Site maintenance Wednesday, November 13th, 2024. Please note that access to some content and account information will be unavailable on this date.
Skip to main content
Full access
Articles
Published Online: 15 October 2014

Prevalence of Mental Illnesses in U.S. State Prisons: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Two federal reports dating from 1999 and 2006 are by far the most widely cited sources for the prevalence of mental illness among persons in U.S. jails and prisons. To provide a broader picture of the issue, the author undertook a systematic review of 28 articles published between 1989 and 2013. Not only did the review confirm the high prevalence of mental illnesses among prisoners, it identified a litany of health problems associated with the incarceration of persons with mental illness and profound difficulties in finding housing and employment after release.

Abstract

Objective

People with mental illnesses are understood to be overrepresented in the U.S. criminal justice system, and accurate prevalence estimates in corrections settings are crucial for planning and implementing preventive and diversionary policies and programs. Despite consistent scholarly attention to mental illness in corrections facilities, only two federal self-report surveys are typically cited, and they may not represent the extent of relevant data. This systematic review was conducted to develop a broader picture of mental illness prevalence in U.S. state prisons and to identify methodological challenges to obtaining accurate and consistent estimates.

Methods

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Social Services Abstracts, Social Work Abstracts, and Sociological Abstracts were searched. Studies were included if they were published between 1989 and 2013, focused on U.S. state prisons, reported prevalence of diagnoses and symptoms of DSM axis I disorders, and identified screening and assessment strategies.

Results

Twenty-eight articles met inclusion criteria. Estimates of current and lifetime prevalence of mental illnesses varied widely; however, the range of prevalence estimates for particular disorders was much greater—and tended to be higher—in prisons than in community samples.

Conclusions

Definitions of mental illnesses, sampling strategies, and case ascertainment strategies likely contributed to inconsistency in findings. Other reasons for study heterogeneity are discussed, and implications for public health are explored.
People with mental illnesses are overrepresented in the criminal justice system in the United States. This includes jails and prisons as well as probation or parole supervision in the community (17). These settings are rarely appropriate for psychiatric treatment (8). For people with mental illnesses—who face inordinate poverty, unemployment, crime, victimization, family breakdown, homelessness, substance use, general health problems, and stigma (911)—contact with the criminal justice system can exacerbate social marginalization, disrupt treatment and linkage to service systems, or represent the first occasion for treatment. For the corrections system, which was not designed or equipped to provide mental health services, the high prevalence of people with mental illnesses has capacity, budgetary, and staffing ramifications; high numbers of people with mental illnesses affect the provision of constitutionally mandated treatment “inside the walls,” community transition planning and reentry services, and community corrections caseload. More generally, mental illness (and co-occurring substance use disorders) represents a substantial component of the public health burden of mass incarceration—a phenomenon where structural inequalities in race, social class, crime, health, and social services intersect.
The overrepresentation of people with mental illnesses in the corrections system has received consistent scholarly and political attention. Lawmakers, administrators, practitioners, and advocates all depend on valid and reliable estimates of the prevalence of mental illnesses in corrections settings to plan and implement policy and programmatic responses. Such estimates are frequently presented as preambles to policy monographs, white papers, and grant programs that propose or fund efforts to reduce the number of people with mental illnesses in contact with the criminal justice system (12). Yet, only a few studies and federal reports are typically cited, and these may not represent the extent of relevant data.
Among this handful, two reports by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2,3) have been cited at least 1,100 times, according to a recent query of Google Scholar. These reports used self-report surveys and defined mental illnesses as a current mental or emotional condition, a prior overnight stay in a “mental hospital,” or endorsement of symptoms of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (13). Prevalence estimates were three to 12 times higher than in community samples, reaching as high as 64%.
Given the role that such prevalence estimates play in framing programs and policies, past research has sought to inventory and integrate findings from a broader sampling of studies that used more robust case ascertainment strategies. At least seven prior systematic (1418) and nonsystematic (19,20) literature reviews or meta-analyses have been published in the past two decades. These reviews, however, tend to include studies that predate the policies that would contribute to the present program of mass incarceration (the “War on Drugs” and “three strikes” laws [21]), include international findings, combine jail and prison estimates, or focus on a single disorder or on few disorders. The most recent is an important meta-analysis, based on pooled jail and prison data, that provides summary estimates for the prevalence of psychotic disorders and major depression among 33,588 incarcerated individuals worldwide (14). This analysis puts mental illness and incarceration in a global context and addresses high levels of heterogeneity between studies with sophisticated techniques.
In the United States, however, the criminal justice system and mass incarceration are institutions with unique racialized, economic, and political contexts that make cross-country comparisons difficult. Furthermore, prisons and jails are functionally discrete, and the two should not be conflated by researchers, as they entail different mitigation strategies from a public health perspective. [A table available in the online data supplement to this article outlines key differences between jails and prisons.] The purpose of this report is therefore to summarize and synthesize research on the prevalence of mental illnesses in U.S. state prisons. This systematic review is intended to add to the existing body of literature by being both more inclusive and restrictive than prior reviews—allowing for studies not necessarily focused on mental illness and limiting review to state prisons in the United States. This review also explores methodological issues that continue to make obtaining accurate prevalence estimates a challenge for researchers and policy makers alike.

Methods

A systematic review of the scholarly literature was conducted to identify studies that presented prevalence estimates of mental illnesses in prisons. Articles were included if they were published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals between January 1989 and December 2013, focused on U.S. state prisons, reported prevalence estimates of diagnoses or symptoms of DSM axis I disorders, and clearly identified the denominator for prevalence proportions. Articles were excluded if they did not present original data; focused solely on axis II disorders, youths, jails, or foreign prisons; selected samples only of people with mental illnesses or substance use disorders; presented only combined jail and prison prevalence estimates; did not present prevalence estimates (for example, presented only mean scale scores or odds ratios for disorders); or the denominator for prevalence estimates was not apparent. Samples selected on the basis of substance use were excluded given the high rates at which substance use disorders co-occur with mental illnesses among incarcerated individuals (1,22), which would therefore not provide good estimates of mental illnesses per se. A review of the prevalence of substance use disorders in prisons was beyond the scope of this report.
MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Social Services Abstracts, Social Work Abstracts, and Sociological Abstracts were searched. For MEDLINE and PsycINFO, combinations of the following medical subject headings (MeSH) were used: mental disorders, mental health, prevalence, incidence, epidemiology, psychotropic drugs, drug therapy, prisons, and prisoners. For the remaining databases, similar keyword combinations, including axis I disorder terms, were searched.
All articles were uploaded into EndNote×4 software. Duplicate entries were identified with the software’s deduplication function, and entries were then sorted alphabetically by title to visually identify any missed duplicates. The initial search yielded 3,670 nonduplicated articles. Based on titles and abstracts, 3,388 articles did not meet inclusion criteria and were excluded. All articles published between January 1989 and December 2013 contained in previous reviews or meta-analyses were captured in this search. Full texts of the 282 remaining articles were reviewed, and an additional 254 studies were rejected based on exclusion criteria outlined above, one of which (23) was excluded because it re-reported findings from an earlier study included below. Twenty-eight articles were thus included in the review. In rare cases, prevalence proportions were recalculated for this review when a more appropriate denominator was reported (for example, the general facility population rather than a subpopulation). Approximations for summary prevalence estimates were calculated by taking weighted means of all reported diagnoses (any mental illnesses) and of major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and psychotic disorder (serious mental illnesses). Figures were created in R, version 3.1, with the ggplot2 package (24).

Results

Researchers characterized the prevalence of mental illnesses in prisons in three main ways: as a broad category of unspecified psychiatric disability, or “mental health problems,” resulting in four studies (Table 1) (2528); as a diagnosis of a DSM-defined psychiatric disorder, which yielded 19 studies (Table 2) (2947); and as cut points on scales of symptoms or psychiatric distress, which yielded five studies (Table 3) (4852).
Table 1 Prevalence estimates of mental health problems in prisons and key study characteristics from four reviewed studiesa
   Prison sample   
ReferenceStateFacility typeDescriptionN% of facility NAscertainmentDiagnosisMental illness
Dvoskin and Steadman, 1989 (25)NYState prisonsGeneral3,6849.4Survey of correctional health and mental health staffCurrentSignificant psychiatric disability, 10%; severe psychiatric disability, 5%
Haugebrook et al., 2010 (26)NJState prisonsAdults aged ≥5511412bCase recordsnrMental health issue, 36%
Staton et al., 2003 (27)KYCorrectional institute for womenWomen60nrAddiction Severity IndexLifetimeMajor depression, 61.7%; ever prescribed psychotropic medication, 40%; generalized anxiety, 53.3%
Tripodi and Pettus-Davis, 2013 (28)NC2 state prisonsWomen1258.3Addiction Severity IndexLifetimeEver hospitalized for mental health problems, 27.6%
a
nr, not reported
b
Percentage of population aged ≥55
Table 2 Prevalence estimates of diagnosed psychiatric disorders in prisons and key study characteristics from 17 reviewed studies
   Prison sample    
ReferenceStateFacility typeaDescriptionN% of facility NbAscertainmentcNosologyDiagnosisDisorderd
Baillargeon et al., 2000 (29)TXState prisonsGeneral170,215100Physician or midlevel practitioner examinationICD-10CurrentAffective disorders, 3.9%; mental disorders, 10.8%; schizophrenia, 2%
Birecree et al., 1994 (30)ORState prisonsWomen9150MMPI, clinical interviewDSM-III-RCurrentAdjustment disorders, 22%; dysthymia, 6%; generalized anxiety, 1%; major depression, 29%; PTSD, 10%
Black et al., 2004 (31)IAMCCGeneral67nrMINI-PlusDSM-IVCurrentADHD, 10%; agoraphobia, 16%; dysthymia, 12%; generalized anxiety, 4%; hypomania, 3%; major depression, 28%; mania, 4%; panic, 12%; psychotic, 10%; PTSD, 6%; schizophrenia, 3%; social phobia, 6%; specific phobia, 4%
Blitz et al., 2005 (32)eNJState prisonsGeneral17,967100Corrections recordsnrCurrentBipolar, 3.6%; PTSD, .52%
Cahill et al., 2012 (33)COState prisonsGeneral3,962naCoolidge Correctional InventoryDSM-IV-TRCurrentADHD, 10.5%
Collins and Bailey, 1990 (35)fNCState prisonsMale felons1,140nrDIS plus additional PTSD measuresDSM-IIILifetimePTSD, 2.3%
Collins and Bailey, 1990 (36)fNCState prisonsMale felons1,140nrDISDSM-IIILifetimeGeneralized anxiety, 3.4%; major depression, 3%
Daniel and Fleming, 2005 (37)MOState prisonsSuicide attempters112naCorrections recordsDSM-IVCurrentBipolar, 16.1%; major depression, 26.8%
DiCataldo et al., 1995 (38)MAMaximum security prisonGeneral51489Modified RDSDSM-IIICurrentBipolar, 5.5%; major depression, 9%; schizophrenia, 6.5%
Eyestone and Howell, 1994 (39)UTState prisonMen102nrBDI, HRS, four measures for childhood ADHDDSM-III-RCurrentADHD, 25.5%; major depression, 25.5%
Gunter et al., 2008 (40)IAMCCGeneral320nrMINI-PlusDSM-IVCurrentADHD, 21.7%; agoraphobia, 16.6%; bipolar, 22.5%; dysthymia, 1.5%; generalized anxiety, 19.1%; major depression, 16.3%; OCD, 9.7%; panic, 4.4%; PTSD, 12.5%; schizophrenia, 3.7%; social phobia, 10.4%; specific phobia, 4.7%
Hutton et al., 2001 (41)MDCorrectional institution for womenWomen17722SCIDDSM-IVCurrentDysthymia, 8%; major depression, 10%; PTSD, 15%
Jordan et al., 1996 (42)NCCorrectional center for womenFemale felons805100CIDI, clinical reinterviewDSM-III-RCurrentGeneralized anxiety, 1.4%; major depression, 10.8%; panic, 4.7%
Lewis, 2005 (43)CTYork Correctional InstituteHIV-positive women8173gSCIDDSM-IVLifetimeBipolar, 3.7%; generalized anxiety, 1.2%; major depression, 48.1%; OCD, 3.7%; panic, 6.2%; schizoaffective, 1.2%; schizophrenia, 1.2%
Powell et al., 1997 (44)NEState prisonsMen11813DISDSM-III-RCurrentBipolar, 6.8%; dysthymia, 6.8%; generalized anxiety, 5.1%; major depression, 11.9%; mania, 5.1%; panic, 5.1%; PTSD, 27.1%; schizoaffective, 9.3%; schizophrenia, 3.4%
Wolff, 2005 (46)eNJState prisonsMen16,700100Corrections recordsnrCurrentSchizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, 4.3%
Zlotnick, 1997 (47)RICorrectional institution for womenWomen85nrSCID, Clinician-Administered Assessment Interview for AdultsDSM-IVCurrentPTSD, 48.2%
a
MCC, Medical and Classification Center
b
na, not applicable; nr, not reported
c
BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; CIDI, Composite International Diagnostic Interview; DIS, Diagnostic Interview Schedule; HRS, Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale of Depression; MINI-Plus, Mini Neuropsychiatric Interview–Plus; MMPI, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; RDS, Referral Decision Scale; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders
d
ADHD, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; OCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder; PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder
e
Same sample, different articles
f
Same sample, different articles
g
Percentage of HIV-positive women
Table 3 Prevalence estimates of psychiatric symptoms in prisons and key study characteristics from five reviewed studiesa
   Prison sample   
ReferenceStateFacility typeDescriptionStudy N% of facility NAscertainmentbNosologySymptomsc
Boothby and Durham,1999 (48)NCState prisonsGeneral1,494nrBDIDSM-IVModerate depression, 22%; severe depression, 5%
Conklin et al., 2000 (49)MAHampden County Correctional CenterGeneral1,082 men; 116 women90% (men); 10% (women)Comprehensive health interviewnaModerate depression, 20% of men, 53% of women
Fogel and Martin, 1992 (50)NCCorrectional center for womenWomen46nrSTAI-S, CES-DDSM-IVdClinically relevant anxiety, 57%; clinically relevant depression, 67%
