DOCSLIB.ORG

Mental Health, Mental Health Courts and the Criminal Legal System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mental Health, Mental Health Courts and the Criminal Legal System Briefing Report Mental Health, Mental Health Courts and the Criminal Legal System A Report of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (September 2020) Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights By law, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has established an advisory committee in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The committees are composed of state citizens who serve without compensation. The committees advise the Commission of civil rights issues in their states that are within the Commission's jurisdiction. More specifically, they are authorized to advise the Commission in writing of any knowledge or information they have of any alleged deprivation of voting rights and alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, or in the administration of justice; advise the Commission on matters of their state's concern in the preparation of Commission reports to the President and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals, public officials, and representatives of public and private organizations to committee inquiries; forward advice and recommendations to the Commission, as requested; and observe any open hearing or conference conducted by the Commission in their states. This report is the work of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The report may rely on testimony, studies, and data generated from third parties. Advisory reports are reviewed by Commission staff only for legal sufficiency and procedural compliance with Commission policies. The views, findings, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of a majority of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission, nor do they represent the policies of the U.S. Government. Letter of Transmittal District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Members of the Commission: Catherine E. Lhamon, Chair J. Christian Adams Debo P. Adegbile Stephen Gilchrist Gail Heriot Peter N. Kirsanow David Kladney Michael Yaki Mauro Morales, Staff Director The District of Columbia Advisory Committee, as part of its responsibility to advise the Commission about civil rights issues within the District, submits this report, Mental Health, Mental Health Courts and the Criminal Legal System. The report was adopted unanimously by all nine DC Advisory Committee members on June 11, 2020. Sincerely, John G. Malcolm, Chairman District of Columbia Advisory Committee i. District of Columbia Advisory Committee John G. Malcolm, Chairman (Washington, DC) Paul H. Borchers (Washington, DC) Gerson Gomez (Washington, DC) Kendrick D. Holley, Vice-Chairman (Washington, DC) DeAnna R. Hoskins, Secretary (Washington, DC) Charles R. Lowery, Jr. (Washington, DC) Alan K. Palmer (Washington, DC) Laurence D. Pearl (Washington, DC) Robert E. Soave (Washington, DC) ii. Acknowledgments The District of Columbia Advisory Committee thanks all those who shared their expertise at the in-person Briefing on November 7, 2010 and Ivy Davis, the Designated Federal Officer assigned to the DC Advisory Committee for her guidance and support for the project and the report. In addition, the Committee greatly appreciates the assistance that intern Marcos Mullin* provided to the Committee in drafting this report. _______ * Marcos Mullin worked under the direction of Committee Chairman, John G. Malcolm. Marcos is a 2020 graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio. He majored in Economics and Public Administration. iii. Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Background: Defining the Problem 2 Pre-Arrest Diversion Program 5 DC Mental Community Court: How the Process Works 8 Criticisms of Mental Health Courts 11 Analysis of DC Mental Health Community Court 16 Service Providers’ Perspectives 23 Recommendations 26 Appendices 28 Appendix 1: Agenda – November 7, 2019 Briefing 29 Appendix 2: Experts’ Prepared Written Statements 132-134 a. Gregg Baron, Esq. 32 b. Prof. Richard Boldt 36 c. Prof. Kelli Canada 44 d. David Freeman 52 e. Andre Gray 55 f. Prof. E. Lea Johnston 60 g. Hon. Ann O'Regan Keary 90 h. Prof. Susan McMahon 94 i. Kelly O’Meara 104 j. Prof. Alison D. Redlich 111 k. Christy Respress 117 l. Laura L. Rose 121 m. Cleonia Terry 127 n. Terrance D. Walton 132 iv. Page Appendix 3: Additional Documents-Statements Submitted by the Experts 135-173 a. Hon. Ann O'Regan Keary, 2015 article for ABA Judges Journal 135 b. Allison D. Redlich, Comprehensive Statement for the Record. 139 c. Alison D. Redlich, Additional Document for the Record 145 d. Terrance D. Walton Comprehensive Statement for the Record 146 e. Terrance D. Walton, Mental Health Court Articles for the Record: 150-73 i. Effectiveness of Mental Health Court in Reducing Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis. 150 ii. Mental Health Court Performance Measures. 158 iii. Behavioral Health Diversion Interventions: Moving from Individual Programs to a Systems-Wide Strategy. 164 iv. The Sequential Intercept Model. 172 Appendix 4. Other Documents-Statements for the Record 174-181 a. Victor V. Davis, Chief of Staff, Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia, Statement for the Record. 174 b. Washington, DC, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights-Eastern Regional Office, Questions Submitted to DC Department of Behavioral Health, March 6, 2020. 177 c. Washington, DC, Department of Behavioral Health, Responses to DC Advisory Committee Questions (April 27, 2020) 178 d. Washington, DC, District of Columbia Auditor Report 181 Appendix 5. Glossary of Acronyms-Entities-Programs 182 v. Introduction In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which, among other things, created the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.1 The Commission is an independent, bipartisan federal agency charged with studying alleged discrimination or deprivations of civil rights and enhancing the enforcement of the equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice.2 Congress charged the Commission to “establish at least one such [advisory] committee in each State and the District of Columbia composed of citizens of that State or District” to collect and provide information, findings, and recommendations to the Commission about issues of civil rights in their respective states.3 On November 7, 2019, the District of Columbia Advisory Committee convened for a public hearing to consider the intersection of mental health and criminal justice and to evaluate the effectiveness of the District of Columbia Superior Court Mental Health Community Court (DCMHCC), one of several diversion programs provided by the D.C. court system. The Committee heard from the following mental health court experts, which included academics and practitioners, and D.C. stakeholders: Prof. Richard Boldt, University of Maryland Carey School of Law Prof. Kelli Canada, Associate Director of Research School of Social Work, University of Missouri Prof. E. Lea Johnston, University of Florida Levin College of Law Prof. Susan McMahon, Georgetown University Law Center Mr. Terrence D. Walton, Chief Operating Officer, National Association of Drug Court Professionals Ms. Kelly O’Meara, Executive Director, Strategic Change Division, Metropolitan Police Department Mr. Stephen Rickard, Chief, General Crimes Section, D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office Laura L. Rose, Esq., Mental Health Specialist for the Trial Division, Public Defender Service for DC Gregg Baron, Esq., Defense Counsel Hon. Ann O’Regan Keary, Senior Judge, DC Superior Court Ms. Cleonia Terry, Coordinator, Mental Health Community Court, DC Superior Court 1 Civil Rights Act of 1957, Pub. L. No. 85-315, 71 Stat. 634. 2 42 U.S.C. §1975a. 3 42 U.S.C. §1975a(d). 1 Mr. Jeffrey Wright, Treatment Program Manager, Pretrial Services for the District of Columbia Dr. David Freeman, Chief Clinical Officer, Community Connections, Inc. Ms. Christy Respress, Executive Director, Pathways to Housing DC Mr. Andre Gray, Peer Navigator, Disability Rights DC’s DC Jail and Prison Advocacy Project at University Legal Services Additionally, Prof. Allison Redlich, Professor of Criminology, Law & Society, George Mason University, submitted written testimony which was read into the record but was unable to attend the public hearing. The Committee also heard from Anthony Ellis and Tania Taylor; two members of the public who were graduates of the DCMHCC. Prior to the November hearing, several members of the Advisory Committee went to the D.C. Superior Court to observe some proceedings before the DC Mental Health Community Court (DCMHCC). During that time, the Committee observed some participants graduate from the program after successfully completing all the requirements, others who were remanded to Superior Court having been unsuccessful in completing the program, and one participant who needed medical attention immediately prior to his hearing. This report will provide relevant background information about the issue and the DCMHCC, describe the relatively new pre-arrest program that has been instituted by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), detail how the DCMHCC works, consider criticisms of mental health courts offered by some experts, analyze how the DCMHCC is doing, examine service providers’ perspectives, and offer some recommendations by the Committee. Background: Defining the Problem Prof. McMahon began her testimony
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT of VETERANS TREATMENT COURTS in AMERICA Tiffany Cartwright*
