Recidivism Outcomes for Suburban Mental Health Court Defendants

Mental health courts have recently emerged as one means to reduce the number of persons with mental illness in the criminal justice system. Using a post-test only comparison group design, this study examined rearrest rates for 1 year post discharge among three groups meeting admission criteria for a municipal mental health court. The rearrest rate of defendants who successfully completed the program (N = 351) was 14.5%, compared to 38% among defendants negatively terminated from the program (N = 137), and 25.8% among defendants who chose not to participate (N = 89). This positive result held even when controlling for a range of variables in a Cox regression survival analysis. Factors associated with rearrest are identified for each of the three groups.     

Courting Compliance: Case Managers as “Double Agents” in the Mental Health Court

An ethnographic study of four Midwest mental health courts was focused on how case managers influence the judicial response to offender noncompliance. Mental health courts, which bear little resemblance to traditional work group models, are staffed by teams of legal and social service professionals working collaboratively toward reducing recidivism and community reintegration for high‐risk offenders. Few studies, however, have explored how treatment providers practice their trade in this new court organization. I investigate how case management professionals, working at the intersections of the social welfare and criminal justice systems, leverage courtroom decision making that results in greater leniency or enhanced punishment. The findings suggest that mental‐health‐court case managers act as boundary spanners in terms of their strategic use of resources to facilitate treatment goals. I conclude that case managers act as “double agents” challenging the state to advocate for clemency while enforcing client rules to uphold the integrity of the court.     

The Effectiveness of a Mental Health Court in Reducing Recidivism in Individuals with Severe Mental Illness and Comorbid Substance Use Disorder

The current study examined the efficacy of a specialized mental health court in reducing recidivism for severely mentally ill defendants with comorbid substance use disorders. There is a wealth of research supporting the efficacy of mental health courts in reducing recidivism for those with severe mental illness; however, the benefit of these courts for individuals with severe mental illness and comorbid substance use disorders has received limited empirical attention. Participants were 514 defendants enrolled in either a traditional adversarial court or a specialized mental health court. Recidivism was assessed across different outcome variables, including frequency of reoffending, severity of new offenses, and length of time to reoffend. When compared to participants in the traditional adversarial court, enrollment in mental health court was associated with a greater length of time to rearrest and fewer participants were rearrested in the mental health court than the traditional court. Group differences between those with and without comorbid substance use disorders who were enrolled in the mental health court were not found across recidivism outcome metrics. Results of the current study are particularly promising given that defendants with substance use disorders are at a greater risk for reoffending.     

Patterns of Practice in Mental Health Courts: A National Survey

Mental health courts (MHCs) represent an important new development at the interface of the criminal justice and mental health systems. MHCs are criminal courts for persons with mental illness that were in part created to divert this population from jail/prison into community treatment. MHCs are proliferating rapidly despite limited knowledge regarding their characteristics or their efficacy. We surveyed the entire population of adult MHCs in the United States, n = 90. In the past 8 years, MHCs have been created in 34 states, with an aggregate current caseload of 7,560 clients in MHCs nationally. Most courts (92%) reported using jail as a sanction for noncompliance, if only rarely. Further, jail sanction use was significantly predicted by increased judicial supervision and number of felons in the court. Implications for MHCs and social monitoring are discussed.     

Mental health, gender, and drug court completion

Drug-involved offenders report high rates of mental health problems that can negatively impact criminal justice outcomes. Yet, relatively little attention has been given to the mental health issues of drug court offenders. Therefore, this study examined 449 participants in a Delaware drug court and investigated relationships between mental health, gender, and program completion. Bivariate results indicated that gender was related to both mental health status and completion status. Multivariate findings revealed that two indicators of mental health, depression and being prescribed drugs for a psychological or emotional problem, were significant predictors of drug court completion. Policy implications include assessing the mental health status of all drug court participants at program entry so that services can be provided which aim to improve offender health and increase the likelihood of successful program outcomes. Drug courts must better meet the needs of participants with co-occurring disorders if they are to remain an effective and viable criminal justice intervention. This research was supported by grant RO1 DA12424 “Drug Court Offenders in Outpatient Treatment,” by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.     

Recidivism and Psychiatric Symptom Outcomes in a Juvenile Mental Health Court

Few researchers have examined outcomes in Juvenile Mental Health Courts. Recidivism rates were assessed among 108 predominantly African American (95.3%) youth. Ages ranged from 12 to 18 (M = 15.85, SD = 1.45). Substantially fewer re‐convictions, along with re‐arrests, were exhibited among the treatment group (n = 54) compared to the control group (n = 54) after one year of participation or probation supervision. Psychiatric symptomatology among 21 youth was assessed pre‐ and post‐ intervention using the Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales‐Self Report. Cohen's d effect sizes indicated substantial reductions in mental health symptoms (.33 ≥ d ≤ .88). Results are consistent with the previous studies of problem‐solving court efficacy.     

