Running Head: MENTAL HEALTH COURT IN THE UNITED STATES 1

Mental Health Court in the United States:

History, Policy, Design, Implementation, Evidence Based Practices, Measurement of

Success and Recommendations for Future

CJS 400: Independent Study

Kelly Haag

Illinois State University

7/31/2013

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 2

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Introduction to Mental Health Courts

Definition of the Social Problem: Why do we need mental health courts (MHCs)?

Lack of support and community treatment services have led to an increased involvement

of individuals with serious mental illness and/or co-occurring disorders in the criminal justice

system. According to the Council of State and Local Governments (2002) “people with mental

illness are falling through the cracks of this country’s social safety net and are landing in the

criminal justice system at an alarming rate” (p xxi). This phenomenon has been referred to as

“criminalization of mentally disordered behavior” (Wolff, Frueh, Huening, Shi, Eperson,

Morgan & Fisher, 2012, p. 1). It has been estimated that there are over one million adults with

serious mental illness involved in the criminal justice system (Cloud & Davis, 2013; Wolff, et

al., 2012). According to Slate (2003) there was a reported 154% increase in the number of

persons with mental illness in jails from 1980 to 1992 (p. 11). As a result, the criminal justice

system has become the de facto mental health system (Slate and Johnson, 2010). The criminal

justice system is not equipped to adequately meet the needs of persons with mental illness and

thus public safety is threatened and additional expenses are incurred by taxpayers (Abramsky &

Fellner, 2003; MCES QUEST, n.d.; Slate & Johnson, 2010; Waters, Strickland & Gibson, 2009).

Few linkages exist between the criminal justice and mental health care systems (Almquist &

Dodd, 2009; Blanford & Osher, 2012; Slate, 2003). Mentally ill individuals that come into the

criminal justice system may find themselves in circumstances that intensify their problems

(Abramsky & Fellner, 2003; Blanford & Osher, 2012)

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 3

The definition of serious mental illness is not steadfast between policymakers, law

enforcement officials or community mental health providers. Serious mental illness (SMI)

includes schizophrenia, major affective disorder, psychotic disorder and borderline personality

disorder (MCES QUEST, n.d.). It may also include PTSD, as the prevalence of this disorder

among the population of individuals coming into contact with the criminal justice system is on

the rise (Slate & Johnson, 2008). One definition of mental illness in court literature refers to

“severe and persistent mental illness” which includes conditions that involve “long term and

profound impairment of functioning” (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2002, p5).

Schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar, disorder, severe depression and anxiety

disorders are included under this definition. Approximately three out of four people with mental

illness involved in the criminal justice system also suffer from a co-occurring substance use

disorder (COD) (Ax & Fagan, 2007; Slate & Johnson, 2008). Therefore, the co-occurring

disorders must be addressed within the context of the problem of persons with mental illness

coming into contact with the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system consists of law enforcement, the courts and correctional

services (Council of State and Local Governments, 2002). This includes frontline police

officers, jailers, prison employees, sheriffs, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Collaboration between these entities is essential to the success of mental health court

interventions.

Definition of a Mental Health Court

Establishment of mental health courts was based on the theory that a solution to the

problem of mentally ill criminal offenders required voluntary participation in a therapeutic

program that would reduce recidivism in this population and also result in greater accessibility to

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 4

mental health services for these individuals (Castellano & Anderson, 2012; Goldkamp & Irons-

Guynn, 2000; Slate, 2003)

The growing impact of persons with mental illness in the criminal justice system

prompted judges to seek innovative ways of addressing the issue (Patrilla & Redlich, n.d.)

Mental health court development has resulted from the work of passionate and dedicated judges

who recognized that mentally ill individuals were frequenting the court system and cycling in

and out of that system (Castellano & Anderson, 2012) As of 12/31/2009 there were 288

operational mental health courts in the United States (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011). Courts

were developed independently and focused on the needs and resources of individual

communities (Lurigio & Snowden, 2009; Redlich, Hoover, Summers & Steadman, 2010). The

diversity of the court processes implemented by MHCs has led to a common adage in the field

that says, “When you’ve seen one mental health court, you’ve seen one mental health court”

(Castellano & Anderson, 2012, p. 70). There has yet to be established a single, common mental

health court model (Slate, 2003). This creates difficulties for implementation, practice and

evaluation of MHC programs. Researchers are examining the differences in mental health court

programs in order to best determine “What Works” in MHC programming.

The Council of State Governments Justice Center Criminal Justice/Mental Health

Consensus Project (2008) offers the following working definition of a Mental Health Court:

“A mental health court is a specialized court docket for certain defendants with mental illness that substitutes a problem-solving model for traditional criminal court processing. Participants are identified through mental health screenings and assessments and voluntarily participate in a judicially supervised treatment plan developed jointly by a team of court staff and mental health professionals. Incentives reward adherence to the treatment plan or other court conditions, nonadherence may be sanctioned, and success is determined according to predetermined criteria” (p.4).

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 5

Although mental health court programs differ significantly from one jurisdiction to

another, research on existing, successful mental health court programs has identified 10 essential

elements for court design and implementation (Thompson, Osher & Tomasini-Joshi, 2008). The

10 essential elements are based on two key principles. First, true cross system collaboration

involving criminal justice, mental health, substance abuse treatment and related system is

essential to successfully implement and operate a mental health court (Thompson, et al.,

2008;;Watson,Hanrahan, Luchins & Lurigio, 2001). Second, mental health courts are not a cure-

all for the problem of individuals with mental illness being overrepresented in the criminal

justice system (Lurigion & Snowden, 2009; Thompson, et al., 2008). Instead, it is one piece in a

comprehensive approach to addressing the problem.

The mental health court intervention occurs after the individual with mental illness has

been arrested and charged with a crime and is therefore defined as a post-booking diversion

program. There are pre-booking diversion programs. However, they are beyond the scope of

this particular policy analysis. One reason for post-booking diversion is that there is greater

possibility for participation in rehabilitative interventions at this stage of the process.

Mission and Goals of Mental Health Court Programs

The very fact that the success of MHCs requires strong collaboration between criminal

justice interests and community mental health providers seems to set the stage for goal conflicts

within the program. The primary concern of criminal justice professionals is public safety.

Mental health care providers focus on the personal well-being and the self-determination of the

client. Mental health court teams and Federal, State and local policymakers have captured the

goals of each practice perspective quite well in policy documents.

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 6

A review of mental health court literature and the Policy and Procedures Manuals of

individual mental health court programs identifies a strong agreement on the missions and goals

of these programs. Following are examples of MHC mission statements:

“The mission of the Behavioral Health Court of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco is to enhance public safety and reduce recidivism o criminal defendants who suffer from serious mental illness by connecting these defendants with community treatment services and to find appropriate dispositions to criminal charges by considering the defendant’s mental illness and the seriousness of the offense” (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, 2008, p.2).

“It is the mission of the Livingston County Behavioral Health Intervention Court to enhance public safety and reduce recidivism by diverting persons with mental illness from the Livingston County Judicial System through a cost-effective collaboration of legal, clinical and community resources” (Livingston County MHIC Policy and Procedures Manual, 2012,p.2).

“The mission of the BMHC is to address both the treatment needs of defendants with mental illness and public safety concerns of the community by linking defendants with mental illness to treatment as an alternative to incarceration”(O’Keefe, 2006, p.1).

These mission statements strongly support the goals outlined by the Council of State

Governments Justice Center (2008) in- Mental Health Courts: A Primer for Policymakers and

Practitioners. Those goals are as follows:

Increased public safety for communities by reducing criminal activityand lowering the high recidivism rates for people with mental illness who become involved in the criminal justice system (p.8).

Increased treatment engagement by participants by brokering comprehensive services and supports and supports, rewarding adherence to the treatment plan and sanctioning nonadherence (p.8).

Improved quality of life for participants by ensuring that program participants are connected to needed community based treatment, housing and other services that encourage recovery (p.8).

