In or Out: Where should Supports and Services Justice-involved people with IDD Live?

The intersection of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and the criminal justice system represents one of our society's most pressing challenges. The data is precise that people with IDD are disproportionately represented in jails and prisons in this country, often cycling through a system that was not constructed nor is currently capable of meeting their needs. While punishment, power, and control remain at the core of the experience people with IDD have when interacting with the legal system, the solution to this problem is not more of the same.  Prevention and support through thoughtfully designed diversion programs that recognize disability as a health and social issue, not an issue of criminality, and coordinated community response mechanisms that steer transition planning and reentry process for returning citizens with IDD, provide a better way.

The Crisis

Traditional carceral systems, as they currently exist, represent a catastrophic failure for individuals with IDD. Prison environments exacerbate experiences of trauma, cognitive challenges, sensory sensitivities, and communication barriers. Moreover, there is very little in the way of therapeutic intervention. As I have discussed in other writings, the recidivism rates remain stubbornly high because the underlying factors contributing to criminal behavior, perceived and real—lack of community support, inadequate healthcare, limited educational and employment opportunities—remain unaddressed during and after incarceration.

The Light

We are not without hope. There are jurisdictions and programs throughout the country that are making great strides in thinking differently about the experience of people with IDD in the legal system, from first contact through re-entry. Programs in New Jersey, Arizona, Maryland, Texas, and Ohio have made serious attempts at reversing the trends of recidivism and incarceration rates faced by people who experience IDD.

The Question

Upon reviewing several organizations and jurisdictions that are making inroads towards addressing this problem, one thing stood out. The majority of these programs or interventions were housed within the organizational structure and framework of the courts or the legal system in some way. While the intent is laudable and very much needed, it begs the question: where should a diversion or support intervention for people with IDD who become involved with the legal system be housed? Should it be the function of and nested in the courts or the legal system? Or should it be an entity housed, managed, and embedded in the community?

Two Paths Diverged: Criminal Justice vs. Community-Based Diversion

There are two distinct approaches, when thinking through diversion and reentry programs that focus on people who experience IDD, each with unique strengths and limitations that can have life-altering impacts on the lives of the justice-involved IDD population.

The Critical Role of Support Coordination. Whether the program is community-based or housed within the legal system, support coordination is the linchpin that determines whether the program succeeds or fails. Support coordinators serve as navigators, advocates, and bridges between individuals with IDD and a fractured and siloed system of services needed to achieve a high quality of life.

Effective support coordination begins with establishing a trusting relationship that creates a feeling of safety for the person. Support Coordinators then demonstrate unconditional positive regard and a sense of being with and valuing the person. Only through that process will they be invited to understand the person's story and assess their needs, which extend beyond their criminal history to encompass the person's full life circumstances. Coordinators must identify not only immediate crisis factors but also long-term support needs, including healthcare, housing, employment, social connections, and family relationships. This holistic approach recognizes that sustainable diversion requires addressing the entire ecosystem of factors that contribute to an individual's well-being.

The relationship between the support coordinator and participant must be built on trust, a sense of feeling safe, mutual value, and engagement. For many individuals with IDD who have experienced trauma from previous system involvement, establishing this therapeutic alliance requires patience, consistency, and cultural humility. Coordinators must be skilled in disability-competent communication and trauma-informed and self-reflective.

Perhaps most importantly, support coordinators must possess in-depth knowledge of community resources and the ability to effectively advocate within multiple systems simultaneously. They serve as translators between the criminal justice system, disability services, healthcare providers, housing authorities, and other stakeholders who may have conflicting priorities and approaches.

The intensity should be person-centered, tailored to meet the individual needs of each person. The advantage of the support coordination process is that it crosses the lifespan of the individual, so there is no falling off the cliff experience. Once an individual is enrolled in the HCBS system and assigned a support coordinator, that service remains in place throughout their lifespan. This is especially important for returning citizens, who will require ongoing support throughout multiple transition processes. The key is maintaining continuity and availability as needs evolve.

Integration and Collaboration

The most promising approaches combine elements of both models while maximizing the strengths of each. Progressive jurisdictions are developing "warm handoff" protocols that enable law enforcement to access immediate community-based crisis response teams, thereby reducing the likelihood that individuals will ever enter the criminal justice system. When criminal charges cannot be avoided, these same community supports can be integrated into criminal justice-based diversion programs to provide continuity of care.

Successful integration requires unprecedented collaboration between disability service providers, law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and community organizations. This collaboration must be grounded in shared principles that prioritize disability rights, self-determination, and community inclusion over traditional notions of public safety based solely on containment.

Training and education are essential for all stakeholder groups. Law enforcement officers require training in recognizing disabilities and employing de-escalation techniques to respond to individuals with disabilities effectively. Court personnel require education on how IDD affects their understanding of legal proceedings. Community service providers must understand the unique needs of individuals who have been involved in the criminal justice system. Most importantly, individuals with IDD and their families must be central to designing and evaluating these programs.

The Path Forward

Creating effective diversion programs for people with IDD requires the will to challenge legacy paradigms about disability, criminality, and public safety. We must move beyond simply providing alternatives within existing systems toward building new approaches that center on disability rights and community inclusion.

Investing in community-based supports and services is not only morally imperative but also economically sensible. The annual cost of supporting one person in the community is a fraction of the cost of incarceration, yet it produces far better outcomes for individuals and communities. States and localities that commit to robust community infrastructure will see reduced crime, improved public health, and stronger communities overall.

The ultimate goal must be preventing initial contact with the criminal justice system by ensuring that all people with IDD have access to the support they need to live successfully in their communities. This requires adequate funding for disability services, affordable, accessible housing, meaningful employment opportunities, and healthcare that recognizes and addresses the unique needs of people with IDD.

Support coordination serves as the thread weaving together these various elements into a coherent system of care. When done well, it transforms fragmented services into comprehensive support that enables individuals to achieve their goals and make meaningful contributions to their communities.

Conclusion

 The choice between criminal justice-based and community-based diversion programs need not be a binary one. Both approaches have roles to play in a comprehensive system that prioritizes dignity, choice, and community inclusion for people with IDD. However, our ultimate vision must extend beyond managing the intersection of disability and criminal justice toward creating communities where that intersection becomes increasingly rare.

 This transformation requires sustained commitment from policymakers, service providers, and communities to invest in the supports that enable all people to thrive. It demands that we view behaviors associated with disability through a lens of support needs rather than criminal intent. Most importantly, it requires centering the voices and experiences of people with IDD themselves in designing the systems meant to serve them.

 The path forward is clear: robust community supports, effective diversion programs, skilled support coordination, and an unwavering commitment to disability justice. The question is not whether we can afford to pursue this vision, but whether we can afford not to. Every person diverted from unnecessary incarceration represents not just individual salvation, but a step toward a more just and inclusive society for all.