Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:16 am
Time: 3:16 am
Results for mental health treatment
12 results foundAuthor: Van Vleet, Russell K. Title: Evaluation of the Salt Lake County Mental Health Court: Final Report Summary: The Salt Lake County Mental Health Court (SLCo MHC) began operations in 2001. Althought originally accepting only misdemeanor level cases, in 2002 it expanded the acceptance criteria to include felony charges. This expansion occurred when the City Prosecutor was cross designated as a Deputy District Attorney, thereby granting him authority over both felony (State) and misdemeanor (City)cases. This process and outcome evaluation sought answers to the following questions: Who does the program serve?; What services are MHC participants utilizing during participation?; What is the structure of the MHC?; Is MHC succeeding?; Who has the best outcomes in MHC?; What program components and services lead to the best outcomes?; and How does the SLCo MHC compare to the mental health court model? Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2008. 88p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 114815 Keywords: Mental Health Courts (Utah)Mental Health TreatmentMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: English, Kim Title: White Paper from the Treatment Funding Working Group Summary: In 2009, the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice and its Drug Policy Task Force recommended that the public policy of Colorado recognize alcoholism and substance addiction as illnesses and public health problems affecting the general welfare of the state. The Commission made a number of recommendations regarding the need to prioritize treatment for offenders with behavioral health disorders. But the members of the Commission also generally agreed that its recommendations regarding treatment require that treatment be available and accessible to the offender population. The Commission established a Treatment Funding Working Group to investigate issues related to treatment availability and treatment funding allocations. The Working Group early on agreed that the issues of treatment availability and funding cannot be considered without placing substance abuse in the larger context of co‐occurring mental health disorders (the combination of substance use disorders and mental illness is referred to as behavioral health), prevalence rates, the science of addiction, the criminal justice response to relapse, and treatment effectiveness. This report seeks to address these issues. While the report focuses on adults in the justice system, the Working Group recognizes that those in the juvenile justice system are equally important, as are efforts to prevent these problems and to intervene early. Details: Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public SAfety, Division of Criminal Justice, 2010. 153p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2011 at: http://cdpsweb.state.co.us/cccjj/PDF/Commission%20reports/Revised%202-14-11%20Treatment%20Funding%20White%20Paper.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://cdpsweb.state.co.us/cccjj/PDF/Commission%20reports/Revised%202-14-11%20Treatment%20Funding%20White%20Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 120867 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersMental Health TreatmentSubstance Abuse (Colorado) |
Author: Carr, L.J. Title: Dialectical Behavior Therapy: Evidence For Implementation in Correctional Settings Summary: Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) is an approach to mental health treatment that combines the techniques of standard cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with elements from the behavioral sciences, dialectical philosophy, and Zen and Western contemplative practice. It was developed by Marsha M. Linehan in the late 1970s to treat women with the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and is the first and only therapeutic approach whose effectiveness in treating BPD has been strongly supported when subjected to an experimentally designed study. Repeated studies over a twenty-year period have established its effectiveness in treating women and men with emotional instability, cognitive disturbances, self-harming behavior, chronic feelings of emptiness, interpersonal problems, poor impulse control and anger management. More recent research also strongly supports the utilization of DBT in effectively treating individuals with the varied symptoms and behaviors associated with spectrum mood disorders, self-injury, sexual abuse, and substance abuse. Research on DBT applications in correctional settings, although limited in terms of number and scope, has produced promising results. This report presents evidence on the effect use of dialectical behavior therapy in juvenile correctional settings. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research, Juvenile Justice Research Branch, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/DBT+Evidence+Draft+04+06+2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/DBT+Evidence+Draft+04+06+2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121450 Keywords: Behavior TherapyCorrectional Treatment ProgramsJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Detention FacilitiesMental Health Treatment |
