Assessing firesetters with intellectual disabilities
| Published date | 28 November 2019 |
| Pages | 102-118 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-10-2019-0020 |
| Date | 28 November 2019 |
| Author | John L. Taylor,Ian Thorne |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Learning & intellectual disabilities,Offending behaviour,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Deviant behaviour,Education,Special education/gifted education,Emotional/behavioural disorders |
Assessing firesetters with
intellectual disabilities
John L. Taylor and Ian Thorne
Abstract
Purpose –People with intellectual disabilities who set fires are a heterogeneous and clinically complex group
who present significant challenges to the wider community and to forensic practitioners working in forensic
mental health and correctional settings. There is little available in the literature to support professionals when
considering assessment and formulation for clients exhibiting these perturbing behaviours. The paper aims to
discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach –In this paper the materials available to assist forensic practitioners in
considering assessment and formulation of people with intellectual disabilities who set fires are described
and outlined.
Findings –An assessment scheme is proposed for organising information from a variety of sources to assist
professionals in understanding the nature of risks and clinical needs of firesetters with intellectual disabilities.
A newly revised risk assessment measure designed for this population is provided.
Practical implications –Forensic practitioners are provided with a framework and tools to assist with their
assessment and formulation of firesetters with intellectual disabilities.
Originality/value –This is the first time a newly revised risk assessment for firesetting behaviour by people
with intellectual disabilities has been presented.
Keywords Assessment, Risk, Disabilities, Formulation, Intellectual, Firesetting
Paper type Technical paper
Introduction
It has been suggested that people who set fires are characterised by low intellectual functioning
along with other social difficulties and psychological problems (e.g. Bradford and Dimock, 1986).
Despite this apparent association, estimation of the prevalence of firesetting amongst people
with intellectual disabilities is difficult for a number of reasons. Taylor et al. (2004) described some
of the sources of variability within and across existing studies. Variations in the inclusion criteria
used, in particular whether those in the “borderline intelligence”range are included, can affect the
rates obtained, as can the method used to identify the presence and level of intellectual disability
( formal testing vs clinical impression vs educational history). In addition, the location of the study
sample (e.g. community, courts, prison and secure hospital) and changes to criminal justice,
social and healthcare policies can influence the visibility, reporting and thus the apparent
incidence of firesetting behaviour by people with intellectual disabilities.
In a UK study across three regions in the UK, O’Brien et al. (2010) found that just 4 per cent of
477 people with intellectual disabilities referred to services for offending and offending-type
behaviour over a 12-month period were referred for firesetting behaviour. In another UK study
concerning 212 offenders with intellectual disabilities in receipt of forensic services, Hogue et al.
(2006) found that 2.9 per cent of those in a community forensic service had an index offence of
firesetting whilst 21.4 per cent of those in medium and low secure services had an index offence
of arson. Similarly, Alexander et al. (2011), in a UK study of outcomes for 138 offenders with
intellectual disabilities, reported that 22.2 per cent had a history of firesetting. By contrast, in an
older study of 91 offenders with intellectual disabilities subject to statutory care orders
Received 11 October 2019
Revised 25 October 2019
Accepted 25 October 2019
John L. Taylor is based at the
Faculty of Health and Life
Sciences, Northumbria
University –Coach Lane
Campus, Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK.
Ian Thorne is based at the
Psychological Services
Department, Northumberland,
Tyne and Wear NHS
Foundation Trust, Northgate
Hospital, Morpeth, UK.
PAGE102
j
JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES AND OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
j
VOL. 10 NO. 4 2019, pp.102-118, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8824 DOI 10.1108/JIDOB-10-2019-0020
(community and detained) in Denmark, Lund (1990) reported that 49.5 per cent had
convictions for arson. A more recent Danish study of 523 people with intellectual disabilities
serving sentences in secure services found that 13 per cent had been convicted of firesetting
(Sorensen et al., 2010).
As can be seen, it remains unclear whether firesetting is more or less prevalent amongst people
with intellectual disabilities than in the general population, or whether people with intellectual
disabilities are under- or over-represented in the firesetter population as a whole. It is clear,
however, that specialist offender services working with people with intellectual disabilities are
working with significant numbers of people with firesetter histories who present significant clinical
and management challenges.
Assessment and formulation of firesetting behaviour
An adequate understanding of firesetting behaviour requires the simultaneous examination of
individual and environmental factors (Barnett and Spitzer, 1994). Jackson et al. (1987) described
recidivistic firesetting within a “functional analysis paradigm”(p. 175), with firesetters presented as
a psychosocially disadvantaged group, impaired in their abilities to influence their environments.
As such, firesetting is conceived as a maladaptive response influenced by antecedents, positive
and negative reinforcing contingencies and other learning processes. The triggering event is likely
to be emotionally significant, for example, disappointment or insult, leading to feelings of anger
and negative affect (Bumpass et al., 1985). However, fire is likely to be selected as the preferred
approach because it provides a non-confrontational form of communication for these often
under-assertive individuals (Harris and Rice, 1984; Smith and Short, 1995). The action of
firesetting elicits quick, dramatic and reinforcing results in the form of avoidance, care giving,
revenge or the amelioration of negative affective states. Thus, in the short-term at least, the
disenfranchised firesetter attains some degree of control over their environment. This is what
Jackson (1994) describes as “the only viable option theory”(p. 107).
Jackson’s (1994) theory provides an explanation for the development of firesetting behaviour
from childhood curiosity and experimentation to pathological firesetting. For example, firesetters,
due to their socially deprived, disadvantaged and abusive early experiences, frequently have
significant difficulties in interacting in a socially acceptable manner with family, schools and peers.
This, in turn, reduces their opportunities for learning or engaging in pro-social means of emotional
expression. This combination of factors leads to the expression of emotion, or attempts to resolve
interpersonal problems, through the medium of fire. The choice of fire as the only viable option
might be particularly relevant for people with intellectual disabilities given the social and emotional
problems often associated with such conditions.
In any ( forensic) clinical context, it is important to systematically collect and collate information
from a range of sources (self- and informant reports, behavioural observations, file reviews and
clinical assessments) in order to formulate risk, needs and intervention plans. The functional
analytical paradigm provides a framework for practitioners to organise and consider in a
systematic manner clinical and file information, augmented by the results of formal assessments,
to reach clinically defensible decisions concerning risks and factors influencing risks presented by
particular patients (Taylor and Halstead, 2001).
A framework for organising firesetter assessment material
The functionalanalytical paradigm can help cliniciansto integrate clinical and file information, along
with the results of formal assessments, to understand the factors contributing to a patient’s
firesetting behaviour and formulate a treatment plan. To achieve this it is important to collect and
collate informationsystematically from a range of sources(self- and informant-reports, behavioural
observations, file review and clinical assessment). Taylor et al. (2004) reported on a structured
interview, the Pathological Firesetters Interview (PFSI) which is augmented with collateral
informationfrom patients’records, staffobservations and patient-and informant-completedclinical
measures and riskassessments and enables cliniciansto collect and organise informationwithin a
VOL. 10 NO. 4 2019
j
JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES AND OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
j
PAGE103
To continue reading
Request your trial