Intellectual disabilities, domestic violence and legal engagement

Measurable Indicators of CRPD for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities within the Quality of Life Framework

“…Article 6 (women with disabilities): Eight papers refer to the rights of women [ 8 , 49 , 52 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 74 ]. Most indicators and personal outcomes were already reflected in other CRPD rights, but there was particular emphasis on the application of these rights—and respect for—women.…”

“…Article 7 (children with disabilities): Six papers focus on the right of children with disabilities to express their views freely on all matters affecting them and to be provided with disability- and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right [ 8 , 46 , 48 , 67 , 74 , 75 ]. While most of the indicators and personal outcomes matched those already proposed and reflected in other CRPD rights, it was stressed that these must also be fulfilled during childhood and adolescence.…”

“…Article 13 (access to justice): Only one paper specifically refers to access to justice (for women with ID who have been victims of gender-based violence) [ 74 ]. It points to the need for ways to enable them to successfully engage with the legal system; support from workers and agencies in their interactions with the justice system; supports from police and judicial officers (e.g., adjusting their language, regarding complaints and statements as serious and with the same weight as they would for persons without disabilities, taking time to explain the law and its application, recognizing them as full persons before the law); training police and judicial officers about IDD.…”

Fifty Years After the 1967 Crime Commission Report

“…It is important to stress that individual system providers’ efficacy is rarely the goal of the extant research, which instead tends to be focused on offenders’, and sometimes on victims’, shortcomings. As Douglas and Harpur (: 305) stated: “There is increasing recognition that legal responses to domestic violence can only be effective if those who implement the law—for example, child protection workers, police and magistrates—are also effective.” In their review of research on risks for DV recidivism, Cattaneo and Goodman (: 141) argued that despite a “great deal of attention from the research, clinical practice, and policy communities… gaps in our knowledge about how to best intervene remain, particularly given the limited resources available to the systems that must address the problem.” With system‐level studies, few randomized experiments have been conducted, making findings from batterer intervention programs (BIPs), protection orders (POs), community‐coordinated responses (CCRs), no‐drop prosecution, and so on, difficult to assess (Cattaneo and Goodman, ). Moreover, the outcome variable in DV research is typically the abusers’ recidivism/victim re‐abuse, but this is rarely collected from the victims, when they are the “best source of information about re‐abuse” (Cattaneo and Goodman, : 158).…”

“…These funder‐imposed outcome requirements are flawed because (a) DV survivor programs are “working with victims of someone else's behavior”; (b) few safehouse staff have the expertise or resources to conduct evaluations; and (c) the evaluations can compromise the survivors’ identities, safety, and privacy (Sullivan, : 354). Additionally, these outcome measures ignore the impact of individual service providers’ and criminal legal system professionals’ responses to the victims and abusers (see Douglas and Harpur, ). In addition to individual systemic responses to survivors and abusers, feminist scholars and practitioners advocate for measures and practices individualized to survivors, recognizing their far‐ranging and diverse experiences and needs (e.g., Davies, Lyon, and Monti‐Catania, ; Goodman, Fauci, Sullivan, DiGiovanni, and Wilson, ; Koss, White, and Lopez, ; Sullivan, ).…”