Research report: 21 Disabled people’s experiences of targeted violence and hostility Chih Hoong Sin, Annie Hedges, Chloe Cook, Nina Mguni and Natasha Comber Office for Public Management Disabled people’s experiences of targeted violence and hostility Chih Hoong Sin, Annie Hedges, Chloe Cook, Nina Mguni and Natasha Comber Office for Public Management © Equality and Human Rights Commission 2009 First published Spring 2009 ISBN 978 1 84206 123 7 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as a contribution to discussion and debate. Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission research reports, or visit our website: Research Team Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House The Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AQ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0161 829 8500 Website: www.equalityhumanrights.com You can download a copy of this report as a PDF from our website: www.equalityhumanrights.com/researchreports If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Communications Team to discuss your needs at: [email protected] Contents Page List of abbreviations i Acknowledgements ii Executive summary iii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Aims and objectives of the research 1 2. Methodology 4 2.1 Literature review 4 2.2 Stakeholder interviews 5 2.3 Interviews with disabled people 5 2.4 Reading this report 7 3. The wider policy and legislative context, and evidence base 10 3.1 Legislative developments 10 3.2 Overview of existing data 12 4. Risk and prevalence of targeted violence and hostility 14 4.1 Risk 14 4.2 Prevalence 17 4.3 Victimisation 19 4.4 Summary and implications 20 5. Nature and experiences of targeted violence and hostility 21 5.1 Types of incidents 21 5.2 Situational contexts 26 5.3 Motivating factors 30 5.4 Summary 41 6. Impact on disabled people, and some wider impact 43 6.1 Aggravation of existing conditions 43 6.2 Victims ignoring the perpetrator 44 6.3 Victims restructuring their lives 45 6.4 Action and aggression 47 6.5 Fear of disclosure 48 6.6 Impact on others 48 7. Reporting, recording and seeking redress 50 7.1 Rates of reporting 50 7.2 Reporting by people with mental health conditions 51 7.3 Reporting by people with learning disabilities 52 7.4 Experiences of reporting 53 7.5 Reasons for under-reporting 56 7.6 Recording 65 Page 7.7 Seeking redress 66 7.8 Summary 77 8. Approaching the issues - framing narratives 79 8.1 Rights versus vulnerability 79 8.2 Managing risk 80 8.3 Structural factors 82 8.4 A pan-equality approach 83 8.5 A layers of influence approach 83 9. Discussion and conclusion 86 9.1 Action to improve the lives of disabled people 86 9.2 Improving the evidence base 86 9.3 Experiencing targeted violence and hostility 87 9.4 Perceptions of vulnerability and threat 88 9.5 Implications for social inclusion 88 9.6 Implications of the current focus on the criminal justice system 89 9.7 Relations of power 89 9.8 Blurring of responsibilities 90 9.9 Framing the issues 90 References 92 Appendices A Databases and search terms used for literature review 100 B Material reviewed 102 C Literature review template 113 D Stakeholder organisations and agencies 117 E Stakeholder interview research instrument 119 F Disabled interviewees sample distribution (intended and achieved) 122 G Information and recruitment letter to disabled people's organisations 124 H Disabled interviewees research instrument 126 I Disabled interviewees research instrument (adapted for those with learning disabilities) 132 J Overview of disabled interviewees sample distribution and characteristics 137 K Potentially relevant datasets at the UK Data Archive 148 L Section 146 Criminal Justice Act (2003) 152 Endnotes 153 List of abbreviations ACPO – Association of Chief Police Officers ASBO – Anti-Social Behaviour Order BCS – British Crime Survey CEBPP – UK Centre for Evidence-Based Policy and Practice CJA – Criminal Justice Act (2003) CPS – Crown Prosecution Service CSP – Community Safety Partnership DDA – Disability Discrimination Act (1995) DED – Disability Equality Duty DoH – Department of Health DPO – Disabled people’s organisation DRC – Disability Rights Commission HRA – Human Rights Act LDPB – Learning Disability Partnership Board LGBT – Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender OPM – Office for Public Management i Acknowledgements The authors of this report owe a debt of gratitude to all research participants, in particular to all the disabled people who have given so generously their time and shared with us their experiences. We would like to thank the disabled people’s organisations who helped us identify disabled people to take part in the research and the support they gave interviewees both during and after the interviews. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission project board, in particular Janice Fong for her professionalism and unflagging encouragement. We have benefited from the invaluable advice and encouragement from a number of experts, and would also like to thank Alan Gomersall at the UK Centre for Evidence-Based Policy and Practice for his contribution to the literature search. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive summary About the research The Equality and Human Rights Commission commissioned the Office for Public Management (OPM) to conduct a two-phase project looking into disabled people’s experiences of targeted violence and hostility. The research has taken a broad approach to targeted violence and hostility against disabled people. The terminology around targeted violence and hostility is ill-defined, and terms such as abuse and harassment are often used interchangeably. In this report we have used ‘targeted violence and hostility’ as an encompassing term to include incidents involving verbal, physical, sexual and emotional violence, harassment and abuse that is directed towards disabled people. Research methods Phase 1 The first phase involved a literature review conducted in partnership with the UK Centre for Evidence-based Policy and Practice, and was guided by the approach set out by Government Social Research for rapid evidence reviews. A total of 73 items were included for review. The literature review mapped out the existing evidence base and its strengths, weaknesses and gaps. It identified evidence relating to risk and prevalence, as well as the experience of targeted violence. It documents the types of incidents and their impact on disabled people, and identifies the responses from disabled people and key agencies. Phase 2 The findings of the literature review (in terms of methods, sampling and thematic focus) informed the second phase of the project. The second phase involved semi- structured interviews with nine stakeholders from a number of key organisations and agencies, as well as interviews with 30 disabled people with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions from England, Wales and Scotland. Interviews with stakeholders probed into the roles and experiences of key agencies, challenges in inter-agency working and their implications for disabled people, examples of good practice, and recommendations for improvement. Interviews with disabled people explored experiences at greater depth, and identified key barriers and suggestions for breaking these barriers down. iii DISABLED PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCES OF TARGETED VIOLENCE AND HOSTILITY Key findings 1. Current situation Terminology around targeted violence and hostility The terminology around targeted violence and hostility is ill-defined, and terms such as ‘violence’, ‘harassment’ and ‘abuse’ are often used interchangeably. The issues are described and understood differently by different agencies and by disabled people. There is particular confusion over the language of ‘hate crimes’ and this can compromise effective response and intervention. Existing evidence from the wider literature We have concerns about the variable quality of the existing evidence base, particularly around the methods used to generate evidence reviewed in the wider literature. In many cases methods are either insufficiently robust or are not reported clearly to enable an assessment of the significance of findings. There are however a number of existing studies that do clearly report their methods and, of these, roughly half employ robust methods (as judged on sample size, sample composition, sample recruitment strategies and multi-method data collection). There is a severe scarcity of robust and representative national-level data, with little comparison between disabled and non-disabled people, and among different groups of disabled people. There is a lack of country-specific material originating from Scotland and Wales, and much of the existing evidence originates from a criminal justice perspective. Official data sources include the British Crime Survey, Crown Prosecution Service prosecution rates and local police force crime records. Recent developments in the collection and reporting of official data sources will lead to an improved understanding of the prevalence of disability hate crime. For example, the British Crime Survey has recently been amended so that all respondents who have been assaulted will be asked whether they