Introduction
The current article “Criminal Justice Involvement, Behavioural Health Service Use, and Costs of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment: A Randomized Trial” by Cusack et al. (2010) offers critical insights on the topic of mental illness amongst the jailed populations. Worth noting is the fact that jail detention tends to enhance the occurrence of mental illness. As such, a significant proportion of the jailed populations experience a wider array of mental illnesses. This poses an immense challenge in that reinstating people with mental illness to society life after jail detention is apprehensive. Notably, the challenges are a reflection of challenges faced by an individual who has been through jail detention. An example of challenges that previously jailed populations face is gaining meaningful employment and getting sustainable financial support for their livelihoods. Such challenges are increased in poverty stricken communities where employment opportunities are minimal (Baron, 2013).
Method of Analysis
The current article is based on a randomized control clinical control trial that was conducted amongst recurrent jail users suffering from severe mental illnesses. Precisely, the study employed two interventions: Treatment as Usual (TAU) and Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT). The outcomes of the trial were reported at 12 months and at 24 months after randomization (Cusack et al., 2010). The outcomes were reported in terms of criminal justice outcomes, costs, and behavioural health services. The use of randomized control trial in the current study strengthens it based on the fact that it a randomized control trial assures that participants are accorded an equal chance of being involved in the study. This is contrary to non-randomized trials, which are biased and do not offer potential participants an equal chance of being integrated into the study.
Steps of Process and the Results for each Step
Participants involved in the study were primarily drawn from California County jail. Jail inmates were screened by correctional mental health staff and those who had a positive history of mental illness, those using psychotropic medications, as well as the ones with suicidal ideation were deemed suitable to be involved in the study. Precisely, the correctional mental health staff referred the participants to members of the research team. The identified participants were then subjected to a full mental assessment by the research team members within three day after the referral date. During assessment by the members of the research team, the participants were informed of the study purpose and consent sought from the participants. This further strengthened this research in that it assured that ethicality was assured. The research gave a final determination on the eligibility of the participants, whereby the participants were randomly assigned into the control treatment (TAU) and experimental treatment (FACT). The research utilized 134 participants whereby 72 were enrolled on the experimental treatment, whereas 62 participants were enrolled on the control experiment (Cusack et al., 2010).
The current article is based on a randomized control clinical control trial that was conducted amongst recurrent jail users suffering from severe mental illnesses. Precisely, the study employed two interventions: Treatment as Usual (TAU) and Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT). The outcomes of the trial were reported at 12 months and at 24 months after randomization. The outcomes were reported in terms of criminal justice outcomes, costs, and behavioural health services. The use of randomized control trial in the current study strengthens it based on the fact that it a randomized control trial assures that participants are accorded an equal chance of being involved in the study. This is contrary to non-randomized trials, which are biased and do not offer potential participants an equal chance of being integrated into the study (Baron, 2013).
Cusack et al. (2010) study utilized administrative data drawn from behavioural health personnel and the county jail. The use of administrative data further strengthened the study in that such data were readily available for all the participants regardless of the methodology employed in the collection of such data. Besides, use of administrative data made it possible to assort the data in a prospective cohort mode for both the control and intervention subjects. Data that was utilized in the current study included criminal justice involvement data and behavioural health services data.
Criminal justice involvement data such as data on convictions, jail days, and information on bookings were drawn from administrative data collated by the county jail. Precisely, data was collected for one year prior the study and two years after trial. Criminal justice involvement data on cost per day in jail were acquired from the sheriff’s office. On the other hand, data on behavioural health services were collected from the county’s mental health department. Such data entailed data on hospital admissions of participants and the number of days hospitalized.
Data were then analysed and the outcomes indicated that FACT plays a comprehensive role in addressing challenges faced by jailed populations diagnosed with various mental health conditions. In fact, FACT interventions reduced rates of psychiatric hospitalizations, and reduced criminal justice involvement by the participants. With regards to criminal justice consequences, FACT resulted in greater likelihood that jailed populations with mental health conditions stayed out of jail for a longer time. TAU interventions did not offer any significant improvement amongst the jailed populations (Cusack et al., 2010).
Apply the Concept of Practice Situation
A reflection on the practice situation depicts the persistent use of Treatment as Usual interventions despite the lack of significant evidence on their effectiveness. It is on this basis that there is a need to adopt FACT interventions based on the primary fact that they have a positive implication on addressing challenges faced by jailed populations with various mental conditions.
Conclusion
References
Baron, R. (2013). “I’m Not Sure That I Can Figure out How to do that”: Pursuit of Work among People with Mental Illnesses Leaving Jail. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 16, 115-135.
Cusack, K., Morrissey, J., Cuddeback, G., Prins, A., & Williams, D. (2010). Criminal Justice Involvement, Behavioural Health Service Use, and Costs of Forensic Assertive Community Treatment: A Randomized Trial. Community Mental Health Journal, 46(4), 356-363.