The Drug Court as Postmodern Justice

The drug court is far more than a new version of the old drug-diversion idea. It is a fundamental embodiment of postmodern justice and represents a paradigm shift from criminal court practices. This article compares the drug court to the criminal court in terms of the dimensions of the modernism-postmodernism debate as specified in legal research and public policy scholarship. First, the courts are differentiated in terms of their worldviews, ideas on the nature of society, definitions of truth, and conceptions of the foundation of law. Next, the drug court and criminal court jurisprudence are juxtaposed. Specific dimensions include their collaborative versus adversarial systems and the individualized versus the due process framework. Finally, the two courts are considered in terms of their divergent visions of the drug user. Upon analysis, it appears that the two courts are in an intractable ideological disagreement framed by competing modern versus postmodern intellectual dispositions.     

Long-term recidivism of mental health court defendants

The first MHC was established in 1997 and now, over 15 years later, there are over 300 mental health courts in the United States. In a relatively short time these courts have become an established criminal justice intervention for persons with a mental illness. However, few studies have looked at the long-term outcomes of MHCs on criminal recidivism. Of the studies evaluating the impact of MHCs on criminal recidivism, most follow defendants after entry into the court during their participation, and only a few have followed defendants after court exit for periods of one or two years. This study follows MHC defendants for a minimum of five years to examine recidivism post-exit with particular attention to MHC completion's effect. Findings show that 53.9% of all MHC defendants were rearrested in the follow-up and averaged 15 months to rearrest. Defendants who completed MHC were significantly less likely to be rearrested (39.6% vs. 74.8%), and went longer before recidivating (17.15 months vs. 12.27 months) than those who did not complete. This study suggests that MHCs can reduce criminal recidivism among offenders with mental illness and that this effect is sustained for several years after defendants are no longer under the court's supervision.     

刑事诉讼审级制度之反思与重构

现代各国的刑事诉讼审级制度虽有一定差异,但多是以三审终审制为原则确立的。随着市场经济的发展和我国法院改革的不断深化,现有四级两审终审制的缺陷已不断显现,并与现代审级制度的一般原理相悖。现有审级制度在程序设计上以及在与司法体制相融合时表现出的渚多缺陷,已经影响到对被告人诉讼权利的保护和司法公正的实现,因此需重新建构以三审终审为原则,以一审终审为补充的刑事诉讼审级制度,同时实行法院的职能分层,规范再审制度。     

Mentally ill offenders eligible for diversion at local court in New South Wales (NSW), Australia: factors associated with initially successful diversion

Diversion away from the criminal justice system and into mental health treatment services is a key strategy for addressing the well-established burden of mental illness suffered by those presenting to court. While mental health courts, court liaison and court diversion services have been developed in many jurisdictions internationally, there is limited research evidence to support their effectiveness in identifying those with mental health need and achieving successful diversion. The Statewide Community and Court Liaison Service in New South Wales, Australia, identifies mentally ill offenders likely to meet legal eligibility criteria for diversion at the busiest local courts across the state. Utilising data collected by mental health clinicians working in the service, 8317 individuals were identified as being eligible for court diversion on at least one occasion during the study period (1 July 2008 and the 30 June 2015) and 57.3% were subsequently diverted by Magistrates. Successful diversion at this first step was associated with being female, older, of non-Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background, and having a serious mental illness, replicated when stratified by sex and by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There may be barriers to mental health diversion at court for individuals with particular socio-demographic characteristics which future service developments may need to take into account.     

Juvenile Court Clinical Services: A National Description

There have been few studies of the manner in which juvenile courts obtain clinical evaluations and consultation by juvenile court clinicians in order to identify and respond to youths with mental health problems. This study involved a telephone survey of professionals associated with juvenile court clinic (JCC) services in 87 of the largest juvenile court jurisdictions nationwide, providing data on their professional staff, functions, procedures, organizational and financial structures, and methods for providing evaluations to juvenile courts. We identified three models of JCC service delivery systems. Differences between the JCC service models offer hypotheses pertaining to potential differences in efficiency and quality of services and service delivery.     

Baseline subjective stress predicts 1-year outcomes among drug court clients

Psychological stress has long been known to predict negative changes in physical and behavioral health in the general population. The same relationships have been found in research on drug abusers. In this longitudinal study, 477 clients of two Kentucky drug courts were followed for 1 year to examine the relationship between subjective stress at intake and outcomes 1 year after the baseline of this 18-month drug court program. Greater baseline subjective stress was significantly associated with poorer employment, substance use, criminal justice, and health outcomes at 1-year follow-up, even after adjusting for selected demographic characteristics and baseline levels of the outcomes of interest. If these results are replicated in these and other drug courts, then a stress reduction treatment trial within the drug court context should be attempted and evaluated.     

Worthy of Justice: A Veterans Treatment Court in Practice

This article examines the purpose and practice of a Veterans Treatment Court (VTC), a new type of problem-solving court designed to connect qualifying former service members in the criminal justice system with social services. While existing studies of VTCs explain these courts by focusing on veterans' distinct needs or deservingness based on their military service, this article argues that these courts are being created because of societal beliefs about veteran worth. By revealing how court staff, participants, and volunteers in one VTC invoke beliefs about veteran worth, the findings of this study show that VTCs link worth to veteran identity, leaving participants suspended in conflicting notions of state and individual responsibility for criminal behavior.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

The impact of judge–defendant communication on mental health court outcomes

Previous research has shown that mental health courts have been successful in reducing the rates of recidivism among mentally ill offenders. However, none of these studies, to date, have examined exactly what aspects of the courts reduce these rates of recidivism and what makes them successful. The current study utilized a sample of 291 mentally ill criminal offenders participating in a mental health court to examine whether those participants who were addressed by and communicated with the judge had a reduction in recidivism rates and the severity of new charges in comparison to those who did not. The hypotheses regarding greater judge–defendant communication and recidivism were not supported. This suggests that communication in and of itself is not sufficient to reduce recidivism. Future research of a qualitative nature is essential to identify if the frequency, tone, and valence of the communication results in improved outcomes. In addition, these results may indicate a necessity for more stringent training and guidelines for the maintenance of Mental Health Courts. Results of the current study suggested differences between genders, such that females were spoken to by the judge more frequently than were men.     

A Detailed Cost Evaluation of a Juvenile Drug Court that Follows the Juvenile Drug Court Model (16 Strategies)

Although juvenile drug courts (JDCs) have now been in operation for 17 years, there is still no definitive appraisal as to this model's cost effectiveness and in particular, no detailed cost analysis of a JDC program following the 16 strategies until this one. The cost data presented in this paper build on the process and outcome evaluations performed on the Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court (CCJDC). The criminal justice costs incurred by participants in drug court are compared with the costs incurred by eligible non‐participants. CCJDC participants had far more positive outcomes than those who did not participate in the program. In the two years after drug court entry, CCJDC participants cost the taxpayers $961 less per participant than similar individuals who did not attend the drug court program.     

Public Opinion of Teen,Classroom, and Formal Court Styles

The present research examined the views of a community sample regarding teen court, classroom court, and formal/traditional court. Participants read vignettes of teen offenders who had committed crimes of high or low severity and were given relatively severe or mild sentences through one of the three courts. Results revealed stronger support for teen court than the other courts, a general preference for harsh sentences, and a preference for match between crime and punishment. The results of this study indicate that teen courts are seen as providing an appropriate means to sentence juvenile offenders and are likely to receive public support for their continued operation.     

Mental Health Services for Incarcerated Youth: Report from a Statewide Survey

The need for mental health care has been steadily increasing for youth coming into contact with the juvenile probation system. This paper presents the results of a statewide survey of juvenile probation departments and associated mental health, health care, court, and education personnel in California. The intent of the survey was to better understand the costs and associated contexts of caring for youth with suspected mental disorders in juvenile detention facilities. The burden of caring for these youth on detention facilities and their staffs is substantial. Implications for courts, policy planning, training, and further research are discussed.     

Can Courtroom Behavior Predict Recidivism? An Assessment of the Courtroom Behavior Check List for Women Presenting in Drug Court

The U.S. criminal justice system is overwhelmed with individuals affected by substance use and psychiatric disorders often co-morbid with criminal behavior. Locally, an evaluation of St. Louis downtown municipal ordinance violators found that 49 % of offenders reported mental health problems, 30 % reported alcohol-related problems, 86 % had a history of prior arrests and 71 % had failed to appear in the St. Louis City Municipal Court within the previous 2 years (Downtown St. Louis Community Court Evaluation Report, St. Louis, MO). These compounded conditions and their corresponding treatment needs are costly and complicate correctional rehabilitation efforts. Drug courts have emerged as alternative ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ avenues designed to reduce drug use and associated individual risk behaviors. Unfortunately, there are few evidence-based measures available for rapid, onsite evaluation of an individuals’ potential for success with drug court. A new assessment tool, the Courtroom Behavior Check List (CRBCL), was developed to measure behavioral compliance in court as a predictor of future behavior, as we believed that behavior in court would predict future criminal behavior. We found scores on the CRBCL declined (e.g., improved) among the 127 women interviewed from baseline through the 8-month follow-up, and that a poorer score predicted re-arrest for a criminal offense (OR?=?2.84; 95 % CI 1.20–6.69). Based upon these findings, the CRBCL may be a useful tool to measure the likelihood of re-offending among women in drug court. Policy implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Enrollment in Mental Health Courts: Voluntariness,Knowingness, and Adjudicative Competence

Mental health courts (MHCs) are rapidly expanding as a form of diversion from jails and prisons for persons with mental illness charged with crimes. Although intended to be voluntary, little is known about this aspect of the courts. We examined perceptions of voluntariness, and levels of knowingness and legal competence among 200 newly enrolled clients of MHCs at two courts. Although most clients claimed to have chosen to enroll, at the same time, most claimed not to have been told the court was voluntary or told of the requirements prior to entering. The majority knew the “basics” of the courts, but fewer knew more nuanced information. A minority also were found to have impairments in legal competence. Implications are discussed.