Stopping the Revolving Door: Effectiveness of Mental Health Court in Reducing Recidivism by Mentally Ill Offenders
Abstract
Objectives
This study compared recidivism outcomes among criminal offenders with mental illness who were assigned to a mental health court (MHC) or a traditional criminal court. It also explored potential differences in outcomes between subgroups of offenders, including felony and misdemeanor offenders and violent and nonviolent offenders.
Methods
Data were obtained from court databases. Offenders in the MHC (N=198) and the traditional criminal court (N=198) were matched by propensity scores and followed for 12 months after the index offense. Data for the 12 months preceding the index offense were obtained for MHC participants. Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted, using both between-group and within-subjects designs.
Results
After control for covariates, logistic and Cox regressions indicated that MHC assignment predicted a lower overall rate of recidivism and longer time to rearrest for a new charge compared with assignment to traditional court. The groups did not significantly differ on the severity of the offense associated with rearrest. The findings largely held for felony, misdemeanor, violent, and nonviolent offenders, with the exception of analyses involving time to rearrest for violent offenders. Within-subjects analyses suggested that after MHC participation, there were improvements in occurrence of rearrest and time to rearrest but a tendency for rearrest to be associated with more severe offenses. Within the MHC group, recidivism outcomes did not significantly differ by class of offense.
Conclusions
The results suggest that an MHC can be effective in reducing recidivism among offenders with mental illness and also indicate that persons who commit more severe offenses may be appropriate candidates for MHC.
The prevalence of mental illness is higher among persons who have committed criminal offenses than in the general population (1,2). Offenders with mental illness reoffend at higher rates and more quickly after incarceration than offenders without mental illness (1,3–6). Mental health courts (MHCs) were developed to stem this trend, aiming to reduce the number and limit incarceration time of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system (7–9).
Although no standardized model exists, many MHCs share several characteristics (8,10–13). MHCs are criminal courts with a specialized court docket for mentally ill offenders, who typically voluntarily consent to enrollment. MHCs require participants to have a mental illness that likely contributed to one or more crimes, and some restrict enrollment to misdemeanor or nonviolent offenses (11,14). MHCs rely on a collaborative team of individuals, such as judges and social workers, to facilitate relationships between offenders and community support and to provide additional supervision.
Several studies have reported a trend for MHC participation to have an impact on recidivism outcomes. A recent meta-analysis reported a significant, moderate mean effect size for decreased rates of recidivism among participants in MHCs (15). MHC participants tend to reoffend less frequently (16–23), commit less severe crimes at rearrest (20), and take longer to reoffend (20,23,24). Although MHC researchers generally report positive findings, the methodology they employ varies greatly, and the quality of the study has an impact on the significance of the results. Meta-analytic data indicate that results for quasi-experimental studies were moderate and significant, whereas the pooled effect for studies comparing the effect of the program on a single group of individuals was nonsignificant (15). Even with quasi-experimental design, studies of MHCs typically utilize nonequivalent matched control groups (for example, Herinckx and colleagues [18]). Although random assignment would be ideal—examples include studies by Cosden and colleagues (16,25)—many stakeholders resist withholding services from control participants. Only two studies have employed statistical methods designed to control for the problems inherent in nonrandom assignment (21,26).
In addition to these concerns, previous studies failed to adequately address potential differences in effectiveness of MHC among classes of offenders. Many MHCs exclude or limit felony and violent offenders (10). Felony defendants, however, tend to have better recidivism outcomes than misdemeanants in the general population (27), among mentally ill offenders (5,6), and in drug courts (28). Felony-only (29) and combined misdemeanor-felony MHCs (16,20,22,25,26) have reported favorable recidivism outcomes, and two studies have reported no significant relationship between offense type and either odds of recidivism or number of jail days after exiting an MHC (22,24). No similar empirical examination has compared recidivism outcomes of violent and nonviolent offenders, although studies of drug courts offered preliminary support for inclusion of violent offenders in diversion programs (30). Generally speaking, the conclusions that can be drawn from research on recidivism among MHC participants have been limited by a lack of analyses by subgroup of offense type, given that the “dose” of MHC may differ on the basis of the type of index crime. (For example, the number of status hearings could differ as a function of severity of index offense [31]).
