WhEn rESEArCh ChALLEngES poLiCy AnD prACtiCE

The Judges’ Journal • Vol. 54 No. 2 rates of treatment retention than addicts participating in treatment voluntarily and lower rates of recidivism than defendants in traditional courts.1 Another reason for the blossoming of mental health courts was a belief by judges and other stakeholders in the logic underlying their design and operations. They assumed that (1) untreated, or inadequately treated, mental illness contributes to criminal behavior; (2) criminal Mental health courts, like other innovations in justice, began as an experiment, testing the proposition that linking defendants with mental illnesses to court-supervised, community-based treatment as an alternative to incarceration would lead to improved mental health outcomes and reduced criminal justice involvement. A handful of mental health courts were launched in the late 1990s, a few dozen by 2003, and by 2010 approximately 300 were operating in more than 40 states, involving tens of thousands of defendants. Jurisdictions were basing their decisions to open mental health courts, in part, on the success of drug courts. Research showed that participants in these courts had higher WhEn rESEArCh ChALLEngES poLiCy AnD prACtiCE