April 2017 
How Safe are Americans 
with Disabilities? 
The facts about violent crime and their implications 
Nancy Smith, Sandra Harrell, and Amy Judy 
Center on Victimization and Safety 
April 2017 
How Safe are Americans 
with Disabilities? 
The facts about violent crime and their implications 
Nancy Smith, Sandra Harrell, and Amy Judy 
Center on Victimization and Safety 

From the Director 

People with disabilities comprise 
19 percent of the population of the 
United States, making disability a routine 
part of the human condition. Despite the 
commonness of disability, people living 
with disabilities tend to exist out of sight, 
and out of mind. Their marginalization 
and invisibility arenÕt new. Throughout 
history, people with disabilities have 
been stigmatized, segregated, often 
institutionalized. But in the twenty-
first century, it is striking that with the 
growing acknowledgment of why it is 
important to recognize and embrace 
the often-stark realities lived within 
marginalized communities, people with 
disabilities continue to be excluded. 

Perhaps nowhere is this anomaly more 
apparent than in the event of violent 
crime, especially domestic violence and 
sexual assault. People with disabilities 
are three times more likely to experience 
violent victimization than people without 
disabilities, and the rates are even higher 
for women and those with intellectual, 
psychiatric, or multiple disabilities. 
Despite these alarming rates of violence, 
survivors with disabilities are often 
excluded from the national infrastructure 
that exists to prevent and respond to 
this violence. 

To begin to correct this shocking 
absence of awareness and response in 
the U.S. public-safety, victim-services, 
and human-service sectors, the general 
public as well as crime-prevention 
and response professionals need to 
know the basics about people with 
disabilities. That knowledge includes 
understanding the unique dynamics of 
violence against people with disabilities 
and the structural obstacles that prevent 
effective responses. The Vera Institute 
of JusticeÕs Center on Victimization 
and Safety has produced this brief to 
inform policymakers and practitioners 
about the need to create a public safety 
strategy that both reduces the rate 
of violent victimization among people 
with disabilities and ensures that when 
violence does occur survivors with 
disabilities have access to the support 
they need. 


Nancy Smith 
Director, 
Center on Victimization and Safety 
Vera Institute of Justice 


Contents 

4 Introduction 
5 Disability in the United States 
9 Violence in the lives of people 

with disabilities 

18 
Crimes against people with disabilities 
are underreported 

21 
Community-based support remains 
out of reach for many 

26 
Challenges and action at the 

disability-violence intersection 

30 
Conclusion 

31 
Endnotes 


Introduction 


A
A
ccording to the most recent census data, people with disabilities 
make up nearly 19 percent of the U.S. population.1 Yet the issues 
faced by people with disabilitiesÑincluding their disproportionate 
rates of victimization and the disparities they experience in victim 
services and criminal justice system use and satisfactionÑremain 
largely invisible. For example, while the problems of domestic and 
sexual violence in our societyÑfrom crises in professional sports to 
unprecedented efforts to address sexual assaults on college campuses 
to Lady Gaga standing in solidarity with survivors at the 2016 Academy 
AwardsÑare receiving increasing attention in the public discourse, 
people with disabilities who experience such violence are missing 
altogether. This silence is particularly alarming, because people with 
disabilities are among those most at risk of being victims of serious 
violent crime, which includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and 
aggravated assault. They also face overwhelming barriers to getting 
help: While they are over three times more likely than people without 
disabilities to experience these serious violent crimes, only 13 percent 
received victim services.2 

As long as people with disabilities, individually and collectively, 
are hidden, effective efforts to address the violence in their lives remain 
inadequate at best or ignored completely. Increasing awareness of 
people with disabilities, the violent crimes they experience, and the 
barriers that impede their access to victim services are important first 
steps toward including them within the national discourse on public 


safety, while promoting the wellbeing needed among crime victims 
with disabilities. 


To improve awareness of these problems, this issue brief provides 
basic information on disability in the United States and explores 
what is known about the prevalence of violent crime against people 
with disabilities.3 It also discusses barriers that prevent people with 
disabilities from accessing the services and supports they need to 
heal, including the limits of existing human service and criminal justice 
policies and practices in responding to violence against people with 
disabilities. By refashioning these policies to account for the wide variety 
of capacities of people with disabilities and the array of challenges 
they face, policymakers can make the justice system more equitable 
and accessible. 

Disability in 
the United States 


D
D
espite common misperceptions that people with disabilities 
form only a small segment of the country, they comprise nearly 
19 percent of the U.S. population.4 Disabilities occur among all 
genders, races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups.5 They have 
various causes, but in general, they either are congenitalÑpresent at 
birthÑor acquired through a genetic condition, illness, traumatic event, 
or injury. Disabilities also are not exclusive to any particular age group, 
but exist across the lifespan. In 2014, for example, the age distribution of 


people with disabilities ranged from over 5 percent who were between 
the ages of five and 17 to over 11 percent aged 18Ð64, and 36 percent 
aged 65 years or older.6 In fact, all disability types, as defined by the 
American Community Survey (hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, 
self-care, and independent living), increase with age.7 

Prevalence of disability by type/category 

The term ÒdisabilityÓ comprises a diverse array of temporary, episodic, 
and persistent conditions reflecting an extensive range of cognitive 
and functional impacts on peopleÕs lives. Commonly, these variations 
are represented within broad categories: developmental, psychiatric, 
mobility, and sensory disabilities. However, there is no universally 
recognized definition of disability.8 

Developmental disabilities 

Developmental disabilities describe a group of conditions that appear 
before the age of 22 and affect physical, learning, language, 
and/or behavior functioning, usually lasting throughout a personÕs 
lifetime.9 Developmental disabilities include intellectual disabilities 
(formerly referred to as mental retardation), autism spectrum disorder, 
and cerebral palsy, among others.10 In the United States, nearly four 
million non-institutionalized adults have intellectual disabilities.11 While 
estimates of the number of children with developmental disabilities vary 
widely, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 
among children aged three to 17, about one in six children have at least 
one developmental disability. 12 


Psychiatric disabilities 

Psychiatric disabilities refer to conditions that produce emotional, 
behavioral, or mental health issues or challenges that impair 
functioning. Examples include major depression, bipolar disorder, 
anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic stress disorder.13 
According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2014, there 
were an estimated 9.8 million adults (4 percent of all adults) aged 18 or 
older in the United States with serious mental illness and an estimated 

43.6 million adults (18 percent of all adults) with any mental illness. This 
study also estimates that over one in five children (13Ð18 years of age), 
either currently or at some point during their life, has had a seriously 
debilitating mental disorder.14 
Physical disabilities 

Physical disabilities restrict motion or agility and result from congenital 
conditions, accidents, or progressive neuromuscular diseases. 
These disabilities may include conditions such as spinal cord injury 
(paraplegia or quadriplegia), amputation, muscular dystrophy, cardiac 
conditions, cystic fibrosis, paralysis, polio/post-polio, and stroke.15 There 
are more than 36 million adults who experience difficulty with physical 
functioning.16 When it affects mobilityÑdefined as an ambulatory 
disability in the American Community Survey (ACS)Ñthe prevalence 
rates increase rapidly with age: While for individuals aged fiveÐ17, the 
prevalence rate was less than 1 percent, for those aged 18Ð64, the rate 
jumps to over 5 percent and escalates to 23 percent for those aged 65 
and over.17 


Sensory disabilities 

Sensory disabilities affect any of the senses, but generally refer to a 
disability related to hearing and/or vision. Loss of sight and/or hearing 
can result from traumatic or genetic factors. The prevalence rates 
of vision-related disabilities closely mirror those of hearing-related 
disabilities.18 More than 40 million adults aged 18 or over have hearing 
trouble.19 Hearing-related disabilities, defined by ACS as deafness or 
serious difficulty hearing, are estimated to affect a smaller percentage 
of younger AmericansÑapproximately 1 percent of the under-18 
population, over 2 percent of those aged 18Ð64, yet nearly 15 percent 
of those aged 65 and over. 

Deaf community 

Many Deaf and hard of hearing norms, and traditions. For additional 
people identify as members of a information about the Deaf community, 
distinct cultural and linguistic group in see Culture, Language, and Access: 
the United States and do not consider Key Considerations for Serving Deaf 
themselves to have a disability. Like Survivors of Domestic and Sexual 
any culture, Deaf culture is defined by Violence, online at: 
its unique languageÑAmerican Sign http://www.endabusepwd.org. 
Language (ASL)Ñvalues, behavioral 



Violence in the lives of 
people with disabilities 


L
L
iving oneÕs life with a disability is not uncommon; unfortunately, 
neither is living with a disability and experiencing violence. While 
research exploring the intersecting issues of disability and violence 
is limited, the existing studies emphasize that disability is inextricably 
linked to a higher probability of experiencing violent victimization. 

High rates of victimization 

Existing research indicates that people with disabilities in the United 
States experience violence, especially sexual violence, to a higher degree 
than those without disabilities.20 From 2010 to 2014, for example, the rate 
of serious violent crimeÑrape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated 
assaultÑagainst people with disabilities was more than three times 
higher than the age-adjusted rate for people without disabilities.21 In 
fact, since 2009 the rate of violent victimization against people with 

disabilities, which includes 

3x 
People with disabilities are 
three times more likely to 
experience rape, sexual 
assault, aggravated assault, 
and robbery than those 
without disabilities. 

simple assault in addition to 
serious violent crimes, has been 
at least twice that of people 
without disabilities, making 
people with disabilities one of 
the most harmed groups in the 
United States.22 


Compounding the problem of high incidence of victimization is that 
people with disabilities, compared to those without them, are more 
likely to experience more severe victimization, experience it for a longer 
duration, suffer multiple episodes of abuse, and have a larger number 
of perpetrators.23 

Unfortunately, violent victimization of people with disabilities does 
not occur only in adulthood. Research suggests that children with 
disabilities are at increased risk of violence and abuse. Studies have 
shown, for example, that children with disabilities are: 

> three times more likely to be sexually abused; 
> 3.8 times more likely to experience abuse or neglect; and 
> four times more likely to be emotionally abused.24 

Rates of victimization high for both males and females 

The presence of a disability greatly increases the risk of violent 
victimization whether a victim identifies as male or female. From 
2009Ð2014, the rate of violent victimization was higher for both males 
and females with disabilities than those without disabilities.25 One 
2011 study using data from the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor 
Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) found that approximately 21 percent 
of male respondents reported having a disability, and the lifetime 
prevalence rate of sexually violent victimization among these men 
was approximately 14 percent, compared to just 4 percent of men 
without disabilities.26 


Rates of victimization high among different racial and 
ethnic groups 

The presence of a disability greatly increases the risk of violent 
victimization among studied racial and ethnic groups. From 2010 to 
2014, each racial and ethnic group studiedÑwhite, black, Latino, and 
other, which include American Indian or Alaska Native and Asian, Native 
Hawaiian, or Other Pacific IslanderÑexperienced twice the rate of violent 
victimization than did people without disabilities.27 Moreover, people of 
two or more races had the highest rates of violent victimization both 
among people with and people without disabilities.28 

Rates of victimization are even higher for some disability types 

While people with disabilities have higher violent victimization rates 
than those without disabilities, rates are even higher for certain groups 
of people with disabilities, including women and those with cognitively 
related or multiple disabilities.29 From 2010 to 2014, those with cognitive 
disabilities had the highest rates of total violent crime (56.6 per 1,000), 
serious violent crime (24.0 per 1,000), and simple assault (32.6 per 1,000) 
among the disability types measured. (See graphic, page 12.)30 

Children diagnosed with behavioral disorders had the highest 
risk for sexual abuse: five and a half times greater than those without 
disabilities. Children with developmental delays had four times the 
risk of sexual victimization, and children with speech and language 
disabilities had three times the risk.31 

Risk of sexual violence highest 

Particularly alarming are high rates of sexual violence. The 2010Ð2014 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) found that people with 


