Developing an Evidence Base for Violent and Disablist Hate Crime in Britain

Abstract

In the context of there being little robust U.K. data on disabled people’s exposure to violent crime and hate crime, we examined self-reported rates of exposure over the preceding 12 months to violent crime, hate crime, and disablist hate crime in a newly established survey, the U.K.’s Life Opportunities Survey. Information was collected from a nationally representative sample of 37,513 British adults (age 16 or older). Results indicated that (a) disabled adults were significantly more likely to have been exposed over the previous 12 months to violent crime (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [2.08, 2.61]) and hate crime (adjusted OR = 2.58, 95% CI = [2.17, 3.07]) than their non-disabled peers, (b) the differential risk of exposure to violent crime was particularly elevated among disabled adults with mental health problems (adjusted OR = 6.26, 95% CI = [5.01, 7.82]), (c) the differential risk of exposure to hate crime was particularly elevated among disabled adults with mental health problems (adjusted OR = 10.70, 95% CI = [7.91, 14.47]) or cognitive impairments (adjusted OR = 6.66, 95% CI = [3.95, 11.22]), and (d) these effects were strongly moderated by poverty status with no increase in differential risk of exposure for disabled adults among more wealthy respondents.

Keywords

disability violent crime hate crime

Introduction

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD) defines disability as people “ . . . who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (CRPD Article 1). Over recent decades, our understanding of disability has moved from one in which the social exclusion faced by people with particular health conditions or impairments was seen as the inevitable consequences of ill health (often referred to as a “medical” or “individual” model of disability) to one in which they are seen as being powerfully shaped by social structures and sociocultural practices (often referred to as a “social model” of disability; Barnes, 2012; Shakespeare, 2006; Thomas, 2007; Watson, Thomas, & Roulstone, 2012). Within the latter framework, disability is not viewed as an inherent characteristic of individuals, but the result of the interaction between impairments and discriminatory sociocultural practices to which people with particular health conditions or impairments may be exposed. As such, disability is being increasingly seen as a human rights issue (Hauland & Allen, 2009; Megret, 2008; United Nations, 2003, 2006; World Health Organization and the World Bank, 2011). To reflect these developments, we adopt the term disabled people in the article but acknowledge with double quote marks where other terms are used in research, for example, “people with impairments,” which is used widely in the United States.

Attempts to establish the prevalence of disability are complicated by a number of methodological and conceptual difficulties (Bajekal, Harries, Breman, & Woodfield, 2004; Mont, 2007). However, it is clear that a substantial minority of the world’s population are disabled. For example, it has recently been estimated that 15% to 19% of the world’s population are disabled (World Health Organization and the World Bank, 2011), with risk of disability increasing with age and with exposure to poorer socioeconomic circumstances (Office for Disability Issues, 2011; World Health Organization and the World Bank, 2011).

Disability and Violence

Not only do disabled people constitute a sizable majority of the population but two recent systematic reviews have drawn attention to the extent to which disabled people are at increased risk of exposure to violence (Hughes et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2012). Hughes et al.’s meta-analyses of studies of the comparative prevalence of exposure to violence among disabled and non-disabled adults over the past 12 months (involving 21 557 disabled adults) reported that disabled adults were 1.5 times more likely to be a victim of violence (physical, sexual, or intimate partner) than their non-disabled peers, while those with mental health conditions are at nearly four times the risk of experiencing violence (Hughes et al., 2012). Risk of lifetime exposure to violence among disabled children has been estimated to be over 3.5 times greater than among non-disabled children (Jones et al., 2012). However, both reviews drew attention to the scarcity of robust evidence due to the lack of well-designed research studies and poor standards of measurement of both disability and violence (Hughes et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2012). In particular, the existing literature on disabled adults is largely dominated by studies that have examined risk among particular groups of disabled people (especially people with mental health problems) or among disabled people more generally (without decomposing results by type of impairment associated with disability).

Disability and Violent Crime

Only two studies in the Hughes et al. review examined differential risks of exposure to violent crime (self-reported or officially recorded physical, sexual, or intimate partner violence that transgressed the penal code of the relevant country) among people with and without disabilities (Hughes et al., 2012). Analysis of the U.S. 2007 National Crime Victimization Survey indicated that (a) age-adjusted rate of non-fatal violent crime against disabled people was 1.5 times higher than the rate for other persons, (b) overall rates of exposure and the relative risk of exposure associated with disability were markedly greater among younger people, (c) disabled women had a higher victimization rate than disabled men (the opposite being true among non-disabled respondents), and (d) people with cognitive impairments had a higher risk of violent victimization than people with other impairments associated with disability (Rand & Harrell, 2009).

