Produced by Community Safety Research Team: Nick Sandford Smith, David Slade, Gina Perryman. Contact csresearchers@portsmouthcc.gov.uk for more information.
Community Safety Disability Hate Crime Survey 2012
Introduction and Background In August 2011 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) produced a report called 'Hidden in plain sight'1, which related to an inquiry into disability-related harassment. For the purposes of the inquiry, the Commission defined disability-related harassment as: Unwanted, exploitative or abusive conduct against disabled people which has the purpose or effect of either: violating the dignity, safety, security or autonomy of the person experiencing it, Or Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment. It should be noted that their definition of disability-related harassment is wider than the definition currently used by the criminal justice system. It also includes harassment of the friends and family of disabled people and of people perceived to be disabled. The 'Hidden in Plain Sight' report contained 10 case studies where disabled people have died or been seriously injured - largely people with learning disabilities. The report confirmed that the cases of disability-related harassment which come to court and receive media attention are the tip of the ice-berg. Evidence collected by the EHRC indicated that harassment is a common experience for many disabled people, with many accepting it as inevitable. People with disabilities often don’t report harassment as they may: be unsure who to report to, fear the consequences of reporting or fear they will not be believed. The report also found a systematic failure by public authorities to recognise the extent and impact of harassment and abuse of disabled people, to prevent it occurring and to intervene effectively. The report advocates a challenge to transform the way people with disabilities are viewed, valued and included in society. Main findings included:
1
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publication/hidden-plain-sight-inquiry-disability-related-harassmentexecutive-summary
1
Produced by Community Safety Research Team: Nick Sandford Smith, David Slade, Gina Perryman. Contact csresearchers@portsmouthcc.gov.uk for more information.
Public authorities were often aware of earlier, less serious incidents but had taken little action to resolve the issue, leaving the victim at risk of further harm. Many victims were socially isolated which increased the risk of harassment and violence, which often took place in the context of exploitative relationships. Left unmanaged, anti-social behaviour and 'petty' crime has the potential to escalate into more frequent and intense behaviours. Public authorities sometimes focussed on the victim's behaviour and suggested restrictions on their lives to avoid the harassment rather than deal with the perpetrators. Often a failure to share intelligence and co-ordinate responses across different services and organisations. Disability is rarely considered as a possible motivating factor in crime and anti-social behaviour, and thus are given low priority and appropriate hate incident policy and legislative frameworks are not applied.
In Great Britain around 21% of the population are disabled, this estimate covers the number of people with a longstanding illness, disability or infirmity, and who have a significant difficulty with day-to-day activities. According to police data, in 2013/14 there were very few disability hate crimes - just eight out of 18,443 crimes (0.04%). This seems a very low number and would appear to support the findings of the EHRC report that these crimes are often not reported or that disability is rarely considered as a motivating factor. Anti-social behaviour data is not routinely broken down by motivating factor and so this information was not available at the time of writing this report. The purpose of this study was to expand our knowledge about disability hate crime in Portsmouth. A recent community safety survey had been conducted in 2012 (CSS 2012) and a decision was made to adapt the existing interview schedule to allow comparisons to be made. The CSS 2012 was designed to gather opinions from Portsmouth residents on: quality of life; perceptions and experience of crime and anti-social behaviour; and fear of crime in relation to particular areas of Portsmouth. This report will present the findings from the two separate but related surveys: Portsmouth's 2012 Community Safety Survey (CSS) and the follow up disability hate crime survey (DHCS). Methodology This booster sample was designed to seek the views of residents with disabilities and residents who are vulnerable due to their advanced years. The surveys were conducted through use of face-to-face interviews, questionnaires and an online survey through Survey Monkey. This was done through opportunity sampling and should not be considered representative of Portsmouth Disabled population as a whole. 2
Produced by Community Safety Research Team: Nick Sandford Smith, David Slade, Gina Perryman. Contact csresearchers@portsmouthcc.gov.uk for more information.
Our aim was to interview 40 people with each of the following disabilities:
Physical disability Hearing impairment Vison impairment Learning disability Vulnerability due to advanced age
The field work was carried out in the spring and summer of 2013. We visited various meetings and conducted individual interviews to try and capture as much information as possible; we attended an open access meeting at Portsmouth Disability Forum who are an umbrella group for all disabilities across Portsmouth. The Visually Impaired Action Group was also involved in completing the survey. The Beneficial Foundation provides a centre for people with Learning Disabilities, they have 70 students that attend weekly. The survey was very complex so we tried to make it easier to read for the people with learning disabilities, but, because it had to resemble the original Community Safety Survey this proved challenging. Even in its simplified form, it still took nearly two hours for each survey to be completed by a person with a learning disability and their support worker. We also visited the Bradbury Centre where Age UK Portsmouth is based; we did individual surveys with older people that attended the centre where some did have memory problems or early dementia. The Survey was also circulated by the Voluntary Sector mail out that is sent to over 600 organisations in Portsmouth. Despite extensive attempts at engaging people with disabilities and working closely with the Equality and Diversity Team, the resulting number of completed questionnaires was disappointing. People who were vulnerable because of their age were the only group where we managed to get anywhere near approaching the target number of responses. This group reported wide ranging disabilities but most were due to their advanced age. This means that the results of this survey are skewed towards this demographic and that generalisation of results to other types of disability should be made with caution.
Sample Characteristics There were 48 respondents, but not all answered all the questions.2 Where stated there were 16 men (34%) and 31 women (65%). As can be seen in Table 1, most respondents were 65+.
2
For each question, the number that answered will be available as (nX)
3
Produced by Community Safety Research Team: Nick Sandford Smith, David Slade, Gina Perryman. Contact csresearchers@portsmouthcc.gov.uk for more information.
Table 1:- Age of respondents (n41) Age Group 18-24 25-34 35-54 55-64 65+ Total
Number 2 6 4 2 27 41
Percentage 4.9% 14.6% 9.8% 4.9% 65.9% 100%
Figure 1 shows that two thirds (n22) of respondents were retired, demonstrating the bias of over 65yr olds in the sample. Figure 1- Occupation of sample (n33) 6.06% 9.09% Full time employee (30+ hours a week)
18.18%
Part time (under 30+ hours a week) Long term illness / disability
66.67%
Retired from work
All but one respondent saw themselves as belonging to the 'White' British group (n46). The other respondent reported being Black African. Figure 2 below shows that there is a diverse sample in regards to the types of disability that the respondents reported. There were 41 responses, but as people may have more than one disability the number of responses was 52. Over 40% of respondents (n17) had a visual disability, 37% (n15) had a physical disability and 29% (n12) had a learning disability. In the comments section for this question, some of the comments are age associated, for example, arthritis, heart trouble and being vulnerable due to age such as issues with mobility and physical strength which can often be affected due to aging.
4
Produced by Community Safety Research Team: Nick Sandford Smith, David Slade, Gina Perryman. Contact csresearchers@portsmouthcc.gov.uk for more information.
Figure 2:- Types of Disability (n41) - 52 responses in total 8% 29% Physical
23%
Vision Hearing Learning Mental Health
8% 33%
Main Results Most of the respondents (80%, n36) reported having a good standard of living, with 12% (n6) reporting that they did not. In the CSS 2012 the question was worded differently - and asked whether their 'quality of life' was good rather than 'standard of living.'3 Although the questions are worded differently, the overall 'direction' of the findings may none the less be of use when comparing the differences between the respondents to the two surveys. Figure 3 shows the percentages of the samples which reported that they had a good quality of life, by either agreeing with the statement of disagreeing with them. A greater proportion of the DHCS respondents reported a good quality of life than CSS 2012 respondents. Figure 3: Respondents reporting a good quality / standard of life in Portsmouth for CSS 2012 and DHCS 2013/14 90%
79%
80%
Percentage
70% 60%
60%
59%
CSS 2012- not sick or retired (N=626)
CSS 2012- sick or retired (N=175)
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
3
Hate crime sample (N=48)
This change in wording was one of the recommended changes to try and make the questionnaire easier to understand.
5
Produced by Community Safety Research Team: Nick Sandford Smith, David Slade, Gina Perryman. Contact csresearchers@portsmouthcc.gov.uk for more information.
Concern about and Experience of Antisocial behaviour Most respondents to the DHCS (73%, n35) also did not agree that nuisance behaviour in their local area was a big problem while 26% either agreed or agreed strongly that is it problematic. Fewer DHCS respondents reported thinking that nuisance behaviour was a problem than for the CSS 2012 (45%). However, the wording was slightly different, with CSS 2012 questionnaires asking whether 'anti-social behaviour' was a big problem in the area they lived in, so this finding should be interpreted with caution. Rubbish and litter lying around (34%, n16), vandalism (21%, n10) and people being drunk or rowdy were the most commonly cited nuisance or problem behaviours for the DHCS respondents. Rubbish and litter (23%, n10), and teenagers hanging around (16%, n7) were the most commonly experienced types of nuisance behaviour in the last year.
