A Redefinition of the Problem of Homelessness Among Persons with a Chronic Mental Illness

Two definitions of the problem of homelessness among persons with a chronic mental illness are examined, along with their implied solutions and ramifications for policy. Homelessness among this group is first viewed as the result of deinstitutionalization, and secondly, as the outcome of a critical shortage of low-income housing. Solutions stemming from the deinstitutionalization definition of homelessness, reinstitutionalization or improvement in the mental health system, are seen as inadequate to deal with the problem of homelessness among the mentally ill. Instead, state departments of mental health are called upon to provide a leadership role in the development of affordable housing

Rearrests during mental health court supervision: Predicting rearrest and its association with final court disposition and post-court rearrests

Mental health courts are one means to address the involvement of persons with mental illness in the criminal justice system. Using a sample of 811 participants of a municipal mental health court, this study found that 23.2% of participants were rearrested during court supervision. This study also identified factors associated with these rearrests, as well as the effect of rearrests during supervision on program completion and rearrests in the 1-year period following program completion. This study concludes with implications for mental health court supervision

An Analysis of Readmissions to a Mental Health Court

Mental health courts (MHCs) have emerged as one option to address the needs of people with severe mental illness who enter the criminal justice system. Little is known about defendants having multiple referrals to MHCs or the outcomes of subsequent admissions. This study included a sample of 1,084 defendants referred to municipal MHC. During the 13-year study period, 14.3% of defendants had a second admission, with an estimated probability of readmission of 17.4%. Key factors associated with readmission included being eligible to participate in the court but choosing not to do so, being rearrested during court supervision, and having a negative termination from supervision. Defendants who had a second admission during the study period had poorer outcomes than those with one admission. When defendants are referred for readmission to MHCs, careful assessment is required to ensure that these courts are the best alternative for them

Rearrests During Mental Health Court Supervision: Predicting Rearrest and its Association With Final Court Disposition and Post-court Rearrests

Mental health courts are one means to address the involvement of persons with mental illness in the criminal justice system. Using a sample of 811 participants of a municipal mental health court, this study found that 23.2% of participants were rearrested during court supervision. This study also identified factors associated with these rearrests, as well as the effects of rearrests during supervision on program completion and rearrests in the one-year period following program completion. This study concludes with implications for mental health court supervision

A Comparison of Defendants with Mental Illness Represented by Public Defenders and Private Attorneys: an Analysis of Court-Ordered Pretrial Psychiatric Evaluations

This study compared the characteristics and court-ordered evaluation questions and responses among 4,430 defendants to determine if differences existed between those represented by public defenders and private attorneys when receiving trial competency or responsibility psychiatric evaluations from a state department of mental health. Defendants represented by public defenders were more likely to be younger, to have less education, to have psychotic disorders, to have a history of inpatient psychiatric treatment, to live in urban or rural counties, and to be jailed at the time of the evaluation. In addition, defendants represented by public defenders were less likely to have a request for a criminal responsibility evaluation and more likely to be evaluated as having a mental illness, to be incompetent to stand trial, and to need hospitalization pending trial. Consideration of whether defendants with public defenders receiving less requests for responsibility evaluations was indicative of a therapeutic jurisprudence approach is discussed. Implications for research on types of legal representation of defendants with mental illness are discussed

A Comparison of Defendants with Mental Illness Represented by Public Defenders and Private Attorneys: an Analysis of Court-Ordered Pretrial Psychiatric Evaluations

This study compared the characteristics and court-ordered evaluation questions and responses among 4,430 defendants to determine if differences existed between those represented by public defenders and private attorneys when receiving trial competency or responsibility psychiatric evaluations from a state department of mental health. Defendants represented by public defenders were more likely to be younger, to have less education, to have psychotic disorders, to have a history of inpatient psychiatric treatment, to live in urban or rural counties, and to be jailed at the time of the evaluation. In addition, defendants represented by public defenders were less likely to have a request for a criminal responsibility evaluation and more likely to be evaluated as having a mental illness, to be incompetent to stand trial, and to need hospitalization pending trial. Consideration of whether defendants with public defenders receiving less requests for responsibility evaluations was indicative of a therapeutic jurisprudence approach is discussed. Implications for research on types of legal representation of defendants with mental illness are discussed