Juvenile Mental Health Courts Research Articles

The Prevalence of Trauma Among Participants in a Juvenile Mental Health Court

There is evidence that youth in the justice system are more likely to experience trauma and mental health problems than the general population. Trauma histories may exacerbate mental health problems, and mental health problems may increase the likelihood of continued offending. While prior research has examined the effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on recidivism, it has yet to consider the prevalence of trauma among youth in a juvenile mental health court. Data from an urban juvenile mental health court ( N = 203) was used to assess the prevalence of ACEs. The average ACE score of participants was 3.6% and 46% had a high ACE score. Furthermore, those who did not complete the program and/or were rearrested following participation had significantly higher ACE scores. Controlling for other factors, ACEs were not significantly associated with program noncompletion or rearrest. Policy implications surrounding trauma-informed practices are provided.

Factors Associated with Successful Completion of Juvenile Mental Health Court.

Justice-involved youth experience a high number of mental health symptoms. There has been an increased effort to address the mental health needs of these youth through specialized juvenile mental health courts (JMHC). To date, there have been few studies that examined characteristics related to successful completion of a JMHC program. This study is a retrospective case file review of 99 individuals ages 10 to 18 years who were involved in a JMHC program. Information collected included educational history, parental factors, psychiatric and abuse history, legal history, risk of removal from home, and risk and protective factors from the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) measure. The primary outcome was successful completion of the program. Forty-eight participants (48.5%) successfully completed the program. Neglect, removal from the home, new charges, probation violation, and number of previous charges were negatively associated with successful completion. Positive attitude toward intervention was positively associated with successful completion. Measures that juvenile justice systems may use, such as the SAVRY risk factors and abuse and neglect screens, were not associated with completion. More studies are needed to identify factors associated with successful completion of a JMHC program and to develop interventions to improve outcomes.

Breaking the Cycle of Juvenile Justice: A Review of Juvenile Mental Health Courts

Juvenile mental health courts (JMHCs) are problem-solving courts devoted to serving youth offenders with mental illnesses. Thie current study offers a comprehensive review of JMHCs, linking the establishment of JMHCs to a broader historical context. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Roper v. Simons, 2005; Graham v. Florida, 2011; Miller v. Alabama, 2012; Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016) and a brief history of reform in juvenile justice are discussed to highlight the context in which JMHCs emerged. The implementation of JMHCs and their empirical status, as well as their potential problems, are summarized. After reviewing empirical evidence of mental health courts (MHCs), the current research concludes that the appearance of JMHCs signals the possibility of breaking the cycle of juvenile justice, which has been often guided by the public sentiment.

Intersection of Mental Health, Education, and Juvenile Justice: The Role of Mental Health Providers in Reducing the School-to-Prison Pipeline

The school-to-prison pipeline (STPP) describes the corridor between the education system and the justice system which is increasingly filled with children and youth who have mental health challenges. Approximately 22% of children (under 18 years old) in the general U.S. population have psychiatric disorders, as compared to approximately 70% of justice-involved children (Cocozza & Shufelt, 2006; Teplin et al., 2002). This article uses the differential behavior hypothesis and the differential selection/processing hypothesis to critically examine the intersection of the mental health, education, and juvenile justice systems and the overrepresentation of mental illness for justice-involved youth in the United States. Early identification, assessment, barriers to care and health disparities, school discipline, and the criminalization of children and youth with mental illness are explored with global implications. Recommendations and promising practices are offered including: improved data and service provider collaborations, community-based services and systems of care, diversion and decarceration, juvenile mental health courts, and juvenile crisis intervention teams.

77.2 A Judge's Perspective: What to Know When You Are Treating a Justice-Involved Youth

Juvenile mental health courts have been established across the country to take into consideration the unique characteristics of justice-involved youth with mental illness diagnoses and to better prevent recidivism and matriculation into the adult justice system. Juvenile mental health courts attempt to do this by providing judicial oversight of mental health treatment. Mental health treatment is most commonly received in the community setting within existing systems of care. This presentation will describe struggles associated with judicially supervised mental health care for children and families housed in existing community systems and provide recommendations for improved collaborative care of justice-involved youth with mental illness diagnoses.

77.1 Creating an Individualized Deferred Disposition Docket, a.k.a. Juvenile Mental Health Court: Why Do We Need It? How Did We Get There?

77.1 Creating an Individualized Deferred Disposition Docket, a.k.a. Juvenile Mental Health Court: Why Do We Need It? How Did We Get There?

77.3 The Multisystem Contacts of Youth With Behavioral Health Disorders

This session will focus on the outcomes of juveniles participating in juvenile court based on research done in collaboration with multiple juvenile mental health courts in the United States through the Policy Research Associates.

77.4 Characteristics Associated With Successful Completion of Juvenile Mental Health Court Probation

77.4 Characteristics Associated With Successful Completion of Juvenile Mental Health Court Probation

Race and Gender Recidivism Differences Among Juvenile Mental Health Court Graduates

AbstractGrounded in the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence, this research explores whether recidivism differs by race, ethnicity, or gender among juvenile mental health court graduates (N = 63). Mean number of pre‐program offenses were compared to the mean number of offenses committed by program completion. Results showed statistically significant reductions in recidivism by both males (p < .001) and females (p < .003). Racial and ethnic minorities demonstrated larger reductions when compared to Whites (p < .001 for Hispanics and p < .01 for combined ethnicities). These results contribute to the literature on effective intervention models for diverse juvenile offender populations.

Recidivism and Psychiatric Symptom Outcomes in a Juvenile Mental Health Court

AbstractFew researchers have examined outcomes in Juvenile Mental Health Courts. Recidivism rates were assessed among 108 predominantly African American (95.3%) youth. Ages ranged from 12 to 18 (M = 15.85, SD = 1.45). Substantially fewer re‐convictions, along with re‐arrests, were exhibited among the treatment group (n = 54) compared to the control group (n = 54) after one year of participation or probation supervision. Psychiatric symptomatology among 21 youth was assessed pre‐ and post‐ intervention using the Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales‐Self Report. Cohen's d effect sizes indicated substantial reductions in mental health symptoms (.33 ≥ d ≤ .88). Results are consistent with the previous studies of problem‐solving court efficacy.

MH Courts for Youth Show Promise but Need Study

In recent years, dozens of jurisdictions around the country have established juvenile mental health courts, but their strengths and weaknesses have yet to be assessed.

A National Survey of U.S. Juvenile Mental Health Courts

The authors surveyed U.S. juvenile mental health courts (JMHCs). Forty-one were identified in 15 states, and 34 returned surveys; one was completed on the basis of published information. Topics included the court's history, youths served, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the court process, and services provided. Half (51%) reported that the juvenile court was responsible for the program; for 11% the probation agency had the responsibility, and 17% reported shared responsibility by these entities. Fifty-one percent reported that all youths with any mental disorder diagnosis are eligible. The most commonly reported participant diagnoses are bipolar disorder (27%), depression (23%), and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (16%). Seventy percent currently include participants with felony offenses, and 91% with misdemeanors; 67% exclude status offenses, and 21% exclude violent offenses. A guilty plea was required by 63%. Incentives to participate included dismissal of charges (40%), reduction in court hearings (43%), praise by the judge and probation officer (60%), reduction in curfew restrictions (23%), and gift cards or gifts (71%). Sanctions for not participating included increased supervision or hearings (60%), performing community service (54%), and placement in residential detention (60%). Most JMHCs reported use of a multidisciplinary team to coordinate community-based services to prevent protracted justice system involvement. JMHCs are being developed in the absence of systematically collected outcome data. Although they resemble adult mental health courts, they have unique features that are specific to addressing the complex needs of youths with mental disorders involved in the justice system. These include diagnostic and treatment challenges and issues related to involving families and schools.

Michael E. Barnes: Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Institutional Practice.

Presents a short biography on the winner of the American Psychological Association's Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Institutional Practice. The 2012 winner is Michael E. Barnes for his pioneering leadership, dedication, and distinguished contributions to juvenile justice. As chief psychologist of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia's Child Guidance Clinic, Barnes and his staff have provided exceptional psychological service to thousands of adjudicated youths, developed an APA-accredited internship program, and supervised the development of a juvenile mental health court that diverts mentally ill court-involved youth from delinquency proceedings and into treatment.

Juvenile Mental Health Courts for Adjudicated Youth: Role Implications for Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Mental Health Nurses

Juvenile mental health courts for adjudicated youth. To describe the role of psychiatric nurses in reducing mental health disparities for adjudicated youth via juvenile mental health courts. ISI Web of Knowledge; Sage Journals Online; HighWire; PubMed; Google Scholar and Wiley Online Library and websites for psychiatric nursing organizations. Years included: 2000-2010. Juvenile mental health courts may provide a positive and effective alternative to incarceration for youth with mental health problems with psychiatric nurses playing a key role in program implementation.

Reduction in Recidivism in a Juvenile Mental Health Court: A Pre‐ and Post‐Treatment Outcome Study

ABSTRACTA review of an evaluation of the Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (a prototype Juvenile Mental Health Court in Santa Clara, California) is presented along with admission criteria. Participant demographics are described. McNemar Test and Paired T Test results show that study participants committed violent, aggressive, and property crimes in significantly lower numbers in the 23 months following court admission than in the 18 months preceding court admission, despite escalating patterns of antisocial behavior prior to court involvement. The importance of developing multidisciplinary models to address moderately severe offenders with serious mental illness is discussed.

Juvenile Mental Health Court: Rationale and Protocols

ABSTRACTUnder the sponsorship of the judiciary, the Santa Clara County, California Juvenile Court, in partnership with the Juvenile Mental Health Department and a technical assistance agency (SOLOMON), has pioneered a Juvenile Mental Health Court for seriously mentally ill children who have become involved in the criminal justice system. The judiciary, probation department, district attorney, public defender, county counsel, and service providers have collectively embarked upon the implementation of a modern approach to mental health diagnosis, triage, and treatment services for youth and families who come in contact with the justice system as a result of the combination of serious mental illness and juvenile delinquency. This article presents the court's rationale and protocols.