Recidivism of disordered offenders who were conditionally vs. unconditionally released

Abstract

Postinstitutional arrests and state hospitalizations of 191 patients placed on conditional release (CONREP group) were compared to those of 44 patients released &om the same califorpia state hospital with no aftercare due to expiration of commiment terms (MAXOUT group). The two groups were not randomly determined but were comparable in demographic characteristics and rates of preprogram arrest. The CONREP group had a significantly lower community-period arrest rate than did the MAX-OUT group (p < .001). Survival rate analyses, using time until arrest and time until revocation as dependent variables, suggested that revocations during the first 240 days of community re-entry reduced the potential arrest rate within the CONREP group. Results were discussed in terms of the " * ' lization hypothesis" as well as the crime-preventive possibilities of the conditional release mechanism.As Bloom, Williams, and Sigelow (1 99 1) recently pointed out, the power to revoke forensic mental health clients h m community settings to hospitals is a key public safety feature of conditional release programs. In California, clients of the statewide Conditional Release Program (CONREP), a system of structured aftercare established by the state legislature (CA Assembly Bill 2390, 1985), can be returned to a state hospital if they do not comply with an extensive list of outpatient treament conditions. These include attendance at weekly individual therapy, weekly group therapy, weekly urine drug tests, and taking prescribed medications. In the same legislation establishing CONREP was a requirement that the Department of Mental Health research this program's effectiveness in minimizing client reoffense.Given the assignment to design this research, the author reviewed the literature and found no study in which the criminal recidivism of "revoke-able" forensic mental health clients was compared to that of a randomly assigned control group of "not revoke-able" persons. Rather, the literature contained usefid but primarily descriptive information about recent conditional release programs, their clients, and recidivism I rhank John Monahan for providing helpful reactions to an earlier version of this paper. Address reprint requests to Mark Wiederanders, Ph.D Depamnent of Mental Health,

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.…”

“…However, regimens of treatment and supervision are seldom reported or quantified, and studies of the effectiveness of conditional release programs are difficult to compare (Wiederanders et al, 1997). Although there has been past research confirming that postrelease supervision and community treatment can reduce recidivism (e.g., Wiederanders, 1992), a systematic review shows that little empirical evidence exists to conclude that long term supervision remains effective (van Gestel, van der Knaap, & Hendriks, 2006). In addition, studies have shown that recidivism can be reduced by implementing (forensic) ambulatory care after release (i.e., Home Office restrictions requiring patients to accept supervision and treatment following discharge: Coid, Hickey, Kahtan, Zhang, & Yang, 2007; specialised forensic outpatient clinics: SchmidtQuernheim & Seifert, 2014).…”

Criminal Justice Outcomes of Those Appearing before the Mental Health Tribunal: A Record Linkage Study

“…This broad range highlights the difficulties in comparing studies with different follow-up periods, from different time periods and jurisdictions, which can have quite different legalisation, mental health, and criminal justice systems. The importance of such factors is illustrated in the research that reported that higher conditional leave revocation rates were associated with lower reoffending rates and vice versa (Parker, 2004;Wiederanders, 1992). According to this view, revocation acts as a preventative measure before reoffending can occur.…”

From the psychiatric hospital to the community: integrating conditional release and contingency management

“…Another empirical study concluded that individuals who received an outpatient commitment showed fewer rehospitalizations compared to patients who were discharged without an outpatient commitment (Munetz, Grande, Kleist, & Peterson, 1995). Widerlanders (1992) also found that conditional release contributed to a decrease of recidivism and violent behavior in forensic patients (see also McGreevy, Steadman, Dvoskin, & Dollard, 1991). Other efforts to employ IOC at discharge have shown success, as well (for a review, see Hiday, 1996).…”