Survey Responses Suggest Few U.S. Jails Use Screenings and Assessments for Behavioral Health Diversion

Just 33% of facilities queried said they deploy these tools to divert people with substance use and mental health issues to non-jail settings

 

A survey of administrators at U.S. jails shows that only about one-third of facilities use information from behavioral health screening and assessment tools to divert people from jail. Most facilities do conduct screenings and assessments, but few use them for diversion purposes. That represents a significant missed opportunity to connect people to the care they may need.

The Pew Charitable Trusts invited more than 1,400 U.S. jail administrators through their professional association, the American Jail Association, to take the survey that was fielded from May 2023 to February 2024. (See methodology for details.) One hundred jail administrators responded, a relatively small sample but enough to provide some insights into what’s happening in the nation’s jails.

Jail administrators were asked about facility practices related to mental health and substance use screenings and assessments. These screenings are brief, routine procedures that can include short interviews or self-reporting to identify if an individual has urgent health concerns when entering a facility. Assessments, meanwhile, are more in-depth evaluations that help determine treatment and care of individuals with health issues, including diversion from jail to treatment, and care while in jail or after release.

Overall, jails reported high usage rates for these tools: 88% reported screening everyone for mental health needs and 80% conducted assessments based on information gained through screenings or prior records. Additionally, 86% of responding jails screened everyone entering their doors for substance use issues and roughly 65% performed assessments based on those screening results.

But few facilities used that behavioral health information to help move people out of jail and into appropriate care settings: just 33% used screenings and assessments to divert people with mental health concerns and only 33% used those tools to divert people with substance use issues.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify or abbreviate their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The responses by administrators to this survey are complete BS! They no more take into account mental health issues than they do anything else. They look at themselves as a self storage for human flesh. They lock a person up and forget about them. The U.S. incarceration system has got to be one of the worst in the industrialized world. Neglect and abuse are common. The public could care less because we as a society have lost our way.

Not until the “tough on crime culture” is permanently eradicated from the CJS (crim. justice system) will we ever see effective, consistent and well-managed rehabilitation programs within prisons.

The “tough on crime culture” has viewed rehabilitation (one of the four stated goals of many if not all sentencing schemes) much as a disfavored step-child relegated to the basement and fed scraps. And only when forced to institute rehabilitative programs will they act. Few of those in the power structure of the CJS believe in the value of such programs, even though they have been proven to be cost effective as recidivism is reduced. Let’s also not forget that these programs reduce monies which could be made available for pensions, bonuses, salaries, etc.

Evolving science has led to the development of effective rehabilitation programs which serves to reduce the recidivism rates (especially amongst drug violators). However, the power structure only seems to care about recidivism rates when they are called to answer in televised legislative hearings where they are sworn in and forced to answer. Even so, they typically give nothing more than lip-service, strive to side-step and/or divert from the issue.

In our community, the recidivism rates are far lower as there is mandated counselling once we have left prison. Certainly, there are varying degrees of competency in such programs, and therefore,varying degrees of effectiveness.

Hopefully, in time, and with consistent dialogue and voting in effective representatives, will we see any positive change.