The decision to establish a mental health court in Utah's First District was largely a political one prompted by the growing popularity of problem-solving courts throughout the country. Because this motivation was policy-driven and not needs-driven, the court was established without an ongoing data collection schedule. As a result, barring anecdotal evidence from program participants, the current impact of the court on two key goals-- reducing recidivism and increasing community-based treatment contact--is entirely unknown. The current study aims to provide a summative program evaluation of the first sixty-eight months of specialty court operation by (1) estimating basic demographic and clinical information about program referrals, participants, and graduates; and (2) measuring program effectiveness by examining between-group differences in key outcome measures (e.g., new charges, use of therapeutic services, time to rearrest, etc.) for those referrals who are accepted into the program as participants versus those referrals who are rejected from the program and sentenced to treatment-as-usual. Ideally, the current study will not only provide an evidence-based assessment of local practices at the current study site but will also empirically inform the greater community of mental health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers who are operating in smaller, more rural districts.

The present study examined felony mental health court and mental health probation used in conjunction and whether those on mental health probation had a reduced rate of rearrest and psychiatric hospitalization as compared to participants on regular probation or not on either form of probation. The research explored whether specific variables predicted a reduced rate of hospitalization and arrest among the participants on mental health probation. Results found mental health probationers did not significantly differ from the probationers in their rate of rearrest, and were rearrested more frequently then participants not on probation. Mental health probationers did not differ significantly from regular probationers or those without probation in psychiatric hospitalization frequency. Within the mental health probationers type of crime, presence of a violent crime, age, gender, education level, history of substance abuse, prescription of psychiatric medication, diagnosis, mental retardation and prior psychiatric hospitalizations did not predict arrest. The above variables also did not predict psychiatric hospitalization, with the exception of a history of psychiatric hospitalization which predicted a higher rate of hospitalization while on mental health probation. Factors influencing these results and limitations of the present study were offered.