Assessing the effectiveness of mental health courts: A quantitative review

Christine M. Sarteschi, Michael G. Vaughn and Kevin Kim

Journal of Criminal Justice, 2011, vol. 39, issue 1, 12-20

Abstract: Purpose The purpose of this review is to quantitatively review the accumulating MHC studies that have been conducted of both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies. The primary objective of the current study is to provide a clearer picture as to whether MHCs are an empirically efficacious intervention for a significant health and criminological problem.Methods This study used meta-analytic techniques to assess the effectiveness of MHCs. A systematic search of the literature and electronic databases through July 2009, as well as an e-mail survey of mental health court program directors, generated 18 studies.Results Aggregate effects for recidivism outcomes revealed a mean effect size of -0.54 and -0.55 among quasi-experimental studies analyzed separately. There was a positive improvement among a limited number of clinical outcomes.Conclusions Our findings suggest that MHCs are an effective intervention but this assertion is not definitive. Methodologically, many of the studies are not as strong as would be ideal thus limiting our conclusions.

Date: 2011
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047-2352(10)00213-8
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:39:y::i:1:p:12-20

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Criminal Justice is currently edited by Matthew DeLisi

More articles in Journal of Criminal Justice from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().