This study of an MHC in the southeastern United States attempted to expand upon previous findings in three main ways: by employing propensity score matching to control for nonrandom assignment, utilizing a control group of mentally ill offenders in traditional criminal court in the same jurisdiction, and exploring potential differences between felony and misdemeanor participants and violent and nonviolent participants. Outcomes were examined with both between-groups and within-subjects designs. We predicted that at 12-month follow-up, MHC defendants would have significantly lower rates of recidivism; if arrested again, would be charged with a less severe crime; and would have increased time to rearrest. We also predicted similar findings for subgroups of felony, misdemeanor, violent, and nonviolent offenders. In addition, we predicted MHC defendants would exhibit significantly lower rates of recidivism, subsequent arrests for less severe crimes, and increased time to rearrest during the 12 months after enrollment than during the 12 months before enrollment. Finally, we predicted recidivism outcomes for MHC defendants charged with a felony would be superior to those of MHC defendants charged with a misdemeanor, and violent MHC defendants would have superior recidivism outcomes than nonviolent MHC defendants.
Methods
Participants
Inclusion criteria for both the MHC group and the traditional-court control group were presence of a new charge in the years 2008–2010, index offense or reoffense other than a technical violation, and complete data for all demographic, diagnostic, and clinical variables used to generate propensity scores. Of the 824 MHC participants, 450 met inclusion criteria for this study. Included and excluded MHC participants significantly differed by gender (males, N=329, 73%, and N=243, 65%, respectively; χ2=7.75, df=1, p<.05). Of the 522 mentally ill offenders assigned to traditional criminal court, 227 were included in this study. Included and excluded traditional-court offenders significantly differed by diagnosis of a bipolar disorder (N=9, 4%, and N=47, 16%, respectively; χ2=21.47, df=1, p<.001). [A detailed description of the study setting and group assignment procedures is available online as a data supplement to this article.]
Florida State University’s Institutional Review Board approved the study, and the court also consented to data collection. This study was part of a larger data collection evaluating the MHC. Because data were retrieved from public records, informed consent was not required.
Measures
Access to the Jail Information System (JIS) and the Management Information System (MIS) was granted by the MHC's Board of County Commissioners. The JIS contains data for MHC and traditional court collected by the MIS. This database contains demographic, criminal, and diagnostic information for every defendant in the county of the MHC. These databases contain only information about arrests made in Florida. All data used in the analyses were retrieved from JIS and MIS or created by using data from those systems.
Index offense variables.
The index offense for the MHC group was the arrest resulting in a new charge that qualified the individual for participation in MHC. For the control group, the index offense was the first new charge that occurred during the same time period (2008–2010). The following index offense variables were used: severity of offense, categorization as misdemeanor or felony (0 or 1), and categorization as nonviolent or violent (0 or 1). Severity of offense was determined by a scale from 1 to 13, with 1 indicating noncriminal violations; 2, second-degree misdemeanors; 3, first-degree misdemeanors, and 4–13, felony offenses. Classification of felony offenses was based on the felony sentencing guidelines of the State of Florida (32). If an index arrest involved two or more charges, the most severe charge was used for analyses. Following McNiel and Binder (26), a violent offense was defined as harm or threat to a person; all others offenses were considered nonviolent.
Independent variable.
A dichotomous variable indicated assignment to traditional criminal court or MHC (0 or 1).
Dependent variables.
Data were collected for the following outcome variables during the 12 months after the index offense: any arrest resulting in a new charge (rearrest), sum of rearrests, number of months between index offense and rearrest, and severity of charge at first rearrest. In cases of two or more charges at rearrest, the most severe was used for analyses. Rearrest severity was coded by using the scale described above.
Pre-MHC variables.
Data for the 12 months before the index offense were obtained for MHC participants. The following variables were used: total number of arrests, type and severity of offense closest in time to the index offense, classification of offense closest in time to index offense as misdemeanor or felony and as nonviolent or violent, and number of months between the offense closest in time to the index offense and the index offense. Classification of severity and type of offense was defined and coded by using the procedures described above.
Control variables.
