Search results

Between July and November 2001, a health survey of New South Wales (NSW) inmates was conducted by NSW Justice Health. A cross‐sectional random sample of inmates stratified by age, gender and Aboriginality (Aboriginal people are over‐represented in the NSW inmate population) that included approximately 10% of the male and 34% of the female inmate population participated in the study (n = 914). Of those invited to participate, 83% of males and 84% of females consented. One element of the study was the use of the Hayes Ability Screening Index. Inmates identified to be at risk for intellectual disability on the screening tool were referred to a psychologist who administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Revised (n = 167). This paper discusses the implications of the results in terms of full scale IQ, in which 3% of men and 12.5% of women of those identified as being at risk on the screening index were identified as having an intellectual disability, and the overall cognitive profile of those tested. The implications for health education and therapy in prisons are considered.

This literature review identifies instruments for diagnostic assessment of cognitive impairment in prison populations. The purpose of this paper is to promote procedures for early screening and identification of cognitive impairment using instruments appropriate to prisons.

A targeted literature review identified studies on screening and diagnostic assessment of adults in jails, prisons, police watch-houses (custody suites), rehabilitation facilities and forensic settings or community settings for offenders. Discriminant validity, suitability, reliability and feasibility of instruments in correctional and forensic settings are presented.

From 135 peer-reviewed articles relating to diagnostic assessment of cognitive impairment, 15 instruments were considered appropriate for use in prison settings.

Selection of instruments for prison use considers suitability of the instrument(s) and clinical workforce capability. Cultural and gender validity of the instrument, its feasibility for use in the prison environment and cost and time to administer are also important. Using appropriate tools as part of a staged and targeted process in the screening and diagnosis of cognitive impairment is demonstrated by two case vignettes presented in this paper. As this was a desk review, the authors did not evaluate the instruments.

Identification of instruments that are suitable for diagnosis of cognitive impairment in forensic populations informs the rehabilitation of offenders with cognitive impairment in prison and upon release to probation and parole.

The authors reviewed studies of validated tools to screen for cognitive impairment among prisoners. The purpose of this paper is to assist organisations in identifying cognitive impairment in correctional facilities.

A targeted literature review identified peer-reviewed articles on screening of adults in jails, prisons, police watch-houses, custody suites, rehabilitation facilities and forensic settings or community settings for offenders. Validation of screening tools in secure settings, psychometric properties and cultural discrimination is included in this review.

Eight screening tools are considered suitable for use in correctional settings. Two screening tools are recommended for cognitive impairment, one is recommended for adaptive functioning assessment and one is recommended for screening of brain injury. Two screening tools are noted to be subject to piloting and further development for use with First Nations people, and two screening tools for cognitive impairment are noted for positive consideration.

Recommendations for screening tools are based on review only and evaluation was infeasible.

Short, reliable measures of cognitive ability for use in correctional facilities are needed. Such tools must be appropriate with respect to their purpose, feasible within the clinical capability of staff and sufficiently cheap to administer to allow widespread use.

Screening of prisoners for cognitive impairment allows early detection to facilitate rehabilitation and therapy. This research is at the systems level. Therefore, the authors do not purport to provide guidance for individual clinicians.

At present, there are significant limitations to the criminal justice system’s (CJS) ability to respond appropriately to detainees or defendant with learning disabilities (LD). The development of Liaison and Diversion Services has provided the opportunity to more easily identify people with LD in the CJS through the use of screening assessments. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to consider why there is a need for screening assessments and review the literature on existing measures, in order to consider the next steps to develop a more effective pathway from the CJS to LD services.

This paper takes the form of a literature review.

The review found that there is a significant body of research defending the need for LD screening in the CJS across the UK. The aim of a screening process would be to identify individuals who possibly have LD and ensure that the correct measures are in place to assess and manage these individuals, including appropriate diversion to specialist LD services. The learning disability screening questionnaire (LDSQ) is an instrument that could be utilised in these instances and could be carried out by Liaison and Diversion Services.

Neither of the tools reviewed in this paper have been vigorously field tested within forensic settings in the UK. It is recommended that there should be trials of the LDSQ as a screening tool within Liaison and Diversion Services with comparison against outcomes of full diagnostic assessments for LD.

Screening for LD is being discussed across the UK as part of Liaison and Diversion Services. This paper highlights the need for a reliable and valid screening tool and provides support for the use of the LDSQ.

The purpose of this paper is to outline and report on the initial development of a screening tool for offenders with suspected intellectual disability (ID) known as the rapid assessment of potential intellectual disability (RAPID).

This paper summarises the wider literature in relation to screening tools and methodology, indicating that quick and easy screening measures for this population are sparse. It outlines the processes involved in the early stages of developing an evidence-based screening tool for ID offenders, and an overall pathway approach to the identification, assessment and diagnosis of ID.

It is possible to develop a tool that can be used to identify potential ID with relative ease. The RAPID screening tool provided practitioners with a simple and easy measure to identify such individuals so that they may be referred for further specialist assessment. It has also demonstrated that it is an effective measure in identifying offenders with a possible ID.

Formal statistical validation of this tool will serve to establish and measure its overall effectiveness and utility, further encouraging the timely identification of ID offenders.

This paper responds to current extensive literature about the variability of screening measures, and provides an effective solution to the identification of vulnerable offenders. Those who may benefit from an assessment of ID, and thereafter reasonable adjustments and alternatives to custodial sentencing are considered.

