Predictors of Mental Health Court Program Compliance and Rearrest in Brooklyn, New York

Criminogenic Factors Associated with Noncompliance and Rearrest of Mental Health Court Participants

“…MHCs ostensibly reduce recidivism by addressing the untreated mental illness that is thought to be the underlying problem via court attendance, sanctions and incentives, and referrals to psychiatric and ancillary services (Stefan & Winick, 2005). Inherent in this understanding is the belief that mental illness is in some way linked either directly or indirectly to criminal behavior (Junginger et al, 2006; Reich et al, 2015; Skeem, Manchak, & Peterson, 2011). Thus, MHCs are commonly assumed to have the capacity to serve as a catalyst for behavioral change through the improvement of mental health symptoms (Reich et al, 2015).…”

“…Inherent in this understanding is the belief that mental illness is in some way linked either directly or indirectly to criminal behavior (Junginger et al, 2006; Reich et al, 2015; Skeem, Manchak, & Peterson, 2011). Thus, MHCs are commonly assumed to have the capacity to serve as a catalyst for behavioral change through the improvement of mental health symptoms (Reich et al, 2015).…”

“…A subsequent article using the same sample reported that participants with substance-use issues or drug-related offenses were most at-risk for receiving a jail sanction, and that participants with at least one jail sanction were more likely to be terminated from court (Callahan, Steadman, Tillman, & Vesselinov, 2013). Reich and colleagues (2015) conducted a study of a Brooklyn MHC to assess the relationship between demographic, criminal history, and psychiatric diagnosis of participants and jail sanctions, graduation status, and post-MHC recidivism. In terms of noncompliance, MHC participants who were younger, unemployed, had prior criminal justice involvement, and had property charges had an increased chance of receiving a jail sanction during MHC participation.…”

“…MHC studies have explored select criminogenic risk factors, some explicitly (e.g., Reich et al, 2015; Steadman et al, 2011) but most implicitly by including variables related to arrest history, for example, but without mention of the RNR model or the term “criminogenic risk factors” (e.g., Herinckx et al, 2005; Hiday et al, 2013). One study that examined the explicit ability of criminogenic characteristics to impact rearrest found that both prior arrests and substance-use issues were significant predictors of rearrest (Reich et al, 2015).…”

“…A considerable number of researchers have found that participation in these problem-solving courts reduces criminal recidivism (Herinckx, Swart, Ama, Dolezal, & King, 2005; Hiday, Wales, & Ray, 2013; Steadman, Redlich, Callahan, Robbins, & Vesselinov, 2011). In general, MHCs hold that psychiatric symptoms influence the criminal behavior of individuals with mental illness (Reich, Picard-Fritsche, Lebron, & Hahn, 2015), and that lack of, or inadequate, psychiatric care leads to criminal involvement (Lurigio & Snowden, 2009). However, the broader criminal justice literature suggests that factors associated with increased recidivism risk for the general population are more useful for predicting recidivism among individuals with mental illness than are psychiatric symptoms (Junginger, Claypoole, Laygo, & Crisanti, 2006; Skeem, Winter, Kennealy, Louden, & Tatar, 2014), and that there is generally not a direct causal pathway between mental illness and criminality (Peterson, Skeem, Hart, Vidal, & Keith, 2010).…”