Exploring
Alternative Approaches
to Hate Crimes

A collaborative report by:

StanfordLawSchool
Law and Policy Lab

BRENNAN

CENTER
FOR JUSTICE
IINYU ILAW

June 2021

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This publication is a joint report of the Stanford Law School Policy Lab on
Assessing Alternative Responses to Hate Crimes and the Brennan Center for
Justice. The report was co-written by the following Stanford Law students under
the supervision of Stanford Law Professor Shirin Sinnar and Brennan Center
Fellow Michael German:
Tyler Bishop ’20
Arielle Andrews ’21
Sam Becker ’22
Lauren Martin ’21
Benjy Mercer-Golden ’21
Mariel Pérez-Santiago ’20
Tiarra Rogers ’22
Kai Wiggins ’23
We would like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations for their support and
assistance on this project:
Shirin Bakhshay
Jeannine Bell
Jami Butler
Angela Chan
Beth Colgan
Proteus Fund
Luciana Herman
Stanford Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity
Stanford Clayman Institute for Gender Research
Stanford Law School Dean’s Office
Becky Monroe
Eun Sze
Participants in the “Empowering Communities in the Face of Hate Crimes” Convening at Stanford
Law School (March 6, 2020) (see Appendix)

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

ABOUT THE STANFORD LAW SCHOOL POLICY LAB
Engagement in public policy is a core mission of teaching and research at Stanford
Law School. The Law and Policy Lab (The Policy Lab) offers students an immersive
experience in finding solutions to some of the world’s most pressing issues. Directed by
former SLS Dean Paul Brest, the Policy Lab reflects the school’s belief that systematic
examination of societal problems, informed by rigorous data analysis, can generate
solutions to society’s most challenging public problems. Policy Lab students, closely
guided by seasoned faculty advisers, counsel real-world clients in an array of areas,
including environmental, trade, education, intellectual property, public enterprises
in developing countries, policing, technology, and energy policy. The Policy Lab on
Assessing Alternative Responses to Hate Crimes was taught by Professor Shirin Sinnar
in 2019-2020.

ABOUT THE ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE
AT NYU LAW SCHOOL
The Brennan Center for Justice is an independent, nonpartisan law and policy
organization that works to reform, revitalize, and when necessary, defend our country’s
systems of democracy and justice.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter I: The Hate Crime Problem....................................................................................... 6
What Is a Hate Crime?....................................................................................................... 6
The Individual and Community Harms of Hate Crimes................................................ 7
Problems with Hate Crime Data....................................................................................... 8
Chapter II: The Traditional Hate Crime Legal Model......................................................... 10
Core Features and Objectives......................................................................................... 10
Shortcomings of the Traditional Model......................................................................... 10
Chapter III: Envisioning Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes...................................... 16
Restorative Justice............................................................................................................ 16
Social Services for Targeted Communities.................................................................... 24
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 35
Appendix................................................................................................................................. 37
Endnotes.................................................................................................................................. 38

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

Executive Summary
Even before racist political rhetoric around the coronavirus triggered a wave
of hate crimes against Asian Americans, white supremacist incidents around
the country had fueled a vigorous public debate about the proper responses to
hate violence.In March 2020, Stanford Law School and the Brennan Center
for Justice at NYU Law School hosted a convening of experts in the fields
of criminal law, civil rights, community advocacy, and restorative justice to
assess the current hate crime enforcement model and explore alternative
approaches that could more effectively redress the harm resulting from hate
crimes. The Proteus Fund, the Stanford Center for Comparative Studies in Race
and Ethnicity, and the Stanford Clayman Institute for Gender Research provided
additional support for the convening.
This report, written by Stanford Law School
Policy Lab students1 under the guidance of
Professor Shirin Sinnar and Brennan Center
Fellow Michael German, assesses several
critiques of hate crimes laws articulated within
communities of color and other targeted
communities and evaluates potential alternative
approaches to responding to hate crimes. The
report draws on the March 2020 discussion,
as well as research within law, criminology,
and other fields, to inform policymakers
and community advocates seeking improved
responses to hate crimes.
A “hate crime” is a criminal offense motivated
by animus against certain actual or perceived
characteristics of a victim’s identity. Most
states and the federal government have laws
that create “stand-alone” offenses or impose
sentence enhancements for crimes with a bias
motive. Under these laws, defendants found
to have committed a crime motivated by
someone’s actual or perceived characteristics

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

A “hate crime” is a criminal offense
motivated by animus against certain
actual or perceived characteristics
of a victim’s identity. Most states and
the federal government have laws
that create “stand-alone” offenses
or impose sentence enhancements for
crimes with a bias motive.
may be subject to increased punishment. The
enactment of hate crime laws resulted from an
unlikely convergence of civil rights advocacy on
behalf of frequently targeted communities and
a more conservative victims’ rights movement,
beginning in the 1980s.2 Civil rights groups
were responding to the impunity that often
surrounded hate violence against members
of their communities, such as the murder of

| 3

Chinese American Vincent Chin by two white
men who received only probation and a $3,000
fine for the crime.3 In subsequent decades, many
civil rights groups have supported the vigorous
implementation of hate crime laws with the hope
of expressing strong societal condemnation for
hate crimes and deterring further incidents.
But in recent years, some community groups
and racial justice advocates have questioned
both whether the traditional hate crimes legal
approach relies too heavily on carceral solutions,
especially through sentence enhancements, and
whether it sufficiently responds to the unique
individual and community harms of hate crimes.
They have also emphasized the importance of
confronting state violence, not just interpersonal
violence. Calls to defund or abolish police
and prisons, which have gained steam in the
wake of George Floyd’s killing, reflect growing
skepticism in many communities of color about
the primary reliance on police, prosecution,
and imprisonment to address social problems.
Faced with heightened fear for their safety in
the wake of hate violence, but concerned about
the traditional response that links recognition
of hate crimes to increased imprisonment, many
within targeted communities are reevaluating
that approach and considering potential
alternatives. This report responds to the growing
interest among community members, civil rights
groups, and policymakers, in exploring a wider
range of responses to hate crimes.
No single report could provide a comprehensive
assessment of the existing hate crime legal
approach or its alternatives. Nor could a
report of this kind substitute for processes of
consultation and deliberation within the many
communities affected by hate crimes, which will
no doubt reflect a variety of perspectives. This
report aims to provide research to assist those
deliberations, rather than settle the difficult

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

empirical and normative questions that arise
in this context. Some important questions
are outside the scope of this examination.
The report does not address, for instance, the
potential dangers of prosecuting hate crimes
under an expanded “domestic terrorism”
statutory framework.4 It likewise does not
address the full range of social, economic, or
educational interventions possible to prevent
hate crimes. Nor does it assess mechanisms
to strengthen the reporting of hate crimes
at the federal level. These important issues
deserve additional attention. Here, the focus is
on evaluating the traditional hate crime legal
model and assessing alternative approaches
that are designed to empower individuals and
communities to counteract the injuries hate
crimes inflict.
With those limitations acknowledged, this report
suggests the following about the traditional hate
crime legal approach:
• Existing hate crime laws do not address a large
number of hate crimes because community
distrust of law enforcement prevents many
people from reporting hate crimes to law
enforcement in the first instance;
• There are substantial questions about whether
the traditional approach to hate crime is
serving its goals. Specifically, impediments
to investigating, charging, and proving hate
crimes, including apathy within some law
enforcement agencies, undermine the laws’
intended expressive function, and penalty
enhancements have an at best inconclusive
deterrent effect; and
• Increasing the enforcement of hate crimes
laws could exacerbate existing pathologies
of the carceral state, including mass
incarceration and discrimination faced by
individuals of color within the criminal
legal system.

| 4

With respect to potential alternative responses,
this report assesses: (1) restorative justice
programs that respond to hate crimes and (2)
social services programs for individuals and
communities targeted by hate crimes. These
broad categories include programs that could
replace aspects of the traditional approach and
others that could exist alongside it. The report
finds the following:
• Restorative justice programs may offer a way
to identify and mend the unique individual
and community harms caused by hate crimes,
while demanding meaningful accountability
for those who cause harm.
- A number of existing restorative justice
programs in the United States have
addressed hate crime cases within the larger
scope of their work diverting selected cases
from traditional prosecution or sentencing.
These programs vary considerably as to
their scope and eligibility requirements,
including whether they focus on juveniles or
adult defendants and whether they include
serious felonies.
- Restorative justice processes have
demonstrated promise as a way of increasing
satisfaction for those who experience harm
and in decreasing recidivism. The research
on restorative justice in the hate crimes context
is miniscule, however, so more resources
should be directed to experimentation with,
and rigorous study of, such programs.
- Potential issues that might complicate
the implementation of restorative
approaches in the hate crimes context
include concerns that victims or offenders
may feel coerced into participating, that
offender participation could be insincere
or retraumatizing for victims, or that the
scaling up of existing programs will prove
challenging. Further research is necessary

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

to determine whether program design,
including screening criteria and facilitator
training, can mitigate these concerns.
• Support for social services and grant
programs can be established, retooled, and
better staffed and funded to ensure that
individuals and communities affected by
hate crimes receive adequate, culturally
competent resources.
- Governments can invest in programs that
provide compensation, professional support,
and mental health services for survivors and
others affected by hate crimes, including
programs run by community groups serving
particular racial, religious, or LGBTQ
communities.
- Grant programs can enhance security at
frequently targeted gathering places and
institutions, if designed carefully to avoid
the unintended consequences of private and
governmental surveillance.
- To avoid reproducing or exacerbating
shortcomings of the current hate crime
approach, policymakers and others must
pay close attention to issues that frequently
arise in this space—such as program
eligibility requirements, law-enforcement
involvement, and other policy features
identified in this report.
Chapter I of this report defines and describes
the hate crime problem, including the harms
that hate crimes inflict and limitations in
existing data on hate crimes. Chapter II
examines several critiques of the traditional
hate crime legal model raised within targeted
communities. Chapter III assesses alternative
responses centered on restorative justice and
the provision of social services.

| 5

Chapter I: The Hate Crime Problem
Hate crimes encompass a wide range of criminal offenses committed by individuals
with diverse motivations and personal characteristics. The range of underlying conduct
that qualifies as hate crimes should caution against a singular policy response
that treats these crimes as all alike. At the same time, the significant harms that
hate crimes inflict on direct victims and the communities that share a victim’s identity
suggests the urgency of developing effective responses.
WHAT IS A HATE CRIME?
While the precise definition varies across
jurisdictions, a “hate crime” generally means a
criminal offense motivated by actual or perceived
characteristics of a victim’s identity. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), charged with
compiling hate crime statistics and investigating
violations of federal hate crime statutes, defines
hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person
or property motivated in whole or in part by an
offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability,
sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender
identity.”5 Most U.S. states and the District of
Columbia have hate crimes laws, though not all
extend protections to the full set of characteristics
recognized in federal law. Many states exclude
sexual orientation or gender identity from their
hate crime laws, while others include status as
a police officer within their list of protected
characteristics.6 For clarity, this report will use the
FBI’s definition of hate crime, since its protected
categories encompass traditionally persecuted and
marginalized groups, without taking a position on
the appropriateness of including other groups like
those experiencing homelessness.7
Hate crime laws apply to a vast range of offenses
and motivations. While news coverage often focuses
on spectacular acts of violence, such as mass
shootings, hate crimes more often involve property
crimes, intimidation, or simple assault.8 Less than

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

Note on Hate Crime Statistics
As discussed in more detail below, it is important
to recognize that official hate crime statistics,
which are based on data collected from the
nation’s law enforcement agencies, are notoriously
unreliable. Victims often are reluctant to report
hate crimes to law enforcement, and the vast
majority of law enforcement agencies, which
lack either the ability or the will to identify and
investigate these crimes, consistently report that
no hate crimes occur within their jurisdictions.

1% of hate crimes reported in the 2019 Uniform
Crime Reports involved a murder.9
Moreover, many incidents in which people use
racial slurs or otherwise target people because of
their identity do not constitute criminal violations,
in part because of First Amendment constraints on
the prohibition of speech that does not rise to the
level of a threat or assault.10 These acts are often
classified as hate incidents, but not hate crimes.
In addition, research suggests a greater variety of
motivations behind hate crimes than might be
assumed. Most people who commit hate crimes are
not members of organized hate groups, though
some studies have linked the presence of hate
groups in a locality with a greater incidence of hate
crimes.11 Nor do all act out of a clearly defined

| 6

belief system. One influential study creates a
typology of motivations, distinguishing, for instance,
between “thrill-motivated” offenders driven by
peer pressure and bragging rights and “missionoffenders” motivated by a supremacist belief
system.12 Another study identifies the most common
hate crimes as (1) incidents that occur during an
ongoing local conflict that has escalated over time,
such as a dispute between neighbors; (2) incidents
that form part of a targeted campaign of abuse
directed against certain individuals; or (3) incidents
that occur in public spaces committed by individuals
who somehow feel aggrieved by the victim.13
Researchers have also documented the diversity of
hate crimes offenders along demographic lines. For
instance, the data suggests that people of varying
ages commit hate crimes.14 While most people who
commit reported hate crimes are adults, many are
children.15 Some who have committed hate crimes
suffer from substance addiction or mental health
problems.16 The reported perpetrators in hate
crimes datasets also belong to a variety of racial and
ethnic groups.17
In sum, the research demonstrates that hate crimes
involve a wide range of conduct, offenders, and bias
motivations. This suggests that prioritizing one type
of response at the expense of others may not be
sufficient to address the complex and diverse nature
of the problem.

THE INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY
HARMS OF HATE CRIMES
Hate crimes inflict serious physical and
psychological injuries that not only harm direct
victims but send shockwaves through communities.
Such widespread and diverse impacts require a
holistic response.
Because hate crimes can involve many types of
criminal offenses, the direct harm on victims
varies—from intimidation and property damage to
physical injury and death.18 Beyond direct physical

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

“Hate crimes have a more
destructive impact because they
target core aspects of our identity
as human beings.”
harm to people and property, hate crimes can
have distinct, long-lasting psychological effects
on victims, leading to depression, post-traumatic
stress, anxiety, and other conditions.19 Hate crimes
appear to have a particularly acute psychological
impact. For example, studies on the effects of
hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation have
found that “hate-crime victimization appears to be
associated with greater psychological distress for gay
men and lesbians,” in addition to longer recovery
times, than other types of crime targeting the
same communities.20 The American Psychological
Association (APA) recognizes the links between
hate crime and individual victims’ self-esteem
and identity. In the aftermath of the Pittsburgh
synagogue shooting, the APA’s president noted that
“hate crimes have a more destructive impact . . .
because they target core aspects of our identity as
human beings.”21
Hate crimes can also affect members of the
victim’s community and reverberate across society.
According to the APA, hate crimes breed fear in
communities by “send[ing] messages to members
of the victim’s group that they are unwelcome
and unsafe in the community, victimizing the
entire group and decreasing feelings of safety
and security.”22 In addition, research on group
identification suggests that “perceiving prejudice”
against a group to which an individual belongs
is “psychologically painful” for individuals who
identify strongly with their group.23 Members of
the broader community to which a victim belongs
may also experience various feelings related
to the crime, including shock, anger, fear and
vulnerability, and a sense of inferiority.24 These
feelings can lead members of the community to

| 7

change their behavior, including taking steps to
make their group identity less visible25 or refraining
from federally protected activities like voting and
other types of civic engagement.26

PROBLEMS WITH HATE CRIME DATA
In recent years, from Charleston to Pittsburgh,
Charlottesville to El Paso, and communities in
between, the United States has experienced a surge
of heinous, widely publicized acts of hate violence.27
This coincides with a period of heightened division,
where public officials have advanced policies
and political rhetoric that marginalize the very
communities this violence has targeted.28 Based on
these trends, recently reported increases in hate
crimes reflected in official data are unsurprising.29
Because of systemic underreporting, however, it is
impossible to know the true nature and extent of
hate crimes in U.S. communities.30
The federal government maintains two distinct
sources of hate crime data, both of which are
managed by the U.S. Department of Justice. First,
under the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 the
FBI publishes annual statistics on hate crime data
submitted through the Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) program, which is a voluntary data collection
effort consisting of federal, state, local, tribal, and
territorial law enforcement agencies.31 The second
source of federal data on hate crimes is the Bureau
of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS). Each year, and at the direction
of BJS, the U.S. Census Bureau collects interviewbased data from a nationally representative sample
of individuals and households about the nature
and characteristics of crimes experienced during
a specific period, including whether the crime was
reported to the police and the victim’s experience
within the criminal justice system.32 Since 2003, the
NCVS has collected data on victims’ perceptions of
whether a particular crime was bias motivated.33

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

The UCR and NCVS produce widely divergent
figures on the extent of hate crime in the United
States. Between 2004 and 2015, for example, law
enforcement agencies participating in the UCR
program reported an average of 6,739 hate crimes
per year,34 while the NCVS estimated an average
of 250,000 hate crimes per year during the same
period.35 Because the NCVS does not include data
on vandalism or intimidation, which account for
about 60 percent of the hate crimes reported in
UCR statistics, the potential disparity is even more
stark than these totals suggest.36
Additional methodological distinctions between
the UCR and NCVS shed light on these divergent
figures. Most significantly, the UCR relies on reports
from law enforcement officials, while the NCVS
provides a countrywide estimate based on interviews
with a nationally representative sample of victims.
Officials reporting hate crimes through the UCR
must adhere to various procedures that, while
designed to ensure data quality, might lead to the
exclusion of certain incidents from the record.37
And in some jurisdictions, responding officers
might erroneously abstain from reporting hate
crimes that meet the federal definition but do not
match the specific offenses and protections covered
in the hate crimes laws of their respective states.38
The NCVS, which draws from victims’ perceptions
as to whether an incident was bias motivated, is not
subject to the same constraints.39
Thus, the UCR does not capture hate crimes
that are not brought to the attention of law
enforcement. That may omit a significant number
of hate crimes. According to NCVS data for 20112015, most hate crimes were not reported to
police during that period, and about a quarter of
nonreporting victims “believed that police would
not want to be bothered or to get involved, would
be inefficient or ineffective, or would cause trouble
for the victim.”40 This statistic aligns with reports
suggesting that fear or distrust of law enforcement
contributes to underreporting.41

| 8

But even when victims report hate crimes to law
enforcement, the incidents might not show up in
official data. In 2018, and in keeping with historical
trends, just over 12 percent of U.S. law enforcement
agencies “participating” in the UCR hate crime
statistics program reported at least one hate crime
within their jurisdiction.42 In other words, the vast
majority of agencies report zero incidents to the
federal government. This includes municipal police
departments representing some of the nation’s
largest cities.43
Several factors could be to blame. According
to the Brennan Center for Justice, just 13 states
have laws that require some form of training on
identifying, reporting, or responding to hate crime,
while 28 states and the District of Columbia have
laws requiring state or local agencies to collect
hate crime data.44 Researchers have found that
undercounts in UCR data appear to stem from
responding officers’ failure to recognize indicators
of hate crimes,45 while journalists and civil rights
advocates have highlighted the role of insufficient
training and procedural error in underreporting
and other data collection irregularities.46

In 2018, just over 12 percent of
U.S. law enforcement agencies
“participating” in the UCR hate
crime statistics program reported
at least one hate crime within
their jurisdiction.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

In conclusion, both the UCR and the NCVS are
subject to limitations, and neither provides a
definitive account of hate crime in the United
States. That said, an elevated rate of hate crimes
reported through the UCR, in addition to an
apparent increase of high-profile acts of hate
violence, has paralleled heightened concern about
hate crime within various impacted communities.
In 2019, for example, a coalition of advocacy
organizations published results from a poll of “800
adults, with oversamples of 200 African Americans,
200 Hispanic Americans, and 200 Arab American/
Middle Eastern Americans,” which found that 84
percent of those surveyed felt that hate incidents,
defined as criminal or noncriminal acts in whole
or in part motivated by actual or perceived race,
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity, disability, or ethnicity,
were very or somewhat prevalent in the United
States.47 The report also found that 66 percent of
those surveyed felt the problem was getting worse.48
Additionally, several groups, including South Asian
Americans Leading Together (SAALT) and the
Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish nongovernmental
organization, reported spikes in hate incidents
targeting their communities the year following the
2016 presidential election.49
Despite the limitations of existing data, it is clear
that the individual and community harms that hate
crimes inflict, the reported increase of hate crimes,
and heightened fears about the problem among
impacted communities warrant an examination of
current responses to hate crimes and an assessment
of potential alternatives.50

| 9

Chapter II: The Traditional Hate Crime
Legal Model
The traditional legal approach to hate crime enforcement, adopted by most states
and the federal government over many decades, involves either the establishment of
separate hate crime offenses for crimes of bias or sentencing enhancements where
prosecutors can show that bias motivated the commission of a traditional crime. This
Part briefly describes existing laws and their objectives before identifying and
assessing five shortcomings of the traditional model.
CORE FEATURES AND OBJECTIVES
Forty-five states and the District of Columbia
authorize law enforcement to investigate and
prosecute hate crimes.51 While the range of covered
offenses and protected characteristics in state
statutes varies by jurisdiction,52 the general model
is largely consistent. If a crime fits within a pattern
of conduct proscribed in the statute and was
directed against one of the protected characteristics
enumerated in the statute, then, depending on
the type of statute, prosecutors can either charge
a defendant with a standalone criminal offense or
seek a penalty enhancement, which authorizes the
court to increase the punishment associated with
an underlying offense.53 For the purposes of this
report, we refer to the “traditional” hate crimes
model as encompassing both the standalone and
penalty enhancement approach.
Some scholars have attributed the emergence
of hate crimes laws to the unique convergence
between civil rights advocates seeking to address
the targeting of minority groups and a more
conservative victims rights movement.54 Proponents
of hate crimes laws employed criminal law theories
of punishment to justify penalty enhancement
for individuals who commit crimes because of a
demonstrable bias motive. First, they argued that

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

people should be punished in proportion to the
harms they commit.55 Because hate crimes inflict
harms that reach beyond the immediate victim,
the punishment should be more severe. Second,
they contended that hate crime enhancements
deter would-be perpetrators from targeting others
out of bias because they do not want to face more
time in prison.56 A third—and perhaps the most
common—justification is that hate crime laws send
a message to people at large, including victims,
their communities, and would-be perpetrators, that
society does not tolerate bias-motivated crimes.57

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE
TRADITIONAL MODEL
This Part assesses how the traditional hate crimes
model fails to address the needs and concerns of
communities frequently targeted by hate crimes.
Much of the historical opposition to hate crimes
laws stemmed from a different set of critiques:
some questioned whether hate crimes actually
resulted in greater harm than other kinds of
crimes, or objected to hate crimes laws on the basis
that they criminalized ideas or speech or unfairly
created “protected classes” of people.58 This Part
focuses instead on a set of concerns voiced within
subordinated communities that neither question

| 10

the degree of harm from hate crimes nor the
urgency of a state response. For such communities,
the question is not whether hate crimes inflict
greater harms on victims and their communities,
but whether the traditional model is responsive to
those harms.