Along with index offense variables, the following covariates were used in the between-group analyses: diagnosis of mental illness, homelessness, and demographic information. Age at index offense was calculated by using date of birth and date of index offense. Two individuals were identified as Asian/Pacific Islander and were combined with African-American individuals to create a dichotomous race variable (white or nonwhite).
Data analysis
An intent-to-treat approach was utilized for all analyses.
Between-group analyses.
Analyses were conducted to compare recidivism between MHC and control group participants for the full sample and for each offense subgroup. Univariate comparisons were conducted for continuous (t tests) and categorical (chi square tests) recidivism variables. Multivariate techniques allowing for the consideration of the covariates’ impact on the relationships of interest were employed. Logistic regression analyses tested the hypotheses that court membership predicted rearrest in the 12 months after the index offense. Cox proportional hazards models tested the effect of court assignment on time to rearrest. Proportional hazards models assess group differences in survival time and consider time to failure (rearrest) in estimating the coefficients while controlling for the effects of covariates. In this study, individuals who had not reoffended by the end of the 12-month period were censored at month 12. For ease of interpretation, odds ratios [ORs] less than 1.00 were converted to ORs greater than 1.00. If univariate comparisons indicated that severity of rearrest was associated with group assignment, we were prepared to conduct multiple regression analyses to determine the impact of MHC enrollment on rearrest severity.
Within-subjects analyses.
Changes in outcomes in the MHC sample before and after enrollment in MHC were explored by using paired t tests. In addition, the bivariate and multivariate analyses described above were repeated to compare results for the MHC sample before and after participation. In these analyses, classification of index offense as felony or misdemeanor or as violent or nonviolent served as the independent variables.
Results
Propensity score matching
Propensity score matching was utilized to control for nonrandom assignment, resulting in a data set of 396 offenders (N=198 in each group) (33,34). [Detailed information on this procedure as well as overall data issues is available in the data supplement.] No significant differences were found between the two groups for the 32 variables assessed (Table 1). After the matching procedure was completed, tests of the proportionality of hazards assumption and multicollinearity were conducted, and the values were within acceptable levels (35).
| Total(N=396) | MHC group(N=198) | Control group(N=198) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Age at index offense (M±SD) | 35.93±11.74 | 36.42±12.47 | 35.45±11.21 | |||
| Severity of index offense (M±SD)b | 5.08±3.13 | 5.10±3.12 | 5.06±3.15 | |||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 284 | 72 | 137 | 69 | 147 | 74 |
| Female | 112 | 28 | 61 | 31 | 51 | 26 |
| Race | ||||||
| White | 193 | 49 | 95 | 48 | 98 | 50 |
| Nonwhite | 203 | 51 | 103 | 52 | 100 | 51 |
| Diagnoses | ||||||
| Substance use disorder | 31 | 8 | 20 | 10 | 11 | 6 |
| Intellectual disability | 9 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Depressive disorder | 28 | 7 | 17 | 9 | 11 | 6 |
| Bipolar disorder | 18 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Psychotic disorder | 56 | 14 | 30 | 15 | 26 | 13 |
| Anxiety disorder | 11 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Cognitive disorder | 1 | <1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Personality disorder | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Homeless | 1 | <1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Category of index offense | ||||||
| Theft | 62 | 16 | 35 | 18 | 27 | 14 |
| Robbery or burglary | 44 | 11 | 24 | 12 | 20 | 10 |
| Drug offense | 39 | 10 | 19 | 10 | 20 | 10 |
| Assault or battery | 67 | 17 | 32 | 16 | 35 | 18 |
| Murder | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Weapons | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Driving | 57 | 14 | 31 | 16 | 26 | 13 |
| Fraud | 17 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Kidnapping | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Obstruction | 28 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 18 | 9 |
| Sex offense | 13 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Child abuse or neglect | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Miscellaneous | 54 | 14 | 24 | 12 | 30 | 15 |
| Classification of index offense | ||||||
| Misdemeanor | 205 | 52 | 99 | 50 | 106 | 54 |
| Felony | 191 | 48 | 99 | 50 | 92 | 47 |
| Nonviolent | 297 | 75 | 153 | 77 | 144 | 73 |
| Violent | 99 | 25 | 45 | 23 | 54 | 27 |
a
The two groups were matched by propensity scores to control for nonrandom assignment of participants.
b
Severity of offense was determined by a scale from 1 to 13, with 1 indicating noncriminal violations; 2, second-degree misdemeanors; 3, first-degree misdemeanors, and 4–13, felony offenses. Classification of felony offenses was based on the felony sentencing guidelines of the State of Florida (32).
