Courting Compliance: Case Managers as “Double Agents” in the Mental Health Court

Abstract

An ethnographic study of four Midwest mental health courts was focused on how case managers influence the judicial response to offender noncompliance. Mental health courts, which bear little resemblance to traditional work group models, are staffed by teams of legal and social service professionals working collaboratively toward reducing recidivism and community reintegration for high‐risk offenders. Few studies, however, have explored how treatment providers practice their trade in this new court organization. I investigate how case management professionals, working at the intersections of the social welfare and criminal justice systems, leverage courtroom decision making that results in greater leniency or enhanced punishment. The findings suggest that mental‐health‐court case managers act as boundary spanners in terms of their strategic use of resources to facilitate treatment goals. I conclude that case managers act as “double agents” challenging the state to advocate for clemency while enforcing client rules to uphold the integrity of the court.

The Missing Organizational Dimension of Prisoner Reentry: An Ethnography of the Road to Reentry at a Nonprofit Service Provider

“…Underlying many of the issues here described is the question, who are the clients of the reentry organization (see Castellano )? Rehabilitative services are meant to directly assist the formerly incarcerated men and women, but the organization's mission, more broadly, is to make for safer communities—a concern that underlies much of the programming.…”

The Assessment and Referral Court List program in the Magistrates Court of Victoria: An Australian study of recidivism

“…Finally, the current study is only of a single site, so it was not possible to compare measures such as specific program components or organisational procedures such as procedural justice (Wales et al, 2010), reintegrative shaming (Peters and Osher, 2004) and the impact of court staff (Castellano, 2011).…”

Recent Developments In Mental Health Courts: What Have We Learned?

“…Although many believe that the judge is of primary importance in MHC settings, Castellano (2011b) argued that case managers effectively function as the "lynchpins" (Castellano, 2011b, p. 510). She arrived at this conclusion after an in-depth, 16-month, ethnographic study of four Midwest MHCs, which included the direct observation of court proceedings and agency meetings, interviewing 17 case managers and reviewing archival materials.…”

“…TJ recognizes that although laws are designed to help people, sometimes they are detrimental in practice (Wexler, 2008). Adhering to a TJ framework means that the courts will attempt to ensure that laws, to the extent possible, foster positive therapeutic outcomes (Casey & Rottman, 2000), and simultaneously respect due process and other constitutional measures (Madden & Wayne, 2003). The goal of TJ is to produce the most constructive therapeutic outcome for client, the client's family, the community, and society at large.…”