Adult criminal outcomes of juvenile justice involvement.

BACKGROUND: The juvenile justice system in the USA adjudicates over seven hundred thousand youth in the USA annually with significant behavioral offenses. This study aimed to test the effect of juvenile justice involvement on adult criminal outcomes. METHODS: Analyses were based on a prospective, population-based study of 1420 children followed up to eight times during childhood (ages 9-16; 6674 observations) about juvenile justice involvement in the late 1990 and early 2000s. Participants were followed up years later to assess adult criminality, using self-report and official records. A propensity score (i.e. inverse probability) weighting approach was used that approximated an experimental design by balancing potentially confounding characteristics between children with v. without juvenile justice involvement. RESULTS: Between-groups differences on variables that elicit a juvenile justice referral (e.g. violence, property offenses, status offenses, and substance misuse) were attenuated after applying propensity-based inverse probability weights. Participants with a history of juvenile justice involvement were more likely to have later official and violent felony charges, and to self-report police contact and spending time in jail (ORs from 2.5 to 3.3). Residential juvenile justice involvement was associated with the highest risk of both, later official criminal records and self-reported criminality (ORs from 5.1 to 14.5). Sensitivity analyses suggest that our findings are likely robust to potential unobserved confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Juvenile justice involvement was associated with increased risk of adult criminality, with residential services associated with highest risk. Juvenile justice involvement may catalyze rather than deter from adult offending.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Older Adults in Six U.S. States: A Descriptive Study.

OBJECTIVES: Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) allow a court to restrict firearm access for individuals ("respondents") at imminent risk of harm to self/others. Little is known about ERPOs use for older adults, a population with higher rates of suicide and dementia. METHODS: We abstracted ERPO cases through June 30, 2020, from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Washington. We restricted our analysis to petitions for older (≥65 years) respondents, stratified by documented cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Among 6,699 ERPO petitions, 672 (10.0%) were for older adults; 13.7% (n = 92) of these noted cognitive impairment. Most were white (75.7%) men (90.2%). Cognitively impaired (vs. non-impaired) respondents were older (mean age 78.2 vs 72.7 years) and more likely to have documented irrational/erratic behavior (30.4% vs 15.7%), but less likely to have documented suicidality (33.7% vs 55.0%). At the time of the petition, 56.2% of older adult respondents had documented firearm access (median accessible firearms = 3, range 1-160). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 14% of ERPO petitions for older adults involved cognitive impairment; one-third of these noted suicide risk. Studies examining ERPO implementation across states may inform usage and awareness. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: ERPOs may reduce firearm access among older adults with cognitive impairment, suicidality, or risk of violence.

Gun violence among young adults with a juvenile crime record in North Carolina: Implications for firearm restrictions based on age and risk.

Youth who acquire a juvenile crime record may be at increased risk of perpetrating gun violence as adults. North Carolina and 22 other states permit young adults who were adjudicated by a juvenile court - even for some felony-equivalent offenses - to legally access firearms. Effectiveness of gun restrictions for adults with juvenile crime histories has not been systematically studied. This article reports findings from a longitudinal study of arrests and convictions for gun-involved and other offenses in 51,059 young adults in North Carolina, comparing those with gun-disqualifying and not-disqualifying juvenile records. The annualized rate of arrest for gun-involved crime in those with a felony-level juvenile record was 9 times higher than the rate of reported comparable offenses in the same age group in the North Carolina general population (3349 vs. 376 per 100,000). Among those with a felony-equivalent juvenile delinquency adjudication who became legally eligible to possess firearms at age 18, 61.8% were later arrested for any criminal offense, 14.3% for a firearm-involved offense. Crimes with guns were most likely to occur among young adults who had committed more serious (felony or equivalent) offenses before age 18; had been adjudicated at younger ages; acquired a felony conviction as a youth; and spent time in prison. The prevalence of arrests for crimes involving guns among young adults in North Carolina with a gun-disqualifying felony record acquired before age 18 suggests that the federal gun prohibitor conferred by a felony record is not highly effective as currently implemented in this population. From a risk-based perspective, these restrictions appear to be justified; better implementation and enforcement may improve their effectiveness. Gun crime prevention policies and interventions should focus on these populations and on limiting illegal access to firearms.

Extreme risk protection orders in response to threats of multiple victim/mass shooting in six U.S. states: A descriptive study.

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), also known as red flag laws, are a potential tool to prevent firearm violence, including mass shootings, but little is currently known about the extent of their use in cases of mass shooting threats or about the threats themselves. We collected and abstracted information from ERPO cases from six states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Washington). Ten percent (N = 662) of all ERPO cases (N = 6787) were in response to a threat of killing at least 3 people. Using these cases, we created a typology of multiple victim/mass shooting threats, the most common of which was the maximum casualty threat. The most common target for a multiple victim/mass shooting threat was a K-12 school, followed by businesses, then intimate partners and their children and families. Judges granted 93% of petitions that involved these threats at the temporary ERPO stage and, of those cases in which a final hearing was held, judges granted 84% of final ERPOs. While we cannot know how many of the 662 ERPO cases precipitated by a threat would have resulted in a multiple victim/mass shooting event had ERPO laws not been used to prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms, the study provides evidence at least that ERPOs are being used in six states in a substantial number of these kinds of cases that could have ended in tragedy.

Appropriateness of psychiatric advance directives facilitated by peer support specialists and clinicians on Assertive Community Treatment teams.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are used to document a person's treatment preferences for a future mental health crisis. Peer support specialists have been proposed to facilitate PADs, but little is known about the quality of peer versus clinician facilitated PADs. AIMS: This study examined whether PAD documents facilitated by peer specialists and non-peer clinicians differed in the mix of treatment requests and refusals and expert ratings of feasibility and consistency. METHODS: Analyses were conducted of content and expert ratings of 72 PAD documents from a randomized trial of PAD facilitation by peers and clinicians on Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams. A count of treatment refusals and requests was used to classify documents as predominantly prescriptive, proscriptive, or balanced. Regression was used to estimate relationships between PAD facilitator type and content. RESULTS: Peer-facilitated PADs were significantly more likely to be predominantly prescriptive than were PADs facilitated by non-peer clinicians. Prescriptive PADs were more likely to receive expert ratings of high feasibility and consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Results should alleviate some clinicians' apprehensions regarding the appropriateness of peer-facilitated PADs, such as the concern that people with lived experience with mental illness might encourage other consumers to use their PAD primarily for treatment refusals.

Impact of psychiatric advance directive facilitation on mental health consumers: empowerment, treatment attitudes and the role of peer support specialists.

BACKGROUND: A psychiatric advance directive (PAD) is designed to prevent involuntary mental health interventions by enabling people with serious mental illnesses to plan ahead for their own treatment during a future incapacitating crisis. This study implemented PAD facilitation in assertive community treatment (ACT) teams. AIMS: We examined ACT clients' attitudes toward PAD facilitators, satisfaction with PAD facilitation, the short-term impact of PAD completion on subjective sense of empowerment and attitudes toward treatment, and whether the type of PAD facilitator made a difference. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to be offered PAD facilitation by a peer support specialist or non-peer ACT team clinician, and interviewed at baseline (n = 145) and post-facilitation 1-2-month follow-up (n = 116), to assess perceived consumer-directedness of PAD facilitation, empowerment and various treatment attitudes. Mean scores before and after the intervention were compared for PAD-completers, non-completers, and those who completed a PAD with a peer vs. non-peer. The effect of PAD completion was assessed using logistic and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: There was no evidence of bias against peer-facilitators. There was a modest positive impact of PAD facilitation on treatment attitudes and empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: PAD facilitation by peer support specialists and others working in community mental health settings supports recovery.

Involuntary Outpatient Commitment and the Elusive Pursuit of Violence Prevention.

OBJECTIVE: Involuntary outpatient commitment (OPC)-also referred to as 'assisted outpatient treatment' or 'community treatment orders'-are civil court orders whereby persons with serious mental illness and repeated hospitalisations are ordered to adhere to community-based treatment. Increasingly, in the United States, OPC is promoted to policy makers as a means to prevent violence committed by persons with mental illness. This article reviews the background and context for promotion of OPC for violence prevention and the empirical evidence for the use of OPC for this goal. METHOD: Relevant publications were identified for review in PubMed, Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, personal communications, and relevant Internet searches of advocacy and policy-related publications. RESULTS: Most research on OPC has focussed on outcomes such as community functioning and hospital recidivism and not on interpersonal violence. As a result, research on violence towards others has been limited but suggests that low-level acts of interpersonal violence such as minor, noninjurious altercations without weapon use and arrests can be reduced by OPC, but there is no evidence that OPC can reduce major acts of violence resulting in injury or weapon use. The impact of OPC on major violence, including mass shootings, is difficult to assess because of their low base rates. CONCLUSIONS: Effective implementation of OPC, when combined with intensive community services and applied for an adequate duration to take effect, can improve treatment adherence and related outcomes, but its promise as an effective means to reduce serious acts of violence is unknown.

Guns, Mental Illness, and the Law: Introduction to This Issue.

Firearm violence is a top-tier public health problem in the U.S., killing 33,563 and injuring an additional 81,396 people in 2012 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, ). Given constitutional protection and the cultural entrenchment of private gun ownership in the U.S., it is likely that guns will remain widely accessible--and largely unrestricted--for the foreseeable future. Therefore, most policies and laws intended to reduce firearm violence focus selectively on preventing "dangerous people" from having access to guns. That is a formidable challenge. How do we think productively about guns and mental illness in this context, and about the role of law in lessening the toll of gun violence?

Guns, Impulsive Angry Behavior, and Mental Disorders: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R).

Analyses from the National Comorbidity Study Replication provide the first nationally representative estimates of the co-occurrence of impulsive angry behavior and possessing or carrying a gun among adults with and without certain mental disorders and demographic characteristics. The study found that a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%). These data document associations of numerous common mental disorders and combinations of angry behavior with gun access. Because only a small proportion of persons with this risky combination have ever been involuntarily hospitalized for a mental health problem, most will not be subject to existing mental health-related legal restrictions on firearms resulting from a history of involuntary commitment. Excluding a large proportion of the general population from gun possession is also not likely to be feasible. Behavioral risk-based approaches to firearms restriction, such as expanding the definition of gun-prohibited persons to include those with violent misdemeanor convictions and multiple DUI convictions, could be a more effective public health policy to prevent gun violence in the population.

Using research evidence to reframe the policy debate around mental illness and guns: process and recommendations.

Recent mass shootings have prompted a national dialogue around mental illness and gun policy. To advance an evidence-informed policy agenda on this controversial issue, we formed a consortium of national gun violence prevention and mental health experts. The consortium agreed on a guiding principle for future policy recommendations: restricting firearm access on the basis of certain dangerous behaviors is supported by the evidence; restricting access on the basis of mental illness diagnoses is not. We describe the group's process and recommendations.

Diversion to Treatment when Treatment is Scarce: Bioethical Implications of the U.S. Resource Gap for Criminal Diversion Programs.

Despite significant scholarship, research, and funding dedicated to implementing criminal diversion programs over the past two decades, persons with serious mental illness and substance use disorders remain substantially overrepresented in United States jails and prisons. Why are so many U.S. adults with behavioral health problems incarcerated instead of receiving treatment and other support to recover in the community? In this paper, we explore this persistent problem within the context of "relentless unmet need" in U.S. behavioral health (Alegría et al., 2021).

Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Connecticut, 2013-2020.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have enacted Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) statutes, which allow temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Connecticut was the first state to enact such a law in 1999. The law's implementation and use between 1999 and 2013 were previously described, finding that ERPOs were pursued rarely for the first decade and that most orders were issued in response to concerns about suicide or self-harm rather than about interpersonal violence. The current study analyzes over 1,400 ERPOs in Connecticut between 2013 and 2020 in several domains: respondent demographics, circumstances leading to ERPO filing, type of threat (suicide, violence to others, or both), number and type of firearms removed, prevalence of mental illness and drug and alcohol use, and legal outcomes. Results are similar to the earlier study, indicating that ERPO respondents in Connecticut are primarily White, male, middle-aged residents of small towns and suburbs who pose a risk of harm to themselves (67.9%) more often than to others (42.8%). Significant gender differences between ERPO respondents are discussed, as are state-specific trends over time and differences between Connecticut and other states with published ERPO data.

Critical opportunities for public health law: a call for action.

Although legal interventions are responsible for many sentinel public health achievements, law is underutilized as a tool for advancing population health. Our purpose was to identify critical opportunities for public health lawmaking. We articulated key criteria and illustrated their use with 5 examples. These opportunities involve significant health problems that are potentially amenable to change through law and for which an effective legal intervention is available: optimizing graduated driver licensing laws, increasing tax rates on alcoholic beverages, regulating sodium in foods, enacting laws to facilitate reversal of opioid overdoses, and improving mental health interventions in the college setting. We call for a national conversation about critical opportunities for public health law to advance evidence-based policymaking.

A survey of stakeholder knowledge, experience, and opinions of advance directives for mental health in Virginia.

An innovative Virginia health care law enables competent adults with serious mental illness to plan for treatment during incapacitating crises using an integrated advance directive with no legal distinction between psychiatric or other causes of decisional incapacity. This article reports results of a survey of 460 individuals in five stakeholder groups during the initial period of the law's implementation. All respondents held favorable views of advance directives for mental health care. Identified barriers to completing and using advance directives varied by group. We conclude that relevant stakeholders support implementation of advance directives for mental health, but level of baseline knowledge and perception of barriers vary. A multi-pronged approach will be needed to achieve successful implementation of advance directives for mental health.

Preventing Suicide Through Better Firearm Safety Policy in the United States.

The U.S. suicide rate continues to increase, despite federal investment in developing preventive behavioral health care interventions. Important determinants of suicide-social, economic, and circumstantial-have little or no connection to psychopathology. Firearm injuries account for over half of suicides, and firearm access is perhaps the most important modifiable determinant. Thus gun safety policy deserves special attention as a pathway to suicide prevention. This article summarizes arguments for several recommended statutory modifications to firearm restrictions at the state level. The policy challenge is to develop and implement evidence-based strategies to keep guns out of the hands of people at highest risk of suicide, without unduly infringing the rights of a large number of gun owners who are unlikely to harm anyone. Recommendations for states include expansion and refinement of legal criteria prohibiting firearm purchase, possession, or access to better align with suicide risk, including prohibition for persons with brief involuntary psychiatric holds or repeated alcohol-impaired driving convictions; enactment of extreme risk protection order laws, which allow temporary removal of firearms from persons who are behaving dangerously, and entering purchase prohibition data for these persons in the FBI's background-check database; and adoption of an innovative policy known as precommitment against suicide as well as voluntary self-enrollment in the FBI's background-check database.

Implementing Psychiatric Advance Directives: The Transmitter and Receiver Problem and the Neglected Right to Be Deemed Incapable.

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) can help adults with serious mental illnesses preserve their autonomy and avoid involuntary interventions during an incapacitating mental health crisis. A PAD is a legal document prepared while mentally competent and states the person's treatment preferences to be implemented during a future crisis, ideally with the advocacy of an authorized proxy decision maker. PADs have been available in the United States for more than three decades but have yet to be robustly implemented in practice. This Open Forum describes PADs metaphorically as a device for remote communication among the person with mental illness, a proxy decision maker, and health care providers. Barriers to PAD usage occur on both "transmitter" and "receiver" sides and must be addressed to advance PAD implementation.

Childhood Gun Access, Adult Suicidality, and Crime.

OBJECTIVES: To test the associations of childhood domestic gun access with adult criminality and suicidality. METHODS: Analyses were based on a 20+ year prospective, community-representative study of 1420 children, who were assessed up to 8 times during childhood (ages 9-16; 6674 observations) about access to guns in their home. Participants were then followed-up 4 additional times in adulthood (ages 19, 21, 25, and 30; 4556 observations of 1336 participants) about criminality and suicidality. RESULTS: During childhood, the 3-month prevalence of having a gun in the home was 55.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.1%-58.7%). Of the children in homes with guns, 63.3% (95% CI: 59.7%-66.9%) had access to a gun, and 25.0% (95% CI: 21.2%-28.8%) owned a gun themselves. Having gun access as a child was associated with higher levels of adult criminality (odds ratios = 1.1-3.5) and suicidality (odds ratios = 2.9-4.4), even after adjusting for childhood correlates of gun access. Risk of adult criminality and suicidality among those with childhood gun access was greatest in male individuals, those living in urban areas, and children with a history of behavior problems. Even in these groups, however, most children did not display adult criminality or suicidality. CONCLUSIONS: Childhood gun access is prospectively associated with later adult criminality and suicidality in specific groups of children.

North Carolina Specialty Courts, Treatment Access, and the Substance Use Crisis: A Promising but Underfunded Model.

Treatment courts aim to reduce criminal recidivism by addressing the behavioral health care needs of persons with psychiatric or substance use disorders that contribute to their offending. Stable funding and access to behavioral health providers are crucial elements of success for the treatment court model. What happens when courts lose state funding and must rely on local initiatives and resources? In this study, a survey of North Carolina treatment court professionals identified resource gaps and unmet needs. The authors argue that continuing state investment could make treatment courts more viable and effective. Medicaid expansion is a potential new resource for these problem-solving courts.