Victim-centred approaches to tackling hate

By Carolina Navarro

Introduction

Adopting a victim-centred approach would improve the effectiveness and impact of both government and NGOs working on tackling hate. It’s important to remember that making the decision to talk to a stranger about an experience of being bullied or attacked due to their identity, can be extremely challenging for victims. Not receiving an appropriate response from an organisation in the very first contact can significantly affect the likelihood of that person accessing that service again and undermine their decision to report.

This is especially critical in regard to the interviewing of victims, a task for which many frontline practitioners receive little if any training. The need for specialised training that ensures appropriate interviewing of victims who report hate crimes has been underestimated or not prioritised by organisations with a limited budget for staff training. Instead, the interviewing of victims is rather assumed to be a function that any well-intentioned staff member can undertake. However, the effective access to justice for victims largely depends on an agencies’ capacity to obtain valid and complete testimonies from victims that are useful for the investigation of the reported incident by law enforcement agencies. Inappropriate and biased interviewing techniques can alter the victims’ memories or lead to misunderstanding of their experiences by interviewers. Therefore, ensuring the adequate interviewing of victims is a necessary step for a victim-centred strategy that aims to truly hear the victims’ voices and increase their chances of justice and reparation.

Adopting a victim-centered approach to recording hate incidents

Organisations recording information about hate incidents should always adopt a victim-centred approach. The next table synthesizes key guiding principles to ensure that the victim’s experience and needs are at the centre of the data collection process. As discussed in the previous module, these principles will also contribute to boost hate incident reporting.

The importance of language: should I call you a “victim” at all?

Organisations and frontline practitioners need to be aware that many individuals who suffer hate victimisation do not feel like a victim despite being named as such by the organisations they get in touch with. Moreover, many of these individuals reject being seen and labelled as victims due to a sense of disempowerment associated with it. The universal labelling of those affected by crime as ‘victims’ has been criticised for assigning these individuals a social role of passivity and forgiveness. Besides, contrasting concepts of victimhood among cultures can make the term ‘victim’ culturally inappropriate when dealing with CALD people.

Emerging vocabularies have been used to better describe the experience of those who have suffered crimes. For example, there have been calls for mental health professionals to start viewing trauma sufferers as survivors with agency, control, and resilience, as opposed to victims of circumstances that they have no role in changing. Although the term ‘survivor’ remediates some of the stigma that is typically attached to victimisation and emphasises a person’s agency, it has been criticised for focussing on individual capacity, whilst the term ‘victim’ reminds us of the structural oppression behind many forms of victimisation.

As one survivor of sexual assault reflects, there is no single term that can encompass the experiences of individuals who have suffered violence, and a single experience should not define a person.

Adopting a restorative justice apporach

Victims can be engaged as active participants in the process of reporting, providing them with an opportunity to play a role in tackling hate for the benefit of the whole community. With support and encouragement, organisations can help victims to regain a sense of confidence in their community and control of their lives.

One of the strategies that has been used to respond to hate and empowering victims is the restorative justice approach. According to the UN, a restorative process is “any process in which the victim, the offender and/or any other individuals or community members affected by a crime actively participate together in the resolution of matters arising from the crime, often with the help of a fair and impartial third party” (Resolution 2002/12). The restorative process emphasises empowering individuals who have been affected by the crime by giving them a voice and an active role in how the offence is dealt with.

While still limited, research supports the use of restorative justice as an effective response to hate crime. Studies have shown that, when administered with care, a restorative practice can help not only to reduce harm but also potentially reduce the likelihood of hate revictimisation. Restorative interventions have been successfully used by community sector organisations to address hate crime in various countries, as this paper illustrates.

In this video, an expert from Why me explains why those affected by hate should be empowered to choose restorative justice.

Considering intersectionality

It is important that organisations dealing with victims of hate are aware that the overlap of various social identities, such as race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and religion, contributes to the specific type of systemic oppression and discrimination experienced by an individual, a phenomenon called intersectionality.

This video explains how intersectionality works. We also recommend the TED talk on simultaneous racial and gender prejudice by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, who coined the term ‘intersectionality’.

Although most CSOs work with groups based on a single, targeted identity, victims may feel more represented and that their needs are taken seriously if the organization acknowledges their intersectional needs. Some may prefer to disclose their hate victimization to individuals or organizations that they are familiar with, even if they do not represent the identity that was the subject of attack or discrimination. For example, a Muslim lesbian person who is victim of Islamophobia may prefer to discuss an anti-Muslim incident in her local lesbian hub rather than reporting to a Muslim organisation. Therefore, to facilitate reporting decisions by those with multiple vulnerabilities, community organisations can create relationships with local partners especially with voluntary and community services that play a crucial role in providing support to hate crime victims and other vulnerable and marginalized members of society.

