The Experts below are selected from a list of 6726 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Bradley Ray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • what happens to Mental Health Court noncompleters
    Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 2015
    Co-Authors: Bradley Ray, J Brittany M A Hood, Kelli E. Canada
    Abstract:

    Mental Health Court (MHC) research consistently finds that defendants who successfully complete and graduate from the Court are less likely to recidivate than those who do not. However, research has not assessed what happens to these noncompleters once they are sent back to traditional Court. Using follow-up data on six years of noncompleters from pre-adjudication MHC, we examine what happens to these defendants in traditional Court. Findings suggest that 63.7% of defendants' charges were dismissed, 21.0% received probation, and 15.3% were sentenced to incarceration. We examine the time to disposition and differences in defendant characteristics and disposition outcome as well as the relationship between disposition and subsequent recidivism. Results suggest that more severe punishments in traditional Court are associated with recidivism. Logistic regression analysis shows that defendants whose charges were dismissed in traditional Court were less likely to recidivate than those who were sentenced to probation or incarceration. Our findings highlight the need for future MHC evaluations to consider traditional Court outcomes and support trends towards post-adjudication Courts. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  • selection into Mental Health Court distinguishing among eligible defendants
    Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2015
    Co-Authors: Mary Lee Luskin, Bradley Ray
    Abstract:

    How defendants are selected into Mental Health Courts (MHC) is central to issues of fairness, efficacy, and successful program replication. Only recently has empirical research started to examine MHC selection, revealing a multi-stage process with multiple decision makers and multiple variables. In this study, we use classification and regression tree analysis (CART) to examine the variables suggested in recent research to predict selection into MHC. The analysis includes legal and diagnostic variables, treatment history, measures of treatability, motivation to change, violence risk, and symptom severity. We find that the MHC is more likely to accept defendants who did not have warrants issued for their arrest, who had diagnoses other than depression, and who did not report using illegal drugs around the time of their admission. Symptom severity and motivation to treatment also predict MHC admission, with their effects contingent on defendants’ statuses on other variables.

  • Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Mental Health Court Participants by Psychiatric Diagnosis
    Psychiatric services (Washington D.C.), 2015
    Co-Authors: Erin B. Comartin, Bradley Ray, Sheryl Pimlott Kubiak, Elizabeth Tillander, Julie Hanna
    Abstract:

    Objective:The goal of Mental Health Courts (MHCs) is to decrease incarceration and recidivism while increasing continuity of Mental Health treatment. Although previous research has found positive o...

  • long term recidivism of Mental Health Court defendants
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2014
    Co-Authors: Bradley Ray
    Abstract:

    Abstract The first MHC was established in 1997 and now, over 15 years later, there are over 300 Mental Health Courts in the United States. In a relatively short time these Courts have become an established criminal justice intervention for persons with a Mental illness. However, few studies have looked at the long-term outcomes of MHCs on criminal recidivism. Of the studies evaluating the impact of MHCs on criminal recidivism, most follow defendants after entry into the Court during their participation, and only a few have followed defendants after Court exit for periods of one or two years. This study follows MHC defendants for a minimum of five years to examine recidivism post-exit with particular attention to MHC completion's effect. Findings show that 53.9% of all MHC defendants were rearrested in the follow-up and averaged 15 months to rearrest. Defendants who completed MHC were significantly less likely to be rearrested (39.6% vs. 74.8%), and went longer before recidivating (17.15 months vs. 12.27 months) than those who did not complete. This study suggests that MHCs can reduce criminal recidivism among offenders with Mental illness and that this effect is sustained for several years after defendants are no longer under the Court's supervision.

