Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report May 9, 2019 Melissa Alderson Claudia Gross-Shader Jane Dunkel David G. Jones, City Auditor Seattle Office of City Auditor Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Report Highlights Background Seattle City Councilmember Lisa Herbold asked our office to audit the City of Seattle’s (City) handling of hate crimes. Our office completed a first phase report focused on practices and processes the Seattle Police Department (SPD) follows to identify, respond to, and prevent hate crimes. This second phase report examines prosecuted hate crimes, identifies areas where hate crimes are concentrated, and uses community feedback and best practices to offer ways to strengthen efforts to prevent, respond to, and report hate crimes. What We Found In this Phase 2 report, we found: 1. Reported hate crimes and incidents in Seattle increased dramatically from 2012 to 2018. 2. SPD refers about a third of hate crimes for prosecution. 3. Hate crimes are concentrated in high traffic areas, in areas of dense demographic diversity, and along the borders of racially diverse neighborhoods. 4. Community organizations report that: hates crimes are a significant issue, some populations are more vulnerable (such as people with disabilities and the homeless), underreporting is a concern, and more support from the City is needed. 5. SPD does not have sufficient data to evaluate their hate crime response and prevention efforts. Recommendations We make seven recommendations to improve the City’s efforts to prevent, respond to, and report on hate crimes. We recommend that SPD improve the way hate crime data is documented in their records management system, then create policies and procedures that support these changes. SPD should also explore ways to partner with community organizations that are seeking more support in preventing and responding to hate crimes. We recommend that SPD evaluate and measure the results of their hate crime prevention and response efforts. Finally, we recommend that the King County Prosecutor’s Office (KCPO) and the Seattle City Attorney’s Office (CAO) make data on prosecuted hate crimes available to the public. WHY WE DID THIS AUDIT This audit was conducted in response to Seattle City Councilmember Lisa Herbold’s request for our office to review the City of Seattle’s handling of hate crimes. Specifically, we were asked to: • Determine how SPD uses hate crime data (Phase 1) • Research leading practices in hate crime prevention, response, and reporting (Phase 1) • Review how hate crimes are investigated and prosecuted (Phase 2) HOW WE DID THIS AUDIT To accomplish the audit’s Phase 2 objectives, we: • Reviewed and analyzed cases of prosecuted hate crimes • Interviewed staff from the Seattle Police Department, the King County Prosecutor’s Office, and the City Attorney’s Office • Surveyed community organizations that support minority and vulnerable communities Department Response SPD, CAO, and KCPO generally agree with the report’s recommendations. SPD’s formal response can be found in Appendix A. Seattle Office of City Auditor David G. Jones, City Auditor www.seattle.gov/cityauditor Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 HATE CRIMES AND INCIDENTS IN SEATTLE ................................................................. 2 HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS IN SEATTLE .................................................................... 6 CONCENTRATIONS OF HATE CRIMES IN SEATTLE ..................................................... 13 OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN PREVENTION AND RESPONSE ........................... 16 Survey of Local Community Organizations ...................................................................................16 Evaluating Hate Crime Prevention and Response Efforts ..........................................................19 STATUS OF PHASE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 22 OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 25 APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 27 Department Response .........................................................................................................................27 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 32 List of Recommendations ...................................................................................................................32 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................. 33 SPD Reports and Prosecutions of Malicious Harassment .........................................................33 APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................ 34 Measuring the Effectiveness of Hate Crime Prevention and Response Efforts ...................34 APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................. 35 Survey of Community Organizations ..............................................................................................35 APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................. 44 Demographics and Case Characteristics of Prosecuted Hate Crimes in King County .......44 APPENDIX G................................................................................................................. 46 Geographic and Demographic Analysis of Hate Crimes in Seattle .........................................46 APPENDIX H ................................................................................................................ 66 Seattle Office of City Auditor Mission, Background, and Quality Assurance .......................66 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report INTRODUCTION Audit Overview In 2016, Seattle City Councilmember Lisa Herbold asked our office to audit the City of Seattle’s handling of hate crimes, including looking at how the Seattle Police Department uses hate crime data, how hate crimes are investigated and prosecuted, and the extent to which the City of Seattle (City) is using leading practices for preventing and responding to hate crimes. Our office structured this review into two phases. The first phase report, published in September 2017, focused on practices and processes the City follows to identify, respond to, and prevent hate crimes. This second phase report provides data on hate crimes in Seattle, examines hate crime prosecution data, identifies areas where hate crimes are concentrated, and uses community feedback and best practices to offer ways to strengthen Seattle’s efforts to prevent, respond to, and report hate crimes. Acknowledgements The Office of City Auditor would like to thank Dr. Jack McDevitt from Northeastern University and Dr. Janice Iwama from American University for sharing their expertise on hate crimes and reviewing previous versions of this report. We also thank Dr. Tim Thomas from the University of Washington for his geographic and demographic analysis of hate crimes and the insights gained from that analysis. Additionally, we extend our appreciation to the King County Prosecutor’s Office for sharing their prosecution data. In particular, we thank Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mike Hogan for sharing his insights from years of experience and his approach to prosecuting hate crimes. Finally, we appreciate the continued cooperation from the Seattle Police Department, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Seattle Office for Civil Rights. Page 1 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report HATE CRIMES AND INCIDENTS IN SEATTLE What is a Hate Crime? A hate crime is a criminal act, usually involving assault, threat of bodily harm, or property damage, that is motivated by bias based on real or perceived characteristics of the victim. The term hate crime is interchangeable with bias crime and with malicious harassment, which is the legal description for this type of crime. A hate incident is offensive or derogatory language that does not rise to the level of a crime. In this report, we use the terms “hate crime cases” and “hate crime reports” interchangeably, and define them as reported incidents that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) has reviewed and determined to be bias motivated. SPD has three categories to describe bias related cases: malicious harassment, crimes with bias elements, and non-criminal bias incidents. Washington’s malicious harassment law specifies eight bias categories: 1) race, 2) color, 3) religion, 4) ancestry, 5) national origin, 6) gender, 7) sexual orientation, and 8) a mental, physical, or sensory handicap. The City of Seattle has a malicious harassment law that includes five additional categories: 1) homelessness, 2) marital status, 3) political ideology, 4) age, and 5) parental status. Hate Crimes in Seattle are Rising Reports of hate crimes continue to increase in Seattle and have increased by almost 400 percent since 2012, from 106 cases in 2012 to 521 cases in 2018. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data shows that hate crimes have risen across the nation as well. A recent study from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino calculated that the number of reported hate crimes in the ten largest cities in the United States has increased for four years in a row and hate crime cases have reached the highest level in a decade. See Exhibit 1 for a summary of hate crimes and incidents in Seattle between 2012 and 2018. Page 2 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Exhibit 1: Hate Crimes and Incidents Reported to SPD between 2012 and 2018 521 418 181 136 256 205 106 109 33 45 28 32 44 33 2012 2013 126 22 53 51 2014 78 64 57 169 215 89 84 89 113 125 2015 2016 2017 2018 Non-Criminal Bias Incidents Offensive bias comments; increased 448% since 2012 Crimes with Bias Elements Criminal act involving bias, but not bias motivated; increased 378% since 2012 Malicious Harassment Criminal act motivated by bias; increased 346% since 2012 Source: Seattle Office of City Auditor analysis of Seattle Police Department bias crime data. As discussed in our Phase 1 report, a rise in reported hate crimes does not necessarily mean there are more of these crimes occurring. Jurisdictions that report more hate crimes are typically seen as leaders in hate crime response efforts because high reporting can indicate law enforcement is prioritizing these crimes. Exhibits 2 and 3 show the top four offense categories and bias categories for reported hate crimes and incidents from 2012 to 2018. Of the assault offenses, half involved a racial bias, and anti-black crimes accounted for over half of the hate crimes within the race