Title: Now see this? Forensic evaluator opinions regarding direct observation when evaluating competency to proceed
Authorship: Jennifer Cox, Lauren Meaux, Lauren Kois, Cassandra Jensen
​Abstract: Despite ample best practice recommendations for competency to proceed (CTP) evaluations, direct observation of defendant-attorney interactions is an unstudied methodological technique for assessing defendants’ abilities to assist and consult with their attorneys. This study surveyed 57 forensic evaluators regarding their history and opinions of direct observation as a component of CTP evaluations. Overall, results indicated the majority of forensic evaluators had engaged in direct observation on at least one occasion, with some practicing this approach in up to 85% of their evaluations. A minority endorsed or expressed concerns regarding this practice (e.g., third-party effects, violations of attorney-client privilege). Results of this study provide a preliminary indication of how evaluators perceive the potential utility and hazards of direct observation. In response, we offer a framework for approaching direct observation and highlight the need for additional research examining the impact of this methodological technique for CTP evaluations.

Title: Survey of Doctoral Internships in Psychology Offering Experience in Forensics and Corrections
Authors: Haley Potts, MA; Lauren Kois, PhD
Abstract: ​Background: Students with forensic/correctional interests seek out related doctoral internship sites, though often without clear, updated information on what these sites desire of applicants. Aim: To clarify student experiences and qualities most valued by these internships. Method: We identified internship sites reporting “forensic/correctional experience” via a public internship directory (N = 164). We gathered site information from directory pages and sent an online survey to the sites’ internship directors. Results: Internship directors (n = 57) preferred students with primarily generalist (rather than forensic) training. Applicant characteristics (e.g., flexibility and professionalism) were most impactful, followed by intervention and assessment experiences (especially cognitive-behavioral therapy and intelligence and personality testing). Cultural competency was deemed more important and research experience less important than in previous studies of general internships. Conclusions: Results are largely consistent with previous surveys, though some observed changes in training directors’ expectations appear to reflect changes in the field at large. Recommendations: Students with forensic/correctional interests should primarily seek generalist experiences with supplementary forensic training. Training should focus on fostering flexibility, openness, professionalism, and cultural competency as well as cognitive behavioral intervention, intelligence testing, and personality assessment.

The Building a Competent Crisis Care System at Intercepts 0-1 Community of Practice (CoP) will explore policies and practices to build and enhance a competent crisis care system. Through participation in this CoP, selected sites will work to improve strategies related to components of a crisis care system including 911 and crisis line integration, mobile crisis response, community alternatives to emergency department and inpatient dispositions, and partnerships with law enforcement. Communities will be expected to work with current and new stakeholders including local hospital leadership, behavioral health providers providing crisis response services, treatment providers, housing agency director(s)/local public housing authority directors, peer-based recovery support services, 911 call takers/mental crisis call centers, and law enforcement.

​Title: Evaluators' Experiences with Combined Competence to Proceed and
Mental State Evaluations. 
​Abstract: Combined evaluations of competence to proceed (CTP) and mental state at the time of the offense (MSO) are commonplace, yet underexamined in the literature. Given the high stakes faced by defendants and substantial arguments that can be made for and against combined evaluations, it is imperative that we understand how practitioners navigate this process. In this exploratory practitioner study (N = 43), we surveyed professional practices and beliefs concerning combined evaluations as well as how, per practitioners’ self-reports, they were influenced by jurisdictional policy. As is recommended in nascent areas of research, we undertook both quantitative and qualitative methods. Many evaluators reported a disconnect between the spirit of adjudicative competence and the combined CTP/MSO evaluation process. On the whole, evaluators reported that combined evaluations accounted for 29% of their CTP and/or MSO referrals, but only 10 (23.3%) reported that their jurisdiction specifically addressed how to conduct them. They tended to endorse that seemingly incompetent defendants cannot consent to MSO evaluations, and so MSO reports should not be submitted for these defendants. They provided some consensus that seemingly incompetent defendants can provide useful information later integrated into MSO evaluations and that CTP and MSO opinions should be documented separately. We recommend that jurisdictions include statutory language directing evaluators to refrain from submitting MSO opinions when they believe defendants are incompetent, for jurisdictions to explicitly require separate CTP and MSO reports and to distinguish disclosure rules for each report type, and further professional discussion about the nature and process of combined evaluations.