Skip Repetitive Navigation Links
California State Auditor Logo COMMITMENT • INTEGRITY • LEADERSHIP

Hate Crimes in California
Law Enforcement Has Not Adequately Identified, Reported, or Responded to Hate Crimes

Report Number: 2017-131

Introduction

Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents

Hate Crimes

Hate 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 Incident

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

A flowchart describing the process that occurs when a hate crime is committed and various agencies investigate, report, and prosecute the crime through the California justice system..

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

A graph showing the number of reported hate crimes reported in California from 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

A pie chart showing the total number of reported hate crimes in California from 2007 through 2016 by the targeted protected characteristic.

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

A pie chart showing the most common types of hate crimes:destruction of property, damage to property, and vandalism; followed by intimidation, simple assault, and aggravated assault, committed by offenders from 2007 through 2016.

Source: DOJ hate crime database, 2007 through 2016.

Figure 5
Relationship of Hate Crime Victims to the Suspects
2007 Through 2016

A pie chart showing the relationship of hate crime victims to the suspect for the hate crimes reported from 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.
  • Reviewed DOJ’s policies, procedures, and practices related to its oversight and guidance of local law enforcement agencies regarding hate crimes.
  • Interviewed key staff and policy documents at DOJ to determine efforts it made to intervene with local agencies 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.
  • Interviewed key agency personnel and reviewed documentation from other states including Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan, including best practices related to local law enforcement agency cooperation.
  • Reviewed documentation from the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice (US DOJ) on best practices for hate crime prevention, reporting, and prosecution.
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.
  • Obtained a copy of the DOJ hate crime database from 2007 through 2016.
  • Evaluated the DOJ hate crime database to ensure that it meets existing legal and regulatory requirements.
  •  Analyzed the DOJ hate crime database for trends and information on groups that are the victims of hate crime, for which hate crimes are most common, and for the number of hate crimes over time.
  • Reviewed hate crime data submitted by the Los Angeles Police Department (LA Police), the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department (Stanislaus County Sheriff), the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (Orange County Sheriff), and the San Francisco State University Police Department (SFSU Police) to determine whether these law enforcement agencies were underreporting data to DOJ.
  b. Identify and analyze trends in reported hate crimes by type of criminal act and category of bias.
  • Plotted the hate crimes throughout California over maps of state Assembly districts, state Senate districts, and counties obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. We did not assess the reliability of the U.S. Census Bureau’s data because it was obtained from a reliable source. Interactive maps are available on our website.
  • Analyzed the DOJ hate crime database to determine the most common criminal acts associated with hate crimes and the percent of hate crimes committed based on the 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.
  • Reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and the hate crime policy framework and determined POST was complying with its statutory requirements.
  • Interviewed key personnel at POST to evaluate its ability to measure and improve the effectiveness of its training.
  • Reviewed POST’s training materials for compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
  • Evaluated POST training against best practices at other state entities.
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.
  • The original audit request was that the State Auditor survey all state and local law enforcement agencies regarding hate crime issues, including the California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, sheriff departments, police departments, district attorneys, and probation departments. However, during the August 30, 2017, Audit Committee hearing, the request was amended to require the survey of three law enforcement agencies in each assembly district. Using the DOJ hate crime database, we identified law enforcement agencies throughout the State.
  • Verified the headquarters’ addresses of each law enforcement agency and plotted agencies into state Assembly districts.
  • For each state Assembly district in which there were at least three law enforcement agencies, we selected the law enforcement agencies with the most reported hate crimes and the fewest reported hate crimes and a third law enforcement agency for our survey.
  • For state Assembly districts that had two or fewer law enforcement agencies, we selected and surveyed each law enforcement agency in that district. We then picked additional law enforcement agencies from surrounding state Assembly districts to ensure that we selected the 240 local law enforcement agencies called for in the amended audit request. We also surveyed five state law enforcement agencies, for a total of 245 surveys.
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.
  • Reviewed the policies and procedures from LA Police, Stanislaus County Sheriff, Orange County Sheriff, and SFSU Police for identifying and reporting hate crimes.
  • Reviewed up to 17 hate crimes at each agency to determine whether the agencies classified them correctly.
  • Reviewed up to 15 hate incidents at LA Police and SFSU Police to determine whether the agencies classified them correctly. We could not complete similar testing at the Stanislaus County Sheriff and Orange County Sheriff because the agencies did not track hate incidents as a category.
  • Reviewed 29 files from each agency that law enforcement did not categorize as hate crimes but that included crimes commonly associated with hate crimes, to ensure that the agency made the correct assessment.
  b. For a selection of crimes the agencies reported to DOJ as hate crimes, determine the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the information reported.
  • Compared the data elements for up to 29 hate crimes that each agency reported to the DOJ hate crime database to the respective data elements in the original case files to ensure that the agency reported the crimes accurately.
  • Compared the number of hate crime case files each agency identified in its internal database to the number of case files each agency reported to the DOJ hate crime database to determine whether each agency reported the crimes completely.
  • Assessed the timeliness of information reported to DOJ. We did not identify any issues.
  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.
  • Interviewed key personnel at each agency about the outreach and training performed by the agency related to hate crimes.
  • Reviewed at least 27 officer training profiles at each agency to ensure that officers were POST‑certified and we found that all of them were. Reviewed available documentation of additional hate crime training at the three agencies that offered in-service training during the period from 2014 through 2016.
  • Reviewed the processes in place at each agency related to disseminating information related to hate crimes.
8 Review and assess any other issues that are significant to the audit.
  • Reviewed documents and interviewed staff from the San Francisco County District Attorney’s Office (San Francisco County District Attorney), Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office, Office of the District Attorney of Orange County (Orange County District Attorney), and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office to identify any issues related to the prosecution of hate crimes.
  • Reviewed hate crime cases referred for prosecution by law enforcement agencies to determine why prosecutors rejected cases for prosecution and the disposition of the cases they decided to prosecute.
  • Interviewed key staff at various public advocacy organizations about potential issues related to the underreporting of hate crimes.

