Evaluation Critique : A Peer Support Essay

Authors in this article from the University of California observe and focus on the risks and rates involved in people that have a mental disorder and correlate it with incarceration as well as people with re-incarceration. While performing these studies researchers found an alarming number of people incarcerated had a severe mental illness and substance abuse issues. Much of the knowledge in numbers of people with a mental illness are brought from a correctional view, but researchers here try to also focus on numbers of people in the public mental health system as well.

The United States criminal justice system has been continuously increasing incarceration among individuals who suffer from a sever mental illness. As of 2007 individuals with severe mental illness were over twice as likely to be found in prisons than in society (National Commission of Correctional Health Care, 2002, as cited in Litschge &Vaughn, 2009). The offenses that lead to their commitment in a criminal facility, in the majority of cases, derive from symptoms of their mental illness instead of deviant behavior. Our criminal justice system is failing those who would benefit more from the care of a psychiatric rehabilitation facility or psychiatric hospital by placing them in correctional facilities or prisons.

With California jails and prisons still struggling with finding a reform for non-violent drug offenders the states recidivism rates continue to reach unprecedented numbers. Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to state and federal prisons increased sixteen-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998 (Worrall et al, 2009). This has been a direct result of our legal system incarcerating offenders who have substance abuse related issues instead of providing a way for treatment or rehabilitation outside of incarceration. Through public policies regarding criminal justice interventions that address drug use and crime, an initiative was created to provide treatment services

Community Health centers have become the safety net for the American public and expansion grants have been recently introduced as a way to increase the treatment options for the mentally disabled/substance abusers. The importance of funding more centers and hiring these specialty practitioners enables the mentally disabled a safe place to address their drug use without fear of criminal charges or entanglement into the legal system. If they are allowed to seek help and rehabilitation voluntarily, it stands to reason that they are less likely to commit crimes in the future to support themselves and their habits.

The human and economic toll of co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders in this country demands immediate attention. Though the problems associated with co-occurring disorders have long been acknowledged and discussed, there has been little consensus about how to accomplish needed system change. In this time period, there are many different disorders and illnesses that go unnoticed, and unknown.

Psychological disorders are common in the United States and worldwide. The National institute of mental Health discovered that, “An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.” Having an uncle who was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in 2003 has changed the way I see people with mental illnesses. After reading and watching the documentary about prisoners who have to undergo medication just to live a “normal” life has given me inspiration to come up with a few ways that will help our justice system deal with these sorts of individuals. While researchers are trying to come up with different medical measures to cure these diseases we as individuals can implement some procedures to help and support mental patients.

Mental health courts (MHCs) are one such diversionary mechanism that relies on community justice partnerships, involving mental health treatment and social services providers. MHCs are specialized court dockets for individuals with mental health problems. In place of traditional court processing, in which the judge reviews the culpability of a case and imposes a sentence, MHCs offer problem-solving solutions for mentally ill offenders. 5 They identify eligible participants through mental health screenings and assessments and place them in a judicially supervised treatment plan developed jointly by a team of court staff and mental health professionals (Rossman et al. 2012). When an offender successfully completes the program, MHCs may vacate an alleged charge or modify the original sentence. Community services are a key factor to helping prevent the development of the crises that lead to law enforcement involvement, to provide alternatives to incarceration when problems ascend, and to ensure support for people returning to the community from prison and jail. Scholars have proposed that if we develop community resources such as the availability and access to emergency mental health services that help to reduce the likelihood that persons with mental illnesses will

Did you know that 19.9 percent of adult Americans had some sort of a mental illness, according to the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (samhsa.gov, 2015, Para. 3). This is a total of 45.1 million adults in America suffering with mental health disorders (samhsa.gov, 2015, Para. 3). There are also currently 20.8 million adults in America who suffer from substance use disorder ever year (NAMI.org, 2015). Both of these are alarming statistics of the wellbeing of the American citizens. To make matters worse, these two groups intertwine to a population of people known with a co-occurrence of mental illness and substance use or, more commonly known as, dual diagnosis.

Also, we need data and additional detailed information on the participants who were not satisfied. As stated in the article, “What Works in Reducing Recidivism”, the “Treatment Principle”, states “the most effective programs are behavioral in nature” (Latessa, Lowenkamp, p523, University of St. Thomas Law Journal). The report provided by staff does not clearly identify how many participants in each program and which program had the lower success rate and least

The difference should not affect the quality and success of the program, as the target population for PATH is 18 and older. Each of the EBPs reviewed were developed for individuals with mental illness and/or substance abuse to be utilized during reintegration into a more independent living environment. The Critical Time Intervention (CTI) aims to prevent recurrent homelessness in individuals with severe mental illness leaving shelters, hospitals, or other organizations aiding the homeless (Critical time intervention - top tier, (2013). Not all of these approaches have been tested on the targeted homeless demographic. The Modified Therapeutic Communities (MTCs) focus on offenders with mental illness and chemical abuse (MICA) disorders (Modified Therapeutic Community for Offenders with Mental Illness and Chemical Abuse Disorders (MICA). However, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2012) classify offenders and incarcerated adults as at risk of homelessness. Therefore, these strategies should still produce a similar positive outcome for the targeted homeless population. Research has indicated that community integration and recovery from mental illness and substance

The majority of research that exists on 12-step programs often focus on determining the success rate of 12-step programs such as AA. There is little to no research on problems associated with 12-step programs or problematic areas of 12-step programs. The little research that does exist argue that 12-step programs are not structured for comorbid individual, they may not be the best option for mild substance use disorder, and the central theme of powerlessness can conflict with a therapist’s theoretical orientation and be harmful to the therapeutic alliance. (Kelly & Myers, 2007, Laudet et al., 2004, L, Ingvarson, Richard, 1995). The National Institute of Mental Health (2013) has found that 43.6 million adults aged 18 and older have at least one mental illness and 45 percent of individuals with one mental disorder met criteria for two or more disorders. The presence of comorbid disorders can severely affect the treatment and outcome of individuals (Terra et al., 2006). Many studies have found that clients with a dual diagnosis experience increased rates of hospitalization and increased use of emergency services (Helzer & Pryzbeck, 1998). It is easy to imagine how hospitalization can interrupt treatment by making it difficulty for individuals to attend.

The National Registry for Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP), which is preserved by the United States’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), provide a list of all evidence-based practices that are beneficial for youth offenders (SAMHSA, 2017). Per SAMHSA (2017), between 50-70 percent of the youth in the juvenile justice system, have a mental disorder and up to 60 percent have been diagnosed with a substance use disorder (SAMHSA, 2017). Of those youth with dual diagnosis, approximately 30 percent have lost the ability to function as a result of their disorder (SAMHSA, 2017). Therefore, to determine the best treatment plan for youth offenders, evidence-based practices focus on the importance of

Substance abuse complicates almost every aspect of care for the person with a mental disorder. When drugs enter the brain, they can interrupt the work and actually change how the brain performs its jobs; these changes are what lead to compulsive drug use. Drug abuse plays a major role when concerning mental health. It is very difficult for these individuals to engage in treatment. Diagnosis for a treatment is difficult because it takes time to disengage the interacting effects of substance abuse and the mental illness. It may also be difficult for substance abusers to be accommodated at home and it may not be tolerated in the community of residents of rehabilitation programs. The author states, that they end up losing their support systems

“Now We Can Begin” an essay by Crystal Eastman is a very powerful essay. Eastman makes the point know in her essay that an honest and true feminist no matter where she stands in the movement she will see to the woman’s fight with strength and courage and how it  matters in the future and as well as its difference in its approach for the workers fight for industrial freedom. Eastman state “In fighting for the right to vote most women have tried to be either non-committal or thoroughly respectable on every other subject. Now they can say what they are really after; and what they are after, in common with all the rest of the struggling world, is freedom”

Psychosocial rehabilitation has its theoretical roots in evolving a failed effort, by the mental health system, to help mentally ill patients in coping with the psychosocial devastation brought on by severe mental illness and behavioural problems (Correctional Services Canada, 2013). The traditional methods of treatment viewed recovery as a process of curing an illness, usually with medication, but recovery does not subsequently occur once their illness is “treated” (CSC, 2013). This traditional method was ineffective because their recovery was halted by limited support and skills and ‘abnormal’ behaviours learned in institutions (CSC, 2013). These deficits resulted in chronic impairments and maladaptive social functioning (CSC, 2013). These individuals were unable to fulfill normal social roles and successfully live independently in the community (CSC, 2013). The PSR approach to recovery incorporates more than just eliminating the signs and symptoms of the illness, is based on understanding the patients voice and experiences and encouraging participation and self-determination in treatment (CSC, 2013). This approach recognises the care values such as hope, empowerment, and determination are essential to recovery (CSC, 2013). The importance of skill development and community support are also highlighted (CSC, 2013).