Reality versus rhetoric: Assessing the efficacy of third-party hate crime reporting centres
| Author | Kevin Wong,Michelle Rogerson,Neil Monk,Kris Christmann |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758019837798 |
| Published date | 01 January 2020 |
| Date | 01 January 2020 |
Article
Reality versus rhetoric:
Assessing the efficacy
of third-party hate crime
reporting centres
Kevin Wong
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Kris Christmann
University of Huddersfield, UK
Michelle Rogerson
University of Huddersfield, UK
Neil Monk
Victim Support, UK
Abstract
The underreporting of hate crime is recognised as problematic for jurisdictions across Europe
and beyond. Within the UK, the landmark inquiry report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence
25 years ago has seen governments faithfully adhering to a policy of promoting the increased
reporting of hate crime. An enduring legacy of the inquiry, third-party reporting centres (TPRCs)
have been equally faithfully promoted as the primary vehicle for achieving such increases. While
the nations of the United Kingdom have pioneered the development of TPRCs, their function
and form have been adopted in other jurisdictions, including Victoria, Australia. Nevertheless,
despite their reliance on TPRCs, policymakers have given limited attention to their efficacy. The
evidence from a plethora of small scale studies has consistently found that TPRCs have been
limited by public awareness, capability, capacity and poor oversight difficulties. Responding to
these long-standing problems, the authors have developed the first ‘TPRC assessment tool’
which offers a diagnostic facility to improve effectiveness. This paper describes the development
and piloting of this tool and highlights its potential to inform policy and practice both in the UK
Corresponding author:
Kris Christmann, Applied Criminology and Policing Centre(ACPC),RamsdenBoulevard,R1/08,Universityof
Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD13DH, West Yorkshire, UK.
Email: k.christmann@hud.ac.uk
International Review of Victimology
2020, Vol. 26(1) 79–95
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0269758019837798
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
and internationally, providing an original contribution to the limited evidence base around third-
party reporting.
Keywords
Hate crime/incidents, bias crime, third party reporting, hate reporting, under-reporting of crime
Background
Why third party reporting?
The underreporting of hate crime is a problem across the member states of the European Union, as
indicated by the establishment of the hate crime reporting sub-group of the European Union
Agency for Fundamental Human Rights (FRA, 2016) and the group’s Compendium of Practices
(FRA, 2017a). It has also been recognised in other jurisdictions beyond Europe, such as Australia
(Mason et al., 2017) and the USA (Massuci and Langton, 2017). In the UK, it is 25 years since the
racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in a south-east London borough and almost 20 years since the
public inquiry into Stephen’s death and the bungled investigation by the Metropolitan Police
(MacPherson, 1999). One of the many notable recommendations from the inquiry report recog-
nised the need to provide an alternative to the police reporting mechanism for victims of racial hate
crime in the UK (MacPherson, 1999). Intended to circumvent mistrust driven by poor police/
community relations, third party reporting centres (TPRCs) have since flourished in a patchwork of
provision across the UK, extending their function across five monitored victim strands recognised
by the government.
1
Citizens Advice Bureaus, community and faith groups, student unions, public
libraries, housing authority neighbourhood offices and day care centres can all be TPRCs. Impetus
for their further growth has come from refreshed action plans on hate crime whichexplicitly
endorse third party reporting (Home Office, 2016; Welsh Government, 2014).
The ambitionw ithTPRCs, then as now, is to increasethe reporting of hate crime. By doingso the
authorities can generate a fuller, more accurate picture of the size, patterning and gravity of hate
crime victimisation, allowing key statutory agencies, the police and local authorities to devise and
deploy more effective solutions (Green et al., 2001; McDevitt et al., 2002). Despite these long-
standing effortsthere is considerable evidenceto confirm that hate crime is underreportedin the UK,
from the Crime Survey England and Wales (CSEW) (Corcoran et al., 2015) to smaller scale studies
(Chakraborti et al., 2014; Stonewall, 2013; Wong et al., 2013). Similar evidence exists internation-
ally, for example,in the USA (Massuci and Langton, 2017)and in Victoria, Australia (Mason etal.,
2017; Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, 2010, 2013).
The impetus for establishing TPRCs, notably, victim dissatisfaction with the police response to
hate crime, remains. In England and Wales, this is confirmed by Corcoran et al. (2015) and by
earlier studies (Chakrabortiet al., 2014; Home Office, Office for National Statistics andMinistry of
Justice 2013; Jarman and Tennant, 2003; Paterson et al., 2008; Quarmby, 2008; Stonewall, 2013;
Victim Support, 2005), and in Victoria, Australia is highlighted by Mason et al. (2017) and Moran
and Sharpe (2002).
Given the centrality of TPRCs to strategies to address hate crime, it seems to be a major
government oversight that to date, in the UK or anywhere else, there has been no consistent way
to assess whether or not hatecrime reporting centres are fulfillingtheir primary aim, that of increas-
ing hate crime reporting. In the absence of government sponsored remedies, this article presents
80 International Review of Victimology 26(1)
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting