Search

The jail‐based competency treatment (JBCT) model has become an established forensic practice across the country. From the perspective of implementation science and the three core elements of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Service (PARiHS) framework, the JBCT model is a remarkable example of how context (an unrelenting and overwhelmingly strong demand for forensic beds) has driven multiple state governments to facilitate implementation of a methodology in the absence of empirical evidence supporting its efficacy. This 7‐year study of outcomes from four JBCT program sites provides this much‐needed evidence by showing that JBCT restored 56% of 1553 male and 336 female patients over an average of 48.7 days. At the same time, the study highlights how variations in JBCT models, methods, and preadmission stabilization time present challenges to planned and effective implementation of evidence‐based practice at the statewide system level. By identifying differential responsiveness to JBCT treatment by diagnosis and other factors, the study suggests preliminary implementation ideas for what types of patients are well served by the JBCT model as part of a continuum of restoration options that includes inpatient, outpatient and diversion. Significant findings showed that JBCT patients were restored at a higher rate and in a shorter time if they were female, < 20 years old (highest restoration rate; those < 60 years old also significantly better rates), free of co‐occurring intellectual and cognitive deficits, and malingering. Of the major diagnoses, schizoaffective disorder required a significantly longer length of JBCT treatment for restoration, and lower restoration rates than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, although this was moderated by a significant interaction with abuse of amphetamines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe mental illness, especially psychotic disorders that are worsening, acute or complicated, normally require intensive psychiatric care and treatment that is most appropriately provided in a mental hospital. For criminal defendants, transfer to a forensic security hospital has traditionally been the means of achieving hospital care for mentally disordered defendants who have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. In recent years, with the shortage of intermediate and long‐term hospital beds in the United States, including forensic security hospital beds, jail‐based competency restoration programs are being established, seemingly obviating hospital transfer. Potential advantages of and concerns about jail‐based, as opposed to hospital‐based, competency restoration programs are discussed in the literature. If defendants with severe mental illness traditionally treated in a forensic security hospital for competency restoration are now treated for competency restoration in jail, it is not inconceivable that insanity acquittees could one day be treated in jail for sanity restoration. With the premise that it is better to consider the potential consequences before this becomes a serious proposal and is implemented, this analysis examine the advantages and concerns that have been put forth for jail‐based competence restoration programs as they may or may not apply to jail‐based sanity restoration programs. Substantial commonality is recognized, but also some differences, as well as reason for skepticism of the purported virtues of either alternative to care and treatment in forensic security hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]