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.

Keywords

effective practice interventions offenders probation programmes

Introduction

Before Goddard’s (1914) investigation of criminality among those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I&DD), little thought was given to how best to approach these individuals (Menolascino, 1975). Conventional wisdom at the time was that individuals with I&DD were prone to committing crimes because they lacked the social and intellectual abilities to control their actions (Menolascino, 1975). At the turn of the 20th century, it was common belief that those with I&DD should not reproduce, and nearly 30,000 sterilizations had been completed by 1955 (McNair, 2005). This train of thought persisted into the 1980s, even though an abundance of literature available at the time stated that individuals with I&DD were not born criminals and commit crimes at roughly the same rate as the general population (Hodgins, 1992; Holland, 2004). Regardless, offenders with I&DD continue to be overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

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. 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).

The present study surveys both Pennsylvania local jails and county probation and parole agencies to determine the extent of assessment strategies for those with I&DD. This research specifically examines whether agencies have specialized treatment regimes that are adapted to meet the needs of this population. Policy suggestions are presented in an attempt to reduce the numbers of individuals with I&DD from entering, or reentering, the formal justice process, and for managing their care and supervision in a community setting.

Literature review

It is estimated that 14,000 offenders with I&DD are incarcerated in the United States, a 10 per cent increase since 1988 (National Commission on Correctional Health Care, 1992). The prevalence rate for individuals with I&DD is 1 to 2 per cent in the general population, but 4 to 10 per cent in prisons and jails (Petersilia, 1997). As defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), those diagnosed I&DD have an IQ below 70, have a significant limitation in adaptive behavior, and the condition occurs before the age of 18 (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The 50 year old normalization movement has aimed to individualize care in a way that allows them to take control of their own lives, instead of families and social organizations being the sole decision-makers (Glaser and Deane, 1999). This trend has given individuals with I&DD the opportunity to live more fulfilling lives, but it has also led to an increase in their involvement within a criminal justice system (Glaser and Deane, 1999) that has historically been ill-equipped to address the needs of I&DD offenders and has not evaluated the effectiveness of its current policies, if any exist, in treating this group.

Overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice System

Petersilia (1997) points out several reasons for the disproportionate numbers of individuals with I&DD in prisons and jails. When these individuals are caught committing crimes, they are usually very quick to confess, unable to express their rights or understand that their behavior was wrong, and incapable of assisting their attorneys (Glaser and Deane, 1999). Past research has shown that individuals with I&DD have difficulty comprehending the Miranda warning (O’Connell et al., 2005), and are often unable to understand the implications of waiving these rights (O’Connell et al., 2005). These issues lead to offenders with I&DD being unsuccessful in plea bargaining and more likely to receive longer sentences (Petersilia, 1997). Psychological testing is rarely performed prior to court proceedings and sentencing; thus the judge may be unaware of the disability when sentencing the offender (Petersilia, 1997). Further, criminal justice professionals are not trained to identify this population, and oftentimes individuals with I&DD are hard to identify because they have adapted to hide their disabilities to fit in more easily (Petersilia, 1997). Another issue is that the criminal justice system is unable to accurately classify this population due to poor screening procedures (Glaser and Deane, 1999) and no standardized definition of I&DD (Rockowitz, 1986).

Available programming and services in the Criminal Justice System

There is a general unwillingness among institutions, such as correctional and mental health facilities, to take responsibility for the I&DD population (Rockowitz, 1986). There are several reasons for this. Many correctional facilities do not have suitable programming for those with special needs (Reichard et al., 1980); mental health facilities state that they cannot properly care for this population because they are not mentally ill; and training schools and other facilities assert that they do not have the ability or the necessary resources to train individuals with I&DD and a criminal background (Reichard et al., 1980). Another area of concern is the ‘lack of shared common knowledge, values, and perspective’ between agencies (Rockowitz, 1986: 20). For instance, while the criminal justice system stresses punishment and protection, social services agencies stress treatment and integration into the community (Rockowitz, 1986).

It is estimated that only 10 per cent of inmates with I&DD have access to and receive special services or programs that are adapted to fit their needs (Petersilia, 1997). Menolascino (1975) suggested that if an offender with I&DD is placed into a correctional facility, then ‘special consideration should be given to special handling in classification and diagnosis, treatment, and prerelease planning and parole’ (Petersilia, 1997: 61). Vocational training and special education classes should be provided so they have more tools to use in order to function in mainstream society upon release, and probation and parole services should go beyond normal protocol (Mason and Murphy, 2002; Menolascino, 1975). Their treatment should also be flexible, individualized, and provided in small groupings so all offenders can have access to the amount of supervision and support needed (Menolascino, 1975).