Community distrust of law enforcement
is a structural barrier to reporting hate
crimes, such that the current system does
not address a large number of hate crimes.
Many victims of hate crimes choose not to report
incidents to law enforcement. As noted above,
NCVS data suggests that over half of hate crime
victims between 2011 and 2015 did not report
incidents to police, with nearly a quarter of those
victims explaining they chose not to report because
of a belief that the “police would not want to be
bothered or to get involved, would be inefficient or
ineffective, or would cause trouble for the victim.”59
If most hate crimes victims do not go to authorities
in the first place, then the traditional legal model
does not provide a mechanism for addressing the
needs of most victims.
Many hate crimes survivors do not report due
to fear of systematic mistreatment from law
enforcement.60 Tensions between police and
marginalized communities stem from past and
present abuses that have led to death, unlawful
imprisonment, and public outcries for reform.61
While perhaps most prevalent among Black
Americans, this mistrust can be seen across a
number of marginalized communities. For example,
in a 2015 survey of 27,715 transgender people
living in the United States, the National Center
for Transgender Equality found that 57 percent of
respondents said they would feel uncomfortable
calling the police for assistance, and of those who,
in the previous year, had interacted with a law
enforcement officer who thought or knew they
were transgender, 58 percent experienced verbal
harassment, physical or sexual assault, or other
forms of police mistreatment.62

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

In addition to a distrust of law enforcement
stemming from prior experiences of mistreatment,
some victims may fear exposure and other
consequences of coming forward to police or the
public, including revictimization,63 disclosure of
sexual orientation64 or immigration status,65 other
privacy concerns,66 or fear of retaliation from those
who committed the offense.67 The legal system
also presents additional practical and procedural
barriers to reporting. At the outset, police might
paint the legal process as burdensome and time
consuming, which discourages victims from moving
forward.68 Cultural and language barriers may
impede reporting.69 And victims could be unaware
of existing hate crimes laws or enforcement
practices. They might not know what constitutes a
hate crime or understand that the crime committed
against them was bias motivated.70
The underreporting of hate crimes does not simply
affect the ability of the government or public to
obtain a comprehensive understanding of the hate
crimes problem; more fundamentally, it means that
the primary legal avenue in place for responding to
hate crimes fails to address most incidents.

Impediments to investigating, charging,
and proving hate crimes undermine the
laws’ intended expressive function.
A central justification of hate crime laws is that they
send a message that society does not tolerate attacks
motivated by bias. But challenges in investigating,
charging, and proving hate crimes undermine
this expressive function. Failures within the legal
system to investigate and adjudicate hate crimes
might communicate a quite different message: that
protecting people from hate crimes is not a priority.
As Professor Avlana Eisenberg observes, while
theorists often focus on the expressive value of
enacting a law, the law’s enforcement has “an expressive
dimension that can either further the message of a
statute’s enactment or contradict it.”71

| 11

The problem begins at the investigative phase,
where police may be ill-equipped to identify
conduct as a hate crime, preventing the crime from
being investigated as such.72 Challenges to both the
identification and investigation of hate crimes may
include inadequate training, personal opposition to
hate crimes laws, a lack of supervisory commitment,
the difficulty of identifying a bias motivation,
and political incentives to report low hate crimes
statistics in a jurisdiction.73
Even when prosecutors are alerted to the possibility
of a bias motive in a case, they face disincentives to
bringing hate crime charges. Some prosecutors see
little to gain in prosecuting a crime as a hate crime
when courts already impose such high sentences
for the underlying criminal offense.74 Prosecutors
also fear that introducing a hate crime charge
could distract a jury, increase the state’s burden of
proof, or otherwise compromise a guilty verdict.75
In other cases, prosecutors might add hate crimes
charges to increase leverage over defendants during
the plea-bargaining stage in crimes that are not
hate motivated.76 Finally, establishing evidence
to meet the high standard of proof necessary to
prove a bias motive can be challenging, particularly
in jurisdictions that require showing that the
crime would not have occurred “but for” the
victim’s identity.77
The 2015 execution-style murder of three American
Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
is a tragic example of how decisions not to bring
hate crime charges can send an expressive message
to families of the victims and their communities,
creating additional pain.78 In that incident, the
police initially cited a parking dispute as the
reason a middle-aged white man killed the three
young people.79 But the victims’ family members
repeatedly pressed for a hate crimes charge, as
the victims were visibly Muslim, the defendant
had made anti-religion social media posts and
harassed other Black and Brown neighbors, and
the parking issue appeared to be pretextual.80

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

Nonetheless, federal prosecutors did not bring hate
crime charges, pointing to the difficulty of proving
motivation, especially under the federal “but for”
causation standard.81

Multiple studies conclude that,
compared to the “certainty of
apprehension,” longer sentences
do not have a significant effect on
general deterrence.
Thus, barriers to investigating and prosecuting hate
crimes often prevent the use of hate crimes charges.
The result is that, rather than convey the particular
stigma of hate crimes, the implementation of hate
crimes laws often leads victims to perceive a lack of
governmental prioritization.

Penalty enhancement has, at best, an
inconclusive deterrent effect.
Limited research addresses the deterrent effects
of hate crimes laws or penalty enhancements in
particular, although legal scholars, nonprofits, and
government agencies have studied the relationship
between criminal sentences and deterrence in
general. Much of this more general research finds
that increasing sentence length may not, in fact,
generate the deterrence that many intuitively
believe would result.
Legal scholars typically differentiate between two
forms of deterrence from criminal sanctions:
general deterrence (the deterrent effect on the
public at large) and specific deterrence (the
deterrent effect on the individual prosecuted).82
Multiple studies conclude that, compared to the
“certainty of apprehension,” longer sentences do
not have a significant effect on general deterrence.83
This is especially true where defendants already face
lengthy punishment; the prospect of an additional

| 12

five years on top of a twenty-year sentence, for
instance, is unlikely to dissuade a person from
committing a crime.84 In addition, expectations
of deterrence often rely on a set of questionable
assumptions about human behavior, including the
assumption that people contemplating criminal
acts are aware of sentencing policies and that
they rationally calculate the consequences of
their actions.85 In the hate crimes context, one
criminologist argues that the deterrence rationale
for hate crimes enhancements lies on several
“probably faulty” assumptions: that potential
perpetrators know of hate crimes laws, that they
believe there is a reasonable chance they will
be caught, that the addition of a hate crime
enhancement will deter those who would not be
deterred by the otherwise applicable punishment,
and that the risk of offending outweighs benefits in
the mind of people contemplating an offense.86
Some proponents of traditional sentencing contend
that longer prison times may be warranted to
incapacitate the particular individuals sentenced so
that they are not able to re-enter society and commit
additional crimes, or to aid specific deterrence.87
But findings supporting specific deterrence have
been questioned for reasons including the fact that,
given heightened sentences, lower recidivism rates
may reflect offenders “aging out” of criminality
rather than deterrence or rehabilitation.88 In
addition, the experience of incarceration could
exacerbate recidivism.89 Moreover, imprisonment
creates its own costs, both in terms of financing
prisons and in the human and economic costs of
excluding individuals from society.90
While existing research casts doubt on the deterrent
effect of increased punishment, there is evidence
to suggest that increased police presence could
deter crime because it heightens the perceived
risk of apprehension.91 It is not clear how this
evidence translates to the hate crimes context,
where crimes are more rare and perhaps less
likely to be identified through standard policing
measures. Moreover, increasing police presence may

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

disproportionately affect the very individuals whom
hate crimes laws set out to protect—a point that the
next section addresses further.92

The enforcement of hate crime laws could
exacerbate discrimination within the
criminal legal system against defendants
of color.
Hate crime laws are designed in part to prevent
and punish bias-motivated violence, but that does
not mean they are immune from bias-motivated
enforcement and structural discrimination that
have created disparities in the criminal legal
system. Anti-Black hate crime consistently accounts
for about 50 percent of hate crimes motivated by
race or ethnicity and a plurality of all hate crimes
reported in the UCR each year.93 Thus, that data
suggests that hate crimes affect Black victims more
so than those of any other group. Still, hate crimes
data also represent people of color as defendants or
suspects to a surprising extent.
In 1993, when the Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of hate crime penalty
enhancements, it did so in a case involving the
doubling of the prison sentence of a young Black
man.94 In several recent cases involving low-level
offenses, state and federal authorities brought hate
crime charges against Black defendants, each of
whom suffered from mental illness.95 Apart from
these high-profile incidents, government hate crime
statistics provide some insight, with the caveat that
available data sources suffer from underreporting
and are limited to reported incidents, not
prosecutions. Several sources of hate crime offender
data show a statistical overrepresentation of Black
people. Accounting for about 13 percent of the U.S.
population,96 Black people represent 24 percent of
reported hate crime offenders in 2018 UCR data,97
and 34 percent of “violent” hate crime offenders in
2004-2015 NCVS data.98 Additionally, the New York
City Police Department reported that, in 2018, most
reported hate crime suspects and about 45 percent
of those arrested for hate crimes were Black.99

| 13

This data should be treated with caution for
several important reasons. For one, none of the
sources discussed above are based on prosecutions,
convictions, or sentencing, and so provide scant
information about how hate crime laws are
actually used.100 Moreover, the source of the
statistical overrepresentation is not clear. The
UCR in particular represents a subset of crimes
that victims choose to report to law enforcement,
that law enforcement officers categorize as hate
crimes, and that law enforcement agencies report
to the FBI. Thus, racial disparities at any of these
stages can contribute to racial disparities in the
UCR numbers.101 Both implicit and explicit racial
bias within the criminal legal system may shape
judgments with respect to identifying, investigating,
and classifying hate crimes.102 To cite a prominent
example of disparate enforcement in a different
context, white and Black people use drugs at similar
rates, but while white people are more likely to sell
drugs, Black people are significantly more likely to
be incarcerated for drug-related crimes.103
The identification of people of color as suspects
in hate crimes cases may also reflect ongoing
competition across minority groups for power or
resources in contexts of deprivation. For example,
inter-group conflicts between Black and Latinx
communities have been well-documented in Los
Angeles.104 The Los Angeles County Human Rights
Commission reported that, in 2018, as in previous
years, a majority of the county’s anti-Black hate
crimes were committed by Latinx individuals, and
vice versa.105 Hate crime scholars have described
other examples of “intercultural violence among
and between oppressed groups”106 or theorized
that minority groups may compete “for the
second-lowest rung on the social and economic
ladder.”107 The application of hate crimes charges
to individuals caught up in such conflicts does
not address the larger circumstances that pit
disempowered communities against one another.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

Whatever the source for the statistical
overrepresentation of people of color among those
classified as hate crimes suspects, the implication
is concerning. Supporters of hate crimes laws
generally advocated for them believing they would
help address bias and violence against traditionally
subordinated groups. If hate crimes laws are
being used, instead, to enhance the sentences of
defendants from subordinated communities already
subject to over-policing and mass incarceration, that
result would frustrate those objectives.

Traditional hate crimes laws focus on
prosecuting and punishing perpetrators
rather than repairing the harm to victims
or the communities that share the
victims’ identities.
Hate crimes laws are premised on the recognition
that hate crimes inflict especially serious harm on
direct victims and groups that share the victim’s
identity, including trauma.108 But these laws aim
principally to prosecute and punish perpetrators
rather than heal or support survivors. To be sure,
some survivors may view the prosecution and
punishment of those responsible as contributing
to their sense of safety, especially where other
alternatives do not exist to hold perpetrators
accountable. Given available options, some survivors
welcome incarceration or enhanced penalties as a
means to incapacitate offenders109 or send a “very
strong message of deterrence”110—some of the
traditional justifications for these laws.
But hate crimes laws do not focus on repairing
the harm to victims, in any direct fashion, and do
not respond fully to their needs. Hate crimes legal
scholar Jeannine Bell observes that, “Even when
such acts are prosecuted, civil rights law, irrespective
of the statute used, may not be a magic bullet for
victims. It does not make them whole, even when
they ‘win.’”111

| 14

Some survivors, activists, and community leaders,
especially those subscribing to an abolitionist ethic,
object to the focus on prosecution and punishment
as opposed to the direct needs of victims. For
instance, Black and Pink, an Oakland, CA-based
organization advocating for LGBTQ people, argues:
Hate crimes laws focus on punishing the
“perpetrator” and [have] no emphasis on
providing support for the survivor or families
and friends of those killed during an act of
interpersonal hate violence. …We must focus
on building our capacity to respond and
support survivors and create transformative
justice practices that can also heal the
perpetrator (though focusing first and foremost
on survivors).112
Moreover, such advocates express concern that
hate crimes prosecutions vest power in the state,
rather than in communities that bear the brunt of
the state’s criminal legal processes. Thus, Black and
Pink contends: “Hate crime law sets up the State
as protector, intending to deflect our attention
from the violence it perpetrates, deploys, and
sanctions.”113 In a similar vein, Rinku Sen, President
of the Applied Research Center, writes, “[b]y
relying on criminal justice as our only recourse,
we ask the system that puts our very humanity
in question to reverse the consequences of such
dehumanization.”114 Thus, some advocates advise
working on “breakthrough agendas that uphold
the dignity and safety of all our people, in all our
institutions”115 and building support mechanisms
for survivors separate from the state as the “pathway
to collective liberation.”116

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

CONCLUSION
The traditional hate crimes legal model often
falls short in achieving its goals of expressing
condemnation for hate crimes and deterring
future hate crimes. Significant community mistrust
of police contributes to the underreporting of
hate crimes to law enforcement, while additional
challenges limit the investigation and charging of
hate crimes that are reported. Further, while one
would assume that hate crimes enforcement would
protect people of color and other marginalized
groups—as many advocates for hate crimes laws
envisioned—hate crimes charges also penalize
members of these marginalized communities as
defendants. Community organizers also express
concern that the current approach fails to restore
or heal victims and affected communities, or shift
power back to communities rather than the state.
A variety of potential solutions could address these
critiques. Reformers concerned primarily with
the limited charging of hate crimes have focused
on building trust between communities and law
enforcement, training police on responding to
hate crimes, and establishing specialized hate
crimes units within police departments. A very
different approach would be to imagine alternative
frameworks that rely less on traditional prosecution
and punishment and more on restorative justice
and direct support for victims and communities—
the subject of the next Part.

| 15

Chapter III: Envisioning Alternative
Approaches to Hate Crimes
This Part considers two types of responses to hate crimes that rely less heavily on
law enforcement and incarceration than the traditional legal model: restorative justice
programs and the direction of support to affected victims and communities. The
particular approaches discussed under these broad categories vary in the extent to
which they replace that model or exist alongside it. Both sets of responses aim to
retain the “expressive” function of hate crimes laws in communicating society’s strong
disapproval of bias crimes. Restorative justice approaches seek to reduce the role of
incarceration as a punishment, while repairing the harm of hate crimes and holding
perpetrators accountable. Social service strategies aim primarily at redressing the harm
to hate crimes victims and affected communities.
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
“Restorative justice” has gained attention as a
possible alternative to the traditional criminal legal
process in healing the harm to crime victims while
demanding accountability from the person(s) who
caused harm. This section discusses the philosophy
and principles of restorative justice, describes
examples of restorative processes used in response
to hate crimes, and then presents a tentative
assessment of the benefits and challenges with
restorative processes used in this context.

What is Restorative Justice?
Restorative justice is an umbrella concept,
incorporating a wide range of theories, processes,
and outcomes. A prominent theorist of restorative
justice describes it as “a process to involve, to the
extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific
offense and to collectively identify and address
harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and
put things as right as possible.”117 It begins with the
premise that the individual(s) harmed by an offense
should be the focus (and a primary stakeholder in
developing a response), not just the state.

Restorative justice approaches seek to reduce the role of incarceration
as a punishment, while repairing the harm of hate crimes and holding
perpetrators accountable.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 16

It thus involves fundamentally different questions than the traditional criminal legal approach:
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF TRADITIONAL & RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Traditional

Restorative

1. What laws have been broken?

1. Who has been hurt?

2. Who did it?

2. What are their needs?

3. What do(es) the offender(s) deserve?

3. Whose obligations are these?
4. What are the causes?
5. Who has a stake in the situation?
6. What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders
in an effort to address causes and put things right?
Source: Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice (2002)

Restorative justice in the U.S. context emerged
in large part as a response to problems with the
traditional criminal legal system, such as mass
incarceration and the excessive criminalization
of communities of color and the poor, as well
as questions about the effectiveness of punitive
models in deterring crime and rehabilitating those
who commit harm.118 While restorative justice
emerged in response to modern phenomena,
the concept has a long history, and its philosophy
is rooted in the traditional justice practices of
indigenous communities.119 Today, there are over
300 restorative justice programs throughout the
U.S., operating in forty-five states.120 While it is
impossible to draw firm conclusions on the efficacy
of restorative justice, studies suggest that certain
restorative justice programs promote increased
satisfaction among victims and a greater sense
of accountability among offenders, decrease
recidivism, and reduce costs.121
While models differ, a common model of restorative
dialogue involves three phases: 1) a preparation
phase in which facilitators meet with victims,
offenders, and other possible participants to discuss
expectations and concerns, and assess readiness to

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

participate; 2) a dialogue meeting in which victims
share the impact of the crime and ask questions
of the person who harmed them, offenders have
an opportunity to express remorse, and the
participants agree on a set of reparative obligations;
and 3) a follow-up phase to support and monitor
compliance with the agreement.122 Reparative
agreements may include requirements such as
monetary restitution, community service, apologies,
the completion of an educational or counseling
program, the repair of physical damage, or other
creative interventions tailored to the nature
of the crime.123

Restorative Justice Practices in the
Hate Crimes Context
Restorative justice programs vary in their
relationship to the existing criminal legal system.124
As one scholar puts it, practices are “independent”
when they divert cases out of the traditional
criminal process at an early stage, “relatively
independent” when instituted as a part of the
criminal process (often to reduce a sentence),
and “dependent” when they exist adjacent to the
standard process (usually post-conviction).125

| 17

A CONTINUUM OF INDEPENDENCE
Diversion to
mediation/conferencing

Community
sentencing circle

Mediation during
incarceration

Time

Report

Arrest

Trial / plea

Independent of
criminal legal system

Sentencing

Relatively
independent

Sentence

Dependent

This diagram was created based on the description in Gavrielides, Contextualizing Restorative Justice for Hate Crime (2012)

The section below presents examples of restorative
justice processes in the hate crimes context based
on the independent/relatively independent/
dependent framework. The discussion focuses on
programs at the more independent end of that
continuum, rather than those that operate only
after a conviction and in addition to traditional
sentences.126 Note that, even in the more
independent examples, restorative justice practices
often take place after some involvement with the
criminal legal system, such as an arrest, and with
prosecution (and often potential imprisonment)
available as a backstop should the alternative
process fail.
INDEPENDENT PRACTICES: DIVERSIONARY
MEDIATION/CONFERENCING MODELS

Independent restorative justice practices generally
seek to divert or keep cases out of traditional
processes. Some independent practices involve
community-based programs that do not involve law
enforcement at all. For instance, many restorative
justice organizations engage in community
conferencing practices, which allow discrete groups
of people—like those from a neighborhood,

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

school, or workplace—to “conference”127 about a
conflict or crime in order to create “the potential
for constructive engagement.”128 Restorative Justice
for Oakland Youth, for example, conducts “conflict
circles” where those who were harmed by an
incident, those responsible for the harm, and other
community members can come together to address
the harm, support those responsible to change, and
respond to impact on the broader community.129
Circles and other restorative practices are also
gaining prominence in U.S. schools.130
Other independent programs divert cases that
would otherwise go through a traditional legal
process to restorative processes operated by
nonprofit organizations or separate government
bodies. A typical diversion process begins with a
referral from an agency (usually a school, police
department, probation officer, or district attorney)
to a professional restorative justice nonprofit
or community organization.131 Prosecutors may
place the case in a “holding pattern,” with charges
neither brought nor abandoned.132 In some
programs, prosecutors never even learn of the
alleged crime from the police department, which
partners directly with the program.133 To encourage

| 18

honesty and ensure confidentiality, providers
and law enforcement often agree to memoranda
of understanding (MOUs) that guarantee that
information obtained during the process will not
be used against the accused in later proceedings,
should the process fail.134 The restorative justice
facilitator then meets with each party separately
to assess whether they are ready and willing to
participate.135 If not, the case may be remanded to
court.136 Restorative justice experts have emphasized
the necessity of the process being fully voluntary.137
If the parties are deemed fit for the restorative
justice program, facilitators will then prepare
each party to participate in dialogue, often
including “homework” assignments and additional
meetings.138 The dialogue process itself initially
involves a narrative phase, where those affected by
a crime “are given the rare opportunity to express
their feelings directly to the person(s) who violated
them” and the latter are “put in the uncomfortable
position of having to face those whom they
violated.”139 After discussion and agreement on
reparative measures, the final step is the monitoring
of the parties’ relationship and the offender’s
compliance with the agreement.140 If major
problems arise, such as a breakdown in process or
a failure to come to an agreement, the case can be
remanded to a traditional criminal prosecution.141
Successful restorative justice diversion plans are
generally completed within months, after which the
referring agency is notified, usually resulting in the
case being closed without formal charges.142
Several U.S. programs have included hate crimes
among the cases they divert from prosecution:
Hate Crime Example 1: Community Works West, a
nonprofit based in Oakland, California, partners
with Alameda and San Francisco counties to
divert youth arrested for low-level felonies and
high-level misdemeanors to a restorative process,
the completion of which results in the nonfiling of charges.143 In 2012, Community Works

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

West in Oakland, CA, handled a case involving
several youths who were accused of vandalizing a
mosque and stealing the shoes of people praying
inside.144 After an intensive preparation process,
the parties conferenced, and the youth were asked
to help build the new mosque, attend services at
the mosque with their families, write an apology
letter to be read during the service, and complete
community service hours.145
Hate Crime Example 2: Common Justice, a nonprofit
organization, diverts cases from incarceration in
Brooklyn and the Bronx, including violent felonies,
after those responsible for harm participate in a
conference with survivors or “surrogates who take
their place,” complete the terms of a reparative
agreement, and conclude a 12-15 month violence
intervention program.146 One case referred to the
program involved an anti-Semitic hate crime on the
New York subway in which a young woman was badly
beaten.147 After a lengthy discussion, the woman
responsible agreed to a range of commitments,
including “work, education, apologies, reading
assignments, and community service,” as well as a
requirement that she stay off the trains for a year
and keep a daily reflection journal to understand
the trauma and insecurity that the victim
had experienced.148
Hate Crime Example 3: In 2016, the Office of
the Attorney General for Washington, D.C.,
launched the nation’s first restorative justice
program housed within a prosecutor’s office.149
The program’s restorative justice facilitators work
alongside prosecutors to develop alternatives to
pressing charges in select cases, most involving
juveniles, based on a restorative conferencing
model.150 According to the program’s founder,
Seema Gajwani, “[r]estorative conferences allow
prosecutors to better meet the needs of victims,
witness accountability in action from the person
who committed the crime, and learn about the
human realities and underlying causes of crime.”151
To prevent “net widening,” the program only

| 19

accepts cases in which prosecutors would otherwise
bring charges,152 and prosecutors who participate in
a conference are also barred from any future action
on that case.153
With the exception of “[s]ex crimes, gun offenses,
homicides, and (intimate partner) domestic
violence cases,” the Restorative Justice Program
accepts most cases, including hate crimes.154 In
2019, the program handled the case of a 16-yearold involved in the group assault of a transgender
woman.155 At one point during the conference,
the teenager asked everyone except for the
woman to leave, at which point he apologized
to her and she accepted.156 They agreed that he
would attend school more frequently and that she
would recommend possible clients for his up-andcoming barbering business.157 The case would be
dismissed when the teenager had followed through
on his agreements.158
Hate Crime Example 4: The Dane County
Community Restorative Court (CRC) in Madison,
Wisconsin melds victim-offender mediation and
peace circles.159 The CRC has entered memoranda
of understanding (MOUs) with several law
enforcement agencies in the county, which, along
with the District Attorney’s office, refer select cases
for CRC-led Restorative Justice Circles.160 While
most referred cases proceed through the CRC,
“[n]ot all offenders who are referred to the court
are accepted or agree to participate, resulting
in their cases going through the normal court
system.”161 If victims choose not to participate, or if
there is no clear victim, “a Repairing Harm circle,
made up of various members of the community as
well as two facilitators, [acts] as a ‘surrogate’ victim
to explain the impact of the offender’s crime on the
community.”162 If the victim objects to the offender’s
participation, “the CRC may refer the offender
to the District Attorney or may still pursue the
repairing harm circle.”163 The District Attorney is
the final decision-maker as to the use of traditional
criminal charges or the CRC alternative system.164

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

The CRC handled a case involving an inebriated
white man who taunted a Black man with racial slurs
while his companion attempted to attack him.165
The case would otherwise have been chargeable
with disorderly conduct and a hate crime
enhancement.166 The perpetrator apologized and
agreed to complete 40 hours of community service
at an organization serving people of color and write
five essays on his “upbringing and his relationship
with alcohol.”167

Stakeholders are offered an
opportunity to speak about the
case, including its impact on the
community, and they then attempt to
form a reparative agreement.
RELATIVELY INDEPENDENT PRACTICES

Sometimes, restorative programs supplement,
rather than replace, criminal prosecution. Such
“relatively independent programs” replace a
portion of the traditional process, usually at the
sentencing phase.
Community Sentencing Circles

Community sentencing models involve a group of
stakeholders sentencing an offender, usually after
the person pleads guilty in court.168 Stakeholders
may include the offender, victim, family members,
community leaders and members, and in some
cases, the judge, prosecutor and defense counsel.169
These stakeholders are offered an opportunity
to speak about the case, including its impact
on the community, and they then attempt to
form a reparative agreement.170 The ultimate
agreement is either presented to the judge as a
recommendation, or in cases where the judge,
district attorney, and defense attorney participate
in the circle, “the agreement becomes the
final sentence.”171 The circle members monitor

| 20

compliance with the agreement and may remand
the case to the traditional court system in case
of non-compliance.172
Alternative Sentencing

Alternative sentencing, which involves identifying
and imposing a sentence other than incarceration,
is a well-established model for many courts
seeking to decrease jail and prison populations.173
Alternative sentencing also offers an opportunity
for sentencing to be more attentive to the harms
caused to an individual and their community.
As in the restorative processes described above,
sentences imposed often involve community
service, education, or participation in rehabilitation
programs. The difference in this model is that
the sentencing follows an otherwise traditional
criminal prosecution.
Some communities affected by hate crimes have
advocated for offenders to serve their sentences
in the form of community service or education
programming, and also taken on the burden of
teaching the offender about them, their history,
or the impact of hate acts.174 For instance, in 2014,
the Sikh Coalition and the victim of an anti-Sikh
hate crime asked that the offender serve out a
72-hour community service sentence with the
group—an experience that the offender credited
with leading him to stop drinking, hold a steady
job, and spend additional volunteer hours with
the Sikh community.175
Introduced in both chambers of Congress in
2019, the Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer NO
HATE Act would authorize federal courts to
require defendants convicted under 18 U.S.C. §
249, a federal hate crimes statute, to participate
in educational programs or community service
as a condition of supervised release.176 In 2021,
Congress passed the bill as part of the Covid-19
Hate Crimes Act.177

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

ANALYSIS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN THE
HATE CRIMES CONTEXT

Many restorative justice programs are relatively new,
small in size and scope, and varied in methods and
application, which makes it difficult for researchers
to evaluate them systematically or compare them
experimentally against outcomes in the traditional
criminal justice system. Moreover, U.S. programs
typically do not focus on hate crimes, but address
hate crimes among many other types of crimes.
Despite these methodological difficulties, some
research indicates that restorative justice can be
effective. Georgetown University Professor Carrie
Menkel-Meadow identified several studies from
North America, New Zealand, Australia, and
Europe that validated claims that restorative justice
“creates greater compliance with agreements or
judgments, reduces imprisonment (and therefore
costs to the system), provides greater satisfaction for
both victims and offenders, and reduces recidivism
rates.”178 And criminologist Mark Walter’s study
of community-led mediation programs developed
specifically for hate crimes offenses in the U.K.
found that a majority of victims reported that the
process “directly improved their emotional wellbeing.”179 While the study had a small sample size, it
provides encouragement for U.S. restorative justice
practitioners considering applying these practices to
hate crimes.
One set of claims made for restorative justice
programs is that they better support victims
by allowing them to articulate the harm they
experienced, receive an acknowledgment of
that harm, and ask for commitments to repair
that harm from the person responsible. Many
victims benefit from sharing their story in an
environment that affirms the significance of the
harm.180 Further, unlike traditional prosecution,
restorative mediations also enable victims to ask
for commitments for repair that are tailored
to addressing the particular trauma or sense of
insecurity that those victims experienced.181 In

| 21

the Walters study, hate crimes victims cited feeling
empowered by playing a direct role in resolving the
conflict, supported by mediators, and comforted
by the perpetrator’s written commitment to abstain
from further hate crimes.182 In the Washington,
D.C., hate crime case described above, the
very process of meeting with restorative justice
facilitators empowered the hate crime victim to
be more open about the incident she experienced
within her own community networks, providing her
greater support.183
Of course, not all victims will feel satisfied with a
restorative justice approach. The Black victim in the
hate crime handled through the Wisconsin program
described above reported that he felt better
after going through the process, but ultimately
concluded that the men who assaulted him should
have faced more severe punishment.184

Centering the victim’s interests and
giving them full control over whether
to participate are essential elements
to restorative justice programming.
officer, often repeat it to a prosecutor, and
sometimes restate it to a grand jury before a case
even gets to trial. Crime victims often find the
experience of cross-examination during criminal
trials to be extremely painful.188 Restorative
justice processes can avoid some of these difficult
components of a traditional prosecution.

Centering the victim’s interests and giving them
full control over whether to participate are essential
elements to restorative justice programming. Some
have raised concerns that survivors participating
in mediation sessions might feel intimidated and
retraumatized by discussing the crime, particularly
if the survivor belongs to a group with traditionally
lower social status than that of the offender.185
Restorative justice programs typically address
this concern through a combination of training
mediators to support victims and screening
mechanisms to ensure that offenders will not blame
the victims or excuse their conduct. The Walters
study credited careful preparation of hate crime
victims and effective facilitation of conferences as
key to preventing revictimization.186 In the D.C.
restorative justice program, the willingness of
offenders to accept responsibility for the harm they
caused is considered one of the most important
screening criteria.187

A second set of questions regarding restorative
justice focuses on the impact on offenders. One
concern is that restorative justice is too lenient an
approach to serious crime.189 Professor Lawrence
Sherman and research fellow Heather Strang, who
studied restorative justice programs in Australia,
argued that judging whether alternative justice
measures “are ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ is not nearly as
important as whether they prevent repeat offending
better than prosecution in court.”190 An evaluation
of a Washington, D.C. restorative program for
youthful offenders found that the participating
prosecutors “believe that the program frequently
does more to hold respondents accountable than
the traditional court process by requiring them
to participate in the process, face their victims, be
a part of the outcome agreement, and complete
commitments made in that agreement.”191 While
not hate-crime specific, restorative justice programs
have shown promise in reducing recidivism rates
in multiple studies.192 In addition, proponents of
restorative responses to hate crime often believe
that the experience of meeting a victim directly
may also provide an opportunity for offenders to
confront their prejudices.193

In addition, concerns over revictimization should
be assessed in comparison to the current criminal
justice system. In the traditional model, crime
victims must tell their story to a law enforcement

Still, the idea that restorative justice is too
lenient can be more problematic in a hate crime
context, both because hate crimes are often
serious crimes and because the victims typically

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 22

represent communities frequently targeted with
discrimination and police abuse. Asking survivors
from communities that are disproportionately
punished in the current justice system to give their
attackers the benefit of a restorative process may
inadvertently send the message that society views
racist crimes against them as less serious than
other crimes for which these same communities
are disproportionately punished.194 Therefore,
the application of restorative justice to hate crime
cases would benefit from a broader commitment
to restorative justice, not limited to hate crimes,
to avoid “sending the message that those who
commit hate crimes deserve opportunities to
avoid prison that are not available to others
who commit harm.”195
As previously discussed, the traditional legislative
response to hate crime has been to increase
penalties, which some may see as an attempt to
correct the racial and ethnic disparities that exist
in the current criminal justice system. Of course,
these concerns imagine a stereotypical hate crime in
which a white racist attacks a person of color, which
is not always the case.
Another set of concerns relates to the rights
of alleged offenders. An alternative to a likely
prison sentence can be a serious inducement
for an accused person to opt into a restorative
program, but it typically requires admission of
the crime. Defendants charged with hate crimes
are often at risk of a substantial prison sentence,
and may feel coerced into confessing to crimes
they did not commit, or that they committed but
without a bias motivation.196 Legal counsel must be
available to provide appropriate guidance. There
should also be legal protections barring the use
of statements made during mediation sessions
in a later prosecution if the mediation fails and
the defendant is returned to the criminal justice
system. Defendants entering into a restorative
justice program should not be required to sacrifice
their constitutional rights. One broader concern
about restorative justice impacts on the rights of

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

the accused is that mediated settlements may result
in drastically different outcomes for people who
committed similar crimes.197 Even where offenders
voluntarily agree to accept the restorative measures,
a grave disparity in outcomes could undermine
public perceptions of equal justice.
A third set of questions on restorative justice for
hate crime relates to the impact on communities
who share a victim’s identity and on society at
large. One question is how restorative justice can
adequately address communal injuries related to
hate crime cases. If the direct victim of a hate crime
opts into a restorative justice solution but members
of the community want to see a traditional criminal
punishment, how can these communal interests
be addressed? Who decides who speaks for the
community? Several restorative justice practices
contemplate community participation in mediation
or sentencing circles. How are these participants
selected?198 These are difficult questions, so at a
minimum, restorative justice practitioners should
conduct outreach with groups representing
the affected community before reaching these
decisions, at least in cases that have attracted
significant interest beyond the immediate victims.
An important societal question relates to the
impact of restorative justice programs on general
deterrence—whether the establishment and
publicization of such programs will affect the
likelihood of other individuals committing hate
crimes. While research discussed earlier indicates
that increasing already long criminal sentences
does not improve deterrence, a crucial but
unanswered question is whether greater public
knowledge that some hate crime offenders may
avoid imprisonment altogether, as a result of
restorative justice diversions, will embolden others
to commit them. Even if individual offenders who
go through restorative justice processes experience
them as rigorous and transformative—making those
individuals less likely to reoffend—it is not clear
that the public at large, including other potential
offenders, will understand them as such. Restorative

| 23

justice programs must clearly communicate that
such programs do not allow offenders to “get off
easy,” especially when these programs are applied to
hate crimes.199

Restorative justice programs must
clearly communicate that such
programs do not allow offenders to
“get off easy,” especially when these
programs are applied to hate crimes.
Finally, the scaling up and expansion of restorative
justice programs will present questions of cost.
Restorative justice programs require a commitment
of time and resources by all participants,
particularly victims. On the other hand, it is clear
that the costs of today’s mass incarceration system
are enormous. The Bureau of Justice Statistics
calculated the cost of the criminal justice system to
be $295 billion in fiscal year 2016, which included
federal, state, and local expenditures for police
protection, prosecution, courts, public defense,
and corrections.200 The estimated economic burden
of incarceration is more than three times higher,
however. A study by Institute for Advancing Justice
Research and Innovation measured the economic
impacts on incarcerated people, their families, and
communities, which included costs for productivity
loss, visitation, evictions, divorce, adverse health
consequences, and child welfare, among other
factors, to estimate an “aggregate burden” $1.014
trillion per year. Most of these expenses fall on
innocent families and communities.201 The promise
of restorative justice in relieving some of these
economic losses must be factored into any costbenefit analysis.
PATH FORWARD

Restorative justice in the hate crime context
shows promise as a means of helping victims
heal, providing accountability for offenders, and
Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

allaying the broader impact of hate crimes on
communities—while reducing the reliance on
criminal punishment and imprisonment as a
solution. Still, difficult questions remain, and the
current application of restorative justice to hate
crimes is too limited—and too understudied—
to permit broad conclusions. Answers to these
questions will require greater experimentation
by local governments, nonprofits, and local
communities—perhaps with the support of federal
funding—as well as rigorous assessment of these
programs. The models, examples, and analysis
provided here provide a starting point for those
seeking to redress the distinct harms associated with
hate crime in a manner that addresses some of the
traditional model’s shortcomings.

SOCIAL SERVICES FOR TARGETED
COMMUNITIES
Hate crimes cause distinct harms to survivors and
their communities, which may warrant special
social services to respond to such harms. The
traditional hate crime model, as discussed in Part
II, does not focus on “making victims whole,” while
enforcement challenges undercut the intended
expressive message. This section discusses five types
of programs that may help support hate crime
survivors while expressing societal recognition
of the distinct harm of hate crimes: (1) victim
compensation programs; (2) victim advocate
programs; (3) culturally competent mental health
services; (4) security improvements for targeted
institutions; and (5) solidarity initiatives spanning
affected communities.
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VICTIM
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS

One way to support hate crime victims and
their communities would be to expand existing
compensation programs for crime victims. Every
state in the U.S. runs programs to compensate
victims of certain crimes.202 According to the U.S.
Department of Justice’s Office for Victims of Crime,
compensation “may include fees for medical
| 24

and dental care, counseling, funeral and burial
expenses, and lost wages and income.”203 Victims
can apply for compensation if their economic
loss is not already covered by their insurance or
by another government program.204 While these
programs can provide critical support for victims,
some challenges arise in the hate crime context.
Advocates must therefore explore avenues to
expand and change these programs to better serve
hate crime victims.
The Challenges of Victim Compensation Programs

Legal scholars Shirin Sinnar and Beth Colgan
have discussed several limitations of applying
victim compensation funds in the hate crime
context.205 First, eligibility requirements for
victim compensation do not cover the breadth
of hate crimes because victim compensation
programs are generally limited to violent crimes.206
Some programs explicitly cover hate crime,
but are unclear as to whether all types of hate
offenses are covered.207
Second, eligibility requirements that force victims
to cooperate with police and report crimes—often
within strict time windows—fail to recognize many
hate crime victims’ mistrust of authorities. States
generally require that a victim report a crime in
order to be eligible for compensation.208 Many
states also impose strict time limits for reporting. In
New York, victims seeking compensation have one
week from the time of the crime to report it to law
enforcement authorities.209 In Florida, victims have
just 120 hours to report.210 In addition to reporting
requirements, states generally also require victims
seeking compensation to cooperate with the
police and prosecutors.211 These requirements
fail to recognize that hate crimes are vastly
underreported in part because of the deep mistrust
of police by communities traditionally victimized
by hate crime.212
Third, compensation is usually limited to victims
and their dependents.213 This means that broader
community members affected by hate crime are

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

ineligible for compensation.214 As Part II outlines,
hate crimes not only affect direct victims, but can
also have deep psychological effects on members of
the community to which the victim belongs.
Fourth, victim compensation programs are largely
funded through state and federal fines and fees
paid by individuals convicted of crimes.215 According
to the White House Council of Economic Advisers,
such fines and fees can force “the indigent formerly
incarcerated to make difficult trade-offs between
paying court debt and other necessary purchases,”
and may also increase recidivism by compelling
individuals to return to crime to pay their debts,
among other issues.216 The increased use of fines
and fees more generally has been a response to
higher criminal justice spending in the context
of mass incarceration,217 a phenomenon that
disproportionately affects people of color.218 Victim
compensation funds thus hide a sad and alarming
irony: they aim to increase justice for victims, yet
they draw revenue from serious injustices against
the poor and individuals of color.
Expanding Victim Compensation to Address
Hate Crime Victims’ Needs

Several changes to victim compensation programs
would make these programs more just and better
suited to the needs of hate crime victims. First, states
should explicitly add hate crimes to the categories
of offenses eligible for compensation. For instance,
New York makes eligible victims of “hate crime
charges who have not been physically injured.”219
This serves an expressive function regarding the
significance of hate crime and acknowledges the
psychological harms that hate crime victims endure.
States should also explicitly compensate property
crimes in the hate crime context.
Second, states should also ease restrictions on
reporting crimes and on cooperating with police.
At a minimum, states should eliminate strict
time limits, thus allowing time for reticent and
traumatized victims to report a crime. Ohio, for
example, recently removed the 72-hour time

| 25

limitation from its reporting requirement.220
Beyond eliminating time limits, compensation
programs should also consider alternatives to
police reporting requirements. For example, state
compensation programs could fund community
programs to collect data about hate crime and to
provide victim compensation to individuals directly.
In the aftermath of a deadly hate attack in Portland,
Oregon, the city announced a $350,000 grant for
community groups “to act as a point of contact for
those who have experienced hate crimes, to train
individuals or groups [on] how to resist hate crime,
or to gather, analyze and publicize data about such
crimes.”221 With the city’s support and engagement,
community groups created Portland United Against
Hate (PUAH), which includes a communityrun reporting system for hate crimes.222 Victim
compensation programs can fund such initiatives
both to collect data on hate crime and to provide
compensation to individuals reluctant to report
through law enforcement channels.223

Thus, state victim compensation programs can
better address the harm from hate crime by adding
hate crimes to categories of offenses eligible for
compensation, broadening the definition of eligible
victims, removing requirements that victims report
offenses to law enforcement, and ensuring that
funding for such programs does not rely on unjust
fines and fees levied on convicted individuals.

Third, states should consider expanding eligibility
for compensation beyond immediate victims and
their dependents, to provide support for others who
share a victim’s identity who can demonstrate an
impact from the hate crime.

Victim advocate programs offer various
types of resources and assistance, such as
providing emotional support, helping with
victim compensation applications, and sharing
information about a victim’s legal rights and
options within the criminal legal system.226 There
are generally three ways that victim advocate
services are offered. First, many states and local
governments make advocates available through
police departments or prosecutors’ offices.227
Second, some governments provide these services
through independent government agencies.228 And
finally, national and local nonprofit community
organizations also provide advocate services to
individuals who are harmed by crime.229

Finally, states should decrease reliance on fines and
fees as revenue for victim compensation programs
and undo the disproportionate impact on the poor
and communities of color. States could work with
non-profit organizations to find alternatives to
traditional fines and fees. In New York, for example,
the Fines and Fees Justice Center has advocated to
end tax caps that increase reliance on fines and fees
and to encourage the use of means-adjusted fines.224
The American Bar Association (ABA) has also
developed a set of guidelines to ensure “that fines
and fees are fairly imposed and administered and
that the justice system does not punish people for
the ‘crime’ of being poor.”225

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

VICTIM ADVOCATE PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT
HATE CRIME SURVIVORS

Victim advocates can help hate crime survivors
heal in the aftermath of incidents, addressing a
shortcoming with the traditional hate crime legal
model, which focuses on punishing the offender
rather than helping targets overcome the harm they
experienced. In addition, for survivors who pursue
a criminal legal process, the support of victim
advocates can help them navigate that process,
including the challenges that often prevent the
successful identification and prosecution of a crime
as a hate crime.

Victim advocate programs within community
organizations may offer some distinct advantages
over programs located within law enforcement
or other government offices. First, community
organizations are positioned to develop expertise

| 26

and sensitivity in working with their respective
constituencies. Dozens of community organizations
provide victim advocate services to victims of bias- or
hate-motivated crime.230 Most of these organizations
serve survivors based on shared identities, which
fosters greater trust and comfort among survivors.
By contrast, few government offices appear to
distinguish between general victim advocate services
and services specific to survivors of hate crime,
although some do exist. Chicago, for example,
provides support specific to hate crime through its
Commission on Human Relations, which makes
available staff and volunteers to “accompany
victims to court hearings, visit hate crime victims,
and provide referrals for support services.”231 A
2003 analysis by the Urban Institute noted that
one approach to better serve “underserved” victim
groups—including hate crime victims—would be
to “develop victim service programs within other
types of organizations that currently work with
underserved populations.”232
Second, given that many survivors of hate crimes are
hesitant to work with law enforcement, community
organizations may be able to offer a welcoming
environment to a wider array of survivors.233 Local
community organizations are also able to support
those who suffer from hate incidents that do not
constitute crimes, such as hate speech that does not
rise to the level of a criminal threat or assault. As
one victim advocate organization in San Francisco
notes, survivors of such non-criminal hate incidents
“may not receive much affirmation of their
experience from the wider community. This lack
of affirmation or acknowledgment may increase
isolation, lower self-esteem, and can leave someone
vulnerable to further violence.”234
Moreover, the 2003 Urban Institute report suggests
that the isolation of victim advocates in government
offices may diminish their effectiveness. That is,
victim advocates in law enforcement or prosecutors’
offices often “work alone and are the only person
in the office focused on the victim.”235 Some offices
even use their victim-assistance staff members

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

for “clerical functions rather than true victims
services.”236 Moreover, government offices providing
support to crime survivors have historically failed
to be adequately sensitive to the particularized
needs of survivors—often due to cultural barriers
or outright bias.237 Relatedly, advocates within
nonprofits may be better able to protect the
confidentiality of information shared by survivors,
as compared to government advocates. Indeed, the
Urban Institute report notes that “collaboration
between public-based advocates and non-profit
advocates is difficult because public-based advocates
may not be able to protect the confidentiality of the
victim’s disclosures.”238
That said, local community organizations are also
limited in some substantial ways. Similar to victim
compensation programs, the source of funding
for these programs can present difficult questions.
Some nonprofit organizations that provide victim
advocate services to hate crime survivors receive
funding from the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)
Victim Assistance Formula Grant Program, which
comes with restrictions.239 And grants supporting
victim advocate programs may come from the
Crime Victims’ Fund (CVF), which draws on fines
and fees assessed against convicted individuals.240
On top of the specific concern around criminal
fines and fees as a funding source, victim advocate
programs struggle to receive adequate support in
general. The Urban Institute report identified the
dependence of community organizations on interns
to meet staffing needs and the limited number
of staff fluent in foreign languages as specific
concerns.241 Funding restrictions also prevent
groups from successfully reaching survivors.242
In addition, organizations serving particular
racial, religious, or LGBTQ communities may be
established in larger cities, but in smaller cities or
rural communities, such groups may not exist at all.
Thus, victim advocacy in the hate crime context
would benefit from greater public funding of
community organizations to provide sensitive and

| 27

identity-specific support. Increased advocacy around
divesting from police may provide an opportunity
to direct funds to community groups. Policymakers
should also ensure that cooperation with law
enforcement or prosecution does not serve as a
barrier to victim advocacy services, that advocates
are trained to handle cases with sensitivity to the
particular needs and cultural contexts of victims,
and that availability of funding does not depend on
the collection of fines, fees, or other costs assessed
by the criminal legal system without a meaningful
determination of ability to pay.243

Barriers to accessing mental health
care for racial and ethnic minorities
include lack of insurance, language
issues, unavailability of culturally
competent mental health care
providers, and other issues.
CULTURALLY COMPETENT MENTAL HEALTH
SUPPORT

Culturally sensitive and tailored mental health care
is essential to adequately respond to the harms of
hate crime and to address the particular health
needs of hate crime victims and affected community
members. As Part I explains, hate crimes frequently
inflict psychological harm on both direct victims
and community members who identify with the
victim. According to a 2019 report, hate crime
victims may suffer from post-traumatic stress, a
diminished “sense of belonging,” and a lack of
“trust in relationships and social institutions.”244
Community members also experience psychological
harm if they “perceive prejudice” against a
member of their group, particularly depending
on how strongly they identify with the shared
group identity.245 Compounding the psychological

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

consequences of hate crime, minority groups
traditionally victimized by hate crime already face
particular challenges in terms of mental health.246
Both racial minorities and LGBTQ people face
serious barriers to receiving care. Barriers to
accessing mental health care for racial and ethnic
minorities include lack of insurance, language
issues, unavailability of culturally competent mental
health care providers, and other issues.247 The
American Psychiatric Association underscores the
problems that lack of culturally competent mental
health care can cause, including underdiagnosis
and misdiagnosis of conditions in racial and
ethnic minority groups.248 Many members of the
LGBTQ community have also faced stigma when
seeking care, leading them to postpone or abandon
care altogether.249
The psychological challenges already facing
the populations affected by hate crime and the
barriers to care underscore the need for culturally
competent mental health care in the hate crime
context. The Council of National Psychological
Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic
Minority Interests highlights the characteristics
of a culturally informed mental health practice:
professionals’ awareness of their own bias, their
knowledge of clients’ differing worldviews,
and their flexibility in incorporating culturally
informed therapeutic practices and approaches
in their treatment.250 Mental health scholars also
outline the importance of “structural competency”
to addressing discrimination and hate crime
in mental health treatment.251 This approach
involves not only creating a safe environment for
individual clients and ensuring that care does
not re-traumatize patients, but also fostering
partnerships with community organizations to refer
patients for legal or other services and encouraging
broader community actions to combat hate
or discrimination.252

| 28

Many organizations are working to increase access
to culturally competent mental health care for hate
crime victims. For example, some organizations are
offering trainings for mental health professionals
on caring for victims of hate crime and hate
incidents. Portland United Against Hate (PUAH)
trains mental health providers on how to address
clients’ experiences of hate, “[i]ncorporate a
multicultural and social justice orientation to the
work,” and “[a]dapt trauma-informed care within
the context of hate incidents.”253 These trainings
were developed in conjunction with a university
and include a 54-page guide for mental health
professionals on how to respond to hate.254 PUAH
also offers a shorter training for community
members seeking guidance on how to respond to
hate incidents through a trauma-informed lens.255
In 2019, 89 community leaders, mental health
professionals, and others attending these trainings,
with over 80% of attendees rating the trainings as
“excellent” or “very good” and over 80% expressing
interest in follow-up programming.256
Other organizations are modeling culturally
competent mental health care through peerled programs catering to specific communities.
Community United Against Violence (CUAV), a San
Francisco organization dedicated to supporting and
empowering LGBTQ individuals,257 provides peer
counseling for members of the LGBTQ community
experiencing violence, whether in the form of
domestic violence, hate violence, or state violence.258
CUAV also provides group programs specifically for
survivors of anti-LGBTQ hate violence, including
a 10-week workshop “using creativity as a tool for
both healing and celebrating [participants’] unique
identities.”259 The Bay Area Khalil Center, which
combines “the application of traditional Islamic
spiritual healing methods [with] modern clinical
psychology,”260 offers therapy sessions with Muslim
practitioners familiar with religious concepts or
contexts relevant to their clients.261 Therapists with
a shared identity and understanding of their clients’
realities may be better equipped to address the
needs of some clients.262
Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

Other organizations are working to support not
only individuals directly affected by hate crime,
but also community members.263 For example, the
YWCA of Kalamazoo—an organization dedicated to
“eliminating racism and empowering women”264—
offers both individual and group therapy to
support “anyone who has directly or indirectly been
impacted by a hate crime.”265 Other organizations
have worked in more creative ways to address the
collective fear and distress that hate crimes breed.
The Maryland chapter of the Council on AmericanIslamic Relations, for example, co-sponsored a selfdefense workshop for Muslim women and girls in
response to a “post-election spike in hate incidents
targeting Muslim women.”266 The workshop aimed
to ease the feelings of fear and anxiety that hate
incidents cause in the broader community.267
Confidential telephone support may be another
way to support victims of hate crime who are wary
of seeking in-person care or those who live in
geographical areas where culturally competent
mental health services do not exist. Hesitation
to seek care is an ongoing barrier for hate crime
victims, many of whom face the social and cultural
stigma of mental health conditions.268 Even for
those who desire in-person mental health care,
culturally competent services may be too distant
or too expensive. Becky Monroe described how
the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights’ Stop
Hate project tried to secure an African American
therapist for an African American woman in
Mississippi in need of assistance, but could
locate no one affordable within four hours of
her home—suggesting the potential value of a
telemedicine alternative.269
An example in the sexual assault context could
serve as a model for establishing a hate crime
hotline. The National Sexual Assault Telephone
Hotline provides survivors of sexual assault with
confidential support from a trained staff member,
including referrals for mental health support.270
Calls are routed to different affiliates depending on
the caller’s location; the affiliates “are organizations
| 29

or agencies dedicated to supporting survivors of
sexual assault.”271 If a single nationwide hotline
would not be feasible in the hate crime context,
given the multiplicity of cultural competencies
service providers would need to address hate crime
victims, national hotlines run by organizations
serving particular populations—such as LGBTQ
or Latinx people—might provide more tailored
support. Such telephonic support could reach
individuals hesitant to seek in-person support as
well as those in areas where in-person support
is not available.
Mental health practitioners, non-profit
organizations, and local and state governments
all have a role in ensuring the mental welfare of
both direct and indirect hate crime victims. By
practicing cultural competence, mental health
professionals can better support hate crime victims
and avoid misdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of
conditions. Practitioners can also partner with
local advocacy organizations to better address the
structural discrimination and obstacles their clients
face. Organizations can support hate crime victims
through training programs for mental health
professionals and programs to provide culturally
competent mental health care for both hate crime
victims and members of the broader community
suffering the effects of hate crime. Local and
state governments can support victims by funding
such initiatives.
SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AND RESOURCES FOR
TARGETED INSTITUTIONS

The federal government and several states have
responded to hate violence by allocating public
funds to enhance the security of frequently targeted

establishments. Many high-profile hate crimes in
recent years have occurred in places of worship.272
Mosques and Jewish institutions, for example, have
been frequent targets of bias-motivated violence.273
A new California law aims to “improve the physical
security of nonprofit organizations, including
schools, clinics, community centers, churches,
synagogues, mosques, temples, and similar locations
that are at a high risk for violent attacks or hate
crimes due to ideology, beliefs, or mission.”274 Other
states have used similar language in establishing
their programs.275 These programs seek to prevent
hate crimes, allay community anxieties, and express
public condemnation of bias-motivated violence.
At the federal level, the Department of Homeland
Security’s Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) operates the Nonprofits Security
Grant Program (NSGP), which funds security
enhancements at nonprofits that are “at high risk
of a terrorist attack.”276 While this program is not
explicitly tied to hate crime, there is substantial
overlap in the organizations that would qualify.277
In 2020, the program was slated to provide up to
$90 million in grants to eligible organizations—$50
million for nonprofits in urban areas and $40
million for organizations outside of urban areas.278
Organizations apply through state agencies that
administer the NSGP grant program, which are also
responsible for informing eligible nonprofits of the
availability of the funds.279
In addition to California, at least four other states
have established security grant programs for
organizations that are targeted by hate crime.280
Each of these states ties eligibility for funding to the
likelihood that the organization could be targeted

By practicing cultural competence, mental health professionals can better
support hate crime victims and avoid misdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of
conditions. Practitioners can also partner with local advocacy organizations to
better address the structural discrimination and obstacles their clients face.
Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 30

for hate crime and requires that the organization
make some showing of how or why they are at risk.
New York, for example, requests a “vulnerability
assessment.”281 State grant programs determine
eligibility based on the protected categories in
the state’s hate crime legislation282 or federally
protected categories.283
Most programs, including the federal NSGP
program, do not require recipient organizations to
spend their own money in implementing security
enhancements funded by the grants, but some
programs have a cost-sharing requirement.284
Programs generally allow for grant funds to go
toward technology, equipment, personnel, and
other resources to further safeguard the recipient
from acts of violence. Some states administer
these programs through the same office that
administers NSGP funding—an arrangement that
takes advantage of the fact that every state already
has an agency designated to administer federal
NSGP funding.285 Some states, however, choose to
administer the programs separately.286
Benefits of Security Improvement Grant Programs

By alleviating anxieties and fears about violence,
security enhancements for frequently targeted
institutions directly address the community harm
caused by hate crime. Broad community coalitions
have supported legislation establishing security
grant programs.287
While there appears to be little empirical research
on the effectiveness of security enhancements for
hate crime in particular, general studies of the
effects of private security personnel and surveillance
technology on crime rates are mixed.288 Community
leaders have indicated that security improvements
create peace of mind for community members in
the wake of hate incidents, however. Cindy Watson,
the executive director of the Jacksonville Area
Sexual Minority Youth Network, after announcing
bolstered security measures at the organization’s
youth center following the Pulse Nightclub
massacre, said, “What I want to do is encourage

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

people to have courage, to have a strong heart and
to not be controlled by fear because the purpose of
a hate crime is to incite fear in the hearts and minds
of a large community.”289
In addition, by channeling public resources to
affected institutions, these programs also emphasize
the collective responsibility for hate crimes in
society. Following Massachusetts Governor Charlie
Baker’s signing of a state budget that included $1.5
million for nonprofit security grants, one Jewish
community leader made the case that the budget
sent a powerful message “that government has
the back of communities, communities of faith,
communities of minorities, communities under
attack, communities that are being persecuted.
…”290 Security enhancement programs thus may
also serve the “messaging” function of current hate
crime legislation.
Challenges and Limitations of Security Improvement
Grant Programs

If security enhancements are not carefully
implemented, however, such programs risk
exacerbating existing tensions and anxieties.
Many security improvements involve collaborating
with law enforcement and other state and local
government agencies. In fact, Maryland’s Protecting
Against Hate Crimes program requires applicants
to “describe how they will work collaboratively with
Federal and State agencies and/or local partners as
needed.”291 Moreover, when grants are used to hire
off-duty police officers to act as guards at religious
institutions, the increased police presence can lead
to greater surveillance of people of color. Some
members of the Jewish community, for instance,
have expressed concern that increased police
patrols of synagogues in the wake of anti-Semitic
attacks would exacerbate the “specific dangers faced
by black people, who are viewed with suspicion
and treated as potential criminals by the police.
Increased security also fails to consider black Jews,
who have been regarded as impostors, or potential
criminals, who are not really Jewish and who do not
belong in a synagogue.”292

| 31

Concerns about the uses of security grants arise in
other contexts as well. For instance, most programs
permit security grants to be used to install video
cameras and other surveillance technology. But
these technologies raise serious red flags for some
minority communities. For instance, in 2016, San
Diego installed 14,000 LED “smart” streetlights
throughout the city equipped with cameras, mics,
and sensors to collect data for city planning and
traffic control and to provide the San Diego Police
Department with raw video footage and other
data.293 An analysis of the program found that
“[m]any of the Mosques in the city of San Diego are
under direct surveillance from these streetlights”
and expressed concern that, given the involvement
of Joint Terrorism Task Forces in the city, federal
agencies could monitor the cameras, see who was
entering and exiting mosques, and even pick up
conversations among attendees.294 Given these
issues, an Anti-Surveillance Coalition of civil rights
and community leaders called on government
officials to stop using smart streetlights until
policy decisions involved the public and addressed
these concerns.295
Justice Department and DHS violence prevention
grant programs can also increase law enforcement
surveillance of vulnerable communities more
surreptitiously, triggering distrust. The Obama
administration’s Countering Violent Extremism
(CVE) grant program was an anti-terrorism
program that targeted predominantly American
Muslim communities. It provided teachers, public
health officials, social workers, and community
leaders with training to identify potentially
“radicalized” individuals based on dubious
indicators that treated common religious practices
and the expression of political grievances as
warning signs to be reported to law enforcement.296
Some CVE grant recipients ultimately refused
the funds in the face of community opposition
to these programs. The Trump administration
expanded CVE grant programs to cover a wider
range of violent activity, renaming them Targeted

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP)
grants. According to the Privacy Impact Statement
for the TVTP grant program, the DHS Office of
Intelligence and Analysis is explicitly authorized
to conduct security investigations of TVTP grant
applicants, their organizations, boards of directors,
members, and anyone who publicly associates with
them.297 DHS claims that the authority to conduct
such investigations is based on implied consent, but
not all of those subjected to these security measures
may be aware a TVTP application had been
submitted. Dozens of civil rights and community
organizations appealed to DHS to end the TVTP
grant program.298
Given these concerns with the implementation
of security measures, participation in the grant
program should not require increased presence
of law enforcement officers or the installation of
surveillance technology.299 Some communities
have developed resources to help make difficult
decisions regarding protecting institutions without
exacerbating the risks of surveillance. For example,
the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ manual
on “Best Practices for Mosque and Community
Safety” provides several recommendations for
community leaders working to safeguard Islamic
institutions against bias-motivated violence and
vandalism.300 In addition to addressing their
own communities’ concerns, institutions should
collaborate across racial, religious, and other lines
to ensure that one institution’s attempt to bolster
security does not inadvertently heighten insecurity
for subsets of its own membership or others who live
in the same neighborhoods.
An additional concern is that current eligibility
requirements for security grants may disqualify
highly targeted communities under models that rely
on state statutory hate crime definitions. Funding
eligibility in most existing security grant programs
is tied to an institution’s risk of falling victim to
hate crime.301 That stipulation requires that the
institution serve people who are covered by current

| 32

hate crime legislation. This requirement does not
pose a problem for jurisdictions with robust hate
crime coverage, but jurisdictions with limited hate
crime definitions may leave out certain at-risk
groups, especially LGBTQ communities, whose
institutions and social spaces are frequent targets.
One option, even for states with inclusive hate
crime laws, is to require applicants to show a risk
of bias-motivated violence without the wholesale
exclusion of groups that are not included in hate
crime legislation.302

they received across communities contributed to
people feeling safe again.303 After recent anti-Asian
attacks on elderly people in San Francisco and
Oakland, community groups initiated interracial
solidarity peace rallies, strolls through Chinatown
to make Asian community members feel safe,
bystander intervention trainings and cross-racial
fundraising campaigns to support Asian American
organizations.304

Institutional security improvement grant programs
enjoy wide support from affected communities
and have the potential to serve some important
objectives—in particular, mitigating community
harms and risks. However, the effectiveness of
these programs in serving these purposes in the
hate crime context has not been subjected to any
substantial study. Communities establishing such
programs should take particular care not to require
collaboration with law enforcement agencies as a
condition of such grants, avoid security measures
that heighten suspicion of marginalized people, and
establish inclusive eligibility requirements that don’t
leave out targeted groups.

As discussed, many hate crime victims are reluctant
to report these incidents to police, so organizations
have developed to assist survivors outside, or
parallel to, the criminal justice system. The New
York City Anti Violence Program was established in
1980 to address a growing number of hate crimes
targeting the LGBTQ community. NYC AVP started
as a confidential emergency hotline for LGBTQ
victims of violence and harassment. It has expanded
over the years to provide free counseling, legal
services, and advocacy to LGBTQ and HIV-affected
survivors of any type of violence, whether from
hate incidents, domestic violence, sexual violence,
or police violence.305 From July 1, 2017 to June 30,
2018, NYC AVP received over 3,100 hotline calls
and provided services to 1,333 clients impacted by
violence.306 By comparison, the New York Police
Department, which has a dedicated hate crimes
unit, reported a total of 310 hate crimes over
the same period, 67 of which targeted LGBTQ
victims.307 While this is not a perfect comparison
because NYC AVP responds to multiple forms of
violence, the volume of calls evidences the need for
a non-law enforcement reporting mechanism in the
LGBTQ community.

COMMUNITY SOLIDARITY INITIATIVES

Given concern that law enforcement responses
to hate violence often fail to address, or even
exacerbate, the problem, targeted communities
have organized to find alternative mechanisms
to address the unmet needs of survivors and
build collective resilience. Community solidarity
actions have taken different forms in the hate
crime context, such as providing survivors a nonlaw enforcement mechanism to seek assistance,
collecting data about the scope of hate violence,
expressing community outrage at the crimes and
advocating in support of impacted individuals
and communities. Following the mass shooting
at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue, Jewish
community leaders noted that the united support

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

Establishing Non-Law Enforcement Hate Crime
Reporting Mechanisms

In addition to directly assisting hate crime survivors,
non-law enforcement reporting mechanisms
provide community organizations with a data source
to measure the scope of the problem, both to raise
public awareness and to assist advocacy efforts in
support of victim communities. As anti-Asian hate

| 33

crimes increased during the Covid-19 pandemic,
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law
Caucus, an organization formed in 1972 to address
police harassment of Asian American youth in San
Francisco, California, established its own hate crime
tracker to measure the impact of these crimes.308
The AAAJ-ALC hate tracker webpage includes
anonymized survivor stories that humanize the data
into lived experiences, which is a powerful way to
build empathy and spread awareness regarding
the trauma resulting from racial harassment
and violence. At a national level, the Stop AAPI
Hate initiative was launched in March 2020 to
report on anti-Asian hate incidents, identifying
more than 6,000 incidents in its first year.309
Building Cross-Community Alliances in Response to Hate Crimes

Since hate crimes are often intended to inflict a
communal injury, community building practices can
be an effective way to restore social cohesion in the
aftermath of bias-motivated violence. In addition
to establishing a hate crime tracker, AAAJ-ALC
also partnered with Communities Against Hate, a
consortium of more than 35 civil rights and social
justice organizations across the nation led by the
Leadership Conference Education Fund and the
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
to act as a force multiplier in collecting data across
communities, directing survivors to services, and
raising public awareness to the national scope and
impact of hate violence.310
Local coalition building is also underway. In
New York City, NYC AVP joined with eight other
community-based organizations at a 2019 rally to
urge the City Council to support the Hate Violence
Prevention Initiative, a grassroots effort to reduce
hate violence through community-led programs.
The rally organizers noted that the traditional
law enforcement response to hate violence does
not prevent these crimes, nor “educate and heal
communities.” The Hate Violence Prevention
Initiative proposed to establish community-based,
culturally competent hate violence reporting
mechanisms; community-led transformative justice

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

processes to hold accountable those that do
harm and provide peer support and counseling
to survivors; bystander trainings to empower
community members to respond to hate violence
and support survivors; and rapid incident response
to provide support and education to impacted
communities.311 The City Council funded $1 million
to support the initiative, and later that year Mayor
Bill de Blasio established the Office of Hate Crime
Prevention to work with communities to address the
roots of hate violence.312
Community-led efforts in the aftermath of hate
violence can serve the expressive function that hate
crime laws were intended to achieve. Regardless of
the law enforcement response to highly publicized
incidents of hate violence, community-led efforts
also allow the public to express condemnation
of the crime and solidarity with the impacted
individuals and communities. After a series of
deadly anti-Semitic attacks in New Jersey and
New York, tens of thousands of people marched
from Manhattan to Brooklyn in support of the
Jewish community.313
Building community solidarity is an important
avenue for elevating public awareness of hate crime
issues and creating healing opportunities for victims
and communities. Government support for these
community-led initiatives may be a more effective
way to respond to hate violence than re-investments
in law enforcement efforts that often create more
division than unity. Where hate crimes are intended
to isolate and alienate targeted communities,
programs designed to build social cohesion may
provide a more effective response.

| 34

Conclusion
Over the last several decades, the U.S. Congress and most state legislatures have
responded to public concerns about bigoted violence targeting minority communities
by enacting hate crime laws that increased criminal penalties for a wide array of biasmotivated crimes. Many of these laws have been on the books for decades, but only
a small percentage of law enforcement agencies acknowledge that hate crimes occur
within their jurisdictions, and they report just a fraction of the bias crimes consistently
documented in crime victim surveys. The persistent lack of enforcement of hate crime
laws undermines the expressive purpose in passing them.
The primary impediments to a more effective law
enforcement approach to hate crimes—including
the distrust of police in many of the impacted
communities and the reluctance of many in law
enforcement to acknowledge these crimes in
federal reporting—are unlikely to be resolved
over the short term. As a result of these and other
concerns, affected communities are seeking more
effective responses to hate crimes. Some have
begun experimenting with alternative approaches
better designed to redress the harms inflicted
by these crimes and empower resilience within
targeted communities. This report examined these
alternative approaches, documented the available
evidence supporting them, and raised potential
issues of concern. The purpose was not to advocate
for or against any particular model or methodology,
but rather to provide communities seeking to
implement alternative responses to hate crimes
with information they can use to design effective
programs and avoid potential pitfalls.
The alternative models studied fall into two
categories: restorative justice programs and social
service programs designed to assist impacted
communities. These models can be implemented
separately or together and can operate either
as an alternative to prosecution in the criminal

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

justice system or as a parallel process designed
to address unmet needs of impacted persons
and communities.
Restorative justice programs are designed to identify
and repair the individual and community harms
caused by hate crimes, while demanding meaningful
accountability for those who cause harm. Existing
restorative justice programs have shown promise in
providing more satisfying outcomes for impacted
persons and decreasing recidivism among
offenders, but the existing research examining
the effectiveness of such programs in the hate crimes
context evaluated programs outside the U.S. One of
the primary concerns with implementing restorative
justice programs, particularly when conducted in
lieu of prosecution, is ensuring that participation
by both victims and offenders is sincere and
uncoerced.
Directing social services to individuals and
communities impacted by hate violence is another
method of restoring a sense of security, support,
and well-being. Governments, individuals, and
communities can invest in programs that provide
compensation, professional support, and mental
health services for survivors and others affected by
hate crimes, including programs run by community

| 35

groups serving particular racial, religious, or
LGBTQ communities. Grant programs can also
enhance security at frequently targeted gathering
places and institutions, if designed carefully to avoid
the unintended consequences of government or
private surveillance. Building stronger, inclusive,
and caring communities can be a bulwark against
hate violence.
Finally, this report demonstrates the need for
greater investments in alternatives to the traditional
law enforcement approach to hate crimes, to
allow communities to experiment with these and
other methodologies that might more effectively
mitigate the harms they inflict. These programs
should be subjected to rigorous study, to ensure
they are implemented with the necessary attention
to the constitutional rights of accused parties and
the safety and well-being of impacted individuals
and communities.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 36

Appendix
The following individuals graciously participated in the March 6, 2020 Convening
at Stanford Law School on “Empowering Communities in the Face of Hate Crimes.”
The convening was hosted by Professor Shirin Sinnar, Brennan Center Fellow Mike
German, and a team of Stanford Law students.
This report benefited greatly from the insight of participants, but represents the views of its authors alone.
1.

Arusha Gordon, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Stop Hate Project

2.

Jeannine Bell, Professor of Law, Indiana Maurer School of Law

3.

Mark Walters, Professor of Criminal Law & Criminology, University of Sussex

4.

A.C. Thompson, Investigative Journalist, ProPublica

5.

Shannon al-Wakeel, Co-Founder, Muslim Justice League

6.

Zakir Khan, Board Chair, CAIR-Oregon

7.

Teiahsha Bankhead, Executive Director, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth

8.

Becky Monroe, Director, Divided Communities Project

9.

Angela Chan, Criminal Justice Reform Program, Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus

10. Arjun Sethi, Georgetown Law, Activist, Author of American Hate
11. Ron Tyler, Director, Criminal Defense Clinic, Stanford Law School
12. Suzanne Luban, Clinical Supervising Attorney, Criminal Defense Clinic, Stanford Law School
13. Audacia Ray, Director of Community Organizing and Public Advocacy, NYC Anti-Violence Project
14. Rachel Deblinger, Co-Director of the Digital Jewish Studies Initiative at UC Santa Cruz
15. Rabia Belt, Associate Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
16. Eesha Ramanujam, Senior Campaign Researcher, Color of Change
17. Lauren Brown, Program Support Specialist, Community Works West
18. Daria Vaisman, Program Director, NYC Office of Hate Crimes Prevention

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 37

ENDNOTES
1

The Stanford Law School students enrolled in the Policy Lab were Arielle Andrews, Sam Becker, Tyler Bishop, Lauren Martin, Benjy MercerGolden, Mariel Pérez-Santiago, and Tiarra Rogers. In addition, Kai Wiggins provided invaluable assistance as a research assistant to the project.

2

Terry A. Maroney, Note, The Struggle Against Hate Crime: The Movement at a Crossroads, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 564, 568-78 (1998); Valerie Jenness &
Ryken Grattet, Making Hate A Crime: From Social Movement To Law Enforcement 26-32 (2001).

3

John White, His Life Cut Short, Vincent Chin is Remembered for What Might Have Been, Nat. Pub. Radio, June 23, 2017; Becky Little, How the 1982
Murder of Vincent Chin Ignited a Push for Asian American Rights, history.com, May 5, 2020.

4

For an extended discussion of this issue, see Faiza Patel, New Domestic Terrorism Laws Are Unnecessary for Fighting White Nationalists, Brennan Ctr.
for Just. (Oct. 2, 2019), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/new-domestic-terrorism-laws-are-unnecessary-fightingwhite-nationalists; Francesca Laguardia, Considering a Domestic Terrorism Statute and Its Alternatives, 114 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1061 (2020), https://
scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol114/iss4/4; Shirin Sinnar, Separate and Unequal: The Law of “Domestic” and “International”
Terrorism, 117 Mich. L. Rev. 1333, 1394-1404 (2019), https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2654&context=mlr.

5

Hate Crimes, Fed. Bureau of Investigation, https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes (last visited Jan 27, 2020). These categories
are practically equivalent to the protected characteristics enumerated in the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 249, which prohibits violent criminal offenses committed because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

6

See State Hate Crimes Statutes, Brennan Ctr. for Just., https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-hate-crimes-statutes
(last updated July 2, 2020). Another more recent development in protected categories is the introduction, in some states, of so-called “Blue
Lives Matter” laws to protect police. See Julia Craven, 32 Blue Lives Matter Bills Have Been Introduced Across 14 States This Year, HuffPost (Dec. 11,
2017), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/blue-black-lives-matter-police-bills-states_n_58b61488e4b0780bac2e31b8. Critics of such laws note that
they are politically motivated, that they are redundant given the existing protections for law enforcement in all states, and that they dilute the
meaning of a hate crime. Id.

7

See Fed. Bureau of Investigation, supra note 5; Rob Kuznia, As Hate Crime Laws Expand, Who to Exclude as Victims?, Wash. Post (Sept. 10, 2019),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/as-hate-crime-laws-expand-who-to-exclude-as-victims/2019/09/03/796fe814-bd30-11e9-a5c61e74f7ec4a93_story.html.

8

Wesley S. McCann & Nicolas Pimley, Eliminating Extremism: A Legal Analysis of Hate Crime and Terrorism Laws in the United States, Terrorism &
Pol. Violence 20-21 (2019) (concluding from Uniform Crime Reports data published from 1992 to 2016 that close to 32% of reported hate
crimes involved vandalism or property destruction, 30% involved intimidation, and about 30% were classified primarily as simple or aggravated
assault). The FBI has defined intimidation to mean “unlawfully plac[ing] another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use
of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack.” Unif. Crime
Reporting Program, Fed. Bureau of Investigation, NIBRS Offense Definitions 2 (2012), https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/nibrs-offensedefinitions. For reasons explained in Section I.C., UCR statistics are not an accurate measure of the actual incidence of hate crimes. See also
Cal. State Auditor, Hate Crimes In California: Law Enforcement Has Not Adequately Identified, Reported, Or Responded To Hate Crimes 10
(2018) (reporting that, based on California Department of Justice reports on hate crimes, “the most common types of hate crimes [from 20072016] were destruction of property, damage to property, and vandalism, followed by intimidation, simple assault, and aggravated assault.”).

9

2019 Hate Crime Statistics, FBI, https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses.

10 See R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
11 See, e.g., Jack Levin, Hate Crimes: Myths and Realities, 7 Int’l. J. Diversity Orgs., Cmtys. & Nations 81, 83 (2007) (“[N]o more than 5% of all hate
crimes in the United States are committed by the members of organized groups.”). See also Matt E. Ryan & Peter T. Leeson, Hate Groups and
Hate Crime, 31 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ. 256, 262 (2011) (“Contrary to conventional wisdom, our analysis finds little evidence that hate groups are
related to hate crime in the United States.”). For studies finding a correlation between hate crimes and the presence of hate groups, see Amy
Adamczyk et al., The Relationship Between Hate Groups and Far-Right Ideological Violence, J. Contemp. Crim. Just. (2014), https://www.start.umd.edu/
publication/relationship-between-hate-groups-and-far-right-ideological-violence; and Sean E. Mulholland, White Supremacist Groups and Hate
Crime, 157 Pub. Choice 91 (2013), https://jstor.org/stable.42003194.
12 Jack McDevitt et al., Hate Crimes Offenders: An Expanded Typology, 58 J. Soc. Issues 303 (2002). This influential study posed two additional
categories of offenders: “defensive” offenders who see other groups as a threat to a certain way of life, and “retaliatory” offenders seeking
revenge for perceived past harms. Although it is difficult to see how these categories represent distinct rather than overlapping motivations,
the broader point is that the motives of offenders may vary considerably.
13 Mark A. Walters et al., Causes and Motivations of Hate Crime, Equal. & Hum. Rts. Comm’n (2016), https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/
default/files/research-report-102-causes-and-motivations-of-hate-crime.pdf. Although this study was conducted by an international team, its
analysis drew in part on U.S. research. See also Jeannine Bell, Hate Thy Neighbor: Move-In Violence and the Persistence of Racial Segregation
in American Housing (2013) (discussing vandalism, harassment, and other hate crimes targeting racial minorities who move in to white
neighborhoods).
14 Madeline Masucci & Lynn Langton, Bureau of Just. Stats., Hate Crime Victimization 2004-2015, 7 (2017), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/
pdf/hcv0415.pdf (showing that, for violent hate crimes recorded in the National Crime Victim Surveys (NCVS) from 2011 to 2015, 15.4% of
alleged offenders 17 or younger, 16.7% were between 18 and 29, and 43.3% were 30 or older—while the remainder committed crimes as part
of a group, or their ages were not known by the victim; the age characteristics for reported violent hate crime offenders are roughly consistent
with those of reported violent non-hate crime offenders, though according to the NCVS, offenders aged 18-29 account for a significantly
smaller percentage of reported violent hate crimes than reported violent non-hate crimes.). As with the UCR data, the accuracy of the NCVS
data is not entirely reliable, as discussed below. See also Mass. Exec. Off. of Pub. Safety & Security, Hate Crime in Massachusetts 2017, 20, tbl.
8 (Dec. 2018), https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/12/13/2017%20MA%20Hate%20Crime%20Report.pdf (known offenders
representing every age group in Massachusetts except “under 10”).

