Questions/Issues to Raise
-
Assess whether the person has a strong bond to the identity targeted by the crime (Dunbar, 2001). Also be aware of the dangers of internalized prejudice the victim may experience (Gutiérrez, 2022; Herek et al., 2009; Perry, 2008).
As noted abovze, this connection to a broader community can offer resiliency (Adams, et al., 2006; Díaz-Faes & Pereda, 2022; Dubow et al., 2000; Sheehan, Maduro, & Derlega, 2021) or it can potentially result in more challenges (Blake, 2001; Díaz-Faes & Pereda, 2022; Dubow et al., 2000; Janoff, 2005; Kaysen et al., 2005; Moradi & Risco, 2006; Staub, 1996). It is essential to not impose your personal view of what your client should do. Allow your client to lead you in how much, or how little, they want to use their culture to shape their identity.
With respect to building resiliency, evidence shows that depending on a supportive family, peer group, or community members can also help victims recover (Bartoș & Langdridge, 2019; Jackson, 2017; Lee & Waters, 2021; Singh & McKleroy, 2011). Support workers can help victims reach out to natural supports and not let symptoms cause clients to isolate themselves. This also extends to understanding that support workers can also aid supporters, focusing on the victims’ natural supports as part of assisting the victim.
Support workers may need to directly address their ability to work with the victim (Dunbar, 2001; Teyber, 2006). The victim has been through a difficult situation (or situations) and will need to feel comfortable with you and feel you are skilled not only in your work but also knowledgeable about their issues and the issues of others in their culture. Support workers can connect with key people in the victims’ community to help educate themselves on important issues to the group. Support workers might also seek consultation from others more familiar with the issues, transfer the victim to those workers from the victims’ group, or discuss their concerns with their supervisors.
Support workers may want to keep in mind the issue of systemic racism and recognize that some victims may need to test the relationship. Meeting victims where they are may extend to partnering with other organizations to provide a support that is not based in dominant North American culture but more within healing modalities common in the victim’s culture. This may also include education of others and advocacy (Hansen et al., 2018; Hodge, & Boddie, 2021).
Watch for, and highlight, any displays of resilience or strength. This is especially true of resilience around the strengths of their identity group and spirituality (Adams, et al., 2006; Dubow et al., 2000; Dunbar, 2001; Peel et al., 2023; Singh & McKleroy, 2011). This helps the victim see how they are part of a meaningful network, helps them access models similar to themselves on how to cope with the distress, and helps them focus on change and adapting to relating to problems with the dominant group. This must be balanced with developing an understanding of the dominant group to ensure that the victim does not succumb to unresolved anger at society at large that results in them feeling powerless to make positive changes in their life and in society (Dunbar, 2001; Janoff, 2005).
Get a history of victims’ experiences in dealing with prejudice, discrimination, and marginalization (Boeckmann & Liew, 2002; Dunbar, 2001) and a trauma history (Mitchell et al., 2020). Was this their first experience with prejudice? Do they have positive experiences as well? This history also allows support workers to explore what the victims’ relationships have been with different groups or with the group the support worker represents. Of note, support workers may find that victims of hate crimes will be even more curious about the support workers’ identity and beliefs around these issues (Dunbar, 2001; Teyber, 2006). Support workers are encouraged to talk to colleagues and supervisors about their comfort and boundaries to ensure they can answer such questions in a way that is both helpful and respectful. If it is in the victim’s best interest, this may also be an opportunity to refer the victim to other supports better able to “meet the victim” where they are.
Continuum of Services
As noted above, hate crimes affect all of society and the impact goes far beyond the direct victim (Barnes & Ephross, 1994; Iganski, 2001 McDevitt, et al., 2001). Thus, services need to include normal crisis intervention, as well as short-term, long-term, group, and individual supports (Dunbar, 2001; Wertheimer, 1990), and go beyond to community interventions and education. Support workers might want to look for public legal education information (PLEI), anti-violence campaigns, and trainings on dealing with prejudice and violence (Jenness & Broad, 1997; Lieberman et al., 2001). Advocacy can also be an important role in addressing the needs of all victims of hate crimes (B.C. Human Rights Coalition 2003; Blee, 2005; McMahon, West, Lewis, Armstrong & Conway, 2004). In essence, support workers can help the direct victim but also support efforts to reduce the trauma in the overall community (Espiritu, 2004).
Although the focus of this chapter is on working with individual crime victims, many have argued that since the main target of hate crimes is the community targeted, then interventions should also target the community (Blee, 2005; Espiritu, 2004). This community-based work might focus on the marginalized group or on broader society. Efforts might include promoting changes to laws, educating the public, encouraging community development, and so forth (B.C. Human Rights Coalition 2003; McDonald & Hogue, 2007). The key to these community education interventions is to increase understanding in all community members in less prejudicial beliefs in hopes of affecting their behaviour (Gerstenfeld, 2002). Support workers interested in community-based efforts might want to complete an online search using the term “hate crime” or “bias crime” with the word “support” or “resources” or “program.”Footnote 7
The Basics
- A hate crime is: “…a criminal violation motivated by hate, based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression or any other similar factor.” (Uniform Crime Reporting Survey 2.2 Definition)
- Support workers helping victims should focus on how the victim defines the crime, not just on legal definitions
- Trauma-informed care is an empowering approach that recognizes and respects the victim’s history of trauma and works to avoid further traumatization
- Full and informed consent is part of providing ethical care that helps the victim direct their own healing journey
- Support workers should seek out learning, consultation, and supervision to address blind spots and personal biases. Online self-assessment tools may be helpful
- Hate crimes create “waves of victims,” harming the victim, their family, their identity group, and society at large
- Support workers should be aware of the importance of how the victim views their culture, and personal and cultural identities and how they have faced and coped with prejudice in society
- Support workers should reflect on the systemic nature of prejudice. How might prejudice, systemic discrimination, and hate crime victimization impact how the victim approaches the support worker and the professional relationship?
