DISABILITY HATE CRIME SURVEY:
BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY FINDINGS
Disability Hate Crime Survey:
Brief analysis of the survey findings[1]
1. Background
Combatting disability hate crime (DHC) is vital for Independent Living, as it is a barrier for disabled people in accessing their rights to live lives with full participation. The European Network on Independent Living (ENIL) has been active in the area of DHC through different partnerships since 2011. In 2016, the organisation focused on furthering cooperation to advance the issue at the European Union (EU) level. ENIL developed and distributed, as part of its work plan, a survey to explore positive and progressive examples that can be spread for the goal of combatting DHC. It is expected that ENIL will host a roundtable discussion towards the end of 2016, in the European Parliament, to present the results.
ENIL contacted a diverse range of stakeholders to contribute by participating in the survey. The goal was to describe the work that has been done thus far to combat disability hate crime and identify good examples that can be disseminated to advance the work in the field. Stakeholders were also asked for their advice on furthering the aims and strategies of those who seek to address disability hate crime with the intention that this would lead to new organisations and individuals joining a network for positive change. This brief analysis shows the initial findings from the survey responses and will become part of a wider report that is to be disseminated through various European networks and presented to Member States and the European Parliament.
2. Summary of the survey findings
The analysis of the disability hate crime survey produced four key areas for further investigation:
a. Organisations addressing disability hate crime provide guidance and support to individuals who have experienced it, advocate for the implementation of existing laws and act as third-party reporting mechanisms on behalf of law enforcement and criminal justice frameworks.
b. Respondents expressed the desperate need for additional funding to continue the work, called for the establishment of national networks of user trainers within this field of crime, and highlighted the significance of having consistent approaches from law enforcement and prosecution services.
c. A diverse range of good practice was recorded, which range from general material on the topic to literature explaining how to operate third-party reporting mechanisms and further resources detailing established organisations and networks across Europe tackling disability hate crime.
d. Finally, respondents highlighted the importance of collaboration.
3. Methodology and limitations
The survey consisted of four questions, which were distributed through email, and respondents were asked to reply directly to the sender. Each question included various sub-questions that were used to provide guidance and prompts for those participating. The questions were as follows:
- Describe your work on hate crime (Prompts: Consider, for example, telling who is involved in the work. Has the work contributed to policy development? Is there support for individuals and communities experiencing hate crime? What actors are contributing? Is hate crime being considered in a broader perspective in your country?)
- What would you need to advance your work? (Prompts: Describe what is needed, be it funding, or the establishment of links or a larger network, the receiving of additional guidance and support, or better access to decision makers and policy developers.)
- What good examples do you know of that should be spread? (Prompts: Is your government mapping hate crime? How is the government creating dialogue with the community? Are the law forces working with hate crime and how? Why do you think these examples are good? Where would you see the information being disseminated?)
- What advice would you give to others in order to advance the work in the field of disability hate crime? (Prompts: What works in advancing this issue? Who is talking to whom in the area of DHC? What convinces people to do things? Where would you want this advice to go? Highlight any barriers you know of to the advancement in the combat of hate crime? How would you articulate the importance of spreading information on hate crime?)
The survey was disseminated to various civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations, government departments of various Member States and influential members within the Disabled People’s Movement. Unfortunately, as disability hate crime is a relatively new area and there is no formal or informal disability hate crime network at the European level, we have not been able to get many responses. At the same time, while this analysis is based on a small number of responses, they have come from a range of actors – disability organisations, a mainstream human rights organisation, a national human rights institution, a local authority, and two regional agencies/organisations.
This survey was a small step to have a better idea of that which is happening in the field of DHC and to identify good examples of practice. ENIL will continue to carry out events and studies to complement this brief study for progress in the work against DHC.
4. Respondents
Eight responses were received from the following organisations and institutions:
- Disability Hate Crime Network (UK)
- Pravobraniteljica za osobe s invaliditetom – Ombudswoman for Persons with Disabilities (Croatia)
- Restorative Justice Working CIC and Erya (UK)
- Wirral Local Authority (UK)
- European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (Europe)
- Office for Security and Cooperation in Europe - Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (Europe)
- Stopp Diskrimineringen Norway – Stop Discrimination Norway (Norway)
5. Analysis
The analysis uses the questions in the survey as a framework for populating the report with key themes raised by the participants who responded; nevertheless, themes may cross several of the questions.[2]
5.1. Describe your work on hate crime
During the analysis phase, this was framed as an organisation’s priorities for investigating or tackling hate crime. Six key areas were discovered:
Theme / Number of sources / Numberof references
Advocating for implementation of existing laws / 5 / 5
Provision of continuous support to people experiencing disability hate crime / 1 / 2
Facilitating dialogue between organisations committed or interested in disability hate crime / 3 / 3
Raising awareness among disabled people and/or law enforcement / 5 / 12
Signposting individuals and/or organisations to further information on disability hate crime / 1 / 1
Third Party Reporting mechanism / 1 / 1
Advocating for implementation of existing laws
Respondents acknowledged their role in pressing for the appropriate sentencing and use of available sentence enhancing procedures existent within their national criminal justice legislation. This was achieved by organisations working alongside their national criminal justice system and the development of seminars to highlight the criminal code provisions pertaining to hate crime. The aim of such seminars is to support prosecution services, law enforcement officers and civil society organisations to be aware of existing legislative frameworks. It was also noted that work was being done by organisations to align restorative justice procedures and criminal justice processes with the principles of various pieces of legislation that address the provision of care and support to disabled people.
Some reported the limited information available to recognise how countries are identifying, reporting and challenging disability hate crime. Organisations noted that certain countries do not include disability amongst the protected grounds in hate crime provision, which affects data collection, as well as the methods taken to convince authorities for the need for protection of disabled people against hate crime.
Provision of continuous support to people experiencing disability hate crime
Support provision ranged from offering education about keeping safe, accessing advocacy, forming relationships and recognising human rights, to supporting individuals to explore their self-esteem and confidence. There were initiatives to develop community connections that produced ‘peer advocates’ to support individuals to keep safe and feel protected, but not restrict choice and control over their lives. There was also support tailored to promote, develop and deliver restorative practices based on the Northern Ireland’s ‘balanced model’.
Facilitating dialogue between organisations committed or interested in disability hate crime
This consisted of government offices that work within national minorities and on human rights forming state working groups on hate crime, with the involvement of the judicial department and police academies. Some dialogue focused on the need to provide victim support services at various stages of the criminal justice system; in some examples, there were monitoring mechanisms to ensure disabled people’s organisations were involved at all stages. In one example, local government were working on ‘community safety partnerships’ that required the support from police and crime commissioner funds to resource the collaboration. Within civil society networks, alliances were formed to reinforce the legal protection against all forms of discrimination and required various non-governmental organisations - from a wide range of marginalised groups - to support one another.
Raising awareness among disabled people and/or law enforcement
There is a clear focus on raising awareness of disability hate crime amongst various stakeholders, which includes the use of workshops and training projects to achieve this aim. National and local groups commissioned their own local surveys - and further research - to discover why disability hate crime was underreported and what was required at the national policy and grass-root level to support disabled people who experience hate crime. Literature was also being produced for various audiences that provided accessible materials to explain disability and disability hate crime. Organisations were archiving examples of disability hate crime cases, sometimes documented by the media, to highlight the failure of countries to tackle this phenomena. Raising awareness also meant that demands could be made for further training on this topic and shift the debate from focusing on vulnerability to identifying this as a social justice issue.
Signposting individuals and/or organisations to further information on disability hate crime; Third Party Reporting mechanisms
Respondents recognised their role in directing individuals and organisations to various sources that could help identify, record and learn about disability hate crime.
5.2. What would you need to advance your work?
During the analysis phase, this was framed as desirable improvements for tackling hate crime. Four key areas were discovered:
Theme / Number of Sources / Numberof References
Additional funding / 5 / 5
Consistent approach from law enforcement and prosecution / 4 / 6
Establishing a national network of user-led trainers in disability hate crime / 2 / 2
Raising awareness of disability hate crime / 5 / 7
Additional funding
Accessing or being eligible for funding was a considerable issue for many respondents; reasons for lack of funding included the status of the organisation meant they were ineligible for funding streams. There is also recognition that exploring the strategic approach and governance frameworks would enable existing funds to be used more effectively and allow user led organisations to apply for grants. Without funding, organisations were unable to deliver learning and development programmes created to tackle disability hate crime.
Consistent approach from law enforcement and prosecution
The inconsistency from law enforcement teams and prosecution services to have a comprehensive understanding as to what disability and disability hate crime is continues to be a major concern for respondents. It was noted that this was substantially affected by the growing concern that there are not enough national trainers familiar with the concept of disability hate crime in specific countries; furthermore, organisations exploring the European impact of disability hate crime highlighted the failure, in some circumstances, to differentiate the concept from other tools used to combat violence and anti-discrimination. This has a consequence for the monitoring of statistics and whether directors of public prosecution instruct law enforcement teams to give priority to the investigation of hate crime.
Establishing national network of user-led trainers in disability hate crime
There was a call for ring fenced funding to support disabled individuals to become trainers and external experts on disability hate crime, which would allow for the voice of disabled people and their organisations to be heard at the various levels within policy and strategy design, development and implementation. Any training that was provided would need to adhere to the social model of disability and challenge the dominant views within communities, which promotes disability as a tragedy that requires disabled people to be segregated, cured or rehabilitated. It was also suggested that States could sponsor civil society groups to lead on the dissemination of materials produced to tackle this area of hate crime.
Raising awareness of disability hate crime
Notwithstanding the creation of working groups to explore methods and opportunities to highlight the significance and detrimental impact of disability hate crime, it was concluded that more awareness raising was needed. This included specific recommendations to:
· focus on the victim support directives to ensure adequate resources were implemented to provide disabled people with support at every stage of the criminal justice system;
· comprehensive mapping of the stakeholders that require training within the state structures, as well as who could provide the training;
· local government to include disability hate crime as a standing item on all strategic agendas;
· a focus on the need to align disability hate crime initiatives with restorative practice principles; and
· the need to challenge the culture of disbelief surrounding those engaged with investigating and prosecuting disability hate crimes.
5.3. What good examples do you know of that should be spread?
During the analysis phase, this was framed as best practice to disseminate for tackling hate crime. Five key areas were discovered:
Theme / Number of Sources / Numberof References
Awareness of established organisations and networks / 4 / 4
Promotion of existing general material on disability hate crime / 3 / 8
Promotion of existing Third Party Reporting mechanisms / 1 / 3
Literature on understanding what is disability hate crime / 1 / 2
Literature to explain the reasons for not reporting disability hate crime / 2 / 2
Awareness of established organisations and networks