Skip to main content
Log in

Using incarceration rates to measure mental health program performance

  • Articles
  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article introduces a more refined conceptualization of the criminal justice involvement of clients of mental health programs than is evident in the existing literature, and demonstrates a research methodology that provides program administrators with standardized measures of program performance in this area. The conceptualization of the criminal justice involvement of people served by community mental health programs distinguishes between three distinct areas of concern: (1) program accessibility to people with a history of criminal justice involvement, (2) criminal justice outcomes, and (3) quality of program performance. The methodology makes use of existing data resources to provide a valid and reliable measure of program performance in these three areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steadman HJ, Monahan J, Duffee B, et al.: The impact of state mental hospital deinstitutionalization on United States prison populations, 1976–1978.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1984; 75(2):474–490.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Torrey EF, Stieber J, Ezekiel J, et al. (Eds.):Criminalizing the Seriously Mentally Ill: The Abuse of Jails as Mental Hospitals. Washington, DC: Public Citizen's Health Research Group and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ganju V, Callahan N, Dailey W (Eds.):The MHSIP Consumer-Oriented Mental Health Report Card. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Van Tosh L (Ed.):Consumer Managed Care Network Platform for Action. Washington, DC: Consumer Managed Care Network, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill:Principles for Managed Care. Arlington, VA: National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Koyanagi C:Managing Managed Care for Publicly Financed Mental Health Services. Washington, DC: Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Teplin LA: The prevalence of severe mental disorder among male urban jail detainees: Comparison with epidemiological catchment area program.American Journal of Public Health 1990; 80:663–669.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schuckit MA, Herman G, Schuckit J: The importance of psychiatric illness in newly arrested prisoners.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1977; 165:118–125.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Swank G, Winer D: Occurrence of psychiatric disorder in a county jail population.American Journal of Psychiatry 1976; 33:1331–1333.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Guy E, Platt J, Zwerling I: Mental health status of prisoners in an urban jail.Criminal Justice and Behavior 1985; 12:29–53.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Steadman HJ, Fabisiak S, Dvoskin J: A survey of mental disability among state prison inmates.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1987; 38:1086–1090.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Powell TA, Holt JC, Fondacaro KM: The prevalence of mental illness among inmates in a rural state.Law and Human Behavior 1997; 21:427–438.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harry B, Steadman HJ: Arrest rates of patients treated at a community mental health center.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1988; 39:862–866.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wolff N, Diamond RJ, Helminiak TW: A new look at an old issue: People with mental illness and the law enforcement system.Journal of Mental Health Administration 1997; 24:152–165.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Riguad MC, Newman FL: A case mix procedure for matching the clinical characteristics of patients with dual disorders to planned treatment and treatment costs.Journal of Mental Health Administration 1990; 17:200–206.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vermont Department of Developmental and Mental Health Services:State Comprehensive Mental Health Plan for Adults with Severe Mental Illness and for Children and Adolescents Experiencing a Serious Emotional Disturbance and Their Families. Waterbury, VT: Agency of Human Services, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leginski WA, Croze C, Driggers J, et al. (Eds.):Data Standards for Mental Health Decision Support Systems. DHHS Publication No. (ADM)89-1589. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Feller W (Ed.):An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications. Second ed. New York: John Wiley, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pandiani J, Banks S, Gauvin L: A global measure of access to mental health services for a managed care environment.Journal of Mental Health Administration 1997; 24:268–277.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Banks SM, Pandiani JA: The use of state and general hospitals for inpatient psychiatric care.American Journal of Public Health, in press.

  21. Whitehead AN, Russell B:Principia Mathematica. Second ed., Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pandiani JA, Banks SM: Hospitalization, Incarceration, and Death: Bottom Line Outcome Indicators from Existing Data Sets. Paper presented at the National Conference on Mental Health Statistics, Washington, DC, May 1997.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John A. Pandiani Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pandiani, J.A., Banks, S.M. & Schacht, L.M. Using incarceration rates to measure mental health program performance. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 25, 300–311 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287469

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287469

Keywords

Navigation