Los Angeles County’s Office of Diversion and Reentry (ODR) has removed over 3800 people from the largest jail system in the country. Across various diversion programs, ODR’s fundamental goal is to provide permanent, lifetime care for each diverted person. This article describes ODR’s various diversion programs, and elucidates the types of elaborate clinical and court-related interventions that are necessary to remove persons with serious mental disorders from jail custody. As Los Angeles continues to build the necessary community-based continuum of mental health care, ODR’s model proves that thoughtfully removing persons with serious mental disorders from jail is possible and necessary for the health of both patients and community.

The United States’ criminal justice system has seen exponential growth in costs related to the incarceration of persons with mental illness. Jails, prisons, and state hospitals’ resources are insufficient to adequately treat the sheer number of individuals cycling through their system. Reversing the cycle of criminalization of mental illness is a complicated process, but mental health diversion programs across the nation are uniquely positioned to do just that. Not only are these programs providing humane treatment to individuals within the community and breaking the cycle of recidivism, the potential fiscal savings are over 1 billion dollars.

A shift within state psychiatric hospitals toward serving a predominantly forensic population has resulted in increased violent incidents within those settings. Thus, addressing criminogenic needs in addition to mental illness is an important paradigm shift. Relying on seclusion or restraint as the primary mechanisms to address violence interferes with the provision of effective care to patients struggling with aggressive behaviors. Implementing new treatment programs aimed at reducing violence in forensic inpatient settings is warranted. This article focuses on the step-by-step process of developing such a specialized treatment program within the California Department of State Hospitals. Leadership within this hospital system collaborated with labor unions and other stakeholders to obtain funding to create a novel treatment environment. This treatment program includes a ward design aimed to improve safety and delivers treatment based on the Risk Needs Responsivity Model. Treatment is guided by violence risk assessment and primarily focused on addressing criminogenic needs. The selection of treatments with a focus on violence reduction is discussed.

Trauma-informed approaches offer a new perspective for understanding how and why individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) become entangled in the criminal justice system. There is growing awareness that many individuals with SMI have experienced significant life trauma, and factors beyond SMI that contribute to criminalization are being identified; however, the role of trauma continues to be overlooked in many formulations. In trauma-blind systems, trauma-related behaviors are often misunderstood and met with responses that exacerbate psychiatric and behavioral problems. Trauma-informed approaches provide a richer understanding of underlying drivers of behavior, and view trauma as an integral component of risk management, case formulation, relationship-based care, and referral. Embedding trauma-informed principles across organizations promotes continuity of care, safety, and more compassionate cultures that help reduce the flow of individuals with SMI into the criminal justice system. An expanded view of the criminalization hypothesis is offered, which incorporates all factors addressed in current research.

Despite medical, technological, and humanitarian advances, the criminalization of those with serious mental illness continues. This is not an isolated phenomenon. The benefits of treatment reform and innovation are difficult to maintain or sometimes outright harmful. Across time and geography, the care of those with serious mental illness tends towards maltreatment, be it criminalization or other forms of harm. We present a social history of serious mental illness, along with the idea that the treatment of serious mental illness is a Sisyphean task—perpetually pushing a boulder up a hill, only for it to roll down and start again. The history is provided as a basis for deeper reflection of treatment, and treatment reform, of those with serious mental illnesses.

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.

Forensic psychiatry is an established medical specialty in England and Wales. Although its origins lie in the 19th century, the development of secure hospitals accelerated in the late 20th century. Services for mentally disordered offenders in the community have developed most recently and it is these services, which are the focus of this article. We have looked broadly at community services and have included criminal justice liaison and diversion services in our remit. We have also considered partnerships between health and justice agencies as well as mental health and criminal legislation. We consider the limited research evidence in relation to community forensic services and the discussion this has provoked.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) people are more likely to be disproportionally placed in a secured setting such jails, prisons, and forensic hospitals. These settings can be traumatizing, hostile, and dangerous—especially for those who are suffering from mental illness. Administrators are encouraged to develop institutional policies that undoubtedly include that LGBT residents should be free of discrimination, victimization, and abuse. LGBT residents should have equal access to safe housing, vocational programs, rehabilitation services, as well as medical and mental health treatments. Several organizations provide guidelines to ensure that LGBT residents are protected. This article provides a general roadmap for developing LGBT policies in secured settings synergizing the recommendations of some of these organizations with emphasis on policy guidelines for transgender people that are not only standards for good care but also very cost-effective interventions that can help reduce symptoms of mental illness for this population.

Forensic populations in the United States are increasing, driven largely by a rise in individuals determined to be Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST). Across most states, including California, the number of mentally ill inmates awaiting competency restoration has increased dramatically in recent years. Traditionally, competency restoration has taken place in state hospitals, but incompetent inmates often experience a significant wait for state hospital beds because of the rising demand for beds in such facilities. The resulting waitlists, which range from days to months, have led to states being held in contempt of court for violating limits placed on how long incompetent defendants can be held in jail. Therefore, alternatives to state hospitalization for IST patients have been developed, including jail-based competency (JBCT) restoration programs. JBCT programs provide restoration services in county jails, rather than in psychiatric hospitals. The following article will review the nature of JBCT programs and will emphasize the structure and evolution of such programs within California.

The rediscovery of the importance of mental illness in the risk assessment and management of those who threaten, approach, and harm public figures has led to a new way of dealing with those that threaten public figures. This approach emphasises the role of “fixation” which may be defined as an intense preoccupation pursued to an abnormally intense degree. It integrates a threat assessment paradigm with the literature on stalking. The need for such an approach was highlighted in research on the prevalence of harassment of public figures. Psychiatry has a key role in this approach which sees mental health clinicians and Police work together in Fixated Threat Assessment Centres (FTACs). An FTAC functions by assessing the level of concern and sharing information to facilitate interventions that are often mental health based. The purpose is not the hopeless task of identifying those who will go on to perpetrate serious violence, rather to intervene in the group they emerge from, to prevent harm. As well as decreasing risk to the persons fixated upon, this approach improves care to the mentally disordered people who harass and threaten them and, in doing so, decreases the likelihood of their criminalization while enhancing their quality of life. As expertise in the area has grown, policing and security agencies in several countries have expanded the FTAC model to cover individuals thought at risk of lone-actor grievance-fueled violence, a term that captures both different forms of mass killing and lone actor terrorism.

This article traces the history of the way in which mental disorders were viewed and treated, from before the birth of Christ to the present day. Special attention is paid to the process of deinstitutionalization in the United States and the failure to create an adequately robust community mental health system to care for the people who, in a previous era, might have experienced lifelong hospitalization. As a result, far too many people with serious mental illnesses are living in jails and prisons that are ill-suited and unprepared to meet their needs.

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. With a substantial number of inmates diagnosed with mental illness, substance use, or both, various diversion strategies have been developed to help decrease and avoid criminalization of individuals with mental illness. This article focuses primarily on the first three Sequential Intercept Model intercept points as related to jail diversion and reviews types of diversion programs, research outcomes for diversion programs, and important components that contribute to successful diversion.

The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Criminal Mental Health Project (CMHP), located in Miami-Dade County, FL, was established in 2000 to divert individuals with serious mental illnesses (SMI; eg, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression) or co-occurring SMI and substance use disorders away from the criminal justice system and into comprehensive community-based treatment and support services. The program operates two primary components: prebooking jail diversion consisting of Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training for law enforcement officers and postbooking jail diversion serving individuals booked into the county jail and awaiting adjudication. In addition, the CMHP offers a variety of overlay services intended to: streamline screening and identification of program participants; develop evidence-based community reentry plans to ensure appropriate linkages to community-based treatment and support services; improve outcomes among individuals with histories of noncompliance with treatment; and expedite access to federal and state entitlement benefits. The CMHP provides an effective, cost-efficient solution to a community problem and works by eliminating gaps in services, and by forging productive and innovative relationships among all stakeholders who have an interest in the welfare and safety of one of our community’s most vulnerable populations.

Secure settings are not queer because lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, Two Spirit, and asexual (LGBTQ+) people populate them, and neither are LGBTQ+ people inherently criminal because they are found in those spaces. Queer people bear disproportionate health, mental health, and social inequities that have had, historically and currently, the effect to criminalize them. This review discusses effective language and ideologies when working with LGBTQ+ people in secure settings. Major health, mental health, and social inequities are reviewed, along with the applied framework of minority stress. Then, the process of criminalization is diagrammed across the phases of predetainment, being in the system, and through re-entering the community. Finally, multilevel strategies are offered to decriminalize LGBTQ+ people ideologically and in practice.

Risk of contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) is greater among those with mental illness, including severe mental illness—an observation that many argue reflects a process of “criminalizing” mental illness. Forensic patients represent a subgroup at one end of a spectrum of such criminalization, typically with histories of serious violence and psychotic illness. Strategies for decriminalizing mental illness in this context should consider a range of approaches, including intervening to prevent CJS contact in those with severe mental illness, particularly in the early or emerging stages of psychosis. However, it may be that even gold standard mental healthcare applied universally is insufficient to address CJS contact risks. While there is now an extensive literature documenting the relatively low rates of repeat CJS contact for forensic patients released from secure care, appropriate comparison groups are lacking and the key ingredients of any benefits of treatment are unknown. The CJS may well have something to learn from forensic mental health systems and services given the abject failure to stem rates of prison-release reoffending internationally. Understanding how to best identify risk and effectively intervene to prevent CJS contact in those with mental illness, whether early in the course of psychosis or following release from secure care, remains a priority for those seeking to address the criminalization of mentally illness in our communities.

The Cal-DSH Diversion Guidelines provide 10 general guidelines that jurisdictions should consider when developing diversion programs for individuals with a serious mental illness (SMI) who become involved in the criminal justice system. Screening for SMI in a jail setting is reviewed. In addition, important treatment interventions for SMI and substance use disorders are highlighted with the need to address criminogenic risk factors highlighted.