Treatment And Crime Reduction Act Of 2004: A Literature Review

The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004: Problems and Prospects by Christine M. Litschgea and Michael G. Vaughn, is a research article whose focus is three-fold. First, the researchers review the literature available on the elements that have contributed to the increasing levels of incarcerated persons with severe mental illness (SMI). Secondly, they analyze the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004 (MIOTCRA), and assess if this law can reduce problems associated with incarcerated persons with SMI. Thirdly, they offer recommendations about policy improvement; how to reduce the number of SMI persons imprisoned.
The researchers state that SMI offenders are overrepresented in the criminal

The information and data offered was comprehensive and well-supported, it was clear that the authors had conducted a thorough review of the literature available on the topic, and were knowledgeable about the legalities and limitations of the 2004 Act. The authors statements throughout the article contributed to the overall understanding of the issue and the reasoning for establishing their thesis statement, their purpose was clearly and concisely stated and agreed with the title. The paper contained section titles, which were helpful to the organization and readability of the paper. There was one table in the article, the table listed the possible unintended effects that mentally ill offenders may face after incarceration, the table was easy to understand and a highlight of the subsection, Recommendations. The reference page contained sixty-seven different sources used in writing the article, all were

Mental health courts are depicted as a diversion to-treatment intervention. However, this not the case. Wolff and Pogorzelski posit that evaluation of mental health courts need to be designed and standardized with traditional standards for intervention research. Their study is more in depth about research methods, it focuses on the effectiveness and reliability of prior research and how variations in environmental conditions, program characteristics, and the selection process might interact with the mental health court intervention in ways that limit the validity of the effectiveness findings (Wolff & Pogorzelski, 2005). Both groups concluded that research on mental health courts pose some challenges to studying the effectiveness of court interventions. They both theorize that this is due in a large part to local and political influences and that the courts are non-standardized, personal preferences and relationship dynamics tend to overshadow policy, further research is necessary to isolate the independent effects associated with mental health courts. The articles conclude with similar recommendations for how best to evaluate mental health courts to implement best practice and