Recent Developments In Mental Health Courts: What Have We Learned?

Abstract

Mental health courts (MHCs) are problem-solving courts that attempt to redirect individuals with mental illness into treatment rather than incarceration (Wolff, 2003). The primary purpose of this article is to provide a narrative review of recent evidence on the empirical status of MHCs and suggest directions for future social work research. Such a review is critical given the existence of 300 MHCs in the United States (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011) with more in development. Four major questions guided our review: (a) How do they work? (b) Does a theoretical basis exist to explain how they work? (c) What is the nature of the evidence? and (d) What are the characteristics of the mentally ill who choose not to participate in MHC programs and of those who are negatively terminated? Though studies have shown reductions in assessed outcomes, a lack of methodologically strong evaluations significantly limits the strength of those results. There exists a need for additional, methodologically rigorous studies to better understand the effectiveness of MHCs.

A Feminist Call for Transforming the Criminal Justice System

“…Social workers are responsible for providing services to incarcerated women, those in transition to the community, and those involved in mental health courts (Sarteschi, & Vaughn, 2013), and drug courts (Mendoza, Linley, & Nochajski, 2013). However, we lack a common conceptual framework for understanding and responding to the ways in which the buildup of the Prison Nation is relevant for social work practice.…”

Review on the effectiveness of Canadian and American mental health courts

“…There is a need to synthesize the recent research on MHCs given the sheer amount of published research and the proliferation of MHCs. In recent years, there have been a series of meta-analyzes and systematic reviews on MHCs to synthesis this research [10][11][12][13][14]. However, these articles have almost exclusively focused on American contexts.…”

“…Five articles previously conducted a standardized review of recidivism rates for MHCs [10][11][12][13][14]. All these articles reported that MHC participants typically had lower recidivism rates compared to those in regular court.…”

Rearrests During Mental Health Court Supervision: Predicting Rearrest and Its Association with Final Court Disposition and Postcourt Rearrests

“…If violations of conditions continue despite sanctions, mental health court participants can be negatively terminated from the court, which results in a conviction on the charges for which they entered the court, as well as a fine, or incarceration in jail or prison. In contrast, mental health court participants who successfully complete supervision have their criminal charges dropped or avoid jail time if a conviction is required (Sarteschi & Vaughn, 2013).…”