www.opm.co.uk

Disabled people’s experiences of targeted violence and hostility

Dr Chih Hoong Sin Office for Public Management (OPM)

Overview

• Background • Key findings:

– Types of incidents– Situational vulnerability– Impact– Motivation– Reporting

• Actions

Before we start…

• The information may be distressing• The work is underpinned by a social model

approach:– Impairment taken as starting point and NOT as

explanation in itself for experiences– Processes– Structures and organisational behaviours– Context

• Language of ‘targeted violence and hostility’

Background

• OPM commissioned by Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to conduct research.

• Literature review:– 73 items included

• Interviews with disabled people:– 30 interviews– Sampled through disabled people’s organisations– England, Wales and Scotland

• Interviews with key stakeholders:– 9 interviewees from health and social care, criminal justice,

central government departments, local authorities, civil justice, disability groups

Risk and types of incidents

• Risk and victimisation:– Risk factors– Strong link between risk and actual experience– Certain sub-groups ‘more at risk’

• Types of incidents:– Physical– Verbal– Sexual– Targeted anti-social behaviour– Damage to property/theft– School bullying– Incidents perpetrated by statutory agency staff– Cyber bullying

• Huge range, but prevalence of ongoing ‘low level’ incidents with high impact

Situational vulnerability

• ‘Hot spots’:– Streets– Social housing– Residential settings– Schools / colleges– Work– Public transport

• Risk and victimisation not explained by any inherent characteristic of victim or perpetrator

• Motivations not always triggered into action

Motivations

• Scant evidence:– Lack of research with perpetrators

• Key factors:– Perceptions of vulnerability / dependency– Perceptions of threat– Actual or predicted behaviour of disabled person– Perpetrators thinking they can ‘get away with it’– Control and unequal power relations

• Inadequacy of ‘hate crime’ terminology and discourse

Impact

• Impact:– Aggravation of existing conditions– Victims ignoring perpetrators– Victims restructuring lives– Action and aggression– Fear of disclosure– Impact of other disabled people– Impact on family members of victims

• Wider conditioning to ‘avoid’ and ‘accept’

Reporting

• Focus on criminal justice system:– Third parties important but under-studied

• Experiences of reporting to the police– Lack of access to advocacy & mental health

services:• But not just about referring to services and support, also

need to take action

– ‘Diagnostic overshadowing’• Person seen primarily as ‘disabled’, and disability then

overshadows everything

– Lack of disability awareness

Barriers to reporting

• Reasons for under-reporting– Relationship between perpetrator and victim– Lack of awareness about human rights– Language of ‘hate crime’– Negative previous experiences / confidence of police– Accessibility– Embarrassment– Fear of losing control / independence– Previously told to ‘just ignore it’– Difficulty in verbalising experiences

• Issues of recording– Police not recording ‘low level’ incidents– Intelligence not shared by different agencies

Actions needed…

• Legislative tools available but not fully utilised• Standard procedures not followed or special measures

not used• Perceived lack of credibility of disabled witnesses• Blurring of responsibility between social care agencies

and criminal justice• Role of public bodies:

– Focus on police & criminal justice leads to role of other agencies / organisations being overlooked

– Potentially have a preventative role and early intervention– Lack of joined up working

• Role of third parties:– Often first point of contact– Importance of third party reporting centres– Does not always get passed onto statutory agencies

www.opm.co.uk

Thank you!

csin@opm.co.uk