Developing consensus for culturally informed forensic mental health assessment: Experts' opinions on best practices.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with minoritized identities are overrepresented in legal system contexts; thus, forensic mental health professionals conduct evaluations of examinees with a diversity of identities. Professional and ethical guidelines direct that these evaluations be completed in a culturally informed manner, yet many professionals still identify a need for specific guidance on how to do so. In the present study, we sought to establish consensus regarding best practices in incorporating culture into forensic mental health evaluations. HYPOTHESES: Given the exploratory nature of this research, no formal hypotheses were tested. We expected that participants would concur that some practices are important to completing culturally informed forensic evaluations. METHOD: We recruited two samples. Nine people with joint expertise in cultural considerations and forensic evaluations participated in a Delphi-type poll. More than half reported a minoritized racial/ethnic identity, and all identified as a man (56%) or woman (44%). Experts were surveyed regarding importance (two rounds) and relevance (one round) of recommended practices. They contributed seven additional relevant practices. Twenty-one board-certified forensic psychologists completed a one-time survey of their perceptions of best practices. These psychologists primarily identified as White (90%), and most did not identify as Hispanic or Latine (80%). They all identified as men (45%) or women (55%). This sample was asked to rate the importance of a list of practices refined during the Delphi-type poll. RESULTS: The majority of practices were considered important or very important by experts and board-certified psychologists. Consensus is most clear for 28 practices with means, medians, and modes all in the "important" to "very important" range at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide agreement on the importance of particular methods for incorporating cultural considerations in each phase of the forensic evaluation process. Forensic psychologists can use this information to self-evaluate and improve their practice and to inform training. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Risk and Outcomes: Are Adolescents Charged with Sex Offenses Different from Other Adolescent Offenders?

Juveniles who have committed sexual offenses are subject to specialized treatment and policies based on their assumed unique dangerousness, despite contradictory evidence. Limited information is available regarding risk factors and their relationships to outcomes in this population. The comparative frequency and predictive utility of empirically supported risk factors for general delinquency were examined using data from the Pathways to Desistance study. Adolescent males who committed sexual offenses (n = 127) were compared to adolescent males who committed non-sexual offenses (n = 1021). At the start of the study, the sample ranged in age from 14 to 18 (M = 16.00, SD = 1.12) and self-identified as primarily African American (44 %), Latino (29 %), or White (25 %). Outcomes were measured over 7 years and included general and sexual recidivism, involvement in school and work, and positive relationships with peers and adults. The results indicated a few small differences in the presence of risk factors and their relationship to outcomes, with many similarities. Juveniles who have committed sexual offenses had equivalent general recidivism but higher sexual recidivism, though this rate was low (7.87 %, or 10 of the 127 adolescents who had committed sexual offenses). New clinical and policy approaches may be needed given the similarities between groups.

Juveniles who have committed sexual offenses: a special group?

Juveniles who have committed sexual offenses (JSOs) are subject to specialized interventions and public policies based on the assumption that they constitute a unique group distinct from other delinquents. Previous research has demonstrated considerable similarities between these groups, though some consistent differences have been found and some theory-relevant constructs have been inadequately studied. The current study compares 119 delinquents and 108 JSOs on a number of theory-relevant constructs. Consistent with theories positing a unique etiology for sexual offending, JSOs reported higher rates of sexual abuse and anxiety as well as fewer consensual sexual partners, less delinquent activity, and lower callous-unemotional traits; however, there were no differences detected in the majority of characteristics examined (e.g., attachment, sensation-seeking). Physical and emotional abuse did not predict sex offending after controlling for sexual abuse, but lower callous-unemotional traits did predict sex offending after controlling for total delinquent behavior. Additional research on constructs little studied in previous research (e.g., sexual history and development, attachment) is needed, but evidence to date suggests considerable overlap between these populations. Perhaps subgroups of JSOs are distinct from generally delinquent youth; however, a focus on offender characteristics or trajectories of behavior problems may prove more fruitful than categorizing youth based on a single behavior.

Keep testing the waters: Fanniff and Letourneau reply.

Hecker raises a number of important considerations in interpreting the review of literature and empirical research presented in Fanniff and Letourneau's article "Another Piece of the Puzzle: Psychometric Properties of the J-SOAP-II." Despite these considerations and the publication of new research in the interim, the current authors continue to urge caution in the interpretation of Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) scores in disposition evaluations, largely due to the serious consequences that youth face in this context.

Alcohol mixed with energy drinks and aggressive behaviors in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED) is a high-risk drinking practice. This systematic review examines how AmED use contributes to aggression (physical and sexual), in what role(s) (perpetrator and/or victim), in adolescents and young adult drinkers (age 25 and younger). METHODS: Computer assisted search identified 844 studies conducted prior to March 2023; of them 17 met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: AmED use was significantly associated with aggressive behaviors. Between-subject studies suggests that AmED consumers have higher rates of perpetration (physical fights, bullying) and victimization compared to peers who only drink alcohol; however, within-subject studies of AmED users find no difference in physical aggression by drinking event (AmED vs. occasions where consumer drinks alcohol only). Similarly, AmED use was a risk factor for sexually aggressive behaviors (e.g., unwanted contact) and victimization. CONCLUSIONS: AmED use is a significant risk factor both victimization and perpetration of violent acts. Differences in within- versus between-study findings suggests that risk is associated with use of AmED, and not event level differences in drinking occasions among AmED users. Findings highlight the relative paucity of studies examining victimization and sexual violence and the need for future studies to incorporate more diverse samples and methodologies to better understand patterns of AmED use, perpetration, and victimization.

Another piece of the puzzle: psychometric properties of the J-SOAP-II.

The authors reviewed nine studies examining psychometric properties of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) and examined the psychometric properties of the J-SOAP-II when items were scored based on probation records obtained at or near disposition and prior to treatment. Data from 73 boys ages 12 to 17 who participated in a larger randomized clinical trial informed this study. Reliability (internal consistency and interrater agreement) and validity (concurrent, discriminant, and predictive) were examined. Scale 1, Sexual Drive/Preoccupation, was characterized by adequate reliability and concurrent validity but did not predict scores on a measure of concerning sexual behavior. This is consistent with seven studies that failed to find evidence of predictive validity using measures of sexual recidivism. Also consistent with the literature, Scale 2, Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior, performed well with respect to nearly all psychometric properties including predictive validity. Review of remaining scales and scores and clinical policy implications are discussed.

Victim age-based subtypes of juveniles adjudicated for sexual offenses: comparisons across domains in an outpatient sample.

Adolescents adjudicated for sexual offenses are a heterogeneous group. The identification of more homogeneous subgroups of offenders may enable improved treatment, as the specific risks and needs presented by each group could be more effectively targeted. The current study examines three subgroups derived based on the age of victim(s), a popular method of subtyping that has mixed empirical support, using a sample of 176 males adjudicated for a sexual offense and court-ordered to participate in a community-based collaborative intervention program that integrates treatment and probationary services. Differences expected between groups based on theories regarding victim-age based subtypes are examined, in addition to differences consistently identified in prior research. Results indicate that these three subgroups are more similar than different, although some expected differences were found. Juveniles with child victims were more likely to have male victims and biologically related victims. Juveniles with peer/adult victims were more likely to have poor monitoring by their parents and more likely to have been arrested again. Juveniles with mixed types of victims appeared similar to juveniles with child victims on some variables and similar to those with peer/adult victims on others. Treatment implications and future directions for research are discussed. Typologies based on clinical characteristics of the youth rather than offense characteristics may have more promise for identifying meaningful subgroups.

Competence to proceed in SVP commitment hearings: Irrelevant or fundamental due process right?

Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) civil commitment, intended to incapacitate offenders and protect the public, has been implemented in 21 jurisdictions. While respondents in traditional civil commitment proceedings need not be competent to proceed, SVP commitment may present a greater deprivation of liberty and therefore greater procedural protections may be merited. Statutes and case law regarding competence in this context address two issues: competence to challenge unproven sexual offense allegations and competence to participate in the SVP commitment process. Of the 14 states that have addressed the issue, one concluded that respondents must be competent to challenge unproven allegations and one concluded that all SVP respondents must be competent to participate in the commitment process. Differences between SVP and traditional civil commitment, the rationale underlying the competence requirement, and decisions regarding competence in SVP commitment are reviewed to inform debate regarding whether SVP respondents must be competent to proceed with the commitment process.