Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interventions for Persons with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Involved with the Criminal Justice System: a Scoping Review

  • Intellectual Disability (R Condillac and L Mullins, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Developmental Disorders Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Persons with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) experience barriers in the criminal justice system. It is important that appropriate accommodations are available and justice professionals receive training to ensure these accommodations occur. This scoping review summarizes recent peer-reviewed publications investigating models of accommodation and support for persons with IDD in the criminal justice system.

Recent Findings

A total of 22 studies met all the eligibility criteria. Research showed that most peer-reviewed literature focused on earlier phases in the criminal justice system, namely police contact and court proceedings. Most interventions focused on screening for IDD and providing appropriate accommodations.

Summary

Currently evaluated interventions for persons with IDD involved in the criminal justice system include screening tools for identification, diversion to specialized courts, third-person intermediaries, and modifications to existing programs and materials. Independent assessments of training for justice professionals indicate that they can be trained to recognize and accommodate persons with IDD and use screening tools and modified materials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Crowder S & Turvey BE: Ethics in the criminal justice professions. In: B. E. Turvey & S. Crowder, editors. Ethical justice: Applied issues for criminal justice students and professionals. Toronto: Elsevier Inc.; 2013.

  2. Packer HL. Two models of the criminal process. U Pa L Rev. 1964;113:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown J, Hastings B, Cooney-Koss L, Huntley D, Brasch D, Anderson G, Chukuske R, Arndt C, Trnka A, Burger P, Martindale J. Autism spectrum disorder in the criminal justice system: a review for caregivers and professionals. J Law Enforcement. 2016 Sep 1;5(5).

  4. Sarrett JC, Ucar A. Beliefs about and perspectives of the criminal justice system of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a qualitative study. Social Sci Hum Open. 2021;3(1):100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schatz SJ. Interrogated with intellectual disabilities: the risks of false confession. Stan L Rev. 2018;70:643.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mogavero MC. Autism, sexual offending, and the criminal justice system. J Intellectual Disab Offending Behav. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-02-2016-0004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Crosby SD, Algood CL, Sayles B, Cubbage J. An ecological examination of factors that impact well-being among developmentally-disabled youth in the juvenile justice system. Juv Fam Court J. 2017;68(2):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty Series. 2006;2515:3.

    Google Scholar 

  9. • Collins J, Horton, K, Gale-St. Ives E, Murphy G, Barnoux, M. A systematic review of autistic people and the criminal justice system: an update of King and Murphy (2014). 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05590-3. This article is a recent knowledge synthesis regarding autistic people and the criminal justice system.

  10. • Sanyaolu O, Olaniyan A, NaaAkuyea Addy T, Nabors L. A scoping review of research to assist individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in interactions with police. Adv Neurodev Disorders. 2022;17(6):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-022-00240-2. This article is a recent knowledge synthesis of police interactions with persons with IDD.

  11. • Jones J. Persons with intellectual disabilities in the criminal justice system: review of issues. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2007;51(6):723–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07299343. This literature review covers issues related to persons with IDD and the criminal justice system.

  12. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Veritas Health Innovation. (2022). Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from: www.covidence.org.