Author: Khanom, Husnara Title: A Missed Opportunity? Community Sentences and the Mental Health Treatment Requirement Summary: The Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) is one of 12 options (‘requirements’) available to sentencers when constructing a Community Order or a Suspended Sentence Order. The MHTR can be given to an offender with mental health problems who does not require immediate compulsory hospital admission under the Mental Health Act. If they give their consent, the MHTR requires them to receive mental health treatment for a specified period. At least 40% of offenders on Community Orders are thought to have a diagnosable mental health problem. Yet there has been very little uptake of the MHTR in England and Wales since its introduction in 2005. Only 686 MHTRs commenced in the year to 30 June 2008 out of a total of 221,700 requirements issued with Community Orders across the country. This compares with 12,347 requirements for drug rehabilitation and 3,846 for alcohol treatment. This report is based on an exploratory research project; the first to examine the way in which the Mental Health Treatment Requirement is issued and the processes involved. We interviewed 56 professionals working in the courts, in probation and in health services about their experiences and knowledge of the MHTR. Appropriate use of the MHTR depends on probation officers, defence solicitors and psychiatrists all being both familiar with and confident in using it. Our interviews have indicated that this is far from being the case in practice. Many professionals lacked direct experience of the MHTR, and some were not aware of it at all. Court and probation professionals varied widely in their knowledge of mental health issues and their confidence in dealing with them. Many did not feel the courts should get involved in mental health issues. Professionals had varied views about the purpose of the MHTR. Some felt it should help offenders who had fallen out of touch with mental health services to get back into contact. Others thought this was inappropriate, or that the MHTR should only be considered where mental illness had led the person to commit the offence of which they had been convicted. The criteria for who should receive an MHTR were not clear to the professionals we interviewed. Many felt that the MHTR was not suitable for people with personality disorders or those with depression or anxiety. The biggest barrier to the creation of an MHTR is the need for a formal psychiatric report. These are subject to lengthy delays as well as difficulties with costs. Some psychiatric reports do not provide the offer of treatment from local mental health services that is vital for the creation of an MHTR. Once an MHTR has begun, the main concern among professionals is about how to determine when an offender has breached the requirement and how to manage this. Missed appointments were widely held to constitute a breach of the MHTR, but non-compliance with treatment was more contested. Many court professionals were concerned about the impact of making an MHTR more onerous if it was breached. The MHTR relies on good communication between the courts, probation and health services. Poor communication between health and probation services can hinder its effectiveness. Yet the court diversion and liaison teams that we encountered rarely played an active role in the operation of the MHTR. For offenders with a dual diagnosis of drug misuse and mental health problems, the courts were much more likely to make a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) than an MHTR. This is because they are more familiar with the DRR, it has a dedicated staff team and the process for making and managing a DRR is clearer. Despite the challenges presented by the MHTR, we conclude that it has unfulfilled potential to offer offenders with mental health problems a robust alternative to a short prison sentence. That potential can be harnessed through practical improvements to the way the MHTR works on the ground and through improved communication between health and criminal justice agencies. Our recommendations include: Central government should provide practical guidance for criminal justice and health professionals on how to construct and manage MHTRs. Primary care trusts should commission services that enable the courts to issue MHTRs. The National Offender Management Service should provide detailed information for probation officers on how to manage the MHTR. Protocols need to be developed between the courts, probation and health services to enable the appropriate use of the MHTR. Diversion and liaison schemes should be involved in the MHTR to organise timely psychiatric reports and make sentencing recommendations. Details: London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental health, 2009. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2012 at: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf Shelf Number: 113925 Keywords: Drug TreatmentMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill Offenders (U.K.)Sentencing, Mentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Blodgett, Janet C. Title: A Structured Evidence Review to Identify Treatment Needs of Justice-Involved Veterans and Associated Psychological Interventions Summary: In order to better serve the population of justice-involved Veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed targeted Veterans Justice Programs (VJP), including Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) and Health Care for Reentry Veterans (HCRV). To support the mission of VJP, this review synthesizes research relevant to (1) the unique treatment needs of justice-involved Veterans, with a primary focus on mental health needs, and (2) evidence-based and promising treatments for addressing these needs. This synthesis of unique treatment needs and best practices can serve as a guide for VJP that will allow it to capitalize on existing strengths of the program and promote further development of evidenced-based programs to address the needs of justice-involved Veterans both within and outside of VA. Details: Menlo Park, CA: Center for Health Care Evaluation VA Palo Alto Health Care System, 2013. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2013 at: http://www.ilapsc.org/pdfs/Justice-InvolvedVeteransStructuredEvidenceReviewFINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ilapsc.org/pdfs/Justice-InvolvedVeteransStructuredEvidenceReviewFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129188 Keywords: Inmates, VeteransMental Health TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsReentryVeteransVeterans Treatment Courts |
Author: Sarteschi, Christine Marie Title: Assessing the Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Recidivism Outcomes Summary: Mental health courts (MHC) are treatment oriented court diversion programs that seek to redirect individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMI), such as those with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, who have committed a crime, into court mandated treatment programs instead of the criminal justice system. It is believed that individuals with SMI commit and re-commit offenses as a result of their illness and if directed to the appropriate treatments, would be less likely to offend. Currently, there are over 150 MHCs nationally operating in at least 35 states, yet a gap remains in the scientific literature concerning their ability to reduce recidivism and clinical outcomes. To determine their effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving clinical outcomes, the first meta-analytic study of these courts was conducted. A systematic search of the literature through May 2008, as well as an e-mail survey, generated 23 studies representing 129 outcomes with over 11,000 MHC participants. Aggregate effects for recidivism revealed a mean effect size of -0.52. MHCs had a small to medium positive effect of 0.28 on a participant's quality of life. Among quasi-experimental studies, there was a small effect size of - 0.14 for clinical outcomes indicating a positive improvement. Based on this analysis, MHCs are effective interventions for reducing recidivism and improving clinical and quality of life outcomes. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, 2009. 166p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 14, 2014 at: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/9275/1/CMSarteschiAug2009Dissertation.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/9275/1/CMSarteschiAug2009Dissertation.pdf Shelf Number: 131917 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Davis, Ashly Nikkole Title: The Effect of Realignment on Mentally Ill Offenders Summary: With the recent Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Plata, "realignment" seems to be California's new criminal justice buzzword. Underlying the Court's decision in Brown, however, lay two important class action suits - Coleman v. Brown and Plata v. Brown - that served as the driving forces behind the Court's decision. These cases alleged Eighth Amendment violations in California's prison system based on deficiencies in mental health care and medical care, respectively. With the Court crediting the Constitutional violations and lack of adequate care alleged in Coleman and Plata to an oversized prison population, overcrowding emerged as the issue of the day. State legislators responded to the Court's directive to rapidly decrease California's prison population with AB 109, public safety realignment legislation geared toward ameliorating prison overcrowding. Ironically, though they were the impetus behind this legislation, the mentally ill have largely been left out of the realignment conversation. Little mention - if any - has been made of how AB 109 improves or even addresses the treatment of the mentally ill. This paper will analyze AB 109 to determine how closely it rings true to the spirit behind the Brown v. Plata litigation - namely, providing mentally ill offenders with adequate medical and psychiatric care - and what impact the bill will have on the mentally ill. More specifically, this paper will assess whether AB 109 marks yet another in a long series of failed attempts by the state to appropriately address the treatment of mentally ill individuals in state custody. One of the basic themes behind this paper is a recognition of the importance of mentally ill offenders in California, not only in terms of the litigation that sparked realignment, but also from a general corrections standpoint. Research shows that mentally ill offenders recidivate at a much higher rate than non-mentally ill offenders. Therefore, it is crucial from a public safety perspective to determine where realignment is going to place these individuals. Further, AB 109 is not the first alignment of state and local fiscal and administrative responsibility in California that implicates the treatment of the mentally ill. It is necessary to attempt to determine what effects realignment will have on California's mental health resources, which have been scarce for much of the state's history. While not the focus of this paper, underlying much of the discussion will be the disturbing, yet generally accepted fact that prisons and jails in the United States largely operate as de facto mental hospitals. In California in particular, well-intentioned efforts to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill from state hospitals have had disastrous consequences, with the result being that many mentally ill individuals have ended up in the one place that accepts almost everyone: the criminal justice system. If there is one thing that most people seem to agree on, it is that many of the state's previous attempts to address this population have been ineffective. Mentally ill offenders are likely to struggle in the correctional system, whether at the state or local level. This paper explores, but does not intend to answer important questions such as: How do you hold mentally ill offenders accountable? Is this a population that we should even be seeking to imprison? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Criminal Justice Center, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 134245 Keywords: Correctional ReformMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill Offenders (California)Prison Health CarePrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Power, Jenelle Title: Staff Perspectives on Working with Aboriginal Offenders who Self-Injure: What Works, What Doesn't, and the Role of Culture Summary: What it means Staff who work with Aboriginal offenders who engage in non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) recommend that intervening or interventions should focus on establishing positive relationships with offenders and addressing their underlying issues, not simply their self-injury. Culturally-specific interventions should be considered for Aboriginal offenders who have not had success with mainstream treatment. What we found Two interrelated themes were evident in all of the interviews and focus groups: (1) the recommendation that interventions should treat the whole person, not just the NSSI; and (2) the importance of establishing positive therapeutic relationships with the offenders is fundamental to NSSI treatment. Responding in a supportive and direct way to an individual's NSSI was identified as an effective method of intervention that also contributes to the establishment of a positive therapeutic alliance. As one participant noted, "[it is most important that offenders know] somebody cares and that spending that time with somebody and building those relationships has another huge impact". Most participants reported that a team approach is an effective strategy for working with offenders who engage in NSSI. The differences between Aboriginal and mainstream culture is important to consider when working with Aboriginal offenders. Many Aboriginal offenders have complicated backgrounds that influence their behaviour and their sense of identity that must be taken into consideration. Culturally-based interventions, such as participating in ceremonies and working with Elders, may be particularly helpful for this population. Most approaches that foster supportive and compassionate relationships, however, are likely to be helpful with all offenders who engage in NSSI, and may be particularly important for those who have not had success with mainstream treatment. Why we did this study NSSI (any type of deliberately self-inflicted harm or disfigurement that is undertaken without suicidal intent) is one of the most distressing behaviours that mental health professionals deal with, yet there is limited research regarding how staff can effectively interact with offenders to promote better outcomes. Given the number of Aboriginal offenders in CSC and the uniqueness of Aboriginal culture, more information is needed on how to best serve these offenders and examine what role their culture plays in designing effective interventions. What we did Fourteen staff members working with Aboriginal offenders in CSC correctional institutions and the community participated in focus groups or one-on-one interviews. The following topics were discussed: 1) experience working with Aboriginal offenders and offenders who self-injure; 2) challenges that arise when working with these groups; 3) treatment of self-injury; and 4) the role of culture in self-injury desistence. All interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A phenomenological approach was used to analyze the transcripts. Responses were classified into themes and categories to illustrate the structure or commonalities of experiences described by participants. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2014. 1p.(summary), 33p. To obtain a PDF version of the full report, or for other inquiries, please e-mail the Research Branch Source: Internet Resource: Research Report R-317: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r317-eng.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/005/008/092/r317-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 138796 Keywords: Aboriginal OffendersCorrectional StaffInmatesMental Health TreatmentSelf-Injury |
Author: University of Texas. Austin School of Law. Civil Rights Clinic Title: Preventable Tragedies: How to Reduce Mental Health-Related Deaths in Texas Jails Summary: The first section of this report tells the stories of ten tragic and preventable deaths in Texas jails. These ten people suffered from mental disorders and related health needs, and died unexpectedly in jail as a result of neglect or treatment failures. The second section of this report sets forth widely accepted policy recommendations based on national standards and best practices to improve diversion and treatment of persons with mental illness and related health needs who are incarcerated in Texas county jails. RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: INCREASE JAIL DIVERSION FOR LOW-RISK PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS. As state and local stakeholders develop pretrial diversion programs, they should ensure that mental illness is factored in, and not as a barrier to pretrial release. In addition, the Legislature and counties should find new ways to reduce warrants and arrests for low-level misdemeanors, to prevent the use of jails for low-risk arrestees. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: IMPROVE SCREENING. As counties implement the revised mental health screening instrument, they should train correctional officers to recognize signs of mental illness and suicide risk, and explore partnerships with their local mental health authority (LMHA) to have mental health professionals from the LMHA assist with intake screening. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: INCREASE COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. CODE CRIM. P. 16.22 AND 17.032. The legislature should clarify the law to increase compliance with the requirement that magistrates be notified of an arrestee's mental illness or suicide risk, so as to enable pretrial diversion into mental health treatment when appropriate. Counties should implement the law's requirements, using partnerships with LMHAs if needed. RECOMMENDATION NO. 4: STRENGTHEN SUICIDE PREVENTION. Counties should make their suicide prevention plans more effective by: (1) increasing training and promoting culture change; (2) providing for ongoing suicide risk assessment throughout an inmate's stay in the jail; (3) avoiding housing at-risk inmates alone; (4) designating suicide-resistant cells; and (5) having mental health professionals assist with the assessment of suicide risk. RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: COLLABORATE WITH LOCAL MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES. County jails should form broad - and preferably formal - partnerships with their area LMHAs, and work to place LMHA staff in the jail full-time. The Legislature should fund LMHAs to add capacity to provide more services in jails. RECOMMENDATION NO. 6: BOLSTER FORMULARIES. County jails should promote continuity of mental health care by (1) including in their formulary the medications listed in the local mental health authority's formulary and (2) contracting with outside providers to quickly acquire any medication not kept in stock. RECOMMENDATION NO. 7: PROMOTE MEDICATION CONTINUITY. County jails should promote continuity of care by allowing inmates to continue taking prescribed medication that the inmate had been taking prior to booking, after taking certain precautions. Specifically, county jails should replace policies of denying access to prescribed medications with more flexible alternatives. RECOMMENDATION NO. 8: DEVELOP AND UPDATE DETOX PROTOCOLS. Each county jail's health service plan should include a detoxification protocol for supporting withdrawal from alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines, and other commonly used substances, in conformance with current national standards. RECOMMENDATION NO. 9: ADD FORENSIC PEER SUPPORT. County jails should strengthen their mental health care services by implementing a forensic peer support program. RECOMMENDATION NO. 10: IMPROVE MONITORING. Counties should promote more effective monitoring of inmates by: (1) requiring jail staff to proactively engage inmates and take action during regular observation; (2) increasing the frequency of observation for at-risk inmates and setting irregular monitoring intervals; (3) ensuring adequate staffing; (4) using technology along with personal interaction to make observation more accountable; and (5) using technology to alert staff of inmate crises. RECOMMENDATION NO. 11: REDUCE THE USE OF RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION. County jails should (1) set an explicit goal to reduce the use of restraint and seclusion, with an eye toward eliminating them altogether; (2) abolish the most dangerous restraint and seclusion practices; and (3) train officers to reduce reliance on restraint and seclusion, and collect data to evaluate performance. The Texas Legislature should require stricter regulation of seclusion that mirrors its strict regulation of restraint. RECOMMENDATION NO. 12: LIMIT THE USE OF FORCE. County jails should strengthen their policies and training on use of force, explicitly address use of force against inmates with mental health needs, promote the goals of eliminating excessive use of force, and use force only as a last resort. Details: Austin: University of Texas School of law Civil Rights Clinic, 2016. 107p. Source: Internet Resources: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2016/11/2016-11-CVRC-Preventable-Tragedies.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2016/11/2016-11-CVRC-Preventable-Tragedies.pdf Shelf Number: 145336 Keywords: Deaths in Custody Jail InmatesMental Health CareMental Health ServicesMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersSuicides |
Author: Kubiak, Sheryl Title: Statewide Mental Health Court Outcome Evaluation: Aggregate Report Summary: Nationally, the number of people with serious mental illness (SMI) in jails ranges from 6 to 36 percent. Some refer to jails as the last mental health hospital as individuals with SMI revolve in and out of jails. As one solution to this social problem, jurisdictions are finding ways to divert such individuals from prosecution or sentencing by engaging them in treatment services. The mental health court (MHC) offers an alternative to traditional criminal court processing; it is post‐booking diversion program that utilizes treatment and services available in a given community to stem the frequency of mentally ill offenders' contact with the criminal justice system. Studies of MHCs have consistently found that they can be successful in reducing re‐offending and increasing treatment utilization. In 2008, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) and the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) developed the Michigan Mental Health Court Grant Program as a mechanism to jointly fund a statewide MHC pilot program during fiscal year 2009. In 2011, MDCH contracted an external evaluation of the pilot program encompassing eight MHCs: Berrien (Unified Trial Court); Genesee (25th Probate Court); Grand Traverse (86th District Court); Jackson (4th Circuit and 12th District Courts); Livingston (53rd District Court); Oakland (6th Circuit Court); St. Clair (72nd District Court); and Wayne (3rd Circuit Court). The evaluation encompasses the three‐year pilot period of January 2009 to December 2011 and relies on multiple sources of data to assess the processes and outcomes of each court. Questions related to court processes were: How are courts similar to and different from each other? What are mechanisms for referral and admission? How strong is the collaboration or integration between the court and mental health staff? Did participants successfully complete? Data used to assess these process‐related questions included surveys, site visits, interviews, and court observation. Based on site visit and interview data, the research team created a process map illustrating each court's screening, admission, and decision‐making processes. The process map and a report based on the data collection was submitted to each MHC for verification. Questions related to outcomes included: Did MHC reduce recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests)? Did MHC increase participation in mental health treatment? Did high‐intensity treatment such as hospitalization decrease as a result of MHC? Did specific individual or system level factors affect outcomes? Data collected to assess these outcomes came from five primary sources: MDCH‐CMH Encounter/Service Data; SCAO - MHC database; jail data from each county; MDCH - Bureau of Substance Abuse and Addiction Services treatment data; and Michigan State Police - arrest and conviction data. To assess long‐term outcomes, a comparison of three time periods was considered: 1) one year prior to MHC admission; 2) the period of involvement in MHC; and 3) one year following MHC discharge. Using the Council of State Governments Justice Center list of ten essential elements of MHC as a guide, MHCs across Michigan were found to vary widely in terms of organization, policies, and practices. Differences between courts should not be construed as a 'right' or 'wrong' way of operating. Rather, each court is responsive to the needs of the particular county and uses the resources available to the best of its abilities. Because each MHC is unique, it is not possible to draw direct comparisons between courts. The intent of this evaluation is to illuminate the variety of MHC structures and processes across the state and utilize individual - and system‐level factors, other than county of origin, to assess variations in outcomes. There were 678 individuals admitted into the eight MHCs prior to December 31, 2011. The average age at admission was 35 years (range 18 to 64). Nearly two thirds of participants (63%) were males and 67% identified as Caucasian. The overwhelming majority of participants were unemployed (91%) at admission, and nearly 20% were homeless. Nearly 40% were admitted into MHC with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder, followed by depression (29%), schizophrenic/psychotic or delusional disorders (21%), and 12% representing other diagnoses such as developmental or personality disorders. Although 60% were identified as having a 'current substance abuse', other evidence shows that as many as 79% were substance involved. Participants were most likely to enter MHC on a felony offense (48%), while 43% were admitted on a misdemeanor, and 8% on civil cases. The average length of stay in MHC was 276 days; among all 678 participants who were admitted, there were 187,043 MHC program days since 2009. Of the 450 participants discharged, 43% successfully completed all requirements of the MHC - a proportion within range of national averages. Age and offense type were the strongest predictors of success: Successful completers were more likely to be older than average (39 years) and have a misdemeanor/civil offense. Treatment outcomes. Participants received the greatest number of services during MHC, and these were primarily low‐intensity services (e.g., med reviews, case management). The proportion of participants requiring a high intensity service (e.g., hospitalization) declined from 31% pre‐MHC to 15% post‐MHC. Time to first mental health treatment after MHC admission averaged 16 days; upon discharge into the community the average was 41 days. While 95% of participants received mental health treatment during MHC, 72% of those discharged greater than one year received such services. Substance abuse treatment within the CMH system increased during MHC as compared to pre‐MHC (45% compared to 53%) but declined post‐MHC (28% of those discharged). Recidivism outcomes. A primary indicator of MHC is recidivism, measured nationally by new arrests. Since admission into MHC, only 14% of participants were arrested and charged with a new offense - a much lower rate than national averages - particularly, since time between admission to MHC and one year post‐MHC may have been as long as 2-years. Prior to MHC, 81% of participants spent time in jail, averaging 39 days. During MHC, 54% of participants spent time in jail, averaging 24 days. This represents a statewide saving of 10,074 jail bed days. To date, a reduction of 15,991 jail bed days is seen when comparing the pre‐MHC to post‐MHC periods for the 450 participants discharged. Among participants discharged one‐year (n=236), long‐term outcomes indicate 43% spent time in jail post‐MHC and 4% were incarcerated in state prisons. Successful program completion strongly predicts the absence of recidivism. Individual Factors Influencing Outcomes. Mental health diagnosis was found to have no effect on completion, treatment attainment or recidivism. However, the presence of COD predicted less favorable completion, more time in jail during MHC and higher proportion of new arrests/convictions. Similarly, those with felony offenses were less likely to complete, and when they did, they spent more time in MHC. Interestingly, those with felony offenses had significant reductions in jail days when comparing pre- and post‐MHC periods regardless of completion status. Importantly, there was no difference in new arrest/convictions between those who entered with a felony versus a misdemeanor. System‐level Factors Influencing Outcomes. Outcome variations related to court type (felony, misdemeanor/civil, or mixed) were similar to those above, with courts focused on felony cases having the greatest reduction in jail days. Examining the level of integration between the courts and treatment staff (high vs. low), high integration courts had lower lengths of stay and less time to treatment. Although those in low integration courts were more likely to complete MHC, those in high integration courts were more likely to experience greater reductions in jail days and higher treatment participation. Implementation and piloting of MHCs across Michigan has been successful, and many quantitative indicators as well as personal stories demonstrate positive outcomes. Based upon the body of knowledge amassed in this report, the following are areas for future consideration that may expand positive outcomes: 1) Enhance the level of integration between courts and treatment; 2) Consider matching risk level with length or intensity of court supervision; 3) Extend use of rewards to encourage longer length of stays and positive completion; 4) Increase attention to COD, integration of mental health and substance abuse treatment, and continuity of care post‐MHC to support ongoing recovery. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2012. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2017 at: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Statewide_MHC_Evaluation_-_Aggregate_Report_Final_103112_w_seal_407300_7.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Statewide_MHC_Evaluation_-_Aggregate_Report_Final_103112_w_seal_407300_7.pdf Shelf Number: 147445 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Cross, Brittany Title: Mental Health Courts Effectiveness in Reducing Recidivism and Improving Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis Summary: Mental health courts have recently emerged with goals to reduce recidivism and improve clinical outcomes for people with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system. The present study is a review of mental health court literature assessing their effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving clinical outcomes for participants using meta-analytic techniques. A total of 20 studies that included sufficient information to compute the standardized mean difference effect size, focused on adult populations, and were within the United States were included in the analysis. Only experimental and quasi-experimental research designs were obtained. Using Cohen's (1988) guidelines, mental health courts were found to have a small effect on reducing recidivism (0.32, p<.05) and a non-significant effect for improving clinical outcomes for participants. Several moderator analyses were conducted and indicated that the nature of the control group (whether they were a treatment as usual or participants who "opted-out") was found to be significant between groups (Q=22.33, p<.001) as a possible moderating effect. Details: Tampa: University of South Florida, 2011. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed march 20, 2018 at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4247&context=etd Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4247&context=etd Shelf Number: 149536 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: MacDonald, Sue-Ann Title: Mental Health Courts: Processes, Outcomes and Impact on Homelessness Summary: MacDonald et al. examined the impact of a Mental Health Court (MHC) on preventing and reducing homelessness for those with mental health issues. In particular, using the MHC in Montreal as a case study, which is officially known as the Programme d'accompagnement Justice - Sante mentale (PAJ-SM), the project provided a profile of participants and assessed how the court functions to address their mental health and homelessness challenges. Despite the growing interest in adopting mental health courts, there are relatively few studies conducted on the topic. The report provides an opportunity to fill that knowledge gap and provides information to support the adoption of promising practices by MHCs across Canada. Details: Montreal: University of Montreal, 2014. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2018 at: http://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/HKDFinalReport_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/HKDFinalReport_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 149598 Keywords: Homeless PersonsHomelessnessMental Health CourtsMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |