Criminal justice system involvement is closely entwined with mental illness. As such, the consequences of criminal or unlawful behavior (e.g., heavy fines, jail time, prison sentences) do not always serve the individual, who in many cases may need mental health or substance abuse treatment to support more adaptive behaviors when facing stressors in both custody and the community. Many find general sentencing to be counterproductive for those suffering from mental illnesses and believe access to community services would create better responses compared to criminal justice supervision (Almquist & Dodd, 2009). Responding to individuals who are underserved and part of marginalized communities in a community-oriented manner could influence long-term change and reduce the cyclical nature of both competency restoration programs and incarceration for these communities.

To mitigate the problematic approach of blanket sentencing, community courts take an individualized, community health approach. Community courts are a type of problem-solving or specialized court, housing mental health courts, drug courts, and domestic violence courts. The overarching foci of these courts are on: (1) promoting information about specific issues for participants, (2) facilitating community engagement, (3) ensuring collaborative work among the justice system and community social services, (4) taking an individualized approach to justice, (5) providing accountability, and (6) evaluating program outcomes (Almquist & Dodd, 2009).

Forming community courts in Oregon

Judge Larry J. Blake, a graduate of the University of Washington and Lewis and Clark Law School, teaches part-time at Mt. Hood Community College, runs his private practice, and serves as a Municipal Court Judge for several Oregon cities. In a dedicated effort to improve the management of misdemeanors in small community legal systems, Judge Blake initiated a community court system. He set up his first community court in the city of Sweet Home, Oregon, and it was up and running for 2 months before the pandemic hit. He is actively working to reinstate the program in not only Sweet Home, but also in Newberg and Corvallis, with hopes for continued growth.

Judge Blake’s community court initiative utilizes a shared effort by the legal system and community social services to support individuals charged with misdemeanors and, importantly, their families. Community courts take place inside municipal courthouses but have a starkly different setup from traditional hearings. Individuals presenting for their community court date are welcomed by representatives from community mental health, substance use and addiction support, transportation services, and housing assistance. After completing a needs assessment with the support of a peer, the presenting individual meets with each service representative. Then, if the individual is in agreement, an alternative to traditional sentencing can be offered. The individual must adhere to mental health and/or substance abuse treatment in lieu of jail time and fines. After 6 months, the individual returns to the court to assess progress in treatment.

Although community courts in Oregon are in their early stages and do not serve everyone going through the legal system, there has been enthusiasm from community services and community members alike. Running community courts is relatively low cost. Community services save the cost of meeting individuals around the community and there are no legal fees to cover. Further, regardless of political affiliation, American ideals tend to favor rehabilitation as a goal of the criminal justice system, which includes the work of these specialty courts (Thielo et al., 2019). These community-supportive efforts may play an important role in reducing the harmful impact of racism and classism in the U.S. justice system.

Program outcomes

Limited research demonstrates some promising outcomes of these efforts, with graduates of such programs showing significantly reduced recidivism (Hiday et al., 2013). McNiel and Binder (2007) found that successful completion of mental health court programming was related to a reduction in both recidivism and violence among adults with mental illnesses compared to peers who were instead booked into the county jail. Honegger (2015) reviewed several studies and observed a similarly successful reduction in recidivism among many, but not all, participants of problem-solving courts. Higher lifetime arrests and jail time, being on disability, substance use, low education, some racial group memberships, and being younger predict poorer outcomes (Honegger, 2015; Landess & Holoyda, 2017).

For years, researchers have highlighted a need for consistency in the implementation of such courts in order to assess evidence-based efficacy and other outcomes (Honegger, 2015; Pratt & Turanovic, 2019; Slinger & Roesch, 2010). Further research is certainly needed.

Getting involved

Judge Blake shared an interest in assistance from mental health professionals in his efforts to establish additional community courts. Since the Oregon Department of Corrections provides limited therapeutic services for the mentally ill, alternative community court programs of this nature should be established throughout the state. Psychologists and psychology students alike can contribute to community court efforts by providing valuable knowledge about mental health, substance abuse, and effective interpersonal interaction. Students and professionals are encouraged to reach out to their local courts to see how they can be of service, which may include conducting research to support the need for evidence-based programming or providing trauma-informed training to various parties involved in the community court systems.

References

Almquist, L. & Dodd, E. (2009). Mental health courts: A guide to research-informed policy and practice.
          Council of State Governments Justice Center.
 https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/Publications/CSG_MHC_Research.pdf

Hiday, V. A., Wales, H. W., & Ray, B. (2013). Effectiveness of a short-term mental health court:
          Criminal recidivism one-year post-exit. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 401–411.
 https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000030

Honegger, L. (2015). Does the evidence support the case for mental health courts?
          A review of the literature. Law and Human Behavior, 39(5), 478–488.
 https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000141

Landess, J., & Holoyda, B. (2017). Mental health courts and forensic assertive community
          treatment teams as correctional diversion programs.
 Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35(5-6), 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2307

McNiel, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (2007).
          Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence.
 American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 1395-1403. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.06101664

Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2019). A criminological fly in the ointment:
          Specialty courts and the generality of deviance. Victims & Offenders, 14(3), 375-386.
 https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1595247

Slinger, E., & Roesch, R. (2010). Problem-solving courts in Canada:
          A review and a call for empirically-based evaluation methods.
 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(4), 258-264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.06.008

Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Burton, A. L., Moon, M. M., & Burton, V. S. (2019).
          Prisons or problem-solving: Does the public support specialty courts?
 Victims & Offenders, 14(3), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1595243