More effective use of resources for sponsoring jurisdictions by reducing repeated contacts between people with mental illness and the criminal justice system and by providing treatment in the community when appropriate, where it is more effective and less costly than in correctional institutions (p. 8).

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 7

Slate and Johnson (2008) claim the following goals for mental health court programs: (1)

cooperation between criminal justice and mental health systems, (2) identification of the most

effective and least restrictive treatment interventions, (3) effective legal advocacy for the

mentally ill, (4) assessment of mental health delivery and receipt of services, (5) involvement of

consumers and family members in the court process, and finally (6) diversion to community

mental health treatment programs (p. 135). The aforementioned goals were incorporated into

the majority of MHC programs reviewed for this work.

First and Second Generation Mental Health Courts

The original mental health courts, referred to in the literature as first generation courts,

targeted nonviolent, misdemeanor offenders (Castellano & Anderson, 2012). The first

generation courts were developed to address three key issues (Goldkamp & Irons-Guynn, 2000).

These included the public safety risk of mentally ill offenders, the issues involved in placement

of the mentally ill offenders in local jails, and the inadequacy of the traditional criminal process

in dealing with mentally ill individuals (Goldkamp & Irons-Guynn, 2000; Wolff, et al., 2012).

These innovative court programs were designed using strategies that had previously been

incorporated into existing drug court programs (Lurigio & Snowden, 2009). These first

generation courts have been mildly successful in reducing rates of recidivism of offenders with

mental illness, but they have not been successful in reducing the number of mentally ill offenders

involved in the criminal justice system (Canada & Watson, 2012; Odegaard, 2007; Wolff, et al.,

2012

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 8

Mental Health Court Policy in the United States

National

National level policy regarding the planning and implementation of mental health courts was

sponsored by Senator Mike DeWyne (R-OH). PL 106-515: America’s Law Enforcement and

Mental Health Project was signed into law on November 13, 2000 (GPO, 2013). This bill

authorized $10 million in grants for programs that provide “continuing judicial supervision” over

misdemeanor and non violent offenders with mental illness, retardation, or co-occurring mental

illness and substance abuse disorders through FY 2004(National Center for State Courts, 2013).

The bill would fund mental health courts modeled after programs already implemented in

Broward Co., FL and King County, WA (NCSC, 2013). This bill also authorized the formation

of the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project (Council of State Governments, 2002).

On October 30, 2004 PL 108-414: the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime

Reduction Act (MIOCRA) became federal law. This law authorized a $50 million grant program

to be administered by the U.S. Department of Justice to help states and counties design and

implement collaborative efforts between criminal justice and the mental health system (NCSC,

2013). Mental health court programs were among those eligible for funding under this

legislation (NCSC, 2013).

In 2008 PL 110-419: Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction

Reauthorization and Improvement act of 2008 was enacted into law (NCSC, 2013). This law

reauthorized the grant funding for mental health court programs along with a number of other

law enforcement/mental health collaboration projects.

State

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 9

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 10

I. Mental Health Court Policy in the United States

A. National

B. State

a. Summary

b. Illinois

a. Current Court Programs in IL

II. Mental Health Court Implementation

A. Understanding the Issue

B. Identify Stakeholders

C. Anticipate Stakeholder Questions/Concerns

D. Leverage Resources

E. Resource Mapping

Court Design

Thompson, Osher and Tomasini-Joshi (2008), in their report titled The Essential

Elements of a Mental Health Court, outline the implementation strategy as follows:

1. Planning and administrationa. A broad-based group of stakeholders representing the criminal justice,

mental health, substance abuse treatment, and related systems and the community guides the planning and administration of the court.

2. Target populationa. Eligibility criteria address public safety and consider a community’s

treatment capacity in addition to the availability of alternatives of pretrial detention for defendants with mental illness. Eligibility requirements take into account the relationship between mental illness and a defendant’s offense, while allowing the individual circumstances of each case to be considered.

