Introduction
Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents
Hate CrimesHate crimes are criminal acts committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of these characteristics. Law enforcement agencies must report hate crimes to DOJ. Hate crimes can be prosecuted in two ways:
- The offense is charged as a separate type of crime, but because it was motivated in whole or in part by hate, an additional hate crime sentencing penalty is imposed.
Example: An aggravated assault is motivated by animus towards the victim’s sexual orientation. In this case, the prosecutor could charge the defendant with both aggravated assault and with a hate crime sentencing enhancement. - The offense is charged directly as a hate crime because it interfered or threatened to interfere with the civil rights of the victim or the victim’s property was damaged or destroyed because the victim had one or more of the above-described characteristics. This is sometimes referred to as a stand-alone hate crime.
Example: An individual provides inaccurate information at a polling place to Latino voters to prevent them from casting their ballots. In this case, the prosecutor could charge the defendant with a stand-alone hate crime.
Hate incidents are noncriminal acts that are motivated by bias against the actual or perceived characteristics of the victims. Because they are not crimes, some law enforcement agencies do not track hate incidents. Law enforcement agencies do not report hate incidents to DOJ.
Example: A student organization hosts a theme party that encourages people to wear costumes and act out in ways that reinforce stereotypes, thus creating a campus climate that is hostile to a racial or ethnic minority group.
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of California state law and selected law enforcement agencies’ policies and procedures.
Background
State law defines hate crimes as criminal acts committed, in whole or in part, because of the victim’s actual or perceived protected characteristics. These protected characteristics are disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.
When hate crimes are committed, law enforcement agencies investigate and report the crimes, as Figure 1 shows. Law enforcement agencies such as the California Highway Patrol, sheriff’s departments, police departments, and certain school district and college police departments exercise their authority to enforce laws to protect the public by investigating hate crimes as part of their duties. When law enforcement officers are determining whether hate crimes have occurred, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) recommends that they interview witnesses, take statements, and gather evidence. Additionally, state law requires that the Office of the Attorney General (Attorney General) direct local law enforcement agencies to report information on hate crimes to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and that DOJ publish an annual report on hate crimes. DOJ submits the hate crime information it collects from law enforcement agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
In contrast, prosecutors review the evidence collected by law enforcement agencies and decide whether to prosecute hate crimes. Prosecutors proceed with hate crime prosecution when, in their professional judgment, sufficient evidence exists to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a hate crime was committed. As the text box shows, if the motivation for a crime such as aggravated assault was animus toward the victim’s race, for example, the prosecutor may charge the defendant with a hate crime sentencing enhancement, in addition to the aggravated assault charge. If a defendant who acted alone is convicted of a felony with a hate crime sentencing enhancement, state law requires that up to three years be added to the underlying felony sentence. Further, if the defendant voluntarily acted in concert with another person, the additional sentence could be up to four years. Some law enforcement agencies also track hate incidents, which occur when there is an element of hate, such as hate speech, but no underlying crime has occurred. Because there is no underlying crime, hate incidents are not prosecuted.
Figure 1
The Process for Investigating, Reporting, and Prosecuting a Hate Crime in California
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of POST hate crime guidelines and DOJ.
Hate Crimes Are on the Rise in California
Hate crimes have made up a small percentage of total reported crimes in
California—less than 0.1 percent of all crimes reported over the last 10
years—and the number of reported hate crimes in California steadily
decreased from 2007 through 2014. However, as Figure 2 shows, the number of
reported hate crimes in California increased in 2015 and 2016. In fact,
reported hate crimes increased by more than 10 percent in both of those
years. By comparison, other crimes, such as property and violent crimes,
increased by 8 percent in 2015 but saw a 1 percent decrease in 2016.