Between-group analyses
Full sample.
The MHC group had superior recidivism outcomes relative to the control group on nearly all observed outcome variables (Table 2). The MHC group had a significantly lower occurrence of rearrest (χ2=20.89, df=1, p<.001, φ=–.23), took longer to reoffend (t=–4.66, df=394, p<.001, d=–.47), and accrued a significantly lower number of rearrests (t=4.70, df=393, p<.001, d=.47). Severity of the rearrest offense did not significantly differ between the groups; therefore, multivariate analyses involving rearrest severity were not conducted.
| Occurrence of rearrest | Severity of rearrest offenseb | N of rearrestsc | Time to rearrest (months) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Index offense | N | % | p | φ | M | SD | p | d | M | SD | p | d | M | SD | p | d |
| Full sample | <.001 | –.23 | ns | — | <.001 | .47 | <.001 | –.47 | ||||||||
| MHC | 20 | 10 | 4.65 | 2.82 | .12 | .37 | 11.27 | 2.49 | ||||||||
| Control | 56 | 28 | 5.67 | 2.87 | .42 | .86 | 9.63 | 4.30 | ||||||||
| Felony | <.001 | –.29 | ns | — | <.001 | .28 | <.001 | –.32 | ||||||||
| MHC | 7 | 72 | 6.14 | 2.67 | .07 | .26 | 11.71 | 1.36 | ||||||||
| Control | 27 | 29 | 6.11 | 2.78 | .43 | .88 | 9.58 | 4.35 | ||||||||
| Misdemeanor | .012 | –.18 | ns | — | <.001 | .37 | <.001 | –.31 | ||||||||
| MHC | 13 | 13 | 3.85 | 2.64 | .16 | .45 | 10.84 | 3.21 | ||||||||
| Control | 29 | 27 | 5.25 | 2.95 | .41 | .85 | 9.67 | 4.28 | ||||||||
| Violent | .011 | –.25 | ns | — | .019 | .54 | .015 | –.50 | ||||||||
| MHC | 2 | 4 | 3.00 | .00 | .04 | .21 | 11.60 | 1.89 | ||||||||
| Control | 12 | 22 | 7.08 | 3.29 | .37 | .90 | 10.04 | 3.87 | ||||||||
| Nonviolent | <.001 | –.23 | ns | — | <.001 | .47 | <.001 | –.47 | ||||||||
| MHC | 18 | 12 | 4.83 | 2.92 | .14 | .40 | 11.18 | 2.64 | ||||||||
| Control | 44 | 31 | 5.28 | 2.66 | .44 | .85 | 9.47 | 4.46 | ||||||||
a
The MHC and control group each consisted of 198 offenders with a mental illness. Means were compared by t tests. Proportions were compared by chi square tests.
b
Severity of offense was determined by a scale from 1 to 13, with 1 indicating noncriminal violations; 2, second-degree misdemeanors; 3, first-degree misdemeanors, and 4–13, felony offenses. Classification of felony offenses was based on the felony sentencing guidelines of the State of Florida (32).
c
Nontransformed means are reported, but transformed means were used for t tests.
To assess the extent to which assignment to MHC predicted rearrest and time to rearrest, logistic and Cox regressions were conducted (Tables 3 and 4, Figure 1). The addition of court membership in the second step of the logistic regression contributed significantly to the model (Δχ2=19.47, df=1, p<.001), and the overall model was significant (χ2=43.71, df=14, p<.001). Assignment to the traditional criminal court compared with assignment to MHC significantly increased the odds of rearrest by 251% (β=–1.25, p<.001, exp[β]=3.51) (Table 3). Likewise, addition of court assignment significantly contributed to the Cox proportional hazards model (Δχ2=18.75, df=1, p<.001), and the overall model was significant (χ2=38.38, df=14, p<.001) (Table 4). MHC participation compared with assignment to traditional criminal court predicted a longer time to rearrest for the full sample (β=–1.08, p<.001, exp[β]=2.94). In addition, being male predicted a shorter time to rearrest for the full sample (β=.70, p=.021, exp[β]=2.01).
