Developing an evidence base for violent and disablist hate crime in Britain: findings from the life opportunities survey.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence http://jiv.sagepub.com/

Developing an Evidence Base for Violent and Disablist Hate Crime in Britain: Findings From the Life Opportunities Survey Eric Emerson and Alan Roulstone J Interpers Violence published online 28 May 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0886260514534524 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/23/0886260514534524 A more recent version of this article was published on - Oct 2, 2014

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

Additional services and information for Journal of Interpersonal Violence can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/23/0886260514534524.refs.html

Version of Record - Oct 2, 2014 >> OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 28, 2014 Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on November 9, 2014

What is This?

534524 research-article2014

JIVXXX10.1177/0886260514534524Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceEmerson and Roulstone

Article

Developing an Evidence Base for Violent and Disablist Hate Crime in Britain: Findings From the Life Opportunities Survey

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1–19 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260514534524 jiv.sagepub.com

Eric Emerson1,2 and Alan Roulstone3

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

1Lancaster

University, UK of Sydney, Australia 3University of Leeds, UK 2University

Corresponding Author: Eric Emerson Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON on November 9, 2014

2

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

(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).


Emerson and Roulstone

3

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 welldesigned 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 nondisabled 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


4


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 20092010 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 nondisabled 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



5

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,


6


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



7

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,


8


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/nonimpaired 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


9

Emerson and Roulstone Table 1. Selected Demographic and Household Characteristics for Disabled and Non-Disabled Participants. Disabled Respondents (n = 9,340; 26%) Age 16-24 5% 25-64 53% 65-74 19% 75 and over 23% Gender (% Female) 55% Ethnicity (% White British) 93% Hardship (number of items cannot afford) 0 items 56% 1 items 15% 2 items 18% 3-4 items 11% De facto marital status Married/cohabiting 56% Widowed 16% Divorced/separated 12% Single 16%

Non-Disabled Respondents (n = 26,563; 74%) 17% 70% 8% 5% 51% 89% 67% 13% 14% 6% 63% 4% 7% 26%

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.


10


Table 2. Sample Size and Weighted Population Prevalence of Impairment Groups. Impairment

n

Pain Chronic health condition Mobility Dexterity Vision Breathing Hearing Behavioral/mental Memory/speaking Intellectual/learning An impairment Multiple (2+) impairments No impairment

7,135 4,585 3,023 2,057 1,119 1,085 1,065 611 532 309 10,252 5,315 25,661

% 21.8 15.2 10.5 7.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 2.3 2.0 1.2 28.5 14.8 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


11


Table 3. Self-Reported Exposure to Violent Crime and Hate Crime in Previous 12 Months.

Impairment No disability % (reference group) Any impairment Adjusted OR 95% CI Specific impairments Pain % Adjusted OR 95% CI Chronic health condition % Adjusted OR 95% CI Mobility % Adjusted OR 95% CI Dexterity % Adjusted OR 95% CI Vision % Adjusted OR 95% CI Hearing % Adjusted OR 95% CI Breathing % Adjusted OR 95% CI Bev/mental % Adjusted OR 95% CI Memory/speak % Adjusted OR 95% CI Intel/learn % Adjusted OR 95% CI

% of Hate Crimes Attributed to Disability

Violent Crime

Hate Crime

Disability Hate Crime

3.7

1.5

n/a

n/a

5.3% 2.33*** [2.08, 2.61]

2.9% 2.58*** [2.17, 3.07]

1.0%

34

5.6 2.56*** [2.25, 2.91] 5.8

3.1 2.62*** [2.16, 3.18] 3.1

1.0

31 39

2.78*** [2.40, 3.23] 4.8 3.00*** [2.46, 3.65] 5.2 2.92*** [2.34, 3.63] 4.8 2.57*** [1.92, 3.46] 3.4 1.97*** [1.38, 2.82] 5.8 3.40*** [2.53, 4.41] 17.8 6.26*** [5.01, 7.82] 12.2 4.76*** [3.61, 6.29] 10.7 2.71*** [1.86, 3.94]

2.94*** [2.36, 3.68] 2.7 2.61*** [1.96, 3.48] 3.0 2.64*** [1.92, 3.63] 4.0 2.99*** [2.03, 4.39] 3.5 3.29*** [2.16, 5.02] 3.3 3.15*** [2.16, 4.61] 11.0 10.70*** [7.91, 14.47] 9.2 9.00*** [6.30, 12.84] 9.4 6.66*** [3.95, 11.22]

1.2

1.0

1.2

1.6

1.2

1.7

6.1

4.9

6.9

36 42 40 35 50 55 53 73

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.