Probation and parole agencies that have developed programs to address the special needs of the I&DD offender population typically have personnel who have received specific training and experience meeting the needs of this group (Linhorst et al., 2003). The Probation Officers work closely with social workers to support I&DD offenders and some specialized residential treatment programs have been developed to provide intensive supervision and client management (Linhorst et al., 2003). The focus should be directed toward those offenders needing educational and life skills enhancement, employment training, and pre-release planning (Grande and Oseroff, 1991; Santamour, 1986). Mason and Murphy (2002) also found that probationers with I&DD have more prior convictions and are more likely to have served a prior term of incarceration in comparison to the general offender population. They concluded that there was no significant difference in the outcomes of probation sentences between probationers with I&DD and probationers without, perhaps suggesting that probation agencies are doing a better job than county jails of recognizing and addressing the needs of clients with I&DD (Mason and Murphy, 2002).

In most states, diversion programs have been implemented to assist offenders with special needs that regularly provide rehabilitation services, training to staff, assistance transitioning back into communities, case management services, and better assessments (Glaser and Deane, 1999; Health and Family Services Cabinet, 2006; Kinsler et al., 2004). A few of the main issues these programs have encountered are difficulties in reallocating already sparse funds to support initiatives and an inability to find new monies due to tightening public service budgets (Diehl and Porter, 2004; Kinsler et al., 2004; Mental Health I&DD Services of Texoma, 2006).

The present study

This study has two main purposes. First, it explores programs, training, and treatment options offered to individuals with I&DD who are inmates in county jails or under community supervision by probation and parole departments from the perspective of the head of county agencies. This is a key component of the project, as improvements in the treatment and management of offenders with I&DD can only begin to occur if the views of upper management are objectively evaluated. For example, if a county jail warden expresses the view that such offenders are not management priorities and the facility does not use a standard assessment protocol to screen offenders for I&DD at intake, any proposed policy is destined for failure. Additionally, if management perspectives do not concur with results from empirical studies of I&DD offenders, any policy put forth must initially aim to educate service providers regarding this specific subpopulation. Second, information from those working with I&DD offenders at the local-level can then be used to frame policy strategies for supervising these offenders and reducing subsequent systemic involvement. Such initiatives should not be dependent on management perspectives, but rather contemporary views can assist policymakers in developing strategies that have the greatest chance for success upon independent evaluation. In an effort to achieve these empirical goals, county administrators at jails (N = 69) and probation and parole departments (N = 67) of all the respective departments in Pennsylvania were surveyed.

Two separate survey instruments were developed, one for county jails and the other for county adult probation and parole departments. The county jail questionnaire determined if specific methods to screen incoming offenders for disabilities were in place, if specialized programming was available, the prevalence of the population within their facilities, and whether the department organized aftercare options. For county probation and parole offices, the survey identified if a program or designated Probation Officer supervised these offenders, and whether agents were aware of and able to refer these individuals for specialized services. For baseline comparison, the definition of intellectual and developmental disabilities, in accordance with the DSM-IV, was provided to the participants in an introductory letter. Recidivism was defined as any status offense committed after release from incarceration or sentencing. The letter requested that an individual familiar with the treatment of this population complete the questionnaire.

Structure of local jails and probation and parole at the county level in Pennsylvania

With a history going back almost 225 years, there are a number of state government functions unique to the Commonwealth. In the criminal justice realm, one quirk that those studying the Pennsylvania justice system come across most quickly is that there are no local ‘jails’. Each county in the state maintains a county correctional system, where the ‘county prison’ is the focal point. Even though the nomenclature is unusual respective to purpose, these county prisons function the same as jails do in most other US states – they provide pretrial detention and house adult offenders given a sentence of less than 24 months. Similarly, community supervision of offenders not released from a state correctional facility is the exclusive province of county probation and parole agencies. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) supervises offenders in the community only when the offender has been released from a state DOC facility. Thus, probation and supervision of offenders released early from county prisons is managed at the county-level with limited oversight by the state. Throughout this article, ‘county prisons’ are referred to as ‘county jails’ for sake of simplicity and consistency with other states.

Limitations of survey

While all county offices in the State of Pennsylvania were surveyed, the data may not be wholly representative given the small sample size, an aspect that is further threatened by the response rate. The survey instrument itself also had limitations. The answer selections, all measured at the categorical level, were provided to the respondent. At times, the assumption by researchers that respondents would only mark one answer on the questionnaire, unless otherwise specified, led to multiple answers being selected. A limit to responses with designated attributes and the over-reliance on one level of analysis made a substantive comparison between probation departments and county jails difficult.

Another limitation posed by the instrument was that some respondents may have misunderstood the definition of intellectual and developmental disabilities as one respondent replaced ‘I&DD’ with ‘mental health’ on the questionnaire. The possibility that other respondents made a similar error cannot be discounted.

Data analysis

There were a total of 35 surveys returned from the county jails and 50 from the county probation and parole departments, for a response rate of 51 and 75 per cent, respectively. The majority of those surveyed reported serving offenders with developmental and intellectual disabilities; however, 43 per cent of county jails and 64 per cent of the probation departments were unable to estimate the amount of offenders served. County jails were more likely to service one to ten offenders (74%), with the remainder reporting 11–20 (6%), 41–50 (3%), and over 50 (11%) clients. The average length of stay for these inmates ranged from 0 to 2 months (14%) to over 11 months (11%). For probation and parole offices, the amount of offenders served was more evenly distributed: one to ten (28%), 11–20 (10%), 21–30 (4%), 31–40 (4%), 41–50 (2%), and over 50 (8%).

Initial reason for incarceration

While some individuals with I&DD may be unable to understand the consequences of their actions, others do, and subsequent offending patterns differ (Simpson and Hogg, 2001; Sobsey, 1994). The survey asked county jail respondents to state the most common type of initial offense for which an I&DD offender was housed in their facility. Table 1 illustrates responses for 32 of the 35 institutions that responded to this question, and the selections are dichotomized into respondents who chose one or multiple answers. Wardens reported that offenders were most likely incarcerated for non-violent misdemeanors, the modal category for respondents who selected one or multiple answers (31% versus 51% respectively). The second most frequently cited instant crime was a sexual offense, followed by a violent misdemeanor. Offenders were least likely to be incarcerated for a drug offense or violent felony. Twenty-six per cent of the respondents reported multiple infractions for the initial incarceration.

Table 1.

Initial offenses of offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

	County Jails
Offense Classification	1 Response (%)	1> Response (%)
Drug violations	0	9
Non-violent misdemeanor	31	51
Non-violent felony	0	11
Violent misdemeanor	11	23
Violent felony	3	9
Sexual offense	20	34

County Jails, N = 32.

The most common type of offense committed is not surprising and can be attributed to the I&DD individual’s inability to understand that these behaviors are inappropriate or lack of understanding about how appropriate relationships work (Schoen and Hoover, 1990). Given this, the treatment of the individual must be specialized, intensive, and continue after release (Nottestad and Linaker, 2005).

Return to incarceration

The survey of county jails asked respondents to estimate how often offenders with I&DD return to jail after their initial release. Thirty-four out of 35 respondents answered this question. Seventeen per cent of the respondents answered that offenders return only one time. The majority of county jails (72%) reported that these offenders return to the facility on average two to four times after the initial release. Nine per cent answered that offender with I&DD return four or more times to jail. County jails were also asked how often probationers with I&DD have their parole revoked due to a violation. The responses indicate that offenders return to prison considerably more often than not (66% versus 29%).

Next, county probation departments were asked the perceived recidivism rate, a question with a 74 per cent response rate. The answer selections for probation departments paralleled responses of county jails: one time (28%), two to four times (36%), and over four times (10%). Forty-five out of 50 Pennsylvania county probation departments identified a perceived probation revocation rate. The majority of respondents answered that they seldom have to revoke sentences (54%), with a minority reporting that probation is revoked often (32%). One respondent wrote on the survey and stated that they do not recidivate any more or less than offenders without I&DD.

Identified reasons for revocations

To better understand the probationer’s return to incarceration, the survey identified the most comment type of violation that results in revocation (see Table 2). For county jails, the most frequent reasons were parole violations, the commission of non-violent offenses, and non-compliance with institutional programs. Similar to these findings, the most prevalent reasons for initiating a probation revocation include a technical violation, non-violent offense, drug or alcohol abuse, and non-compliance with programming.

Table 2.

Reasons for revocations of sentences for offenders with mental retardation.

Violation Type	County Jail (%)		Probation Department (%)
Violation Type	1 Response	1> Response	1 Response	1> Response
Non-violent offense	20	31	8	58
Violent offense	3	9	4	32
Sexual offense	0	9	0	24
Probation/parole violation	43	63	6	64
Drug or alcohol abuse	0	14	0	60
Non-complaint with programming	6	26	0	58
Multiple reasons	23	–	80	–

County Jails, N = 33. Probation Departments, N = 49.

Responding to offender recidivism

Both county probation departments and jails were asked how they change their approaches to the supervision for offenders with I&DD who reoffend (see Table 3). While county probation departments were most likely to take multiple changes in their approach, agents also try to work more closely with the offender’s family and social service agencies. In contrast, county jails take a slightly different approach in response to recidivism, with the primary approaches being additional supervision and working more closely with families and social service agencies. Also, jails were far less likely to make multiple changes in their approaches than probation departments. The least employed approach, for both agencies, was giving the offender more second chances.

Table 3.

Types of reponses in response to offender recidivism.

Approach	County Jail (%)	Probation Department (%)
Give more 2nd chances	3	0
Additional supervision	29	6
Take more time to explain rules	9	4
Work closely with families and social service agencies	26	20
Multiple changes to approach	6	66
Non-response	29	4

County Jails, N = 25. Probation Departments, N = 48.

Screening for intellectual and developmental disabilities

Several jails have integrated screening tools during the inmate screening procedures to identify offenders with I&DD. In Pennsylvania, county jails have yet to uniformly adopt a screening instrument—as only 37 per cent have one in place. In lieu of a standalone instrument, many county jails rely on the use of support personnel from a mental health agency or a questionnaire used at booking to recognize those with special needs. For those relying on a screening tool, county jails reported using an instrument routinely at offender intake (34%) or after staff recognize an inmate with disabilities (3%). County probation departments were more likely to use an initial screening tool (42%).

County probation departments were asked what types of indicators they use to identify those with I&DD (N = 33). The majority (38%) responded that they use multiple special indicators, including word of mouth from outside and referring agencies and psychological testing to identify offenders with I&DD. Once assigned to probation or parole officers, a majority of the agencies do not place these offenders with a designated officer, but rather rely on local social service agencies for support when needed.

Special education services in county jails

Research has shown that a majority of the offending population have not completed their basic secondary education. Without doing so, offenders are less likely to escape the cycle of reoffending. Offenders with I&DD face the same obstacle. Being able to access special education services while incarcerated may help offenders with I&DD learn more skills and gain confidence to avoid criminal activities (Nottestad and Linaker, 2005). Pennsylvania county jails were asked if they offer special education services (N = 32). The majority of county jails stated they provide special education services (46%). When compared to the nationwide average of 11 per cent of jails providing special educational services in 1999, Pennsylvania has taken a positive step to improving the lives of inmates with I&DD. Of those in the sample that provide special education services, 23 per cent reported that inmates with I&DD receive this service at admission into the jail. Twenty per cent of county jails reported that special education services have to be requested, and jails were slightly more likely to offer special education services to inmates that are under the age of 21 (29%), rather than to all age groups (26%).

Types of specialized treatments and aftercare referrals for offenders with I&DD

The Pennsylvania county jails reported on whether they provided specialized treatment programs that meet the cognitive needs of inmates with I&DD. As depicted in Table 4, most jails stated that they provide some type of specialized treatment programs (57%). For those with only one response selected, 6 per cent said they only provide drug and alcohol services, 3 per cent psychiatric services only, 3 per cent group therapy only, and 6 per cent reported providing another type of programming. County jails that responded they provide other types of specialized treatment also stated that they offer life skills classes, medication management, parenting classes, and psycho-educational groups. For jails with multiple answer selections, the most common type of service provided was psychiatric services, followed by drug and alcohol treatment and individual therapy. The county jails without any programming provided the following reasons for not providing any specialized treatment (N = 21): the belief that since there is a low incidence of inmates with I&DD so it is not an issue that must be addressed (23%), and budgetary constraints (9%).

Table 4.

Types of specialized programming offered by Pennsylvania County Jails.

Type of Program	1 Response	1> Response
Drug/alcohol treatment	6	54
Sex offender therapy	0	17
Psychiatric services	3	57
Group therapy	3	17
Individual therapy	0	43
Other	6	20
Multiple programs	51	–
Non-response	31	–

County Jails, N = 24.

Both Pennsylvania county jails and probation departments were asked if they refer their inmates with I&DD to aftercare programs. All but one county jail respondent answered this question and all county probation departments responded. Nearly every probation department refers offenders to aftercare programs (94%), with a smaller portion of individuals with I&DD being referred by county jails (64%). Among probation departments and county jails, social service agencies, drug and alcohol services, and psychiatric services were the most common type of aftercare programs offenders with I&DD were referred (see Table 5). This population was least likely to be referred to behavioral modification services and individual or group therapy.

Table 5.

Programs that offenders/inmates with I&DD are referred to for services.

Type of Program Referred to	County Jail (%)		Probation Department (%)
	1 Response	1> Response	1 Response	1> Response
Psychiatric services	3	49	0	76
Drug/alcohol services	0	37	2	84
Behavioral modification services	0	17	0	58
Social service agencies	0	51	6	92
Individual or group therapy	0	23	0	66
Other	11	23	0	36
Multiple responses	54	–	88	–
Non-response	31	–	4	–

County Jails, N = 24. Probation Departments, N = 48.

Training provided to personnel on I&DD

Inmates and offenders with I&DD have special needs, yet past research has shown that criminal justice professionals tend not to receive training to deal with these offenders. McAfee and Musso (1995) found that 36 of the 49 responding state police training agencies provided some training on disabilities in general. Of these, only 16 state agencies actually addressed I&DD as a specific offender typology (McAfee and Musso, 1995). Both the New York Commission on the Quality of Care (1991) and Petersilia (2000) also concluded that there is little training provided to staff on how to support and identify inmates with I&DD, which leaves them at the mercy of the system.

Fifty-seven per cent of the county jails reported that they provide training to their employees on how to address the special needs of I&DD offenders. Training was provided by a series of different trainers (20%), a jail trainer (17%), social service agencies (9%), a trained psychologist (6%), or someone outside the agency (6%). This training was most likely to occur annually (29%), with fewer agencies providing training on inmates with I&DD every six months (3%), only at the time of hire (9%), and multiple times during employment (17%). Forty-three per cent of the county jails that train personnel provide training in multiple areas related to the treatment of inmates with I&DD. Of those only identifying one type of training provided, 3 per cent trained on how to recognize inmates with I&DD, 6 per cent on how to approach inmates with I&DD, and 3 per cent received training on other aspects of how to work with inmates with I&DD. The remaining 43 per cent of the sample stated that they did not provide any type of training.

County probation departments were less likely to provide training on I&DD offenders than county jails, 40 per cent in comparison to 57 per cent. Four per cent had training provided by a local social service agency, 22 per cent use other outside resources, and 12 per cent use multiple providers for training on I&DD. Probation departments were most likely to provide this training multiple times during employment (20%), and to a lesser extent, at the time of hire (6%), every six months (2%), and annually (12%). Twenty per cent of probation departments reported that they get training on I&DD in a variety of areas, to include how to recognize offenders with I&DD, how to approach offenders with I&DD, the appropriate disciplinary approaches to use with offenders with I&DD, and the difficulties that these individuals face while they are on probation or parole

Table 6.

Types of training offered on the care of offenders/inmates with I&DD.

Type of Training	County Jails (%)	Probation Department (%)
How to recognize I&DD	3	2
How to approach I&DD offenders	6	0
Appropriate disciplinary approaches	0	0
Difficulties these individuals face	0	0
Other	3	14
Multiple trainings offered	43	20
Non-response	46	64

County Jails, N = 28. Probation Departments, N = 18.

Participation in jail diversion programs

Nearly a third of Pennsylvania county jails participate in a diversion program for offenders with I&DD (29%) (N = 33). Most reported that they work with a mental health/I&DD agency within their county. Other agencies identified were adult probation and parole, family counseling centers, bail agencies, non-profit agencies, drug court, and pre-trial services.

Sixty-six per cent of those jails that responded do have a contact with a local I&DD agency. The county probation departments were asked the same question. Eighty per cent reported they had a specific contact with an I&DD agency, whereas 20 per cent said they did not. While it is an encouraging that there is contact between agencies, this working relationship would better be served if it was also used in a jail diversion program.

