Are we there yet? Screening processes for intellectual and developmental disabilities in jail settings.
Most jails skip formal IDD screening—only 6 % use validated tools, leaving the majority of detainees with IDD unidentified.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Rice et al. (2009) phoned and mailed surveys to every U.S. jail. They asked one question: Do you screen new detainees for intellectual or developmental disabilities?
They counted how many jails used a formal tool, an informal checklist, or nothing at all.
What they found
Only six out of every 100 jails use a validated IDD screen. The rest rely on casual questions or skip screening entirely.
That means most people with IDD enter the system unseen and get no support.
How this fits with other research
Martin et al. (2003) saw the same gap in the UK. Only 9 % of autistic children received follow-up assessments after diagnosis. Both surveys show professionals skipping recommended screens.
Snijder et al. (2021) asked Dutch doctors why they skip the official ASD screener. They cited lack of time, training, and trust in the tool. Jails give similar reasons: too few staff, too little training.
Dai et al. (2023) tracked what happens next. In China, one in four children with ASD still receive no help after diagnosis. Anna’s jail data complete the picture: if screening never starts, services never follow.
Why it matters
If you assess adults in criminal-justice settings, assume IDD is missed. Bring a validated tool like the Hayes Ability Screening Index. One extra 10-minute screen can trigger accommodations, diversion programs, and better outcomes.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a 10-minute IDD screen to every intake packet you review.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Early identification of intellectual and developmental disabilities in persons in the criminal justice system is essential to protect their rights during arrest and trial, ensure safety when incarcerated, and maximize the opportunities to receive services while incarcerated and postrelease. Using telephone interviews of jail administrators (N=80) in 1 state, this study examined how people with intellectual and developmental disabilities were identified in jails. Findings indicated that administrators varied widely in awareness of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in their jails. Few jails (6%) used formal screening instruments for intellectual and developmental disabilities, others relied on officer observation and self-report (53%), and some provided no screening at all; in addition, officers received little training in this regard. Findings suggest that few jails are operationalizing best-practice screening processes for intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2009 · doi:10.1352/2009.47:13-23