Why Focus on People With Disabilities?

Although awareness has been raised and progress has been made in the victim assistance field since the 2000 Census, too many crime victims with disabilities still remain invisible to the systems charged with serving them. For those who want to improve their community’s local response to crime victims with disabilities, this bulletin provides a snapshot of the scope and dynamics of the Promising Practices grant, while the companion toolkit provides more indepth detail on the strategies and activities of each subgrantee.

**Message From the Director**

Since 1998, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) within the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice has taken a leading role in raising awareness in the victims’ field about the victimization of persons with disabilities. OVC has worked to improve services to crime victims with disabilities through demonstration projects such as the one featured in this online guide, national training and technical assistance initiatives, conference support, and the development of various other publications and online resources.

Disability advocates continue to report an epidemic of victimization committed against people with disabilities. But despite the high rate of crime estimated as perpetuated against people with disabilities, many victim assistance agencies report that they rarely serve crime victims from this population. This suggests both an opportunity for raising community, criminal justice system, and individual awareness of victim services as well as the need to make those services accessible to people with disabilities.

In addition to funding the programs outlined above, OVC has modified the federal guidelines for the administration of Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding, the major source of financial support for victim services in this country, to better serve victims with disabilities. But perhaps the most important result of OVC initiatives to raise awareness and better serve this population has been the partnership forged between the disability and victim advocacy fields, uniting our previous well-intentioned but separate efforts into a strong voice for fundamental justice for all victims, including people with disabilities. It is OVC’s hope that the *Promising Practices in Serving Victims of Crime with Disabilities* bulletin and online guide will provide information and concrete tools to help further develop these collaborations.

The bulletin and online guide developed as a result of this demonstration project are designed to promote awareness of the issues faced by crime victims with disabilities and to improve community capacity to better serve them by providing a user-friendly resource for organizations wishing to replicate similar project activities and outcomes. The online guide, especially, reflects the actual sequence of activities completed by each subgrantee of the SafePlace demonstration project and offers practical advice and examples to help communities replicate the project models featured and develop those appropriate to their locale.

**John W. Gillis***Director* Office for Victims of Crime

**About This Project**
          - OVC Funds Inquiries Into Disability Issues
          - The Promising Practices Project
          - Methodology: A Six-Step Process
          - Knowledge and Products Gained

OVC Funds Inquiries Into Disability Issues    

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) began its efforts to raise awareness about the victimization of persons with disabilities by funding the National Organization for Victim Assistance’s *Working with Crime Victims with Disabilities* project, one of the first national scope initiatives to focus exclusively on the issues associated with crime victims with disabilities. In January 1998, the organization coordinated a symposium of the same name, which brought together experts from the fields of disability rights, protection and advocacy, crime victim assistance, law, and research. Participants developed a strategy for victim service providers and other allied professionals to use to improve their capacity to recognize and better respond to crime victims with disabilities by identifying issues, gaps in services, and other barriers; recommending needed changes; and identifying successful programs and best practices. That same year, OVC published *Working with Victims of Crime with Disabilities* (NCJ 172838), a bulletin addressing the complicated personal, cultural, and systemic issues that have created and perpetuated obstacles to safety, services, and justice for this population. The bulletin also provides recommendations for improving access to the justice system and victim services, networking and cross-training, and enhancing direct services and advocacy efforts.

The Promising Practices Project

In 2002, OVC funded *Promising Practices in Serving Crime Victims with Disabilities* (hereafter referred to as Promising Practices), a 3-year discretionary cooperative agreement (number 2002-VF-GX-K005), to improve the local response of criminal justice personnel and victim service providers to people with disabilities. This bulletin and the companion toolkit are products of the grant, which was in effect from 2002 to 2006. OVC chose SafePlace of Austin, Texas, which provides emergency shelter and services to women, children, and men who are survivors of domestic, sexual, or caregiver abuse, to administer the project and monitor the work of 10 subgrantees.    

In 2002, SafePlace issued a call for applications from victim assistance, law enforcement, and disability service organizations throughout the country seeking to improve their community’s response to crime victims with disabilities. Program staff sought a diverse mix of project sites in rural and urban areas and in different geographical locations that provided a variety of services. The chosen sites included local and regional communities in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.    

From the 95 applications submitted, 10 subgrantees were chosen:
          - Three domestic violence and/or sexual assault organizations—                 - Partnership Against Domestic Violence
            - Rape Crisis Center of Central Massachusetts
            - Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault
          - Two crime victim assistance programs—                   - Network of Victim Assistance  (NOVA) 
            - Ulster County Probation Department Crime Victim Assistance Program
          - Two law enforcement agencies—                   - Carbondale Police Department
            - Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office
          - Two independent living support centers for people with disabilities—                   - Ability1st
            - Stavros Center for Independent Living/Safe Passage
          - A comprehensive center serving people with and without disabilities—                   - Chadwick Center Programs for Children and Families

By working with these organizations, OVC learned more about current services for crime victims with disabilities, as well as conditions that affect reporting and responding to crime. Profiles of the 10 participating organizations and additional information on their activities can be found in the Promising Practices toolkit.

Methodology: A Six-Step Process

Each subgrantee completed a six-step process that involved building collaborations, assessing community needs, planning and implementing strategies, evaluating progress and services, and planning for sustainability. The goal was to promote innovative practices, principles, and community partnerships that would strengthen the ability of victim assistance organizations to provide accessible and relevant services to crime victims with a wide range of disabilities.  

The subgrantees addressed myriad issues, including—
          - The impact of crime and victimization on people with disabilities.
          - Local community response to crime victims with disabilities.
          - Outreach efforts.
          - Access to existing local victim support services.

Subgrantees tailored their strategies and activities to the needs and conditions found in their communities. Some focused on changing existing systems and processes, while others worked to create new resources. All of the projects improved their own response to persons with disabilities in the aftermath of a crime.  

In addition to the many common obstacles encountered by the project sites, subgrantees also faced challenges unique to the nature of their strategies and services. Domestic violence programs, for example, had to plan carefully to ensure that individuals participating in surveys or seeking help could do so without the knowledge of an abusive partner or caregiver. Law enforcement agencies had to gain the trust of victims who were wary of police involvement or whose past attempts to get help had failed. Organizations working with rural populations often found it difficult to establish partnerships and build support for their efforts, particularly with small town organizations such as churches that were already overwhelmed by trying to meet the basic needs of area residents. Subgrantees addressed their individual issues by soliciting feedback from the communities they served and adapting their strategies and activities as needed.  

In addition to the six-step process completed by all the project sites, staff members also participated in teleconferences and training symposiums and contributed to a newsletter and e-mail listserv that allowed them to share information and discuss emerging issues. SafePlace monitored the projects and provided training and technical support, fiscal oversight, and access to curricula, videos, books, and other resources.  

The overall goal of this OVC national demonstration project was to promote innovative practices, principles, and community partnerships that would strengthen the ability of victim assistance organizations to provide accessible and relevant services to crime victims with a wide range of disabilities. As part of meeting this challenge, the 10 subgrantees readdressed the following questions during each stage of their projects:
          - How can communities better anticipate and meet the needs of crime victims with disabilities?    
          - How can traditional victim service systems adequately identify and accommodate people with disabilities?    
          - What steps can local communities take to fill the gaps in existing services for crime victims with disabilities and create relevant new supports for this population?    
          - Which individuals and agencies are in the best position to resolve the communication and accessibility issues that can burden crime victims with disabilities?    
          - Where can communities find training and resources to help improve local response to crime victims with disabilities?

Subgrantees quickly discovered that the answers lay in putting proven techniques and practices to work where the seeds of lasting change are best sown—local communities. By participating in an intensive process focused on meeting the needs of their city, town, or region, each organization broke new ground and developed successful strategies that can be replicated in communities throughout the country.

Knowledge and Products Gained

Through its project subgrantees, OVC gained a better understanding of how persons with disabilities experience the criminal justice and victim service systems, how service gaps originate and are resolved, how relationships between local organizations can improve all community services, how most barriers can be removed through dialogue with and feedback from the community, and how small changes in attitude and approach can lead to huge strides in meeting the needs of people with disabilities. The project had a significant positive impact on both participating local organizations and the persons they served, and on improving access to the places, processes, agencies, and systems charged with responding to crime victims with disabilities.  

The resulting products and toolkit are intended for law enforcement, victim service agencies, domestic violence and sexual assault programs, disability service providers, municipalities, and others striving to improve their community’s response to crime victims with disabilities. More information on the key concepts addressed in this bulletin can be found in the glossary section of the toolkit, where the terms *disability*, *accessibility*, *architectural barriers*, *attitudinal barriers*, *accommodations*, and *victim* are defined and discussed.

**Crime and Disability**
          - Many People With Disabilities Suffer Abuse
          - Patterns of Victimization and Response

Most of the challenges noted in *Working with Victims of Crime with Disabilities* still exist today. For example, there is still no “authoritative research” on criminal victimization of people with disabilities, or on criminal acts that result in short- or long-term disability for the victim. Therefore, the challenge of quantifying the problem is largely left to academia, advocates, and victim service providers studying the issue in their city, state, or region. Existing statistics, surveys, and anecdotal evidence do, however, reveal a devastating problem that is not going away.