Discussion

It may be inferred from the collected responses that county jails and county probation and parole agencies take a slightly different approach to the I&DD population. For example, probation departments seem to take more of a case management approach in comparison to county jails. This may account for the large disparity between perceived recidivism rates—the county jails reported a 71 per cent recidivism rate, whereas probation departments reported 36 per cent. This difference may also be attributed to the divergent approaches between the organizations at reducing reoffending. Potential reasons for these varied outcomes are discussed below.

Comparisons of reported recidivism rates

The county jails reported that they thought a greater percentage of I&DD offenders returned to incarceration, which was two to four times that of county probation departments. There are several possibilities that may explain this discrepancy. First, it may be possible that jails receive a higher number of repeat offenders, who are more likely to max out their sentences while held on bail. Many offenders with I&DD are unable to maintain employment and must rely on secondary earnings, such as social security benefits, as primary sources of income that make it difficult to hire their own attorneys or pay for bail. These offenders will not be placed on probation as they frequently serve the maximum time for the conviction awaiting sentencing. A second reason for this finding may be that probation departments are more likely to give second chances. Research has shown that I&DD probationers need to be provided additional support since they tend to have more problems coping with the requirements of probation (Mason and Murphy, 2002). Once probation is completed, the offender loses a vital source of support. It may be argued that higher recidivism rates are reported by county jails than probation departments because those with I&DD are more likely to commit new offenses once they are no longer under the supervision of a Probation Officer.

Approaches used to reduce recidivism

The Pennsylvania county jails and county probation departments were asked similar questions to determine if they share a common view as to how best to reduce recidivism. After a review of the data, the two organizations have different approaches to prevent future reoffending. For example, when the organizations were asked for the reasons why probationers with I&DD had their sentences revoked, 80 per cent of probation departments reported that it was for multiple reasons. It is possible that Probation Officers are not revoking probationers with I&DD immediately after their first violation, instead they are giving them multiple chances to improve before they return the probationer to jail. In doing so, they are taking more time to explain the rules of probation to help offenders be successful and refer the probationer to programs to help them avoid rearrest. County jails were more likely to point to a single crime that was committed which led to the revocation. Unlike probation departments in the sample, the county jails are not privy to all of the information that led to the revocation. The county jails are acting only as a holding facility until the revocation hearing. The information that the county jail has access to is limited to the offense for which the inmate is currently being held. This may also explain why county jails were more specific in their responses to the reason for revocation.

Another significant difference between the county jails and probation departments can be found in how each approaches the offender with I&DD after they recidivate. The majority of probation departments stated that they make multiple changes to their approach to help offenders, including making more frequent contact, taking more time to explain the rules and requirements of probation, and speaking with families and social service agencies. Compared to the county jails, probation departments are more likely to have specific contact with a local I&DD agency and refer probationers to aftercare programs. When the Probation Officer takes these steps, they are building a supportive foundation for the offender that can be maintained after the Probation Officer has formally stepped out of the relationship. Probationers may have been court-ordered to participate in treatment, but it is usually with the assistance of their probation officer that they get involved with these services. Otherwise, the offender may be unable to refer themselves to aftercare services leading to revocation.

The county jails’ responses reflect an approach that is more laissez-faire in nature. When the responses of the county jails were compared to the county probation departments, it was found that 94 per cent of probation departments refer offenders to aftercare programs and only 69 per cent of county jails provide this service. This indicates a distinct organizational difference. Fewer county jails feel it is their responsibility to ensure that the offender seeks aftercare treatment. Instead, they believe their job is done after the offender is released and their responsibility has ended. More probation departments, on the other hand, make the referrals to aftercare programs in a direct effort to minimize recidivism.

Although there may be a philosophical difference between the two organizations, the jails have improved the care of inmates with I&DD over the years. An important finding is that 51 per cent of these county jails provide multiple treatment programs to meet the majority of treatment needs for these inmates, reflecting Menolascino’s (1975) earlier assertion that treatment, diagnosis, and pre-release planning gives this population more tools to work with after release. Even though the majority of county jails did not feel that specialized treatment services were needed due to a small I&DD population, it still is important to be able to adjust extant services so that inmates with I&DD are not left without any interventions.

