Mental Health Courts

Of Current Interest

Attorney General Clarifies Courts Use of Prop. 63 Funds (03/20/2006)
A recent opinion from the Office of the Attorney General, issued on February 23, 2006, indicates that the Mental Health Service Act (Prop.63) does not authorize the funding of the costs of customary court staff operating a local mental health court. However, the analysis does highlight the appropriate use of such funds in the context of operating a mental health court. Read full text of the opinion.

Prop.63 (MHSA) Funds Can Support Mental Health Court (10/11/2005)
The Administrative Office of the Courts has been working with the Department of Mental Health on expenditure guidelines that allow counties to support new or enhanced mental health courts (MHC's) with funding from the Mental Health Service Act (MHSA). This is good news for courts and counties seeking to establish partnerships that serve court users who are mentally ill. The Department of Mental Health recently released a document explaining that MHC’s are an allowable cost under the Community Services and Supports (CSS) component of the MHSA.

A complete description of this information is located on the MHSA Web site under "Frequently Asked Questions" or can be viewed here (PDF, 15 KB). For more information on this subject, please contact Administrative Office of the Courts, Yolanda Leung, yolanda.leung@jud.ca.gov, 415-865-8075.

Department of Mental Health and AOC Team Up to Support Prop. 63
The Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the AOC recently released a joint letter seeking the support of courts and counties in implementing Proposition 63. The Proposition provides funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors.

Joint Letter, July 2005 (PDF, 81 KB)

Community Feedback (PDF, 99 KB)

Proposition 63 Information Kit (PDF, 2 MB) This file contains several important documents published by the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and will aid individuals and organizations seeking information about Prop.63.

For more information, visit the California Department of Mental Health site.

Comments/Suggestions? Administrative Office of the Courts, Yolanda Leung, yolanda.leung@jud.ca.gov, 415-865-8075.

Courts Seek Partnership in Proposition 63 Process (06/14/2005)
On Thursday, June 2, 2005, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) convened a meeting with the Director of the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) to discuss state and local implementation of Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA).

William C. Vickrey, the Administrative Director of the Courts, and Ronald G. Overholt, Chief Deputy Director, met with DMH Director Stephen Mayberg to talk about the courts as a key collaborator in developing a statewide integrated mental health system of care and exploring effective ways to include the courts in the local implementation process. The meeting provided an opportunity to highlight many court services now in place that ensure proper assessment and adjudication of matters involving the mentally ill, including homeless courts, mental health courts, and specialized mental health assessments and treatment programs involving parents or children or both.

Director Mayberg was well aware of the court functions benefiting the mentally ill, and expressed strong enthusiasm for his department's working with the AOC to develop a collaborative partnership that would both support and strengthen those services. As such, the AOC and the Department of Mental Health have agreed to draft a joint letter to ensure that the court system fully participates in the local planning and implementation of Proposition 63. The AOC is actively engaged with DMH to support and facilitate local collaboration between the courts, judicial system partners, and local mental health agencies. More information on this subject will be forthcoming as it becomes available. For more information, please contact Administrative Office of the Courts, Yolanda Leung, yolanda.leung@jud.ca.gov, 415-865-8075.

Juvenile Mental Health Court Project
Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation has established a Juvenile Mental Health Court Project, directed by Susan Solomon, a California attorney and member of the CABF Board of Directors. This project follows CABF's recent endorsement of such courts. The CABF Juvenile Mental Health Court Project seeks parents who are licensed attorneys willing, on a pro bono basis, to meet with juvenile court judges in their local counties to simply present this concept. The attorneys would be provided a packet of materials for this purpose. It also seeks stories from families of teens with bipolar disorder who have had past experiences, which could be used to promote the concept in the juvenile justice system.

New Curriculum for Mental Health Court Judges
In an effort to help judges understand how defendants' mental health issues affect the justice system, the National Judicial College has developed a model curriculum to educate judges on the effects of substance abuse, and mental and co-occurring disorders. Developed by the college under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the curriculum instructs judges how to handle criminal cases where alcohol and drug addictions may be involved. The next course offering begins September 20. (click here for details and registration )

What are Mental Health Courts?

Crises in community mental health care and the long-term effects of de-institutionalization, the drug epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, the dramatic increase in homelessness over the last two decades, and widespread jail overcrowding have all led to an increase in mental health courts. Mental health courts were profiled in the May-June 2001 issue of Court News. The article noted that since 1984 California county jail populations nearly doubled, from 43,000 to 80,000 inmates, while those with serious mental illness increased nearly fivefold, from 3 percent to a range of 11-15 percent.

Like drug courts, mental health courts focus on treatment to restore health and reduce criminal activity. They focus on providing mentally ill offenders with better access to treatment, consistent supervision, and support to reconnect with their families. The biggest challenges in mental health courts are in the areas of training, funding, and the management of complex cases. Thirteen California trial court systems reported having mental health courts in operation or planned as of July 2002.

