Until 1998, there was no existing U.S. survey on crime that included the developmentally disabled. Less than two years later, 1999, Crime Victims with Developmental Disabilities, a Report of a Workshop, was printed by the National Academy Press. It was the first of its kind in the U.S. Prior to the passage of Public Law 105-301, other countries had released statistical findings on crime victims with developmental disabilities. In fact, upon the presentation of Senate Bill 1976 (now P.L. 105-301), some of those statistics were discussed. As previously stated, the U.S. did not conduct its own study, but review existing statistics and information about the topic.
Senator Michael DeWine, who introduced the legislation as Senate Bill 1976 in April of 1998, said, “Research in foreign countries has found that persons with developmental disabilities are at a 4 to 10 times higher risk of becoming crime victims than those without disabilities. Studies in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain consistently show that crime victims with developmental disabilities suffer repeated victimization, because so few of the crimes against them are reported. Unfortunately, even when crimes against victims with disabilities are reported, there is sometimes reluctance by justice officials to rely on the testimony of a disabled person, further making these victims a target for criminal predators.
“What do we know about similar crimes in the United States? Amazingly, little if any. No significant studies have been conducted in the United States. In fact, the Bureau of Justice Statistics in their annual National Crime Victims Survey does not specifically collect data about crimes against persons with disabilities.” (Thomas, 1998)
S. DeWine directly assessed the question of need for the policy. Although there were not a handful of incidents that directly led to the legislative proposal, those who represent the developmentally disabled have been making strides toward improving their quality of life. The bill was presented during National Crime Victims Rights Week, in April of 1998. Also, the results of existing statistics from other countries in combination with the United States’ lack of research, was likely reason enough for the legislators. In other words, the legislation was long overdue.
The bill was a jumping off point. Its purpose is “collecting data to measure the extent and nature of the problem.” The problem was clearly address, but not clearly defined – thus the resulting survey. (Thomas, 1998)
Also, the U.S. started using UCRs in 1966. The year 1976 is a significant date because it was 10 years later, when the U.S. evaluated the effectiveness and necessity of the UCR. The U.S. found an increase in crime rates in the past 10 years, from 1966 to 1976. From there, many organizations and forms of research emerged. “Crime Stoppers” is one of them. The organization was formed as another avenue for stopping crime and recovering stolen property, etc.
According to research from other countries, individuals with developmental disabilities are 4 to 10 times higher risk to be victimized than those without disabilities. One of the first things the workshop discussed was the definition of developmental disability. It concluded that definitions varied.
According to what the U.S. government decided in section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6001), a developmental disability is a “severe, chronic disability of an individual five years of age or older that is attributable to a mental or physical impairment … manifested before the individual attains age 22 … results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major-life activity—self-care; receptive and expressive language; learning; mobility; self-direction; capacity of independent living; and economic self-sufficiency …”
The workshop report (CVWDD, 1999, pp. 11-12) included one review of existing statistics on the matter. It confirmed S. DeWine’s statistic (upon the presentation of S. 1976 to the senate floor) that people with developmental disabilities are 4 to 10 times more likely to be victims of crimes that non-disabled people. Also, it found that 83 percent of women with intellectual disabilities had been sexually assaulted. Of those, 50 percent had been sexually assaulted 10 or more times. The Australian Bureau of Statistics found that the developmentally disabled are 3 times more likely to be victims of assault, 11 times more likely to be victims of sexual assault, and 13 times more likely to have been robbed. In addition another study found that 40 percent of crimes against mildly retarded individuals and 71 percent of crimes against severely retarded individuals went unreported.
The workshop discussed some of the reasons for the high rate of victimization against the developmentally disabled. One of the reasons is the inability to find good care for the D.D. A caregiver who was the offender may be retrained rather than fired because it’s so hard to find help to take care of the disabled. A caregiver can include family members on either a volunteer or paid basis. Forms of victimization include but are not limited to, sexual assault, assault, neglect, child abuse, murder, and domestic violence.
