Disability’s Dark Figure of Violence: Reporting Variations Across Intersections of Disability Type,Race,Ethnicity,and Sex

Abstract

Using data from the 2017 to 2020 National Crime Victimization Survey, the current study examines how race, ethnicity, and sex affect the likelihood of reporting violent victimization to the police across types of disability (hearing, vision, cognitive, and physical). Findings reveal that Black individuals with cognitive disabilities and Hispanic individuals with multiple disabilities were less likely to report their violent victimization to the police compared to White individuals with no disabilities. Results not only support prior literature’s conclusion that disability type shapes reporting outcomes but indicate potentially cumulative effects for those at the intersections. Its implications highlight the critical need for criminal justice practitioners, victim advocates, and researchers to integrate disability and its heterogeneity into practice.

Keywords

victimization health police race gender

Introduction

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2022), 40.8 million individuals reported a disability¹ between 2017 and 2020. Projections that older people will outnumber children by 2030, the increased rate of children diagnosed with disabilities, and the unknown implications of COVID-19 on disability suggest America’s near future will be composed of an unprecedented population of those with disabilities (Roberts et al., 2022; U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). Alarmingly, individuals with disabilities are at a disproportionate risk for violence and crime underreporting. In fact, disabled people² are four times more likely to be violently victimized than non-disabled people and are significantly less likely to report these incidents to the police (38%) compared to their non-disabled peers (45%) (Harrell, 2021).

Disabled individuals’ dual risk is largely reflective of the unique circumstances that they experience. Reliance on caregivers, limited transportation options, communication difficulties, and isolation from the community create opportunities for victimization and barriers to reporting (Petersilia, 2001). In addition, preliminary literature and media coverage on disabled individuals’ experiences with and perceptions of the police shed light on violent encounters and mistrust that may affect their willingness to report victimizations (Wallace et al., 2021). Even if disabled individuals report their victimizations, they are often met with challenges in feeling supported and believed, receiving adequate victim services, and having their victimizations end in convictions (Fraser-Barbour et al., 2018).

However, recent scholarship demonstrates reporting patterns may differ between types of disability. Powers and Hayes (2024) reveal that individuals with cognitive disabilities are less likely to report their victimization compared to those with hearing, vision, and physical disabilities. Their analysis also suggests that individuals’ reasons for reporting or not differed across disability types, a major contribution as concerns with disparities in criminal justice use and satisfaction among those with disabilities remain largely unexplored (Smith et al., 2017). Their design, like others on disability, controlled for variables of race, ethnicity, and sex. This common practice omits an expansion of how these identities interact and their potential effects on reporting outcomes.

There is a critical need to understand how disability type, race, ethnicity, and sex shape differential reporting outcomes. Public health research often finds disability is disproportionately experienced among Americans who are female and of color, indicating this research is not separable (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). Further, scholarship has yet to fully integrate how these multiplicative identities increase the propensity of victimization and underreporting (Mueller et al., 2019). The present study recognizes the heterogeneity of disability and aims to examine how disability type shapes variations in reporting violent victimization to the police across identities. It also situates disability as not merely a medical condition but as a social identity, one constructed through culture and social processes, and informs experiences with victimization and disparities in reporting a violent crime (Oliver, 2013).

Patterns of Violent Victimization

Disproportionate rates of violent victimization among minoritized racial and ethnic groups are well-cited phenomena in criminology and criminal justice research. For example, Warnken and Lauritsen (2019) find risk ratios for Black and Hispanic individuals are greater than those for White individuals, 1.5 to 2 times and 1.2 to 1.5 times, respectively. Criminologists argue the racialization of crime and criminal offending among Black and Hispanic individuals may be a key mechanism to how and why these groups experience more violence (Edwards et al., 2019). Consequently, this phenomenon impedes intervention strategies and perpetuates a continued cycle of violence among marginalized racial and ethnic groups.

Although female individuals have typically experienced lower levels of violent victimization than male individuals, recent scholarship suggests that this gap is narrowing. In fact, the violent victimization rate for female individuals (22.4 per 1,000) exceeded that of male individuals (22.3 per 1,000) for the first time in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) history (Lauritsen et al., 2009). Intersectional analyses of Black and Hispanic females’ experiences with violent victimization suggest their race, ethnicity, and sex increase their risks of being violently victimized compared to White females (Semenza et al., 2022) and sexually victimized compared to Black and Hispanic males (Cuevas et al., 2012; Green, 2017). Scholars trace these risks to their everyday routines, where micro- and macro-structural constraints (e.g., economic or residential inequalities) may present greater opportunities for exposure to those who offend (Like-Haislip & Tusinski Miofsky, 2011).

Like other marginalized populations, disabled individuals are at greater risk of being violently victimized. Those with disabilities are more likely to experience severe victimization, experience it for a longer duration, and have a larger number of people who victimize them throughout their lifetime (Schaller & Fieberg, 1998). Further, risks are amplified for those with multiple disabilities (Harrell, 2021). Cross-disability analyses also demonstrate variations in victimization risk across types. For example, people with cognitive disabilities are at the highest risk of being violently victimized generally as well as by intimate partner violence and hate crimes (Emerson & Roulstone, 2014). In contrast, those with hearing disabilities have the lowest victimization rates of violent crimes, excluding simple assault (Harrell, 2021).

Intersectional disability research demonstrates disabled females and people of color are at a disproportionate risk of being violently victimized. Unlike non-disabled individuals, disabled females are slightly more likely to experience violent victimization (49.4 per 1,000) compared to disabled males (42.7 per 1,000) (Harrell, 2021) and in incidents of sexual violence. García-Cuéllar et al. (2022) argue this may be explained by the diminishment of disabled females’ sexuality and their increased vulnerability to unemployment, factors that may make them more dependent on a significant other. In terms of race and ethnicity, disabled Hispanic individuals have the highest violent victimization rate (55.3 per 1,000), followed by Black individuals (39 per 1,000), and White individuals (45.1 per 1,000) (Harrell, 2021). Critical disability scholars frame this phenomenon as a cumulative racial, ethnic, and disabled vulnerability to violence, as evidenced by their increased risk for multi-layered hate crimes (Cramer & Plummer, 2009; Thorneycroft & Asquith, 2015).