According to the FBI, in 2016 California law enforcement agencies reported
more hate crimes than any other state, accounting for more than 15 percent
of all reported hate crimes nationwide despite the fact that California
residents made up only 12 percent of the U.S. population. We provide an
interactive map of the hate crimes reported in California by state Assembly
district, state Senate district, and county over the past 10 years on our
website:
http://auditor.ca.gov/reports/2017-131/supplementalhatecrimes.html
.
Figure 2
Reported Hate Crimes
2007 Through 2016
Source: DOJ hate crime database, 2007 through 2016.
DOJ data further indicate that hate crimes most often target minority racial groups and that, in many cases, persons unknown to the victims perpetrate these crimes. As Figure 3 shows, the most common targeted characteristics were race, ethnicity, and ancestry, accounting for more than half of all reported hate crimes.
Figure 3
Reported Hate Crimes by Characteristic
2007 Through 2016
Source: DOJ hate crime database, 2007 through 2016.
Additionally, Figure 4 shows that hate crime offenders targeted both property and individuals: the most common types of hate crimes were destruction of property, damage to property, and vandalism, followed by intimidation, simple assault, and aggravated assault. Finally, individuals with no known relationships to the victims committed 52 percent of reported hate crimes, and in 29 percent of reported hate crimes, no suspect was identified, as Figure 5 shows. Unknown suspects can make it difficult for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to successfully investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
Figure 4
Crimes Committed in Conjunction With Hate Crimes
2007 Through 2016
Source: DOJ hate crime database, 2007 through 2016.
Figure 5
Relationship of Hate Crime Victims to the Suspects
2007 Through 2016
Source: DOJ hate crime database, 2007 through 2016.
Hate Crimes Have Significant Impact on the Groups They Target
Although hate crimes made up a small percentage of the crimes reported in California over the past decade, these crimes likely had a significant impact on the groups to which victims belonged. According to the American Psychological Association (association), victims of hate crimes are likely to experience more psychological distress than victims of other violent crimes, resulting in post-traumatic stress, depression, anger, and anxiety. In addition, the association states that hate crimes communicate to members of the victims’ groups that they are unwelcome and unsafe in their communities. These sentiments were echoed by the former Attorney General, who indicated that hate crimes are among the most dehumanizing of crimes because the perpetrators view their victims as lacking full human worth and who further stated that hate crimes affect the entire groups to which the victims belong.
Scope and Methodology
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directed the California State Auditor (State Auditor) to perform an audit to examine the State’s status in implementing hate crime laws. Table 1 on the following page outlines the Audit Committee’s objectives and our methods for addressing them.
Table 1
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them
| AUDIT OBJECTIVE | METHOD | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives. | Reviewed relevant laws, rules, and other background materials related to hate crimes. |
| 2 | Identify and analyze policies, practices, and efforts at DOJ to provide oversight and guidance to state and local law enforcement agencies regarding hate crimes. Assess any efforts by DOJ to intervene in local law enforcement agencies’ practices, when necessary, and to cooperate with local, federal, and other state agencies. |
|
| 3 | Review best practices at the federal level and in other states regarding preventing, reporting, and prosecuting hate crimes. Identify any best practices related to cooperation among local, state, and federal agencies. |
|
| 4 | For the hate crimes data DOJ collects from California law enforcement agencies, perform the following: | |
| a. Determine whether DOJ’s hate crimes reporting system complies with existing laws. Determine whether DOJ’s reports include hate crime data reported by local law enforcement to federal agencies. To the extent possible, determine whether hate crimes in California committed based on, but not limited to, the victim’s gender, disability, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation are underreported in DOJ’s data. |
|
|
| b. Identify and analyze trends in reported hate crimes by type of criminal act and category of bias. |
|
|
| c. Analyze DOJ’s efforts to address potential underreporting of hate crimes. | Interviewed key personnel at DOJ to determine what steps it has taken to address underreporting of hate crimes. | |
| 5 | Determine whether the hate crime policy framework, guidelines, and training efforts of POST comply with relevant laws and regulations, as well as adequately recognize and respond to hate crimes involving the full range of victim characteristics in state law. Evaluate POST’s current ability to measure and improve the effectiveness of its training regarding hate crimes. |
|