Policy implications

The data from this state-wide sample clearly indicate a lack of knowledge regarding I&DD clients by upper management of agencies charged with supervising a majority of the offending population in the state. Almost half of the county jail wardens responding to the questionnaire are unsure of the number of I&DD clients they serve at any given time. The figures are more disheartening in regard to community supervision. Nearly two-thirds of county probation and parole directors were unsure of the number of I&DD clients served. At best, this demonstrates a lack of awareness of the issue and consideration for the special needs of this subpopulation of offenders. A state-coordinated education policy is most certainly warranted given that only a select few counties are even addressing I&DD offender needs on even a superficial basis. At the same time, a standardized assessment protocol should be mandated state-wide, as the first step in addressing I&DD client needs as a valid screening tool at intake so that offenders with I&DD can be identified as early as possible. Once these offenders are identified, they can be targeted for specialized treatment that will meet their needs. At this point, the local I&DD agency should be contacted. Then, an I&DD case manager can assist the offender through the criminal justice process. The support provided by the I&DD worker will help aid the offender in the trial process. The case manager will also make sure to speak with the judges, the lawyers, and the jail personnel about the extent of the offender’s disabilities. This will give the criminal justice professionals an idea of what services and supports will be necessary when the offender is released from incarceration. The case manager can also assist with referrals.

Another important area of intervention is jail diversion programs specifically designed to manage offenders with I&DD. Such programs give direction to the court system on treatment program interventions that are alternatives to incarceration. Although jail diversion programs have been rapidly spreading across the United States, they are mainly focused on mentally ill offenders, not those with I&DD. These jail diversion programs can easily be expanded to include offenders with I&DD. I&DD resources and inpatient treatment programs would need to be made readily available for referral, but after this is completed, the mental health and I&DD agency can work together to ensure that all offenders with a disability receive the correct treatment. Jail diversion programs also have a direct connection with mental health and I&DD agencies, and can make sure a referral has been completed with these programs so that case management services can begin. These services should continue after the offender is released.

County jails should develop a relationship with probation and parole departments. If this relationship existed, it could streamline the continuum of care for offenders with I&DD. For example, when an inmate is identified with I&DD and released on probation, there should be a discussion between the two agencies where the county jail describes the disability and treatment needs directly to the probation department. If this took place the probation department would not need to reassess the individual. This would stop a gap in treatment and give the Probation Officer a better idea of how to effectively supervise the offender. Furthermore, when Probation Officers revoke sentences of offenders with I&DD, they can immediately alert the county jail and this will also help maintain the continuation of care. One of the most important aspects of this communication is that it would facilitate a relationship between the two organizations and may promote a case management approach among jails.

It is also imperative to address treatment during incarceration as well as after release (Sobsey, 1994). County jails should provide treatment and special education services to I&DD offenders during incarceration. Even if a county jail does not have a large number of incoming inmates with I&DD, if treatment is provided, the offender can begin to understand why what they did was against the law. Education should also be provided to I&DD offenders because it provides them with more skills and knowledge to help find meaningful employment after release and builds confidence. The county jails can then refer the offenders to aftercare programs or referral sources for continual care.

If an offender with I&DD recidivates, extra steps need to be taken to avoid future offending. These include involving social service agencies and families in helping the Probation Officer support the offender with I&DD. The rules and regulations of probation need to be explained in a way that the offender can understand, instead of simply providing a long complex list of the rules and regulations of probation. If the probationer cannot read or cognitively process what they are reading, they are more likely to break the rules. County jails can also assist in these areas prior to release. Additionally, approaches can be used to help avoid recidivism including more frequent supervision and referrals for treatment. Offenders with I&DD may refuse treatment, but if a team of individuals can advise the offender of the consequences of their actions in a way that the offender understands, they may be more likely to initiate and engage treatment.

Overall, there needs to be teamwork between the county jails, the county probation and parole departments, and social service agencies. Pennsylvania has begun to take these steps in a few counties by developing special offender programs, which provide a specialized I&DD case manager and probationer officer that is designed to act as a team to supervise special need offenders. However, the data in this study indicate that the majority Pennsylvania counties have not become a part of this process. Clearly since deinstitutionalization, offenders with I&DD have increased (Petersilia, 1997). If the criminal justice system continues to ignore the needs of offenders with I&DD at the local-level, this trend will persist.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Diehl

Porter

(2004) Survey of County Jails in Tennessee: One Year Follow Up. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Mental Health Planning and Policy Council, Criminal Justice/Mental Health Advisory Committee. Available at: http://www.state.tn.us/mental/cj/surveyfupjan2004.pdf

Glaser

Deane

(1999) Normalisation in an abnormal world: A Study of prisoners with an intellectual disability. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 43: 338–356.

