Although there is promising evidence on recidivism, the lack of national standards and and differences in eligibility criteria makes cross jurisdictional comparisons difficult.

• New mental health courts are being created rapidly around the country. However, the research on these problem-solving courts is advancing at a much slower pace.
• Honegger (2015) conducted a recent research review yielding 20 articles from peer-reviewed journals. The review cites a few key findings:
  
  • Most studies report favorable recidivism outcomes for mental health court participants, although studies rarely evaluate therapeutic outcomes.
  • Most studies on mental health courts continue to suffer from methodological limitations, non-representative samples, lack of experimental design, and short assessment timeframes.
  • The lack of national standards for mental health courts and differences in eligibility criteria makes cross jurisdictional comparisons difficult.