Care pathway process proposal and rationale for the assessment and management of firesetting in the inpatient setting

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (02) ◽  
pp. 119-127
Author(s):  
Bradley Hillier ◽  
Srinivasarao Cherukuru ◽  
Faisil Sethi

AbstractFiresetting is traditionally a forensic problem which is nevertheless a frequent co-morbidity within mental health settings. The associations between mental health and firesetting are diverse and poorly understood, and with forensic services under increasing pressure, non-forensic settings may be increasingly expected to manage such presentations. With this in mind, and in the absence of a specific risk assessment tool, we propose a care pathway and rationale for its use in the assessment and management of individuals with firesetting behaviours as part of their presentation.

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Doran ◽  
Sharon De Peralta ◽  
Colin Depp ◽  
Ben Dishman ◽  
Lindsay Gold ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Houser ◽  
E. Rely Vîlcică ◽  
Christine A. Saum ◽  
Matthew L. Hiller

Parole decision—the decision to release an incarcerated individual from prison conditionally—is one of the most critical decisions across justice systems around the world. The decision carries with it significant consequences: for the freedom of the individual awaiting release (the parolee); for the safety of the community in which they will return; and for the correctional system overall, especially its organizational capacity. The current study attempts to add to the parole decision-making literature by specifically analyzing the role that mental health factors may play in explaining parole decisions. Research to date is inconclusive on whether or not mental illness is a risk factor for criminal behavior; despite this, individuals with mental health problems generally fare worse on risk assessment tools employed in justice decisions. The study relies on a 1000+ representative sample of parole-eligible individuals in Pennsylvania, United States. To increase reliability, the analyses test for several mental health factors based on information from different sources (i.e., self-reported mental health history; risk assessment tool employed by the Parole Board; and risk assessment tool employed by the Department of Corrections). To address validity concerns, the study controls for other potential correlates of parole decisions. Although the multivariate models explained a considerable amount of variance in parole decisions, the inclusion of mental health variables added relatively little to model fit. The results provide insights into an understudied area of justice decision making, suggesting that despite the stigmatization of mental illness among criminal justice populations, parole board members in Pennsylvania, United States, appear to follow official guidelines rather than to consider more subjective notions that poor mental health should negate parole release.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document