Join us for Summer Training Institute

Join us for Summer Training Institute at John Jay College, June 1st -5th. You will engage in in-person workshops with internationally recognized experts, prolific authors, and engaging presenters.  Below are highlights of two workshops that will be offered during Summer Training Institute. The 5 day Foundations of Violence Risk Assessment workshop goes from June 1st thru 5th.  The Assessment of Risk for Violence using HCR-20-V3 is the first two days of that workshop – offered as a stand alone. For full information on all workshops available, visit our Summer Training Institute page. We hope to see you there!

 

5-Day Foundations of Violence Risk Assessment and Management Workshop

Instructors: Dr. Stephen Hart, Dr. Kevin Douglas and Dr. Laura Guy

June 1st – 5th

button

 

program102-Day Assessment of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3

Instructors: Dr. Stephen Hart, Dr. Kevin Douglas and Dr. Laura Guy

June 1st – 2nd

button

 

 

 

More Research Needed on Stigmas Faced by Forensic Psychiatric Patients

Forensic-Training-AcademyForensic psychiatric patients face three stigmas—mental illness, race, and criminal history—and there is a dearth of research focusing on these areas. This is the bottom line of a recently published article in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. Below is a summary of the research and findings as well as a translation of this research into practice.

ijfmhFeatured Article | International Journal of Forensic Mental Health| 2014, Vol. 13, No. 1, 75-90

Triple Stigma of Forensic Psychiatric Patients: Mental Illness, Race, and Criminal History

Authors

Michelle L. West, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Philip T. Yanos, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Abby L. Mulay, Long Island University

Abstract

Stigma involves negative beliefs and devaluations of people in socially identified groups, which some people internalize. Research has increasingly explored mental illness self-stigma, when people with mental illness believe society’s negative beliefs are true of them (e.g., they are hopeless due to mental illness). Self-stigma predicts poorer functional and treatment outcomes. Forensic psychiatric patients experience multiple stigmas, yet no research has explored how stigmas due to mental illness, race, and criminal history influence each other. This review discusses relevant stigma research, which suggests that self-stigma in forensic psychiatric populations likely interferes with rehabilitation and avoiding re-arrest. Forensic psychiatric stigma is particularly relevant given increasing social attention on violence, incarceration, mental illness, and race. Conclusions discuss targets for future research.

Keywords

forensic psychiatric patients, mental illness, offenders, race, self-stigma, stigma

Summary of the Research

Individuals with a mental illness and a criminal history, labeled forensic psychiatric patients, endure stigmatization. Research has skimmed over stigmatizations and their influence on the wellbeing of these individuals; however, “expanding self-stigma research to a forensic psychiatric population could provide an opportunity to examine how different stigmas influence each other and the relative impact of these stigmas on self-concept and outcomes” (p .75).

The goal of this review was to “overview theory and research on stigma, self-concept, and how stigma impacts self-concept, as well as research on three stigmas that are particularly relevant in

forensic psychiatric populations” (p. 75). The three stigmas discussed are mental illness, racial stigma, and criminality stigma. Reactions to each stigma and self-stigma are discussed.

Mental Illness

People with mental illness are often seen as being inferior, violent, vulnerable, and unable to have romantic experiences or to contribute to society. Although Western cultures have attempted to minimize the stigma by attributing mental illness to biological factors, surveys have found that adults (in the United States and Australia) still view mental illnesses as dangerous and some have stated that they would prefer to minimize interactions with people who have a mental illness. However, research “indicates that the great majority of people (90% or more) with severe mental illness do not engage in any violent behavior and the remaining violence risk attributable to mental illness is small in contrast with more common characteristics such as age and gender” (p. 78).

People with mental illness face many challenges like finding adequate shelter and treatment. Stigmatization may also cause difficulties in developing a good mental health professional-patient relationship. Research has provided “evidence that mental health and medical professionals commonly exhibit negative attitudes towards people with mental illness. Stigmatization is likely particularly harmful coming from such caregivers” (p. 79).

Reactions to Mental Illness Stigma People who have mental illness are aware of the stigma. “Research indicates that about 90 percent of people with mental illness are aware of stigmatizing

views about mental illness, but stereotype consciousness by itself is generally unrelated to self-esteem and depression” (p .79). This may cause some individuals to be in denial of the diagnosis since it would mean “integrating the diagnosis into their self-concepts” (p. 79). Some individuals accept the illness as part of their identity in a positive manner, while others adopt the “illness identity.” The way that a person copes with the mental illness can play a strong influence in motivation, behavioral changes, and creating goals in therapy.

Self-stigma of Mental Illness-“One consequence of stigma is that people with mental illness may internalize stigmatizing beliefs” (p. 79). The stigma endorsement scale evaluates agreement with common negative attitudes towards mental illness, and the discrimination experience scale focuses on experiences with discrimination due to mental illness” (p. 80). Scales such as this and past research suggests there is self-stigma in individuals with mental illness. Self-esteem, self-efficacy, quality of life, individuals’ likelihood of becoming depressed and their ability to cope with mental illness are all factors that can be affected by their self-stigma.

Racial Stigma

Reactions to Racial Stigma– Racial stigmatization occurs through “its impact on the emotions, beliefs, and behaviors of racial minorities” (p. 81). Some individuals have come to expect racial discrimination, even from the government. Alas, it also results in emotional consequences such as individuals’ experiencing anger and the feeling of being disrespected. “Discrimination can have an emotional impact…and has been linked to negative consequences including mental and physical health problems, which in turn can negatively impact functioning” (p. 82). Stigmatization can also influence how a group perceives discrimination. Research has found that it could lead to drug use, fights, stereotype activation, and impaired performance on assessments of abilities.

Racial self-stigma– “Mental illness self-stigma may be more common than racial self-stigma, although no research directly compares them” (p. 82). Contrary to the strong evidence found in mental illness self-stigma, racial self-stigma has a low prevalence. “Possible reasons for lower

prevalence of this explicit racial self-stigma include the current rejection, at least overtly, of the legitimacy of racial discrimination, the relatively more positive racial minority role models, the relatively younger age at which race becomes integrated into self-concept, and the increased likelihood that children will learn coping skills for racial discrimination from family members. However, racial minorities may also internalize stigmatizing attitudes towards their racial group, perhaps especially the more implicit type of self-stigma” (p. 82).

Criminality Stigma

There is a dearth of research on stigmatization in criminality, “despite evidence of stigma against this group” (p. 83). Although it could be argued that hiding one’s criminal history is easier than hiding one’s race, criminal stigmatization can exist. For example, in the workforce past offenders are required to inform an employer of their criminal history. In a competitive job market, the chances of being hired with a criminal history are unlikely. More research on criminal stigmatization is needed, especially with adults. However, “there is evidence that stigma against offenders can limit social networks and supports. For instance, a longitudinal study of adolescents concluded that being labeled a criminal and the resulting stigma impacts peer networks, which in turn impacts future criminal involvement (p. 83).

Responses to Stigma of Criminality– “A large study of inmates near release found a general consensus of anticipated rejection by others in multiple social contexts, and participants in a qualitative study of stigma experiences of ex-offenders in higher education described fears about social and employment discrimination, and exhibited secrecy through attempts to hide their offense history and selectively choosing who to tell” (p. 83). Stigma against criminals may also affect their health, in terms of stress, coping, and social support. These factors “likely contribute to elevated suicide rates among recently released prisoners” (p. 83).

Self-stigma of Criminality-“Although the impact of stigma on offenders has been explored somewhat, research has largely not addressed the role of self-stigma in these outcomes” (p. 83). Research has studied the Labeling Theory as a means to explore the self-concept of criminality; however, this theory has remained unsupported in its claims about criminals changing identity due to being labeled offenders.

Translating Research into Practice

“Despite the multidimensionality of self-concept, less research has investigated the experiences of individuals with multiple stigmatized identities, including how they may affect each other, become internalized, and affect outcomes” (p. 83). Preliminary research has found that individuals with multiple stigmatized identities experience a unique set of difficulties in the real world. Forensic psychiatric patients are especially vulnerable to multiple stigmatized identities. Aside from being stigmatized for having a mental illness, they have to struggle with an “offender” label.

The present review found that research is beginning to focus on these three stigmas; however, it also underscored that “there is no research on self-stigma related to criminal offense history, nor is there an existing measure of this construct” (p. 84). There is also growing concern for mental health care providers and whether they hold these same stigmas for the patients they treat as this could be detrimental to the successful treatment of these patients, resulting in weak provider-patient relationships. Stigmatizations can damage an individual’s self-esteem and emotional balance. Providing empirical data to inform the mental care field and the general population about stigmas and of their negative influence could help forensic psychiatric patients navigate the outside world with more ease.

