Recall/Reoffending Outcomes for MDOs Version 1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Recall and Reoffending Outcomes of Mentally Disordered Offenders(MDOs)after Discharge from a UK Medium Secure Unit
IRAS ID
149330
Contact name
Lona Lockerbie
Contact email
Research summary
Recall and reoffending in mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) is a considerable problem for practitioners in forensic psychiatric care. Recent statistics show that in 2010, 7% of MDOs discharged from psychiatric care reoffended and 2.6% were recalled to forensic psychiatric care within two years of discharge (Ministry of Justice, 2010). However, these statistics are incongruent with research findings which indicate that 26% of MDOs are reconvicted within two years of discharge (Davies, Clarke, Hollin & Duggan, 2007) and 22% are recalled to forensic psychiatric care within a year of discharge (Clarke et al., 2013). There is much disparity between rates of recall and reoffending in MDOs and research studies that have examined recall and reoffending often produce inconsistent findings (Baxter, Rabe-Hesketh & Parrot, 1999; Maden, Burnett, Lewis & Skapinakis, 2004). Thus, the aim of the present research is to provide a rigorous examination of the factors that influence recall and reoffending rates in MDOs discharged from medium secure units. The results of the proposed research will provide clinicians, working with MDOs, with an increased understanding of possible factors that may predict recall and reoffending in mentally disordered offenders. This will allow for the targeting of resources both prior to discharge and upon discharge. This targeting of resources will also have some very important implications for: mental health services (demands placed on finite resources will be reduced due to less readmission) patients (a reduction in readmission and the opportunity to live a fulfilling life in the community); the Police (reduction in Police-MDO contact and resource savings) and reductions in reconviction mean reductions in further offences reducing the likelihood of future victims of crime and the associated negative effects victims experience.
REC name
London - Fulham Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/LO/0419
Date of REC Opinion
20 Mar 2014
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion