DRUK/Third Party reporting toolkit project.

Document S:/DRUK/Development/Hate Crime/PID/Hate Crime ODI Location PID.doc

This is a review of the project following the ‘final’ steering group meeting at Manchester CPS Offices on 13 February 2013.

I include the report of the key elements brought out from the meeting and from other information which has come from the Hate Crime Network :

The steering group meeting went on into details about individual aims and wishes about their feelings around the kit, and it was decided that the one important point was that we don’t need to redesign the 3rd party reporting package which was created under the RADAR banner, however we do need to expand the peripherals (such as partnership work with police/CPS/local authority) in the toolkit which will help us to make it work. In terms of statutory bodies ‘data protection’must not be an issue in the process of stopping hate crime.

The group obviouslyfelt that basic minimal funding to maintain ‘quality’ consistent reporting is of massive importance as are the establishment of personnel relationships throughout the process. This means that key staff, volunteers, police and CPS are ‘visible’ and consistent in a confidence building approach.The result of an effective multi-agency approach will be a real cost saving in terms of case action and reduced need for long term support of individual victims, who can need to be ‘helped’ on a one to one basis for many months.

In terms of actions for the ‘toolkit’, most importantly we know by contact and communication from DPO’s and CJS partners that we have to improve knowledge of many ULDPOs’ and statutory bodies as to what is a 3rd party reporting Centre.It is not surprising that3rd party reporting is still not known about in a joined up manner, and we need to raise awareness and ability of them to add to recognising what can be done about hate crime. We accept that care networks are important to get to and that by doing so we give people the confidence to report.

The gap in understanding has to be explained and clearly demonstrated by widespread publicity through our networks that,

Third Party Reporting centres:-

Are identifiable places for people to go and report.

Have a dedicated member of staff for hate crime reporting.(Blackpool has 20+ disabled volunteers and a close working relationship with police this is extremely important.)

Ensure that the victim has a single point of contact. (Lots of 3rd party reporting centres have been set up but are not working because they don’t have the correct people in place).

Are normally Disability led organisations which have an understanding and empathy, as we must not forget how a person feels – the need to be listened to, believed and supported is the key to consistent action.

Direct people to DPO’s to report as this could also give them access to other services

as we need to remember what we do about ‘after care’.

Have a contact police officer as this is confidence building.

Police/CPS involvement

Without Police and CPS involvement confidence is not there and this is a major component in making reporting work.

It is vitally important that 3rd party reporting centres can talk to the police and have a working relationship including disability awareness raising.

Positive communication from the right person from each agency is essential.

Response, confidentiality and confirmation is essential.

Training

Training for police and staff members is essential. there is a need to learn what works well and what doesn’t and by this create a simple working template. Existing best practice such as Blackpool can be used, as can a standard albeit locally slanted reporting form add to CJS and all agencies working better. We need to look at existing training (Lancashire could be re branded and rolled out anywhere need to use what’s already available)

Hate crime education in schools and with Children with disabilities.(Daisy’ hate crime training is always oversubscribed in this area) is a major part of delivering a real toolkit, as crime reduction is essential, as is promotion of community understanding and training.

Toolkit

The Toolkit has to link into things that are happening across areas and sectors driven by ULDPO’s.

The toolkit has to be easy enough for people to set up a 3rd part reporting centre with a small scale effective non funded reduced style yet still effective option being built in! (Hate Crime must not be blocked by funding issues)

Toolkit cannot be one size fits all and must be designed to be adapted to regionality.It must not have aims and methods that are not unachievable, as the toolkit can be used by all but will only be as good as the systems in place.

A user friendly resource pack needs to need one aimed at groups and one at individuals including a practical check list to make sure things are done correctly.

Make sure all reporting information is in accessible format.

Mapping

Importantly people don’t know nationally or in some cases even locally where the reporting centres are, so an up to date information base is needed to share good existing practice, so a mapping exercise needs to be done across the country as soon as possible.

Conclusion

It is increasingly clear that there are several good areas of reporting and support for victims of disability hate crime, but the process could be so much better, stronger, and more economic if a basic use friendly informational resource was available, and this is where the toolkit will be most useful.

The recent publication Disabled Peoples User Led Organisations Making a Difference – Disability Hate Crime (coordinated by Access Dorset) was a clear example of a little shared knowledge being valuable in bringing some groups to public sight. My e mail, which I assure everyone was written as a ‘critical friend’ showed what was good about the publication, but what a golden opportunity was missed, as so many ULDPOs and interested parties who could (and in some cases should) have contributed to its content, knew nothing of its existence,(I didn’t until invited to the launch!) and this, it has become clear, is a real added barrier to the progress of increasing reporting.

So much good work and good practice is not known to ULDPOs only a few miles from others.

Somuch work is being donein small pockets by the Criminal Justice System in general,(in which are ACPO, CPS and the MOJ) and the DWP/ODI, but it only becomes apparent when completed, to others who could and should be in the know!

To move things in a strategic and meaningful way I would like to suggest that a proper mapping exercise is undertaken, using the highly regarded, well used and UK-wide contact base of the Disability Hate Crime Network which would allow us to create a half decent working list of reporting, based on contact with ULDPos, Local authorties, ACPO, CPS as well as various Academic hate crime centres in Universities, all of whom are in regular contact with, and share information through the network. The outcome would then assist ACPO/Police Forces/CPS/MOJ/ULDPO’s and charitiesin driving the message home in a (reduced) cost effective way about where good practice exists, and how to share resources where appropriate.

Such an exercise will not hinder the work of the toolkit, nor its launch on March 22ndbut it would be a real ‘win’ for all parties, and can be, along with the toolkit, promoted through the DAA actions and recently launched website as well as through DRUK and the DHCN.

I do wish to discuss this next and highly important move in making hate crime work, and the toolkit a ‘final’ link in the chain of challenging hate crime.

Stephen Brookes MBE.

Disability Hate Crime Network.

Feb 21st 2013.