NCJ Number
139431
Journal
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Volume: 18 Issue: 1/2 Dated: (1992) Pages: 119-134
Date Published
1992
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This paper discusses and critiques proposals in Ohio to use adjusted indicators as outcome measures for a new treatment program for mentally ill inmates.
Abstract
Planners of mental health treatment programs for inmates have typically evaluated the effectiveness of such treatment by using the extent of adjustment within the institution and/or the rate of recidivism as outcome measures. Despite a changed focus regarding the goals of mental health treatment for mentally ill inmates, some prison mental health treatment programs still prefer to evaluate effects in terms of adjustment indicators. In Ohio, it was determined that treatment should consist of at least a 3-level system in which inmates would move progressively through each level and earn more privileges when they reached the aftercare component. In addition, the therapeutic program of the proposed Supportive Services Unit (SSU) would provide assistance in stress management, assertiveness training, self-esteem and social skills, and socialization and coping skills as well as traditional group therapy, exercise, substance abuse treatment, activity workshops, and a transitional care workshop. Ohio correctional officials determined that SSU effectiveness should be evaluated in terms of four outcome measures: number of institutional transfers to the Psychiatric Residential Unit, the Oakwood Forensic Center, and isolation blocks; number of transfers to the general inmate population; number of Office of Psychiatric Services to Correction clients receiving security upgrades to closer security; and number of violent incidents. The author believes these outcome measures do not provide evidence that Ohio's mentally ill inmates have received proper mental health treatment. If mentally ill inmates constitute the most problematic inmates in an institution because they assault other inmates and staff, populate isolation disproportionately, and require transfers, then an intervention program should be designed to deal with this population group. The intervention, however, should not be a mental health treatment program with inappropriate outcome measures. Mental health treatment should be for the benefit of seriously mentally ill inmates and not for administrative purposes. 30 references