Alberta not criminally responsible project: Rates of persons found NCRMD and absolute discharges in Alberta following the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

Haag, Andrew M.; Wonsiak, Katelyn; Dunford, David Tyler

doi:10.35502/jcswb.207

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Olver and Sewall (2018) found that a measure of sexual violence risk incremented VRAG-R predictions, and that logistic regression could be used to model recidivism estimates incorporating treatment change information. This study findings also support the assertion of Canadian researchers elsewhere (Goossens et al, 2019;Grantham, 2014;Charette et al, 2015;Haag et al, 2021;Lacroix et al, 2017) that there is very little evidence that supports the idea that legislation change was needed to protect public safety (i.e., , given the lower levels of risk than general correctional samples and low rates of recidivism.…”

Section: Implications For Research and Practicesupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In response to increasing public pressure to ensure public safety and mental health, in 2014, Bill C-14, The Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act officially came into effect and made several amendments to the existing legislation, the most significant being the creation of a “high-risk accused” designation ( Bill C-14, 2014 ). There is skepticism over whether there is evidence to support the creation of the high-risk accused designation ( Goossens et al, 2019 ; Grantham, 2014 ; Haag et al, 2021 ; Lacroix et al, 2017 ). For instance, Goossens et al (2019) found the high-risk accused designation to be more closely linked to index offense severity as opposed to public safety risk.…”

Section: The Insanity Defense In Canada: Background and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discrimination and Calibration Properties of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised in a Not Criminally Responsible Provincial Population

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the discrimination and calibration properties of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised (VRAG-R) within a large subset of the population of 574 individuals who had been found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) in Alberta. The VRAG-R was scored on all individuals identified via The Alberta NCR Project database from every file that contained sufficient relevant information and recidivism data were obtained via official criminal records. The VRAG-R demonstrated strong discrimination properties for general and violent recidivism over 5-year, 10-year, and global follow-ups. Calibration analyses, however, indicated that the VRAG-R substantially over estimated violence risk and that there was poor agreement between expected and observed recidivism rates for this population. When examined in the male subsample, these issues remained but to a lesser degree; examination of VRAG-R discrimination and calibration for females was not possible due to a lack of recidivists. Results indicated strong discrimination but poor calibration properties of the VRAG-R in this NCRMD population. Overall, the results support the use of the VRAG-R within a population of persons found NCRMD when employed in tandem with other measures as part of a comprehensive psychological risk assessment.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Research and Practicesupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: The Insanity Defense In Canada: Background and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrimination and Calibration Properties of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised in a Not Criminally Responsible Provincial Population

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most hearings took place prior to legislation that permitted more restrictive detention for individuals determined to be a “high‐risk accused” (Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, 2014), so review board decisions might have changed since our data were collected. However, there is evidence that individuals meeting the high risk designation criteria were already being managed very conservatively (e.g., Goossens et al., 2019) and that the new designation has neither resulted in substantial changes to decision‐making nor significantly increased the duration of detention (e.g., Haag et al., 2021). During the COVID‐19 pandemic, review boards conducted hearings online but followed their normal mandate (e.g., Schneider, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of changes in clinical factors on high‐security forensic custody dispositions

Hilton

Ham

Kim

2022

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The demand for forensic psychiatric beds is increasing, while many individuals are "stuck" in the system. Index offense severity and other legal considerations are associated with longer forensic stays but factors amenable to change such as symptoms of mental illness and aggression may also influence forensic decisions. We examined forensic review board decisions over time among 89 men admitted to a high-security forensic hospital. Almost half received a disposition to remain at their first hearing. Overall, dispositions were not associated with violence risk. The odds of a disposition to remain were higher for men with more in-hospital assaults and higher scores on a measure of clinical factors. Dispositions changed over time and this change was sensitive to clinical factors. We conclude that decisions were consistent with a cascading system of loosening security over time. Further longitudinal research following large samples through the forensic system is recommended.

show abstract

“…The demographic and clinical characteristics of the sample were comparable to other Canadian NCR samples (Crocker, Nicholls, Seto, Charette, et al, 2015) and reported in Table 1. The study sample did not include any HRA individuals as the designation has not been used in Alberta since its inception in 2014 (Haag et al, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a shift away from social rehabilitation in 2014, Bill C-14 attempted to (a) increase the emphasis on public safety needs behind dispositions, (b) increase the rights and involvement of victims, and (c) create a high-risk accused (HRA) designation to restrict transitions through the forensic system (Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, 2014). Studies suggest that Bill C-14 has delayed social rehabilitation without benefit to public safety (Goossens et al, 2019; Grantham, 2014; Haag et al, 2021).…”

Section: Legislative Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Cheng¹,

Olver²,

Haag³

et al. 2023

Psychological Services

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Canada, individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) fall under the supervision of a jurisdictional review board (RB) per the Criminal Code. Limited research has examined whether RB decisions balance the needs of public safety with social reintegration as intended by federal legislation. To fill this gap, the present study determined whether forensic decisional outcomes in one provincial RB system accounted for information relevant to violence risk. Study instruments included the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 Version 3, and the Revised Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. A retrospective longitudinal design was employed to examine an NCR cohort (N = 109) that entered the RB system between 2005 and 2010 and their respective RB hearings (N = 327) until 2015. Results indicated that risk-relevant information was supplied to the RB by forensic professionals; however, key criminogenic risk and need factors as defined by the LS/CMI were absent in clinical reports. RB decisions were still strongly predicted by empirically supported risk factors linked to violent recidivism. Higher release likelihoods corresponded to a proportionally greater reliance on dynamic risk factors to enact dispositions. Forensic risk instruments are central aspects of correctional rehabilitation, and the results demonstrated their relevance to forensic tribunals. It is recommended that information from a forensic risk instrument be routinely delivered to RBs to support evidence-based decision-making. Impact StatementReview boards are required by the Canadian Criminal Code to balance public safety needs with the social rehabilitation of supervised forensic patients. Despite being supplied with an incomplete profile of risk and need information by forensic professionals, decision-making outcomes were still predicted by risk factors linked to violent reoffending. Forensic risk instruments provide information relevant to violence risk and can assist with evidence-based decision-making in forensic psychiatric settings.

show abstract

Alberta not criminally responsible project: Rates of persons found NCRMD and absolute discharges in Alberta following the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

Cited by 3 publications

References 7 publications

Discrimination and Calibration Properties of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised in a Not Criminally Responsible Provincial Population

Discrimination and Calibration Properties of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised in a Not Criminally Responsible Provincial Population

The influence of changes in clinical factors on high‐security forensic custody dispositions

Static and dynamic predictors of forensic mental health decision-making.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About