Disabled people's experiences of harassment and victimisation: an evidence review

Question 1

1. Executive summary

Accepted Answer

This report presents findings from an evidence review on disabled people’s lived experiences of harassment and victimisation including themes of hate crime and bullying, domestic and intimate violence, child abuse, and adult safeguarding. The evidence sources were taken from a wider systematic review on the lived experience of disabled people in the UK from 2010 to 2021, conducted by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds and Disability Rights UK.

The findings will be of interest to people working in social services, housing, education, leisure services, policing and court services, and health care.

1.1 Methodology

There were over 60 sources of qualitative evidence identified in the wider evidence review that was published between 2010 and 2021. These were evaluated through a meta-thematic analysis where the main themes and subthemes were identified.

This evidence review focuses on lived experience research. Limitations of this approach include small sample sizes and limited peer review. Because of this, generalisations are difficult to make as each person’s experiences are unique to them. So this lived experience research gives us a better understanding of the issues faced by disabled people in this area, but it is far from complete.

1.2 Summary of findings

Targeted violence and harassment towards disabled people occurs on a spectrum. It ranges from:

staring to name-calling
verbal abuse to physical and sexual violence
damage to property, through to murder

Disabled people experience hate crimes in a wide range of settings, including:

public transport
educational establishments
specialist facilities
local neighbourhoods
over the internet and telephone

This results in a lack of safe spaces in which to live and work.

The evidence review also found the following.

Disabled people face inadequate, offensive and inappropriate responses from the criminal justice system. This leads to a lack of confidence in reporting crime.

Perceptions of offending were often blurred if the offender was familiar to the victim. For example, in so-called ‘mate crime’ incidents which are under-recorded. This is when someone pretends to be friends with someone to take advantage of them.

Experiences and fear of violence, harassment or abuse are barriers to social inclusion. People change their behaviour, avoiding people, places and times associated with victimisation.

Domestic and intimate partner abuse has drawn recent attention from qualitative researchers. It has revealed the targeting of disabled women for severe violence and abuse, but has had less emphasis on men’s experiences.

Victim and survivor support was often lacking, inappropriate or insensitive to disabled women’s needs. Little is known about those who remain in abusive relationships or who do not have contact with services.

Abuse is particularly difficult to deal with or escape from if the abuser provides personal assistance or care to the victim.

Studies of the experience of child abuse among disabled people rely on retrospective adult accounts. These may reflect different social and policy contexts in the past. There is also a risk that practitioners may overlook emotional, behavioural or physical scars of violence. This might be because they confuse them with a child’s impairment characteristics.

Young people with learning difficulties have not been educated enough about sex and relationships. This would help them to understand issues such as exploitative relationships and consent.

Controlling adult safeguarding practices can protect disabled people from abuse. But they can also facilitate abuse if disabled people are not meaningfully involved in decision making.

Question 2

2. Introduction

Accepted Answer

This report reviews evidence about disabled people’s lived experiences of harassment and victimisation. The evidence covers a wide range of experiences, including:

hate crime and bullying
domestic and intimate violence
child abuse
experiences of adult safeguarding

The review draws on selected findings from a wider systematic review commissioned by the Cabinet Office’s Disability Unit. The aim of that review, which was carried out in 2021 by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds, and Disability Rights UK, was to establish the existing evidence base on the lived experience of disabled people in the UK.

The evidence taken from the wider review focuses mainly on the experiences of disabled people who were victims and witnesses of crime and violence. Understanding this experience will be relevant to a wide range of professionals who support disabled people and their families, including in:

health and social services
youth and education services
employment services
housing and advocacy

The evidence is also relevant to the experience of disabled people suspected or convicted of causing such violence, which is the theme of a separate evidence review. It raises wider questions about the accessibility of public buildings, access to information, and communication support in the delivery of public services in general.

The findings may therefore be of interest to policymakers across various departments but have interest for those with direct responsibilities for:

social services
housing
education
leisure services
policing and court services
health care

2.1 Methodology

The evidence in this report was published between 2010 and 2021, and covers a wide range of themes. For this review, we identified more than 60 sources of qualitative evidence about the lived experiences of disabled people in relation to harassment and victimisation including violence and abuse. We evaluated these sources through a meta-thematic analysis, and identified the main themes and subthemes.