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
from 2014 through 2016


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.

  • Performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of key data elements, and we did not identify any significant issues.
  • To gain assurance of the completeness of the data, we verified they included case information for a selection of 29 assault, intimidation, and vandalism case files and found no exceptions.
  • To gain assurance over the accuracy of the data, we traced key data elements to source documentation for a sample of 29 assault, intimidation, and vandalism case files and found no exceptions.
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.

  • Performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of key data elements, and we did not identify any significant issues.
  • To gain assurance of the completeness of the data, we verified they included case information for a selection of 29 assault and vandalism case files and found no exceptions.
  • To gain assurance over the accuracy of the data, we traced key data elements to source documentation for a sample of 29 assault and vandalism case files and found no exceptions.


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.

  • Performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of key data elements, and we did not identify any significant issues.
  • To gain assurance over the accuracy of the data, we traced key data elements to source documentation for a sample of 29 assault and vandalism case files and found no exceptions.
  • Did not perform completeness testing on these data because physical source documents required for this testing were not maintained by the auditee for the years of our data reliability assessment period.

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.

  • Performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of key data elements, and we did not identify any significant issues.
  • To gain assurance of the completeness of the data, we verified they included case information for a selection of 29 assault, intimidation, and vandalism case files and found no exceptions.
  • To gain assurance over the accuracy of the data, we traced key data elements to source documentation for a sample of 29 assault, intimidation, and vandalism case files and found no exceptions.

Sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.

DOJ

Hate crime
database from 2007 through 2016

Identify instances of hate crime misreporting or underreporting to DOJ by LA Police, Orange County Sheriff, SFSU Police, and Stanislaus County Sheriff.
  • Performed data-set verification procedures and electronic testing of key data elements, and we did not identify any significant issues.
  • To gain assurance of the completeness of the data, we compared the total number of files that each law enforcement agency identified in its internal database to the number of case files the agency reported to the DOJ hate crime database. Our review found that the four agencies failed to report the following number of hate crimes to DOJ: LA Police: 89 of 622; SFSU Police: 6 of 17; Stanislaus County Sheriff: 1 of 18; and Orange County Sheriff: 1 of 23.
  • To gain assurance over the accuracy of the data, we compared key data elements from a sample of up to 29 case files that each agency reported to DOJ hate crime database to the respective data elements in the original case files at each agency. Our review found the following inaccuracies: LA Police: 2 of 29; SFSU Police: 2 of 11; Stanislaus County Sheriff: 4 of 17; and Orange County Sheriff: 5 of 8. In each case, some key data element reported in the law enforcement agency case file did not match the records reported in the DOJ hate crime database.

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.

Back to top