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 38

15 See 2019 Hate Crime Statistics: Known Offender’s Race, Ethnicity, and Age, 2019, Fed. Bureau of Investigation, https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/
topic-pages/offenders (last visited Jan. 24, 2021).
16 Edward Dunbar, Symbolic, Relational, and Ideological Signifiers of Bias-Motivated Offenders: Toward a Strategy of Assessment, 73(2) Am. J. Orthopsychiat.
203 (2003), http://edunbar.bol.ucla.edu/papers/symbolicrelational.pdf (finding that nearly 60% of sample of 58 individuals convicted of a
hate crime had a history of substance abuse and more than 20% had received prior psychiatric treatment).
17 Racial and ethnic characteristics of reported hate crime offenders and victims are considered elsewhere in the report. See discussion infra
Section II.B.4.
18 Fed. Bureau of Investigation, supra note 5.
19 See Gregory M. Herek et al., Psychological Sequalae of Hate-Crime Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults, 67 J. Consulting & Clinical
Psychol. 945, 949-50 (1999), https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1999-01811-012.pdf; Jenny Paterson et al., Univ. of Sussex, The Sussex Hate
Crime Project 1 (2018), https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sussex-hate-crime-project-report.pdf&site=430 https://
www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sussex-hate-crime-project-report.pdf&site=430 (noting that “[h]ate crimes, whether
experienced directly, indirectly, through the media, in person or online were consistently linked to . . . [i]ncreased feelings of vulnerability,
anxiety, anger, and sometimes shame” as well as “[b]eing more security conscious [and] avoidant”).
20 See Herek et al., supra note 19, at 949.
21 Press Release, Am. Psych. Ass’n, Statement of APA President in Response to Shooting at Pittsburgh Synagogue (Oct. 28, 2018),
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/10/pittsburgh-shooting.
22 The Psychology of Hate Crimes, Am. Psych. Ass’n, https://www.apa.org/advocacy/interpersonal-violence/hate-crimes (last visited Oct. 3, 2020)
(citing Monique Noelle, The Ripple Effect of the Matthew Shepard Murder: Impact on Assumptive Worlds of Members of the Targeted Group, 46 Am. Behav.
Scientist 27 (2002); James G. Bell & Barbara Perry, Outside Looking In: The Community Impacts of Anti-Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Hate Crime, 62 J.
Homosexuality 98 (2015)).
23 Shannon K. McCoy & Brenda Major, Group Identification Moderates Emotional Responses to Perceived Prejudice, 29 Personality & Soc. Psychol. Bull.
1005, 1015 (2003).
24 Barbara Perry & Shahid Alvi, ‘We Are all Vulnerable’: The In Terrorem Effects of Hate Crimes, 18 Int’l Rev. Victimology, Jan. 2012, at 57, 63-65.
25 Id. at 67-68.
26 For example, 18 U.S.C. § 245, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, was “the primary federal hate crimes statutes prior to
the enactment of Section 249,” was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and prohibits violent interference with an enumerated set
of “federally protected activities.” Nathan James, Cong. Rsch. Serv., Department of Justice’s Role in Investigating and Prosecuting Hate Crimes
(Sept. 17, 2019), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11312.pdf.
27 For commentary on the linkages among these and other recent high-profile acts of hate violence, see Jelani Cobb, From Charleston to Pittsburgh,
an Arc of Premeditated American Tragedy, New Yorker (Nov. 1, 2018), https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/from-charleston-to-pittsburghan-arc-of-premeditated-american-tragedy; John Eligon, The El Paso Screed, and the Racist Doctrine Behind It, N.Y. Times (Aug. 7, 2019), https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/us/el-paso-shooting-racism.html.
28 Experts have suggested a link between divisive political rhetoric and hate crime. See Michael Kunzelman & Astrid Galvin, Trump Words Linked
to More Hate Crime? Some Experts Think So, Assoc. Press (Aug. 7, 2019), https://apnews.com/article/7d0949974b1648a2bb592cab1f85aa16.
Further, civil rights advocates have argued that policies advanced under the Trump Administration have negatively affected communities at risk
of experiencing hate crimes and have even legitimized hate or intolerance. See, e.g., Letter from The Leadership Conf. on Civ. & Hum. Rts.
et al. to John M. Gore, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Sept. 15, 2017), https://civilrights.org/resource/post-charlottesvillehate-crime-summit-coalition-recommendations-department-justice (“[I]t is disingenuous for this administration to espouse its commitment
to addressing hate crimes, while also implementing policies that discriminate against and target communities of color, further marginalizing
communities and promoting hate.”).
29 See Rachel Treisman, FBI Reports Dip in Hate Crime, But Rise in Violence, NPR (Nov. 12, 2019, 3:32 PM), https://www.npr.
org/2019/11/12/778542614/fbi-reports-dip-in-hate-crimes-but-rise-in-violence; John Eligon, Hate Crimes Increased for the Third Consecutive Year,
F.B.I. Reports, N.Y. Times (Nov. 13, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/us/hate-crimes-fbi-2017.html.
30 For a discussion of underreporting in official hate crime statistics, see Susan Bro & Haifa Jabara, Opinion, Hate Crimes Are Slipping through the
Cracks, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/opinion/hate-crime-statistics-heather-heyer.html.
31 Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, Fed. Bureau of Investigation (last visited Oct. 9, 2020), https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr; 34 U.S.C.
41305 (requiring Attorney General to collect annual hate crimes statistics).
32 Data Collection: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), Bureau of Justice Statistics (last visited Oct. 9, 2020),
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245.
33 Masucci & Langton, supra note 14.
34 UCR Publications: Hate Crime Statistics, Fed. Bureau of Investigation (last visited Oct. 9, 2020), https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/
publications#Hate-Crime%20Statistics.
35 Masucci & Langton, supra note 14, at 2.
36 Id. at 8.
37 For example, federal UCR guidelines recommend that law enforcement agencies use a multi-step review process for determining whether
incidents are reportable as hate crimes. See Crime Stat. Mgmt. Unit., Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and
Training Manual 2 -3 (2015), https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/ucr/ucr-hate-crime-data-collection-guidlines-training-manual-v2.pdf/view.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 39

38 For example, the Jeffersontown, Kentucky, Police Department did not report the fatal October 24, 2018, hate crime shooting of two Black
shoppers at a grocery store because Kentucky’s hate crimes law does not cover the offense of murder. Recognizing Hate: FBI Begins Counting Its
Own Hate Crime Cases in Federal Data, Inaccurate Numbers Remain, InvestigateTV (last visited Oct. 18, 2020), https://www.investigatetv.com/fbireports-hate-crimes.
39 See Masucci & Langton, supra note 14, at 7 (“[T]he NCVS is based on victims’ perceptions that a crime was motivated by bias because the
offender used hate language, left hate symbols, or police confirmed that it was a hate crime.”).
40 Id. at 5.
41 See, e.g., Emma Keith et al., Lack of Trust in Law Enforcement Hinders Reporting of LGBTQ Hate Crimes, Ctr. For Pub. Integrity (Aug. 24, 2018),
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/lack-of-trust-in-law-enforcement-hinders-reporting-of-lbgtq-crimes (stating that “chronic distrust between
the LGBTQ community and police” contributes to systemic underreporting of hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity);
Frank S. Pezzella et al., The Dark Figure of Hate Crime Underreporting, Am. Behav. Scientist 1, 6 (2019), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
full/10.1177/0002764218823844 (“[I]t is well understood that distrust and lack of confidence in the police are significant predictors of victim
reporting of hate crimes for a number of marginalized groups protected under contemporary hate crime legislation.”); Jack McDevitt et al.,
Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Bias Crime Statistics Generally: An Assessment of the First Ten Years of Bias Crime Data Collection, in Hate and Bias
Crime: A Reader 80 (Barbara Perry ed., 2003) (finding that the level of trust between the victim and the police can directly inhibit or encourage
hate crime reporting).
42 2018 Hate Crime Statistics: Incidents and Offenses, Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Nov. 12, 2019), https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/
incidents-and-offenses (reporting that only 2,026 of 16,039 law enforcement agencies participating in the Hate Crime Statistics program
reported a hate crime incident in 2018). The number of U.S. law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR hate crime statistics program
increased over time, from 11,354 in 1996 to 16,039 in 2018, while the rate of participating agencies that reported at least one hate crime has
decreased. See UCR Publications: Hate Crime Statistics, Fed. Bureau of Investigation, supra note 34.
43 See, e.g., Press Release, Anti-Defamation League, Washington, D.C., ADL Welcomes Release of Annual FBI Report; Urges Action by Congress,
Police to Prevent and Respond to Hate Violence (Nov. 12, 2019), https://dc.adl.org/news/adl-welcomes-release-of-annual-fbi-hate-crimereport-urges-action-by-congress-police-to-prevent-and-respond-to-hate-violence (“[A]t least 85 cities with populations exceeding 100,000
residents either did not report any data to the FBI or affirmatively reported zero hate crimes.”).
44 Brennan Ctr. For Just., supra note 6.
45 Stephen M. Haas et al., Crim. Just. Statistical Analysis Ctr., West Virginia, Assessing the Validity of Hate Crime Reporting: An Analysis of NIBRS
Data (2011), https://djcs.wv.gov/ORSP/SAC/Documents/ORSP_WV_Hate_Crime_Report.pdf.
46 See, e.g., Mallory Simon & Sara Sidner, Heather Heyer’s Not on this FBI List. How Hate Crimes Become Invisible, CNN (Aug. 12, 2019) https://www.
cnn.com/2019/08/12/us/charlottesville-heather-heyer-death-not-in-fbi-report-soh/index.html (examining the causes of underreporting,
including with respect to high-profile hate crimes, in official statistics). See also Ken Schwencke, Why America Fails at Gathering Hate Crime
Statistics, ProPublica (Dec. 4, 2017), https://www.propublica.org/article/why-america-fails-at-gathering-hate-crime-statistics (highlighting
procedural errors and insufficient training).
47 Communities Against Hate, Hate Magnified: Communities in Crisis (2019), https://hatemagnified.org/CAH-hatemagnified2019.pdf.
48 Id. at 7.
49 South Asian Am. Leading Together, Communities on Fire 6, 9 (2018), https://saalt.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Communities-on-Fire.
pdf (reporting a 64 percent increase in hate incidents against members of the South Asian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Middle Eastern, and Arab
communities in the year following the 2016 election); Anti-Defamation League, Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents: Year in Review 2018 7 (2019)
https://www.adl.org/media/12857/download (reporting anti-Semitic incidents in 2017 that amounted to “a 57% increase over the previous
year, and the biggest annual jump since [the ADL] began tracking four decades ago.”).
50 Any new or alternative policy approach to hate crimes, many of which are discussed in Section IV, should incorporate best practices with regard
to developing comprehensive reporting and data practices. By way of example, the city of Seattle recently audited its hate-crimes reporting
and data practices and issued several findings and recommendations See Melissa Alderson et al., Seattle Office of City Auditor, Review of
Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report (May 2019), https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/
CityAuditor/auditreports/2017-09%20Hate%20Crimes%20Ph2_Final.pdf.
51 Avlana Eisenberg, Expressive Enforcement, 61 UCLA L. Rev. 858, 860 (2014). See also State Hate Crimes Statutes, Brennan Ctr. For Just. (July 1,
2019), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-hate-crimes-statutes. The passage of new hate crimes statutes may have
changed this number.
52 Brennan Ctr. For Just., supra note 6.
53 Eisenberg, supra note 51, at 881, 888.
54 Terry A. Maroney, Note, The Struggle Against Hate Crime: The Movement at a Crossroads, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 564, 568-78 (1998); Valerie Jenness &
Ryken Grattet, Making Hate A Crime: From Social Movement To Law Enforcement 26-32 (2001). See also Christopher Waldrep, African Americans​
C​onfront ​L​ynching​: S​trategies of ​Re​ sistance from the C​ivil ​W​ar to the ​Ci​vil ​Ri​ghts ​E​ra​, 117-25 (2009) (arguing that the passage of hate crimes
laws came about partly because of Democrats’ desire to “take back” tough-on-crime politics from Republicans).
55 Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 487-88 (1993) (justifying state penalty enhancement provision on assumption that hate crimes “inflict
greater individual and societal harm” and the “[s]tate’s desire to redress these harms” through more severe punishment for offenders).
56 Heidi M. Hurd & Michael S. Moore, Punishing Hatred and Prejudice, 56 Stan L. Rev. 1081, 1083-85 (2004).

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 40

57 See Eisenberg, supra note 51 (describing expressive justifications for hate crimes laws); Janine Young Kim, Hate Crime Law and the Limits of
Inculpation, 84 Neb. L. Rev. 846, 848 (2006) (“[T]he criminal law can and should be used as a tool for expressing society’s commitment to the
norm against prejudice . . . .”); Dan M. Kahan, The Anatomy of Disgust in Criminal Law, 96 Mich. L. Rev. 1621, 1641 (1998) (reviewing William
Ian Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust (1997)) (“We expect punishment to voice our moral outrage, in addition to protecting us from harm and
imposing deserved suffering.”).
58 For a classic example of such a critique, see James B. Jacobs & Kimberly Potter, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Id.ntity Politics (1998).
59 Masucci & Langton, supra note 14.
60 Nathan Hall, Policing Hate Crime in London and New York City: Some Reflections on the Factors Influencing Effective Law Enforcement, Service Provision
and Public Trust and Confidence, 18 Int’l Rev. Victimology 73, 76 (2012).
61 See generally Matthew Desmond et al., Police Violence and Citizen Crime Reporting in the Black Community, 18 Am. Socio. Rev. 857 (2016) (examining
the effect of police misconduct on citizen crime reporting in Milwaukee). See also Elaine B. Sharp & Paul E. Johnson, Accounting for Variation
in Distrust of Local Police, 26 Just. Q. 157, 176 (2009) (“Black residents’ distrust of their police department is higher if they live in jurisdictions
where this extreme manifestation of aggressive policing is relatively high, while Whites’ attitudes are not affected.”).
62 S.E. James et al., Nat’l Ctr. for Transgender Equal., The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey 185-87 (2019), https://transequality.
org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf. See also Emma Keith & Katie Gagliano, Lack of Trust in Law Enforcement Hinders
Reporting of LGBTQ Crimes, Ctr. for Pub. Integrity (Aug. 24, 2018), https://publicintegrity.org/politics/lack-of-trust-in-law-enforcementhinders-reporting-of-lbgtq-crimes (contextualizing survey findings with underreporting of LGBTQ hate crimes).
63 James J. Nolan & Yoshio Akiyama, An Analysis of Factors that Affect Law Enforcement Participation in Hate Crime Reporting, 15 J. Contemporary Crim.
J. 111, 114 (1999). See also Heather Zaykowski, Racial Disparities in Hate Crime Reporting, 25 Violence & Victims 378, 390 (2010) (“Hate crime
victims may also fear secondary victimization through humiliation or lack of sympathy from the police”).
64 Lonnie Lusardo, Hate Crimes Are on the Rise, and the Federal Government Isn’t Helping, Seattle Times (July 29, 2019), https://www.seattletimes.com/
opinion/we-cant-combat-rising-hate-crimes-with-woefully-inaccurate-data; Keith & Gagliano, supra note 62.
65 Catherine Devine & Lillianna Byington, Millions Are Victims of Hate Crimes, Though Many Never Report Them, Ctr. for Pub. Integrity (Aug. 16,
2018), https://publicintegrity.org/politics/millions-are-victims-of-hate-crimes-though-many-never-report-them.
66 Lusardo, supra note 64.
67 Arjun Singh Sethi, American Hate: Survivors Speak Out 70 (2018).
68 See Katherine A. Culotta, Why Victims Hate to Report: Factors Affecting Victim Reporting in Hate Crime Cases in Chicago,
13 Kriminologija i Socijalna Integracija 15, 20 (2005) (citing Chicago Commission on Human Relations employee who “believed [law
enforcement] officers might make the process seem like a burden to the victim).
69 Annie Steinberg et al., Youth Hate Crimes: Identification, Prevention, and Intervention, 160 Am. J. Psychiatry 979, 982 (2003), https://ajp.
psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.5.979.
70 Harbani Ahuja, The Vicious Cycle of Hate: Systemic Flaws in Hate Crime Documentation in the United States and the Impact on Minority Communities, 37
Cardozo L. Rev. 1867, 1882 (2016, http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/AHUJA.37.5.pdf.
71 Eisenberg, supra note 51, at 862.
72 Id. at 885.
73 Brendan Lantz, et al, Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing: A Multi-Dataset Comparison of Bias Crime Arrest Patterns by Offender and
Victim Race, 36 Just. Q. 193, 197-99 (2017) (summarizing research on police responses to hate crimes).
74 Eisenberg, supra note 51, at 888.
75 Id. at 892-94.
76 Id. at 895-98 (assessing “novel uses” of New York hate crimes law to compel guilty pleas for non-bias-motivated crimes).
77 See United States v. Miller, 767 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2014) (requiring “but for” causation under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate
Crimes Prevention Act).
78 Saeed Ahmed & Catherine E. Shoichet, 3 Students Shot to Death in Apartment Near UNC Chapel Hill, CNN (Feb. 11, 2015), https://www.cnn.
com/2015/02/11/us/chapel-hill-shooting/index.html.
79 Joseph Ness & Shaila Dewan, He Killed 3 Muslim Students. But Did He Commit a Hate Crime?, N.Y. Times (June 12, 2019), https://www.nytimes.
com/2019/06/12/us/hate-crime-muslim-students.html.
80 Id.
81 Id.
82 Robert Weisberg, Can We Shrink the Prisons Without Growing Crime?: Decarceration, Decentralization, and the Meaning of Realignment’s Success, 15
Criminology & Pub. Pol. 367, 372-73 (2016).
83 Daniel S. Nagin, Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century, 42 Crime & Just. Am. 199, 202 (2013) (concluding that “certainty of apprehension and
not the severity of the legal consequence ensuing from apprehension is the more effective deterrent.”). See also Marc Mauer, Long-Term
Sentences: Time to Reconsider the Scale of Punishment, 87 UMKC L. Rev. 113, 123-24 (2018), https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/11/UMKC-Law-Review-Scale-of-Punishment.pdf (discussing limited deterrent effects of lengthy sentences).
84 Mauer, supra note 83, at 123.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 41

85 See Valerie Wright, Sent’g Project, Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity of Punishment 2-3 (Nov. 2010)
https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf.
86 Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld, Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies 20-21 (2018).
87 See generally Alfred Blumstein, Selective Incapacitation as a Means of Crime Control, 27 Am. Behav. Scientist 87, 92-96 (1983) (distinguishing crime
control strategy of inpacitation from those of general deterrence and rehabilitation and discussing underlying rationales).
88 Five Things About Deterrence, Nat’l Inst. Just. (June 5, 2016), https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence. See also Robert
J. Sampson & John H. Laub, Life-Course Desisters? Trajectories of Crime Among Delinquent Boys Followed to Age 70, 41 Criminology 301, 330 (2003)
(concluding from a data set of 500 men analyzed from age 7 to 70 that, “[a]lthough peak ages of offending vary by crime type, we found
that all offenses decline systematically in the middle adult years for groups identified prospectively according to extant theory and early risk
factors.”).
89 Nat’l Inst. Just., supra note 88. See also Nagin, supra note 83, at 201 (“I have concluded that there is little evidence of a specific deterrent
effect arising from the experience of imprisonment compared with the experience of noncustodial sanctions such as probation. Instead, the
evidence suggests that that reoffending is either unaffected or increased.”).
90 See, e.g., Nicole Lewis & Beatrice Lockwood, The Hidden Cost of Incarceration, Marshall Project (Dec. 17, 2019), https://www.themarshallproject.
org/2019/12/17/the-hidden-cost-of-incarceration.
91 See Nagin, supra note 83, at 201, 233-42.
92 Nat’l Inst. Just., supra note 88.
93 Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism: Hearing Before H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 1 (2019) (statement of Kristen Clarke,
President & Executive Director, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law), https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109266/
witnesses/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-ClarkeK-20190409.pdf; Lilliana Byington et al., Black Americans Still Are Victims of Hate Crime More than Any
Other Group, Ctr. for Pub. Integrity (Aug. 21, 2018), https://publicintegrity.org/politics/black-americans-still-are-victims-of-hate-crimes-morethan-any-other-group; see also Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 2019 Hate Crime Statistics, Incidents and Offenses (2020), https://ucr.fbi.gov/hatecrime/2019/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses.
94 Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
95 See Mahita Gajanan, Woman Accused of Slapping 3 Jewish Women in New York City Charged with Federal Hate Crimes. Her Case Raises Questions for New
York’s Bail Reform Laws, Time (Jan. 29, 2020), https://time.com/5773696/tiffany-harris-charged-anti-semitic-attacks; Kenneth Garger & Ben
Cohn, Woman Accused of Anti-Semitic Attack Gets Supervised Release at Arraignment, N.Y. Post (Dec. 27, 2019), https://nypost.com/2019/12/27/
woman-accused-of-anti-semitic-attack-gets-supervised-release-at-arraignment.
96 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI225219.
97 https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/offenders.
98 US Department of Justice, Special Report: Hate Crime Victimization, 2004-2015 7 (June 2017). https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0415.
pdf. The same data identify 22.2% of violent offenders in non-hate crime cases as Black. Id.
99 James P. O’Neill, N.Y.C. Police Commissioner, Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City, Jan 1- Dec. 31, 2018 at 11 (2019), at https://
www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis _and_planning/year-end-2018-enforcement-report.pdf. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates
that 24% of New York City’s population is Black. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/newyorkcitynewyork.
100 See FBI: UCR, 2018 Hate Crimes: Methodology (2018), https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/resource-pages/methodology (stating that “Only
when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s
actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an agency report an incident as a hate crime.”).
101 While the NCVS data relies on self-reported accounts of hate crimes, rather than incidents reported to, and by, law enforcement agencies,
it is possible that these self-reports may also skew in a particular direction if members of one race are more likely to perceive or characterize
incidents as hate-motivated. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Special Report: Hate Crime Victimization, 2004-2015 7 (June 2017). https://www.bjs.gov/
content/pub/pdf/hcv0415.pdf. The NCVS classifies incidents as hate crimes if “the offender used hate language,” “the offender left behind
hate symbols,” or “police investigators confirmed that the incident was hate crime.” Id. at 3. Almost all hate crime victims in that data relied on
the offender’s use of hate language as evidence of a bias motivation. Id. at 3.
102 See supra, Part II.1 and II.2. See generally Jennifer Eberhardt, Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do (2019)
(discussing social psychological research on implicit bias in policing); Michael German, Brennan Ctr. for Justice, Hidden in Plain Sight:
Racism, White Supremacy, and Far-Right Militancy in Law Enforcement (2020) (describing presence of law enforcement officers in racist and
far-right paramilitary groups and participation in racist exchanges on social media). Criminologists have reached varying results as to which
types of reported hate crimes, by offender and victim race, are most likely to result in arrests. Compare Brendan Lantz, et al, Stereotypical Hate
Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing: A Multi-Dataset Comparison of Bias Crime Arrest Patterns by Offender and Victim Race, Justice Q. 3, 18-20 (2017)
(using Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and National Incident-Based Reporting System data to conclude that hate crimes cases
involving white offenders and black victims are more likely to result in arrests because they fit expectations of a “stereotypical” hate crime) and
Christopher J. Lyons & Aki Roberts, The Difference “Hate” Makes in Clearing Crime: An Event History Analysis of Incident Factors, 30 J. of Contemp.
Crim. Just. 268, 280-81 (2014) (using National Incident-Based Reporting System data to conclude that, in racially or ethnically motivated hate
crimes, arrest rates are higher for cases with white offenders and non-white victims) with Mindy S. Wilson & R. Barry Ruback, Hate Crime in
Pennsylvania, 1984-99: Case Characteristics and Police Responses, 20 Justice Q. 373, 389 (2003) (finding that police involvement was higher for hate
crimes cases in 15-year Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission dataset where victims were white rather than black).
103 See, e.g., Rates of Drug Use and Sales, By Race; Rates of Drug Related Criminal Justice Measures, by Race, Hamilton Project (Oct. 21, 2016), https://www.
hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 42