Many People With Disabilities Suffer Abuse    

A recent survey of women with physical disabilities1 identified a range of victimizing situations commonly experienced by persons with all types of disabilities. More than half of all respondents—56 percent—reported being abused. Of that group, 87 percent reported physical abuse; 66 percent reported sexual abuse; 35 percent were refused help with a physical need; and 19 percent were prevented from using an assistive device they required. In addition, 74 percent of the women who had been abused reported ongoing victimization, and 55 percent reported multiple episodes of abuse in their adult lives. However, only 33 percent of women with physical disabilities who were surveyed sought help with their situation, and they had “mixed reactions” as to whether getting assistance had been a positive experience.    

The following statistics also suggest that the problem is more widespread than current crime reporting may reflect:
          - People with developmental disabilities are 4 to10 times more likely to be victims of crime than other people. 2   Although they are also more likely to be victimized again by the same person, more than 50 percent never seek assistance from legal personnel or treatment service providers. 3    
          - Children with disabilities are more than three times more likely to be abused or victimized than children without disabilities. 4  A 5-year study of 4,340 pediatric hospital patients with disabilities revealed that 68 percent were victims of sexual abuse and 32 percent were victims of physical abuse. 5    
          - The National Rehabilitation Information Center estimates that as many as 50 percent of patients who are long-term residents of hospitals and specialized rehabilitation centers are there due to crime-related injuries. In addition, it is estimated that criminal acts cause at least 6 million serious injuries each year, resulting in either a temporary or permanent disability. 6    
          - In a 2005 survey of people with disabilities in the Tucson area, 7  60 percent reported being forced to engage in unwanted sexual activity, and almost half never revealed the assault.

Patterns of Victimization and Response

Perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities frequently know or have access to their victims through a personal or service relationship.8 A study published in the *Journal of Sexuality and Disability* estimates that more than half of all abuse is perpetrated by family members or peers with disabilities.9 Persons working in disability-related fields (paid or unpaid caregivers, doctors, nurses, and other professionals) are also believed to be responsible for significant numbers of incidents.10 When the abuser is an intimate partner or someone involved in the person’s emotional or physical well-being, seeking help or justice can be extremely complicated for the victim.11

In the Tucson survey,12 the top three reasons given for not reporting an incident were embarrassment, shame, and fear of not being believed. When abuse survivors chose to report their victimization, it was most often to friends (58 percent) or family members (54 percent), rather than adult protective services, law enforcement, or a social service agency. Persons with disabilities may worry about the consequences of reporting a crime, such as loss of attendant care, blame or criticism from loved ones, or the threat of further harm from the abuser.13 Reporting processes can also be intimidating, especially for persons who have had a negative experience with law enforcement or victim services in the past. And some victims may simply not understand that what they experienced was a crime, or know where to go for help.

In this light, it is not surprising that many victim service providers report that they rarely serve crime victims with disabilities. In a 2003 national survey of domestic violence and rape crisis agencies,14 67 percent of respondents said they had served people with mental illness, but few reported serving people with cognitive disabilities (7 percent), physical disabilities (6 percent), or persons who were blind, deaf, or hard-of-hearing (1 percent). However, these responses cannot be attributed to underreporting alone. Often, local entities charged with helping crime victims are unsure of how to identify and respond to persons with disabilities who seek assistance. The fact that only 9 percent of the agencies surveyed in 2003 set aside funds in their budgets to address accessibility or accommodations for clients with disabilities speaks volumes about the education and outreach work still needed. Gaps in services and community responses revealed a basic need for disability-related training and awareness and understanding within the agencies responsible for serving all crime victims.

**Planning and Implementation**

Building a Collaborative Approach

The first task for the subgrantees was to build a diverse steering committee to guide and support their efforts. Task forces, community coalitions, advisory committees, and working groups were formed, with 6 to 32 active participants. All of the projects wanted to approach change as a community effort.  

The members of each steering committee were varied and included—
          - People with disabilities (including crime victims).    
          - Disability service providers.    
          - Medical, rehabilitation, and long-term care professionals.    
          - Victim advocates from domestic violence, sexual assault, and other service agencies.    
          - Law enforcement officers, forensic nurses, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners, defense attorneys, probation officers, and judges.    
          - Persons representing specific groups of people with disabilities, including senior citizens, children, and residents of institutions.    
          - Transportation and housing providers working with people with disabilities.    
          - Representatives of government agencies that oversee services for people with disabilities (e.g., adult and child protective services, departments of mental health, departments of mental retardation, commissions for serving people who are blind or who have low vision, and commissions for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, among others).    
          - Representatives from local school systems and universities, including those providing direct services to students with disabilities.

To develop and nurture a collaborative approach to addressing the issues, subgrantees sought to—
          - Establish strong working relationships with other service providers and agencies serving crime victims and people with disabilities.  The Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office and the Carbondale Police Department both forged partnerships with disability service providers, medical personnel, transportation providers, and advocacy groups in their area. Likewise, most other subgrantees made it a priority to form alliances with their local law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.    
          - Build community-based networks that bridge gaps and create a continuum of support for crime victims with disabilities.  Some subgrantees, like the joint Stavros Center/Safe Passage project, took a holistic approach and recruited committee members from across the spectrum of support services available to people with disabilities in their target communities. This allowed them to share information and to collaborate, which ultimately led to enhanced services for crime victims with disabilities at all times, not just when provided in the immediate aftermath of victimization.    
          - Conduct community outreach that would not only expand the range of voices informing service provision, but also create new avenues for disseminating information concerning available services.  Ability1st, the Chadwick Center for Children and Families, and other sites made it a priority to join existing networks and work groups as part of their collaborative efforts, and in doing so helped their outreach efforts hit the ground running.    

The participants and partner organizations recruited by the subgrantees helped expand their knowledge of the populations they serve and of the issues that need to be addressed in their community.

Needs Assessment
          - Crime Reporting System
          - System Issues and Gaps

With the help of their steering committees, each of the subgrantees completed a community needs assessment that included protocols and questionnaires for surveys, individual interviews, and focus groups tailored to the location and cultural profile of the project area (such as population and income statistics, dominant social issues, and urban or rural characteristics). Assessments focused on actual and potential community strengths in addressing the needs of crime victims with disabilities, and identified areas of weaknesses that could be addressed to improve community response. Most important, the assessments were designed to identify the barriers that hindered or prevented crime victims with disabilities from reporting an incident to authorities or seeking assistance from social service agencies.

Subgrantees included people with disabilities in all stages of the data collection process. They established safeguards for gathering information from persons with disabilities to ensure that each individual could make an informed choice about whether or not to participate in surveys, interviews, or focus groups. Nine of the ten subgrantees were required by state law to report suspicions or knowledge of victimization in their state; staff members disclosed this information to potential participants and let them know that they had a choice about how much information they shared.

Subgrantees took great care to ensure that participation would not jeopardize any individual’s health or safety, and assessed each person’s situation before going forward. They were especially vigilant in their methods of recruiting, contacting, and interviewing potential participants with disabilities, to avoid triggering the suspicion of an abuser who might be living with the person. In Ulster County, Crime Victims Assistance Program staff coordinated home interviews when it was safe to do so. When it was not safe to meet at an individual’s home, they provided transportation to a confidential location where the victim could safely meet with a staff member. Interviewers also informed assessment participants of their options for support if talking about a crime or victimization caused them further emotional trauma.  

Fliers distributed at disability service provider offices, independent living centers, senior citizen centers, crisis centers, social service agencies, and housing developments for people with disabilities were important recruitment tools. Public means of recruiting were sometimes more effective than campaigns targeting disability-related agencies or groups. The Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault significantly improved response to its online survey by advertising in a free local newspaper and in penny-saver mailers with a circulation of more than 300,000. For all the subgrantees, articles and notices in local papers, ads in free periodicals mailed to households or available in retail stores, and public service announcements proved to be effective ways of reaching people with disabilities.  

During the assessment process, subgrantees collected data on the following:
          - Types of services crime victims with disabilities receive in their communities.    
          - Gaps in and barriers to services.    
          - Factors that discourage or prevent victims with disabilities from reporting crimes.    
          - Community awareness of the needs of crime victims with disabilities.    
          - Resources and processes that could help persons with disabilities access victim services and the criminal justice system.

The assessment results revealed much about the issues and conditions creating barriers for people with disabilities in the project communities, largely in regard to crime reporting and system issues and gaps.  

Crime Reporting System 

Surveys and interviews conducted during the community needs assessments revealed many specific reasons people with disabilities might not report being victimized. They included—
          - Fear of not being believed or embarrassment.    
          - Fear of repercussions from the abuser, family, or others in their support system.    
          - Fear of losing their independence or becoming isolated.    
          - Dependence on an abuser.    
          - Lack of information about personal rights or available services.    
          - Fear or mistrust of the criminal justice process.    
          - Fear of losing custody of children, housing, or financial support.    
          - Previous negative experiences with law enforcement or crisis services.    
          - Physical inaccessibility of services, including architectural barriers such as steps or doorways too narrow for wheelchairs and lack of accessible public transportation or sign language interpreters.

These are realistic concerns for crime victims with disabilities, and many related situations became apparent during the project. For instance, the Carbondale Police Department identified personal care attendants as the primary perpetrators of crimes such as theft, physical and mental abuse, and sexual assault against people with disabilities in their area. Interviews revealed that some participants felt trapped in situations in which they were being harmed physically or that affected their mental well-being because of poor care by their attendants. Many assessments identified personal care issues as common obstacles to reporting victimization. Victims with disabilities most often endured abuse out of fear that a new attendant might treat them even worse, or that no replacement attendant would be found and thus they would no longer receive support services.