bias category. Reports of hate crimes can help expose which groups are experiencing high levels of victimization, but it is important to remember that these numbers tell only part of the story. Communities that show low levels of reporting need to receive special attention to ensure that there isn’t rampant underreporting. For example, studies of crimes against people with disabilities have shown that there are many barriers, such as physical access, social, and institutional barriers, that may deter reporting hate crimes to law enforcement. This may be a population that would benefit from tailored outreach and support. Page 3 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Exhibit 2: Top Four Reported Offense Categories of Hate Crimes and Incidents, 2012-2018 175 150 Assaults with a hate element increased 524% since 2012 125 100 75 50 Bias incidents increased 850% 25 0 2012 2013 Assault 2014 2015 Harassment 2016 2017 Threats 2018 Bias Incident Source: Seattle Office of City Auditor analysis of Seattle Police Department bias crimes data. Exhibit 3: Top Four Reported Bias Categories of Hate Crimes and Incidents, 2012-2018 300 250 200 Hate crimes and incidents with a racial bias increased 427% since 2012 150 100 50 0 2012 Race Only 2013 2014 LGBTQ Only 2015 2016 Religion Only 2017 2018 Ethnicity Only Source: Seattle Office of City Auditor analysis of Seattle Police Department bias crimes data. SPD Hate Crime Resources The unit responsible for investigating hate crimes within SPD, the Violent Crimes unit, has maintained the same staffing level since 2008, at 52 full-time equivalents (FTE’s). Hate crimes are assigned to the Bias Crimes Coordinator or another detective, depending on available resources. The Bias Crimes Coordinator is responsible for participating in community outreach, creating detailed reports, and maintaining her own caseload of hate crime investigations. Page 4 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Additionally, she acts as a resource on hate crimes for other detectives. Since hiring the Bias Crimes Coordinator in 2015, reports of hate crimes in Seattle have more than doubled, yet SPD resources dedicated to investigating and working to prevent these crimes have stayed the same. In this audit, we did not evaluate whether the number of detectives in the Violent Crimes unit is enough to adequately address hate crime cases. We also did not assess if one Bias Crimes Coordinator position was sufficient to handle the current workload. However, given the growing number of reported hate crimes, the City of Seattle may want to evaluate the resources dedicated to hate crime investigations and outreach. Page 5 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report HATE CRIME PROSECUTIONS IN SEATTLE Section Summary In evaluating the lifecycle of a hate crime, prosecution data helps to provide the complete story of how the criminal justice system handled the crime. In this section, we summarize cases of malicious harassment referred for prosecution from 2012 to 2017. We describe how hate crimes are referred for prosecution, why some cases are not prosecuted, and why not all cases result in a hate crime conviction. We make recommendations to improve documentation related to referring hate crimes for prosecution, and to increase the transparency and use of prosecution data. How Hate Crimes are Referred Under current Seattle and Washington State laws, malicious harassment is an offense motivated in whole or in part by the offender's bias, and it is a separate standalone crime. See Exhibit 4 for a comparison of the Seattle and Washington Malicious Harassment laws. SPD sends misdemeanor level crimes to the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) and felony level crimes to the King County Prosecutor’s Office (KCPO). Exhibit 4: Local Malicious Harassment Laws Washington State – Felony Conviction Sentence: Maximum : 5 years prison and $10,000 fine Standard: 6 months jail City of Seattle – Gross Misdemeanor Conviction Sentence: Maximum : 364 days jail and $5,000 fine Additional Protected Bias Categories: Protected Bias Categories: • Homelessness • Race • Marital Status • Religion • Political Ideology • Ancestry • Age • Ethnicity • Parental Status • National Origin • Gender • Sexual Orientation • Mental, Physical, Sensory Disability Maximum: the maximum sentence allowed under the Revised Code of Washington. Standard: the midpoint of the sentence range for a defendant with an offender score of 0. These standards apply to felony convictions only. Source: 2017 Washington State Adult Sentencing Guidelines Manual, version 20171201; Seattle Municipal Code 12A.06.115; and Seattle Municipal Code 12A.02.070. The Seattle Police Department (SPD) explained that after they receive a hate crime report, detective sergeants assess the “solvability factors,” as well as the severity of injury to the victim, and the impact Page 6 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report to the community to determine if a case should be assigned to a detective for further investigation. Solvability factors can include the existence of an identifiable suspect, witness statements, or physical evidence. As part of this audit, we did not assess these solvability factors or evaluate the decisions detective sergeants made when they determined which cases were investigated. However, the Bias Crimes Coordinator can open and investigate any bias crime case, even if it was not selected for further investigation and assigned to a detective. Cases that are selected for further investigation are assigned to either the Bias Crimes Coordinator, or another detective in the Violent Crimes unit. The detectives consider the facts of the case, including the availability of the victim and witnesses, evidence, and the legal filing standards applicable to malicious harassment, to determine whether a case should be forwarded for prosecution. The Bias Crimes Coordinator reviews every report marked as involving bias, regardless of whether it was previously assigned to a detective, to ensure it was coded appropriately and to include the data in monthly and bi-annual statistical reports. Summary of Prosecution Analysis We reviewed all SPD hate crimes that were referred for prosecution between 2012 and 2017. For this period, there were 398 incidents that were reported to and verified by SPD as being a malicious harassment crime. SPD referred about a third of these cases (128) to KCPO or CAO for prosecution. Ten of these cases were originally categorized and referred by SPD as a different crime, and KCPO or CAO ultimately prosecuted them as malicious harassment. KCPO and CAO accepted most referred cases, though some were ultimately prosecuted as a crime other than malicious harassment. In the six-year period we reviewed, 37 cases resulted in a malicious harassment conviction. Exhibit 5 summarizes the numbers of hate crimes that progressed through SPD and KCPO and CAO. See Appendices C and F for a more detailed look at this data. Page 7 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Exhibit 5: Total SPD Hate Crime Cases, Case Referrals, and Convictions by KCPO and CAO, 2012-2017 398 SPD Reported Cases of Malicious Harassment 128 Referred for Prosecution (10 of these were referred as another crime) 102 Accepted for Prosecution 87 Prosecuted as Malicious Harassment 37 Malicious Harassment Convictions Source: Seattle Office of City Auditor analysis of Seattle Police Department, King County Prosecutor’s Office, and Seattle City Attorney’s Office data. SPD Refers a Third of Hate Crime Cases for Prosecution From 2012 to 2017, SPD referred about a third of malicious harassment cases for prosecution for either misdemeanor or felony filing. We did not benchmark Seattle’s referral rate against other jurisdictions; however, according to the most recent National Crime Victimization Survey, between 2011 and 2015 about 12 percent of reported hate crimes resulted in an arrest. This suggests that SPD is referring a higher number of hate crimes for prosecution than the national average. Research has shown that hate crimes can be challenging to investigate and prosecute for many reasons. Most hate crimes involve encounters between strangers, so a victim may not be able to identify or locate the offender. Further, victims of hate crimes may be reluctant to participate in investigation and prosecution efforts because of the trauma they experienced from the incident, as hate crimes can cause severe emotional stress for the victim. For these reasons and others, experts agree that the percentage of hate crime prosecutions will be lower than the number reported to law enforcement. Page 8 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Some Cases Are Referred for Prosecution but Not Accepted KCPO and CAO review referred cases of malicious harassment and make a “filing decision” on whether to prosecute the case and, if so, under which statute. When deciding whether to prosecute a case, KCPO officials told us they consider many factors, including, among others, the thoroughness of the investigation completed by the detective and the availability and cooperation of the victim and witness(es). We asked KCPO the reason they declined cases referred as malicious harassment in 2016 and 2017. During this period, KCPO declined seven cases for the following reasons: • Determined the case did not involve a bias motive (5) • Victim or witness did not want to assist in prosecution (2) For the cases CAO received that were referred as malicious harassment from 2012 to 2017, CAO declined 13 cases for the following reasons: • Victim did not want to assist in prosecution (6) • Insufficient evidence to prove malicious harassment (3) • Determined the case involved a felony level crime (3) • Joined with another case (1) Not All Hate Crimes Result in a Hate Crime Conviction Prosecutors carefully consider the details of each case to determine the crime for which they have the most evidence and for which they will most likely obtain a conviction. Malicious harassment cases can be challenging to prosecute because the motive of the defendant needs to be proven, whereas most other crimes do not require this burden of proof. However, when enough evidence is available, there is often value in prosecuting hate crimes as malicious harassment because of the message it sends to the defendant and the community that bias related crimes will not be tolerated. For cases in which the defendant’s motive cannot be proven, the prosecutor will choose the most applicable crime to charge. In our analysis of prosecuted hate crimes, 43 percent of the defendants charged with malicious harassment were convicted of the same crime, 25 percent were convicted of a different crime, and 21 percent had the entire case dismissed or transferred to King County Mental Health Court. The remaining defendants received no conviction, or their case was still open at the time of our review. Page 9 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Prosecution Data Can Provide Value for Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, and the Public Comparing the number of reported hate crimes to those prosecuted over time, and tracking the reasons why reported cases are not referred for prosecution or are not prosecuted, can provide insight into ways in which both police investigations and prosecutions could be improved. For example, the number of cases selected for prosecution, when reviewed over time and in context, can indicate the sufficiency of evidence and quality of the investigation. Also, the number of hate crime convictions could provide insight into barriers to prosecution, if any. See Appendix D for more information on measuring the effectiveness of hate crime response efforts. SPD Should Document Reasons for Not Referring Cases The implementation of a new records management system later this year will enable SPD to improve the tracking of hate crime cases. SPD’s current records management system has a field that documents the status of the case, including whether the case was referred for prosecution. However, this tracking method can result in inaccurate referral information. For example, if a case is “open” and being investigated by SPD, while also being worked at the prosecutor’s office, the system may record the status simply as “open” but not referred for prosecution. At the time of our review, SPD was not confident the records management system could accurately show which malicious harassment cases were referred for prosecution. However, SPD anticipates this technological limitation will be remedied with the new system. Additionally, SPD does not document in their records management system the reasons hate crime cases are not referred for prosecution. Exhibit 6 shows the results of our review of all hate crime cases between 2012 and 2017. As the exhibit shows, the number of hate crime reports is growing at a faster rate than the number of referred or prosecuted hate crimes. SPD officials told us that an increase in reported crimes would not necessarily result in an increase in prosecuted crimes, because the decision of whether to refer a case for prosecution depends on the details of each individual case. However, because SPD did not track the reasons hate crime cases were not referred, we could not determine why more cases were not submitted for prosecution. SPD officials reported to us that they can explore adding functionality to track the reasons cases were not referred when implementing their new records management system. Page 10 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Exhibit 6: SPD Reports of Malicious Harassment, Referrals to KCPO and CAO, and Prosecutions by KCPO and CAO, 20122017 113 Malicious Harassment Reports, Referrals, and Prosecutions 84 89 51 28 33 23 20 30 25 18 12 8 2012 19 14 2013 2014 Reports of Malicious Harassment 14 12 2015 2016 20 2017 Cases Referred for Prosecution Cases Prosecuted as Malicious Harassment Source: Seattle Office of City Auditor analysis of Seattle Police Department, King County Prosecutor’s Office, and Seattle City Attorney’s Office data. Recommendation 1 SPD should include a separate field in their new records management system to indicate if a malicious harassment case has been referred for prosecution, and to which agency it was sent. This information should be maintained in a way that can be summarized and tracked. Recommendation 2 SPD should explore the feasibility of documenting the reasons that cases of malicious harassment are not referred for prosecution in their new records management system. This information should be maintained in a way that can be summarized and tracked. KCPO and CAO Should Track and Publicize Hate Crime Prosecution Data Currently, neither KCPO nor CAO sufficiently document or publish the outcome of hate crime prosecutions. As a result, it is difficult to obtain summary statistics of hate crime outcomes or to determine the extent to which hate crime laws are being enforced. This kind of information would be useful to both policy makers and the public. Additionally, law enforcement entities can use this information to identify areas for improvements in both investigatory and prosecution efforts. Without public access to prosecution data, it can be difficult for communities affected by hate crimes to see the outcomes of cases. Further, making prosecution data public and easily accessible could help improve confidence in law enforcement and the legal system, which in turn could increase reporting. Conversely, publicizing low rates of prosecuted hate crimes could raise public awareness and Page 11 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report increase accountability. The state of California is a good example of a jurisdiction providing consistent and transparent hate crime reporting and prosecution data across multiple agencies. California’s Open Justice website shows reported hate crimes, the number of hate crime cases referred for prosecution, the number of cases filed as hate crimes, and the number of hate crime convictions. Information on hate crime prosecutions from KCPO and CAO could include summary statistics on: • Cases referred by law enforcement as malicious harassment, or referred as another crime and later changed to malicious harassment • Cases prosecuted as malicious harassment • Cases referred but not prosecuted as malicious harassment, including the reasons why • The outcome of malicious harassment cases • The demographics of the defendants This data should be summarized by bias motivation and specific crime to sufficiently evaluate the outcome of different types of crimes. KCPO and CAO appear to have much of the data needed for this analysis already available in their respective records management systems; however, some data would need to be added, such as bias motivation. We recommend that both offices start entering case data into their systems in a way that can allow for easy summarizing of the data points listed above. Recommendation 3 The Seattle City Attorney’s Office and the King County Prosecutor’s Office should track and publicly report data on the prosecution of malicious harassment cases using the data categories listed in this report. Officials from CAO and KCPO told us they plan to implement this recommendation. Local Jurisdictions Can Learn from King County’s Long-Term Hate Crimes Prosecutor Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mike Hogan is the dedicated hate crimes prosecutor at King County and has over 30 years of experience prosecuting malicious harassment cases in Seattle. King County or the City of Seattle may want to consider capturing his expertise through a knowledge transfer exercise before he retires. For example, Mr. Hogan shared the following tips for law enforcement agencies investigating hate crimes: • • • • • Solicit and document statements from witnesses Document any slurs used, how often, and by whom Ask and seek out possible video recordings from the crime scene or from witnesses Get a statement of admission while the defendant is in custody, as soon as possible Ask for help from the King County Prosecutor’s Office with some investigation activities, such as reviewing social media accounts • Communicate the outcome of the case to the victim Documenting this information, such as in a training video or booklet, would be useful for future prosecuting attorneys and could also assist detectives by showing them the kind of investigative work and evidence that is necessary to support successful prosecution of hate crimes. Page 12 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report CONCENTRATIONS OF HATE CRIMES IN SEATTLE Section Summary Our office contracted with Dr. Tim Thomas from the University of Washington to analyze Seattle Police Department (SPD) hate crime data from 2012 to 2016, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) user-reported hate graffiti from 2013 to 2017, American Community Survey census data from the United States Census Bureau, and King County geographic data to identify neighborhoods where hate crimes in Seattle most frequently occur. Dr. Thomas found that in Seattle hate crimes occur most frequently in: 1. High traffic areas and on transit routes 2. Areas of dense demographic diversity 3. Borders of racially diverse neighborhoods In this section, we summarize the findings in Dr. Thomas’ report, which can be found in Appendix G. High Traffic Areas and Transit Dr. Thomas compared hate crimes with land use zones and found that about half of hate crimes occurred in areas zoned as “mixed use,” such as a blend of residential and commercial buildings, and “multi-family,” such as apartments or condos. These two zones are typically located next to each other, and mixed use zones fall along major streets and bus routes. Dr. Thomas explains that these high traffic areas result in more interactions between strangers and diverse groups, and this may lead to more hate crimes. Exhibit 7, from Dr. Thomas’ report, is an example of hate crimes concentrated along high traffic areas and in general mixed-use zoned areas. The exhibit shows concentrations of hate crimes occurring along Rainier Avenue in Southeast Seattle (see arrow on map). In our review of prosecuted hate crimes, we also found that many hate crimes (23 percent) occurred on a bus or at a bus stop. Though these crimes are under the jurisdiction of the King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO), they are often handled jointly with or entirely by SPD, as are all high profile crimes that occur in Seattle. Page 13 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Exhibit 7: Hate Crimes and Incidents in South Seattle, 2012-2016 Source: Neighborhood Demographics, Zoning, & Hate Crime Report Areas of Dense Demographic Diversity Within the city of Seattle, the Downtown and Capitol Hill neighborhoods show clear concentrations of hate crimes (see Figure 3.f in Appendix G). The Downtown business district experienced more anti-race and ethnicity crimes, while Capitol Hill experienced more anti-LGBTQ crimes. Dr. Thomas writes that Downtown Seattle attracts the most diverse demographic and socio-economic groups in the city, providing a higher likelihood for different groups to interact and potentially experience conflict. Dr. Thomas notes the Capitol Hill