Persons with Mental Illness on Probation: Criminogenic Risks, Recidivism, and Prevalence Across Rural and Urban Settings

Background: Up to 30% of people with mental illnesses in community-based mental health treatment will have contact with the criminal justice system. Preventing recidivism among justice-involved persons with severe mental illness is an important area for social work practice and research because many people with mental illness become entrenched in a cycle of probation violations, revocations, and re-incarceration. A substantial body of research has focused on the factors associated with arrest and incarceration among people with mental illness, but much is yet to be learned about whether these factors differ across urban and rural settings. This paper adds to our understanding of the experiences of people with mental illness under community supervision by comparing risk factors, criminal involvement, and geographic location of probationers with and without mental illnesses.  

 

Methods: The study used a cross-sectional design and administrative records from 170,374 probationers under the supervision of a southeastern state between 2007 and 2011 to examine the criminogenic risk factors and recidivism rates of probationers with and without mental illness. Data from risk assessments conducted by probation officers and prison treatment records were used to identify probationers with mental illnesses. Basic descriptive statistics were used to examine the prevalence of mental illness among probationers. Bivariate tests were used to explore the association between mental illness, geographic location, criminogenic risk factors, and types of crimes committed among probationers with mental illness versus those without.

 

Results: Compared to probationers in the general population, probationers with mental illness had significantly higher scores on five scales measuring risk factors for criminal recidivism: substance abuse (2.79 vs. 3.81, t(166,081)=50.62, p<.001), antisocial personality disorder (1.6 vs. 2.25, t(166,081)=54.33), p<.001), antisocial values (5.50 vs. 6.25, t(166,081)=43.79, p<.001), dysfunctional family (9.5 vs. 10.04, t(166,081)=31.17, p<.001), and self-control (10.95 vs. 11.96, t(166,081)=57.73, p<.001). As expected, probationers with mental illness also scored higher on the mental health scale compared to probationers in the general population (0.92 vs. 2.09, t(166,081)=96.17, p<.001). In addition, compared to probationers in the general population, probationers with mental illness had higher rates of previous violent crimes (27% vs. 32%, X²(1)=313.11, p<.001), violent re-offenses within one year (1.52% vs. 2.16%, X²(1)=68.14, p<.001), property crimes (48.81% vs. 54.52%, X²(1)=352.47, p<.001), and other crimes (18.49% vs. 21.73%, x²(1)=182.66, p<.001). Although only 17% of the state’s counties are considered urban, nearly half of all probationers with mental illness reside in urban counties.

 

Conclusions and Implications: Results indicate that in order to curb the high rates of recidivism and probation violations among this population, mental health authorities should treat criminal justice involvement as a co-occurring problem and should target services to address the risk factors for recidivism, namely substance abuse, antisocial cognitions, impulsivity, and social support systems. Mental health and criminal justice authorities should collaborate to ensure the capacity to deliver forensic mental health services and support programs meets the demand for these services in large, urban areas where probationers with mental illness are concentrated. With respect to future research, the synergy between mental illness and criminogenic risks warrants further exploration.