Violent crime against people with cognitive disabilities 


56.6 24.0 32.6 
Total violent crime Serious violent crime Simple assault 
Per 1,000 people with cognitive disabilities 
disabilities were over three times more likely to experience serious violent 
crime, which includes rape, sexual assault, aggravated assault, and 
robbery.32 This study also revealed that having multiple disabilities puts 
a person at high risk of rape or sexual assault: People with multiple 
disabilities experienced an estimated 69 percent of rapes or sexual 
assaults against those with disabilities.33 Children fared no better. 
Children with disabilities are nearly three times more likely than those 
without disabilities to be sexually abused, and the likelihood is even 
higher (almost five times) for children with certain types of disabilities, 
such as intellectual or mental health disabilities.34 

Factors contributing to the heightened risk 
of victimization 

Understanding some of the factors that contribute to these high 
victimization rates sheds light on how to reduce and end crimes against 
people with disabilities. There are a number of factors that contribute 
to this heightened victimization risk, from the historical marginalization 


of people with disabilities generally to the negative attitudes and 
stereotypes associated with having a disability.35 

Devaluation 

Throughout society, people with disabilities are viewed as Òless thanÓ 
those without disabilities: less intelligent, less capable, less able, and 
less deserving. Negative stereotypes, attitudes, and prejudices about 
disabilities contribute to abuse.36 

Presumed lack of credibility 

People with disabilities are seen as unreliable reporters, less credible 
witnesses, and less likely to be believed.37 People with intellectual 
disabilities, mental health issues, substance abuse issues, or traumatic 
brain injuriesÑall of which affect a personÕs cognitive functioningÑoften 
get a skeptical reception when they report victimization. Perpetrators of 
abuse specifically pursue people with disabilities because these abusers 
are confident that their victims are unlikely to be believed.38 

Isolation and segregation 

People with disabilities often are segregated and isolatedÑnot 
just in institutional settings, but also in communities through separate 
classrooms, work environments, and housing. Social segregation 
between people with and those without disabilities persists. 
Segregation and isolation lead to invisibility, and violence thrives 
behind closed doors.39 

Increased exposure to potential abusers 

NCVS found that intimate partners committed 14 percent of violence 
against people with disabilities; other relatives committed 11 percent; 


A legacy of indignity 


Disability-related characteristics 
often are referred to as Òdeficits,Ó 
Òlimitations,Ó or Òimpairments,Ó 
resulting in people with disabilities 
experiencing discrimination and 
devaluation relative to those without 
disabilities. Publicly sanctioned 
isolation and segregation of people 
with disabilities in institutions occurred 
for centuries and denied people 
opportunities to engage in the full 
range of life experiences. In 1999, the 

U.S. Supreme Court declared that 
unnecessary institutionalization and 
its resulting isolation of people with 
disabilities from societyÕs mainstream 
was a form of discrimination deemed 
illegal under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA).a Although 
deinstitutionalization efforts have 
resulted in many people with 
disabilities living within communities, 
the discrimination, isolation, and 
segregation continues. Many children 
a Olmstead v L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). 

with disabilities are educated in 
separate classrooms. Adults often 
earn far below minimum wage; work 
in segregated employment settings; 
live in congregate homes with others 
with disabilities; and participate in 
segregated recreational activities. 
This legacy of indignity not only 
perpetuates economic and social 
disparities that people with disabilities 
bear; it contributes to the alarming 
rates of violent victimization they 
experience and the lack of accessible 
and effective responses to their 
victimization. Physical and social 
isolation and segregation prevent 
people with disabilities from learning 
about and gaining experience with 
understanding their rights to personal 
safety, experiencing opportunities to 
learn about and build skills to support 
healthy relationships, and recognize 
that experiences of violent victimization 
are crimes. 

and people the survivor knew well or who were casual acquaintances 
committed over 40 percent of violence against them.40 Certainly, 
intimate partners, family members, and acquaintances also abuse 
people without disabilities. But the fact that personal care attendants, 


transportation providers, and health professionals routinely interact 
with people with disabilities increases the probability that these service 
providers could victimize those they are supposed to be helping.41 

Some people with disabilities have numerous personal care 
attendants or caregivers, many of whom they know and trust, while 
others are complete strangers. Exposure to a variety of personal care 
providers increases a personÕs risk of potential harm and exploitation: 
While some people with disabilities have trustworthy and loving 
caregivers, others do not. Opportunities for abuse and exploitation exist 
among those who live and closely associate with people because of their 
disability status.42 In a study investigating mistreatment of adults with 
disabilities living in the community who depend on others for assistance 
with personal tasks, researchers found approximately 30 percent of the 
respondents reported abuse by their primary caregiver, and 61 percent 
reported abuse by another provider.43 

Culture of compliance 

Many people who have an intellectual or cognitive-related disability 
have been taught to comply with the directions of those in chargeÑ 
meaning almost anyone without a disability. This culture of compliance 
increases a personÕs vulnerability and risk of victimization. Expecting 
people with disabilities, regardless of age and capacity, to be compliant 
at all times sets them up to be ideal targets for perpetrators and abusers 
to hurt and harm them.44 

Seen as Òeasy targetsÓ 

Someone who is devalued, taught to be compliant, and seen as less 
credible by others is often easier to manipulate and control. It is partly 


for this reason that perpetrators of violent crimes target people with 
disabilities.45 In 2014, one in five of violent crime victims with disabilities 
believed they were targeted as a result of their disability.46 Another study 
involving more than 3,300 subjects found that having a visible signifier 
of disability increased the relative risk of victimization by 61 percent. 
Among women, a visible signifier of disability significantly predicts an 
increased risk of violent victimization.47 

Doubly silenced 

Few victims, with or without disabilities, disclose or report rape or 
abuse. People with disabilities are doubly silenced as victims because 
of the isolation, segregation, and disparate treatment they routinely 
experience.48 As a result, although people with disabilities make 
up nearly one-fifth of the U.S. population, their crime victimization 
experiences are not widely talked about, understood, or addressed. 

Unique dynamics of violent victimization 

Besides the fact that having a disability increases the probability of 
violent victimization, it also affects the tactics perpetrators use to 
commit violence. While many strategies used to harm people with 
disabilities are similar to those used to harm those without disabilities, 
perpetrators who violently victimize those with disabilities resort to some 
methods that are specifically aimed at exploiting a personÕs disability. 
For example, these targeted tactics often involve withholding or delaying 
the provision of needed care or medication; refusing to provide care in 
the way the person wants or needs that care provided; and deliberately 
isolating the person from family, friends, and needed services.49 Other 


tactics meant to exploit a personÕs intellectual disability, for example, 
include exerting power, control, and authority, or grooming someone 
for sexual exploitation by taking advantage of the personÕs limited 
understanding of boundaries, healthy sexuality, and personal rights to 
not comply. 

Many people lack knowledge and training about how to identify 
and respond to the unique dynamics and contexts that arise when 
disability and violence intersect. Misunderstanding or ignoring these 
unique dynamics proves costly to the safety and healing of victims 
with disabilities. It also can interfere with effective responses to violent 
victimization by disability service, victim service, and justice-related 
professionals. For example, disability service providers might miss the 
signs that ought to alert them that a service recipient is a victim of 
violent crime. When law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, or adult 
protective services investigators overlook or misinterpret these dynamics, 
reports of victimization often result in flawed investigations, case 
dismissals or closures, and survivors with disabilities who potentially 
remain in abusive environments. When victim service providers misread 
or discount these tactics, it can skew effective safety planning and 
advocacy support for victims with disabilities. Understanding and 
responding to these unique dynamics are vital components of an 
informed, effective response to the violent victimization of people 
with disabilities. 


Few reports, fewer prosecutions, still fewer convictions 


Sources: See endnotes 2 and 59. 
Violent crimes 
reported to police 
People charged 
with an offense 
People convicted 
of the offense 
47% 22% 9% 
Crimes against people with 
disabilities are underreported 


D
D
espite research that reveals that people with disabilities 
experience higher rates of violent victimization than people 
without disabilities, the majority of crimes committed against 

people with disabilities go unreported to authorities. Nationally, NCVS 

found that from 2010 to 2014 less than half (47 percent) of violent 

crimes against people with disabilities were reported to police.50 Some 

research has pointed to an even greater percentage of crimes going 

underreported. For example, a small study of college students with 

disabilities who were victimized revealed that only 27 percent reported 

the incident.51 The magnitude of underreporting results from unique 


considerations that victims with disabilities must weigh in light of their 
diminished status compared to those who hold power and authority 
in their lives. Additionally, underreporting is typical among victims of 
certain types of crime, such as sexual assault, regardless of whether or 
not they have disabilities.52 

Factors that contribute to underreporting 

Silence feels safer, or at the least, less harmful 

Because people with disabilities know they hold little power and less 
credibility as reporters of crime, they often choose to remain silent 
rather than gamble on others believing their disclosure, or relying on 
others to take action to prevent further harm.53 

Loss of independence and fear of institutionalization 

Some survivors have to weigh the potential loss of independence if they 
report victimization by an abusive caregiver. For example, they may 
wind up in a nursing home or other institutional setting rather than living 
on their own with a personal caregiver to escape the harm and suffering 
from violence.54 Some people may choose not to report abuse and 
remain vulnerable to the abuser rather than risk a new, unknown care 
provider or life in an institution.55 

Lack of knowledge about healthy sexuality and safety 

Some people, especially those with intellectual disabilities, might not 
recognize that what they experienced was abusive or exploitative. Those 
who have been denied education about healthy sexuality likely will not 
recognize abusive and exploitative behavior when they experience it. 
Segregation in educational settings means that many people with 


disabilities have not received any education about healthy sexuality, 
the human body, anatomy, and basic information about personal 
boundaries and safety.56 In fact, many children with intellectual 
disabilities that are considered more profound are removed from these 
classes at school because the content is viewed as irrelevant to them.57 

Loss of autonomy 

Many people with disabilities choose not to disclose abuse because 
doing so results in more isolation, more supervision, and less personal 
control and autonomy. Often acting with the best of intentions, 
family, friends, and service providers may restrict the victimÕs personal 
associations, travel, or involvement in their community to decrease 
potential exposure to violent crime. 

Lack of effective criminal justice response 

Victims with disabilities can be reluctant to report crimes because they 
are wary that law enforcement agencies and prosecutors may view 
them as unreliable reporters, less credible witnesses, and less likely 
to be believed.58 Many survivors with disabilities also forego reporting 
because the criminal justice system often fails to hold perpetrators 
accountable. For crimes that are reported that involve a victim with 
a disability, one study revealed that only 22 percent of offenders are 
charged and only 9 percent are convicted.59 Therefore, these crimes are 
less likely than crimes involving people without disabilities to be reported 
to law enforcement and, when they are, they are less likely to lead to an 
investigation, arrest, prosecution, or conviction.60 


Community-based support 
remains out of reach for many 


V
V
ictim services covers a wide variety of public agencies and 
nonprofit organizations that work with and respond directly to 
victims of crime.61 From 2010 to 2014, only 13 percent of violent 
crime victims with disabilities received assistance from non-police 
victim services agencies.62 While underreporting contributes to this low 
percentage, physical, programmatic, communication, and attitudinal 
accessibility barriers for people with disabilities further impede full use 
of the support and services that crime victims may receive from justice, 
victim services, and medical systems.63 

The most significant barriers to victimization-related support for 
people with disabilities include: 

> lack of coordination between victim service and disability 
service systems and organizations, resulting in neither 
system addressing the needs of victims with disabilities; 

> 
persistence of physical, communication, programmatic, 
and attitudinal accessibility barriers in victim services; 

> 
lack of training on victimization and how to provide 
appropriate and effective services to survivors with 
disabilities in disability organizations; 

> 
limited awareness and knowledge of effective practices 
to support survivors with disabilities; and, 


> lack of awareness about the continued marginalization of 
people with disabilities and their victimization experiences. 

From 2010 to 2014, only 13 percent of violent 
crime victims with disabilities received assistance 
from non-police victim services agencies. 

Victim and disability services systems lack a history 
of collaboration 

A chasm exists in most communities between victim services and 
disability services systems that leave victims with disabilities without 
the services and supports they need and want. Victim services were 
designed to address victimization. Disability services were designed 
around disability. In the majority of communities around the country, 
this chasm helps sustain the invisibility of the connection between 
disabilities and violence, creating barriers to developing meaningful 
solutions, and exacerbating the ongoing negative consequences for 
survivors with disabilities. 

Allied systems remain siloed 

Allied systems, such as hospitals and schools, that have frequent contact 
with people with disabilities often remain unaware of the prevalence 


of their violent victimization. Therefore, these systems have not given 
priority to considering their role in supporting crime victims with 
disabilities. These systems also often lack knowledge and skills 
about what to do, how to respond, and whom to ask for assistance 
when confronted with these victims. Moreover, each of these systems 
remains in its silo, exacerbating the dilemma for violent crime 
victims with disabilities seeking effective, coordinated responses to 
their victimization. 

Awareness efforts remain limited in victim and 
disability services 

Community outreach and prevention efforts typically are not offered to 
people with disabilities. Most available victim services fail to address the 
prevalence, dynamics, and issues relevant to the victimization experiences 
of people with disabilities. As a result of limited outreach, people with 
disabilities feel that victim services are not available to or appropriate 
for them. Because there exists little meaningful collaboration between 
disability- and non-disability-related organizations (such as victim services 
organizations), disability agencies generally remain unaware of and 
uninformed about community resources and effective practices available 
to address violent victimization. Therefore victims with disabilities remain 
isolated from available and effective services and support. 

Accessibility barriers persist in many victim 
services organizations 

Communication, physical, programmatic, and attitudinal barriers 
that directly affect accessibility prevent people with disabilities from 
reaching out and getting the support they need from many victim 


services organizations. As a result, people with disabilities feel that victim 
services are not available to or appropriate for them. Examples of these 
accessibility barriers include: 

> 
buildings, facilities, and offices that prevent a crime victim 
using a wheelchair to enter through the front door, navigate 
down a hallway, or use a restroom. 

> 
public computers and websites lacking assistive technology 
Ña general term that describes devices, equipment, 
software, and services designed to help people with 
disabilities. An example of assistive technology to ensure 
websites are accessible to crime victims is screen-reading 
software that allows a person who is blind or has low vision 
to audibly access web-based help such as crime victim 
compensation information. 

> 
a lack of effective safety planning. Strategies devised for 
victims and resources available to them to help them stay 
safe should be relevant to the situation of the particular 
crime victim. Many victim service agencies that assist 
survivors in developing safety plans do not think about or 
include items that relate to a crime victimÕs disabilities, such 
as plans that use visuals and pictures instead of words or 
written plans that use plain, simple language. 

Lack of specialized knowledge and response protocols in 
disability agencies 

Barriers also persist in some disability organizations that prevent the 
people they are serving from reaching out for and receiving help. For 
example, disability services agencies unfamiliar with the dynamics of 


abuse might not recognize some of the signs or indicators that abuse 
is occurring. Instead, they may misinterpret these potential signals 
of abuse as aspects of a personÕs disability. When these service 
providers do learn of physical or sexual abuse, they may focus on the 
administrative complications involved in abuse disclosures, including 
detailed investigation, documentation, and reports to an oversight 
agency, or informing guardians about the abuse. Moreover, they may 
report the incidents only to adult protective services rather than to law 
enforcement. Such responses discount that a crime was committed and 
fail to trigger the needed victim-focused services and supports. When 
disability organizations lack specialized knowledge about domestic and 
sexual abuse against people with disabilities as well as the appropriate 
response protocols, they cannot guide their constituents to effective 
services or support. 

Continued marginalization distracts victim and disability 
agency responses 

Many victims with disabilities recognize that society at large is skeptical 
of their ability to make choices that affect their lives. The persistence 
of this mindset disempowers and further marginalizes victims with 
disabilities. It also informs the nationÕs mandatory reporting laws and 
other policies that reaffirm the commonly held belief that people with 
disabilities cannot make sound judgments. While there are people with 
disabilities who are incapable of reporting victimization as a result of 
their disability, there are many others who can decide what is best for 
them in a given situation. Mandatory reporting laws divert the attention 
of victim service and disability organizations from supporting the victim 
toward paperwork and reporting processes and requirements. 


Challenges and action at the 
disability-violence intersection 


G
G
iven the myriad challenges surrounding the awareness and 
understanding of, and responses to, the violent victimization 
of people with disabilities, policymakers and practitioners 
must make a concerted effort to educate themselves and the general 
public about these issues. Now is the time to take action to dismantle the 
barriers that impede ending the alarmingly prevalent violence against 
people with disabilities. The following is a list of actions toward that end: 

Evaluate and reform mandatory reporting laws 

All states and the District of Columbia have statutes that require certain 
people, such as paid care providers, social workers, school personnel, 
and physicians to report incidences of abuse of Òvulnerable adultsÓ 
to adult protective services, law enforcement, or other governmental 
entities with or without the consent of the victim.64 These statutesÑ 
commonly referred to as Òvulnerable adult mandatory reporting lawsÓÑ 
vary considerably in who must report, what constitutes abuse, and who 
is defined as a vulnerable adult.65 

Mandatory reporting reflects certain assumptions about people 
with disabilitiesÑfor example, that they cannot make decisions in their 
own best interest and that they require protection above and beyond the 
protection mandated for people without disabilities. Because mandatory 
reporting laws require certain specified third parties to report the 
violence experienced by survivors with disabilities, these laws remove 


the rights of survivors with disabilities who are covered by the lawÕs 
Òvulnerable adultÓ definition to determine for themselves whether it is 
in their best interests to report abuse. These laws, therefore, diminish, 
if not extinguish, personal autonomy and self-determination of victims 
with disabilities. Moreover, the lawsÕ often-broad definitions of who is 
considered a vulnerable adult eliminate vast differences of capacity 
among people, thus removing the right to self-determination for anyone 
falling within the statutesÕ purview. 

Resolving the challenges and unintended consequences that 
mandatory reporting poses requires a deliberate assessment of the laws 
to better understand their implications for survivors with disabilities 
and identify needed reforms. To be effective, this inquiry must be a 
collaborative effort among experts on disability, self-advocacy, and 
victim services, including domestic violence and sexual assault agencies, 
in order to fully understand the benefits and shortcomings of mandatory 
reporting and explore alternatives that promote autonomy, self-
determination, and inclusion. 

Fill the research gaps 

Vital questions about violent victimization and people with disabilities 
remain unanswered. To ensure prevention and intervention strategies 
are most effective for crime victims with disabilities, more research is 
needed to: 

1. 
formulate consistent definitions of disabilities and violence 
that would allow for a clearer understanding of the scope 
and magnitude of violent victimization in the lives of people 
with disabilities; 

2. 
collect uniform crime data about official police reports, 
prosecutions pursued and/or declined, and criminal case 
final outcomes of all reported violent crime incidents 
committed against people with disabilities; and, 
3. 
analyze data from other reporting systems, such as child-
abuse reporting and mandatory reports of vulnerable-adult 
abuse and integrate it with official crime data and national 
victimization surveys. 
Promote effective prevention efforts 

In general, efforts to prevent the violent victimization of people with 
disabilities are very limited and those initiatives that focus on or are 
inclusive of people with disabilities are even rarer. Existing prevention 
initiatives primarily focus on changing the behavior of victimized 
individuals through risk-reduction strategies. While risk reduction may 
equip people to identify and leave situations where they may be at risk, 
they do not focus on measures that stop the abusers and hold them 
accountable. Moreover, primary prevention efforts that identify and 
address the underlying societal norms, attitudes, and practices around 
abuse of people with disabilities have been minimal. Virtually none of 
these efforts have countered ableismÑthe deeply entrenched societal 
norms, attitudes, and practices that devalue and limit the lives of people 
with disabilities. 

Enhance responses and support to survivors with disabilities 

There are organizations that work with people with disabilities and 
those that work with survivors of abuse. Few organizations, however, see 


their role as specifically working with survivors who have disabilities. 
Communication, physical, programmatic, and attitudinal barriers exist 
in disability organizations, preventing the people they are serving from 
reaching out for help responding to or preventing domestic and sexual 
violence. Similar barriers exist in justice systems. 

Meaningfully engage people with disabilities 

Because of societyÕs paternalistic attitudes toward people with 
disabilities, they are socially invisible and segregated. Thus, many 
efforts aimed at benefiting them have failed to include or engage 
them in meaningful ways. The work to end violent victimization is no 
exception. Self-advocatesÑpeople with disabilities organized to educate 
the community about issues that affect them and shape effective 
responsesÑhave yet to be included as central stakeholders. Yet their 
ability to address the violent victimization they experience and their 
collective power to transform the national consciousness about this 
problem are critical to finding solutions. 


Conclusion 


P
P
eople with disabilities remain marginalized and hidden from 
societyÕs view. Despite growing national awareness of and 
concern about serious violent crime, such as rape and sexual 
assault, victims with disabilities are largely missing from the public 
consciousness. To make meaningful progress on ending the violent 
victimization of people with disabilities, survivors themselves must be 
central in this effort. Working with their families, their communities, 
service providers, and experts who understand their unique issues and 
challenges, they can educate service practitioners and policymakers 
nationwide. Raising public awareness of the interplay between 
disability status and violence is the necessary first step to creating 
effective, accessible strategies to recognize, effectively respond to, 
and prevent the violent victimization of people with disabilities. 


Endnotes 


1 
Matthew W. Brault, Americans With 
Disabilities: 2010, Current Population 
Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. 
Census Bureau, 2012), 70Ð131. 

2 
Erika Harrell, Crime Against Persons 
with Disabilities, 2009Ð2014 - 
Statistical Tables (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, 2016). 
3 
The patchwork of research related 
to the intersection of disabilities 
and violence makes it difficult to 
glean the full scope of the problem. 
Disability-related studies suffer from 
differences in definition about what 
constitutes a disability, and violence-
related studies use disparate 
definitions of crimes, i.e., rape or 
sexual assault definitions. 

4 
Brault, 2012. 

5 
U.S. Census Bureau, Age-Adjusted 
and Unadjusted Disability Rates by 
Gender, Race, Hispanic Origin: 2005 
and 2010, https://perma.cc/JYU2TGJE. 


6 
Lewis Kraus, Disability Statistics 
Annual Report (Durham, NH: 
University of New Hampshire 2015). 
These figures should be considered 
conservative because they do not 
account for people with disabilities in 
institutional settings (for example, 
correctional facilities, non-

correctional institutional settings, 
and residential schools for people 
with disabilities). 

7 
Ibid. 

8 
The American Community Survey, 
for example, uses the following 
categories and descriptions in its 
definitions: Ambulatory disability 

Ð serious difficulty walking 
or climbing stairs; Cognitive 
disability Ð a physical, mental, or 
emotional condition resulting in 
serious difficulty concentrating, 
remembering, or making decisions; 
Hearing disability Ð deaf or serious 
difficulty hearing; Independent 
Living disability Ð a physical, mental, 
or emotional condition resulting 
in difficulty doing errands alone 
such as visiting a doctorÕs office 
or shopping; Self-care disability Ð 
difficulty dressing or bathing; and 
Vision disability Ð blind or serious 
difficulty seeing even when 
wearing glasses. 
9 
National Center on Birth Defects and 
Developmental Disabilities, Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, 
Developmental Disabilities, https:// 
perma.cc/L2WY-8J22. 

10 
Ibid. 

11 
S. Larson, C. Lakin, L. Anderson, 
and N. Kwak, ÒDemographic 


Endnotes 


Characteristics of Persons with 
MR/DD Living in Their Own Homes 
or With Family Members: NHIS-D 
Analysis,Ó MR/DD Data Brief 3, 
No. 2 (Minneapolis: University of 
Minnesota, Institute on Community 
Integration, 2001). 

12 
Coleen A. Boyle, PhD, et al., Trends 
in the Prevalence of Developmental 
Disabilities in U.S. Children, 1997Ð 
2008 (Atlanta, GA: Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, 
2011). 

13 
ÒEEOC Enforcement Guidance 
on the Americans with Disabilities 
Act and Psychiatric Disabilities,Ó 
(Washington, DC: The U.S. Equal 
Opportunity Commission, 1997), 
https://perma.cc/5SKY-3MBC. 

14 
Center for Behavioral Health 
Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ), 
Behavioral Health Trends in the 
United States: Results from the 2014 
National Survey on Drug Use and 
Health (Washington, DC: CBHSQ, 
Department of Health and Human 
Services, Publication No. SMA 154927, 
NSDUH Series H-50, 2015), 
https://perma.cc/98C9-JK9Z. The 
study defines terms used by the 
following: ÒAdults with AMI (any 
mental illness) were defined as 
having any mental, behavioral, or 
emotional disorder in the past year 
that met DSM-IV criteria (excluding 

developmental disorders and SUDsÑ 
substance use disorders). Adults 
with AMI were defined as having SMI 
(serious mental illness) if they had 
any mental, behavioral, or emotional 
disorder that substantially interfered 
with or limited one or more major life 
activities. Based on DSM-IV criteria, 
adolescents were defined as having 
an MDE (mental disorder episode) 
if they had a period of two weeks or 
longer in the past 12 months when 
they experienced a depressed mood 
or loss of interest or pleasure in daily 
activities, and they had at least 
some additional symptoms, such as 
problems with sleep, eating, energy, 
concentration, and self-worth.Ó 

15 
John Hopkins University Office of 
Student Disability Services, ÒPhysical 
Disabilities,Ó https://perma.cc/FT736YPS. 


16 
U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, 
National Center for Health Statistics, 
Summary Health Statistics: National 
Health Interview Survey (Washington, 
DC: U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, 2014), https:// 
perma.cc/M6RQ-PHXE. 

17 
Kraus, 2015. 

18 
Ibid. 


19 U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, 2014. 
20 Harrell, 2016. 
21 Ibid. 
22 Ibid. 
23 J. Schaller and J.L. Fieberg, ÒIssues 
of abuse for women with disabilities 
and implications for rehabilitation 
counseling,Ó Journal of Applied 
Rehabilitation Counseling 29 
(1998): 9Ð17. 
24 P.M. Sullivan and J.F. Knutson, 
ÒMaltreatment and disabilities: A 
population-based epidemiological 
study,Ó Child Abuse and Neglect 24 
(2000): 1257Ð1274. 
25 Harrell, 2016. 
26 Ibid. 
27 Ibid. 
28 Ibid. 
29 Ibid. 
30 Ibid. 
31 Sullivan and Knutson, 2000. 
32 Harrell, 2016. 
33 Ibid. 
34 Emily M. Lund and J. Vaughn-Jensen, 

ÒVictimisation of Children with 
Disabilities,Ó The Lancet, Vol. 380 
(Issue 9845) (2012): 867Ð869. 
35 Elizabeth P. Cramer, Stephen F. 
Gilson, and Elizabeth Depoy, 
ÒWomen with Disabilities and 
Experiences of Abuse,Ó Journal 
of Human Behavior in the Social 
Environment 7, no. 3Ð4 (2004): 
183Ð199. 
36 Ibid. 
37 Noreen Glover and Bruce Reed, 
ÒAbuse against women with 
disabilities,Ó Rehabilitation 
Education 1, no. 20 (2006): 43Ð56. 
38 Ibid. 
39 Elizabeth P. Cramer and Sara-Beth 
Plummer, ÒPeople of Color with 
Disabilities: Intersectionality as a 
Framework for Analyzing Intimate 
Partner Violence in Social, Historical, 
and Political Contexts,Ó Journal of 
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 
18, no. 2 (2009): 162Ð181. 
40 Harrell, 2016. 
41 J.P. Atkinson and K.M. Ward, ÒThe 
Development of an assessment of 
interpersonal violence for individuals 
with intellectual and developmental 
disabilities,Ó Sexuality and Disability 
30, no. 3 (2012): 301Ð309. 


Endnotes 


42 
Ibid. 

43 
J.S. Oktay and C.J. Tompkins, 
ÒPersonal assistance providersÕ 
mistreatment of disabled adults,Ó 
Health and Social Work 29 (2004): 
177Ð188. 

44 
Cramer, et al., 2009. 

45 
Office for Victims of Crime, First 
Response to Victims of Crime: A 
Guidebook for Law Enforcement 
Officers (Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs, 2010). 

46 
Harrell, 2016. 

47 
P.D.C. Bones, ÒPerceptions of 
vulnerability: A target characteristics 
approach to disability, gender, and 
victimization,Ó Deviant Behavior 34, 
(2013): 727Ð750. 

48 
Cramer, et al., 2009. 

49 
Elizabeth P Cramer, Stephen F. 
Gilson, and Elizabeth Depoy, 
ÒWomen with Disabilities and 
Experiences of Abuse,Ó Journal 
of Human Behavior in the Social 
Environment 7, no. 3Ð4 (2004): 
183Ð199. 

50 
Harrell, 2016. 

51 
P.A. Findley, S-B. Plummer, and 

S. McMahon, ÒExploring the 
Experiences of Abuse with College 
Students with Disabilities,Ó Journal 
of Interpersonal Violence 31, no. 17 
(2016): 1Ð23. 

52 
M. Planty, M. Berzofsky, C. Krebs, L. 
Langton, and H. Smiley-McDonald, 
Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 
1994Ð2010. (Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, 2013), https://perma.cc/ 
LXK7-XJ3M. 

53 
Beckie Child, Mary Oschwald, Mary 
Ann Curry, Rosemary Hughes, and 
Laurie E. Powers, ÒUnderstanding 
the Experiences of Crime Victims 
with Disabilities and Deaf Victims,Ó 
Journal of Policy Practice 10, no. 4 
(2011): 247Ð267. 