For individuals living in facilities or institutions, as a disproportionate number of people with disabilities do in the area served by the Ulster County Crime Victims Assistance Program, the risks of reporting may be much greater than the benefits. In their assessment, Ulster County found that people with disabilities reported feeling undermined by medical personnel who questioned the legitimacy of reported abuse or the credibility of accusations from people with psychiatric disabilities.  

When the abuser is someone with the authority to control a person’s daily activities, as in schools and other restricted settings, it can become even more difficult for individuals with disabilities to safely report being victimized. In the Network of Victim Assistance assessment, people with disabilities voiced concerns about the ability of professionals such as disability service staff, educators, and school personnel to discredit them or downplay reports of abuse to avoid dealing with the situation.

Assessment results from the Chadwick Center, Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office, the Partnership Against Domestic Violence, and other subgrantees suggest that lack of information about personal rights and safety is a widespread problem for people with disabilities, especially if they have little experience working or living in the community. Some people with disabilities surveyed or interviewed assumed that crime was something committed by a stranger, and believed that victimization by someone familiar was a personal issue rather than a crime. Others had inadequate knowledge of how to respond to an abusive situation, access available services, or report an incident.

A significant number of the individuals surveyed or interviewed who had reported being victimized said they had no reason to trust the systems in place to help them. Ulster County respondents with disabilities cited issues of standing protective orders not being enforced and of law enforcement failing to locate and apprehend perpetrators. For the Stavros Center/Safe Passage, these sentiments were echoed in a community service mapping exercise, which revealed that cases involving abuse against people with disabilities stood little chance of ever being prosecuted in local courts.

The Southern Arizona Center  also found that people with disabilities participating in its needs assessments lacked confidence in crisis service providers. Surveys, focus groups, and interviews revealed low expectations regarding the ability of law enforcement and other crisis response systems to provide sensitive and accessible services. Considering the prevalence of crimes against this population, these admissions are disturbing.

System Issues and Gaps

The assessment results validated many of the concerns raised by individual participants and exposed significant disability-related gaps in services and support for crime victims. While conducting self-assessments, some organizations realized that their own facilities and programs were not accessible, their outreach efforts were not targeting crime victims with disabilities, or that people with disabilities had little experience with agencies of their type, and therefore had no basis for trusting their services.

Subgrantees identified the following gaps in services in their communities:
          - Lack of coordination among key systems such as criminal justice, domestic violence, sexual assault, and other victim and disability service organizations.  It was not uncommon for staff and field workers from these types of agencies to have little knowledge of the roles, intake processes, and responsibilities of other agencies. Many of the needs assessments revealed that crisis and disability service providers, in particular, did not have an understanding of law enforcement policy and protocols or of screening for abuse. Many local law enforcement agencies also had limited or no knowledge of the services or referral processes of the organizations that assist people with disabilities.    
          - Lack of awareness about victimization of people with disabilities.  Subgrantees found that many disability service providers did not always recognize signs of abuse or other forms of victimization, and that some were uncomfortable discussing sexuality, domestic violence, or other “personal” issues with the people their agency served. Some frontline staff also lacked training in how to respond sensitively to suspicions or reports of abuse, or failed to understand how frequently people with disabilities are victimized. These gaps in knowledge and skill often led to a lack of response, failure to report that an individual with a disability had been victimized, and missed opportunities for referring these victims to shelters, victim service programs, or the criminal justice system.    
          - Lack of disability-related knowledge and training among victim service providers and law enforcement agencies.  Assessments indicated the need for training on how to communicate with people with various disabilities, the prevalence of abuse against people with disabilities, risk factors unique to people with disabilities, ways to increase accessibility to services, and how to make appropriate referrals to protection organizations. Some local law enforcement agencies had little experience interviewing people with disabilities or investigating crimes against them. Some also discovered institutional barriers that minimized the offenses, such as facilities that investigated the matter internally rather than involving the criminal justice system.    

Strategic Planning

After completing the community needs assessment, it was time for each project site to develop a strategy for effecting change. Subgrantee strategies included plans to—
          - Increase physical and programmatic accessibility to services.    
          - Train law enforcement, crisis services, and disability services staff, as well as people with disabilities, and build collaborations among these entities and individuals.    
          - Expand outreach to include crime victims with disabilities.    
          - Develop and distribute resource materials.

Most project sites began the planning process by outlining the adjustments they needed to make to their own programs and services. The Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault and Ulster County made structural modifications to improve accessibility to their agencies, implemented new disability-focused policies and procedures, and trained staff in how to work with persons with disabilities. The Network of Victim Assistance hired a full-time victim advocate dedicated to outreach to people with disabilities, and the Partnership Against Domestic Violence modified their policies and procedures to address services to women with disabilities. The Rape Crisis Center of Central Massachusetts made simple accessibility improvements, such as making promotional materials available in alternative formats such as Braille, audiotape, or large print.

Each subgrantee’s plan comprised different elements, collaborators, and goals, but all shared a central framework for meeting the critical needs identified in all 10 communities:
          - Develop a strategy to address service barriers that prevent crime victims with disabilities from reporting an incident to authorities or seeking assistance from social service agencies.  Subgrantee plans included a wide array of strategies to address service barriers, from cross-agency meetings and dialogue among victim service providers, first responders, and law enforcement to developing and promoting resource materials targeted to people with disabilities. Innovative strategies included the Stavros Center/Safe Passage plan to build a speakers’ bureau of abuse survivors with disabilities who could provide peer support, and the “Day of Training” proposed by Ability1st to coincide with National Disability Employment Awareness Month each October.    
          - Work with law enforcement to address the need for better training, collaborations, and awareness of issues, and review forensic interviewing techniques for ways to enhance their appropriateness for people with disabilities.  Most subgrantees addressed this issue by developing training modules and relationships with their local justice community. A key component of the Chadwick Center’s strategy was developing and testing an Extended Assessment Protocol for use in interviewing people with disabilities. The Carbondale Police Department and LaFourche Parish Sheriff’s Department sought to advance their training curriculum for use at regional and state levels.    
          - Work with victim service agencies, crisis service providers, and other community partners to eliminate gaps in service and make services more accessible to people with disabilities.  The subgrantees’ strategies for addressing gaps in service included development of interagency task forces and referral systems, education and training on physical and procedural accessibility issues for service providers, case review processes, and improved and increased outreach to persons with disabilities. Most plans also emphasized using manuals and public awareness materials. For example, the Southern Arizona Center distributed its  Promising Practices Handbook , outlining best practices, to the Southern Arizona Sexual Violence Disability Coalition, which included members from the criminal justice field and medical, crisis, and mental health service providers.

By the time the strategic plans were in place, subgrantees were a year into their projects and had a much better understanding of the issues they faced. The next stage would bring obstacles, some outright roadblocks, and also much success. Some found the process of affecting change more arduous than others, but each discovered new ways of thinking about and working through the challenges.

Targeting Three Core Areas

Using the knowledge and relationships gained through collaboration, the strengths and weaknesses identified through assessment, and the resultant strategies, each project began implementing their plans. Their work can best be summarized by looking at three core areas of activity common to all the subgrantees:

**Develop and promote resources, innovative processes, curricula, and strategic partnerships to help local service providers overcome obstacles to providing appropriate services for crime victims with disabilities.**

All the subgrantees developed and nurtured collaborations and cross-discipline alliances that aided their efforts to improve services and supports for this population. The 10 projects partnered with various disability service and support organizations, from state-level agencies to local first responders and individual advocates.

Six subgrantees developed new curricula, manuals, handbooks, videos, and DVDs that greatly expanded the reach of their efforts by making disability-specific best practices and information available for use by a wide range of professionals. Some projects also hired disability advocates to improve the effectiveness of their services and build bridges to the larger disability community.

The Partnership Against Domestic Violence took an innovative approach to addressing safe and affordable housing, a common obstacle for its constituency, by working with the Georgia Department of Community Affairs to create Section 8 vouchers reserved specifically for domestic violence survivors with disabilities. The mapping model/flow chart employed by the Stavros Center/Safe Passage program was another effective innovation, used to track the justice system’s response to crime victims with disabilities and pinpoint any problems that occurred.

**Provide training and technical assistance to organizations serving crime victims and people with disabilities.**

All the project sites promoted community dialogue and better service coordination by offering training, technical assistance, and resources to professionals who work with people with disabilities. In all, the subgrantees trained more than 4,000 professionals during the project, including law enforcement personnel; first responders; disability, domestic violence, and sexual assault service providers; state agency personnel; and other professionals.

The subgrantees also educated hundreds of people with disabilities in personal safety measures they can take to protect themselves, understanding crime and exploitation, and what resources are available to them. For example, the Network of Victim Assistance, an organization that victims may not have known about previously, provided case management and advocacy support to 55 crime victims with disabilities who had reported an incident and were navigating the criminal justice system.