3. Timely participant identification and linkage to services

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 11

a. Participants are identified, referred and accepted into mental health courts and then linked to service providers as quickly as possible

4. Terms of participationa. Terms of participation are clear, promote public safety, facilitate the

defendant’s engagement in treatment, are individualized to correspond to the level of risk the defendant presents to the community and provide for positive legal outcomes for those individuals who successfully complete the program

5. Informed choicea. Defendants fully understand the program requirements before agreeing to

participate in a mental health court. They are provided legal counsel to inform this decision and subsequent decisions about program involvement. Procedures exist to address, in a timely manner, concerns about the defendant’s competency whenever they arise.

6. Treatment supports and servicesa. Mental health courts connect participants to comprehensive and

individualized treatment supports and services in the community. They strive to use evidence based practices.

7. Confidentialitya. Health and legal information should be shared in a way that protects

potential participants’ confidentiality rights as mental health consumers and their constitutional rights as defendants. Information gathered as part of the participant’s court ordered treatment program or services should be safeguarded in the event that participants are returned to traditional court processing.

8. Court teama. A team of criminal justice and mental health staff and service treatment

providers receives special, ongoing training and helps mental health court participants achieve treatment and criminal justice goals by regularly reviewing and revising the court process.

9. Monitoring adherence to court requirementsa. Criminal justice and mental health staff collaboratively monitor

participant’s adherence to court conditions, offer individualized graduated incentives and sanctions, and modify treatment as necessary to promote public safety and participants’ recovery

10. Sustainabilitya. Data are collected and analyzed to demonstrate the impact of the mental

health court, its performance is assessed periodically, procedures are modified accordingly, court processes are institutionalized, and support for the court in the community is cultivated and expanded.

(p. 1-10).

Other MHC creators have identified components necessary for effective mental

health court design that complement and enhance the strategies of Thompson, et.al,

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 12

(2007). Judge Randall Fritzer asserts that labeling and stigmatizing individuals based on

medical diagnosis should not be allowed (Odegaard, 2007). The least restrictive means

of supplying treatment to the individual must be employed, while also taking the factor of

public safety into consideration (Odegaard, 2007). It is also suggested that the technical

rules of the court room be relaxed when operating the mental health court (Odegaard,

2007). This suggestion has been implemented into MHC programs as a way to lessen

the adversarial nature of courtroom proceedings and employ a more empathic, client

based approach as a way to promote therapeutic relationships.

Evidence Based Practices for Individuals involved in Mental Health Court

A. Education for Law Enforcement Professionals

B. Education for Mental Health Professionals

C. Assertive Community Treatment

a. Mental Health Treatment

b. Treatment for Co Occurring Disorders

c. Housing

d. Employment

e. Addressing Criminogenic Needs and Risk Factors

III. Measurement of Success: Performance and Outcomes

A. Performance and Outcome Research on Currently Operating Court

Programs

B. Measuring Performance and Outcomes

a. Implementing measurement into a Mental Health Court Program

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 13

b. Outcomes versus Performance Measures

c. Obstacles to adequate data collection

C. Data and Funding

IV. Recommendations for the Future

Appendix A: Mental Health Court Resource Guide

Appendix B: Mental Health Courts in the United States

Appendix C: Resources for Developing Community Collaboration

References

Abramsky, S. & Fellner, J. (2003). Ill Equipped: US prisons and offenders with mental illness.

Human Rights Watch. New York, NY. Retrieved on 3/19/2012 from:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/usa1003.pdf

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 14

Almquist, L. & Dodd, E. (2009). Mental health courts: a guide to research informed

policy and practice. Council of State Governments, New York, NY.

Ashton, P., Petteruti, A., Walsh, N. (2012). Rethinking the blues: How we police

in the U.S. and at what cost. Justice Policy Institute.Washington, DC.

Ax, R.K. & Fagan, T.J. (2007). Corrections, mental health and social policy: an

international perspective. Charles C, Thomas Publisher LTD. Springfield, IL.

Blandford, A.M.&Osher, F.C. (2012). A checklist for implementing evidence based

practices and programs (EBPs) for justice involved adults with mental health

disorders. Delmar, NY: SAMHSA’s GAINS Center for Behavioral Health

and Justice Transformation.

Callahan, L., Steadman, H.J., Tillman, S. and Vesselinov (2013). A multi-site study

of the use of sanctions and incentives in mental health courts. Law and Human

Behavior.37(1) 1-9

Casey, P.M., Rottman, D.B., and Bromage, C.G. (2007). Problem-solving justice toolkit.

National Center for State Courts. Retrieved from: www.ncsconline.org/PSC

C. Flessner, President of Livingston County Mental Health Board, personal communication:

March 22, 2013.

Castellano, U. and Anderson, L. (2012). Mental health courts in America: Promise and

challenges. American Behavioral Scientist.57(2) 63-73

Cloud, D. and Davis, C. (2013). Treatment alternatives for people with mental health

needs in the criminal justice system: The cost saving implications. Research

Summary. Vera Institute of Justice, New York, NY.

Conly, C. (1999). Coordinating community services for mentally ill offenders: Maryland’s

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 15

community criminal justice treatment program. National Institute of Justice.

Council of State Governments (2002). Criminal justice mental health consensus project.

(author). Lexington, KY.

Council of State Governments Justice Center (2008). Mental health courts: A primer for

policymakers and practitioners. Criminal Justice Mental Health Consensus Project.

New York, NY.

Council of State Governments Justice Center (2013). Legislation. Retrieved from:

http://consensusproject.org/legislation

Crown Policy Manual (2005). Mentally disordered/developmentally disabled offenders.

Retrieved from: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/default.asp

Gainsborough, J. & Young, M.C. (2002). Mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice

system: An analyisi and prescription: The Sentencing Project. Washington, DC.

Goldkamp, J.S. & Irons-Guynn, C. (2000). Emerging judicial strategies for the mentally

ill in the criminal case load: Mental health courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle,

San Bernadino and Anchorage. Crime and Justice Research Institute. U.S.

Department of Justice. Washington, D.C.

Gideon, L. & Hung-En, S. (2011). Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry and

reintegration. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Gilmore, M. & Guerra, M.K. (2010). Crisis care services: Preventing individuals with

mental illness from entering local corrections systems. Community Division of the

the County Services Department. National Association of Counties.

Goldkamp, J.S. and Irons-Guynn, C.(2000). Emerging judicial strategies for the mentally

ill in the criminal case load: Mental health courts. Bureau of Justice Assistance,

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 16

Washington, D.C.

Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security 108th Congress

June 22, 2004 on S. 1194. Serial No. 98. US Government Printing Office, Washington

(2004). 94-365 PDF

Hearing before the Subcommitte on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security 110th Congress

March 27, 2007 on Criminal Justice Responses to offender with Mental Illness.

Serial No. 110-32. US Government Printing Office, Washington (2007).

34-359 PDF

Huddleston, W. & Marlowe, D.B. (2011). Painting the current picture: A national report on

Drug courts and other problem solving courts in the United States. National Drug Court

Institute. Alexandria, VA.

Hyde, P.S. (2011). Leading change in an era of health reform: Behavioral health

is essential to health, prevention works, treatment is effective, people recover.

SAMHSA, Washington, DC.

Judge David L Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. (2012). The role of mental health courts

in system reform. Retrieved on 3/23/2013 from:

http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xQf5_1grKcI%3d&tabid=104

Keator, K.J., Callahan, L., Steadman, H.J. and Vesselinov, R. (2012). The impact of

treatment on the public safety outcomes of mental health court participants.

American Behavioral Scientist. 57(2) 231-243. Retrieved from:

http://abs.sgepub.com/content/57/2/231

Latessa, J.E., Lowenkamp, C. (2005). What are criminogenic needs and why are they important?