Common Elements in Mental Health Courts

• Participation in a mental health court is voluntary. The defendant must consent to participation before being placed in the program.
• Each jurisdiction accepts only persons with demonstrable mental illnesses to which their involvement in the criminal justice system can be attributed.
• The key objective of a mental health court is to either prevent the jailing of mentally ill offenders or to secure their release from jail for appropriate community services.
• Public safety is a high priority, and mentally ill offenders are carefully screened for appropriate inclusion in the program.
• Early intervention is essential, with screening and referral occurring either immediately after arrest or up to a maximum of three weeks after arrest.
• A multidisciplinary team approach is used, with the involvement of justice system representatives, mental health providers, and other support systems.
• Intensive case management includes supervision of participants, with a focus on accountability and monitoring of each participant's performance.
• The judge is the center of the treatment and supervision process.

Mental health courts in California apply the "common elements" listed above. Several types of mental health court models have developed. Some of these were featured in a mental health court satellite broadcast produced by the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee and the AOC's Education Divison/Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER). A panel of experts, including Dr. Emily Keram, Judge Becky Dugan (Riverside), Judge Steven Manley (Santa Clara) and Judge Morris (San Bernardino) answered questions from satellite broadcast participants (PDF, 28 KB). The broadcast was viewed by 450 participants in 29 court locations, and broadcast materials (PDF, 1,051 KB) were provided to the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), and the Center for Court Innovation. For more information on mental health courts and the mental health court broadcast, contact Nancy Taylor, Collaborative Justice Courts Project, at nancy.taylor@jud.ca.gov.

In 2001 Los Angeles implemented a mental health court for misdemeanor cases, including typical quality-of-life crimes such as possessing a shopping cart. After arrest, a mental health service provider conducts an assessment to determine general needs and whether the defendant is homeless. Unlike drug courts, once the defendant is accepted into the program, he or she participates in "status hearings" with the provider, not with the court. The only time the defendant shows up at court is when, after a year of being clean and sober and not committing a new offense, his or her case is dismissed. The mental health court has created linkages with a variety of social services, such as job training and GED exam preparation.

In January 1999, San Bernardino County's mental health court began as a pilot program in the superior court, with the Supervised Treatment After Release (STAR) Program as its primary component. The court admits participants facing misdemeanor or felony charges who have serious mental health problems (true violent offenders are not eligible). Once a defendant is deemed competent and shows a willingness to participate in the program, he or she enters a guilty plea and is placed on probation for two years in misdemeanor cases and three years in felony cases. San Bernardino County's program is designed to place mentally ill offenders in the appropriate services and to move them from intensive services to less intensive levels of care when success is demonstrated in the earlier phases. Once an individualized treatment plan has been developed, most participants are released into an augmented board-and-care residential treatment facility, which provides intensive supervision to ensure they are attending psychiatric counseling, stabilizing on medication, and abiding by the terms of their probation. In the courtroom, the mental health court's proceedings closely resemble those of a drug court. As in a drug court, upon successful completion of the program the plea may be withdrawn, the charges dismissed, and the record expunged through a petition to the court. This mental health court differs from some others in its close resemblance to the drug court model treatment process, including the use of jail as a sanction.

On January 4, 2001, Riverside County began a mental health court in the Hall of Justice in downtown Riverside. The purpose of the court is the proper treatment and placement of criminal defendants with mental health issues upon a plea of guilty, with the aims of reducing recidivism, relieving jail overcrowding, and treating the mentally ill more appropriately. The court also addresses issues of criminal incompetence and LPS (Lanterman-Petris-Short Act) conservatorships or probate conservatorships if those options pertain to a criminal matter.

In a mental health court, the two systems work together to ensure that each defendant has the best possible opportunity to comply with his or her terms of probation and stay with the medical treatment program. Mental health treatment terms-such as medication, substance abuse placement, psychiatric visits, and counseling-are made mandatory probation terms. The defendant is made aware that failure to comply means further incarceration. All defendants are placed on formal probation, and the probation officer is aware of all the mental health treatment terms and receives a copy of the defendant's mental health evaluation.

The Riverside County Mental Health Court operates out of two courtrooms, Departments 33 and 34. Department 33 is domestic violence court, and Department 34 is drug court. These courts were chosen because of the correlation among domestic violence, drug abuse, and mental illness. Together, these courts are referred to as the CAF (crimes affecting families) courts.

The mental health court in Santa Clara County was established in 1999 to serve preconviction and postconviction defendants. Mental health caseworkers are present in the courtroom as part of the mental health court team. Substance abuse assessment and treatment are immediately available to the team. Dually diagnosed cases or those involving traumatic head injury or severe mental illness receive case management services directly from mental health counselors in the courthouse. The core principle of the mental health court is affirmation and acknowledgment of progress.

Both Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County also have juvenile mental health courts in addition to their adult mental health courts. For more information about mental health courts for juvenile offenders, contact Administrative Office of the Courts, Nancy Taylor, nancy.taylor@jud.ca.gov, 415-865-7607.

Funding

In 2002 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) offered $8 million in grant funding for mental health courts. Other funding for these court programs is provided through the California Board of Corrections' Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) grant program, grants for mentally ill homeless under California Assembly Bill 2134, and through grants from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Links

Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project

Center for Court Innovation (New York State)

King County Mental Health Court

Broward County (Florida) Mental Health Court

"Rethinking the Revolving Door: A Look at Mental Illness and the Courts" (PDF)

The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law , The Role of Mental Health Courts in System Reform

Back to Top