Author Note

As I started working on the revision of this chapter, I reflected upon the changes that have happened in trauma therapy and clinical work with victims of crime in the past 15 years. Recent Canadian research indicates that there was a 158% increase in violent hate crimes reported to the police between 2015 and 2021 (Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada, 2023). This statistic may be surprising to those working with victims of hate crimes, as we often focus on the victim in front of us rather than group-based research, but it is likely to affect our work. In collaborative treatment and support of victims, this past decade and a half has seen the rise of trauma-informed care. Trauma-informed care emphasizes that we should consider the person’s history of victimization, even if the person themselves has managed the negative events well and invites us as providers to reflect on our own history, so it was reviewed in this revision but also informs the overall victim-focused approach. I would contend that most support workers were always doing trauma-informed care, even if unconsciously. Therefore, this chapter reflects not only the recent research in working with victims of hate crimes, but also how those hate crimes might impact us as providers (vicarious traumatization, our views on systemic discrimination, and our personal attitudes and prejudices).

I want to note that I took a broad perspective to update the research literature. The database search was relatively wide by looking for research since the year 2000 that included either the term “hate crime” or “bias crime” as I did not want to miss relevant research by having too many search terms or exclusions. I then reviewed the list to identify research that was the most relevant to psychological changes or clinical issues. Much of the literature I encountered involved definitional or legislative changes, as well as general comparisons of frequencies or reports, rather than the psychological impact of hate crimes on victims. When I discovered articles that were more clinically relevant, I also completed searches on those specific authors to see if they had other research publications that I might have missed. As always, I then took a deeper dive into the reference lists of the various clinically oriented articles to identify other research articles that had not been captured in the database search. The databases I focused on were identified as those that might be more likely to contain clinical intervention research: PsychInfo, PsychArticles, and Medline. I also searched Google Scholar to expand this more clinical research database to ensure I had not missed other social science research that might be relevant. Once I noted that I was encountering the same articles despite the discovery method (database, author search, reference list review), I reduced my use of databases. My goal was to gather as much recent research as possible, but I acknowledge that published research (either on databases or other internet sites, such as an author’s coverage of a topic for a non-academic audience) can miss community-based accounts.

Readers will also note that the section on comparisons between victims of general crime and hate crimes has few updated references. It was interesting to discover that every article I encountered that reviewed these differences refer to at least one of the same articles that I used in the original chapter. Although there may be new research that directly compared hate crime victims and general victims of crime, I did not encounter it. What seemed to be more of a theme in the literature is focusing on how people are supporting one another and the overall impact of hate crimes on general society, as well as the targeted community. This is especially true in examining how social media and the internet have affected hate crime. There appears to be a growing understanding that hate crimes affect all of us, regardless of whether we are a member of the targeted group. The other issue that one may notice in looking at research over the past 20 or 30 years is that language also changes; thus, terms such as ‘gay bashing’ become ‘anti-gay violence.’ Such language changes are often reflections of changes in society and how researchers communicate their findings. Some readers may also note that I have maintained older references even though I could not find more recent research that had similar findings. I did this because I did not want important issues to be missed simply because there was not recent research; it is possible the issue is still experienced by victims but no longer an area of study for researchers.

My hope is that you found the information in this updated chapter helpful as well as the recommendations to reflect on your own experiences in dealing with bias and hate within our culture. Of note, it is my view that we each represent a particular perspective on “our culture:” my cultural understanding is mediated by my personal experience so will have some common elements with your views but may differ on other aspects. Our clients benefit when we reflect on our personal experiences and biases that can affect even the smallest decisions. This includes reflecting on how our personal characteristics might impact or even trigger the victims of hate crime that we seek to help, whether we are from the same general cultural background or not.