PART II: POLICY DESCRIPTION
P.L. 105-301 expressed its goals within the text of the legislation. There were three. They are: “1. to increase public awareness of the plight of crime victims with developmental disabilities; 2. to start collecting data to measure the extent and nature of the problem; 3. to develop strategies to address the safety and justice needs of these victims.” (Thomas, 1998)
According to the text of the legislation (P.L. 105-301) the policy implementation was directed toward the Attorney General, who was in charge of conducting the study. There were issues that were supposed to be addressed in the study. They were: (1) the nature and extent of crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; (2) the risk factors associated with victimization of individuals with developmental disabilities; (3) the manner in which the justice system responds to crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; and (4) the means by which States may establish and maintain a centralized computer database on the incidence of crimes against individuals with disabilities within a State.” (Thomas, 1998)
The issues were addressed in the CVWDD: Report of a Workshop. It was suggested that the Attorney General consider contracting with the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the research. The provisions stated the results needed to be submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the act.
The short-term goal was to conduct the research. This was not achieved because the National Research Council and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed that the best way to fulfill the mandate from P.L. 105-301 was through a workshop rather than studies. It brought together a group of experts, from researchers to advocates for the developmentally disabled and discussed the “state of knowledge in this area and highlight gaps in the research.” (Thomas, 1998) There were no definitive conclusions drawn from the workshop. However, it did discuss the needs for more research and study within the area and may lead to further study and discussion to eventually meet the goals. It did begin to meet the second goal “to start collecting data to measure the extent and nature of the problem.” (Thomas, 1998)
Those directly affected will be crime victims with developmental disabilities, first-response caregivers (such as police officers, doctors, and nurses), psychiatrists and social workers. The report from the workshop expressed need for further study in the area of effective ways to reduce the incidence of abuse and violence, in addition to their implementation. (CVWDD, 1999, pp. 64)
In addition, “The National Academy of Sciences would develop a research agenda that includes convening an interdisciplinary panel of nationally recognized experts on crime victims with disabilities and related fields, to define and address critical issues to understanding crimes against people with developmental disabilities. Their research would focus on preventive, educative, social, and legal strategies, and recommend methods for addressing the needs of underserved populations.”(Thomas, 1998)
PART III: POLICY ANALYSIS
Political Feasibility
The beauty of the Crime Victims with Developmental Disabilities Awareness Act is that there are very few controversial issues attached to it. Because it requires minimal funding, the legislators hardly needed to consider fiscal complications. Also, when a specific sector of the population has been so blatantly left out the real problems are specific to the language of the law. In other words, because it had bipartisan support it passed easily. It earned bipartisan support because it didn’t leave out a sector of the population. Its purpose was to include a left out sector of the population.
For that reason there was likely to be positive support from the public for the policy. Although Americans tend to worry more about themselves when it comes to rules, regulation, and taxes, this policy would not likely affect most of them in any way, unless the people are involved in social work or law enforcement. Also, Americans like to think they help the people who have trouble helping themselves, as long as it doesn’t cost too much. Support for this law likely pushed legislators to ensure its passage. Once it was passed, the Attorney General had 18 months to follow through. Part of it was taken care of.
Administrative Feasibility
The policy is capable of reaching its goals, to increase the awareness, collect data and develop strategies to increase safety and justice needs. It has already taken a step in the right direction. Although, thus far, there haven’t been studies by the U.S. Government about the developmentally disabled and their victimization, it has gathered existing study results to evaluate what is needed to improve the studies. Through the workshop the researchers, etc. came to no definite conclusions, but they did begin collecting data. Through the release of the “Report of a Workshop” there has already been increased awareness. Through the report, other researchers have a building point for further studies on the subject. And from there, more ways can be developed to better service victims with developmental disabilities.
There is a handbook that was developed for first-response workers who handle crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities. It’s called, First Response to Victims of Crime Who Have a Disability. It was published in 2000 by the Office for Victims of Crime. It offered guidelines for first-responders to “observe when approaching and interacting” with the developmentally disabled. That handbook was updated in 2001 and again in 2002 to better equip first responders. It states that 17 percent of the U.S. population has one of the following disabilities: Alzheimer’s disease, mental illness, mental retardation, those who are blind, visually impaired, deaf or hard of hearing.
Does the policy contribute to the greater social equality? And do the goals of the policy contribute to a better quality of life for the target population?
