Accessing Behavioral Health Services and the Justice-Involved: The Significance of Ecological Considerations

Abstract

Knowledge and understanding of reentry challenges, reentry programming, and reentry evaluations is primarily limited to formerly incarcerated persons (FIPs) who return to urban areas despite the structural and contextual differences between urban and non-urban locales. These differences may be especially salient when it comes to access to services for behavioral health needs that, if left untreated, increase the likelihood of recidivism. Reentry planning prior to release has been found to be beneficial, as well as providing direct linkages to services post-release. However, barriers or competing priorities may keep FIPs from accessing needed behavioral health services after release. To increase the probability for more successful post-release transitions, studies need to determine and understand soon-to-be-released inmates’ likelihood of utilizing these services. Thus, the purpose of this research was to examine the importance of demographic characteristics, ecological factors, and utilization of treatment services for drugs, alcohol, mental health, and anger management prior to release to FIPs’ intent to receive these services after their release. Data was collected from 173 individuals incarcerated in either a prison or a community-based correctional facility (CBCF) and analyzed via logistic regressions. Results suggest that being female and utilization of services while incarcerated predicted intent to use drug and mental health services after release; not surprisingly, crime type and type of facility was predictive of intent to utilize anger management services post release; type of facility, and interaction of housing and concentrated disadvantage was predictive of intent to take advantage of alcohol treatment services. These findings have micro, mezzo, and macro implications and are especially relevant given the limitations of resource availability and accessibility in urban and non-urban areas. Streamlining these services to FIPs’ needs and building community capacity to meet specific needs identified by FIPs is more likely to engage them and increase their likelihood to improve reentry outcomes.

Keywords

• Non-urban areas
• Self-determination
• Social ecology
• Behavioral health services
• Formerly incarcerated persons