Outcomes of Forensic Peer Support Provision for Persons in Community Supervision Settings

Background: Forensic Peer Support Specialists are persons who have struggled with mental illness and/or substance use, been successful in their recovery, and completed training for helping others in the criminal justice system experiencing similar mental health situations. Additionally, models of community supervision are often highly structured programs intended to reduce recidivism and incarceration. However, for individuals with mental health needs, traditional community supervision programs tend to offer little in the form of assistance, services linkage, or general supports for recovery. To address this issue, the State Department of Community Supervision has paired with local public mental health service providers to embed Forensic Peer Support Specialists in community supervision settings. This study examines a matched, statewide sample of individuals to compare community-supervision related outcomes between those with mental health needs that who have received forensic peer support and those who did not.

Methods: The data in this study were from two administrative databases provided by the State Department of Corrections and the State Department of Mental Health including all persons in community supervision who did and did not receive peer forensic support from the years 2018-2019. From these combined databases, a propensity score matched sample was established, resulting in 75 participants who received peer support and 75 participants who did not (N=150). Participants were matched on sociodemographic measures, criminal justice involvement risk, and substance use and mental health needs. The outcomes examined in this study were two count-based measures including the number of reconvictions and positive drug tests, as well as two binary measures of reincarceration and revocation while in community supervision. This study was reviewed and approved by the lead author’s university IRB.

Results: Bivariate analyses of the entire sample showed multiple significant differences suggesting a higher level of risks and needs for those who received forensic peer support. After matching, the sample was balanced in gender (49% female), predominantly White (66%), and with an average age of about 36 years. When comparing the two groups, individuals who received forensic peer support showed significantly lower reconvictions, t(1,149) = 8.23, p < .01. However, individuals who received forensic peer support showed a significantly higher number of positive drug tests, t(1,149) = 4.47, p < .05. There were no differences in reincarceration or revocations between the two groups.

Conclusions: Our results show that individuals who receive forensic peer support seem to show some limited positive outcomes when compared to a matched sample with similar needs. However, the receipt of forensic peer may be reserved for persons with a substantially higher level of needs, as evidenced by the general comparisons within the unmatched sample and the significantly higher number of positive drug tests. These results can assist social workers advocating for criminal justice reform by offering evidence, albeit mixed, to document the impact of supplementary mental health services for persons in community supervision settings. Future research should extend an examination of outcomes to additional dimensions of recovery beyond community supervision-related outcomes.