Reporting Violent Victimization

While official measures provide a formal account of crime’s prevalence, underreporting remains a salient challenge to understanding experiences with violence across identities. Since 1993, the rate of reporting violent victimization to police has fallen from 33.8 victimizations per 1,000 individuals to a staggering 7.5 in 2021 (Thompson & Tapp, 2022). Undoubtedly, identity plays a critical role in underreporting as well as variations between populations. For instance, female individuals, Black individuals, and those 50 to 64 years old are consistently found to be the most likely to report their violent victimizations (Thompson & Tapp, 2022).

Individuals with disabilities are significantly less likely to report crimes for which they are at a disproportionate risk. Harrell (2021) finds only 19% of rapes and sexual assaults (36% for non-disabled peers), 45% of robberies (57% for non-disabled peers), and 33% of simple assaults (41% for non-disabled peers) against disabled individuals were reported to the police. Individuals with multiple disabilities were more inclined to report their violent victimizations (45.5%) compared to those with a single disability (32%). Across disability types, individuals with hearing disabilities reported the most to the police (46.8%), followed by those with physical (46.0%), vision (43.2%), and cognitive (36.4%) disabilities. These results are particularly noteworthy for individuals with hearing disabilities, who are at the lowest risk of violent victimization across disability types. This suggests disability type not only shapes the propensity to victimization but also to reporting (i.e., access to the use of the law).

Determinants of Reporting for Individuals With Disabilities

Dominant approaches to examining underreporting are often based on the characteristics of the incident, who is victimized, and who offends. Given disabled individuals are more likely to be victimized by violent and serious crimes, by someone they know very well, and hold negative perceptions of the police, the most emergent for an intersectional examination of disability is the seriousness of the incident (Skogan, 1984), the relationship between the individual victimized and the individual that victimized them (Posick, 2014), and prior experiences with and perceptions of the police (Slocum, 2018).

The seriousness of the victimization is one of the strongest predictors for reporting to the police. The greater the severity of an incident (i.e., crime was completed, involved financial loss, ended in an injury, weapon was used), the more likely it will be reported (Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964). Interestingly, reporting trends among disabled individuals are comparably lower than their non-disabled counterparts despite heightened experiences of serious injury and emotional distress. In fact, they are more likely to be physically injured, experience long-lasting physical daily difficulties, and report higher rates of anxiety, depression, and comorbidity as a consequence of their victimization (Cotter, 2018; Dembo et al., 2018). Across types, people with physical disabilities have the highest odds of being injured, while those with hearing disabilities have the lowest odds of mental distress following their victimizations (Hayes & Powers, 2022). However, those with cognitive disabilities are the most likely to experience severe physical injuries and mental distress from their victimizations (Hayes & Powers, 2022). Although scholars have yet to explain the inverse relationship between severity and reporting, possible explanations point to disabled individuals’ greater difficulty accessing and receiving health care and criminal justice services compared to non-disabled individuals (CDC, 2022).

Another prominent factor affecting both perceived seriousness and reporting outcomes is the relationship between the victim and the individual who offended them. Generally, violent victimizations committed by strangers are more likely to prompt police notification than those victims know (Kang & Lynch, 2014). As posited by the mobilization of law theory, because the victim and the individual who offended “may be related by blood, marriage, friendship, neighborhood, membership in the same community,” the victim’s official recognition a crime has or is occurring is more complex and ambiguous than if a stranger had done so (Black, 1970, p. 740). Further, research indicates the closer the relationship between the victim and the person who victimized them is, the greater the tendency is for victims to minimize the severity of their victimization (Ben-David & Schneider, 2005). For disabled people, reporting someone close to them who victimized them can have critical implications for their financial, physical, and emotional well-being. In addition to physical and communication difficulties, Petersilia (2001) explains those with disabilities experience fear of (1) personal harm, (2) being sent to a more restrictive setting or institution, and (3) conflicts of interest between family, service providers, or another third party that creates barriers to reporting. Given these and the potential difficulties of recognizing and minimizing violent behavior, reporting violent victimization could compromise the safety and well-being of disabled individuals.

A fundamental aspect of understanding reporting patterns across identities is centered on perceptions of and experiences with the police. Individuals’ direct and vicarious experiences of citizen-initiated and police-initiated contact often ground these perspectives (Rengifo et al., 2019). Intuitively, reporting is positively correlated with a victim’s belief in police efficacy and negatively correlated with perceptions of lacking investigatory effort (Schneider et al., 1976). Tyler’s (1990) conceptualization of police legitimacy posits an individual’s evaluation of just or unjust experiences with the criminal justice system—most symbolically represented by police—is the primary contributor to legitimacy, the belief that authority or institution is just and proper. Copious literature highlights discriminatory police practices against Black and Hispanic individuals fuel pervasive perceptions of mistrust and fear, ultimately deterring their willingness to cooperate and interact with the police (Block, 1971; Furstenberg & Wellford, 1972).

Although not explored as extensively, existing literature suggests those with disabilities and their support networks share similar attitudes. Perspectives reveal an increased frequency of police contact and negative outcomes associated with them (Parry & Huff, 2022), including discrimination, lack of clarity and explanation, unmet needs, and fear during contact (Crane et al., 2016; Wallace et al., 2021). In instances of citizen-initiated contact, disabled individuals report difficulties being taken seriously by the police and having their crimes pivoted to outside agencies such as Adult Protective Services (Ellem & Richards, 2018). Consequently, crimes handled administratively within a group home or institution rather than a criminal court system perpetuate disabled individuals’ injustice and remain truly invisible.

Emerging cross-disability analyses demonstrate the merit of examining reporting variations between types, as each disability poses challenges and advantages to reporting. For example, those with hearing disabilities cite problems with criminal justice professionals’ lack of training, systemic resources, and qualified interpreters for not reporting to the police (Zidenberg, 2021) while those with cognitive disabilities express emotional distress and difficulty understanding information as reasons for not coming to the police (Gulati et al., 2022). Disability type may also influence individuals’ attitudes toward the police. Powers and Hayes (2024) and Hayes and Powers (2022) reveal police ineffectiveness is the most salient reason for not reporting among victims with hearing and vision disabilities while fear of reprisal from the individual who offended them is the most important for those with cognitive and physical disabilities. Given the significance of these findings, research that incorporates intersectionality as a theoretical framework to understand differences among disability types is critical for illuminating a more comprehensive exploration of the dark figure of disablist violence.

The Current Study

The present study fills an empirical gap in the literature by investigating how interactions of disability type, race, ethnicity, and sex predict patterns of violent victimization reporting. Its intersectional approach will advance the critical analysis of community-police relations among those with disabilities, particularly those who are marginalized along intersectional identities. It will also expand the scope of criminology and criminal justice to include disability as both a fundamental variable of victimization and reporting that merits rigorous empirical examination. If research can illuminate the multiplicative effects of intersectionality and disability type on reporting outcomes, policy and practice can be improved toward violence prevention among those with disabilities.

Data and Sample

Data is drawn from the NCVS from 2017 to 2020. Sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NCVS aims to provide valid and reliable estimates of the frequency of crime in the United States independent from law enforcement and allow the study of victimization characteristics and outcomes (Lauritsen, 2001). The NCVS is released annually to individuals 12 years and older in a stratified, multistage cluster sample across United States households. The survey contains a series of questions focused on identifying and examining individuals’ experiences with criminal victimization over 3 years.

As the only nationally representative data, the NCVS is an advantageous data source because of its large sample size and inclusion of variables related to disability type. In 2007, the NCVS began its efforts to collect information on disability status. Originally, questions were developed for the United States Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to measure the rate of victimization against individuals with prolonged (i.e., 6 months or longer) sensory, physical, mental, or emotional conditions (Harrell, 2021). Beginning in July 2016, the NCVS began asking all respondents about their disability status, allowing rates of victimization by disability status and type to be calculated. The NCVS also includes demographic data of the victim and the individual who offended as well as situational and environmental correlates related to violent victimization such as urbanicity and location of incidents. Attempted and completed violent incidents of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and simple and aggravated assault were evaluated at the incident level (n = 8,117). Of the 8,117 violent victimizations (unweighted), 2,027 involved a victim with a disability (25%), and 6,090 involved non-disabled victims (75%). Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for all variables in the study.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics (n = 8,017)

Variables	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Dependent
Reported to Police	0.45	0.50	0	1
Independent
Disability
None
Hearing	0.75	0.43	0	1
Vision	0.02	0.15	0	1
Cognitive	0.01	0.11	0	1
Physical	0.08	0.27	0	1
Multiple	0.05	0.22	0	1
Control
Victim Characteristics
Age	43.4	15.2	14	90
High School	0.80	0.40	0	1
Employed	0.60	0.49	0	1
Household Income
$0-49,999	0.47	0.50	0	1
$50,000-99,999	0.21	0.41	0	1
$100,000-149,999	0.09	0.28	0	1
$150,000-199,999	0.04	0.18	0	1
$200,000+	0.03	0.18	0	1
Victim’s Relationship With Individual
Stranger	0.52	0.50	0	1
Causal	0.14	0.35	0	1
Well-Known	0.34	0.47	0	1
Incident Characteristics
Sex Crime	0.09	0.28	0	1
Robbery	0.10	0.30	0	1
Assault	0.81	0.39	0	1
Night	0.40	0.49	0	1
Private	0.46	0.50	0	1
Weapon Used	0.22	0.42	0	1
Injured	0.41	0.49	0	1
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic	0.14	0.35	0	1
NH-Black	0.11	0.31	0	1
NH-White	0.67	0.47	0	1
NH-Not Listed	0.07	0.26	0	1
Female	0.74	0.44	0	1
U.S. Region
Northeast	0.10	0.30	0	1
Midwest	0.29	0.45	0	1
South	0.30	0.46	0	1
West	0.31	0.46	0	1
Survey Year
2017	0.27	0.44	0	1
2018	0.28	0.45	0	1
2019	0.26	0.44	0	1
2020	0.19	0.39	0	1

Measures

Dependent Variable—Police Reporting

The primary outcome variable of interest is a dichotomous measure for police reporting, where 1 = the violent victimization was reported to the police, and 0 = it was not reported to the police. This measure is derived from the original NCVS variable that included three options: 1 = the incident was not reported to the police, 2 = the victim had reported the incident to the police, or 3 = a third party or another official reported the incident to the police. Given the aims of the current study, the third option was omitted. Among respondents, 45% reported their violent incidents to the police.

Independent Variable—Disability Type

The first key predictor variable in the present study is disability status. Operationalized as a categorical measure, 0 = non-disabled individuals (n = 6,090), 1 = individuals with a hearing disability (n = 169), 2 = individuals with a vision disability (n = 95), 3 = individuals with a cognitive disability (n = 662), 4 = individuals with a physical disability (n = 428), and 5 = individuals with multiple disabilities (n = 673). The original NCVS variable for disability includes two additional measures that capture an individual’s difficulties with (5) self-care³ and (6) independent living⁴ due to a disability. Given these measures could apply to all disability types, these variables were omitted for clarity purposes. No disability was selected as the reference group for this variable, as it represents the largest portion of the sample and allows for comparison across all disability types (n = 6,090). Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics among individuals with disabilities only (n = 2,027). Compared to the larger sample, victims with disabilities were older, attained less education, were less employed, and lived in lower-earning households.

Table 2:

Descriptive Statistics for Individuals With Disabilities (n = 2,027)

Variables	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Dependent
Reported to Police	0.45	0.50	0	1
Independent
Disability
Hearing	0.08	0.15	0	1
Vision	0.05	0.11	0	1
Cognitive	0.33	0.27	0	1
Physical	0.21	0.22	0	1
Multiple	0.33	0.28	0	1
Control
Victim Characteristics
Age	48.39	15.72	14	90
High School	0.73	0.44	0	1
Employed	0.36	0.48	0	1
Household Income
$0-49,999	0.66	0.48	0	1
$50,000-99,999	0.14	0.35	0	1
$100,000-149,999	0.04	0.20	0	1
$150,000-199,999	0.02	0.12	0	1
$200,000+	0.01	0.10	0	1
Victim’s Relationship With Individual
Stranger	0.45	0.50	0	1
Causal	0.15	0.36	0	1
Well-Known	0.40	0.49	0	1
Incident Characteristics
Sex Crime	0.10	0.30	0	1
Robbery	0.11	0.31	0	1
Assault	0.79	0.41	0	1
Night	0.39	0.49	0	1
Private	0.59	0.49	0	1
Weapon Used	0.24	0.43	0	1
Injured	0.46	0.50	0	1
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic	0.14	0.35	0	1
NH-Black	0.11	0.31	0	1
NH-White	0.67	0.47	0	1
NH-Not Listed	0.07	0.26	0	1
Female	0.73	0.44	0	1
U.S. Region
Northeast	0.09	0.28	0	1
Midwest	0.29	0.46	0	1
South	0.31	0.46	0	1
West	0.31	0.46	0	1
Survey Year
2017	0.27	0.44	0	1
2018	0.28	0.45	0	1
2019	0.26	0.44	0	1
2020	0.19	0.39	0	1

Independent Variable—Race and Ethnicity

The second independent variable of interest is the race and ethnicity of the victim, measured as a categorical variable consisting of 1 = Hispanic, 2 = non-Hispanic Black, 3 = non-Hispanic White, and 4 = non-Hispanic individuals with racial or ethnic minorities not listed.⁵ Demographics reveal 1,162 Hispanic individuals (14.3%), 877 non-Hispanic Black individuals (10.8%), 5,473 non-Hispanic White individuals (67.4%), and 605 non-Hispanic individuals with not listed racial and ethnic identities (7.5%). The reference group for this variable is non-Hispanic White individuals, as it allows for a comparative analysis of Black and Hispanic disabled individuals.

Independent Variable—Female Individuals

The last primary predictor variable is a dichotomous measure of the sex of the victim where 0 = male individual and 1 = female individual. Table 1 shows that 74.2% of the sample identifies as female⁶ (n = 6,019). The NCVS contains an additional variable for gender identity, which includes 1 = male, 2 = female, 3 = transgender, and 4 = none of those identities. While an analysis of gender identity would be an asset to the current study, the sample size of those who identify as transgender is extremely low (n = 14). Future exploration is needed to understand how gender identity informs disability—and vice versa—in incidents of violent victimization (Slater & Liddiard, 2018). The reference group is males.

Control Variables

The victim’s age (continuous), high school attainment (dichotomous), employment status at the time of the incident (dichotomous), and household income (categorical) are all measures controlled for in this analysis. The average age of the victim was 43.4 years old, 79.6% attained high school education, 60.3% were employed at the time of the victimization, and the majority were from households with incomes between $0 and $49,999 (47.1%). Given those with disabilities are more likely to be older, attain less education, be unemployed, and live in lower-earning households as compared to non-disabled individuals, controlling for these measures is essential for understanding the sole interactions between disability type, race, ethnicity, and sex. The victim’s relationship with the individual who offended (categorical) was controlled for given its salience for those with disabilities. Victimizations committed by strangers were the most common (51.8%), followed by well-known individuals (33.7%), and casual acquaintances (14.5%). Measures regarding whether the incident occurred in a private or public location (dichotomous), at nighttime (dichotomous), involved a weapon (dichotomous), and if it resulted in injury (dichotomous) were also controlled.

Table 1 shows that 39.6% occurred during the night, 45.6% in private locations, 22.3% had a weapon used against them, and 41% resulted in an injury. Violent victimization types were created dichotomously, with the majority being assault (81.5%), followed by robbery (9.8%), and sexual assault and rape (8.7%). Accounting for the NCVS’ new definition of urbanicity in 2020, macro-sociological factors related to the incident are measured using the main geographical region of the United States (dichotomous variables for Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). Regionally, these incidents were equally distributed among the West (30.8%), South (30%), and Midwest (29%) except only 10.2% taking place in the Northeast. Finally, dichotomous variables reflecting the year the survey was administered were included in this analysis.

Analytic Strategy

The present study employs a logistic regression where disability, race, and sex are the focal independent variables including the above controls. Logistic regressions permit the use of interaction terms that can help identify when an independent variable has a differential effect on the outcome dependent on another independent variable. To account for the stratified and multistage cluster design of the NCVS, the analysis uses STATA’s svyset function to adjust for the “unequal probability of selection as well as heteroscedastic residuals stemming from a nested data structure” (Yun & Lee, 2014, p. 181). This stratification accounts for design variables and applies probability victimization weights to reflect the data’s unique clustering and stratification. An examination of the original sample (n = 8,434) reveals slight areas of missing data. Across all measures, 0.62% of incidents reported to the police were missing (n = 52), along with 0.12% of race and ethnicity (n = 10). Out of the controls, the victim’s relationship to the individual who offended contained the most missing data (3.02%, n = 255), and the time of the incident contained the least (0.31%, n = 26). Given that the missingness was just under 3.75%, such incidents were omitted from the present study, creating a final sample of 8,117.

Results

Model Evaluation

The current study’s aim of assessing potential interactional effects across disability types in reporting outcomes calls for an examination of model fit. Given recent research that argues conventional techniques of measuring group differences in logit and other nonlinear models—particularly ones assessing interactional effects—may provide misleading results (Long & Mustillo, 2021), the performance of four logistic regression models was checked using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The BIC advantageously emphasizes consistency, where researchers can identify the best model fit in terms of simplicity and parsimony (Neath & Cavanaugh, 2011). Model 1, a baseline logistic regression that contains no interactions, was compared to three nested models. Model 2 includes the baseline model with the addition of an interaction variable between disability type, race, and ethnicity. Model 3 does the same, but the interaction variable is between disability type and sex. Finally, Model 4 replicates this, but its interaction variable is between disability type, sex, race, and ethnicity. Table 3 shows the results of the BIC, revealing the interaction between disability type and sex in Model 3 possesses the lowest value—and most parsimonious model—compared to Model 1.