Analysis of the 2009-2010 British Crime Survey (BCS) indicated that while overall rates of exposure to violent crime were lower among disabled adults, when controlling for other personal and contextual factors (especially age), disabled adults were 2.3 times more likely than non-disabled adults to report having been the victim of violent crime in the past 12 months (Hall & Innes, 2010). These reports are consistent with available evidence in relation to overall exposure to crime. For example, secondary analyses of the 2009-2010 BCS indicated that 42% of disabled young people aged 16 to 24 had been victims of crime in the previous 12 months, compared with 33% of non-disabled people of the same age (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2011). Violent victimization rates are especially high for disabled children, teenagers, and young adults (Turner, Vanderminden, Finkelhor, Hamby, & Shattuck, 2011) and, for intimate/sexual violence, among disabled women (Mirrlees-Black, 1999).

Disability, Hate Crime, and Disablist Hate Crime

Hate crime has recently received increasing policy attention in a number of countries (Iganski, 2001; Roulstone & Mason-Bish, 2012; Sherry, 2010). This has required new definitional frameworks for comprehending and reporting hate crime. In this context, the U.K. Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers have agreed the following definition to define hate crime: “A hate crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s: disability, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or transgender identity” (Crown Prosecution Service, 2012). They further state that

hate crime can take many forms including: physical attacks such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti and arson threat of attack including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate, and unfounded, malicious complaints, verbal abuse, insults or harassment - taunting, offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace.

In the U.S. context, leading commentators explicitly refer to such crimes as “bias” or “motivated” crimes.

The recent extension of hate crime provisions to embrace disability is an important step in the recognition of the harms occasioned by hate-motivated crimes (Roulstone & Mason-Bish, 2012). Section 146 of the U.K. Criminal Justice Act (HM Government, 2003) defines disablist hate crime as follows: “Any incident which is perceived to be based upon prejudice towards or hatred of the victim because of their disability or so perceived by the victim or any other person” (Crown Prosecution Service, 2006). The Act did not create any new offenses, but imposed a duty upon courts to increase the sentence for any offense (e.g., assault or criminal damage) aggravated by hostility based on the victim’s disability (or presumed disability).

Despite increasing attention to the issue of hate crime, there is ample evidence of underreporting of disablist hate crime in the United Kingdom and United States (Sherry, 2000; Sin, Hedges, Cook, Mguni, & Comber, 2009). Lack of accessible and user-friendly third-party reporting centers is a recognized barrier to disabled people with a range of impairments (Sin et al., 2009).

To date, in the United Kingdom, however, disablist hate crime rates and incidents have not featured as an explicit header in official major survey research. While the BCS does collect data on the perceptions and experience of crime and criminal justice, it systematically underrepresents hate crime as reporting given perceptions that the criminal justice system may not respond or take seriously reporting of alleged hate crimes.

The aim of this study was to (a) compare rates of exposure to violent crime and hate crime among disabled and non-disabled adults in a nationally representative sample of British adults, (b) compare rates of exposure to violent crime and hate crime among disabled adults with different impairments, and (c) examine the association between risk of exposure to violent crime and hate crime among disabled and non-disabled adults and participant age, gender, and poverty status.

Method

We undertook the secondary analysis of de-identified cross-sectional data from Wave 1 of the U.K.’s Life Opportunities Survey (Office for National Statistics, 2011). Data were downloaded from the U.K. Data Archive (http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/). Full details of the survey development and methodology are available in a series of reports (Dawe, 2011; Howe, 2010; Office for Disability Issues, 2011), key aspects of which are summarized below.

Sample

The Life Opportunities Survey (LOS), commissioned by the U.K.’s Office for Disability Issues and undertaken by the Office for National Statistics, is a new longitudinal study focusing on the life experiences of disabled people in Great Britain (Dawe, 2011; Howe, 2010; Office for Disability Issues, 2011). In the first full wave of data collection (undertaken between June 2009 and March 2011), random unclustered sampling from the small users Postcode Address File identified 34,004 eligible households. Interviews were completed with 37,513 individuals aged 16 or older from 19,951 households, giving a household response rate of 59% (Cuddeford, Duncan, Howe, & Glen, 2008; Dawe, 2011; Howe, 2010; Office for Disability Issues, 2011).

Procedure

Data collection was primarily undertaken using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) using Blaise software, the international standard CAPI software for U.K. Official Statistics. The two-part questionnaire consisted of a core module to collect basic demographic information for the entire household and a second module, given to every adult in each household. The latter module collected information on (a) the extent of participation in seven areas of life (employment, education and training, transport, leisure, social and cultural activities, accessibility of buildings, and use of public services), (b) the barriers that people face to participating in these seven areas, (c) experience of receipt of social care, (d) exposure to discrimination and crime, (e) the financial situation of the household, and (f) specific impairments experienced by participants.

To maximize the accessibility of LOS interviews, the following adjustments were made to the survey materials and procedures: (a) Braille showcards for respondents with a sight impairment who read Braille, (b) a large print advance letter inviting sampled households to take part in the survey, (c) British Sign Language interpreters were made available for interviews where requested by respondents, and (d) interviewers were provided with disability awareness training that included briefing on identifying adults who lacked mental capacity and how to attain permission to interview from the respondent’s family, carer, or support worker. Despite these measures, questionnaire testing showed that the LOS interview was not accessible to some people with more severe learning, memory, or neuro-diversity impairments (Cuddeford et al., 2008). As a result, a qualitative follow-up study was undertaken to collect the views from a sample of people with these impairments who did not take part in the LOS interview (Ipsos MORI, 2010).

Proxy interviews were taken for adults aged 16 and over where they were unavailable for interview. If adults felt they were unable to take part in person due to impairment effects, despite provisions made by Office for National Statistics interviewers, a proxy interview was taken.

Measures

Impairment and Disability

LOS uses the “bio-psycho-social” conceptual framework of the World Health Organization’s International Classification Functioning, Disability and Health to define and measure disability (World Health Organization, 2001). That is, the survey assesses whether participants report having a chronic health condition or impairment, as indicated by their response to 13 separate screening questions that attempted to identify impairments associated with pain, chronic health conditions (asthma or severe allergies, heart condition or disease, kidney condition or disease, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, migraines, arthritis or rheumatism, multiple sclerosis, paralysis of any kind, any other long-term condition not already covered), learning, intellectual, behavior, memory, mental health, hearing, dexterity, speaking, breathing mobility, and vision. For each question, participants were asked to what extent their condition/impairment (if they had one) restricted their participation in a range of activities (always, often, sometimes, rarely, never) and the difficulty experienced as a result of this impairment/chronic health condition (no difficulty, mild difficulty, moderate difficulty, severe difficulty). An individual was considered impaired if they reported moderate, severe, or complete difficulty with one or more areas of physical and/or mental function or had a chronic health condition and was considered disabled if these difficulties limited their activities. The questionnaire design allowed participants to report multiple impairments.

Violent Crime and Hate Crime

The crime-related questions first asked respondents if they had been a victim of crime in the previous 12 months before the survey date; “I would now like to ask you about crime. In the last 12 months, have you personally experienced any of the following . . . ” respondents were then shown a card listing five categories of crime including “Violence or force used or threatened against you” (Office for Disability National Statistics, 2009). Participants were then asked about their experience of hate crime: “A hate crime is one committed against you or your property on the grounds of your personal characteristics, for example, religion, ethnic origin, disability, or sexual orientation. Do you feel you have ever been a victim of a hate crime?” (Yes/No). If respondents answered in the affirmative, they were then asked whether this had happened in the previous 12 months. Finally, the survey asked respondents the motivation of the offender in committing hate crime: “Was the crime motivated by any of these characteristics? (Code all that apply) (1) Age (2) Sex (3) A health condition, illness or impairment (4) A disability (5) Ethnicity (6) Religion (7) Sexual orientation.” We categorized disablist hate crime as any reported hate crime that the victim reported to be motivated by their health condition, illness, impairment, or disability. Unfortunately, respondents were not asked directly about the nature or frequency of the hate crime(s) they experienced.

Poverty

Household poverty was measured in relation to the number of items that could not be afforded. “Looking at this card, can I just check whether your household could afford the following? (1) To pay for a week’s annual holiday away from home; (2) To eat meat, chicken, or fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day; (3) Pay an unexpected, but necessary, expense of £500; (4) To keep your home adequately warm.” A poverty score (0-4) based on the number of items that could not be afforded was calculated for each participant.

Approach to Analysis

First, we created a new variable for each of the 13 specific impairment types recorded in LOS that distinguished individuals reporting that specific impairment from those that reported no impairments at all, coding as missing those individuals with either missing data or other types of impairments. For impairments with a population prevalence of less than 1% (behavior, intellectual, learning, memory, other), we investigated the strength of association between the impairment category and other impairment categories. Given strong associations (odds ratios >70) between behavior and mental health, intellectual and learning, and memory and speaking, these categories were combined to reduce the number of impairment groups from 13 to 10.

Second, we investigated the desirability in our analyses of controlling for the potentially confounding effects of differences between the impaired/non-impaired groups on three personal demographic characteristics likely to also be associated with exposure to crime and hate crime (age, gender, and ethnicity, coded as White British/other due to the relatively small number of participants from specific minority ethnic groups). We did not consider it appropriate to control for between-group differences in other contextual characteristics of participants that were the potential outcomes of impairment status (e.g., poverty status, neighborhood deprivation).

All impairments (with the exception of behavior/mental health and learning and/or intellectual) were significantly associated with older age. Impairments of learning and/or intellectual functioning were significantly associated with younger age. Impairments of pain, chronic health conditions, dexterity, mobility, vision, breathing, and behavior/mental health were all significantly more common among women. Impairments of learning and/or intellectual functioning were significantly more common among men. All impairments (with the exception of behavior/mental health, memory/speaking, and learning and/or intellectual) were significantly more common among White British participants. To eliminate potential confounding effects resulting from these associations, multivariate analyses (binary logistic regression with each model controlling for age, gender, and ethnicity) were undertaken to estimate the risk of people with the 10 specific impairment types experiencing violent crime, hate crime, and hate crime attributed by the victim to their impairment or disability.

Finally, we used binary logistic regression to estimate the unique association between age group, gender, ethnicity, and poverty status and crime (violent and hate crime) separately for disabled and non-disabled respondents.

All analyses were carried out with IBM SPSS v20 statistical software.

Results

Selected demographic and household characteristics for the disabled and non-disabled groups are presented in Table 1. The sample size and population prevalence for the 10 impairment groups and the non-impaired group are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

Selected Demographic and Household Characteristics for Disabled and Non-Disabled Participants.

	Disabled Respondents (n = 9,340; 26%)	Non-Disabled Respondents (n = 26,563; 74%)
Age
16-24	5%	17%
25-64	53%	70%
65-74	19%	8%
75 and over	23%	5%
Gender (% Female)	55%	51%
Ethnicity (% White British)	93%	89%
Hardship (number of items cannot afford)
0 items	56%	67%
1 items	15%	13%
2 items	18%	14%
3-4 items	11%	6%
De facto marital status
Married/cohabiting	56%	63%
Widowed	16%	4%
Divorced/separated	12%	7%
Single	16%	26%

Table 2.

Sample Size and Weighted Population Prevalence of Impairment Groups.

Impairment	n	%
Pain	7,135	21.8
Chronic health condition	4,585	15.2
Mobility	3,023	10.5
Dexterity	2,057	7.4
Vision	1,119	4.2
Breathing	1,085	4.1
Hearing	1,065	4.0
Behavioral/mental	611	2.3
Memory/speaking	532	2.0
Intellectual/learning	309	1.2
An impairment	10,252	28.5
Multiple (2+) impairments	5,315	14.8
No impairment	25,661	71.5

The Prevalence of Violent Crime and Hate Crime

The experience of self-reported violent crime, hate crime, and disablist hate crime over the past 12 months among disabled people, the 10 separate impairment groups associated with disability, and participants with no impairments is presented in Table 2.

As can be seen, disabled people were more likely than their peers to have been a victim of violent crime and hate crime in the previous 12 months. When these comparisons were adjusted to take account of differences between disabled people and their peers with regard to age, gender, and ethnicity, disabled people were 2.3 times more likely to have been a victim of violent crime and 2.6 times more likely to have been a victim of hate crime. Overall, only 1 in 3 of disabled people who reported having experienced hate crime attributed the basis of the crime to their impairment or disability. Other reported causes included ethnicity (29%), religion (9%), sexual orientation (9%), age (8%), gender (5%), other (33%).