| Index offense | –2LLb | χ2 | df | Changein χ2 | β | SE | Wald | Exp(β)c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full sample | 340.12 | 43.71*** | 14 | 19.47*** | –1.25 | .30 | 17.51*** | 3.51 |
| Felony | 150.90 | 26.03* | 12 | 17.56*** | –1.83 | .48 | 14.28*** | 6.21 |
| Misdemeanor | 181.75 | 24.77** | 14 | 4.41* | –.81 | .40 | 4.20* | 2.25 |
| Violent | 63.87 | 16.20 | 11 | 5.63* | –1.89 | .91 | 4.27* | 6.59 |
| Nonviolent | 275.05 | 26.43** | 14 | 13.07*** | –1.12 | .32 | 12.11** | 3.08 |
a
The data represent step 2 of five logistic regressions. All covariates were entered in step 1, and court membership was entered in step 2. Only data for the independent variable are displayed. The change in chi square indicates the change from step 1 to step 2 (df=1).
b
–2LL, –2 log likelihood
c
To aid in interpretation, negative odds ratios (<1.00) were converted to positive odds ratios (>1.00).
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
| Index offense | –2LLb | χ2 | df | Changein χ2 | β | SE | Wald | Exp(β)c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full sample | 849.86 | 38.38** | 14 | 18.75** | –1.08 | .27 | 16.49** | 2.94 |
| Felony | 324.46 | 23.96* | 12 | 17.35** | –1.62 | .44 | 13.72** | 5.05 |
| Misdemeanor | 415.00 | 20.50* | 14 | 4.13* | –.67 | .34 | 3.60* | 1.95 |
| Violent | 111.46 | 15.26 | 11 | 4.78* | –1.55 | .82 | 3.60 | 4.72 |
| Nonviolent | 664.76 | 24.02* | 14 | 13.09** | –.98 | .29 | 11.86** | 2.67 |
a
The data represent step 2 of five logistic regressions. All covariates were entered in step 1, and court membership was entered in step 2. Only data for the independent variable are displayed. The change in chi square indicates the change from step 1 to step 2 (df=1).
b
–2LL, 2 log likelihood
c
To aid in interpretation, negative odds ratios (<1.00) were converted to positive odds ratios (>1.00).
*p<.05, **p<.001
Figure 1 Time to rearrest among criminal offenders with mental illness assigned to a mental health court (MHC) or a traditional criminal court (control), by type of offensea
a The cumulative survival function represents the proportion of offenders who survived (were not rearrested) in each group by the length of time (in months) from index offense. Survival functions were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. For both groups, the follow-up period was 12 months following index offense.
Subgroup analyses.
The results of subgroup analyses are reported in Tables 2–4 and in Figure 1. For each subgroup, assignment to MHC versus traditional criminal court significantly decreased the odds of rearrest (Table 3). MHC assignment was also significantly related to longer time to rearrest of participants charged with felony, misdemeanor, and nonviolent offenses. In addition, being male predicted a shorter time to rearrest for participants charged with misdemeanor (β=1.28, p=.005, exp[β]=3.61) and nonviolent (β=.73, p=.026, exp[β]=2.07) offenses. For violent offenders, the overall Cox regression model was nonsignificant, and the prediction of time to rearrest by MHC participation failed to reach statistical significance. All subgroup analyses involving severity of rearrest offense failed to reach significance.
Within-subjects analyses
Within-subjects analyses were conducted by using the full sample of MHC participants (N=450). [A table presenting the results of the analyses is available in the online data supplement.] The total number of arrests resulting in a new charge in the 12 months preceding the index offense was significantly higher than the total number of rearrests in the 12 months after the index offense (t=8.77, df=358, p<.001, d=.62). In addition, the number of months between the index arrest and the closest previous arrest was significantly less than the number of months between the index offense and the first rearrest (t=7.47, df=130, p<.001, d=1.02). Contrary to expectation, severity of the offense associated with rearrest was significantly higher than the severity of the offense associated with the arrest prior to the index offense (t=–2.16, df=110, p=.033, d=.25).
Hypotheses predicting greater success for felony offenders relative to misdemeanor offenders and for violent offenders relative to nonviolent offenders within the MHC were largely not supported by the results (data not shown). MHC defendants charged with a misdemeanor had a significantly higher occurrence of rearrest, relative to those charged with a felony (χ2=4.87, df=1, p=.027, φ = –.104); however, defendants charged with misdemeanors and felonies did not differ on odds of rearrest or time to rearrest. Defendants charged with violent and nonviolent offenses did not differ on any recidivism outcomes.
Discussion
This study adds to increasing evidence supporting the effectiveness of MHC in reducing recidivism among offenders with mental illness. Consistent with previous findings (16,20,22,23,25,26), MHC participants demonstrated better recidivism outcomes than a control group of offenders assigned to traditional criminal court as well as improvements in the occurrence of rearrest and time to rearrest before and after their participation. The results build upon previous findings in three important ways: employing propensity score matching to control for nonrandom assignment, utilizing a control group of mentally ill offenders in traditional criminal court in the same jurisdiction, and exploring differences between felony and misdemeanor participants and violent and nonviolent participants.
The inclusion of subgroup analyses is a significant contribution to the literature (31). Between-group findings remained unchanged across subgroups, with the exception of a nonsignificant finding for the prediction of time to rearrest by violent offense. Furthermore, within the MHC sample, misdemeanor offenders had higher rearrest prevalence than felony offenders but did not significantly differ on time to rearrest or severity of rearrest offense. Violent and nonviolent offenders did not significantly differ on any recidivism outcome. This demonstration of benefit across subgroups of offenders offers preliminary evidence that classification of offense is an inefficient variable for excluding individuals from MHC.
Given the nature of the MHC studied (as described in the online data supplement), these data, in conjunction with existing literature, suggest that the mere act of keeping mentally ill offenders out of jail may be one primary mechanism by which MHCs affect offending outcomes. The criminology literature has established that, at best, incarceration does not reduce recidivism and, at worst, is iatrogenic (36,37). It is not unreasonable, therefore, to posit that placing vulnerable mentally ill offenders in a jail or prison, resulting in poor treatment access and exposure to a potentially dangerous environment, may be acutely harmful. As this study and others show, programs to keep mentally ill offenders in the community seem to have a positive impact on recidivism.
The increased attention and supervision paid to the MHC participants through regular status hearings also bear consideration as an explanation for the effects of MHC participation, but they are likely an associated mechanism rather than a primary mechanism of change. Perhaps the attention and supervision increase accountability and decrease criminal behavior among mentally ill offenders. Frequency of judicial status hearings varies greatly between MHCs. For example, Redlich and colleagues (38) reported a small, inverse relationship between court appearances and MHC completion, such that having fewer hearings was related to completion. This relationship, however, became nonsignificant after the study controlled for other predictor variables (38). Notably, whereas many authors have asserted that participant-judge interaction style results in positive MHC outcomes (39–45), others have pointed to the importance of the entire MHC team’s knowing the defendant and treating him or her with empathy and respect (44). Given the limited judge-defendant interaction in the MHC studied (45), future studies should consider not only frequency of hearings but also team-defendant interactions as well. More globally, future studies should dismantle the components of MHC and experimentally test their importance in order to fully understand the mechanisms of change in MHCs.
Contrary to prediction, comparisons of severity of the rearrest offense between the MHC and the control groups failed to reach significance, and severity of rearrest offense was significantly higher after participation in the MHC. Although examination of this outcome is considered important by many, findings in the literature regarding rearrest severity are limited and equivocal (20,46). Utilization of a Florida statute as the basis for severity ranking, a system developed by the legislature, could have influenced the findings of this study.
Although this study had a number of strengths, it should be considered in light of the limitations. Generalizability of findings is concerning for a variety of reasons, including findings of lower rearrest rates than reported by other studies and the use of data from only one jurisdiction. Aggregate observations of multiple courts are necessary to determine the overall effect of MHC independent of the idiosyncrasies of individual courts (21). Although we believe that the use of a control group in the same jurisdiction strengthened the study, we were unable to determine the reasons that members of the control group did not qualify for MHC.
Another limitation was the lack of random assignment. Although propensity score matching was utilized to reduce risk of selection bias, it remains possible that factors we were unable to control for influenced court assignment. Likewise, data on jail time during the follow-up period were unavailable, and the absence of this information could have had an impact on the results; however, individuals in the control group would be more likely to spend time in jail, causing an overestimation of the control group’s success and an underestimation of the effect of MHC. Finally, one judge presided over each branch of the MHC (felony and misdemeanor); thus, no comparisons could be made across the court’s two judges, given that their cases did not overlap.
Conclusions
These findings add to the evidence that MHC produces favorable recidivism outcomes. The results also indicate that felony and violent offenders can benefit from inclusion in MHCs. Despite lacking some “essential” characteristics of MHC, the MHC studied engendered significant improvements. Such findings highlight a need for more studies investigating the necessity of common MHC characteristics. Future research would benefit from a focus on the mechanisms of change in MHC and on identifying characteristics of individuals who respond best to participation in MHC.
Acknowledgments and disclosures
This study was in part supported by a State of Florida Substance Abuse and Reinvestment Grant (2009–2011). Dr. Anestis completed this research in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Florida State University and thanks her dissertation committee for their feedback and guidance regarding the manuscript: Chris Schatschneider, Ph.D., Mark Licht, Ph.D., Edward Bernat, Ph.D., and William Bales, Ph.D. She also thanks Amanda Gallagher, M.S., Emily Gottfried, M.S., Haley Gummelt, M.S., and the undergraduate lab members who aided in data collection; Scott Vrieze, Ph.D., and Sylia Wilson, Ph.D., for statistical advice; and Michael Anestis, Ph.D., for his feedback.
The authors report no competing interests.
Supplementary Material
Supplemental Material (1105_ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 40.29 KB
References
1.
Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Washington, DC, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006. Available at www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf
2.
Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, et al.: Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry 62:617–627, 2005
3.
Baillargeon J, Binswanger IA, Penn JV, et al.: Psychiatric disorders and repeat incarcerations: the revolving prison door. American Journal of Psychiatry 166:103–109, 2009
4.
Cloyes KG, Wong B, Latimer S, et al.: Time to prison return for offenders with serious mental illness released from prison: a survival analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior 37:175–187, 2010
5.
Lovell D, Gagliardi GJ, Peterson PD: Recidivism and use of services among persons with mental illness after release from prison. Psychiatric Services 53:1290–1296, 2002
6.
O’Keefe ML, Schnell MJ: Offenders with mental illness in the correctional system. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 45:81–104, 2007
7.
Casey P, Rottman DB: Therapeutic jurisprudence in the courts. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 18:445–457, 2000
8.
Goldkamp J, Irons-Guyn J: Emerging Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload: Mental Health Courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage. Pub no NCJ 182504. Washington, DC, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Apr 2000
9.
Petrila J, Poythress NG, McGaha A, et al.: Preliminary observations from an evaluation of the Broward County mental health court. Court Review 37:14–22, 2000
10.
Redlich AD, Steadman HJ, Monahan J, et al.: The second generation of mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11:527–-538, 2005
11.
Redlich AD, Steadman HJ, Monahan J, et al.: Patterns of practice in mental health courts: a national survey. Law and Human Behavior 30:347–362, 2006
12.
Steadman HJ, Davidson S, Brown C: Mental health courts: their promise and unanswered questions. Psychiatric Services 52:457–458, 2001
13.
Thompson M, Osher F, Tomasini-Joshi D: Improving Responses to People With Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court. New York, Council of State Governments Justice Center for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2007
14.
Erickson SK, Campbell A, Steven Lamberti J: Variations in mental health courts: challenges, opportunities, and a call for caution. Community Mental Health Journal 42:335–344, 2006
15.
Sarteschi CM, Vaughn MG, Kim K: Assessing the effectiveness of mental health courts: a quantitative review. Journal of Criminal Justice 39:12–20, 2011
16.
Cosden M, Ellens JK, Schnell JL, et al.: Evaluation of a mental health treatment court with assertive community treatment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21:415–427, 2003
17.
Dirks-Linhorst PA, Linhorst DM: Recidivism outcomes for suburban mental health court defendants. American Journal of Criminal Justice 37:76–91, 2012
18.
Herinckx HA, Swart SC, Ama SM, et al.: Rearrest and linkage to mental health services among clients of the Clark County mental health court program. Psychiatric Services 56:853–857, 2005
19.
Linhorst DM, Dirks-Linhorst PA, Stiffelman S, et al.: Implementing the essential elements of a mental health court: the experiences of a large multijurisdictional suburban county. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research 37:427–442, 2010
20.
Moore ME, Hiday VA: Mental health court outcomes: a comparison of re-arrest and re-arrest severity between mental health court and traditional court participants. Law and Human Behavior 30:659–674, 2006
21.
Steadman HJ, Redlich A, Callahan L, et al.: Effect of mental health courts on arrests and jail days: a multisite study. Archives of General Psychiatry 68:167–172, 2011
22.
Burns PJ, Hiday VA, Ray B: Effectiveness 2 years postexit of a recently established mental health court. American Behavioral Scientist 57:189–208, 2013
23.
Hiday VA, Wales HW, Ray B: Effectiveness of a short-term mental health court: criminal recidivism one year postexit. Law and Human Behavior 37:401–411, 2013
24.
Hiday VA, Ray B: Arrests two years after exiting a well-established mental health court. Psychiatric Services 61:463–468, 2010
25.
Cosden M, Ellens J, Schnell J, et al.: Efficacy of a mental health treatment court with Assertive Community Treatment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 23:199–214, 2005
26.
McNiel DE, Binder RL: Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry 164:1395–1403, 2007
27.
Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, DC, US Department of JusticeBureau of Justice Statistics, 2002
28.
Rempel M, Destefano CD: Predictors of engagement in court-mandated treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 33:87–124, 2002
29.
O’Keefe K: The Brooklyn Mental Health Court Evaluation: Planning, Implementation, Courtroom Dynamics, and Participant Outcomes. New York, Center for Court Innovation, 2006
30.
Saum CA, Hiller ML: Should violent offenders be excluded from drug court participation? An examination of the recidivism of violent and nonviolent drug court participants. Criminal Justice Review 33:291–307, 2008
31.
Wolff N, Pogorzelski W: Measuring the effectiveness of mental health courts: challenges and recommendations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11:539, 2005
32.
2013 Florida Statutes Section 921.0022. Available at www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0921/Sections/0921.0022.html
33.
Shadish WR, Steiner PM: A primer on propensity score analysis. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews 10:19–26, 2010
34.
Thoemmes FJ, Kim ES: A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research 46:90–118, 2011
35.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS: Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 2001
36.
Bales WD, Piquero AR: Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology 8:71–101, 2012
37.
Cullen FT, Jonson CL, Nagin DS: Prisons do not reduce recidivism: the high cost of ignoring science. Prison Journal 91(suppl):48S–65S, 2011
38.
Redlich AD, Hoover S, Summers A, et al.: Enrollment in mental health courts: voluntariness, knowingness, and adjudicative competence. Law and Human Behavior 34:91–104, 2010
39.
Fisler C: Building trust and managing risk: a look at a felony mental health court. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11:587–604, 2005
40.
Frailing K: How mental health courts function: outcomes and observations. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33:207–213, 2010
41.
Ray B, Dollar CB, Thames KM: Observations of reintegrative shaming in a mental health court. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 34:49–55, 2011
42.
Wales HW, Hiday VA, Ray B: Procedural justice and the mental health court judge’s role in reducing recidivism. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33:265–271, 2010
43.
Canada KE, Watson AC: “’Cause everybody likes to be treated good”: perceptions of procedural justice among mental health court participants. American Behavioral Scientist 57:209–230, 2012
44.
Castellano U: Courting compliance: case managers as “double agents” in the mental health court. Law and Social Inquiry 36:484–514, 2011
45.
Gottfried E, Carbonell J, Miller L: The impact of judge-defendant communication on mental health court outcomes. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 37:253–259, 2014
46.
Trupin E, Richards H: Seattle’s mental health courts: early indicators of effectiveness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 26:33–53, 2003
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Girl on a Swing, by Maxfield Parrish. Drawing, oil on paper. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, bequest of Susan Vanderpoel Clark (67.155.3). Image © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Image source: Art Resource. New York.
History
Published online: 1 September 2014
Published in print: September 2014
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).