At least one jurisdiction has established a dispositional alternative for people charged with serious offenses. 

Key to the success of individuals with mental illness who are diverted from jail or prison under the Nathaniel Project is their linkage to both temporary and long-term housing.   The Nathaniel Project has developed relationships with housing providers to ensure that their clients will have shelter upon their release. Housing stabilizes the individual's life and enables the case manager to strengthen his or her relationship with the person with mental illness.  Housing for individuals with mental illness should be integrated with support services including mental health, substance abuse, employment, and others. 

Intensive case management is crucial in helping clients locate and flourish in supportive housing.  Even when housing and services are integrated in a supportive model, many clients may need assistance in availing themselves of those services.  A dedicated case manager, with small enough caseloads to devote significant energy to each client, is integral to making supportive housing, and diversion in general, a success.

The mental health courts that have been initiated in some jurisdictions often use dispositional alternatives.  These courts focus specifically on cases involving defendants with mental illness, usually targeting only those charged with minor offenses.  In some, the charges are dismissed upon successful completion of the program.  In others, the defendant is required to plead guilty as a condition of participation but receives consideration at sentencing if the program is successfully completed.   

Mental health courts vary greatly in the procedures that they employ, making it difficult to define "mental health court" or to present a mental health court model.  It has been noted that "[a]ny similarities among current mental health courts occur more or less by chance at the implementation level and stem mostly from mirror-imaging by new jurisdictions seeking to replicate recently visited mental health courts or to duplicate drug courts." ^[1]     Some have argued against several elements of specialized mental health courts, including requiring the defendant to plead guilty first as a condition of participation, and requiring the defendant to spend a significant period of time under court supervision for a charge that might otherwise bring a very short sentence. ^[2]    Others have argued that mental health courts can be defined as "almost any effort by the courts to better address the needs of persons with serious mental illness who engage with the criminal justice system." ^[3]  

Using that definition, the policy statements and recommendations presented in this document represent a model that does not necessarily require a specialized court and does not limit the population of those allowed to participate.  Rather, the model envisions an integration of efforts into existing court practices to balance the needs of people with mental illness who are charged with a criminal offense with the needs of the courts to process the criminal case.  If jurisdictions choose, however, to implement specialized mental health courts, then all parties, including the judge, prosecution, and defense, should receive training on available treatment resources and on how to choose which program or service is appropriate for each defendant.  Furthermore, it is important that courts work closely with the relevant mental health professionals to ensure that treatment plans developed in the court are successfully fulfilled (see Policy Statement 29: Training for Court Personnel.)