Sequential Intercept Mapping (SIM)
This workshop is designed to tap into local expertise by bringing together key stakeholders to develop a “map” that illustrates how people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders come in contact with and flow through the local criminal justice system. This map identifies opportunities and resources for diverting people to treatment without compromising community safety and indicates gaps in services. The SIM workshop is based on the Sequential Intercept Model developed through SAMHSA’s GAINS Center at Policy Research Associates (PRA).
Objectives
-
OCBHJI provides examples of successful systems integration, promising programs, and emergent collaborations from around the United States
-
Optimize use of local resources
-
Further delivery of appropriate services
-
Assist communities in identifying gaps in service
-
Establish local priorities for change
Options for Workshops
There are currently three options for conducting a SIM Workshop.
SIM Mapping Progress in Oregon
The map below shows the history of SIM mapping in Oregon counties from January 2018 through present (updated quarterly). Use the slider to the right of the map to select a month, or press the right arrow button to animate the timeline.
Summary of Gaps and Priorities
This summary of Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) mappings reflects the top 10 gaps and priorities key local stakeholders identified across Oregon.
​
The items identified at a single mapping might be a source of concern in another county, and yet other issues were more salient to the group of stakeholders on a given day. Priorities are a reflection of what the stakeholders were going to start working on as part of a strategic plan to address the gaps identified in the SIM. In order to be able to intervene in a focused manner, the plans could not address all the identified gaps at one time, thus the priority list count may look different than the gap list.
​
The summary also reflects SIMs over a long span of time (2010 to most recent quarter) and some counties have re-mapped as part of a continuous improvement process, therefore the gaps and priorities in some areas might have changed over time.
SIM Gaps Ranked by Identifying Counties 2010-2021
(Out of 29 county mapping exercises)
Hover over list items for examples of each category.
1.
Availability and access of local mental health (MH) and substance use disorder services (SUD)
e.g., access to CMHPs, detox services, crisis services, and respite.
29
2.
Information and data sharing
e.g., HIPAA compliance, program and system issues, ROIs, and data exchange barriers.
28
3.
Housing issues and services
e.g., available housing stock, low income housing programs (to include HUD and CAPS), and housing barriers at local, county and state levels.
27
4.
Reentry and discharge services
e.g., connectivity from facility to community resources from jail or hospital.
24
5.
Staff shortages
e.g., staff shortages or staff retention issues.
24
6.
Jail services
e.g., jail programming related to behavioral health.
23
Gaps
7.
Court Services
e.g., behavioral health court programming.
21
8.
Specialized training
e.g., training for all facets regarding the integration of criminal justice and behavioral health, including trauma informed care, officer wellness, and mental health first aid.
20
9.
CIT specialized training and protocols
e.g. Crisis Intervention Team training for law enforcement.
16
10.
Transportation
e.g., public transportation, using law enforcement officers to transport, private company transportation.
16
SIM Priorities Ranked by Identifying Counties 2010-2021
(Out of 29 county mapping exercises) ​
Hover over list items for examples of each category.
1.
Availability and access of local mental health and substance use disorder services
e.g., access to CMHPs, detox services, crisis services, and respite.
26
2.
Housing issues and services
e.g., available housing stock, low income housing programs (to include HUD and CAPS), and housing barriers at local, county and state levels.
21
3.
Staff shortages
e.g., staff shortages or staff retention issues.
17
4.
Collaboration
e.g., better communication between entities, meeting productivity, and MOUs
15
5.
Information and data sharing
e.g., HIPAA compliance, program and system issues, ROIs, and data exchange barriers.
15
Priorities
6.
Jail services
e.g., jail programming related to behavioral health.
12
7.
Court Services
e.g., behavioral health court programming.
11
8.
Specialized training
e.g., training for all facets regarding the integration of criminal justice and behavioral health, including trauma informed care, officer wellness, and mental health first aid.
10
9.
CIT specialized training and protocols
e.g. Crisis Intervention Team training for law enforcement.
9
Planning for Action
This addition to the SIM workshop is a guided exercise that enables communities to determine areas where immediate steps will affect a more cohesive, integrated approach to service delivery.
BENEFITS
-
Facilitates cross-system communication and communication
-
Helps identify underused resources
-
Improves the early identification of people with co-occurring disorders who come into contact with the criminal justice system, increases effective service linkage, reduces the likelihood of people recycling through the criminal justice system, enhances community safety, and improves quality of life
Oregon SIM Workshop Testimonials
Tammy Baney
Deschutes County Commissioner
“Thank you for leading
our community through this important process. While our community has done great work and pushed ourselves to build a system that breaks down barriers and build up supports, we still have work to do.”
John Sweet
Coos County Commissioner
“Coos County owes a great big “thank you” to the Oregon Center on Behavioral Health and Justice Integration for their February 5, 2018, workshop on Sequential Mapping. Their presenters, Carol Speed and Ari Wagner led us through a process of learning keys to success in integrating mental health and public safety efforts in dealing with the mentally ill, analyzing local gaps and opportunities, and finally establishing priorities for moving ahead with a local action plan. Their expertise and leadership was evident throughout the workshop. At the end of the day we walked away not only with a better understanding of the issues involved but more importantly an action plan. It was hands down the best workshop I have ever attended.”