**Expand outreach efforts to people with disabilities using all venues available, including public service announcements, Web sites, printed materials, and community-based learning opportunities.**

Each subgrantee developed outreach efforts and materials to bring information to people with disabilities in familiar formats, places, and media outlets. They ran radio spots; displayed posters on city buses; attended community meetings and forums; advertised in free local newspapers; distributed refrigerator magnets, fliers, brochures, and trifold wallet cards; and provided palm cards for emergency personnel to leave with victims. Using the speaker’s bureau it created, the Stavros Center/Safe Passage partnership had survivors of crime who have disabilities present safety information to their peers.

The Carbondale Police Department provided one of the best examples of how a multifaceted approach to outreach can improve services. They started a twice-weekly security check system in which a community services officer and a personal care attendant would visit up to a dozen crime victims with disabilities who requested the service. The department also purchased an accessible van to transport crime victims with disabilities to criminal justice appointments, victim support groups, and related events. They also created http://www.carbondalepolice.com/, an accessible Web site with comprehensive information that is of specific interest to people with disabilities. The site features a message board, calendar of disability-related services, information about the department’s Police Advocacy Services, and a list of personal care attendants screened and interviewed by both the department and the Southern Illinois Center for Independent Living. The site also provides resources for transportation, housing, safety planning, and other needs, as well as answers to frequently asked questions.

Links to all project Web sites and more information on successful project strategies and activities can be found in the toolkit. 

Evaluating the Project

The purpose of the formal evaluation process was for each subgrantee to learn more about its own agency or organization, preferably from those it had served or sought to serve. Each project developed an evaluation plan to gauge its progress in meeting strategic goals and assess whether it was in fact addressing the needs of the community.

Several different processes were used to solicit feedback from collaborators, training participants, peer service agencies, people with disabilities, and other community members who could provide information on the project’s effectiveness. The most specific and useful feedback occurred when subgrantees—
          - Created evaluation instruments that measured the project’s effectiveness, achievement of goals, and benefits to participants.    
          - Identified successful project components and changes needed.    
          - Created measures that assessed changes in knowledge, skills, behavior, attitude, or conditions for individuals participating in the services or training.    
          - Quantified the work being done in terms such as the number of people served and materials distributed, as well as the actual progress made in addressing the need.    
          - Evaluated whether the project could be replicated as it was, or if further development would be required.    
          - Developed a formal action plan and supporting budget, and used the plan to incorporate evaluation results and achieve the desired goals.

Planning for Sustainability

At the end of the 3-year grant period, each of the subgrantees developed a plan for sustaining support services for crime victims with disabilities long after completing the project. The subgrantees designed their strategies for sustaining the project after OVC’s funding ended following the best practices they developed during the grant period:
          - Institutionalize changes to keep accessibility at the forefront.  Subgrantees’ plans for sustainability included commitments to continue in-house training programs, adjust policy as needed, improve the physical accessibility of their facilities, and find ways to make the process for applying for and receiving services more accessible.    
          - Maintain and develop ongoing relationships with people with disabilities, community groups, and organizations that provide services to crime victims and/or people with disabilities.  Projects focused on continuing coalition work, advisory groups, and other interagency partnerships; furthering the dialog started with law enforcement, victim service providers, and the local disability community; establishing new avenues for outreach to and feedback from people with disabilities; and investing in resources and technology to keep people connected to the project.    
          - Continue to measure changes, successes, and barriers in accessibility to victim services and the criminal justice system.  Subgrantee plans in this area varied according to the nature of their projects. Some planned to continue annual consumer satisfaction surveys; others planned to establish new systems to monitor program accessibility and client safety; and most expected their programming and protocols to continue to evolve.

Strategies advanced by project leaders and their partners to support sustainability plans included the following:
          - Keep partners engaged and excited about the work.    
          - Maintain funding for advocacy positions.    
          - Continue to foster new relationships.    
          - Reach out to underserved populations that could not be reached in the first 3 years.    
          - Use new partners to spread the message through train-the-trainer initiatives.    
          - Continue to disseminate training videos and materials.    
          - Seek new funding to expand work initiated during the project.    
          - Pursue certification to provide continuing education for law enforcement.    

As the subgrantees noted, funding can be critical to maintaining services. However, sustainability planning in this instance was not so much about financial planning but rather to ensure that the work accomplished would have lasting impact and forward momentum, with or without continued funding.

**Recommendations**
          - Promising Practices for Improving Access to Services
          - Strategies for Coordinating With Law Enforcement

Based on their experiences, the subgrantees provided the following recommendations for other organizations that want to improve access to needed support services for crime victims with disabilities.

