University–Public Behavioral Health Collaboration

Author(s):  
Kathleen Moore ◽  
Joshua T. Barnett ◽  
Annette Christy ◽  
Marie McPherson ◽  
Melissa Carlson

This chapter describes a partnership between faculty at the Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, and various public agencies. It is a broad and wide-ranging collaboration, including areas such as civil commitment (providing a reporting center), Medicaid drug therapy management for behavioral health, and problem-solving courts. Advantages to these multiple partnerships have included the more extensive provision of research and evaluation services and the partnership with public agencies as part of application for extramural funding in the form of grants and contracts. These partnerships illustrate the scope of the projects that can be developed through successful collaboration.

Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Shelby Arnold ◽  
Alice Thornewill

Individuals with behavioral health disorders are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The incarceration of offenders with substance use disorders and mental illness has contributed to dramatic growth in the incarcerated population in the United States. Problem-solving courts provide judicially supervised treatment for behavioral health needs commonly found among offenders, including substance abuse and mental health, and they treat a variety of offender populations. By addressing the problems that underlie criminal behavior, problem-solving courts seek to decrease the “revolving door” that results when offender needs are not addressed. Problem-solving courts use a team approach among the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, and treatment providers, which is a paradigm shift in how the justice system treats offenders with special needs. Offenders in problem-solving courts are held accountable for their behavior while being provided with judicially supervised treatment designed to reduce the risk of reoffending. Despite the proliferation of problem-solving courts, there are unanswered questions about how they function, how effective they are, and the most promising ways to implement problem-solving justice. Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System is the first book to focus broadly on problem-solving courts. The changing landscape of the criminal justice system, recent development of problem-solving courts, and ongoing shift toward offender rehabilitation underscore the need for this book. This book provides those in the fields of mental health, criminal justice, law, and related fields with a comprehensive foundation of information related to the role of problem-solving courts in reforming the criminal justice system. This book also provides researchers, academics, administrators, and policy-makers with an overview of the existing research on problem-solving courts, including the challenges faced by researchers when examining these courts.


Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold

This chapter summarizes problem-solving court principles and concepts, provides an overview of the limited reach of problem-solving courts, describes alternatives to problem-solving courts (e.g., diversion, smart sentencing, probation/parole), discusses strategies for incorporating a problem-solving approach in other aspects of the justice system, and examines current innovations for expanding problem-solving justice. This chapter discusses a “big picture” approach that includes a discussion of how reformation of certain aspects of the criminal justice system could effectively address the behavioral health needs of offenders and reduce recidivism. This chapter also discusses future directions within problem-solving justice in terms of research, practice, and policy.


Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold

This chapter discusses the methodological challenges faced by researchers attempting to study the operations and effectiveness of problem-solving courts. Although researchers have conducted a great deal of research on drug courts, and research on mental health courts is continuing to grow, there is relatively little research on all other types of problem-solving courts. This chapter discusses the current research landscape and describes how research on these courts can be challenging for a variety of ethical and logistical reasons. Specifically, this chapter highlights the difficulties associated with conducting valid empirical research on problem-solving courts, including an overview of difficulties with random assignment, skewed samples, outcome measures, and jurisdictional differences. The authors also discuss the disconnect between indicators of progress used in some problem-solving courts and reductions in criminal recidivism.


Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold

This chapter begins with an introduction to the Sequential Intercept Model, which is a theoretical framework used to identify points of intervention and community alternatives for individuals with behavioral health treatment needs in the justice system. The authors outline each intercept and provide examples of interventions at each stage, including more detailed information about Intercept 3, which is the intercept at which problem-solving courts are found. The authors then review the history and development of problem-solving courts, highlighting important political events that influenced their growth. This chapter also includes a discussion about inclusion/exclusion criteria in problem-solving courts to better detail the populations they serve. The chapter concludes with a review of the strengths, limitations, and stakeholders’ (e.g., judges, attorneys, consumers) perceptions of problem-solving courts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document