Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:16 pm
Time: 12:16 pm
Results for mental health courts
30 results foundAuthor: Almquist, Lauren Title: Mental Health Courts: A guide to research-informed policy and practice Summary: This guide is intended to assist policymakers and practitioners in assessing the utility of mental health courts. After briefly describing who participates in mental health courts and how these courts function, this guide reviews research findings that address the extent to which mental health courts have been found to achieve their stated goals. Because mental health courts are relatively new, many unanswered questions remain on how they work, for whom, and under what circumstances; these outstanding research questions are highlighted in the final portion of this guide. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009. 54p. Source: Internet Source: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CSG_MHC_Research.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CSG_MHC_Research.pdf Shelf Number: 116672 Keywords: Mental HealthMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Carmichael, Dottie Title: Representing the Mentally Ill Offender: An Evaluation of Advocacy Alternatives Summary: This report presents the findings of a two-year evaluation of the two most common models through which specialized attorneys advocate for mentally ill defendants in Texas: mental health public defenders and mental health courts. The report describes the study objectives, methods, and findings, and draws conclusions about emerging roles for the defense community in improving legal and therepeutic outcomes for people with mental illness. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, Office of Court Administration, 2010. 69p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118740 Keywords: Legal Assistance to the PoorMental Health CourtsMentally Ill Offenders (Texas)Public Defenders |
Author: Orr, Cynthia Hujar Title: American's Problem-Solving Courts: The Criminal Costs of Treatment and the Case for Reform Summary: Drug courts have swept the U.S. without much debate or input from the criminal defense bar. This report seeks to inform and redefine the debate by considering and challenging the fundamental criminal justice lens through which drug-related issues are evaluated. Because "the definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power," accepting the criminal justice paradigm legitimizes drug courts while ignoring other smart, fair, effective, and economical approaches. The report also summarizes the history and evolution of drug courts, evaluates their operation and effectiveness, makes an overarching recommendation on the treatment of addictions, and offers a number of recommendations to ensure that the procedures and practices in drug court comply with constitutional and ethical norms. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2009. 76p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118691 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentMental Health Courts |
Author: Winstone, Jane Title: Process Evaluation of the Mental Health Court Pilot Summary: The aim of this study was to assess how the Mental Health Court pilot was implemented at Brighton and Stratford magistrates’ courts. This was in order to draw out areas of best practice and areas for improvement and inform future decisions on the pilot. Interviews with staff, stakeholders and offenders investigated perceptions of how well processes were embedded and gave insight into what worked well. Analysis of data from the courts in the first year of the pilot (January 2009 to January 2010) enabled assessment of the workloads at the courts, and provided some demographic information on offenders. The study found that the key elements of the model were delivered at both sites, but in different ways. The pilot yielded innovative multi-agency collaborations. A wider implementation of Mental Health Courts would require significant changes in the current patterns of multi-agency information sharing and data collection, and early consultation at senior management level. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Research Series 18/10: Accessed September 16, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/mhc-process-evaluation.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/mhc-process-evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 119817 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Winstone, Jane Title: Mental Health Court Pilot: Feasibility of an Impact Evaluation Summary: The Mental Health Court model was piloted at magistrates’ courts in Stratford, East London, and Brighton, Sussex. The pilot aimed: to develop a clear model, which identified defendants and offenders with mental health issues, assessed the extent of those issues, and ensured that the offender/defendant received the appropriate intervention(s); and to identify the actual costs that would be incurred across the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and health services as a result of implementing the model. The study asked if it was feasible to evaluate impact of the pilots. An impact evaluation would look at what happens to those who go through the MHC, compared to what would have happened had they not. The study found that a random control trial or an area comparison would be possible, but could only measure criminal justice outcomes. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Summary 7/10: Accessed September 16, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/mhc-feasibility-study-imapct-evaluation.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/mhc-feasibility-study-imapct-evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 119818 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Maryland Judiciary Research Consortium Title: Process Evaluation of Harford County Mental Health Diversion Program Summary: The Maryland Judiciary, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), under a grant awarded by Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP) partnered with the University of Maryland, Institute for Governmental Service and Research (IGSR), and Morgan State University, School of Community Health and Policy, to conduct a process evaluation of the Harford County Mental Health Diversion Program (MHDP) located in District Court in Bel Air, Maryland. To assist in providing context for this report, Appendix A includes a summary of the literature concerning court-based mental health interventions. The report includes findings regarding how the Harford County MHDP was originally designed to operate and how the program has been implemented. Information on the MHDP was gathered through: face-to-face individual interviews with the MHDP team comprising 10 members, including six from the criminal justice system and four treatment providers; data on program participants compiled by the Harford County State’s Attorney’s Office; and a review of program documents, which include written policies and procedures, minutes from planning meetings, and grant proposals. Details: Baltimore: Maryland Judiciary, Administrative Office of the Courts, 2010. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2010 at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/mhc/pdfs/evalutations/harfordmhdpprocessevaluation3-9-10.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/mhc/pdfs/evalutations/harfordmhdpprocessevaluation3-9-10.pdf Shelf Number: 119842 Keywords: DiversionMental Health CourtsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Blagg, Harry Title: Problem-Oriented Courts Summary: This paper addresses a number of issues linked to the emergence of problem-oriented courts. Problem-oriented courts form part of an emerging judicial sphere where the traditional focus on legal process is balanced with concern for therapeutic outcomes. Expressed simply, problem-oriented courts seek to use the authority and structure of the courts to further therapeutic goals and enhance the performance of agencies involved in delivering court mandated services. Problem-oriented courts attempt to facilitate a team approach and encourage close collaboration between agencies involved in the justice process. The problem-oriented court acts as the ‘hub’ connecting various ‘spokes’, such as drug and alcohol treatment agencies, community based corrections, probation services and domestic violence agencies, forming a holistic and integrated approach. This approach encourages magistrates and judges to take a pro-active and overtly leading role in the creation of better, well coordinated services for clients. Supporters of problem-oriented courts maintain that such courts sit outside the traditional punishment paradigm, being more concerned with treatment and rehabilitation outcomes. The orientation of the court is neatly encapsulated in the notion of ‘forward looking’ as opposed to ‘backward looking’ forms of justice – that is, sentencing practices should be geared towards encouraging positive future behaviour rather then simply punishing past actions. The future impact of problem-oriented courts on the ways the criminal justice as a whole deals with offending linked to issues such as drug and alcohol use, mental health, homelessness and social exclusion could prove to be far reaching. Moreover the problem-oriented approach – and the philosophies of therapeutic jurisprudence and, to a lesser extent, restorative justice that inform the approach – may influence the orientation of mainstream courts. The approach is largely in its infancy in Australia. There is no settled theory (although a number of theories vie for relevance) and no unified template describing how a problem-oriented court should operate. Working practices vary according to the nature of the problem the court has been developed to deal with. The long-term benefits of the problem-oriented approach and its implications for the criminal justice system remain the subject of debate, both within the judiciary and within the network of agencies a problem-oriented approach binds together to work collectively on a particular problem. Problem-oriented courts can include community or neighbourhood courts, family and domestic violence courts, mental health courts, drug courts and alcohol courts. However, the problem-oriented approach is also being used by some magistrates in general courts when dealing with particular groups of offenders. This is particularly the case where a magistrate’s court has become the site for specialist treatment and diversionary services, such as Western Australia’s courtbased drug diversion initiatives. This paper excludes discussion of Aboriginal Courts which have been extensively considered by the Law Reform Commission as part of its Aboriginal Customary Law Project. Problem-oriented courts have not emerged in a vacuum, but in response to the challenges posed by a number of seemingly intractable urban social problems (drug use, alcohol, family and domestic violence, mental illness, anti-social behaviour, fear of crime, and problems associated with ‘hyper-marginalised’ groups) apparently impervious to traditional remedies and solutions. They also reflect frustration with the often fragmented and ad hoc response of traditional justice structures, cultures and processes. Some courts, such as community or neighbourhood courts, have emerged in response to claims that the courts are out of touch with the concerns of local communities and have been mandated to directly involve local people in the delivery of justice. Problem-oriented courts have been influenced by the philosophies of restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. While, as will be demonstrated later, the two philosophies cannot simply be collapsed together, they do share a common commitment to ‘humanising’ the justice process, closely integrating concerns for individual and social change into the legal process, and providing ‘forward looking’ rather than ‘backward looking’ justice outcomes. This latter concern in particular represents a paradigm shift in the way justice is conceived: less concerned with simply judging past actions than with affecting change in individuals and social contexts to ensure crime and victimisation is prevented in the future. Besides the various philosophies vying for influence in the courts, the problem-oriented court has become the site for new hybrid techniques for engaging with the needs and problems of offenders. Since the focus of problem-oriented courts extends beyond applying the law, there is a need for behavioural techniques and treatments suited to the new environment. Intervention techniques such as motivational interviewing and brief interventions, discussed later, borrowed from addiction counselling, are emerging as intervention tools within problem-oriented courts because they claim positive results within a short timeframe. Problem-oriented courts are not simply a new type of specialist court. Details: Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2008. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Project 96: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-BlaggRP.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-BlaggRP.pdf Shelf Number: 121998 Keywords: Domestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts (Australia)Sentencing |
Author: Western Australia. Law Reform Commission Title: Court Intervention Programs: Final Report Summary: This final report is divided into six chapters. Chapter One explains the Commission’s approach to reform, in particular, the need for legislative and policy reform to support the continued operation of court intervention programs and the Commission’s guiding principles for reform. Chapter Two (which contains the majority of the Commission’s recommendations) deals with the legal and policy issues that are relevant to all court intervention programs. Specific recommendations dealing with court intervention programs addressing drug and alcohol dependency are discussed in Chapter Three. Chapter Four considers recommendations in relation to mental impairment court intervention programs and Chapter Five considers recommendations in relation to family violence court intervention programs. Finally, recommendations in relation to general court intervention programs are contained in Chapter Six. The Final Report is intended to be read in conjunction with the Commission’s Consultation Paper, which describes how various court intervention programs operate and provides the research and analysis that support the Commission’s final recommendations. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, the Final Report sets out the Commission’s conclusions and fi nal recommendations without repeating all of the descriptive material in the Consultation Paper. The Commission has made a total of 37 recommendations for reform in this Final Report. A list of recommendations is contained in Appendix A. For ease of reference, a list of recommendations that require legislative amendment is set out in Appendix B. Details: Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2009. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Project No. 96: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-FR.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 121999 Keywords: Court ReformDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts (Australia)Sentencing |
Author: Baldwin, Kevin Title: Final Evaluation Report – Dougherty County Mental Health Court Summary: The Dougherty Mental Health Court (DMHC) started in 2002 in response to concerns over the increasing incidence of persons with mental illness cycling in and out of the local jail. Since its inception, the court has received over six hundred referrals. The present evaluation examines data on 566 referrals, from which 167 individuals participated in the court. At the time of this report, 82 participants had successfully completed the program, 68 had left the program without completing, and 17 were still in the program. Most individuals were referred to the court by a judge or attorney while in jail pending charges for a new crime or a violation of probation. Referrals tended to be unmarried males in their mid-thirties, with an eleventh grade education. Substance abuse disorders were the most prevalent presenting problems, followed by schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Participants differed from referrals in that they were more likely to have a primary diagnosis of substance abuse and less likely to have a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia and depression. The DMHC has three treatment tracks, with about half of participants assigned to the substance abuse track, 40% being assigned to the dual diagnosis track and the remaining 10% being in the mental health track. More than half of participants (55%) successfully completed the program. Those that completed the program did so in an average of 72 weeks, with non-completers spending 49 weeks in the DMHC. Successful completion of the court program was associated with a number of positive outcomes. Those that completed the court program had lower rates of arrest after their participation than before. While completers had higher rates of arrest than did non-completers prior to program entry, they had significantly lower arrest rates after beginning the court when compared to non-completers (with an average follow-up time of about three years). Program completers were less likely to fail drug screens than non-completers, both during and after participating in the court. Completers also spent fewer days in jail subsequent to their referral date than did non-completers or refusals (those referred who did not participate). Taken together, these findings suggest that participation in and completion of the DMHC is associated with increased sobriety and treatment compliance and decreased substance abuse, arrests, and jail time. The DMHC is achieving its core objectives of providing appropriate, focused treatment to mentally ill and substance abusing persons involved in the criminal justice system, resulting in decreased substance abuse, criminality, and encounters with the criminal justice system. In addition to the positive findings associated with court participation, this project also increased the capacity of the DMHC by designing and implementing an Internet-based client management and evaluation database. The court can use this system to provide real-time data on clients and the program itself, as well as perform a range of reporting functions that can be used for ongoing and periodic evaluation of court activities and outcomes. The final project objective was to increase the capacity of the local publically-funded mental health and substance abuse treatment provider by implementing the NIATx process improvement model. While outcome data on the results of NIATx implementation are not yet available, preliminary results are encouraging. Details: Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services, Inc., 2010. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 6, 2011 at: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/BJA-DoughertyCountyMentalHealthCourtEvaluation2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://ars-corp.com/_view/PDF_Files/BJA-DoughertyCountyMentalHealthCourtEvaluation2010.pdf Shelf Number: 115751 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts (U.S.) |
Author: Stageberg, Paul Title: Comprehensive Jail Diversion Program-Mental Health Courts Study Summary: On April 12, 2012 Governor Branstad signed Senate File 2312, an Act Relating to Persons with Mental Health Illnesses and Substance Related Disorders. Section 18. Comprehensive Jail Diversion Program-Mental Health Courts –Study. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning of the Department of Human Rights shall conduct a study regarding the possible establishment of a comprehensive statewide jail diversion program including: The establishment of mental health courts, for nonviolent criminal offenders who suffer from mental illness. The division shall solicit input from the Department of Human Services, the Department of Corrections, and other members of the criminal justice system including but not limited to judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel, and mental health treatment providers and consumers. The division shall establish the duties, scope, and membership of the study commission and shall also consider the feasibility of establishing a demonstration mental health court. The division shall submit a report on the study and make recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by December 1, 2012. This study draws primarily from existing reports and research findings of other programs. Included here are a review of the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice (CJ) system, the system’s response to the problem, findings of participant outcomes, reported costs, special considerations regarding mental health courts, the status of jail diversion programs and mental health courts in Iowa, and recommendations. One of the requirements of the legislation was to consider the feasibility of establishing a demonstration mental health court in Iowa. This directive was not examined because Iowa currently has two mental health courts in operation and one under consideration. Woodbury County has operated a mental health court since 2001 and Black Hawk County since 2009. Polk County has recently received funds from the Council of State Governments, Justice Center to review a mental health court curriculum for developing mental health courts. Recommendations for the establishment of a comprehensive statewide jail diversion program, including the establishment of mental health courts for nonviolent criminal offenders who suffer from mental illness, are limited to operational issues gleaned from existing reports and interviews. Due to limited staff resources and a lack of funding, no assessment of cost or delineation of funding responsibilities (state, local), or estimation of potential implementation timelines was undertaken. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2013 at: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/LSA/IntComHand/2013/IHJCP000.PDF Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/LSA/IntComHand/2013/IHJCP000.PDF Shelf Number: 127399 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity TreatmentJail Diversion (Iowa)Mental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Wicklund, Peter Title: Chittenden County Mental Health Court: Outcome Evaluation Summary: The Chittenden County Mental Health Court (CMHC) began operation in January 2003. It is a program for adults who have committed a crime and are having difficulty with issues related to severe and persistent mental illness but are deemed competent to stand trial. These mental illnesses could include schizophrenia, paranoia, clinical depression, and borderline personality disorders. The CMHC accepts participants with any mental health diagnoses, including personality disorders and intellectual disabilities, but the majority of participants also have a co-occurring substance use condition as well. Typically, their offenses are crimes such as disorderly conduct, unlawful trespass, drug possession, burglary, and retail theft. Occasionally, the court will hear felonies, such as arson, DWI, and assault, though all cases must first be approved by the State’s Attorney’s office. An outcome evaluation attempts to determine the effects that a program has on participants. In the case of the Chittenden County Mental Health Court (CMHC) the objective of this outcome evaluation was to determine the extent to which the CMHC reduced recidivism among program participants. For this outcome evaluation, the study cohort was divided into two groups – subjects who successfully completed the CMHC program (n=56), and a segment that was terminated or withdrew from the program (n=43). Six other subjects who were currently active in the CMHC were also on the participant list provided by the Court Administrator’s Office, but they were not included in this report. During the study period, 57% of CMHC participants (56 of 99) successfully graduated from the CMHC. An indicator of post-program criminal behavior that is commonly used in outcome evaluations of criminal justice programs is the number of participants who recidivate -- that is, are convicted of a crime after they complete the program. An analysis of the criminal history records of the 99 subjects who were referred to the CMHC from March 21, 2003 to May 24, 2012, was conducted using the Vermont criminal history records of participants as provided by the Vermont Criminal Information Center (VCIC) at the Vermont Department of Public Safety. The Vermont criminal history record on which the recidivism analysis was based included all charges and convictions prosecuted in a Vermont Superior Court-Criminal Division that were available as of July 13, 2012. The criminal records on which the study was based do not contain federal prosecutions, out-of-state prosecutions, or traffic tickets. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. The Chittenden County Mental Health Court (CMHC) appears to be a promising approach for reducing recidivism among participants who completed the program. An analysis of the Vermont criminal records for the 99 study subjects shows that significantly fewer CMHC graduates were reconvicted of some type of crime as compared to the subjects who were terminated/withdrew from the program (25.0% versus 51.2%). 2. The CMHC was shown to be effective in producing graduates that remained conviction free in the community during their first year after leaving the program. Approximately 82% of the successful graduates of the CMHC were conviction-free during their first year after leaving the program. The success rate dropped to 72% for the study group that was terminated or withdrew from the CMHC. 3. The CMHC appears to be a promising approach for reducing the number and severity of reconvictions for participants who completed CMHC. The reconviction rate of the successful CMHC participants was less than half the rate for the participants that were unsuccessful (91 compared to 225 reconvictions per 100, respectively). 4. The CMHC recidivists from both study groups tended to commit a majority of their post-CMHC crime in Chittenden County. 5. Subject characteristics that were found to have some correlation with the tendency to recidivate were the Age at First Conviction/Contact, Age at Referral to CMHC, the Base Charge Sentence Type, and Total Prior Misdemeanors. However, further analysis showed that these correlations were not strong enough to result in a useful model that could be used as a predictor of recidivism. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/CMHCreport_files/CMHC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/CMHCreport_files/CMHC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 128186 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill Offenders (Vermont, U.S.)Problem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Ray, Bradley R. Title: Reintegrative Shaming in Mental Health Court Summary: Reintegrative shaming theory suggests that shame can be either stigmatizing or reintegrative and predicts that, stigmatizing shame increases the likelihood of crime, while reintegrative shame reduces criminal behavior recidivism (Braithwaite 1989). Stigmatizing shame involves labeling offenders as deviant and casting them out of the community. Reintegrative shaming focuses on condemning the deviant behavior without condemning the individual. Thus, the behavior is punished but the individual is reaccepted to the community after completing the punishment. Unlike stigmatizing shaming, reintegrative shaming is finite, ends with words or gestures of forgiveness, and, throughout the shaming process, there is an effort to maintain respect for the shamed individual. The theory suggests that when shaming is reintegrative, offenders are unlikely to recidivate because they are accepted back into the community and their morality is strengthened. This dissertation examines reintegrative shaming theory in a mental health court which is a type of problem-solving court that divert persons with mental illness out of the cycle of arrest, incarceration, release and re-arrest, by motivating them to connect with treatment and services and to change their behaviors. The body of empirical research on these courts is still small but finds support for mental health courts’ effectiveness in reducing recidivism, reporting that mental health court participants are less likely to offend than before entering the court. The first three studies in this dissertation attempt to validate the whether reintegrative shaming occurs in the observed mental health court setting. The first is a qualitative observation study which links the components of reintegrative shame to the court process to the mental health court process. The second and third studies use research instruments designed to objectively and subjectively measure reintegrative and stigmatizing shame in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. The second study used systematic observation instruments, completed by multiple observers in both mental health court and traditional criminal court setting, and finds that the mental is more likely to practice reintegrative shaming and less likely to practice stigmatizing shame. The third study employed a survey instrument to interview individuals who had recently completed the mental health court process and found that those who completed the process are more likely to have experienced reintegrative shame than stigmatizing shame. The collective finding from these studies are that the mental health is more likely to practice observed reintegrative shame than the traditional criminal court and that those who complete the mental health court were likely to perceive this process as reintegrative rather than stigmatizing. The final study uses exit statuses from court as indirect measures shaming types to test the prediction of reintegrative shaming theory. Mental health court completion is used as a proxy measure for reintegrative shame, and being found guilty in traditional criminal court as a proxy measure for stigmatizing shame. This study found that those who have an exit status consistent with a reintegrative experience are less likely to recidivate than those who have a shame or stigmatizing experience. Details: Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, 2012. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/7812/1/etd.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/7812/1/etd.pdf Shelf Number: 128901 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsReintegrative Shaming (U.S.) |
Author: Center for Families, Children & the Courts Title: AOC Literature Review: Mental Health Courts: An Overview Summary: Mental illness is a considerable problem within jails and prisons and juvenile detention facilities. A large amount of research argues that adult jails and prisons and juvenile detention centers are the new asylums for mentally ill adults and juveniles and that correctional institutions are now the primary providers of services (Cohen & Pfeifer, 2008; Lamb, Weinberger, & Reston-Parham, 1996; Moore & Hiday, 2006; Robison, 2005). A recent report by the California Judicial Council's Task Force for Criminal Justice Collaboration on Mental Health Issues discussed the role of courts in addressing the needs of offenders with mental illness (Administrative Office of the Courts [AOC], 2011). One strategy for addressing the issues and challenges of both adult and juvenile offenders with mental illness is through a mental health court, a criminal or delinquency court that has a dedicated calendar and judge for offenders with mental illness. Mental health courts, a form of mental health diversion, allow eligible offenders to avoid detention by obtaining community treatment under court supervision. This document will review the literature on adult and juvenile mental health courts and other mental health diversion programs, including the models they use, any evidence related to recidivism and treatment utilization among offenders with mental illness, and whether they are cost beneficial. Most of the research in the area of mental health courts has focused on the adult population because far more adult mental health courts are in operation. However, an increasing number of juvenile mental health courts are being established, and more research is being conducted on the population served by these courts. Details: San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, 2012. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2014 at Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://courts.ca.gov/documents/AOCLitReview-Mental_Health_Courts--Web_Version.pdf Shelf Number: 131777 Keywords: Adult OffendersJuvenile OffendersLiterature ReviewMental Health 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: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. Title: Fairbanks Juvenile Treatment Court: Evaluation Report Summary: The Fairbanks Juvenile Treatment Court (FJTC) began in 2008 as an innovative response to youth with mental health and co-occurring disorders (mental health and substance use disorders together). As in other parts of the country, it grew from the recognition that mental health disorders, sometimes paired with substance abuse, frequently contribute to the reason juveniles commit offenses and appear before the Court. The FJTC targets youth whose mental illness likely contributed to the commission of their offense. Like most therapeutic courts, the FJTC is managed by a multi-disciplinary team which uses a collaborative (as opposed to an adversarial) approach. Members step out of their traditional roles to encourage treatment of the juvenile while still promoting public safety. FJTC's mission is to "promote public safety while moving adolescents from the traditional juvenile justice system into a mental health/substance use treatment system that can sustain health and non-criminal behavior." The Alaska Court System (ACS), in collaboration with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, have sponsored this evaluation to analyze outcomes of participants in the FJTC in state fiscal years (SFY) 2009 through 2012, and to measure the effectiveness of the FJTC at improving the lives of juveniles with mental health and substance use disorders. The purpose of the study is to help guide the FJTC in its future development by providing information on: 1. the functioning of the FJTC in relation to mental health and juvenile drug court standards; 2. the clinical and demographic characteristics of FJTC participants and their corresponding service needs; 3. the services available and used by FJTC participants to identify any unmet needs or gaps in the service delivery system; 4. the clinical and criminal recidivism outcomes of FJTC participants, and factors associated with and predictive of those outcomes; 5. characteristics of FJTC participants appropriate for diversion; and 6. evidence-based programs and services which could be employed to divert youth from court or reduce recidivism. The FJTC is a diversion program, meaning that the juvenile's current charges are held in abeyance, or not adjudicated, pending the agreement of the youth to participate in FJTC. Agreement means the youth must accept treatment for his or her mental health and/or substance use, attend court hearings and obey the conditions of conduct set out by the court. The youth's agreement to participate includes admission to the charges, and an explanation of the consequences in the plea agreement, which may include detention should the youth not complete the program. To qualify for participation, the youth must have a current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV3 (DSM IV) Axis I mental health diagnosis, qualifying criminal charges, and must be willing to accept services and will preferably be supported by a parent or caregiver. Details: South Portland, ME: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc., 2014. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://www.hornbyzeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FJTC-2014-Report-FINAL-May-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.hornbyzeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FJTC-2014-Report-FINAL-May-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135306 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Diversion ProgramsJuvenile Offenders (Alaska)Mental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Stuckey, Skyler Title: Enhancing Public Safety and Saving Taxpayer Dollars: The Role of Mental Health Courts in Texas Summary: Measures that divert suitable offenders with mental illness from lockups to effective treatment programs can produce net savings while furthering public safety and offender accountability. States have begun implementing problem-solving courts to accommodate offenders with specific needs that traditional courts cannot adequately address. These problem-solving courts focus on outcomes that benefit society by reducing crime and saving correction costs. Mental health courts are one of these problem-solving courts designed to reduce recidivism by requiring offenders with mental illness to be directly accountable to the court on an ongoing basis for compliance with a supervision and treatment plan. Jails and prisons have become some of the largest providers of mental health care across Texas and the country. Offenders with mental illness often move through these facilities as if they were a revolving door. Mental health courts that use best practices can help break this cycle by offering an alternative that holds offenders accountable and provides treatment. Many issues related to mental illness in the criminal justice system stem from deinstitutionalization, which began in the 1950s. Throughout the decade, popular sentiment and litigation led to significant reductions in the mandatory institutionalization of people with mental illness in state-sponsored psychiatric hospitals. In 1963, President Kennedy pushed the Community Mental Health Act, which closed many of these state-run institutions. Although these institutions were imperfect, the current challenges at the intersection of mental illness and corrections are partly attributable to lack of a replacement. Thus, people with mental illness who come in contact with law enforcement are often funneled into jails and prisons. Mental health courts could help Texas break the cycle of mental illness and crime. To reduce recidivism and spending on corrections, many states have established mental health courts. For example, New York has handled over 7,124 cases in mental health courts since December 2013. And in Texas, the Harris County Felony Mental Health Court began screening defendants for court admission in March 2012. Given this progression the time seems ideal for examining the role these courts can play in Texas' future criminal justice policy. Details: Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-The-Role-of-Mental-Health-Courts-in-Texas.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-The-Role-of-Mental-Health-Courts-in-Texas.pdf Shelf Number: 136117 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Steinberg, Darrell Title: When did prisons become acceptable mental healthcare facilities? Summary: We can no longer ignore the massive oppression we are inflicting upon the mentally ill throughout the United States. Over a century ago, Dorothea Dix began a movement to improve the deplorable conditions of mentally ill prisoners. Despite her success in changing the country's perception and treatment of the mentally ill in prison, we are now right back where we started in the nineteenth century. Although deinstitutionalization was originally understood as a humane way to offer more suitable services to the mentally ill in community-based settings, some politicians seized upon it as a way to save money by shutting down institutions without providing any meaningful treatment alternatives. This callousness has created a one-way road to prison for massive numbers of impaired individuals and the inhumane warehousing of thousands of mentally ill people. We have created conditions that make criminal behavior all but inevitable for many of our brothers and sisters who are mentally ill. Instead of treating them, we are imprisoning them. And then, when they have completed their sentences, we release them with minimal or no support system in place, just counting the days until they are behind bars once again. This practice of seeking to save money on the backs of this population comes with huge moral and fiscal cost. It is ineffective because we spend far more on imprisonment of the mentally ill than we would otherwise spend on treatment and support. It is immoral because writing off another human being's life is utterly contrary to our collective values and principles. The numbers are staggering: over the past 15 years, the number of mentally ill people in prison in California has almost doubled. Today, 45 percent of state prison inmates have been treated for severe mental illness within the past year. The Los Angeles County Jail is "the largest mental health provider in the county," according to the former official in charge of the facility. California was at the forefront of the spiral towards imprisonment rather than treatment, when it turned its back on community based mental health programs. As usual, what started in California spread throughout the country. In 1971 there were 20,000 people in California prisons; by 2010 the population had increased to 162,000 people, of which 45 percent are estimated to be mentally ill. We in California now have an opportunity to lead again - this time to show that there is a better approach. We can begin a counter-revolution by setting a new standard for how we deal with people whose mental illness manifests through criminal activity. We will prove to the country that there is another, better approach - an approach that saves money and saves lives from being forsaken. Details: Palo Alto, CA: Stanford law School, Three Strikes Project, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/632655/doc/slspublic/Report_v12.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/632655/doc/slspublic/Report_v12.pdf Shelf Number: 136255 Keywords: Jail InmatesMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill InmatesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Thompson, Michael Title: Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of a Specialized Law Enforcement-Based Program Summary: This publication articulates 10 essential elements for specialized law enforcement-based response programs in interacting with people with mental illnesses and provides a common framework for program design and implementation that will promote positive outcomes while being sensitive to every jurisdiction's distinct needs and resources. This project was coordinated by the Council of State Governments Justice Center with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2008. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2015 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/le-essentialelements.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/le-essentialelements.pdf Shelf Number: 137189 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPolice Specialized TrainingProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Molloy, Jennifer K. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Mental Health Court (Adults): Technical Report Summary: Mental Health Courts (MHC) are specialized, treatment-oriented courts that divert non-violent, mentally-ill defendants from the criminal justice system into court-monitored, community-based treatment and social services. Lamb, Weinberger, Marsh, and Gross (2007) estimated that more than 300,000 of the 2.1 million prisoners in the United States (U.S.) suffered from a serious mental illness. Given this estimate, criminal justice professionals and policy makers have been under pressure to explore strategies to meet the unique needs of persons with mental illness who have histories of involvement with the justice system and who have not been successfully engaged by community mental health treatment agencies. MHCs emerged in the 1990s with the goal of decreasing the frequency of mentally ill persons' contacts with the criminal justice system by providing courts with resources to improve clients' social functioning, while linking them to employment, housing, treatment, and support services. As of 2008, the Council of State Governments Justice Center estimated there were 150 operational MHCs in the U.S. with many more in the planning and development phases (Thompson, Osher, & Tomasini-Joshi, 2008). In particular, MHCs have: (1) a separate docket for mentally ill defendants; (2) a dedicated judge for all court hearings and monitoring sessions; (3) dedicated prosecution and defense counsel; (4) collaborative decision making between criminal justice, mental health professionals, and other support systems; (5) voluntary participation in court and treatment by defendants; (6) intensive supervision with ongoing court monitoring and emphasis on accountability; and (7) dismissal of charges or avoidance of incarceration with successful completion of program requirements (Goldkamp & Irons-Guyunn, 2000). A large body of work provides guidelines for the development and implementation of MHCs; however, limited research has been conducted on the impact of MHCs on offenders' criminal behavior. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Mental-Health-Tech_v031920131.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Mental-Health-Tech_v031920131.pdf Shelf Number: 139113 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: VanGeem, Stephen Guy Title: An Evaluation of the Utah First District Mental Health Court: Gauging the Efficacy of Diverting Offenders Suffering With Serious Mental Illness Summary: The decision to establish a mental health court in Utah's First District was largely a political one prompted by the growing popularity of problem-solving courts throughout the country. Because this motivation was policy-driven and not needs-driven, the court was established without an ongoing data collection schedule. As a result, barring anecdotal evidence from program participants, the current impact of the court on two key goals - reducing recidivism and increasing community-based treatment contact - is entirely unknown. The current study aims to provide a summative program evaluation of the first sixty-eight months of specialty court operation by (1) estimating basic demographic and clinical information about program referrals, participants, and graduates; and (2) measuring program effectiveness by examining between-group differences in key outcome measures (e.g., new charges, use of therapeutic services, time to rearrest, etc.) for those referrals who are accepted into the program as participants versus those referrals who are rejected from the program and sentenced to treatment-as-usual. Ideally, the current study will not only provide an evidence-based assessment of local practices at the current study site but will also empirically inform the greater community of mental health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers who are operating in smaller, more rural districts. Details: Tampa: University of South Florida, 2015. 180p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 23, 2016 at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6789&context=etd Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6789&context=etd Shelf Number: 139140 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationMental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Epperson, Matthew Title: Comparative Evaluation of Court-Based Responses to Offenders with Mental Illnesses Summary: 1 FINAL SUMMARY OVERVIEW Purpose of Study Persons with serious mental illness (SMI) are over-represented in the criminal justice system and criminal justice agencies have struggled for years with managing and serving this population. In recent years, probation departments have forged new collaborative relationships with mental health treatment providers and adopted problem-solving approaches in responding to the needs of people with SMI in the criminal justice system. These efforts have resulted in two prevailing court-based models for offenders with mental illnesses: mental health courts and specialized probation. Both mental health courts and specialized probation units have experienced rapid growth over the past decade. However, most evaluation research on these programs has been criticized for studying new programs that are still in development, employing short follow up periods that are unable to examine sustained effectiveness, and utilizing less than ideal comparison conditions. In response to these methodological issues, this study employed a mixed methods comparative evaluation of three established court-based programs that serve offenders with SMI: mental health court, specialized probation, and standard probation. The primary aims of the study were to examine and compare each program's: 1)Structure; 2)Operation; and 3)Effectiveness. Research Methods The study was conducted in Cook County, Illinois; data were collected from three distinct court-based programs. The Cook County Felony Mental Health Court (MHC) was implemented in 2004 and serves individuals with SMI who have been arrested for nonviolent felonies. The Specialized Mental Health Probation Unit (herein "specialized probation") has been in operation in Cook County for more than 25 years and involves specially trained probation officers who supervise a reduced caseload of probationers diagnosed with SMI. The Cook County Adult Probation Department (herein "standard probation") has an active caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, a portion of whom have SMI. Details: Chicago: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249894.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249894.pdf Shelf Number: 139623 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProbationProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Services (NARBHA) Jail Diversion Project Summary: In November 2005, NARBHA contracted with LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. to conduct an evaluation of their Jail Diversion Project. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide information about how well the project is functioning and meeting its goals. During this past year, the evaluation team assisted NARBHA to develop evaluation capacity among the sites, identify important program implementation and outcome indicators, and develop an effective and realistic plan to incorporate consistent measures across all programs. This work provides the framework within which process and outcome evaluations can be conducted. While it had been anticipated that funding for the evaluation would continue for at least one more fiscal year, that did not come to fruition. Because some counties had not implemented their programs as of September 2006, when this report was written, and because some counties had only recently started their programs, evaluation data available for this report were very limited. Only Navajo County, which started its program in January 2006, had submitted data for their participants. The evaluation team also conducted a site visit in Navajo County in July 2006 during which a participant focus group and staff interviews were completed. The team also observed a mental health court team staffing and a court session. The findings from these efforts are presented later in this report. The evaluation team felt that other programs, such as the Mohave County mental health court, had not been in operation long enough to warrant site visits because programs often undergo significant changes during the early months of implementation as staff determine which procedures work best. The team did conduct telephone interviews in September 2006 with each county to gather information on program development and implementation progress. This information is presented in the Program Development and Implementation section. The evaluation team understood that the first project year would present program start-up challenges for the counties. For this reason, the team selected a limited number of evaluation goals related to program implementation and evaluation capacity to focus on during the first year. The purpose of the first phase of evaluation was to: Conduct a review of the mental health court literature to help determine appropriate process and outcome measures Develop a global data collection system, with input from program staff, that is applicable across sites for uniform data collection Describe each program and the target populations Identify key challenges and barriers to program implementation Describe major accomplishments Develop a comprehensive program logic model Each of these goals was met, to the extent possible, given the delayed start up of some of the programs. The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections: Literature review: Presents a summary of the latest thinking and research findings related to mental health courts. Program Development and Implementation: Provides information about each program's development and implementation progress. This sections also present findings from the evaluative efforts conducting with the Navajo County mental health court. Database and Forms: Describes the ACCESS database and data collection forms developed by the evaluation team working in concert with program staff. Summary and Recommendations Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2006. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/narbha-final-report-final.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/narbha-final-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145421 Keywords: Diversion ProgramsMental Health CourtsMental Health ProgramsMentally Ill OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Lurigio, Arthur Title: A Statewide Examination of Mental Health Courts in Illinois: Program Characteristics and Operations Summary: Background Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are designed to serve the challenging, multifarious, and extensive service needs of people with serious mental illness (PSMI). The current report describes the findings of an evaluation of MHCs in Illinois. First implemented nearly 20 years ago, MHCs provide treatment and programming in comprehensive case management strategies, which draw on permanent partnerships with community-based agencies and a wealth of providers through a brokered network of interventions. Most employ a team approach to supervision with dedicated stakeholders (prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, mental health professionals), individualized treatment plans, voluntary and informed participation, specialized dockets and caseloads, and highly involved and proactive judges who preside over frequent court hearings and non-adversarial proceedings. Satisfactory program completion is defined by predetermined criteria. Clients are motivated to succeed by the threat of sanctions and the promise of rewards. Methods The current evaluation of Illinois’ MHCs was performed in stages with overlapping data collection procedures. The first phase of the research was intended to yield a snapshot of MHC programs in the state: jurisdictions in the planning stages of MHC implementation, those with operational programs, and those still deciding whether an MHC was feasible or warranted in terms of clients’ needs for services and the availability of local resources to support court operations and client interventions. All 23 court jurisdictions in Illinois were contacted for the screener survey. Given the critical role of services in client recovery and adjustment, the second stage of the evaluation involved a telephone survey of major providers in a wide variety of service domains. The next stages of the evaluation involved on-site triangulating data collection procedures in the 9 operational MHCs: court observations, focus groups with program staff members, and archival analyses. Client interviews and recidivism analyses were also performed in three programs, which were carefully selected for this purpose due to the distinctive nature of their location, size, program structure, and client population. Major Findings The Landscape: In spring 2010, 19 of the state’s 23 court circuits participated in the screener survey. At the time of the study, 6 courts reported no plans for MHC implementation, 6 were in the planning process to establish one, and 9 had operational programs. From spring 2010 to spring 2014, the number of operational MHCs grew from 9 to 21, an increase of 133%. At the time of the screener survey, the 9 operational MHCs served a total of 302 participants; 46% were women. African Americans were overrepresented among participants relative to the local population, whereas Latinos (measured as ethnicity) were underrepresented. Jurisdictions with no or little interest in launching an MHC were smaller and rural in composition. Courts in rural areas of the state served smaller populations, and, therefore, they had fewer PSMI and correspondingly fewer resources to meet their treatment needs. Unlike respondents who voiced no plans for an MHC, those in the planning process were all located in mostly non-rural large court circuits and counties. Overall, the planning processes in all counties were lengthy, deliberate, and collaborative. In some instances, the planning teams sought support and consultation from colleagues in their own or other criminal court systems or from MHC experts in the state. The first MHCs in Illinois were implemented in 2004, and the most recent one in the study period was implemented in 2008. Most of the jurisdictions with operational MHCs actually performed a formal needs assessment before launching their programs, and they consulted with experts to help design the programs. All of the jurisdictions involved law enforcement administrators in the planning and creation phases of their MHC programs. MHC Elements and Staffing: Most Illinois MHCs were largely characterized by the 10 elements of an MHC as defined by the Council of State Governments. These included: broad stakeholder planning and administration of the program; the selection of target populations that address public safety and the link between mental illness criminal involvements; statutory exclusions of potential participants based on charges and diagnosis; terms of participation that include mandatory supervision and mental health treatment; voluntary participation and informed choice; hybrid team approaches to case management with judges, attorneys, probation officers, mental health professionals, and TASC case managers who provided supervisory and brokered treatment services; regular court hearings and phased supervision; and a wide range of treatment and service options to address clinical and habilitation needs. The roles and responsibilities of MHC personnel were generally circumscribed; however, MHC staff often discussed working together and being flexible in order to “get things done” for clients (coalescing around client needs). Staff members frequently mentioned teamwork as the key component of program and client success, and it was consistently apparent at case staffings. MHC Services: MHCs provided a panoply of services to clients, which ranged from case management and crisis intervention to in-and out-patient treatments in the areas of mental health and substance abuse programming and aftercare. Nearly all MHCs offered clients partial (day) hospitalization, and more than half offered them inpatient hospitalization for substance use disorders and addictions. All the MHCs reported the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in their programs. The most common EBPs were, in descending order: cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, integrative dual disorder treatment, and supportive employment. The least common EBPs were, in descending order: assertive community treatment and illness management and recovery. The most serious challenge to MHCs is the paucity of resources and services, especially in the mental health arena. Recidivism Analyses: Among the three counties selected for an investigation of recidivism, 31% of participants were rearrested for a felony only, while half were rearrested for a felony or misdemeanor offense. The highest number of rearrests occurred within the first year of postMHC entry. Half were rearrested during probation supervision and nearly 40% after probation release (not mutually exclusive groups). These results compare somewhat favorably with those reported in a statewide study of probationers, which found that 38% were rearrested during probation and 39% were rearrested after discharge from probation (not mutually exclusive groups) (cf., Adams, Bostwick, & Campbell, 2011). Clients’ Perceptions: The overwhelming majority of clients reported that their participation in the program benefitted them in several ways. For example, respondents indicated that the program improved their lives by fostering both general and specific improvements in their well-being and functioning. For example, respondents stated that the program encouraged and supported changes that helped them “become better persons” and “get [their lives] back together.” These types of global betterments in their lives were the most commonly reported benefits of MHC participation and are perhaps related to elevations in self-efficacy and selfesteem, as well as alleviations in symptoms. Self-reported specific improvements related to participation in MHC fell mostly into two areas: accessibility to psychiatric care and diversion from incarceration. Specifically, respondents noted that MHC afforded them with the medications and treatments needed to facilitate their recovery from chronic mental illness. In addition, many clients recognized that participation in MHC was a desirable alternative to jail or prison. Details: Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2015. 242p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/MHC_Report_1015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/MHC_Report_1015.pdf Shelf Number: 146004 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsMental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Problem-solving Courts: An Evidence Review Summary: Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. This paper reviews the research on problem-solving courts and finds that, when used correctly, they can reduce reoffending and cut costs. Coming at a time when both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have expressed an interest in problem-solving, this review is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What does the evidence tell us? There are many different kinds of problem-solving courts, each specialising in tackling a different need, type of crime, or even a different area. Looking at the evidence for different forms of court, we found: Drug courts: The evidence on adult drug courts is strong. It suggests that they are effective at reducing substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. However, the evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative. It suggests they have either minimal or harmful impacts on young offenders. Family drug and alcohol courts: The evidence on family drug and alcohol courts (and the related family treatment courts) is good. It suggests that they are effective in tackling parental substance misuse and can reduce the number of children permanently removed from their families. Mental health courts: The evidence on mental health courts is good. High-quality international evidence suggests that mental health courts are likely to reduce reoffending, although they may not directly impact offenders’ mental health. Domestic violence courts: The evidence on the impact of problem-solving domestic violence courts on outcomes for victims,such as victim safety and satisfaction, is good. The evidence on their ability to reduce the frequency and seriousness of a perpetrator reoffending is promising. This is encouraging when set against the lack of other effective options for reducing reoffending by perpetrators of domestic violence. Community courts: The international evidence that community courts reduce reoffending and improve compliance with court orders is promising. However, the evidence of their impact in England and Wales is mixed (though drawing conclusions from a single pilot site is difficult). We also looked at evidence on effective ways of working with women and young adults in the justice system. While problem-solving courts working with these groups are a new idea and little direct evidence is available on their effectiveness, the evidence suggests that there is potential for courts for these groups to improve outcomes if they draw from existing good practice. Why do problem-solving courts work? As well as looking at whether problem-solving courts work, we also looked at research which seeks to understand how they work. We found two main themes: Procedural fairness: evidence shows that perception of fair treatment leads to better compliance with court orders. Effective judicial monitoring is strongly associated with effectiveness. It relies on clear communication and certainty. Details: London: The Centre, 2016. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Shelf Number: 146967 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsFamily and Alcohol CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Han, Woojae Title: Impact of Community Treatment and Neighborhood Disadvantage on Recidivism in Mental Health Courts Summary: The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of community treatment and neighborhood disadvantage on recidivism among offenders with mental health problems in Mental Health Courts (MHCs) and in traditional courts. Although treatment is believed to lead to reduced recidivism for offenders with mental illness, little research has been conducted for MHC participants. Further, neighborhood disadvantage are known to influence recidivism generally, but environmental factors have not been examined in the MHC context. Data from the MacArthur MHC study were analyzed. The sample includes 741 offenders with mental illness from four counties. Participants were interviewed at baseline and six months after and objective arrest data were collected. Multilevel modelling and propensity score weighting was used to investigate individual level (level 1) and neighborhood level (level 2) variances on recidivism and to control for selection bias. Neighborhood disadvantage data were obtained from the American Community Survey at U.S. Census Bureau, and linked with residential data from participants. Study results suggest that some of treatment variables have significant impact on arrest. For example, MHC participant with more substance abuse service were less likely to be arrest compared to those with less substance abuse service before the court enrollment. Both TAU and MHC participants has significant effect of neighborhood disadvantage on arrest before the court enrollment. After the court enrollment, only MHC participant continued to have effect of neighborhood disadvantage on arrest. In addition, MHC participant with higher treatment motivation were less likely to recidivate compared to those with lower treatment motivation after the court enrollment. The probability of recidivism remained statistically lower among the MHC than the TAU group after the court enrollment. Understanding treatment characteristics and neighborhood disadvantage associated with recidivism for offenders with mental illness can help to more efficiently target research, practice, and policy in the future. In addition, social work professionals should recognize themselves the importance of the treatment related variables and neighborhood disadvantage to provide, develop, and implement innovative interventions for offender with mental illness. Lastly, this research will shed new light into future interventions and/or policies that aim to reduce the recidivism for this difficult-to-treat population of offenders. Details: Albany, NY: University at Albany, 2016. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250535.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250535.pdf Shelf Number: 141247 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismSocioeconomic Conditions and Crime |
Author: Kubiak, Sheryl Title: Evaluation of the Wayne County Mental Health Court. Year 5: Long‐term Outcomes and Cost Savings Wayne County, Michigan Summary: A Wayne County MHC was initially funded in December 2008 as a pilot program in a joint collaboration between the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), Michigan Department of Community Health, and Detroit Wayne Mental Health Authority (DWMHA). Evaluations conducted during the first three years of operation (2009-2011) focused on development, implementation, processes, and assessment of preliminary outcomes, as well as an initial cost analysis of the program. The fourth year of operation (2012) corresponded to the end of the pilot phase and assessment of the eight pilot MHCs as part of a statewide outcome evaluation. The fifth year of operation (2013) provided the opportunity to assess the long‐term outcomes and cost savings of the program as individuals involved with the program in 2009 - 2011 have been discharged or rejected from the program for one year or more. Between the inception of the MHC in April of 2009 and September 2013, nearly 300 individuals were screened for participation in the program. Of those screened, 199 individuals were admitted to and 91 were rejected from the MHC. At the time of this report, 50 individuals were actively engaged in the program and 149 were discharged. Of those discharged, 105 were discharged for more than one year, 40 successfully and 65 unsuccessfully. Those rejected from the MHC present an opportunity to compare outcomes and costs of MHC participants (Treatment Group) to similar individuals who did not participate in the MHC (Comparison Group). Of the 91 individuals rejected from MHC, 33 were excluded from analysis because the reason for rejection suggested they were dissimilar from the Treatment Group. Of the remaining 58, 45 individuals were rejected from MHC for more than one year. As a result, three groups were used to illustrate the long‐term outcomes and cost analysis: Successful (N=40), Unsuccessful (N=65), and Rejected (N=45). All three groups had similar characteristics at admission to/rejection from the MHC. The average age across all three groups was 37 years old and 50%-54% of each group was of minority status. There were no significant differences by mental health diagnosis, though co‐occurring substance use disorders were more common for the Treatment Group (86%-88%) than the Comparison Group (74%). The proportion of females was higher in the Treatment Groups (31%-33%) compared to the Comparison Group (16%). There were differences in terms of the assessed risk: the proportion of those in the Successful Group assessed as "high risk" overall and for violence was significantly lower than others. Despite similarities across the groups at admission/rejection, the Successful Group had better long‐term criminal justice and treatment outcomes. In terms of recidivism, only 18% of the Successful Group experienced any incarceration in the post‐MHC period compared to 69% (Unsuccessful) and 88% (Rejected), incurring just 10 days of incarceration compared to 153 (Unsuccessful) and 98 days (Rejected). Similarly, the Successful Group demonstrated optimal response in terms of mental health treatment: the average number of low‐level services (e.g. group/individual sessions, med reviews) increased post‐MHC, indicating sustained engagement, while high‐level services (e.g. hospitalization, crisis residential) decreased.Reduced criminal justice involvement and high‐level treatment need, translated to cost savings for members of the Treatment Group. Applying unit costs to standard transactions incurred by members of the Treatment and Comparison Groups in the post‐MHC period, a cost savings of $22,865 per successful participant and $7,741 per unsuccessful participant as compared to those rejected by the MHC. The driving factor in the cost savings between the groups are victimization costs. Extrapolating these costs across all participants of the MHC, yields a total savings of $1,417,740 for those discharged or rejected from the MHC for more than one year to date. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2014. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: https://socialwork.msu.edu/sites/default/files/Research/docs/WayneMHCCourt.Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://socialwork.msu.edu/sites/default/files/Research/docs/WayneMHCCourt.Final.pdf Shelf Number: 147021 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCost-Benefit AnalysisMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
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 |
Author: Worwood, Erin B. Title: Statewide Evaluation of Utah Mental Health Courts: Phase I Summary: This report provides details on the programs, participants, eligibility criteria, and methods/outcomes used to study 43 MHCs across the United States, Australia, and Canada. It also describes the program components, target populations, and available data for the nine MHCs in Utah. Both the Utah MHCs and the studies included in this review reflect significant heterogeneity in terms of program and study components. Unfortunately, these differences limit the generalizability of findings across programs. Nevertheless, this report provides a detailed cataloguing of methods used to evaluate the impact of MHCs and can be used to inform discussions as a statewide evaluation plan is finalized. Details: Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center and College of Social Work, 2015. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2019 at: https://socialwork.utah.edu/_resources/documents/ucjc-reports/statewide-ut-mhc-study_part-1-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: https://socialwork.utah.edu/research/reports/posts/statewide-mental-health-court-study/index.php Shelf Number: 156208 Keywords: Disabilities Human Rights Jails Mental Health Courts Mental Hospitals Mental Illness Prison Reentry |