O’Keefe, 2008 (51)COState prisonsGeneral8,51348.7MCMI-IIIDSM-IVMajor depression, 5%; generalized anxiety, 35%; PTSD, 8%; dysthymia, 17%; bipolar disorder, 4%; somatoform disorder, 2%; thought disorder, 3%; delusional disorder, 4%
Rowell et al., 2011 (52)nrMaximum security male prisonBlack men134nrBDIDSM-IVModerate depression, 29%; moderate to severe depression, 11%; severe depression, 2%
a
nr, not reported; na, not applicable
b
BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; STAI-S, Speilberger State Anxiety Inventory; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; MCMI-III, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III
c
All symptoms were current, except for the Conklin study (49), which did not report on recency of symptoms.
d
Not applicable for the STAI-S
Tables 13 also present key information on each of the 28 studies in addition to prevalence estimates: facility type (single prison versus all prisons in a given state), target sample (men, women, general prison population, or some special prison subpopulation), method of case ascertainment (from case files or a particular screening or diagnostic instrument), diagnostic classification system, and current versus lifetime prevalence. [Expanded versions of the tables are available in the online data supplement.] Of the 19 studies that presented prevalence estimates of DSM diagnoses, five presented estimates of diagnosis groupings that could not be disaggregated (see supplemental Table 3).
Estimates of the current and lifetime prevalence of mental illnesses in state prisons varied widely. For example, in this review, estimates for current major depression ranged from 9% to 29%; for bipolar disorder, from 5.5% to 16.1%; for panic disorder, from 1% (women) to 5.5% (men and women) to 6.8% (men); and for schizophrenia, from 2% to 6.5%. Figure 1 summarizes current prevalence estimates for all studies that presented findings for psychiatric diagnoses (Table 2 and supplemental Table 3). Figure 2 separates the results from Table 2 and supplemental Table 3 by studies that presented findings on men, men and women, and women, respectively. As a point of comparison, Figures 1 and 2 also display the range of prevalence estimates for select disorders from major community surveys of mental illnesses: the Epidemiologic Catchment Area survey (5355), the National Comorbidity Survey (56,57), the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (5860), the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (6164), and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (65). For example, in Figure 1, seven studies provided prevalence estimates for having attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in prison, which ranged from approximately 10% to 25%. It is clear from Figures 1 and 2 that community prevalence estimates tended to fall near or below the low end of the range of prison prevalence estimates, and the range of prevalence estimates tended to be greater in prisons than in the community.
Figure 1 Prevalence estimates of psychiatric disorder diagnoses from 19 studiesa
a Each diamond (prison) and circle (community) represents an estimate from a single reviewed study. Community estimates are from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area survey, the National Comorbidity Survey, the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Lines are visual aids for the range of estimates.
Figure 2 Prevalence estimates of psychiatric disorder diagnoses, by gendera
a Each diamond (prison) and circle (community) represents an estimate from a single reviewed study. Community estimates are from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area survey, the National Comorbidity Survey, the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Lines are visual aids for the range of estimates.
Figure 1 also shows prevalence estimates for any mental illness and serious mental illness (57,6567). These are shown with estimates from community surveys for comparison. Estimates of any mental illness were calculated by taking weighted means from Table 2 and supplemental Table 3 of all disorder diagnoses. It must be noted that, although reviewed studies do not include diagnoses of substance use disorders, it was not possible to exclude these disorders from most community comparisons of any mental illnesses. Estimates of serious mental illness were calculated by taking weighted means from Table 2 and supplemental Table 3 of major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and psychotic disorders. Because one study (29) was much larger (N=170,215) than the others, it exerted appreciable influence on the weighted means; thus weighted means for any mental illness and serious mental illness were also calculated after excluding this study to provide the high end of the range for these categories in Figures 1 and 2. Because no measure of functional impairment was available in most studies and definitions of serious mental illness varied across surveys, caution is warranted in making inferences from these comparisons.
Several of the studies reviewed are notable for strong methodology. In one study (41), researchers used the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Disorders (SCID) (68) and found prevalence estimates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (15%), major depression (10%), and dysthymia (8%) among incarcerated women that were mostly higher than estimates for the general population. Another study (47), however, used the SCID and clinician-administered assessment interviews and found the prevalence of PTSD among incarcerated women to be 48.2%. Another study (42) used the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (69) with reinterviews by clinicians and found prevalence estimates of major depression (10.8%), generalized anxiety disorder (1.4%), and panic disorder (4.7%) among incarcerated women that were similar to or higher than those in the general population. Using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (70) followed by clinical interviews, another study (30) found prevalence estimates of major depression among incarcerated women to be 29%.

Discussion

This systematic review summarized 28 studies, published between January 1989 and December 2013, of the prevalence of mental illnesses in prisons in 16 states. As a result of inclusive search criteria, this review contains data on the prevalence of mental illnesses among incarcerated subpopulations such as HIV-positive women, individuals aged 55 and older, suicide attempters, and persons under administrative segregation (that is, separated from other inmates for various reasons). This review presents a detailed summary of key study characteristics that may be of interest to researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. These details are likely implicated in the overall inconsistency in findings. Nonetheless, reviewed studies generally confirm what researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and advocates have long understood: the current and lifetime prevalence of numerous mental illnesses is higher among incarcerated populations than in nonincarcerated populations, sometimes by large margins. Yet, the wide variation in prevalence found among even the more robust studies reviewed here warrants caution against generalizations from any single study. Furthermore, with the heterogeneity in samples, states, facilities, study designs, and diagnostic instruments represented in this review, drawing anything more than broad conclusions about the veracity of particular prevalence estimates relative to others would be inappropriate. For example, studies that used validated instruments followed by clinical interviews were likely to be more robust than those that used only correctional health records.
Explaining the lack of consistency among prevalence estimates is no easy task; however, two likely contributing factors warrant discussion here. These can be characterized as issues of measurement and selection. Measurement issues are artifacts of the research process and can be inferred from the characteristics of the studies summarized in this review, whereas selection issues represent “real” phenomena about which one can only speculate based on the data presented here.
In regard to measurement, methodological differences in the definition of mental illness, sampling strategies, and case ascertainment strategies may explain a significant amount of the variation across studies. Measurement differences may arise from a divergence in the disciplinary orientations of researchers and the constraints on access and other resources inherent in conducting research in institutions that are organized for separation, security, and control. Researchers with a forensic orientation, for example, may be less interested than community mental health researchers in strict adherence to DSM-IV diagnostic criteria because the primary concern of forensically oriented researchers may be in identifying administrative needs and population management risks. Researchers may be granted limited access to a single correctional institution or to records for an entire statewide system that contain only rough proxies for mental disorders. During primary data collection, intake procedures may limit the time that can be spent on screening and assessment, which may limit the type of personnel (lay versus clinician) and instruments or scales (screens versus structured diagnostic interviews) that can be used. Indeed, in this review, over a dozen different case ascertainment strategies are represented, each with its own strengths and weaknesses in regard to diagnostic reliability and validity (71). Furthermore, these instruments were based on at least five variations of psychiatric nosology, from DSM-III through DSM-IV-TR and the ICD-10.
Another source of variation in prevalence estimates may stem from differential “selection into prison,” which can be conceptualized as the real forces that influence the “base” or “source” populations that contribute to the composition of prison populations in different jurisdictions. These selection forces are likely determined by myriad macro- and meso-level factors beyond individuals’ propensity for arrest or crime. These include, but are not limited to, the demographic composition of state populations more broadly, political-economic arrangements and trends, criminal codes (such as those that concern drug policies), corrections policies, mental health and substance abuse treatment policies and availability of services, housing policies, policing strategies, and so on.
Of particular interest for criminal justice and mental health policy makers and practitioners is the question of whether increased access to treatment services would reduce the number of people with mental illnesses (and co-occurring substance use disorders) in corrections settings (72). If one accepts the logic that lack of treatment causes people with mental illnesses to make contact with prisons, then states that (on average) provide more and better treatment for co-occurring disorders should have a lower prevalence of mental illnesses in prisons. This is an empirical question that was beyond the scope of this review. Nonetheless, two aspects of this selection issue deserve consideration. First, state prison populations are less “local” than county or municipal jail populations, because state prisons typically receive individuals from across a state. If mental health and substance abuse treatment access and utilization affect the prevalence of mental illnesses in prisons, prison composition is likely to reflect the average impact of these services across numerous jurisdictions within a state. Second, most people in the United States with serious mental illnesses, including substance use disorders, do not receive treatment (7375). For these individuals, contact with the criminal justice system may represent the first occasion for any treatment services (8). Given within- and between-state differences in service quality and access (across urban and rural areas, for example), the impact of these services—or lack thereof—on the prevalence of mental illnesses in prisons may not be straightforward.
One limitation of this review is that it did not include studies that used proxy indicators of mental illnesses, such as corrections department expenditures on medication or clinical staffing. Although treatment is an imperfect proxy for the presence of mental illnesses, in that prevalence estimates based on treatment reflect well-documented disparities in access and utilization (7476), a systematic review of this literature would nonetheless be worthwhile to draw special attention to budgetary issues. Another limitation is that this review did not include gray literature, because the review was designed to focus on peer-reviewed publications. With 50 states, at least 50 departments of corrections with varying degrees of data unification and reporting standards, and varying numbers of prisons per state, systematically obtaining unpublished or low-circulation reports from these agencies and facilities was beyond the scope of this review. Such a project clearly would be a crucial component of future research.
Reasons for the high prevalence of mental illnesses in prisons have been explored in depth elsewhere (8,10,7781). In response, specialized programs have been in effect for over a decade that are designed to divert people with mental illnesses from contact with law enforcement, courts, and corrections to the community; to improve reentry after incarceration; and to reduce recidivism (8286). Despite these efforts, the prevalence of mental illnesses in prisons remains high. Our ability to accurately measure the impact of such programs, in addition to changes in more fundamental causes of the prevalence of mental illnesses in prisons (such as drug policies), depends largely on the sorts of estimates summarized in this review. Also of interest to policy makers and practitioners is the fact that most of the roughly 2.3 million incarcerated individuals in the United States (87) will be released, contributing to the approximately 4.8 million individuals—a majority of the U.S. corrections population—who reside in the community on probation and parole (88). About 43% of these individuals will be detained again within three years (89). As such, accurately measuring the prevalence of mental illnesses “inside the walls” is essential for community corrections planning. Given the existence of brief, well-validated instruments that screen for mental illnesses, such as the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen (90), K6 (67), and Correctional Mental Health Screen (91), reporting standards for routine assessments upon intake are clearly feasible. Even in the absence of such standards, prison administrators, working in collaboration with mental health policy makers and practitioners, can (at relatively low cost) calibrate such screening instruments to their populations and begin collecting valid and reliable prevalence estimates.

