by Morgan Bilecek, SALI Intern
Sexual assault survivors with cognitive disabilities face unique challenges when seeking help after sexual violence. Cognitive disabilities affect how a person understands, processes, or communicates information. This includes conditions like intellectual disabilities, brain injuries, or memory impairments. While much research has focused on survivor risk and vulnerability, less attention has been given to how reporting systems themselves create barriers. In Maryland, about one in four adults have a disability (CDC, 2025a). Nationally, people with disabilities experience sexual violence at higher rates than those without disabilities (CDC, 2025b). These numbers show that accessible reporting systems are essential for supporting survivors.
When Systems Are Hard to Use
Many reporting systems assume survivors can navigate complex instructions, describe their experience in detail, or respond quickly to questions. For someone with a cognitive disability, this can be overwhelming. Forms may use long sentences, legal jargon, or complicated instructions. Online portals might require multiple steps, detailed written responses, or fast interaction with staff. Even small design choices, like asking several questions at once, can make a system unusable.
Research shows that people with cognitive disabilities are more likely to face barriers when systems are not designed for their needs (Wentz et al., 2011). In practice, a technically accessible system may still be confusing, leaving survivors unsure how to proceed.
Communication and Flexibility Matter
Communication is not just about ability; it is also about system design. Survivors may need extra time to process questions, use alternative ways to communicate, or pause and return later. Standardized or rigid reporting processes can make survivors feel rushed or misunderstood. Offering multiple communication options such as typing, speaking, or using a trained advocate, gives survivors flexibility. When systems are designed to accommodate different processing speeds and communication styles, survivors are more likely to complete reports and access support.
Maryland Policies and Gaps
Maryland has policies that aim to make services accessible. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires public agencies to provide reasonable accommodations, including clear communication and additional support when needed (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2025).
Adult Protective Services (APS) responds to abuse reports and connects survivors with services, while Maryland Access Point (MAP) offers information and referrals for health, financial, and support services (Maryland Department of Human Services, 2025). These programs are important, but accessibility goes beyond compliance. Websites or forms may meet technical standards but may still be difficult to use if the instructions are complicated or unclear.
Digital Tools: Opportunity and Risk
Technology offers a way to reach survivors who may struggle with in-person reporting. Online forms, chat tools, and resource websites can provide privacy and flexibility. However, poorly designed digital tools can create new barriers. Many rely on long blocks of text, strict input formats, or rapid interactions. Survivors who need simple, structured guidance may struggle.
Research highlights that digital services improve access only when accessibility is built into the design from the start (Wentz et al., 2011). Simple design improvements, such as plain language, step-by-step instructions, clear progress indicators, and optional advocacy support, can make a significant difference.
Moving Toward Accessible Systems
Supporting survivors with cognitive disabilities means designing systems that work for people, not just policies. Key strategies include:
When reporting systems are accessible, survivors can seek help confidently and independently. Accessibility is not optional; it is a fundamental part of an effective response to sexual violence.
Conclusion
Survivors with cognitive disabilities are at a higher risk of sexual violence, but risk alone does not fully explain the challenge. Reporting systems can unintentionally block survivors from getting help if they are not designed with accessibility in mind.
Maryland’s policies and resources provide a foundation, but there is still work to do. Technology and thoughtful design can make reporting more accessible, flexible, and survivor centered. By focusing on usability, clear communication, and user-centered design, Maryland can ensure that all survivors have the support they need.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025a). Disability and Health Data System (DHDS): State Profiles and Impacts. Retrieved here.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025b). Sexual Violence and Intimate Partner Violence Among People with Disabilities. Retrieved here.
Maryland Department of Human Services. (2025). Adult Protective Services. Retrieved here.
Amborksi, A., Bussieres, E., Vaillancourt-Morel, M., Joyal, C. (2021). Sexual Violence Against Persons with Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved here.
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved here.
Wentz, B., Jaegar, P.T., & Lazar, J. (2011). Retrofitting Accessibility: The Legal Inequality of After-the-Fact Online Access for Persons with Disabilities in the United States. First Monday, 16(11). Retrieved here.