Promising Practices for Improving Access to Services
          - Conduct a comprehensive community needs assessment.  Plan and conduct a meaningful assessment involving people with disabilities, their families, and persons working in the criminal justice, victim services, and disability services communities.    
          - Involve people with disabilities  in every aspect of the project, from collaboration to assessment, planning to implementation, and especially during evaluation.    
          - Develop concrete and measurable plans  to enable the project to accomplish its goals.    
          - Select one or two areas for significant change ,  and focus your efforts accordingly.    
          - Address internal gaps before community gaps ,  and lead by example.    
          - Develop strategic training and outreach efforts ,  and pursue those activities that will have the most significant impact in the community.    
          - Cultivate investment from potential trainees ,  so that they will pass on their new knowledge and skills to others who could benefit from them.    
          - Use community involvement as a vehicle for moving forward .  Consult potential collaborators early and often, trust their advice, and expand your networks accordingly.    
          - Create expectations within your own organization .  Provide clear expectations to all staff about your agency’s commitment to making its services more accessible to people with disabilities.    
          - Recruit consultants who have the expertise you need.  Use consultants to acquire perspectives about the issues and services that you may have missed and to bring new resources to the project.

Strategies for Coordinating Efforts With Law Enforcement
          - Network with people who have connections to law enforcement and the criminal justice system.  Get involved with community groups, task forces, or committees that can help build these relationships.    
          - Offer training  to those who have the authority to make decisions.    
          - Develop training agreements  to facilitate better access to and support for training.    
          - Be diplomatic .  People respond better to a positive approach.    
          - Offer to train with law enforcement staff, or use a train-the-trainer model, so that officers will be able to pass their new knowledge on to their peers .  Respect the culture and allow an insider to help deliver information more effectively.    
          - Partner with other organizations  to reach a greater number of people.    
          - Involve the trainees ,  and ask them to discuss their experience of working with crime victims with disabilities.  
          - Include people with disabilities ,  as they will be the most relevant voice in the room.    
          - Provide officers with the resources they need  to do their jobs better and more effectively.    
          - Offer abbreviated training sessions if longer sessions are not feasible .  Shorter sessions may be the most effective, if they allow trainees to focus fully on the new information without worrying about the workload they have left behind for your training.

**Resources**

The companion toolkit contains the following guides and materials, designed to aid local communities in their efforts to improve services for crime victims with disabilities:

Subgrantee Web Sites

Sample Tools and Products that the subgrantees used in their projects, including brochures, booklets, newsletters, assessment instruments, guidelines, protocols, and forms; and    

Related Products from the U.S. Department of Justice for law enforcement agencies, municipalities, service providers, and others.    

Additional OVC Products

Victims with Disabilities: The Forensic Interview DVD

Serving Crime Victims With Disabilities DVD

First Response to Victims of Crime Who Have a Disability

Victims of Crime with Disabilities Resource Guide (Association of University Centers on Disabilities) 

Working with Victims of Crime with  Disabilities

**Notes**

1Wayne State University. 2004. *Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.    

2Sobsey, D., D. Wells, R. Lucardie, and S. Mansell. 1995. *Violence and Disability: An Annotated Bibliography*. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

3Pease, T. and B. Frantz. 1994. *Your Safety...Your Rights: Personal Safety & Abuse Prevention Education to Empower Adults with Disabilities and Train Service Providers*. Doylestown, PA: Network of Victim Assistance.

4Sullivan, P. and J. Knutson. 2000. Maltreatment and disabilities: A population-based epidemiological study. *Child Abuse & Neglect*, 24 (10), 1257–1273.

5Willging, J.P., C.M. Bower, and R.T. Cotton. 1992. Physical abuse of children: A retrospective review and an otolaryngology perspective. *Archives of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery* 118(6):584590.

6Office for Victims of Crime. 1998.*Working with Victims of Crime with Disabilities*. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime.

7Mandel, M. 2005. A survey on the prevalence of sexual assault among people with disabilities in the Tucson area. Unpublished raw data. Tucson, AZ: Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault.

8Hughes, C. 2003. *Stop the Violence, Break the Silence Training Guide: Building Bridges Between Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Organizations, People with Disabilities, Families and Caregivers*. Austin, TX: Disability Services ASAP/SafePlace.

9Sobsey, D. and T. Doe. 1991. Patterns of sexual abuse and assault. *Journal of Sexuality and Disability*, 9(3): 243259.

10Ibid.

11Nosek, M. 2004. *Violence against Women with Disabilities: Issues and Recommendations*. Fact Sheet. Houston, TX: Center for Research on Women with Disabilities, Baylor College of Medicine.

12Mandel, M. 2005.

13Nosek, M. 2004.

14Schwartz, M., W. Abramson, and H. Kamper. 2004. A national survey on the accessibility of domestic violence and sexual assault services to women with disabilities. Unpublished raw data. Austin, TX: SafePlace.

OVC HomeOJP HomeDOJ Home Ask OVCPrivacy Statement FOIASite MapSearchOffice of Justice ProgramsU.S. Department of Justice