Competency-related services are rising at an unprecedented rate in the United States. Many states are in the midst of lawsuits and legal maneuvering to deal with long wait lists for defendants awaiting competency evaluations and admission to competency restoration services. As a result, many solutions have been proffered and implemented. However, solutions vary in their adherence to existing empirical research and applied experience. Forensic mental health professionals are uniquely qualified to shape the evolution of competency-related services into a humane and effective system. Promising policy implications can be rooted in emerging knowledge about the timing of competency evaluations, certification of evaluators, alternatives to inpatient restoration, and changes to evaluations and the associated reports. However, forensic professionals have typically given minimal attention to these issues, instead giving more focus to narrower issues of optimizing competency evaluations and restoration procedures. In so doing, forensic professionals are at risk of abdicating their expertise regarding competency-related services to other professions, as well as compromising their ethical commitments of beneficence and nonmaleficence in regard to incompetent defendants.

Despite many studies that examine the reliability of competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations, few shed light on "field reliability," or agreement among forensic evaluators in routine practice. We reviewed 216 cases from Hawaii, which requires three separate evaluations from independent clinicians for each felony defendant referred for CST evaluation. Results revealed moderate agreement. In 71% of initial CST evaluations, all evaluators agreed about a defendant's competence or incompetence (kappa = .65). Agreement was somewhat lower (61%, kappa = .57) in re-evaluations of defendants who were originally found incompetent and sent for restoration services. We also examined the decisions judges made about a defendant's CST. When evaluators disagreed, judges tended to make decisions consistent with the majority opinion. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they more often did so to find a defendant incompetent than competent, suggesting a generally conservative approach. Overall, results reveal moderate agreement among independent evaluators in routine practice. But we discuss the potential for standardized training and methodology to further improve the field reliability of CST evaluations.

When different clinicians evaluate the same criminal defendant's legal sanity, do they reach the same conclusion? Because Hawaii law requires multiple, independent evaluations when questions about legal sanity arise, Hawaii allows for the first contemporary study of the reliability of legal sanity opinions in routine practice in the United States. We examined 483 evaluation reports, addressing 165 criminal defendants, in which up to three forensic psychiatrists or psychologists offered independent opinions on a defendant's legal sanity. Evaluators reached unanimous agreement regarding legal sanity in only 55.1% of cases. Evaluators tended to disagree more often when a defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. But evaluators tended to agree more often when they agreed about diagnosing a psychotic disorder, or when the defendant had been psychiatrically hospitalized shortly before the offense. In court, judges followed the majority opinion among evaluators in 91% of cases. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they usually did so to find defendants legally sane, rather than insane. Overall, this study indicates that reliability among practicing forensic evaluators addressing legal sanity may be poorer than the field has tended to assume. Although agreement appears more likely in some cases than others, the frequent disagreements suggest a need for improved training and practice.

In response to consistently increasing numbers of individuals found incompetent to stand trial, some states have identified community-based or "outpatient" competency restoration programs (OCRPs) as a viable alternative to inpatient restoration. This study used a multistep approach to capture information about OCRPs nationwide. We reviewed states' competency statutes to determine which states have provisions that allow for outpatient competency restoration, and we then corroborated this review with a brief preliminary survey that was disseminated to each representative of the Forensic Division of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. We received responses from 48 of 51 U.S. jurisdictions (47 states and the District of Columbia). We conducted in-depth interviews with forensic representatives in those 16 states that identified having operational OCRPS. The current study presents our analysis of state statutes and then compares and contrasts current OCRPs. In summary, OCRPs are a recent but rapidly developing alternative to traditional inpatient restoration. Through a comparison of existing OCRPs, we believe OCRPs show preliminary but promising outcomes in terms of high restoration rates, low program failure rates, and substantial cost savings.

No abstract

A large number of individuals are acquitted of criminal charges after being found "not guilty by reason of insanity." Most of these individuals are hospitalized and later seek hospital discharge under a court-ordered provision called conditional release ("CR"). Courts rely on opinions from forensic evaluators to determine acquittees' readiness for CR. However, how evaluators make these decisions are unknown. Eighty-nine CR readiness evaluators from nine states were surveyed to understand which factors evaluators prioritize and to understand evaluators' assessment methodologies and their beliefs about the CR process itself. Little uniformity was found among evaluators on any aspect of the decision-making process. Evaluators utilized a wide variety of methodologies when making their decisions on readiness for CR. Moreover, evaluators' conceptualizations of the CR process itself varied widely. The results highlight the difficulty and confusion evaluators face when conducting CR readiness evaluations, and demonstrate the need for enhanced training, statutory guidance, and standardized evaluation protocols for these evaluations.

No abstract

No abstract