A Guide to Collecting 

Mental Health Court 

Outcome Data

BJAmental

health

courts

program
The Council of State Governments (CSG) is a nonprofit, 

nonpartisan organization that serves all three branches of 

state government. Founded in 1933, CSG has a long history 

of providing state leaders with the resources to develop and 

implement effective public policy and programs. Owing to 

its regional structure and its constituency—which includes 

state legislators, judges, and executive branch officials—

CSG is a unique organization. Comparable associations operate only on a national level and target one branch of state 

government exclusively.

 The development of this guide was overseen by staff of 

the Criminal Justice Program of CSG’s Eastern Office, which 

also coordinates the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project.

About the Council of State Governments

Coordinated by the Council of State Governments (CSG), 

the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project is an 

unprecedented national effort to improve the response to 

people with mental illnesses who become involved in, or are 

at risk of involvement in, the criminal justice system. The 

landmark Consensus Project Report, which was authored 

by CSG and representatives of leading criminal justice and 

mental health organizations, was released in June 2002. 

Since then, the Consensus Project has continued to promote 

practical, flexible approaches to this issue through presentations, technical assistance, and information dissemination. 

This includes providing technical assistance to the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance Mental Health Courts Program.

About the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project 

The Office of Justice Programs, US. Department of Justice, 

was created in 1984 to provide federal leadership in developing the nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, 

administer justice, and assist crime victims. OJP carries out 

this mission by forming partnerships with other federal, 

state, and local agencies, as well as national and communitybased organizations. OJP is dedicated to comprehensive 

approaches that empower communities to address crime, 

break the cycle of substance abuse and crime, combat family 

violence, address youth crime, hold offenders accountable, 

protect and support crime victims, enhance law enforcement initiatives, and support advancements in adjudication. 

OJP also works to reduce crime in Indian Country, enhance 

technology’s use within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and support state and local efforts through technical 

assistance and training. www.ojp.usdoj.gov

About the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, supports law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, 

technology, and prevention initiatives that strengthen the 

nation’s criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership, services, and funding to America’s communities by emphasizing 

local control; building relationships in the field; developing 

collaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity building through planning; streamlining the administration of 

grants; increasing training and technical assistance; creating 

accountability of projects; encouraging innovation; and

ultimately communicating the value of justice efforts to

decisionmakers at every level. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

A Guide to Collecting Mental

Health Court Outcome Data

A publication of the Council of State Governments,

prepared for the Bureau of Justice Assistance
A Guide to Collecting 

Mental Health Court

Outcome Data

Henry J. Steadman, Ph.D.

President, Policy Research Associates, Inc.

May 2005
In addition to its author, many people and organizations contributed to the production of this guide. The Council of State 

Governments thanks the Bureau of Justice Assistance for its 

support, and recognizes the guidance and input of Michael 

Guerriere, Senior Policy Advisor for Substance Abuse and Mental Health, who served as the grant manager for this project. 

CSG used a peer review process to ensure the relevance and usefulness of this document. Peter Brandt,

Andree Mattix, and Steve Davis contributed valuable time, 

proposed text, recommended resources, and offered suggestions on matters of format and style. Their input resulted in 

substantive improvements to the final product.

Kelly Dedel Johnson managed the development of the 

guide and also made constructive revisions to the content. 

Amanda Katz edited the document, and Dave Williams designed its layout.

Acknowledgements

suggested citation: 

Steadman, Henry J. A Guide to Collecting Mental Health Court Outcome Data. New York: Council of State Governments, 2005.

This guide was prepared by the Council of State Governments 

under grant number 2003-DD-BX-K007, awarded by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice. 

The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this guide are those of the authors and 

do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
of mental health courts across the country has been driven by the creativity of local 

and state officials responding to the growing number of individuals with mental illnesses who become involved in the criminal justice system. As is the case with many 

new innovations, the impact of these courts has not yet been documented by empirical evidence. Little research has been undertaken concerning mental health courts 

in general, and many of the courts have struggled to incorporate data collection into 

their program designs. 

The purpose of this guide is to help both well-established and newly operating 

courts develop practical, feasible, and effective strategies for collecting outcome data. 

After a brief discussion of key assumptions and target population and goals, the 

guide suggests strategies for:

• Determining which data to collect

• Obtaining the data

• Evaluating the data 

• Comparing the data

• Collecting qualitative data

• Overcoming common challenges 

Outcome data can be of enormous value to courts in their efforts to demonstrate 

the initial promise of their approach and can help to attract researchers interested in 

conducting a more rigorous evaluation. Mental health courts usually receive initial 

funding based on their potential for positive impacts. They are funded (or not) in 

subsequent years based on their ability to demonstrate results.

The recent and rapid expansion

Many different terms are used to describe people involved with the mental health system and the criminal 

justice system. In this guide, we have chosen to use the 

following:

Individual or person with a mental illness—someone 

with a mental illness

Consumer—someone receiving mental health

treatment

Defendant—someone appearing in court

Inmate—someone who is detained or incarcerated

in jail or prison

diverse people, diverse terminology | 1
2 |

Key assumptions of this guide 

the ideas offered in this guide assume several things about

mental health courts and the task of collecting data:

Mental health courts have allocated 

very little money to collecting 

outcome data.

Mental health court administrators 

and program staff are not experts

in data collection.

Collecting outcome data is

not a one-time research 

endeavor; it is an ongoing effort 

to understand the mental health 

court’s impact over time, assessed 

periodically for budgeting, publicity,

a meeting presentation, or to justify 

the court’s existence.

There are more resources

(i.e., brain power, interest, and 

willingness) available to a mental 

health court trying to collect outcome 

data than may be apparent initially.
the core question in 

evaluating mental health 

courts is not, “Do mental 

health courts work?” but rather, “What works, for whom, 

under what circumstances?” 

No intervention will work 

for everyone. Mental health 

courts should determine the 

type of defendants on which 

the court can have the most 

positive impact in terms of 

the individual, public health, 

and public safety. 

Before collecting any 

outcome data, or even accepting participants, a 

mental health court should have a clear idea of its 

target population.1 Outcome data can then be used 

to determine which segment of this population 

seems to respond most positively to the mental 

health court intervention. These data should provide some insight on the need to revise the parameters of the target population over time, or the 

need to alter the services delivered to, or activities 

required of, the program participants.

Each mental health court should also specify its 

goals with regard to the participants, the criminal justice system, and the community in order 

to measure its success.2 These goals need to be 

both realistic and measurable. For example, it 

is reasonable to expect that 

participation in the mental 

health court would reduce 

the incidence of arrest during program participation, 

and arrests can be measured 

easily and reliably. However, 

it is not realistic to expect 

that the mental health court 

program would reduce the 

overall crime rate or alleviate jail overcrowding, as 

both of these are influenced 

by a myriad of other factors 

beyond the control of the 

mental health court program.

Specific program goals should be set during 

the planning phase of the court and should have 

a logical connection to the type, intensity, and 

duration of services provided. Agreement among 

stakeholders (including the evaluators) on the 

explicit meaning of goals and how they should be 

measured is essential. 

Identifying target population 

and goals

| 3
4 |

Determining which data to collect 

mental health courts can obtain a

general sense of their results by collecting a 

relatively limited range of data. In some cases, 

producing a single statistic will require collecting 

several pieces of information. For example, determining the average length of stay in the program 

will require information about the date that each 

participant entered the program and the date each 

participant’s case was resolved. 

Although most evaluation findings are presented using aggregate-level data (i.e., statistics about 

how the group of mental health court clients performed as a whole; for example, only 20 percent of 

court participants were rearrested during the time 

that their case was active), individual-level data are 

needed to construct these statistics. Thus, simply counting the number of defendants accepted 

by the court is not sufficient. Instead, a range of 

information needs to be collected for each defendant so that statistics can be calculated for the 

group as a whole. This volume of data is far too 

cumbersome to be hand-tabulated and requires a 

database that is customized to capture the items of 

local interest. This database need not be sophisticated—often a simple spreadsheet is sufficient. It 

is critical, however, that the people responsible for 

collecting and entering the data receive training to 

ensure the data elements are interpreted consistently by all staff and entered in a format that will 

be easy to analyze.

Below are the four main categories of data a 

mental health court should consider collecting, 

along with key data elements within each category. 

This list is not meant to be comprehensive, and 

mental health court planners should determine 

appropriate data elements based on the structure 

and goals of their particular program. 
| 5

Participants

How many people did the court serve, and what are

their characteristics?

