Why Police and Communities Need Each Other

Hate crime presents a particular challenge for community safety. The harm does not necessarily end with the individual victim. An attack motivated by hostility towards a person’s identity can also create fear and a sense of exclusion among others who identify with, or are perceived as belonging to, the same group. Recognising this wider impact does not diminish the seriousness of other forms of crime or violence. 

Under-reporting remains a persistent challenge in responding to hate crime. Trust between communities and law enforcement therefore matters not only after an incident has occurred, but also in creating conditions in which people feel able to seek advice, report concerns and access support. Trust alone cannot prevent hate crime, but it can strengthen prevention, reporting and response. 

A recent example from Sarajevo

On 14 and 15 September 2026, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), together with the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, brought representatives of Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities together with law-enforcement officials, civil society organisations and international experts in Sarajevo. 

The workshop focused specifically on preventing and responding to anti-Christian, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic hate crimes, as well as improving communication and co-operation between authorities and affected religious communities. 

Its focus was therefore on religiously motivated hate crime and should not be treated as evidence about every form of hate crime. Nevertheless, one of the principles underlying the discussion — that sustained communication between institutions and people who may experience targeted hostility matters — may also be relevant in other community-safety contexts.

Reporting depends on trust

ODIHR’s Training Against Hate Crimes for Law Enforcement (TAHCLE) programme provides a useful framework for understanding the relationship between trust and reporting.

The programme addresses reasons for under-reporting among targeted communities and emphasises community-based policing, trust-building, reporting and co-operation with civil society organisations. 

But trust cannot simply be requested from communities. It has to be earned through fair, consistent and accountable practice.

Someone who believes that reporting an incident will achieve nothing may remain silent. Someone who distrusts public authorities may first speak to a community organisation, religious leader, neighbour or friend. Others may be uncertain whether what they have experienced could constitute a hate crime, a hate-related incident or another reportable offence under national law. 

Community and faith representatives can sometimes provide trusted points of contact, but no individual or organisation should automatically be assumed to speak for an entire religious, ethnic or social group. Communities are diverse, and people should be free to seek assistance through whichever legitimate route they trust.

Communities can help bridge the gap

Community organisations can play an important role between individuals and public institutions. They can help people understand reporting options, access reliable information and find appropriate professional support. They can also help public institutions become more aware of concerns that might otherwise remain largely invisible. 

But there is an important boundary. Community organisations are not expected to determine whether a hate crime has occurred, establish the motive behind an incident, identify offenders or investigate allegations.

Supporting someone who reports an incident does not mean treating their account as established fact or determining the guilt of another person. Those questions belong to the competent authorities and, where appropriate, the judicial process.

Community vigilance does not mean surveillance. Community participation should not turn residents into informal police officers. 

Nor should community organisations monitor political opinions, religious beliefs, lawful speech or ordinary online activity in an attempt to identify potential offenders. Concerns should be based on specific conduct or information, not on identity, lawful beliefs or assumptions about someone’s background.

The contribution of communities is different: strengthening relationships, sharing verified information through appropriate channels, helping people understand where support is available and creating an environment in which residents feel able to speak.

Trust cannot be improvised after an incident

One useful lesson from community-oriented approaches is that relationships are easier to rely on during a crisis when they already exist.

If the first meaningful contact between an affected group and the police takes place only after a serious incident, trust may have to be built at precisely the moment when fear and uncertainty are at their highest. 

Regular dialogue can help. Neighbourhood policing teams, local authorities, schools, faith communities, voluntary organisations and residents’ networks can establish channels of communication before they are urgently needed. 

Such dialogue should not create gatekeepers between individuals and public authorities. Its purpose is not to require people to speak through recognised “community leaders”, but to make legitimate routes to assistance more visible and accessible.

This is where community policing and broader approaches to community safety can meet. The objective is not simply to obtain more information for law enforcement. It is also to improve mutual understanding: institutions can better understand local concerns, while residents can better understand where and how to seek assistance. 

Where could Neighbourhood Watch fit?