Table 3:

Bayesian Information Criterion Comparing Logistic Regression Models

Model Description	BIC Value
Model 1: Main Effects	10,865.33
Model 2: Main Effects + Disability × Race and Ethnicity	10,971.45
Model 3: Main Effects + Disability × Sex	10,904.17
Model 4: Main Effects + Disability × Sex × Race and Ethnicity	11,152.36

Despite this, a closer examination of Model 3 reveals Model 2 would be better suited for the study for several reasons. First, of Model 3’s significant results (i.e., race not listed), none provide any utility to the exploratory analysis of this study. The breadth of populations included in this variable makes discerning these results and their potential implications extremely difficult. Second, the magnitude of the difference between Models 2 and 3 is insufficient to rule in favor of Model 3 in the context of the models’ complexity and size of the dataset. While all models possess large BIC values, all parameters specified are essential for theoretically grounding and empirically testing interactional effects on reporting outcomes, given the study’s novelty. Therefore, Model 2 is used for the logistic regression analysis.

Likelihood of Reporting Violent Victimizations to Police

Two logistic regressions were performed to ascertain the effects of disability type, race, ethnicity, and sex on the likelihood that individuals will report their violent victimizations to the police. Table 4 displays the first logistic regression analysis F(31, 137) = 8.60, p < .001, examining 8,117 incidents (unweighted) that resulted in a weighted population equivalent to 17,272,806. Individuals with cognitive disabilities (OR = 0.60, p < .001) were associated with lower levels of reporting. Among control variables, high school education (OR = 1.23, p = .016) and employment (OR = 1.18, p = .027) were associated with higher levels of reporting whereas living in a household earning more than $200,000 (OR = 0.53, p = .003) and causally knowing the person who offended (OR = 0.81, p = .030) were associated with lower levels. The majority of incident characteristics yielded positive reporting outcomes, with those occurring at night (OR = 1.20, p = .035), in private locations (OR = 1.79, p < .001), involving weapon use (OR = 1.85, p < .001), and ending in injury (OR = 1.41, p < .001) being more likely to be reported. The two exceptions were sex crimes (OR = 0.31, p < .001) and assaults (OR = 0.76, p = .018), which were associated with lower levels of reporting.

Table 4:

Logistic Regression Estimating Police Reporting, Model 1 (n = 8,017)

Variables	OR	SE	Lower 95% CI	Upper 95% CI
Independent
Disability
Hearing	0.93	0.24	0.56	1.54
Vision	1.11	0.37	0.57	2.14
Cognitive	0.60***	0.08	0.46	0.78
Physical	1.00	0.16	0.73	1.36
Multiple	0.96	0.12	0.76	1.22
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic	1.00	0.09	0.84	1.20
Non-Hispanic Black	1.11	0.13	0.89	1.39
Non-Hispanic Not Listed	0.81	0.09	0.66	1.00
Female	1.12	0.10	0.94	1.34
Control
Victim Characteristics
Age	1.00	0.00	1.00	1.01
High School	1.23*	0.10	1.04	1.45
Employed	1.18*	0.09	1.02	1.36
Household Income
$0-49,999	0.97	0.10	0.79	1.19
$50,000-99,999	0.93	0.11	0.74	1.16
$100,000-149,999	0.96	0.15	0.70	1.31
$150,000-199,999	0.81	0.16	0.55	1.20
$200,000+	0.53**	0.11	0.35	0.80
Victim’s Relationship with Individual
Causal	0.81*	0.08	0.67	0.98
Well-Known	0.84	0.08	0.69	1.01
Incident Characteristics
Sex Crime	0.31***	0.06	0.21	0.45
Assault	0.76*	0.09	0.61	0.95
Night	1.20**	0.10	1.01	1.42
Private	1.80***	0.13	1.55	2.08
Weapon Used	1.85***	0.13	1.60	2.13
Injured	1.41***	0.09	1.24	1.61
U.S. Region
Midwest	1.17	0.14	0.92	1.47
South	1.16	0.12	0.94	1.42
West	1.09	0.12	0.87	1.37
Survey Year
2018	1.03	0.10	0.85	1.24
2019	0.98	0.09	0.82	1.17
2020	0.96	0.10	0.79	1.18
Constant	0.38***	0.10	0.23	0.63

Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Table 5 displays the logistic regression analysis F(46, 122) = 5.89, p < .001 examining 8,117 incidents (unweighted) that resulted in a weighted population equivalent to 17,272,806. Two main findings were found: (1) Black individuals with cognitive disabilities were 0.34 times as likely (p = .013) and (2) Hispanic individuals with multiple disabilities were 0.44 times as likely (p = .013) to report their violent victimization to the police as compared to White non-disabled individuals. None of the other intersections of race, ethnicity, and disability type were significant. As for the controls, sex crimes (OR = 0.32, p < .001), victimizations involving assault (OR = 0.77, p = .026), victims living in a household earning more than $200,000 (OR = 0.53, p < .001), and when the victim casually knew the person who offended (OR = 0.82, p = .039) were associated with lower levels of reporting. Attaining a high school education (OR = 1.24, p = .012), being employed (OR = 1.16, p = .036), victimizations occurring at night (OR = 1.21, p = .032), in private locations (OR = 1.79, p < .001), involving weapon use (OR = 1.86, p < .001), and ending in injury (OR = 1.42, p < .001) were associated with higher reporting outcomes.

Table 5:

Logistic Regression Estimating Police Reporting, Model 2 (n = 8,017)

Variables	OR	SE	95% CI
Variables	OR	SE	Lower	Upper
Interaction
Disability Type × Race and Ethnicity
Hearing × Hispanic	0.74	0.54	0.18	3.09
Hearing × NH-Black	0.25	0.23	0.04	1.50
Hearing × NH-Not Listed	3.47	3.01	0.63	19.21
Vision × Hispanic	0.39	0.38	0.06	2.63
Vision × NH-Black	0.66	0.48	0.16	2.75
Vision × NH-Not Listed	2.51	2.76	0.29	21.93
Cognitive × Hispanic	0.66	0.22	0.34	1.27
Cognitive × NH-Black	0.34*	0.15	0.15	0.79
Cognitive × NH-Not Listed	1.02	0.47	0.41	2.54
Physical × Hispanic	2.22	1.03	0.89	5.55
Physical × NH-Black	1.71	0.72	0.74	3.92
Physical × NH-Not Listed	0.64	0.38	0.20	2.06
Multiple × Hispanic	0.44*	0.14	0.23	0.84
Multiple × NH-Black	0.78	0.27	0.39	1.53
Multiple × NH-Not Listed	0.83	0.29	0.42	1.64
Independent
Disability
Hearing	1.07	0.25	0.67	1.69
Vision	1.32	0.46	0.67	2.61
Cognitive	0.71*	0.11	0.53	0.96
Physical	0.86	0.16	0.60	1.23
Multiple	1.14	0.17	0.86	1.52
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic	1.08	0.10	0.90	1.30
Non-Hispanic Black	1.21	0.17	0.92	1.59
Non-Hispanic Not Listed	0.82	0.10	0.64	1.06
Female	1.13	0.10	0.95	1.35
Control
Victim Characteristics
Age	1.00*	0.00	1.00	1.01
High School	1.24*	0.11	1.05	1.47
Employed	1.17*	0.09	1.01	1.35
Household Income
$0-49,999	0.96	0.10	0.78	1.18
$50,000-99,999	0.93	0.11	0.74	1.17
$100,000-149,999	0.97	0.15	0.71	1.32
$150,000-199,999	0.81	0.16	0.54	1.20
$200,000+	0.53**	0.11	0.35	0.81
Victim’s Relationship With Individual
Causal	0.82*	0.08	0.68	0.99
Well-Known	0.83	0.08	0.69	1.01
Incident Characteristics
Sex Crime	0.32***	0.06	0.22	0.46
Assault	0.77*	0.09	0.61	0.97
Night	1.20*	0.10	1.02	1.42
Private	1.79***	0.13	1.55	2.07
Weapon Used	1.87***	0.13	1.63	2.16
Injured	1.42***	0.09	1.25	1.62
U.S. Region
Midwest	1.18	0.14	0.93	1.49
South	1.17	0.13	0.94	1.44
West	1.09	0.13	0.87	1.37
Survey Year
2018	0.17	0.92	1.59	1.24
2019	0.97	0.09	0.82	1.16
2020	0.95	0.10	0.78	1.16
Constant	0.36***	0.09	0.22	0.60

Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The predicted probability of reporting to the police across intersections of disability type, race, and ethnicity is additionally presented in Figure 1. While most interactions were not significantly different from the reference group, Black individuals with cognitive disabilities and Hispanic individuals with multiple disabilities once more demonstrated a significantly lower likelihood of reporting, with predicted probabilities of 0.29 and 0.37, respectively.

Figure 1:

Predicted Probability of Police Reporting by Disability Type, Race, and Ethnicity (n = 8,017)

Figure 2 provides supplemental predicted probabilities across all intersections of disability type, race, ethnicity, and sex as indicated in Model 4. Although not the best-fit model for the current study, its visualization offers insight into the reporting outcomes of disabled individuals. Females who were (1) Hispanic with a vision disability, (2) whose race was not listed and had a vision disability, and (3) whose race was not listed and had a cognitive disability, had predicted probabilities of 0.20, 0.23, and 0.32, respectively. Put simply, Figures 1 and 2 show that around one-third of all these individuals were likely to report their victimization to the police.

Figure 2:

Predicted Probability of Police Reporting by Disability Type, Race, Ethnicity, and Sex (n = 8,017)

Discussion and Recommendations

Significant findings offer novel insight into how disabled individuals’ multiple identities shape their decisions to report to the police. The first logistic regression model (see Table 4) empirically supports previous research that finds individuals with cognitive disabilities are less likely to report (Harrell, 2021). To date, no study has examined the potential effects of its interaction with race and ethnicity on reporting outcomes. The second logistic regression model (see Table 5) demonstrates intersections of race and ethnicity matter across disability types in reporting outcomes, finding first that Black individuals with cognitive disabilities were less likely to report their violent victimization to the police as compared to non-disabled, White individuals. This finding may be best explained by strained police-citizen relations. Research consistently finds that Black individuals and those with cognitive disabilities voice concerns about not being taken seriously and experiencing bias by the police, causing them to feel disrespected and disregarded. Undoubtedly, these negative exchanges cause these groups to view the police as “key perpetrators of invalidation. . .ineffectual and [do] not always follow up [with] incidents that were reported to them” (Wiseman & Watson, 2022, p. 10926). For Black individuals with cognitive disabilities, these cumulative negative experiences may have a multiplicative, deterring effect on reporting outcomes.

Increasing reporting behavior requires improvements in attitudes toward and experiences with the police. One approach is to create positive police-citizen interactions before, during, and after a victimization is reported. Police-community outreach including people with disabilities and minoritized racial and ethnic groups can establish a foundation for building relationships among these groups and those at the intersections. Ensuring the police employ validating strategies during their interactions with victims such as acknowledging the injustice, avoiding victim-blaming, and relating to the victim as a person (Elliott et al., 2014) promotes positive attitudes of the police while supporting the individual. Recording these victimizations as crimes and following up with the individual after an incident is reported reinforces individuals’ sense of procedural justice and creates an overall positive experience.

The second logistic regression model also finds that Hispanic individuals with multiple disabilities were less likely to report their violent victimization to the police as compared to non-disabled, White individuals. This group’s underreporting may best be explained by the stigma of disability and help-seeking among Hispanic individuals and barriers to victim services among those with multiple disabilities. Hispanic individuals often belong to collectivistic cultures, where disability is viewed as “not a problem of the individual, but rather a problem of the family” (Albrecht, 1999, p. 140). Combined with the stigma of seeking help from outside agencies, disabled Hispanic individuals may be particularly prone to handling victimizations within the family. Further, it is hypothesized that individuals with multiple disabilities experience cumulative barriers to victim and criminal justice services, as different disability types present different—sometimes overlapping—challenges to reporting (Turner et al., 2011). For example, an individual with a physical and cognitive disability may experience difficulty accessing transportation to report their victimization and being seen as a credible source by the police.