104 L.A. Cty. Comm’n on Human Relations, 2018 Hate Crimes Report 18 (2019), https://hrc.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2018-HateCrime-Report.pdf.
105 Id. (“The great majority of African Americans and Latino/as in Los Angeles County co-exist peacefully and are not involved in ongoing racial
conflict. However, for many years this report has documented that most hate crimes targeting African Americans are committed by Latino/as
and vice versa. This is particularly true in neighborhoods that have undergone rapid demographic shifts from being primarily black to majority
Latino/a.”).
106 Barbara Perry, In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes 119-34 (2001) (discussing historical examples of fraught relationships between
African Americans and Asian Americans and between Jews and African Americans, and position of gay men within communities of color).
107 Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld, Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies 121 (2018).
108 See Part I.B. (describing harms from hate crimes).
109 Arjun Singh Sethi, American Hate: Survivors Speak Out 41 (2018) (describing a survivor’s preference for an outcome in which assailant would
“likely get ten or fifteen years for assault and battery, and we would never see him again.”).
110 Sarah Minkewitz, Victim of Alleged Hate Crime Speaks Out as New Charges Are Filed Against Her Attacker, WIVB4 (Sept. 7, 2019), https://www.wivb.
com/news/the-victim-of-an-alleged-hate-crime-in-buffalo-is-speaking-out-as-new-charges-are-filed-against-her-attackerh; James Doubek, How
Well Do Hate Crime Laws Really Work?, NPR (June 28, 2015), https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/28/417231920/how-well-dohate-crime-laws-really-work (quoting hate crimes legal expert Fred Lawrence as saying, “If we were to say to the African-American community
of Charleston, ‘we’re just going to treat this like any murder, we don’t think the race of the victims is relevant at all,’ I think that would be an
enormous affront to that community.”).
111 Jeannine Bell, Hate Thy Neighbor 185 (2013).
112 A Compilation of Critiques on Hate Crimes Legislation, Black and Pink (2009), http://www.againstequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/
critiques-on-hate-crimes.pdf.
113 A Compilation of Critiques on Hate Crimes Legislation, Black and Pink (2009), http://www.againstequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/
critiques-on-hate-crimes.pdf.
114 Rinku Sen, Look Beyond Police for Solutions: A Response to “Reconsidering Hate,” Political Research Associates (Aug. 1, 2012), https://www.
politicalresearch.org/2012/08/01/look-beyond-police-for-solutions-a-response-to-reconsidering-hate.
115 Id.
116 Arjun Singh Sethi, American Hate: Survivors Speak Out 79 (2018).
117 Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice 40 (2002).
118 As one scholar has put it, the “weaknesses of the current criminal justice system are the theoretical strengths of [restorative justice].” Theo
Gavrielides, Restoring Relationships: Addressing Hate Crime Through Restorative Justice, Race on the Agenda 24 (June 2007), https://www.rota.org.
uk/sites/default/files/webfm/rota_report_on_hate_crime__rj_july_2007_-_final.pdf.
119 Terri Lee Kelly, A Critical Review of Issues in Applying Restorative Justice Principles and Practices to Cases of Hate Crime 80-84 (2002) (M.sc
thesis, Portland State University) (on file with Portland State University Library) (describing Maori conferencing practices); Carol A. Hand,
et. al, Restorative Justice: The Indigenous Justice System, 15 Contemp. J. Rev. 449, 452-54 (2012) (describing principles of “the traditional Native
American restorative system”).
120 Alyssa H. Shenk, Victim-Offender Meditation: The Road to Repairing Hate Crime Injustice, 17 Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol. 185, 192 (2001). The figures
cited in Shenk’s article have likely increased since publication. See Thalia González, The Legalization of Restorative Justice: A Fifty-State Empirical
Analysis, 5 Utah L. Rev. 1027, 1031 (2020) (finding that, as of May 31, 2019, “forty-five states have codified restorative justice in to statutory or
regulatory law,” suggesting, when compared to prior research, a significant increase in the incorporation of restorative justice into state legal
frameworks).
121 See Shenk, supra note 120, at 197-98 (discussing research on the outcomes of victim-offender mediation processes); Mark Umbreit & Marilyn
Peterson Armour, Restorative Justice Dialogue: An Essential Guide for Research and Practice 130-34 (2011) (reporting results of empirical
studies of participant satisfaction, recidivism, and cost in victim-offender mediation programs); Lawrence Sherman & Heather Strang, The Smith
Inst., Restorative Justice: The Evidence 86 (2007), http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/RJ_full_report.pdf (considering cost effects of restorative justice
programs on U.K. criminal legal system); Sujatha Baliga et al., Impact Just., Restorative Community Conferencing: A study of Community Works
West’s Restorative Justice Youth Diversion Program in Alameda County 6-16, (2017), https://impactjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/CWW_
RJreport.pdf (measuring impact of restorative community conferencing on recidivism rates among youths who commit crimes, examining
survey results on satisfaction of different parties, and discussing potential cost savings and other benefits).
122 Umbreit & Armour, supra note 121, at 96-101.
123 Umbreit & Armour, supra note 121, at 126-27; Robert B. Coates et. al, Responding to Hate Crimes through Restorative Justice Dialogue, 9 Contemp. Just.
Rev 7, 9 (2006).
124 Wisc. Advisory Comm. to the U.S. Comm’n on C.R., Hate Crime and Civil Rights in Wisconsin 55 (June 2017), https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/
docs/08-17-Wisconsin-hate-crimes.pdf (“Restorative justice may function in collaboration with or as an alternative to the traditional justice
system to address the root causes of hate motivated crimes and restore victim’s sense of empowerment and community safety.”).
125 Theo Gavrielides, Contextualizing Restorative Justice for Hate Crime, 27 J. Interpersonal Violence 3624, 3625-26 (2012).
126 This is not to say that programs that exist as additions to the traditional system cannot have positive consequences for participants. For
instance, the voluntary Bridges to Life program, which is based on restorative justice principles, provides only post-hoc programming for
prison inmates, but it appears to have a substantial positive impact on recidivism rates. See generally Marilyn Peterson Armour et al., Bridges to
Life: Evaluation of an In-prison Restorative Justice Intervention, 24 Med. & L. 831 (2005). See also Restorative Justice, Insight Prison Project, http://
www.insightprisonproject.org/a-restorative-justice-agency.html (last visited Nov. 20, 2020).

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 43

127 See David B. Moore, Managing Social Conflict – The Evolution of a Practical Theory, 31 J. Socio. & Soc. Welfare 71 (2004) (“Conferencing” is the
practice of providing “a conversation with a formal structure and that structure enables participants to address constructively an incident or
issue that has caused significant conflict between them.”).
128 Elizabeth Beck et al., Social Work and Restorative Justice: Skills for Dialogue, Peacemaking, and Reconciliation 155 (2010) (emphasis
omitted).
129 RJOY Trainings, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth, at http://rjoyoakland.org/rjoy-trainings/ (last visited Feb. 11, 2021). Professor
Teiahsha Bankhead, the Executive Director of RJOY, explains that restorative justice does not “identify people by the most horrible thing
they’ve done in their lives, or the most horrible thing that’s been done to them. So this idea of perpetrators and survivors, victims and
offenders—is not even the language that we like to use.” Zoom Interview by Tyler Bishop & Samuel Becker with Teiahsha Bankhead, Executive
Director of Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (Apr. 29, 2020).
130 See Danny Peterson, ‘Restorative Justice’ Aims for Equity at Portland Schools, KOIN 6 (Oct. 12, 2019), https://www.koin.com/local/multnomahcounty/restorative-justice-aims-for-equity-at-portland-schools; Stephanie Wang, Students Need Restorative Skills ‘as Much as They Need Math and
Science,’ Indianapolis Educators Say, Indianapolis Star (Jan. 8, 2020), https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2020/01/09/restorativejustice-indianapolis-school-sees-more-than-catchphrase/4419024002.
131 Baliga et al., supra note 121, at 2.
132 Id.
133 E-mail from Lauren Brown, Community Works West, to Tyler Bishop, Stanford Policy Lab Student, on May 29, 2020 (noting that “The DA’s
office is not informed about the incident nor the youth facing charges. If the youth completes the program successfully OPD dismisses the
charges and nothing further happens.”).
134 Baliga et al., supra note 121, at 2-3.
135 Shenk, supra note 120, at 194-95.
136 Id. at 195.
137 Wisc. Advisory Comm. to the U.S. Comm’n on C.R., supra note 125, at 50-51 (quoting Professor Jonathan Scharrer, director of the Restorative
Justice Project at the University of Wisconsin Law School, as emphasizing during testimony before the United States Commission on Civil
Rights that it would be ill-advised to legislate a mandatory restorative justice pathway.”).
138 Id.
139 Umbreit & Armour, supra note 121, at 99.
140 Id.
141 Shenk, supra note 120, at 195.
142 Baliga et al., supra note 121, at 3.
143 Restorative Community Conferences, Cmty. Works, http://communityworkswest.org/program/rcc (last visited July 20, 2020).
144 E-mail from Lauren Brown, Community Works West, to Tyler Bishop, Stanford Policy Lab Student, on May 29, 2020.
145 E-mail from Lauren Brown, Community Works West, to Tyler Bishop, Stanford Policy Lab Student, on May 29, 2020.
146 Common Justice Model, Common Just., https://www.commonjustice.org/common_justice_model (last visited July 20, 2020). For a more
extensive discussion of Common Justice’s approach, see generally Danielle Sered, Until We Reckon: Violence, Mass Incarceration, and a Road to
Repair (2019).
147 Sered, supra note 146, at 114-15.
148 Id. at 115-16.
149 Seema Gajwani: Transforming Prosecutorial Culture through In-House Restorative Justice Programs, Obama Found., https://www.obama.org/
fellowship/2019-fellows/seema-gajwani (last visited Nov. 21, 2020). See also Benjamin Wofford, The Obama Foundation Just Gave this DC Prosecutor
a Fellowship, Washingtonian (Apr. 30, 2019), https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/04/30/the-obama-foundation-just-gave-this-dc-prosecutora-fellowship.
150 Seema Gajwani & Max G. Lesser, The Hard Truths of Progressive Prosecution and a Path to Realizing the Movement’s Promise, 64 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 70,
88 (2020), https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1448&context=nyls_law_review.
151 Id. See also D.C. Off. of the Att’y Gen., Restorative Justice Program (unpublished digital upload of a presentation), https://www.njjn.org/
uploads/digital-library/DC%20OAG%20slides.pdf (providing overview of program).
152 D.C. Off. of the Att’y Gen., supra note 151.
153 Gajwani & Lesser, supra note 150, at 88.
154 D.C. Off. of the Att’y Gen., supra note 151.
155 Carrie Johnson, D.C. Prosecutors, Once Dubious, Are Becoming Believers in Restorative Justice, NPR (July 2, 2019), https://www.npr.
org/2019/07/02/735506637/d-c-prosecutors-once-dubious-are-becoming-believers-in-restorative-justice.
156 Id.
157 Id.
158 Id.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 44

159 CRC Home, Dane Cnty. Cmty. Restorative Cts., https://crc.countyofdane.com (last visited May 5, 2020).
160 Description, Dane Cnty. Cmty. Restorative Cts., https://crc.countyofdane.com/description (last visited May 5, 2020).
161 Shelley K. Mesch, Court Program Aimed at Giving Troubled Youth a Second Chance Set to Expand, Wisc. State J. (May 14, 2018), https://madison.
com/wsj/news/local/courts/court-program-aimed-at-giving-troubled-youth-a-second-chance/article_04691329-77de-5e17-ad4a-d31d9a13be1f.
html.
162 Id.
163 Id.
164 Id.
165 Chris Rickert, Racially Tinged Confrontation Ends In Broken Nose, Remorse — And Lingering Sense Of Violation For Former Badgers Star Trent Jackson,
Wisc. State. J. (Mar. 12, 2018).
166 Id.
167 Id.
168 Brian Sapir, Healing a Fractured Community: The Use of Community Sentencing Circles in Response to Hate Crimes, 9 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 207,
218 (2009).
169 Id. at 219 n.80.
170 Id. at 219-20.
171 Leena Kurki, Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice Into American Sentencing and Corrections, in Nat’l Inst. of Just., U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century 5 (1999).
172 Id.
173 See, e.g., Nancy Blodgett, Alternative Sentencing: Overcrowded Prisons Prompt New Responses, 73 ABA J. 32 (1987).
174 See, e.g., Linda Saslow, Juveniles Who Commit Bias Crimes Confront Their Hate and ‘Hot Buttons,’ N.Y. Times (June 12, 1994), https://www.nytimes.
com/1994/06/12/nyregion/juveniles-who-commit-bias-crimes-confront-their-hate-and-hot-buttons.html?pagewanted=all.
175 Alex D. (pseudonym), My Life Changed After I Assaulted a Sikh Man, Sikh Coal. (Dec. 18, 2014), https://www.sikhcoalition.org/blog/2014/mylife-changed-after-i-assaulted-a-sikh-man.
176 H.R. 3545, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 2043, 116th Cong. (2019).
177 Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act, S. 937, 117th Cong. (as passed by Senate, Apr. 22, 2021).
178 Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?, 3 Ann. L. Rev. 10.7, 10.14 (2007).
179 Mark Walters, Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Exploring Causes, Repairing Harms, Int’l J. Hate Studies (2014), https://internationalhatestudies.
com/hate-crime-restorative-justice-exploring-causes-repairing-harms.
180 See Sered, supra note 146, at 25-27 (describing value of survivors’ speaking about their experiences in order to help them form a coherent
narrative of what happened and help the healing process). In a Community Circle Pilot Program in Austin, Texas, victims of hate crimes
reported reduced isolation and a greater sense of community from participating in a “circle” where they shared their experiences. Marilyn
Armour, Inst. for Restorative Just. & Restorative Dialogue, Report on the Community Circle Pilot Program 1-3 (Feb. 6, 2012), https://irjrd.
org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Evaluation-Report-Community-Circles.pdf. Note that unlike other models, that program does not appear
to have included the parties responsible for the hate crimes.
181 See Sered, supra note 146, at 115-17 (describing how the victim of an anti-Semitic attack on a New York train recovered substantially from her
“flashbacks, anxiety, depression, and hypervigilance” after meeting the woman responsible and asking the latter to repair the harm, including
through not riding New York trains for a year to understand the sense of insecurity that the victim experienced).
182 Walters, supra note 179, at 97, 106.
183 Interview by Shirin Sinnar & Sam Becker of Robert (Roman) Haferd, Restorative Justice Coordinator, Restorative Justice Section, Office of the
Attorney General for the District of Columbia, July 24, 2020.
184 Rickert, supra note 165.
185 Menkel-Meadow, supra note 179, at 174; Walters, supra note 178, at 242. See also Gavrielides, supra note 118, at 22 (“[T]he ability of hate crime
perpetrators to engage in an honest dialogue has been questioned. After all, why would racist a criminal whose attitude towards others has
been consistent suddenly agree to engage in an honest dialogue?”).
186 Walters, supra note 179, at 198-204.
187 Interview by Shirin Sinnar & Sam Becker of Robert (Roman) Haferd, Restorative Justice Coordinator, Restorative Justice Section, Office of the
Attorney General for the District of Columbia, July 24, 2020.
188 See generally Tom Lininger, Bearing the Cross, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1353 (2005) (discussing the challenge of cross-examination, especially for
accusers in domestic violence and sexual assault cases).
189 Dana Kralstein & Michela Lowry, Ctr. for Ct. Innovation, Off Ramps for Youths in the District of Columbia: Prosecution-Based Restorative
Justice Counseling vi (Mar. 2020) (describing need to counter perceptions of restorative justice as “soft on crime.”).
190 Lawrence Sherman & Heather Strang, Austr. Inst. of Criminology, Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE): Restorative Justice and
Deterring Crime (Apr. 1997), https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41919/1/risepap4.html.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 45

191 Kralstein & Lowry, supra note 189, at 21.
192 See Baliga et al., supra note 121, at 1 (reporting lower youth recidivism rates compared to youth who did not go through Alameda County
restorative justice process); Menkel-Meadow, supra note 178, at 10.14 (noting that studies from several continents support claims that
restorative justice programs reduce recidivism).
193 See, e.g., Robert Chappell, Police Called It a Hate Crime. The Attackers Kept Their Records Clean., Madison365 (Mar. 19, 2018), https://madison365.
com/police-called-hate-crime-attackers-kept-records-clean (describing restorative justice practitioner’s belief that the practice allows offenders
to “confront their ugly, bigoted behavior” in a way that can be a “life-altering experience.”).
194 See Shirin Sinnar & Beth A. Colgan, Revisiting Hate Crimes Laws, 95 NYU L. Rev. Online 149, 166-67 (2020) (noting concerns that restorative
justice might be perceived as expressing insufficient condemnation for hate crime and might, in subjecting hate crime victims and their
communities to “coerced compassion,” reinforce power disparities within the criminal justice system).
195 Id. at 169.
196 See, e.g., M. Eve Hanan, Decriminalizing Violence: A Critique of Restorative Justice and Proposal for Diversionary Mediation, 46 N.M L. Rev. 123, 132-133
(2016) (discussing potential for coercion through fear of prosecution).
197 See generally Michael M. O’Hear, Is Restorative Justice Compatible with Sentencing Uniformity?, 89 Marq. L. Rev. 305 (2005), https://scholarship.law.
marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=mulr.
198 See generally Robert Weisberg, The Practice of Restorative Justice: Restorative Justice and the Danger of “Community,” 15 Utah L. Rev. 343 (2003).
199 A special challenge that restorative justice programs for hate crimes may face in garnering public support is that studies show that people are
more likely to support restorative justice for offenders who belong to their own identity group. Michael Wenzel, et al, Justice through Consensus:
Shared Id.ntity and the Preference for a Restorative Notion of Justice, 40 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 909 (2010). The hate crimes context, of course, involves
scenarios where victims and offenders generally belong to different identity groups.
200 Shelley S. Hyland, Bureau of Just. Stats., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts, 2016 – Preliminary (Nov. 7, 2019),
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6728.
201 Michael McLaughlin et al., The Inst. for Advancing Just. Research and Innovation, The Economic Burden of Incarceration in the U.S. 20
(October 2016), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/iajre/the_economic_burden_of_incarceration_in_the_us.pdf.
202 Crime Victim Compensation Program Initiative, Off. for Victims of Crime, https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/crime-victim-compensation-programinitiative-factsheet/index.html (last visited Jan. 27, 2020).
203 Id.
204 See CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION: An Overview, Nat’l Ass’n of Crime Victim Comp. Bds., http://www.nacvcb.org/index.asp?bid=14 (last
visited Jan. 29, 2020).
205 Sinnar & Colgan, supra note 194, at 155-60.
206 Douglas N. Evans, John Jay Coll. of Crim. Just., City Univ. of N.Y., Compensating Victims of Crime 1 (2014), https://www.njjn.org/uploads/
digital-library/jf_johnjay3.pdf.
207 For instance, California includes hate crime as a covered offense that allows victims to seek compensation. See Who’s Eligible, Cal. Victim Comp.
Bd., https://victims.ca.gov/victims/eligibility.aspx (last visited Feb. 20, 2020). Yet the California Victim Compensation Board also notes that
“a person must be a victim of a qualifying crime involving physical injury, threat of physical injury or death. Id. The board goes on to note,
however, that in “certain crimes, emotional injury alone is enough to qualify. Id. It is thus unclear whether victims of hate crime who did not
suffer physical injury would qualify.
208 Nat’l Ass’n of Crime Victim Comp. Bds., supra note 204.
209 Victim Compensation, N.Y. Office of Victim Servs., https://ovs.ny.gov/victim-compensation (last visited Feb. 20, 2020).
210 Bureau of Victim Comp., Fla. Office of Att’y Gen., Victim Compensation Brochure (2019), http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY8CVP5T/$file/BVCVictimCompensationBrochure.pdf.
211 Nat’l Ass’n of Crime Victim Comp. Bds., supra note 204.
212 See supra, Part II.B.1.
213 Evans, supra note 206, at 7-8.
214 Sinnar & Colgan, supra note 194, at 157-58.
215 Nat’l Ass’n of Crime Victim Comp. Bds., supra note 204.
216 See Council of Econ. Advisers, Exec. Off. of the President, Fines, Fees, and Bail: Payments in the Criminal Justice System that Disproportionately
Impact the Poor 4 (2015), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf.
217 Id.
218 Criminal Justice Fact Sheet, NAACP, https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet (last visited Feb. 20, 2020).
219 Every Crime Victim Matters: A Guide to Crime Victims’ Compensation in New York State, N.Y. Off. of Victim Servs. (Mar. 6, 2018), https://ovs.ny.gov/
sites/default/files/brochure/ovs-crime-victim-brochure-2018-web-final-3-18.pdf.
220 Apply for Victims Compensation, Ohio Att’y Gen.’s Off., https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Individuals-and-Families/Victims/Apply-forVictims-Compensation (last visited Feb. 21, 2020).
221 Jessica Floum, Portland Offers Grants to Combat City’s Rising Hate Crimes, Oregonian (Jan. 9, 2019), https://www.oregonlive.com/
portland/2017/07/portland_offers_grants_to_comb.html.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 46

