scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Assessing the effectiveness of mental health courts: A quantitative review

01 Jan 2011-Journal of Criminal Justice (Pergamon)-Vol. 39, Iss: 1, pp 12-20
TL;DR: The findings suggest that MHCs are an effective intervention but this assertion is not definitive as many of the studies are not as strong as would be ideal thus limiting the conclusions.
About: This article is published in Journal of Criminal Justice.The article was published on 2011-01-01. It has received 166 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Mental health court & Mental health.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article summarizes what is known in seven broad criminal justice areas by drawing on 118 systematic reviews, providing persuasive evidence of the effectiveness of programs, policies, and practices across a variety of intervention areas.
Abstract: Research Summary Just four decades ago, the predominant narrative in crime prevention and rehabilitation was that nothing works. Since that time, criminologists have accumulated a wide body of evidence about programs and practices in systematic reviews. In this article, we summarize what is known in seven broad criminal justice areas by drawing on 118 systematic reviews. Although not everything works, through our “review of reviews,” we provide persuasive evidence of the effectiveness of programs, policies, and practices across a variety of intervention areas. Policy Implications It is time to abandon the idea that “nothing works,” not only in corrections but also in developmental, community, and situational prevention; sentencing; policing; and drug treatment. Nevertheless, key gaps remain in our knowledge base. The results of systematic reviews should provide more specific guidance to practitioners. In many areas few randomized evaluations have been conducted. Finally, researchers, through their studies and systematic reviews, must pay more attention to cost–benefit analysis, qualitative research, and descriptive validity.

105 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is recommended that future mental health court research examine the impact of available community services, as well as consider the effect of criminogenic risk factors, on therapeutic and recidivism outcomes.
Abstract: Mental health courts divert offenders with mental illness away from incarceration in return for participation in monitored mental health treatment. Since their inception in the late 1990 s, the proliferation of these problem-solving courts has outpaced the research on their effectiveness. A review of the literature was conducted, yielding 20 articles from peer-reviewed journals. Mental health courts were evaluated for their ability to improve psychiatric symptoms, connect individuals with behavioral health services, improve overall quality of life, and reduce recidivism rates. A majority of articles reported favorable recidivism outcomes for participants, with few evaluating their impact on therapeutic outcomes. At the present time, mental health courts represent an emerging practice, but have not yet reached the level of an evidence-based model. Existing studies of mental health courts suffer from methodological limitations, specifically, a lack of experimental design, use of nonrepresentative samples, and assessment over short timeframes. Moreover, the inherently idiosyncratic nature of these courts and the variance in reporting of court-specific eligibility criteria make cross-article comparison more difficult. It is recommended that future mental health court research examine the impact of available community services, as well as consider the effect of criminogenic risk factors, on therapeutic and recidivism outcomes.

62 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Using structural equation modeling with MHC participants from four courts, a significant, direct relationship between TJ and MHC completion was found, such that higher levels of TJ were associated with higher rates of success and a higher likelihood of MHC graduation.
Abstract: Research demonstrates that mental health courts (MHCs) lead to improved outcomes compared to traditional criminal court processes. An underlying premise of MHCs is therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). However, no research, to our knowledge, has examined whether MHC outcomes are predicted by TJ principles as theorized. In the present study, we examined whether principles measured at the onset of MHC enrollment (knowledge, perceived voluntariness, and procedural justice) predicted MHC completion (graduation). Using structural equation modeling with MHC participants from four courts, a significant, direct relationship between TJ and MHC completion was found, such that higher levels of TJ were associated with higher rates of success. Although this direct effect became nonsignificant when mediator variables were included, a significant indirect path remained, such that increased levels of initial perceived voluntariness and procedural justice, and MHC knowledge, led to decreased rates of new arrests, prison, MHC bench warrants, and increased court compliance, which, in turn, led to a higher likelihood of MHC graduation.