Victims that have experienced multiple forms of discrimination and hostility throughout their lives may need specialist emotional support to overcome mental health issues resulting from repeated victimisation. In these cases, the referral to specialised counselling is appropriate.

This toolkit offers valuable guidelines to the application of intersectionality by non-profit organisations.

The unique role that community organisations can play in supporting victims

As a study in the UK showed, not every person who experiences a hate incident will feel it necessary to access support from agencies. A substantial proportion of hate crime victims prefer to access support from an informal or familiar source, including a family member, friend or carer. It’s important that the victim does not feel bombarded by different agencies with redundant requests.

Community organisations can support victims to report an incident by offering accompaniment. Many victims will feel more comfortable in reporting hate crimes to police and other official agencies if they are accompanied by a person whom they trust, with experience in these matters. Providing an aid worker (either a staff member or a trained volunteer) to accompany the victim when dealing with authorities can help ensure that official bodies treat complainants with respect, record testimony fully and accurately, and observe established procedures. The accompaniment of the same person to other procedures (e.g. during an inquiry, to the hospital) can boost self-confidence and alleviate psychological pain of the victim. In Victoria, the Anti-Violence Project offers accompaniment of individuals who want to report incidents of violence against and within the LGBTIQ+ community to police, when required. Other community organisations, such as the Community Security Group can report anti-Semitic incidents to police on behalf of victims.

Community organisations could also offer victims mediation with authorities (e.g., school, housing authorities, police and public bodies) because they typically develop a network of relevant contacts that enables them to effectively deal with cases. Community organisations can also offer a combination of emotional and practical support to victims when making a report, using a flexible approach that guarantees that victims receive timely support. This includes 24-hour phone hotlines or online chats, as well as face-to-face emotional support when necessary. For example, staff can meet victims at their home or in a café when they cannot attend the organisation’s facilities. Practical advice to victims includes providing information on who to call for medical assistance and other state services, having victims’ home secured, and providing them with safety devices, such as personal safety alarms or CCTV, if they feel at risk.

Other services that CSOs can provide for victims of hate crimes include legal aid clinics, social care provision, and psychological support and counselling.

How to interview victims of hate crimes?

In conducting and documenting interviews with victims, certain special considerations need to be taken into account. Broadly, the organisations’ work includes creating an environment of confidence, respect and sensitivity in which victims feel comfortable to share their experiences. For that, two elements are key. First, adequate conditions for the interview must be ensured. Interviews should be conducted in a private space in which victims will feel safe and confident that they will not be overheard. Such conditions of privacy should be assured in advance by the interviewer who needs to make necessary arrangements for not being interrupted during the interview. The need for an interpreter or support person should also be considered in advanced. A trained interviewer should conduct the interview. Any documenting device, such as audio recording or note-taking, should be explained to the interviewee at the beginning of the interview and used only with the victim’s consent.

The second element of an adequate and victim-centred interview is the use of correct interviewing techniques. In the field of investigative interviewing, an adequate interview with a witness is one in which the interviewer’s behaviour aligns with evidence-based guidelines. These guidelines are the result of three decades of considerable effort by experts and researchers to translate knowledge on human development and memory research into clear best-practice recommendations for interviewers. This research shows that both the quality and quantity of the information witnesses provide is greatly influenced by how they are interviewed. The central aim of any investigative interview is to elicit the most accurate and detailed information from individuals in a way that makes them feel heard, understood and not judged. Although best-practice interviewing guidelines were originally established for the interviewing of child victims, gathering information from interviewees is similar across many disciplines and requires a core set of skills, regardless of the topic of the interview. Best-practice interviewing guidelines are grouped into four areas: (a) adequate timing of the interview, (b) rapport-building, (c) ground rules of the interview, and (d) adequate questioning techniques.

Asking the right questions

The most effective way to conduct a victim-centred interview is giving the victim the opportunity to tell what happened in his/her own words, without interruptions and without offering advice. To this end, the most important best-practice recommendation is that interviewers keep a consistent use of open-ended questions and other prompts that encourage elaborate responses (e.g., non-verbal prompts or minimal encouragers) rather than any other type of question. This table present and provides examples of the different question types that interviewers typically use.

Robust evidence has demonstrated the superiority of open-ended over specific questions in eliciting a greater amount of, and more accurate, details from witnesses. Open-ended questions are superior to other question types for at least two reasons: testimonies obtained through open-ended questioning techniques are perceived as the most credible and persuasive by justice operators and the open-ended questioning approach enhances victims’ perceptions that they are being heard. The table below illustrates the superiority of open-ended questions over specific questions by comparing their features.