222 About Portland United Against Hate, Coal. of Comtys. of Color, https://sites.google.com/view/portland-tracks-hate/about (last visited Feb. 21,
2020).
223 Sinnar & Colgan, supra note 194, at 160 n.57.
224 See New York, Fines & Fees Just. Ctr. (Nov. 12, 2018), https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/campaigns/new-york-campaign-fines-fees.
225 Am. Bar Ass’n, Ten Guidelines on Court Fines and Fees (2018) (introduction), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
administrative/government_affairs_office/aba-ten-guidelines_.pdf?logActivity=true.
226 What is a Victim Advocate?, Nat’l Ctr. for Victims of Crime, https://members.victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-help-bulletinsfor-crime-victims/what-is-a-victim-advocate-#what (last visited Feb. 22, 2020); What Does a Victim Advocate Do?, Victim Support Servs., https://
victimsupportservices.org/help-for-victims/what-is-a-victim-advocate (last visited Feb. 22, 2020).
227 See Lisa Newmark et al., Urb. Inst., The National Evaluation of State Victims of Crime Act Assistance and Compensation Programs: Trends and
Strategies for the Future 158-72 (Apr. 2003), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/59536/410924-The-National-Evaluationof-State-Victims-of-Crime-Act-Assistance-and-Compensation-Programs-Trends-and-Strategies-for-the-Future-Full-Report-.PDF (listing various
state, local, and community-organization-based victim advocate programs).
228 Off. of Crime Victims Advoc., Wash. State Dep’t of Com., Victims of Crime: Indicators of Success 1 (March 2012), https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/
InnovativePractices/Practices_Indicators%20of%20success-508.pdf (“The Office of Crime Victims Advocacy (OCVA) serves as a voice within
government for the needs of crime victims in Washington State.”).
229 Newmark et al., supra note 227, at 131 (“There are now over 10,000 community programs which provide a very broad range of services to meet
victims’ physical, financial, emotional, and advocacy needs.”).
230 See, e.g., Nat’l Coal. of Anti-Violence Programs, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected Hate Violence in 2016, 51-73
(2017), https://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NCAVP_2016HateViolence_REPORT.pdf (describing various victim advocate services
for local LGBTQ communities).
231 Hate Crime Victim Assistance, Chi. Comm’n on Hum. Rels., https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/cchr/supp_info/assistance_for_
hatecrimevictims.html (last visited Feb. 17, 2020). This does not necessarily mean, however, that government offices are not training victim
advocates on hate crimes. See Off. for Victims of Crime, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Victim of Crimes Act Victim Assistant Formula Grant Program:
Fiscal Year 2016 Data Analysis Report 1 (Apr. 2017), https://www.ovc.gov/grants/vocanpr_va16.pdf (providing that VOCA funds may be used
for victim advocate training).
232 Newmark et al., supra note 227, at 173.
233 See id. at 24, 33, 71 (finding that law enforcement reporting requirements hinder full participation in both victim compensation and VOCAfunded victim services).
234 Nat’l Coal. of Anti-Violence Programs, supra note 230, at 43.
235 Newmark et al., supra note 227, at 192.
236 Id. at 87.
237 See, e.g., Governor’s Task Force on Bias-Related Violence, N.Y. Div. of Hum. Rts., Final Report 105-07 (1988) (stating that victim service staff are
not free from biases).
238 Newmark et al., supra note 227, at 194.
239 Off. for Victims of Crime, supra note 231, at 4. See, e.g., Wash. State Dep’t of Com., Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) 2015-2019 State Plan 1, 4,
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ocva-voca-state-plan-2015-2019-.pdf (last visited Feb. 22, 2020) (showing that the
state will allocate VOCA funding to organizations that provide services to hate crimes).
240 Newmark et al., supra note 227, at x. That said, VOCA is just one source of funding for these organizations. Victim advocate programs can
receive funding from state- and local-level grants, as well as nonprofit foundations—though these have traditionally not been very substantial
pools of money. Id.
241 Newmark et al., supra note 227, at 192.
242 Id.
243 See discussion supra, Section III.B.1.
244 See Bita Ghafoori et al., Global Perspectives on the Trauma of Hate-Based Violence 3-4 (2019), https://www.istss.org/ISTSS_Main/media/
Documents/ISTSS-Global-Perspectives-on-the-Trauma-of-Hate-Based-Violence-Briefing-Paper.pdf.
245 Shannon K. McCoy & Brenda Major, Group Id.ntification Moderates Emotional Responses to Perceived Prejudice, 29 Personality & Soc. Psychol. Bull.
1005, 1015 (2003).
246 Mental Health Disparities: Diverse Populations, Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/cultural-competency/education/
mental-health-facts (last visited Dec. 30, 2020) (noting long-lasting consequences of mental illness in racial and ethnic minority groups and
prevalence of mental health challenges facing LGBTQ individuals).
247 Id. at 3 (noting lack of culturally competent providers as barrier to care).
248 Id. at 2.
249 Mental Health Disparities: LGBTQ Population, Am. Psychiatric Ass’n 3 (2017), https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/cultural-competency/
education/mental-health-facts.
250 Council of Nat’l Psych. Ass’ns for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Ints., Psychological Treatment of Ethnic Minority Populations 5-7
(2003), https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/brochures/treatment-minority.pdf.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 47

251 Helena Hansen et al., Alleviating the Mental Health Burden of Structural Discrimination and Hate Crimes: The Role of Psychiatrists, 175 Am. J. Psychiatry
929, 931 (2018), https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17080891.
252 Id.
253 Continuing Education, Lewis & Clark Graduate Sch. of Educ. & Counseling, https://graduate.lclark.edu/live/events/304822-disrupting-hate-amental-health-providers-guide-to (last visited Feb. 22, 2020).
254 Portland United Against Hate, 2017-2018 Special Appropriations and 2018-2019 BMP Grant Report 4-5 (2019), https://drive.google.com/
file/d/1m7V7VWtaTOfony0Bgkp3oDzkPw7Opf24/view.
255 Id.
256 Id.
257 About Us, Cmty. United Against Violence, https://www.cuav.org/about-1 (last visited Feb. 22, 2020).
258 Programs, Cmty. United Against Violence, https://www.cuav.org/programs (last visited Feb. 22, 2020); Analysis of Violence, Cmty. United Against
Violence, https://www.cuav.org/aov (last visited July 21, 2020).
259 Programs, Cmty. United Against Violence, supra note 258.
260 Why Khalil, Khalil Ctr., https://khalilcenter.com/why-khalil (last visited Feb. 22, 2020).
261 See Anna North, When Hate Leads to Depression, N.Y. Times (Apr. 17, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/opinion/when-hate-leads-todepression.html.
262 See Chaya Babu, Why I Left My White Therapist, Vice (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d7pa5j/why-i-left-my-white-therapist.
263 See North, supra note 261.
264 What We Do, YWCA Kalamazoo, http://ywcakalamazoo.org/what-we-do (last visited Feb. 22, 2020).
265 Project Speak Up, YWCA Kalamazoo, http://ywcakalamazoo.org/project-speak-up (last visited Feb. 22, 2020).
266 Press Release, Council on Am.-Islamic Rels., Aqabah Karate to Co-Sponsor Free Self-Defense Workshop for Maryland Muslim Women (Dec. 11,
2016), https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-aqabah-karate-to-co-sponsor-free-self-defense-workshop-for-maryland-muslim-women.
267 See North, supra note 261.
268 See Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, supra note 246.
269 Zoom Interview by Tiarra Rogers and Tyler Bishop with Becky Monroe, Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights (Apr. 28, 2020).
270 See About the National Sexual Assault Telephone Hotline, Rape, Abuse & Incest Nat’l Network, https://www.rainn.org/about-national-sexualassault-telephone-hotline (last visited Feb. 9, 2020).
271 Id.
272 Hate Crimes Case Examples, Fed. Bureau of Investigation https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crimes-case-examples (last visisted Feb. 20,
2020) (listing “representative federal hate crimes case summaries”).
273 New Am., Anti-Muslim Activities in the United States 2012-2018: Violence, Threats, and Discrimination at the Local Level (2018), https://www.
newamerica.org/in-depth/anti-muslim-activity/ (last visited Feb. 22, 2020). See, e.g., Anti-Defamation League, Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents:
Year in Review 2018 (2019), https://www.adl.org/media/12857/download (discussing acts of violence against Jewish institutions).
274 Cal. A.B. No. 1548 (2019), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1548.
275 E.g., Apply to the Securing Communities Against Hate Crimes Grant Program, N.Y. State, https://www.governor.ny.gov/apply-securing-communitiesagainst-hate-crimes-grant-program (last visited Feb. 18, 2020). Some other countries use a similar model to help secure frequently targeted
communities. See, e.g., Jim Bronskill, Liberals Expand Funding for Hate Crime Prevention Measures, Can. Press (Nov. 28, 2016), https://www.
macleans.ca/politics/liberals-expands-funding-for-hate-crime-prevention-measures/.
276 Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Nonprofit Security
Grant Program (NSGP) 3 (2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_fy-2020_nonprofit-security-grant-program_nofo.pdf.
277 See Michael German & Emmanuel Mauleón, Brennan Ctr. For Just., Fighting Far-Right Violence And Hate Crimes (June 2019), https://www.
brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Far_Right_Violence.pdf (discussing the distinction between hate crimes and terrorism,
as defined under federal law).
278 Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, supra note 276, at 4. This is a substantial increase from 2019, during which $60 million in grant funding was
available. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Nonprofit
Security Grant Program (NSGP) 4 (2019), https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1555009440678-8c53df465068047205697ceb04ce2be2/
FY_2019_NSGP_NOFO_FINAL_508.pdf.
279 Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, supra note 276, at 4.
280 See Protecting Against Hate Crimes, Md. Governor’s Off. of Crime Prevention, Youth & Victim Servs., http://goccp.maryland.gov/grants/
programs/pahc (last visisted Dec. 30, 2020); Apply for a Commonwealth Nonprofit Security Grant, Mass. Off. of Grants & Rsch., https://www.
mass.gov/how-to/apply-for-a-commonwealth-nonprofit-security-grant (last visited Dec. 30, 2020); SFY2019-2020 Securing Communities Against
Hate Crimes Grant Program, N.Y. Div. of Homeland Sec. & Emergency Servs., http://www.dhses.ny.gov/grants/nonprofit/hate-crimes.cfm
(last visited Dec. 30, 2020); Non-Profit Security Grant Program, Pa. Comm’n on Crime & Delinq., https://www.pccd.pa.gov/schoolsafety/
Pages/Non-Profit-Security-Grant-Fund.aspx (last visited Dec. 30, 2020).

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 48

281 Homeland Sec. & Emergency Servs., N.Y. State, $45 million SFY2019-20 Securing Communities Against Hate Crimes Grant Programs, http://www.dhses.
ny.gov/grants/nonprofit/hate-crimes.cfm (last visited Feb. 21, 2010).
282 See, e.g., Md. Governor’s Off. of Crime Control & Prevention, FY 2020 Protection Against Hate Crimes (PAHC) Notice of Funding Availability
Application Guidance Kit (Nov. 2019), http://goccp.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/FY2020-PAHC-NOFA.pdf; Mass. Exec. Off. of Pub.
Safety, State Fiscal Year 2020 Commonwealth Nonprofit Security Grant Program (Jan. 2, 2020), https://www.mass.gov/doc/availability-of-grantfunds/download.
283 See, e.g., Pa. Comm’n on Crime & Delinq., supra note 280.
284 See Md. Governor’s Off. of Crime Control & Prevention, supra note 282 (requiring recipients to cover 33% of cost for grants above $25,000 and
50% for grants above $75,000).
285 See, e.g., Infrastructure Protection Grants, Cal. Governor’s Off. of Emergency Servs., https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/grantsmanagement/homeland-security-prop-1b-grant-programs/infrastructure-protection-grants (last visited Feb. 22, 2020) (stating that unit of the
California Office of Emergency Services that administered NSGP, the Infrastructure Protection Grants Unit, now administers the state grant
program, too).
286 Pa. Comm’n on Crime & Delinq., supra note 280 (“Please be advised that the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA)
administers the Federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP), which is completely, totally separate from PCCD’s Nonprofit Security
Grant Program.”).
287 E.g., Press Release, Council on Am.-Islamic Rels., CAIR Supports NY City Council Security Grant Program to Protect Muslim, Jewish and Other
Community Institutions (Mar. 20, 2017), https://www.cair-ny.org/news/tag/hate+crimes (quoting CAIR-NY Legal Director Albert Cahn as
stating that “New York’s Muslim and Jewish communities have both seen a disturbing rise in violence, and we expect that this funding will help
both faith communities keep their members safe.”).
288 Nancy G. La Vigne, et al., Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention, Urban Institute, (2011) https://cops.
usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0614-pub.pdf; Paul R. Zimmerman, The Deterrence of Crime Through Private Security Efforts: Theory and Evidence,
International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 37, p. 66 (2013), https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Zimmerman-IRLE.
pdf. See also Colin Young, Hate Crimes Drive Push for State Security Funds, State House News Serv. (May 20, 2019) https://needham.wickedlocal.
com/news/20190520/hate-crimes-fuel-push-for-state-security-funds/2.
(quoting Jewish Community Relations Council government affairs director as saying, “if someone is hellbent on mayhem, these types of
security enhancements have been shown to slow someone down and give the first responders more time.”). Barak Ariel et al., ‘Lowering the
Threshold of Effective Deterrence’—Testing the Effect of Private Security Agents in Public Spaces on Crime: A Randomized Controlled Trial in a Mass Transit
System, 12 PloS ONE, no. 12, 2017, at 24-26 (finding potential, theoretical deterrent effect of security guards on crime).
289 Teresa Stepzinski, LGBT Youth Center Increases Security in Wake of Orlando Massacre, Fla. Times Union (June 13, 2016), https://www.jacksonville.
com/2016-07-11/stub-1.
290 Shira Schoenberg, Amid Spate of Anti-Semitic Attacks, Massachusetts Allocates $1.5 Million for Nonprofit Security Grants, Mass. Live (Jan. 6, 2020),
https://www.masslive.com/news/2020/01/amid-spate-of-anti-semitic-attacks-massachusetts-allocates-15-million-for-nonprofit-security-grants.
html.
291 Md. Governor’s Off. of Crime Control & Prevention, supra note 282, at 5.
292 David Love, We Must Combat Anti-Semitic Hate Crimes with Solidarity, Not Violence, CNN (Jan. 1, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/01/
opinions/anti-semitism-black-jewish-people-love/index.html.
293 Aysha Khan, In San Diego, Muslims Question Rollout of City’s ‘Smart’ Streetlights, Religion News Serv. (Sept. 20, 2019), https://religionnews.
com/2019/09/20/in-san-diego-muslims-question-rollout-of-the-citys-smart-streetlights.
294 Dustin Craun, San Diego Streetlights Target Communities of Color in Unprecedented Use of Technology in the United States, Ummah Wide (Sept. 15, 2019),
https://ummahwide.com/san-diego-streetlights-target-mosques-and-communities-of-color-in-unprecedented-use-of-technology-cffe1c63c610.
295 Khan, supra note 293.
296 Faiza Patel & Meghan Koushik, Countering Violent Extremism, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, (2017), https://www.
brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/countering-violent-extremism.
297 Privacy Impact Assessment for the Countering Violent Extremism Grant Program, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 3, (Dec. 7, 2016),
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsallpia-057-countering-violent-extremism-grant-program.
298 Letter to Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Dep’t. of Homeland Security, et al., Re: 2020 Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant
Program, (June 1, 2020), https://muslimadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020.06.01-Letter-to-DHS-Re_-TVTP-grants-FINAL.pdf.
299 To avoid the exacerbation of concerns about surveillance, institutions likewise should not be required to give law enforcement open access
to video surveillance or other information generated by grant purchases. Our review did not uncover any such requirement among existing
programs.
300 Council on Am.-Islamic Rels., Best Practices for Mosque and Community Safety (2020), https://www.cair.com/mosque-and-community-safety.
301 California is the exception: its program does not explicitly require serving a group with protected characteristics under current legislation. Cal.
Governor’s Off. of Emergency Servs., supra note 285.
302 The California approach provides a model. See id.
303 Christina Maxouris, Fortified Synagogues And Guards ‘Everybody Knows.’ How Life Changed A Year After The Tree Of Life Massacre, cnn.com, Oct. 27,
2019.
304 Cady Lang, Hate Crimes Against Asian Americans Are on the Rise. Many Say More Policing Isn’t the Answer, Time, Feb. 18, 2021.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 49

305 About Us, New York Anti-Violence Project, https://avp.org/about-us/.
306 New York Anti-Violence Project, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2018, 3, https://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AVP_FY18_Annual_
Report_revised_5.5.2020.pdf.
307 Reports & Dashboards – Hate Crimes Reports, New York City Police Department, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/reports-analysis/hatecrimes.page (The NYPD numbers come from the 2017 third and fourth quarter reports as well as the 2018 first and second quarter reports, to
match the July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 period from the NYC AVP 2018 Annual Report.).
308 Press Release, Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Strengthens Hate Tracking Initiative on 35th
Anniversary of Vincent Chin Attack (Jun. 19, 2017, https://www.advancingjustice-alc.org/news_and_media/asian-americans-advancing-justicestrengthens-hate-tracking-initiative-on-35th-anniversary-of-vincent-chin-attack/.
309 See Stop AAPI Hate website, https://stopaapihate.org/, and National Report, at https://stopaapihate.org/national-report-throughmarch-2021/.
310 About, Communities Against Hate, https://communitiesagainsthate.org/about.
311 Press Release, New York Anti-Violence Project, Diverse Group of NYC Community Organizations Rally for Hate Violence Prevention (Mar. 27,
2019), https://avp.org/diverse-group-of-nyc-community-organizations-rally-for-hate-violence-prevention/.
312 Press Release, City of New York, Mayor de Blasio Launches Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes, Months Ahead of Schedule (Sept. 3, 2019), https://
www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/411-19/mayor-de-blasio-launches-office-the-prevention-hate-crimes-months-ahead-schedule#/0;
Resource – City Council Hate Violence Prevention Initiative, City of New York, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/stophate/resources/city-council-hateviolence-prevention-initiative.page.
313 Christina Goldbaum & Matthew Sedacca, Solidarity March Against Anti-Semitism: Thousands Rally After Attacks, N.Y. Times (Jan. 5, 2020,
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/nyregion/anti-semitism-solidarity-march-nyc.html.

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Hate Crimes | June 2021

| 50