The current study sought to extend the knowledge about factors associated with NGRI acquittees’ maintenance of a conditional release after hospital discharge. The medical and forensic records of 125 NGRI acquittees were reviewed to collect a variety of demographic, clinical, criminal, and aftercare factors. A hierarchical survival analysis approach to determining success was compared to data analysis strategies typically employed in the area. Survival analysis, which accounts for both conditional release success status and time on conditional release, revealed that minority status, substance abuse diagnosis, and a prior criminal history were the factors that significantly predicted conditional release revocation. Treatment and policy implications of these results are discussed.

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 2001-2010 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial, referred to in this article as adjudicative competence. The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) systemic issues, (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations, (iii) AC assessment methods, (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities, (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports, (vi) interpretive issues, (vii) special populations (defendants who are elderly, defendants with intellectual disabilities), (viii) AC evaluations of juveniles, and (ix) treatment of incompetent defendants. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.

This article reviews and evaluates publications during 1996-2000 with relevance for assessments of competence to stand trial (also known as adjudicative competence). The review focuses specifically on articles that provide new concepts or data supported by research or case analyses. The studies are reviewed under the following headings: (i) the systemic context of evaluations of adjudicative competence (AC); (ii) conceptual guidelines for AC evaluations; (iii) research on AC assessment methods; (iv) empirical correlates of AC judgments and psycholegal abilities; (v) quality of AC evaluations and reports; (vi) interpretation of AC evaluation data; (vii) issues in AC assessment of special populations (e.g., juveniles, persons with mental retardation, and women); and (viii) treatment to restore competence. Suggestions are offered for further research to advance the quality of clinical evaluations of adjudicative competence.

No abstract