- It would be helpful if support workers could assess what supports the victim has in the community and whether they have good coping models
- Many victims of hate crimes do not report the crime to authorities. Support workers may face this reluctance to report in working with hate crime victims
- Workers are encouraged to access the internet to find resources specific to their client’s identity group and issues
Compared to before their victimization, victims of hate crimes often:
- Feel less secure (Abu-Ras & Suarez 2009; Ashraf & Nassar, 2018; Awan, & Zempi, 2015; Boeckmann & Turpin-Petrosino, 2002; Garnetts et al., 1990; Huang & Tsai, 2022; Huynh et al., 2022; Janoff, 2005; Mason-Bish & Duggan, 2020; Staub, 1996)
- See the world as less orderly and meaningful (Garnetts et al., 1990)
- Have lower self-worth (Dunbar, 2006; Garnetts et al., 1990; Janoff, 2005)
- Feel less effective (Staub, 1996)
- Engage in avoidance and isolation (Cramer et al., 2018; Funnell, 2015; Samari, Alcalá, H& Sharif, 2018)
- Have problems in personal relationships (Janoff, 2005; Staub, 1996)
- Feel guilty and blame themselves (Dunbar, 2006; Wertheimer, 1990)
- Are less empathic towards other hate crime victims or engage in victim-blaming (Paterson et al., 2019b)
- Question their ability to protect themselves (Staub, 1996)
- Feel they can not meet goals in life (Staub, 1996)
- Feel anger toward the larger community or sub-community (Herek et al., 1997; Janoff, 2005; Staub, 1996)
- Feel excluded from the greater society, affecting their identity (Ashraf & Nassar, 2018)
- Experience depression (Awan, & Zempi, 2015; Burton et al., 2013; Feddes & Jonas (2020; Herek et al., 1997; Huynh, Raval & Freeman, 2022; Inman et al., 2021; Janoff, 2005; Lee & Waters, 2021)
- Experience anxiety or Post Traumatic Stress (Alhaboby, et al., 2016; Cramer et al., 2018; Garnetts et al., 1990; Herek et al., 1997; Huynh et al., 2022; Inman et al., 2021; Janoff, 2005; Lee & Waters, 2021; Sims et al., 2022)
- May experience increased thoughts of suicide (Burton et al., 2013; Cramer et al., 2018; Duncan & Hatzenbuehler, 2014)
- Experience sleep problems (Lee & Waters, 2021)
- Experience headaches, nightmares, crying, agitation, restlessness, and weight loss (Garnetts et al., 1990; Janoff, 2005)
- Have increased use of drugs and/or alcohol (Janoff, 2005)
- May engage in social action and advocacy (Sheehan et al., 2021)
In comparison to non-hate crime victims, hate crime victims are more likely to:
- Suffer more brutal attacks (Janoff, 2005; Willis, 2004) and are almost three times more likely to experience severe injury (Messner et al., 2004)
- Report more distress (Herek et al., 1997; Herek et al., 1999; McDevitt et al., 2001; Mjoseth, 1998)
- Report higher levels of fear (Craig-Henderson & Sloan, 2003; Herek et al., 2002; McDevitt et al., 2001)
- Report higher levels of depression, anxiety, anger, and PTSD symptoms (Alhaboby, et al., 2016; Herek et al., 1997; McDevitt et al., 2001). However, other researchers found that there were no differences between the two groups with respect to depression (Rose & Mechanic, 2002)
- See others as dangerous (Herek et al., 1997; Herek et al., 1999)
- See the world as unsafe (Herek et al., 1999; McDevitt et al., 2001)
- Rate their risk of future victimization as higher (Herek et al., 1997)
- Show a relatively low sense of personal mastery (Herek et al., 1999)
- See personal setbacks as related to prejudice (Herek et al., 1999)
- Report overcoming the incident as “very difficult” (McDevitt et al., 2001)
- Report the incident as having a big impact on their life (Craig-Henderson & Sloan, 2003)
- Report more intrusive thoughts of the incident and feeling like they do not want to live any longer (McDevitt et al., 2001)
- Report losing their job (McDevitt et al., 2001)
- Report significant health problems (McDevitt et al, 2001)
- Report more intrusive thoughts of the incident and feeling like they do not want to live any longer (McDevitt et al., 2001)
- Report losing their job (McDevitt et al., 2001)
- Report significant health problems (McDevitt et al., 2001)
- Date modified: