Do Mental Health Courts in an Era of Criminal Justice Reform Work?

A new issue brief evaluates the value of mental health courts and offers suggestions for improvement

New York, NY – Progressive criminal-justice advocates prioritize rehabilitation over incarceration, a goal which mental health courts support by diverting defendants with serious mental illness into community treatment instead of prison. However, with criminal justice reform continuing to evolve, the future of these courts is uncertain as activists push for more radical changes, including jail “abolition.” In a new Manhattan Institute issue brief, senior fellow Stephen Eide examines the role of mental health courts amid ongoing reform, arguing they will remain relevant despite demands for more sweeping changes.

Eide’s report urges policymakers to focus on both the quality and expansion of these courts:

Expansion: Eide advocates for extending mental health courts to areas without such programs, particularly in communities less influenced by the radical reform movement and those relying on state support. In contrast, areas with established programs may have reached their full potential in reducing incarceration, requiring policymakers to protect prior reforms.

Quality: Ensuring courts operate at the right scale and facilitate timely placements is crucial. Many programs, now 15-20 years old, may face leadership changes as founding judges retire. Since judges play a critical role in participant eligibility, continuous evaluation is needed to maintain program effectiveness.

Eide highlights that, despite challenges, mental health courts remain vital in supporting offenders with mental illness. While these courts only serve a portion of mentally ill offenders and won't drastically reduce mass incarceration, they will be needed as long as this population remains significant.

Click here to read the full issue brief.