Retrieved from: http://ojj.la.gov/ojj/files/What_Are_Criminogenic_Needs.pdf

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 17

Livingston County Mental Health Intervention Court (2012) Policy and Procedures Manual

Lurigio, A.J. (2011). Examining prevailing beliefs about people with serious mental

illness in the criminal justice system. Federal Probation.75(1) Retrieved from:

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/PPS/Fedprob/2011-

06/03_examining.html

Lurigio, A.J. & Snowden, J. (2009). Putting therapeutic jurisprudence into practice: The

growth, operations and effectiveness of mental health court. The Justice System

Journal.30(2), 196-218. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsc.org/publications/justice-

systemjournal/~/media/files/pdf/publications/justice%20system%20journal/putting

%20therapeutic%20jurisprudence%20into%20practice.ashx

Massaro, J. (2004). Working with people with mental illness involved in the criminal justice

system: What mental health service providers need to know(2nd ed). Delmar, NY.

Technical Assistance and Policy Analysis Center for Jail Diversion.

Massaro, J. (2005). Overview of the mental health system for criminal justice professionals.

Delmar, NY. GAINS Technical Assistance and Policy Analysis for Jail Diversion

Mattingly, E. (2004). What I have learned as a mental health court judge: and it

wasn’t what I expected. Retrieved from:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/CJMI/resources/learned.pdf

Maurer, M. & Epstein, K. (2012). To build a better criminal justice system: 25 experts on the

next 25 years of reform. The Sentencing Project.

MCES QUEST (2002). Criminal justice diversion of the mentally ill. Montgomery County

Emergency Services. Comprehensive Behavioral Health Services, 2(2).

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 18

McNiel, D.E. & Binder, R.L. (2007). Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal

recidivism and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry.164, 1395-1403.

Mechanic, D., McAlpine, D.D, Rochefort, D.A. (2014). Mental Health and Social Policy:

Beyond managed care (Sixth ed.). Pearson Education Incorporated. Upper Saddle River,

NJ.

Mental Health Court Treatment Act of 2008, 730 ILCS 168 (2008).

Ministry of Health and Long term Care, Ontario, Canada(2006). A program framework for

Mental health diversion/Court support services. Retrieved from:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/mentalhealth/

framework.pdf

Mirchandani, R. (2008). Beyond Therapy: Problem-Solving Courts and the Deliberative

Democratic State. Law & Social Inquiry, 33(4), 853-893. doi:10.1111/j.1747-

4469.2008.00126.x

Moore, M. E. & Hiday, V.A. (2006). 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.

NAMI (1996-2013). Policy Topics: The criminalization of people with mental illness.

Retrieved from: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?

Section=Issue_Spotlights&template=/ContentManagement/

ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=76792

National Center for State Courts (NCSC) (2009). Gavel to Gavel: A review of state legislation

affecting the courts. Research division. Williamsburg, VA.

National Center for State Courts(NCSC) (2013). Mental health court appropriations: Retrieved

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 19

from: http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Government-Relations/Federal-

Funding/Mental-Health-Courts-Appropriations.aspx

Odegaard, A.M. (2007). Therapeutic jurisprudence: The impact of mental health courts

on the criminal justice system. 83 N.D. L. Rev. 225. Retrieved from:

http://web.law.und.edu/LawReview/issues/web_assets/pdf/83/83-1/83NDLR225.pdf

O’Keefe, K. (2006). The Brooklyn mental health court evaluation: Planning, implementation

courtroom dynamics and participant outcomes. Center for Court Innovation. New York,

NY

Osher, F.C. & Levine, I.S. (2005). Navigating the mental health maze: A guide for court

Practitioners. Council of State Governments, New York, NY.

Patrilia, J.P. & Redlich, A.D. (n.d.) Mental illness and the courts: Some reflections

on judges as innovators. Court Review, Vol. 43, 164-176. Retrieved on

3/21/2013 from: http://ajancsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr43-4/CR43-4Patrila.pdf

Public Law 106-515. 106th Congress (2000). “America’s law enforcement and mental health

project”. Government Printing Office. Enacted November 13, 2000. Retrieved from:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ515/pdf/PLAW-106publ515.pdf

Public Law 108-414. 108th Congress (2004). “Mentally ill offender treatment and crime

reduction act. Government Printing Office. Enacted October 30, 2004. Retrieved from:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ414/pdf/PLAW-108publ414.pdf

Public Law 110-161. 110th Congress (2007). “Consolidated appropriations act 2008”. Division

B, Title II. Government Printing Office. Enacted December 26, 2007. Retrieved from:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ161/pdf/PLAW-110publ161.pdf

Public Law 110-419. 110th Congress (2008). “ Mentally ill offender treatment and crime

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 20

reduction reauthorization and improvement act of 2008. Government Printing

office. Enacted October 14, 2008. Retrieved from:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ416/pdf/PLAW-110publ416.pdf

Redlich, A.D. (2005). Voluntary, but knowing and intelligent? Comprehension in

mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 11(4), 605-619

Retrieved 3/31/2013 from: http://www.albany.edu/scj/documents/RedlichPPPL.pdf

Redlich, A.D., Hoover, S., Summers, A. & Steadmen, H.J. (2010). Enrollments in mental

health courts: Voluntariness, Knowingness and adjudicative competence.

Law and Human Behavior. 34, 91-104. Retrieved from:

http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/cms-assets/documents/62076-904049.enrollinginmhcs.pdf

Redlich, A.D., Liu, S., Steadman, H.J., Callahan, L.,and Robbins, P.C.(2012). Is diversion

swift? Comparing mental health court processing and traditional criminal justice

processing. Criminal Justice and Behavior. Retrieved from: http://cjb.sagepub.com/early/

2012/02/07/0093854811432424.

Redlich, A.D., Steadman, H.J., Monahan, J., Petrila, J., Griffin, P.A. (2005). The second

generation of mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law. 11(4), 527-

538

Redlich, A.D., Steadmean, H.J., Callahan, L., Robbins, P,C., Vessilinov, R., Ozdogru,A, (2010)

The use of mental health court appearances in supervision. International Journal

Of Law and Psychiatry. 33, 272-277.

Sarteschi, C.M., Vaughn, M.G. & Kim, K. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of mental

health courts: A quantitative review. Journal of Criminal Justice. 39, 12-20.

Slate, R.N. (2003). From jailhouse to capitol hill: Impacting mental health court legislation

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 21

and defining what constitutes a mental health court. Crime & Delinquency. 49(1)6-29.

Slate, R.N. & Johnson, W.W, (2008). Criminalization of mental illness: Crisis and

opportunity for the criminal justice system. Carolina Academic Press. Durham, NC.

Steadman, H.J. (2005). A guide to collecting mental health court outcome data. Council

Of State Governments Justice Center. New York, NY.

Superior Court of California County of San Francisco (2008). Behavioral health court policy

and procedures manual.

S. Uphoff, Livingston County State’s Attorney,personal communication, April 12, 2013.

The Advocacy Handbook. (n.d.). A guide for implementing recommendations of the

criminal justice/mental health consensus project. Council of State Governments

Thompson, M., Osher, F. & Tomasini-Joshi, D.(2008). Improving responses to people with

mental illnesses: The essentials of a mental health court. Council of State Governments

Justice Center, NY.

Trawver, K.R. and Rhoades, S.L. (2012). Homesteading a pioneer mental health court:

A judicial perspective from the last frontier. American Behavioral Scientist.

Retrieved from: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/2/174.

Waters, N.L. & Cheesman II, F.L. (2010). Mental health court performance measures:

Implementation and user’s guide. National Center for State Courts, VA.

Waters, N.L., Strickland, S.M. and Gibson, S.A. (2009). Mental health court culture: Leaving

your hat at the door. National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA.

Watson, M.A., Hanrahan, P., Luchins, D. &, Lurigio, A.( 2001). Mental health courts and the

MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES 22

complex issues of mentally ill offenders. Psychiatric Services. 52(4), 477-481

Wilson, J.Q. & Petersilia, J. (2011). Crime and public policy. Oxford University Press.

New York, NY.

Wolf, N., Frueh, B.C., Huening, J., Shi, J., Epperson, M.W., Morgan, R. and Fisher, W. (2013).

Practice informs the next generation of behavioral health and criminal justice

interventions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 36, 1-10.

Wolf, R.V. (2007). Center for court innovation best practice: Principles of problem

solving justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from:

http://www.courtinovation.org/sites/default/files/Principles.pdf