This review remains optimistic by concluding that “there is a growing body of research separately investigating stigmatizing attitudes towards relevant groups: people with mental illness, racial/ethnic minorities, and criminal offenders, including labeled individuals’ reactions to stigma ranging from empowerment to self-stigma. There is growing research on the impact of stigma on self-concept, particularly for mental illness stigma” (p. 84).

Other Interesting Tidbits for Researchers and Clinicians

Future research could focus on investigating self-stigma on mental illness, race, and criminality in the forensic population. Special attention should be paid to factors that could be affected by stigmatization such as depression, coping skills, social functioning, treatment-adherence, etc. In addition, research on addressing stigmatization and how to minimize its effects could prove to be beneficial for forensic psychiatric patients.

Join the Discussion

As always, please join the discussion below if you have thoughts or comments to add!

Special Contributor

GaliciaBetsy-pictureContributions to this post were made by Betsy Galicia.

Betsy E. Galicia is a graduate student born and raised in Houston, Texas pursuing her MA in Forensic Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She is interested in cultural differences in forensic assessments and cultural competency. She plans to write a thesis on these topics and go on to earn a doctoral degree. Other interests include traveling and exploring the world, going to parks, riding her bike, and re-reading The Giver by Lois Lowry.

 

3 days until our Spring Training Sessions begin! Enroll now!

Our March 1st Our Spring Training deadline is approaching. The sessions provide the opportunity to be trained by and receive consultation from some of the leading experts in the field; Drs Kevin Hart, Stephen Douglas and Patricia Zapf. Each session comes with 10 hours (1 hour/week) of consultation.

About the Training

Spring Training Sessions are guided online training programs that run for 10 weeks and are 30 hours long (20 hours online training + 10 hours of consultation). New content is released each week and participants are guided through the course with email notifications explaining what is to be accomplished each week. Participants should expect to devote approximately 3 hours each week to the training program, including a one-hour consultation session with the instructor for small group discussions of cases and clinical implementation issues.

Upon completion of the Spring Training Session, participants will have accrued 30 hours of training on the topic and an in-depth understanding of the relevant evaluation issues. Please click on the title of each program to learn more about the program.

 

This Spring we are pleased to offer 2 Sessions:

Session 1: Assessment of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20 Version 3

ao208-d0b9719b-d9ed-4680-8779-0df045db2435-v2Instructor: Dr. Kevin Douglas & Dr. Stephen Hart

Dates: March 1, 2015 – May 9, 2015 (10 weeks)

20 hours of online training + 10 hours of consultation (1 hour/week)

button

 

 

Session 2: Best Practices in the Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial

5-best-practicesInstructor: Dr. Patricia Zapf

Dates: March 1, 2015 – May 9, 2015 (10 weeks)

20 hours of online training + 10 hours of consultation (1 hour/week)

button2

 


Interested in learning more about our Spring Training?

 
 
 

Register Now for AP-LS Within-Conference CEs

apls-iconRegistration is now open for within-conference Continuing Education Credits at the AP-LS annual meeting in San Diego. CONCEPT is pleased to offer Continuing Education credits for some of the sessions at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS). We do this as a service to our profession as many of our colleagues appreciate the ability to receive CE credit for attending this conference. This conference is held in a different location each year. The 2015 Conference will be held in San Diego from March 19-21, 2015. There is a $35 administrative fee for this service, which entitles you to earn up to 21.25 hours of CE credit.

The process is easy, all it requires is for you to register your contact information on the CONCEPT site. Then after the conference is over, complete the evaluation form and print your certificate.

For detailed information on within-conference CE’s, please visit the CONCEPT AP-LS page OR

Register Now

 

 

Receive Training & Consultation on Best Practices in Competence to Stand Trial from Dr. Patricia Zapf: Register Now!

Best Practices in the Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial
Dr. Patricia Zapf

March 1 – May 9, 2015

30 hours over 10 weeks (includes 10 hours of consultation)

 

5-best-practicesOne of the primary foundations of criminal law is that all defendants have a right to a fair trial. Towards this end, upwards of 60,000 evaluations of competency to stand trial are conducted annually in the USA. Research has shown that the opinion of the evaluator in these evaluations is accepted by the courts upwards of 95% of the time. Thus, it is imperative that these evaluations be conducted using best practices. Two important sources have recently been recognized as setting the foundation for best practices in competency evaluation. This training program provides a strong foundation for any mental health professional involved in or wishing to become involved in the evaluation of adjudicative competence.

This training program covers the legal foundations for adjudicative competence, including new developments in the conceptualization of the Dusky standard, as well as practical and theoretical issues in competency evaluation. Competency assessment instruments are reviewed in depth as are report writing and expert testimony.

