Interventions That Target Criminogenic Needs for Justice-Involved Persons With Serious Mental Illnesses: A Targeted Service Delivery Approach

• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• Author: Kathleen Farkas,Janelle Duda-Banwar,Amy Blank Wilson,Natalie Bonfine
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18759242
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18759242

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(14) 4677 –4693

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18759242

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Interventions That Target

Criminogenic Needs for

Justice-Involved Persons With

Serious Mental Illnesses: A

Targeted Service Delivery

Approach

Amy Blank Wilson1, Kathleen Farkas2, Natalie Bonfine3,

and Janelle Duda-Banwar2

Abstract

This research describes the development of a targeted service delivery approach

that tailors the delivery of interventions that target criminogenic needs to the

specific learning and treatment needs of justice-involved people with serious mental

illnesses (SMI). This targeted service delivery approach includes five service delivery

strategies: repetition and summarizing, amplification, coaching, low-demand practice,

and maximizing participation. Examples of how to apply each strategy in session

are provided, as well as recommendations on when to use each strategy during the

delivery of interventions that target criminogenic needs. This targeted service delivery

approach makes an important contribution to the development of interventions for

justice-involved people with SMI by increasing the chances that people with SMI

can participate fully in and benefit from these interventions that target criminogenic

needs. These developments come at a critical time in the field as the next generation

of services for justice-involved people with SMI are being developed.

Keywords

mental illness, criminogenic needs, recidivism

1University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA

2Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

3Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, USA

Corresponding Author:

Amy Blank Wilson, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 325 Pittsboro

Street, Campus Box 3550, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.

Email: amyblank@email.unc.edu

759242IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X18759242International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyWilson et al.

research-article2018

4678 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Arrest and incarceration are a pervasive reality for people with serious mental illnesses

(SMI; Ditton, 1999; Steadman, Osher, Robbins, Case, & Samuels, 2009; Teplin, 1990).

The prevalence of people with SMI (i.e., schizophrenia spectrum and major affective

disorders) in the criminal justice system has led to the development of numerous inter-

ventions, which have recently been termed first generation services (Epperson et al.,

2014). These services include pre- and postjail diversion services (Broner, Lattimore,

Cowell, & Schlenger, 2004; Compton, Bahora, Watson, & Olivia, 2008), specialty

community supervision caseloads (probation or parole; Skeem & Louden, 2006;

Skeem, Manchak, & Peterson, 2011), mental health courts (Cosden, Ellens, Schnell, &

Yamini-Diouf, 2005), and reentry services (Osher, Steadman, & Barr, 2003).

A distinguishing feature of first generation mental health services for justice-

involved people with SMI is that access to mental health treatment plays a central role

in their approach to reducing recidivism (Epperson et al., 2014). However, none of

these services have achieved a consistent impact on participants’ subsequent involve-

ment in the criminal justice system (Morrissey, Meyer, & Cuddeback, 2007; Osher &

Steadman, 2007; Skeem et al., 2011). According to Skeem et al. (2011), there is weak

evidence that service models most closely aligned to traditional mental health treat-

ment reduce recidivism.

This lack of support has prompted discussions of what elements are missing from

these approaches to treating justice-involved people with SMI (Epperson et al., 2014;

Morrissey et al., 2007). One answer, which is amassing a growing body of support, is

that mental health services need to expand their focus to include interventions that

explicitly target behaviors most closely associated with criminal offending (i.e., crimi-

nogenic needs) among the general population of individuals in the criminal justice

system (Calsyn, Yonker, Lemming, Morse, & Klinkenberg, 2005; Epperson et al.,

2014; Fisher, Silver, & Wolff, 2006; Lurigio, 2011; Morrissey et al., 2007; Skeem

et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2014; Wolff, Morgan, & Shi, 2013; Wolff, Morgan, Shi,

Fisher, & Huening, 2011). This article presents a new approach to delivering interven-

tions that target criminogenic needs to people with SMI.

Criminogenic Risk and Justice-Involved Persons With SMI

Research comparing the presence of criminogenic risk factors among offenders with

and without SMI has found that justice-involved people with SMI face higher levels

of criminogenic risk factors than offenders without mental illness (Girard & Wormith,

2004; Skeem, Eno Louden, Manchak, Vidal, & Haddad, 2008). Several recent studies

have examined the extent to which specific types of criminogenic risks are present

among justice-involved people with SMI, finding that people with SMI had elevated

levels of criminal thinking and attitudes as compared with their justice-involved coun-

terparts without SMI (Morgan, Fisher, Duan, Mandracchia, & Murray, 2010; Wilson

et al., 2014; Wolff et al., 2013; Wolff et al., 2011).

Addressing the presence of elevated levels of criminal thinking and attitudes

among justice-involved people with SMI is important when developing interventions

for this population because antisocial cognitions are one of the criminogenic risk