The Perceived Impact of Sequential Intercept Mapping on Communities Collaborating to Address Adults with Mental Illness in the Criminal Justice System

  • Natalie BonfineEmail author
  • Nikhil Nadler
Original Article


Sequential intercept mapping is an approach to address the overrepresentation of adults with mental illness in the criminal justice system. This approach follows the sequential intercept model, a nationally recognized framework conceptualizing the linear movement of people with mental illness through the criminal justice system. During the sequential intercept mapping process, community stakeholders identify service and policy gaps and opportunities to address the needs of this target population. This qualitative study describes the perceived impact of sequential intercept mapping among community stakeholders. Sequential intercept mapping appears to be well-received, with the potential to improve collaboration and enhance community policy and practices.


Sequential intercept model Sequential intercept mapping Cross-systems collaboration Jail diversion 



Earlier versions of this work were presented at the American Psychology-Law Society’s annual conference in March 2018 and the American Public Health Association’s annual conference in November 2017. The authors would like to thank Katherine Pawlicki and Andrew Skrinyer for their participation in data transcription and coding, and Mark R. Munetz for his review and comments on an earlier draft of this paper.


This study was funded by a Justice Mental Health Collaboration Program expansion grant (Grant Number 2015-MO-BX-0020) awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance through the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services (Mark R. Munetz, MD, Principal Investigator).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Institutional Review Board at Northeast Ohio Medical University approved this study (protocol #16-025).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Abreu, D., Parker, T. W., Noether, C. D., Steadman, H. J., & Case, B. A. (2017). Revising the paradigm for jail diversion for people with mental and substance use disorders: Intercept 0. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 35, 380–395. Scholar
  2. Baillargeon, J., Penn, J. V., Knight, K., Harzke, A. J., Baillargeon, G., & Becker, E. A. (2010). Risk of reincarceration among prisoners with co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 37(4), 367–374. Scholar
  3. Bonfine, N., Munetz, M. R., & Simera, R. H. (2018). Sequential intercept mapping: Developing systems-level solutions for the opioid epidemic. Psychiatric Services, 69(11), 1124–1126. Scholar
  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Special report: Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Publication No. NCJ 213600. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2017). Special report: Indicators of mental health problems reported by prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12. Publication No. NCJ 250612. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  6. Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence. (2018). Sequential intercept model. Retrieved July 13, 2018 from
  7. Garson, G.D. (2016). Validity and reliability. In: Statistical Associates Blue Book Series. Asheboro: Statistical Associates PublishingGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffin, P. A., Heilbrun, K., Mulvey, E. P., DeMatteo, D., & Schubert, C. A. (2015). The sequential intercept model and criminal justice: Promoting community alternatives for individuals with serious mental illness. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heilbrun, K., Goldstein, N. E. S., DeMatteo, D., Newsham, R., Gale-Bentz, E., Cole, L., et al. (2017). The sequential intercept model and juvenile justice: Review and prospectus. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 35, 319–336. Scholar
  10. Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Nutt Williams, E., & Hess, S. A. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 1–25. Scholar
  11. Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Nutt Williams, E. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572. Scholar
  12. Metzger, L., Ahalt, C., Kushel, M., Riker, A., & Williams, B. (2018). Mobilizing cross-sector community partnerships to address the needs of criminal justice-involved older adults: A framework for action. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 13(3–4), 173–184. Scholar
  13. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Munetz, M. R., & Griffin, P. A. (2006). Use of the sequential intercept model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 57(4), 544–549. Scholar
  15. Ohio Development Services Agency. (2018). Metropolitan statistical area map. Retrieved May 16, 2018 from
  16. Osher, F., D’Amora, D. A., Plotkin, M., Jarrett, N., & Eggleston, A. (2012). Adults with behavioral health needs under correctional supervision: A shared framework for reducing recidivism and promoting recovery. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center.Google Scholar
  17. Peters, R. H., Kremling, J., Bekman, N. M., & Caudy, M. S. (2012). Co-occurring disorders in treatment-based courts: Results of a national study. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 60, 800–820. Scholar
  18. Pinals, D. (2010). Veterans and the justice system: The next forensic frontier. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 38(2), 163–167.Google Scholar
  19. Silverman, B., Champney, J., Steber, S., & Zubritsky, C. (2015). Collaborating for consensus: Considerations for convening coalition stakeholders to promote a gender-based approach to addressing the health needs of sex workers. Evaluation and Program Planning, 51, 17–26. Scholar
  20. Steadman, H. J. (1992). Boundary spanners: A key component for the effective interactions of the justice and mental health systems. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 75–87. Scholar
  21. Steadman, H. J., Osher, F., Clark Robbins, P., Case, B., & Samuels, S. (2009). Prevalence of serious mental illness among jail detainees. Psychiatric Services, 60(6), 761–765. Scholar
  22. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). Creating a trauma-informed criminal justice system for women: Why and how. US Department of Health and Human Services. Report no. NCJ241427. Rockville.Google Scholar
  23. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Screening and assessment of co-occurring disorders in the justice system. Publication No. (SMA)-15-4930. US Department of Health and Human Services. Rockville.Google Scholar
  24. Twenty-First Century Cures Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-255, Subtitle B, § 14021 (2016).Google Scholar
  25. Vogel, W. M., Noether, C. D., & Steadman, H. J. (2007). Preparing communities for re-entry of offenders with mental illness: the ACTION approach. Pp. 167-188 in Mental Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System. The Hawthorn Press, Inc.
  26. Wasser, T. J., Pollard, D. Fisk, & Srihari, V. (2017). First-episode psychosis and the criminal justice system: Using a sequential intercept framework to highlight risks and opportunities. Psychiatric Services, 68(10), 994–996. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryNortheast Ohio Medical UniversityRootstownUSA
  2. 2.College of MedicineNortheast Ohio Medical UniversityRootstownUSA

Personalised recommendations