Freedom in paradise: Quality of conditional release reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary

Nguyen, Annie H.; Acklin, Marvin W.; Fuger, Kristen; Gowensmith, W. Neil; Ignacio, Lawrie A.

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.08.006

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, it should not be surprising that conditional release evaluations are frequently judged to be of poor quality. Nguyen et al () evaluated 150 conditional release reports, finding poor quality and lack of adequate recommendations. Likewise, in a study in Virginia, Stredny, Parker, and Dibble () found poor reliability and validity in reports on release recommendations for insanity acquittees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Projecting Risk: The Importance of the HCR‐20 Risk Management Scale in Predicting Outcomes with Forensic Patients

Vitacco

Tabernik

Zavodny³

et al. 2016

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study evaluates data from 116 forensic inpatients who underwent violent risk assessments, which included the Historical, Clinical, Risk-20 (HCR-20), from 2006 to 2013 as part of an opportunity to be conditionally discharged from state forensic facilities. Of the 116 inpatients, 58 were never released, 39 were released and returned to a hospital, and 19 were released and never returned. Results from analyses of variance and multinomial logistic regression found the risk management (R) scale of the HCR-20 successfully predicted group membership in that higher scores were associated with a greater likelihood of not being released from a forensic facility or returning to a forensic facility after release. The results of this study indicate that clinicians should consider community-based risk variables when evaluating forensic patients for potential return to the community. This research demonstrates that clinicians failing to fully consider dynamic risk factors associated with community integration jeopardize the quality and thoroughness of their violence risk assessment with regards to readiness for release. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Projecting Risk: The Importance of the HCR‐20 Risk Management Scale in Predicting Outcomes with Forensic Patients

Vitacco

Tabernik

Zavodny³

et al. 2016

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some instances, the disagreement between or among experts from both different and similar professional circles could, in part, be due to the knowledge and awareness about the quality of forensic mental health evaluations. Indeed, it is widely asserted that forensic evaluations are fraught with substantial limitations, including incomplete information, missing data, and failure to link clinical opinion to the psycholegal issue (Fuger, Acklin, Nguyen, Ignacio, & Gowensmith, 2014;Gowensmith, Murrie, & Boccaccini, 2013;Nguyen, Acklin, Fuger, Gowensmith, & Ignacio, 2011). Some scholars have termed forensic evaluations produced for the courts as "mediocre" to reflect the ubiquity and the alarming rate of the problem (e.g., see Fuger et al, 2014).…”

Section: Abstract Forensic Assessment Forensic Mental Health Evaluatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic Assessment via Videoconferencing: Issues and Practice Considerations

Adjorlolo

Chan

2015

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, multiple studies have found that evaluators routinely prioritize non‐empirically validated factors when making release decisions on psychiatrically hospitalized patients (however, no distinction has been made between insanity acquittees and civilly committed patients in these studies) (Elbogen, Mercado, Scalora, & Tomkins, ; Odeh, Zeiss, & Huss, ). Finally, researchers categorized the overall evaluation report quality in a sample of CR readiness evaluators in Hawaii as “poor” (Nguyen et al, ). The study found that less than 9% of evaluators used forensic assessment instruments in their CR readiness evaluations, and that less than 50% of evaluators outlined a relationship between the acquittee's mental health symptoms and their associated risks for violence or recidivism upon release on CR.…”

Section: What Influences Conditional Release Decisions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision‐Making in Post‐acquittal Hospital Release: How Do Forensic Evaluators Make Their Decisions?

Gowensmith

Bryant

Vitacco

2014

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Freedom in paradise: Quality of conditional release reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary

Cited by 18 publications

References 36 publications

Projecting Risk: The Importance of the HCR‐20 Risk Management Scale in Predicting Outcomes with Forensic Patients

Projecting Risk: The Importance of the HCR‐20 Risk Management Scale in Predicting Outcomes with Forensic Patients

Forensic Assessment via Videoconferencing: Issues and Practice Considerations

Decision‐Making in Post‐acquittal Hospital Release: How Do Forensic Evaluators Make Their Decisions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About