Many courts rely on existing treatment and mental health best practices and standards to support the growing number of mental health treatment courts, but practitioners report difficulty using these frameworks with individuals living with serious mental illness (SMI).
The National Center for State Court’s newly released “Myths, Realities and Emerging Practices in Mental Health Courts” shares findings from surveys and interviews with statewide treatment court coordinators and local practitioners to better understand these challenges and identify successful practices and areas for improvement.
“We heard from programs of all sizes, including small rural courts and large urban programs across the country,” said NCSC Court Management Consultant Kendall Friend. “These conversations reinforced that mental health courts are most effective when they adapt to support participants’ recovery, stability, and long-term success.”
The research identified nine myths and realities that emerged consistently through surveys and interviews. Three examples include:
• The courtroom is the primary setting for recovery and stabilization. While judicial interactions matter, practitioners described recovery as the result of coordinated efforts among treatment providers, supervision teams, case managers, and community support systems.
• If a participant is motivated, they should be able to comply with court requirements independently. Many participants with SMI face executive functioning challenges such as difficulties with memory, planning, scheduling, and completing tasks, often stemming from psychiatric symptoms, medication side effects, cognitive impairments, or trauma rather than a lack of motivation.
• Program completion is the best indicator of success. Success for individuals with SMI is often broader than program completion, and courts and practitioners are seeking guidance on measuring stabilization, recovery, and quality of life alongside traditional outcomes.
Some courts are introducing scheduling camps, planners, and reminder systems to support participants with executive functioning challenges. Others are strengthening coordination among case managers, housing and benefits providers, and community partners.
This work promotes effective court performance and advances our strategic agenda priority to support fair and impartial courts.
To access the findings and tips for success, visit www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/uncovering-myths-realities-emerging-practices-mental-health-courts.
To explore the NCSC treatment court resources, visit www.ncsc.org/treatment-courts.
The National Center for State Court’s newly released “Myths, Realities and Emerging Practices in Mental Health Courts” shares findings from surveys and interviews with statewide treatment court coordinators and local practitioners to better understand these challenges and identify successful practices and areas for improvement.
“We heard from programs of all sizes, including small rural courts and large urban programs across the country,” said NCSC Court Management Consultant Kendall Friend. “These conversations reinforced that mental health courts are most effective when they adapt to support participants’ recovery, stability, and long-term success.”
The research identified nine myths and realities that emerged consistently through surveys and interviews. Three examples include:
• The courtroom is the primary setting for recovery and stabilization. While judicial interactions matter, practitioners described recovery as the result of coordinated efforts among treatment providers, supervision teams, case managers, and community support systems.
• If a participant is motivated, they should be able to comply with court requirements independently. Many participants with SMI face executive functioning challenges such as difficulties with memory, planning, scheduling, and completing tasks, often stemming from psychiatric symptoms, medication side effects, cognitive impairments, or trauma rather than a lack of motivation.
• Program completion is the best indicator of success. Success for individuals with SMI is often broader than program completion, and courts and practitioners are seeking guidance on measuring stabilization, recovery, and quality of life alongside traditional outcomes.
Some courts are introducing scheduling camps, planners, and reminder systems to support participants with executive functioning challenges. Others are strengthening coordination among case managers, housing and benefits providers, and community partners.
This work promotes effective court performance and advances our strategic agenda priority to support fair and impartial courts.
To access the findings and tips for success, visit www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/uncovering-myths-realities-emerging-practices-mental-health-courts.
To explore the NCSC treatment court resources, visit www.ncsc.org/treatment-courts.