| 6 | Survey all state and local law enforcement agencies regarding hate crime issues. The survey will include the California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, sheriff departments, police departments, district attorneys, and probation departments. The survey will include, but not necessarily be limited to, questions related those in the requesters’ submitted questionnaire and will cover agencies’ hate crime policies, training, reporting, and public education efforts. |
|
| 7 | For a selection of four law enforcement agencies—one municipal police department with a relatively large number of reported hate crimes, one medium-sized university police department, one sheriff’s office with a relatively low number of reported hate crimes, and one large state or local correctional agency—determine the agencies’ compliance with hate crime laws and regulations by performing the following: | |
| a. For a selection of crimes at each agency, determine whether the agency properly identified the incidents as hate crimes and classified and reported those crimes accordingly. |
|
|
| b. For a selection of crimes the agencies reported to DOJ as hate crimes, determine the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the information reported. |
|
|
| c. Review the agencies’ policies and procedures related to disseminating information on hate crimes—such as brochures—and to providing hate crime training and public outreach. |
|
|
| 8 | Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit. |
|
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of the Audit Committee’s audit request 2017-131, planning documents, and information and documentation identified in the table column titled Method.
Assessment of Data Reliability
In performing this audit, we obtained electronic data files extracted from the information systems listed in Table 2. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily required to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer‑processed information that we use to support findings, conclusions, or recommendations. Table 2 describes the analyses we conducted using data from these information systems, our methods for testing, and the results of our assessments. Although these determinations may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Table 2
Methods Used to Assess Data Reliability
| Information System | Purpose | Methods and Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
LA Police Consolidated Crime Analysis Database
|
Identify instances in which LA Police inaccurately identified a case with an underlying crime type often related to hate crimes (assault, intimidation, vandalism) as a crime other than a hate crime when information within the case file met the requirements to charge a hate crime under California law. Identify instances in which LA Police underreported or overreported hate crimes during the audit period. Create a selection of cases to review. |
|
Sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit. |
Orange County Sheriff Records Management System from 2014 through 2016 |
Identify instances in which Orange County Sheriff inaccurately identified a case with an underlying crime type generally related to hate crimes (assault and vandalism) as a crime other than a hate crime when information within the case file met the requirements to charge a hate crime under California law. Identify instances in which Orange County Sheriff underreported or overreported hate crimes during the audit period. Create a selection of cases to review. |
|
Sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit. |
SFSU Police Records Management System from 2007 through 2016 |
Identify instances in which SFSU Police inaccurately identified a case with an underlying crime type often related to hate crimes (assault and vandalism) as a crime other than a hate crime when information within the case file met the requirements to charge a hate crime under California law. Identify instances in which SFSU Police underreported or overreported hate crimes during the audit period. Create a selection of cases to review. |
|
Undetermined reliability for the purposes of this audit. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. |
Stanislaus County Sheriff Integrated Criminal Justice Information System from 2007 through 2016 |
Identify instances in which Stanislaus County Sheriff inaccurately identified a case with an underlying crime type generally related to hate crimes as a crime (assault, intimidation, or vandalism) other than a hate crime when information within the case file met the requirements to charge a hate crime under California law. Identify instances in which Stanislaus County Sheriff underreported or overreported hate crimes during the audit period. Create a selection of cases to review. |
|
Sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit. |
DOJ Hate crime |
Identify instances of hate crime misreporting or underreporting to DOJ by LA Police, Orange County Sheriff, SFSU Police, and Stanislaus County Sheriff. |
|
Not sufficiently reliable to identify all hate crimes. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. |
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of the DOJ hate crime database and cases at the LA Police, Orange County Sheriff, SFSU Police, and Stanislaus County Sheriff.