  15. Gulati G, Cusack A, Murphy V, Kelly BD, Kilcommins S, Dunne CP. The evaluation of a training course to enhance intellectual disability awareness amongst law enforcement officers: a pilot study. Irish J Psych Med. 2021;3:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipm.2021.80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Henshaw M, Spivak B, Thomas SD. Striking the right balance: police experience, perceptions and use of independent support persons during interviews involving people with intellectual disability. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(2):e201–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hinkle KA, Lerman DC. Preparing law enforcement officers to engage successfully with individuals with autism spectrum disorder: an evaluation of a performance-based approach. J Autism Dev Disord. 2021;13:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05192-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jessiman T, Cameron A. The role of the appropriate adult in supporting vulnerable adults in custody: comparing the perspectives of service users and service providers. Br J Learn Disabil. 2017;45(4):246–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Macdonald SJ, Peacock D, Cosgrove F, Podd W. ‘The silence’: examining the missing voices of disabled people in police custody. Disability & Society. 2021;36(1):19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1712190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McKinnon I, Thorp J, Grubin D. Improving the detection of detainees with suspected intellectual disability in police custody. Adv Ment Health Intellect Disabil. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1108/AMHID-04-2015-0015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Norris JE, Crane L, Maras K. Interviewing autistic adults: adaptations to support recall in police, employment, and healthcare interviews. Autism. 2020;24(6):1506–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320909174.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Parsons S, Sherwood G. A pilot evaluation of using symbol-based information in police custody. Br J Learn Disabil. 2016;44(3):213–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Parsons S, Sherwood G. Vulnerability in custody: perceptions and practices of police officers and criminal justice professionals in meeting the communication needs of offenders with learning disabilities and learning difficulties. Disability & Society. 2016;31(4):553–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1181538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rendall M, MacMahon K, Kidd B. The Scottish police caution: do individuals with intellectual disabilities understand a verbally presented police caution, and can comprehension be improved? Psychiatry, Psych Law. 2021;28(1):50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Richards J, Milne R. Appropriate adults: their experiences and understanding of autism spectrum disorder. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;1(103):103675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Burke MM, Griggs M, Dykens EM, Hodapp RM. Defendants with intellectual disabilities and mental health diagnoses: faring in a mental health court. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2012;56(3):305–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01422.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chadwick DD, Wesson C. ‘Blocked at every level’: criminal justice system professionals’ experiences of including people with intellectual disabilities within a targeted magistrates’ court. J Intellectual Disab Offending Behav. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-07-2019-0014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chaplin E, McCarthy J, Marshall-Tate K, Ali S, Xenitidis K, Childs J, Harvey D, McKinnon I, Robinson L, Hardy S, Srivastava S. Evaluation of a liaison and diversion court mental health service for defendants with neurodevelopmental disorders. Res Dev Disabil. 2021;1(119):104103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.104103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Linhorst DM, Loux TM, Dirks-Linhorst PA, Riley SE. Characteristics and outcomes of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities participating in a mental health court. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2018;123(4):359–70. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-123.4.359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McCausland R, Reeve R, Gooding P. The economic case for improving legal outcomes for accused persons with cognitive disability: an Australian study. Int J Law in Context. 2019;15(4):367–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552319000338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Seck MM, Tsagaris GS, Rowe R. Mental health courts and adult offenders with developmental disabilities and co-occuring diagnoses. Best Pract Ment Health. 2017;13(2):30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hutchison M, Hummer D, Wooditch A. A survey of existing program strategies for offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities under correctional supervision in Pennsylvania. Probation Journal. 2013;60(1):56–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0264550512470189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Keeling JA, Rose JL, Beech AR. Comparing sexual offender treatment efficacy: mainstream sexual offenders and sexual offenders with special needs. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2007;32(2):117–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250701402767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kelly J, Collier A, Stringer J. Providing a learning disability in-reach service for young adult offenders serving a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection. J Learning Disab Offending Behaviour. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1108/20420921211305882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Murphy GH, Gardner J, Freeman MJ. Screening prisoners for intellectual disabilities in three English prisons. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2017;30(1):198–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Watkin F, Leonard G. Community reintegration of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities from prison. Learning Disability Practice. 2019 30;22(5). https://doi.org/10.7748/ldp.2019.e2009

  37. Griffin PA, Munetz M, Bonfine N, Kemp K. Development of the sequential intercept model. The Sequential Intercept Model And Criminal Justice: Promoting Community Alternatives For Individuals With Serious Mental Illness. 2015;27:21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Davis LM, Bozick R, Steele JL, Saunders J, Miles JN. Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: a meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. Retrieved from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html

  39. Landenberger NA, Lipsey MW. The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. J Exp Criminol. 2005;1(4):451–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-3541-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Eadens DM, Cranston-Gingras A, Dupoux E, Eadens DW. Police officer perspectives on intellectual disability. Policing: An Int J Police Strat Manag. 2016 Mar 21. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2015-0039

  41. Trofimovs J, Srasuebkul P, Trollor JN, Dowse L. Disability support and reincarceration after a first adult prison custody episode for people with intellectual disability in New South Wales Australia. J Crim. 2022;55(2):239–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F26338076221087461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Whittingham L, Durbin A, Lin E, Matheson FI, Volpe T, Dastoori P, Calzavara A, Lunsky Y, Kouyoumdjian F. The prevalence and health status of people with developmental disabilities in provincial prisons in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2020;33(6):1368–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12757.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Matheson FI, Dastoori P, Whittingham L, Calzavara A, Keown LA, Durbin A, Kouyoumdjian FG, Lin E, Volpe T, Lunsky Y. Intellectual/developmental disabilities among people incarcerated in federal correctional facilities in Ontario, Canada: examining prevalence, health and correctional characteristics. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2022;35(3):900–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chester V. People with intellectual and developmental disorders in the United Kingdom criminal justice system. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2018;28(4):150–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Dr. Voula Marinos, Brock University; Dr. Jessica Jones, Queen’s University; and Colleen MacKinnon, Brock University.

Funding

Lisa Whittingham and Courtney Bishop are supported in part by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada

    Lisa Whittingham & JaCoya Laplante

  2. Department of Criminology and Justice, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada

    Emily Cauduro

  3. Faculty of Social & Community Services, Durham College, Oshawa, ON, Canada

    Courtney Bishop

Authors
  1. Lisa Whittingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Cauduro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. JaCoya Laplante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Courtney Bishop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Whittingham.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This article is a scoping review; therefore, ethics approval was not sought.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Intellectual Disability

Appendix 1:

Appendix 1:

Table 3

Table 3 Search History and Search Results
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whittingham, L., Cauduro, E., Laplante, J. et al. Interventions for Persons with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Involved with the Criminal Justice System: a Scoping Review. Curr Dev Disord Rep 9, 235–251 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-022-00265-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-022-00265-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation