No abstract

Mental health court (MHC) research consistently finds that defendants who successfully complete and graduate from the court are less likely to recidivate than those who do not. However, research has not assessed what happens to these noncompleters once they are sent back to traditional court. Using follow‐up data on six years of noncompleters from pre‐adjudication MHC, we examine what happens to these defendants in traditional court. Findings suggest that 63.7% of defendants' charges were dismissed, 21.0% received probation, and 15.3% were sentenced to incarceration. We examine the time to disposition and differences in defendant characteristics and disposition outcome as well as the relationship between disposition and subsequent recidivism. Results suggest that more severe punishments in traditional court are associated with recidivism. Logistic regression analysis shows that defendants whose charges were dismissed in traditional court were less likely to recidivate than those who were sentenced to probation or incarceration. Our findings highlight the need for future MHC evaluations to consider traditional court outcomes and support trends towards post‐adjudication courts. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The number of problem-solving courts has grown substantially since the mid-1990s. Research consistently indicates that participation in these courts lowers recidivism, which is often attributed to defendants' increased perceptions of procedural justice in these programs. Yet, prior studies are limited in their focus, often examining interactions with the judge in a single court or examining defendant perceptions and outcomes at a single time point. In the present study, we investigate defendant perceptions of procedural justice with judges and case managers across multiple problem-solving courts over time. Findings indicate that procedural justice varies across court actors and over time. Procedural justice is lower among judges than among case managers; however, changes in perceptions of procedural justice with the judge are associated with improved court outcomes. We suggest that defendant perceptions are variable and complex but important in explaining variations in outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract