Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2012 Apr;36(2):109-19. doi: 10.1037/h0093961.
As the correctional population continues to increase, probation agencies struggle to adequately supervise offenders with unique needs, including those with mental disorder. Although more than 100 U.S. probation agencies have implemented specialty mental health case-loads, little is known about their practices. Based on detailed observations of 83 audio-taped meetings, we examined interactions between probationers and officers in a prototypic specialty agency, focusing on the extent to which practices comport with evidence-based risk reduction principles. We found that specialty officers (a) more frequently discussed probationers' general mental health than any individual criminogenic need, (b) chiefly questioned, directed, affirmed, and supported (rather than confronted) probationers, and (c) relied more heavily on neutral strategies and positive pressures (e.g., inducements) rather than negative pressures (e.g., threats of incarceration) to monitor and enforce compliance. Implications for "what works" to promote community integration for probationers with mental disorder are discussed.
随着服刑人口的不断增加,缓刑机构在监督具有特殊需求的罪犯方面(包括那些有精神障碍的罪犯)面临着巨大的挑战。尽管有超过 100 个美国缓刑机构已经实施了专门的心理健康案件量,但对于它们的实践情况却知之甚少。基于对 83 个录音会议的详细观察,我们研究了在一个典型的专门机构中缓刑犯人和官员之间的互动,重点关注这些实践是否符合基于证据的风险降低原则。我们发现,专门官员(a)更频繁地讨论缓刑犯的一般心理健康问题,而不是任何一个特定的犯罪风险需求,(b)主要是询问、指导、肯定和支持(而不是对抗)缓刑犯,以及(c)更依赖于中性策略和积极压力(例如,诱导)而不是消极压力(例如,监禁威胁)来监督和执行合规性。讨论了针对有精神障碍的缓刑犯促进社区融合的“有效措施”的含义。