States continue to rely on conditional release (CR) as an effective and cost-effective way to manage individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Research has demonstrated that insanity acquittees returning to the community have low recidivism rates and moderately low revocation rates. This study followed 238 individuals found NGRI in Oregon who were evaluated with the Historical, Clinical, Risk-20 (HCR-20; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997) and placed in the community on CR. The majority of individuals on CR (n = 157, 66%) maintained their release throughout the entire follow-up period (between 4 and 9 years), but 81 (33.6%) had their release revoked during the follow up. In considering the efficacy of violence risk assessment in predicting CR outcome with NGRI acquittees, the HCR-20 was mostly unrelated to CR outcome. Only two items from the HCR-20, both from the Risk Management scale (exposure to destabilizers and stress) predicted revocation, but not imminence to CR revocation. This paper reconsiders how risk assessments are utilized with insanity acquittees and provides a roadmap for improving risk assessments with this unique population by relying on risk assessment results to plan effective interventions to reduce the likelihood of revocation and violence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014, there was a large population (N = 200) of insanity acquittees placed on conditional release (CR) in the state of Oregon. This article looks at the demographic and system characteristics of this large group of individuals. The authors then focus on the initial housing placement and what happens to individuals after their release in relation to their housing placement. In Oregon, insanity acquittees are either conditionally released directly by the court or placed in the hospital prior to potential CR by a supervising board. In general, once CR occurs, individuals tend to stay in their initial placement without moving to less structured levels of care, raising concerns about transinstitutionalization. This is especially true for individuals released to the most structured living arrangement (secure residential treatment facility). Those individuals who are conditionally released to less structured settings have a higher rate of revocation back to the hospital. Those individuals who do move to less structured levels of care usually have longer hospital stays and start off in more structured levels of care to start their CR. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article describes the State of Oregon's implementation of two programs designed to comply with federal gun laws regarding reporting individuals who have received mental health adjudications in criminal and civil courts. One mandate requires that states submit names of adjudicated individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) while the second requires that the state establish a qualifying gun restoration program for those disqualified from gun ownership. In 2009, Oregon's Legislature developed an administrative approach to gun restoration and assigned the responsibility for conducting these hearing to the Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB). The PSRB is a state administrative board that has existed since 1977 and has been primarily focused on the supervision and treatment of adult and juvenile insanity acquittees. The gun restoration program began in 2010, but to date has only received three completed petitions requesting restoration of firearm rights. The article concludes with a discussion that surmises why very few of the Oregonians who are listed in NICS have submitted petitions for relief.