Research on Homophobia - Filling in the Blanks
Filling in the Blanks GALOP
LGBT Hate Crime in London
Deborah Gold – Chief Executive
Peter Kelley - Researcher · Two year project – looking at what we can learn about incidents reported to the LGBT voluntary sector· Part funded by MPS and MPA· Statistics collected by GALOP, Stonewall Housing and London Lesbian & Gay Switchboard, and where possible compared with MPS data· Mapping exercise of reporting options across the city. Mapping exercise • Surveyed local police and authorities in every London borough, as well as voluntary sector organisations, youth groups and others.• Asked about the range of reporting (including third party reporting) options available.• Reviewed London-wide schemes and relevant literature Partnership phase • Worked with Stonewall Housing and LLGS, and developed their capacity to collect detailed data on LGBT hate incidents.• Compiled a large dataset of incidents (700), many of which never reported to the police.• Developed common monitoring and data sharing processes. Statistics • Analysed dataset of over 700 cases • Where possible, compared dataset with data from the MPS.• Considered patterns in information about victims, incidents, perpetrators and outcomes. Mapping exercise • A significant amount of otherwise unreported homophobic and transphobic hate crime is informally ‘told to’, or formally reported to agencies and organisations across London• Most of this information is lost as it is not recorded• Even when recorded there is no system for sharing the information between organisations of with the police • This leads to an inhibited understanding of homophobia and transphobia• Some good practice in individual boroughs and VCOs, however dealing with challenges:– Lack of consistency or standardisation of third party reporting (3PR) – no minimum standards– No evidence base identifying what makes an effective hate crime initiative• No overall strategy on increasing reporting and providing 3RP options in London• Proliferation of initiatives based within a single borough – uneven and inconsistent approach. Many schemes ineffective:– Inherent problems in borough specific approach– Inconsistent involvement of MPS or LGBT Liaison Officers locally– Little sustainability for schemes – lack of long-term funding commitment • No effective evaluation of delivery and performance of 3PR services - questions about effectiveness of True Vision• Victims’ organisations expressed difficulties in contacting the police.– Unrealistic funding – not including training and relying on volunteers and under-resourced VCOs to deliver services• Emphasis in numbers not outcomes Partnership • Provided further evidence of the under-reporting of LGBT hate crime• Relatively small changes can improve data collection and dissemination• It takes considerable time, effort and resources to enable and sustain a project such as this one Statistical analysis • Different experiences for different sections of the LGBT communities – needing different approaches• Different types of incidents reported to LGBT organisations than the police– Gay and bisexual men most likely to report hate incidents– Higher proportion of men reported violence– Higher proportion of women report sexual assault– Higher proportion of men trans people reported verbal and repeat harassment– Young and older people less likely to report an incident– BME victims appear more likely to be a victim in or near the home– Significant proportions of victims had a disability or health problem, particularly mental health issues– Victims equally likely to report incidents in or near home– Particular underreporting of incidents in schools and PSEs– Higher proportion of victims contact LGBT VCOs about domestic abuse or ongoing harassment, compared to MPS– Higher proportion of victims contact LGBT VCOs about domestic abuse or ongoing harassment, compared to MPS– Perpetrators most likely to be young men– Around half of callers didn’t report to the police because of lack of confidence in police, or because they feared the consequences– Many people made contact as dissatisfied with the police – for a range of reasons Recommendations • A more strategic approach– Pan-London focus– Focus on ensuring positive outcomes– Minimum, standards guidelines for 3PR schemes• Evaluate what works– Including which models are proved, True Vision, and what type of advertising leads to increased reporting.• Increase effectiveness of 3PR schemes– More consistent role for the MPS– Minimum standards on responses– Single point of contact at MPS for inaccurate or out of date information– systems for central dissemination of statistics• Improved funding for:– Pan-London reporting– Training, support, collation and dissemination of informationPartnership• Central Government, London Government and London CJS partners:– Take account of non-police reports when reporting on homophobic/transphobic hate crime– Provide GALOP and others with funding to build and maintain ongoing database of non-police reports– Work with GALOP and others to standardise collection and reporting methods Statistics• Further work on how to target and reach different groups• Explicit agreement between 3PR services and MPS on expected response to a report of verbal abuse• Establish a system for hotspot mapping based on LGBT and MPS data• Target interventions at public transport hubs and PSEs, in partnership with VCOs• Work with the LGBT sector to develop interventions to target perpetrators, focusing ion home, local neighbourhoods and schools• Ensure 3PR schemes are funded to provide comprehensive assistance, not just reporting• Research why satisfaction levels with MPS are low, and take remedial action What next? Launch and dissemination • Full report due to be published imminently• Conference on 31st March at the Emirates Stadium (supported by the CPS) to launch.• Contact GALOP for more information.
LGBT Hate Crime in London
Deborah Gold – Chief Executive
Peter Kelley - Researcher · Two year project – looking at what we can learn about incidents reported to the LGBT voluntary sector· Part funded by MPS and MPA· Statistics collected by GALOP, Stonewall Housing and London Lesbian & Gay Switchboard, and where possible compared with MPS data· Mapping exercise of reporting options across the city. Mapping exercise • Surveyed local police and authorities in every London borough, as well as voluntary sector organisations, youth groups and others.• Asked about the range of reporting (including third party reporting) options available.• Reviewed London-wide schemes and relevant literature Partnership phase • Worked with Stonewall Housing and LLGS, and developed their capacity to collect detailed data on LGBT hate incidents.• Compiled a large dataset of incidents (700), many of which never reported to the police.• Developed common monitoring and data sharing processes. Statistics • Analysed dataset of over 700 cases • Where possible, compared dataset with data from the MPS.• Considered patterns in information about victims, incidents, perpetrators and outcomes. Mapping exercise • A significant amount of otherwise unreported homophobic and transphobic hate crime is informally ‘told to’, or formally reported to agencies and organisations across London• Most of this information is lost as it is not recorded• Even when recorded there is no system for sharing the information between organisations of with the police • This leads to an inhibited understanding of homophobia and transphobia• Some good practice in individual boroughs and VCOs, however dealing with challenges:– Lack of consistency or standardisation of third party reporting (3PR) – no minimum standards– No evidence base identifying what makes an effective hate crime initiative• No overall strategy on increasing reporting and providing 3RP options in London• Proliferation of initiatives based within a single borough – uneven and inconsistent approach. Many schemes ineffective:– Inherent problems in borough specific approach– Inconsistent involvement of MPS or LGBT Liaison Officers locally– Little sustainability for schemes – lack of long-term funding commitment • No effective evaluation of delivery and performance of 3PR services - questions about effectiveness of True Vision• Victims’ organisations expressed difficulties in contacting the police.– Unrealistic funding – not including training and relying on volunteers and under-resourced VCOs to deliver services• Emphasis in numbers not outcomes Partnership • Provided further evidence of the under-reporting of LGBT hate crime• Relatively small changes can improve data collection and dissemination• It takes considerable time, effort and resources to enable and sustain a project such as this one Statistical analysis • Different experiences for different sections of the LGBT communities – needing different approaches• Different types of incidents reported to LGBT organisations than the police– Gay and bisexual men most likely to report hate incidents– Higher proportion of men reported violence– Higher proportion of women report sexual assault– Higher proportion of men trans people reported verbal and repeat harassment– Young and older people less likely to report an incident– BME victims appear more likely to be a victim in or near the home– Significant proportions of victims had a disability or health problem, particularly mental health issues– Victims equally likely to report incidents in or near home– Particular underreporting of incidents in schools and PSEs– Higher proportion of victims contact LGBT VCOs about domestic abuse or ongoing harassment, compared to MPS– Higher proportion of victims contact LGBT VCOs about domestic abuse or ongoing harassment, compared to MPS– Perpetrators most likely to be young men– Around half of callers didn’t report to the police because of lack of confidence in police, or because they feared the consequences– Many people made contact as dissatisfied with the police – for a range of reasons Recommendations • A more strategic approach– Pan-London focus– Focus on ensuring positive outcomes– Minimum, standards guidelines for 3PR schemes• Evaluate what works– Including which models are proved, True Vision, and what type of advertising leads to increased reporting.• Increase effectiveness of 3PR schemes– More consistent role for the MPS– Minimum standards on responses– Single point of contact at MPS for inaccurate or out of date information– systems for central dissemination of statistics• Improved funding for:– Pan-London reporting– Training, support, collation and dissemination of informationPartnership• Central Government, London Government and London CJS partners:– Take account of non-police reports when reporting on homophobic/transphobic hate crime– Provide GALOP and others with funding to build and maintain ongoing database of non-police reports– Work with GALOP and others to standardise collection and reporting methods Statistics• Further work on how to target and reach different groups• Explicit agreement between 3PR services and MPS on expected response to a report of verbal abuse• Establish a system for hotspot mapping based on LGBT and MPS data• Target interventions at public transport hubs and PSEs, in partnership with VCOs• Work with the LGBT sector to develop interventions to target perpetrators, focusing ion home, local neighbourhoods and schools• Ensure 3PR schemes are funded to provide comprehensive assistance, not just reporting• Research why satisfaction levels with MPS are low, and take remedial action What next? Launch and dissemination • Full report due to be published imminently• Conference on 31st March at the Emirates Stadium (supported by the CPS) to launch.• Contact GALOP for more information.
