Principles and practices of risk assessment in mental health jail diversion programs

Abstract

Eligibility criteria for participation in mental health jail diversion programs often specify that, to be diverted, a candidate must not pose a level of threat to public safety that cannot be managed in the community. Risk assessment tools were developed to increase consistency and accuracy in estimates of threat to public safety. Consequently, risk assessment tools are being used in many jurisdictions to inform decisions regarding an individual’s appropriateness and eligibility for mental health jail diversion and the strategies that may be successful in mitigating risk in this context. However, their use is not without controversy. Questions have been raised regarding the validity and equity of their estimates, as well as the impact of their use on criminal justice outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the science and practice of risk assessment to inform decisions and case planning in the context of mental health jail diversion programs. Our specific aims include: (1) to describe the process and components of risk assessment, including differentiating between different approaches to risk assessment, and (2) to consider the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs. We anchor this review in relevant theory and extant research, noting current controversies or debates and areas for future research. Overall, there is strong theoretical justification and empirical evidence from other criminal justice contexts; however, the body of research on the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs, although promising, is relatively nascent.

The clinical predictive value of geriatric nutritional risk index in elderly rectal cancer patients received surgical treatment after neoadjuvant therapy

“…However, in time-to-event analysis, if the patient dies from other causes, the competing events would impede the occurrence of events of interest. In such circumstances, the use of traditional survival analyses would bias the calculation of the cumulative incidence of interest event ( 26 ). This phenomenon was most easily seen in elderly patients.…”

Addressing mass incarceration amid a pandemic: Psychology informing decarceration as a racial justice and public health response.

“…In the last decade, several states have implemented policies that reallocate funds to rehabilitative services, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment programs, reducing recidivism (Grady et al, 2021). Forensic psychologists have been heavily involved in developing and researching diversion programs and specialty courts, including determinations for these programs, to reduce the number of people funneled into the carceral system (Desmarais & Lowder, 2020; Morgan et al, 2016; Rotter & Barber-Rioja, 2015; Steadman et al, 1999). These efforts should continue, and practitioners should also collaborate to research to examine whether racial disparities exist within these programs.…”