• Number of individuals 

screened

• Number of individuals 

eligible (according to 

program criteria)

• Number of individuals 

accepted 

• Relevant characteristics 

of the individuals who 

were eligible but not 

accepted (including 

demographics, charges, 

prior criminal history, 

diagnosis)

• Reasons not accepted 

(including legal or clinical 

reasons)

• Relevant characteristics 

of the eligible defendants 

who decline to 

participate

• Reasons for declining 

to participate (e.g., 

requirements too strict, 

supervision time too 

long) 

• Relevant characteristics 

of those who were 

accepted into the court 

(e.g., demographics, 

charges, prior criminal 

history, diagnosis)

• Length of time between 

key decision points (e.g., 

screening to acceptance, 

acceptance to case 

termination) 

• Reasons for termination 

(e.g., drop-out, completion, revocation)

Services

What services/what type of services did the court participants 

receive? How often did they receive them (e.g., once a week)?

For how long did they receive them (e.g., six months)?

These services might include:

• Assessment

• Case management

• Medication 

appointments

• Outpatient treatment

• Intensive outpatient 

treatment

• Psychosocial 

rehabilitation

• Housing

• Residential substance 

abuse treatment

• Integrated treatment for 

co-occurring disorders

• Supported employment, 

other vocational or 

employment training

• Education, GED 

preparation and testing

• Self-help groups

• Enrollment in Medicaid, 

Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI), and Social 

Security Disability 

Income (SSDI)

• Other locally important 

services

Criminal Justice Outcomes

What were the effects of these services on participants’

criminal justice involvement?

• Number of arrests during 

program participation 

and subsequent to 

participation

• Type of charge (e.g., 

violent, property, drug, 

etc.)

• Number of admissions 

to jail or prison during 

program participation 

and subsequent to 

participation

• Reason for admission 

(e.g., new charge, 

technical violation)

• Number of days in jail or 

prison for new crimes

• Number of days in jail 

because of sanctions for 

nonadherence to court 

conditions

Mental Health Outcomes

What were the effects of the services on participants’ mental 

health symptoms and overall functioning?

• Number of inpatient 

hospitalizations and 

length of stay

• Number of emergency 

room admissions and 

type of treatment 

received

• Changes in symptoms 

(using, for example, 

the Modified Colorado 

Symptom Index) 3

 

• Number of days homeless

• Number of victimizations 

(e.g., domestic violence, 

assault, robbery)

• Level of satisfaction

with services offered

• Changes in quality of 

life (using, for example, 

Lehman’s Quality of Life 

Interview) 4 

• Number of days clean/

sober, or number of 

positive urinalysis tests

• Number of days employed 

or in school during a 

specified period (e.g., 10 

out of the last 30 days)

• Level of compliance with 

psychotropic medication 

plan
6 |

Obtaining the data

finding a reliable source of information for each of these data elements can be difficult. Usually, programs rely on a combination 

of data extracted from official agency records and 

information collected from participant interviews. 

When should a court rely on self-reported data 

rather than official agency records? There is no 

right answer to this question. Clearly, for data 

on the flow of participants through the program, 

such as the number and characteristics of people 

served, agency records are necessary. For information on services received, electronic records 

of public sector services recorded for reimbursement purposes by providers are optimum, but 

self-reported data from consumers on the services 

they received is better than no information at all. 

For some outcomes (e.g., rates of homelessness), 

both agency records (criminal justice and mental 

health) and self-reported information are needed. 

For other measures, such as service system satisfaction, data must be obtained directly from the 

participants using interviews or surveys. 

To develop a successful data 

collection plan, all of the stakeholders involved in the operation 

of the court will need to agree 

on 1) what data elements will

be collected; 2) what the source 

will be for each data element;

3) who will enter the data; and 4) where the 

data will ultimately be stored. This conversation 

must take place early in the development of a data 

collection plan and with the input of staff from the 

various partner agencies who have knowledge and 

expertise in the kinds of data their agencies can 

provide.

 

Policy Research Associates created a Mental 

Health Court Case Processing Form for its 

evaluation of seven BJA Mental Health Courts.

It can be a useful point of reference for developing 

local data collection procedures. See Appendix on 

page 18.
| 7

collecting qualitative data

In addition to collecting quantitative data, developing one or two case 

studies of mental health court participants can add depth and dimension 

to what is known about the impact of the court and how it has helped 

to improve participants’ lives. Case studies should be constructed in the 

early stages of program operation to ensure that the court is ready to 

respond to any high-profile relapses or program failures that may be publicized by the media.

A survey of court officials (prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges) and 

other criminal justice and mental health staff who are involved in the 

court can distill their perceptions of the program to be used in proposals to sustain funding. In some jurisdictions, positive responses to these 

kinds of surveys have helped to convince policymakers of the value of a 

program even before empirical evidence was collected.5
8 |

Evaluating the data 

the data described previously represent the raw materials that mental health courts 

will need to understand the court’s process and 

impact on participants. Once sufficient data are 

collected, the courts must develop a strategy for 

analyzing the data. Analysis may be prompted by 

the need to submit annual reports, to apply for 

continued funding, or simply to review the progress of the program. Whatever the impetus, the 

process of analyzing the data will likely require 

time and expertise beyond what the court personnel possess. In some larger jurisdictions, the mental health court may be able to rely on staff within 

the court or mental health system to analyze the 

data. In many jurisdictions, the court may need to 

contract for outside assistance. Either way, someone with the expertise to analyze the data should 

be identified early in the planning process.

Two types of evaluations are needed to fully 

understand the mental health court’s impact. 

First, a process evaluation examines how the court 

operates and provides essential information on the 

characteristics of the intervention itself. Second, 

an outcome evaluation assesses the effectiveness 

of the intervention. In other words, an outcome 

evaluation tells you if it worked, and a process 

evaluation tells you what “it” is. 

Process Evaluations

Some mental health courts (and other 

new programs for that matter) overlook 

the importance of a process evaluation. 

Recognizing that administrators, funders, 

and community members are most interested 

in the impact of the mental health court, many 

courts do not focus specifically on the way the 

court operates. But understanding the court’s operation is an essential prerequisite to an outcome 

analysis: without examining the court process, it is 

impossible to know why or how the mental health 

court had the impact it did, or why some participants did better than others. Process evaluations 

determine whether the court operated according 

to its original design and provide valuable insights 

to whether a program adapted from another 

jurisdiction properly replicated key elements. 

Process-related information tends to be descriptive 

in nature, but is still quantitative. Typical processrelated questions include:

• How many defendants were referred to, 

screened for, and accepted into the mental 

health court? 

• How did these numbers compare to

expectations? 
| 9

• For what reasons were

 participants not accepted?

• What agencies or individ-

 uals referred potential

 participants?

• How long did court participants wait before 

being accepted into the program? 

• What kinds of diagnoses did court participants have? 

• How long did participants remain in the 

program? 

• How did program duration compare to

expectations? 

The Mental Health Courts Case Processing 

Form in the Appendix is one example of a useful 

data collection tool for process evaluations.

Outcome Evaluations 

An outcome evaluation answers the essential 

question of effectiveness. As discussed in the 

first section of this guide, specific outcome-related research questions should be based on the 

specific goals of the mental health court. Some 

research questions will require data to be collected 

only after the program is completed, while others 

will require information to be gathered during 

program participation as well. Typical outcome-related questions include:

• How often were mental health court participants arrested? 

• How many days did mental health court 

participants spend in jail?

• What kind of services did participants

receive in the community? 

• How often did they receive those services? 

• How many participants were eligible for 

benefits (e.g., Medicaid, SSI/SSDI) and

of those, how many were connected to

benefits? 

• How did participants’ quality of life change 

during participation in the program?

• What were the rates of substance use among 

participants? 
10 |

the crucial question in the analysis 

of outcome data is: “Compared to what?” 

That is, the court can only understand its

impact in terms of a comparison, either 

to different points in time or to different groups of people. Most often, resource and practicality issues require 

courts to find comparisons for each 

case within itself, focusing on how 

court participants perform during 

their involvement in the mental 

health court program compared 

to how they were doing during the 

period just prior to their admission 

into the mental health court (e.g., 

one year prior to admission).

From a purely scientific standpoint, the effects of any intervention are difficult to determine if the 

only participants studied are those 

who receive the intervention. Ideally, a second study group is available, 

consisting of defendants with the same 

characteristics as those who received the 

intervention, but who received standard or 

traditional services. Both groups are tracked 

for the same length of time, during the same 

time period, and are measured against the 

same outcome measures. The experimental group includes defendants 

receiving services through the 

mental health court. Their outcomes are contrasted to those 

of the comparison group that 

receives services via the 

traditional court process. 

Any differences in the key 

outcome measures can 

be attributed to the intervention, since the two 

groups were similar on 

all other significant factors; the only difference 

is that one group received 

the services of the mental 

health court and one did not. 

