1 / 38

Introduction

Filling in the Blanks Non-Police Reporting & LGBT Hate Crime in London Peter Kelley – Researcher/caseworker. Introduction. Aim of the presentation. Provide an overview of Galop’s services Provide an overview of the ‘Filling in the Blanks’ project on non-police and third party reporting

carson
Download Presentation

Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Filling in the BlanksNon-Police Reporting & LGBT Hate Crime in LondonPeter Kelley – Researcher/caseworker

  2. Introduction

  3. Aim of the presentation • Provide an overview of Galop’s services • Provide an overview of the ‘Filling in the Blanks’ project on non-police and third party reporting • Focus on the main findings of the ‘mapping exercise’ and statistical data on homophobic/transphobic incidents captured by the project

  4. Who are Galop and what do we do?

  5. Who we are • The only pan-London LGBT community safety charity • 26 years old this June • Developed from grassroots campaign on policing and hate crime • Now leading best practice advocates with innovative services and research, grounded in direct work with victims of homophobic and transphobic hate crime, domestic and sexual abuse

  6. What we do • Shoutline and casework • Non-police [third party] reporting via telephone, face-to-face and on-line • Campaigns around increasing reporting • Research: Shine@Galop, Filling in the Blanks • Hate Crime Forum • Provide information, training and consultancy

  7. Shoutline • Calls on range of issues including: • Reporting incidents • Police process • Charges relating to sexual offences/PSE’s • Casework and advocacy • Domestic Abuse Partnership • Specialist worker in sexual abuse

  8. Why Non-Police Reporting? • Under-reporting of incidents to the police/others • Legacy of mistrust between LGBT community and the police • Victims fear of not being taken seriously • Victims thinking some incidents are ‘too minor to report’ • Fear of reprisals – e.g. from perpetrators • Victims wanting non CJS outcomes • Lack of knowledge about who/where to report

  9. Filling in the Blanks - research into third party reporting in London

  10. Research aims – Filling in the Blanks • To increase understanding of the nature and reporting of homophobic and transphobic hate crime in London. • Three phases: • Mapping exercise of LGBT third party reporting services in London. • Partnership working between three voluntary LGBT organisations • Data analysis of incidents and comparison with MPS data.

  11. What we did • Looked at a range of organisations that LGBT people might go to get help with a homophobic/transphobic incident • Looked at third party reporting initiatives • Galop worked with Stonewall Housing and LLGS to collect more robust data on incidents • Compared data on incidents with MPS data on homophobic incidents

  12. Mapping exercise – what we found

  13. Telling agencies about incidents • Many unreported incidents either informally 'told' or reported to a range of agencies and organisations. • Many voluntary agencies have no system for recording and/or sharing information about incidents • No system for passing on information to the police. • Lack of shared language and terminology relating to both hate crime, and methods of reporting

  14. Third party reporting schemes • Variety of third party reporting schemes exist across London. • Good practice: • sharing data/cases on incidents within LGBT forums • borough mapping of homophobic/transphobic incidents • dedicated LGBT workers in some boroughs • LGBT police liaison officers with time/resources to help promote third party reporting

  15. Third party reporting schemes • Number of challenges to overcome, including: • No overall/coordinated strategy on increasing reporting in London. • No effective evaluation of the delivery and performance of third party reporting services • little guidance for organisations.

  16. Third party reporting schemes • A proliferation of initiatives across London, most of which focus on a single borough/area • An uneven and inconsistent approach to encouraging the reporting of hate crime across London. • No consistency or standardisation of 3PR services across London, with no minimum standards in existence.

  17. TPR & the police • Inconsistent involvement of police (e.g. True Vision) • Too great an emphasis on increasing the numbers of reports, at the expense of non-CJS outcomes sought by victims • Poor follow-up to third party reports at a borough level • Victims and organisations making third party reports encountered problems in contacting the police or other agencies, such as unclear or out of date information on websites.

  18. Third party reporting schemes • Many schemes were ineffective, often because of a range of issues such as: • Inherent problems with a borough based approach. • Unrealistically low funding • Little sustainability for schemes because of a lack of long term funding commitments. • Too few reports - Not wanting to report directly to the police is only part of the problem

  19. Mapping exercise recommendations

  20. Recommendations A strategic approach • A pan-London approach to encouraging reporting. • Evaluate – what schemes work best? • A focus beyond increasing levels of reporting, which seeks to ensure positive outcomes for victims who report incidents.

  21. Recommendations Increase the effectiveness of 3PR • A realistic assessment of voluntary sector capacity in terms of 3PR. • Systems for joint working and economies of scale between LGBT and other voluntary organisations • Agree minimum standards on sending third party reports to police, and minimum standards of response.

  22. Facts of hate crime in London

  23. Filling in the blanks data • Galop analysed 700 incidents reported to LGBT organisations between 2005 -2007. • Compared these to 8661 incidents reported to the police between 2001-06 (analysed by Susan Paterson, a Senior Criminologist, MPS).

  24. What we did • Examined information about victims, incidents, perpetrators and outcomes following ‘reporting’. • Focused on incidents that are reported –tells us what victims are coming forward to report.

  25. What we found • The figures reveal ways in which different sections of LGBT people experience homophobic and transphobic hate crime – needing different approaches • There are many similar patterns between MPS and data from voluntary LGBT organisations. • However…victims of incidents also contact LGBT organisations for different reasons than they do the police.

  26. What we found • LGBT people are more likely to approach an LGBT organisation to report familial domestic abuse sexual abuse or repeated harassment. • LGBT people contacted LGBT organisations about incidents involving discrimination, goods and services and specific problems with police/CJS, e.g. PSEs. • LGBT organisations play a vital role in providing alternative routes for reporting experiences, and getting appropriate advice and support.

  27. Victims - gender • Gay and bisexual men were most likely to report hate incidents - over three quarters of cases • Some differences according to gender of the victim - a higher proportion of men reported violence, and a higher proportion of women reported sexual assault. • Around 8% victims reporting to Galop identified as trans. They experienced higher levels of verbal abuse and repeat harassment.

  28. Victims – age & ethnicity • Both younger (18 and under) and older (over 50) LGBT people appear less likely to contact either LGBT organisations or the MPS about incidents. • BME LGBT and younger victims of homophobic or transphobic incidents appeared more likely want support on issues such as housing rather than report to police (whether directly or indirectly)

  29. Victims – disability • A significant percentage of victims contacting LGBT organisations had a disability/health problem. • Those with mental health issues or learning differences often appeared to be in the most vulnerable situations.

  30. Perpetrators • Victims more likely to know the perpetrator than for the perpetrator to be a stranger • Perpetrators of incidents are most likely to be young men. • MPS data suggests that 20% of suspects are under 16, but only half of these are charged – demonstrating the need to increase prevention work with young people.

  31. Types of incidents • Verbal abuse and threats (often repeated harassment) most commonly reported type of hate crime (35%) • Physical violence accounted for 30% of incidents dealt with by MPS & 28% LGBT. • A range of other incidents that were, in part, homophobic or transphobic in nature, including sexual violence, domestic abuse, robbery and damage to property.

  32. Experiences of reporting • Half of all callers to LGBT organisations had not previously reported to the police. • Reasons for not reporting included; lack of confidence in the response and fear of the consequences of reporting to the police. • Significant proportions of victims make contact with LGBT organisations after already reporting to the police or other statutory service, because they want further help or advice.

  33. Experiences of reporting • A large percentage of victims contacting LGBT organisations are dissatisfied with the response of the police after having reported an incident. • One in ten felt the police response had been negative/unhelpful or homophobic/ transphobic • A significant number of victims did not want to make a formal third party report to the police.

  34. Experiences of reporting • Many people want to ‘tell someone’ about their experience because they are seeking outcomes that the police cannot offer, such as emotional support or housing advice. • Numbers expressing dissatisfaction with police response, as well as choosing to contact LGBT organisations for additional support and advice, suggest that the emphasis on reporting alone may not be appropriate.

  35. Statistical analysis - recommendations

  36. Victims • Further work on how to target and reach different groups should be developed as part of a pan-London approach. This might include • Different strategies may be needed to target different groups in the LGBT community. • Early intervention on ‘low level’ incidents such as neighbour disputes to prevent escalation and social isolation

  37. Perpetrators • The police and LGBT organisations should develop interventions that target potential perpetrators as well as victims • Perpetrator initiatives should work to challenge the cultural values and prejudices of young men (the largest perpetrator group).

  38. Mapping incidents & reporting • Establish a system for hotspot mapping based on data from both LGBT voluntary sector groups and the police. • Targeting interventions at hotspots and/or where LGBT people feel most vulnerable, such as public transport hubs and PSEs. • Third party reporting services providing comprehensive assistance to victims rather than being used simply as a tool to increase the numbers of reports. • Police need to examine and respond to levels of dissatisfaction by victims reporting incidents

More Related