Both graphics were used as tools for collaborative work during the second set of national workshops. This section identifies methodological themes arising from this work.
Participants in the first set of workshops reported that they found it helpful to connect with colleagues from other organisations and institutions – often for the first time – and bring together information about how they each capture hate crime data, what gaps exist and the potential consequences of these gaps. Participants in all workshops reported that they learned new information about current reporting, recording and data collection systems. In several workshops, participants agreed specific actions on cooperation – for example arranging meetings to further discuss how hate crime recording and data collection might be improved between one or more institutions. Feedback from the interactive workshops included:
It is useful to see and compare peoples’ perceptions (CSO)
It was interesting to look another person in the eye and admit that the relationship could be improved. (public authority)
This way of working is not usual for me – the most positive thing is that it reflects many elements. (CSO)
It was quite rewarding, because even though we agreed, we also had discrepancies. (Public authority)
This feedback and agreements to work together following the workshops evidence that the interactive, victim-focused methods met its objective: to connect, to ‘get on the same page’ and to build relationships at the national level.
The same methodology was used for all workshops except for the final consultation workshop for England and Wales. This was because:
We therefore used the London consultation workshop to consider our findings on third party reporting and to seek agreement on possible recommendations. We did not conduct the ‘systems map’ exercise on the sticky wall or review the draft systems map in depth.
A ‘sticky wall’ is a large piece of fabric that is sprayed with adhesive. It is mounted on a wall using blue/white tack or tape. It is used in a variety of ways as a facilitation tool for trainings and workshops. As the detailed activity guide describes below, during the first workshops, participants worked in small groups to plot the information and data that is captured and recorded at the reporting, investigation, prosecution and sentencing stages. Participants attached, removed and moved labels and paper as they wished, and often in negotiation with each other. During the second workshop, participants worked to create their own ‘systems maps’. They were asked to place red, yellow or green string to represent the strength of connections and relationships, again negotiating and debating across ‘divides’ to try to agree the final colour of the string. In all workshops, most participants took photos of the final sticky wall. Feedback on the tool was positive.
Feedback included the following themes:
From the public authority perspective in particular, these highly interactive and somewhat experimental approaches were very new and rarely practiced in the workshop, meeting and training contexts that they are used to. It was encouraging to see most participants taking part in using the sticky wall and being open to this new technique. However, several participants working in a public authority context reflected that the ‘novelty factors’ of the sticky wall and coloured string undermined the ‘seriousness’ of the activities. One participant suggested that these sorts of approaches can’t be introduced as a ‘one-off’ and needed to be regularly encouraged and used in more formal public authority contexts before they could be fully accepted as credible ways to engage. This is an important insight for future efforts.
Not all workshops had full representation across relevant institutions, organisations and affected groups. As a result, key perspectives were missing. These gaps reflected a number of possible issues:
The lack of involvement of key stakeholders in some workshops was countered by desk research and specific follow up when completing the systems maps.
National workshops and related outputs cannot reflect the diversity of regional and local approaches. As a result, a lot of important and good work is missing from national reports and systems maps. It is recommended that similar exercises are undertaken at the regional and local levels, following the activity guide set out below.
The Journey image was shared during consultation workshops. Feedback included:
The potential versatility of the graphic as an engagement and training tool is highlighted in the feedback above. It is recommended that learners, trainers and workshop participants work with A3 colour printed versions of the graphic to insert information about the national context or to portray evidence about the victim experience. It is also recommended that further graphics are developed to represent other aspects of the hate crime experiences before reporting and/or after sentencing (e.g. probation) are developed. As a first step an instructional video on how to use the graphic as a training and development tool has been developed as part of the online learning for decision makers.
Challenges and limitations of national systems maps:
The systems maps took a lot of time and effort by the lead researcher, national partners and graphic designer to complete. It was difficult to develop a framework that met our aims, which were to create a comprehensive and victim-focused assessment of the national situation, based on a concept of relationships that integrates a consideration of evidence of CSO-public authority cooperation, as well as evidence on the quality of CSO efforts to directly record and monitor hate crimes against the communities they support and represent. The elaborate process of creating national systems maps revealed that the current normative framework:
On reflection it is clear that, with the exception of the Victims’ Directive, the current normative framework has an institutional as opposed to a victim focus. While most international obligations focus on recording and collection of data by institution, the Directive obliges institutions to cooperate with each other and with CSOs to keep victims informed, safe and to collect data based on those obligations. The Findings section of this report proposes a victim-focused model for reporting, recording and data collection, which could inform the international, normative framework and possibly improve these sorts of assessments in the future.
Specific limitations of the systems maps:
The feedback and analysis of this project’s action-research methodology and outputs suggest that:
However, the process has been time consuming and quite messy at various stages, requiring a lot of input from national partners. This is partly because it was the first time that a normative framework, integrating a victim and community perspective has been created and applied to describe and diagnose national systems. Towards the end stages of the research, when country analyses were being finalised, the research team reflected that the process has been so difficult partly because the current framework does not specifically address the following issues:
The implications of these gaps is that it is difficult to develop, describe and implement a victim-focused ‘system’. From the victim and community perspective protecting institutional boundaries – a preoccupation of many public authorities – can be in conflict with efforts to achieve the desired outcomes of safety, security and justice. Until this perspective is integrated into the international normative framework, it will remain difficult to most effectively describe, assess and prioritise. These points are addressed in more detail in the Findings and Recommendations sections.
Further, on a more practical note, one day and half-day workshops and the resulting national reports and systems maps will have limited impact if they are not revisited and revised. It is recommended that national stakeholders continue to use the tools produced by the project to re-assess their situation at the national regional and local levels and to agree specific actions and updates to their systems maps accordingly.
 Thanks to the Institute of Cultural Affairs for inspiration on this facilitation method.
 See national reports for national systems maps.
 One approach to counter these weaknesses is to use the same methodology at the local and regional levels or with a tighter focus on one area of hate crime or one part of the system. This allows for more granularity in the context of the bigger, national picture offered in these reports.
 For example, there can be great complexity and details relating to the range of crime types and protected characteristics/bias motivations that are captured at the national level. Where there are gaps (e.g. LGBT+) these are mentioned, however there is not a detailed description of crime types and protected characteristics in each national context. It can be added at the national level at any time.