Mental Illness Treatment in Prisons: Costs and Policy Solutions
This paper examines the persistent challenge of providing adequate mental health treatment to incarcerated individuals in the United States. Rooted in the failures of deinstitutionalization that began in the 1960s, the paper reviews the moral dilemmas criminal justice authorities face when allocating scarce mental health resources, analyzes the substantial financial costs of treating mentally ill prisoners compared to community-based alternatives, and explores promising evidence-based initiatives such as specialized housing programs. The paper also considers how incarceration itself can worsen or generate mental disorders, threatening both prisoner welfare and public safety upon release. It concludes by calling for dedicated federal funding to address this largely hidden public health crisis.
- Introduction: Background on deinstitutionalization and paper's purpose
- Moral Dilemmas in Treating Mentally Ill Prisoners: Resource scarcity forces difficult ethical allocation decisions
- Costs Associated with Mental Health Care in Prisons: Prison treatment far costlier than community-based alternatives
- Promising Policies and Programs: Evidence-based initiatives including specialized housing units
- Conclusion: Call for federal funding to address hidden mental health crisis
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds the argument in historical context by linking present-day challenges to the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, giving the analysis meaningful depth.
- Balances multiple dimensions of the problem — moral, financial, and policy-based — rather than treating it as a single-faceted issue.
- Uses a direct cost comparison ($31,000 incarceration vs. $10,000 community-based) to make an abstract policy argument concrete and persuasive.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of a block quotation from a government source (U.S. Department of Justice) to lend institutional authority to a central claim — that untreated mental illness in prisons endangers both individuals and the public. This technique reinforces the argument with an external, credible voice rather than relying solely on the author's analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a clear literature-review structure: an introduction that establishes purpose and scope, three body sections (moral dilemmas, costs, and promising programs) that each address a distinct dimension of the problem, and a conclusion that synthesizes findings and issues a policy recommendation. This logical progression — from problem identification to financial analysis to solutions — is a reliable model for undergraduate policy-oriented writing.
Introduction
The deinstitutionalization trend that began during the 1960s was based on the notion that people suffering from mental illness would be able to receive better treatment for their disorder in community-based facilities while also saving state and federal governments tens of millions of dollars in the process (Lamb & Weinberger, 2019). This movement, however, ultimately backfired, and the incidence of individuals with mental illness becoming involved with the criminal justice system remains a serious problem for American policymakers and citizens alike today.
The purpose of this paper is to review the relevant literature to determine the types of problems typically experienced by the criminal justice system in the provision of timely and effective treatment for incarcerated mentally ill offenders, and what moral dilemmas arise as a result. In addition, an analysis of the costs associated with treating mentally ill prisoners is followed by a discussion of promising initiatives designed to address this problem. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning the treatment of mentally ill prisoners is presented in the conclusion.
Moral Dilemmas in Treating Mentally Ill Prisoners
Notwithstanding the need to provide incarcerated individuals with the maximum opportunities for rehabilitation, razor-thin law enforcement budgets and an increase in the prevalence of mental health disorders have created a scenario in which the best most prisons can expect to accomplish is keeping staff and prisoners safe and healthy. Moreover, the prevalence of mental health disorders has been on the rise in recent years due to the combination of existential threats: a once-in-a-century global pandemic, a nation confronted with violent civil unrest, and a devastating economic downturn — all of which have strained the capacity of the health care community to its limits.
Against this backdrop, it is clear that mentally ill prisoners are at a severe disadvantage in terms of receiving the health care interventions they need, owing to a fundamental scarcity of taxpayer resources. This situation also means that criminal justice authorities are faced with a moral dilemma in terms of selecting which prisoners receive whatever mental health treatment resources are available, and what criteria should be applied to determine eligibility.
Costs Associated with Mental Health Care in Prisons
The costs associated with treating mentally ill prisoners are staggering, and even minimal mental health care can rapidly drain a prison's entire budget for medical services. Providing incarcerated individuals who suffer from mental disorders with care costs around $31,000 per year, whereas providing those same individuals with community-based mental health services costs only approximately $10,000 annually (Gilbert, 2015). These are important considerations, since current estimates indicate that as many as one in every six people incarcerated each year already suffers from a serious mental disorder, and incarceration invariably worsens these conditions over time (Addressing mental illness in the criminal justice system, 2009).
Furthermore, due to the traumatic conditions of imprisonment — including far higher rates of physical violence, suboptimal nutrition, and isolation that are characteristic of many prisons in the United States today — even individuals who enjoy comparatively sound mental health upon being incarcerated may develop serious mental disorders, which will then require the allocation of even more scarce resources for treatment. In this regard, the U.S. Department of Justice (2009) emphasizes that:
Many offenders with mental illnesses don't receive treatment during incarceration. Without treatment, conditions can worsen. Offenders can become a greater threat to themselves and to others when they leave jail or prison. This is not only a disservice to the offenders and their families; it is a threat to public safety. (Addressing mental illness in the criminal justice system, 2009, p. 1).
In sum, providing adequate treatment for incarcerated individuals suffering from mental health disorders represents a daunting enterprise, but there are promising initiatives available that can help alleviate this drain on criminal justice resources, as discussed below.
Conclusion
The research showed that mentally ill individuals tend to become involved with the criminal justice system at much higher rates than the general population, and the economic and social costs associated with treating this population extend far beyond cellhouse bars. The research also showed that even otherwise mentally healthy individuals may develop serious mental disorders due to the deleterious effects of incarceration, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is expected to further exacerbate mental health disorders among the general population well into the foreseeable future.
Taken together, it is reasonable to conclude that this is one of the most pressing problems facing the citizens of the United States today, yet it remains largely hidden from public scrutiny. Based on the foregoing, adequate funding for this critical need must be prioritized at the federal level before the problem spirals further out of control.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.