Spring 2015 Issue - SJR

1 The Social Justice Review

THE

SOCIAL

VOL. 1 no. 1 Spring 2015

JUSTICE

REVIEW FEATURING 10 Things I Have Learned

Since I Have Met Social Justice

Separate & Unequal: Crack Cocaine Policy

in the U.S. War on Drugs

Two Faces:

A Poem on the Cultural Stigma Surrounding Mental Illness

Women With Disabilities & Domestic Violence: Sponsored By

A Neglected Problem

This journal is dedicated to those around the world who, when faced with injustice, do not turn away.

3 The Social Justice Review

Social Justice Review Staff

Editor-in-Chief: Matthew Prusak

Editorial Board: Orli Robin Mushfiqur Chowdhury Anna Silk Maggie Deagon Marina Kay Layout: Serene Boachie Jane Byon Jamaal Armstrong Cover: Serene Boachie & Jane Byon Photography: Sara Ma

CopyrightŠ 2015 Social Justice Review All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without the express written consent of the Social Justice Review.

Views expressed in this journal are solely those of the authors themselves and do not necessarily represent those of the editorial board, faculty advisors, or the University of Southern California

4 The Social Justice Review

Editor’s Note: Dear Reader, It is with great pleasure that I introduce the inaugural issue of the Social Justice Review (SJR). This first volume, a product of a year’s worth of ingenuity and determination by its editorial board, stands as a testament to the efforts of undergraduates in advocating for social justice. From day one, our mission was to provide a platform for social justice-minded undergraduate scholars and thinkers to spread their work to a larger audience. Nearly a year later, we are proud of our progress in achieving this goal.

Over the past year I have had the privilege of working with an incredibly talented team. Their combined effort, from the envisioning of our mission to the colors of our layout, is woven into every page of our final product. Their hard work and steadfast dedication has produced a quality journal we are singularly proud of. When it came to submission time, the outpouring of work from universities around the country stunned us. We hope that our selection in turn stuns you.

If there is a theme that carries through all of our pieces this semester, it is an investigation into the nature of identity – whether as global citizens or in how we cope with the struggles of daily life.

Our authors bring to the surface topics that our readers may be unfamiliar with. Since the time of Plato, people have asked each other about the nature of justice. In this first issue, we aim to provide you with a richly thematic selection of the social issues in our time.

In the creation of this issue, the SJR is extremely appreciative of the supportive role that the University of Southern California’s Levan Institute for Humanities and Ethics. The institute’s director, Dr. Lyn Boyd-Judson, and the rest of the staff gave us the guidance we needed to grow from idea to organization.

Inherent to every social justice issue is a call for action. We hope that in reading this issue, you respond to that call in whatever way you engage with the world. There is no question that engaging in making the community a better place is essential to achieving a socially just world. Indeed, it may be the only thing that ever has.

Sincerely, Matthew Prusak Editor-in-Chief

5 The Social Justice Review

Table of contents 06 08

Two Faces

20

Fatherhood

22

Separate & Unequal: Crack Cocaine Policy in the U.S War on Drugs

32

Comprehensive Review of The Whole Question of Peace-Keeping Operations in All Their Aspects

38

Women With Disabilities & Domestic Violence: A Neglected Problem

64

10 Things I Have Learned Since I Have Met Social Justice

Family Matters: Religion and the “Rehumanization� of the Disabled in Romania

6 The Social Justice Review

“兩面/ Two Faces” began as an exploration of my individual identity as an Asian American dealing with mental illness within my family.

Growing up, the Chinese social concept of preserving “face,” or respectability, was a pervasive force that guided many of my family’s behaviors and further stigmatized my father’s mental illness by discouraging us from ever speaking about the experience. This is a phenomenon that I have learned is not uncommon within Asian American families. In writing “兩面/ Two Faces,” I attempted to examine the duality of exterior vs. interior social identity while reconciling this idea with my personal Asian American experience. In the end, I find that compassion towards those around us and towards oneself is the only way to make our “two faces” one that is whole and unbroken.

- Janis Yue

Janis Yue is a junior majoring in Neuroscience and minoring in Spanish at the University of Southern California. She is the President of USC Medlife, the Editor-in-Chief of The USC Healing Process, a research assistant at the USC Twin Study, and a resident assistant at Trojan Hall. Her academic interests include the study of mental illness and neurological disorders, health disparities, and the humanities and ethics of medicine. In her free time, Janis enjoys writing songs, hiking, exploring new restaurants, and making lists.

7 The Social Justice Review

兩面 He is part computer science nerd Part gentle giant.

He is the man who always lowers his Window to give another soul A couple crumpled bills.

“Never forget those less fortunate,” He says.

He is riding away on Coltrane’s blue train tonight.

He is my father.

She is a vicious tiger Bringing only the best back to her four cubs.

She is spring onion pancakes, Fried rice with ketchup, A pork bun of mediocre construction.

“Just do your best,’ She says After I’ve failed cataclysmically And she’s scolded me for hours on end.

She is my mother.

I am almond eyes, A sensitive heart, a crooked smile.

I try not to forget those Less fortunate and I try To just do my best, Though I may fail At both sometimes.

I am a reflection Of the world around me.

I am me.

two faces He is anger, Sadness in its purest form.

He is shattered glass, Two police cars, and a voice Telling me to go to hell.

“We’re all losers,” He says.

He is two lithium pills daily, a suicide wish unfulfilled but looming, always.

He is bipolar. He is my father.

She is the Asian tiger mom, Teaching us that our silence is golden.

She is “no cartoons on weekdays,” “no movies with friend,” “no sleepovers.”

“Mei you mian zi,” She says After my father’s diagnosis.

No face, only shame.

She is my mother.

And I am silent For a while.

I am uncomfortable with living In my own Blemished skin at times.

“But it’s okay,” I say To my mother and father, For these are two faces I love to love.

I am me, I shout.

I can only be me.

8 The Social Justice Review

Family Matters

9 The Social Justice Review

Religion and the “Rehumanization” of the Disabled in Romania Nathaniel A. Hsieh Joshua T. Romanu

University of Southern California

Abstract: This research focuses on the role of religion in the “rehumanization” of the disabled in Romania. In light of the dehumanizing policies and practices of Nicolae Ceausescu’s communist regime, we explore several religious organizations working to bring holistic restoration to the disabled. We also analyze the potential of religious communities to facilitate authentic integration, noting specifically the paradigm of family-like relationships and community as the ultimate realization of one’s humanity.

10 The Social Justice Review

Introduction and Overview Ceausescu’s Legacy The world watched in horror as journalists and reporters uncovered the plight of Romania’s orphans following the revolution of 1989 that deposed of communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Shortly after becoming Secretary General of the Romanian Communist Party in 1965, Ceausescu instituted a series of “pronatal” policies incentivizing childbirth, banning contraceptives, outlawing abortion, and taxing childless couples in order to increase the population growth rate which had dipped to six per thousand births over deaths in 1965. While initially successful as the number of births over deaths jumped to 18 per thousand by 1967, many families were not willing or able to care for so many children, and consequently many children were placed in state-run orphanages and institutions.1 Children with physical and mental disabilities were disproportionately represented among these children as parents routinely chose to keep able-bodied children over handicapped children when forced to make such a decision. As revealed in a study by Harvard Medical School researcher Mary Carlson, disability was further woven into the fabric of these orphanages as otherwisetypical children developed physical, intellectual, and social disabilities because of the stark conditions of the institutions.2

Dehumanization of the “Unsalvageable” Described as “breathtakingly awful” by Harvard Medical School Professor Charles Nelson, the world stood in disbelief as stories and images emerged from these state-run institutions, giving the outside world its first look inside Romania’s orphanages.3 Under Ceausescu’s regime, a three-tiered system of institutions was established in which after the age of three children were divided into three groups: the normal, those with minor disabilities, and those with handicaps so profound as to render them “unsalvageable.”4 1 Romania’s Orphans: A Legacy of Repression. Rep. 15th ed. Vol. 2.

Helsinki: News from Helsinki Watch, 1990. Human Rights Watch, 01 Dec. 1990. Web. 01 July 2013.

2 Carlson, Mary, and Felton Earls. “Psychological and Neuroendocrinological Sequelae of Early Social Deprivation in Institutionalized Children in Romania.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 807.1 Integrative N (1997): 419-28. Print.

3 Powell, Alvin. “‘Breathtakingly Awful’.” Harvard Gazette. Harvard University, 05 Oct. 2010. Web. 02 July 2013.

4 Johnson, Alice K., and Victor Groze. “The Orphaned and Institutionalized Children of Romania.” Journal of Emotional and

The conditions inside these institutions for the “unsalvageable” were shocking, as uncovered by an ABC 20/20 documentary aired in October 1990; it was impossible to deny that such segregation specifically discriminated against those affected by disability. In an article for the Daily Telegraph, reporter Angela Levin describes the conditions of such institutions as “inappropriate even for animals.” She continues by saying, “The treatment to which [those with physical and mental disabilities] are subjected ‘takes your breath away’…children are restrained to their miserable beds, no one cares about their crying, while the stench of urine and feces is overwhelming.”5 In one of the institutions 20/20 visited, ABC reports that orphans were stacked on the shelves of a cart “like loaves of bread.”6 While the physical conditions of the institutions themselves proved dehumanizing, the motivation for relegating the severely disabled to their own institutions is even more revealing. Far from an effort to provide needspecific care and treatment, such a system was an attempt to hide away the handicapped completely. The disabled clearly had no place in Ceausescu’s communist vision for a utopian society driven by the new man, and thus the state ignored the disabled and went so far as to deny their very existence. Joni Eareckson Tada, founder and CEO of the world’s largest Christian ministry for the disabled, recalls that during her first visit to Romania in 1982 she was flatly told, “Romania had no people with disabilities.”7 Dehumanization is understood to be that which deprives an individual of “human qualities, personality, or spirit,” and thus it is clear that the disabled in Romania were victims of systematic dehumanization.8 It is with this historical understanding that we seek to explore the concept of holistic “rehumanization,” focusing specifically on the role of religion in the process.

Unpacking “Rehumanizaiton” While not a dictionary term, “rehumanization” simply refers to the “reversal of dehumanization” and encompasses the processes by which essential human qualities are affirmed and restored in individuals and Behavioral Problems 2.4 (1994): 49-52.

5 Levin, Angela. “My Glimpse of Hell and the Pitiful Children Who Have Been Betrayed.” The Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph, 10 Nov. 2010.

Web. 02 July 2013.

6 “Inhumane Conditions For Romania’s Lost Generation.” ABC News.

ABC News Network, 06 June 2000. Web. 02 July 2013.

7 Tada, Joni E. “Romania.” Message to the author. 03 June 2013. E-mail.

8 “Dehumanize.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 02 July 2013.

11 The Social Justice Review communities.9 Throughout our research we approached the concept of “rehumanization” holistically with the understanding that the qualities that make an individual human are complex and many. In this study, however, we distill the concept of “rehumanization” into two primary components: 1) the restoration of basic human rights allowing for physical and personal wellbeing and 2) the integration of individuals into community allowing for the relationships and sense of societal belonging that make one’s existence distinctly human.

While many factors have and continue to contribute to the “rehumanization” of the disabled in Romania, our research focuses primarily on the unique role of religion in this process. In a recent Gallup poll, Romania is reported to be the sixth most religious nation in the world with 89% of citizens identifying themselves as religious. It is thus evident that religion is an integral part of Romanian culture and plays a significant role in shaping societal awareness and action.10 Specifically, our research focuses on religious ideology and how theological and doctrinal beliefs influence perceptions of the disabled as well as analyzing what various faith communities are doing to reach out to those affected by disability.

Methodology Research was conducted over the course of almost four weeks through interviews and general observation in the cities of Timisoara, Arad, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Brasov, Harghita, and Bucharest. Interviews were conducted with pastors, priests, church leaders, health workers, educators, directors of non-profit organizations, and various individuals involved with religious and disabled communities. Though one researcher is fluent in Romanian and translated most interviews, others were conducted in English when interviewees were fluent. Lastly, the research team volunteered at a retreat for families affected by disability that was sponsored

by Joni and Friends—the world’s largest Christian organization specifically serving those affected by disability. The retreat was held in Harghita County and involved twelve families affected by disability and four disabled orphan children from the city of Brasov.

9 Oelofsen, Rianna. “De- and Rehumanization in the Wake of Atrocities.” South African Journal of Philosophy 28.2 (2009): 178-88.

Print.

10 “Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism.” Www.wingia.com. WINGallup International, 27 July 2012. Web. 02 July 2013.

Restoration The first stage of “rehumanization” this paper will focus on is the restoration of basic human rights that secure the physical and personal wellbeing of individuals affected by disability. As discussed, such rights were systematically denied to many disabled individuals under communism and thus the restoration of these rights was and continues to be a complex and incremental process. The government plays a significant role in effecting such change and has enacted policy affirming the rights of disabled individuals. Such reform was required in order to meet certain standards required for admittance to the European Union.

For instance, the 1991 Constitution of Romania was amended to include clauses like Article 50 of Chapter II, which states, “Disabled persons shall enjoy special protection. The State shall provide the accomplishment of a national policy of equal opportunities, disability prevention and treatment, so that disabled persons can effectively participate in community life, while observing the rights and duties of their parents or legal guardians.”11 While the government has enacted policy affirming the rights of the disabled, the implementation of such policy has been inconsistent at best. According to Mihai Fighir, president of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Arad, the government does very little on its own to actualize the rights of the disabled. Even in terms of handicapped parking and the accessibility of public buildings, Fighir says he has had to petition and fight the city to make the changes the law requires.12 Without belaboring the limitations of the government, it is clear that private organizations have also played a central role in the restoration process. Religious organizations specifically have led the charge in creating and implementing strategies to holistically care for disabled individuals and affirm their worth and humanity. This paper will examine three such organizations by way of example, taking note of specific ideological motivation, strategic partnerships, and the overall restorative impact of their programs.

Onesimus Brothers House Located in the city of Timisoara, the Onesimus Brothers House was established in 1992 as a ministry of the interdenominational Christian organization Jesus the Hope of Romania (JHOR). Founded in 1991, JHOR 11 Romania Const. art. 50 §2 12 Fighir, Mihai and Gabriel Dronca. Personal interview. 08 June 2013.

12 The Social Justice Review carries out a variety of humanitarian projects to aid the socially disadvantaged in Romania – from street children to the elderly. While the Onesimus House was originally started to reach at-risk teenage boys, it is now home to orphaned, abandoned, and at-risk boys and girls, many of whom are affected by disability.13 According to Pastor Laurentiu Timis, Executive Director of JHOR, the Onesimus House is the only Christian orphanage in Timis County and is extremely distinct from the other 14 state-run orphanages in the county. “The government’s job is to take care of everyone, but they don’t because it too easily becomes about the salary and not compassion,” Pastor Timis said.

“With the church there is a mandate, but there is also a reward,” he explained, “which causes people to be more invested and involved.” Beyond there being a distinct personal dimension in caring for the physical needs of the disadvantaged and disabled, JHOR believes that all human beings are also spiritual, and thus spiritual care and restoration is just as critical as providing for physical needs.

Pastor Timis told the story of a young boy named Alex who, at the age of four, was sent by his mother on a one-way train to Timisoara with nothing but two sandwiches. Upon his arrival, he began to wander the streets of Timisoara and before long was captured by a gypsy family that forced him to beg on the streets for two years. However, Alex learned about the Onesimus House, and one day found a way to escape. “Abandonment is a disability,” Pastor Timis stated and recalled that when Alex first came to the Onesimus House he was traumatized to the point of being disabled.14 In addition to emotional trauma, Alex would shake and could not stand still. According to Pastor Timis, it was not until Alex found spiritual peace in giving his life to God that the holistic restoration process could commence. After this conversion experience, Alex began to experience healing through the physical care and personal counseling he received and was able to finish his education. Ultimately, things came full circle and Alex returned to the Onesimus House to work and help those who suffered from the debilitating trauma of abandonment.

The Onesimus House is a prime example of the role religion plays in the “rehumanization” of the disabled 13 “Our Projects: Onesimus Brothers House.” Isus Speranta Romaniei 2011: 7. Print.

14 Timis, Laurentiu. Personal interview. 01 June 2013.

in that distinctly religious ideology is the motivating force behind the very existence of JHOR. In addition to disabled children living in the Onesimus House, JHOR also reaches disabled women and the elderly through the Bethany House, a ministry that began with Dutch funds, all in accordance with its “missionary purpose” of “organizing and leading actions in the area of protection and support of disfavored families” for the “moral and spiritual wakening of Romania.”15 While the Onesimus House recently received a small grant from the government, most support comes from private donors and supporters. The Onesimus House holds to a policy of quality over quantity and although it does not reach as many children as a state-run orphanage would, it ensures that every child experiences holistic restoration and healing.

Caritatea Located in the city of Cluj-Napoca, Caritatea began when a group of disabled individuals began meeting in June 1993. What started as the vision of a few individuals quickly grew into an extensive ministry, and now Caritatea – the Romanian word for “charity”— is home to various small “centers” which focus on serving disabled individuals in a variety of ways. The Center for Sport and Health, focuses on meeting the physical needs of the disabled and is equipped with exercise bars and a small tennis court to encourage healthy living and recreation. Christian therapists and masseuses also volunteer their time to help those that come to the center. The Mephibosheth Center focuses on the spiritual health and development of the disabled and holds weekly prayer meetings and church services tailored specifically to those with special needs. The last center is the Distribution Center, where wheelchairs are refurbished and distributed to disabled individuals in Cluj-Napoca and the surrounding communities. In addition to receiving wheelchairs, disabled individuals are also given Bibles and Christian materials.

The Distribution Center is the result of a longstanding partnership between Caritatea and Joni and Friends, specifically Joni and Friends’ Wheels for the World program. As mentioned, Joni and Friends is an international Christian ministry serving the disabled and has been partnering with Caritatea since 1995 when it held its first Wheels for the World outreach in Romania. According to Caritatea Executive Director 15 “About.” http://www.isussperantaromaniei.ro. Isus Speranta Romaniei, Web. 08 July 2013.