The trainee is taken through the foundations for competency evaluation, the specific abilities to be evaluated, how to formulate a case conceptualization and ultimate opinion regarding a defendant’s adjudicative competence, how to communicate opinions about competence in the written report and through expert testimony. In addition, participants will engage in one hour of weekly small group consultation with the instructor to discuss current clinical cases and other clinical implementation issues.


Patricia Zapf

About the Instructor

Patricia A. Zapf obtained her PhD in Clinical Forensic psychology from Simon Fraser University in Canada and currently holds the position of Professor in the Department of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York. She is the Editor of the American Psychology-Law Society book series; Associate Editor of Law and Human Behavior; and is on the Editorial Boards of 5 journals in psychology and law. Dr. Zapf is on the Board of Directors for the International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services and currently serves as President-Elect for the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS; Division 41, APA).

 

Session 1: Evaluation of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3

Instructors: Dr. Kevin Douglas & Dr. Stephen Hart

Dates: March 1, 2015 – May 9, 2015 (10 weeks)

20 hours of online training + 10 hours of consultation (1 hour/week)

 


Interested in learning more about our Spring Training?

 

 

Rapid Growth of PCL-R Use in U.S. Courts Accounted for by Prosecution of Sexually Violent Predators and Parole Hearings

Forensic-Training-AcademyThe rapid growth of the PCL-R in courts is largely accounted for by prosecution cases against sexually violent predators or in parole hearings. This is the bottom line of a recently published article in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Below is a summary of the research and findings as well as a translation of this research into practice.

Featured Article | Psychology, Public Policy, and Law | 2014, Vol. 20, No. 1, 96-107

Investigating the Role of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised in United States Case Law

 

Authors

David DeMatteo, Drexel University
John F. Edens, Texas A&M University
Meghann Galloway, Drexel University
Jennifer Cox, Texas A&M University
Shannon Toney Smith, Texas A&M University
Julie Present Koller, Drexel University
Benjamin Bersoff, Emory University

Abstract

Although the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) appears to be the most widely used measure of psychopathic traits in forensic settings around the world, relatively little is known about how often it is introduced into legal cases and the types of cases in which it is being used. DeMatteo and Edens (2006) first summarized the extant U.S. case law on the PCL-R, identifying 87 cases in which it had been introduced since its publication in 1991 through 2004. Using an identical search strategy employed in the earlier review (LexisNexis legal database), we identified 348 cases involving the PCL-R from 2005 through 2011. Notably, the PCL-R appeared to be primarily a “prosecution tool” in these cases in that it was rarely first introduced into evidence by the defense. In most cases it was used to assess offenders with significant histories of violence in the context of risk assessments—with resulting risk statements being strongly associated with the results of the PCL-R evaluation (i.e., high psychopathy equating with high recidivism risk, low psychopathy equating with low recidivism risk). Challenges to the admissibility of PCL-R evidence in these cases were rare and typically unsuccessful, even though some assertions, particularly in relation to the PCL-R’s predictive validity, appeared to have questionable scientific support. On average, prosecution examiners reported PCL-R scores that were 7 points higher than defense examiners. We discuss these findings in the context of the appropriate roles for the PCL-R in court and its potential for misuse when evaluating psycho-legal issues.

Keywords

Violence, risk assessment, survey, international, mental health

Summary of the Research

The main objective of the study was to analyze the use of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in 348 U.S. court cases between 2005 and 2011. The three states with the largest number of cases were California, Texas, and Minnesota. The demographics of the cases included 341 males and seven females with a mean age of 47.78; race was not reported for the cases.

An overwhelming majority of cases (61.8%) were directed towards sexually violent predators. Coinciding with this finding, extensive histories of violence were the most sought after detail from a defendant’s background. Another major finding was that nearly 25% of the cases were related to parole determination, a clear increase from 15% in 2006. The state of California has made the PCL-R a regular component in parole hearings, which makes it a powerful predictor of release decision-making in that state.

The PCL-R was used most often to assess risk for future danger (92%), then general recidivism risk, and then behavioral abnormality. The average PCL-R score was 25.29 in these cases whereas the average score for male prisoners in North America is 22.1.

Consistent with previous research, the PCL-R was primarily used by the prosecution in two-thirds of observed cases. Alternative risk assessment instruments were used in conjunction with the PCL-R 85% of the time. Given that the PCL-R was used in sexually violent predator cases most frequently, secondary tools like the Static-99 were also used. Evaluators retained by the prosecution reported PCL-R scores that were 7 points higher than those reported by defense evaluators.

Translating Research into Practice

The PCL-R is increasingly being used in federal and state cases throughout the United States. The occurrence of PCL-R usage has increased from 87 cases between 1991-2004 to 348 cases in this study’s timeframe of 2005-2011, especially in California for parole cases and sexually violent predators, which may indicate a future direction for research.

With the surge in the use of the PCL-R, it is important for clinicians and researchers to continue to develop accurate and accessible scales and subscales. Unfortunately, PCL-R subscales were only used in 3% of the analyzed cases. This stark statistic may indicate the need for further professional training in order to utilize the tool to its fullest capacity. In addition, the PCL-R was considered narrowly by the courts as a risk assessment tool. A challenge for clinicians will be to flush out the potential for the PCL-R to provide the courts with informed decisions regarding offenders. A related challenge is to improve the ways in which PCL-R scores can assist professionals outside the field of psychology.

Results also demonstrated that the relationship between PCL-R scores and future violence risk was being distorted to reflect strong predictive validity despite previous research indicating otherwise. The authors believe this overestimation to be the result of certain clinicians citing one study that favors a stronger relationship rather than referencing the breadth of research on the PCL-R.  This misguided thinking can cause clinicians to arrive at “global risk conclusions” that are based more on the interpretation of a score rather than the value of the scores themselves. For example, the authors state that 88% of the time, a high score automatically meant the defendant had high risk of recidivism. “Because the PCL-R is not a risk assessment measure per se, evaluators should be cautious when making risk assessment statements based on PCL-R results,” (p. 103).

Both the prosecution and the defense appear to use the PCL-R to their own advantage. In 20% of all cases, the defense introduced the PCL-R score but only if it was a low score. When an expert was brought in by the defense to comment on the defendant’s PCL-R score, 65% of those experts would rate the defendant as having a low score. Overall, the defense appeared to worry about the threat of labeling. That is, the threat of labeling an individual as a psychopath appeared to discourage the defense from using the PCL-R, especially in capital cases. Even in the absence of high PCL-R scores, the defense appeared to demonstrate concern that even the mention of the word “psychopath” would prejudice their client. On the flip side, PCL-R scores were usually higher when the prosecution brought in an expert; 83% scored offenders as “high.” Experts brought in by either the prosecution or the defense need to maintain a high level of impartiality in order to give consistent scores for the same individual.

Most of the cases reported using another risk assessment tool in tandem with the PCL-R. The authors urge that evaluators be mindful of “double-dipping” when it comes to multiple risk assessment instruments. This refers to the tendency for similar scales and tools to count the same score more than once. For example, the VRAG scale heavily weighs the PCL-R score so also considering the PCL-R separately would be weighing that one data point twice.

Other Interesting Tidbits for Researchers and Clinicians

The PCL-R was relatively unchallenged when entered into evidence. This did not reflect the notion that the PCL-R is accepted wholeheartedly by the legal field but demonstrates the ease with which it is introduced and allowed. “The relatively low number of challenges to the admissibility of the PCL-R—as well as the relative absence of cases where it appears to be applied to questionable psycho-legal topics (e.g., malingering, competence to stand trial)—is also noteworthy in light of recent concerns about the probative value and prejudicial impact of the PCL-R in relation to certain types of cases (e.g., capital murder) and with certain populations (e.g., juveniles),” (p. 105).

Join the Discussion

As always, please join the discussion below if you have thoughts or comments to add!

Special Contributor

DarkBlue-Forensic-Training-AcademyContributions to this post were made by Andrea Patrick.PatrickAndrea

Andrea Patrick is a first year masters student studying Forensic Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. In the future, she hopes to be directly working with forensic populations providing risk assessments and clinical evaluations.

Do You Know What the Half-life of Knowledge in Forensic Psychology Is?

HalfLifeThe half-life of knowledge is an interesting and important concept. Half-life of knowledge refers to the number of years that it would take for half of the information or knowledge available in a field of study to become defunct or superseded by new information. This number, of course, varies by field or specialized area of study. The half-life of knowledge for two well-developed areas of medical specialization—hepatitis and cirrhosis—has been calculated to be about 45 years. That is, it takes about 45 years for half of the current knowledge base in these areas to become outdated and superseded by new information.

Half-Life of Knowledge for Forensic Psychology

The half-life for information in the field of psychology (broadly defined) has been calculated to be about 7.2 years, with wide variation depending upon area of specialization. For example, the half-life of knowledge in the area of psychoanalytic psychology, an established area with relatively little new research, has been estimated at 15.6 years whereas the half-life for psychopharmacology, a relatively new field with burgeoning research, has been estimated at 4.8 years.

The half-life for information relevant to forensic psychology is currently estimated to be 7.5 years and for police psychology to be 8.3 years. Estimates of the future half-life of these specializations are 6.6 years for forensic psychology and 7.2 years for police psychology. Thus, without any additional professional training or development, our knowledge base falls to about 50% within a 7-year period.

Rapid developments in our knowledge and skill sets underscore the importance of keeping up to date with the research for implementation into practice. A cursory review of the research literature in the area of risk assessment shows that we have gone from thinking about dangerousness, to the importance of empirically established risk factors, to the relevance of risk communication, to models of structured professional judgment that highlight the management of risk factors, all within the last two decades.

Similarly, our knowledge and practice with respect to competency evaluation has evolved as a result of a more nuanced interpretation of the standards set out in dicta from case law and Supreme Court decisions and best practices standards published over the last several years.

Information regarding the half-life of knowledge serves to underscore the importance of continued professional development. In the field of psychology, for example, doctoral programs are designed to provide a broad and general foundation of knowledge and skills, with the expectation that graduates will then continue to develop and build upon this foundation through additional specialized professional training and continuing education endeavors. The same is true for the medicine and other professional fields.

Problem-Based Learning for Professional Development

The field of medicine has widely adopted a “problem-based learning” (PBL) model of continuing professional development. The PBL model emphasizes the development of clinical reasoning skills and self-directed learning through the use of clinical case presentations, which allow the opportunity for professionals to apply new skills or techniques to real cases. In addition, the use of an online format for much continuing medical education allows for worldwide dissemination of this training, eliminates the need to travel to obtain further professional development, allows the professional to work at his or her own pace, and makes training by the best of the best accessible to all.

Problem-based learning using an online format has only recently been applied to other fields, such as clinical and forensic psychology, but initial evaluation efforts undertaken in Australia and the United States show positive results and conclude that online problem-based learning can make a significant contribution to professional development.

Professional training programs that allow the opportunity to apply new knowledge and skills to case studies and case illustrations similar to those encountered in one’s professional practice are important for continued professional development and serve to enhance clinical reasoning and case formulation skills. Given the half-life of knowledge, it is imperative that professionals make a concerted effort to stay on top of recent developments in research and practice. Seeking out professional development or training opportunities (either in-person or online) on a regular basis will serve to minimize the chance of using outdated information or being left behind.


spring-training-logo2Looking for training in Forensic Evaluation? Check out the upcoming spring training sessions!

Session 1: Evaluation of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3

ao208-d0b9719b-d9ed-4680-8779-0df045db2435-v2

Instructors: Dr. Kevin Douglas & Dr. Stephen Hart

Please join us our Spring Training Session on the Evaluation of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3 presented by Dr. Kevin Douglas and Dr. Stephen Hart. We limit the number of participants in each Spring Training session to ensure that you have the opportunity to engage in meaningful interaction with Drs. Douglas and Hart and to discuss your current clinical cases in a small-group format. This 30-hour training session includes 20 hours of online training and 10 hours of consultation time with the instructors over the course of 10 weeks, beginning March 1, 2015. Participants should expect to devote approximately 3 hours each week to this training program.

Session 2: Best Practices in the Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial

5-best-practices

Instructor: Dr. Patricia Zapf

Please join us our Spring Training Session on Best Practices in the Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial presented by Dr. Patricia Zapf. We limit the number of participants in each Spring Training session to ensure that you have the opportunity to engage in meaningful interaction with Dr. Zapf and to discuss your current clinical cases in a small-group format. This 30-hour training session includes 20 hours of online training and 10 hours of consultation time with Dr. Zapf over the course of 10 weeks, beginning March 1, 2015. Participants should expect to devote approximately 3 hours each week to this training program.


Interested in learning more about our Spring Training?

 
 

Receive Training & Consultation on Best Practices in Competence to Stand Trial from Dr. Patricia Zapf

Best Practices in the Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial
Dr. Patricia Zapf

March 1 – May 9, 2015 | 10 weeks | 30 hours

 

5-best-practicesOne of the primary foundations of criminal law is that all defendants have a right to a fair trial. Towards this end, upwards of 60,000 evaluations of competency to stand trial are conducted annually in the USA. Research has shown that the opinion of the evaluator in these evaluations is accepted by the courts upwards of 95% of the time. Thus, it is imperative that these evaluations be conducted using best practices. Two important sources have recently been recognized as setting the foundation for best practices in competency evaluation. This training program provides a strong foundation for any mental health professional involved in or wishing to become involved in the evaluation of adjudicative competence.