These studies provided many examples of personal encounters with violence or abuse, as well as the emotional consequences of such encounters and of abusive relationships. They included examples of bullying, name calling, sexual assault, exploitation and physical harm. This included the experiences of disabled women, men and children, with a wide range of different impairments. Some of these experiences raised concerns of intersectional discrimination, particularly gender and disability, and race and disability. Several sources reported experiences of help seeking and of public or private support services (such as victim support or adult safeguarding, for example). No evidence of experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified in this part of the review although numerous public concerns have been raised about the likelihood of increased vulnerability to abuse during periods of isolation in lockdown.^{[footnote 1]}

2.2 Limitations

This evidence review focuses on lived experience research and that comes with some limitations, including small sample sizes and limited peer review. Because of this, generalisations of the experience of disability are difficult to make as they are unique to the individual and vary among protected characteristics and impairment types. Therefore, this lived experience research gives us a better, but far from complete, understanding of the issues faced by disabled people and people with health conditions in relation to their experiences of harassment and victimisation.

2.3 Policy context

Disabled people should not be more subject to crime than anyone else. Added to this, no one should fear direct discrimination, abuse and violence that is motivated towards their disability status or arises from exposure to disabling environments. The policy context concerns mainly harassment, victimisation and risk of crime. Relevant principles are evident both in:

UK law, under the Equality Act 2010
international law, as represented by the UK’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD)

Sections 26 to 27 of the Equality Act prohibit harassment and victimisation relevant to disability (or any other protected characteristic) if it violates a person’s dignity or creates ‘an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’ for them. This includes sexual harassment. In addition, the public sector equality duty requires all public authorities to eliminate discrimination, to advance equality and to foster good relations on the ground of disability, as for other protected grounds.^{[footnote 2]}

Article 16 of the CRPD requires the state to ‘take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational and other measures to protect persons with disabilities, both within and outside the home, from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, including their gender-based aspects’.^{[footnote 3]} This includes an expectation of appropriate support, and investigative efforts. Articles 6 and 7 also reinforce a recognition that the needs of disabled women and children require particular attention.^{[footnote 4]}

Question 3

4. Hate crime and bullying

Accepted Answer

The Crown Prosecution Service defines disability hate crime as: ‘Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s disability or perceived disability’.^{[footnote 5]}

The Equality and Human Rights Commission defines disability-related harassment as ‘conduct against disabled people that has the purpose or effect of either violating the dignity, safety, security or autonomy of the person experiencing it or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment’.^{[footnote 6]}

Targeted, disablist violence and harassment occurs on a spectrum, from staring to name-calling and verbal abuse to physical and sexual violence and damage to property, through to murder. There is some debate about whether crimes at the lower level should be considered as hate crime, mate crime, disability related harassment, microaggression or bullying (here we refer to the terms used in the cited sources).

Evidence from participant stories encapsulated the diversity of disability hate crime perpetrators, from neighbour to stranger.^{[footnote 7]} Disabled people experienced hate crimes in a wide range of settings, including public transport, educational establishments, specialist facilities, local neighbourhoods, over the internet and phone, resulting in a lack of safe spaces in which to live and work. The Crime Survey for England and Wales estimates that disability hate crime makes up around one-third of all hate crimes committed.^{[footnote 8]} In contrast, they make up only 8% of police recorded hate crimes. In other words, disabled people are disproportionately affected, but their experiences are disproportionately under-recorded.

Disabled people who experienced hate crimes also described inadequate, offensive and inappropriate responses from the criminal justice system. This led to a lack of confidence about reporting future experiences. People with learning disabilities talked about not being believed when they tried to tell someone.^{[footnote 9]} Sin, the author of this report, summarises the causes of underreporting of disability hate crime as arising from:

lack of involvement in community safety action and criminal justice interventions, poor awareness of rights and routes to redress, lack of appropriate response by others, together with the internalisation of low expectations by disabled people.^{[footnote 10]}

The term ‘mate crime’ refers to hostile incidents carried out by people considered as friends, sometimes including extended family.^{[footnote 11]} In a paper entitled ‘Bullies tend to be obvious’, autistic adults said the term ‘mate crime’ resonated with their experiences. They thought it was different from bullying, which was more obvious.^{[footnote 12]} As one respondent said:

It’s probably worse, like bullying is generally pretty direct, but this is like… tricking you into thinking that you are a friend. It’s more like manipulation and it’s worse because you’re doing it deliberately (p.1115).

