The Role of Mental Health Courts in Mitigating Family Violence.

Mental health courts are one potential means to mitigate violence against family members by people with mental illness. This study identified the rate at which cases of family violence come before a mental health court and the success of defendants charged with assaulting family members. In a sample of 1,456 defendants eligible to participate in a mental health court, descriptive statistics were used to report rates of admission of defendants charged with assaulting family members and their characteristics; a static group design was used to compare post-program rearrests among defendants who assaulted family members who successfully completed the program, who did not complete the program, and who did not participate despite being eligible; and logistic regression was used to determine the effect of participation on rearrest when controlling for demographic and clinical factors. The study found that family violence occurred in 24.7% of admitted cases. Most eligible defendants who assaulted family members (75.8%) participated in the court program, and among those who did, 72.2% successfully completed the program. Defendants who assaulted family members and had a positive program termination had a much lower rate of rearrest post-program completion compared with those who did not complete the program or did not participate despite being eligible, a finding that held when controlling for other factors. This study suggests that mental health courts can be an effective option for mitigating family violence committed by people with mental illness.

Characteristics and Outcomes of People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Participating in a Mental Health Court.

This study compares characteristics and outcomes of 70 defendants with and 1,122 without intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) participating in a mental health court. Demographic and clinical characteristics differed, but criminal justice or program characteristics did not. Age, race, marital status, living situation, court location, health insurance status, and likelihood of mental illness or substance abuse diagnosis differed between the two groups. When controlling for other factors, a diagnosis of IDD did not affect the odds of negative termination from the court but did reduce the odds of rearrest within 1 year of leaving the court. Some mental health courts exclude people with IDD; the study concludes inclusion is appropriate.

Implementing the essential elements of a mental health court: the experiences of a large multijurisdictional suburban county.

Mental health courts developed in the USA in the late 1990s as one means to reduce the involvement of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system. In response to the growth in number of mental health courts, the Council of State Governments led an initiative to identify essential elements of mental health courts to guide their development and implementation. This paper applies these essential elements to a municipal mental health court in a multijurisdictional, suburban county. While this court met most essential elements, they faced a number of challenges. The primary ones included not being able to advance from hearing municipal cases only to state misdemeanor and felonies, not having the resources to expand program capacity for municipal cases, and participants not being able to always access needed mental health treatment, rehabilitation, and support services. The paper concludes with implications for behavioral health administrators and direct service staff in implementing the essential elements of mental health courts.