Individual factors associated with recidivism among mental health court program clients

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101651Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Less than 20% of study participants recidivated.

  • Age was significantly associated with the likelihood of rearrest.

  • Criminal history was significantly associated with a high risk of recidivism.

  • Results suggest tailored MHC services for young adults and repeat offenders.

Abstract

There is growing evidence that diversion to a mental health court program (MHC) can reduce recidivism rates and improve the quality of life of clients. However, there is less known about MHC client characteristics and factors associated with recidivism. Yet, this information would be useful to increase the effectiveness of these programs. Cross-sectional quantitative data were collected on MHC clients in three consecutive years. Of the 155 program clients that were successfully interviewed, only 154 were included in the analysis due to one non-consent to collect further data from their case manager. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine “What individual factors are associated with recidivism among MHC program clients?” This analysis specifically explored the association of sex, age, low functional ability, homelessness, court site, and criminal history. From the multiple logistic regression results, the increased risk of recidivism was found to be significantly associated with younger clients and a prior criminal history. The results of this study suggest programs tailored to young adults and repeat offenders may be areas that MHCs could potentially focus on to increase their effectiveness.

Introduction

Mental health court programs (MHC) were created to help individuals who are arrested and have a mental illness that is a significant contributing factor to their arrest (Desmond & Lenz, 2010). There are three components that MHC diversion programs offer that are not offered by traditional courts: screening, assessment, and negotiation between mental health specialists and criminal justice staff (H. J. Steadman, Barbera, & Dennis, 1994; H. J. Steadman, Davidson, & Brown, 2001). Screening involves identifying defendants who are suspected of having a mental illness while assessment involves the evaluation of identified defendants by a mental health professional. The last component involves court diversion staff negotiating with prosecutors, defence attorneys, the courts, and community-based mental health providers to have charges reduced or waived (H. J. Steadman et al., 1994; H. J. Steadman et al., 2001). Although there is growing evidence that diversion to a MHC can reduce recidivism rates and improve the quality of life of clients (Anestis & Carbonell, 2014; Broner, Lattimore, Cowell, & Schlenger, 2004; Broner, Mayrl, & Gerald, 2005; B. Burns, 2013; M. Cosden, Ellens, Schnell, & Yamini-Diouf, 2005; Merith Cosden, Ellens, Schnell, Yamini-Diouf, & Wolfe, 2003; Dirks-Linhorst & Linhorst, 2012; Frisman et al., 2006; Han & Redlich, 2016; Herinckx, Swart, Ama, Dolezal, & King, 2005; V. A. Hiday, Ray, & Wales, 2016; Virginia Aldige Hiday, Wales, & Ray, 2013; Hoff, Baranosky, Buchanan, Zonana, & Rosenheck, 1999; H. R. Lamb, Weinberger, & Reston-Parham, 1996; Lamberti et al., 2001; Lim & Day, 2014; Loong, Bonato, Barnsley, & Dewa, 2019; McNiel & Binder, 2007; Moore & Hiday, 2006; Naples & Steadman, 2003; Shafer, Arthur, & Franczak, 2004; Henry J. Steadman, Redlich, Callahan, Robbins, & Vesselinov, 2011; Trupin & Richards, 2003), there is little information on the client characteristics associated with recidivism outcomes of MHC clients (Ryan, Brown, & Watanabe-Galloway, 2010; Verhaaff & Scott, 2015). The absence of this type of information makes it difficult to target programs and to improve the effectiveness of programs.

For example, among MHC clients, it is not clear as to whether sex and age are significant factors that are associated with the risk of rearrest (B. Burns, 2013; Herinckx et al., 2005; V. A. Hiday et al., 2016; Virginia Aldige Hiday et al., 2013; Lim & Day, 2014; Moore & Hiday, 2006). Research within the general prison population have consistently found females to be less likely to be rearrested compared to men across a variety of settings (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Piquero, Jennings, Diamond, & Reingle, 2015). When it comes to age, it has been found that antisocial and criminal activity increases rapidly and peaks in adolescence, followed by a continual decline throughout adulthood (Farrington, 1986; Farrington, Piquero, & Jennings, 2013; Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983; Moffitt, 1993; Piquero et al., 2003, Piquero et al., 2007; Sweeten, Piquero, & Steinberg, 2013). Thus, with increasing age, there is decreasing likelihood of recidivism.

There is also a disproportionate number of individuals with mental illness in the criminal justice system (Markowitz, 2006). Studies have found suspects with a mental illness are more likely to be arrested than those without (H. R. Lamb & Weinberger, 1998; H. R. Lamb, Weinberger, & DeCuir Jr., 2002; Steury, 1991; Teplin, 1990). Having a mental illness has been associated with lower functional status and greater disability (Mauksch et al., 2001). In the face of limited clinical options, police who encounter disruptive behavior resulting from mental illness often resort to arrests as a means to get suspects into mental health treatment and maintain their authority in conflict situations (Markowitz, 2006).

Whether homelessness is a risk factor for rearrest among MHC clients is also not known. In the general population, homelessness was found to be an important pathway to incarceration (H.R. Lamb, Lamb, & Weinberger, 2001). Surveys of inmates found offenders with mental illness to be more likely than other inmates to be homeless either at the time of, or the year before arrest (DeLisi, 2000; Ditton, 1999; McCarthy & Hagan, 1991). Being homeless has also been associated with a greater number of arrests (Gelberg, Linn, & Leake, 1988; H. R. Lamb & Weinberger, 1998; Leal, Galanter, Dermatis, & Westreich, 1999; Markowitz, 2006; Roy, Crocker, Nicholls, Latimer, & Ayllon, 2014; Wenzel et al., 1996).

In terms of the effects of having a criminal history, studies on MHC offenders found those with a prior criminal history were more likely to be rearrested compared to first time offenders (V. A. Hiday & Ray, 2010; Virginia Aldige Hiday et al., 2013; Moore & Hiday, 2006; Reich, Pichard-Fritsche, Lebron, & Hahn, 2015; Henry J. Steadman et al., 2011).

Overall, the literature suggests that sex, age, functional status, homelessness, and criminal history may be individual factors that are linked to recidivism among offenders with mental illnesses (Farrington, 1986; Farrington et al., 2013; Gelberg et al., 1988; Gendreau et al., 1996; V. A. Hiday & Ray, 2010; Virginia Aldige Hiday et al., 2013; Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983; H.R. Lamb et al., 2001; H. R. Lamb & Weinberger, 1998; Leal et al., 1999; Link, Monahan, Stueve, & Cullen, 1999; Markowitz, 2006; Moffitt, 1993; Moore & Hiday, 2006; Piquero et al., 2003, Piquero et al., 2007; Piquero et al., 2015; Reich et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2014; Henry J. Steadman et al., 2011; Swanson et al., 1998; Sweeten et al., 2013; Wenzel et al., 1996). Of these factors, only criminal history has been well studied in the MHC population; and to date, there is no consensus on the effect of sex and age – while functional status and homelessness have not been studied. As a result, this study seeks to answer, “What individual factors are associated with recidivism among MHC program clients?”

Section snippets

Description of the dataset

This secondary data analysis uses a subset of the Matryoshka Project dataset that focuses on MHC clients. The Matryoshka Project was a 4-year study that looked at two types of specialized community mental health programs in the province of Ontario, Canada: Early Intervention Programs (EIP) and Court Support Programs (CSP) (Dewa, Trojanowski, Cheng, & Loong, 2012; Dewa, Trojanowski, Cheng, & Sirotich, 2012). The purpose of the project was to examine the effects of the Government of Ontario's

Description of the study population

Of the 155 CSP clients that were successfully interviewed, one client did not consent to collect further data from their case manager. Given recidivism is the primary outcome of interest and this information was collected from case managers, only 154 individuals were included in the analysis (Table 2). On average, clients were 37 ± 12 years of age and the majority were male (73%, n = 113). Thirty-six percent of clients were found to have low functional status and less than 5% of clients

Discussion

The purpose of this secondary analysis was to address the question, “What individual factors are associated with recidivism among MHC program clients?”. This analysis specifically explored the association of sex, age, low functional ability, homelessness, court site, and criminal history with recidivism. Our results found less than 20% of our sample recidivated. Those who did were younger, had low functional ability, and a criminal history. When considered together, our multiple logistic

Conclusion

The purpose of this secondary analysis was to examine “What individual factors are associated with recidivism among MHC program clients?” This analysis specifically explored the association of sex, age, low functional ability, homelessness, court site, and criminal history. Among these, only age and criminal history were found to be significantly associated with the likelihood of recidivism. MHC clients were found to be less likely to reoffend with increasing age; while those with a prior

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Research ethics approval was received from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the University of Toronto.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Funding

This project was funded by the Ontario Mental Health Foundation. Any views expressed or errors are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views of any of the funders.

Author contributions

DL and CSD led the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data. JB and TA collaborated on the analysis and interpretation of the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding information

This project was funded by the Ontario Mental Health Foundation. Any views expressed or errors are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views of any of the funders.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Whitney Berta for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

References (71)

  • D. Leal et al.

    Correlates of protracted homelessness in a sample of dually diagnosed psychiatric inpatients

    Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

    (1999)
  • E. Trupin et al.