  • Exploring Stigmatization and Stigma Management in Mental Health Court: Assessing Modified Labeling Theory in a New Context
    Sociological Forum, 2014
    Co-Authors: Bradley Ray, Cindy Brooks Dollar
    Abstract:

    Drawing on Link and colleagues' modified labeling theory, this article examines whether the stigma management strategies defendants anticipate using after Mental Health Court exit are associated with their reported experiences during Court. Using survey data from 34 Mental Health Court graduates, we find that respondents generally perceive the Mental Health Court as procedurally just, did not experience stigmatizing shame, and anticipate using the inclusionary coping strategy of education over the exclusionary strategies of secrecy and withdrawal. Moreover, findings reveal that the anticipated use of stigma management strategies is associated with Mental Health Court experiences in that procedural justice is associated with inclusionary coping strategies, while stigmatizing shame is associated with exclusionary coping strategies. We conclude by encouraging researchers to further explore the role of stigmatization and shame in specialty Court contexts and to continue investigating these defendant perceptions of these Courts' process.

Renée L. Binder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • prospective study of violence risk reduction by a Mental Health Court
    Psychiatric Services, 2015
    Co-Authors: Dale E. Mcniel, Naomi Sadeh, Kevin L Delucchi, Renée L. Binder
    Abstract:

    Objective:Although many Mental Health Courts (MHCs) have been established to reduce criminal justice involvement of persons with Mental disorders, research has not kept pace with the widespread implementation of these Courts. Whereas early MHCs were restricted to persons charged with nonviolent misdemeanors, many MHCs now accept persons with more serious charges for whom ameliorating risk of violence is a greater concern. This study evaluated the relationship between MHC participation and risk of violence by using a prospective design. It was hypothesized that MHC participation would decrease the risk of violence during a one year follow-up compared with a matched comparison group.Methods:The sample included 169 jail detainees with a Mental disorder who either entered an MHC (N=88) or received treatment as usual (N=81). Seventy-two percent had been charged with felonies. Participants were interviewed at baseline and during a one-year follow up, and their arrest records were reviewed. Propensity-adjusted l...

  • Stakeholder views of a Mental Health Court.
    International journal of law and psychiatry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Dale E. Mcniel, Renée L. Binder
    Abstract:

    To reduce criminal justice involvement of persons with Mental disorders, many communities have created Mental Health Courts. Early Mental Health Courts were restricted to persons charged with nonviolent misdemeanors. Recently Mental Health Courts have begun to accept persons charged with felonies and violent crimes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the process and outcomes of a Mental Health Court that accepts persons charged with more serious offenses from the perspective of stakeholders in the Court. Data come from semi-structured interviews with 43 professionals involved with the Mental Health Court, including judges, attorneys, probation officers, case managers, Mental Health professionals, and agency administrators. The stakeholders endorsed Mental Health Court compared to traditional Court for reducing criminal justice involvement of individuals with Mental disorders with a history of repeated arrests. The observations of stakeholders revealed important themes to consider in research evaluating Mental Health Courts, including selection mechanisms, supervision processes, treatment access, use of sanctions, competency, indicators of effectiveness, participant characteristics associated with better or worse outcomes, and mechanisms of change.

  • Effectiveness of a Mental Health Court in Reducing Criminal Recidivism and Violence
    The American journal of psychiatry, 2007
    Co-Authors: Dale E. Mcniel, Renée L. Binder
    Abstract:

    Objective: In response to the large-scale involvement of people with Mental disorders in the criminal justice system, many communities have created specialized Mental Health Courts in recent years. However, little research has been done to evaluate the criminal justice outcomes of such Courts. This study evaluated whether a Mental Health Court can reduce the risk of recidivism and violence by people with Mental disorders who have been arrested. Method: A retrospective observational design was used to compare the occurrence of new criminal charges for 170 people who entered a Mental Health Court after arrest and 8,067 other adults with Mental disorders who were booked into an urban county jail after arrest during the same interval. A matching strategy based on propensity scores was used to adjust analyses for nonrandom selection into Mental Health Court. Results: Propensity-weighted Cox regression analysis, controlling for other potential confounding variables (demographic characteristics, clinical variables, and criminal history), showed that participation in the Mental Health Court program was associated with longer time without any new criminal charges or new charges for violent crimes. Successful completion of the Mental Health Court program was associated with maintenance of reductions in recidivism and violence after graduates were no longer under supervision of the Mental Health Court. Conclusions: The results indicate that a Mental Health Court can reduce recidivism and violence by people with Mental disorders who are involved in the criminal justice system.

