Facilitator’s guide for National Workshops and change agent interviews

National workshops

Stakeholders from across the CSO and public authority sectors were identified and brought together to map current recording systems, the national picture of hate crime and to agree gaps and potential actions for improvement. While the workshops served as a data-gathering exercise about current practices and gaps, they also aimed to test out new ways to connect people working on hate crime recording who don’t usually work together on the topic.

The workshop methodology focused on activities and tools such as the ‘sticky wall’ that encourage different stakeholders to see and even experience things from each other’s point of view and to understand and agree what they might offer each other to improve available information about hate crime’s prevalence and impact and to better meet victims’ support and security needs.

We aimed to test out ways to bring together key agencies and organisations and provide a space to:

  • Co-describe how hate crimes are recorded and by whom
  • Co-diagnose current gaps in recording
  • Start to co-prioritise actions for improvement


  • Took part in a reflection to encourage them to take on another perspective
  • Used case studies to explain how they would record a hate crime using their current methodology whether from a CSO or for example, police perspective
  • Shared and mapped existing information about hate crime prevalence and impact together, and openly discuss its reliability and validity from different perspectives
  • Identified possible next steps and actions that can be taken together, and
  • Gave feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of the workshop methodology

When working to agree national recommendations, we drew on international resources such as capacity building activities offered by FRA and ODIHR.

The next section gives detailed guidance on how to carry out these activities. The guidance brings together what was learned from facilitating 12 workshops over two years. The Findings section draws out cross national themes and national reports look at the findings for the workshops in detail.

Change agent interviews

What do we mean by change agents? There are a few definitions of change agents, but in a nut shell, they can be described as a person or a group of people who cause a change in the way things are done or in the way ideas are viewed. In the case of hate crime recording they might be individuals who have played a significant role in supporting improvements in this area from the police, prosecution, court or NGO perspective. They may work in a public authority, CSO, educational role or they may have moved from one to another. They may have instituted a new monitoring system, convinced an institution to introduce hate crime training, or significantly contributed to raising awareness of the problem of hate crime and the need to address it over a period of time, sometimes years.

While the workshops are collective and group based, the purpose of the interviews with change agents was to explore their perspective on specific, complex or sensitive issues in more depth.

Lead partners identified key people – ‘change agents’ – who have been at the centre of efforts to understand and address hate crime at the national level. We wanted to find out what, in their opinion, supports – and what undermines – cooperation between public authorities and those civil society organisations that conduct recording and monitoring activities. We also wanted their perspective on the ‘story’ of hate crime in the country: what were the key events that shaped the national consciousness about hate crime? In terms of the specifics of improving the hate crime data picture, what needs to be done next?

The interviews took place during the same week as the workshops and at the convenience of the interviewee.

Project partners worked with the research lead to identify five people per country from a range of perspectives.

The following issues needed to be taken into account:

  • Filming: the interviews with change makers were filmed
  • Allow for full or partial anonymity where requested (e.g. country only, no name; keep only part not full interview anonymous, etc.)
  • Designed an interview guide that goes beyond the surface of barriers to recording hate crimes and/ or working with CSOs to the heart of the challenges and successes in their experience, presenting new and unlikely insights

Connecting on hate crime recording and data collection in Europe

  • Avoid the common focus on sharing ‘good practice’ and instead explore what works to support and sustain these particular change agents’ practice in their context and, from that perspective, to draw out common elements that may form the basis of national and European recommendations. Explore what skills and techniques work, including those of diplomacy. Explored what kind of model successful change agents work with in different institutional settings

The interview guide can be found at annex one of this report. Cross national themes emerging from the interviews are explained in the Findings section and nationally focused findings are presented in the nati0nal reports.

General guidelines for planning a workshop

  • Invite representatives from across government departments and agencies that have some responsibility in relation to hate crime recording, including police, prosecution service, courts, statistical authorities
  • Make sure that the CSOs you invite currently record hate incidents against one or more target groups based on a strong and transparent methodology such as direct reports from victims in person or online
  • In some contexts it will be a challenge to convince representatives from one or more public authorities to attend. They may not see hate crime as a priority, you may not have a relationship with the relevant contact, the topic of the workshop may be perceived to be too politically sensitive, etc. Try to counter these risks by working with others that do have relationships with your target group to provide the necessary arguments, information and support to convince them to attend
  • Practical considerations: need interpreting facilities and ideally, space for small group work (either big room or smaller break out rooms); refreshments, etc

Activity one: taking ‘the other’ perspective: what does hate crime mean to me?


The purpose of this exercise is to take on different perspectives when thinking about what hate crime means, its impact and its significance. It aims to connect the participants in different ways and mix up the ‘hierarchies’ from the beginning.


About ten pieces of A4 paper


Before the workshop

Take several pieces of A4 paper. Using one piece of paper for each of the following roles, write:

  • ‘victim’
  • ‘police officer’
  • Civil Society organisation (CSO)
  • ‘Policy maker’ (Ministry of Justice/Ministry of Interior)
  • ‘Prosecutor’
  • ‘Judge’
  • ‘Statistician’
  • Etc

Write the role in English and the national language where relevant.

Look at the participants list and make a note of which role you should give each participant. For example, there might be someone or a particular role that would benefit from considering a particular perspective. Make sure you give a participant a role that they do not currently have.

During the workshop

  1. Introduce the activity and tell participants:

You have been given a ‘role’ that is different from what you do every day or we think is different than your experience. Spend a few minutes thinking about what hate crime means to you from this perspective and share your thoughts with your group. What is important and what is significant? What do you need?[1]

For example, if you have been given the role of a ‘victim’ what does hate crime mean to you? What is significant to you and what do you need?

Similarly, if you are a policy maker in the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Interior for example, what does hate crime mean to you? What is significant and what do you need to know about it?

If you are a police officer, what does hate crime mean to you? What is significant about it and what does it mean? What do you need to do your job?

  1. Count off the participants into groups of no more than 5 people. Ask them to find a space where they can speak in a group

Discussion questions/ wrapping up

  1. Bring participants back to the large group and ask them to share one or two key points that struck them during this exercise. Capture any important points that come up on flip chart pages throughout the room

Activity two: the ‘journey’ of a hate crime case


The purpose of this exercise is to map the journey of a case from the perspective of the victim experience. By the end of the exercise, participants will think through what information is and should be captured to help ensure safety and justice and the role of police, prosecutor, policy maker and CSO information in achieving this.


  • ‘sticky wall’[2]
  • Black markers
  • Coloured index cards (at least 20 cards of various bright colours)
  • White tack
  • Print-out of case study document
  • Journey of a Hate Crime Case graphic



Before the workshop

Carefully review the participants list and create groups based on mixed roles and perspectives. Also consider whether you want to bring together particular individuals, for example where there might be a possibility to generate agreement and progress between them.

Take cards and write:

  • ‘Victim’, or draw a stick figure of a person
  • ‘Investigation’
  • ‘Prosecution’
  • ‘Sentencing’
  • Questions
  • Or draw an exclamation mark !

Arrive at the workshop room early, put up the sticky wall in a place that will allow participants enough space to stand in front of and move around the sticky wall.


  • Place the cards ‘investigation’, ‘prosecution’, ‘sentencing’ along the top of the wall.
  • Place the ‘victim’ anywhere on the wall
  • Put the cards for questions and problems at the bottom of the wall.
  • Take the extra cards and markers and put them on the participants’ table. Be generous.

During the workshop

  1. Divide participants into the pre-arranged groups and give out the handouts.
  2. Explain that participants are going to put everything they know about how hate crime is recorded across the investigation, prosecution and sentencing process on the wall by writing information on the cards and sticking them on the wall. Explain that each person has information to add to the wall whether they are a police officer, judge, CSO representative, prosecutor, ministry representative or other person. Move the victim along the three stages to show that the group is aiming to build a picture of information about what is captured about the victim experience. Explain that questions and problems should be written down and placed at the bottom of the map.
  3. Give participants 30-45 minutes to work in their small groups agree and write the information they want to share. Ask them to post their papers on the wall.
  4. Give participants time to tour the wall and look at others’ contributions. You could do this during the coffee break.
  5. Bring the participants back into the larger group to share and discuss their work.

Points for discussion

Highlight the following points in the discussion:

  • CSOs are in the most likely position to be at the victim’s side at each stage and/or throughout the process (they monitor the process but they can’t be responsible for quantitative data).
  • There is great potential for information to fall through the cracks between investigation – prosecution – courts stages – policy stages
  • The experience of victims can be confusion, re-victimisation, drop out and increased risk
  • Explain why this is important – without this information we do not know if victims have access to safety and justice.
  1. Now share the A3 copies of the Journey of Hate Crime. Give participants a few minutes to study the graphic. In either small groups or in a plenary format ask participants to reflect on the following questions: does the graphic align with the information that they identified already? What is missing? What is new? Encourage participants to write or draw on the graphic to add national information or to convey the victim experience based on the information they have.

Handout to give to participants:

Background information:

The case involves a man of African descent who is a victim of a racist assault on the streets of a major city. The assault was carried out by two men and racist slurs and the phrase ‘go back to your country’ were used during the assault. The police are called by a witness and take a statement from the victim and other witnesses. It is confirmed that this incident is a racist assault.

In your group, try to answer the following questions:

What information do the police capture about this case? Since it is clearly a racist incident, how is this information captured and shared? How does the incident become included in hate crime statistics?

Capture this information on the papers that you are given. Use as many pieces of paper that you need.

What are the gaps? Is there information that isn’t captured?

The case progress to the prosecution stage. How is this information captured by the prosecution? If the prosecution decide to go ahead with a hate crime prosecution, how is this recorded? Can it be included in statistical data?

What happens if the victim decides not to give evidence, is this information captured by the prosecution service or the police?

Capture this information on the papers that you are given. Use as many pieces of paper that you need.

The case goes to court. Can the case be recorded as a hate crime case by the court?

If so, how?

What happens if there is an acquittal, is this information captured in court statistics?

How about a conviction? Is it possible to record that a hate crime law was applied?

Capture this information on the papers that you are given. Use as many pieces of paper that you need.

The victim is referred to an NGO for support. How is this information captured by the NGO? What other information is captured? What if the victim is unhappy about their treatment by the police, is this information recorded?

What else do NGOs record? Are the police, prosecution and court responses documented? How is this shared with the police and prosecution service?

Capture this information on the papers that you are given. Use as many pieces of paper that you need.

Now imagine that as a policy maker you need to gather statistics about how many crimes were recorded by the police, how many prosecutions and sentences, etc. Where would you get this information? Write this down on your papers.

Capture this information on the papers that you are given. Use as many pieces of paper that you need.

After you have recorded the recording system from each perspective, think about the gaps that remain. For example, if we were looking at a homophobic assault, would the same data be captured? What would be different? Record these gaps and questions.

Now go to the ‘sticky wall’ and put your papers in the ‘investigation’, prosecution’ and ‘sentencing’.

Stick your gaps and questions at the bottom of the wall.


Activity three: the hate crime recording and data collection ‘system’


The purpose of this activity is:

  • To build a picture of the national ‘system’ of hate crime recording and data collection
  • To identify the systems strengths and weaknesses
  • To co-prioritise actions for improvement

It is important to note that this activity should take place in conjunction with a much deeper research activity mapping the national ‘system’ using the self-assessment framework described in Part II. Overall, the process takes time and resources.

Participants will complete this activity in two stages. First they will map the current system on the sticky wall, focusing on their own relationships. Second they will review the map that has been produced during the research phase and identify recommendations for improvement (see section I and II above).


  • ‘sticky wall’[3]
  • Black markers
  • Coloured index cards (at least 30 cards of various bright colours)
  • White tack
  • A few metres of yellow, red and green string or yarn (yarn is a good choice because it is light-weight and sticks to the wall more easily)
  • Print-out of national systems map graphic
  • Print out of pre-prepared national self-assessment.


Before the workshop

Complete the country self-assessment with national partners (see Methodology in Part I). Allow yourself several weeks for this process.

Ideally, the draft self-assessment should be shared with stakeholders before the event. This will give people a chance to understand the process and correct any mistakes. Explain that the assessment is not in the public domain and that stakeholders will have a chance to provide feedback during the workshop and in writing after the workshop.

Just before the workshop, take the index cards and write the following words (per card) in English and the national language:

  • Victim
  • ‘AS’ (stands for CSOs that record and monitor antisemitic crime)
  • ‘AM’ (stands for CSOs that record and monitor anti-Muslim hate crime)
  • ‘AD’ (stands for CSOs that record and monitor disability hate crime)
  • ‘AR’ (stands for CSOs that record and monitor anti-Roma hate crime)
  • ‘Racist’ (stands for CSOs that record and monitor racist crime)
  • ‘anti- LGBTI’ (stands for CSOs that record and monitor anti-LGBTI crime)
  • Law enforcement
  • Prosecution Service
  • Judiciary
  • Ministry of Justice
  • Ministry of Interior
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs (optional)
  • General Public
  • IGO (intergovernmental institutions including OSCE-ODIHR, FRA, UN, ECRI)
  • EB (equality body)
  • Other (add the name of any other body that plays a significant role in recording and monitoring hate crime at the national level)

Pile the index cards in the order above, with ‘victim’ on the top of the pile.

Now take the yarn or string and cut about 15 pieces of each colour, about 50 centimetres long. Loosely tie them into bunches of 5 pieces. This gives you enough material for three small groups.

Carefully review the participants list and create groups based on mixed roles and perspectives. Also consider whether you want to bring together particular individuals, for example where there might be a possibility to generate agreement and progress between them.

Arrive at the venue with plenty of time to put up the sticky wall and arrange the tables into groups, if interpreting allows.

During the workshop:

  1. Divide participants into their pre-allocated groups.
  2. Explain the purpose of the session. We want to:
  • Build a picture of the national ‘system’ of hate crime recording and data collection
  • Identify the system’s strengths and weaknesses
  • Co-prioritise actions for improvement

3. Explain that you will discuss the systems maps in detail during the second part of the workshop. In the first part, you will be focusing on the process of connection with your colleagues and looking in more detail at the connections and gaps in your relationships on hate crime recording and data collection.

4. Explain that you will start by setting out the key organisations and institutions that perform this function.

5. Start placing the cards on the sticky wall

  • Starting with the index card ‘victim’, explain that the victim is and should be at the centre of hate crime recording and data collection efforts
  • Follow with the cards AS, AM, AR, Racist, anti-LGBT and AD explaining that these represent CSOs that record and monitor hate crimes and support victims tt  Then place the cards for law enforcement, prosecution and the judiciary explaining that these institutions each have responsibilities to record information about hate crime investigations, prosecutions and sentencing tt Place the cards for government ministries, explaining that they have a role in compiling and analysing data from criminal justice agencies and other sources
  • Place the equality body card explaining that they also play a role in monitoring hate crime
  • Place the IGO card explaining that government ministries, agencies and CSOs often send information for country monitoring purposes and/or annual reports, national representatives attend international meetings and capacity building activities, etc
  • Place the general public card explaining that it is also important to look at what information about hate crime is easily accessible in the public domain
  • Finally – or when you think it is appropriate – add any other organisations or institutions that you think are relevant

Now you have the skeleton of the systems map.

  1. Explain to participants that they are now going to draw on their own knowledge to add to the map and to assess the strength of connection(s) across the system.
  2. Stress that the focus is on hate crime recording and data collection, not other aspects of hate crime responses. Encourage them to use their limited time to focus on their relationships. For example, if there is a police officer and a CSO recording hate crimes against LGBT+ communities, focus on assessing that relationship together. Likewise if there is a police officer and prosecutor in one group.
  3. Ask participants to discuss two specific areas of connection in pairs:
  • Do they share a technical and policy framework for hate crime recording and data collection, for victim protection and support? For example, is there a national agreement that sets out how hate crimes are recorded and data is collected and how information about victim support and safety is captured? Is there an electronic system to capture this information, are there guidelines setting out the step by step process for doing this? Ask them to agree a score of 0-3. O is weak and 3 is strong.
  • What action is being taken to record and share data (respecting laws on data protection and victim confidentiality) ? What action is taken to ensure victims are referred to support and safety information is acted upon? Ask them to agree a score of 0-3. O is weak and 3 is strong.
  • Explain that they will be giving their ‘relationship’ a colour. An overall score of 0-2 is red, 3-4 is amber, 5-6 is green.
  1. Give groups about 60 minutes to discuss the activity and start to agree ‘colours’. Where there is disagreement, encourage participants to choose a single colour. Where this isn’t possible, allow participants to put more than one colour on the map. The purpose of this activity is to encourage engagement, connection and discussion across ‘boundaries’. It isn’t necessary to achieve the ‘final say’ on the national situation. Remember, you will be sharing the final systems map with detailed evidence during the second part of the exercise.
  2. After participants have finished placing their coloured string on the sticky wall, bring the whole group together to reflection the process and outcome.

Wrapping up:

  1. Ask for feedback about the process. What was useful about the activity? What could be improved?
  2. Ask for summaries of people’s contribution. What connections did they look at? What colour did they give the connection? Why?

You have finished stage one of the exercise. You might want to consider having a break here.

  1. Now share the pre-prepared, detailed systems map with the group. Give a brief overview of the map and the self-assessment. Explain that there isn’t time to go through all of the evidence in detail, but stakeholders will be able to provide written feedback after the workshop.
  2. Allow participants to study the map and the self-assessment framework for about 30-40 minutes.
  3. Now start a general discussion. Ask participants if they would like to share some general reflections about the assessment?
  4. Wrap up the general discussion, reminding participants that they can provide written feedback after the workshop. Explain that in the final part of the activity, you will move onto identifying actions for improvement. Ask the group, based on this work, what are the priorities for action? What can be agreed here? Post the main ideas on the sticky wall.
  5. Close the activity with any final reflection. Encourage participants to take photos of the final map.[4]
  6. Incorporate new feedback and findings into the national Systems Map.



[1] Consider distributing this text in document form for all tables.

[2] See here for further information

[3] See here for further information

[4] Note: this activity complemented the development of national, online, ‘systems maps’ for each country, which are discussed thematically in the Findings section and in detail in each country report.