Specialty Courts and Mental Health Court Programs Explained

Overview of Specialty Court Programs

Specialty courts were established with thirteen court programs that target individuals at various points of contact with the criminal justice system. Specialty courts are founded on the treatment court model, which offers mental health and substance abuse treatments to reduce recidivism risk rates and provide support for involved individuals to acquire skills and advance their education. Depending on individual needs, all specialty courts require participation in individual or group substance abuse and mental health counseling. The programs also involve randomized drug or alcohol testing, probation supervision, regular court status checks, and collaboration in case management.

The long-term objective of specialty court programs is to reduce public costs incurred while monitoring, detaining, and prosecuting criminal activity under state and federal laws. Specialty courts were formed under the Community Mental Health Centers Act, which led to the closure of state psychiatric hospitals and replaced them with complementary services provided at the community level ("Mental Health Courts - collaborative justice," 2022).

Specialty courts have expanded to include Mental Health Courts, Transitional Aged Youth Drug Court, Juvenile Drug Court, Veteran's Treatment Court, Co-Occurring Disorders Court, Family Treatment Court, and Felony DUI Court. These programs establish criteria based on primary eligibility requirements, such as the absence of a violent criminal history. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) reported that for each $1.00 invested in specialty courts, the public expense falls by $3.36 in avoided criminal justice costs. Additionally, public expenses decline by $27.00 for each dollar spent when accounting for reductions in victimization and healthcare service utilization (Winter, 2022).

Foundations: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Restorative Justice

Specialty courts are founded on two core ideas: therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice. Therapeutic jurisprudence focuses on improving outcomes for individuals facing incarceration by treating the underlying causes of criminal behavior rather than simply punishing it.

In the traditional court system, restoration involved financial restitution to the victim by the offender and the incarceration of offenders. However, the current approach to restorative justice aims to alleviate harm and bring transformation for all parties involved. In specialty courts, restorative justice offers an array of options tailored to an individual's circumstances. Consequently, judges must transition from functioning as adjudicators to facilitators of treatment.

Mental Health Courts: Origins and Eligibility

The first mental health court was established in the late 20th century in Broward County, Florida. By 2010, more than 200 mental health courts were operating across the United States, taking a problem-solving approach with measures and programs designed to engage mentally ill patients in treatment rather than incarceration (Davis & Cates, 2017). California's mental health courts are collaborative and provide specific services and treatment to defendants diagnosed with mental health illnesses. The objective of mental health specialty courts in California is to support participants' successful transition into society, decrease recidivism, increase public safety, and enhance individuals' quality of life.

Mental health court eligibility criteria require not only that defendants have both a criminal charge and a mental illness, but also that other factors be considered, such as the risk associated with admission and suitability for the program and services offered. According to Wolff et al. (2011), eligibility requires that defendants have a mental illness that may be chronic, persistent, or serious, connected with non-violent criminal charges. Participation in these courts is voluntary, and the defendant must consent to participate in the program.

This process follows Marsy's Law, California Constitution Article I, § 28, Section (b), which gives defendants the right to be treated with dignity, fairness, and privacy, and to be free from intimidation. Defendants are also afforded the right to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency on matters including extradition (Bonta, 2022). Defendants are screened and referred to a mental health court as soon as possible after arrest to ensure that interventions begin early. The screening process is also critical for determining whether the mental health court has sufficient resources to support the defendant's treatment. Referrals may come from defense attorneys, family members, a judge, jail personnel, a police officer, or a treatment provider.

The information used to determine a defendant's eligibility may be reviewed formally by the court or by a case coordinator with mental health experience, though not necessarily a physician. The information may be formal or informal and specific to the case or team. Factors such as motivation, treatability, and support from victims and the defense attorney may independently influence a client's selection (Wolff et al., 2011). In California, mental health courts rely on a case management structure based on individual accountability and intensive monitoring. Case management is supervised by professionals who typically include members of the justice system and mental health providers. Judges supervise the process and facilitate collaboration among team members.