Article Figures & Data
Tables
Total (n = 73) CTP (n = 22) ITP (n = 51) Range M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) t d Age at initial evaluation 9–19 14.1 (2.4) — — — — Age at last evaluation 10–20 15.5 (2.2) 14.8 (1.8) 15.8 (2.3) 1.82 0.47 IQ 45–121 75.8 (16.2) 92.1 (16.7) 71.3 (14.2) −3.76** −1.42 Time between initial and last evaluation (in weeks) 17–235 72.0 (45.8) 54.0 (40.0) 79.9 (46.3) 2.28* 0.58 n (%) n (%) Sex Placement at Initial Eval. Male 62 (85) Primary caregiver 51 (70) Female 11 (15) Congregate placement (CPS) 11 (15) Race Detention 8 (11) Black or African American 7 (10) Other (includes foster care) 3 (4) White 8 (11) Two or more races 6 (8) Placement at Last Eval. Asian 1 (1) Primary caregiver 47 (64) Missing 51 (70) Congregate placement (CPS) 10 (14) Ethnicity Detention 4 (5) Latino or Hispanic 21 (29) Other (includes foster care) 12 (17) Not Latino or Hispanic 9 (12) Missing 43 (59) CPS = Child Protective Services; CTP = competent to proceed; ITP = incompetent to proceed.
* p < .05, ** p < .001.
- Table 2
Quantitative and Qualitative Coding Variables and Percentage of Report with Codable Information
Quantitative Coding Variable Qualitative Coding Topic Reports with Codable Qualitative Information Notes on Qualitative Coding Total (n = 73) CTP (n = 22) ITP (n = 51) Age n/a — — — — IQ n/a — — — — Mental health treatment Mental health symptoms 67% (49) 77% (17) 63% (32) Statements regarding change in these areas were recorded. Trauma history Psychiatric medication 37% (27) 32% (7) 39% (20) Substance use 8% (6) 9% (2) 8% (4) Mental status 97% (71) 100% (22) 96% (49) Any information, regardless of change, was recorded. Special education placement School functioning 51% (37) 45% (10) 53% (27) Statements regarding change in these areas were recorded. Developmental immaturity 19% (14) 13% (3) 22% (11) Out of home placement Child Protective Service involvement 10% (7) 18% (4) 6% (3) Family functioning 47% (34) 55% (12) 43% (22) Place of residence 37% (27) 50% (11) 31% (16) Current residence was recorded and coded as remaining at home, residential placement, foster care, child protective service involvement, or return to family home. Competence opinion Competence opinion 100% (73) 100% (22) 100% (51) Any information, regardless of change, was recorded. If a change was noted since last evaluation, this was coded as improved or declined. Functional abilities Functional abilities — — — Factual understanding Factual understanding 96% (70) 100% (22) 92% (48) Rational appreciation Rational appreciation 66% (48) 64% (14) 66% (34) Assist counsel Assist counsel 89% (65) 100% (22) 84% (43) Decision-making Decision-making 82% (60) 82% (18) 79% (42) Courtroom behavior 25% (18) 45% (10) 16% (8) CTP = competent to proceed; ITP = incompetent to proceed.
Youth Opined ITP Youth Opined CTP Place of residence Neutral placement descriptions: [Youth] resided with his brother for approximately two months before he left to live with his cousin (his current residence). [Youth] indicated that he frequently stays at friends and other family members’ homes. Negative impact of change: Since [Youth]’s last evaluation, the family had to relocate because of a fire in their home…the family moved into a hotel, but because of the expense, they moved in with one of her sisters who lives in City. Aunt said they lived with her sister for approximately one and a half months before they got the apartment in which they currently reside. Positive impact of change: They moved to City in December and [Youth] liked it there. Their home is bigger and the area is quieter and safer, causing [Youth] to feel more secure. School functioning Negative themes: Both [Teacher] and [Youth] reported that [Youth] is frequently sent out of the classroom. [Teacher] said [Youth] does not complete work and is ‘talking all the time, horsing around, [with his] mind in other places’ and is concerned [Youth] has ‘given up on school.’ Stability or improvement: His transition [to a new residential school] was described as positive in general…It was described that ‘typically [Youth] is an eager and active participant…completes independent work in a timely manner, appropriately asking for assistance when needed.’ He was described to require minimal cues to refrain from ‘silly’ behaviors and to struggle sometimes staying in his seat. Maturity Lack of maturity: In my opinion, [Youth]’s competency to stand trial, at this time, continues to be hampered by his young age and resulting cognitive immaturity. Improvements in maturity: [Youth] is friendly with his peers, participates in group activities, and has shown an increased desire to be ‘part of the group this year.’Furthermore, [Youth] demonstrated an ability to determine and communicate his preferences. The change in [Youth]’s presentation is likely because of (1) maturation since his last evaluation and (2) his current stability… Family functioning for girls Ongoing problems: The social worker described the home as disorganized and in poor condition…even when [Youth] was in school, she sometimes skipped school while on the vo-tech campus, returning to the campus with bite marks on her neck and chest from kissing [notes inconsistent information on the number of persons residing in family home]. Positive changes: [Mother] attends weekly family therapy sessions with [Youth] at the program…Both [Mother] and [Youth] reported that the family therapy sessions are helpful. Family functioning for boys Description without impact: Although his grandmother’s health is declining he speaks to her by phone on a regular basis. Family has not had transportation on their own or through [Child Protective Services] to visit [Youth] at the school. — Mental status Noting symptoms: [Youth]’s speech was often difficult to follow. He consistently spoke in fragments, not full sentences, and sometimes seemed to repeat back partial phrases without understanding their meaning (e.g., after I explain a plea bargain, he talked about a ‘peer bargain’). There was often a delay before [Youth] responded, during which he seemed to be struggling to formulate his words. Sometimes, if the delay was long enough, I would ask if he understood my question and he would say that he did not.[Youth] appeared sluggish during both interviews and his affect appeared blunted, showing little range of emotion. For example, when he said he felt ‘happy,’ his affect did not change and he continued to appear flat. He appeared to be spaced out or distracted and often required questions to be repeated to him numerous times.Nonremarkable descriptions: He reported that his mood was ‘good’ at the time of the interview. His affect was consistent with the content of the conversation…His responses to questions were brief and simple but generally logical and goal-directed. He did not appear to be responding to internal stimuli and denied any auditory or visual hallucinations. Deficits placed in context:She continues to feel easily angered, but her ability to manage her reactions has improved. Specifically, she stated that she has learned better coping skills to use when she is angry…”Comparison with past presentation:He appeared much different than he had last year, when he was neatly groomed with well-crafted braids. His hair was ungroomed, and his demeanor was more restless. Rather than the contained, concentrated demeanor that he had in the past, he presented with a subtly looser and more intense look and manner… Functional Abilities Factual understanding Broad descriptions: In my opinion, [Youth] demonstrated a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Comparison with previous evaluations: [Youth] made significant changes in his trial-related capacities. He has now demonstrated sufficient factual and rational understanding to participate in his own defense and in the process of a trial…In the past, he became frustrated and irritable while receiving education…This time, he seemed more patient when he did not remember the information and was open to my education. Rational appreciation Broad descriptions: [Youth] demonstrated a rational understanding of how his factual knowledge would apply to his case.The deficits in [Youth]’s factual understanding impair her ability to rationally consider the court process and appreciate the charges against her. Decision-making and assisting attorney Concern remains that [Youth]’s intellectual impairments would preclude him from understanding the charges against him and participating in the decision process concerning his defense. It is quite likely that [Youth] will not be able to assist the defense counsel in his defense. [Youth] demonstrates…an ability to consult with his attorney in a rational manner to assist in making decisions about his defense. Appropriate court behavior Reference to observed behavior: Although [Youth] has a history of volatility, he did not feel that he would be volatile in court, and he tolerated my long interview well. CTP = competent to proceed; ITP = incompetent to proceed.