One study examined police crime records and found that roughly one-quarter of recorded disability hate crimes fitted the description of ‘mate crimes’. But, based on a wider police database search, it appeared that most had not been recorded as hate crimes.^{[footnote 13]} This supports findings from other studies about disabled people’s experiences of targeted attacks being under-recorded and underacknowledged.

The research revealed how mate crimes were typically perpetrated against disabled people living alone in deprived areas. Incidents often involved groups of local people repeatedly targeting victims in their own homes. Perceptions of offending were often blurred or obscured if the victims and offenders knew each other.

An edited collection of 17 contributions explores a variety of experiences, impacts, and responses to disablist hate crime.^{[footnote 14]} The contributing authors make comparisons with hate crimes based on the victim’s race, gender or sexual orientation. Some discuss intersectional identity issues – for example, how black disabled people’s negative experiences with the police (such as being targeted as suspects) make them less likely to report hate crimes. Some of the chapters draw on experiences of violence other than hate crime.

Experience of violence, harassment or abuse is a barrier to social inclusion, as is the fear of it happening. Sin and others explain that, due to situational vulnerabilities, people with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions are at higher risk of violence, harassment and abuse. They also experience greater levels of it. This is not only when compared with non-disabled people, but also compared with other disabled people.^{[footnote 15]} A survey of 255 people with learning disabilities or autism found that just under one-half had experienced some form of victimisation.^{[footnote 16]} Incidents ranged from intimidating stares and name calling to physical and sexual assault. Multiple incidents were common, sometimes over a long period of time.

The impact of victimisation was often extensive and ongoing. People changed their behaviour, avoiding people, places and times associated with victimisation. Many participants accepted that such events were part of their lives. They were ‘to be expected’ to some extent, or they ‘deserved it’. Wiseman and Watson confirm that targeted violence had become routine for people with learning disabilities in their study. As one respondent put it: ‘It is just what happens to people like us’. As a result participants became isolated, depressed, and afraid to leave home.

Roughly 70% of guide dog owners who have experienced a dog attack reported that their emotional wellbeing had been negatively affected. They spoke about how they had sustained physical injuries defending their dog.^{[footnote 17]} Attacks affected their mobility if their guide dog was temporarily unable to work, with increased financial costs (for example, for taxi fares). As with targeted attacks on disabled people, guide dog owners feared going out and so changed their routes after a dog attack.

Burch described how disabled people face experiences of hate in their everyday lives – for example, being challenged over their entitlement to use a disabled seat on the bus or an accessible toilet, and experiencing harmful language and treatment towards them.^{[footnote 18]} Research by geographers makes the spatial dimension of exclusion more explicit, in the context of walking specific neighbourhoods or routes. This example from a walking interview with John illustrates this:

John: They’ll [young people] bang on the bus shelter, when you’re waiting on the bus
Int: Do you think they are doing it because you’re there, or just doing it?
John: A bit of a mix.

In these studies disabled people also succeeded in negotiating safe spaces for themselves. They had discovered cafés, a quiet area of a shopping centre, a library or museum where they felt safer. They often did this, through trial and error or following recommendations from others. As one respondent explained, the character of other space users is as significant as the physical accessibility of a space:

Me and my friend spend all our time considering well where can we go to have a drink, where can we go to eat, where do we know that people have been that are really good. So in the city we’re developing a bit of an accessibility plan around this . . . a plan of the city and what spaces are accessible, based on users.

Our search identified studies of childhood bullying in schools. One study found that 4 out of 6 boys with autism in a mainstream school had been bullied, compared to one in 5 in a segregated school.^{[footnote 19]} They concluded that bullying was more likely to occur in mainstream settings, due to fewer resources being available to protect the children. But some caution is needed in making generalisations from a small sample, and other studies appear to contradict this. For example, studies on cyberbullying within a special school setting showed that bullying was common there too.^{[footnote 20]} Humphrey and Symes found that autistic pupils in mainstream schools responded differently to bullying. Some sought help from potential advocates (such as teachers)^{[footnote 21]} while some responded with violence. The pupils encountered several barriers to social support, and these again increased their isolation and vulnerability to more abuse.

Young people and adults with Williams Syndrome experienced several forms of bullying – relational, verbal and physical – but also reported standing up for themselves.^{[footnote 22]}

The use of the umbrella term ‘bullying’ in such studies requires some challenge where respondents report acts of physical aggression that merit definition as crimes in the policy context. For example, a press release from Mencap reports that ‘Over 1 in 3 people with a learning disability said that being bullied is one of the things they worry about most when they go out’.^{[footnote 23]} This fear and worry  ‘means people with a learning disability feel reluctant to leave their homes and get out and about – taking part in sport, attending hospital visits or enjoying social activities’. Such accounts of lived experience appear to be consistent with being fearful of targeted, disablist violence and harassment. Sparks explains why this is problematic:

Euphemistically describing harassment and assault as ‘bullying’, rape and torture as ‘abuse’, or victims as ‘vulnerable’ results in crimes against disabled people being seen as fundamentally different to those experienced by non-disabled people. This serves to set disabled people apart and make them and their experiences ‘other’.^{[footnote 24]}

Finally, there were examples of cyber-victimisation. This was also raised in at least one of the studies mentioned earlier, among special school students. The use of technology facilitated the incident, and the absence of face-to-face contact depersonalised the interaction. This and another study about online radicalisation^{[footnote 25]} pointed to a need to explore online safety with young people with learning difficulties and/or autism, who require additional support to navigate risks in cyberspace (including the risks of inadvertently hurting others). A systematic review of online experiences^{[footnote 26]} found that disabled people were targeted and at higher risk of victimisation, leading to damaging consequences of depression, anxiety and distress. But despite these risks, young disabled people demonstrated a range of risks online and developed strategies to manage these.^{[footnote 27]}

Question 4

5. Domestic and intimate violence

Accepted Answer

We identified 24 sources on domestic and intimate violence from 17 separate research programs. Of these:

7 were focused on domestic violence
3 used the term violence
4 included ‘intimate partner violence’ or ‘partner abuse’

Only one source focused on sexual violence and 2 on sexual and domestic violence. Twelve of the 17 studies focused on women. Five focused on adults, regardless of gender, but none captured the experiences solely of men. Although study samples were diverse, there were no studies examining intersecting identities of ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

Some studies were focused on the experience of people with particular types of impairment. Six of the 17 studies explored the experiences of disabled women in general. Seven focussed on people with learning disabilities. Two concentrated on mental health service users and one on older women, intimate partner violence and mental health. An ONS study included disabled women in a more general analysis of women most at risk of partner abuse in England and Wales.^{[footnote 28]}

Six of the 24 sources on domestic violence were reports from grey literature, which is research and information produced by organisations outside of traditional academic publishing, such as government and charities. This includes 4 toolkits for tackling violence, which included examples of lived experiences.^{[footnote 29]}^{[footnote 30]}^{[footnote 31]}^{[footnote 32]} Three dealt mainly with prevalence of domestic and intimate partner violence, and these reinforce the statistical data on high levels of victimisation.^{[footnote 33]}^{[footnote 34]}

In research led by McCarthy, women with learning disabilities reported severe and distressing experiences of sexual and physical violence. These included an increase in violence during pregnancy, rapee, and physical, emotional and verbal abuse in front of their children.^{[footnote 35]}^{[footnote 36]}^{[footnote 37]} McCarthy also reflects on the similarities between disability hate crime, ‘mate crime’ and domestic violence against women in a paper ‘What kind of abuse is him spitting in my food?’.^{[footnote 38]} This research sampled only women who had been able to escape abuse. Many had made multiple attempts to leave. A minority of the women reported good experiences of support. One woman was helped by her social worker to ‘come to a safe place’ and another reported that ‘the Police were really helpful, really good’. Many women faced ongoing harassment, intimidation and occasionally serious assaults after ending a relationship with their violent partner. Once the women were finally free, most experienced improvements in their lives. One source – a video called ‘Don’t put up with it!’ – was made with and for women with learning disabilities. It included interviews with women discussing their understanding of domestic violence.

Most research focuses on the experiences of those who have permanently left a violent relationship, often with help from a support service. There is far less research among women who remain in abusive relationships, and those who have no contact with support services. Many disabled victims of violence and abuse remain hidden. In addition, victim-survivors who engage in research also report significant barriers to equal outcomes when accessing support services. These disadvantages seem to be even more pronounced at the intersection of gender, disability, ethnicity, poverty, and multiple disadvantage. Understanding these experiences will be important in improving access to services.

The first national study of domestic violence and disability in the UK said there was less provision compared with services for non-disabled women. There was also a need for specialist service responses.^{[footnote 39]} This study described the perpetrators of abuse against disabled women as varied and often multiple. ‘They ranged from intimate (including same sex) partners, to paid carers, care agencies and family members, sometimes their children’.^{[footnote 40]}

Women recounted incidents of physical violence, including those that resulted in severe injuries, such as permanent bodily damage, loss of babies, fractures, and severe cuts and bruises. Women also commonly reported sexual violence. Many had not disclosed this to anyone until the research interview. A user-led organisation Stay Safe East has been campaigning to include abuse by carers in the legal definition of domestic abuse. But it was still excluded in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, despite having support in the House of Lords.^{[footnote 41]}

Disabled women report that they experience domestic violence which targets their impairment. Partner-carers used impairments in their abuse, including denying access to mobility aids or other enabling facilities. One paper explored access to mobility and transport in women’s capacity to escape domestic violence.^{[footnote 42]} It found that under one-third of disabled women’s journeys were made by public transport and that private transport was more commonly used. The study highlighted the role of assistance in compounding or counteracting violence.

Women with mobility impairments are more likely to escape domestic violence if they have the support of other people. Without this support, their impairment may be exploited by the abuser, leading to them remaining trapped. An earlier study of disabled women dealing with abuse from personal assistance providers captured the dependency paradox in its title ‘Bring my scooter so I can leave you’.^{[footnote 43]}

Women who employed abusive carers (personal assistants) spoke about the difficulty of challenging poor practice while being dependent for care. Shah and others describe such abuse as aiming to ‘simultaneously increase the powerfulness of the perpetrators and the powerlessness of the disabled women’.^{[footnote 44]} They say impairment-related violence is often unrecognised, by both professionals and even the women themselves. Instead, it may be seen as part of everyday life. This research found that disabled women had poor access to services, limited awareness of their rights, and limited knowledge about sources of support. Deaf women faced additional barriers in reporting abuse due to close social networks in their community. These meant that interpreters often knew the people involved. Woodin and others report that women with sensory, speech and mobility impairments were particularly poorly served by mainstream services.^{[footnote 45]}

Disability Wales and Welsh Women’s Aid reported dissatisfaction with the police responses among research participants when they reported abuse. Similar feedback also emerged in their 2011 report and little appeared to have changed:

Survivors reported barriers to accessing support from services, waiting lists for specialist support, lack of access to appropriate resources designed and accessible for disabled people and a lack of access to support through the medium of Welsh. These barriers compounded survivors’ existing barriers to accessing support (shared with non-disabled survivors of abuse) because of their fear, feelings of shame or self-blame and concerns about not being listened to, believed or taken seriously on disclosure.

Research led by Positive Futures showed a lack of knowledge among adults with learning difficulties about:

sources of support
their rights
how best to navigate the justice process if they became a victim of sexual violence

Although women with learning disabilities in another study sought help from services to leave their abusive partners, this was either denied or inappropriate to their needs.^{[footnote 46]} As a result, these women internalised the oppression of their abusive partners and the neglect from services that failed them in a kind of ‘dual abuse’. Similarly, Rose and others found that mental health services did not easily allow the disclosure of domestic violence.^{[footnote 47]}

There was a fear of social services involvement among women using mental health services, including a fear of consequent child protection proceedings. There was also fear that they would not be believed, increased feelings of shame and even fear that disclosure would lead to more violence. Shah and others add that disabled women – being at the intersection of gender and disability bias – are more likely to encounter barriers to support. These include the physical inaccessibility of specialist victim support facilities and the disbelief of professionals.^{[footnote 48]}

Question 5

6. Child abuse

Accepted Answer

We identified 5 studies which explored the experiences of disabled children who had experienced child abuse. Two of these used the retrospective accounts of disabled adults, including a book on ‘Disability and child sexual abuse’ narrating the accounts of 7 disabled adult survivors.^{[footnote 49]} One study included both Deaf children and adults. Although retrospective childhood experiences may fall outside the timeframe of our review, we included studies published within that frame. Much research on the lived experience of child abuse requires a retrospective method, as with the reported experiences of partner abuse described earlier.

Women in one study recalled childhood violence that included physical and sexual violence carried out by different people and in different contexts.^{[footnote 50]} There was a lot of evidence of violence by family members, usually male. The adult women reported that, when they were children, they faced disabling barriers to support and protection. The emotional, behavioural or physical scars of violence had been overlooked by practitioners who put them down to the girl’s impairment (where there might have been trigger warnings in a non-disabled child).

