Identification Procedures and Screening for Learning Difficulties and Learning Disabilities

As already highlighted, the issue of identification of learning difficulties becomes important as soon as one enters The Justice System. Without identification, the entitled support may not be granted and any evidence gathered could be deemed inadmissible in court. To be eligible for special measures at court, an individual has to be classified as a vulnerable or intimidated witness under Sections 16-33 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999). An independent review by Lord Bradley (2009) looked at ways in which those experiencing mental health problems or learning disabilities could be accommodated in other services outside of prison. Lord Bradley stated: “By ensuring early identification and assessment, along with improved information sharing, there will be better informed charging, prosecution and sentencing decisions” (Bradley, 2009, p. 149). Lord Bradley concluded his review by stating: "The first step to the effective management of offenders is the existence of good early identification and assessment of problems, which can inform how and where they are most appropriately treated,” (Bradley, 2009, p. 149).

The police, judges and solicitors, etc., are all paramount in The Justice System in recommending the receipt of special support measures for suspects, victims and witnesses. However, a problem emerges when a police officer (as the initial point of contact in The Justice System) does not recognise the presence of a learning disability, which can often occur when the disability is not obvious or when it falls within the mild or borderline range (Hayes, 2007).

32

A joint inspection of the treatment of offenders with learning disabilities (HMI Probation et al., 2014) found that 58% of detainees with learning disabilities did not have their learning disability identified whilst in the care of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This suggests that there is perhaps a problem with how the police identify those with a learning disability. Further to this, the study also identified that the layout of many of the police custody suites meant that the detainees had a lack of privacy, thus potentially reducing the possibility that a detainee would disclose a learning disability due to the environment not being conducive to a detainee's needs. Although the sample in this study was limited to 36 detainees, the findings nevertheless indicate that in recent years there is still a potential shortfall in the identification of learning difficulties by the police.

In some instances, upon arrest, the police rely upon the individual to disclose the presence of a learning difficulty. However, Clare and Gudjonsson (1991) ascertained, during a study examining individuals with learning disabilities and their experiences in police custody, that only a third of the sample could understand the importance of informing professionals of their learning disability. Negativity surrounding the label of a learning disability may also act as a barrier to the self-reporting of difficulties, due to a fear of being stigmatised. Additionally, it would appear that there is not a systemic screening process in place to identify learning disabilities in young offenders in the UK (Ford et al., 2008). The lack of an appropriate screening process thus reinforces the suggestion that efficient identification of learning disabilities should be a priority issue, particularly within the initial stages of The Justice System (Ford et al., 2008; Chitsabesan & Bailey, 2006).

The problem of identification also extends to the experiences of offenders when they are sentenced. Prison staff who participated in the 'No One Knows’ project (Jones & Talbot, 2008) stated that the majority of prisoners are unlikely to be accompanied by documentation which states a diagnosis of a learning difficulty/disability (this includes GP notes, expert witness

33

reports or screening assessment notes), and only 13% stated that they themselves would be alerted if an offender had learning difficulties. Therefore, information about a new prisoner may not always reach prison personnel, even if a formal diagnosis of a learning disability had been made. It is of note that prison personnel have access to health and educational assessment resources which may have the potential to screen for learning difficulties and disabilities (Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, 2013). However, Hayes (2007) highlights that these assessments tend to be very brief, are not comprehensive enough to diagnose a learning difficulty in many cases and may often be conducted by those who have not received sufficient enough training to recognise learning difficulties. Moreover, even if the entry screening assessments were to be completed by appropriate professionals, there are currently no screening assessments that are specifically and consistently administered to determine the presence of a learning difficulty or the accuracy of the assessment (Hayes, 2007; Jones & Talbot, 2010).

Therefore, one would assume that if assessments were carried out by those with more experience of recognising learning difficulties (e.g. an EP using standardised tests), identification would more likely be accurate. However, to be certain of this, comparative studies would need to be undertaken to establish the validity of the assumption.

Further research emphasises the difficulty in identifying young offenders with learning disabilities due to the high co-morbidity of psychiatric illness (estimated to be approximately 41-50%) or behavioural disturbance amongst this group (Hall, 2000). Misdiagnosis of psychiatric disorders for instance, could result in placement in a secure psychiatric unit, which may be unsuitable for the needs of a learning disabled offender. Indeed, if behaviour is misinterpreted as a behavioural disorder and not considered to be a product of a learning disability, the cause of the problematic behaviour may go unrecognised, resulting in inappropriate and ineffective support being provided (Kvarfordt, Purcell, & Shannon, 2005).

34

Jones and Talbot (2010) highlight that there is a distinct lack of adapted offender behaviour programmes that are tailored towards meeting the specific needs of young offenders with learning difficulties/disabilities within secure settings. Subsequently, if a young offender experiences comprehension and literacy issues, early identification is paramount to enable participation in particular advanced programmes within the prison, to be either supported or excused.

In summary, results of previous literature suggest that the present methods of identification are absent in many cases and ineffective in others and consequently, neither is the present support offered to offenders with learning disabilities considered to be adequate.