Although psychopathy usually is treated as a unitary construct, a seminal theory posits that there are 2 variants: Primary psychopathy is underpinned by an inherited affective deficit, whereas secondary psychopathy reflects an acquired affective disturbance. The authors investigated whether psychopathy phenotypically may be disaggregated into such types in a sample of 367 prison inmates convicted of violent crimes. Model-based cluster analysis of the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 2003) and trait anxiety scores in the psychopathic subgroup (n = 123; PCL-R > or = 29) revealed 2 clusters. Relative to primary psychopaths, secondary psychopaths had greater trait anxiety, fewer psychopathic traits, and comparable levels of antisocial behavior. Across validation variables, secondary psychopaths manifested more borderline personality features, poorer interpersonal functioning (e.g., irritability, withdrawal, poor assertiveness), and more symptoms of major mental disorder than primary psychopaths. When compared with the nonpsychopathic subgroup (n = 243), the 2 psychopathic variants manifested a theoretically coherent pattern of differences. Implications for etiological research and violence prevention are discussed.

Traditional measures of the therapeutic alliance do not capture the dual roles inherent in relationships with involuntary clients. Providers not only care for, but also have control over, involuntary clients. In 2 studies of probationers mandated to psychiatric treatment (n=90; n=322), the authors developed and validated the revised Dual-Role Relationships Inventory (DRI-R). The authors found that (a) relationship quality in mandated treatment involves caring and fairness, trust, and an authoritative (not authoritarian) style, (b) the DRI-R assesses these domains of relationship quality, is internally consistent, and relates in a theoretically coherent pattern with ratings of within-session behavior and with measures of the therapeutic alliance, relationship satisfaction, symptoms, and treatment motivation, and (c) the quality of dual-role relationships predicts future compliance with the rules, as assessed by probation violations and revocation. The DRI-R covaries with multiple domains more strongly than a leading measure of the therapeutic alliance, suggesting that it better captures the nature and effect of relationship quality in mandated treatment.

Many programs for offenders with mental illness (OMIs) seem to assume that serious mental illness directly causes criminal justice involvement. To help evaluate this assumption, we assessed a matched sample of 221 parolees with and without mental illness and then followed them for over 1 year to track recidivism. First, compared with their relatively healthy counterparts, OMIs were equally likely to be rearrested, but were more likely to return to prison custody. Second, beyond risk factors unique to mental illness (e.g., acute symptoms; operationalized with part of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), OMIs also had significantly more general risk factors for recidivism (e.g., antisocial pattern; operationalized with the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004) than offenders without mental illness. Third, these general risk factors significantly predicted recidivism, with no incremental utility added by risk factors unique to mental illness. Implications for broadening the policy model to explicitly target general risk factors for recidivism such as antisocial traits are discussed.

A growing body of literature indicates that specialty agencies hold promise for improving clinical and criminal outcomes for probationers and parolees with mental illness.

A large number of probationers with mental illness (PMIs) are under supervision in the United States. In this national survey, we compared the supervision approaches of a matched sample of 66 specialty mental health and 25 traditional probation agencies. The prototypic specialty agency has five key features that distinguish it from the traditional model: (a) exclusive mental health caseloads, (b) meaningfully reduced caseloads, (c) sustained officer training, (d) active integration of internal and external resources to meet PMIs'needs, and (e) problem-solving strategies as the chief means for addressing treatment noncompliance. Probation supervisors perceived these specialty features as "very useful" and perceived specialty agencies as more effective than traditional ones for PMIs. However, the most important feature of the prototypic specialty agency may also be the most endangered: reduced caseloads. Implications for research and practice are presented.