Hate crime and social housing: following the evidence

Temporary accommodation (hostels, supported housing, refuges) has a vital role to play at times of crisis, and some of the women interviewed are likely to have slept rough without it, but there are questions about the suitability of the current offer. Many of the mothers interviewed had lived in temporary accommodation for lengthy periods of time, often with limited contact from housing authorities. Most of those escaping violence had to move out of the area, isolating them from crucial support networks. Getting children to school, visiting non-resident children, attending important appointments and accessing important practical, emotional and financial support from family were difficult in these circumstances. Women living apart from their children were unable to spend time with them in temporary accommodation because of visitor policies, while women who had their children with them reported being housed in refuges and hostels which were unsuitable for families. Some also reported feeling that their parenting was being judged and monitored. For all of these reasons, the provision for mothers who become homeless must be carefully considered by local housing authorities.

Conclusion

Many of the women in this study lost their homes and their children in quick succession during periods of intense vulnerability. Their capacity to prevent these losses and to rebuild a family home was then significantly hampered by the (sometimes conflicting) policies and procedures they encountered in the housing and social work systems. Crucially, these failings reinforced family separation, with consequences for the welfare of the homeless mothers interviewed. The disadvantage faced by many of the women was therefore sometimes reinforced, rather than resolved by the services, policies and legislation designed to help them.

Kusminder Chahal, Senior Research Fellow, Birmingham City University, presents an overview of research evidence on hate crime, and asks: are social housing responses enough and could following the evidence frame different responses?

Threats, intimidation and violence based on actual or perceived differences regularly feature in our news. Recent media attention has included focusing on coronavirus related racist abuse and attacks and targeted violence against women on public transport because of their perceived sexual orientation. Described as hate crime, these events are often viewed as individual, seemingly isolated, random occurrences that are decontextualised. However, research evidence highlights that often they are the tip of the iceberg and can lead to further hate violence.

The practice-based definition of hate crime is: ‘Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal [protected] characteristic.’ The requirement to recognise perception and motivation means a housing service response should be framed from, with and for victims, families and communities. Such contextual responses are part of the UK government’s hate crime action plan. The plan focuses on increasing reporting, supporting victims, preventing harmful narratives by challenging beliefs and attitudes, targeted responses, and widening our understanding of hate crime.

Social housing providers have to respond through both policy and practice to the following hate crime protected characteristics: • Disability • Race or ethnicity • Religion or beliefs • Sexual orientation • Transgender identity.

The Law Commission’s review on the adequacy of current legal responses and expanding the protected characteristics may result in misogyny, amongst others, being included as a hate crime protected characteristic. This will have implications on housing providers, including updating policies and training, rethinking third party and multi-agency partnerships and responses, and raising awareness with residents and tenants.

Evidence

Police recorded hate crime has doubled since 2012/13. In 2018/19 in England and Wales there were 103,379 recorded hate crimes; in Scotland 4,914 and in Northern Ireland 355 hate crimes. Although the vast majority of hate crimes are race related there has been an increase in recording across all five characteristics.

Evidence highlights that hate crime is widely underreported. Verbal abuse, threats and intimidation are the most common experience but also least likely to be reported. The most common reason for not reporting is ‘nothing would happen’ or ‘it would not be taken seriously’. Research evidence has shown that hate crime has a disproportionate emotional and mental health impact on its victims compared to non-hate crime victims and causes harm in communities.

Housing organisations are uniquely placed to respond to hate crime. Having an updated policy, training staff and being part of local third party reporting are important but in themselves do not increase awareness and reporting or provide support. When talking with social housing providers the common response I get is that they have had only one or a few cases reported to them. This seems to be at odds with evidence that indicates high levels of hate crime occurrences in and