|
back to Executive Direction Index
MENTAL HEALTH COURTS LEGISLATION
Testimony
of
James W. Jordan, Jr.
Executive Director
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Pennsylvania
Senate
Judiciary Committee
December 3, 2001
Senator Greenleaf and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank
you for scheduling this hearing on Senate Bill 917, which establishes
a system of mental health courts in Pennsylvania; and thank you Senator
Orie for introducing this important legislation.
First, I would like to emphasize that the Pennsylvania Chapter
of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, commonly referred to as
NAMI PA or NAMI Pennsylvania, strongly supports the creation of mental
health courts. Additionally,
NAMI PA supports Senate Bill 917, but believes some minor changes could
strengthen the bill and help ensure that individuals with mental illness
are channeled to appropriate services instead of the state’s prison system.
Mental
health courts are critical to reducing the number of individuals with
mental illness in Pennsylvania’s correctional institutions and to providing
more appropriate treatment for this population.
A 1999 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report indicates that
3 out of 4 mentally ill inmates have been sentenced to time in prison
or probation at least once prior to their current sentence.
That same report found that 16 percent of all inmates in state
and local prisons suffer from mental illness.
This is an increase from an estimate of 10 percent in the late
1980s.
Many
psychology and law enforcement experts believe this increase is primarily
a result of the closing of state psychiatric hospitals. As unbelievable
as it may sound, correctional facilities house more individuals with mental
illness than hospitals and psychiatric institutions.
Again referring to U.S. Justice Department statistics, approximately
283,800 individuals with severe mental illness are currently housed in
our nation’s jails, compared to 70,000 persons with severe mental illness
being served in public psychiatric hospitals, 30% of whom are forensic
patients.
Some
of you may be familiar with the mental health court system recently established
in Allegheny County. A survey
of Allegheny County’s prison indicated that 20 to 25% of their population
was diagnosed with a serious or persistent mental illness.
As a result, the Allegheny County prison was considered the third
largest defacto mental health institution in the country.
The
growing trend to incarcerate the mentally ill places an unrealistic burden
on our corrections facilities, with minimal hope of reducing recidivism.
By channeling individuals with mental illness into mental health
courts, not only do you reduce the burden on our criminal justice system,
but you also help these individuals receive the services that are most
likely to change their behavior.
Senate Bill 917 will help achieve this goal.
However, we would like to recommend consideration of the following
changes:
First,
we believe that the narrow definition of eligibility could prevent some
individuals who clearly need mental health services from getting them.
The current bill may prevent individuals charged with felonies
from being a potential candidate.
While the charge of a felony is serious, there are clearly some
cases where mental illness is the overriding factor.
For example, let me give you the case of a homeless person suffering
from schizophrenia. If approached
by a law enforcement person, this person might become confused and physically
lash out at the officer. Striking
an officer is a felony, but the person clearly needs mental health treatment
and would be more appropriately served through a mental health court.
Throwing them in jail would probably only create more confusion.
We
recommend that the bill be expanded to allow a judge and a prosecutor,
on a case-by-case basis to consider allowing individuals charged with
non-violent felonies or where there is no bodily harm access to the mental
health court.
Second, the definition of mental illness should be more narrowly
defined to ensure that individuals who are not mentally ill, inappropriately
attempt to access the mental health system by claiming they have, for
example, an emotional problem. Additional
language could be included to help make this clarification in statute.
The diagnosis and statistical manual axis I
diagnosis could be used as one screening tool to determine eligibility.
Third, we recommend that the bill make it clear that persons eligible
for mental health court are admitted on a voluntary basis.
The
fourth area we propose for consideration concerns persons with co-occurring
disorders. It has been suggested
that approximately 60 % of persons with mental illness in jails also have
a serious substance abuse problem.
Currently, drug courts have been established to focus on drug offenders.
The proposed mental health courts will focus on persons with mental illnesses. However, we believe that a very
large percentage of the individuals, who will need service from these
courts, may not fit perfectly in either system. We believe that, as the
mental health court is set up, serious consideration should be given to
creating a mechanism that will provide integration of treatment for persons
with mental illness and substance abuse problems.
Fifth,
on page 3, line 12 we believe the word between “charges” and “reduced”
should be “or.” This will provide options for the court, which we believe,
is the intent of this section.
And
last, on page 4, section 4, lines 17 through 20, we request that language
be added which will allow the counties to contract for training with outside
agencies like NAMI PA and others who have developed expertise in providing
forensic training.
Most
importantly, we applaud the efforts being made here today, which will
provide relief to families, and consumers who are in need of appropriate
treatment for mental illness and to our court and jail systems, which
have become overburdened with treatment responsibilities they were never
intended to meet. We strongly encourage that the necessary parallel actions
be taken to help insure that the necessary services and quick or immediate
access to these services be created to complement the mental health court
decisions. This will help to insure the effectiveness of the mental health
courts.
The trend to incarcerate individuals with mental illness is expensive,
ineffective and inhumane. We
commend the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for considering
this bill and urge your ongoing support for the establishment of mental
health courts.
Thank you.
|
