Prisoners with intellectual disabilities and detention status. Findings from a UK cross sectional study of prisons.
UK prisoners with intellectual disability are over-represented on remand and under-represented among sentenced populations, signaling systemic identification and diversion gaps.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Afia and colleagues looked at every man in nine UK prisons. They gave a quick IQ screen to 1,433 prisoners.
They compared who was still waiting for trial (remand) and who had already been sentenced.
The team counted age, race, crime type, and mental health so those factors would not blur the picture.
What they found
Prisoners with intellectual disability were twice as likely to be stuck on remand.
Fewer of them had final sentences, even when they had similar crimes and records.
The pattern signals that courts and lawyers may miss the disability or lack good diversion options.
How this fits with other research
A-Bigby et al. (2009) showed that repeated suggestive questions make 40 % of youth with ID flip their answers. Together the papers show the justice system trips up people with ID at two points: first in the interview room, later in detention decisions.
Cooper et al. (1990) offered a bright spot: a prison skills class helped mentally ill inmates learn daily living skills. That program did not focus on ID, but it proves prisons can run good rehab. Afia’s numbers say we need those programs earlier—before people with ID languish on remand.
Chicoine et al. (2015) and Casey et al. (2009) review severe genetic causes of ID. Their work reminds us that many prisoners flagged by Afia’s screen will also have complex health needs, not just low IQ.
Why it matters
If you assess adults in forensic or community settings, add a short IQ screen plus adaptive questions. A score below 70 plus poor daily skills can open the door to diversion courts, support workers, or a guardian. Flagging ID early can shorten remand time, cut behavior incidents, and link clients to services that teach coping and daily living skills.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the LDSQ or similar five-minute screen to your intake packet; if score is low, request adaptive behavior data and alert the legal team within 24 hours.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare social and environmental historical and contextual risk factors between prisoners with intellectual disabilities and those without intellectual disabilities, and to investigate whether prisoners with intellectual disabilities were more likely to be placed on remand in prison (awaiting trial or sentencing) compared to those without intellectual disabilities, after controlling for socio-demographic factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, accommodation status and nature of offences. In this study, we carried out a secondary analysis of data from the 1997 Prison survey, which included 131 prisons in England and Wales. A fixed sampling fraction was used to obtain a representative sample of prisoners. A total of 3563 prisoners were approached and 3142 (88%) prisoners gave informed consent to be interviewed. Of these, 170 were identified as having intellectual disabilities using the Quick Test. Prisoners with intellectual disabilities were more likely to have lived in institutions or taken into local authority care and more likely to live in temporary accommodation. They were less likely to have had a paid job or any educational qualifications and more likely to perceive a lack of social support. Prisoners with intellectual disabilities were more likely to be placed on remand and were less likely to be sentenced, even after controlling for socio-demographic factors and nature of offence. This study suggests that prisons should be more pro-active at identifying people with intellectual disabilities and ensuring that their needs are met, including appropriate access to bail and court diversion schemes.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2016 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.02.004