13 The Social Justice Review Iosif Maluntan, partnering with such an extensive and established international organization has been critical in providing structure for Caritatea’s own programs. In addition to its involvement with Wheels for the World, Caritatea collaborates with Joni and Friends to organize family retreats for local families affected by disability and also uses the “Beyond Suffering” curriculum produced by Joni and Friends to give those involved with disability ministry training in the theology of suffering. “‘Beyond Suffering’ is really the perfect course book for training people how to deal with the handicapped,” Maluntan said.16 The collaboration between Caritatea and Joni and Friends exemplifies the potential and efficacy of international partnerships made possible through shared religious beliefs. Although Caritatea is undoubtedly an independent organization with its own programs, its partnership with Joni and Friends has been formative in shaping its approach to the holistic restoration of the disabled.

Romanian Christian Enterprises Located in the city of Arad, the Darius Houses, Sunshine Schools, and Amy’s House all serve abandoned children and youth with special needs. These various programs are ministries of Romanian Christian Enterprises (RCE), an organization committed to “making mercy happen by preventing poverty, restoring abandoned children to families, and providing comprehensive care for children with disabilities.”17 The distinct goal of RCE is adoption and placing abandoned special needs children in Christian families. “The Bible doesn’t say anything about orphanages because God’s ideal design is for every child to be raised in the context of a family,” Ovidiu Martin, General Director of RCE, said.18 This emphasis on giving abandoned special needs children the opportunity to be adopted by Christian families is central to RCE’s mission and has determined the structure of its ministries.

Opened in 2000, the Darius House is a recuperative group home for abandoned disabled children. While the general purpose of the house is similar to state institutions that also care for the disabled in residential settings, the programs of the Darius House have proven so effective that the government asked RCE to manage the group homes right next to the original Darius 16 Maluntan, Iosif. Personal interview. 12 June 2013.

17 “Romanian Christian Enterprises.” www.rcenterprises.org. Romanian Christian Enterprises, Web. 09 July 2013.

18 Bocsa, Mihai and Ovidiu Martin. Personal interview. 07 June 2013.

House. Now three houses with ten children each, the Darius Houses continue to provide abandoned special needs children with personal restorative care all with the ultimate goal of placing each child in a Christian family through adoption. Once the staff at the Darius Houses realized how quickly the children were progressing, they recognized the need for the children to be educated. Because there were no local special schools and the public schools were unwelcoming, RCE started the Sunshine School in 2003 that now serves over 50 students with special needs.

Although the hope is to find a family for every child living in the Darius Houses, this is unfortunately not the reality. Recognizing the need for a transitional living center, RCE established Amy’s House in 2010 to provide older children living in the Darius Houses with the vocational training and life skills necessary to transition to a semi-independent living community.

Mihai Bocsa, RCE Director of Placement, explained that it is a three-year program that starts when the children are 15 or 16 – a point at which there is a very low chance they will be adopted. That way, by the time they are 18 and legally adults, they are ready to live in a semi-independent living community supervised by one of RCE’s local church partners.19 Thus even for the disabled individuals who are not adopted, they are able to live in a supportive and empowering community unlike many disabled youth in state institutions who end up on the streets or involved in crime and prostitution after they turn 18 and are discharged.

While RCE is fully committed to holistically and restoratively providing for the wellbeing of the disabled children and youth who live in their houses, the focus and ideal goal of the ministry is always adoption. “The mission of this organization is to place children in homes with families,” Martin emphasized.20 For RCE, belonging to a family is not only God’s design, but it is the ultimate affirmation of one’s humanity.

Integration While the three religious organizations discussed are clearly active in restoring basic human rights and dignity to persons affected by disability, this mindset has yet to pervade greater Romanian society, which continues to be segregated in many ways. We hold integration into a broader community to be the second 19 Bocsa, Mihai and Ovidiu Martin. Personal interview. 07 June 2013.

20 Bocsa, Mihai and Ovidiu Martin. Personal interview. 07 June 2013.

14 The Social Justice Review main component of “rehumanization,” as it allows for the relationships and sense of societal belonging that make one’s existence distinctly human. While disabled individuals are valued and viewed as fully human within the organizations discussed, once one leaves the walls of such institutions he or she enters a society in which disability carries the weight of significant and unique stigma. This section not only identifies the stigmas preventing true integration and their historical and cultural sources, but will also address various forms of redress, ultimately making the case that religion and religious communities can be at the vanguard of integration by proactively and genuinely “adopting” the disabled into the church family.

Stigma While disability is stigmatized to some extent in almost every culture, the particular stigmas vary with their sources. In Romanian culture today, much of the stigma surrounding disability can be traced back to Ceausescu’s communist regime. In addition to the government’s dehumanizing policies which went so far as to deny the very existence of the disabled, the communist state operated on the staunch belief that an individual’s value as a citizen was directly linked to his or her ability to work. In communism, compensation in the form of food, housing, and other basic provisions is rationed and distributed with the expectation that work is also equally divided among the beneficiaries.

Given this intrinsic emphasis on work, it is obvious that those with physical and mental disabilities who could not work in factories and contribute back to the system were looked down on and seen as freeloaders.

Mihai Fighir, President of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Arad, was born with muscular dystrophy and grew up in communist Romania acutely aware of this stigma. “My dad hated disabled people because he saw the value of a man in how much he worked,” Fighir said of the stigmatization he experienced even within his own family.21 This deep awareness of the fact that disabled individuals cannot work and contribute to society in the same way as able-bodied citizens plays into the pervasive notion that disabled people are always beggars. During interviews when we asked what stigma, if any, typically surrounded disability in Romanian culture, nearly every person we interviewed responded by mentioning 21 Fighir, Mihai and Gabriel Dronca. Personal interview. 08 June 2013.

the association between disability and begging. This association was clearly not born in a vacuum and the reality is that many of Romania’s beggars are persons affected by disability. This phenomenon is largely a result of the way the state-run orphanages and institutions were structured and the fact that, as discussed, a disproportional number of the children in these institutions were disabled. While the state is required to care for these children when they are minors, once they turn 18 and are legally adults they are forced to live on their own. While some are incapable of caring for themselves, many have simply not acquired the life skills necessary to make responsible choices and end up being exploited through crime and prostitution or living as beggars on the streets. The stigma surrounding begging is further intensified by the fact that begging is seen as the means by which the Roma, or gypsies, have accrued their wealth at the expense of hard-working Romanians. It is also said that the Roma will capture handicapped children to use as beggars and go so far as to inflict physical disabilities on children to make them more successful beggars.22 The fact that the Roma are so looked down upon in Romanian culture undeniably affects the general perception of beggars and the disabled. All these factors contribute to the unique stigma surrounding the handicapped that causes many Romanians to assume that disabled individuals are needy, greedy, and have an unreasonable sense of entitlement.23 This prevalent stigma often causes families affected by disability to feel an overwhelming sense of shame and embarrassment. During communism, disabled children who were not institutionalized were often hidden by their parents in back rooms and rarely brought into public. While significant strides have been made, the general feeling of shame and embarrassment that besets many parents of disabled children still persists. Sally Wood Lamont, President of the Romanian National Paralympic Committee, said that the biggest barrier she faces in getting disabled children to participate in sports is the hesitation and resistance of their parents.

“They don’t want to advertise that their child has a disability,” Lamont explained.24 Luca Pais, Founder and Director of Wheelchair Sports International in Romania, also identified the resistance of the parents as one of the primary factors preventing disabled children from being involved in sports. According to Pais, many 22 Branzei, Daniel. Personal interview. 20 May 2013.

23 Bulzan, Andrei. Personal interview. 21 May 2013.

24 Wood-Lamont, Sally. Personal interview. 13 June 2013.

15 The Social Justice Review parents feel a strong sense of guilt and shame because they think that if people see that their child has a disability they will assume it is somehow because they were negligent parents.25 While religion can be a powerful instrument in the “rehumanization” process, particular religious doctrines and ideologies have actually exacerbated this sense of shame and augmented the stigma surrounding disability. Foremost of these doctrines is the belief that disability is a punishment or curse from God that is a result of trans-generational sin. While pastors and church workers do not cite this as the exclusive cause of disability, most mention trans-generational sin as one of the reasons why people are born or become handicapped. Workers for social outreach programs of the Orthodox Church expressed that while there is a purely medical side of disability, the notion of transgenerational sin and divine punishment also plays into the issue, though not in a necessarily explicable way.26,27 The Pentecostal and Charismatic churches traditionally place great emphasis on the notion of healing, signs, and wonders with the implication that the presence of disability and absence of healing correlates to a lack of faith. According to Pastor Daniel Matei, founder of the first Charismatic church in Romania, Biserica Agape, disability can be traced to either generational sin, purely genetic factors, or instances where an individual was healed, but then lost his or her healing due to an insufficient “measure of faith.”28 Thus while Pastor Matei asserts that the church should “love and never condemn” and actively counsel and help the disabled, the sense that disability is the result of insufficient faith and is somehow the fault of the disabled person remains.29 While these beliefs are based on a variety of theological convictions, it is clear that they subtly further the sense of stigma and shame surrounding the disabled.

Family Matters Integration and ensuring that the handicapped belong to a community is essential to removing the stigma and shame surrounding disability. While organizations that focus specifically on the restoration and rehabilitation 25 Pais, Luca. Personal interview. 08 June 2013.

26 Popa, Ramona. Personal interview. 03 June 2013.

27 Schmitt, Richard. Beyond Separateness: The Social Nature of Human Beings--their Autonomy, Knowledge, and Power. Boulder: Westview, 1995. Print.

28 Matei, Daniel. Personal interview. 03 June 2013.

29 Matei, Daniel. Personal interview. 03 June 2013.

of the disabled are absolutely necessary, if the disabled remain a strictly separate class of people that “normal” people occasionally try to help, then “rehumanization” can only go so far. As the judicial process of the American civil rights movement concluded, separate is inherently unequal. Not only does strict separation impose the inherent stigma of difference, but a segregated society is set up for dehumanizing policies and practices that depend on the distinction between “us” and “them.”

Integration of the disabled into communities with non-handicapped individuals is thus in many ways a resistance effort.

As expressed in the mission of Romanian Christian Enterprises, the sense of security, belonging, and identity that accompany being a part of a family is the ultimate affirmation of one’s humanity. While the issue of actual adoption is a complicated topic that will not be addressed here, the idea that family-like relationships and community are what make an individual distinctly human is central to our understanding of “rehumanization.” Thus while not all individuals affected by disability will have the opportunity to belong to an actual family, every individual needs family-like relationships and community in order for his or her humanity to be fully realized and expressed.

According to psychologist Diana Dwyer, “Humans are essentially social beings,” and are unique in the way they derive happiness, despair, and meaning from interpersonal relationships.30 Philosopher Richard Schmitt agrees with this understanding and goes even further by challenging the very notion that human beings are separate from one another, proposing instead that human beings should consider themselves as continually “in-relation.”31 While people may disagree on the particulars of what kinds of relationships are exclusively or essentially human, it is clear that the social is an important, intrinsic dimension of human existence. For an individual to remain distinctly separate from a larger group or broader community because of a debilitating condition is to remain in a dangerous state of dehumanization. Integration into family-like community is not only the next step in the “rehumanization” process, but is also a measure to protect the very lives of the disabled from victimization in a divided society.

30 Dwyer, Diana. Interpersonal Relationships. London: Routledge Modular Psychology, 2000. Print.

31 Schmitt, Richard. Beyond Separateness: The Social Nature of Human Beings--their Autonomy, Knowledge, and Power. Boulder: Westview, 1995. Print.

16 The Social Justice Review More broadly, entire families affected by disability often feel separated and isolated from the greater community and society at large. Integration is thus something that must occur not only on the individual level but also on the societal level. While the discourse thus far has been primarily theoretical, the Joni and Friends Family Retreat the research team participated in during our last week in Romania was a very practical manifestation of the family paradigm and a vivid example of integration. Twelve families affected by disability, four disabled orphans, and almost thirty volunteers and leaders comprised the retreat, and while very few people knew each other before the retreat began, by the end the sense of community that existed was undeniable. “At a Joni and Friends International Family Retreat, individuals and families affected by disability step into a community that intentionally integrates for the shared purpose of embodying John 13:14 (love one another) regardless of ability or disability,” said Ama Cruz, International Family Retreat coordinator at Joni and Friends. She went on to explain that “whether you are serving as a volunteer or a family being served, IFR affirms each human life as purposely designed by God to fulfill an integral part in and complete His family.”32 Although an admittedly contained environment, it was remarkable to see the relational barriers fall when the emphasis was placed not on ability or disability, but on the humanity of each person and his or her value and worth. Joni and Friends is an organization built on the belief that all human beings are made in the “image of God” and that belief was clear in the intentional emphasis of similarities over differences.33 Non-handicapped volunteers, parents, and disabled children alike enjoyed recreational sporting activities and games and the retreat concluded with a talent show celebrating what the families can do instead of fixating on what they can’t. Countless families expressed that the family retreat was like a “slice of heaven” to them. Most of the people that participated in the retreat—disabled and able-bodied alike— expressed that the authentic lack of barriers and social distinctions felt right and like the way things should be.

32 Cruz, Ama O. E-mail interview. 05 Aug. 2013.

33 “Created in the Image of God.” www.joniandfriends.org. Joni and Friends, Web. 14 Aug. 2013.

17 The Social Justice Review

Bibliography [1] Romania’s Orphans: A Legacy of Repression. Rep. 15th ed. Vol. 2. Helsinki: News from Helsinki Watch, 1990. Human Rights Watch, 01 Dec. 1990. Web. 01 July 2013.

[2] Carlson, Mary, and Felton Earls. “Psychological and Neuroendocrinological Sequelae of Early Social Deprivation in Institutionalized Children in Romania.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 807.1 Integrative N (1997): 419-28. Print.

[3] Powell, Alvin. “‘Breathtakingly Awful’.” Harvard Gazette. Harvard University, 05 Oct. 2010. Web. 02 July 2013.

[4] Johnson, Alice K., and Victor Groze. “The Orphaned and Institutionalized Children of Romania.” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems 2.4 (1994): 49-52.

[5] Levin, Angela. “My Glimpse of Hell and the Pitiful Children Who Have Been Betrayed.” The Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph, 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 02 July 2013.

[6] “Inhumane Conditions For Romania’s Lost Generation.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 06 June 2000. Web. 02 July 2013.

[7] Tada, Joni E. “Romania.” Message to the author. 03 June 2013. E-mail.

[8] “Dehumanize.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 02 July 2013.

[9] Oelofsen, Rianna. “De- and Rehumanization in the Wake of Atrocities.” South African Journal of Philosophy 28.2 (2009): 178-88. Print.

[10] “Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism.” Www.wingia.com. WIN-Gallup International, 27 July 2012. Web. 02 July 2013.

[11] Romania Const. art. 50 §2 [12] Fighir, Mihai and Gabriel Dronca. Personal interview. 08 June 2013.

[13] “Our Projects: Onesimus Brothers House.” Isus Speranta Romaniei 2011: 7. Print.

[14] Timis, Laurentiu. Personal interview. 01 June 2013.

[15] “About.” http://www.isussperantaromaniei.ro. Isus Speranta Romaniei, Web. 08 July 2013.

[16] Maluntan, Iosif. Personal interview. 12 June 2013.

[17] “Romanian Christian Enterprises.” www.rcenterprises.org. Romanian Christian Enterprises, Web. 09 July 2013.

[18] Bocsa, Mihai and Ovidiu Martin. Personal interview. 07 June 2013.

[19] Branzei, Daniel. Personal interview. 20 May 2013.

[20] Bulzan, Andrei. Personal interview. 21 May 2013.

[21] Wood-Lamont, Sally. Personal interview. 13 June 2013.

[22] Pais, Luca. Personal interview. 08 June 2013.

[23] Popa, Ramona. Personal interview. 03 June 2013.

[24] Pavel, Christina. Personal interview. 05 June 2013.

[25] Matei, Daniel. Personal interview. 03 June 2013.

[26] Dwyer, Diana. Interpersonal Relationships. London: Routledge Modular Psychology, 2000. Print.

[27] Schmitt, Richard. Beyond Separateness: The Social Nature of Human Beings--their Autonomy, Knowledge, and Power.

Boulder: Westview, 1995. Print.

[28] Cruz, Ama O. E-mail interview. 05 Aug. 2013.

[29] “Created in the Image of God.” www.joniandfriends.org. Joni and Friends, Web. 14 Aug. 2013.

[30] Sass, Daria. Personal interview. 10 June 2013.

[31] Monafu, Valer. Personal interview. 20 May 2013.

[32] “Declaratia De La Marisel 2013.” www.caritatea.org. 11 May 2013. Web. 22 May 2013.

[33] Mitrofan, Samuel. Personal interview. 24 June 2013.

[34] Chicioreanu, Camelia. Personal interview. 21 June 2013.

18 The Social Justice Review

Fatherhood

19 The Social Justice Review

I have very few memories of my father. He passed away when I was still young, and I grew up learning to do things on my own. When I first went to Northern Uganda in 2013, I work with over 150 women, many of whom had been raised my single parents and now were single parents themselves. To compare my experiences with theirs would only diminish these women’s stories, but as I got to know them, I started to find bits of my own story in theirs. I saw my mother’s struggles in the way they cared for their children. Their independence reminded me of my own, born out of necessity and cultivated by a fierce yet gentle resolve.

20 The Social Justice Review

Alice Lee PHOTOGRAPHY

21 The Social Justice Review

Sometimes I would visit homes where the men were home and it sparked a curiosity in me. You see, in 2013 and when I returned in 2014, I had grown a bit resentful of Ugandan men - regrettably so. Cases of domestic abuse, abandonment and infidelity were common. But then there were the families where the men showed up. They were oftentimes a bit too prideful and and quite reserved in the way they showed their affection, but the children went to them for comfort and looked up to them with such love and admiration. It softened my own perception and challenged me to think about what it looked like to include men in the conversation of women’s empowerment.

“Fatherhood” captures these glimpses of vulnerability in men that only children can draw out. It takes a moment to forget the “if ’s” and “but’s” and draws into a part of what it means to be a man in such a paternalistic, traditional society - perhaps their most important role.

22 The Social Justice Review

Separate

& Unequal

23 The Social Justice Review

Crack Cocaine Policy in the U.S. War on Drugs Sarah Brauner Reed College, 2016

Abstract: Prior to 2010, America’s policy towards crack cocaine was widely recognized as one of the most discriminatory and draconian pieces of legislature to be passed in recent memory;. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA) of 1986, born in a haze of drug-panicked frenzy, effectively punished crack users a hundred times more harshly than it did cocaine users. In the 24 years that it took Congress to readjust this ratio with the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) of 2010, much occurred to alter the perception of both crack and the policy that criminalized it. Violent crime surrounding crack had declined considerably, and the arguments that crack was more addictive and more toxic than cocaine were largely disproven. As the reasons for criminalizing crack to a greater extent than cocaine disappeared, it became clear that the law was disproportionately punitive towards blacks than it was to whites. The fact helped transform the conception of crack offenders from societal deviants that threatened to destroy America to dependent victims of racial prejudice and outdated science. Yet, it would take almost 20 years for legislative policy change to occur.

24 The Social Justice Review I. Multiple Streams, but Also Multiple Venues

This paper argues that the nature of federal drug policy in the United States, which delegates policy passage to the legislative branch but policy implementation to the judicial branch, had a profound effect on both the passage of the FSA and the evolution of crack-policy in practice. Constrained by politics, two decades passed before Kingdon’s Multiple Streams1 converged and manifested policy change at the Congressional level, despite improved perceptions of crack and crack offenders. The solution to equalize crack and cocaine punishments was conceived in the early 1990s, yet it took the meth “epidemic” and an alarming growth rate of federal prisons to redefine the problem for the public. Furthermore, the 2010 elections opened a window of opportunity to politicians concerned with coming across as both fiscally responsible and racially tolerant. At the same time, however, the judicial branch—relatively unaffected by popular opinion and political advantage and fueled by Congress’ decade of dormancy—took matters into their own hands. In a series of Supreme Court Decisions, the ADAA sentencing mandates were gradually transformed into loose sentencing guidelines, thereby establishing a precedent for drug policies to come, and rendering the Fair Sentencing Act far more symbolic than it is widely perceived to be. Thus while the FSA’s passage is a product of the meeting of multiple streams, the social construction and the mechanisms of implementation behind crack laws must be examined in order to fully understand how United States crack policy has evolved since the War on Drugs first began.

II. America’s War on Drugs

A decade after America began its “War on Drugs,” the national sentiment towards illegal substances had only become more embittered and fearful. This entrenchment in sentiment was due in large part to the ‘discovery’ of crack2.3 The drug’s 1 Kingdon’s multiple streams method distinguishes between 3 streams: the problem stream, which contains policy issues that necessitate attention; the policy (or solution) stream to that problem; and the political stream, or an opportunity for politicians to turn the solution into policy.

2 Crack is a free-base form of cocaine, made by adding water and baking soda to cocaine and heating it. This alters the form of the drug from powder to hard pellets (“rocks”) that can be smoked, are sold at far lower prices than cocaine, and produce a high that lasts about 15 minutes. While cocaine had been consumed for centuries, crack was a new innovation invented during the mid 1980s.

3 Roland G Fryer et al. “Measuring crack cocaine and its impact.” Economic Inquiry, 2012.

debilitating, addictive nature and close association with violent crime and destitution kept the American media occupied and public captivated beginning in 1985 when the term “crack-epidemic” was first coined.

Stories of “crack whores,” “crack babies,” and “crack wars” found their way onto news channels and into middle and upper class homes, as did statistics of rising homicide rates, stillbirths and homelessness.

Indeed, crack became a sort of synecdoche for all drug use in the United States. CBS, for example, aired a two-hour long special report, titled “48 Hours on Crack Street,” in which Diane Sawyer, Dan Rather and other correspondents took to the streets to chronicle the abuse of crack, marijuana, cocaine and heroine.

They conveyed a poignant narrative: all drugs are evil, destroy lives, and threaten American values. The nation needed to be rescued from utter peril.

It was in this environment of positive feedback towards drug policy, combined with the fast-approaching deadline of elections, that Congress passed the “Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986,” the first major piece of legislation in the War on Drugs.

The law marked a radical change in the way the United States addressed drug crime. In addition to transforming the federal supervised release program into a punitive, rather than rehabilitative one, the act established a minimum sentence, according to weight, for the possession of both crack and cocaine, heretofore unheard of for first-time offenders.4 Most notably, the ADAA expressly and dramatically distinguished cocaine from its freebase counterpart; where the minimum sentence of 5 years was incurred by possessing 500 grams of cocaine, a mere 5 grams of crack would obtain the same sentence. The act further stipulated that 500 grams of crack and 5,000 grams of cocaine would warrant a minimum 10 year sentence, and that any defendant with 2 prior convictions carrying 50 excess grams of crack would be sentenced to life in prison without parole. This effectively created a 100:1 punishment ratio between crack and cocaine that “Congress essentially pulled…out of thin air in its rush to pass significant anti-drug legislation before the November 1986 elections5.”6 Hyser argues that the 4 Sarah Hyser. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: How Federal Courts Took the” Fair” Out of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Penn St. L. Rev. 117, 2012: 503-617.

5 Kyle Graham. “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Crack, and Methamphetamine.” University of Richmond Law Review, Forthcoming, 2011.

6 It was widely agreed that crack was physically more dangerous than cocaine, but there was little evidence that it was 100 times more dangerous, hence the ratio being “pulled out of thin air.”

25 The Social Justice Review high ratio of crack to cocaine was a result of “political one-up man ship” whereby politicians competed with one another to appear tougher on crime.7 That the ADAA passed by a margin of 392-16 in the House of Representatives and 97-2 in the Senate attests to the desire to please a terrified and angry public clamoring for change.

III. Changing Crack Constructions8

Less than a decade after the ADAA was passed, the assumptions that created such a large discrepancy between crack and cocaine began to fall under question. Prior to voting on the act, Congress held hearings which concluded that crack was more addictive, had more deleterious physical effects, was more attractive to youths because of its lower price, and caused more associated crimes than cocaine did.9 As time progressed however, each of these arguments weakened considerably.

The first of these to fall under fire was the supposed adverse physiological effects of crack as compared to cocaine. New studies came to light that refuted crack’s increased affinity for addiction and more harmful side effects. Hatsukami and Fischman wrote in their 1996 article in the Journal of American Medical Association, “the physiological and psychoactive effects of cocaine are similar regardless of whether it is in the form of cocaine hydrochloride or crack cocaine (cocaine base)…The crucial variables appear to be the immediacy, duration, and magnitude of cocaine’s effect, as well as the frequency and amount of cocaine used rather than the form of the cocaine”.10 The study concluded that the 100:1 ratio was ‘excessive.’ The crack-baby epidemic, too, was discredited as early as 1992, for having confounded the effects of prenatal care, alcohol abuse, and infant prematurity11. Furthermore, the “expert” that had testified to Congress about the heightened adverse effects of crack on the body was found to have falsified 7 Sarah Hyser. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: How Federal Courts Took the” Fair” Out of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Penn St. L. Rev. 117, 2012: 503-617.

8 While a crack pun seems natural here, an editorial decision not to include it was made after having seen so many academics, politicians and journalists try and fail to do so cleverly.

9 Kyle Graham. “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Crack, and Methamphetamine.” University of Richmond Law Review, Forthcoming, 2011.

10 Dorothy K. Hatsukami and Marian W. Fischman. “Crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride.” JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 276.19, 1996: 1580-1588.

11 Ellen Goodman. “A Better Label for ‘Crack Kids’,” Boston Globe Newspaper Co, January 19, 1992.

his credentials12, significantly reducing the credibility of one of Congress’ fundamental justifications for punishing crack users more heavily than cocaine users.

Concurrent with these changes, the perceived social costs of crack began to lessen in the 1990s, giving the impression that crack use itself was declining. Indeed, crime rates began to fall rapidly at the end of the 20th century, as did crimes related to crack. Figure 1, originally published by Fryer et al, 2006, depicts the ratio of newspaper articles mentioning both crack to crime and crime to crime alone; after 1989, this number of citations began to decline, reaching an all-time low in 1998.

Figure 1. Citations of Newspaper Articles that mention crack alone as compared to newspaper articles that mention crack in conjunction with crime. Originally published by Fryer et al, 2006.

To an American looking to the media as their only source of information on crack use, it seemed that the “crack epidemic” was gradually dissipating; however, crack use was actually increasing, peaking at the end of the millennium, especially among teenagers.13 The most likely reason that outside indicators of crack-use, particularly violent crime, receded while crack incidence continued to rise is the establishment of property rights.1415 Thus, over 12 Sarah Hyser. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: How Federal Courts Took the” Fair” Out of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Penn St. L. Rev. 117, 2012: 503-617.

13 Roland G Fryer et al. “Measuring crack cocaine and its impact.” Economic Inquiry, 2012.

14 Ibid.

15 When cocaine was first introduced in its free-based form, there was a rush to enter a market that was highly profitable; gangs fought bitterly over territorial rights, and younger men that would otherwise be in school chose instead to forgo education in favor of the lucrative opportunities afforded by the crack trade. As time wore on, however, crack domains were established and the price of crack dropped dramatically, lessening both the competitive intensity of gang warfare and the incentive to enter the supplyside of the crack market Though there is not much empirical evidence, it is also possible that the most violent crack dealers and users were imprisoned as a result of the ADAA, though the nature of the law was to arrest primarily drug addicts and street-level drug dealers rather than the more

26 The Social Justice Review the course of the 1990s, the two primary arguments for punishing crack possession to a far greater degree than cocaine—its heightened addictiveness and harm to the body, and its close connection with violent crime—had largely been refuted.

The realization that crack and cocaine were not as distant as they were originally thought to be altered the nature of how crack-offenders were perceived, and with the veil of danger somewhat lifted, it became clear that in dramatically criminalizing a drug used more heavily by blacks compared to a drug popular with whites, the ADAA was targeting blacks at a far greater rate than any other racial group. As support, figure 2 shows the rates of crack and cocaine incidence by blacks and whites from 19951 to 2012, and depicts a racial disparity that has remained constant over the past 20 years.

Figure 2. The rate of blacks and whites that have reported using either Crack or Cocaine over the past 12 months. Data from the U.S National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

While it had been recognized previously that crack violence was found primarily in AfricanAmerican communities, the disproportionate sentences had been defended as protecting against a more harmful drug. Thus as perception of the drug began to change, there was nothing to justify the clear racial disparity occurring. By 1995, the rate of black men aged 20 to 24 under the purview of the criminal justice system was 1 in 3, and by 1998, 60 percent of drug offenders convicted were black.2 News articles titled “Crack Crackdown Singles out Blacks, Lawyers Say” (Palm Beach Post 1992), “Cocaine Sentences 1 The first year data was available 2 Dorothy E. Roberts. “The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities.” Stanford Law Review (2004): 12711305.

Discriminate Against Blacks, Activists Say” (San Francisco Chronicle 1993), and “Same Drug, Different Penalties (Washington Post 1993) began to appear in the early 1990s, and increased as new revelations were made about crack.3 The target population of the ADAA had shifted from deviants that threatened the very fabric of America to dependents, victims of racial prejudice, and an excessively harsh law.

Yet, this shift in social construction was not enough to persuade Congress to alter the ADAA. Attempts were made in 1993, Charles Rangel, a Representative from New York who had originally voted for the ADAA, introduced the Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act4, but it died in Committee.5 In 1995, the United States Sentencing Commission wrote to Congress: “the Commission is in unanimous agreement that the present 100-to-1 quantity ratio is far too great and should be reconsidered.”6 The recommendation was ignored, as were subsequent recommendations made in 1997, 2002 and 2007.7 Some advocacy groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Sentencing Project and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined in the clamor for change, but to no avail, the target population of the ADAA had shifted. They were still politically weak dependents, and the plight of the inner city Black community was simply not salient enough to white America; in addition to the politicians they elected to make an effort towards change.

IV. Political Latency Opens the Way for Policy Divergence

The changing social constructions were, however, of some note to the judiciary branch of the United States, which was responsible for the implementation of what now seemed to be an extremely unwarranted and unjust policy. Without any decisive action from Congress to speak of, and unconstrained by public apathy, policy action in 3 Sarah Hyser. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: How Federal Courts Took the” Fair” Out of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Penn St. L. Rev. 117, 2012: 503-617.

4 He would continue to introduce this bill every year until 2009; it failed to pass each time.

5 Kyle Graham. “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Crack, and Methamphetamine.” University of Richmond Law Review, Forthcoming, 2011.

6 “Fair Sentencing Act,” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www. aclu.org/fair-sentencing-act 7 Kyle Graham. “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Crack, and Methamphetamine.” University of Richmond Law Review, Forthcoming, 2011.

27 The Social Justice Review courts began to occur after 2000 that would have dramatic effects on the implementation of the 100-1 ratio. The first of these court cases was Apprendi v NJ in 2000, which ruled that any evidence or fact that increased sentences beyond the maximum sentence, other than prior convictions, had to be submitted and proved to a jury rather than a judge.8 While this did not relate directly to the ADAA, it did change how defendants were convicted, as judges only had to convict by the “preponderance of evidence” standard, while juries must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”.9 Five years later, in United States v Booker, the Supreme Court ruled that calculating a sentence based upon facts not admitted by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt went against Apprendi v NJ effectively making it more difficult to procure and use evidence against drug-convicted defendants.

Both of these decisions lay the groundwork for the case that would dramatically alter the way crack is addressed by the judicial system: Kimbrough v United States, which ruled that federal district judges have the authority to diverge from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and consider other factors when determining sentences for drug offenders.

These other factors could, according to the ACLU10, include “disparities in crack and powder cocaine sentences.” Indeed, the case was brought to court because of the disparity in sentencing between crack and cocaine. Effectively, Kimbrough v United States put the ADAA’s sentencing statutes under the discretion of Federal District judges, allowing the opportunity for judges to diverge from the 100-1 sentencing ratio if they so chose. While not a new policy entirely, this partial venue change11 did offer hope to some crack offenders, allow the opportunity for policy makers to observe the consequences—political and social—of a lower crack-cocaine ratio, and most importantly, set a precedent for the relationship between Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the way the judiciary system chose to implement them.

8 Andrew J. Fuchs. “Effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Blurring the Distinction between Sentencing Factors and Elements of a Crime, The.” Fordham L. Rev. 69, 2000: 1399.

9 Ibid.

10 Individual who offered an amicus brief at the trial 11 The fact that the venue was only changed partially is extremely important; a full venue shift would have created a new policy monopoly, while a partial shift still left Congress with some power over the policy.

V. Meth and Money Redefine the Problem for the Public

Meanwhile, other forces were at work—the rise of both methamphetamine and incarceration costs—that would gradually redefine the “problems” stream and move the legislature one step closer towards policy reform. Meth was virtually unheard of until the 21st century, when the media began to shift its coverage from crack-babies and gang warfare to the environmentally hazardous meth labs.12 Graham writes, “Fears of a methamphetamine “epidemic” waxed as concerns about a crack cocaine epidemic waned….by the mid-2000s the concerns voiced about methamphetamine echoed the fears regarding crack that had been expressed back in the 1980s.” Though perceptions of crack had shifted in the 1990s, the growing attention towards meth was what finally forced crack to cede its throne of the most feared drug in America. At a congressional meeting in 2005, one senator reportedly stated that “of the many drug threats facing our nation, few can compare in their growth or destructiveness to methamphetamine abuse,” while another added: “the methamphetamine problem has grown at a dramatic rate, and is now considered the most significant drug abuse problem in the country.”13

Alone, this may not have had an effect; Americans’ increased attention towards Meth could simply mean that crack-policy would undergo a negative feedback mechanism. However, another significant concern arose that promised to make the public reconsider the ADAA—an overflow of U.S prisons and the associated prison costs. Due in large part to the War on Drugs, the federal prison population had grown from 24,000 to 217,596 since the 1980s, and of that number, an astounding half were imprisoned on drug-related charges. By 2004, the rate of imprisonment was five times what it had been in 1972, making it the largest in the world by a significant margin.14 The public began to take notice.

The New York Times, for example, published an article in 2009 titled “Prison Spending Outpaces All but Medicaid.” Figure 3 is the visual that accompanied the article, warning of unprecedented prison costs and incarceration rates.

12 Kyle Graham. “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Crack, and Methamphetamine.” University of Richmond Law Review, Forthcoming, 2011.

13 Ibid.

14 Dorothy E. Roberts. “The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities.” Stanford Law Review (2004): 12711305.

28 The Social Justice Review federal spending piqued interests across the aisle.

Figure 3. Image informing public of rising costs and incarceration rates of US prisons in recent years. Originally published in “Prison Spending Outpaces All but Medicaid,” New York Times, 2009.

The combination of these external conditions placed the question of the equitability of the crackcocaine ratio in a new light: crack was no longer considered the most dangerous drug in America, yet it was responsible for a large portion of the incarceration that led to prison overcrowding and cost overrun.

Where before inaction towards the ADAA had seemed relatively costless to most Americans even if the ratio was unfair, it suddenly seemed vastly more prescient. The nation was pouring an unprecedented amount of tax dollars towards prosecuting the wrong drug. The hundred to one ratio had been a problem of racial prejudice, but it now became a slippery slope of wasteful government spending—an issue that resonated with a far larger base.

VI. The Fair Sentencing Act: An Appeal to Fiscal Responsibility and (partially) Minorities

It was in this environment—a public that largely believed the crack epidemic to be “solved” and awaited the solution to rising incarceration rates and costs, and an implementation structure that made policy guidelines advisory rather than binding— that Congress proposed and passed the bipartisan supported Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Charles Rangel had been proposing his Crack-Cocaine Equity Bill annually since the early 1990s1, and it was this bill, which proposed equal treatment of crack and cocaine under the law, that first came under serious review by the House in April 2009.2 The bill had 13 co-sponsors, 12 of whom were Democrats; Ron Paul was the lone Republican. Like the last 16 years, the Bill failed to pass—but this time, the rhetoric of a law that reduced 1 As Kingdon would say, there are no new solutions.

