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.

Notes

TAU = treatment as usual; ACT = assertive community treatment; QOL = quality of life; TCC = traditional criminal court offenders.