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

Abstract

The present study investigated the empirically based factors that predicted success on conditional release among a sample of individuals conditionally discharged in Louisiana. Not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees and individuals on conditional release/discharge for incompetency to stand trial were included in the study. Success on conditional release was defined as maintenance of conditional release during the study period. Recidivism (arrest on new charges) and incidents were empirically evaluated. Success on conditional release was maintained in over 70% of individuals. Recidivism was low, with only five arrests on new charges. Success on conditional release was predicted by financial resources, not having a personality disorder, and having fewer total incidents in the program. After controlling for the influence of other variables, having an incident on conditional release was predicted by a substance use diagnosis and being released from jail. Individuals conditionally released from jail showed fewer number of days to first incident (67 vs. 575 days) compared with individuals discharged from the hospital. These data provide support for the successful management of forensic patients in the community via conditional release, although they highlight specific factors that should be considered when developing community-based release programming. Conditional release programs should consider empirical factors in the development of risk assessment and risk management approaches to improve successful maintenance of community-based forensic treatment alternatives.

Reconviction and revocation rates in Flanders after medium security treatment

“…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.…”

Methodological development of the Hoeven Outcome Monitor (HOM): A first step towards a more evidence based medicine in forensic mental health

“…The HOM meso-measurements can provide for this much needed evidence based working model to research empirically validated factors to augment our empirical understanding of CR patients as to enhance CR risk assessment and management programmes. Moreover, in line with recommendations of Manguno-Mire et al (2014) and Marshall et al (2014), the HOM model provides for the comparable patient release groups (without follow-up), that are needed to further research the effectiveness of CR. Hence, the HOM meso-measurements provide for the empirical data to enhance and validate treatment effectiveness of CR programmes, to ultimately augment the public safety.…”

“…For example, it was shown that the historical HCR-20 scale , living arrangement (Marshall et al, 2014;Novosad et al, 2014), financial resources, personality disorder, substance use disorder and number of incidents in the CR programme, were related to revocation of CR (Manguno-Mire et al, 2014). As highlighted by several scholars (Crocker et al, 2014;Gowensmith et al, 2014;Green et al, 2014;Manguno-Mire et al, 2014), more research into empirically validated CR related risk and protective factors is needed to provide the clinical and legal practice with an empirical basis to standardize the decision-making process into CR and to develop successful CR programmes. The HOM meso-measurements can provide for this much needed evidence based working model to research empirically validated factors to augment our empirical understanding of CR patients as to enhance CR risk assessment and management programmes.…”

“…This need to research different types of discharge by means of empirically supported methods to provide for a more efficient and effective treatment, is more readily stressed in a recent special issue of Behavioral Sciences and Law (32 (5), 2014) into the practices and outcomes of conditional release (CR) of criminal offenders with mental illness (Vitacco, Green & Felthous, 2014). To complement the lack of consensus in the clinical and legal practice of CR readiness risk assessment and management, these studies focused on (1) assessing risk and improving methodologies for evaluating CR readiness (Crocker, Nicholls, Charette & Seto, 2014;Douglas, 2014;Gowensmith, Bryant & Vitacco, 2014;Green et al, 2014) and (2) success and failure of CR (Manguno-Mire, Coffman, DeLand, Thompson & Myers, 2014;Marshall, Vitacco, Read & Harway, 2014;Novosad, Follansbee, Banfe & Bloom, 2014), to explore and validate empirically based CR related risk and protective factors for the development of standardized assessment protocols. Overall, these studies showed that a number of static and dynamic risk and protective factors were associated with failure and success of CR.…”

Patient Characteristics and Outcomes Related to Successful Outpatient Competency Restoration

“…It serves individuals on conditional release, including those who are on supervised probation and those who have not yet been adjudicated. Detailed information about the New Orleans FAC and defendants on conditional release has been previously described by Manguno‐Mire et al (). The FAC is the only free‐standing outpatient forensic clinic in the state of Louisiana and is located 114 miles from the maximum security forensic hospital in rural northern Louisiana.…”