Police encounters with people with intellectual disability: prevalence, characteristics and challenges.
Police bump into people with ID often, guess by looks, and struggle most with talking and getting help.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Griffith et al. (2012) asked Victorian police officers about their run-ins with people who have intellectual disability.
The survey wanted to know how often these contacts happen, how officers spot ID, and what problems crop up.
Officers wrote about real cases instead of doing role-plays.
What they found
Police meet people with ID far more than most people think.
Officers rely on looks or odd behavior to guess someone has ID.
Their biggest headaches are talking with the person and finding support services fast.
How this fits with other research
Matson et al. (2013) asked the same questions to Independent Third Person volunteers who sit in on police interviews. Both studies flag the same gap: officers need better communication training.
Perske (2010) gives a fix. That paper hands police a -item checklist of ID behaviors to watch for during questioning. It turns the broad "training gap" into a concrete lesson plan.
Catania et al. (2015) zooms in on victims with ID. Their work shows some adults can push back against tricky police questions, but many cannot. This sharpens the training need: officers must avoid leading questions and build in safeguards.
Why it matters
If you serve adults with ID, loop in local police. Share Robert’s checklist and Charles’ tip to ask one question at a time. A short in-service talk can cut miscommunication and keep your clients safe during emergencies.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Email your local police training officer and attach Robert’s -item ID behavior list to kick-start a short joint workshop.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the experiences and perceptions of operational members of Victoria Police in relation to their contacts with people with intellectual disability (ID). Key interests for exploration included how frequently and in what context police reported coming into contact with people with ID, how they made this identification, and the challenges they experienced at this interface. METHODS: Participants comprised 229 operational police members who attended mandatory firearms training sessions over a 2-week period in Melbourne, Australia. RESULTS: Police reported coming into contact with people they believed to have an ID on a regular basis and for a wide variety of reasons. They were most likely to base their knowledge on job-related experiences and were most likely to identify individuals on the basis of physical and behavioural cues. The most common challenges were communication, and gaining access to assistance and co-operation from other service providers. While many considered themselves capable in their interactions with those with ID, those who identified that they were most in need of training reported lower confidence in how to respond in these encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Future training needs to focus on differentiating between mental illness and ID, techniques for enhancing identification and communication, and the inclusion of hands-on scenario-based sessions involving an interdisciplinary approach.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2012 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01502.x