[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-139018-105":59,"doc-detail-139018-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","ist-working-group-3-meeting-minutes-september-24-2021-incompetent-to-stand-trial-solutions","IST Working Group 3 Meeting Minutes September 24 2021 - Incompetent to Stand Trial Solutions","","Meeting minutes document the IST Working Group 3 discussion focused on strengthening initial competency evaluations for individuals found incompetent to stand trial. The agenda covers welcome and introductions, clarification of group goals, and recap of prior strategies with emphasis on national research showing frequent report deficiencies, limited training, poor linkage between mental health disorders and competency deficits, and underuse of structured assessments. Proposed next steps require short-term actions by April 1, 2022 and medium-term actions by January 10, 2023, including measurable outcomes and budget considerations for evaluator support.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/ist-working-group-3-meeting-minutes-september-24-2021-incompetent-to-stand-trial-solutions/139018/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/ist-working-group-3-meeting-minutes-september-24-2021-incompetent-to-stand-trial-solutions/139018.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Kyle","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-08-23",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the purpose of Working Group 3 in the IST process?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The group aims to reduce the number of individuals found incompetent to stand trial by strengthening the quality of the initial competency evaluation, focusing on proposing solutions rather than oversight.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What key problems were identified in competency evaluation reports?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"National and California-focused recaps describe insufficient understanding of legal standards, confusion between mental illness and incompetence, overreliance on self-reporting, inadequate attention to malingering, weak linkage between disorders and competency deficits, and limited use of structured assessments.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What timeline does the group use for solution implementation?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The discussion prioritizes short-term solutions to be implemented by April 1, 2022 and medium-term solutions to be implemented by January 10, 2023, with clear measurement of outcomes.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},139018,1787494143,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144},3985741905716,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Incompetent to Stand Trial Solutions Working Group Work Group 3: Initial County Competency Evaluations Friday, September 24, 2021 – 2PM to 4PM  \nDiscussion Highlights  \n1. Welcome and Introductions  \nKaren Linkins welcomed all attendees and announced she will be co-facilitating the meeting with John Freeman. She thanked everyone again for their dedication to this process and this population. She reminded the group that a range of solutions are needed and of the urgency of the work, noting the fact that there are currently 1700 people in jail awaiting treatment who have been referred. She said she was looking forward to discussing the ideas people came up with for their homework assignment and thanked those who submitted their ideas early.  \nKaren Linkins reviewed the meeting agenda. She asked members of the working group to introduce themselves and invited non-members in attendance to introduce themselves in the chat with their affiliation and county. Prior to introductions, she reviewed the goal of the group, which is “to reduce the number of individuals found incompetent to stand trial by strengthening the quality of the initial competency evaluation.” All members were present except Neil Gowensmith and Jonathan Raven. The members in attendance were:  \n• Co-Chair Charles Scott, Chief of Forensic Psychiatry at UC Davis and Consultant to DSH  \n• Co-Chair Katherine Warburton, Forensic Psychiatrist and DSH Medical Director  \n• Deanna Adams, Judicial Council of California  \n• Katherine Clark, Department of Finance  \n• Matthew Greco, Deputy DA of San Diego County  \n• Stephen Manley, Superior Court Judge of Santa Clara County (joined late)  \n• Dawn Percy, Deputy Director for Department of Developmental Services  \n• Stephanie Regular, Assistant Public Defender for Contra Costa County, representing statewide association (joined late)  \n• Todd Shirmer, Psychologist and Division Director for forensic and criminal justice behavioral health programs for Marin County , representing the county’s Behavioral Health Directors Association  \n• Marni Sager, Manager at DDS in the State Operated Facilities Division  \n• Francine Byrne, Principal Manager of the Criminal Justice Services Office at the Judicial Council of California  \n• Ira Packer, Forensic Psychologist , UMass Medical School Psychiatry Department , Consultant to State of California  \n• Danny Offer, NAMI California (joined late)  \n• Farrah McDaid Ting, Senior Legislative Representative for the California State Association of Counties  \n2. Goals of this Working Group  \nShe reminded group members that they are one of three groups and while there is overlap between them , their specific group’s focus is on initial competency evaluations. She emphasized that their purpose is to discuss solutions, not provide oversight. She also welcomed solutions from non-members in attendance in the chat. She asked that the Zoom chat not be used by workgroup members to communicate so their contributions can be heard out loud.  \n3. Recap of Last Meeting’s Highlights and Discussion of Strategy  \nPresentation: Dr. Ira Packer and Dr. Charles Scott  \nKaren Linkins laid out that they will first recap highlights from last meeting then they will discuss ideas for solutions. Dr. Scott and Dr. Packer provided recaps of their presentations from the last meeting. Dr. Ira Packer reviewed key points:  \n• National literature shows widespread problems with reports including insufficient understanding of legal standards, confusing mental illness with incompetence, over reliance on self-reporting and a lack of attention to malingering and minimization, lack of consideration of effects of substance use, and a disconnect between the competence opinion and the data. He noted that lack of overall training is not always the primary issue.  \n• National standards developed and adopted by at minimum 19 states as CST evaluation certification programs. 5 elements of certification standards, though only a few states have all 5:  \n• ","cbCaikk9YW8aMAOc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikk9YW8aMAOc","pdf",344939,13,"English","# Discussion Highlights\n## Welcome and Introductions\n## Goals of this Working Group\n## Recap of Last Meeting’s Highlights and Discussion of Strategy","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of Working Group 3 in the IST process?\",\"answer\":\"The group aims to reduce the number of individuals found incompetent to stand trial by strengthening the quality of the initial competency evaluation, focusing on proposing solutions rather than oversight.\"},{\"question\":\"What key problems were identified in competency evaluation reports?\",\"answer\":\"National and California-focused recaps describe insufficient understanding of legal standards, confusion between mental illness and incompetence, overreliance on self-reporting, inadequate attention to malingering, weak linkage between disorders and competency deficits, and limited use of structured assessments.\"},{\"question\":\"What timeline does the group use for solution implementation?\",\"answer\":\"The discussion prioritizes short-term solutions to be implemented by April 1, 2022 and medium-term solutions to be implemented by January 10, 2023, with clear measurement of outcomes.\"}]","IST Working Group 3 Meeting Minutes September 24 2021 - Incompetent to Stand Trial Solutions | PDF",33]