If the two groups had different characteristics (e.g., different offenses or diagnoses), any differences in their outcomes could be 

attributed to these characteristics rather 

than to the intervention.

Comparing the data

< =
| 11

In practice, evaluations with good comparison groups are very difficult to accomplish.

First and foremost, they are much 

more expensive, roughly doubling 

the cost of data collection, since 

they require an additional 

study group equal in size to 

the experimental group. 

Second, in a single community, a sufficient number of similarly situated 

people to form both an 

experimental and a comparison group are often 

hard to find. Third, ethical standards requiring 

that all research participants receive equally effective treatment may deter 

a community from using a 

comparison group. 

So while comparison groups 

may be desirable from a scientific 

standpoint, for most mental health 

courts with limited time and resources 

for data collection and evaluation, using court 

participants as their own “control group” 

is a reasonable compromise that helps 

the courts to determine their impact on 

program participants. If this type of 

comparison demonstrates promising 

results, it can attract researchers and 

funders who may be able to undertake a more rigorous experimental 

design. 

This is not to say that comparison group studies are unimportant. They are essential for ensuring that empirical knowledge 

about mental health courts grows 

along with their numbers, and 

mental health court administrations should consider strategies for 

obtaining interest and funding for 

such studies. However, courts without a research budget are not likely 

to be able to undertake that level of 

= >

analysis. 
12 |

mental health courts that have succeeded in obtaining

quality data and evaluating their results have encountered a wide range

of challenges. Some of the most common challenges are listed below, 

along with suggestions for overcoming them.

Overcoming common challenges 

challenge: 

Securing funds for evaluation

solutions:

• Approach local foundations 

• Involve local college students 

who need internships/theses/

dissertations

• Assign time-consuming data 

collection tasks to mental 

health court program staff, 

conserving available funds to 

contract for analysis

• Collaborate with other mental 

health courts (e.g., share 

database development and 

data entry costs)

Locally based philanthropic foundations are often very interested in 

documenting local success stories, especially when leadership comes 

from the judiciary. Students of community colleges and those in masters and doctoral programs often need access to programs in order to 

collect data for thesis and dissertation research. Many students also 

need semester-long internships, usually low-paid or unpaid, which can 

be used for targeted data collection. Data collection is often the most 

time-consuming of the tasks involved in evaluating program outcomes. 

If program staff are trained to collect data in a systematic fashion, the 

costs for securing outside analytical expertise can be reduced.

1
| 13

2

3

challenge: 

Constructing a realistic

evaluation plan

solutions:

• Do less, but do it well 

• Get pro bono evaluation 

guidance

Being realistic in terms of what can be accomplished by program staff 

is a good starting point when planning data collection. Few mental 

health courts have staff with the expertise required to conduct a rigorous evaluation of program outcomes. However, their knowledge about 

program operations and staff workload is essential for devising efficient data collection strategies. Ultimately, a thorough job on a smaller 

set of questions is more useful than a half-baked attempt at a huge 

project. Good advice about what may be manageable within existing 

resources can often be obtained pro bono from local universities and 

colleges. Another way to narrow the focus of an evaluation is to identify 

the key concerns of funding sources and other key stakeholders, and 

target only those issues for data collection. A basic but well-structured 

set of data elements is adequate for getting a general sense of the 

program’s operation and is also an excellent starting point for researchers who may be contracted to do a more rigorous evaluation of program 

outcomes.

challenge: 

Documenting treatment services

solutions:

• Accomplish #1 and #2, above

• Negotiate data sharing 

agreements with community 

treatment providers

• Work hard

Documenting the services received in the community is often the most 

difficult part of the data collection effort. Unfortunately, these data are 

the most important. The “intervention” must be clearly defined in terms 

of the type, intensity and duration of services provided. If a court does 

not know the characteristics of the intervention actually provided, it 

cannot determine which service components produce the most positive outcomes. Asking for help from students and universities, as discussed above, is especially important in this domain, as is negotiating 

data-sharing agreements with service providers and/or their funding 

sources at the outset of program planning. Data sharing among organizations will require participants to sign a waiver during the mental 

health court admission process.6
14 |

Overcoming common challenges continued

challenge: 

Planning for outcome data 

collection soon enough

solutions:

