<p>Keywords</p><p>Criminal justice, Deaf, Sign Language, Interpreting, Profession</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Over the last thirty years Deaf people in Norway have obtained extensive rights to sign language interpreting. During this period, a public national interpreting service has been established to cope with the growing demands for interpreters. However, little is known about how this development has influenced interpreting in different contexts. This paper addresses questions concerning the legal protection of deaf people facing the criminal justice system. A central issue of concern is what kind of communicative barriers Deaf people encounter. An empirical study is presented where sixteen strategically recruited informants participated: nine sign language interpreters and seven representatives from the Norwegian criminal justice system. The methodological approach was qualitative, open-ended interviews. The results indicate that Deaf people benefit from the professionalization of the interpreters in many ways. At the same time, as a profession, interpreters have a responsibility for defining their role. It is questionable whether or not interpreters always make professional decisions in deaf people&rsquo;s best interest.</p>

BackgroundPerformance measurement is growing in importance as a management tool in services for disabled people.AimThe aim of this article is to add to the existing literature by exploring (a) the motivation for the introduction of such measurements, (b) the reasoning behind the choice of current indicators, and (c) the impact of performance measurements on service delivery.Methods(1) A study of documents (national and, if available, also local) on the motivation for, choice of, and implementation of quality measurements, and (2) interviews with top and middle managers in community services for people with intellectual disabilities or mental health difficulties.ResultsA varied set of motivations have been identified, including the intention to introduce a more facts-based and transparent governance, the need for information that supports the management of scarce resources, and as a tool in the development of service quality for users. The motivation appears to be dependent on level of government, and the attitude among service unit managers tends to be ambivalent; they want performance measurements but cannot see how to measure the important aspects of service quality. The choice of actual indicators is subject to a process bias; that is, one measures what is easily available in administrative systems. The results concerning impact on services are less clear and also context dependent. We have identified usage in the search for cost-cutting possibilities, defense against critique, and that reporting runs the risk of reinforcing routinization of services.DiscussionThe possible impact on services is discussed. Layers of ambiguity are outlined, as measurements can be tools both for quality development and in the defense of current services against “unrealistic demands” from the media or stakeholders. The measurements tend to be used more as sources of governance information than tools for quality development.ConclusionThe impact of quality measurement is rather ambiguous. On the one hand, it functions as a tool for budget control, whereas on the other hand, unit managers call for better measurement of user outcomes and expect that such measurement can balance the current preoccupation with input indicators, such as expenditures.

Despite legislation promoting equal opportunities for people with disabilities in education and employment, evidence suggests that these environments are far from inclusive. While there is a wealth of evidence on the barriers that people with disabilities face in both higher education and the workplace, there is currently a lack of literature that summarizes knowledge on the transition between these two settings. As such, this rapid systematic literature review aimed to identify barriers and facilitators in the transition from higher education to employment for students and graduates with disabilities. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across three databases (PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science) and included 59 studies for review. The included studies reported on research conducted across 20 countries, reporting on various types of disabilities and on different subject areas and professions. In addition to a quality appraisal, we performed a narrative synthesis on the included studies. From the synthesis, we identified numerous barriers and facilitators, and grouped them into seven themes: disclosure; attitudinal barriers and facilitators; accommodations, accessibility; institutional and organizational barriers and facilitators; discipline-specific barriers and facilitators; and disability-specific barriers and facilitators. Overall, findings suggest that students with disabilities must often work beyond their capacity in order to succeed in higher education and access opportunities for meaningful employment. Findings also suggest there is still much to be done in creating inclusive education and employment environments on an international level. Recommendations from this review include developing inclusive disclosure processes and providing education on disabilities for staff in both the education and labor sectors. Finally, we call for collaboration between higher education institutions, employment sectors, and students with disabilities.

No abstract