Concern about and Experience of Crime Only approximately a quarter (26%, n12) of respondents were not worried about experiencing crime. The most feared crime was burglary (39%, n18), while other commonly feared crimes were: being followed by someone (28%, n13), damage to home and garden (26%, n12), having things stolen in the street (26%, n12), being assaulted (24%, n11), being mugged or robbed (24%, n11), being shouted at in the street (24%, n11) and people starting fires (24%, n11). As was found in the CSS 2012, concern about crime was generally much higher than actual experience. However, almost 10% (n4) of people responding to this question in the DHCS had been shouted at in the street in the last year which was by far the most commonly experienced crime. None of the other crime types listed had been experienced by more than one respondent.
Reporting Crime The most common reasons why people who did not report some or all of the crimes that they had experienced were; that they thought the incident was too trivial (36%, n4) (not important enough) or they thought that nobody could do anything about it (35%, n4). Two respondents stated that they believed that nobody would care. The respondents, who reported the crime, did so to the police (62%, n10) with a further 56% (n9) informing a member of their family of the issue.
6
Produced by Community Safety Research Team: Nick Sandford Smith, David Slade, Gina Perryman. Contact csresearchers@portsmouthcc.gov.uk for more information.
Places to Avoid 43% of the DHCS sample (n17) reported that they would avoid places in Portsmouth through fear of crime. Of those locations reported, Guildhall Walk (n8), Somerstown (n7), and Paulsgrove/Wymering (n7) were the three most reported areas that respondents avoided. Somerstown and Guildhall Walk were also the two most avoided locations for the CSS 2012.
Percentage
Figure 4: Places in Portsmouth avoided through fear of crime (DHCS) 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
44% 39% 39% 33% 28% 28% 22% 17% 17% 17% 11% 11% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 0%
By far, the most common reason for avoiding these areas was that it had a bad reputation (70%, n16) and this was also the most common response for the CSS 2012. Other common reasons included cycling on footpaths (39%, n9) and street drinking/drunks (26%, n6).
Disability specific questions Almost a third of respondents (10 out of 34) reported that they changed the things they do to stop nuisance behaviour, in addition to avoiding particular places. These strategies include:
Trying not to go out alone Not going out until drunks have moved on Not using mobile phone Not carrying a rucksack on their wheelchair Not looking at anyone Ensuring doors are locked.
7
Produced by Community Safety Research Team: Nick Sandford Smith, David Slade, Gina Perryman. Contact csresearchers@portsmouthcc.gov.uk for more information.
Most respondents did not answer the question 'Do you think these things happened to you because you have a disability?' (73%, n35). However about half of those who responded said that they thought that they were a victim because of their disability (6 out of 13).
Conclusion The respondents to this survey reported a good standard of living and reported generally low levels of concern about nuisance behaviour - in fact more so that those who took part in the CSS 2012. They were more worried about experiencing crime, but the level of concern largely outweighed the reported experience of crime, which is similar to the CSS 2012. Respondents to both surveys most feared being burgled. The exception to fear outweighing experience was being shouted at in the street, which happened to four respondents (10%). Somerstown and Guildhall Square were the two most avoided locations because of fear of crime, and this was largely because of their bad reputation. During the course of the interviews, it became apparent that many of the respondents had in fact experienced abuse but did not realise that it was hate crime and just accepted it as part of their daily life. Anecdotally this seemed to be particularly the case for wheelchair users, who both experienced being shouted at and also strangers moving them out of the way in shops. Almost a third of respondents reported that they changed their behaviour to stop or avoid nuisance behaviour. Additionally, many of the people who were vulnerable because of their advanced years were almost always accompanied when they were outside their homes which led them to feel safe and felt supported by Age UK. This particular demographic made up a sizable portion of the respondents and could account for the positive responses in relation to standard of living and not thinking that nuisance behaviour was a big problem in their area. There are three main recommendations about changes to the methodology of this survey is repeated: 
 
To conduct a citywide awareness campaign in advance of the survey, ensuring that residents know what hate crime is and how they can report it. This campaign should be in different formats to be accessible to people with sensory impairments. The survey should be simplified further and shortened, concentrating on a few key questions. Consideration should be given as to how to target participants as this survey only accessed people who attended groups and thus had a support network in place rather than a representative sample of this population. 8