• Just do it

• Line up a local evaluation ally

The earlier in the planning and operation phases that the data questions are addressed, the better off a court will be when the program 

must be justified to potential funding sources. On the front end, courts 

should obtain agreement on program goals, evaluation questions, and 

the data needed to answer them while lining up the criminal justice, 

mental health, substance abuse, housing, health, and other partners 

in the court’s operation. In addition, courts should enlist the cooperation of a local evaluation allies (e.g., students, university, or research 

organization) at the outset of program planning so that the researchers 

can begin to think through the evaluation questions while the court’s 

implementation is being planned.

challenge: 

Collecting data on the cost of 

intervention and cost savings

solution:

Use a sophisticated method,

or do not attempt to collect

cost-based data

Cost data, usually structured to show savings, are very complex data 

to gather correctly. Cost studies done “on the cheap” easily backfire, 

showing short-term costs that are dramatically higher for mental 

health court participants than inmates with mental illnesses who are 

housed in the jail. This occurs for several reasons. First, most cost studies underestimate the actual jail costs for these high-need inmates: 

incarcerating individuals with mental illnesses, who require treatment 

and more intensive supervision and stay longer in jail, does not cost 

the same as the “average” inmate. Second, mental health courts are 

designed to connect defendants to comprehensive (and thus costly) 

mental health and related services; many of the participants have not 

been consistently engaged in services prior to their involvement in the 

court, so their use of services often increases substantially. This initial 

outlay of treatment resources may eventually result in reduced criminal 

justice costs and improved functioning for participants, but savings are 

most likely to accrue over an 18-month period or longer.

4

5
| 15

challenge: 

Maintaining privacy and 

confidentiality

solutions:

• Review state and federal 

regulations

• Consult local evaluation 

advisor

In today’s world of careful attention to the rights of prisoners to participate in research, data collectors need to give prominent and explicit 

consideration to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 

Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Section 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (for 

persons with co-occurring substance abuse disorders), and human subject protections for research. The specifics of these issues are very complex and beyond the scope of this guide, but must be flagged for careful 

consideration.7 Because confidentiality laws differ among states, a 

local evaluation advisor should be enlisted to review data collection 

plans and release of information forms and provide general guidance on 

protecting the rights of participants involved in the research.

challenge: 

Collecting reliable data

solutions:

• Establish specific data sharing 

agreements to extract data 

from existing administrative 

datasets (e.g., police, jail, 

prison, employment).

• Train all staff responsible for 

gathering and entering data

When data are extracted from existing administrative databases, their 

structure and format must be amenable to analysis. Local evaluation 

advisors can provide useful guidance to courts drafting data sharing 

agreements. Researchers and information system managers share a 

common language and can ensure that the data extracted meets the 

needs of the analysis.

For new data entered into the mental health court’s database, 

mental health courts should train those responsible for data entry and 

build as many automatic edits as possible into the electronic data entry 

system. Specific discussions with the person responsible for analyzing 

the data are needed to ensure that the data are structured, coded, and 

entered in a way that is useful for analysis. These preparations can save 

both time and money once sufficient data has been collected for an 

analysis of outcomes.

6

7
Technical assistance

as this guide suggests, critical sources

of evaluation-related expertise may be available to 

mental health courts within their own communities. Readers may also want to consult the section 

of the Criminal Justice / Mental Health Consensus 

Project Report on “Measuring and Evaluating Outcomes,” available at www.consensusproject.org. 

In addition, the Council of State Governments 

(CSG) provides technical assistance for the BJA 

Mental Health Courts Program, and is available to 

help both Mental Health Court Program grantees 

and nongrantees develop data collection strategies 

to meet their local needs and resources. 

CSG, with the help of the GAINS Center for 

Evidence-Based Practices, has provided guidance 

to numerous courts in determining outcome 

measures, establishing data collection procedures, 

synthesizing data collection strategies across multiple courts, and other issues related to measuring 

the impact of their programs. 

Jurisdictions interested in such assistance should visit the Mental 

Health Courts Program

Web site,

to download the technical assistance request form, 

or contact:

Council of State Governments

40 Broad Street, Suite 2050

New York, NY 10004

(212) 482-2320

mhc-assistance@csg.org

16 | www.consensusproject.org/mhcourts
| 17

References

1. For more information on defining the target 

population, see the companion to this document, 

A Guide to Mental Health Court Design and Implementation. 

2. For more information on program goals,

see the companion to this document, A Guide to 

Mental Health Court Design and Implementation.

