A survey of existing program strategies for offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities under correctional supervision in Pennsylvania

Abstract

Mental institutions housed individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I&DD) until the 1960s. Community-based alternatives became the preferred treatment method to relieve overcrowding and declining living conditions. This movement towards deinstitutionalization had several unintended consequences, including placing responsibility on the criminal justice system to serve as mental health providers. This study examines treatment programs for offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities in county jails and probation and parole offices in Pennsylvania to examine current treatment models. The research examines the extent of programming for individuals with I&DD and provides recommendations for improving service provision for this growing population of offenders.

Intellectual Disabilities Among Prisoners: Prevalence and Mental and Physical Health Comorbidities

“…In general, people with ID are a vulnerable population who are at an increased risk of being disadvantaged during their imprisonment (Hutchison et al 2013). Prisoners with ID are more likely to be subjected to an unnecessarily high level of security, which puts them at a increased risk of being socially isolated and excluded from activities aimed at reducing the likelihood of reoffending (Glaser & Dane 1999;Sondenaa et al 2008;Talbot 2010;Adlard 2011).…”

Supervision of Offenders with Intellectual Disabilities by the Probation Service: Challenges and Problems

“…If breeching their probation order, offenders with ID are likely to receive a prison sentence. If imprisoned, however, people with ID have been shown to be four times more likely to re-offend after their release than their nondisabled counterparts [44], and are twice as likely to attempt suicide or to engage in self-harming behaviour during their imprisonment [45].…”

A Systematic Review of Behavioral Health Interventions for Sex Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities

“…Similarly, persons with IDD often go undetected in criminal justice systems (Barron et al, 2002; Hutchison, Hummer, & Wooditch, 2013; Petersilia, 2000). Offenders in the United States with IDD are rarely screened through psychological testing prior to court hearings, hastily confess and waive Miranda rights during encounters with law enforcement, and do not understand self-incrimination (Petersilia, 2000).…”

“…Offenders in the United States with IDD are rarely screened through psychological testing prior to court hearings, hastily confess and waive Miranda rights during encounters with law enforcement, and do not understand self-incrimination (Petersilia, 2000). Finally, criminal justice administrators and officers are often reluctant to accept persons who are identified with IDD into their facilities due to a lack of training and available services (Hutchison et al, 2013). Variance in inclusion criteria, sampling, and IQ thresholds further complicate empirical estimates of the co-occurrence of IDD and delinquency (Lindsay, 2002).…”