Evaluating Mental Health Court by Impact on Jurisdictional Crime Rates

Chelsea Elizabeth Bullard, Ronald Thrasher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Mental health courts are relatively new to the scenes of therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving courts. Research is necessary to determine how to evaluate this unique subset of courts and their clients. This research uses a mixed methodology to develop grounded theories explaining the differences found in more successful courts whose jurisdiction saw a statistically significant decrease in crime rate after the mental health court was established and less successful courts that did not. Eleven Oklahoma-based mental health courts were researched. More successful courts prioritized intensive monitoring methods, multiple specially tailored treatment options, and additional program supports. More successful courts also used a diverse court team, emphasized proper program assessment, visibly divided compliant and noncompliant participants in court, and gave “tangible symbolic incentives.” The found successful theories were compared with the published Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court and Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishment for possible future validation efforts.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)227-246
Number of pages20
JournalCriminal Justice Policy Review
Volume27
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Apr 2016

Fingerprint

crime rate
mental health
jurisprudence
grounded theory
jurisdiction
penalty
incentive
offense

Keywords

  • drug courts
  • mental health courts
  • problem-solving courts
  • specialty courts
  • tangible symbolic incentives
  • therapeutic jurisprudence

Cite this

@article{1a0ea4edfab34561a7f27a5987965010,
title = "Evaluating Mental Health Court by Impact on Jurisdictional Crime Rates",
abstract = "Mental health courts are relatively new to the scenes of therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving courts. Research is necessary to determine how to evaluate this unique subset of courts and their clients. This research uses a mixed methodology to develop grounded theories explaining the differences found in more successful courts whose jurisdiction saw a statistically significant decrease in crime rate after the mental health court was established and less successful courts that did not. Eleven Oklahoma-based mental health courts were researched. More successful courts prioritized intensive monitoring methods, multiple specially tailored treatment options, and additional program supports. More successful courts also used a diverse court team, emphasized proper program assessment, visibly divided compliant and noncompliant participants in court, and gave “tangible symbolic incentives.” The found successful theories were compared with the published Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court and Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishment for possible future validation efforts.",
keywords = "drug courts, mental health courts, problem-solving courts, specialty courts, tangible symbolic incentives, therapeutic jurisprudence",
author = "Bullard, {Chelsea Elizabeth} and Ronald Thrasher",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0887403414562420",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "227--246",
journal = "Criminal Justice Policy Review",
issn = "0887-4034",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

Evaluating Mental Health Court by Impact on Jurisdictional Crime Rates. / Bullard, Chelsea Elizabeth; Thrasher, Ronald.

In: Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, 01.04.2016, p. 227-246.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating Mental Health Court by Impact on Jurisdictional Crime Rates

AU - Bullard, Chelsea Elizabeth

AU - Thrasher, Ronald

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - Mental health courts are relatively new to the scenes of therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving courts. Research is necessary to determine how to evaluate this unique subset of courts and their clients. This research uses a mixed methodology to develop grounded theories explaining the differences found in more successful courts whose jurisdiction saw a statistically significant decrease in crime rate after the mental health court was established and less successful courts that did not. Eleven Oklahoma-based mental health courts were researched. More successful courts prioritized intensive monitoring methods, multiple specially tailored treatment options, and additional program supports. More successful courts also used a diverse court team, emphasized proper program assessment, visibly divided compliant and noncompliant participants in court, and gave “tangible symbolic incentives.” The found successful theories were compared with the published Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court and Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishment for possible future validation efforts.

AB - Mental health courts are relatively new to the scenes of therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving courts. Research is necessary to determine how to evaluate this unique subset of courts and their clients. This research uses a mixed methodology to develop grounded theories explaining the differences found in more successful courts whose jurisdiction saw a statistically significant decrease in crime rate after the mental health court was established and less successful courts that did not. Eleven Oklahoma-based mental health courts were researched. More successful courts prioritized intensive monitoring methods, multiple specially tailored treatment options, and additional program supports. More successful courts also used a diverse court team, emphasized proper program assessment, visibly divided compliant and noncompliant participants in court, and gave “tangible symbolic incentives.” The found successful theories were compared with the published Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court and Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishment for possible future validation efforts.

KW - drug courts

KW - mental health courts

KW - problem-solving courts

KW - specialty courts

KW - tangible symbolic incentives

KW - therapeutic jurisprudence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960431857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0887403414562420

DO - 10.1177/0887403414562420

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84960431857

VL - 27

SP - 227

EP - 246

JO - Criminal Justice Policy Review

JF - Criminal Justice Policy Review

SN - 0887-4034

IS - 3

ER -