TABLES, GRAPHS, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

1. Over the course of a three-year follow-up period, survival rate analysis determined the probability of rearrest among CONREP NGI patients remains approximately one-fourth the rate of comparison-subjects who were also NGI’s treated in state hospitals but who were released with no mandatory aftercare when confinement-times expired. Reference: Wiederanders, M. R. (1992). Recidivism of disordered offenders who were conditionally vs. unconditionally released. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 141-148.


2. The annualized rearrest rates of CONREP vs. Conditional Release Program Clients in Oregon and New York are as depicted below. Reference: Wiederanders, M.R., Bromley, D.L., and Choate, P.A. (1997). Forensic conditional release programs and outcomes in three states. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 20, 2, 249-257.







3. Clients showed significant gains in several important areas during their first year of CONREP, all of which significantly correlate with program outcomes. In the table below, higher values indicate more positive attributes (e.g., more employment, more social supports, less risk).



Behavioral & Psychiatric Functioning Levels At Admission and after One Year in CONREP, Comparing 1993, 1999, and 2002 Results



4. A 1993 in-depth investigation into 52 separate revocation-incidents found that 75% (39) of the incidents contained no “arrest-able” client behaviors but rather, such behaviors as absconding, psychiatric decompensation, treatment refusal, and making threats. Appropriate clinical intervention prevented an unknown number of the individuals involved from eventual criminal reoffending. Reference: Wiederanders, M.R. (1993). An overview of the effectiveness of the Forensic Conditional Release Program. Department of Mental Health, internal informational report.


5. As shown below, California’s CONREP in 1997 revoked approximately 1/5 of all patients to state hospitals on an annualized basis. This revocation-rate was not the lowest of states with conditional release programs although the criminal reoffense rate among California’s CONREP clients was lowest. Reference: Wiederanders, M.R., Bromley, D.L., and Choate, P.A. (1997). Forensic conditional release programs and outcomes in three states. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 20, 2, 249-257.





6. Percentage of CONREP Clients Rearrested, After One year in the Community, by Legal Category (Patients released from hospitals 1986 through 2001)





7. CONREP reoffenses are significantly less serious than committing offenses.







8. After release from CONREP (i.e., no conditions nor mandatory aftercare) approximately 80% of NGI patients remain arrest-free over four years. Performance of former MDO patients is significantly poorer.







9. Years (mean, by legal class) in State Hospitals Prior to CONREP Placement.





10. Years (mean, by legal class) in community CONREP treatment programs.





11. Years (mean, by legal class) in State Hospitals After Revocation from CONREP.