Evaluations of competence to stand trial are evolving amid a national "competency crisis".

Across the United States, court orders for competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations and competence restoration services have been increasing much more rapidly than states can provide these services, prompting what has been called a national "competency crisis." The challenge in providing timely competence restoration services has, in several jurisdictions, prompted a change in competence evaluations. Evaluators are more often required to address broader clinical issues-such as recommending placement or addressing the urgency of hospitalization-rather than addressing only CST. This marks an evolving practice in forensic evaluation, which moves evaluators beyond the very narrow forensic question of competence and into more traditionally clinical recommendations. We describe several state examples of changing practice in order to highlight the initial barriers, and potential benefits, to addressing additional clinical issues in competence evaluations, amid a national competence crisis.

Tipping the scales of justice: the role of forensic evaluations in the criminalization of mental illness.

An unprecedented number of individuals with mental illness are represented in the criminal justice system. The unending growth of mentally ill populations in the justice system has led to jails and court dockets being increasingly overwhelmed with cases involving mental illness, state hospitals devoting far more beds and resources to forensic cases, and people without a criminal commitment left waiting for mental health services as forensic cases are prioritized. Although a forensic mental health evaluation is only one component of this larger system, common problems with forensic mental health evaluations can exacerbate the criminalization of persons with mental illness in many ways. This article reviews the current literature regarding issues of quality, reliability, and validity of forensic mental health evaluations, discusses the broader impact of these issues, and offers potential solutions for the field.

Diagnostic field reliability in forensic mental health evaluations.

How likely are multiple forensic evaluators to agree on defendants' diagnoses in routine forensic mental health evaluations? A total of 720 evaluation reports were examined from 240 cases in which 3 evaluators, working independently, provided diagnoses for the same defendant. Results revealed perfect agreement across 6 independent diagnostic categories in 18.3% of cases. Agreement for individual diagnostic categories was higher, with all 3 evaluators agreeing on the separate presence of psychotic, mood, or substance disorders in more than 64.7% of cases and agreeing on the presence of cognitive or developmental disorders in more than 89.7% of cases. However, evaluators agreed about the combination of psychotic and substance-related diagnoses in only 46.5% of cases. Agreement was enhanced by diagnoses with low base rates, and it was suppressed in evaluations conducted in jails. Psychiatrists and contracted evaluators were more likely to provide dissenting diagnostic categories than psychologists and state-employed evaluators. These results are among the first to document diagnostic agreement among nonpartisan practitioners in forensic evaluations conducted in the field, and they allow for practice and policy recommendations for evaluators in routine forensic practice to be made. (PsycINFO Database Record

Field reliability influences field validity: Risk assessments of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Individuals acquitted as not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) are usually committed to psychiatric hospitals for treatment until they are considered suitable for conditional release back to the community. The clinical evaluations that inform conditional release decisions have rarely been studied but provide an ideal opportunity to examine the reliability and validity of complex evaluations in the field. For example, to what extent do forensic evaluators agree about an acquittee's readiness for conditional release? And how accurate are their opinions? We reviewed 175 evaluation reports across 62 cases from Hawaii, which requires 3 separate evaluations from independent clinicians for each felony NGRI acquittee referred for conditional release evaluation. Evaluators agreed about an NGRI acquittee's readiness for conditional release in only 53.2% of evaluations (κ = .35). Courts followed the majority evaluator opinion in 79.3% of all cases but ruled in an opposite direction from the majority evaluator opinion in more than a third of cases in which evaluators disagreed. Evaluators accurately differentiated those conditionally released acquittees who remained in the community from those who were rehospitalized in 62.4% of cases. Among the 43 insanity acquittees who were ultimately released, evaluator agreement was significantly associated with rehospitalization within 3 years. When the evaluators unanimously agreed that conditional release was appropriate, only 34.5% were rehospitalized. When the evaluators disagreed, 71.4% were rehospitalized. Overall, results reveal poor agreement among independent evaluators in routine practice but suggest that opinions may be more accurate when evaluators agree than when they disagree. (PsycINFO Database Record

New Frontiers for Conditional Release: Applying Lessons Learned from Other Offenders with Mental Illness.