The goals will certainly contribute to a better quality of life for the target population in most cases. We do not live in a perfect world, so one does not believe all affected individuals will be affected positively by the goals of the policy. However, there will likely be a positive effect on all members of the community, based on the research and policies that may follow the research done. Any first-response worker with high education and sensitivity to the needs of a developmentally disabled individual might also achieve increased sensitivity to the non-disabled population. Knowing that a police officer of investigator understands plight and special circumstances may make it easier for those reluctant to report a crime to do so. Any time there is a better understanding of a person’s situation, crime victim or not, developmentally disabled or not, strides are made toward increasing the quality of life. That’s why there was crime victim research, such as Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victims Survey, were created. Those surveys addressed many types of crime victims, excluding the developmentally disabled. P.L. 105-301 ensured the inclusion of research related to crime victims with disabilities was included. The inclusion is a form of social equality.
Does the policy contribute to positive social relations between
the target population and the overall society?
The policy not only contributes to positives social relations between the developmentally disabled and the overall society. That is its very purpose. By analyzing and collecting data on crime victims with developmental disabilities, the research helps law enforcement officers and social service workers relate to and understand a related situation better. The idea is that those who work with crime victims with disabilities can better help those people deal with their victimization. Also, the statistics show there is a need for improved services for the developmentally disabled in this area. From the study, there are handbooks written by and for police officers to handle the situation better.
The policy research also brings reality to the situation. Some of the problems arise because the developmentally disabled person’s opinions or testimonies are inadmissible simply because they have disabilities. Knowing what qualifies as a developmental disability also gives crime victim support workers clarity of the situation. Many times the developmentally disabled are relatively intelligent and have the same morals as non-disabled individuals. That is one of the myths of the disabled: that they are liars. When the social workers and law enforcement understand a situation better, they can better handle their own perceptions and understand where the victim is coming from. They are better equipped to handle the situation fairly and with compassion.
The policy itself does not provide for understanding and equality, but it mandates research that may better prepare those who are first on the scene when a developmentally disabled individual is the crime victim. That will bridge a gap between the developmentally disabled (target population) and the overall society.
Are the goals of the policy consistent with the values of professional social work?
In review of the goals of Public Law 105-301, they are: 1. to increase public awareness of the plight of crime victims with developmental disabilities; 2. to start collecting data to measure the extent and nature of the problem; 3. to develop strategies to address the safety and justice needs of these victims. The goals of the policy are directly consistent with two of the values of professional social work, they are social justice and dignity and worth of the person.
Goals No. 1 and 2, to increase public awareness of the plight of crime victims with developmental disabilities and to start collecting data to measure the extent and nature of the problem, would inform the general public and officials that there is an injustice in the system. That is the first step to provide social justice. By showing there is a problem, the need for change is addressed. Those in charge start asking questions like, “why is there are problem here? What is the problem? How can we fix it?” Some times that will lead to a solution to the problem or a better way to react to the problem when it occurs. The solution, in this case, is informing those who directly work with crime victims with developmental disabilities. By informing those involved of the potential problems associated with crime victims with D.D. or training those involved how to better communicate and advise a crime victim with D.D., his/her dignity and self worth are preserved.
Goal No. 3, to develop strategies to address the safety and justice needs of these victims, also directly relates to social justice. All three goals address a bigger picture. Together, those goals, if implemented properly, will affect the victim’s ability to maintain self-determination. A crime victim, with our without disabilities, has his/her dignity, self worth, and self-determination compromised. But the difference is crime victims without disabilities often have the ability to understand that they are not at fault for the victimization. If a first-response caregiver (law enforcement, psychiatrist, nurse, doctor, or social worker) doesn’t support, believe, and encourage justice, a victim with developmental disabilities may not understand that. If knowledge is power, knowing how to deal with these situations will empower the first-response workers to empower the victims they serve.
Table of Contents
1. Part I: Introduction 1
2. Part I: History of Crime Victim Research 2
3. Part II: Policy Description 7
4. Part III: Policy Analysis 9
5. Part III: Political Feasibility 9
6. Part III: Administrative Feasibility 9
7. Part III: Question 1 & 2 10
8. Part III: Question 3 11
9. Part III: Question 4 12
10. References 13