Developing inclusive tools and integrating cultural competency into victim and criminal justice services is salient for increasing reporting behavior among multiply marginalized individuals. To alleviate reporting barriers among those with multiple disabilities, innovative tools must be developed for all disability types. For example, the process of reporting violent victimizations should account for different types of communication (e.g., braille, ASL interpreter, technology-assisted). A cultural step further would make these different types of communication available in languages outside of English (e.g., Spanish). In terms of stigma, increasing the scope of disability awareness to include people of color is critical. Disabled people of color have brought attention to the “perpetual centering of Whiteness” in the “disability experience” and how disability is researched (Stapleton & James, 2020, p. 215). Programming and education that shows the diversity of disability across types and identities can help destigmatize disability and outside minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Limitations and Future Research

It is critical to acknowledge the present study’s limitations with the hope of improving future research. First, intersections of race and ethnicity, sex, and disability type could not be fully assessed given certain populations yielded small sample sizes. Individuals with vision and hearing disabilities experienced the lowest representation among intersectional identities, as seen with Hispanic females with vision disabilities (n = 4) and Black females with hearing disabilities (n = 4). Sample sizes this small warrant concern for both internal and external validity, as conclusions made about this population rely on a few perspectives and experiences. Future research should focus efforts on data collection for disabled females of color and exercise caution when making conclusions about these populations.

Second, the NCVS definition and measurement of disability presents several salient issues. While hearing and vision disabilities are relatively straightforward, cognitive—“any serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions”—and physical disabilities—“any serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs”—are more vulnerable to interpretation. These measures make distinguishing disability from other correlated characteristics (i.e., age) more ambiguous and inherently capture a wide range of conditions such as those related to aging (i.e., Alzheimer’s) and development (i.e., autism). One way future research and survey design can be more critical of this construction is by adding one or two more questions in the NCVS related to communication and social cues. There is merit in developing both general questions (e.g., “Do you have difficulty communicating verbally?”) and specific questions (e.g., “How do you primarily communicate? (1) verbally (2) American Sign Language (3) with technology such as an iPad”). This would improve the survey design of the NCVS while also taking active steps toward greater inclusivity of all disability types.

Last, the present study controlled for potentially important correlates related to reporting (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, and region). As demonstrated by existing research and the sample characteristics of the present study, victims with disabilities are more likely to be older, with lower socioeconomic status, and live in the West. Although not extensively covered, regional effects on disability victimization and underreporting such as access to adequate health care, historical treatment of those with disabilities, and cultural phenomena and social expectations may offer insight into possible micro- and macro-level implications.

Conclusion

This study is one of the first to center on disability type and intersectionality in examinations of reporting behavior among those violently victimized. While findings support previous literature that shows disability type and identity are separately influential in reporting outcomes, its most important contribution is the revelation that these factors can become cumulative. Its implications further highlight the need for criminal justice practitioners, victim advocates, and researchers to integrate disability and its heterogeneity into practice. Particularly in the field of criminology, disability is an often overlooked form of inequity deeply connected to violence, punishment, and surveillance. Considering disability on its own as well as its connections to race, ethnicity, and sex is essential for developing a holistic and inclusive criminal justice perspective. By using one of the most nationally representative criminal justice data sets, the present study demonstrates disability can and should be an integral aspect of our field. The sooner we, as criminologists, recognize its salience, the faster we can dissect and dismantle the dark figure of disablist violence.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

I want to express my endless gratitude to several individuals. First, my thesis chair, Dr. Brooklynn Hitchens, and committee members, Drs. Rachel Ellis and Min Xie, for their guidance and support on my master’s thesis for which this paper is based. Second, my current mentor, Dr. Danielle Wallace, for her assistance and encouragement with proofing and revisions. Last, my colleague, Taryn Curie, for her help with data visualizations.

ORCID iD

Isabella E. Castillo

Notes

Isabella E. Castillo, MA, is a doctoral student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. Her research interests include disability, race, ethnicity, policing, and victimization.

References

Albrecht

(1999). The use of non-Western approaches for special education in the Western world. A cross-cultural approach. Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839400401-008

Ben-David

Schneider

(2005). Rape perceptions, gender role attitudes, and victim-perpetrator acquaintance. Sex Roles, 53(5), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-6761-4

Black

D. J.

(1970). Production of crime rates. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 733–748. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093948

Block

R. L.

(1971). Fear of crime and fear of the police. Social Problems, 19(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/799942

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, October 25). Infographic: Adults with disabilities: Ethnicity and race. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/materials/infographic-disabilities-ethnicity-race.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, September 23). Health equity for people with disabilities. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/humandevelopment/health-equity.html

Cotter

(2018). Violent victimization of women with disabilities, 2014 (catalog no. 85-002-X). Juristat, Statistics Canada.

Cramer

E. P.

Plummer

S. B.

(2009). People of color with disabilities: Intersectionality as a framework for analyzing intimate partner violence in social, historical, and political contexts. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(2), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770802675635

Crane

Maras

K. L.

Hawken

Mulcahy

Memon

(2016). Experiences of autism spectrum disorder and policing in England and Wales: Surveying police and the autism community. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(6), 2028–2041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2729-1

10.

Cuevas

C. A.

Sabina

Milloshi

(2012). Interpersonal victimization among a national sample of Latino women. Violence against Women, 18(4), 377–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212452413

11.

Dembo

R. S.

Mitra

McKee

(2018). The psychological consequences of violence against people with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 11(3), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2018.01.006

12.

Edwards

Lee

Esposito

(2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race-ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16793–16798. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821204116

13.

Ellem

Richards

(2018). Police contact with young people with cognitive disabilities: Perceptions of procedural (in)justice. Youth Justice, 18(3), 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225418794357

14.

Elliott

Thomas

Ogloff

(2014). Procedural justice in victim-police interactions and victims’ recovery from victimisation experiences. Policing and Society, 24(5), 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784309

15.

Emerson

Roulstone

(2014). Developing an evidence base for violent and disablist hate crime in Britain: Findings from the life opportunities survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(17), 3086–3104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514534524

16.

Fraser-Barbour

E. F.

Crocker

Walker

(2018). Barriers and facilitators in supporting people with intellectual disability to report sexual violence: Perspectives of Australian disability and mainstream support providers. The Journal of Adult Protection, 20(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-08-2017-0031

17.

Furstenberg

F. F.

Jr. Wellford

C. F.

(1972). Calling the police: The evaluation of police service. Law & Society Review, 7(3), 393–406.

18.

García-Cuéllar

M. M.

Pastor-Moreno

Ruiz-Pérez

Henares-Montiel

(2022). The prevalence of intimate partner violence against women with disabilities: A systematic review of the literature. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2025927

19.

Green

(2017, July 13). Violence against black women—many types, far-reaching effects. IWPR. https://iwpr.org/violence-against-black-women-many-types-far-reaching-effects/

20.

Gulati

Cusack

Lynch

Murphy

Carey

Bogue

O’Connor

A. B.

Foley

Dee

Dunne

B. E.

Sutton

P. L.

Kelly

B. D.

Fistein

Kilcommins

Dunne

C. P.

(2022). The collaborative development through multidisciplinary and advocate consensus of an accessible notice of rights for people with intellectual disabilities in police custody. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 83, 101815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101815

21.

Harrell

(2021). Crime against persons with disabilities, 2009—2019—Statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

22.

Hayes

B. E.

Powers

R. A.

(2022). Heterogeneity of disabilities and the consequences of victimization: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Justice Quarterly, 39(5), 1059–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021.1960409

23.

Kang

J. H.

Lynch

J. P.

(2014). Calling the police in instances of family violence: Effects of victim-offender relationship and life stages. Crime & Delinquency, 60(1), 34–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128709359655

24.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(2001). The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007574114380

25.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Heimer

Lynch

J. P.

(2009). Trends in the gender gap in violent offending: New evidence from the national crime victimization survey. Criminology, 47(2), 361–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00149.x

26.

Like-Haislip

T. Z.

Miofsky

K. T.

(2011). Race, ethnicity, gender, and violent victimization. Race and Justice, 1(3), 254–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368711409059

27.

Long

J. S.

Mustillo

S. A.

(2021). Using predictions and marginal effects to compare groups in regression models for binary outcomes. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(3), 1284–1320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799374

28.

Mueller

C. O.

Forber-Pratt

A. J.

Sriken

(2019). Disability: Missing from the conversation of violence. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12339

29.

Neath

A. A.

Cavanaugh

J. E.

(2011). The Bayesian information criterion: Background, derivation, and applications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Computational Statistics, 4(2), 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.199

30.

Oliver

(2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773

31.

Parry

M. M.

Huff

(2022). Divergent perspectives: Autistic adults’ perceptions of the police. Policing: An International Journal, 45(3), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-10-2021-0144

32.

Petersilia

J. R.

(2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities: A review essay. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6), 655–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385480102800601

33.

Posick

(2014). Victimization and reporting to the police: The role of negative emotionality. Psychology of Violence, 4, 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031770

34.

Powers

R. A.

Hayes

B. E.

(2024). Victim and third-party reporting of violent victimization to the police in incidents involving victims with disabilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 61(2), 268–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278221131493

35.

Rengifo

A. F.

Slocum

L. A.

Chillar

(2019). From impressions to intentions: Direct and indirect effects of police contact on willingness to report crimes to law enforcement. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56(3), 412–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818817338

36.

Roberts

Ives-Rublee

Khattar

(2022, February 9). COVID-19 likely resulted in 1.2 million more disabled people by the end of 2021—workplaces and policy will need to adapt. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/covid-19-likely-resulted-in-1-2-million-more-disabled-people-by-the-end-of-2021-workplaces-and-policy-will-need-to-adapt/

37.

Schaller

Fieberg

J. L.

(1998). Issues of abuse for women with disabilities and implications for rehabilitation counseling. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 29(2), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1891/0047-2220.29.2.9

38.

Schneider

A. L.

Burcart

Wilson

L. A.

(1976). The role of attitudes in decisions to report crimes to the police. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/role-attitudes-decisions-report-crimes-police

39.

Sellin

Wolfgang

M. E.

(1964). The measurement of delinquency. Wiley.

40.

Semenza

D. C.

Testa

Jackson

D. B.

(2022). Intersectional differences in serious violent victimization trajectories across the life course. Preventive Medicine Reports, 26, 101732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101732

41.

Skogan

W. G.

(1984). Reporting crimes to the police: The status of world research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21(2), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427884021002003

42.

Slater

Liddiard

(2018). Why disability studies scholars must challenge transmisogyny and transphobia. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 7(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v7i2.424

43.

Slocum

L. A.

(2018). The effect of prior police contact on victimization reporting: Results from the police–public contact and national crime victimization surveys. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(2), 535–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9345-x

44.

Smith

Harrell

Judy

(2017). How safe are Americans with disabilities? Vera Institute of Justice.

45.

Stapleton

James

(2020). Not another all White study: Challenging color-evasiveness ideology in disability scholarship. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(3), 215–222.

46.

Thompson

Tapp

(2022). Criminal victimization, 2021. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

47.

Thorneycroft

Asquith

N. L.

(2015). The Dark Figure of Disablist Violence. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 54(5), 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12147

48.

Turner

H. A.

Vanderminden

Finkelhor

Hamby

Shattuck

(2011). Disability and victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Child Maltreatment, 16(4), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559511427178

49.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.

50.

United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey, Concatenated File, [United States], 1992-2022. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2023-09-18. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38604.v1

51.

U.S Census Bureau. (2021). Childhood disability in the United States: 2019. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/acs/acsbr-006.html

52.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221

53.

Wallace

Herbert

Tyler

McGee-Hassrick

(2021). Interactions between individuals on the autism spectrum and the police: The fears of parents, caregivers, and professionals. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 950–964. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa059

54.

Warnken

Lauritsen

J. L.

(2019). Who experiences violent victimization and who accesses services? CrimRxiv. https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.7884e668

55.

Wiseman

Watson

(2022). “Because I’ve got a learning disability, they don’t take me seriously”: Violence, wellbeing, and devaluing people with learning disabilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), NP10912–NP10937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521990828

56.

Yun

Lee

(2014). Revisiting the effects of self-protective behaviors on the risk of injury in assaults against women. Violence and Victims, 29(1), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00126

57.

Zidenberg

A. M.

(2021). Avoiding the deaf penalty: A review of the experiences of deaf individuals in the criminal justice system. Disability & Society, 38(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1965546