title: Predictors of Criminal Justice Outcomes Among Mental Health Courts Participants: The Role of Perceived Coercion and Subjective Mental Health Recovery.
abstract: Internationally, one effort to reduce the number of people with serious mental illness (SMI) in jails and prisons is the development of Mental Health Courts (MHC). Research on MHCs to date has been disproportionately focused on the study of recidivism and re-incarceration over the potential of these problem-solving courts to facilitate mental health recovery and affect the slope or gradient of opportunity for recovery. Despite the strong conceptual links between the MHC approach and the recovery-orientation in mental health, the capacity for MHCs to facilitate recovery has not been explored. This user-informed mental health and criminal justice (MH/CJ) community based participatory (CBPR) study assesses the extent to which MHC practices align with recovery-oriented principles and may subsequently affect criminal justice outcomes. We report on the experiences and perceptions of 51 MHC participants across four metropolitan Mental Health Courts. Specifically, the current study assesses: 1) how defendants' perceptions of court practices, particularly with regard to procedural justice and coercion, relate to perceptions of mental health recovery and psychiatric symptoms, and, 2) how perceptions of procedural justice and mental health recovery relate to subsequent criminal justice outcomes. The authors hypothesized that perceived coercion and mental health recovery would be inversely related, that perceived coercion would be associated with worse criminal justice outcomes, and perceptions of mental health recovery would be associated with better criminal justice outcomes. Results suggest that perceived coercion in the MHC experience was negatively associated with perceptions of recovery among MHC participants. Perceptions of "negative pressures," a component of coercion, were important predictors of criminal justice involvement in the 12 month period following MHC admission, even when controlling for other factors that were related to criminal justice outcomes, and that an increase in procedural justice was associated with a decrease in symptoms but curiously not to an increase in attitudes toward recovery. Implications and future directions are discussed.
authors.affiliation: Center to Study Recovery in Social Contexts, Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, 140 Old Orangeburg Road, Orangeburg, NY 10962.
authors.forename: Christina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Pratt
authors.forename: Philip T
authors.initials: PT
authors.lastname: Yanos
authors.forename: Sarah L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Kopelovich
authors.forename: Joshua
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Koerner
authors.forename: Mary Jane
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Alexander
keywords: CBPR; Mental Health Court; capabilities approach; procedural justice; recovery
references.citation: Int J Law Psychiatry. 1995 Summer;18(3):249-63
references.pmid: 7591396
references.citation: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;68(2):167-72
references.pmid: 20921111
references.citation: Ann Health Law. 2010 Spring;19(3):577-93, 1 p preceding i
references.pmid: 21456399
references.citation: Am J Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;166(11):1211-4
references.pmid: 19884234
references.citation: Psychiatr Serv. 2012 Mar;63(3):277-9
references.pmid: 22388534
references.citation: Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2007 Summer;31(1):9-22
references.pmid: 17694711
references.citation: Psychiatr Serv. 2009 Jun;60(6):761-5
references.pmid: 19487344
references.citation: Int J Law Psychiatry. 2002 Sep-Oct;25(5):517-33
references.pmid: 12371265
references.citation: Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2004 Winter;27(3):205
references.pmid: 14982325
references.citation: Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008 Sep;35(5):370-8
references.pmid: 18561020
references.citation: Schizophr Bull. 2004;30(4):1035-41
references.pmid: 15957202
references.citation: Psychiatr Serv. 2001 Nov;52(11):1462-8
references.pmid: 11684741
references.citation: Psychiatr Serv. 2003 Nov;54(11):1467-74
references.pmid: 14600303
references.citation: Int J Law Psychiatry. 2013 Mar-Apr;36(2):113-20
references.pmid: 23415372
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2000;18(6):731-40
references.pmid: 11180419
references.citation: Law Hum Behav. 2006 Jun;30(3):347-62
references.pmid: 16775775
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2007 Sep;65(5):868-79
references.pmid: 17499900
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 1993 Summer;11(3):307-21
references.pmid: 10150233
references.citation: Ment Health Serv Res. 2001 Sep;3(3):141-53
references.pmid: 11718206
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2005;23(2):227-43
references.pmid: 15818603
references.citation: Psychiatr Serv. 2001 Apr;52(4):482-5
references.pmid: 11274493