This training program covers the legal foundations for adjudicative competence, including new developments in the conceptualization of the Dusky standard, as well as practical and theoretical issues in competency evaluation. Competency assessment instruments are reviewed in depth as are report writing and expert testimony.

The trainee is taken through the foundations for competency evaluation, the specific abilities to be evaluated, how to formulate a case conceptualization and ultimate opinion regarding a defendant’s adjudicative competence, how to communicate opinions about competence in the written report and through expert testimony. In addition, participants will engage in one hour of weekly small group consultation with the instructor to discuss current clinical cases and other clinical implementation issues.


Patricia Zapf

About the Instructor

Patricia A. Zapf obtained her PhD in Clinical Forensic psychology from Simon Fraser University in Canada and currently holds the position of Professor in the Department of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York. She is the Editor of the American Psychology-Law Society book series; Associate Editor of Law and Human Behavior; and is on the Editorial Boards of 5 journals in psychology and law. Dr. Zapf is on the Board of Directors for the International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services and currently serves as President-Elect for the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS; Division 41, APA).

button


Interested in learning more about our Spring Training?

 

Session 1: Evaluation of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3

Instructors: Dr. Kevin Douglas & Dr. Stephen Hart

Dates: March 1, 2015 – May 9, 2015 (10 weeks)

20 hours of online training + 10 hours of consultation (1 hour/week)

 

AP-LS Pre-Conference Workshops 2015

logoOn Wednesday March 18th the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS; Division 41, American Psychological Association) will be holding a day of pre-conference CE workshops at the Westin Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego and we would love for you to join us. A total of 4 full-day and 2 half-day workshops will be presented by experts in the field. Workshops fill up fast so register today!


The AP-LS Annual Meeting is being held from March 19th-21st at the Westin Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego. This meeting provides an invigorating glimpse of new developments in research, law and policy across a broad array of topics (e.g., forensic assessment, children and the law, jury decision-making, victims and trauma). Students and young professionals can network with those who have made distinguished contributions; practitioners can keep abreast of the latest clinical and legal advances; and all can enjoy a conference and social program tailored to their interests. Please consider joining one of our committees to keep AP-LS responsive to members’ professional needs, as well as pressing social problems. We hope to see you there!

For a full description of the Pre-Conference full day and half day workshops, download the brochure here.

FULL DAY WORKSHOPS (7CE’S) 8:30am – 4:30pm

WORKSHOP A:
Quality Considerations in Conducting Juvenile Forensic Evaluations.
Presenters: Kirk Heilburn, Ph.D

 

RandyOttoWORKSHOP B:
Expert Testimony
Presenter: Randy Otto, Ph.D

 

WORKSHOP C:
Evidence-Based Trauma-Specific services for Youth in the Juvenile System: Bringing the TARGET Model to Youth, Staff, and Key Stakeholders
Presenters: Julian Ford, Ph.D., A.B.P.P & Judith Ford, M.A.

 

ao208-448ff5e7-33b4-4dc9-a400-e623fabe4a17-v2WORKSHOP D:
Advanced Issues in Violence Risk Assessment and Management.
Presenter: Stephen Hart, Ph.D

 

HALF DAY WORKSHOPS (3.5CE’S)

WORKSHOP E:     8:30 am – 12:00 pm
Ethics in Forensic Practice.
Presenter: Gerald P. Koocher, Ph.D., ABPP

 

 

indexWORKSHOP F:      1:00 pm – 4:30 pm
Core Competencies in Suicide Risk Assessment and Management: A Workshop for Psychological Professionals
Presenter: Robert J. Cramer, Ph.D.

 

 

 


spring-training-logo2Looking for training in Forensic Evaluation? Check out the upcoming spring training sessions!

Session 1: Evaluation of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3

ao208-d0b9719b-d9ed-4680-8779-0df045db2435-v2

Instructors: Dr. Kevin Douglas & Dr. Stephen Hart

Please join us our Spring Training Session on the Evaluation of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3 presented by Dr. Kevin Douglas and Dr. Stephen Hart. We limit the number of participants in each Spring Training session to ensure that you have the opportunity to engage in meaningful interaction with Drs. Douglas and Hart and to discuss your current clinical cases in a small-group format. This 30-hour training session includes 20 hours of online training and 10 hours of consultation time with the instructors over the course of 10 weeks, beginning March 1, 2015. Participants should expect to devote approximately 3 hours each week to this training program.

Session 2: Best Practices in the Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial

5-best-practices

Instructor: Dr. Patricia Zapf

Please join us our Spring Training Session on Best Practices in the Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial presented by Dr. Patricia Zapf. We limit the number of participants in each Spring Training session to ensure that you have the opportunity to engage in meaningful interaction with Dr. Zapf and to discuss your current clinical cases in a small-group format. This 30-hour training session includes 20 hours of online training and 10 hours of consultation time with Dr. Zapf over the course of 10 weeks, beginning March 1, 2015. Participants should expect to devote approximately 3 hours each week to this training program.

Interested in learning more about our Spring Training?

 

Are you missing TODAY’S Webinar?

 

Today kicked off our Wednesday Webinar Series. Are you missing today’s HCR-20-V3 live Webinar with Dr. Kevin Douglas? Great news, there is more to come! Check out a list of our upcoming LIVE webinars!

 

Webinar Sessions

Session 1: 9:00 am – Noon (PST, USA) / Noon – 3:00 pm (EST, USA) / 5:00 pm – 8:00 pm (GMT, UK)

OR

Session 2: 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm (PST, USA) / 5:00 pm – 8:00 pm (EST, USA) / 9:00 am + 1 day (AEDT, Australia)

February Webinar Information

Assessment of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3 with Dr. Kevin Douglas HCR20

The HCR-20 is the most commonly used violence risk assessment measure across 44 different countries. It helps professionals in correctional, mental health, and forensic settings make decisions about who poses higher versus lower risk for violence, either within institutions or in the community, and to devise and monitor violence risk management plans. The HCR-20 (Version 2) has been evaluated in more than 100 studies and implemented or evaluated in at least 32 countries.

Version 3 maintains the basic features of Version 2, but has additional features that will help decision makers to determine which risk factors are most relevant at the individual level, how to produce a meaningful case formulation, how to develop helpful risk management plans, and how to make decisions about level of violence risk. Some of its items have been changed as well.

About Dr. Douglas

ao208-b29fe3d0-a3d5-40cf-8478-e7f7404ece09-v2

Kevin S. Douglas is Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University. He is also a Guest Professor of Applied Criminology at Mid-Sweden University, and a Senior Research Advisor at the University of Oslo. Dr. Douglas received his law degree in 2000 from the University of British Columbia, and his PhD in clinical (forensic) psychology from Simon Fraser University in 2002. He received a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Career Scholar Award (2005-2010), and was the recipient of the Saleem Shah Award for Early Career Excellence in Psychology and Law (2005), awarded jointly by the American Psychology-Law Society and the American Academy of Forensic Psychology. His research has been funded by the National Science Foundation (USA), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. His research addresses violence risk assessment and management, the association between various mental and personality disorders (i.e., psychosis; psychopathy) and violence, and dynamic (changeable, treatment-relevant) risk factors. On these topics, Dr. Douglas has authored over 100 journal articles, books, or book chapters.

Dates:

FEB 18th Assessment of Risk for Violence using the HCR-20-V3 with Dr. Kevin Douglas

 

March Webinar Information

Assessment of Risk for Sexual Violence using the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) and the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20)

RSVP

RSVPThe Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP; Hart, Kropp, Laws, Klaver, Logan, & Watt, 2003) is a set of structured professional judgment (SPJ) guidelines for assessing and managing risk for sexual violence. The RSVP incorporates the latest advances in the SPJ approach to risk assessment, including methods for violence risk formulation, scenario planning, and case management planning.

 

SVR-20

The Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20; Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997) is a set of structured professional judgment guidelines for assessing and managing risk for sexual violence. The SVR-20 is used widely and well validated.

 

About Dr. Kropp

randallkropp
Dr. Randall Kropp works as a Threat Assessment Specialist at ProActive ReSolutions Inc. and as a clinical and forensic psychologist with the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission. Dr. Kropp is an Adjunct Professor of Psychology and a member of the Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute at Simon Fraser University. He specializes in the assessment and management of violent offenders. Dr. Kropp is an author of both the RSVP and the SVR-20 as well as other violence risk assessment instruments.

 

 

Date:

MAR 4th- Assessment of Risk for Sexual Violence using the RSVP / SVR-20 with Dr. Randall Kropp

Interested in learning more about our webinars?