Risk Factors for Recidivism for Adult Offenders with Serious Mental Illness in an Alternative Program Setting

Background and Purpose: Individuals with diagnosed mental illnesses are disproportionately involved with the criminal justice system. To address this issue, nonviolent offenders with mental illness are now being diverted from jails to community based mental health programs. States across the country have begun to implement diversion programs and mental health courts to address the unique needs of this population. However, research on this type of community intervention remains limited. As such, offenders with mental health issues continue to have a higher rate of recidivism and probation revocation. The purpose of the current study is to examine risk factors for recidivism for people who took part in a mental health probation program at a State Mental Health Hospital.

Methods: For the current study, secondary data were collected via electronic file reviews from an electronic database maintained in the Social Work Department at a State Mental Health Hospital. Individuals included in the study were in a probation program for those acquitted of their charge(s) by reason of mental disease or defect. Individuals were placed on probation for a period of 5 years. Conditions of the program include, but are not limited to, abstinence from drugs/alcohol, medication maintenance, and that participants do not recidivate. The sample contains 991 cases, 488 of which were active at the time of data collection. All 991 cases are included in the analysis. Risk factors examined include age, race, sex, type of offense committed, specific mental health diagnosis, special population status, aftercare requirements and placement, length of time prior to revocation, and readmission history.

Results: Logistic regression was used to assess the risk factors that best predicted probation revocation for participants of the State Mental Health Program. Results indicate that both age (p =.001) and race (p =.01) were significant predictors of revocation. African Americans had 1.7 times higher odds of having their probation revoked as compared to their White counterparts. Those charged with a sex offense had lower odds of revocation (p = .01). However, the odds of probation revocation for Veterans were 2.5 times greater than their non-veteran counterparts. Individuals who had a history of drug use showed 1.6 times greater odds of probation revocation. Moreover, findings indicates that time of commitment to the hospital prior to release (p=.05) and readmission to the hospital during probation (p = .001) were significant predictors of probation revocation. Individuals who were readmitted to the State Hospital were 32 times more likely to have their probation revoked than those who were not readmitted. Offense type and specific mental health diagnosis were not significant predictors of revocation. 

Conclusion: Results of the current study indicate that successful probation, particularly with mentally ill populations, may require a more holistic and individually oriented treatment approach, particularly with individuals who are veterans and those who are readmitted to the State Hospital. Because this is a new and evolving area of community courts, social workers should work quickly to begin assessing and advocating for the needs of this vulnerable population.