Van Deinse Tonya B, Mercier Mariah Cowell, Waters Allison K, Disbennett Mackensie, Cuddeback Gary S, Velázquez Tracy, Lichtman Andrea Murray, Taxman Faye
School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 325 Pittsboro Street, CB#3550, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 395 S 1500 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Health Justice. 2023 Oct 12;11(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s40352-023-00241-w.
Probation officers are tasked with supervising the largest number of people living with mental illnesses in the criminal legal system, with an estimated 16-27% of individuals on probation identified as having a mental health condition. While academic research has recently focused on building the evidence base around the prototypical model of specialty mental health probation, less focus has been directed to the individual components of specialized mental health caseloads and other strategies agencies use to supervise people with mental illnesses. More specific information about these strategies would benefit probation agencies looking to implement or enhance supervision protocols for people with mental illnesses. This article describes the results from a nationwide study examining (1) probation agencies' mental health screening and identification methods; (2) characteristics of mental health caseloads, including eligibility criteria, officer selection, required training, and interfacing with service providers; and (3) other strategies agencies use to supervise people with mental illnesses beyond mental health caseloads. Strategies for identifying mental illnesses varied, with most agencies using risk needs assessments, self-report items asked during the intake process, or information from pre-sentencing reports. Less than a third of respondents reported using screening and assessment tools specific to mental health or having a system that tracks or "flags" mental illnesses. Results also showed wide variation in mental health training requirements for probation officers, as well as variation in the strategies used for supervising people with mental illnesses (e.g., mental health caseloads, embedded mental health services within probation, modified cognitive behavioral interventions). The wide variation in implementation of supervision strategies presents (1) an opportunity for agencies to select from a variety of strategies and tailor them to fit the needs of their local context and (2) a challenge in building the evidence base for a single strategy or set of strategies.
缓刑监督官的任务是监管刑事司法系统中患有精神疾病的人数最多的群体，据估计，缓刑人员中有16%至27%被认定患有心理健康问题。虽然学术研究最近集中在围绕专业心理健康缓刑的典型模式建立证据基础，但较少关注专业心理健康案件量的各个组成部分以及机构用于监管患有精神疾病者的其他策略。关于这些策略的更具体信息将有利于希望为患有精神疾病者实施或加强监管协议的缓刑机构。本文介绍了一项全国性研究的结果，该研究考察了：（1）缓刑机构的心理健康筛查和识别方法；（2）心理健康案件量的特征，包括资格标准、官员选拔、所需培训以及与服务提供者的对接；（3）机构用于监管患有精神疾病者的除心理健康案件量之外的其他策略。识别精神疾病的策略各不相同，大多数机构使用风险需求评估、 intake过程中询问的自我报告项目或判决前报告中的信息。不到三分之一的受访者报告使用特定于心理健康的筛查和评估工具或拥有跟踪或“标记”精神疾病的系统。结果还显示，缓刑监督官的心理健康培训要求差异很大，用于监管患有精神疾病者的策略（如心理健康案件量、缓刑期间的嵌入式心理健康服务、改良的认知行为干预）也存在差异。监督策略实施的广泛差异带来了两个方面的情况：（1）各机构有机会从各种策略中进行选择并根据当地情况进行调整以满足需求；（2）在为单一策略或一组策略建立证据基础方面面临挑战。 （注：“intake process”可能是指缓刑人员进入监管程序等类似过程，这里直接保留英文未翻译，因为不太明确其准确对应的中文术语。）
