1. The Impact of Gender and Disability on Disabled Women in the United Kingdom Eun Jung Kim, MA, MPP, Susan L. Parish, PhD, MSW, Tina Skinner, PhD, Robyn Powell, JD Lurie Institute for Disability Policy The Heller School for Social Policy and Management Brandeis University WFRN Conference June 25, 2016 L URIE I NSTITUTE FOR D ISABILITY P OLICY

2. Disabilities in the UK L URIE I NSTITUTE FOR D ISABILITY P OLICY  In 2013, 12 million individuals (one in five) have disabilities  Government disability benefits: Personal Independent Payment, Attendance Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance  ₤13.5 billion (0.8% of national income)  2.3 million people were receiving at least one government disability benefit  Poverty high among disabled people (19% vs. 14%)  Disabled women more vulnerable to poverty than disabled men  Disabled women have lower educational attainment, less likely to work, and paid less.  In 2013, 6.6 million disabled women vs. 5.5 million disabled men  Lack of empirical research that examined the effect of intersection of disability and gender on the economic wellbeing of disabled women  Aim: Empirically compare the economic wellbeing of UK disabled and nondisabled men and women on a national scale

3. Disability and Poverty L URIE I NSTITUTE FOR D ISABILITY P OLICY  Bidirectional relationship between poverty and disability  In the UK, having a disabled family member increases the risk of household poverty by 14% point  Reasons: 1) lower earning capacity, 2) disability expenses, 3) demand of caregiving detract labor capabilities of other family members  Poverty increases the incidence of disability  Reasons: Limited access to health care, adequate nutrition and safe environments  Discrimination against disability: 1)Institutional discrimination: laws, customs, practice 2)Environmental discrimination: buildings, transportation, 3) Attitudinal discrimination: second citizens

4. L URIE I NSTITUTE FOR D ISABILITY P OLICY  “Double Discrimination”: Disabled women experience further economic disenfranchisement compared to disabled men due to their disability and gender  Social institutions and cultural norms → “bodies that are categorized as both female and disabled are disadvantaged doubly and in parallel ways” (Garland- Thompson 2002:17)  Disabled women discriminated in health care, education, employment, and sociopolitical engagements  2002-2004 World Health Survey (51 countries):  Employment rate: disabled women (20%), disabled men (53%), nondisabled women (30%), nondisabled men (65%)  Primary school completion: disabled women (42%), disabled men (51%), nondisabled women (53%), nondisabled men (61%) Double Discrimination against Disabled women

5. L URIE I NSTITUTE FOR D ISABILITY P OLICY  Data: 2009/2010 Life Opportunity Survey  Sample: Working-aged UK residents:  Working-age: Eligible to work full-time (40 hr/wk) – eligible for state pension: women (16-59), men (16-64)  Total sample: N=26,005 (n=2,396 disabled women, n=2,460 disabled men, n=10,469 nondisabled women, n=10,680 nondisabled men)  Measures:  Independent variable: 1) Disability status (Disability Discrimination Act 1995) 2) Gender (Self identified female vs. male) → 4 groups: Disabled and nondisabled men and women Methodology

6. L URIE I NSTITUTE FOR D ISABILITY P OLICY  Dependent variable: Household income + 4 self-assessed economic wellbeing indicators Weekly pre-taxed household income: Continuous variable Self-assessed economic wellbeing indicators 1) Financial loan payment (yes vs. no) 2) Severity of financial loan payment (heavy or slight vs. not a burden) 3) Difficulties making ends meet (great or some difficulties vs fairly or very easy) 4) Afford to pay for unexpected but necessary expense of at least ₤ 500 (yes vs. no)  Control variable: A range of demographic characteristics  Analytic strategy: OLS (household income), logistic regression (self-assessed economic wellbeing) Methodology (continued)

7. THE LURIE INSTITUTE FOR DISABILITY POLICY

9. Disabled men had 1%, nondisabled women had 14% (p <.001), nondisabled men had 17% (p <.001) higher income than disabled women after controlling for other demographic factors

10. THE LURIE INSTITUTE FOR DISABILITY POLICY 1)Financial loan payment: The odds of having a financial loan payment for disabled men in contrast to disabled women was 0.83 (p<.01), for nondisabled women it was 0.75 (p<.001), and for nondisabled men it was 0.73 (p<.001). 2)Heavy loan payment: The odds of having a heavy financial loan payment for disabled men in contrast to disabled women was 0.79 (p<.01), for nondisabled women it was 0.50 (p<.001), and for nondisabled men it was 0.52 (p<.001). 3)Difficulty of making ends meet: The odds of reporting difficulties in making ends meet for disabled men in contrast to disabled women was 0.84 (p<.01), for nondisabled women it was 0.48 (p<.001), and for nondisabled men it was 0.47(p<.001). 4)Able to afford ₤500: The odds of reporting able to afford ₤500 for disabled men was 1.25 (p<.01) times higher than disabled women, for nondisabled women it was 2.23 (p<.001), and for nondisabled men it was 2.46(p<.001).

11. L URIE I NSTITUTE FOR D ISABILITY P OLICY  Material hardship was significantly higher among disabled women in contrast to disabled men and nondisabled men and women in all the economic indicators → indicating that double discrimination against disabled women exists in the UK  Limitations and Strengths  Limitations: 1) Self-report, 2)Cross-sectional study, 3) Disability status not self-identified disability  Strengths: 1) Nationally representative large sample, 2) multi-dimensional economic indicators, 3) first to empirically examine double discrimination against disabled women in the UK Discussion

12. L URIE I NSTITUTE FOR D ISABILITY P OLICY  Marked financial disparities between disabled and nondisabled populations  Disability benefits were counted in the income and analyzed → indicate that disability benefits are insufficient to reduce economic hardship of disabled people  Recent UK policymakers’ proposal to cut disability benefits contravenes our findings.  In July 2015, the British Conservatives have proposed 30% cuts to disability benefits → Disability benefit cuts will aggravate the already impoverished disabled population → More disabled people will be unemployed and poor  Disabled women experience further economic hardship. Yet, neither gender nor disability policies address the additional barriers experienced by disabled women in the UK  Policymakers should develop appropriate supports for disabled women Policy Implications and Conclusion

13. Acknowledgements Funding acknowledgement: Support for this study was provided by the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy at Brandeis University (http://lurie.brandeis.edu/)http://lurie.brandeis.edu/  Funding acknowledgement: Support for this study was provided by the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy at Brandeis University. Funding acknowledgement: Support for this study was provided by the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy at Brandeis University. THE LURIE INSTITUTE FOR DISABILITY POLICY