Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability in the criminal justice system: a systematic review

Edward Chaplin, Jane McCarthy, Debbie Spain, Barry Tolchard, Sally Hardy, Karina Marshall-Tate, Andrew Forrester

Research output: Other contribution

Abstract

In the general population, it is estimated that Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects around 1% to 1.5% (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014) and Intellectual Disability (ID) 2–3% (2001). Studies across the criminal justice system (CJS) have estimated the prevalence of prisoners with ASD and ID at 4.4% (Fazio et al, 2012) and 7% (Mottram, 2007) respectively, suggesting that they are over represented in the CJS (Hellenbach et al, 2017). Moreover, the presence of ASD and ID within the CJS is associated with poorer outcomes (Vanny et al, 2009), increasing the likelihood of future recidivism, or custodial or more restrictive or punitive sentencing (McCarthy et al; 2016). There is little research into the prevalence of ID and ASD in courts and varying estimates have been reported from 3-23%, whilst in police stations estimates have ranged between 2%
and 9% (Murphy and Mason, 2014). Identification has highlighted individuals with ID are more likely to present with mental health problems and that those with borderline ID have similar characteristics to those with mild ID (Hayes, 1997). The characteristics of ID offenders it is argued are different to defendants without ID (Vinkers, 2013). While there should be parity of access to identification and screening programmes between individuals with ASD and ID and mental illness, little research has been published on the prevalence of ASD and ID in police, court, probation and prison, and how identification of these conditions may influence an individuals’ journey in the CJS from arrest to sentencing. Traditionally screening tools used within the CJS have concentrated on identifying mental disorder focussed on serious mental illness and risk. To complement the use of self-report and routine clinical interview and assessment in identifying ID and ASD, there have been several screening tools aimed at people with ID and ASD piloted in the CJS in a number of countries over the last decade such as the Rapid Assessment of Potential Intellectual Disability (RAPID) (Ali et al, 2016), Hayes Ability Screening Index (HASI) (Hayes, 2000) Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire, and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT) (Kaufman, 1990) for ID and the AQ-10 for ASD (see Booth et al, 2013). Given the recent growth of screening, this proposal seeks to review the effect and impact of
screening of adults for ASD and ID across the CJS
Original languageEnglish
TypeCampbell Collaboration
Number of pages12
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2018

Fingerprint

autism
disability
justice
mental illness
police
intelligence test
probation
mental disorder
prisoner
learning disability
correctional institution
offender

Cite this

Chaplin, E., McCarthy, J., Spain, D., Tolchard, B., Hardy, S., Marshall-Tate, K., & Forrester, A. (2018). Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability in the criminal justice system: a systematic review.
Chaplin, Edward ; McCarthy, Jane ; Spain, Debbie ; Tolchard, Barry ; Hardy, Sally ; Marshall-Tate, Karina ; Forrester, Andrew . / Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability in the criminal justice system: a systematic review. 2018. 12 p.
@misc{256265b881074e16aa853c273e967004,
title = "Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability in the criminal justice system: a systematic review",
abstract = "In the general population, it is estimated that Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects around 1{\%} to 1.5{\%} (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014) and Intellectual Disability (ID) 2–3{\%} (2001). Studies across the criminal justice system (CJS) have estimated the prevalence of prisoners with ASD and ID at 4.4{\%} (Fazio et al, 2012) and 7{\%} (Mottram, 2007) respectively, suggesting that they are over represented in the CJS (Hellenbach et al, 2017). Moreover, the presence of ASD and ID within the CJS is associated with poorer outcomes (Vanny et al, 2009), increasing the likelihood of future recidivism, or custodial or more restrictive or punitive sentencing (McCarthy et al; 2016). There is little research into the prevalence of ID and ASD in courts and varying estimates have been reported from 3-23{\%}, whilst in police stations estimates have ranged between 2{\%}and 9{\%} (Murphy and Mason, 2014). Identification has highlighted individuals with ID are more likely to present with mental health problems and that those with borderline ID have similar characteristics to those with mild ID (Hayes, 1997). The characteristics of ID offenders it is argued are different to defendants without ID (Vinkers, 2013). While there should be parity of access to identification and screening programmes between individuals with ASD and ID and mental illness, little research has been published on the prevalence of ASD and ID in police, court, probation and prison, and how identification of these conditions may influence an individuals’ journey in the CJS from arrest to sentencing. Traditionally screening tools used within the CJS have concentrated on identifying mental disorder focussed on serious mental illness and risk. To complement the use of self-report and routine clinical interview and assessment in identifying ID and ASD, there have been several screening tools aimed at people with ID and ASD piloted in the CJS in a number of countries over the last decade such as the Rapid Assessment of Potential Intellectual Disability (RAPID) (Ali et al, 2016), Hayes Ability Screening Index (HASI) (Hayes, 2000) Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire, and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT) (Kaufman, 1990) for ID and the AQ-10 for ASD (see Booth et al, 2013). Given the recent growth of screening, this proposal seeks to review the effect and impact ofscreening of adults for ASD and ID across the CJS",
author = "Edward Chaplin and Jane McCarthy and Debbie Spain and Barry Tolchard and Sally Hardy and Karina Marshall-Tate and Andrew Forrester",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
type = "Other",

}

Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability in the criminal justice system: a systematic review. / Chaplin, Edward; McCarthy, Jane ; Spain, Debbie ; Tolchard, Barry; Hardy, Sally; Marshall-Tate, Karina ; Forrester, Andrew .

12 p. 2018, Campbell Collaboration.

Research output: Other contribution

TY - GEN

T1 - Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability in the criminal justice system: a systematic review

AU - Chaplin, Edward

AU - McCarthy, Jane

AU - Spain, Debbie

AU - Tolchard, Barry

AU - Hardy, Sally

AU - Marshall-Tate, Karina

AU - Forrester, Andrew

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - In the general population, it is estimated that Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects around 1% to 1.5% (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014) and Intellectual Disability (ID) 2–3% (2001). Studies across the criminal justice system (CJS) have estimated the prevalence of prisoners with ASD and ID at 4.4% (Fazio et al, 2012) and 7% (Mottram, 2007) respectively, suggesting that they are over represented in the CJS (Hellenbach et al, 2017). Moreover, the presence of ASD and ID within the CJS is associated with poorer outcomes (Vanny et al, 2009), increasing the likelihood of future recidivism, or custodial or more restrictive or punitive sentencing (McCarthy et al; 2016). There is little research into the prevalence of ID and ASD in courts and varying estimates have been reported from 3-23%, whilst in police stations estimates have ranged between 2%and 9% (Murphy and Mason, 2014). Identification has highlighted individuals with ID are more likely to present with mental health problems and that those with borderline ID have similar characteristics to those with mild ID (Hayes, 1997). The characteristics of ID offenders it is argued are different to defendants without ID (Vinkers, 2013). While there should be parity of access to identification and screening programmes between individuals with ASD and ID and mental illness, little research has been published on the prevalence of ASD and ID in police, court, probation and prison, and how identification of these conditions may influence an individuals’ journey in the CJS from arrest to sentencing. Traditionally screening tools used within the CJS have concentrated on identifying mental disorder focussed on serious mental illness and risk. To complement the use of self-report and routine clinical interview and assessment in identifying ID and ASD, there have been several screening tools aimed at people with ID and ASD piloted in the CJS in a number of countries over the last decade such as the Rapid Assessment of Potential Intellectual Disability (RAPID) (Ali et al, 2016), Hayes Ability Screening Index (HASI) (Hayes, 2000) Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire, and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT) (Kaufman, 1990) for ID and the AQ-10 for ASD (see Booth et al, 2013). Given the recent growth of screening, this proposal seeks to review the effect and impact ofscreening of adults for ASD and ID across the CJS

AB - In the general population, it is estimated that Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects around 1% to 1.5% (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014) and Intellectual Disability (ID) 2–3% (2001). Studies across the criminal justice system (CJS) have estimated the prevalence of prisoners with ASD and ID at 4.4% (Fazio et al, 2012) and 7% (Mottram, 2007) respectively, suggesting that they are over represented in the CJS (Hellenbach et al, 2017). Moreover, the presence of ASD and ID within the CJS is associated with poorer outcomes (Vanny et al, 2009), increasing the likelihood of future recidivism, or custodial or more restrictive or punitive sentencing (McCarthy et al; 2016). There is little research into the prevalence of ID and ASD in courts and varying estimates have been reported from 3-23%, whilst in police stations estimates have ranged between 2%and 9% (Murphy and Mason, 2014). Identification has highlighted individuals with ID are more likely to present with mental health problems and that those with borderline ID have similar characteristics to those with mild ID (Hayes, 1997). The characteristics of ID offenders it is argued are different to defendants without ID (Vinkers, 2013). While there should be parity of access to identification and screening programmes between individuals with ASD and ID and mental illness, little research has been published on the prevalence of ASD and ID in police, court, probation and prison, and how identification of these conditions may influence an individuals’ journey in the CJS from arrest to sentencing. Traditionally screening tools used within the CJS have concentrated on identifying mental disorder focussed on serious mental illness and risk. To complement the use of self-report and routine clinical interview and assessment in identifying ID and ASD, there have been several screening tools aimed at people with ID and ASD piloted in the CJS in a number of countries over the last decade such as the Rapid Assessment of Potential Intellectual Disability (RAPID) (Ali et al, 2016), Hayes Ability Screening Index (HASI) (Hayes, 2000) Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire, and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT) (Kaufman, 1990) for ID and the AQ-10 for ASD (see Booth et al, 2013). Given the recent growth of screening, this proposal seeks to review the effect and impact ofscreening of adults for ASD and ID across the CJS

UR - https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/autism-spectrum-disorder-and-intellectual-disability-screening-criminal-justice-system.html

M3 - Other contribution

ER -