This video on the right, by the Centre for Investigative Interviewing and the Commission for Children and Young People, explains the features of a good interviewer of children, based on the general principles of best practice interviewing, and illustrates the benefits of using open-ended questions from the perspective of the interviewee.

Comparison of the characteristics of open-ended versus specific questions

Note. Adapted from the “Specialist Vulnerable Witness Forensic Interview Training”, Centre for Investigative Interviewing.

Using an interview protocol

By translating knowledge about human development and memory into clear guidelines for interviewers, experts have created interview protocols. These protocols allow interviewers to structure their interviews using standardised interview procedures that provide all witnesses and victims of hate with equal opportunities to recall their experiences. Evidence-based interview protocols are narrative protocols because they are based on the use of verbal techniques (e.g., questions and verbal invitations) to elicit elaborate narratives from witnesses. Using interview protocols for interviewing victims is highly recommended because robust evidence shows that its use by interviewers increases the use of open-ended questions and the outcomes of the interview.

With minor variations, all these interview protocols are structured around the same core components, which are: (i) introduction and ground rules; (ii) episodic memory training; (iii) the substantive phase; (iv) the break; (v) further questioning; (vi) closure; and (vii) neutral topic. Following, we present an overview of the different stages of an interview with a victim as described by the Standard Interview Method (SIM). We highlight the elements of the interview process that are relevant to the interviewing of hate crime victims; the diagrams provide examples of questions and prompts that interviewers can use in each stage of the interview.

Brief introduction

The interview begins with an introduction that states the names of the participants, the time, and the location where the interview is taking place. It is followed by a brief explanation about the interviewer’s role. This is the moment to clarify the interviewee’s expectations about the interview and discuss issues of confidentiality, if this has not been addressed before.

Conversational rules

The purpose of this stage is to show the interviewee that this will not be a typical conversation and that there are particular rules that define what is expected from the interviewee during the conversation. The rules need to be explained in a simple, brief, and matter-of-fact way.

Research shows the rules can be more effective if they are practiced with the interviewee (e.g., “So, if I said you are wearing a yellow spotted shirt, what would you say?”), and reinforced throughout the whole interview (e.g., Interviewee: “Don’t know”, Interviewer: “That’s ok”).

Practice narrative

This stage aims to familiarise the interviewee with a narrative style of questioning before the topic of concern is introduced. The stage also facilitates rapport-building by inviting the interviewee to freely talk about a preferred topic. Concretely, this stage will make it clear what style of interaction is expected, what type of listener the interviewer is, and what questioning style will be used in the conversation. Note that the type of question that will be used to invite a narrative account in this stage is the same that the interviewer should use in the substantive phase.

Substantive phase

In this stage, the topic of concern (i.e., the hate victimisation) is discussed. Starting with a general non-suggestive open invitation to refer to the incident, recommendations to interviewers include: elicit an account of what happened, use a variety of open-ended questions as well as minimal encouragers (e.g., head nodding, ‘Uh huh’, silence); do not interrupt the interviewee telling his or her story with questions; use open-ended prompts until the narrative is exhausted; refrain from using specific questions before having exhausted the open-ended approach.

Break

It is important that the interviewer takes a break to reflect on what further detail is required (if any). Reflecting on existing detail will minimise further questioning as much as possible and the need for specific questioning, which is more prone to error. The type and extent of further information will vary; it may include details on the location, timing and frequency of the incident, spoken words, other people present, the nature of the offence, and details of the perpetrator. This is the moment for the interviewer to check whether the victim has provided relevant information to identify the bias motivation of the incident. See the module on hate data collection in Australia for further discussion on the information that should be captured when collecting a hate report.

Further questioning

Recommendations for this stage include: use simple, short sentences; avoid mentioning specific details where possible; allow the interviewee the flexibility to choose which details to report; and encourage elaborate responses (where possible). Who, what, when, where, how questions are better than closed questions (e.g. “Did X happen?”). Any specific question is best coupled with an open one, and linked to prior detail in the interviewee’s account.

Closure

At the completion of the interview, interviewers are encouraged to thank the interviewee and ask if they have any questions. The victim’s questions should be answered as honestly as possible. It is highly recommended to end the interaction on a positive topic (e.g., the activity discussed during the practice narrative).

Lastly, to illustrate the interview process, we recommend watching this video in which Professor Martine Powell analyses the interview of a child by a trained interviewer about an incident at school. In analysing the interviewer’s performance across the different stages of the interview she emphasises the evidence-based behaviours that are expected in each stage. You can view the video of the analysed interview here. We remind you that the principles of best-practice interviewing are the same for any type of interviewee.