Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:38 am
Time: 12:38 am
Results for mental health programs
3 results foundAuthor: Rushworth, Nick Title: Policy Paper: Out of Sight, Out of Mind: People with an Acquired Brain Injury and the Criminal Justice System Summary: Local and international surveys both of head injuries with loss of consciousness and chronic substance abuse in adult corrections and juvenile justice indicate very high rates of acquired brain injury (ABI). As many as 60 per cent of offenders report histories of ABI. This rate would account for 17,900 - out of 29,700 - adult prisoners in Australia. This paper examines the research evidence for an association between ABI and subsequent, sometimes violent, offending. While problems people may experience with thinking and behaviour the result of their ABI place them at the highest risk of re-offending and re-incarceration, the disability receives low recognition throughout the criminal justice system. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) claims as one of its "current commitments" under the National Disability Strategy ―court diversion programs for people with disability…designed to address the mental health or disability needs of defendants and their offending behaviour. This paper demonstrates that people with an ABI are ordinarily ineligible for such programs due to restrictive legislation or access criteria. Whether in courts' considerations of granting bail or “fitness to be tried”, or in sentencing, or referral to specialist tribunals of “therapeutic jurisprudence”, programs of diversion from the criminal justice system are narrowly targeted, commonly at people with an intellectual disability or mental illness. "While these population groups certainly face significant problems in the criminal justice system and ought to be priorities for action, the pre-occupation with these groups to date must not be allowed to obscure the equally serious problems facing other impairment groups, including persons who are deaf, deafblind, persons with severe communication impairments, and persons with acquired brain injury." Details: Ryde, NSW: Brain Injury Australia, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2011 at: http://www.braininjuryaustralia.org.au/docs/CJSpolicypaperFINAL.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.braininjuryaustralia.org.au/docs/CJSpolicypaperFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 122465 Keywords: Adults with DisabilitiesBrain InjuriesMental Health ProgramsPrisoners (Australia) |
Author: Gorton, Joe Title: Evaluation of the Black Hawk County Mental Health Jail Diversion Programs Summary: This study presents an evaluation of the First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services mental health jail diversion program. The analysis examines both program efficacy and cost-benefits. The evaluation is based on analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were collected from probation/parole and jail records of 482 offenders who participated in the program from 2007 through 2011. Qualitative data was derived from in-depth interviews of criminal justice officials and social service providers who are directly involved with the program. - Two-thirds of the inmates diverted into the mental health program were white males most of whom were younger than 30 years old. Women were under represented in the study population, however, they were significantly more likely to be placed in the diversion program. - For two-thirds of the diverted sample, the primary mental health diagnoses was a mood disorder (e.g., bi-polar, depressive, anxiety, etc.). Approximately one-fourth of the sample had a primary diagnoses of psychotic disorder. Schizophrenia, paranoid type was the most common psychotic condition. - Based on their LSI-R scores, 67.6 percent most of the diverted inmates were either a medium-high risk or high risk. For non-diverted inmates 61.9 percent were either medium-high risk or high risk. - Inmates with psychotic disorders were more likely to be diverted than offenders with less severe mental health problems. - Comparisons of arrest data for two years prior to being booked into jail and for two years of post-diversion indicate that the diversion program helps to reduce the likelihood of criminal recidivism. - Diverted inmates with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder were significantly less likely to be arrested than diverted inmates who did not have a psychotic disorder. - The totality of quantitative findings indicate that Black Hawk County's mental health diversion program is effective at reducing criminal recidivism among mentally ill inmates - We estimate that diverted inmates served 15 fewer days in jail than non-diverted inmates. - The total estimate for annual cost savings produced by the mental health jail diversion program is $237,509. The annual net fiscal benefit of the program (without cost estimates for prosecutions, prison confinement , and taxpayer funded victimization programs) is estimated at $137,509. Details: Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, 2014. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2014 at: http://firstdcs.com/reports/2014.BHC%20MH%20Jail%20Diversion%20Program.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://firstdcs.com/reports/2014.BHC%20MH%20Jail%20Diversion%20Program.pdf Shelf Number: 133460 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiversion ProgramsJailsMental Health ProgramsMentally Ill Offenders (Iowa) |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Services (NARBHA) Jail Diversion Project Summary: In November 2005, NARBHA contracted with LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. to conduct an evaluation of their Jail Diversion Project. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide information about how well the project is functioning and meeting its goals. During this past year, the evaluation team assisted NARBHA to develop evaluation capacity among the sites, identify important program implementation and outcome indicators, and develop an effective and realistic plan to incorporate consistent measures across all programs. This work provides the framework within which process and outcome evaluations can be conducted. While it had been anticipated that funding for the evaluation would continue for at least one more fiscal year, that did not come to fruition. Because some counties had not implemented their programs as of September 2006, when this report was written, and because some counties had only recently started their programs, evaluation data available for this report were very limited. Only Navajo County, which started its program in January 2006, had submitted data for their participants. The evaluation team also conducted a site visit in Navajo County in July 2006 during which a participant focus group and staff interviews were completed. The team also observed a mental health court team staffing and a court session. The findings from these efforts are presented later in this report. The evaluation team felt that other programs, such as the Mohave County mental health court, had not been in operation long enough to warrant site visits because programs often undergo significant changes during the early months of implementation as staff determine which procedures work best. The team did conduct telephone interviews in September 2006 with each county to gather information on program development and implementation progress. This information is presented in the Program Development and Implementation section. The evaluation team understood that the first project year would present program start-up challenges for the counties. For this reason, the team selected a limited number of evaluation goals related to program implementation and evaluation capacity to focus on during the first year. The purpose of the first phase of evaluation was to: Conduct a review of the mental health court literature to help determine appropriate process and outcome measures Develop a global data collection system, with input from program staff, that is applicable across sites for uniform data collection Describe each program and the target populations Identify key challenges and barriers to program implementation Describe major accomplishments Develop a comprehensive program logic model Each of these goals was met, to the extent possible, given the delayed start up of some of the programs. The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections: Literature review: Presents a summary of the latest thinking and research findings related to mental health courts. Program Development and Implementation: Provides information about each program's development and implementation progress. This sections also present findings from the evaluative efforts conducting with the Navajo County mental health court. Database and Forms: Describes the ACCESS database and data collection forms developed by the evaluation team working in concert with program staff. Summary and Recommendations Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2006. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/narbha-final-report-final.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/narbha-final-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145421 Keywords: Diversion ProgramsMental Health CourtsMental Health ProgramsMentally Ill OffendersProblem Solving Courts |