12


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.

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. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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.


13

Emerson and Roulstone 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


Age 16-24 (reference) Age 25-64 Age 65-74 Age 75 and over Female White British Cannot afford 0 items (reference) Cannot afford 1 items Cannot afford 2 items Cannot afford 3-4 items

1.00 0.59*** (0.47-0.73) 0.19*** (0.15-0.25) 0.06*** (0.03-0.10) 0.82* (0.68-0.98) 1.90** (1.31-2.76) 1.00 1.26 (0.93-1.71) 2.13*** (1.67-2.71) 2.97*** (2.30-3.82)

1.00 0.66*** (0.58-0.76) 0.28*** (0.22-0.35) 0.13*** (0.06-0.25) 0.62* (0.55-0.71) 1.39** (1.14-1.71) 1.00 1.35** (1.12-1.62) 1.69*** (1.43-2.00) 2.00*** (1.60-2.49)

Model χ2 = 213(8)***

Model χ2 = 228(8)***

Hate crime



Age 16-24 (reference) Age 25-64 Age 65-74 Age 75 and over Female White British Cannot afford 0 items (reference) Cannot afford 1 items Cannot afford 2 items Cannot afford 3-4 items

1.00 0.74 (0.53-1.05) 0.30*** (0.20-0.45) 0.17*** (0.09-0.31) 1.14 (0.87-1.51) 0.47*** (0.33-0.67) 1.00 1.60* (1.03-2.48) 1.72** (1.16-2.53) 4.41*** (3.09-6.30)

1.00 0.72** (0.57-0.91) 0.73* (0.54-0.99) 0.35* (0.15-0.78) 0.73** (0.59-0.90) 0.28*** (0.22-0.36) 1.00 1.52** (1.14-2.04) 1.30 (0.96-1.76) 3.02*** (2.24-4.07)

Note. Odds Ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals in Parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

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 selfreported 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


14


14%

Disabled: Violent Crime Non-Disabled: Violent Crime

12%

Disabled: Hate Crime Non-Disabled: Hate Crime

% Self-Report

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0% 0

2 1 Number of Items Could Not Afford

3-4

Figure 1. Percentage of Respondents Exposed to Violent Crine and Hate Crime.

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



15

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).


16


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. 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.

References Bajekal, M., Harries, T., Breman, R., & Woodfield, K. (2004). Review of disability estimates and definitions. London, England: HMSO. Barnes, C. (2012). Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present and future. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. 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.



17

Crown Prosecution Service. (2012). Hate crime fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www. leeds.gov.uk/docs/Crown%20Prosecution%20Service%20Fact%20Sheets.pdf Cuddeford, J., Duncan, D., Howe, T., & Glen, F. (2008). Life Opportunities Survey: Development findings. London, England: Office for National Statistics. Dawe, F. (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, P., & Innes, J. (2010). Violent and sexual crime. In J. Flatley, C. Kershaw, K. Smith, R. Chaplin, & D. Moon (Eds.), Crime in England and Wales 2009/10 (pp. 45-78). London, England: Home Office. Hauland, H., & Allen, C. (2009). Deaf people and human rights. Helsinki, Finland: World Federation of the Deaf. Howe, T. (2010). Life Opportunities Survey: User guide to coding and defining disability. Newport, Wales: Office for National Statistics. Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Jones, L., Wood, S., Bates, G., Eckley, L., . . . Officer, A. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against adults with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet, 379, 1621-1629. Iganski, P. (2001). Hate crimes hurt more. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 626-638. 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. Jones, L., Bellis, M. A., Wood, S., Hughes, K., McCoy, E., Eckley, L., . . . Officer, A. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet, 380, 899-907. Lin, L. P., Yen, C. F., Kuo, F. Y., Wu, 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. McFarlane, J., Hughes, R. B., Nosek, M. A., Groff, J. Y., Swedlend, N., & 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. Megret, F. (2008). The disabilities convention: Human rights of persons with disabilities or disability rights? Human Rights Quarterly, 30, 494-516. Mirrlees-Black, C. (1999). Domestic violence: Findings from a new British Crime Survey self completion questionnaire (Home Office Research Study No. 191). London, England: Home Office. Mont, D. (2007). Measuring disability prevalence. Washington, DC: The World Bank. 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.


18


Office for Disability Issues. (2011). Life Opportunities Survey: Wave one results, 2009/11. London, England: Author. Office for Disability National Statistics. (2009). Life Opportunities Survey Questionnaire V4.1. Newport, Wales: Author. Office for National Statistics. (2011). Life Opportunities Survey. Colchester: UK Data Archive. Powers, L., Curry, M. A., McNeff, E., Saxton, M., Powers, J., & Oshwald, M. (2008). End the silence: A survey of abuse against men with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74, 41-53. Rand, M. R., & Harrell, E. (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 Roulstone, A., & Mason-Bish, H. (Eds.). (2012). Disability, hate crime and violence. London, England: Routledge. Saxton, M., Curry, M. A., Powers, L., Maley, S., Eckels, K., & Gross, J. (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. Saxton, M., McNeff, E., Powers, L., Curry, M. A., Limont, M., & Benson, J. (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. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London, England: Routledge. Sherry, M. (2000). Hate crimes against people with disabilities. Tasmania: Women with Disabilities Australia. Sherry, M. (2010). Disability hate crimes: Does anyone really hate disabled people? Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Sin, C. H., Hedges, A., Cook, C., Mguni, N., & Comber, N. (2009). Disabled people’s experiences of targeted violence and hostility. London, England: Office for Public Management. Thomas, C. (2007). Sociologies of disability and illness: Contested ideas in disability studies and medical sociology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Turner, H., Vanderminden, J., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Disability and victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Child Maltreatment, 16, 275-286. United Nations. (2003). Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities of persons with disabilities. New York, NY: Author. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. New York, NY: Author. Watson, N., Thomas, C., & Roulstone, A. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge companion to disability studies. London, England: Routledge. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. World Health Organization and the World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.



19

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 nongovernment 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 the co-director of the Disability and Social Work Research Centre at Northumbria University, UK. He is a professor of Disability and Inclusion 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 ESRC, 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.


The philosophical aspects of hate crime and hate crime legislation: introducing the special section on the philosophy of hate crime.

Making a home for the homeless in hate crime legislation.

Re-thinking hate crime: fresh challenges for policy and practice.

Violent crime and victim support.

[Current developments in violent crime].

Psychotropics and risk of violent crime.

Developing a robust evidence base for nursing.

Nutritional interventions in primary mitochondrial disorders: Developing an evidence base.

Developing the evidence base for hygiene and emollient practices.

Medicated sex in Britain: evidence from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles.

Patterns of personal crime against the elderly. Findings from a national survey.

Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.: An Ecologic Study.

School Violent Crime and Academic Achievement in Chicago.

Male Circumcision and STI Acquisition in Britain: Evidence from a National Probability Sample Survey.

Outside looking in: the community impacts of anti-lesbian, gay, and bisexual hate crime.

Predicting non-familial major physical violent crime perpetration in the US Army from administrative data.

Schizophrenia and violent crime: a population-based study.

Mortality, Rehospitalisation and Violent Crime in Forensic Psychiatric Patients Discharged from Hospital: Rates and Risk Factors.

Investigating the relationship between substance use and sexual behaviour in young people in Britain: findings from a national probability survey.

Sexual function in Britain: findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3).

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Violent Crime: A Cohort Study.

Violent and non-violent crime against adults with severe mental illness.

Bystander reactions to a violent theft: crime in Jerusalem.

Building the evidence base for population-level interventions: barriers and opportunities.