Virginia Aldigé Hiday - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Predictors of Mental Health Court Graduation
    Psychology Public Policy and Law, 2014
    Co-Authors: Virginia Aldigé Hiday, Bradley Ray, Heathcote W Wales
    Abstract:

    Mental Health Courts (MHCs), nontraditional problem-solving Courts designed to address underlying causes of offending rather than apportion guilt and punishment, have been reported to reduce offending among persons with Mental illness and consequently have been spreading. Graduation from a MHC has been found to be a major predictor of reduced recidivism; yet few studies have examined factors affecting MHC graduation. This study examines what participants brought to MHC, their processing in MHC, and their behaviors during MHC. It found that noncompliant participant behaviors during MHC had the strongest impact on graduation, increasing the odds of failure to graduate and reducing, if not eliminating, the direct effects on completion of the risk factors participants brought into Court.

  • effectiveness of a short term Mental Health Court criminal recidivism one year postexit
    Law and Human Behavior, 2013
    Co-Authors: Virginia Aldigé Hiday, Heathcote W Wales, Bradley Ray
    Abstract:

    This article investigated criminal recidivism 1 year postexit from a Mental Health Court (MHC), which has, unlike prior MHCs studied, relatively short periods of Court supervision. It benefits from a federal pretrial services agency that screens all arrestees for Mental illness and dedicates a specialized supervision unit (SSU) to provide supervision and services while on pretrial release to all screened positive, including MHC participants. We compared criminal activity prior to key arrest with criminal activity post Court disposition in MHC participants (N 408) and MHC-eligible Mentally ill arrestees in SSU (N 687) receiving the same supervision and services while controlling for possible confounders. The proportion of MHC participants arrested was significantly lower in the year after MHC exit and significantly lower than that of the comparison group. They also averaged fewer rearrests and had a longer time to rearrest. MHC graduates made the greatest gains and accounted for the recidivism differences between MHC participants and the comparison group. This study adds to the accumulating evidence of the effectiveness of MHCs in reducing recidivism among offenders with severe Mental illness.

  • Effectiveness 2 years postexit of a recently established Mental Health Court
    American Behavioral Scientist, 2012
    Co-Authors: Padraic J. Burns, Virginia Aldigé Hiday, Bradley Ray
    Abstract:

    There are now more than 300 Mental Health Courts in the United States; yet studies on their effectiveness in reducing criminal recidivism are relatively few, and most follow defendants after entry into the Court, during their participation, and sometimes, for a short period following exit. Using a preenrollment-postexit design that follows participants of one Mental Health Court for 2 years after exit, this article examines criminal recidivism of participants after they no longer receive the Court's services, supervision, and support. It investigates participant demographic, clinical, and criminal history and key arrest characteristics as well as process measures and graduation as predictors of two measures of recidivism, arrests, and postexit jail days. Its findings support the hypothesis that Mental Health Courts can reduce criminal recidivism postexit and point to criminal history, time in Mental Health Court, and graduation as the main influences on recidivism. Language: en

  • procedural justice and the Mental Health Court judge s role in reducing recidivism
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Heathcote W Wales, Virginia Aldigé Hiday, Bradley Ray
    Abstract:

    article i nfo Available online xxxx Based on qualitative observation and quantitative data from eight Mental Health Courts (MHCs), this article argues that observed reductions in recidivism from participation in MHC are caused in part by the role of the judge in conveying elements of procedural justice. Specifically, the judge provides: (1) a heightened level of interpersonal treatment of participants that accords them dignity, respect, and voice; (2) accountability for participants and service providers alike; and (3) transparency for decisions reached through an open negotiation process. Procedural justice theory predicts that participants will thereby be more likely to see legal decisions as legitimate and incorporate the Court's values and goals as their own. Preliminary qualitative and quantitative data are presented from interviews of a sample of participants in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia's Mental Health Diversion Court (DCMHDC) that support these hypotheses. DCMHDC participants hold strongly positive views about the procedural justice they receive from their Court experience and of the judge's role in providing justice.

