In Canada, the lifetime prevalence of the sexual abuse of boys is estimated at one in six (Dorais, 2009; Dube, Anda, Whitfield, Brown, Felitti, Dong, & Giles, 2005; Hopper, 2010; Briere & Elliot, 2003). Despite growing awareness of male victims of childhood sexual abuse, it is estimated that police reports are made in only 4.4% of cases (Priebe & Svedin, 2008). There continues to be little understanding as to why the reporting rate is so low. A sample of 155 male survivors of childhood sexual abuse was obtained through a community agency that provides support to this population. Data were gathered from participants’ intake forms on four variables that were expected to influence police reporting: 1) the survivors' age at the time of the first incident 2) the duration of the abuse; 3) the relationship between the survivor and the perpetrator; and 4) the sex of the perpetrator. It was predicted that the perpetrator's sex would be the most powerful predictor of a male's decision to report sexual abuse because of the ‘feminization of victimization’ phenomenon. This is the culturally based assumption that victims are female and perpetrators are male that leads male victims’ to question their own experiences and to a tendency by others to not take their victimization seriously. The findings revealed that perpetrator sex was not a significant predictor of police reporting. Only abuse duration was associated with whether a police report had been made. Other important findings were: 1) the mean age of this sample seeking support for childhood abuse was 50 years; 2) in almost 30% of cases, abuse began before the participant was six years old; 3) 49% of participants had been abused by family members; 4) 20% of participants had been abused by female perpetrators; and 5) in 75% of cases, a police report had not been made. Further research is needed to identify the factors influencing whether sexual abuse of boys is reported to police in order to enhance support services and police response. / May 2016

In April 2002 a National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced across police forces in England and Wales. The intention of this standard, resultant of two highly critical reports regarding police recording of crime, was to improve crime data and promote a victim focussed approach. Research in the field of crime recording emphasises police reporting and recording mechanisms, with a significant reliance placed on police data. However, inter-personal and situational factors determining the ways in which notification of an event is, or is not, translated into a crime record are often inadequately explored. Consequently, there is little recent knowledge regarding the views of individuals reporting an event and the way in which they, through the interactions with the police, affect recording rates. This thesis explores these effects and investigates the impact of deviation from the rules governing crime recording upon service user experiences and satisfaction. Incident logs from three forces were analysed, officer focus groups and questionnaire-based surveys were undertaken and interviews were conducted with service users. Perceptions of service users and police officers vis-à-vis the effectiveness of police intervention were examined, together with the efficacy of previous research methodologies employed to gauge recording rates, the rules regarding crime recording and the existent performance frameworks. The findings suggest that previously reported recording rates are inevitably unreliable owing to a lack of detail within incident logs and the complexities involved in the recognition and labelling of events as crimes. Whilst easing of workloads is a common theme highlighted in previous research, there is notably less emphasis and recognition of other factors. The response, by officers at street level, to the realities of the social world, the conflicting priorities brought about by managerial dictum and the bureaucratic rules governing the recording of crime is to ‘define down crime’. The findings fill the considerable knowledge gap regarding diverse service user requirements and conflicting priorities faced by service providers prior to the introduction of the NCRS, suggesting that the imposition of managerial ideals, the accompanying bureaucratic rules and the corollary, the diminution of discretion, has a detrimental effect on service delivery.

Acts of violence towards staff committed by people with intellectual disabilities in residential care settings are common. In the Swedish legal system, the requirement for criminal intent is the same for everyone over 15 years. This creates a gap between the law and the perceived ability to take criminal responsibility in this group since the consequences of the intellectual disability can be functioning on a lower level than your chronological age. This study aims to explore the factors in reasoning about controllability, responsibility and police reporting in violent situations, with a focus on staff members working in residential care settings for people with intellectual disabilities. The method for this was 7 semi-structured interviews with staff members working in care settings where violence and threats were occurring. The thematic analysis of the interviews revealed that experience of violence was common and that communication problems are perceived as a common cause. Responsibility in violent situations was perceived as something that needs to be shared between the person displaying it and the staff involved. The reasoning around police reporting of violence shows that staff takes both the person’s ability to take responsibility and level of understanding into account and in most cases this reasoning led to the decision not to file a police report. Another factor considered in staff reasoning is the legal process and the consequences of entering it for a person with intellectual disability. This implies that staff is trying to take responsibility in practice for the gap between the law and their perception of responsibility in the person they support. The study concludes that there is a need for addressing this on a governmental level as well as on a practical level in care settings, to improve the work environment and strengthen the legal certainty for people with intellectual disabilities.