BCIFV home > Newsletter > 2003 Archives > Spring 2003 articles

Violence Against Women with Disabilities:

A Research Overview of the Last Decade

Monika Chappell

It is common knowledge that violence against women is widespread and pervasive in Canadian society. Over the past 25 years many research studies, surveys, and statistical analyses have been conducted, and still take place, on the problem of violence against women. However, very little parallel research has taken place concerning women with disabilities. As noted human rights lawyer, Yvonne Peters reported in “The Silent Epidemic”:

The abuse and exploitation of women with disabilities has been tagged the silent epidemic. Silent because it is not very often talked about and has not been identified as a serious or significant issue. Epidemic because the more the surface is scratched, the more women are coming forward with personal testimonies of abuse and humiliation. (Peters, 1992)

Statistics Canada (1994) reported that close to 16 percent of women in Canada have disabilities and that there are 2,061,280 females over the age of 15 with disabilities in Canada. (1994) In 1993, Statistics Canada reported that 51 percent of Canadian women had experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16, ranging from unwanted sexual touching to violent sexual assault. (1993)

It is likely that this survey under-reported the incidence of violence against women with disabilities, as it was restricted to women living in households, that had a phone, and who could communicate in French or English.

These restrictions excluded many women with disabilities who live in institutions. More than two-thirds of the country’s population living in institutions are women (174,827 women). (Statistics Canada, 1994) As well, more than twice as many women with disabilities (Statistics Canada, 1994) as non-disabled women (Statistics Canada, 1993) (six percent v. three percent) have difficulty communicating or communicate in languages other than English or French, communicate through alternate methods such as a Bliss board or American Sign Language, or rely on family members who have learned to understand them.

At the inaugural meeting of DAWN Canada in 1985, Canadian women with disabilities identified violence as one of the top issues facing them. Initial DAWN Canada research in 1988 showed that 40 percent of women with disabilities had been raped, abused or assaulted. (Ridington, 1989) Subsequent DAWN Canada research has shown that although women with disabilities constituted 12.9 percent of the population, up to 40 percent have experienced some form of violence. (Masuda and Ridington, 1992) In Don’t Tell Me to Take a Hot Bath, DAWN Canada reported that 51.1 percent of all women with disabilities experienced sexual abuse, 50.8 percent experienced physical abuse, 66.3 percent experienced emotional abuse, and 52.3 percent experienced three or more forms of abuse. (Masuda, 1995)

In 1986, Hard conducted a study of adults with developmental disabilities at a work activity centre, which showed that 83 percent of the women had experienced sexual abuse and 99 percent had been victimized by a perpetrator known to them. (Senn, 1988, p. 5) Sobsey (2000) reported that women with developmental disabilities are four to 10 times as likely to be sexually assaulted as other women. In 1992, Wilson and Brewer reported that women with developmental disabilities were 10.7 times as likely to be sexually assaulted as other women. Other researchers suggest that as many as nine out of ten women with developmental disabilities will experience a sexual assault at some time. (Sobsey, 2000)

These figures are similar to rates reported for women with psychiatric disabilities: 83 percent of women with psychiatric disabilities who are institutionalized are likely to experience some form of violence, versus 68 percent of their counterparts living in the community. (Stimpson and Best, 1991)

Firsten’s study (1991) of 85 women in five Toronto psychiatric hospitals showed that 83 percent of the women reported severe sexual or physical abuse in childhood and/or adulthood. Fifty-seven percent and 37 percent, respectively reported childhood physical and sexual abuse. As adults, 60 percent reported physical assault and 38 percent reported rape or attempted rape. Almost one-third reported that they had been physically or sexually assaulted while in hospital. The majority of sexual assaults in hospital were by male co-patients.

Sobsey (1988) reported that women with disabilities have a 50 percent greater risk of sexual assault or sexual abuse than non-disabled women, while the Roeher Institute (1995) reported that 60 percent of women with disabilities were likely to experience some form of violence in the course of their adult lives, versus 50 percent of women without disabilities. A recent national US study conducted by the Center for Research in Women with Disabilities found that 62 percent of a national sample of women with physical disabilities reported having experienced emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. The same percentage of women without disabilities in a comparison group also reported abuse, but the women with disabilities had experienced abuse for longer periods of time. (Young et al, 1997)

Sobsey and Doe (1991) concluded that children and adults with disabilities are sexually abused and assaulted at higher rates than people with no disabilities. In their 1991 study of 166 reports involving victims with disabilities, 81.7 percent of those victims were women or girls. Of the total sample, 49.6 percent experienced abuse on more than ten occasions while 20.4 percent experienced abuse between two and ten times.

Doucette’s (1986) early study found that women with various kinds of disabilities were one-and-a-half times as likely to have been sexually abused as children as women without disabilities, and the McCreary Centre Society reported in 1993 that children with disabilities are from one-and-a-half to five times as likely as other children to experience sexual abuse.

DAWN Canada’s early research revealed the extent and kinds of abuse experienced by women with disabilities. Subsequent research in the US and Australia (Howe, 2000) has supported the finding that women with disabilities face an epidemic of monumental proportions.

Increasing Levels of Vulnerability

All women are vulnerable to violence regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, ability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or economic status. However, the risk and impact associated with violence is compounded if a woman is socially marginalized or living in poverty. (Gurr et al, 1996) Women with serious mental health issues are doubly at risk due to their illness and their social and living situations. (Anderson and Chiochio, 1997)

As well, the definition of family for women with disabilities includes caregivers, home makers, and hospital/institutional workers. Physical and economic dependence on caregivers and the large numbers of persons within our families are major contributing factors to the high incidence of abuse. Husbands and parents are the most common perpetrators of abuse for women with disabilities. (Nosek and Howland, 1998; Firsten, 1991) Women with disabilities are most likely to experience emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of attendants and health care workers. (Anderson and Chiochio,1997; Sobsey, 2000) In 1991, McPherson wrote that, “The reasons women with disabilities are more likely to be assaulted have less to do with their actual disability than with the large number of people who have contact with them in their intimate circle of acquaintances.” (1991a)

In addition, many women face difficulties around disclosing and leaving abusive situations, such as:

· thinking it is their fault
· thinking they deserve it
· being afraid of economic and/or physical consequences
· feeling shame
· having difficulty resulting from religious beliefs and traditional marriage values

Many women with disabilities also face the very real fear of losing their children, the possibility of losing homemaker or other support services, the probability of losing the only home that can accommodate their needs, and the near certainty that without the abusive caregiver their needs will go unmet due to the inaccessibility of support systems. The types of abuse experienced by women with disabilities are also greater than their non-disabled counterparts because, in addition to the abuses by all women, women with disabilities may experience abuses such as the withholding of needed orthotic equipment (wheelchairs, braces), medications, transportation, or essential assistance with personal tasks, such as dressing or getting out of bed. (Roeher Institute, 1995)

Other factors contributing to the immense difficulty facing women with disabilities when considering disclosure or leaving abusive situations are consequences of mainstream attitudes, such as commonly held societal myths; negative attitudes and fear of difference; widespread and mostly unacknowledged systemic discrimination; and sheer lack of accessible services. Damaging mainstream attitudes and myths include:

· women with disabilities are asexual
· if we are sexually assaulted we should be grateful for the attention
· our partners are “heroes” for sticking around to take care of us
· we should be grateful for any accommodation taken to address our needs
· women with disabilities don’t have families, or if we do have children, we are barely, if at all, able to care for them
· the word “woman” means a white, middle-class, non-disabled, heterosexual woman, who is not too old, and is at the peak of her earning power, an assumption that is evident given that any time we refer to women who do not fit the foregoing description, we specifically need to identify them.

Compounding the foregoing are the additional realities that women with disabilities tend to experience higher rates of poverty, greater isolation, more difficulty communicating with people and/or being believed than non-disabled women, as well as low levels of self-esteem.

In 1991, McPherson wrote:

Why are women with disabilities more vulnerable to assault and rape than non-disabled women? Although the nature of the disability may make it more difficult for some women to fight back, there are many other reasons why women with disabilities are victims of abuse.

Families with disabled members may unwittingly begin to abuse because they have few respite or support care services to fall back on...Very little sex education is provided...which makes it difficult to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate touching and other types of behaviour.

Another major problem is women with disabilities are often taught to do as they are told. They don't learn when they should speak up. And if they do speak up they stand to lose a great deal – their services or their accommodations or housing.

