People with learning disabilities placed out of area: the South London experience

The investigation of the relationship between criminal offending and the presence of an intellectual disability (ID) is problematic for two main reasons. First, because of problems associated with the definition of 'ID' and secondly, because much criminal offending goes undetected or unreported, and studies can only investigate those already involved with the criminal justice process. Studies using IQ as a continuous variable indicate that significantly below-average intellectual ability is an independent predictor of future offending. Whilst people with ID may be over-represented in parts of the criminal justice system, given the intellectual and other psychosocial disadvantages which they experience, the level of offending behaviour in this particularly vulnerable group is strikingly low. The present authors propose that two broad groups of people can be identified. The first, broader, group is one of people for whom social disadvantage and mental ill health (particularly substance abuse), coupled with a significant intellectual impairment, are the main characteristics. Secondly, there is a smaller group of people, usually already known to ID services as service users, but for whom the process whereby what might have been conceptualized as 'challenging behaviour' becomes 'offending' is far from clear. The distinction the present authors make between challenging behaviour and offending is important for understanding how 'difficult' behaviour becomes identified as 'antisocial/criminal behaviour'. They argue that research needs to move from prevalence and descriptive studies to investigating the processes which determine movement in and out the criminal justice system. The present political emphasis on public protection and proposals for significantly broader mental health legislation raise the danger of a re-expansion of institutional models of care, rather than the development of multi-agency support networks. The present paper underscores a note of caution, particularly where choices have to be made between expanding institutional models on the one hand and providing more integrated services on the other. Over and above policy decisions, these are social and political choices.

Out of area placements for people with challenging behaviour represent an expensive and often ineffective strategy for meeting the needs of this service user group. More than 800 agencies and service settings in a large area of South Wales were screened to identify children and adults with challenging behaviour against a number of defined operational criteria. Detailed data on identified individuals and the services they received were collected by interviewing key informants. Univariate and multivariate statistics were employed to identify predictors of out of area placement. In total, 1458 people were identified. Full data were available for 901 participants, 97 of whom were placed out of area. Predictors of out of area placement included behaviours resulting in physical injury and exclusion from service settings, a history of formal detention under the mental health act, the presence of mental health problems, a diagnosis of autism and higher total score on the Adaptive Behaviour Scale. Out of area placements were typically of high cost, and associated with only limited evidence of improved service quality. Identifying predictors for out of area placement can be used to highlight deficiencies in local services and individuals at increased risk of exclusion from local services.

Although the vast majority of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) are law-abiding citizens, there is a small percentage with offending behaviour that is considered antisocial, socially inappropriate, or defined as illegal. It has long been recognised that individuals with ID or mental-health needs who break the law should be dealt with differently from the general population. There have been an increasing number of empirical studies in this area; however, these have been plagued by various definitional and methodological issues. Prevalence estimates of offenders with ID are complicated by diagnostic variations and inconsistencies in the criminal justice process. International studies have shown a large range, from 2% to 40%, depending on methodological approaches. The following review will highlight the salient issues including prevalence of offending, characteristics of offenders, vulnerabilities within the legal system, assessment, and a brief overview of intervention and treatment approaches.