Risk of Exposure and Type of Impairment

There were notable differences in the extent of increased risk of exposure to violent crime and hate crime across impairment groups associated with disability (Table 3). Overall increased risk of violent crime varied from an increase in the odds of exposure by a factor of 2.0 for people with hearing impairments to 6.3 for people with mental health or behavioral difficulties. Increased risk of hate crime varied from an increase in the odds of exposure by a factor of 2.6 for people with mobility impairments to an increase in the odds of exposure by a factor of 10.7 for people with mental health or behavioral difficulties. Rates of reporting experience of disability motivated hate crime in the previous year varied by type of impairment from 1% to 2% for people with physical (pain, chronic health condition, dexterity, breathing mobility) or sensory (hearing, vision) impairments to 7% among people with cognitive impairments.

Table 3.

Self-Reported Exposure to Violent Crime and Hate Crime in Previous 12 Months.

Impairment	Violent Crime	Hate Crime	Disability Hate Crime	% of Hate Crimes Attributed to Disability
No disability % (reference group)	3.7	1.5	n/a	n/a
Any impairment	5.3%	2.9%	1.0%	34
Adjusted OR	2.33***	2.58***
95% CI	[2.08, 2.61]	[2.17, 3.07]
Specific impairments
Pain %	5.6	3.1	1.0	31
Adjusted OR	2.56***	2.62***
95% CI	[2.25, 2.91]	[2.16, 3.18]
Chronic health condition %	5.8	3.1	1.2	39
Adjusted OR	2.78***	2.94***
95% CI	[2.40, 3.23]	[2.36, 3.68]
Mobility %	4.8	2.7	1.0	36
Adjusted OR	3.00***	2.61***
95% CI	[2.46, 3.65]	[1.96, 3.48]
Dexterity %	5.2	3.0	1.2	42
Adjusted OR	2.92***	2.64***
95% CI	[2.34, 3.63]	[1.92, 3.63]
Vision %	4.8	4.0	1.6	40
Adjusted OR	2.57***	2.99***
95% CI	[1.92, 3.46]	[2.03, 4.39]
Hearing %	3.4	3.5	1.2	35
Adjusted OR	1.97***	3.29***
95% CI	[1.38, 2.82]	[2.16, 5.02]
Breathing %	5.8	3.3	1.7	50
Adjusted OR	3.40***	3.15***
95% CI	[2.53, 4.41]	[2.16, 4.61]
Bev/mental %	17.8	11.0	6.1	55
Adjusted OR	6.26***	10.70***
95% CI	[5.01, 7.82]	[7.91, 14.47]
Memory/speak %	12.2	9.2	4.9	53
Adjusted OR	4.76***	9.00***
95% CI	[3.61, 6.29]	[6.30, 12.84]
Intel/learn %	10.7	9.4	6.9	73
Adjusted OR	2.71***	6.66***
95% CI	[1.86, 3.94]	[3.95, 11.22]

Note. Odds ratio adjusted for between-group differences in age, gender, and ethnicity. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval for OR.

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

Risk of Exposure and Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status

We used logistic regression to estimate the association between age, gender, ethnicity, and poverty status and crime (violent and hate crime) separately for disabled and non-disabled respondents. Results are presented in Table 4. These results demonstrate some potentially important differences between disabled and non-disabled respondents in the association between personal and contextual characteristics and risk of exposure to crime.

Table 4.

Association Between Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status and Crime.

	Disabled Respondents	Non-Disabled Respondents
Type of Crime	Model χ² = 465(8)***	Model χ² = 363(8)***
Violent crime	Nagelkerke r² = .144	Nagelkerke r² = .049
Age 16-24 (reference)	1.00	1.00
Age 25-64	0.59*** (0.47-0.73)	0.66*** (0.58-0.76)
Age 65-74	0.19*** (0.15-0.25)	0.28*** (0.22-0.35)
Age 75 and over	0.06*** (0.03-0.10)	0.13*** (0.06-0.25)
Female	0.82* (0.68-0.98)	0.62* (0.55-0.71)
White British	1.90** (1.31-2.76)	1.39** (1.14-1.71)
Cannot afford 0 items (reference)	1.00	1.00
Cannot afford 1 items	1.26 (0.93-1.71)	1.35** (1.12-1.62)
Cannot afford 2 items	2.13*** (1.67-2.71)	1.69*** (1.43-2.00)
Cannot afford 3-4 items	2.97*** (2.30-3.82)	2.00*** (1.60-2.49)
Hate crime	Model χ² = 213(8)***	Model χ² = 228(8)***
Hate crime	Nagelkerke r² = .113	Nagelkerke r² = .065
Age 16-24 (reference)	1.00	1.00
Age 25-64	0.74 (0.53-1.05)	0.72** (0.57-0.91)
Age 65-74	0.30*** (0.20-0.45)	0.73* (0.54-0.99)
Age 75 and over	0.17*** (0.09-0.31)	0.35* (0.15-0.78)
Female	1.14 (0.87-1.51)	0.73** (0.59-0.90)
White British	0.47*** (0.33-0.67)	0.28*** (0.22-0.36)
Cannot afford 0 items (reference)	1.00	1.00
Cannot afford 1 items	1.60* (1.03-2.48)	1.52** (1.14-2.04)
Cannot afford 2 items	1.72** (1.16-2.53)	1.30 (0.96-1.76)
Cannot afford 3-4 items	4.41*** (3.09-6.30)	3.02*** (2.24-4.07)

Note. Odds Ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals in Parentheses.

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

Age: While risk significantly reduced with age for both types of crime and in both groups, the steepness of the decline was greater for disabled respondents.

Gender: Women were at significantly less risk of exposure to violent crime, although this effect was stronger for non-disabled women. While non-disabled women were at significantly less risk of exposure to hate crime, disabled women were (non-significantly) at marginally greater risk of exposure to hate crime.

Ethnicity: White British respondents were at significantly greater risk of exposure to violent crime, although this effect was significantly stronger for disabled respondents. White British respondents were at significantly reduced risk of exposure to hate crime, although this effect was significantly stronger for non-disabled respondents.

Poverty Status: While risk significantly increases with increasing severity of poverty for both types of crime and in both groups, the steepness of the increase was significantly greater for disabled respondents. Figure 1 illustrates the magnitude of the interaction between disability and poverty status. As can be seen, at low levels of poverty, there are no differences in rates of exposure to violent crime or hate crime between disabled and non-disabled respondents. As the severity of poverty increases, disabled respondents become disproportionally at risk of becoming victim of violent crime and hate crime.

Figure 1.

Percentage of Respondents Exposed to Violent Crine and Hate Crime.

Peak Rates of Exposure

We used simple visual inspection of data cross-tabulated by impairment type, age, gender, and poverty status to identify the group with the highest rate of observed exposure to the categories of crime investigated. Highest self-reported rates of exposure were as follows: 30% (violent crime) among men with psychosocial impairments aged 35 to 54 living in more severe poverty, 19% (hate crime) among women with psychosocial impairments aged 16 to 34 living in more severe poverty, and 15% (disablist hate crime) among women with psychosocial impairments aged 16 to 34 living in more severe poverty.

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that (a) disabled adults were significantly more likely to have been exposed over the previous 12 months to violent crime and hate crime than their non-disabled peers and (b) the differential risk of exposure was particularly elevated among disabled adults with mental health problems or cognitive impairments and among disabled adults living in more severe poverty.

The two main strengths of the study are (a) the use of a relatively large and nationally representative sample of British adults and (b) the approach taken to identifying disabled respondents. In the majority of health and social surveys, respondents are identified as disabled if they answer in the affirmative to a general question about whether they have a disability or long-standing limiting illness (Bajekal et al., 2004; Mont, 2007). They then may be asked about the type of health condition or impairment associated with their disability. In the LOS, all respondents are asked about the presence of a range of specific impairments (e.g., in mobility) or health conditions and (if present) the impact this has on their daily life and social participation. Such an approach is more closely aligned with current understanding of disability (World Health Organization and the World Bank, 2011) and avoids biases associated with the need for respondents to self-identify as being disabled.

The four main weaknesses of the study are (a) the lack of information collected about the frequency and specific nature of crimes (especially hate crimes), (b) problems associated with the self-reporting of hate crime and disability hate crime (Sin et al., 2009), (c) the exclusion or use of proxy respondents for a small number of potential participants with severe cognitive impairments, and (d) the exclusion, due to the use of a general household sampling frame, of participants in more institutional forms of residential care. More detailed information on the frequency and specific nature of crimes (especially hate crimes) would enable analysis of the risk of exposure of disabled adults to different categories of crime and repeated victimization. Bias in self-report is potentially more likely to involve the underreporting of hate crime (Sherry, 2000; Sin et al., 2009). Such bias could be reduced by the use of clearer definitions (with examples) of hate crime.

The study adds to the existing literature in two main ways. First, by decomposing results by type of impairment it strengthens the existing evidence-base regarding the association between type of impairment and risk of exposure to violent crime and hate crime. Consistent with the results of the limited previous research in this area, these data illustrate the significantly greater risk of victimization experience by disabled adults with mental health or cognitive impairments (Hughes et al., 2012; Lin, Yen, Kuo, Wu, & Lin, 2009; Rand & Harrell, 2009).

Second, while disabled adults overall are at greater risk of victimization, our results suggest that this risk was in general powerfully moderated by social context. That is, more affluent disabled adults were at no greater risk of victimization than their equally affluent non-disabled peers. There was, however, a marked and increasing difference in risk as levels of severity of poverty increased. This finding has clear implications for both research and policy.

For research, it suggests that (a) greater emphasis should be placed on the measurement of household and neighborhood characteristics that may be associated with moderation of risk, (b) approaches to analysis should explicitly test for moderation effects, and (c) further research is clearly required to better understand the process involved in the interaction between social circumstances and victimization of disabled people and the extent to which this extends to particular forms of violence such as intimate partner violence and abuse, sexual violence, property crime, and abuse perpetrated in the context of the provision of disability services (Lin et al., 2009; McFarlane et al., 2001; Nosek, Foley, Hughes, & Howland, 2001; Powers et al., 2008; Saxton et al., 2001; Saxton et al., 2006).

For policy, it suggests that initiatives for reducing rates of exposure to violent crime and hate crime among disabled adults should be specifically targeted at more deprived communities. There may be links here between the victimization of disabled people in poor housing estates and the racist hate crime directed toward asylum seekers and economic migrants.

Further research could also usefully address the reasons that older respondents rarely report hate crime. For example, some evidence suggests that discrimination and mistreatment are “normalized” by some older people who view these as regrettable but “inevitable” features of an ageist society (Sin et al., 2009).

What is clear from a reading of the above is the importance of active struggle for change, both in reshaping perceptions of violence and harms against disabled people, and the struggle for criminal justice agencies to take the issues of disablist violence and hate seriously. On top of this, there is a requirement for robust evidence to further understand the impact on disabled people’s wider social opportunities. Together, these offer the power to substantiate better responses to disablist hate crime and violence.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The original data creators, depositors or copyright holders, the funders of the Life Opportunities Survey, and the U.K. Data Archive bear no responsibility for their further analysis or interpretation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Eric Emerson was the co-director of England’s Public Health Observatory on intellectual disabilities. He is Professor of Disability Population Health at the University of Sydney and Emeritus Professor of Disability & Health Research at Lancaster University. He has been a member of several advisory groups to government and non-government organizations. He has written widely on issues related to the health and social inequalities faced by people with disabilities, especially disabled children and adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities.

Alan Roulstone is Professor of Disability Studies, University of Leeds and has written widely on disabling barriers and disability policy over a 25-year period. He has completed a range of major studies funded by the Leverhulme Trust, ESRC, UK Department of Health, Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Social Care Institute for Excellence. He has worked with key policy, practice, and disabled people’s organizations and has helped shape a range of disability-related policies.

References

Bajekal

Harries

Breman

Woodfield

(2004). Review of disability estimates and definitions. London, England: HMSO.

Barnes

(2012). Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present and future. In Watson

Roulstone

Thomas

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 12-29). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

HMSO. (2003). Criminal Justice Act. London, England: Author.

Crown Prosecution Service. (2006). Guidance on prosecuting cases of disability hate crime. London, England: Author.

Crown Prosecution Service. (2012). Hate crime fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/Crown%20Prosecution%20Service%20Fact%20Sheets.pdf

Cuddeford

Duncan

Howe

Glen

(2008). Life Opportunities Survey: Development findings. London, England: Office for National Statistics.

Dawe

(2011). Life Opportunities Survey: Wave One Technical Report, 2009/11. Newport, Wales: Office for National Statistics.

Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2011). Hidden in plain sight: Inquiry into disability related harassment. London, England: Author.

Hall

Innes

(2010). Violent and sexual crime. In Flatley

Kershaw

Smith

Chaplin

Moon

(Eds.), Crime in England and Wales 2009/10 (pp. 45-78). London, England: Home Office.

10.

Hauland

Allen

(2009). Deaf people and human rights. Helsinki, Finland: World Federation of the Deaf.

11.

Howe

(2010). Life Opportunities Survey: User guide to coding and defining disability. Newport, Wales: Office for National Statistics.

12.

Hughes

Bellis

M. A.

Jones

Wood

Bates

Eckley

. . . Officer

(2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against adults with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet, 379, 1621-1629.

13.

Iganski

(2001). Hate crimes hurt more. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 626-638.

14.

Ipsos MORI. (2010). The life opportunities of disabled people: Qualitative research with people with learning, memory and neuro-diversity impairments. London, England: Office for Disability Issues.

15.

Jones

Bellis

M. A.

Wood

Hughes

McCoy

Eckley

. . . Officer

(2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet, 380, 899-907.

16.

Lin

L. P.

Yen

C. F.

Kuo

F. Y.

J. L.

Lin

J. D.

(2009). Sexual assault of people with disabilities: Results of a 2002–2007 national report in Taiwan. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 969-975.

17.

McFarlane

Hughes

R. B.

Nosek

M. A.

Groff

J. Y.

Swedlend

Mullen

P. D.

(2001). Abuse assessment screen-disability (AAS-D): Measuring frequency, type, and perpetrator of abuse toward women with physical disabilities. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 10, 861-866.

18.

Megret

(2008). The disabilities convention: Human rights of persons with disabilities or disability rights? Human Rights Quarterly, 30, 494-516.

19.

Mirrlees-Black

(1999). Domestic violence: Findings from a new British Crime Survey self completion questionnaire (Home Office Research Study No. 191). London, England: Home Office.

20.

Mont

(2007). Measuring disability prevalence. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

21.

Nosek

M. A.

Foley

C. C.

Hughes

R. B.

Howland

C. A.

(2001). Vulnerabilities for abuse among women with disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, 19, 177-189.

22.

Office for Disability Issues. (2011). Life Opportunities Survey: Wave one results, 2009/11. London, England: Author.

23.

Office for Disability National Statistics. (2009). Life Opportunities Survey Questionnaire V4.1. Newport, Wales: Author.

24.

Office for National Statistics. (2011). Life Opportunities Survey. Colchester: UK Data Archive.

25.

Powers

Curry

M. A.

McNeff

Saxton

Powers

Oshwald

(2008). End the silence: A survey of abuse against men with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74, 41-53.

26.

Rand

M. R.

Harrell

(2009). Crime against people with disabilities, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd07.pdf

27.

Roulstone

Mason-Bish

(Eds.). (2012). Disability, hate crime and violence. London, England: Routledge.

28.

Saxton

Curry

M. A.

Powers

Maley

Eckels

Gross

(2001). “Bring my scooter so I can leave you”: A study of disabled women handling abuse by personal assistance providers. Violence Against Women, 7, 393-417.

29.

Saxton

McNeff

Powers

Curry

M. A.

Limont

Benson

(2006). We’re all little John Wayne’s: A study of disabled men’s experience of abuse by personal assistants. Journal of Rehabilitation, 72, 3-13.

30.

Shakespeare

(2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London, England: Routledge.

31.

Sherry

(2000). Hate crimes against people with disabilities. Tasmania: Women with Disabilities Australia.

32.

Sherry

(2010). Disability hate crimes: Does anyone really hate disabled people? Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

33.

Sin

C. H.

Hedges

Cook

Mguni

Comber

(2009). Disabled people’s experiences of targeted violence and hostility. London, England: Office for Public Management.

34.

Thomas

(2007). Sociologies of disability and illness: Contested ideas in disability studies and medical sociology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Turner

Vanderminden

Finkelhor

Hamby

Shattuck

(2011). Disability and victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Child Maltreatment, 16, 275-286.

36.

United Nations. (2003). Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities of persons with disabilities. New York, NY: Author.

37.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. New York, NY: Author.

38.

Watson

Thomas

Roulstone

(Eds.). (2012). Routledge companion to disability studies. London, England: Routledge.

39.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

40.

World Health Organization and the World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.