Jones and others described recurrent abuse experienced by Deaf and disabled children over several years, and also found that disclosures were typically made long after the abuse began.^{[footnote 51]} They identified 3 enablers of help-seeking:

the capacity of adults to detect abuse and respond to disclosures
supportive relationships or circumstances that allow for disclosure
access to registered interpreters

Finally, a research program focused on the lived experiences of young people with learning disabilities who had experienced child sexual exploitation.^{[footnote 52]} The respondents in this study reported difficulties understanding that their experiences had been abusive. They also found it difficult to disclose what had happened. They reported a lack of sex education, especially relationship education, that would enable them to understand issues such as exploitative relationships or the giving and receiving of consent. However, with the right support, young people developed techniques and approaches to help them to identify potentially risky situations, and they were able to learn what a non-exploitative relationship should be. They also reported some positive experiences of child protection services, based on supportive and respectful relationships with support workers.

These overwhelming accounts of positive experiences are a little surprising, considering the more mixed pictures we have seen in research with adults – for example, with those fleeing domestic violence and those receiving safeguarding interventions. It is possible that child protection practices are more able to meet the needs of disabled children or that this is linked to the sampling approach of the study. Here, child sexual exploitation specialist services identified the young people with learning needs to be approached to the research. This means only those who had received a consistent service and those whose learning needs were known were included. The young people still described a need for more support associated with their learning needs. Many indicated how ‘often unrecognised and unmet needs and lack of support led them into risky situations such as truanting from school and/or running away from home, and their subsequent sexual exploitation’.^{[footnote 53]}

Question 6

7. Adult safeguarding

Accepted Answer

Ten sources reported on lived experiences of adult safeguarding. Most looked at ‘adults at risk’ in general, rather than at impairment-specific groups. One explored the experiences of mental health service users and another of autistic people. But in practice, most of the research samples represented mainly people with learning disabilities or older adults.

The themes of keeping control, making decisions, and involving service users in adult safeguarding, appeared across the studies in this group, either as a research focus or in discussion. Some did not engage disabled people who had experienced safeguarding directly – instead, they asked a general sample of disabled people what they would want to happen if they were in a risky situation which may lead to a safeguarding intervention. This type of research did not report on disabled people’s lived experiences of adult safeguarding directly but gave an insight to their preferences. One such study explored how people with a learning disability could influence adult safeguarding and associated policy and legislation.^{[footnote 54]}

Two papers, from the same study, discussed adult protection and safeguarding with a sample of mostly people with learning disabilities in Scotland.^{[footnote 55]}^{[footnote 56]} Participants pointed out that adult protection and safeguarding has the potential to support or undermine their strengths, skills and sense of self, depending on the way it is performed. They felt that adult safeguarding could feel like being ‘singled out’, or like a judgement on them as a person and their problem-solving skills. They made clear that they wanted to be ‘really listened to’ and acknowledged as a person with their own preferences and strengths.

One paper tells the story of a woman in her 60s, who was experiencing domestic violence after her son, who abused substances, had moved in with her after becoming homeless.^{[footnote 57]} Although she wanted the harm to stop, she did not want to put her son in a worse situation. She described complex tensions between autonomy, harm and protection. Keeling evidenced how the woman’s fears had some foundations.^{[footnote 58]} She examined adult safeguarding practice against Article 16 of the CRPD and highlighted how social workers were inclined to take decision-making control away from individuals.

While the individual’s own desires may have sometimes shaped the direction of the safeguarding process, they were not always involved in the implementation of the safeguarding actions or support measures.

She argued that disabled people’s agency was decreased, resulting in little power to determine the direction of events. The most concerning finding was that this process meant that service users could remain at risk of harm.

Echoing the themes raised earlier in relation to domestic and intimate violence, Aspinal and others explored the relationship between safeguarding and personalisation (in the context of personal budgets for publicly funded social care).^{[footnote 59]} Adults experienced distress during safeguarding interventions, particularly when their complaint was about their care workers. They described how the ‘lines between friendship and employee had often become blurred, particularly where support was provided in social situations’ (p.165). As the authors summarise:

some adults were not necessarily able to recognise when they were starting to become at risk of abuse and neglect or when an incident had taken place. Instead, they depended on family, friends or PAs to bring the risks or harm to their attention.