    Seattle's mental health courts: Early indicators of effectiveness

    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

    (2003)
  • J.C. Anestis et al.

    Stopping the revolving door: Effectiveness of mental health court in reducing recidivism by mentally ill offenders

    Psychiatric Services

    (2014)
  • S. Barker et al.

    A community ability scale for chronically mentally ill consumers: Part I. reliability and validity

    Community Mental Health Journal

    (1994)
  • S. Barker et al.

    A community ability scale for chronically mentally ill consumers: Part II. Applications

    Community Mental Health Journal

    (1994)
  • G.R. Bond et al.

    Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental illness

    Disease Management and Health Outcomes

    (2001)
  • N. Broner et al.

    Effects of diversion on adults with co-occurring mental illness and substance use: Outcomes from a national multi-site study

    Behavioral Sciences & the Law

    (2004)
  • N. Broner et al.

    Outcomes of mandated and nonmandated New York jail diversion for offenders with alcohol, drug, and mental disorders

    The Prison Journal

    (2005)
  • B. Burns

    Mental health: Court liaison nurses meet in Christchurch

    Kai Tiaki Nursing New Zealand

    (2013)
  • T. Burns et al.

    Use of intensive case management to reduce time in hospital in people with severe mental illness: Systematic review and meta-regression

    BMJ

    (2007)
  • M. Cosden et al.

    Efficacy of a mental health treatment court with assertive community treatment

    Behavioral Sciences & the Law

    (2005)
  • M. Cosden et al.

    Evaluation of a mental health treatment court with assertive community treatment

    Behavioral Sciences & the Law

    (2003)
  • M. DeLisi

    Who is more dangerous? Comparing the criminality of adult homeless and domiciled jail inmates: A research note

    International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

    (2000)
  • B.C. Desmond et al.

    Mental health courts: An effective way for treating offenders with serious mental illness

    Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter

    (2010)
  • C.S. Dewa et al.

    The Matryoshka project wave 3 Court Support Programs Report: Examining the Effects of Enhanced Funding on Specialized Programs

    (2008)
  • C.S. Dewa et al.

    Examining the effects of enhanced funding for specialized community mental health programs on continuity of care

    Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health

    (2010)
  • C.S. Dewa et al.

    Evidence for the effectiveness of police-based pre-booking diversion programs in decriminalizing mental illness: A systematic literature review

    PLoS One

    (2018)
  • C.S. Dewa et al.

    Examining the factors associated with paid employment of clients enrolled in first episode of psychosis programs

    Schizophr Res Treatment

    (2012)
  • C.S. Dewa et al.

    Lessons from a Canadian province: Examining collaborations between the mental health and justice sectors

    International Journal of Public Health

    (2012)
  • M. Dieterich et al.

    Intensive case management for severe mental illness

    The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

    (2010)
  • P.A. Dirks-Linhorst et al.

    Recidivism outcomes for suburban mental health court defendants

    American Journal of Criminal Justice

    (2012)
  • P.M. Ditton

    Mental health and treatment of inmates and probationers

    (1999)
  • S.M. Essock et al.

    Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment teams

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

    (1998)
  • D.P. Farrington

    Age and crime

  • D.P. Farrington et al.

    Offending from childhood to late middle age: Recent results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development

    (2013)
  • A. Field

    Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: SAGE publications

    (2009)
  • D.P. Folsom et al.

    Prevalence and risk factors for homelessness and utilization of mental health services among 10,340 patients with serious mental illness in a large public mental health system

    American Journal of Psychiatry

    (2005)
  • L.K. Frisman et al.

    Outcomes of court-based jail diversion programs for people with co-occurring disorders

    Journal of Dual Diagnosis

    (2006)
  • L. Gelberg et al.

    Mental health, alcohol and drug use, and criminal history among homeless adults

    American Journal of Psychiatry

    (1988)
  • P. Gendreau et al.

    A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works

    Criminology

    (1996)
  • W. Han et al.

    The impact of community treatment on recidivism among mental health court participants

    Psychiatric Services

    (2016)
  • H.A. Herinckx et al.

    Rearrest and linkage to mental health services among clients of the Clark County mental health court program

    Psychiatric Services

    (2005)
  • V.A. Hiday et al.

    Arrests two years after exiting a well-established mental health court

    Psychiatric Services

    (2010)
  • V.A. Hiday et al.

    Longer-term impacts of mental health courts: Recidivism two years after exit

    Psychiatric Services

    (2016)
  • V.A. Hiday et al.

    Effectiveness of a short-term mental health court: Criminal recidivism one year postexit

    Law and Human Behavior

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text