Conclusions

Incarceration creates or exacerbates chronic incapacitation among those who experience it and their families and communities well beyond the effects of mental illness (92). Incarcerated individuals are at increased risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, hepatitis, tuberculosis, sexual violence, drug use, and suicide (92). Incarcerated populations are now aging populations, with sentences increasingly exceeding life expectancies (92). Material and psychosocial consequences are also grim; many formerly incarcerated individuals are denied public housing, employment in numerous fields, income support, education subsidies, supplemental nutrition assistance, and participation in civic institutions such as jury duty and political franchise (92). These concerns have public health ramifications in and of themselves but have additional implications for individuals with mental illnesses, who already face numerous barriers to community integration (8,93). The United States incarcerates a higher rate and number of individuals than any other country (87). As such, no discussion of community mental health in the United States is complete without consideration of the prevalence of mental illness within prisons and the policies that contribute to it.

Acknowledgments and disclosures

This work was supported by grant 5-T32-MH013043 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The author thanks Susie Hoffman, Dr.P.H., and Sharon Schwartz, Ph.D., for helpful feedback and thoughtful advice on drafts of this review.
The author reports no competing interests.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material (862_ds001.pdf)

References

1.
Abram KM, Teplin LA, McClelland GM: Comorbidity of severe psychiatric disorders and substance use disorders among women in jail. American Journal of Psychiatry 160:1007–1010, 2003
2.
Ditton P: Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Washington, DC, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999
3.
James DJ, Glaze LE: Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Washington, DC, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006
4.
Skeem JL, Louden JE: Toward evidence-based practice for probationers and parolees mandated to mental health treatment. Psychiatric Services 57:333–342, 2006
5.
Steadman HJ, Osher FC, Robbins PC, et al.: Prevalence of serious mental illness among jail inmates. Psychiatric Services 60:761–765, 2009
6.
Teplin LA, Abram KM, McClelland GM: Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women: I. pretrial jail detainees. Archives of General Psychiatry 53:505–512, 1996
7.
Teplin LA: The prevalence of severe mental disorder among male urban jail detainees: comparison with the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program. American Journal of Public Health 80:663–669, 1990
8.
Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project. New York, Council of State Governments, 2002. Available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197103.pdf
9.
Fisher WH, Drake RE: Forensic mental illness and other policy misadventures: commentary on “Extending Assertive Community Treatment to Criminal Justice Settings: Origins, Current Evidence, and Future Directions.” Community Mental Health Journal 43:545–548, 2007
10.
Draine J, Salzer MS, Culhane DP, et al.: Role of social disadvantage in crime, joblessness, and homelessness among persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 53:565–573, 2002
11.
Link BG, Cullen FT, Struening E, et al.: A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders: an empirical assessment. American Sociological Review 54:400, 1989
12.
Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program. Washington, DC, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2013. Available at www.bja.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_ID=66. Accessed on August 15, 2013
13.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed, text rev. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000
14.
Fazel S, Seewald K: Severe mental illness in 33,588 prisoners worldwide: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry 200:364–373, 2012
15.
Fazel S, Danesh J: Serious mental disorder in 23000 prisoners: a systematic review of 62 surveys. Lancet 359:545–550, 2002
16.
Goff A, Rose E, Rose S, et al.: Does PTSD occur in sentenced prison populations? A systematic literature review. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 17:152–162, 2007
17.
Lamb HR, Weinberger LE: Persons with severe mental illness in jails and prisons: a review. Psychiatric Services 49:483–492, 1998
18.
Sirdifield C, Gojkovic D, Brooker C, et al.: A systematic review of research on the epidemiology of mental health disorders in prison populations: a summary of findings. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 20:S78–S101, 2009
19.
Diamond PM, Wang EW, Holzer CE, et al.: The prevalence of mental illness in prison. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 29:21–40, 2001
20.
Brink J: Epidemiology of mental illness in a correctional system. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 18:536–541, 2005
21.
Alexander M: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York, New Press, 2010
22.
Abram KM, Teplin LA: Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: implications for public policy. American Psychologist 46:1036–1045, 1991
23.
Westmoreland P, Gunter T, Loveless P, et al.: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in men and women newly committed to prison: clinical characteristics, psychiatric comorbidity, and quality of life. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 54:361–377, 2010
24.
Wickham H: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, Springer, 2009
25.
Dvoskin JA, Steadman HJ: Chronically mentally ill inmates: the wrong concept for the right services. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 12:203–210, 1989
26.
Haugebrook S, Zgoba KM, Maschi T, et al.: Trauma, stress, health, and mental health issues among ethnically diverse older adult prisoners. Journal of Correctional Health Care 16:220–229, 2010
27.
Staton M, Leukefeld C, Webster JM: Substance use, health, and mental health: problems and service utilization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 47:224–239, 2003
