Assessment and treatment of offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities

The Role of Dynamic Risk and Protective Factors in Predicting Violent Recidivism: Intellectual Ability as a Possible Moderator?

“…Therefore, the third and fourth hypotheses can be rejected. Although previous studies showed that a substantial part of individuals with ID score higher on certain RFs and lower on certain PFs ( Asscher et al, 2012 ; Lindsay & Taylor, 2008 ; Newberry & Shuker, 2011 ; Vinkers, 2013 ), our results did not find a significant influence of the entire range of IA on the relationships between the dynamic factors and violent recidivism. Similar to violation of terms and agreements, it could be that the level of IA has a greater impact on patients’ responsiveness to the treatment according to the responsivity principle of the RNR model ( Bonta & Andrews, 2007 ).…”

“…Furthermore, it appears that offenders with ID show less substance abuse ( Taggart et al, 2006 ; Vinkers, 2013 ), while Hassiotis et al (2008) found that there was more alcohol abuse and more severe alcohol dependence in the borderline IA group (i.e., IQ between 70 and 84), compared to the normal IA group. With regards to PFs, forensic ID patients have difficulties solving social problems ( Lindsay & Taylor, 2008 ) and finding permanent employment ( Vinkers, 2013 ). It is also believed that individuals with ID have poorer coping strategies, which may increase the negative influence of RFs.…”

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

“…prison versus other treatment facilities), and sample size (MacEachron, 1979; Messinger and Apfelberg, 1961; Holland et al, 2002). MacEachron’s (1979) review of the literature indicated an estimated percentage of offenders with I&DD in the justice system ranging from 2.6 to 39.6 per cent, with most studies reflecting the lower end of the continuum (Lindsay and Taylor, 2008). Such variant results are typically a function of either ‘borderline’ I&DD subjects included in studies, the type of assessment tool used to define I&DD, or both (Lindsay and Taylor, 2008).…”

“…As Lindsay and Taylor (2008) point out, quantifying the number of offenders with I&DD in the criminal justice system is problematic. Attempts at gathering valid figures of the I&DD offender population over the past half century have resulted in widely divergent estimates based on geographic location, setting (e.g.…”