Showing papers by "David DeMatteo published in 2003"

Principles of forensic mental health assessment: implications for neuropsychological assessment in forensic contexts.

Abstract: Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) is a form of evaluation performed by a mental health professional to provide relevant clinical and scientific data to a legal decision maker or the litigants involved in civil or criminal proceedings. Such FMHA evaluations can be further specialized when the clinical and scientific data are primarily neuropsychological. This paper provides an adaptation of 29 recently derived principles of FMHA (Heilbrun, 2001) that have been described in two forms: general guidelines for application in FMHA, and guidelines for application to neuropsychological assessment in forensic contexts. Each principle is described, and the general guideline is compared with the highly specialized neuropsychological guideline. In this way, the applicability of such FMHA principles to forensic neuropsychological assessment is described.

A Sober Assessment of Drug Courts

Abstract: Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 113–28, ISSN 1053-9867, electronic ISSN 1533-8363. © 2003 by the Vera Institute of Justice. All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center Street, Suite 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223. fledgling drug courts should not be permitted to experiment by dropping or de-emphasizing the costlier elements of their programs, or by widening or shrinking the net of eligible offenders? As more and more drug courts crop up around the country, the quality of these programs could be declining progressively from the originally conceived drug court model; yet, little information is available to guide the drug court field in understanding this divergence or in justifying a reversal of the process. This article briefly reviews what we know, and what we need to know, about the effects of drug court programs. Based upon our review of the literature as well as our own program of research in several drug courts, we conclude that drug courts are promising but understudied. At this point in time, drug courts are the leading contender as a potentially effective intervention for a large population of seriously impaired individuals who otherwise would have a very poor prognosis. Unfortunately, little information is available to guide the field in improving upon the performance of drug courts or in reducing unintended negative consequences. We need more research and less hyperbole.

Predicting Juvenile Recidivism with the PCL:YV, MAYSI, and YLS/CMI

Abstract: The primary purpose of this study was to investigate juvenile recidivism prediction as a function of the static and dynamic risk factors identified in the literature on juvenile recidivism by integrating the Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version (PCL:YV), the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI), and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) into a prediction model. The results suggested a predictive relationship between a 9-factor model consisting of MAYSI subscale scores and recidivism. The accuracy of the model improved with the addition of the Prior and Current Offenses/Dispositions subscale of the YLS/CMI. These findings suggest that emotional distress, offense history, and current criminal involvement may be important factors to consider when addressing recidivism potential.

Amenability to Treatment of Drug Offenders

Abstract: THE “WAR ON DRUGS” that began in the 1980s contributed to an unprecedented expansion in the U.S. inmate population. Prison and jail admissions more than tripled in the ensuing years (Harrison & Karberg, 2003), with drug violations accounting for approximately 60 percent of the increase in the federal inmate population and one-third of the increase in the state inmate population (Belenko & Peugh, 1998; Harrison & Beck, 2002). As of 2001, drug offenders comprised more than half (57 percent) of federal prison inmates and over 20 percent of state prison inmates in this country (Harrison & Beck, 2002).

Using a Model to Guide Data Gathering, Interpretation, and Communication in Capital Mitigation Evaluations

Abstract: The use of a model can have a direct impact on several areas of forensic mental health assessment, and is important in gathering and interpreting data, reasoning about the results and conclusions, and communicating the results of such an assessment. The following report and accompanying discussion illustrates the application of a forensic model in the context of a defense-initiated capital mitigation evaluation under Pennsylvania State law. The first step in employing a model was to identify the relevant legal standard, which required the forensic clinician to assess character traits, contextual circumstances, extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and mental and cognitive deficits that might have had a direct impact on the defendant's ability to conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the alleged offense. In the second part of the model, these clinical characteristics were related to the tasks and functional abilities that are part of the relevant legal question. Finally, using the third step of the model, the forensic clinician assesses the strength of the causal connection between the existence of mental and cognitive deficits and the functional abilities related to the relevant legal question. In addition to improving the overall quality and accuracy of the evaluation, the use of this type of model is consistent with the guidelines and substantive criteria for capital mitigation articulated by the United States Supreme Court.