Finally some people deliberately assault women with disabilities ...because they know they will either have difficulty reporting it to the police and/or have little credibility as witnesses in the justice system." (1991b)

Criminal Justice System

Historically, women with disabilities have had to struggle against widespread discrimination in the criminal justice system, which is sometimes subtly hidden and other times overt. This has not changed. There are many levels to the criminal justice system and each one has its own tests that discourage women with disabilities from striving to attain justice.

Cases involving women with disabilities often require extra time and effort and accommodation of their needs. In this time of budget restrictions, these cases can be lost in the system while easier cases are dealt with. McPherson (1991a) wrote:

But those of us who deal with the justice system as advocates for people with disabilities can see how difficult it is to get a case through this system when you have court backlogs and financial restraints piled on top of these restrictions. Add on discrimination and a lack of understanding about disabilities and you’ve got some formidable barriers.

Fear of not being believed is a very real issue. Research has shown that women with disabilities who seek help are even less likely to be believed than non-disabled women. Factors influencing this include:

· the inaccessibility of helping systems (since accessibility goes far beyond whether a facility has a wheelchair ramp or not)
· the credibility of women with disabilities as witnesses
· current laws of evidence, which often ensure the likelihood of charges being dropped or dismissed
· systemic gender bias in our society

Hard reported that of 64 percent of women interviewed who told someone about the abuse they were experiencing (compared to 40 percent of the men), slightly over half the women were not believed while all of the men were. Of the women who disclosed and were believed, 75 percent had the abuse stopped. In all of the cases involving men, the abuse was stopped. In the cases of the women who were not believed, 55 percent experienced continued abuse. (Senn, 1988) Firsten (1991) reported that close to half of the patients in her study had not had the reported abuse documented in their charts. Sobsey (1990) found that only 23 percent of disclosed cases resulted in charges being filed, and only six percent of these led to convictions. The reason for not pressing charges was that the victim was not a credible witness.

McPherson (1991a) wrote that most abuse cases she has seen involved women with developmental disabilities who had advocates. She described the obstacles women with disabilities face when trying to have our cases taken seriously and concluded that it is not surprising that only about 20 percent of women with disabilities complain, and drew a link between having an advocate and having a case heard.

Women with disabilities present some unique challenges to the legal system. How does the presiding judge hear the evidence of a witness who is a woman in a wheelchair when the courthouse is not accessible? How does a judge determine the competency of a woman with an intellectual disability? How does a judge determine whether an interpreter is credible? How does one hear evidence from a woman who is profoundly deaf? What impact will a judge’s decision have on a woman with a learning disability? What factors will a judge need to hear about to decide whether to award custody to a woman who is labelled mentally handicapped? How will the judge determine a damage award that accurately reflects the poverty and accessibility needs of a woman with disabilities? How does a woman who cannot speak communicate her non-compliance with sexual acts? Which accessible services are available and just what does access mean? Should a judge ever agree to a sterilization order? How does the right to die with dignity apply and is this reflected in the court system?

Women with disabilities must work in partnership with the system to help answer these and other questions so that the system can become more accessible and support equitable access to justice. At the conclusion of Responding to the Abuse of People with Disabilities McPherson (1990) wrote:

Victims with disabilities should be supported and encouraged to use the justice system. Using the law can help to empower people with disabilities who have been victimized and give them the opportunity to feel validated and vindicated. It can lead to the punishment of abusers and may deter them from abusing others. It indicates to abusers and the community that “we mean business” and helps to educate courts and the public that the abuse of people with disabilities is a problem which must be taken seriously.

Until very recently, women with disabilities were completely left out. Even now, women with disabilities are most often not referred to or are paid lip service while the “real” issue is discussed. There is still relatively little research done on the issue of violence in the lives of women with disabilities when compared to the research done for all women. A 1996 survey asked women with a variety of disabilities to rank the most important research topics affecting their lives: 92 percent ranked violence as their top priority. (Doe, 1997)

The evidence is clear: there is an epidemic of violence in our lives. The challenge is changing that. In order to change, more information is needed in several areas. Anti-violence services and government have to develop active partnerships with women with disabilities that seek their input into services. Information regarding where and how to find accessible services must be disseminated in accessible formats. Research must be conducted into effective interventions and resources for women with different types of disabilities and from different backgrounds. Nosek (1998) said it well:

"We must know more about interventions that are effective for women with disabilities. Considerable work has been done in this area for women in general; however, many of the recommended strategies are not feasible for women with disabilities. Few of the strategies listed in classic safety plans are possible for women who must depend on their abuser to get them out of bed in the morning, dress them, and feed them."

