National survey on probation and mental health completed; outcome study planned
Researchers in the Department of Psychology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, led by Dr. Jennifer Skeem, have completed a national descriptive survey of specialty probation caseloads that have been developed for offenders with mental illnesses, as a step towards a study the researchers hope to conduct of outcome difference between traditional probation and specialty caseloads.
66 specialty programs were surveyed, along with 25 traditional programs.
The specialty probation programs surveyed were defined by three central characteristics that are distinct from traditional agencies: mental health caseloads, reduced caseloads, and specially trained officers. Only caseloads comprised exclusively of probationers with mental illness (not mixed caseloads) were considered specialty probation programs in the survey. The survey determined that most specialty programs have significantly reduced caseload sizes, for an average of 30-50 probationers per officer. 59 percent of the surveyed agencies had officers with substantial training in mental health issues, for the most part received after hiring, both at start-up and in annual installments.
In addition to these three characteristics, the survey identified two other defining characteristics of specialty probation caseload programs: active integration of internal and external resources to meet probationersÂ’ needs; and intensive monitoring and problem-solving strategies as the chief means for addressing noncompliance. A publication draft of the survey will be available soon.
The national survey was preceded by a study which characterized and evaluated the way in which probation officers monitor and enforce probationersÂ’ adherence to mental health treatment. A report on the findings was published in Behavioral Science and the Law (PDF file).
The studies were funded by the MacArthur Research Network on Mandated Community Treatment. The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA), the National Association of Probation Executives (NAPE), the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), and the Council of State Governments provided assistance with the dissemination of the survey.