This raises an important question for Neighbourhood Watch organisations. Their potential contribution should not be confused with the formal responsibilities of police, prosecutors or specialist victim-support organisations. Nor does ODIHR assign Neighbourhood Watch a specific role in its guidance. 

Nothing in this discussion suggests adding hate-crime investigation or specialist victim support to the responsibilities of Neighbourhood Watch.

Neighbourhood Watch organisations may instead help residents understand where to seek assistance, circulate reliable information, encourage constructive dialogue and connect people with relevant organisations. Their value, in this context, would lie less in watching for “suspicious” individuals than in strengthening the relationships that make communities more resilient. 

A current example can be found in England and Wales. National Hate Crime Awareness Week 2026 runs from 10 to 17 October and is organised by the charity 17-24-30 NationalHCAW. The Neighbourhood Watch Network is promoting the week across its network, encouraging awareness and reporting.

In the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Greenwich Neighbourhood Watch is also supporting community events organised by the borough’s Community Safety Team, giving residents opportunities to meet local organisations, learn about available support and better understand reporting options. This sits alongside the Neighbourhood Watch Network’s Hate Crime Community Ambassador pilot, which is currently being trialled in Greenwich and focuses on awareness, reporting and links with local partners. 

This offers a practical illustration of the role described here: raising awareness, making support more visible and strengthening local relationships — without asking community volunteers to investigate incidents or determine whether a hate crime has occurred.

This distinction is essential. A community that is attentive to the wellbeing of its members is very different from a community that attempts to police them. 

Privacy and responsible handling of information

Information disclosed in connection with alleged hate incidents may be highly sensitive. Community volunteers should therefore avoid creating informal records of allegations or sensitive personal information unless there is a clear lawful basis, a legitimate organisational need and appropriate safeguards.

Names, images, accusations or identifying information should not be circulated through neighbourhood messaging groups or social media in an attempt to investigate incidents or warn others. Where information is disclosed spontaneously, volunteers should minimise unnecessary handling of it and direct the person towards the appropriate professional service.

Supporting someone who seeks help does not require a community organisation to collect evidence or investigate another person. These safeguards protect the person reporting the incident, the person accused, the integrity of any subsequent investigation and the volunteers themselves.

Security includes a sense of belonging

ODIHR’s practical guides on anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim and anti-Christian hate crimes connect the security of individuals with the wider security and cohesion of communities. 

This suggests a broader lesson for community safety. A safe neighbourhood cannot be understood only as a place where recorded crime is low. It should also be a place where people know where to seek help, believe that their concerns will be taken seriously and are not excluded from access to safety or support because of who they are. 

This is not a matter of political alignment. It is a matter of equal access to safety, lawful reporting mechanisms and appropriate assistance.

Preventing and responding to hate crime therefore requires more than enforcement after an offence has occurred. It also requires institutions that are trusted enough to receive concerns, communities that know where professional help can be found, and clear boundaries between civic support and law enforcement.

For Neighbourhood Watch organisations across Europe, the practical question is therefore not whether they should become specialist actors in hate-crime prevention. They should not. The more useful question is: “How can we help create communities in which people feel safe enough to seek help and speak about their concerns — while preserving privacy, respecting the rights of everyone involved and maintaining a clear boundary between community support and law enforcement?”

Sources and further reading

• OSCE/ODIHR, Responding to hate crimes and addressing the security needs of Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, 14–15 September 2026.
• OSCE/ODIHR, Training Against Hate Crimes for Law Enforcement (TAHCLE) – Trainer’s Manual, 2025.
• OSCE/ODIHR, Hate Crime and the Security of Religious Communities — practical guides addressing anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim and anti-Christian hate crimes.
• 17-24-30 NationalHCAW, National Hate Crime Awareness Week 2026, 10–17 October 2026. nationalhcaw.uk
• Neighbourhood Watch Network, Our News – 5 October 2026: Hate Crime Awareness Week. ourwatch.org.uk
• Neighbourhood Watch Network, Become a Hate Crime Community Ambassador — pilot project in the Royal Borough of Greenwich. ourwatch.org.uk