Strategies for supervising people with mental illnesses on probation caseloads: results from a nationwide study

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.