Do review tribunals consider protective factors in their decisions about patients found not criminally responsible?. Issue 5 (3rd September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Collins, Carisa; Martin, Krystle; Marshall, Lisa
• Is Part Of: Journal of forensic psychiatry & psychology. Volume 30:Issue 5(2019)
• Page Start: 894
• Page End: 907
• Publication Date: 2019-09-03
• Subjects: Risk -- protective factors -- strengths -- forensic assessment -- SAPROF; Forensic psychiatry -- Periodicals; Forensic psychology -- Periodicals; 614.1
• DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2019.1650097
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1478-9949

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Violence risk assessment has been a routine part of clinical practice for several decades, and there are a number of risk factors that have been empirically demonstrated to predict recidivism. While research demonstrates their ability to predict future violence, risk factors are not always included in decision-making discussions regarding treatment or movement through the forensic system. Recently, research has demonstrated that protective factors provide incremental predictive validity over risk factors alone. We aimed to determine how or if these protective factors are being used by review boards for individuals found NCRMD (Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder). Using a random sample of 116 cases, and a retrospective file review design, we coded hospital reports and review board reasons documents for references to items from the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors (SAPROF). Results indicated that, on average, less than half of the SAPROF items are mentioned, but that hospital reports do mention more items than reasons documents. In addition, more items were referenced when individuals were moved to less secure settings. Protective factors may have some impact on decision-making however many protective factors are not being considered. Implications for the use of protective factors in clinical settings are discussed.