The Dutch measure of an ‘entrustment order’ (tbs) is the compulsory admittance to a high-secure forensic hospital, aimed at a return to society. Leave is an explicit part of the treatment and rehabilitation, with the aim that the patient applies learned skills in a wider context. The degree of supervision decreases with each new step, while the level of freedom increases. Four types of leave are possible for tbs patients: supervised, unsupervised, extra-institutional and probationary leave.
The present study examines the relationship between a number of patient characteristics and whether various leave types are achieved. Based on the records of 341 former patients, leave and the odds of a positive end to the measure were related to several patient factors: age at admission, type and number of index offenses, diagnoses, degree of psychopathy, and substance abuse history.
A higher age at admission is related to more frequently granted unsupervised and extra-institutional leave; extra-institutional leave is also more frequently granted in the case of a sex offense as the index crime. A non-psychotic ‘axis I’ disorder leads to a slightly higher frequency of granted unsupervised leave and a positive termination of the tbs order. An index crime of murder or manslaughter reduces the likelihood of a positive termination. A personality disorder leads to lower chances of extra-institutional leave or a positive termination.
The relationship between leave and PCL-R score appears to be complex: although a higher hazard for leave is found with a high PCL-R score, visualization of the data demonstrates that there are seemingly two groups among the high-PCL-R-scoring patients. There is a group which does not get leave at all and another group which gains permission more quickly than those with lower PCL-R scores. These findings, however, need to be interpreted with caution.
The merit of the results from this study is illustrated for clinicians, for those who have a role in evaluating leave applications, and for administrators or policy makers.

The enactment of article 2.3 of the Dutch Forensic Care Act allows criminal courts to issue a care authorization (CA) for compulsory care within the regular mental health care system. Before the enactment, scholars and professionals already stated their worries in the literature. The security levels of regular mental health care facilities would be insufficient and the treatment would lack forensic focus, while persons who would enter through this new article might suffer from complex disorders and/or exhibit violent behavior.
This research therefore focusses on the (severity of) possible violent offences of those for whom a CA was considered. Case law from the first one-and-a-half year since the enactment was analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Looking at violent offences it appeared that those without a CA were convicted for more severe violent offences than those with one. This was reflected in the number of convictions for (attempted) homicide, while the group with a CA was more often convicted for major physical assault. Furthermore, the use of weapons was important: for those for whom a CA was not issued, weapon use was more often mentioned, especially the use of sharp weapons. In neither one of the groups the use of a gun or another shooting weapon was mentioned. These results are partially in line with the existing literature, since criminal courts seemed less inclined to issue a CA when a severe violent offence was committed. However, a substantial part of the group with a CA committed some sort of violent offence. So, although conviction for a violent offence is not in itself a contra-indication for a CA, the specificities of the offence, like severity and weapon-use, can possibly be considered as such.

Within the legal, judicial and forensic field risk assessments play an important role. The reliability and validity of commonly used risk assessment instruments have been well researched. Relatively little is known however about how the outcomes of risk assessments are understood by decision-makers and whether the way of communicating these outcomes affects subsequent risk estimation and decision-making.
This study aims to contribute to increasing knowledge on risk communication for Dutch forensic and judicial practice.
A vignette study was conducted in a group of one hundred forensic experts reporting to the court to examine how the way in which violence risks are communicated affects recidivism risk assessment and decision-making. The study also examined how different communication formats were viewed in terms of clarity, usability and probative value. The (combinations of) risk communication formats most commonly used in the Netherlands were compared, namely 1) categorical communication (low - moderate - high), 2) numerical communication (percentages), 3) combined communication (categorical + numerical), and 4) categorical communication with an added descriptive risk scenario.
Results. The study showed that the way of communicating the outcome of a risk assessment did influence the estimation of the likelihood of violent reoffending, but did not influence decision-making. Furthermore, it was found that formats in which the outcome was offered in combination were rated more positively than formats in which the outcome was communicated singularly (categorically or numerically). Finally, the study showed that participants tended to deviate from the information provided when asked for a free estimate of the likelihood of recidivism in percentages or in a categorical judgment.
Depending on how the outcome of a risk assessment is communicated, there may be differences in interpretation among recipients of these assessments. It is recommended that the implications of this be further studied, as well as that research and practice pay more attention to risk communication.

Performing research in a forensic setting poses certain challenges, especially when it pertains to complex or sensitive research designs. As a result, studies often end up with small sample sizes which limits reliability and generalizability of the results, and consequently narrows their potential for new insights. This article provides several practical recommendations for successful scientific research in youth forensic settings, organized into five steps: study design, setting up, recruiting participants, collecting data, and rounding off the project and communicating results. These tips help researchers carry out their protocols, collect sufficient amounts of good-quality data, and maintain good relations with the institutions. The recommendations are based on experiences from the Study Consortium for Reattributional E-training Effectiveness and Neuroprediction (SCREEN) study, a longitudinal multi-center project in the juvenile forensic setting in the Netherlands that involved 400+ detained youth. This paper intends to aid researchers in setting up and performing research in different closed youth care settings.

Categorical denial of sexual misconduct is a significant problem in mandated offender treatment. Despite evolving therapist attitudes, people who categorically deny offending are still often barred from specialized treatment. The evidence base concerning categorical denial seems to show that denial does not necessarily imply a higher risk of reoffending. We suggest that people who categorically deny do have a right to specialized treatment and the chance to work on (relapse) prevention. In this article, we take a Good Lives Model (GLM) approach to categorical denial, and show that meaningful change is possible in people who categorial deny offending, even if they never change the original denial. We analyze the most important primary goods in their life and hypothesize links with the offense for which they were convicted. By investing in the relevant primary goods and removing obstacles to prosocial fulfillment, we work on the root causes of the alleged misconduct, effectively working on relapse prevention despite continued denial. We use a case example to illustrate the four steps of the GLM in working with people who categorical deny offending. Our approach aims to support other treatment providers in working with this sizable group in the field of sex offender treatment.