LANSING, Mich. — Judge Richard L. Hillman of the 55th District Court in Ingham County told the House Oversight Subcommittee on Public Health and Food Security on May 13 that the county’s mental health court provides a voluntary, court-supervised treatment alternative for people with serious mental illness who are charged with crimes.

Hillman described the court’s team-based model, the program’s funding, its participant limits and the population it serves, and he explained how the court coordinates with community mental health, probation, public defenders and peer-support specialists.

Why it matters: The judge’s testimony gave legislators a detailed picture of how a local specialty court operates as an alternative to incarceration for many people with serious mental illness, and how the court’s success depends on availability of community services, medication and residential supports.

Richard L. Hillman, presiding judge and mental health court judge for the 55th District Court, said the local district court mental health court was founded in 2013 and predates state legislation enacted the same year. He said the program serves both misdemeanor and felony cases under a concurrent jurisdiction plan, and covers the 55th district and neighboring counties that lack their own mental health courts.

Program structure and funding: Hillman said the Ingham County mental health court uses a staged, rehabilitation-focused probation model and has a maximum capacity of 60 participants. He testified that the court receives approximately $500,000 annually from the State Court Administrator’s Office; that funding pays four full-time staff positions including a master’s-level mental health therapist, a client services specialist, a peer-support specialist and a mental health probation officer; and that the program covers some participant costs such as medication support, substance-abuse testing, bus passes and modest incentives.

Outcomes and population: Hillman reported a program-level graduation rate of about 62 percent (as presented to the committee) and cited measures the court tracks at discharge: employment improvements (from 43 percent unemployed at admission to 24 percent at discharge, a relative employment improvement cited in testimony), medication compliance (87 percent at discharge) and participant-reported measures of improved mental health and quality of life. He cautioned the court’s aim is management and recovery rather than cure.

Scope and limits: Hillman said the court’s program is voluntary and that some people are not appropriate for participation — notably violent repeat offenders who must be incarcerated for public safety. He said when participants require residential substance-use treatment the court will suspend jail time and place individuals in residential programs; he described frequent referrals for residential treatment for people with methamphetamine and fentanyl exposure and said multiple rounds of residential care are common.

Role of peer specialists: Hillman emphasized the role of peer recovery coaches and peer-support specialists who have lived experience; he described them as valuable for accountability and for helping participants navigate benefits, transportation, housing applications and other practical needs.

Questions from legislators touched on program capacity, case mix since Hillman became presiding judge in 2020, the effect of remote appearances via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic and the court’s use of incentives. Hillman stated participation levels have been similar to pre-pandemic levels but that Zoom has made it easier for some participants to attend.

Hillman concluded by urging the committee to consider the limits of courts alone to address mental health needs and by offering to provide additional information to lawmakers.

Provenance: The judge’s testimony and participants’ written testimonials were presented at the May 13 committee hearing; committee members asked follow-up questions. No legislative action on the mental health court itself was taken at this meeting.