DIGEST-V7i3

7 TPC Digest Mental Health Counseling and Specialty Courts Toni O. Davis, Keith A. Cates 7 | S pecialty courts were developed with the intention of reducing recidivism and obtaining better outcomes for participants served by each court. Counselors, while able to fulfill pivotal roles in these environments, are often unfamiliar with them. The purpose of this article is to briefly introduce the specialty court movement and some considerations for counselors who desire to work with them. The justice system has traditionally been one of punitive action—to punish offenders and deter the tempted. In 2012, the number of prisoners diagnosed with mental illness exceeded 352,000, more than 10 times the number in state psychiatric hospitals. In the absence of evidence that incarceration without treatment is in their own best interest, or that of society, such individuals are a burden on the limited resources of prison systems in every state. Specialty courts take the traditionally adversarial roles of prosecution and defense and transform them into cooperative roles focusing on therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice. In the specialty court setting, counselors combine individual therapy with participant oversight, supervision, and an emphasis on accountability for the individual. The counselor, then, becomes a de facto expert that the court relies on in the development and implementation of treatment goals. In this article, we discuss three types of specialty courts: drug courts, veteran treatment courts, and mental health courts. The drug court, the first of what is now the model of specialty courts in this country, began in 1989. Here, counselors serve as agents of the court, verifying adherence to program objectives through drug testing and analysis of available data, including re-arrest rates, and serve participants through therapy, drug treatment services, and encouraging abstinence. Veteran treatment courts address the needs of veterans returning from combat operations to non-combat duties. Counselors working with veteran treatment courts address issues that include post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use, military sexual trauma, major depression, neuropsychological deficiencies, as well as homelessness and unemployment issues. Mental health courts address a wide variety of conditions, and counselors have a great degree of treatment options available for participants. Counselors educate participants on the specifics of program participation, completion, and any ramifications of program failure. Clinical considerations for counselors include confidentiality concerns, program recommendations, and program advocacy. Early discussion of the limits of confidentiality leads to clients more able to give informed consent for treatment and deeper rapport with clients, and it requires greater diligence on the part of the counselor to maintain confidentiality. Counselors can advocate for participants facing sanctions or for more training for law enforcement, creating a greater effect on public safety. Counselors have a duty to educate and to advocate for the communities with which they interact. Counselors are in an ideal situation to promote better outcomes for clients through these efforts. By understanding the particulars of the populations served and the needs and limitations of the local courts, counselors can actively serve client needs in specialty courts and also provide both ethical and pragmatic examples of conduct for those considering service to these populations. Toni O. Davis is a graduate student at Troy University. Keith A. Cates, NCC, is an associate professor at Troy University. Correspondence can be addressed to Toni Davis, #368 Hawkins Hall, Troy University, Troy, AL 36082, badaxe824@yahoo.com.