59 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...For example, via meta-analysis, Sarteschi et al. (2011) found a 0.54 effect size in favor of MHCs reducing recidivism over that of comparison samples....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Results suggest that the RNR model may be an effective case management approach for MHCs to assist with decision-making regarding admission, supervision intensity, and intervention targets, and that interventions in MHC contexts should attend to both criminogenic and mental health needs.
Abstract: The current study examined the impact of a mental health court (MHC) on mental health recovery, criminogenic needs, and recidivism in a sample of 196 community-based offenders with mental illness. Using a pre-post design, mental health recovery and criminogenic needs were assessed at the time of MHC referral and discharge. File records were reviewed to score the Level of Service/Risk-Need-Responsivity instrument (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2008) to capture criminogenic needs, and a coding guide was used to extract mental health recovery information at each time point. Only mental health recovery data were available at 12 months post-MHC involvement. Recidivism (i.e., charges) was recorded from police records over an average follow-up period of 40.67 months post-MHC discharge. Case management adherence to the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of offender case management was also examined. Small but significant improvements were found for criminogenic needs and some indicators of mental health recovery for MHC completers relative to participants who were prematurely discharged or referred but not admitted to the program. MHC completers had a similar rate of general recidivism (28.6%) to cases not admitted to MHC and managed by the traditional criminal justice system (32.6%). However, MHC case plans only moderately adhered to the RNR model. Implications of these results suggest that the RNR model may be an effective case management approach for MHCs to assist with decision-making regarding admission, supervision intensity, and intervention targets, and that interventions in MHC contexts should attend to both criminogenic and mental health needs.

55 citations


Cites background or result from "Assessing the effectiveness of ment..."

  • ...From a responsivity perspective, addressing mental health issues within the context of MHC is an important goal to improve overall quality of life (Sarteschi et al., 2011) and to enhance engagement in treatment (Drieschner & Verschuur, 2010) and motivation for change (Walters, Vader, Nguyen, Harris, & Eells, 2010)....

    [...]

  • ...In line with these general findings, a meta-analysis of MHC outcome studies (Sarteschi et al., 2011) found a medium effect size for changes in General Assessment of Functioning scores (Hedge’s g ....

    [...]

  • ..., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression), may contribute to this heterogeneity in clinical recovery and treatment success (Boothroyd, Mercado, Poythress, Christy, & Petrila, 2005; Herinckx et al., 2005; Sarteschi et al., 2011)....

    [...]

  • ...From a responsivity perspective, addressing mental health issues within the context of MHC is an important goal to improve overall quality of life (Sarteschi et al., 2011) and to enhance engagement in treatment (Drieschner & Verschuur, 2010) and motivation for change (Walters, Vader, Nguyen,…...

    [...]

  • ...…and chronicity of disorders reflected in MHC populations (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression), may contribute to this heterogeneity in clinical recovery and treatment success (Boothroyd, Mercado, Poythress, Christy, & Petrila, 2005; Herinckx et al., 2005; Sarteschi et al., 2011)....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

62,157 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

46,935 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jacob Cohen1
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a procedure for having two or more judges independently categorize a sample of units and determine the degree, significance, and significance of the units. But they do not discuss the extent to which these judgments are reproducible, i.e., reliable.
Abstract: CONSIDER Table 1. It represents in its formal characteristics a situation which arises in the clinical-social-personality areas of psychology, where it frequently occurs that the only useful level of measurement obtainable is nominal scaling (Stevens, 1951, pp. 2526), i.e. placement in a set of k unordered categories. Because the categorizing of the units is a consequence of some complex judgment process performed by a &dquo;two-legged meter&dquo; (Stevens, 1958), it becomes important to determine the extent to which these judgments are reproducible, i.e., reliable. The procedure which suggests itself is that of having two (or more) judges independently categorize a sample of units and determine the degree, significance, and

34,965 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is introduced, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Abstract: Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Us...

23,203 citations