Mental health court performance measures

• In-program reoffending — The incidence of in-program reoffending (i.e., whether an arrest occurred, yes or no). In-program reoffending is defined as an arrest that results in the offender being formally charged (excluding traffic citations other than DUI) and which occurs between admission and exit. While the date of arrest must fall between the entry date and exit date, the charge date may come after the participant has exited the program. This measure serves as an important measure of offender compliance and the level of supervision received, hence, an indicator for public safety.
• Attendance at scheduled judicial status hearings — The percent of scheduled judicial status hearings attended by the participant. The performance measure reflects the level of judicial supervision for each participant.
• Attendance at scheduled therapeutic sessions — The percent of scheduled therapeutic sessions (defined as services to address mental health and/or substance abuse problems) attended. Therapeutic treatment is an essential element of MHCs.

Living arrangement — Tracks the progress of MHC participants toward securing a stable living arrangement. Specifically, the percent of participants who are homeless or not at exit, by living status at entry. Adequate housing is a prerequisite for treatment effectiveness.

• Retention — The percent of participants admitted to the MHC during the same time frame, who exit the program by one of the following means: successful completion, administrative closure, voluntary withdrawal while in compliance, discharge, transfer, and failure/termination. Retention is important in MHCs because it is critical that participants receive treatment and supervision of long enough duration to affect change.
• Time from arrest to referral — The average length of time between a participant's arrest and referral to MHC. While the referral process is not entirely under the court's control, it is an important component in obtaining relevant and timely information. This is especially true when offenders who are mentally ill are incarcerated and are at risk for decompensation.
• Time from referral to admission — The average length of time between the referral to MHC and when the participant was accepted into the program. The span of time between referral and admission is an important part of controlling the length of time it takes to get a participant into treatment. This measure will help the court identify inefficiencies in the screening and qualification process.
• Total time in program — The average length of time between a participant's admission into the MHC and permanent exit. If this time span is very short, participants may not be receiving enough treatment and care to affect long term improvement. If it is very long, courts may be devoting too great a share of their resources to difficult cases, denying opportunities to other potential participants.

• Team collaboration — The percentage of time that information relevant for discussion at the pre-docket meeting is available to the team. This provides a gauge to the court of the level of collaboration across the entire MHC team and allows for the identification of gaps in information sharing. With this measure, courts can investigate a lack of resources or lack of commitment by individuals/agencies. This is NOT a measure of attendance at pre-docket meetings.
• Agency collaboration — The percentage of time that a MHC representative was notified within 24 and 48 hours that a participant in the program was arrested. This measure assesses the timeliness of the basic communication flow between corrections (jail) and the MHC program so that services and medication are maintained during time spent in detention. Effective inter-agency collaboration will improve the effectiveness of the MHC and its operations.

Need-based treatment and supervision — The goal of this measure is to align participants' diagnosis and criminogenic risk with the appropriate treatment and service dosage. The measure provides courts with an indicator of whether the resources available for supervision and treatment are allocated based on need. Operationally, it measures the percentage of participants who receive the highest (and alternatively lowest) level of services and supervision and whether those are the same participants who are designated as having highest (and lowest) needs. Achieving this will provide the necessary balance for effective use of tax payer money, ensuring public safety, and improving the welfare of the participant using need-based, individualized, and appropriate treatment.

Participant-level satisfaction — Perceived fairness of the program by the participant as expressed in a short 5-question survey. Research indicates that the perception of fairness is often more important than the actual outcome of the case (see e.g., procedural justice) making this measure important in gauging the perception of the participant.

• Participant preparation for transition — Percent of correct responses by the participant identifying sources of assistance (e.g., for medication or mental health symptoms) to be used after exiting the program. This measure provides the MHC with an assessment of whether participants are prepared for their transition by ensuring that needed treatment and services will remain available and accessible after their court supervision concludes.
• Post-program recidivism — Percentage of participants who reoffended within two years after exiting the MHC. This performance measure is an important measure of the lasting outcomes of the court's program as well as public safety. It captures longer-term outcomes, as compared to Measure 1 "In-Program Reoffending," and is thus reflective of the effectiveness of the program.