Cited by 106Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Law and PolicyCriminal Justice and Penology

Pre‐arrest diversion of people with mental illness: literature review and international survey

Hartford, Kathleen, Carey, Robert, Mendonca, James·2006·Behavioral Sciences & the Law

Abstract

Mental health diversion is a process where alternatives to criminal sanctions are made available to persons with mental illness (PMI) who have come into contact with the law. One form of mental health diversion is pre‐arrest, in which the police use their discretion in laying charges. Concomitant with the growth of pre‐arrest diversion programs is a growing body of research devoted to the phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to review the existing literature of pre‐arrest diversion, and to report the results of an international survey of pre‐arrest diversion programs we conducted to identify evidence‐based practices. On the basis of our review and survey, we note that successful pre‐trial programs appear to integrate relevant mental health, substance abuse and criminal justice agencies by having regular meetings between key personnel from the various agencies. Often, a liaison person with a mandate to effect strong leadership plays a key role in the coordination of various agencies. Streamlining services through the creation of an emergency drop‐off center with a no‐refusal policy for police cases is seen as crucial. While there is some indication that mentally ill offenders benefit from their participation in this form of diversion, the evaluative literature has not yet achieved the “critical mass” necessary to create generalizable, evidence‐based knowledge. The absence of generally agreed‐upon outcomes could lead to the inequitable application of basic principles of diversion. We suggest that indicators, benchmarks, and outcomes must be agreed upon if a comprehensive understanding of pre‐arrest programs is to emerge. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bsl.738

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartford, K., Carey, R., & Mendonca, J.
Affiliations
Lawson Health Research Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Hartford, Kathleen
Venue
Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
845-856
ISSN
  • 0735-3936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0798
OpenAlex
W2001339965
Cited by
106
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
16.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Sciences & the Law (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Law and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
people with mental disorders, criminal justice, police discretion, inter-agency coordination, substance abuse, evidence-based practice, program outcomes, benchmark
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Commitment of Mentally Ill, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Humans, Prisoners, Referral and Consultation, Comorbidity, Treatment Outcome, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review