University–Public Behavioral Health Collaboration

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.

Amerikanische Drug Treatment Courts – Eine sinnvolle Ergänzung für den Umgang mit betäubungsmittelabhängigen Straftätern in Deutschland?

Seitdem im Jahr 1989 der erste Drug Treatment Court in Miami gegründet wurde, haben sich Drug Treatment Courts nahezu flächendeckend über die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika verbreitet. Das Phänomen der Drug Treatment Courts wurde auch international erfolgreich exportiert. In Deutschland sind die "Drogengerichte" in der kriminologischen sowie strafrechtlichen Literatur hingegen bislang kaum rezipiert worden. Drug Treatment Courts sind spezielle Justizprogramme, die betäubungsmittelabhängigen Straftätern alternativ zum traditionellen Strafverfahren die Teilnahme an einer justiziell überwachten Therapie anbieten. Drug Treatment Courts gelten damit als Unterfall der Problem-Solving-Courts. Während Drug Treatment Courts von Praktikern entwickelt wurden, bietet die Theorie der Therapeutischen Jurisprudenz ein wissenschaftliches Fundament. Der Beitrag beleuchtet die Institution der U.S.-amerikanischen Drug Treatment Courts und diskutiert das Konzept als Ergänzung deutscher Regelungen zum Umgang mit betäubungsmittelabhängigen Straftätern.

The Complexities of Criminal Responsibility and Persons With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: How Can Therapeutic Jurisprudence Help?

This article examines issues regarding legal capacity and criminal responsibility relating to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). We examined the case of a 28-year-old male identified as having the mental age of an 8-year-old, accused of four counts of possessing child pornography in Ontario, Canada. If convicted, the offenses carried a minimum mandatory sentence of 1-year imprisonment. The defense attorney argued that since persons are not criminally responsible when they are chronologically less than 12 years old, the same ought to be extended to those with a mental age of less than 12. The Crown prosecutor asserted that the defense’s connection of disability to a lack of capacity reverts our conceptualization of persons with IDD back to a time when they were infantilized. Using therapeutic jurisprudence as a framework, we examined whether problem-solving courts (e.g., mental health court) could be used to address the needs of a person with IDD and offer a different understanding and potential solution to nonjudicial decision makers that satisfies the principles of both criminal responsibility and public safety.

Community Courts & Race: An Examination of Community Court Judges, Staff, and Racial Dynamics

Current research has found racial disparities in outcomes of problem-solving courts throughout the country. However, most of the research has not explored the causes of these racial disparities. This research qualitatively explores two prominent community courts in the northeast. Themes emerge about courtroom racial dynamics through courtroom observations and semi-structured interviews. The findings indicate that the racial makeup of the staff and judges play a role in maintaining a therapeutic rapport with non-white participants. Suggestions on how problem-solving courts can potentially improve racial dynamics are discussed.

Observing Gender and Race Discourses in Probation Review Hearings

Much of the prior court literature has demonstrated gender and racial disparity exist across various decision-points. Less understood are the processes that produce this disparity, particularly in problem-solving courts. This article utilizes 100 observations of probation review hearings in three domestic violence courts to examine how judges, probation agents, attorneys, and probationers construct a probationer’s non-compliance. Using a critical discourse analysis approach, the author examined how probationers and their actions are constructed based upon gender and racial discourses. Gender differences in parenting responsibilities, mental health, and domestic violence discourses emerged, with racial differences in responsibility and mental health discourses.

Positive Criminology: Theory, Research, and Practice

Positive criminology is an innovative perspective that underlies existing theories and models emphasizing the positive forces that influence and assist individuals at risk and offenders in their recovery process. The theories and models included in positive criminology (e.g., peacemaking criminology, social acceptance, crime desistance, restorative justice) are not new; its novelty lies in their inclusion in a unique and distinct conceptualization. This has led to a shift in discourse and research in criminology, which goes beyond focusing on risk and criminogenic factors while focusing on the positive factors and strengths that help individuals to rehabilitate and successfully integrate into the community. Studies and practices developed over the past decade have confirmed and reinforced the assumptions of the positive criminology perspective. Despite its specific limitations, positive criminology provides a promising platform for further developments and innovations in research in theory (e.g., positive victimology, spiritual criminology) and in practice (e.g., restorative justice, problem-solving courts, community policing).

Methodological Challenges in Retrospective Evaluation of Mental Health Court Effectiveness

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.