People with Mental Illnesses Under Community Supervision: The Role of Community Based Collaboration

Background: The majority of persons with severe mental illness in the criminal justice system are on probation or parole. Best estimates suggest between 16 and 27% of individuals on probation have a mental illness, which is of concern because probationers with mental illness are particularly challenging for  probation officers, have high recidivism and revocation rates, and have complex needs that often serve as barriers to successful completion of supervision. The primary intervention for probationers with mental illness is specialized mental health probation caseloads. Although promising, research on this intervention is in its nascent stage. To contribute to the knowledge base, this study examines officers’ training needs and the challenges officers experience when supervising probationers with mental illness.

Methods: A cross-sectional, statewide survey of probation officers in one southern state was conducted to learn more about officers’ challenges and experiences with supervising probationers with mental illness. The response rate for the survey was 63%. Data from 615 officers regarding their perceptions of the adequacy of training related to mental illness, level of difficulty associated with supervising probationers with mental illness, and challenges associated with supervising probationers with mental illness were analyzed and compared across rural and urban settings.

Results: Officers in both rural and urban counties reported significant difficulty supervising probationers with mental illness; however, only 10% (n=63) of officers felt they received the training they needed to supervise probationers with mental illness. The top three supervision challenges experienced by officers included: lack of employment opportunities for probationers with mental illness (75.1%, n=462), lack of treatment options for probationers with mental illness (73.3%, n=451), and lack of social support for probationers with mental illness (68.1%, n=419). These supervision challenges varied by geographic region. Compared to officers in urban counties, officers in rural counties were more likely to identify the following barriers to supervising offenders with mental illness: lack of employment (71.1% vs. 78.5%, respectively, X²(1)=4.513, p<.05), lack of social support (63.9% vs. 71.6%, respectively, X²(1)=4.18, p<.05), and resistance to supervision (41.1% vs. 49.9%, respectively, X²(1)=4.73, p<.05). However, compared to those in rural counties, urban officers were more likely to indicate that housing was a challenge for offenders with mental illness (25.7% vs. 36.1% for rural versus urban officers, respectively, X²(1)=7.80, p<.01), and that terms of probation were more difficult to enforce among offenders with mental illness (21.2% vs. 30%, respectively, X²(1)=6.27, p<.05).

Conclusions and Implications: Results illustrate the important role of mental health treatment in the supervision of probationers with mental illness and demonstrate that many barriers are beyond the control of the mental health and criminal justice systems. Addressing these barriers requires multisystem collaboration (e.g., homeless shelters, social service agencies, supported employment) to establish a coordinated approach to the treatment and supervision of probationers with mental illness. Social workers’ simultaneous focus on direct services and the systems in which services and supports are delivered make them uniquely suited to address these issues at the interface of the mental health and criminal justice system.