Search results

This article reviews the literature on personality disorder in offenders with learning disabilities, using Medline, PsychoInfo and CINAHL databases, and search terms ‘offending’, ‘personality disorder and intellectual disabilities’, ‘learning disabilities’ and related terms. Methods of defining offending population, personality disorder and learning disabilities vary greatly, and few studies focus specifically on personality disorder, learning disability and offending. The definition of learning disability often encompasses both borderline learning disability and low average intelligence. Personality disorder, especially anti‐social personality disorder, is prevalent in offenders with learning disabilities, but less than in the general population, and is associated with higher levels of security and poorer outcomes. The study concludes that there is a continuum of offenders with borderline and mild learning disabilities, reflected in learning disability forensic services.

This article is based on a study that was commissioned by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. We report on the learning profiles and education needs of a cohort of young offenders who were recruited for the study. The research was a national cross‐sectional survey of 301 young offenders who were resident in custodial settings or attending youth offending teams in the community. The young people were assessed using the WASI and the WORD measures to obtain psychometric information (IQ scores and reading/reading comprehension ages). One in five (20%) young people met the ICD‐10 criteria for mental retardation (IQ<70), while problems with reading (52%) and reading comprehension (61%) were common. Verbal IQ scores were found to be significantly lower than performance IQ scores, particularly in male offenders. It is clear from these results that a large proportion of juvenile offenders have a learning disability, as characterised by an IQ<70 and significantly low reading and reading comprehension ages. The underlying aetiology of this association is less clear and may be a consequence of both an increased prevalence of neurocognitive deficits and the impact of poor schooling. There is some evidence that developmental pathways may be different for boys compared with girls.

This article explores the use of the Good Lives Model and its relevance to people with a learning disability and forensic needs. The article presents the rationale for using the model; arguing that it has the potential to address the complexities of meeting both the person‐centred agenda in learning disabilities services and the public protection agenda in relation to the management of mentally disordered offenders, including those detained under the Mental Health Act (2007). The model is compared with other treatment models, such as the Risk‐Need‐Responsivity Model (RNR). The paper briefly explores how the model may be practically applied in a service for people with learning disabilities who have committed, or who are at risk of committing, sexual offences.

This paper reviews several issues in relation to offenders with intellectual disabilities. Although some authors have indicated an increased prevalence of offenders amongst the population of individuals with intellectual disabilities, other carefully controlled studies using recognised IQ tests have found only slightly increased incidences. Studies conducted in forensic settings have reported results somewhat different to those conducted in clinical settings with respect to both prevalence and characteristics. It is noted that individuals with learning disabilities commit offences across the spectrum of criminal behaviours but there may be some over‐representation in sexual offences and arson. Issues of assessment and treatment are also addressed with comments being made on extensions of interventions into community settings. With the amount of research increasing over the last 10 years, we are becoming clearer about the relevant issues involved in designing studies, developing assessments and providing treatment to this client group.

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.

There is a lack of clarity about the prevalence of offenders with learning disabilities and learning difficulties. However, it is clear is that, regardless of actual numbers, many offenders have learning disabilities and learning difficulties that interfere with their ability to cope within the criminal justice system. No One Knows is a UK‐wide programme led by the Prison Reform Trust that aims to effect change by exploring and publicising the experiences of people with learning disabilities and learning difficulties who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The article highlights the aims of the No One Knows programme and considers recent research on prevalence, drawing attention to some of the reasons for the different findings.

This article sets out to explore three differing approaches from three agencies to supporting and treating people with a learning/intellectual disability who have sexually offended. The three agencies are: Waymarks in the United Kingdom, York Central Hospital Behaviour Management Services and Vita Community Living Services both in Ontario, Canada. Each agency provides services to a similar population of offenders with disabilities. Though each client engaged in vastly different behaviour, all clients have been identified as having sex offending history and as having a high likelihood of offending again in the future. As the organisations evolved, differing approaches to the provision of service developed. For the three agencies, it can be argued that there was a very limited range of theoretical models available when each organisation developed. Consequently each agency developed their service according to the needs and ‘best fit’ of the people they were supporting with the available resources at that time. This meant that services developed as a direct response to the need and were designed to best fit the need with the resources to hand at the time. As a result, three different models of service arose, all of which have had real success with meeting the needs of people with learning/intellectual disabilities who have sexually offended, while providing support and treatment in differing ways. This article will examine some of those differences.

The purpose of this paper is to compare learning-disabled (LD) and non-LD offenders in terms of their relating styles and to examine the relationship between relating styles and offence types.

Two groups of male offenders completed the Person’s Relating to Others Questionnaire – Version 3 (PROQ3) and were compared using an independent groups design. An adapted version of the PROQ3 was given to the first group, which consisted of 18 LD offenders detained within a mental health hospital. The second group consisted of 30 offenders detained within a Category B prison in the UK. Offenders were assigned to one of four offence categories (violence, homicide, sexual and robbery) and compared in terms of their PROQ3 scores.

The findings suggest that the sample of LD offenders had increased relating deficits compared to the non-LD offenders. The LD offenders achieved higher scores on four of the eight PROQ3 subscales; Upper Neutral (UN), Upper Close (UC), Neutral Close (NC), Lower Distant, and the total score. Significant differences were found on the UN, NC, Neutral Distant (ND), Upper Distant (UD) subscales and the total score for the robbery offenders compared to the other offence categories. Violent offenders achieved higher scores on the UC and Lower Distant subscales.

The need for research to focus on evaluating the treatment needs of lower functioning offenders in order to aid the development of LD-specific interventions. The need to evaluate the appropriateness of adapting mainstream offence focussed programmes for the LD population, given that there are potentially different treatment needs between these two distinct groups.

The results indicate that cognitive functioning is associated with higher levels of interpersonal deficit, suggesting increased treatment needs for the LD offender population. The study also highlighted that different treatment needs exist between the LD and non-LD offenders.

People with learning disabilities have traditionally been denied access to a range of psychological therapies. Similarly, offenders with learning disabilities, particularly in prison settings, have largely been unable to access treatment strategies that are provided for offenders who do not have such disabilities. As a consequence these individuals are denied the opportunity to address their criminogenic needs and/or attend to their psychological welfare. This paper provides a brief exploration of the reasons and evidence for such practice, alongside the evidence that people with learning disabilities can successfully engage in psychotherapy. It is concluded that there is no evidence that would support the exclusion of people with disabilities from treatment options.

This paper describes the ideas related to forensic practice with people with learning disabilities through a study that explores the apparent ‘truths’ about people with learning disabilities who are detained in forensic settings (referred to here as ‘the men’) and the staff who work with them by an analysis the dialogue contained in retrospective data from interviews and focus groups.The men in these settings are subject to intense stigma and disadvantage; socially and legally. Not only are they categorised as having a learning disability, but also have the added stigma of being offenders, and commonly having mental health issues that expose them to the worst of myths surrounding learning disability; such as the possibility of being viewed as ‘dangerous monsters and sex fiends’ (French & Swain, 2008). Similarly, but to a lesser degree, forensic nurses are stigmatised and subject to strict laws, policies and practices and stereotyped as prison wardens and ‘tough guys’. These ideas may be exposed and challenged through studying the discourses in the dialogue. Therefore, the general research questions included the following.• What are the discourses related to learning disability and forensic practice?• What ideologies underpin and justify forensic practice?This paper is primarily concerned with the way that the staff and the men experience the medium secure unit (MSU) and their views as to the advantages and disadvantages of secure care.The findings generally suggest that the men and the staff are very positive about their lives.They report that the men have many attributes and talents, and view having a learning disability as an advantage at times; the staff enjoy their work and have good relationships with the men. Paradoxically1, there are also negative discourses identified, some of which permeate from macro ideologies into policy and practice to justify the men's treatment in the MSU.The analysis showed that despite the certainty that many feel about the justifications for holding men with learning disabilities in secure settings, many paradoxes exist in the discourses in this setting, which question the validity of official knowledge in this area ‐ this is essentially a Foucauldian idea (Foucault, 1975). Foucault's ideas on the way that knowledge and practice may be challenged are important to this paper.