Sexual offender civil commitment (SOCC) continues to be a popular means of managing risk to the community in many U.S. jurisdictions. Most SOCC states report few releases, due in large part to the reluctance of the courts to release sexually violent persons/predators (SVPs). Contemporary risk prediction methods require suitable comparison groups, in addition to knowledge of postrelease behavior. Low SVP release rates makes production of local base rates difficult. This article compares descriptive statistics on two populations of sexual offenders: (a) participants in high-intensity treatment at the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC), a secure, prison-based treatment facility in Canada, and (b) SVP residents of the Florida Civil Commitment Center. Results show that these two samples are virtually identical. These groups are best described as "preselected for high risk/need," according to Static-99R normative sample research. It is suggested that reoffense rates of released RTC participants may serve as a comparison group for U.S. SVPs. Given current release practices associated with U.S. SOCC, these findings are of prospective value to clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and triers of fact.
Drunkenness arrest rates for adult males in Toronto decreased substantially during the period 1966 to 1987. In 1971 there was a change in legislation permitting police to take public inebriates to detoxication centers. Drunkenness rates continued to decline at a rate similar to that for the previous 3 years. The next year drunkenness arrests increased but subsequently declined at a rate which was 50% greater than that which preceded the change in legislation. Since 1973 year by year changes in the rate of male drunkenness arrests have not been consistently related to rates of police admission to detoxication centers or to total admissions to detoxication centers. The results suggest that recent trends in drunkenness arrests have been influenced by the 1971 change in legislation and the increased use of detoxication centers. However, the influence of other factors must also be considered.
There is little knowledge of predictors for involuntary hospitalizations in acute psychiatric units.
The Multi-center study of Acute Psychiatry included all cases of acute consecutive psychiatric admissions in twenty acute psychiatric units in Norway, representing about 75% of the acute psychiatric units during 2005-2006. Data included admission process, rating of Global Assessment of Functioning and Health of the Nation Outcome Scales.
Fifty-six percent were voluntary and 44% involuntary hospitalized. Regression analysis identified contact with police, referral by physicians who did not know the patient, contact with health services within the last 48 h, not living in own apartment or house, high scores for aggression, level of hallucinations and delusions, and contact with an out-of office clinic within the last 48 h and low GAF symptom score as predictors for involuntary hospitalization. Involuntary patients were older, more often male, non-Norwegian, unmarried and had lower level of education. They more often had disability pension or received social benefits, and were more often admitted during evenings and nights, found to have more frequent substance abuse and less often responsible for children and were less frequently motivated for admission. Involuntary patients had less contact with psychiatric services before admission. Most patients were referred because of a deterioration of their psychiatric illness.
Involuntary hospitalization seems to be guided by the severity of psychiatric symptoms and factors "surrounding" the referred patient. Important factors seem to be male gender, substance abuse, contact with own GP, aggressive behavior, and low level of social functioning and lack of motivation. There was a need for assistance by the police in a significant number of cases. This complicated picture offers some important challenges to the organization of primary and psychiatric health services and a need to consider better pathways to care.
A survey process was begun in 1983 collecting and examining state statutes governing Partial Hospitalization programs. Data were collected from 37 states and the Country of Canada, which were then analyzed into the categories of definition, goals, target population, length of stay, frequency of patient participation, duration of a program day, program services, staffing, and documentation and quality assurance. The results revealed a great diversity of the operationalization of the treatment modality of partial hospitalization through state statutes. There is a clear need for increased levels of clarity and uniformity of this treatment mode.