Prev
Next

We are herding people into dangerous situations

Robbi Williams

by Robbi Williams

11 Jul 05:35am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Disability, Education, People With Disabilities, Rape, Sexual Assault, Society

27 comments

Recent news reports have highlighted the apparent difficulties in securing convictions where a person living with intellectual disability has been the victim of an alleged sexual assault.

Picture: AdelaideNow

Some alleged assaults take place where people are receiving care.  This warrants closer examination, given the reasonable expectation that human services are meant to reduce risk of harm, not add to it. 

Also, the greater the degree of disability a person lives with, the more likely it is the person will be living in a formal service arrangement, sharing with other people living with similar degrees of disability and served by staff.

These arrangements typically involve people served in group settings, away from the view of the wider community. To the casual observer, such arrangements might appear competent at safeguarding people’s wellbeing, with features like individual private bedrooms, qualified staff, and supervision by registered professionals.  The arrangements might also include an activities program, active monitoring, and guidelines that permit liberty-reducing practices, such as restraint or seclusion, as a last resort only.

However, such arrangements do not guarantee protection from neglect, abuse or assault. In fact, they can achieve the opposite. When people are required to live together for no other reason than their degree of disability (or other disadvantage), it creates a situation where people are living on top of each other with very little to do. 

It is not unknown for this to sometimes result in assaults between residents, a tragic situation that brings its own complexity in justice and yet could be largely avoided if we stopped herding people like cattle into group services.

Worse, these group arrangements render the person vulnerable to the attitudes and outlook of staff, who have the capacity to exercise great control over the lives of those they are meant to serve.  The extent to which this can go badly wrong was illustrated in a UK Panorama investigation that revealed abuse and assaults perpetrated by staff on residents living with disability, in a state-of-the-art, high-cost ‘specialist’ service supervised by registered professionals.

We cannot safely assume such practices are any less discoverable in Australia.  The less we think about people living with disability as individual human beings, the less personalised will be the support arrangements, separating people physically and culturally from community life.  This can leave at least some people with no one in their lives other than paid staff and other people living with disability. 

That is wrong.

If we really want to tackle the problem of unprosecuted assaults on people living with disability, we must first discontinue the practice of grouping people living with disability on the basis of service convenience, be this a group home, a sheltered workshop or a special education class, and instead build personalised supports that bring people fully and visibly into community life. 

More than this, If we truly value diversity and shared wellbeing (which is the whole point of communities), we each need to take up our responsibility to welcome people living with disability fully into our neighbourhoods and our workplaces.  This is not an issue of rights but something more important - values.

Turning now to problems of justice, the main reason reported in The Advertiser article mentioned above is that the alleged victim, because of disability, might be an unreliable witness.  So what?  Witness testimony from anyone can be an unreliable source of evidence in criminal proceedings, and there are other sources of evidence that can assist prosecution. 

There is no reason an assault case involving a person living with severe disability, whose capacity to recall might be compromised, should be treated any differently from a case involving a frail older person, a child, or a victim who was incapacitated by alcohol or other substances at the time of the alleged offence.

A second issue is consent, whether the victim was a willing participant at the time of the alleged assault and changed their mind subsequently.  Many adults, from all walks of life, may have comparable stories of hindsight-driven regret, especially if the experience had turned out to be embarrassing, deeply disappointing, or even frightening. Just like anyone else, a person living with disability is not immune to the possibility of such experience. 

However, it would be a great mistake for us to assume that this is more likely to have happened simply because the person happened to live with disability. A far more important move, especially where the person is more vulnerable in their decision-making, would be to assure the availability to the person of good, accessible information and supports about consent and related matters. 

The bottom line?  Let‘s not further disable people by placing them in ‘support arrangements’ that do more harm than good.  Instead, let’s uphold the individual person’s right to an ordinary valued life, and assure the presence of safeguards so we do not fail people when the going gets tough.

Most commented

27 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • TChong says:

      07:07am | 11/07/11

      Moving people out of homes, and let them being cared for individually, thru out the community does sound a good idea except.-
      Group homes do offer the security of many different people being present- that may deter a potential offender.
      The cost. - what happens if the client requires someone on site continually ?
      What happens if the client requires the assistance of more than one carer ?
      What happens if the infrastructure required to care for a client is not suited to the clients type of accomadation. ?
      20 people in a group home might require 4-6 carers ,will if dipersed require
      a carer for each person.
      Providing 1 to 1 care is a worthwhile target, but the huge costs involved will deter most govts.
      As for oversight , it is hard to see how any one malevolent person would be disuaded by clients living in their homes. For some one so intentioned it would allow easir ways to commit a crime- less people around to observe.
      Thorough back ground checks,professional training and registration ( with legal accountability) for all carers and allowing more client approved surveilance may help to reduce potential problems.
      While abuse of any type is totally unacceptable , the amount of staff doing so would by minute, as is the % of any group of people, some will do the wrong thing, but the vast majority of carers are decent , honest folk .

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      05:15pm | 11/07/11

      @Chongy
      ‘Moving people out of homes, and let them being cared for individually, thru out the community does sound a good idea ‘

      Jeff Kennett thought the Richmond report was pretty good.  He seized it with both hands, and closed our mental hospitals, sold off the land and brought Victoria into the black.  Then he built a casino and a conference centre - all good stuff, dodgy tendering and all!

    • Fiddler says:

      07:37am | 11/07/11

      What is the point of this article? Yes it would be nice for intellectually disabled people to have care individually suited to their needs but it aint gonna happen and no government in the world can afford it. If the family can’t cope into these care homes they go. I have been to a number of these and the staff appear to do the best they can and the “clients” seem to enjoy it. As for the claims of assault/sexual assault I have been on the front end of dealing with a number of these claims and each one was clearly ficticious, but still had to be reported.

      Reply

    • Carz says:

      07:42am | 11/07/11

      How can somebody who is supposed to have the experience you do write such a load of crap? For a start your terminology is very out of date; sheltered workshops are now referred to as places of supported employment. And the carers who assist people in group homes are not there to serve; they are there to care. Big difference.

      Apart from this you have raised two main issues regarding people with an intellectual disability. The first being that you seem to believe group homes are wrong. Surely they are better than the large-scale institutions of the past, where people with a disability were treated as prisoners, over-medicated, restrained without it being a method of last resort, and cut off from society? And what is the alternative for those with aging parents, or whose parents are simply unable to care for their adult children with disabilities? The group home scenario is not perfect but supplies a lot more checks and balances than a system where people with disabilities are cared for, for example, in a one on one situation with no changing shifts, no supervisors, and nobody around to complain if the wrong this is being done. It may not be the perfect situation but it is the best there is to offer for many adults with disabilities.

      The other issue you raise is that of consent in sexual matters and the possibility that “buyer’s remorse” could count for many sexual assaults. What a load of absolute crap! If you read the Crimes Act of whatever state you will find that the section on consent talks about the ability to freely consent. Things that affect the ability to freely consent include being intoxicated through drugs or alcohol, illness, injury, being asleep, being coerced through fraudulent means and…oh, I remember, intellectual capacity to consent. While yes, I agree that everybody needs to be educated on sex and consent you can’t make an assumption about “buyer’s remorse” if the person does not have the intellectual ability or knowledge to understand the consequences of sex and consent.

      I truly hope that the attitudes you have displayed are not the ones most prevalent amongst the intellectuals and academics of the Disability Services sector. If they are then our care of people with disabilities is likely to go back to the early 1900s.

      Reply

    • Robbi Williams says:

      12:20pm | 11/07/11

      @Carz, I think you may have misunderstood my commentary relating to consent.  While noticing the possibility of regretted consent for anyone, I was not saying this (what you call ‘buyers remorse’) could account for many of the alleged assaults.  In fact, I was saying the opposite, that we should not assume this.

      In relation to the phrase ‘sheltered workshop’, i chose it deliberately as I consider the phrase ‘supported employment’ to be a misnomer in its current use in Australia.  It’s hard to elaborate further in this brief comment space as it’s a whole other debate.

      Similarly, your comments relating to group homes touch on two debates that can’t be more fully elaborated in this brief comment space: first, the debate around the use of the wortd ‘care’ in disability support , and second, the debate around the timing of assistance, where we seem to leave people and families under-supported for so long that when things finally come to a head, the congregate (group home) option comes to the fore.

    • Cat says:

      01:19pm | 11/07/11

      Robbi - well can you go into it more on the blog your bio says you have and give us a link?

    • Robbi Williams says:

      02:27pm | 11/07/11

      @Cat, here is the link to the blog:

      http://juliafarrrobbi.blogspot.com

      Over the next few weeks I’ll try and cover some of the issues mentioned.

    • Dogbolter says:

      04:57pm | 11/07/11

      “For a start your terminology is very out of date; sheltered workshops are now referred to as places of supported employment.”

      Carz, a pure typical government response, as if changing the name makes it better, somehow. Also, there are always going to be people who need institutionalised care. There are always people who need locking up for their own good. Getting rid of asylums and throwing the people in them out into the world has been an unmitigated disaster, but everyone is too PC to admit it. As someone with a mental illness I can stand back and see this disaster unfolding. The government is doing this for reasons of saving money, and hiding it by saying it’s the new, unicorns-and-rainbows friendly way of dealing with people who have brains that don’t work.

    • Cat says:

      10:17am | 11/07/11

      well I’ve had my son at a few different schools now, the two that made no use of a specialised unit where the two which failed him - because having that unit was most assuredly a modification he needed available. He was not in the unit all day every day - he started out spending part of the day there and progressed quickly to spending almost every day not using the unit - this is a child who, at his previous school (which did not have or use a unit) was attending less than half a day and getting very little out of it! By the nature of his disability, there will always be days where he needs to go there(the unit) because his ability to cope fluctuates. Giving him a support worker wont make him less sensative to the noise/smells/actions/ect of other students and the pressures of social interaction on those days when he’s not coping - he simply HAS to have access to somewhere away from the classroom. The worst thing you could do for him is to make him stay in the classroom on the days he isn’t coping with that environment, wheras if you give him somewhere else away from the class he can do his work, learn and get through the day without hitting anyone or being too anxious to do any learning at all.
      So what I’m saying is - I disagree that shutting down any situation which allows a space away from the rest of the community is something which will automaticly meet the needs of everyone with a disability, instead, it has the potential to limit how much people with a disability can participate in activities or achieve their potential - I think the needs of a great deal of people could be accomidated for better in the community, but if we are going to better meet the needs of everyone we have to ACTUALLY address those needs, not what we think sounds nicest because it sounds really nice if you can say your autistic child spends all day every day in the classroom, but it is less than nice if saying that means his ability to achieve his potential, to be less anxious and to be considered a valued part of the class instead of “that kid who looses it” is destroyed.

      Reply

    • Robbi Williams says:

      02:51pm | 11/07/11

      @Cat, I appreciate your perspective, and I take from it the focus has to be on the person’s individual needs, addressed in the context of an ordinary valued life (i.e. the person achieving their potential).  For me, this comes down to a student getting the right personalised support, arranged so the student is seen in a positive and valued way by their non-disabled peers. And as you point out, this might include a particular student having the option to take time away from the main classroom, if on a given day this is what the student needs to best advance their learning and uphold their valued standing with their non-disabled peers.

    • Lisa H. says:

      04:08pm | 11/07/11

      Politicians made much of closing down special schools in NSW. No doubt they made a bundle selling of the real estate.
      My brother was turfed out of a heated, rubber-floored special school to attend the local primary and high school, complete with drafty demountables and plenty of stairs.
      His classmates and peers made his life a misery, taunting began before the first bell and continued until the last.
      His extraordinary dedicated and well-qualified teachers were replaced with a series of ad-hoc teacher aids that scarcely knew him by name.
      The outcomes that come from ‘community care’ are not always and only positive. My brother may have helped others overcome their prejudices…but I thought good outcomes for HIM were actually the main aim, not rehabilitation and education of a prejudiced and inexperienced community.

    • Cat says:

      11:49pm | 11/07/11

      blast - my reply was too long for the word limit here and the word limit on your blog is even less. Suffice to say my son might be thriving compaired to where he was, but not in general by any objective measurement - our entire experience of mainstreaming and that of other parents we know who have kids in the “not disabled enough for special school but too disabled to always cope with mainstreaming” group of disabilities is that our education department policy documents might look and sound nice and shiny but the reality is dismal. So many kids tumble through the cracks Robbi, so many families hurting, so many kids hurting and cracking under the strain. Mainstreaming isn’t working well Robbi and there are many reasons for that which I don’t have the space to cover but make no mistake - there are many many miles of progress to be made before further pushes towards special needs kids being catered to in a mainstream setting is something anyone could possibly advocate as a good thing. It is the best option for us right now, but only because the other options are worse. The fun of a child who is not intellectually or physically inpaired to a profound degree means they dont qualify for special schools and yet often dont cope with mainstream schools - there are a whole 2 schools in this state who offer part-time placements - but for a limit of 2 years - and not everyone lives anywhere near either of them. Aside from that you can homeschool - which leaves you without access to any of the funded specialist supports because the department built them all into schools. Asperger’s usually isn’t diagnosed till afer age 7 and the “early intervention for autism” funding cuts off at age 7 so there are no funds to be had there even though these kids need early intervention just as much…rock and a hard place Robbi, but definitely NOT ideal.

    • Robbi Williams says:

      09:51am | 12/07/11

      @Cat, you raise important issues that speak to systemic capacity issues about mainstream education. This is an active and ongoing policy topic at the agency where I work - Julia Farr group - and includes a Parents Forum whose members all have school-aged kids living with disability, and who make policy submissions to Government. I don’t know which part of Australia you’re in but it would be good to talk some more about this, perhaps as part of that network. Our contact details are at http://www.juliafarr.org.au

    • Robbi Williams says:

      09:51am | 12/07/11

      @Cat, you raise important issues that speak to systemic capacity issues about mainstream education. This is an active and ongoing policy topic at the agency where I work - Julia Farr group - and includes a Parents Forum whose members all have school-aged kids living with disability, and who make policy submissions to Government. I don’t know which part of Australia you’re in but it would be good to talk some more about this, perhaps as part of that network. Our contact details are at http://www.juliafarr.org.au

    • Erick says:

      01:26pm | 11/07/11

      I see two more problems here.

      (1) Mentally disabled people, like children, can be easily led on into making false accusations by therapists and others with an agenda. Remember the “satanic ritual child abuse” panics of the 90s? Just about all of those turned out to be caused by children making up crazy stories at the prompting of adults. The same could happen with intellectually impaired people.

      (2) Is it fair to push a blanket denial of intellectually disabled people having the right to consent? The effect of this is to deny them the right to have any sexual contact with others at all. Is this fair? What is the opinion of those affected?

      Reply

    • John says:

      02:20pm | 11/07/11

      “Just about all of those turned out to be caused by children making up crazy stories at the prompting of adults”

      Whats a coincidence, claims and counter claims.

      If someone claims something, it most likely true, then it being most likely false.

    • Erick says:

      03:03pm | 11/07/11

      @John - It’s not about claims and counter-claims, it’s about claims and evidence. The claims said one thing, the evidence said something else.

    • Lisa H. says:

      04:11pm | 11/07/11

      If you aren’t legally able to vote, perhaps you shouldn’t legally be able to consent to sex, either.

    • Erick says:

      05:13pm | 11/07/11

      Perhaps so, Lisa H. But is that cut-and-dried, or open to debate?

      And your comment raises a question: Are intellectually disabled people legally unable to vote? What are the criteria for excluding them? I was under the impression that all Australian citizens over the age of 18 could vote. But if I’m wrong, please correct me.

    • Erick says:

      05:16pm | 11/07/11

      P.S. Okay, I checked the AEC website. It says:

      “You are not eligible to enrol if you:

      ...  are of unsound mind (incapable of understanding the nature and significance of voting) ...”

      However, where exactly is that line drawn, and by whom?

    • MK says:

      06:20pm | 11/07/11

      If we want to be honest about it, the “incapable of understanding the nature and significance of voting” clause should rule out the majority of the Australian population.

    • Jester says:

      07:14pm | 11/07/11

      Let’s hope they don’t apply the test to you Erick.

    • Forgotten Australian Family says:

      03:41pm | 11/07/11

      Everything in your article chimes with the situation of Forgotten Australian families. Our children are mentally injured, not mentally ill. One of them is permanently disabled. The very last place anyone in our family would ever consent to be sent is any kind of institution! Yet no housing assistance can be found to build a granny flat for my disabled child to live near family and pets.

      Reply

    • PBfromIppy says:

      04:50pm | 11/07/11

      Research indicates that for a person who has an intellectual impairment or similar impairment and is removed from their family home, their level of development drops 30% in their first year of care. This should sound alarm bells in bureaucratic circles from funding bodies. Add to this the cost of provision of support as opposed to providing support for a person in their own family home with their own family unit, and the alarms get louder and louder. Perhaps the lack of voice offered by the people who experience human rights violations each day is of benefit for funding bodies within government. To paraphrase the productivity commission draft report on the disability sector in Australia, the system is beyond being broken it is beyond being in any state of repair. Meanwhile the abuse continues and all of us are partly responsible, because the outrage we feel toward Indon slaughterhouses provides an expansion for cattle and People with intellectual impairments receive the justice of refugees being shipped to Malaysia. We are all complicit and responsible for the abuse for longer than living memory. It is hard to get up stand up for your rights if you are tied to a toilet and left for an hour or restrained in a legal manner by physical, chemical or technical restraint. I could rant all day about just a couple of these issues. I suggest people have a look at the Judge Rotenberg centre on google to see what is happening each day in our country. Have a nice day.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      07:16pm | 11/07/11

      The problems of intellectually disabled Australians get swept under the carpet so easily, at least this article is making people aware of just one of the problems.

      For you economic rationalists out there, consider that the cost of providing acceptable, reasonable levels of care and support for these vulnerable Australians is probably less than the cost of all the last minute interventions which result from the lack of this support together with the costs of support for the families who inevitably get left with the burden and have associated problems with not being able to work, depression etc.

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen of country SA says:

      09:47pm | 11/07/11

      Robbi, all I can say is that you’ve spent too much time in the office & not at the coal face. The abuse starts in admin & trickles down

      Reply

    • outlet says:

      01:29pm | 20/07/12

      I happen to be commenting to let you know what a notable discovery our child gained reading your webblog. She mastered too many issues, including what it’s like to have a very effective helping mood to make other people clearly have an understanding of certain multifaceted subject areas. You undoubtedly did more than visitors’ expectations. I appreciate you for offering those priceless, dependable, revealing and as well as fun thoughts on your topic to Lizeth.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 13 05:27PM

MT @RaidersCanberra "Congrats to Blake Ferguson on his selection for NSW. LIKE to show your support!" Um guys, you can't "like" a Tweet

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 05:16PM

@stilgherrian said Australia

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 04:32PM

RT @TheEconomist: Google is coming under intense scrutiny from regulators http://t.co/4bfvNp5oyEhttp://t.co/NLV9yRSIKr

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 13 04:31PM

@mpesce make sure you let us know when you take the covers off it

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter