Because of the high correlation between people on community supervision and people with mental illness, all community supervision officers should receive some basic training on working with individuals who have mental illnesses. Such training should include recognizing mental illness; safely and appropriately managing probationers and parolees with mental illnesses; and understanding the treatment options and community resources available. At a minimum, supervision officers should learn how to work with a person with mental illness and how to connect that person to community-based treatment providers. Community corrections administrators and other policymakers should consider implementing cross-training initiatives, which can reinforce learning and improve communication. Where possible, community corrections officials should further consider establishing a specialized office, division, or officer that is dedicated to serving a caseload of probationers or parolees with mental illness. Specialization will allow certain officers to develop a particular ability to work sensitively with people with mental illness and will further enable those officers to build effective working relationships with community providers. Because of the increased training and supervisory responsibility required to meet the needs of offenders with mental illness, the officers in such a division or office should have smaller caseloads.

Community corrections officers should seek to ensure that probationers and parolees who need mental health treatment have access to the providers, medication, and other supportive services they need to function in the community even when engagement in treatment is not a mandated condition of release. ^[1]   Probation and parole officers have an interest in treatment for individuals who are released from prison and jail because, if a person's mental illness is not treated, he or she will almost inevitably be unable to comply with other conditions of release and may decompensate to the point where he or she returns to criminal activity. Ideally, mental health providers and community corrections officers can then work together to reinforce each other's efforts and increase the likelihood of the re-entering population's success in both systems.

Example: Medically Recommended Intensive Supervision, Texas Board of Pardons and Parole and Texas Council on Offenders with Mental Impairments

The Texas Council on Offenders with Mental Impairments (TCOMI) refers eligible inmates with mental and physical illness to a three-member Medically Recommended Intensive Supervision (MRIS) parole board panel to be considered for early release to parole. Individuals selected for the MRIS program are paired with specialized parole officers and parole division counselors who have received training related to mental retardation, mental illness, physical impairments, substance abuse, and community resources. These officers conduct assessments, make appropriate referrals, and ensure that there is intensive follow-up for the treatment needs of the people on their caseload. Services for this special population are provided via TCOMI contracts with the Department of Human Services and TCOMI/TDCJ contracts with local Mental Health/Mental Retardation centers. TCOMI reports back to the parole board at least once a quarter on the status of the program participant. On the basis of these reports, the MRIS panel can modify the conditions of release.

Cooperation between supervision officers and health providers begins with communication. Accordingly, probationers and parolees should be encouraged to release general information about their mental health treatment to their supervising officer. Community corrections officers and service providers should always take care to ensure that they observe legal privacy protections, notably those specified by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). (See Policy Statement 5, Promoting Systems Integration and Coordination, for more on appropriate information sharing protocols.) With brief progress reports from treatment providers including notification when the probationer or parolee has stopped taking medication or attending therapy, or is otherwise heading toward decompensation, the community supervision officer can assist in the effort to get him or her back on track.

Example: Parole Restoration Project, Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (NY)

The Parole Restoration Project (PRP) serves detained technical parole violators with special needs, including individuals with mental illness. PRP staff assess the treatment needs of parolees, link them with community-based service providers, advocate for support of the treatment plan from parole field staff, and, when appropriate, recommend the reinstatement of parole. When PRP staff secure a reinstatement of parole for a person (in lieu of incarceration), the staff facilitate contact with providers and then monitor participant compliance through ongoing contact with community-based service providers. Staff also provide monthly reports to the Division of Criminal Justice Services, the Department of Correction, and the Division of Parole on participant progress, and notify appropriate authorities in instances of noncompliance.

Unlike treatment professionals, community corrections officers can employ a system of rewards and sanctions for probationers and parolees who fail to comply with treatment and decompensate. Probation and parole administrators should therefore provide a system of graduated sanctions for officers to impose on people who violate conditions of release related to their mental health treatment, unless the violation is the commission of a new offense. In particular, rather than turning to re-incarceration as an automatic response to noncompliance, community supervision officers should work with health service providers to provide gradually more intensive treatment interventions, including increased supervision, participation in day treatment programs, additional therapy sessions, or even temporary hospitalization.

Community corrections officers should also offer positive incentives for individuals who adhere to the conditions of their release and their mental health treatment. Such rewards could include curfew extensions, reductions in supervision time, and other forms of assistance that lead to stability and self-sufficiency. Transportation assistance (such as bus or subway tokens) may be included among rewards, but where possible, should be provided as a foundational element of support. Within clear agency-wide guidelines, individual probation or parole officers should be given a measure of discretion to reward or sanction released individuals who have special needs, such as mental illness. (See Policy Statement 29, Graduated Responses, for more on effectively structuring and modifying responses to individuals being supervised in the community.)

In some cases, an individual's decompensation may be attributable to a breakdown in the service delivery system. An individual who has sought mental health treatment but been turned away because of overcrowded waiting lists or who has been unable to attend appointments because of transportation difficulties should not be held accountable before a judge or parole board for violating his or her conditions of release. Service providers and community corrections officers should communicate closely to keep track of service availability or other access issues. Through cross-training or systems integration, community corrections partners may even be able to help mental health partners better understand and meet the needs of the mental health consumers. Caseload specialization can provide the critical perspective necessary to help community supervision officers understand whether a treatment issue is limited to a particular individual or is a systemic and ongoing problem that needs to be addressed at an institutional level.