28.
Tripodi SJ, Pettus-Davis C: Histories of childhood victimization and subsequent mental health problems, substance use, and sexual victimization for a sample of incarcerated women in the US. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 36:30–40, 2013
29.
Baillargeon J, Black SA, Pulvino J, et al.: The disease profile of Texas prison inmates. Annals of Epidemiology 10:74–80, 2000
30.
Birecree EA, Bloom JD, Leverette MD, et al.: Diagnostic efforts regarding women in Oregon’s prison system: a preliminary report. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 38:217–230, 1994
31.
Black DW, Arndt S, Hale N, et al.: Use of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) as a screening tool in prisons: results of a preliminary study. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 32:158–162, 2004
32.
Blitz CL, Wolff N, Pan K-Y, et al.: Gender-specific behavioral health and community release patterns among New Jersey prison inmates: implications for treatment and community reentry. American Journal of Public Health 95:1741–1746, 2005
33.
Cahill BS, Coolidge FL, Segal DL, et al.: Prevalence of ADHD and its subtypes in male and female adult prison inmates. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 30:154–166, 2012
34.
Caverley SJ: Older mentally ill inmates: a descriptive study. Journal of Correctional Health Care 12:262–268, 2006
35.
Collins JJ, Bailey SL: Traumatic stress disorder and violent behavior. Journal of Traumatic Stress 3:203–220, 1990
36.
Collins JJ, Bailey SL: Relationship of mood disorders to violence. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 178:44–47, 1990
37.
Daniel AE, Fleming J: Serious suicide attempts in a state correctional system and strategies to prevent suicide. Journal of Psychiatry and Law 33:227–247, 2005
38.
DiCataldo F, Greer A, Profit WE: Screening prison inmates for mental disorder: an examination of the relationship between mental disorder and prison adjustment. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 23:573–585, 1995
39.
Eyestone LL, Howell RJ: An epidemiological study of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and major depression in a male prison population. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 22:181–193, 1994
40.
Gunter TD, Arndt S, Wenman G, et al.: Frequency of mental and addictive disorders among 320 men and women entering the Iowa prison system: use of the MINI-Plus. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36:27–34, 2008
41.
Hutton HE, Treisman GJ, Hunt WR, et al.: HIV risk behaviors and their relationship to posttraumatic stress disorder among women prisoners. Psychiatric Services 52:508–513, 2001
42.
Jordan BK, Schlenger WE, Fairbank JA, et al.: Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women: II. convicted felons entering prison. Archives of General Psychiatry 53:513–519, 1996
43.
Lewis CF: Post-traumatic stress disorder in HIV-positive incarcerated women. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 33:455–464, 2005
44.
Powell TA, Holt JC, Fondacaro KM: The prevalence of mental illness among inmates in a rural state. Law and Human Behavior 21:427–438, 1997
45.
Way BB, Sawyer DA, Lilly SN, et al.: Characteristics of inmates who received a diagnosis of serious mental illness upon entry to New York State prison. Psychiatric Services 59:1335–1337, 2008
46.
Wolff N: Community reintegration of prisoners with mental illness: a social investment perspective. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 28:43–58, 2005
47.
Zlotnick C: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), PTSD comorbidity, and childhood abuse among incarcerated women. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 185:761–763, 1997
48.
Boothby JL, Durham TW: Screening for depression in prisoners using the Beck Depression Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior 26:107–124, 1999
49.
Conklin TJ, Lincoln T, Tuthill RW: Self-reported health and prior health behaviors of newly admitted correctional inmates. American Journal of Public Health 90:1939–1941, 2000
50.
Fogel CI, Martin SL: The mental health of incarcerated women. Western Journal of Nursing Research 14:30–40, discussion 41–47, 1992
51.
O’Keefe ML: Administrative segregation from within: a corrections perspective. Prison Journal 88:123–143, 2008
52.
Rowell TL, Draine J, Wu E: Depression in a random sample of incarcerated African-American men. Psychiatric Services 62:103–104, 2011
53.
Regier DA, Narrow WE, Rae DS, et al.: The de facto US mental and addictive disorders service system: Epidemiologic Catchment Area prospective 1-year prevalence rates of disorders and services. Archives of General Psychiatry 50:85–94, 1993
54.
Robins LN, Regier DA (eds): Psychiatric Disorders in America: The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. New York, Free Press, 1991
55.
Robins LN, Helzer JE, Weissman MM, et al.: Lifetime prevalence of specific psychiatric disorders in three sites. Archives of General Psychiatry 41:949–958, 1984
56.
Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, et al.: Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry 51:8–19, 1994
57.
Kessler RC, Berglund PA, Bruce ML, et al.: The prevalence and correlates of untreated serious mental illness. Health Services Research 36:987–1007, 2001
58.
Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, et al.: Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry 62:617–627, 2005
59.
Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, et al.: Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry 62:593–602, 2005
60.
National Comorbidity Survey: NCS-R appendix tables: Table 1. Lifetime prevalence of DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI disorders by sex and cohort. Table 2. Twelve-month prevalence of DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI disorders by sex and cohort. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard Medical School, 2007. Available at www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/ftpdir/table_ncsr_LTprevgenderxage.pdf and www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/ftpdir/table_ncsr_12monthprevgenderxage.pdf
61.
Grant BF, Stinson FS, Dawson DA, et al.: Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry 61:807–816, 2004