2 “S. 1789 (111th): Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, govtrack.us. https://www. govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1789#overview

The sudden willingness of Republicans, other than Ron Paul, to compromise after decades of shunning attempts at reform can be largely explained by the looming 2010 elections. The Republican Party (G.O.P) was being worn thin on two fronts. On one end of the political spectrum was the growing Tea Party base, which demanded more responsible fiscal spending and threatened the seats of many veteran Republican Congressmen. On the other side was the growing realization that the future of the Republican Party depended upon support from minorities, whose political weight was growing and being thrown disproportionately in favor of Democrats3. While the direct target population of crack policy was crack offenders, minorities as a whole, especially blacks, were seen as an indirect target of the ADAA due to its image as a racially inequitable policy. Thus, as minority political power increased, the group’s social construction gradually moved towards “advantaged,” and created an incentive to pass legislature that was overwhelmingly supported by minority communities4.

Democratic Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, in conjunction with the Senate Judiciary Committee head Patrick Leahy and Republican Jeff Sessions, seized upon this window of opportunity and eventually comprised on a piece of legislature with a more moderate stance towards the crack ratio than the identical sentencing proposed by Rangel.5

This bill, which would become the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, made several important changes to Federal Drug Policy. The amount of crack possession that warranted the minimum sentence was raised from 5 to 28 grams, effectively making the crack cocaine ratio 18:1. The law also raised the threshold for the minimum 10-year sentence to the same ratio and made the penalties for violent drug crimes more severe.6

That a one to one ratio proved politically unfeasible, but one less extreme than hundred to one was, speaks to the incompleteness of the shift 3 This is due to a gradual demographic shift in the United States that reflects growing minority populations (US Census Bureau).

4 This is not to say that minorities are an “advantaged” group currently, but rather that they have become relatively more advantaged in recent years.

5 “S. 1789 (111th): Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, govtrack.us. https://www. govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1789#overview 6 Kyle Graham. “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Crack, and Methamphetamine.” University of Richmond Law Review, Forthcoming, 2011.

29 The Social Justice Review in social construction of crack by the public and politicians alike. It was widely agreed that crack offenders were victims of unfair, both racially and factually, treatment under the law, but there was clearly still some perception of “deviancy” left in the target group construction that made it impossible for an equal sentencing bill to pass. At the hearings, some congressmen reportedly admitted that they had learned more about crack in the years since the passage of the ADAA7, but some, like Representative Smith, held that “Crack cocaine is associated with a greater degree of violence than most other drugs.”8 The fact that an alternate policy, which would have equalized the crack-cocaine ratio by lowering the amount of cocaine required to be charged with the minimum sentence, was rejected early on in the proceedings9 shows both that cocaine still enjoyed an image with far less stigma than crack, and that introducing a policy that would raise incarceration rates and costs went against one of the “problems” that Congress was attempting to solve. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Committee boasted that implementing the FSA would save the prison system $42 million dollars over a four-year time-period.10 VII. Applying Ratios

Civil Liberty and Human Rights groups rejoiced at their partial victory11 when, on August 3, 2011, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law—and yet, as the wheels at bureaucracy slowly turned, people were being arrested and charged for crack possession on a daily basis. The question of when the Fair Sentencing Act would go into effect, which was unspecified in the law, was thus extremely pertinent, and once again, it was at the discretion of the judiciary system. The act itself contained several clauses, which determined who would be convicted under the ADAA and who under the FSA. The law could be applied only to arrests made after the FSA’s passage, to arrests that had occurred before the FSA 7 i.e. had been mistaken 8 Kyle Graham. “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Crack, and Methamphetamine.” University of Richmond Law Review, Forthcoming, 2011.

9 Sarah Hyser. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: How Federal Courts Took the” Fair” Out of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Penn St. L. Rev. 117, 2012: 503-617.

10 “S. 1789: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,” Congression Budget Office Cost Estimate, 2010. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ ftpdocs/114xx/doc11413/s1789.pdf 11 While civil liberty groups applauded the move away from the 100-1 ratio, they were dissatisfied with any law that treated crack and cocaine differently (ACLU).

was passed but whose trials were still pending at the time of FSA passage12, or retroactively to felons currently serving crack sentences under ADAA mandates. In 2011, the U.S Sentencing Commission ruled that sentencing rules could indeed apply retroactively, thus allowing felons to have their cases reviewed by Federal Judges and their sentences potentially repealed. The question of pipeline cases was more contentious. Finally, in the 2012 case Dorsey v United States and Hill v United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the FSA applied to all defendants who were sentenced after August 3, 2010.13 In this way, the Judiciary branch determined that the 18:1 crackcocaine ratio was applicable to all current crack cases, provided that federal judges chose to implement the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

VIII. Conclusion: Crack Sentencing and the War on Drugs Going Forwards

In the 24 years that it took Congress to correct the problem it had created when waging a war on drugs, the nature of the drug trade, drug perceptions, and drug policy implementation had changed dramatically. Crack’s image as a lethal and highly pertinent threat to society had been largely disproved, and with that came the growing realization that the group that had been construed as deviants were really victims of discrimination. Meanwhile, the meth epidemic, coupled with rising prison costs, made this discrimination salient to the public. This issue finally became salient to politicians when they conceived of an opportunity to paint themselves as both fiscally responsible and racially tolerant in time for the 2010 elections.

Yet, arguably the largest impact the Fair Sentencing Act had on America’s federal drug policy was the partial venue shifts that were caused by its political latency. Even before the FSA was a political possibility, the Supreme Court had ruled that judges could ignore the guidelines put forth by Congress—and thus, despite a new crack-cocaine ratio, defendants brought to court can be, and still are, sentenced according to a decision made by a federal judge. While Congress argued over equity and cost recovery for two decades, the judicial branch had stealthily stepped in and exacted dramatic changes that still hold to this day. This has dramatic 12 Pipeline cases 13 Sarah Hyser. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: How Federal Courts Took the” Fair” Out of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Penn St. L. Rev. 117, 2012: 503-617.

30 The Social Justice Review implications for the future of drug policy. If the images surrounding other drugs change in the same way that crack did, drug-offenders may not be forced to wait for a time when changing their prison sentences becomes interesting to the public and advantageous to politicians. In ignoring the problem for so long, the public and Congress inadvertently changed the very fabric of America’s War on Drugs to one that could be decided beyond the sphere of mainstream politics and multiple streams.

31 The Social Justice Review

Bibliography “Fair Sentencing Act,” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/fair-sentencing-act Fryer, Roland G, Heaton, P. S., Levitt, S. D., & Murphy, K. M. “Measuring crack cocaine and its impact.” Economic Inquiry, 2012.

Fuchs, Andrew J. “Effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Blurring the Distinction between Sentencing Factors and Elements of a Crime, The.” Fordham L. Rev. 69, 2000: 1399.

Goodman, Ellen. “A Better Label for ‘Crack Kids’,” Boston Globe Newspaper Co, January 19, 1992.

Graham, Kyle. “Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Crack, and Methamphetamine.” University of Richmond Law Review, Forthcoming, 2011.

“H.R 2178 (111th): Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act of 2009,” govtrack.us. https://www. govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2178 Hatsukami, Dorothy K., and Marian W. Fischman. “Crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride.” JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 276.19, 1996: 15801588.

Hyser, Sarah. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: How Federal Courts Took the” Fair” Out of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” Penn St. L. Rev. 117, 2012: 503-617.

“Kimbrough v. United States,” American Civil Liberties Union. (December 10, 2007). https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform_racial-justice_immigrants-rights_womens-rights/ kimbrough-v-united-states Kingdon, J.W. (1995). “Agendas, Alternatives and Public Polies.” New York Harper Collins, 1995.

Chapter 4, pp 71-90.

Moore, Solomon, “Prison Spending Outpaces all but Medicaid,” New York Times, March 2, 2009.

National Bureau of Prisons. http://www.bop.gov/about/history/ National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/.

Roberts, Dorothy E. “The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities.” Stanford Law Review (2004): 1271-1305.

“S. 1789: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,” Congression Budget Office Cost Estimate, 2010. http:// www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11413/s1789.pdf “S. 1789 (111th): Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, govtrack.us. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/ bills/111/s1789#overview Schneider, A. and H. Ingram (1993). “The Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy.” American Political Science Review, 87 (2): 334-347.

“United States v Booker,” 542 US 220, Supreme Court of the United States, 2005. http://www.law. cornell.edu/supct/html/04-104.ZS.html

32 The Social Justice Review

Comprehensive Review of The Whole Question of Peace-Keeping Operations in All Their Aspects Cathleen McCaffery a blackout poem

33 The Social Justice Review

34 The Social Justice Review

35 The Social Justice Review

36 The Social Justice Review

37 The Social Justice Review

Cathleen is a senior at the University of Southern California.

As an English major with a concentration in Creative Writing, she has been fortunate to take writing workshops (fictions and poetry) with some amazing professors at USC. Cathleen began learning Arabic at USC in the summer of 2013 and her interest in the Middle East has expanded exponentially since then. She recently returned from Dubai where she was conducting research for Sociology Professor Rhacel Parrenas on domestic workers. After graduating, Cathleen plans on working to the Middle East, whether it be Dubai or the West Bank, in order to gain fluency in Arabic and experience living in another culture.

38 The Social Justice Review

Women With

Disabilities

& Domestic

Violence

39 The Social Justice Review

A Neglected Problem Anna Theodora Darzins

University of California, Berkeley

Abstract: Women with disabilities and women affected by violence have been seen as two different groups, when in fact, there is a tremendous co-occurrence to which service providers are not equipped to detect or respond. This thesis will explore the domestic violence experiences of women with disabilities to reveal important similarities and differences to women in general. Chapter one will begin by defining disability and exploring how the social context of disability interrelates with the social construction of femininity. The next chapter will focus on defining domestic violence, exploring women’s experience of domestic violence, and enumerating special factors that may impact women with disabilities. The third chapter will discuss the types of existing services for domestic violence, the factors that complicate accessing services for this population of women, and the meaning of accessibility that goes beyond removing structural barriers. The final chapter will provide policy and practice recommendations and discuss significant gaps in the literature.

40 The Social Justice Review

Chapter 1: Women with Disabilities General Overview of Disability Prevalence According to the 2010 Census, approximately 56.7 million people in the United States, or 18.7% of the total population, have one or more disabilities.1 Nearly 12.6 million of this group has severe disabilities, meaning they need the assistance of another person to perform physical functions.2 The population of people with disabilities is expected to continue to increase, as medical and technological advances can extend their life expectancies.3 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that nearly 27 million people with disabilities are adult women who are 15 years or older.4 The population of women with disabilities is greater than the population of men with disabilities because men are more prone to conditions that cause death, while women are more likely to outlive men by having primarily chronic conditions.5 People of color experience higher rates of disability than non-Hispanic Whites. The inflated rates of these minority groups can be linked to the high levels of poverty and decreased opportunities for employment and education. Native Americans face the highest disability rate: 21.8% have one or more disabilities.6 Following closely behind, 21.7% of African Americans have one or more disabilities.7 White non-Hispanics have a disability rate of 20.3%; Hispanics, 16.2%; and Asian/Pacific Islanders, the smallest, 10.7%.8

Preferred Terms The term disability community is commonly used to refer to the community of disability activists, 1 Matthew Brault. Americans with Disabilities: 2010 Household Economic Studies. (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012).

2 Ibid. Lewis Kraus, Susan Stoddard and David Gilmartin. Chartbook on Disability in the United States. An Info Use Report. (Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1996).

3 Matthew Brault. Americans with Disabilities: 2010 Household Economic Studies. (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012).

4 CDC | Women with Disabilities Disability and Health NCBDDD (2014) 5 Lita Jans and Susan Stoddard. Chartbook on Women and Disability in the United States. (An Info Use Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 1999).

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

advocates, service providers, and people with disabilities. Throughout this thesis, the term people or women with disabilities will be used because the disability community prefers it, and because it emphasizes the person before the condition.9 This may appear to be a subtle difference, but because people with disabilities are used to others noticing and referring to them by their disability, the difference becomes quite meaningful.

Categories of Disability Cognitive disabilities affect the brain, its functioning, and its development. This category includes developmental disorders and delays that occur when a person does not reach developmental milestones at the expected rate or has experienced a delay in the process of development affecting “gross fine motor skills, language, and social or thinking skills.”10 Autism is a complex array of neurological disorders that are characterized by social impairments, communication difficulties, and repetitive patterns of behavior. Psychiatric labels are commonly referred to as mental illness, which includes a wide range of disorders that affects a person’s beliefs, moods, or perceptions not often shared by other people. People who have mental illness can have a diminished capacity to cope with what are thought to be ordinary life events or circumstances. Also included in this category are learning disabilities, which affect a person’s ability to learn, retain, process, and remember information. Some of the disabilities in this category are not visible or obvious by looking at a person and are referred to as invisible disabilities.11

The category of physical disabilities includes impairments that affect physical functioning, including the operation of organs, the muscular skeletal systems, and other tissue and vital bodily functions, such as respiration or cardiovascular processes. These impairments can limit or prohibit physical functioning and mobility or decrease stamina and dexterity. Some of these impairments occur at birth and are commonly called congenital, meaning they developed before or at birth.12 They are often referred to as birth defects, such as physical 9 Joseph Shapiro. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993).

10 University of Michigan Health System. Developmental Delay: Your Child (2014).

11 World Health Organization. World Report on Disability. (2011).

12 Ibid.

41 The Social Justice Review deformities or asymmetrical body types. Other types of physical disabilities may present themselves later in life. It is common for this type of physical disability to be considered acquired after an event, like a head injury following an accident, or just to appear later in life with diseases, such as cancer, stroke, or even diabetes.13

Finally, there are impairments that can either prevent or complicate the ability to communicate. This category includes severe speech disorders that would make it difficult to be understood by others. Included in this group is sensory loss such as vision or hearing loss, which impacts the ability to communicate through either written or verbal methods. In some cases, hearing loss affects people’s ability to learn spoken language because they are unable to hear the sounds that make words. These types of impairments may be congenital or acquired later in life either through disease or deterioration of organs, muscles, or tissue, or after an accident. There is great variation in the severity and ways that this category of impairment may be present. For example, a person with vision loss may still be able to see shapes and colors.14

Social Context for Disabilities People may have one or multiple impairments that affect levels of disability differently. Impairment is a biological condition while disability exists in a larger social context.15 This distinction can be confusing because we are accustomed to assume that disability and impairment is the same thing. A person may have cerebral palsy as an impairment and mobility as a functional limitation that requires him or her to use a wheelchair. This person becomes disabled when he or she face structural barriers in the built environment, like the lack of ramps into buildings.16 Disability is actually a social process, since impairment does not essentially produce disability.17 When impairment occurs in a social context that yields inaccessibility for a person with impairment, the person becomes disabled.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 David Braddock. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century: and the State of the States (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002).

16 Ibid. Joseph Shapiro. No pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993).

17 Simi Linton. Claiming Disability Knowledge and Identity. (New York University Press, 1998).

Since disability is not located within an individual person and is much more than a medical diagnosis, discussions about disability should include sociopolitical factors that impact disability status.

Using systems theory, we can see how the ideology of public officials influences the availability and types of benefits offered by organizations that serve people with disabilities. This contributes to community attitudes, which plays into familial perspectives about the abilities of family members with disabilities.18 This ultimately influences the way that people with disabilities view themselves and their capabilities.

There is great variation and diversity within this social group. Disability status is fluid and can change at any moment. Having a disability is part of the human condition and is likely to happen to most people within their life cycles.19 Disability affects people in widely different ways: in addition to the social construction of disability, people have unique psychological responses to their impairments. Adding further to the complexity are the character and resilience of each person and the role this resiliency plays in his or her life. Throughout this thesis we should remember that we all have a vested interest in the treatment of people with disabilities because our designation as nondisabled is likely to only be temporary. Professor Michael Bérubé explains this well by saying: “For ‘disability’ is the most labile and pliable of categories: it names thousands of human conditions and varieties of impairment, from the slight to the severe, from the imperceptible physical incapacity to inexplicable developmental delay. It is a category whose constituency is contingency itself.

Any of us who identify as ‘nondisabled’ must know that our self-designation is inevitably temporary, and a car crash, a virus, a degenerative genetic disease, or a precedent-setting legal decision could change our status in ways over which we have no control.”20

18 Dean Hepworth and Ronald Rooney. Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills. (Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2013).

19 World Health Organization. World Report on Disability. (2011).

20 Simi Linton. Claiming Disability Knowledge and Identity. (New York University Press, 1998), Vii.

42 The Social Justice Review

Historical Perspectives on Disability By understanding some of the historical treatment of people with disabilities, we can begin to connect how stereotypical beliefs have been institutionalized into our ideas of what having a disability means and why society often relates disability to tragedy. During the Medieval period, it was thought that having a disability meant that one had sinned and the disability was a judgment.21 This group of people with disabilities was singled out and treated with prejudice by the majority because they were seen as a representation of evil.22 It was not uncommon for people with physical impairments to be sold to “freak shows” where they were put on display. Their features were portrayed as grotesque and inhuman for the organizers to gain profit, often for the duration of their lives.23 “People with disabilities have shared a history that has often been oppressive and included abuse, neglect, sterilization, stigma, euthanasia, segregation, and institutionalization.”24 In literary and artistic works, people with disabilities are often “portrayed as criminals or monsters or as people who are suicidal, maladjusted, or sexually deviant.”25 People with disabilities “are … seen as suffering punishment for doing evil; they are portrayed … as resentful of nondisabled people”26 The perception that disabilities were caused by sin and evil likely contributed to reasons that treatments that did exist were barbaric and cruel. The Romans believed that the blood of gladiators could cure disease, so it was common to line epileptics up to drink the blood of these slain men.27 Treatment for deafness forced deaf people to shout so loudly that blood flowed from their mouths. This practice was thought to waken their latent hearing.28 During the Renaissance, mental illnesses like depression, paralysis, and intellectual disabilities were treated by beating the patient on the head or even creating 21 David Braddock. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century: And the State of the States (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002).

22 Margaret Winzer and Lennard Davis. Disability and Society Before the Eighteenth Century: Dread and Despair. (New York Routledge, 1997).

23 Ibid. David Braddock. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st century: And the State of the States (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002).

24 Ibid., 41 25 Margaret Winzer and Lennard Davis. Disability and Society Before the Eighteenth Century: Dread and Despair. (New York Routledge, 1997). 78 26 Ibid., 78.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid

holes to remove “stones” or “black bile.”29 When a community became concerned that a person was likely to become a financial burden, he or she would be “warned out of town” and publicly whipped when he or she did not leave.30 People with disabilities were more likely to receive this kind of warning because of their higher probability of being poor. Furthermore, this group experienced higher rates of punishment by public whipping because of their difficulty in leaving without financial means and the lack of physical ability due to their vulnerable health status.31 Early supports for poverty and disability came in the form of almshouses, which followed the tradition of Elizabethan Poor Laws.32 These almshouses were intended to care for vulnerable groups such as children, the poor, the mentally ill, and people with other disabilities. To ensure that working and living independently was more desirable than living for free in almshouses, the living conditions were deliberately harsh. People lived in filth and barely had enough to eat.33 A schoolmistress, Dorthea Dix, led reformers to demand better conditions after finding “people with mental illness and retardation ‘in cages, closets, cellars, stalls, pens! Chained, naked, beaten with rods, and lashed into obedience.’”34 The response to the demand for better treatment of mentally ill patients was the beginning of asylums that were meant to be a place of rest and rehabilitation.

The Eugenics movement took the work of Charles Darwin on animal species and applied it to humans.35 There was a concern that people with “inferior” genes were multiplying faster than the people with superior genes, and the response was to institutionalize and sterilize disabled people in an effort to control the population.36 According to Shapiro, as the Eugenic ideology became popular, “Americans with mental retardation (called ‘idiots’ or ‘feebleminded’), mental illness, cerebral palsy …

29 David Braddock. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century: And the State of the States (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002).

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Joseph Shapiro. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993).

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid., 59.

35 Micheline Mason. Incurably Human. (Working Press, 2000).

36 David Braddock. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century: And the State of the States (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002); Micheline Mason. Incurably Human. (Working Press, 2000); Joseph Shapiro. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993).

43 The Social Justice Review were viewed as a menace that threatened to lower the health and intelligence of future generations.”37 Over 47,000 people were institutionalized and sterilized for reasons directly related to poverty and disability.38 Persons with disabilities lived in poverty and were oppressed and discriminated against: they lacked access to medical care, received poor education, experienced higher exposure to filth and disease, and lacked access to proper nutrition resulting in greater rates of disability. Poverty and resulting isolation made this group more disabled; the cycle of inaccessibility, oppression, and poverty mutually reinforced one another to create unattainable social conditions for people with impairments.

Shifting Social Perspectives of Disability After World War II, there was a shift in thinking about some specific types of disabilities.

Some of the first programs focusing on rehabilitation of disability were for wounded soldiers who were seen as the “deserving disabled.” Our society felt responsible for returning them as close to their prior normal functioning as possible because of their personal sacrifice.39 In 1962, Ed Roberts was the first severely disabled student to enroll in the University of California, Berkeley. He faced opposition to his admission from the University and the Department of Rehabilitation, which did not want to accommodate him. The justification of their opposition was the assumption that he was too severely disabled to benefit from education and to become employable.40 The response to his struggle to be accommodated led to the opening of the first Independent Living Center that served people with disabilities.41 This center and subsequent movement sparked a shift in ideology, from viewing people with disabilities as patients in hospitals and at home to individuals who can live independently with some assistance in the community.42 The Independent Living Movement “asserts that the disabled do not want to be relieved of their familial, occupational, and civic responsibilities 37 Ibid., 158.

38 David Braddock. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century: And the State of the States (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002).

39 Joseph Shapiro. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993).

40 David Braddock. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century: And the State of the States (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002).

41 Joseph Shapiro. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993).

42 Ibid.

in exchange for childlike dependency.”43 This movement focused on shifting the role of people with disabilities from patients to consumers and experts of their own needs.

Rehabilitation Act and ADA In 1973, a single sentence statement in the Rehabilitation Act, Section 504, opened the doors to the first disability regulations requiring access and accommodation as a right for people with disabilities.44 While Section 504 had passed, it was not immediately signed into law. This hesitancy prompted disabled groups to organize and protest; they took over a federal building, staged sit ins, chained themselves to buses, and climbed up the inaccessible stairs of the White House to create political pressure for Section 504 to be signed.45 The notion behind this legislation was revolutionary because it placed responsibility on society to provide access to people with disabilities and allow them to participate in their own private, civic lives and duties.46 According to Waxman-Fiuccia and Wolfe, “Disability rights law is based on the understanding that the problems which people with disabilities face are a consequence of segregation, poverty and discrimination rather than of personal defects or deficiencies.”47 Furthermore, in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed and created regulations against discrimination to safeguard the right to access and required the accommodation of people with disabilities.48 According to the ADA, to qualify as having a disability, a person must “have substantial, as distinct from minor, impairment(s), and that these must be impairments that limit major life activities such as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, and working.”49 For 43 Gerben DeJong. Defining and Implementing the Independent Living Concept. Independent Living for Physically Disabled People. (Jossy-Bass Publishers, 1983). 18.

44 Ibid.

45 Joseph Shapiro. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993).

46 David Braddock. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century: And the State of the States (American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002).

47 Barbara Waxman-Fiduccia and Leslie Wolfe. Defining the Issues. Women and Girls with Disabilities. (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1999), 5.

48 Joseph Shapiro. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993).

49 Henry Perritt. Americans with Disabilities Act Handbook (1991), 1.

44 The Social Justice Review persons to access these rights and protections, they must disclose their disability status and also be able to provide documentation of their impairments.

Despite progress, stereotypes that effect people with disabilities persist. The objective of a stereotype is not to accurately represent reality, but instead to disguise and mystify actual social relations that “…are invoked to make racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression appear to be natural, normal and inevitable.”50 A common stereotypical belief about people with disabilities is that they are in bad health while in fact, “a person may need a wheelchair for help in moving or a respirator for help in breathing yet live a long and healthy life.”51 This inaccurate representation of their health status makes it easy to understand why it is common for society to believe that people with disabilities need to be cured.52 When people with disabilities are seen as sick, it is quite natural for us to expect the medical profession to come up with a cure. Yet in most cases, a cure is impossible for people with disabilities, so this expectation sets them up for something they can never achieve.53 Linton explains that another “… popular phrase overcoming a disability is used most often to describe someone with a disability who seems competent and successful in some way... while it … it seems that what is overcome is the social stigma of having a disability.”54

Current Circumstances for People with Disabilities If people with disabilities have the legal right to access and accommodation, we would assume that this group would no longer be oppressed, stigmatized, or discriminated against. However, we find that people with disabilities are disproportionately undereducated, underemployed, and unemployed compared to their non-disabled peers.55 The same regulations that are intended to provide access to employment can have unintended consequence of discrimination in the employment application process. For example, 50 Lynn Weber, Tina Hancock and Elizabeth Higginbotham. Women, Power, and Mental Health. (Ohio State, 1998), 383.

51 Joseph Shapiro. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. (New York: Times Books, 1993), 262.

52 Ibid.

53 Edward Golub. Framing Health and Disease. The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes our Hope for the Cure. (Random House, 1994).

54 Simi Linton. Claiming Disability Knowledge and Identity. (New York University Press, 1998), 17.

55 Matthew Brault. Americans with Disabilities: 2010 Household Economic Studies. (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012).

people with disabilities may ask for accommodation they need when applying for jobs, but to get this accommodation the applicants/people with disabilities will have to disclose and document their disability, which reduces their chance of being viewed as a competitive choice for the job. These subtler types of discrimination are also present in racism; while they are not as overt, they can still be hurtful and harmful and generate the same exclusionary affects.

The World Health Organization found that children with disabilities are excluded from educational opportunities and thus placed among the poorest people in the world.56 The 2010 Census statistics found that children with disabilities were more than twice as likely (30.1% of severe and nonsevere compared to 8.8% of non-disabled children) to have less than high school diplomas.57 This same census found that less than one-half, 41.1 %, of individuals aged 21–64 with disabilities were employed, compared to 79.1% of people without disabilities in the same age group.58 These high levels of unemployment also resulted in high poverty rates.

According to Brault, during 2010, 28.6 % of people aged 15–64 with severe disabilities, 17.9% with nonsevere disabilities, and only 14.3% of non-disabled people lived in poverty, and over half (53.1%) of people with severe disabilities experienced poverty for the last two years or more.59 Disparities begin for people with disabilities as young children who likely live in poverty with few educational opportunities. Special education programs are likely to be overcrowded and understaffed; thus, teachers of these programs do not have the resource nor the time to help the students with disabilities develop academic skills. The lack of skills then translates into having fewer options for employment later in life, which, in turn, ensures people with disabilities will remain in poverty. Living in poverty directly correlates with increasing likelihood of disability because of lack of good nutrition, limited access to medical care, and lack of financial resources.

All these factors work together in a cyclical fashion to increase the chance of acquiring one or multiple disabilities, which will in turn increase their likelihood of having lower socioeconomic statuses, while raising 56 World Health Organization. World Report on Disability. (2011).

57 Matthew Brault, Americans with Disabilities: 2010 Household Economic Studies. (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012).

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid.

45 The Social Justice Review their chances of living in deep poverty. This can be seen as a downward spiral cycle of disability and poverty (see Figure A), where the nature of oppression and discrimination begets poverty, which begets disability and in turn begets more oppression and discrimination.

Women with Disabilities Prevalence Women with disabilities make up the largest percentage of people with disabilities. Women are more likely to live longer with chronic conditions than men, who are more likely to have conditions that cause early death.60 It is estimated that nearly 1 in 5 women have disabilities that limit them in one or more major life activities.61 Women with a disability aged 20–64 were 10.2% of the total population in 2012.62 Of this population of adult women with disabilities, 20.7% have less than a high school education.63 In 2012, 28.4% of adults with disabilities lived in poverty compared to 12.2% of their nondisabled peers (Poverty in the United States, 2013).

According to Waxman-Fiduccia and Wolfe, “While many women with disabilities derive enormous strength, resilience and creativity from their multiple identities, they also face the consequences of discrimination—low rates of employment, low wages, low educational levels, high rates of sexual and physical violence, and limited access to health services, including reproductive health care”64

Femininity, Women’s Roles, and Disability

The social construct of femininity is deeply rooted in the image of being a good wife and mother while also being beautiful.65 Women and girls without disabilities may be preoccupied with physical beauty,

60 Barbara Waxman-Fiduccia and Leslie Wolfe. Defining the Issues. Women and Girls with Disabilities. (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1999).

61 Ibid.

62 Disability Statistics. Disability Statistics. (Cornell University, 2013).

63 Ibid.

64 Barbara Waxman-Fiduccia and Leslie Wolfe. Defining the Issues. Women and Girls with Disabilities. (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1999), 3.

65 Deborah Kent. Women with Disabilities Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics. (Temple Union Press, 1988).

often regarded as a mark of their self-worth.66 Women with disabilities face the same issues in terms of body image as women in general, but the former may face additional complicated issues related to disability, including scars, deformities, disfigurement, abnormal expressions and gestures, the presence of devices such as wheelchairs crutches, artificial limbs, braces, and devices for bowel and bladder management.67 This social construct of femininity does not fit well together with the reality of disability, which complicates the lives of girls and women. Having a disability is likely to mean that girls or women with disabilities will be less likely to marry, become parents, and get jobs.68 These obstacles obscure women with disabilities’ sense of their own femininity and the way the society and their families perceive them.69 These feelings contribute to an internalized oppression that can be understood as the way persons receive societal and media messages of diminished self-worth until it becomes internalized and part of the way that they view themselves.70 This internalized oppression contributes to why women with disabilities may view themselves as flawed, and not as socially desirable as their non-disabled peers.

These complicated social constructions and how they intersect with the developing identity of girls and women with disabilities likely result in fewer choices in marriage partners, which explains why women with disabilities are less likely to be married than their nondisabled peers.71 Girls and women with disabilities are often thought to lack the same range of life experiences as their non-disabled peers.72 Frequently, society and family may inadvertently act in ways that are 66 Sheryl Burt Ruzek, Virginia Olesen and Adele Clarke. Beauty Myths and Realities and Their Impact on Women’s Health. Women’s Health: Complexities and Differences (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1997).

67 Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland, Diana H. Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. “National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. “Sexuality and Disability” (2001).

68 Deborah Kent. Women with Disabilities Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics. (Temple Union Press, 1988).

69 Sheryl Burt Ruzek, Virginia Olesen and Adele Clarke. Beauty Myths and Realities and Their Impact on Women’s Health. Women’s Health: Complexities and Differences (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1997).

70 Nadina LaSpina. Disabled Woman The Forging of a Proud Identity .

Disability Culture in NYC. (1998).

71 Lita Jans and Susan Stoddard. Chartbook on Women and Disability in the United States. (An InfoUse Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 1999).

72 Carolyn Vash. The Psychology of Disability. (New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1981).

46 The Social Justice Review overprotective of women and girls with disabilities and intend to shield them.73 For girls and women with disabilities, these actions are likely to inhibit their ability to develop their own perspectives and thoughts in the same ways and as fully as they would have without disabilities. Lack of life experiences and selfdetermination can set women or girls with disability up to being accustomed to someone else having control over their life and make them more vulnerable to abuse.

The Center for Research on Women with Disabilities (CROWD) found that overprotective parents and caregivers may prevent teens with disabilities from learning about and experiencing sexuality.74 Girls and women with disabilities have less sexual knowledge and experience. The lack of sexual and reproductive knowledge is closely linked to the overprotection of women and girls with disabilities, who may not receive these facts because others do not feel these, are facts that they need, harkening back to Eugenic ideology.

Conclusion In this chapter we have discussed how disability is much more than a medical diagnosis and how important it is for us to understand people within the context of their environment. There is a relationship among sociopolitical factors; structural barriers; and the ways people are treated by their community and family, their impairment, and personal characteristics and resilience that influence the ways they experience disability. The next chapter will use the social context of disability to uncover the factors that may inadvertently create conditions where women with disabilities, in particular, are more likely to become victims of abuse than their non-disabled peers.

Figure A, Cyclical Nature of Disability and Poverty

73 Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland, Diana Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final report. Sexuality and Disability (2001).

74 Ibid.

Chapter 2: Women with Disabilities and Domestic Violence General Overview of Women’s Experience with Violence According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 64% of abuse reported by women in the United States occurred in an intimate relationship.75 The abuse that happens in an intimate relationship is commonly referred to as intimate partner violence (IPV) and domestic violence (DV).

This chapter will include abuse that occurs in domestic settings where the abusive party is a family member, roommate, caretaker, or even personal assistant and refer to all of these types of abuses as domestic violence.

The National Violence Against Women Survey estimated 1.5 million women experience physical or sexual violence each year in the United States.76 Furthermore, the survey found that 15%–30% of the women had a prior history of domestic violence; this illustrates how often it not a single act of abuse, but more likely to occur repeatedly over a period of time.77 The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that one in every four women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime.78 These rates are likely to be conservative estimates because domestic violence is highly underreported to authorities and a source of stigma and shame for victims.79 The prevalence of domestic violence will be discussed later in this chapter as it relates to women with disabilities specifically.

Types of Abuse The National Violence Against Women Survey defines physical assault as “behaviors that 75 Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Full Report of the Prevalence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. (2000).

76 Ibid.

77 Judy C. Chang, Sandra L. Martin, Katherine E. Moracco, Lisa Dulli, Donna Scandlin, Mary Beth Loucks-Sorrel, Tracy Turner, Leslie Starsoneck, Pattie Neal Dorian and Ingrid Bou-Saada. (2003). Helping Women with Disabilities and Domestic Violence: Strategies, Limitations, and Challenges of Domestic Violence Programs and Services. (Journal of Women’s Health, 2003); Patricia Tjaden, and Nacy Thoennes, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Full Report of the Prevalence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. (2000).

78 National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Domestic Violence Facts: California. (2013).

79 Ibid.

47 The Social Justice Review threaten, attempt, or actually inflict physical harm.”80 The survey defined sexual assault and rape as “an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis.”81 A subtler form is financial abuse, which can be covert and uses tactics to limit the partner’s access to assets or conceal information.82 Emotional abuse is much harder to define because it can be covert, subtle or elusive; people often may not even recognize that they are being maltreated emotionally. This type of abuse can prohibit people from leaving the abusive situation. Emotional abuse also often occurs in the context of physical and sexual abuse. All forms of abuse are not mutually exclusive and often occur in simultaneously.83

Theoretical Models Domestic violence is complicated because of a variety of definitions, causes, victims and perpetrators.

The social learning theory tells us that people model their own behavior according to behaviors they witnessed as children.84 The intergenerational cycle of violence theory explains that vulnerability and exposure to domestic violence creates tomorrow’s victims and perpetrators.85 Using these theories as a framework to understand domestic violence, we can begin to recognize the intergenerational effects of abuse spanning through families.

According to Heise, “An ecological approach to abuse conceptualizes violence as a multifaceted phenomenon grounded in an interplay among personal, situational, and sociocultural factors.”86 We can imagine this as embedded levels of causality with multiple factors occurring on multiple ecological levels. For example, a personal history of witnessing abuse may be connected to male dominance within a family in the microsystem, which can be related to low socioeconomic status in the exosystem and acceptance 80 Ibid, 5.

81 Ibid, 4.

82 National Network to End Domestic Violence. About Financial Abuse.

(2014).

83 Ibid.

84 Nicky Ali Jackson. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2011) 85 Ibid.

86 Lori L. Heise. Violence Against Women an Integrated, Ecological Framework . Violence Against Women (1998), 263.

of interpersonal violence within the macrosystem.87 The diversity and variables that affect the likelihood of violence and abuse preclude simpler and singlefactor theories of causation.88 Instead by recognizing the array of potential reasons for an increased risk and organizing these factors according to their best fit in an ecological context, social workers can better assess and intervene in this social problem on multiple social and ecological levels.89

Social Impact of Domestic Violence Each victim of domestic violence may experience the effects in very different ways because of the direct and indirect impact on the whole person both physically and emotionally. Abuse can consist of a combination of physical injuries, emotional trauma, sexual assault, intimidation and neglect.

Abuse, therefore, is a public health problem that affects women and can cause injuries, mental health problems, substance abuse, suicidal ideation or attempts, and even death90 Acts of domestic violence carry physical and emotional effects for victims and witnesses and are considered as “act[s] of aggression and hostility against a whole person. This is not just a sexual act or a bodily violation, but an indignity, an invasion, and violation of a person that affects the victim physically, psychologically, and socially; an assault which does not necessarily end when the assailant leaves or is caught.”91 On a macro level, domestic violence produces a high cost: increasing emergency room visits, inflating levels of unemployment, elevating the cost of social welfare programs, raising crime rates, overcrowding the justice and prison system, and flooding school systems that are unequipped to handle the numerous children who are either victims or witnesses of domestic violence. The National Coalition 87 Ibid.

88 Douglas A. Brownridge. Partner Violence Against Women With Disabilities Prevalence, Risk, and Explanations. Violence Against Women.

(2006).

89 Ibid.

90 Sandra L. Martin, Neepa Ray, Daniela Sotres-Alvarez, Lawrence Kupper, Kathryn Moracco, Pamela Dickens, Donna Scandlin and Ziya Gizlice. Physical and Sexual Assault of Women with Disabilities. Violence Against Women (2006); Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies. Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004).

91 Sharon Milberger, Nathaniel Israel, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Shuster. Violence Against Women with Physical Disabilities. Violence and Victims (2003), 583.

48 The Social Justice Review Against Domestic Violence estimates that domestic violence costs the state of California over $5.8 billion per year.92 Rates of domestic violence highly correlates with substance abuse of both the perpetrator and the victim and their low socioeconomic status.93 These factors make domestic violence an important social problem that needs to be addressed on both public and private fronts.

Women with Disabilities and Domestic Violence Domestic Violence and Women with Disabilities: Special Factors and Considerations In addition to the other forms of abuse mentioned, women with disabilities face added vulnerabilities to disability related abuse as a result of their disability status. This type of abuse includes assaults perpetrated by disability service providers and their staff, withholding of necessary assistance, and exploitation of the women’s disabilities. For our purposes, domestic violence will refer to all forms of abuse mentioned, regardless of the perpetrator’s identity: an intimate partner, family member, caretaker, paid attendant or disability service provider.

According to Waman and Fiduccia, “It is estimated that … 10.9% of all American families, have one or more parent with disability.”94 Nearly 1 of every 5 women in the United States has a disability, which makes women with disabilities a large minority of women who also experience domestic violence.95 Although available research is minimal in this area, it suggests that women with disabilities do experience higher rates of abuse than their non-disabled peers.96 92 National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Domestic Violence Facts: California. (2013).

93 Denise A. Hines, Kathleen Malley-Morrison, and Leila B. Dutton.

Family Violence in the United States: Defining, Understanding, and Combating Abuse. (Sage, 2012).

94 Barbara Waxman Fiduccia. Multiplying Choices: Improving Access to Reproductive Health Services for Women With Disabilities. (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1997), 5.

95 Barbara Waxman-Fiduccia and Leslie Wolfe. Defining the Issues. Women and Girls with Disabilities. (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1999).

96 Sharon Milberger, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Nathaniel Israel, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. (National Institute of Justice, 2002); Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland, Diana Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. Sexuality and Disability (2001); Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies. Oregon

General research trends estimate nearly 87% of women with a disability had been physically abused, 66% reported sexual abuse, 35% were refused help with personal needs, and 19% reported that they were prevented from using their assistive devices.97 Preliminary findings suggest that domestic violence for women with disabilities tends to be more severe and occurring over longer periods of time.98 Missing from the research are estimates of financial and emotional abuse, which is most difficult to quantify because of the elusive and oftentimes covert nature of this type of maltreatment. Domestic violence can be aggravated by existing impairments and, in turn, impairments themselves can be aggravated by domestic violence injuries.99 It is important to note that women with disabilities who have been victimized by domestic violence are more likely to have been abused as children. Physical and sexual abuse of disabled children is far more common than anyone can believe.

According to Mason, “the idea that everyone who works with disabled children is kind, dedicated, and morally pure is no more than a fantasy. Also, it is hard for children, who already may have had their body manipulated…, to know when they are being abused.”100 Sobsey and Doe found that 39% of children with multiple disabilities had known prior histories of abuse.101 The National Violence Against Women Survey results revealed that “women who reported they were raped before age 18 were twice as likely

Institute on Disability and Development (2004). Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004); Dick Sobsey. Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities. (Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing, 1994).

97 Sharon Milberger, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Nathaniel Israel, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. (National Institute of Justice, 2002); Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland, Diana Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. Sexuality and Disability (2001); Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies. Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004). Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004).

98 Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland and Mary Ellen Young. Abuse of Women with Disabilities: Policy Implications. (Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1997) 99 Jill Radford, Lynne Harne and Joy Trotter. Disabled Women and Domestic Violence as Violent Crime. (Practice, 2006).

100 Micheline Mason. (1995) “The Breaking of Relationships.” (Micheline Mason – Homepage, 1995), 5.

101 Dick Sobsey and Tanis Doe. Patterns of Sexual Abuse and Assault. (Sexuality and Disability, 1991).

49 The Social Justice Review to report being raped as an adult.”102 This early and repeated exposure to abuse could likely desensitize women with disabilities into accepting it as part of an intimate or familial relationship.

Perpetrators of Abuse Similar to their non-disabled peers, women with disabilities experience abuse perpetrated by not only intimate partners, but also family members, friends, and professionals and assistants with whom the women come into contact with.103 Milberger et al.’s study, funded by the Department of Justice, revealed that a male partner was identified by the majority (80%) of the women as the abuser, followed by family member (31%), acquaintance (15%), and caretaker or health professional (12%).104 While identifying the perpetrators, one must consider the “social context of disability, including factors such as inaccessibility, reliance on support services, poverty and isolation,” and lack of social supports and dependency as factors that increase the risk for violence.105 Some researchers have hypothesized that it is by virtue of the exposure to potential abusers that risk of violence increases; in addition, some perpetrators may deliberately target vulnerable people who are unlikely to report abuse or gain credibility when they do report it.

Intimate Partner Violence for Women with Disabilities The National Study from Baylor College of Medicine found that while women with disabilities were less satisfied with how often they date, 87% had 102 Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Full Report of the Prevalence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. (2000).

103 Sharon Milberger, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Nathaniel Israel, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. (National Institute of Justice, 2002); Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland, Diana Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. Sexuality and Disability (2001); Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies. Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004). Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004); Dick Sobsey. Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities. (Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing, 1994).

104 Sharon Milberger, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Nathaniel Israel, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. (National Institute of Justice, 2002).

105 Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies.

Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004), 2.

at least one serious relationship and were significantly more likely to stay in a bad marriage than women without disabilities because of fears of losing custody of their children.106 Martin et al. found that the most common perpetrators of domestic violence were exintimate partners, who are responsible for 44% of physical assaults and 48% of sexual assaults.107 Since women with disabilities may have fewer opportunities for intimate relationships, these percentages imply that they experience disproportionate rates of abuse within intimate relationships.

Lenore Walker’s cycle of violence theory has commonly been used as a framework to understand intimate partner violence.108 This cycle has distinct phases that repeat and has been a tool used to assess situations of women experiencing violence.109 Professor Copel from Villanova University found that women with disabilities experience a similar cycle of abuse, but with one very significant variation: their disability model lacks the “honeymoon phase.”110 Abuse episodes usually escalate from verbal attacks then culminate into an episode of violence, during which attacks are brutal, and women report damage to home and property and the confiscation of assistive devices like wheelchairs and medications.111 Following the episode, the perpetrator would leave or separate themselves from the woman; one woman in the study referred to it as a “giant time-out.”112 For women with disabilities the abuse was not discussed as if it had ever happened until life returned to a “superficial” normal.113 According to Copel, “All of the women commented on the man’s lack of acknowledgement that he had done anything wrong.”114 The perpetrators’ lack of empathy or remorse for injury may be directly related to the abuse of women with disabilities since 106 Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland, Diana Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. Sexuality and Disability (2001).

107 Sandra Martin, Neepa Ray, Daniela Sotres-Alvarez, Lawrence Kupper, Kathryn Moracco, Pamela Dickens, Donna Scandlin, and Ziya Gizlice. Physical and Sexual Assault of Women with Disabilities. (Violence Against Women, 2006).

108 Leonre E. Walker. The Battered Woman. (New York: Harper & Row, 1979).

109 Linda C. Copel. Partner Abuse in Physically Disabled Women: A Proposed Model for Understanding Intimate Partner Violence. (Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 2006).

110 Ibid.

111 Ibid.

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid.

114 Ibid, 121.

50 The Social Justice Review the women all reported the same aversion of guilt by the perpetrator.115 The women with disabilities in this study felt that “since their disability rendered them physically ‘different from’ or ‘less than’ other women, there was no compelling reason for the male partner to be remorseful.”116 The lack of acknowledgement by the intimate partner could be seen as a tactic to ensure the woman would remain complacent. As tensions built, the cycle would begin again, and the women reported that the situation never improved until they finally left.117

Sexual Assault

Sobsey and Doe reported that most people with disabilities who have experienced sexual assaults are women and most perpetrators are males.118 Their study findings indicated that 81 of 100 women who reported sexual assault had a prior history of “major physical and or sexual assault.”119 Other studies estimated that having a disability increased the likelihood of experiencing sexual assault up to four times.120 Research findings suggested that the increased risk could be related to the limited ability of the woman with a disability to defend herself, report the abuse, or recognize inappropriate behaviors.121 According to Sobsey and Doe’s study, “49.6% of women with disabilities had been sexually assaulted over 10 times; 24.4%, up to ten times; and 20.4%, once.”122 These high rates of repeated sexual assault could be linked to the consistent exposure to the same caregivers and disability related service providers upon whom women with disabilities may rely.

Because women with disabilities have limited access to social supports, care providers may overlook or misunderstand the signs of sexual abuse.

115 Ibid.

116 Ibid, 124.

117 Ibid.

118 Dick Sobsey and Tanis Doe. Patterns of Sexual Abuse and Assault. (Sexuality and Disability, 1991).

119 Ibid.

120 Carri Casteel, Sandra L. Martin, Jamie B. Smith, Kelly K. Gurka and Lawrence L. Kupper. National Study of Physical and Sexual Assault Among Women with Disabilities. (Injury Prevention,2008).

121 Ibid; Sandra Martin, Neepa Ray, Daniela Sotres-Alvarez, Lawrence Kupper, Kathryn Moracco, Pamela Dickens, Donna Scandlin, and Ziya Gizlice Physical and Sexual Assault of Women with Disabilities. (Violence Against Women, 2006).

122 Dick Sobsey and Tanis Doe. Patterns of Sexual Abuse and Assault. (Sexuality and Disability, 1991), 247.

Disability Related Domestic Violence: Family Members and Caregivers Women with disabilities who are taken care of at home by family members report lower rates of abuse, which is difficult to explain but possibly results from the following factors: shame, guilt of needing care, difficulty reporting because few opportunities to speak out, and reluctance to report the perpetrator who is a family member.123 Research has suggested that learned helplessness or compliance makes these women easier targets.124 Examples of this type of disability related domestic violence include “exerting power and control in the dispensing or withholding of medication [as] an intentional prolonging of pain alongside withholding or misusing aids, like wheel chairs or hearing aids which compound the isolating impacts of domestic violence.”125 Likewise, caregivers and paid attendants who work in the private homes of women with disabilities are also threats to multiple victims.

According to Milberger et al., “the very dependence, which can breed abuse, also creates a barrier to terminating the abusive situation because to do so would leave the woman without essential support services” if they spoke out.126 Other complicating factors may include fears that she may be removed from her home and taken to a nursing facility because of a lack of options for placement when escaping an abusive family member.127 This fear may silence women with disabilities because their care needs leave them with an even more undesirable option. In addition, the study from Baylor College of Medicine revealed that in some cases abuse perpetrated by family members is not deliberate, but a response to their frustrations and inability to 123 Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies.

Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004). Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004).

124 Sharon Milberger, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Nathaniel Israel, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. (National Institute of Justice, 2002); Dick Sobsey. Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities.

(Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing, 1994).

125 Jill Radford, Lynne Harne, and Joy Trotter. Disabled Women and Domestic Violence as Violent Crime. (Practice, 2006), 236.

126 Sharon Milberger, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Nathaniel Israel, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. (National Institute of Justice, 2002), 3.

127 Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies.

Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004). Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004).

51 The Social Justice Review cope with stress, fatigue, anger, and jealousy.128 These frustrations likely stem from the limited resources available to care for their family members with disabilities.

Disability Related Abuse in Disability Service Settings Abuse by disability related service providers can occur in private homes or care institutions.129 This is different than the caretaker or paid attendant relationship because it usually occurs within a context of providing a specific service. The disability service provider may not necessarily provide daily care to the women with disabilities. Unlike paid attendants who are employed by the people with disabilities and paid public or private agency, these types of service providers are employed by agencies. Based on the reports of abuse, Sobsey and Doe’s study found that 36.7% of abuse reported occurred in environments that the woman encountered as a result of their disability.130 Their estimates suggest that including disability related abuse with domestic violence increases the likelihood of being victimized by an additional 78%, due to the exposure to “disabilities service system.”131 This type of abuse is typically perpetrated by people whom the woman with a disability does not have a personal relationship, and acts of abuse usually use the impairment as part of the abuse.132 Hague, Thiara and Mullender surmise the severity of disability related abuse correlates with the additional vulnerability caused by frailty, illnesses, age and immobilization.133 Some unique vulnerabilities to abuse experienced by women with disabilities include social stereotypes of asexuality and passivity, lack of adaptive equipment, inaccessible home and community environments, increased exposure to 128 Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland, Diana H. Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. (Sexuality and Disability, 2001).

129 Gill Hague, Ravi Thiara and Audrey Mullender. Disabled Women, Domestic Violence and Social Care: The Risk of Isolation, Vulnerability and Neglect. (British Journal of Social Work, 2011).

130 Dick Sobsey and Tanis Doe. Patterns of Sexual Abuse and Assault. (Sexuality and Disability, 1991).

131 Ibid.

132 Douglas A. Brownridge. Partner Violence Against Women With Disabilities Prevalence, Risk, and Explanations. (Violence Against Women, 2006); Gill Hague, Ravi Thiara and Audrey Mullender. Disabled Women, Domestic Violence and Social Care: The Risk of Isolation, Vulnerability and Neglect. (British Journal of Social Work, 2011).

133 Ibid.

medical and institutional settings, and inability of physically leaving the abusive environment.134 Disability related abuse is an added vulnerability for women with disabilities specifically. While this abuse may seem different from domestic violence at first, it is likely to have the same effects upon victims because it is occurring with repeated exposure within the context of a working relationship.

Conclusion This chapter shed light on the similarities and differences of domestic violence for both women with disabilities and their non-disabled peers.

Although all women have increased risk for intimate partner violence and domestic violence, women with disabilities may be particularly vulnerable and face higher prevalence rates over their life and possibly more severe types of violence and related impacts.

In the next chapter of this thesis, we will explore the “goodness of fit” between women with disabilities who are exposed to violence and the existing network of services for women who have experienced intimate partner or domestic violence.

Chapter 3: Domestic Violence Services General Overview Institutional and Societal Responses to Domestic Violence

The abuse of women by husbands and families used to be considered a private issue that was not society’s business.135 During the 1970’s feminist movement, the private abuse of women became a public problem that had to be addressed; this is because women lacked the resources to escape violent and dangerous situations at home.136 The rise of public 134 Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland and Mary Young. Abuse of Women with Disabilities: Policy Implications. (Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1997); Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol Howland, Diana H. Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report. (Sexuality and Disability, 2001).

135 Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Full Report of the Prevalence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women. (2000).

136 Nicky Ali Jackson. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. (New

52 The Social Justice Review awareness was an important shift recognizing the needs of women who were abused and marking the beginning of the Women’s Shelter Movement.137 This new grassroots movement was initiated by activists who focused on the elimination of male perpetrated violence against women by providing the abused women with a temporary safe place to stay.138 Shelters primarily relied on private funding and were run by a few staff members and volunteers.139 Little has changed today; shelters receive limited government funds, but are still mainly grassroots privately funded organizations.

As the issue of domestic violence gathered more attention by society, more laws were created to address the abuse of women. Society responded by creating laws recognizing the abuse of women.

According to Jackson, the “Violence Against Women Act of 1994” was “the first and most comprehensive federal legislation to address violence against women in the history of the United States.”140 For the first time, this act addressed the punishment for abuse, the privacy of the victim, and the restitution to victims of domestic violence. This act provided equal protection to women across all fifty states against gender-based violence.141

Factors Related to Escape There is great variation in the way that people experience and understand domestic violence. Some of the variation is a result of different types of abuses inflicted on victims, the level of severity of the abuse, and the impact of emotional abuse in particular.

According to Barnett, in order to attempt to leave an abusive partner, the battered woman must first “traverse several changes in beliefs: (a) acknowledging the relationship is unhealthy, (b) realizing it will not get better, (c) experiencing some catalyst (e.g., severe injury), (d) giving up the dream of an idealized relationship.”142 Changing these beliefs often takes time, during which the victims continue to experience an increasingly severe and chronic sequelae of York, NY: Routledgee, 2007).

137 Ibid.

138 Jackson, Nicky Ali (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. (New York, NY: Routledgee, 2007).

139 Ibid.

140 Ibid, 719.

141 Ibid.

142 Ola W. Barnett. “Why Battered Women Do Not Leave, Part 1 External Inhibiting Factors Within Society.” (Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2000), 345.

maltreatment by the abusive party.

Although leaving an abusive environment may prove the safest long-term strategy for many severely battered women, it can pose very high, immediate risks to them in the short-term. This escalation of violence by the perpetrator can occur for many reasons, such as the perpetrator’s fear and anger about losing control, the guilty party’s realization that others may learn about their abusive behavior, the abuser’s panic of losing custody of children, and even concerns of being criminally prosecuted. Ola Barnett’s study found that up to 75% of women who were killed by their partners were in the process of terminating their relationship at the time of their murder.143 In some instances, leaving may lead batterers to kill themselves, their children, and their partners in an act referred to as family annihilation.144 After deciding to leave, the women must meticulously plan and consider many factors, such as the ability to create a safe escape plan, the control of the perpetrator, a safe place to go, the loss of employment and custody of children, and the lack of financial resources. It is not uncommon for the process of leaving to take many attempts; in fact, some estimates have found that it is common for victims to escape and return an average of 5 times or more before finally leaving permanently.145 First attempts may rely on informal supports from families and friends; when informal supports are not able to facilitate a permanent escape, formal supports become essential.

Domestic Violence Services, Barriers, and Helpfulness Domestic violence services usually include some combination of the following services to victims: 24-hour crisis hotlines, drop-in individual and group counseling, legal advocacy with civil and criminal remedies, short-term emergency shelters,

143 Ibid 144 Andrew R. Klein. Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research: For Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Judges. (Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice, 2009).

145 Ola W Barnett. “Why Battered Women Do Not Leave, Part 1 External Inhibiting Factors Within Society.” (Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2000); Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Why I finally left. (Good Housekeeping, 2011).

53 The Social Justice Review and community education and outreach.146 Shelter is a critical feature of services for battered women. It offers a safe refuge for women and their children and leaves the women time to think about their options and begin to rebuild their lives with social and legal assistance.147 The entire continuum of services is staffed by volunteers and paraprofessionals who work directly with women seeking. In some cases, these paraprofessionals may be supervised by professionals such as social workers or lawyers.

Researchers suggest that the common barriers in accessing these types of services are lack of financial resources, time, and awareness of what is available.148 Other access barriers include shame, isolation, and loss of privacy, and embarrassment, which can be amplified due to emotional abuse.149 According to Bennett, Riger, Schwew, Howard and Wasco, when victims are able to access formal services, they report several benefits, including an improvement in their decision making ability, an increase in their selfefficacy and coping skills, and a feeling of safety at the shelter.150

Women with Disabilities and Domestic Violence Services General Overview

Neither the Women’s Shelter Movement nor the Violence Against Women Act recognized or mentioned the need for protection against abuse for women with disabilities. The Crime Victim’s with Disabilities Awareness Act, is the first of its kind, concentrating on “public awareness of the plight of victims of crime with developmental disabilities….”151 This act focuses on the collection of data in order to quantifying the problem, and uses this information 146 Larry Bennett, Stephanie Riger, Paul Schewe, April Howard, and Sharon Wasco. “Effectiveness of Hotline, Advocacy, Counseling, and Shelter Services for Victims of Domestic Violence a Statewide Evaluation.” (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2004) 147 Ibid.

148 Michelle Fugate, Leslie Landis, Kim Riordan, Sara Naureckas, and Barbara Engel. “Barriers to Domestic Violence Help Seeking Implications for Intervention.” (Violence Against Women, 2005).

149 Ibid.

150 Larry Bennett, Stephanie Riger, Paul Schewe, April Howard, and Sharon Wasco. “Effectiveness of Hotline, Advocacy, Counseling, and Shelter Services for Victims of Domestic Violence a Statewide Evaluation.” (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2004).

151 Crime Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act. U.S. Government Information GPO. (1998), 2838.

to develop strategies addressing the safety and justice needs of this population.152 While this act recognized the need to raise awareness of this issue, it did not provide specific recommendations or regulations.

Moreover, the disability community has criticized that it did not address gender-based violence nor include a diversity of disabilities, only the pervasive developmental disabilities.153

Domestic Violence Services for Women with Disabilities Isolation from society and an absence of informal social supports for women with disabilities make it critical for us to understand the service needs of this population when seeking help for domestic violence. Accessing social support is difficult for all women who are being abused, but especially difficult and complicated for women with disabilities due to physical limitations, social isolation from friends and or family, and limited situations where women who are being victimized may meet new people.154 With little access to social support systems and networks, women may be forced to look to formal services for support in escaping abusive situations.

For battered women with disabilities, going to shelter relies primarily on two factors: 1) that they know resources are available; and 2) that those resources are accessible and offer relevant disabilityrelated accommodations. Those accommodations may include a wide range of adjustments including accessible buildings, doorways, bathrooms, showers, and meeting rooms; American Sign Language interpreters; print materials available in Braille, large print, and materials that are understandable for various levels of literacy; the provision of personal attendants; and access to psychiatric medications.

Because agencies and organizations that serve battered women are typically grassroots organizations, they may not have the resources to increase their accessibility, and will mean fewer accessible services for women with disabilities. According to Milberger et al. “…only a small proportion of women with disability (16%) successfully sought and received 152 Ibid.

153 Barbara Waxman-Fiduccia and Leslie Wolfe. “Violence Against Disabled Women.” Center for Women Policy Studies (1999).

154 Cheribeth Tan, Joanne Basta, Cris M. Sullivan, and William S. Davidson. “The Role of Social Support in the Lives of Women Exiting Domestic Violence Shelters An Experimental Study.” (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1995)

54 The Social Justice Review adequate help to resolve their crisis situations.”155 As a result of this “poorness of fit” between the needs of battered women with disabilities and the continuum of services, these women are more likely to remain in chronically abusive situations that escalate in the level of severity over longer a period of time.

In addition, although women with disabilities typically have some sort of disability related service providers such as social workers, therapists, doctors, and paraprofessionals, these service providers may not recognize or respond accordingly to the signs of intimate partner violence or disability-related domestic violence. According to Radford, Hame, & Trotter (2006), “… most disability agencies knew little about their clients’ experiences of domestic violence.”156 Just as professionals and paraprofessionals who respond to gender-based violence may be unaware of the special needs of women with disabilities, professionals and paraprofessionals who provide disability-related services may have little cross training in interpersonal violence.157 Consequently, women who have both sets of concerns—living with disability and being exposed to intimate or disabilityrelated domestic violence—may be overlooked in each continuum of service for “the other problem.”

Women with Disabilities and Inaccessible Shelters Currently, due to the high and growing demand for shelters, bed availability becomes a problem for women suffering from domestic violence.158 Even under the requirements of the American’s with Disabilities Act, state laws, and local ordinances, shelters that are frequently financially struggling still cannot ensure that these services are accessible to women with disabilities. Despite legal protection, Sobsey and Doe found that just over 50% of the services “failed to provide any accommodation to the special needs of the individual with a disability” while “another 22.8% were viewed as inadequately attempting to meet the special needs” of women with 155 Sharon Milberger, Barbara LeRoy, A. Martin, N. Israel, L. Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. “Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities, Final Report.” (National Institute of Justice, US 2002), 16.

156 Jill Radford, Lynne Harne and Joy Trotter. “Disabled Women and Domestic Violence as Violent Crime.” (Practice, 2006), 241.

157 Gill Hague, Ravi Thiara and Audrey Mullender. “Disabled Women, Domestic Violence and Social Care: The Risk of Isolation, Vulnerability and Neglect.” (British Journal of Social Work 2010).

158 Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol A. Howland and Mary Ellen Young.

“Abuse of Women with Disabilities Policy Implications.” (Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1997).

disabilities.159 Moreover, a study on domestic violence services found that “…in relation to mental health, it is necessary to balance the woman’s needs with those of other residents, raising issues of confidentiality;” sometimes a woman would have to be referred out because of fears that her mental health could not be managed.160 Doubts of not being allowed to stay and to participate fully in shelter services may prevent women with disabilities from seeking services or disclosing the full extent of their accommodation needs.

Women with Disabilities and Counseling Services Counseling is commonly provided by domestic violence services, offering women an opportunity to address the trauma caused by domestic violence.161 Each service provider may use a different method, such as the feminist and social services models of care, cognitive restructuring therapy, assertive communication, problem solving, body awareness, vocational counseling, education about women’s issues, gender socialization, self-esteem building, concrete plan development, trauma therapy, and grief-resolution-oriented counseling.162 Studies have found that “counselors are most helpful when they directly discuss the violence and unconditionally accept the client’s definitions of the situations.”163 While counseling is often a service offered to women experiencing domestic violence, it is important to point out that it is underutilized: only 15% of women used this service.164 A meta-analysis of the literature found that there is a prevalence of mental illness associated with being a victim of trauma: “47.6% with depression, 17.9% with suicidality, 63.8% with post-traumatic stress disorder, 159 Dick Sobsey and Tanis Doe. Patterns of Sexual Abuse and Assault. (Sexuality and Disability, 1991), 250.

160 Jill Radford, Lynne Harne and Joy Trotter. “Disabled Women and Domestic Violence as Violent Crime.” (Practice, 2006).

161 Larry Bennett, Stephanie Riger, Paul Schewe, April Howard and Sharon Wasco. “Effectiveness of Hotline, Advocacy, Counseling, and Shelter Services for Victims of Domestic Violence a Statewide Evaluation.” (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2004).

162 Ibid.

163 Jacqueline Dienemann, Jacquelyn Campbell, Karen Landenburger and Mary Ann Curry. “The Domestic Violence Survivor Assessment: A Tool for Counseling Women in Intimate Partner Violence Relationships.” (Patient Education and Counseling, 2002), 228.

164 Kris R. Henning and Lisa M. Klesges. “Utilization of Counseling and Supportive Services by Female Victims of Domestic Abuse.” (Violence and Victims, 2002).

55 The Social Justice Review and 18.5% with alcohol abuse.”165 These findings indicate that being a victim of trauma will likely lead to the development of mental illnesses or disabilities.

None of the findings specify whether women with disabilities were also receiving counseling, or whether or not counselors were trained in working with women with disabilities regarding issues of abuse and associated trauma.

Complicating Factors in Seeking Services Because of Disability Status According to Milberger et al., only 33% of women with disabilities had sought support from formal domestic violence services.166 Nearly half of the women indicated that they had tried but the service providers were not able to resolve their situations (e.g., they called the police but no action was taken; the shelters could not accommodate their disability).167 Women with disabilities also face fears associated with having to make difficult decisions about leaving or taking their children along to the shelter and possibly losing them to Child Protective Services, who often consider women with disabilities incapable of providing appropriate care for their children.168 Whether these women are able to access medications and assistive devices they need in order to survive can prolong their ability to successfully go to stay at a shelter. Women with disabilities report fears of losing their independence and being sent to a group home or nursing home because they cannot return their homes, and shelters are not able to accommodate them.169

Conclusion Providing services for all victims of abuse is critical in addressing ways to reduce the negative 165 Ibid, 633.

166 Sharon Milberger, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Nathaniel Israel, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. “Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities, Final Report.” (National Institute of Justice, US 2002).

167 Ibid.

168 Barbara Waxman-Fiduccia and Leslie Wolfe. “Violence Against Disabled Women.” Center for Women Policy Studies, 1999) 169 Sandra Martin, Neepa Ray, Daniela Sotres-Alvarez, Lawrence Kupper, Kathryn Moracco, Pamela Dickens, Donna Scandlin and Ziya Gizlice. “Physical and Sexual Assault of Women with Disabilities.” (Violence Against Women, 2006); Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. “Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies.” (Oregon Institute on Disability and Development, 2004).

impact on individual lives and society. Knowing that women with disabilities are more likely to be victimized and yet have less access to services is why it is imperative for us to understand more about the service needs of this population. In the final chapter, we will examine a set of recommendations that may help to decrease the gap between service needs and barriers of access for this group of women.

Chapter 4: Recommendations for Policy, Practice & Research Policy

It is imperative to provide additional funding to current legislation that specifically address the need for the detection and service provision for women with disabilities. Currently, legislation only addresses parts of this social problem, contributing to invisibility and unawareness of this issue. The Violence Against Women Act does not allocate funds for shelters and domestic violence agencies to develop services that are accessible and relevant for women with disabilities.

The Americans with Disabilities Act does not address issues related to abuse and or require accessibility of shelters that do not receive government funding.

The Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act exclusively includes people with developmental disabilities and thus excludes a large proportion of people with disabilities who are made to seem not as vulnerable or in need of protection.

Moreover, funding public health campaigns would also create national dialogue and awareness of the severity of domestic violence for women with disabilities. Campaigns would begin by educating the society so that this topic is viewed as a social problem that needs additional funding and resources.

In addition, women with disabilities would need to become aware that services that they can access do exist, and domestic violence services would need to realize that this is a population they should include.

Public health campaigns should use a combination of mainstream media and networks that women with disabilities ordinarily use.

56 The Social Justice Review

Practice Training of Physicians While women in general are less likely to formally report abuse to the criminal justice system, they often seek medical care for injuries170 Identification of abuse when the women are disabled may be even harder to recognize especially when the perpetrator of abuse is present. Medical providers often speak to caregivers and not to the patients with disabilities; by doing so, the providers likely allowed the abusive party to explain injuries and limited the opportunity for a woman to report abuse. Medical staff should be trained in recognizing abuse that is perpetrated on people with disabilities by utilizing universal screening, offering women with disabilities opportunities to report abuse.171 Moreover, special attention should be given to the assessment of unexplained injuries and psychological markers, such as depression and anxiety.

Personal Assistance and Disability Service Staff

Agencies that provide services to persons with disabilities should be expected to appropriately screen their staff, volunteers, and persons on their referral lists in order to reduce the number of predatory and abusive service staff. Additional recommendations include anonymous reporting of perpetrators to agencies for investigation, an on-call pool of personal assistants who could step in and provide care in emergencies, and training of disability related service providers and paid attendants to recognize abuse and respond protectively to suspected abuse.

Training of Law Enforcement and First Responders

Law enforcement and first responders, such as paramedics and fire fighters, are the first to arrive at a scene of violence. Their professional interpretation of events and assessments of risk often sets the stage of how situations will be handled. The summaries and representation of events are often the basis of whether or not any intervention in a situation is considered necessary. Criminal justice agencies typically focus 170 Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. (Full Report of the Prevalence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, 2000).

171 Wendy G. Goldberg and Michael C. Tomlanovich.

“Domestic Violence Victims in the Emergency Department: New Findings.” Jama 251, no. 24 (1984)

on difficulties women have in the context of reporting and prosecuting the incident and may not understand the complicating factors of reporting or escaping.172 Therefore, the training of law enforcement, paramedics and fire fighters is a crucial element in the recognition and understanding of how to identify and respond to women with disabilities who are victims of domestic violence. Such trainings should include routine abuse and violence screening for people with disabilities, safety planning for women with disabilities, and knowledge in the appropriate types of referrals for women with severe disabilities who may need daily living assistance.173

Training of Legal Services

Researchers have found that legal remedies are less available for women with disabilities.174 Impairments and disability could hinder these women’s ability to access legal services that are commonly used when they are seeking assistance with legal matters concerning abuse. Often women with disabilities are not able to afford to hire private attorneys and must rely on free services. Agencies that offer free legal services are not usually mobile and require their clients to come to their offices, which could be complicated and even impossible for women with disabilities. Recommendations here include training legal service providers in working with women with disabilities, offering mobile services that may come to the women, ensuring that disability service providers have knowledge of the legal services available to women with disabilities, and providing women with disabilities with assistance in communicating with police and district attorney’s offices.175

Accessible Shelter Services

Access to a shelter gives victims who may

172 Jill Radford, Lynne Harne and Joy Trotter. “Disabled Women and Domestic Violence as Violent Crime.” (Practice, 2006).

173 Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. “Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies.” (Oregon Institute on Disability and Development, 2004); Jill Radford, Lynne Harne and Joy Trotter. “Disabled Women and Domestic Violence as Violent Crime.” (Practice, 2006).

174 Gill Hague, Ravi Thiara and Audrey Mullender. “Disabled Women, Domestic Violence and Social Care: The Risk of Isolation, Vulnerability and Neglect.” (British Journal of Social Work 2010).

175 Margaret Ann Nosek, Carol A. Howland and Mary Ellen Young.

“Abuse of Women With Disabilities Policy Implications.” (Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 1997).

57 The Social Justice Review be also escaping with children the choice to leave without becoming homeless. For women with disabilities, safe escape plans can be complicated by functional limitations and difficulty finding shelter that can appropriately accommodate them.

Recommendations for accessible domestic violence services include barrier-free information and referral services using alternative formats, 24-hour access to transportation, 24-hour crisis line for individuals to talk with an advocate experienced in disability and victim services to get assistance with safety planning, access to American Sign Language interpreters for communication assistance, cross-training with disability related services, and the inclusion of trained personnel to monitor risks and respond to victims receiving services through disability programs.176 These recommendations would improve the service to women with disabilities escaping abuse while also reducing the burden on hospitals, emergency rooms, and assisted living facilities, which typically receive these victims while not being adequately trained to serve survivors of trauma.

Women with Disabilities

It is critical that interventions, training, and resources include women with disabilities so that they may exercise their capacities to prevent and identify violence and abuse. Most current resources in this area are directed toward training agency providers and protective services professionals to recognize abuse and to intervene to protect victims.177 Recommendations here include training women with disabilities to recognize abuse, linking them with support from peers, referring women to advocates and professionals they can trust to assist them, affirming their right to be safe, teaching them to feel comfortable in trusting themselves to use the tools and supports available to them to manage abuse.178

are victimized at equal or higher rates than women with physical or developmental disabilities, this group is essentially missing in the research of women with disabilities and domestic violence. We can make assumptions that perpetrators of abuse monopolize on the limited or confused cognitive functioning of these women and feel secure that the women would not be believed if they speak out. The lack of attention to the experiences of women who have psychiatric labels or mental illness in disability studies and domestic violence literature implies that women with mental illnesses could be an even more socially isolated subpopulation of this larger group of women with disabilities.

Throughout this thesis we have discovered that women with disabilities experience higher rates of domestic violence but are not commonly found in domestic violence services. Missing in this thesis is how women with disabilities change their situations and get out of abusive environments given their dependence and high levels of social isolation.

Milberger et al., assumed that 89% of the women who reported that their abuse occurred in the past were able to change their situation, getting themselves out of abusive situations by using their own resilience and personal strengths.179 This assumption contradicts their own findings that since this group is dependent and isolated and lacks of social supports, it is impossible to change their own situations without formal supports. Research concerning where, if anywhere, women with disabilities access services and how their disability status influences this process are currently being explored. The answers to these questions will uncover the types of services that are relevant in addressing domestic violence of this highly invisible and vulnerable group.

Gaps in Research

The current research in the area of women with disabilities and domestic violence is relatively limited in scope. While women with psychiatric labels 176 Ibid; Jill Radford, Lynne Harne and Joy Trotter. “Disabled Women and Domestic Violence as Violent Crime.” (Practice, 2006).

177 Laurie E. Powers and Mary Oschwald. “Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies.” (Oregon Institute on Disability and Development, 2004).

178 Ibid.

179 Sharon Milberger, Nathaniel Israel, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster. “Violence Against Women with Physical Disabilities.” (Violence and Victims, 2003).

58 The Social Justice Review Bibliography Access to Disability Data: Chartbook on Women and Disability. (n.d.). Celebrating 25 Years| Infouse.com. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://www.infouse.com/disabilitydata/womendisability/4_2.php Acierno, Ron, Melba A. Hernandez, Ananda B. Amstadter, Heidi S. Resnick, Kenneth Steve, Wendy Muzzy and Dean G. Kilpatrick. “Prevalence and Correlates of Emotional, Physical, Sexual, and Financial Abuse and Potential Neglect in the United States: The National Elder Mistreatment Study.” American Journal of Public Health 100, no.

2 (2010): 292.

ADA (2010). ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Retrieved September 13, 2013, from http://www.ada. gov/2010ADAstandards Barnett, Ola W. “Why Battered Women do not Leave, Part 1 External Inhibiting Factors Within Society.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 1, no. 4 (2000): 343-372.

Becker, Heather, Alexa Stuifbergen and Mindy Tinkle. “Reproductive Health Care Experiences of Women with

Physical Disabilities: A Qualitative Study. “Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 78, no. 12 (1997): S26-S33. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999397902185 Bennett, Larry, Stephanie Riger, Paul Schewe, April Howard and Sharon Wasco. “Effectiveness of Hotline, Advocacy, Counseling, and Shelter Services for Victims of Domestic Violence a Statewide Evaluation.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19, no. 7 (2004): 815-829.

Brault, Matthew W. Americans with Disabilities: 2010: Household Economic Studies. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, 2012. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http:// www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf Braddock, David Ed. Disability at the Dawn of the 21st Century and the State of the States. American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002.

Brownridge, Douglas A. “Partner Violence Against Women With Disabilities Prevalence, Risk, and Explanations.” Violence Against Women 12, no. 9 (2006): 805-822.

Carty, Elaine McEwan, Tali A. Conine and Lorraine Hall. “Comprehensive Health Promotion for the Pregnant Woman Who is Disabled: The Role of the Midwife.” Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 35, no. 3 (1990): 133-142.

CDC - Table - Disability and Health Data System (DHDS) - NCBDDD. (2011, March 23). CDC- DHDS Home - Disability and Health Data System (DHDS) - NCBDDD. Retrieved January 6, 2013, from http:// dhds.cdc.gov/dataviews/tabular?viewId=876&geoId=4&subsetId=&z=1http://dhds.cdc.gov/dataviews/ tabular?viewId=876&geoId=4&subsetId=&z=1 CDC | Women with Disabilities Disability and Health NCBDDD. (2014). Retrieved April 11, 2014, from http://www. cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/women.html Casteel, Carri, Sandra L. Martin, Jamie B. Smith, Kelly K. Gurka and Lawrence L. Kupper. “National Study of Physical and Sexual Assault Among Women with Disabilities.” Injury Prevention 14, no. 2 (2008): 87-90.

Chang, Judy C., Sandra L. Martin, Kathryn E. Moracco, Lisa Dulli, Donna Scandlin, Mary Beth Loucks-Sorrel, Tracy Turner, Leslie Starsoneck, Patty Neal Dorian and Ingrid Bou-Saada. “Helping Women with Disabilities and Domestic Violence: Strategies, Limitations, and Challenges of Domestic Violence Programs and Services.” Journal of Women’s Health 12, no. 7 (2003): 699-708.

Copel, Linda Carman. “Partner Abuse in Physically Disabled Women: A Proposed Model for Understanding Intimate Partner Violence.” Perspectives in Psychiatric Care 42, no. 2 (2006): 114-129.

Crime Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act. (1998).U.S. Government Information GPO. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ301/pdf/PLAW-105publ301.pdfhttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/PLAW-105publ301/pdf/PLAW-105publ301.pdf DeJong, Gerben. “Defining and Implementing the Independent Living Concept.” Independent Living for Physically

59 The Social Justice Review Disabled People (1983): 4-27. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishers.

Dienemann, Jacqueline, Jacquelyn Campbell, Karen Landenburger and Mary Ann Curry. “The Domestic Violence Survivor Assessment: A Tool for Counseling Women in Intimate Partner Violence Relationships.” Patient Education and Counseling 46, no. 3 (2002): 221-228.

Disability Statistics. (2013). Disability Statistics. Cornell University. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://www. disabilitystatistics.org/reports/acs.cfm?statistic=1 Erdely, S. (2011). Why I Finally Left. Good Housekeeping, 252(3), 148-197. http://www.sabrinaerdely.com/docs/ WhyIFinallyLeft.pdf Fugate, Michelle, Leslie Landis, Kim Riordan, Sara Naureckas and Barbara Engel. “Barriers to Domestic Violence Help Seeking Implications for Intervention.” Violence Against Women 11, no. 3 (2005): 290-310.

Gill, Carol. “The Last Sisters: Health Issues of Women with Disabilities.” Women’s Health: Complexities and Differences, ed. Sheryl Burt Ruzek, Virginia L. Olsen, and Adele E. Clarke (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998) 102 (1997).

Goldberg, Wendy G. and Michael C. Tomlanovich. “Domestic Violence Victims in the Emergency Department: New Findings.” Jama 251, no. 24 (1984): 3259-3264. doi:10.1001/jama.1984.03340480041025.

Golub, Edward. (1994). Framing Health and Disease. The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes our Hope for the Cure (pp. 3-9). New Youk: Random House.

Griffin, Rodman D. “The Disabilities Act.” CQ Researcher 1, no. 32 (December 27, 1991): 993-1016. http://library. cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1991122700.

Hague, Gill, Ravi Thiara and Audrey Mullender. “Disabled Women, Domestic Violence and Social Care: The Risk of Isolation, Vulnerability and Neglect.” British Journal of Social Work (2010): bcq057.

Haseltine, Florence and Sandra S. Cole. Reproductive Issues for Persons with Physical Disabilities. Paul H Brookes Pub Co, 1993.

Henning, Kris R. and Lisa M. Klesges. “Utilization of Counseling and Supportive Services by Female Victims of Domestic Abuse.” Violence and Victims 17, no. 5 (2002): 623-636.

Hepworth, Dean, Ronald Rooney, Glenda Dewberry Rooney, Kim Strom-Gottfried and Jo Ann Larsen. Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills. Cengage Learning, 2009 Heise, Lori L. “Violence Against Women an Integrated, Ecological Framework.” Violence Against Women 4, no. 3 (1998): 262-290.

Hines, Denise A., Kathleen Malley-Morrison and Leila B. Dutton. Family Violence in the United States: Defining, Understanding, and Combating Abuse. Sage, 2012.

Jackson, Nicky Ali, ed. Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. Taylor & Francis, 2007.

Jans, Lita and Joan Stoddard, S. (1999). Chartbook on Women and Disability in the United States. An InfoUse Report.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. http://www.infouse.com/ disabilitydata/womendisability/1_5.phphttp://www.infouse.com/disabilitydata/womendisability/1_5.php Kent, Deborah. (1988). Women with Disabilities Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics. New York: Temple Union Press.http://www.bibme.org/ Klein, Andrew R. Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research: For Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Judges. Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice, 2009.

Kraus, Lewis, Susan Stoddard and David Gilmartin. (1996). Chartbook on Disability in the United States, 1996. An InfoUse Report. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. http://www. infouse.com/disabilitydata/disability/1_2.php/

60 The Social Justice Review Krotoski, Danuta M., Margaret Ann Nosek and Margaret A. Turk, eds. Women with Physical Disabilities: Achieving and Maintaining Health and Well-being. Paul H Brookes Pub Co, 1996.

LaSpina, Nadina. (1998). Disabled Woman The Forging of a Proud Identity. Disability Culture in NYC. Retrieved April 3, 2013, from http://www.disabilityculture.org/course/keynote.htm Linton, Simi. (1998). Claiming Disability Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York University Press.

Marshall, Catherine A., Elizabeth Kendall, Martha E. Banks and Reva Mariah S. Gover. Disabilities: Insights from Across Fields and Around the World-Volume Set. Vol. 1. Praeger Publishers, 2009.

Martin, Sandra, Neepa Ray, Daniela Sotres-Alvarez, Lawrence Kupper, Kathryn Moracco, Pamela Dickens, Donna Scandlin and Ziya Gizlice. “Physical and Sexual Assault of Women with Disabilities.” Violence Against Women 12, no. 9 (2006): 823-837.

Mason, Micheline. (1995) “The Breaking of Relationships.” Micheline Mason - Homepage. Micheline Mason, n.d. Web. 06 Sep. 2013. <http://www.michelinemason.com/books-and-articles/the-breaking-of-relationships>.

Mason, Micheline. (2000). Incurably Human. London: Working Press.

Mays, Jennifer M. “Feminist Disability Theory: Domestic Violence Against Women with a Disability.” Disability & Society 21, no. 2 (2006): 147-158. DOI: 10.1080/09687590500498077 Milberger, Sharon, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Nathaniel. Israel, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster.

“Michigan Study on Women with Physical Disabilities, Final Report.” National Institute of Justice, US (2002).

Milberger, Sharon, Nathaniel Israel, Barbara LeRoy, Angela Martin, Linda Potter and Pam Patchak-Schuster.

“Violence Against Women with Physical Disabilities.” Violence and Victims 18, no. 5 (2003): 581-591.

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2013). Domestic Violence Facts: California. Retrieved February 6, 2014 from http://www.ncadv.org/resources/FactSheets.php National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2014). About Financial Abuse. Retrieved April 4, 2014 from http:// nnedv.org/resources/ejresources/about-financial-abuse.htmlhttp://nnedv.org/resources/ejresources/aboutfinancial-abuse.html Nosek, Margaret Ann, Carol A. Howland and Mary Ellen Young. “Abuse of Women With Disabilities Policy Implications.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies 8, no. 1-2 (1997): 157-175. from DOI: 10.1177/10442073970080208 Nosek, Margaret Ann, Carol Howland, Diana H. Rintala, Mary E. Young and Gail Fraser Chanpong. “National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities: Final Report.” Sexuality and Disability” 19, no. 1 (2001): 5-40.

Perritt, Henry. (1991). Americans with Disabilities Act Handbook.

Poverty in the United States (2013). National Center for Law and Economic Justice. Retrieved April 2, 2014, from http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php Powers, Laurie E. and Mary Oschwald. “Violence and Abuse Against People with Disabilities: Experiences, Barriers and Prevention Strategies.” Oregon Institute on Disability and Development (2004).

Radford, Jill, Lynne Harne and Joy Trotter. “Disabled Women and Domestic Violence as Violent Crime.” Practice 18, no. 4 (2006): 233-246.

Reproductive Rights and Women with Disabilities: A Human Rights Framework | Center for Reproductive Rights. (n.d.). Center for Reproductive Rights. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://reproductiverights.org/en/ document/reproductive-rights-and-women-with-disabilities-a-human-rights-framework Ruzek, Sheryl Burt, Virginia L. Olesen and Adele Clarke. Women’s Health: Complexities and Differences. Women’s

61 The Social Justice Review Health: Complexities and Differences (pp. 249-275). Columbus: Ohio State University Press, (1997).

Saxton, Marsha. (2012). Barbara Waxman Fiduccia and Disability Feminism: Introduction. 1 BARBARA FAYE WAXMAN FIDUCCIA PAPERS ON WOMEN AND GIRLS WITH DISABILITIES, Retrieved February 25, 2013, from http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org/programs/waxmanfiduccia/documents/BFWF_ BarbaraWaxmanFiducciaandDisabilityFeminism_MarshaSaxton.pdf Sexuality and Reproductive Health--Information - CROWD - Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. (n.d.).

Baylor College of Medicine - Houston, Texas. Retrieved March 29, 2013, from http://www.bcm.edu//crowd/index. cfm?PMID=1628 Sexuality and Reproductive Health--Sexually Transmitted Infections - CROWD - Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. (n.d.). Baylor College of Medicine - Houston, Texas. Retrieved March 29, 2013, from http://www. bcm.edu//crowd/index.cfm?PMID=1451 Shapiro, Joseph. (1993). No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Times Books.

Sobsey, Dick. (1994). Violence and Abuse in the Lives of People with Disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Sobsey, Dick and Tanis Doe. (1991). Patterns of Sexual Abuse and Assault. Sexuality and Disability, 9(3), 243-259.

Tan, Cheribeth, Joanne Basta, Cris M. Sullivan and William S. Davidson. “The Role of Social Support in the Lives of Women Exiting Domestic Violence Shelters An Experimental Study.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 10, no. 4 (1995): 437-451.

Tjaden, Patricia and Nancy Thoennes. (2000). Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Full Report of the Prevalence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, 1-71. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf University of Michigan Health System. (2014). Developmental Delay: Your Child. Retrieved January 22, 2014, from http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/to pics/devdel.htm Vash, Carolyn L. The Psychology of Disability. Vol. 1. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1981.

Walker, Lenore E. “Who are the Battered Women?.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies (1977): 52-57.

Waxman Fiduccia, Barbara. (1997). Multiplying Choices: Improving Access To Reproductive Health Services for Women With Disabilities.1-59. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://www.berkeleypolicyassociates.com/images/ berkeleypolicyassociates.com/File/Multiplying%20Choices%20%5B552-5%5D.pdf Waxman-Fiduccia, Barbara and Leslie Wolfe. (1999). Defining the Issues. Women and Girls with Disabilities, 2-40.

Retrieved October 12, 2013, from http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org/progr Waxman-Fiduccia, Barbara and Leslie Wolfe. (1999). “Violence Against Disabled Women.” Center for Women Policy Studies. Retrieved February 6, 2014, from www.centerwomenpolicy.org/pdfs/VAW5.pdf Weber, Lynn, Tina Hancock and Elizabeth Higginbotham. “Women, Power, and Mental Health.” Women’s Health: Complexities and Differences (1997): 380-396.

Winzer, Margaret and Lennard Davis. (1997). Disability and Society Before the Eighteenth Century: Dread and Despair. The Disability Studies Reader (pp. 75-109). New York Routledge.

World Health Organization. (2011). World Report on Disability.Retrieved February 1, 2014, from http://www.who. int/disabilities/world_re port.pdf Worsnop, Richard L. “Implementing the Disabilities Act.” CQ Researcher 6, no. 47 (December 20, 1996): 1105-28. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1996122000.

Young, Iris Marion. (1990). Five Faces of Oppression. Justice and the Politics of Difference (pp. 39-65). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

10 Things I have Learned Since I Have Met Social Justice

1

23 4

Tayllor Johnson Social Justice is more like a riverbed than anything else.

What hardship it must have been for the earth to carve itself around the inevitability of people noticing a perpetuating pattern of carelessness? You have no choice but to move.

There is no room for ego.

There is no room for one super hero in a revolution.

There is only room for humility and humans and neither of those I can own up to by myself.

Social Justice starts within.

It created conflict with preconceived notions of what being an activist meant.

I became a type of rage that wears compassion, I marched on a relentless, merciless fatigue and got acquainted with my tears quickly as a sign of progress.

Past protest flyers and movements

scattered on top of social media grave yards have taught me something. In reality they never left.

They were just hushed and forced into non-profit rooms.

It never occurred to me the media only covered systematic oppression as news.

5

When you see oppression super-imposed on familiar faces

resting over coffee cups and classroom discussions, the fury comes through the easiest vessel.

(That is why I have not texted you in a while.

I am not sure how to tell you that I am no longer accepting this as a fad.)

Social Justice is more of a dance than anything else.

It’s a movement, it’s a rhythm that some are born with while some, like me, had to learn how to move activism, how to move unity, how to move conflict, how to move forward, period.

I will be met with more elbows and open hands the harder I wield my tongue.

It will be confusing.

The more I take up space, the more people will tell me. what they are tired of hearing. They will tell me what the best course of action should be for marginalized human beings.

Consulting me from a place of privilege and telling me to wait for freedom does not make you my friend.

Mass media ain’t sh*t.

I will have to gather my own information and produce my own reality as I live it.

My opinions don’t have to flow to the currents of a media market.

Neither do I have to succumb to Social Justice as processed goods, She deserves more than that.

Being comfortable is the ultimate injustice.

Giving myself permission to be uncomfortable is victory.

America is hurting, France is hurting, Mexico is hurting, Pakistan is hurting, Gaza is hurting, but Nigeria too hurts (and burns) yet we say nothing. I give myself permission to acknowledge all hurt and give space for humanity to mourn properly.

Social Justice is growth thrown on the Mississippi

7

89

10

rippling out and confusing the sun to what time it is.

Now I can speak the language of oppression as systematic sickness not unfortunate historical resentments.

No longer will I wait for a law to take me to freedom, Justice isn’t carved by the gravel, it’s painted by the People That is what makes it social and that is what makes it human.

Tayllor Johnson is a senior ('15) at Mount Holyoke College. Before being a Psychology major and English minor, Tayllor lived in Los Angeles California where she first found spoken word. Ever since she was 15 she dedicated herself to empowerment through spoken word poetry. It is her belief and mission that through the arts empowerment is nothing less than contagious and no amount of oppression can stop it from spreading once it starts. She has performed at various venues on the west and east coast whilst teaching and learning where she fits in social justice and activism. After graduation she hopes to be of service empowering communities through solidarity and listening using the dialect she knows best, poetry.

6

64 The Social Justice Review