In an attempt to fix the problem of an abundance of individuals with mental health issues in the criminal justice system, mental health courts have begun to develop as the newest form of problem-solving court. These courts aim to keep individuals with easily treatable mental health issues out of prison and connect them with the treatment that they need. This paper is a literature review examining the development and implementation of mental health courts across the United States. The paper first explains the essential elements to a mental health court and how they function. The main claim addressed is that: through the institution of statewide standards as well as the blanket adoption and regular measurement of national performance measures in each accredited mental health court, the large-scale and longitudinal study of mental health courts will become more practical. When these types of studies become more prevalent, the most effective practices of mental health courts will be identified and innovation will follow. The paper develops this claim by explaining the state and national regulations currently in place and the importance of standardization. It then moves into the national performance measures that should then be examined by courts once state standards are in place. The paper then explains the importance of longitudinal study to the proper collection of the significant data needed to solidify the institution of successful mental health courts. By identifying the most effective practices in mental health courts and standardizing them, this system will be able to: better help the individuals involved get appropriate treatment, promote public safety, and more effectively use taxpayer money.