special Management Unit parole officers receive training in supervision and in medical, and mental health issues and maintain a caseload of no more than 25 parolees.  The unit emphasizes interaction between treatment providers and parole officers; officers participate in both group and one-on-one counseling sessions with offenders.

Small, specialized caseloads can also enable community corrections officers to develop effective working relationships with community service providers.  Mental health providers, whose time and resources are already spread thin, are often untrained on how to take into account the criminal history (and the providers' obligations to the criminal justice system) of clients referred to them by the criminal justice system.  (Training for mental health providers on working with criminal justice populations is essential to address this issue.  See Policy Statement 31: Training for Mental Health Professionals.)   Some community-based mental health providers, often citing liability concerns, explicitly refuse to serve individuals with criminal histories.[2]  (See Policy Statement 1: Involvement with Mental Health System, for more on access to services and priority populations.)

In rural jurisdictions, where there may not be enough offenders with mental illness to merit a specialized caseload, supervision officers at a minimum should receive orientation and training to monitor and assess offenders on their caseloads who have mental illness.  Like their urban counterparts, they should be prepared to make appropriate referrals in the event of new problems and/or technical violations rather than relying on revocation of parole.  The availability of specialized services and resources for offenders in rural jurisdictions poses difficult transportation issues.  Rural jurisdictions may be able to establish special services, transportation, and supervision arrangements in facilitating collaboration between criminal justice agencies and mental health service providers or other social service providers for whom the parolee is a member of a shared population.

Supervision officers should maintain contact with ex-offenders in their communities rather than monitoring them remotely from a centralized office.  Community-based supervision enables the officer to monitor the offender more closely, thus improving the officer's familiarity with the unique obstacles that often impede the released offender's compliance with the conditions of his/her release.  In addition, frequent contact with mental health treatment providers improves supervision officers' understanding of these services.  It can also help them ascertain whether mental health treatment providers are offering the services needed.

In addition to the benefits derived from close community monitoring of ex-offenders, there has been some recent success in community mapping.  Following the example of crime mapping in law enforcement, some jurisdictions have begun to use similar mapping techniques to identify specific districts and neighborhoods where significant numbers of ex-offenders are located.  This information may be used to design community-based initiatives focusing on these neighborhoods.  Such a technique might be used to identify clusters of offenders with mental illness who live in specific neighborhoods and where specialized field supervision and mental health services might be located and deployed.  The mapping function can be a collaborative effort as well between criminal justice providers and social service agencies, with the dual benefit of collaboration and a work product in the end useful to all parties involved.

The successful reintegration of offenders with mental illness back into the community depends, in large part, on their ability to obtain access to a range of mental health and related services.   Oftentimes, it is the lack of adequate mental health resources - within both correctional institutions and the community - that impedes the decision to release offenders with mental illness who might otherwise be eligible for release.  Those offenders with mental illness who are released to supervision are often required to maintain some level of mental health treatment.  If mental health service providers do not make adequate services available to the offender, he or she may be violated and unnecessarily reincarcerated.

Institutional corrections, parole boards, and community corrections agencies can encourage mental health agencies and providers to provide adequate services through improved cross-system collaboration. The Texas Council on Mentally Ill Offenders (Policy Statement 20) and the Washington Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender Program, and Massachusetts Forensic Transition Team (Policy Statement 21) all help community corrections agencies work together with mental health service providers to ensure that offenders under community supervision receive the services that they need.  The Rhode Island Fellowship Health Resources program is a similar model of collaboration between corrections and mental health providers.

Example:  Fellowship Community Reintegration Services (RI)

Operated under contract with the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals by Fellowship Health Resources, a nonprofit agency, Fellowship Community Reintegration Services (CRS) provides discharge planning and advocacy for released offenders to ensure that they receive appropriate community placements and services as well as assistance with applications for entitlements and any needed education or employment referrals. Clients may be placed in any of a variety of community agencies, including residential substance abuse treatment facilities, or may be placed on home confinement with provisions made for service delivery. Fellowship CRS tracks its clients for one year postrelease to gather outcome data and determine the appropriateness of available placements.

Crisis services provide community corrections officers with a quick intervention that enables them to respond effectively - without depending on reincarceration exclusively - to address technical violations, such as a missed appointment, of conditions of release.  Correctional mental health professionals maintain that this type of brief intervention during points of crisis will reduce subsequent (and likely more serious) violations of conditions of supervised release.[3]

For community corrections officers to develop confidence in a community-based service, they must trust that providers will inform them about behavior that constitutes violations of conditions of release.  At the same time, providers do not want to be in a position of monitoring a parolee's conditions of release; that would likely undermine their relationship with the client.

Various jurisdictions have developed compromises between community corrections agencies and service providers, which enable both groups to adhere to their responsibilities.

Typically, community corrections officers do not need or want detailed information about the mental health treatment process.  What they are most interested in are brief progress reports, and to be notified about behaviors that violate conditions of supervision.  A transition plan should involve a written release from the offender, permitting mental health providers to share this information with community corrections agencies. (See Policy Statement 25: Sharing Information.)

Example:  Forensic Transition Team, Massachusetts Department of Mental Health

The Forensic Transition Team in Massachusetts ensures that offenders participating in the program sign a release that allows open communication between mental health providers and parole staff.  No information is exchanged without a written release except as required under mandatory reporting statutes.  Parole field-staff are often involved in a primary way with treating staff upon release.  Occasionally they are invited to case conferences or other gatherings of the treatment community to offer oversight on a case.  In general, the parole officers are most interested in compliance with treatment as part of the conditions of release.

Community supervision staff members need to be prepared to address the needs of the offender with mental illness who may be unable to comply with the traditional mandates of community supervision.  Although reincarceration of the offender may be the most expedient response in the short run, it may not be the best use of criminal justice resources or, in the long term, be the response most likely to prevent the person from reoffending.  Absent new criminal behavior by the probationer or parolee, alternative responses should be considered.  Incarceration should be reserved for those cases that represent a threat to public safety.

To provide the most effective intermediate sanctions, criminal justice officials should develop agreements with case management service providers, advocacy organizations, specialized employment/vocational providers, crisis services, and mental health treatment programs to provide support for individuals with mental illness when problems arise. If a probationer or parolee with mental illness decompensates considerably after his or her release, increasing treatment should be considered prior to recommending the offender be returned to custody.  Providing aggressive treatment may stabilize the offender's mental condition much more effectively and economically that reincarceration.

Offenders with mental illness who are returned to the community may need more intensive services and supervision than originally planned prior to their release, particularly in relation to their reaction to the stresses of returning to the community.  An effective approach to violations of conditions of supervision is to increase gradually the level of treatment intervention in combination with a graduated series of predetermined responses (rather than violating them immediately upon the first technical violation).  There should be some flexibility for the officer to use a reasonable level of discretion while maintaining program consistency.

Agencies such as New York City's Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) provide interagency case planning and management services for "special needs" offenders, such as offenders with mental illness, who are in jeopardy of parole revocation due to noncriminal violations of conditions of community supervision.

Example:  Parole Restoration Project, Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), New York City (NY)

CASES recently developed the Parole Restoration Project for technical parole violators incarcerated in New York City jails whose parole status would otherwise be revoked.  The project attempts to increase the number of special needs parole violators returning to parole community supervision instead of state prison. The project's clients include substance abusers, people with a mental illness, people with co-occurring disorders, and women. Project staff identify eligible participants, assess their treatment needs, link them to community-based service providers, gain support for the treatment plan from parole field staff and assigned counsel, submit a comprehensive report to the administrative law judge and the board of parole advocating for restitution of parole under the recommended treatment program, and coordinate the release and monitoring of compliance.

Other agencies, such as the Cook County, Illinois, Department of Adult Probation and the Maricopa County, Arizona, Probation Office, employ a graduated ladder of sanctions and special, individualized services for probationers or parolees with special needs.  Still others, like the Hawaii Paroling Authority and the Kentucky Department of Corrections, offer a structured living environment to parolees with mental illness where care, treatment, and housing are provided.

Incentives and positive reinforcement can also be useful tools in helping offenders with mental illness adhere to the conditions of their release.

Example:  Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender Program (WA)

As part of the Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender legislation, Washington State appropriated additional funds to support the transition of offenders with mental illness back into the community.  Regional Support Networks, components of the Washington mental health system, have used a portion of these funds for incentives (such as new clothing) as a means to increasing compliance with treatment plans.