What women with disabilities need is information, because information is power. With information, women with disabilities can have the power to change their lives, and change society.

Monika Chappell is a community-based researcher and an Aboriginal lesbian with multiple disabilities. She is a Forestry Technologist who learned from the ground up how to conduct research into the lives of women with disabilities. She has been active with DAWN Canada since 1993, was a founding member of Pacific DAWN, is the Chair of the Women's Mental Health Discussion Group of the BC Centre of Excellence for Women's Health, and is the Executive Director of Youthquest! This article was adapted from her report DAWN Canada's Safety Net/Work Policing and Justice Report Responding to Violence Against Women with Disabilities: An Assessment of Judicial Training Needs, Vancouver BC: DAWN Canada, 1995.

Sources

Anderson C and Chiocchio K (1997) “The interface of homelessness, addictions and mental illness in the lives of trauma survivors,” in Harris M and Landis C, ed’s, Sexual Abuse in the Lives of Women Diagnosed with Serious Mental Illness.
Doe, T (1997) “Violence tops agenda for women with disabilities,” in Contemporary Women’s Issues Database, December.
Doucette, J (1986) Violent Acts Against Disabled Women, Edmonton: Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped.
Firsten, T (1991) “Violence in the lives of women on psych wards,” in Canadian Woman Studies, 11(4).
Gurr J, Mailloux L, and Kinnon D (1996) Breaking the Links Between Poverty and Violence Against Women, Ottawa: Health Canada.
Howe, K (2000) Violence Against Women with Disabilities – An Overview of the Literature. (downloaded from the internet 06.02.03 at http://www.wwda.org.au/keran.htm, 2000.)
McCreary Centre Society (1993) Sexual Abuse and Young People with Disabilities, Vancouver: New Leaf Publishing.
McPherson, C (1990) Responding to the Abuse of People with Disabilities, Toronto: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped.
McPherson, C (1991a) “Violence against women with disabilities: out of sight, out of mind,” in Canadian Woman Studies, North York: York University, 11(4).
McPherson, C (1991b) “Tackling violence against women with disabilities,” in Canadian Woman Studies, North York: York University, 12(1).
Masuda, S (1995) Don't Tell Me To Take A Hot Bath, Vancouver: DAWN Canada.
Masuda. S and Ridington. J (1992) Meeting Our Needs: An Access Manual for Transition Houses. Vancouver: DAWN Canada.
Nosek, M and Howland, C (1998) Abuse and Women with Disabilities. (Downloaded from the Internet 09.02.03 at http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/disab/disab.html,1998.)
Peters, Y (1992) “The silent epidemic,” in Violence & Women with Disabilities, Vancouver: Transition.
Ridington, J (1989) Beating the "Odds”: Violence and Women with Disabilities, Vancouver: DAWN Canada.
Roeher Institute (1995) Harm’s Way: The Many Faces of Violence and Abuse Against Persons with Disabilities, Toronto.
Young, ME et al, (1997) “Prevalence of abuse of women with physical disabilities,” in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Special Issue, 78(12), Suppl. 5: S34-S38, reported in Nosek, M. and Howland, C. Abuse and Women with Disabilities. (Downloaded from the Internet 09.02.03 at http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/disab/disab.html, 1998)
Senn, C (1988) Vulnerable: sexual abuse and people with an intellectual handicap, Downsview, ON: G. Allen Roeher Institute.
Sobsey, D (1988) “Sexual offence and disabled victims: research and practical implications,” in Vis-a-Vis: A National Newsletter on Family Violence, 6(4).
Sobsey, D, and Varnhagan, C (1990) Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of People with Disabilities, Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Sobsey, D, and Doe, T (1991) “Patterns of sexual abuse and assault,” Sexuality and Disability, 9(3):243-260.
Sobsey, D (2000) “Faces of violence against women with developmental disabilities,” in Abramson, W et al, Impact: Feature Issue on Violence Against Women with Developmental or Other Disabilities, 13(3). (Available at http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/133/.)
Statistics Canada (1993) The Violence Against Women Survey, Ottawa.
Statistics Canada (1994) Selected Characteristics of Persons with Disabilities Residing in Households 1991 Health and Limitation Survey, Ottawa.
Stimpson, L and Best, MC (1991) Courage Above All: Sexual Assault of Women with Disabilities Toronto: DAWN Canada.