The purpose of this paper is to report on a three‐year contract to provide learning disability in‐reach to young offenders serving a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) at HMYOI Aylesbury.

A whole population sample (n=75) was obtained between December 2009 and July 2011, where all had received an assessment of intellectual functioning using either the in‐reach screening protocol, consisting of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test – Version 2 (KBIT‐2) and four background questions, the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) or the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).

It was found that 5.5 per cent of the population had a standard score of less than 70 (significant impairment) and a further 18.6 per cent fell between 70 and 79 (borderline range). The mean standard score of the KBIT‐2 (85.8) was consistent with previous studies of prison populations. The background had a significant but weak association with the KBIT‐2 scores, but lacked sufficient specificity.

Further research is required if these findings are to be generalised to the wider prison population.

Systematic screening for learning disability can be of clinical benefit in identifying the needs of young offenders, which is the first step to addressing these needs.

A number of publications by the Department of Health, the Home Office and third sector organisations have identified the need for services for offenders with a learning disability. In‐reach provision to prisons is still in its infancy and, currently, no gold standard exists for screening tools.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a new Intellectual Disability (ID) screening service within a women’s prison in England.

Analysis of prisoner records was carried out to establish characteristics of women entering the prison, rates of screening completion and time intervals for all stages of the assessment pathway.

In total 198 women were received into prison and underwent 202 ID screens. Nine out of ten women completed a screen, almost all on arrival or very soon afterwards. There were 23 referrals for secondary assessment but only four were completed. Most of the women identified for additional screening left the prison before this could be achieved.

This evaluation is the first to show that preliminary screening for ID is feasible in prison. This screening alone is useful for prisons to make the kind of reasonable adjustment required of public bodies by the Equality Act. However, its value is constrained unless resources are also dedicated to the kind of additional screening which might lead to definitive diagnosis and care planning for intellectual disability. This model of assessment would be of considerable value in establishing prisoners at risk by virtue of different levels of intellectual disability and could be used to provide more reliable and routine estimates of prevalence contributing to overall better service planning.

The purpose of this paper is to validate the learning screening tool (LST) and the adapted functioning checklist-revised (AFC-R) as screening tools to aid programme allocation, and to investigate whether programme decision makers were using the tools as per the guidance provided by HMPPS Interventions Services.

LST and AFC-R data were gathered for 555 men who had been assessed for programmes between 2015 and 2018 across eight prisons and one probation area. WAIS-IV IQ data were also gathered if completed.

The findings provide support for the use of the LST, and AFC-R in helping to make decisions about programme allocation. The LST and AFC-R correlate well with each other, and a measure of intellectual functioning (WAIS-IV). Those who were allocated to learning disability or challenges (LDC) programmes scored higher on the LST (greater problems) and lower on the AFC-R (lower functioning) compared to those allocated to mainstream programmes. The LST had adequate predictive validity. In the majority of cases, the correct procedures were followed in terms of using the tools for programme allocation.

The sample size for examining the relationships between all three tools was limited. The research was also unable to take into consideration the clinical decision making involved in how the tools were interpreted.

This research contributes to the growing evidence about the effective use of LDC screening tools in forensic settings.

The purpose of this paper is to examine staff views’ of the usefulness of the Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) screening tools for learning disability and/or learning challenges (LDC) on offending behaviour programme selection and programme participant’s learning experiences.

In total, 11 treatment managers (TMs) and 10 programme graduates across 4 prison sites, from a range of HMPPS accredited programmes were interviewed. The interviews were transcribed, analysed and interpreted using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis.

Overall, TMs found the screening tools useful in aiding programme allocation decisions, particularly, in terms of the triangulated approach and were, in general, using them in line with the guidance. A number of key factors influenced programme allocation decisions, including participant factors, information gathered from a number of sources and from a range of staff and in collaboration with the individual. The importance of being responsive to the needs of the individual was highlighted. Group participants generally felt they were on the right programme according to their needs and found the programmes responsive. Suggestions for further research and improving programme selection are made.

Data were collected from four prisons, each providing a number of different accredited programmes. Caution is, therefore, needed when generalising the findings.

This research contributes to ensuring that those with LDC have equality of opportunity in reducing their risk of reoffending through accessing HMPPS accredited offending behaviour programmes most responsive to their learning needs. It also contributes to the growing evidence base about the effective use of LDC screening tools in forensic settings.

Expert consensus is that people with an intellectual disability are over represented across the criminal justice setting (CJS). Primary research studies have been conducted in police stations and prisons, but little is known about the prevalence of this population in the court setting. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a literature review to find out more about the prevalence of defendants with an intellectual disability in court.

A literature review was conducted using standard systematic review methodology (Julian et al., 2011) and the PRISMA reporting guidelines (Moher et al., 2009).

Two papers met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised. The papers reported prevalence findings ranging from 10%–20%.

Differences in study design, sampling, recruitment and diagnostic criteria affect the ability to make comparisons or synthesise findings.

It is important that future primary and secondary research studies standardise operational terms to enable true comparison between studies, systematic reviews and evidence syntheses.

Defendants with an intellectual disability need to be identified to enable criminal justice professionals to make reasonable adjustments to proceedings and consider diversion and alternative disposal options. This will likely improve outcomes for this population and reduce recidivism.

This literature review contributes to the growing evidence base about meeting the criminal justice needs of people with a learning disability and recognition of the increased prevalence across the CJS and specifically within the court setting.