Evaluating conditional release in not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees: A prospective follow-up study in Virginia.

Abstract

Detailed research on treatment and risk management approaches with not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees (NGRI) during their conditional release is needed as states increasingly use community-based services for these individuals. Grounded in case law, and supported by follow-up studies demonstrating low recidivism rates, states have been encouraged in their efforts to conditionally release NGRI acquittees. The authors evaluated a state-wide sample of 127 NGRI acquittees released into the community after spending a mean of 61.63 months (SD = 76.54) in the hospital. One hundred individuals were committed to the hospital for lengthier treatment (M hospital time = 77.23 months, SD = 79.84), but 27 individuals were released to the community after a relatively short hospital stay (M hospital time = 5.60 months, SD = 3.01). Regarding release, 96 individuals (75.6%) maintained their conditional release. After evaluating a host of demographic and standardized risk data, the following variables predicted revocation on conditional release: previous failure on conditional release, nonadherence with hospital treatment, dangerousness to others, and previous violent charges. A multivariate survival analysis determined criminal behavior and previous failure on conditional release predicted time to revocation. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of considering standardized risk variables in the community-based management of forensic patients. In addition, the data are supportive of continued attempts at moving insanity acquittees from the hospital to the community via conditional release.

Reconviction and revocation rates in Flanders after medium security treatment

“…Therefore, in NGRI populations, typically two outcome metrics related to "failure" are being used: the acquisition of new criminal charges and/or conditional release revocation due to criminal acts or rule violations. Literature demonstrates that revocations for rule violations are higher than revocations for acquisition of new criminal charges (Vitacco, Vauter, Erickson, & Ragatz, 2014;Wiederanders, 1992). Revocation rates of rule violations range from 5% to 49% (Bertman-Pate et al, 2004;Callahan & Silver, 1998;Green et al, 2014;Manguno-Mire, Coffman, DeLand, Thompson, & Myers, 2014;Vitacco et al, 2008;Vitacco et al, 2014;Wiederanders, Bromley, & Choate, 1997) over different follow-up periods ranging from 1.7 to 5.1 years.…”

A mixed-methods study exploring the characteristics and needs of long-stay patients in high and medium secure settings in England: implications for service organisation

“…12,26,28,29,33,34,37,[39][40][41][42]57,74, Eleven countries were represented: the UK (n = 22 12,26,28,29,33,34,37,39-42,77-80, 82,84,86,87,89,92,97 ), the USA (n = 4 90,94,96,99 ), Ireland (n = 2 81,98 ), Germany [n = 2 93 (one of which was personal communication: Dönisch-Seidel, Ministerium für Gesundheit, Emanzipation, Pflege und Alter des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2013)], Croatia (n = 2 57,88 ), Australia (n = 1 85 ), Malaysia (n = 1 83 ), New Zealand (n = 1 95 ), Norway (n = 1 91 ), the Netherlands (n = 1 74 ) and Sweden (n = 1 76 ). The studies from the UK had samples drawn from high secure (n = 5 29,33,78,84,89 ), medium secure (n = 14 26,37,[39][40][41][42]77,79,80,82,86,87,92,97 ) and mixed secure (n = 3 12,28,34 ) settings.…”

“…In contrast, a much shorter threshold of 45 days was used by Vitacco et al 99 to differentiate short-term from longer-term care in North America, although the authors note that this figure was chosen to align with the standard 45-day period used in forensic services in North America for initial inpatient assessment and that most individuals (approximately 75%) are committed for lengthier inpatient treatment.…”

What Factors Are Related to Success on Conditional Release/Discharge? Findings from the New Orleans Forensic Aftercare Clinic: 2002‐2013

“…The majority of the empirical research on conditional release programs has considered whether individuals on conditional release are able to be maintained in the community safely and successfully. Research demonstrates that conditional release programs are effective on key variables, such as reducing recidivism, minimizing arrests and revocations (Bloom, Williams, & Bigelow, 1991, 1992; Vitacco et al ., 2013; Wiederanders, 1992; Wilson, Tien, & Eaves, 1995). Early studies demonstrated the success of conditional release programs (i.e., arrest on new charges and revocation), although revocation rates among not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) acquittees across studies tended to hover between 35% and 49% (Callahan & Silver, 1998).…”