Article

Rearrest and linkage to mental health services among clients of the Clark County mental health court program.

Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, Oregon 97207, USA.
Psychiatric Services (Impact Factor: 1.99). 08/2005; 56(7):853-7. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.56.7.853
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study examined rearrest and linkage to mental health services among 368 misdemeanants with severe and persistent mental illness who were served by the Clark County Mental Health Court (MHC). This court, established in April 2000, is based on the concepts of therapeutic jurisprudence. This study addressed the following questions about the effectiveness of the Clark County MHC: Did MHC clients receive more comprehensive mental health services? Did the MHC successfully reduce recidivism? Were there any client or program characteristics associated with recidivism?
A secondary analysis of use of mental health services and jail data for the MHC clients enrolled from April 2000 through April 2003 was conducted. The authors used a 12-month pre-post comparison design to determine whether MHC participants experienced reduced rearrest rates for new offenses, reduced probation violations, and increased mental health services 12 months postenrollment in the MHC compared with 12 months preenrollment.
The overall crime rate for MHC participants was reduced 4.0 times one year postenrollment in the MHC compared with one year preenrollment. One year postenrollment, 54 percent of participants had no arrests, and probation violations were reduced by 62 percent. The most significant factor in determining the success of MHC participants was graduation status from the MHC, with graduates 3.7 times less likely to reoffend compared with nongraduates.
The Clark County MHC successfully reduced rearrest rates for new criminal offenses and probation violations and provided the mental health support services to stabilize mental health consumers in the community.

0 Followers
 · 
83 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mental health courts (MHCs) operate on the principles of procedural justice (PJ). PJ highlights the importance of process over outcomes in encounters with authority. Subjective perceptions of having voice, being heard by decision-makers, and being treated with respect and concern by figures of authority are influential in assessment of fairness and in cooperation with decisions, regardless of favorability of the outcome. In this paper, we investigate MHC participant perception of PJ in interactions with MHC staff and the association between perceptions and recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests, and probation violations), treatment adherence, and MHC termination. Participants from two MHC programs (n = 80) took part in this study. Results suggest that perception of PJ during interactions with the entire MHC team is significantly associated with program termination, but not with participant behaviors during MHC. Implications for MHC practitioners and researchers are discussed.
    Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 04/2014; 25(3):321-340. DOI:10.1080/14789949.2014.915338 · 0.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    Law and Human Behavior 05/2015; DOI:10.1037/lhb0000135 · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mental health court (MHC) research consistently finds that defendants who successfully complete and graduate from the court are less likely to recidivate than those who do not. However, research has not assessed what happens to these noncompleters once they are sent back to traditional court. Using follow-up data on six years of noncompleters from pre-adjudication MHC, we examine what happens to these defendants in traditional court. Findings suggest that 63.7% of defendants' charges were dismissed, 21.0% received probation, and 15.3% were sentenced to incarceration. We examine the time to disposition and differences in defendant characteristics and disposition outcome as well as the relationship between disposition and subsequent recidivism. Results suggest that more severe punishments in traditional court are associated with recidivism. Logistic regression analysis shows that defendants whose charges were dismissed in traditional court were less likely to recidivate than those who were sentenced to probation or incarceration. Our findings highlight the need for future MHC evaluations to consider traditional court outcomes and support trends towards post-adjudication courts. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Behavioral Sciences & the Law 01/2015; DOI:10.1002/bsl.2163 · 0.96 Impact Factor