| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 883090 | Journal of Criminal Justice | 2011 | 9 Pages |
PurposeThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsAggregate 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.ConclusionsOur 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.
Research Highlights► We used quantitative analysis to examine mental health court interventions. ► Eighteen published and unpublished studies were analyzed. ► Our findings suggest they are effective but this assertion is not definitive.