There is relatively little research in the literature on insanity acquittees as compared with the large number of studies focused on the supervision and treatment of probationers and parolees with mental illness. Ideally, the latter literature could be successfully applied to insanity acquittees discharged from an inpatient hospital on "conditional release." This article describes the challenges faced by persons on conditional release as well as the gaps in extant conditional release literature. Then, five evidence-based models for the supervision and/or treatment of probationers and parolees with mental illness are applied to a theoretical conditionally released population (mental health courts, forensic assertive community treatment teams, the risk-need-responsivity model, informed supervision practices, and HOPE probation). Benefits and limitations are noted, and recommendations for such crossover are given. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decision-making in post-acquittal hospital release: how do forensic evaluators make their decisions?

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.

Quality of criminal responsibility reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary.

This paper is the third in a series of research reports on quality of forensic mental health evaluations submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. Previous studies examined quality of reports assessing competency to stand trial (CST) and post-acquittal conditional release, in felony defendants undergoing court-ordered examinations. Utilizing a 44-item quality coding instrument, this study examined quality of criminal responsibility reports in a sample of 150 forensic mental health evaluations conducted between 2006 and 2010 by court-appointed panels. Raters attained high levels of agreement in training and quality coding. Similar to the previous studies, overall quality of reports was mediocre, falling below the .80 quality criterion score for report elements, regardless of evaluator professional identification or employment status. Level of agreement between evaluators and judicial sanity determinations was "fair" using Cicchetti's (1994) standards for interpretation of intra-class correlations. Level of agreement was lower than previously published findings for CST reports and better than conditional release reports. Reasons for mediocre report quality and "fair" inter-rater agreement are discussed, including the fact that criminal responsibility evaluations are complex, retrospective in nature, and involve significant degrees of inference. In contrast to CST evaluations, assessment of criminal responsibility involves a mental state at the time of the offense evaluation. Threats to reliability in forensic reports are discussed. Suggestions for improvement of report quality are proffered, including standardization of procedures and report format and use of forensic assessment instruments.

How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity?

When different clinicians evaluate the same criminal defendant's legal sanity, do they reach the same conclusion? Because Hawaii law requires multiple, independent evaluations when questions about legal sanity arise, Hawaii allows for the first contemporary study of the reliability of legal sanity opinions in routine practice in the United States. We examined 483 evaluation reports, addressing 165 criminal defendants, in which up to three forensic psychiatrists or psychologists offered independent opinions on a defendant's legal sanity. Evaluators reached unanimous agreement regarding legal sanity in only 55.1% of cases. Evaluators tended to disagree more often when a defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. But evaluators tended to agree more often when they agreed about diagnosing a psychotic disorder, or when the defendant had been psychiatrically hospitalized shortly before the offense. In court, judges followed the majority opinion among evaluators in 91% of cases. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they usually did so to find defendants legally sane, rather than insane. Overall, this study indicates that reliability among practicing forensic evaluators addressing legal sanity may be poorer than the field has tended to assume. Although agreement appears more likely in some cases than others, the frequent disagreements suggest a need for improved training and practice.

Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree?

Despite many studies that examine the reliability of competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations, few shed light on "field reliability," or agreement among forensic evaluators in routine practice. We reviewed 216 cases from Hawaii, which requires three separate evaluations from independent clinicians for each felony defendant referred for CST evaluation. Results revealed moderate agreement. In 71% of initial CST evaluations, all evaluators agreed about a defendant's competence or incompetence (kappa = .65). Agreement was somewhat lower (61%, kappa = .57) in re-evaluations of defendants who were originally found incompetent and sent for restoration services. We also examined the decisions judges made about a defendant's CST. When evaluators disagreed, judges tended to make decisions consistent with the majority opinion. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they more often did so to find a defendant incompetent than competent, suggesting a generally conservative approach. Overall, results reveal moderate agreement among independent evaluators in routine practice. But we discuss the potential for standardized training and methodology to further improve the field reliability of CST evaluations.