Heterogeneity of Disabilities and the Consequences of Victimization: Findings from a Nationally Representative Sample

Abstract

Much remains unknown about how disability intersects with victimization. Relying on data from the 2016- 2019 nationally representative self-reported National Crime Victimization Survey, we examine if type of disability is associated with different health outcomes when someone is violently victimized. Through logistic regressions, we examine if the individual is injured (or not) and, among those injured, examine if they had a severe injury. In addition, we assess self-reported general mental distress (multinomial logistic regression) and self-reported mental distress symptoms (negative binomial model). Persons with physical disabilities have higher odds of being injured. Among those with a physical injury, persons with cognitive disabilities had higher odds of experiencing a severe injury. Victims with cognitive disabilities had greater mental distress and deaf victims had less mental distress. Implications for the healthcare and criminal legal systems are discussed.

Keywords:

• Disabilities
• victimization
• NCVS
• mental health
• physical health

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Based on this conceptualization, according to the NCVS, cognitive disabilities includes both learning and mental disabilities, which have been treated as distinct types of disabilities in prior research (Reyns & Scherer, 2018).

2 Prior to 2016, disability status was included as a follow-up question to victimization. As of 2016, a general screener question was added to capture if the respondent had a disability. Because of potential threats to validity, the current study focuses on data from 2016 – 2019.

3 The NCVS includes weights to derive nationally representative estimates of victimization. However, their use in regression analyses within incidents can sometimes pose problems for analyses. Specifically, in this study, the excessive number of singleton PSUs and missing person-level weights require substantial adjustment to models and loss of cases. Sensitivity analyses were conducted including a series of binary indicators for the year of the interview to incorporate temporal changes. Results were substantively the same. Therefore, weights were not included.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Brittany E. Hayes

Brittany E. Hayes, (Ph.D., John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. Her research centers on victimization as well as how the broader social context influences individuals’ perceptions and behaviors. Her work has been published in the American Sociological Review, Crime & Delinquency, and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

Ráchael A. Powers

Ráchael A. Powers, (PhD., School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany) is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida. Her research interests center around violent victimization with a focus on gender-based violence and hate crime. Her recent work has appeared in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, among other outlets.