54 
M. Saxton, E. McNeff, L. Powers, M.A. 
Curry, M. Limont, and J. Benson, 
ÒWeÕre all little John Waynes: A 
study of disabled menÕs experience 
of abuse by personal assistants,Ó 
Journal of Rehabilitation 72 (2006): 
3Ð13. 

55 
Ibid. 

56 
J. Keilty and G. Connelly, ÒMaking 
a statement: An exploratory study 
of barriers facing women with an 
intellectual disability when making 
a statement about sexual assault to 
police,Ó Disability & Society 16 (2): 
273Ð291. 


57 
Lucy Barnard-Brak, Marcelo 
Schmidt, Steven Chesnut, Tianlan 
Wei, and David Richman, ÒPredictors 
of Access to Sex Education 
for Children With Intellectual 
Disabilities in Public Schools,Ó 
Intellectual and Developmental 
Disabilities 52, no. 2 (2014): 85Ð97. 

58 
Glover-Graf, 2006, 49. 

59 
Kelly J. Ace and Mary Catherine 
Roper, Assisting Victims and 
Witnesses with Disabilities in the 
Criminal Justice System: 
A Curriculum for Lawyers, End 
the Silence Project, Institute on 
Disabilities (Philadelphia, PA: 
Temple University, 2002). 

60 
Cheryl Guidry Tyiska, ÒWorking with 
Crime Victims with Disabilities,Ó U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office for 
Victims of Crime, https://perma.cc/ 
F7BW-YQBM. 

61 
Victim services include organizations 
whose sole mission is to provide 
services to crime victims. These 
organizations include sexual assault 
and rape treatment centers, domestic 
violence programs and shelters, 
child abuse programs, centers for 
missing children, mental health 
services, and other community-
based victim coalitions and support 
organizations, including those who 
serve survivors of homicide victims; 

criminal justice agencies, such as 
law enforcement organizations, 
prosecutorsÕ offices, courts, 
corrections departments, and 
probation and parole authorities; 
hospitals and emergency medical 
facilities that offer crisis counseling, 
support groups, and/or other 
types of victim services; and state 
and local public agencies such as 
mental health service organizations, 
state/local public child and adult 
protective services, and public 
housing authorities that have 
components specifically trained to 
serve crime victims. 

62 
Harrell, 2016. 

63 
Grover-Graf, 2006, 43Ð56. 

64 
Melanie Chen and Cindy Horowitz, 
eds., Nationwide Survey of 
Mandatory Reporting Requirements 
for Elderly and/or Vulnerable 
Persons (New York: New York County 
District AttorneyÕs Office, NAPSA 
Elder Financial Exploitation Advisory 
Board, 2013). 

65 
Ibid. For example, Òvulnerable adultÓ 
and Òat-riskÓ adult are two of several 
terms used to describe the people 
for whom reporting of their abuse is 
mandatory. 


Acknowledgments 

This report honors Amy Judy, who passed away on February 12, 2017. 
Amy was a senior program associate in VeraÕs Center on Victimization 
and Safety, and was a fierce advocate for survivors, people with 
disabilities, and humankind, in general, throughout her lifeÕs work. This 
report continues her legacy by laying out a foundation of information 
about the violent victimization of people with disabilities that will inform 
decisions made by law enforcement, victims services, and policymakers, 
for years to come. 

The authors would also like to thank the many victims and survivors 
of violence who have disabilities who have voiced their experiences 
and informed our work and practice over the past decade to end the 
violence. Thank you to Mary Crowley, Ram Subramanian, and Erika 
Turner of VeraÕs Communications Department for their guidance in 
bringing this publication to fruition, Alice Chasan for her editorial 
oversight, and Stephanie Grey for the design and layout. 

About citations 

As researchers and readers alike rely more and more on public 
knowledge made available through the Internet, Òlink rotÓ has become 
a widely acknowledged problem with creating useful and sustainable 
citations. To address this issue, the Vera Institute of Justice is 
experimenting with the use of Perma.cc (https://perma.cc), a service 
that helps scholars, journals, and courts create permanent links to the 
online sources cited in their work. 


Credits 

© Vera Institute of Justice 2017. All rights reserved. An electronic version 
of this report is posted on VeraÕs web site at www.vera.org/how-safe. 

The Vera Institute of Justice is a justice reform change agent. Vera 
produces ideas, analysis, and research that inspire change in the 
systems people rely upon for safety and justice, and works in close 
partnership with government and civic leaders to implement it. 
Vera is currently pursuing core priorities of ending the misuse of 
jails, transforming conditions of confinement, and ensuring that 
justice systems more effectively serve AmericaÕs increasingly diverse 
communities. For more information, visit www.vera.org. 

For more information about this report, contact Ram Subramanian, 
editorial director, Communications, at rsubramanian@vera.org. 

VeraÕs Center on Victimization and Safety (CVS) works with government 
and nonprofit organizations to enhance efforts to prevent and address 
interpersonal violence and related crimes, including domestic violence 
and sexual assault. The center specializes in fostering cross-disciplinary 
collaboration and promoting policies and practices that hold abusers 
accountable, prioritize safety, and also help survivors heal. By 
combining staff expertise and skills with the practical knowledge of 
professionals in the field, it provides technical assistance and guidance 
that is timely, relevant, and reflective of current best practices. 

For more information on the Center on Victimization and Safety, 
please contact cvs@vera.org. 

Suggested Citation 

Nancy Smith, Sandra Harrell, and Amy Judy. How Safe are Americans 
with Disabilities? The facts about violent crime and their implications. 

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 


Vera Institute of Justice Washington DC Office 
233 Broadway, 12th Floor 1111 14th Street NE, Suite 920 
New York, NY 10279 Washington, DC 20005 
T 212 334 1300 T 202 465 8900 
F 212 941 9407 F 202 408 1972 
New Orleans Office Los Angeles Office 
546 Carondelet Street 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3850 
New Orleans, LA 70130 Los Angeles, CA 90017 
T 504 593 0937 T 213 223 2442 
F 212 941 9407 F 213 955 9250