SERVICES AND OUTCOMES FOR OFFENDERS WITH INTELLECTUAL

1
SERVICES AND OUTCOMES FOR OFFENDERS WITH
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES IN LOS ANGELESBruce
Williams, Ph.D.South Central Los Angeles
Regional Center
2
Overview of People with Mental Retardation in the
Criminal Justice System
3
Mental Retardation and the Criminal Justice System

• Vulnerabilities at all stages of the CJS
• Attorney General Dick Thornburgh
• Presidents Committee (1966)
• Criminal Justice System and Mental Retardation
  (1991)
• No People with MR in California Prisons?
• Estimates of those incarcerated who
• have DD

4
Regional Centers in California

• Non-profit agencies which contract with the state
  Department of Developmental Services
• 21 in California (7 in Los Angeles County)
• Provides case management and contracts for
  servicese.g. residential, day programs, behavior
  intervention

5
Efforts to Address the Problem in California

• Los Angeles County Law Enforcement Liaison and
  Diversion Statute
• Criminal Justice Task Force for Developmental
  Disabilities
• SCLARCs Forensic Project (1997)
• Requirement for Forensic Expertise at all
  regional centers (2000)
• ARCA Forensic Task Force

6

• SCLARC Forensic Project Components
• 1. Juvenile Liaison Program
• 2. Training
• 3. Multi-Agency Advisory Board
• 4. Forensic Assessment Team

7
Multi-Agency Advisory Board MembersDepartment
of Mental HealthCounty Probation Department
(Adult and Juvenile) County Department of
Children and Family ServicesCounty Public
Defender (Adult and Juvenile) County District
Attorney City Attorney Sheriffs
DepartmentLos Angeles Police DepartmentState
Parole Office (Department of Corrections)Los
Angeles County Regional CentersForensic Project
Representatives
8
Working with the Criminal Justice System
9
Steps of the Criminal Justice Process
Direct service and advocacy must be provided at
these stages of involvement in the criminal
justice system

• Prevention
• Point of arrest
• Deflection
• Jail
• Contacts with court attorneys
• Contacts with Parole and Probation Officers

• Preparation for Court
• Court and Sentencing
• Residential placement and clinical treatment
• Follow-up with the court
• Prison

10
LAW ENFORCEMENT LIAISON

• Mens Central Jail
• Twin Towers Correctional Facility
• Wayside/Central Facilities
• LEL Bobby Vargas
• Email BobbyV_at_sclarc.org
• Voice [phone] or 213-744-8860
• Fax [phone]

11
Search and Rescue
Law Enforcement Liaison interviews inmate and
provides information, screening, and referral to
Forensic Assessment Team and other services from
all seven Los Angeles regional centersif inmate
is already a regional center client.
12
For Non-Clients Assessment and Screening
L.E.L. facilitates Regional Center
eligibility by Screening for
Regional Center eligibility--Various Screening
tools are used to determine
appropriateness of continuing with RC
evaluation Completing a psycho-social
assessment if screened as probably eligible
Coordinating the completion of a
court ordered medical,
psychological, and other evaluations and services
deemed necessary
13
(No Transcript)
14
Forensic Assessment Team (FAT)

• Case review and analysis
• Second Tuesday (and as needed) meetings
• Court recommendations
• Jail recommendations
• Treatment recommendations
• Follow-up activities
• Evolution of FAT

15
Court Recommendations

• Sentencing Diversion, Probation, etc.
• Terms of diversion/probation
• Competency to Stand Trial - assessment
  recommendations for training, placement, and
  terms
• Identification of needed resources (home,
  therapy, programs...)
• Consideration of MR as mitigating factor in
  sentencing
• Contacts/recommendations to Defense Attorney
  (Probation, if applicable possibly DA or CA)
• Letter to court from FAT

16
Diversion of Mentally Retarded Defendants (Penal
Code 1001.20)

• Defendants with Mental Retardation
• Only for misdemeanors
• Single agency or dual agency
• Applies at any stage of criminal proceedings
• Regional Centers diversion plan
• Reports to court (every 6 months)
• If the defendant subsequently fails..
• If terms are met..
• Diversion is for no longer than 2 years

17
Mitigating Factors

• People with MR may lack competency to act
  knowingly, willfully, and independently
• As a result they may have a decreased level of
  culpability even if they have committed an
  offense
• Supreme Court Atkins Decision (2002)

18
Assessment of Mitigating Factors (1999-2000) (N
76)

• Perceived Guilty 82
• Diminished understanding of wrongfulness 5
• Immature curiosity 7
• Vulnerability to influence by others 24
• Poor understanding of rights 3
• Poor ability to see consequences to others 13
  (egocentrism)
• Poor impulse control 36
• Poor learning history (deviant experience) 8
  
• No identified mitigating factor 29

19
Trial Competency Assessment

• Standard Understand charges assist defense
  counsel
• Person with mild MR may be CST one psychologist
  found IQ below about 62 very likely to be NCST
• Court has 3-year jurisdiction terms for
  placement etc. just as diversion and probation

20
Treatment Recommendations

• Residential (include consideration of level of
  restrictiveness necessary)
• Day Program/School
• Clinical
• Medical
• Psychiatric medication
• Behavioral treatment (including restrictions,
  contingencies, and goals for lessened
  restrictions)
• Counseling
• Specialty services (drug treatment include
  random testing sex therapy...)

21
Regional Center Services - Residential

• Adult and Children Residential Facilities
• Facility Levels Level 4 for severe behavior
  problems (These are not locked)
• Level 4 facilities specializing in offenders and
  substance abusers
• Specialized rate facilities
• ILS and SLS
• Locked IMDs
• Developmental Centers PC 2684 WIC 4418

22
Regional Center Services Day Programs

• Behavior Management
• Supported Employment
• Vendored Substance Abuse Program

23
Regional Center Services Therapeutic
Intervention

• Vendored generic mental health resources
• Generic and vendored substance abuse programs
• Vendored sex offender treatment
  Meganslaw.ca.gov
• Gang intervention
• Jail Liaison Regional Center Module
• Forensic Assessment Team

24
Offender Characteristics and Criminal Justice
Outcomes
25
Characteristics of Consumers(1997-2001)

• From all seven LA County Regional Centers
• 85 male
• 86 adults (58 21-40)

26
Levels of Mental Retardation

• Level of Retardation IQ Range (a)
  Percentage of Cases
• None 85 2
• Borderline I.F. 71 to 84 13
• Mild 50 to 70
  77
• Moderate 35 to 49 7
• Severe 20 to 34 1
• Profound Below 20 0
• (a) Source AAMD Classification in Mental
  Retardation, 1992 Revision

27
Mental Health Diagnoses

• No Mental Disorders (Only Mental Retardation)
  50
• Major Mental Health Disorders
• Schizophrenia 11
• Depression (Includes Bipolar)
  12
• Psychosis (Not Otherwise Specified 7
• or Atypical)
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  3
• Developmental Disorders
• Attention Deficit Disorder 5
• Oppositional Defiant Disorder
  2
• Conduct Disorder 6
• Autism 2
• Other 1
  
  
  
• Minor Mental Health Disorders
• Dysthymia 3
• Personality Disorders 5

28
Court Disposition (Years 3-4)
Released/Dismissed 20 Not Competent to
Stand Trial 20 Diversion 20 Probation
29 Sentenced to Jail 4 Sentenced to
Prison 7
29
Clients' Residential Status Prior to Offense

• Independent 14
• Supported Living
  8
• Family Home 47
• Residential Facility 19
• State Hospital
  1
• Other 9
• Unknown 2
• No F.A.T. clients were in Developmental Centers
  or SNF or ICF homes at the time of their
  offense.

30
Clients' Residential Status At Time of Follow-Up

• Independent/Supported Living 8
• Family Home 23
• Level 4 Residential Facility 30
• Other Residential Facility
  10
• Drug Treatment Facility 6
• Developmental Center 13
• State Hospital 3
• Jail 3
• Prison 6
• Unknown (a) 13
• (a) Percentages for all other categories are
  based only on known outcomes

31
Day Program and School Status Prior to Offense
(Year 1
only) School 14 (20) Sheltered
Workshop 4 ( 6) Behavior
Management Program 9
(13) Supported Employment 7
(10) Competitive Employment
3 ( 4) No Work, Program, or School
33 (46)
32
Criminal Recidivism

• 68 subsequent to release from prison
• (within 3 years)
• 43 for sex offenders (any crime)
• 5.3 for sex offenders (sex crimes only)
• 2.5 for rapists (for another rape)
• 40 of reoffending sex crimes were within 1 year
  of release
• Source Bureau of Justice statistics 1994 (last
  year available)

33
Recidivism - Project Years 3 and 41999-2001
(12 to 34 months later)

• No reoffense 74
• (i.e. additional
• criminal charges)
• No reoffense but behaviors 11
• occurred for which the person
• may have been arrested
• (includes 2 probation violations)
• No or little opportunity to re-offend 16
• (incarcerated, jail, or D.C.)
• Reoffended 15
• Unknown 10
• (a) Percentages are based on only known
  outcomes where there was an opportunity to
  reoffend.

34
Recidivism - Year 2 1998-1999 (1-11
months later) 2 of 61 (3) None of 12 with
sex offenses
35
Recidivism - Year 1 1997-1998 (2 years
later) 14 of 67 (21) None of 7 with sex
offenses
36
Conclusions

• With good regional center services working
  together with courts to provide reasonable, just
  sentencing and, when needed, court-ordered terms
  to help ensure compliance, recidivism can be
  dramatically reduced to a rate significantly
  below that of the general population.