  • Arrests two years after exiting a well-established Mental Health Court.
    Psychiatric services (Washington D.C.), 2010
    Co-Authors: Virginia Aldigé Hiday, Bradley Ray
    Abstract:

    Objective: Relatively few studies have evaluated whether Mental Health Courts reduce criminal recidivism. This study evaluated an established Court and followed for two years defendants who exited the program in the Court’s fifth year of operation. Methods: Court administrative data and state arrest records for 99 defendants who exited a Mental Health Court in 2005 were used to determine whether the proportion arrested and number of arrests were lower in the two years after Court exit than in the two years before Court entry and whether the reduction was greater for those who completed the Court process. Logistic regression was used to examine completion’s effect on recidivism with controls for other predictors. Survival analysis was used to discern how long Court effects were sustained after exit. Results: Defendants had significantly reduced recidivism from preCourt entry to postCourt exit. Completers (N=60) and those ejected from the program (N=31) had fewer rearrests, but completers were much less likely to be rearrested (odds ratio=.12), even with confounds controlled for, and they had a much longer period before rearrest. Conclusions: This study adds to the evidence that Mental Health Courts can reduce criminal recidivism among offenders with Mental illness and shows that this effect was sustained for two years, even though defendants were no longer being monitored by the Court or receiving Court-mandated treatment. The results show that the Mental Health Court program studied had a greater impact on defendants who completed the program than on defendants who did not. (Psychiatric Services 61:463–468, 2010)

Cindy Brooks Dollar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Exploring Stigmatization and Stigma Management in Mental Health Court: Assessing Modified Labeling Theory in a New Context
    Sociological Forum, 2014
    Co-Authors: Bradley Ray, Cindy Brooks Dollar
    Abstract:

    Drawing on Link and colleagues' modified labeling theory, this article examines whether the stigma management strategies defendants anticipate using after Mental Health Court exit are associated with their reported experiences during Court. Using survey data from 34 Mental Health Court graduates, we find that respondents generally perceive the Mental Health Court as procedurally just, did not experience stigmatizing shame, and anticipate using the inclusionary coping strategy of education over the exclusionary strategies of secrecy and withdrawal. Moreover, findings reveal that the anticipated use of stigma management strategies is associated with Mental Health Court experiences in that procedural justice is associated with inclusionary coping strategies, while stigmatizing shame is associated with exclusionary coping strategies. We conclude by encouraging researchers to further explore the role of stigmatization and shame in specialty Court contexts and to continue investigating these defendant perceptions of these Courts' process.

  • The Practice of Reintegrative Shaming in Mental Health Court
    Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2013
    Co-Authors: Cindy Brooks Dollar, Bradley Ray
    Abstract:

    Scholars and practitioners have renewed their interest in recognizing and designing restorative justice programs. Although these programs often provide successful outcomes, we know relatively little about why they work. Reintegrative shaming theory provides a lens by which to explain successful outcomes. This study uses over three years of direct observations to examine the practice of reintegrative shaming in a Mental Health Court (MHC). We organize our findings around four primary components of reintegrative shaming outlined by Makkai and Braithwaite: respectful disapproval, disapproving the behavior rather than the individual, rejecting deviance as a master status, and ceremonial decertifications of deviance. Our data demonstrate that reintegrative shaming in MHC is largely accomplished through interactions with the judge, although the unique organization of the MHC, including their small caseloads, use of separate dockets, and pre-Court team meetings, advance the Court’s use of reintegrative shaming.

  • examining Mental Health Court completion a focal concerns perspective
    Sociological Quarterly, 2013
    Co-Authors: Bradley Ray, Cindy Brooks Dollar
    Abstract:

    Sociologists have long-raised concern about disparate treatment in the justice system. Focal concerns have become the dominant perspective in explaining these disparities in legal processing decisions. Despite the growth of problem-solving Courts, little research has examined how this perspective operates in nontraditional Court settings. This article used a mixed-method approach to examine focal concerns in a Mental Health Court (MHC). Observational findings indicate that gender and length of time in Court influence the Court's contextualization of noncompliance. While discussions of race were absent in observational data, competing-risk survival analysis finds that gender and race interact to predict MHC termination.

  • Observations of reintegrative shaming in a Mental Health Court.
    International journal of law and psychiatry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Bradley Ray, Cindy Brooks Dollar, Kelly M. Thames
    Abstract:

    This study compares the use of stigmatizing and reintegrative shame - as specified in Braithwaite's Crime, shame and reintegration (1989) - across traditional criminal Court and Mental Health Court settings. Items from the Global Observational Ratings Instrument were used to gather data on 87 traditional Court cases and 91 Mental Health Court cases, presided over by five different judges. The observational items capture three constructs: respect, disapproval, and forgiveness, as they apply to Braithwaite's theory. We present means tests to examine differences in shaming between Court types and judges. Findings show that the Mental Health Court is more likely to use reintegrative shaming and show respect and forgiveness for offenders, and less likely to show disapproval. Similarly, judges who preside in both Court types are significantly more likely to practice reintegrative shaming in the Mental Health Court context. We further explore these findings using field notes and illustrate those components of a Mental Health Court that are conducive to reintegrative shaming.

Allison D. Redlich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the impact of community treatment on recidivism among Mental Health Court participants
    Psychiatric Services, 2016
    Co-Authors: Woojae Han, Allison D. Redlich
    Abstract:

    Objective:A core component of Mental Health Courts (MHCs) is the provision of community treatment in order to reduce arrests. However, research on the components of treatment received by MHC participants is rare. This study examined the impact of community treatment on arrests in an MHC sample (N=357) and a sample from the traditional criminal justice system (N=384).Methods:Data were from the MacArthur MHC Project, which includes objective and subjective information from four MHCs with comparison samples at each site. Interview data were collected for six months before and six months after entry into the MHC or legal system. National data from arrest records over one year were also obtained. Treatment-related variables were compliance (appointments and medication), perceptions (motivation and perceived voluntariness), and use of nine types of community treatment. A fixed-effects regression controlled for selection bias between groups.Results:The regression model indicated significant increases in treatmen...

  • examining the links between therapeutic jurisprudence and Mental Health Court completion
    Law and Human Behavior, 2014
    Co-Authors: Allison D. Redlich, Woojae Han
    Abstract:

    Research demonstrates that Mental Health Courts (MHCs) lead to improved outcomes compared to traditional criminal Court processes. An underlying premise of MHCs is therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). However, no research, to our knowledge, has examined whether MHC outcomes are predicted by TJ principles as theorized. In the present study, we examined whether principles measured at the onset of MHC enrollment (knowledge, perceived voluntariness, and procedural justice) predicted MHC completion (graduation). Using structural equation modeling with MHC participants from four Courts, a significant, direct relationship between TJ and MHC completion was found, such that higher levels of TJ were associated with higher rates of success. Although this direct effect became nonsignificant when mediator variables were included, a significant indirect path remained, such that increased levels of initial perceived voluntariness and procedural justice, and MHC knowledge, led to decreased rates of new arrests, prison, MHC bench warrants, and increased Court compliance, which, in turn, led to a higher likelihood of MHC graduation.

  • The Past, Present, and Future of Mental Health Courts
    Problem Solving Courts, 2013
    Co-Authors: Allison D. Redlich
    Abstract:

    Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are an ever-growing popular solution to a well-documented problem—the overabundance of persons with Mental illness in the criminal justice system. MHCs are but one of several types of specialty Courts designed to improve the practices and effectiveness of criminal justice. This chapter summarizes what is known about past and present MHCs using the Council of State Governments’ (CSG) Ten Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court as a guiding framework (Thompson et al., Improving responses to people with Mental illnesses: The essential elements of a Mental Health Court, 2008). Then, what the next generation of MHCs may look like is forecasted on the basis of the trends, research, and ongoing controversies surrounding these specialty Courts. At the end, a preliminary conclusion is offered that based on the progression of the Courts—which are criminal justice inventions and entities—regressing back toward a more traditional criminalistic and even adversarial approach is a reasonable expectation. A question that remains to be addressed is whether MHCs and other specialty Courts will continue to be “special.” How will they distinguish themselves from traditional Courts? As the Courts adopt a more legalistic and due process orientation, the challenge will be to retain the features that set them apart from treatment-as-usual in the criminal justice system, features that were created in response to the perceived ineffectiveness of said traditional treatment.

  • Is Diversion Swift?: Comparing Mental Health Court and Traditional Criminal Justice Processing
    Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2012
    Co-Authors: Allison D. Redlich, Siyu Liu, Henry J. Steadman, Lisa Callahan, Pamela Clark Robbins
    Abstract:

    >> Formal diversion programs are increasingly popular options for offenders with Mental illness. Diversion is recommended, and often assumed, to be swift in that eligible persons should be quickly identified and enrolled. In this study, the authors examine the length from initial arrest to enrollment into Mental Health Court and compare it to time from arrest to disposition for offenders with and without Mental illness traditionally processed. The authors, using medians as the metric and limiting the period to 1 year, found time to Mental Health Court was 70 days, whereas traditional processing for offenders with and without known Mental illness was 37 and 76 days, respectively. The authors also found detention status during this period to have a large effect on processing time.

  • Effect of Mental Health Courts on Arrests and Jail Days: A Multisite Study
    Archives of general psychiatry, 2010
    Co-Authors: Henry J. Steadman, Allison D. Redlich, Lisa Callahan, Pamela Clark Robbins, Roumen Vesselinov
    Abstract:

    CONTEXT: Mental Health Courts are growing in popularity as a form of jail diversion for justice system-involved people with serious Mental illness. This is the first prospective multisite study on Mental Health Courts with treatment and control groups. OBJECTIVES: To determine if participation in a Mental Health Court is associated with more favorable criminal justice outcomes than processing through the regular criminal Court system and to identify defendants for whom Mental Health Courts produce the most favorable criminal justice outcomes. DESIGN: Longitudinal study. SETTING: Four Mental Health Courts in San Francisco County, CA, Santa Clara County, CA, Hennepin County (Minneapolis), MN, and Marion County (Indianapolis), IN. PARTICIPANTS: A total 447 persons in the Mental Health Court (MHC) and 600 treatment-as-usual (TAU) controls. Intervention Eighteen months of pre-entry and postentry data for 4 jurisdictions. All subjects were interviewed at baseline, and 70% were interviewed at 6 months. Objective outcome data were obtained on all subjects from Federal Bureau of Investigation arrest records, jails, prisons, and community treatment providers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Annualized rearrest rates, number of rearrests, and postentry incarceration days. RESULTS: The MHC and TAU samples are similar on the major outcome measures in the pre-entry 18-month period. In the 18 months following treatment, defined as entry into Mental Health Court, the MHC group has a lower annualized rearrest rate, fewer post-18-month arrests, and fewer post-18-month incarceration days than the TAU group. The MHC graduates had lower rearrest rates than participants whose participation was terminated both during MHC supervision and after supervision ended. Factors associated with better outcomes among the MHC participants include lower pre-18-month arrests and incarceration days, treatment at baseline, not using illegal substances, and a diagnosis of bipolar disorder rather than schizophrenia or depression. CONCLUSIONS: Mental Health Courts meet the public safety objectives of lowering posttreatment arrest rates and days of incarceration. Both clinical and criminal justice factors are associated with better public safety outcomes for MHC participants. Language: en