No abstract

Investigated the utility of the Revised Beta as a screening device for low‐functioning minority‐group criminal offenders. Forty‐seven black and Hispanic offenders who scored below 85 on the Beta were administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Mean scores for this sample were correlated only mildly. Furthermore, the means were not comparable; these offenders scored lower on the Beta than on the WAIS. This finding contradicts prior research and creates the need for caution in using the Beta as a screening device with this population.

Incarcerated retarded citizens have extensi ve needs for rehabilitation intervention. However, barriers to providing rehabilitative experi ences within the correctional milieu are very substantial. The authors offer recommendations to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for retarded offenders. The authors also highlight possible pitfalls in providing such services. These pitfalls include potential negative consequences of "labeling" and the ethical conflict between corrections and rehabilitation professionals related to contrasting value orientations.Rehabilitation of public offenders is an extremely contentious issue. Persons believing that the unlawful past behavior of offenders renders them unworthy of rehabilitation opportunities argue that the primary mission of prisons is punishment. Others, arguing that the future behavior of offenders is important, contend that the primary mission of prisons is rehabilitation. Losers in this controversy are incarcerated citizens who are mentally, physically, or sensorially handicapped.Although the right of imprisoned offenders to rehabilitation has been upheld in the courts (Holt v. Sarver, 1970), incarcerated handicapped persons receive fewer rehabilitative experiences than their counterparts on the "outside." Indeed, incarcerated handicapped individuals probably receive fewer rehabilitative experiences than do nonhandicapped inmates. Whereas there are an estimated 135,000 imprisoned offenders who are mentally retarded,* less than 1 % of this country's adult and juvenile corrections facilities have programs serving retarded inmates (DeSilva, 1980), and those programs that do exist have been criticized as being ineffective (Biklen & Mlinarcik, 1978;Bloom & Singer, 1979). The purposes of this article are to discuss persisting barriers to rehabilitation of retarded persons in correctional institutions and *In all, 9% of the incarcerated population is purportedly retarded (Brown & Courtless, 1968), and there are approximately 1.5 million persons who are incarcerated (Brelje, 1976).

Assessment of mental retardation in prison settings has been hampered by the limitations of intelligence testing and the absence of appropriate adaptive behavior (AB) measures. The present article di scusses problems associ ated with assessi ng AB, descri bes the development of the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) Adaptive Behavior Scale: Syracuse-Prison Version (ABS-SPV), and presents the results of a contrasted-groups validity study. The ABS-SPV effectively discriminated between high-functioning (honor block) i nmates and low-functioning (protective custody) inmates. Future research directions are suggested.Current practice in the diagnosis of mental retardation calls for an assessment of both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior (AB). This is in accord with the American Association on Mental Deficiency's (AAMD) frequently cited definition of mental retardation: "significant subaverage intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior" (Grossman, 1973(Grossman, , 1977. In clinical practice, intellectual functioning is evaluated by use of standardized intelligence tests, such as the Wechsler scales or the Stanford-Binet. AB is often described in gross, descriptive terms, or in reference to specific tasks. The latter approach relies on standardized behavior rating scales, examples of which are the Vineland Social Maturity Scale (Doll, 1965) and the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale (ABS) (Nihira, Foster, Shellhass, & Leland, 1975). Meyers, Nihira, and Zetlin (1979) report that there are at least 132 such scales in use.In prison environments, the assessment of mental retardation is especially problematic. Commonly cited difficulties with intellectual assessment include varying IQ criteria from facility to facility or from state to state; cultural bias in intelligence tests; overemphasis on verbal measures; and the administration of tests by unqualified personnel, such as corrections officers and even fellow inmates (DeSilva, 1980;Hayman, Hiltonsmith, Ursprung, & Dross, 1982; Steinbock, 1976). As a result of such difficulties, the reported incidence of mental retardation in prisons varies from as low as 2.6% to well over 20% in various national and state surveys (Biklen & Mlinarcik, 1978).

No abstract