3. Conrad, K.J., J.R. Yagelka, M.D. Matters, A.R. 

Rich, V. Williams, and A. Buchanan. “Reliability 

and Validity of a Modified Colorado Symptom Index: A National Homeless Sample.” Mental Health 

Services Research. September (3):141–53, 2001.

4. Russo, J., P. Roy-Byrne, D. Reeder, M. Alexander, E. Dwyer-O’Connor, C. Dagadis, R. Reis, D. 

Patrick. “Longitudinal assessment of quality of

life in psychiatric inpatients: reliability and validity.” Journal of Mental and Nervous Disease.

March (3):166–75, 1997.

5. The Connecticut Department of Mental Health 

and Addiction Services conducted such a survey 

of a pilot jail diversion program. The program was 

subsequently expanded statewide. See Solnit, Albert J. “The Costs and Effectiveness of Jail Diversion: A Report to the Joint Standing Committee 

of the General Assembly Having Cognizance of 

Matters Pertaining to Judiciary, Public Health,

and Appropriations.” Hartford, CT: Department

of Mental Health & Addiction Services.

February 1, 2000. 

6. For more information on confidentiality issues, 

see the companion to this document, A Guide to 

Mental Health Court Design and Implementation.

7. The U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services offers extensive guidance for complying 

with HIPAA through its Web site, http://www.

hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/. The National Institute of Justice offers guidance on the use of human subjects 

in research through its Web site, http://www.ojp.

usdoj.gov/nij/humansubjects/index.html. The site 

also includes links to the Code of Federal Regulations and to sample consent forms and protocols. 

You can also find an article on HIPAA on the National Drug Courts Intiative Web site, http://www.

ndci.org/admin/docs/confid.pdf. 
18 |

Appendix: NIJ-BJA Mental Health Court Evaluation Study

Referral Data Sheet

This form is 

reprinted

with the

permission of 

Policy Research 

Associates
| 19




A Guide to Collecting Mental Health Court Outcome Data provides practical strategies to 

both well-established and newly operating courts for deciding which data to collect; obtaining, 

evaluating, and comparing the data; and overcoming common challenges.

this guide:

What Is a Mental Health Court?

introduces the mental health court 

concept, including the reasons why 

communities establish such courts, 

how they differ from drug courts, 

recent research, and concerns that 

these courts have raised.

A Guide to Mental Health Court

Design and Implementation

provides detailed guidance on issues such as determining whether 

to establish a mental health court, 

selecting the target population, 

ensuring confidentiality, and 

sustaining the court. Examples 

from existing mental health courts 

illustrate key points. 

Navigating the Mental

Health Maze: A Guide for

Court Practitioners offers a 

basic overview of mental illnesses, 

including their symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment, and discusses 

the coordination of treatment and 

court-based services.

other guides in the series:

The Bureau of Justice Assistance administers the Mental Health Courts Program (MHCP), which has awarded grants to 37 

mental health court projects nationwide since 2002. The MHCP funds projects that seek to improve the response to adult 

and juvenile offenders with mental illnesses through continuing judicial supervision and the coordinated delivery of mental 

health and related services. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/mentalhealth.html 

The program also provides technical assistance, coordinated by the Council of State Governments (CSG), to grantee 

courts and other jurisdictions. As part of its technical assistance efforts CSG has developed four publications to aid communities considering or implementing a mental health court:

About the Mental Health Courts Program

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, supports law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, 

technology, and prevention initiatives that strengthen the 

nation’s criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership, 

services, and funding to America’s communities by emphasizing local control; building relationships in the field; developing collaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity 

building through planning; streamlining the administration 

of grants; increasing training and technical assistance; 

creating accountability of projects; encouraging innovation; 

and ultimately communicating the value of justice efforts to 

decisionmakers at every level.

810 Seventh Street, NW

Fourth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

Tel: (202) 616-6500 | Fax: (202) 305-1367

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/

The Council of State Governments (CSG) is a nonpartisan, 

public, nonprofit organization 

that provides information, 

research, and training to state 

officials in all three branches of 

government in every state and 

U.S. territory. 

40 Broad Street

Suite 2050

New York, NY 10004

Tel: (212) 482-2320

Fax: (212) 482-2344

www.csgeast.org

The Criminal Justice/Mental 

Health Consensus Project is 

an unprecedented national 

effort to improve the response 

to people with mental illnesses 

who become involved in, or are 

at risk of involvement in, the 

criminal justice system.

For more information 

please contact

editors@consensusproject.org

www.consensusproject.org/

mhcourts/