    CARTWRIGHT 22 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 295 6/4/2011 10:13 AM “TO CARE FOR HIM WHO SHALL HAVE BORNE THE BATTLE”: THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF VETERANS TREATMENT COURTS IN AMERICA Tiffany Cartwright* 1 INTRODUCTION When Owen Flaherty returned home from war, his family and coworkers described him as detached and angry, his mind would trick him into seeing enemies firing upon him with guns, and his violent episodes resulted in the police being called to his home on numerous occasions.2 When Nic Gray returned home, he felt “numb and disconnected,” was haunted by nightmares, and one night broke down a stranger’s front door, smelling of alcohol and shouting gibberish about the military.3 Their stories of returning home from combat are remarkably similar—but they are separated by more than a century. Owen Flaherty was a Union veteran of the Civil War who returned home in 1865 and was eventually committed to the Indiana Hospital for the Insane in 1876.4 Nic Gray served in an armored battalion in Iraq and returned home in 2007.5 In December 2009, his case was one of the first transferred to the new “Veterans Court” in El Paso County, Colorado.6 In January, he pleaded guilty Law clerk to the Honorable Dana Fabe, Alaska Supreme Court. Stanford Law School, J.D. 2010. Stanford University, B.A. 2007. This Article began as a paper for Professor Joan Petersilia’s class on Sentencing and Corrections in Spring 2010. Special thanks to Guy Gambill and Dr. Stephen Xenakis for their invaluable guidance and feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Working with People with Mental Illness Involved in the Criminal Justice System
    Working with People with Mental Illness Involved in the Criminal Justice System: What Mental Health Service Providers Need to Know Jackie Massaro, MSW September 2003/Revised February 2004 This work was conducted under support to the SAMHSA-funded Technical Assistance and Policy Analysis Center for Jail Diversion, a branch of the National GAINS Center for People with Co-Occurring Disorders in the Justice System. The suggested citation for this monograph is Massaro, J. (2004). Working with People with Mental Illness Involved in the Criminal Justice System: What Mental Health Service Providers Need to Know (2nd ed.). Delmar, NY: Technical Assistance and Policy Analysis Center for Jail Diversion. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Who Are Providers Serving ........................................................................................................... 3 Changing the Way the Criminal Justice System Impacts People with Mental Illness ........... 4 Engaging People with Criminal Justice Involvement in the Community ............................... 10 The Criminal Justice System and Mental Health Service Providers ......................................... 16 Components of the Justice System ............................................................................................ 29 Working with the Criminal Justice System to Facilitate Recovery and Rehabilitation .......... 35 Summary .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance EMERGING JUDICIAL STRATEGIES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL IN THE CRIMINAL CASELOAD: MMENTALENTAL HHEALTHEALTH CCOURTSOURTS IN FORT LAUDERDALE, SEATTLE, SAN BERNARDINO, AND ANCHORAGE Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Daniel Marcus Acting Associate Attorney General Mary Lou Leary Acting Assistant Attorney General Nancy E. Gist Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov Bureau of Justice Assistance World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA For grant and funding information contact U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1–800–421–6770 This document was prepared by the Crime and Justice Research Institute, under grant num- ber 99–DD–BX–K008, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Pro- grams, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommenda- tions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Bureau of Justice Assistance Emerging Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload: Mental Health Courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage Prepared by John S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court – Two Year Review: July 2010 – June 2012
    Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court – Two Year Review: July 2010 – June 2012 Prepared by: Anne Caron, MLS - Research Analyst II 612-348-5023 [email protected] January 2013 Fourth Judicial District Research Division: Marcy R. Podkopacz, Ph.D., Research Director 612-348-6812 [email protected] Anne Caron, MLS - Research Analyst II Tracy Loynachan, M.A. - Research Analyst II Fourth Judicial District Research Division Page 1 Table of Contents Page Number Executive Summary 3 Introduction 6 Overview of Veterans Court Mission and Goals 7 Program Structure 7 Eligibility Criteria 8 Screening Process 8 Veterans Court Phases 8 Graduation Criteria 9 Termination Criteria 9 Research Design 10 Data Sources 10 Limitations 11 Demographic Profile of Defendants Screened for Veterans Court 11 Profile of Defendants Accepted Into Veterans Court 12 Offense Type 14 Military Service 15 Type of Military Discharge 15 Deployments 16 Court Appearances 16 Achievement of Veterans Court Goals Goal 1: Reduce criminal recidivism 17 Goal 2: Promote participant sobriety 19 Goal 3: Increase compliance with treatment and other court-ordered conditions 20 Goal 4: Improve access to VA benefits and services 21 Goal 5: Improve family relationships and social support connections 22 Goal 6: Improve life stability 22 Participant Satisfaction with Veterans Court 24 Summary and Recommendations 25 Appendix A. Veterans Treatment Court Key Components 28 Appendix B. Military Discharge Types 29 Appendix C. uSPEQ® Survey Results - Year 1 Compared to Year 2 30 Fourth Judicial District Research Division Page 2 Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court - Two Year Review Executive Summary • The Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court began in July 2010 as a voluntary problem-solving court for veteran offenders with treatable chemical dependency and/or mental health issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Trust and Managing Risk: a Look at a Felony Mental Health Court
    BUILDING TRUST AND MANAGING RISK: A LOOK AT A FELONY MENTAL HEALTH COURT Carol Fisler, J.D. Center for Court Innovation Director, Mental Health Court Programs Fisler, C. (2005). Building trust and managing risk: A look at a felony mental health court. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 587-604. This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. © American Psychological Association www.apa.org/journals/ Building Trust and Managing Risk: A Look at a Felony Mental Health Court Abstract Although many mental health courts are restricted to misdemeanors, the Brooklyn Mental Health Court primarily handles felonies. This article describes a felony mental health court and explores the decision to focus on felonies, including the planning team’s experiences with problem-solving courts and the effort to balance a fair court process with effective, but lengthy, treatment mandates. The author describes several ways by which the court and its partners manage potential public safety risks posed by felony offenders: thorough evaluations of offenders, individualized treatment plans, shared decision-making, candid communications between the court and its partners, and close judicial monitoring. The author also describes the ongoing program evaluation of the court and suggests areas for future research for felony mental health courts. Building Trust and Managing Risk: A Look at a Felony Mental Health Court At age 26, “Irwin Smith”1 was living on Long Island in a supported residence for people with mental illness. He had been working for several years, first at a furniture factory and then at a restaurant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brooklyn Mental Health Court Evaluation
    Research A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System The Brooklyn Mental Health Court Evaluation Planning, Implementation, Courtroom Dynamics, and Participant Outcomes Kelly O’Keefe Submitted to the New York State Office of Mental Health 520 Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10018 September 2006 212.397.3050 fax 212.397.0985 www.courtinnovation.org Table of Contents Executive Summary iii Acknowledgements ix List of Exhibits x Chapter I: Introduction 1 Chapter II: Planning 5 Brooklyn Mental Health Court Goals 5 Timeline and Key Events 7 Key Issues in the Planning Process 8 Chapter III: Implementation 13 Brooklyn Mental Health Court Team 13 Referral and Assessment 15 Participation Process 27 Technology 32 Chapter IV: Courtroom Experience 35 Chapter V: Participant Perspective 39 Perceived Coercion 39 Perceived Procedural Justice 40 Attitudes about the Court Team and Specific Program Elements 41 Chapter VI: Communication 43 Network Analysis of Communication 44 Chapter VII: Participant Outcomes 47 Participant Profile 48 Status in the Brooklyn Mental Health Court 49 Graduation and Termination 50 Other Participant Outcomes 50 Chapter VIII: Conclusions 57 References 59 Appendix A: Brooklyn Mental Health Court Participation Guidelines and Contract 61 Appendix B: Participant Profile: Graduated and Terminated 69 Appendix C: Outcome Measures 71 Table of Contents i Executive Summary The Brooklyn Mental Health Court began operations in March 2002 as a demonstration project in the Kings County Supreme Court in Brooklyn, New York. Through addressing the treatment needs of the individual and the public safety concerns of the community, the Brooklyn Mental Health Court’s ultimate goal is to reduce recidivism and stop the “revolving door” of the mentally ill in and out of the criminal justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health Court Judges As Dynamic Risk Managers: a New Conceptualization of the Role of Judges
    DePaul Law Review Volume 57 Issue 1 Fall 2007 Article 4 Mental Health Court Judges as Dynamic Risk Managers: A New Conceptualization of the Role of Judges Shauhin Talesh Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Shauhin Talesh, Mental Health Court Judges as Dynamic Risk Managers: A New Conceptualization of the Role of Judges , 57 DePaul L. Rev. 93 (2007) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol57/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MENTAL HEALTH COURT JUDGES AS DYNAMIC RISK MANAGERS: A NEW CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE ROLE OF JUDGES Shauhin Talesh* The work of a judge is in one sense enduring and in another sense ephemeral. What is good in it endures. What is erroneous is pretty sure to perish. The good remains the foundation on which new structures will be built. The bad will be rejected and cast off in the laboratory of the years. Little by little the old doctrine is under- mined. Often the encroachments are so gradual that their signifi- cance is at first obscured. Finally we discover that the contour of the landscape has been changed, that the old maps must be cast aside, and the ground charted anew.1 INTRODUCTION The most significant development in mental health law in the past decade is the emergence of problem-solving courts that deal with mentally ill individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem-Solving Courts: an Evidence Review
    Problem-solving courts: An evidence review Executive Summary The context of this review In December 2015, the then Lord Chancellor Michael Gove MP announced the creation of a working group on problem-solving courts. This working group was to ‘examine models of problem-solving courts and advise on the feasibility of possible pilot models to be taken forward in England and Wales in 2016/17’. This commitment to problem-solving courts was reiterated by Prime Minster David Cameron in his February 2016 speech on penal reform. This review of the evidence on problem-solving courts is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What are problem-solving courts? Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. They embrace a wide family of distinct models, all of which seek to improve public safety and the legitimacy of the justice system in the eyes of the public. The key features of problem-solving courts are: • Specialisation of the court model around a target group. • Collaborative intervention and supervision. • Accountability through judicial monitoring. • A procedurally fair environment. • A focus on outcomes. Do problem-solving courts work? Our review suggests: • There is strong evidence that adult drug courts reduce substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. • The evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Assignments
    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SCHEDULE OF ASSIGNMENTS (Revised and effective September 13, 2021) MICHAEL A. SACHS – PRESIDING JUDGE R. GLENN YABUNO – ASSISTANT PRESIDING JUDGE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPELLATE DIVISION ......................................................... 1 BARSTOW DISTRICT ............................................................. 2 BIG BEAR DISTRICT ............................................................. 10 FONTANA DISTRICT ............................................................. 13 JOSHUA TREE DISTRICT ..................................................... 21 JUVENILE COURT DISTRICT .............................................. 30 NEEDLES DISTRICT ............................................................. 38 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT .................................... 41 SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER .............................. 60 SAN BERNARDINO FAMILY LAW ...................................... 111 SAN BERNARDINO - CHILD SUPPORT ............................. 124 VICTORVILLE DISTRICT ..................................................... 128 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SCHEDULE OF ASSIGNMENTS APPELLATE DIVISION July 2021 – June 2022 COREY G. LEE Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division GUY A. BOVÉE Judge of the Appellate Division KYLE S. BRODIE Judge of the Appellate Division WINSTON S. KEH Judge of the Appellate Division TONY RAPHAEL Judge of the Appellate Division BRYAN K. STODGHILL Judge of the Appellate Division __________________________________________________
    [Show full text]