Methodological Challenges in Researching Problem-Solving Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 157-170
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

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.

Mental Health Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 83-112
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mental Health Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Current State

This chapter focuses on mental health courts, a problem-solving court that developed in the wake of drug courts to address the needs of offenders with mental health diagnoses or co-occurring mental health and substance abuse concerns. In this chapter, the authors first review the overrepresentation of individuals with mental illness in the criminal justice system. They then describe the history and current state of mental health courts in the United States. The chapter then provides a detailed summary of the research on mental health courts. Although there is considerably less research on mental health courts than on drug courts, the available research provides reason to be cautiously optimistic. Within this discussion, the authors also note the limitations in mental health court research. Finally, the authors conclude the chapter with a discussion of innovative mental health court practices and the future of mental health courts.

Methodological Challenges in Retrospective Evaluation of Mental Health Court Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-105
Author(s):  
Kort C. Prince ◽  
Jeremiah W. Jaggers ◽  
Allyn Walker ◽  
Jess Shade ◽  
Erin B. Worwood
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Retrospective Evaluation ◽  
Group Design ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Ideal Approach ◽  
The Ideal

Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are problem-solving courts that have been implemented throughout the United States. One critical component of MHCs is determining their effectiveness and limitations. However, unique challenges are encountered when evaluating MHCs. One major challenge, and the focus of this paper, is identifying an adequate control group. The ideal approach to determining efficacy is using a controlled group design whereby participants are randomized to treatment or control conditions. However, this approach is not possible when conducting retrospective evaluation of court data. In addition, a specific set of ethical and logistical issues arise. Propensity score matching (PSM) provides an alternative approach for comparing groups when randomization is not possible. PSM works by first identifying the characteristics that make a person likely to be in treatment. We describe our attempts to use PSM in a MHC evaluation. Specific challenges with PSM are discussed and recommendations are made for use of PSM with MHCs.

University–Public Behavioral Health Collaboration

2021 ◽  
pp. 143-166
Author(s):  
Kathleen Moore ◽  
Joshua T. Barnett ◽  
Annette Christy ◽  
Marie McPherson ◽  
Melissa Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Behavioral Health ◽  
South Florida ◽  
Public Agencies ◽  
Drug Therapy Management ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Successful Collaboration ◽  
Mental Health Institute

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.

Drug Courts and Mental Health Courts: Implications for Social Work

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. W. Tyuse ◽  
D. M. Linhorst
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Mental Health Courts

Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Shelby Arnold ◽  
Alice Thornewill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Behavioral Health ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

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.

Mental Health Courts

Criminology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Matejkowski
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Program Completion ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Relative Paucity ◽  
Code Violations ◽  
And Function

Mental health courts (MHCs) are specialized dockets for defendants with mental illnesses that seek the adjudication of criminal charges and municipal code violations by using a problem-solving model. Modeled after drug treatment courts, MHCs provide an alternative to incarceration for individuals with mental illness charged with criminal offenses. Mental health courts are but one of an array of problem-solving courts (PSCs) that have proliferated over the past three decades (e.g., drug courts, veterans courts, co-occurring disorder courts) and, as such, share come commonalities with these other PSCs. The populations served by these PSCs often overlap with MHCs as do many of the courts’ approaches (e.g., the use of incentives and sanctions to motivate clients to engage in treatment and support services). This entry will focus on MHCs but, when necessary, also include references pertaining to PSCs. Although MHCs may differ somewhat in structure and function by jurisdiction, this entry begins with resources (including reports, theoretical manuscripts, and empirical studies) identifying counts, structural components, and operational approaches common to MHCs. The entry then highlights the peer-reviewed literature on MHC outcomes, including program completion, recidivism, cost analysis, as well as alternative outcomes. Given the relative paucity of literature on juvenile MHCs, this entry focuses primarily on adult MHCs. Literature on juvenile MHCs is covered near the end of this entry. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of published research and commentary on MHCs pertains to MHCs that operate in the United States. This entry reflects that current state of the research. Finally, the entry concludes with published critiques of the MHC model.

Beyond Therapy: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (04) ◽  
pp. 853-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rekha Mirchandani
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Cultural Transformation ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Domestic Violence Courts

Problem‐solving courts (drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts), unlike traditional courts, attempt to get at the root of the individual and social problems that motivate criminal behavior. Theoretical understandings of problem‐solving courts are mostly Foucauldian; proponents argue that these new institutions employ therapeutic techniques that encourage individuals to self‐engineer in ways that subtly increase state power. The Foucauldian approach captures only some elements of problem‐solving courts and does not fully theorize the revolution in justice that these courts present. Problem‐solving courts, domestic violence courts in particular, orient not just around individual change but also around social change and cultural transformation. Combining the Foucauldian idea of a therapeutic state (as developed by James Nolan) with an understanding of the deliberative democratic mechanisms of larger‐scale structural transformation (found in Habermas and others) leads to a more balanced and empirically open orientation to the actual motivations, goals, and achievements of problem‐solving courts.

Other Specialty Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 113-133
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Specialty Courts ◽  
Treatment Courts ◽  
Community Courts

The development and success of drug courts resulted in the development of many other types of problem-solving courts. This chapter provides an overview of these other types of problem-solving courts in the United States, including (but not limited to) domestic violence courts, family dependency treatment courts, homelessness courts, truancy courts, veterans courts, DUI/DWI courts, and community courts. This chapter summarizes the sparse research that has been conducted on these courts and considers the future of these types of problem-solving courts. Specifically, this chapter considers whether there is a need for so many highly specific problem-solving courts, how these courts can expand their reach (and whether they should), aspects of these courts that are in need of additional research, and how these courts can function most effectively in today’s economic and political climate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document