Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts in Reducing Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts in Reducing Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1176/appi.ps.201700107
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Desmarais, Sarah L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lowder, Evan M.;Rade, Candalyn B.;Desmarais, Sarah L.
目的：精神健康法庭（MHCs）的建立是为了解决美国刑事司法系统中精神疾病成年人比例过高的问题，将他们转移到社区治疗中。近年来，对MHC的研究激增，有必要综合有关MHC有效性的当代文献。作者进行了一项荟萃分析调查的成人MHC参与的刑事累犯的影响相比，传统的criminal processing.Methods：系统搜索三个数据库产生17个研究（N=16,129）发表在2004年和2015年之间。研究特征和潜在的主持人（即，出版物类型，累犯的结果，以及长度和时间的后续行动）独立提取的两个四个评级为每个研究。两名评分员对每项研究的质量进行编码，并提取累犯措施的组间效应量（即逮捕、指控、定罪和监禁时间; k=25）。还评估了异质性和发表偏倚。结果：结果显示，MHC参与对累犯（d=-.20）相对于传统的刑事处理的影响很小。与逮捕和定罪相比，MHC在监禁时间和指控结果方面是最有效的，在MHC退出后而不是进入后测量累犯的研究中，以及与中等质量和高质量研究相比，低质量研究中。结果显示，在跨研究的效果大小显着的异质性（I-2=73.33），但很少有证据表明出版bias.Conclusions：总体而言，一个小的影响MHC参与累犯，与传统的刑事处理。研究结果表明，需要进行研究，以确定其他来源的可变性的有效性的MHC。
Objective: Mental health courts (MHCs) were developed to address the overrepresentation of adults with mental illnesses in the U.S. criminal justice system through diversion into community-based treatment. Research on MHCs has proliferated in recent years, and there is a need to synthesize contemporary literature on MHC effectiveness. The authors conducted a meta-analytic investigation of the effect on criminal recidivism of adult MHC participation compared with traditional criminal processing.Methods: Systematic search of three databases yielded 17 studies (N=16,129) published between 2004 and 2015. Study characteristics and potential moderators (that is, publication type, recidivism outcome, and length and timing of follow-up) were independently extracted by two of four raters for each study. Two raters coded each study for quality and extracted between-group effect sizes for measures of recidivism (that is, arrest, charge, conviction, and jail time; k=25).Results were synthesized by using random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. Results: Results showed a small effect of MHC participation on recidivism (d=-.20) relative to traditional criminal processing. MHCs were most effective with respect to jail time and charge outcomes compared with arrest and conviction, in studies measuring recidivism after MHC exit rather than at entry, and in lower-quality studies compared with moderate-and high-quality studies. Results showed significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies (I-2=73.33) but little evidence of publication bias.Conclusions: Overall, a small effect of MHC participation on recidivism was noted, compared with traditional criminal processing. Findings suggest the need for research to identify additional sources of variability in the effectiveness of MHCs.