62.
Hasin DS, Goodwin RD, Stinson FS, et al.: Epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcoholism and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry 62:1097–1106, 2005
63.
Grant BF, Hasin DS, Stinson FS, et al.: Prevalence, correlates, co-morbidity, and comparative disability of DSM-IV generalized anxiety disorder in the USA: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Psychological Medicine 35:1747–1759, 2005
64.
Pietrzak RH, Goldstein RB, Southwick SM, et al.: Prevalence and axis I comorbidity of full and partial posttraumatic stress disorder in the United States: results from wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 25:456–465, 2011
65.
Results From the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2003
66.
Kessler R, Berglund PA, Zhao S, et al.: The 12-month Prevalence and Correlates of Serious Mental Illness (SMI). Edited by, Manderscheid R, Sonnenschein M. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1996
67.
Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, et al.: Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry 60:184–189, 2003
68.
First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, et al: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Ed (SCID-I/P). New York, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Department of Biometrics Research, 2002
69.
Kessler RC, Andrews G, Mroczek D, et al.: The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview short-form (CIDI-SF). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 7:171–185, 1998
70.
Butcher J, Dahlstrom W, Graham J, et al.: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2) Manual for Administration and Scoring. Minneapolis, Minn, University of Minneapolis Press, 1989
71.
Peters RH, Bartoi MG, Sherman PB: Screening and Assessment of Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System. New York, Delmar, 2008
72.
Van Dorn RA, Desmarais SL, Petrila J, et al.: Effects of outpatient treatment on risk of arrest of adults with serious mental illness and associated costs. Psychiatric Services 64:856–862, 2013
73.
Demyttenaere K, Bruffaerts R, Posada-Villa J, et al.: Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for treatment of mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. JAMA 291:2581–2590, 2004
74.
Mojtabai R: Trends in contacts with mental health professionals and cost barriers to mental health care among adults with significant psychological distress in the United States: 1997–2002. American Journal of Public Health 95:2009–2014, 2005
75.
Kessler RC, Demler O, Frank RG, et al.: Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders, 1990 to 2003. New England Journal of Medicine 352:2515–2523, 2005
76.
Cook BL, McGuire T, Miranda J: Measuring trends in mental health care disparities, 2000–2004. Psychiatric Services 58:1533–1540, 2007
77.
Fisher WH, Silver E, Wolff N: Beyond criminalization: toward a criminologically informed framework for mental health policy and services research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 33:544–557, 2006
78.
Frank RG, Glied SA: Better but Not Well: Mental Health Policy in the United States Since 1950. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006
79.
Lamb HR, Weinberger LE: The shift of psychiatric inpatient care from hospitals to jails and prisons. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 33:529–534, 2005
80.
Prins SJ: Does transinstitutionalization explain the overrepresentation of people with serious mental illnesses in the criminal justice system? Community Mental Health Journal 47:716–722, 2011
81.
Steadman HHJ, Monahan J, Duffee B, et al.: The impact of state mental hospital deinstitutionalization on United States prison populations, 1968–1978. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 75:474–490, 1984
82.
Osher F, Steadman HJ, Barr H: A best practice approach to community reentry from jails for inmates with co-occurring disorders: the Apic model. Crime and Delinquency 49:79–96, 2003
83.
Prins SJ, Draper L: Improving Outcomes for People With Mental Illnesses Under Community Corrections Supervision: A Guide to Research-Informed Policy and Practice. New York, Council of State Governments, 2009
84.
Schwarzfeld M, Reuland M, Plotkin M: Improving Responses to People With Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of a Specialized Law Enforcement–Based Program. New York, Council of State Governments, 2008
85.
Steadman HJ, Naples M: Assessing the effectiveness of jail diversion programs for persons with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 23:163–170, 2005
86.
Thompson M, Osher F, Tomasini-Joshi D: Improving Responses to People With Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court. New York, Council of State Governments, 2008
87.
Walmsley R: World Prison Population List. London, International Centre for Prison Studies, 2011
88.
Maruschak LM, Parks E: Probation and Parole in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012
89.
State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons. Washington, DC, Pew Center on the States, 2011
90.
Steadman HJ, Scott JE, Osher F, et al.: Validation of the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen. Psychiatric Services 56:816–822, 2005
91.
Ford JD, Trestman RL, Wiesbrock VH, et al.: Validation of a brief screening instrument for identifying psychiatric disorders among newly incarcerated adults. Psychiatric Services 60:842–846, 2009
92.
Drucker E: A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America. New York, New Press, 2011
93.
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Pub no SMA-03-3832. Rockville, Md, Department of Health and Human Services, President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Psychiatric Services
Go to Psychiatric Services

Cover: The Nation Makers, by Howard Pyle 1903. Oil on canvas. Collection Brandywine River Museum of Art, purchased through a grant from the Mabel Pew Myrin Trust, 1984.

Psychiatric Services
Pages: 862 - 872
PubMed: 24686574

History

Published in print: July 2014
Published online: 15 October 2014

Authors

Details

Seth J. Prins, M.P.H.
Mr. Prins is with the Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City (e-mail: [email protected]).

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share