Patterns of Mental Health Service Contacts for Young People Deemed Eligible for Court Diversion

Abstract

AbstractPast research suggests that diverting young people away from the criminal justice system and into mental health services can reduce subsequent reoffending, but the impact of such programs on the rates of timely mental health service contact are largely unknown. In this study, we examined a sample of 523 young people who were deemed eligible for mental health diversion between 2008 and 2015. Around half (47%) of these young people were granted diversion by a Magistrate. Overall, the levels of timely mental health service contact after court finalization, even for those who were granted diversion, appeared low given that the purpose of diversion is to facilitate such contact for all those diverted. Specifically, only 22% of those who were granted community-based diversion and 62% of individuals granted inpatient-based diversion had mental health service contact within 7 days of court finalization. Rates of health contact were much lower for those who were not granted either type of diversion (8% and 23%, respectively). Diversion was associated with a significant reduction in reoffending rates, but the impact of early mental health service contact was less clear. There is a need to understand the reasons why many young people are not accessing appropriate mental health services following diversion in order to improve outcomes and fully realize the intended benefits of mental health court diversion.Keywords: Mental health court diversionadolesent court diversioncourt liaisonhealth outcomesmental health treatmentjuvenile justiceyouth justice Complete of interestThe authors declare there is no Complete of Interest at this study.Authors’ contributionsCM: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original draft preparation; SS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing—Reviewing and Editing; CG: Conceptualization, Writing—Reviewing and Editing; JK: Conceptualization, Writing—Reviewing and Editing; TL: Conceptualization, Writing—Reviewing and Editing; KD: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Reviewing and Editing, Supervision, Funding Acquisition.Disclosure statementWe have no conflict of interest to disclose.Ethical approvalAll procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees [see “Ethics Approval” section in manuscript for more details] and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.AcknowledgmentsWe gratefully acknowledge the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (JHFMHN) for their funding and in-kind support for the researchers employed by them, record linkage, data management, and analysis.Notes1 A new act (Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020) is now in place.2 Fewer than five individuals granted a s 33 diversion had mental health treatment in the community within one week of court finalisation; due to small group size, we have not included a more detailed description of contact.3 Data missing for four participants. Note that while this reflects the service provider listed first in the MH-AMB database, there were sometimes multiple types of service providers involved in clinical activities.4 Fewer than five individuals granted a s 33 diversion had emergency department mental health contact within one week of court finalisation; due to small group size, we have not included a more detailed description of contact.Additional informationFundingThis research project is funded by an NHMRC Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant (GNT1175408) awarded to Professor Kimberlie Dean.