Adaptive Responses to Probation Among Probationers with Serious Mental Illness

Background and Purpose: Approximately one million individuals with serious mental illnesses (SMI) are currently on probation, where they may or may not receive community supervision that is tailored to their unique needs. Although probation represents an important opportunity to receive rehabilitative services, people with SMI are more likely to be violated due to noncompliance with probation demands compared to probationers without mental illness. To better understand the varied mandates imposed on probationers with SMI, and the ways in which this population navigates and makes meaning from their involvement in probation, a qualitative analysis was conducted using data from Cook County, Illinois. 

Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews exploring the experiences of being on probation with probationers with SMI on standard probation (n=30) and in a mental health court (n=31). Thematic analyses on codes originally categorized as “evaluative statements” led to the articulation of five primary themes: burdens of probation; power differentials; responsibilization; disjuncture between priorities; and intrinsic rewards. Thematic mapping graphically depicted the relationship between themes and the differences/similarities between the two programs.   

Results: We found that participants in both standard probation and mental health court engaged in similar processes to adapt to program expectations. However, as participants struggled to make meaning of their probation conditions, two distinct adaptive responses emerged. For standard probationers, a tactical compliance frame provided motivation for compliance in the face of perceived harshness and futility of probation demands. In contrast, mental health court participants were likely to perceive internal and external rewards for participation, resulting in constructions of self-transformation to mitigate the perceived burdens of full participation in mental health court, as probationers developed ownership and responsibility for striving toward individual change.

Conclusions and Implications: These distinct frames of tactical compliance and self-transformation illustrate how probationers with SMI create adaptive responses to program demands in an overarching climate in which compliance is continually demanded and assessed. While all probation programs share the dual foci of supervision and rehabilitation, the latter aim is approached through mechanisms related to the former—compliance with court-ordered mandates is what makes probationers successful or not.  It is this intricate relationship between compliance and rehabilitation—in many ways two diametric expectations—that probationers with SMI must successfully navigate to complete their sentence.  The development of these distinct adaptive processes by probationers with SMI lead to questions related to program effectiveness and the possible misalignment between the technology used in probation programs and their desired outcomes.  If diversion programs for individuals with SMI aim to rehabilitate their participants, a deeper understanding of how their complex dual focus of supervision and rehabilitation impacts program participants is key.  Understanding these adaptive responses can help develop more effective, more nuanced probationary programming to better serve individuals with SMI.