Goddard

(1914) School Training of Defective Children. New York, NY: World Book Co.

Grande

Oseroff

(1991) Special education planning in jails? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 16: 103–111.

Health and Family Services Cabinet (2006) Telephonic Triage Service Provides Assistance for Kentucky Jails. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Cabinet for Health & Family Services. Available at: http://kentucky.gov/Newsroom/chfs/triage.htm

Hodgins

(1992) Mental disorder, intellectual deficiency, and crime: Evidence from a birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry 49: 476–483.

Holland

(2004). Criminal behaviour and developmental disability: An epidemiologica perspective. In: Lindsay

Taylor

Sturmey

(eds) Offenders with Developmental Disabilities. Chichester, UK: John Wiley, pp. 23–34.

Holland

Clare

ICH

Mukhopadhya

(2002). Prevalence of ‘criminal offending’ by men and women with intellectual disability and characteristics of ‘offenders’: Implications for research and service development. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 46 (Suppl. 1): 6–20.

10.

Kinsler

Saxman

Fishman

(2004) The Vermont Defendant Accommodation Project: A case study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 10: 134–161.

11.

Lindsay

Taylor

(2008). Assessment and treatment of offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In: Soothill

Rogers

Dolan

(eds) Handbook of Forensic Mental Health. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing, pp. 328–350.

12.

Linhorst

McCutchen

Bennett

(2003) Recidivism among offenders with developmental disabilities participating in a case management program. Research in Developmental Disabilities 24: 210–230.

13.

McAfee

Musso

(1995) Police training and citizens with mental retardation. Criminal Justice Review 20: 55–65.

14.

MacEachron

(1979) Mentally retarded offenders: Prevalence and characteristics. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 84: 165–176.

15.

McNair

(2005) A historical background of special education. Lecture presented to the National Association of Christians in Special Education, California Baptist University, April 2005. Available at: www.jeffmcnair.com/lectures/history.ppt

16.

Mason

Murphy

(2002) Intellectual disability amongst people on probation: Prevalence and outcome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 46: 230–238.

17.

Menolascino

(1975) A system of services for the mentally retarded offender. Crime and Delinquency 21: 57–64.

18.

Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services of Texoma (2006) Jail and Detention Diversion Plan Amendment. Sherman, TX: Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services of Texoma. Available at: http://www.mhmrst.org/JailDiversionAmendment06.pdf

19.

Messinger

Apfelberg

(1961) A quarter century of court psychiatry. Crime and Delinquency 7: 343–362.

20.

National Commission on Correctional Health Care (1992) Mental Health Services in Correctional Settings. Chicago, IL: National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Available at: http://www.ncchc.org/resources/statements/mentalhealth.html

21.

New York Commission on Quality of Care (1991) Inmates with Developmental Disabilities in NYS Correctional Facilities. Albany, NY: New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled. Available at: http://www.cqcapd.state.ny.us/Publications/pubinmat.htm

22.

Nottestad

Linaker

(2005). People with intellectual disabilities sentenced to preventive supervision: Mandatory care outside jails and institutions. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 2: 221–228.

23.

O’Connell

Garmoe

Sevin Goldstein

(2005). Miranda comprehension in adults with I&DD and the effects of feedback style on suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior 29: 359–369.

24.

Petersilia

(1997) Unequal justice? Offenders with I&DD in prison. Corrections Management Quarterly 1: 36–43.

25.

Petersilia

(2000) Doing justice? Criminal offenders with developmental disabilities. Detailed research findings. Berkeley, CA: California Policy Research Center. Available at: http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/PetersiliaMR-DD.html

26.

Reichard

Spencer

Spooner

(1980) The mentally retarded defendant-offender. The Journal of Special Education 14: 113–119.

27.

Rockowitz

(1986) Developmentally disabled offenders: Issues in developing and maintaining services. The Prison Journal 66: 19–23.

28.

Santamour

(1986) The offender with mental retardation. The Prison Journal 66: 3–18.

29.

Schoen

Hoover

(1990) Mentally retarded sex offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 16: 81–91.

30.

Simpson

Hogg

(2001) Patterns of offending among people with intellectual disability: A systematic review. Part I: Methodology and prevalence data. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 45: 384–396.

31.

Sobsey

(1994) Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.