The Broward Mental Health Court: process, outcomes, and service utilization

An Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Mental Health Court Initiative

“…Empirical outcome data from specific courts are just beginning to emerge (Boothroyd, Poythress, McGaha, & Petrila, 2003;Trupin & Richards, 2003) indicating that MHCs can be somewhat successful in 1) getting participants to engage in treatment and 2) lessening recidivism. However, whether MHCs will be as successful as their predecessors and exemplars--Drug Treatment Courts--in improving client outcomes and quality of life remains to be seen.…”

“…The most ambitious research projects published have been single-site outcome studies in Broward County, FL and Santa Barbara, CA. The Broward study has produced a series of papers on the operation of the court (Petrila, Poythress, McGaha, & Boothroyd, 2001;Poythress, Petrila, McGaha, & Boothroyd, 2002), and the characteristics and service use of the participants (Boothroyd et al, 2003), with analyses on participant outcomes now being conducted. The Santa Barbara study was a randomized control trial comparing a MHC participant sample and a treatment-as-usual (control) sample (Cosden, Ellens, Schnell, Yasmeen, & Wolfe, 2003).…”

Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion Services for Offenders With Mental Disorders: A Review

“…These included a single evaluation of the Broward County, Florida, MHC (20)(21)(22), a multisite study examining the effectiveness of four large, wellestablished MHCs (23), plus two further studies (24,25). All four evaluations employed a quasi-experimental design, although there were some differences in their execution.…”

“…All four evaluations employed a quasi-experimental design, although there were some differences in their execution. Two studies employed a matched design in which the MHC group and comparator group were matched on sociodemographic, criminal, and diagnostic variables (20,24), and the second study also matched groups on symptomatology (21,22). The other two studies employed a nonequivalent comparison group design whereby participants were matched on variables with statistical control for other between-group differences (23,25).…”

“…The other two studies employed a nonequivalent comparison group design whereby participants were matched on variables with statistical control for other between-group differences (23,25). Further methodological differences existed in terms of comparator groups, each of which included either jail detainees (24), court attendees from a neighboring county (20)(21)(22), participants who had attended court during the previous year (25), or participants who were eligible for the MHC but who were not referred to the service (23). Although all the evaluations examined MHCs, the MHCs varied considerably in terms of size, staffing, procedures, and eligibility criteria.…”