Original Article
Responsivity to criminogenic need in forensic intellectual disability services
Article first published online: 14 SEP 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01600.x
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Issue

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
Special Issue: Mental Health and Intellectual Disability: XXIXII
Volume 57, Issue 2, pages 172–181, February 2013
Additional Information
How to Cite
Lindsay, W. R., Holland, A. J., Carson, D., Taylor, J. L., O'Brien, G., Steptoe, L. and Wheeler, J. (2013), Responsivity to criminogenic need in forensic intellectual disability services. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57: 172–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01600.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 4 JAN 2013
- Article first published online: 14 SEP 2012
- Accepted 1 July 2012
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- criminogenic need;
- intellectual disability;
- offenders;
- service response;
- sexual offending;
- violence
Abstract
Background Research has shown for some time that addressing criminogenic need is one of the crucial aspects of reducing reoffending in all types of offenders. Criminogenic need such as anger or inappropriate sexual interest is considered to be crucial in the commission of the offence. The aim of the present study is to investigate the extent to which forensic services address the needs of those accepted into services.
Method This study reviews the treatment for 197 offenders with intellectual disability accepted into a range of services. Participants' case files were examined to ascertain the extent to which need was addressed through recognised therapies. A standard pro forma was used on which we had established good reliability across four research assistants.
Results The most frequently referred problems were violence and sexual offending. Specialist forensic intellectual disability community services were significantly more likely to provide treatment specifically designed to address index behaviours when compared to generic community services and secure services.
Conclusions Various possible explanations of these findings are explored including staffing levels, diagnosed mental illness, expertise of staff and clarity of purpose in services.

1365-2788/asset/JIR_left.gif?v=1&s=3891f16d82090d317d4f5c3e805d04f70df1bace)
1365-2788/asset/JIR_right.gif?v=1&s=ecf38490f3a6ac3c2bf05f60f6606f4e7f440cd0)