People with mental health problems who experience targeted violence and abuse were also falling through service gaps between the various systems that surround adult safeguarding and disability hate crime. Some reportedly:

discount their own experiences of violence and abuse, not expecting to be believed or not believing that safeguarding or ‘hate crime’ applies to them. They are also discounted by others on the grounds of their mental health status: their lack of credibility is often reflected back to them by mental health services and professionals operating the safeguarding systems, the police, friends and family, neighbours and the general public.^{[footnote 60]}

These various experiences of – and barriers to – adult safeguarding overlap with the experiences summarised in earlier sections. In each of the cases of hate crime, domestic and intimate violence, and recollections of child abuse, there was consistent evidence that those at greatest risk are also more likely to fall into protected adult categories. As such, those groups may face more barriers in accessing appropriate support and may be less likely to be believed. Safeguarding procedures offer both a protection against and a risk of dependency-related abuse.

Question 7

8. Conclusion

Accepted Answer

Disabled people face a greater risk of violence than the general population. They are often described as ‘vulnerable’ as a result. But this term risks focusing the explanation for violence on the disabled person at risk. Instead, we should look at the social factors that make violence more likely to occur.^{[footnote 61]}

The evidence we looked at for this report shows that external risks persist. These risks can increase because of dependency on paid or unpaid carers.

Disabling barriers in the community cause social isolation and limited social contact. The COVID-19 pandemic made this worse. Because of this, ‘mate crimes’, child abuse and domestic violence go unnoticed for longer.

Lack of accessible support and transport means that disabled people stay trapped in abusive relationships for longer. This is particularly the case for disabled women.

Thinking of ‘vulnerability’ as situational – caused by social factors – has clear policy implications. Victimisation is not only a personal tragedy. It is caused by disabling barriers and relationships. Removing these barriers helps to reduce victimisation.

This means the government must pursue policies to help create a more inclusive society as a whole. It should not rely on reactive niche support services.

Disabled people often have to build resilience for themselves, either alone or with others. For example, coming together to create a map of ‘safe spaces’ in their community.

Social policy should create safer communities and public spaces where disabled people feel welcome and included. This is needed alongside well-targeted support services and comprehensive criminal prosecutions.

This requires focusing on attitudes and awareness among children and adults. It also means investing in accessible support services in a targeted way. Violence and abuse happen when those with more power target those with less. Disabled people have been systematically marginalised from power. Policies that enable disabled people to succeed in education and employment can also reduce situational ‘vulnerability’.

Disabled people often experience victim support structures. Changing this should be a policy priority. The Ministry of Justice is commissioning a research program to explore exactly how to do this.^{[footnote 62]} This is an encouraging development, but action needs to follow. One action could be to offer more user-led victim support services by and for disabled people.

Health and social work professionals must be particularly sensitive to the signs of abuse and violence. This is important for all people, including disabled children. Impairment characteristics or communication styles might otherwise mask ‘typical’ signs of concern. Professionals also need to be more aware of disability-appropriate support services when making crisis referrals.

The language used to talk about disabled people’s experiences of violence and abuse is often inconsistent in research and policy. There is a tendency to use ‘softer’ terms for abuse – such as ‘bullying’ – especially for people with learning disabilities. This may downplay the severity of attacks – for example, saying ‘physical bullying’ when ‘physical assault’ would be more appropriate.

Consistency with the Equality Act concepts of harassment and victimisation could also be encouraged. Inconsistent terminology means we also often miss relevant research in different fields, leading to evidence gaps. It also causes evidence gaps in crime reporting and recording, such as the under-recording of ‘mate crime’ offences.

We know that reporting of rape and sexual violence increases after intense media coverage of cases, like the Sarah Everard case.^{[footnote 63]}^{[footnote 64]} There is parallel a case to continue highlighting and evidencing the disproportionate risk of violence and abuse for disabled people, and challenging its wider social causes.

Disabled people's experiences of harassment and victimisation: an evidence review

1. Executive summary

1.1 Methodology

1.2 Summary of findings

2. Introduction

2.1 Methodology

2.2 Limitations

2.3 Policy context

3. Findings

4. Hate crime and bullying

5. Domestic and intimate violence

6. Child abuse

7. Adult safeguarding

8. Conclusion

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

1. Executive summary

1.1 Methodology

1.2 Summary of findings

2. Introduction

2.1 Methodology

2.2 Limitations

2.3 Policy context

3. Findings

4. Hate crime and bullying

5. Domestic and intimate violence

6. Child abuse

7. Adult safeguarding

8. Conclusion

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK