What Have We Learned From Evaluations of Mental Health Courts?

Mental health courts are relatively new. Therefore, outcome information is limited. However, implementation and process information describing these courts is widely available and documents the implementation successes of and challenges faced by mental health courts. In addition, results from outcome evaluations show that some mental health courts are having positive impacts. However, we do not know the long-term effects of mental health courts and few evaluations have been conducted that indicate whether mental health courts are responsible for the short-term outcomes achieved.

When it comes to helping mentally ill offenders, mental health courts have shown positive outcomes related to treatment and satisfaction with the process. A common perception is that the informality and decreased adversarial nature of the mental health court, when compared to traditional courts, decreases the barriers mentally ill offenders often face in receiving treatment through traditional courts. Some mental health courts have shown greater success with mentally ill offenders than traditional courts. Mental health courts have been shown to provide:

More treatment,

Better treatment, and

Faster linkages to appropriate treatment.

In addition, there is some evidence that when compared to traditional misdemeanor court, the mental health court received more favorable ratings by offenders on various procedural justice variables including:

Providing the offender with an opportunity for involvement in his/her case,

Respectful treatment by authority, and

Fairness.

Mental health courts may be more effective for individuals with certain problems than others; one study reported that the mental health court was not as effective for those with both mental health and substance abuse problems than those with only mental health problems.

For the criminal justice system and the community, mental health courts have been useful for facilitating case processing, saving court resources, and reducing subsequent offending. Studies show that mental health courts:

Resolve cases more rapidly than traditional courts despite the increased information gathering,

May enhance communication among mental health, community, and criminal justice agencies,

Successfully target appropriately diagnosed mentally ill offenders,

Oversee the mental status and use of mental health services for offenders,

May contribute to lower rates of recidivism, and

May result in decreased time in jail following referral to the mental health court.

When mental health courts experience implementation problems, these problems are often related to a lack of treatment resources, insufficient funding, and information-sharing problems. Implementation problems occur when the mental health court serves inappropriate individuals, such as seriously mentally ill and incompetent offenders. Finally, mental health courts that share the same courtroom, staff, attorneys and judges as traditional courts have documented the difficulty in transitioning from a case-focused approach to an individualized, defendant-focused approach when both courts meet on the same day.

| | |
| | |