neighborhood has a high LGBTQ population, which may account for the concentration of anti-LGBTQ crimes in this part of the city. Page 14 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Borders of Racially Diverse Neighborhoods Dr. Thomas’ analysis found that hate crimes in less dense neighborhoods most often occurred along the edges of more racially diverse areas, and less frequently in the center of mostly white neighborhoods. Exhibit 8 is a map of North Seattle showing this effect. Dr. Thomas notes this pattern also occurs in block-groups located around West Seattle, Magnolia, Eastlake, and Montlake. Exhibit 8: Hate Crimes and Incidents in North Seattle, 2012-2016 Source: Neighborhood Demographics, Zoning, & Hate Crime Report Page 15 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN PREVENTION AND RESPONSE Section Summary In this section, we share the results from a survey we sent to community organizations in Seattle asking for their views on hate crimes. Most of the respondents reported that, in their opinion: 1) hate crimes are a significant issue, 2) not all hate crimes are being reported to SPD, 3) certain populations are more vulnerable to hate crimes than others, and 4) more support is needed from the City to prevent and respond to these crimes. We also describe opportunities for the City to strengthen prevention and response activities through increased outreach, and we share leading practices for evaluating hate crime efforts the City could adopt to monitor the impact of prevention and response activities. Sur vey of Local Community Organizations We sent a survey to 212 community organizations in Seattle, such as service providers and advocacy organizations supporting minority populations, to understand more about the services they provide for preventing and responding to hate crimes, and what additional support, if any, they may need from the City. We were also interested in learning about any barriers to reporting hate crimes to the Seattle Police Department (SPD). We received 54 valid and complete responses and summarize their answers below. See Appendix E for more information on how we conducted the survey. Hate Crimes are a Significant Issue The results of our survey indicate that hate crimes are a significant issue to Seattle’s community organizations and the constituents they serve. About half of the survey respondents reported that hate crimes are a significant issue for their community. Additionally, 59 percent of respondents reported knowing someone who had been victimized by a hate crime within the past six months. The most commonly reported places where hate crimes occurred were at the victim’s work, school, on transit, or on the way from one place to another. Hate Crimes are Underreported About a third of respondents told us that they were aware of at least one hate crime that was not reported to SPD. Common reasons cited for not reporting hate crimes include: • Cultural issues or fear of revealing immigration status • Fear of reprisal by the offender • Victim preferred to report to the community organization rather than law enforcement • Limited English proficiency Page 16 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report • Perception that law enforcement would be inefficient and/or ineffective • Victim handled the matter themselves or informally A recent study of National Crime Victimization Survey data found that the most common reason for not reporting a hate crime to law enforcement was because the victim decided to report the crime to another official. The researchers recommend implementing third party reporting structures to improve relationships with law enforcement and increase reporting. Third party reporting could be formal or informal; organizations could assist victims with reporting, or anonymously transmit details of victimization to the police, to increase law enforcement awareness and potentially prevent future hate crimes. The Center for Problem Oriented Policing recommends gathering data on which communities are least likely to report hate crimes so that staffing and outreach can be adjusted to encourage reporting. Given the level of underreporting expressed by community organizations in our survey, SPD should encourage community organizations to share instances of non-reporting. This would benefit the City in understanding and monitoring the level of underreporting and allow SPD to adjust its outreach and coordination efforts. Some Populations are Especially Vulnerable to Hate Crimes Some of the organizations we surveyed emphasized that certain populations are especially vulnerable to hate crimes. These include people with disabilities, people with limited English proficiency, people from immigrant communities, and people experiencing homelessness. Local and national hate crime data shows that individuals within these groups have lower crime reporting rates than others. Our survey results also indicate potential underreporting by individuals in these groups. For example, eight survey respondents were aware of an anti-disability hate crime occurring within the past six months, yet SPD received only 10 cases of anti-disability crimes between 2012 and 2018. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that in 2015 people with disabilities are two and half times more likely to experience violence. Because of low reporting and high vulnerability, the City’s hate crimes prevention efforts should give special attention to people with disabilities. With the rise of homelessness in Seattle, reports of hate crimes against homeless individuals have increased as well, and 26 percent of our survey respondents knew of someone being victimized because of their housing status. One community organization representative told us they were surprised to learn that crimes against the homeless can be considered a hate crime. This person Page 17 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report asked that the bias categories protected by law be more strongly communicated to the public. More Support is Needed Seventy-two percent of our survey respondents said their organization offers services to hate crime victims and/or that they participate in prevention activities. The most common types of services provided were: • Sharing information on how to report to police • Organizing community meetings in response to hate crimes • Providing anti-bias training • Public policy advocacy Some respondents said they were interested in building upon their prevention and response efforts. The most commonly requested activities, mentioned by 39 percent of respondents, were: • Educational and training opportunities • Resource guides, such as brochures, in multiple languages • Coordination with SPD to increase reporting, especially for people with disabilities, immigrant communities, and people that are homeless Other requested assistance from the City included: • Follow up – a better understanding of the reporting process, and information on report resolutions and hate crime statistics • Tips – how to increase prevention, how to recognize a hate crime, and how to respond safely • Outreach – more police presence and outreach to build confidence in reporting • Support for victims – encouraging reporting while addressing the victim’s fear of retaliation and/or revealing private information about themselves • Legal assistance – information on where to find legal representation, if applicable Several organizations asked for brochures or printed materials with information on hate crimes, available for both English and nonEnglish speaking individuals. SPD has such a brochure already and could find ways to let more community organizations know this. SPD officials told us that most of the Bias Crimes Coordinator’s outreach has been to immigrant and non-English speaking groups, and that she has also worked on outreach at Mary’s Place, a family shelter and services organization, as a starting point for reaching the homeless population. Nonetheless, based on our survey results, some community organizations would like more collaboration with SPD. Page 18 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Recommendation 4 SPD should continue to explore ways to partner with community organizations to address the issues mentioned in our survey results: • Underreporting: SPD should encourage community organizations to share instances of non-reporting to supplement the information SPD receives through formal reporting. • Vulnerable populations: SPD should work with community organizations to determine how crime prevention can be improved for individuals that may be especially vulnerable to hate crimes, such as people with disabilities and the homeless. • Increase support: SPD should explore ways to provide community organizations with the support activities mentioned in our survey, including hate crimes training, resource guides, and coordination activities to increase reporting. Evaluating Hate Crime Prevention and Response Efforts Many organizations, such as the Center for Problem Oriented Policing at Arizona State University and the College of Policing in the United Kingdom, recommend that law enforcement entities implement specific performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of hate crime response efforts. Although SPD currently tracks some of these measures, the data they report are not sufficient to gain a complete view of how hate crimes are handled in the city. Data gathering and analysis are important components of developing and sustaining any effective program. For hate crime prevention and response programs, a single metric alone will not provide a complete understanding of the impact and success of the program. For example, an increase in reported hate crimes does not necessarily mean there are more occurring. This is because the public’s willingness to report these crimes may vary over time, making it appear that crimes are increasing, when willingness to report is increasing. Law enforcement’s efforts and ability to recognize and accurately track hate crimes may also vary over time. Thus, hate crime statistics can change from year to year based on factors other than the actual occurrence of crime. We provide three examples of methods and data other jurisdictions use to measure effectiveness of hate crime response efforts: 1) gauging victim satisfaction with law enforcement, 2) assessing community perception of hate crimes, and 3) tracking repeat offenders and victims. Appendix D provides more information on these methods and others. Page 19 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Gauging Victim Satisfaction with Response Efforts Victimization surveys can provide information about victims’ perception of police response and other aspects of the crime. These surveys gather data on the victim’s satisfaction with police response, their level of concern about hate crimes, the location of the crime, whether they are personally aware of other hate crimes occurring, and victim demographics. SPD does not currently conduct victimization surveys specifically for hate crimes, but could incorporate hate crime related questions into their existing Service Quality Survey. Assessing Community Perception of Hate Crimes Another way to measure the effectiveness of hate crime prevention and response efforts is to collect resident views about hate crimes. Survey questions should attempt to learn respondents’: • Willingness to report hate crimes to SPD • Fear of becoming a hate crime victim • Experience with reporting bias related incidents to SPD and/or to a non-law enforcement agency Seattle University conducts annual public safety surveys for SPD, and could add questions related to hate crimes. Ideally, the chosen survey would target populations that are most commonly victims of hate crimes. The results of such a survey could help the City (1) gauge the level of underreporting and (2) determine how to direct outreach efforts to communities most in need. Reviewing Data on Repeat Offenders and Victims The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Community Oriented Policing Services recommend analyzing repeat victimization, stating that previous victimization is a better predictor of future victimization than any other characteristic of a crime. Repeat victims can be thought of as repeat targets, meaning the “victim” can be an individual, a specific address, a car, or a business. The DOJ recommends tracking repeat victimization by crime category, such as hate crimes, over a period of about 3 years, as a way to provide insight into crime patterns, develop more effective responses, and potentially reduce future crime. Underreporting among repeat victims can be an issue, and the DOJ advises police departments to obtain victim survey data to supplement data on reported crimes. For example, offense reports could include questions about prior related victimization, and this information could be included in the repeat victimization analysis. The College of Policing also recommends reviewing cases of repeat victimization, stating that a lack of repeat victims is the best indication that effective support has been provided to people victimized by hate crimes. They advise police agencies to develop strategies for responding to repeat victims, as they can be some of the most vulnerable victims that police encounter. In addition to Page 20 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report repeat victims, the DOJ recommends analyzing and responding to repeat offending, and offers five strategies for reducing repeat crime. We analyzed SPD’s hate crime data to determine the occurrences of repeat offenders and repeat victims for hate crimes and incidents between 2012 and 2017. The following exhibit shows a summary of the results. Exhibit 10: SPD Repeat Offenders and Victims of Hate Crimes, 2012-2017 Number of individuals arrested or suspected of a hate crime, out of 398 total reported cases Two Times Three Times Four Times Total Number of Individuals 12 2 1 15 Cases Prosecuted* 1 0 0 1 Number of victims of more than one hate crime, out of 398 total reported cases Two Times Three Times Total Number of Individuals 14 4 18 Cases Prosecuted* 3 1 4 *Includes cases referred or prosecuted as malicious harassment only. Source: Seattle Office of City Auditor analysis of Seattle Police Department, King County Prosecutor’s Office, and Seattle City Attorney’s Office data. Recommendation 5 SPD should track indicators that will help periodically evaluate the success of hate crime efforts, using the measures mentioned in this section and in Appendix of D this report as a guide. The results of this analysis should be published on SPD’s Bias Crimes website. Page 21 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report STATUS OF PHASE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Section Summary The Seattle Police Department (SPD) has made progress in implementing the recommendations from our Phase 1 report and plans to make further changes to improve hate crime prevention and reporting. SPD is implementing a new records management system (RMS) this year that will allow for more granular level hate crime reporting. With that comes the opportunity to examine SPD’s processes related to hate crimes and explore ways to improve the accuracy of hate crime statistics. In this section, we summarize the status of recommendations from the Phase 1 report and discuss other improvements related to SPD’s new RMS. Status of Phase 1 Recommendations Our Phase 1 report included nine recommendations addressed to SPD, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR), and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). Exhibit 11 is a summary of the recommendations and their status. We will continue to follow up on the status of these recommendations during our annual audit recommendation follow up process. Exhibit 11: Status of Phase 1 Recommendations as of December 2018 Recommendation 1. SPD should remove the bias category code “unknown.” 2. SPD should determine if a different placeholder bias code can be used, and to allow the selection of multiple bias codes. Status Completed in 2017 Pending Status: The Seattle Police Department (SPD) reported that its new records management system is planned to go live in 2019, and SPD will make changes to its workflow for bias crimes at that time. 3. SPD should add codes for age, parental status, marital status, and political ideology to the bias categories in their records management system. 4. SPD should establish a regular hate crimes training curriculum, develop a plan to evaluate the training, and establish a hate crimes training policy. Completed in 2017 Pending Status: The creation of a bias crimes e-learning module is in process. After the training has been created and implemented, SPD will work on the remaining parts of this recommendation, including creating a hate crimes training policy and evaluation plan. Page 22 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Recommendation 5. SPD should improve its guidance to officers on how to identify whether an incident might be a hate crime. Status Pending Status: The new records management system is scheduled to go live in 2019, and SPD will review their hate crime policy and guidance at that time. 6. SPD should pilot new analyses of hate crime data and explore implementing new hate crime prevention strategies based on the results. Pending Status: SPD will use their new records management system to pilot the analyses in this recommendation when 1 year of crime data is available. 7. SPD and SOCR should establish and formally document a protocol for how hate incidents and crimes are handled when they are reported to SOCR. Completed in 2018 8. SOCR and SPU should explore publishing their hate crime and hate graffiti data online. The City should consider creating a single webpage that serves as a portal for all hate crime data. Completed in 2018 9. City leaders should participate in a statewide agency or task force to coordinate ongoing hate crime prevention and response efforts. Pending Status: In 2018 the Office of City Auditor, the Seattle Police Department, and the Seattle Office for Civil Rights participated in meetings convened by the Northwestern Regional Office of the United States Department of Justice Community Relations Service. In 2019 the group will continue to meet and discuss regional coordination of hate crime prevention and response efforts. Source: Seattle Office of City Auditor review of Seattle Police Department, Seattle Office for Civil Rights, and Seattle Public Utilities audit follow up status. Upcoming Improvements to Hate Crime Tracking SPD is implementing a new RMS, giving them the opportunity to make improvements in how hate crime data is recorded. One improvement available with the new system relates to how bias type is captured. Currently, only one bias category can be selected at the “general offense” level. Because one case report can include many offenses, and because multiple bias categories can be involved in a crime, recording a single bias category does not offer enough granularity to track hate crimes. SPD used a manual process as a workaround to this problem, but the new RMS will allow up to five bias categories to be selected per offense. Another improvement relates to how records are updated. Currently, SPD detectives are not required to manage their caseload in RMS, and there is no policy requiring detectives to update RMS during an investigation. As a result, as the investigation progresses, some fields in RMS do not reflect the most current information about the case. Hate crime cases are tracked outside of RMS in a separate Page 23 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report spreadsheet managed by a single detective. With the implementation of the new RMS, SPD has an opportunity to develop strong policies that ensure RMS has complete and accurate case information. SPD officials told us they plan to create new policies that pertain to the new system after its implementation. Recommendation 6 As SPD implements their new records management system, they should create a policy that specifies who is responsible for updating the system when changes to case records are required. SPD has recently started recording instances of hate graffiti in a more consistent and reportable way. When SPD’s Graffiti Detective investigates instances of hate graffiti, he selects the appropriate bias category code from the drop-down list in RMS, thereby allowing SPD to include hate graffiti in their hate crime statistics. Previously, hate graffiti was not consistently marked using this feature, and SPD could not produce reliable reports of hate graffiti. When the new RMS is available, SPD should document this new procedure for recording hate graffiti in the system to ensure it is followed consistently. Recommendation 7 As SPD implements their new records management system, they should document the procedure for recording hate graffiti. The procedure should ensure that hate graffiti is included in SPD’s bias crimes statistics. This procedure could be part of the existing department policy on malicious harassment. Page 24 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY Objectives Our audit of hate crimes in Seattle was separated into two phases. The first phase report addressed objectives 1 and 2 listed below, while this Phase 2 Report responds to objectives 3-5. The objectives of our audit of hate crimes in Seattle were to: 1. Review the Seattle Police Department’s (SPD) hate crime data and related processes to determine if improvements could be made (Phase 1 Report) 2. Review leading practices related to hate crime prevention, response, and reporting, and make recommendations in these areas (Phase 1 Report) 3. Analyze hate crime cases to determine their final disposition (Phase 2 Report) 4. Conduct a Problem-Oriented-Policing analysis to identify demographic and time/place concentrations of hate crimes in Seattle (Phase 2 Report) 5. Determine how hate crime data can be used more effectively for Seattle’s hate crime prevention efforts (Phase 2 Report) Scope The scope of this audit included SPD hate incident and hate crime data with incident dates between 2012 and 2018. Methodology During Phase 2 of this audit we performed the following analyses: • Analyzed hate crimes and incidents reported to SPD between 2012 and 2018 • Reviewed and summarized all cases that were categorized in the Seattle City Attorney’s Office or the King County Prosecutor’s Office as being either referred or prosecuted as malicious harassment between 2012 and 2017 • With input from the Seattle Office for Civil Rights and the Seattle Police Department, surveyed select community groups in Seattle for their thoughts on hate crimes (see Appendix E for more information) • Contracted with Dr. Tim Thomas from the University of Washington to perform a geographic and demographic analysis of hate crimes in Seattle from 2012 to 2016 • Interviewed staff from the Seattle Police Department, the King County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Seattle City Attorney’s Office • Assessed the status of recommendations from our Hate Crimes Phase 1 audit report Page 25 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report • Applied the City’s Race and Social Justice Toolkit framework to help structure our audit We did not assess the solvability factors or the decisions detective sergeants made when they determined which hate crime cases were assigned for investigation. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Page 26 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report APPENDIX A Department Response Page 27 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report innovation, along with the very real need to acknowledge the hard work that so many people have put into limiting the effect these horrific incidents can have on an entire community. I worry that if it is not clearly stated that the Seattle Police Department is heavily invested and wholevhea rtedly committed to responding to these crimes, it could harm the trust that SPD has worked so diligently at enhancing with marginalized and victimized communities. It is from that perspective that our detailed responses below are presented. Specific SPD Responses to Findings In general, SPD agrees that more work can be done to ensure that perpetrators of hate crimes receive appropriate services and are held acoountable. While the department, in general agrees with the intent of all of the recommendations, it does feel some of them fail to acknowledge the nationally-recognized work already being done by the department, as well as by its justice system partners. I understand the point of an audit is to highlight where work can be better, but I do want to ensure the message is not muddled to the point that anyone thinks SPD is not fully committed to increasing the reporting and prosecution of these cases. We have all worked too ha rd for anyone to feel that they will not be seen, heard, and respected if they feel they have been the victim of a crime or any sort of biased behavior. Summary of Prosecution Analysis The 398 malicious harassment (hate crime) incidents were categorized as such based on information available shortly after the initial report was taken and using the broadest definition. These incidents are assessed for assignment to a detective based on . As with all cases, detective sergeants assess the solvability factors, severity of injury, and impact to the community to determine if a case should be pursued for further investigation. If so, it is then assigned to a detective. Detectives consider the facts of the case, including the availability of a victim, witness, and statements, video from various sources if available, physical evidence, the law, and filing standards when making the decision whether to forward a case for review of charges and at what level the case should be referred. The prosecutor?s office is often consulted up front to obtain direction for filing. Jurisprudence requires that detectives only bring a case to the prosecutor?s office which are statutorily sufficient and there is a belief that charges can be obtained. Whether to charge and what to charge rests solely with the prosecuto r?s office. The one-third of referred malicious harassment cases are sent to a prosecutor follow a review of all reports, evidence, statements, and any additional investigation information. Not All Hate Crimes Result in a Hate Crime Conviction There are potential drawbacks to prosecuting a case that is not likely to result in a guilty plea or finding. These issues are more germane to the standards and ethics of a prosecutor?s office, but charging to make a statement without the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt carries the risk that someone who did commit the crime will be acquitted, which likely sends a message just as loud as prosecuting the case that could be proven. 1 Solvability factors include having a witness to the crime, information on a suspect, positive results from a crime scene/evidence search, Information on a involved vehicle, and the knowledge of other crimes with similar modus operandi. Page 2 of 5 Page 28 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report SPD Should Document Where Cases Were Referred and Reasons for Not Referring Cases When a case is not referred for prosecution, the case would be closed with another code, such as inactive, not assigned (detective sergeant decided it was not prudent to pursue the case), or pending further information. Each of these codes is searchable in the system. The Department does receive decline notices from both attorneys? offices on why a case was declined these reasons are unique to each case. It is important to note this ?flagging? and searching will be even easier in the new records management system. Additionally, it is important to note that while the reporting of hate crimes has increased, that does not mean there was a requisite increase in solvable cases or cases that can be successfully prosecuted. The Department often hears from victims that they reported a case they would not have in the past because they wanted to make sure it was included in the statistics. These types of reports are testaments to the excellent work the Department has been doing on engagement, but do not mean there should be an increase in prosecutions. Specific SPD Responses to Findings/Recommendations for the King County Prosecutor?s Office and the City Attorney?s Office The SPD will allow the King County Prosecutor?s Office and the City Attorney to enumerate their responses. Specific SPD Responses to Recommendations Recommendation 1 SPD should include a separate field in their new records management system to indicate if a malicious harassment case has been referred for prosecution, and to which agency it was sent. This information should be maintained in a way that can be summarized and tracked. Recommendation 2? SPD should explore the feasibility of documenting the reasons that cases of malicious harassment are not referred for prosecution in their new records management system. This information should be maintained in a way that can be summarized and tracked. As was indicated in the Phase I audit report, the new records management system Mark43, which is scheduled to go live in early May 2019 ?will include both recommendations. These were long-standing desires of the Department, but were not accomplishable with the legacy reporting system. As noted above, the reason for not referring a case will vary from case to case, but the department will work to see if it is possible to aggregate these values. Recommendation 4 SPD should continue to explore ways to partner with community organizations to address the issues mentioned in our survey results: 0 Underreporting. SPD should encourage community organizations to share instances of non-reporting to supplement the information SPD receives through formal reporting. 0 Vulnerable populations. SPD should work with community organizations to determine how crime prevention can be improved for individuals that may be especially vulnerable to hate crimes, such as people with disabilities and the homeless. Page 3 of5 Page 29 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report 9 Increase support. SPD should explore ways to provide community organizations with the support activities mentioned in our survey, including hate crimes training, resource guides, and coordination activities to increase reporting. The bulk of the Bias Crime Coordinator?s outreach has been to immigrant and non-English speaking or proficient groups. The Bias Crime Coordinator also has worked on outreach at Mary?s Place as a starting point for reaching the homeless population. Outreach efforts have focused on groups believed to underreport. The Department has produced outreach/informational brochures in multiple languages. It should be noted that some of the surveyed groups have a record of discouraging their clients from reporting their victimization to the police and have openly stated they would not share their information with the Department. Recommendation 5 SPD should track indicators that will help periodically evaluate the success of hate crime efforts, using the measures mentioned in this section and in Appendix of this report as a guide. The results of this analysis should be published on Bias Crimes website. The increase in the reporting of bias-involved crimes is a strong indicator of the trust the community has in SPD to professionally and respectfully investigate these cases. The other metrics are good indicators of a department?s performance around responding to hate crimes, though many of them fall outside the usual purview of a police department. Police departments are not funded, nor provided the tools, to conduct statistically valid community surveys. Additionally, the number of witnesses interviewed often has no relation to the efforts of the department, but, instead, is unique to the circumstances of each case. Also, for a variety of reasons, many not having to do with trust, it is difficult for the department to routinely obtain data from community organizations on unreported hate crimes. Recommendation 6 As SPD implements their new records ma na gement system, they should create a policy that speci?es who is responsible for updating the system when changes to case records are required. The Department already planned on requiring full case management within the new RMS system, including for bias-involved crimes and non-criminal incidents. The legacy system did not have a comprehensive, user- friendly case management system. The Department selected the Ma rk43 system, in part, because of its case management capabilities. Recommendation 7? As SPD implements their new records ma na gement system, they should document the procedure for recording hate graffiti. The procedure should ensure that hate graffiti is included in bias crimes statistics. This procedure could be pa rt of the existing department policy on malicious harassment. Page 4 of5 Page 30 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report The SPD has always recorded and reported on graffiti and criminal property damage. It is unclear what this recommendation is referencing, unless it is focused on graffiti on public property that is handled by Seattle Public Utilities. These incidents should be reported to the SPD as well, and tracked as usual. More likely can be done to ensure this information is shared. Conclusion The Seattle Police Department has established itself as a national leader in efforts around hate crime prevention, engagement, training, investigation, analysis, and education. This work has been an essential element in the continued willingness of hate crime victims as well as those experiencing incidents that do not rise to the level of a hate crime to report these incidents to the SPD. Of course, we always are asking ourselves what more we can do, but it is essential for the people ofthis department who do the work, and the community we seek to serve, to acknowledge that the Seattle Police Department is a model for responding to and preventing hate crimes and other bias-involved incidents. Sincerely, Carmen Best Chief of Police Page 5 of 5 Page 31 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report APPENDIX B List of Recommendations 1. SPD should include a separate field in their new records management system to indicate if a malicious harassment case has been referred for prosecution, and to which agency it was sent. This information should be maintained in a way that can be summarized and tracked. 2. SPD should explore the feasibility of documenting the reasons that cases of malicious harassment are not referred for prosecution in their new records management system. This information should be maintained in a way that can be summarized and tracked. 3. The Seattle City Attorney’s Office and the King County Prosecutor’s Office should track and publicly report data on the prosecution of malicious harassment cases using the data categories listed in this report. 4. SPD should continue to explore ways to partner with community organizations to address the issues mentioned in our survey results: • Underreporting: SPD should encourage community organizations to share instances of nonreporting to supplement the information SPD receives through formal reporting. • Vulnerable populations: SPD should work with community organizations to determine how crime prevention can be improved for individuals that may be especially vulnerable to hate crimes, such as people with disabilities and the homeless. • Increase support: SPD should explore ways to provide community organizations with the support activities mentioned in our survey, including hate crimes training, resource guides, and coordination activities to increase reporting. 5. SPD should track indicators that will help periodically evaluate the success of hate crime efforts, using the measures mentioned in this section and in Appendix of D this report as a guide. The results of this analysis should be published on SPD’s Bias Crimes website. 6. As SPD implements their new records management system, they should create a policy that specifies who is responsible for updating the system when changes to case records are required. 7. As SPD implements their new records management system, they should document the procedure for recording hate graffiti. The procedure should ensure that hate graffiti is included in SPD’s bias crimes statistics. This procedure could be part of the existing department policy on malicious harassment. Page 32 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report APPENDIX C SPD Reports and Prosecutions of Malicious Harassment The numbers below represent individual defendants, rather than number of cases. Some cases involved multiple defendants. Malicious Harassment Reports Year Referred for Prosecution* Accepted by Prosecutor Prosecuted as Malicious Harassment Declined by Prosecutor Prosecuted as Another Crime SPD CAO KCPO Total CAO KCPO Total CAO KCPO Total CAO KCPO Total CAO KCPO Total 2012 28 4 8 12 3 8 11 1 0 1 1 7 8 2 1 3 2013 33 2 18 20 0 17 17 2 1 3 0 14 14 0 3 3 2014 51 5 18 23 4 17 21 1 1 2 3 15 18 1 2 3 2015 84 5 20 25 0 16 16 5 4 9 0 14 14 0 2 2 2016 89 2 16 18 1 13 14 1 3 4 1 11 12 0 2 2 2017 113 5 25 30 2 21 23 3 4 7 1 19 20 1 2 3 Total 398 23 105 128 10 92 102 13 13 26 6 80 86 4 12 16 Year Convicted of Malicious Harassment Convicted of Other Charges Case Dismissed No Conviction CAO KCPO Total CAO KCPO Total CAO KCPO Total CAO KCPO Total 2012 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 4 4 0 0 0 2013 0 9 9 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2014 0 7 7 1 3 4 0 4 4 3 1 4 2015 0 4 4 0 5 5 0 4 4 0 0 0 2016 0 5 5 0 3 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 2017 0 10 10 0 5 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 Total 1 36 37 1 21 22 2 16 18 3 2 5 KCPO – King County Prosecutor’s Office (felony level crimes); CAO – City Attorney’s Office (misdemeanor level crimes) *Includes some cases that were referred by SPD as a different crime category. Five defendants’ cases were still open at the time of our review. Source: Seattle Office of City Auditor analysis of King County Prosecutor’s Office and Seattle City Attorney’s Office data. Page 33 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report APPENDIX D Measuring the Effectiveness of Hate Crime Prevention and Response Efforts The City of Seattle should examine the increase of reported hate crimes using multiple metrics to gain an understanding of the cause(s) and how effectively the City is responding. The Center for Problem Oriented Policing advises using the following process and outcome measures to determine if efforts are successful, and if the efforts are not successful, how to make modifications. Our office included some data sources that the City could use to compile the process measures listed. Process Measures: Was the response properly implemented? 1 Increased number of people willing to report hate crimes 2 3 Increased number of officers trained in how to respond to hate crimes Increased number of officers who take policing hate crimes seriously 4 Increased number of officers who respond to and interact with sensitivity with hate-crime victims Increased interactions, communication, and cooperation between the police and targeted minority communities about hate crimes 5 6 Improvements in how hate crimes are investigated 7 Increased number of officers who correctly recognize and categorize hate crimes 8 Increased number of community members, both majority and minority, who express trust in the police Increased number of people in the community, both majority and minority members, who express support for tolerance and diversity, and outrage against hate crimes Increased compatibility between the number of hate-crime victims reporting their victimization to the police and the number who report to watch groups or in victimization surveys 9 10 Outcome Measures: How effective was the response? 11 Decreased number of hate crimes in your community 12 Decreased severity of harm caused by hate crimes (even if the number of hate crimes stays the same) 13 Decreased fear of becoming a hate-crime victim 14 Decreased number of hate groups in your community Potential Data Sources • Hate crime reports • Resident survey • SPD training records • Evaluation of officer training effectiveness • Victimization survey • Community engagement metrics (such as the number of SPD meetings with community groups) • Number of cases closed without talking to any witnesses (negative indicator) • Number of witnesses interviewed per case • King County Prosecutor’s Office and Seattle City Attorney’s Office feedback on investigation quality • Number of different responding officers who report a hate crime • Number of inquiries to hate crime unit by officers, such as seeking advice about cases that are potentially bias related • Resident survey • Resident survey • Community engagement metrics • Community organization data on unreported hate crimes • Hate crime reports Potential Data Sources • Hate crime reports • Hate crime reports • Resident survey • SPLC data on hate groups Page 34 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report APPENDIX E Sur vey of Community Organizations In 2018, we conducted a survey of community organizations to understand more about the services they provide for preventing and responding to hate crimes, and what additional support, if any, they may need from the City. We were also interested in learning about barriers to reporting hate crimes to the Seattle Police Department (SPD). The survey was sent directly to 212 individuals representing various community organizations. In addition, a link to the survey was published online. To create our survey distribution list, we obtained referrals from the City of Seattle’s Office for Civil Rights, SPD, and the Northwestern Regional Office of the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service. We received 127 responses to our survey. After reviewing these responses for completeness, we identified 54 responses, representing 53 organizations, that we considered sufficiently reliable to include in our analysis. We did not consider responses that were missing responses to significant questions, or from respondents who did not represent a community organization. Respondent organizations included, among others, service providers, advocacy organizations, educational organizations, government organizations, and faith-based organizations. Service areas covered included Seattle (28 organizations), King County (14 organizations), the Puget Sound region (2 organizations), the State of Washington (4 organizations), and other regions or geographic areas (6 organizations). Below, we summarize the results from key survey questions. Some responses were altered slightly to remove identifiable information. We appreciate the time and effort the representatives from these organizations took to respond to this survey. Survey Results Question 1: Briefly describe the population your organization serves. (respondents could enter any response in an open tex t field) Respondents reported serving the following populations: African refugee and immigrant women and their families; persons who identify as having a disability; tenants; Asian American seniors; Asian Pacific Islanders; Somali/East African community; children and families; low income persons and households including unemployed or underemployed residents; immigrants; refugees; people of color; university students; homeless; mentally ill; substance abusers; homeless adults that use drugs or alcohol; immigrant Latinx day laborers and domestic workers; Latino/Latino LGBTQ; limited English speakers; Seattle Housing Authority tenants; public school students considered at-risk and their families; victims of crimes and trauma survivors; persons who experience violence or discrimination on the basis of gender and sexuality; members of the Gothic community; gardeners; believers in Baha’u’llah; persons in specific Seattle neighborhoods; persons interested in cohousing; and everyone, no boundaries. Page 35 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Question 2: Does your organization currently support activities to prevent or respond to hate crimes or hate incidents? (multiple choice, respondents could choose more than one response) Activity Community meetings Information about how to report hate crimes and hate incidents to the police Anti-bias training Public policy advocacy Organize community meetings about hate crimes/incidents Organization does not currently provide activities for preventing or responding to hate crimes/incidents Hate crime/incident victim assistance Support groups Restorative justice practices Training for hate crime/incident prevention Training for bystanders of hate crimes/incidents Information about hate crime/incident trends and data Legal services for victims Peacemaking circles Operate a hotline for reporting hate crimes/incidents Other activities (please describe):  Referrals to partner organizations, that provide direct services  Contacting City Officials on behalf of the community  In our yearly Summit we often address issues of bias against persons who have a limited ability to communicate in English.  If we are aware of problems, we urge our members to report incidents to the police  Training in dealing with housing advocacy and lobbying the state Legislature  We provide Help hotlines and other links for people to find information  We are normally the victims of hate perpetrated by Socialists and Communists.  Hate crimes are a tiny part of the serious larger issues  We assist and inform when told of a situation and have a no tolerance policy in place  Race and Equity trainings for volunteers in the Seattle Public Schools  Community education on interacting with police  Individual therapy services, medical services Number of Responses 24 18 18 16 15 15 12 10 9 8 8 7 7 4 2 12 Question 3: Please describe any additional activities for preventing or responding to hate crimes and hate incidents that would be helpful to the people served by your organization. (respondents could enter any response in an open tex t field ) • • ****FUNDING**** for any of the above activities that would be appropriate. For [the question regarding how significant hate crimes are for the people served by our organization] I think it really depends on if the senior is also a member of a community that is a target of hate crimes. However, we weren't given that as an option, so I picked something neutral. A better understanding of follow up processes. Page 36 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Our organization is very interested in helping to form a Hate Crimes Task Force. We are in early conversation with the King County Prosecutors office and other interested groups, and it could be great to have City of Seattle involved, too. Anti-discrimination policies and procedures At least 50% of people killed by police are Deaf or disabled; as such, many disabled people don't want to interact with the police or report crimes, especially if they are POC or LGBTQ. Community awareness training on hate crimes topic is important. Providing tips and resource how to recognize, to respond in a safe manor, and to report for prevention. Educate community on policies and systems from a cultural lens Education Education and awareness Employer training Funding to print brochures in multiple languages describing how to identify, report and address hate/bias incidents. We have speakers who have considerable experience in this area and have developed materials in English which could be used as a basis for such a brochure/reporting form. Getting rid of all politically correct far left liberal morons in the world Information on hate crimes, literature to pass out to tenants. It is not really our primary focus, however, if there should be a problem, we will get involved Multi-racial meetings, with all groups *strongly* encouraged to attend Need focus on mentally challenged, especially Dementia sufferers, and Seniors on Social Security. Police accountability & training Printed resource guide Private space for shelter residents (safe from police and ICE) Promote the elimination of prejudice of all kinds through educational practices. Rapid response training for ICE raids. Stop the sweeps of homeless people’s camps until there is enough suitable housing or shelter for them to go to. Stronger policies on harmful hate speech and alt-right resurgences, including protection from rallies Support for examining the massive problem of continuing abuse by caregivers and inability of City of Seattle to support residential victims who are frail There is a huge need for case management in accessing victim’s compensation funding, trauma informed therapist that are free or low cost, emergency financial assistance, as well as safety and security upgrade assistance funding. We are all trained to identify & respond to hate crimes that happen against our clients, HOWEVER, our clients very, very often decline to file a claim or seek justice. We build community relationship which can be a foundational support for people experiencing hate crime, but we do not have any formal programming to respond. We offer sport programs that involved whole families We promote as much as possible the SPD/OCR bias reporting hotline. We have also contracted with organizations to offer help to immigrant and refugee students in Seattle Public Schools who have experienced bullying due to their perceived immigration/citizenship status. We work in conjunction with law enforcement and other community organizations. We work with some international students and immigrant communities. Despite our encouragement and assurances (we often work with other groups including the police and DOJ), some are still unwilling to report. Page 37 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report • We would like to promote programs where Socialists, Leftist and Liberals could learn to be Tolerant of Diverse opinions as expressed by others. We have found Seattle to be sorely lacking in this ability. Question 4: In general, for the people served by your organization, how significant an issue is hate crimes/incidents? (respondents could choose only one response) Level of Significance Number of Responses Very significant Somewhat significant Neither significant or insignificant Somewhat insignificant Very insignificant Don’t know Total responses: 19 9 3 9 10 4 54 Percent of Total Responses 35% 17% 6% 17% 18% 7% 100% Question 5: Within the past six months, have people served by your organization in Seattle been victims of hate crimes or hate incidents, to your knowledge? (respondents could choose only one response) Aware of hate crimes in the last six months Number of Responses Yes No Don’t Know Total responses: 32 6 16 54 Percent of Total Responses 59% 11% 30% 100% Question 6: Where did these hate crimes/hate incidents mostly occur? (multiple choice, respondents could choose more than one response) Location of hate crime(s) At work At school On public transportation On the way to or from work On the way to or from school On the way to or from another place Shopping, errands At place of worship At home Leisure activities away from home At bar or night club Online, through social media Don’t know Other – Council meetings Number of Responses 13 14 12 10 5 12 10 4 8 5 4 8 2 1 Page 38 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Location of hate crime(s) Other – while living or being outside Total responses: Number of Responses 1 109 Question 7: In the past six months, were the people served by your organization targeted for (multiple choice, respondents could choose more than one response) : • Categories protected by Washington State law • Categories protected by City of Seattle law Protected Category Race Color Religion Ancestry National origin Gender Sexual orientation Mental, physical or sensory handicap Homelessness Marital status Political ideology Age Parental status Don’t know Total responses: Legal Code Number of Responses State of Washington State of Washington State of Washington State of Washington State of Washington State of Washington State of Washington State of Washington City of Seattle City of Seattle City of Seattle City of Seattle City of Seattle N/A 21 19 13 7 16 11 15 8 14 6 7 8 3 12 160 Question 8: In the past six months, how many of these hate crimes/hate incidents were reported to the Seattle Police Department, to your knowledge? (respondents could choose only one response, some chose not to respond) Hate Crimes Reported to SPD Number of Responses Most were reported Some were reported None were reported Don’t know whether they were reported Total responses: 4 11 4 12 31 Percent of Total Responses (54) 7% 20% 7% 22% 57% Question 9: For the people served by your organization who experienced hate crimes/hate incidents in the past six months, what were the reasons for not reporting to the Seattle Police Department? (multiple choice, respondents could choose more than one response) The top six reasons for not reporting were: 1. Cultural issues or fear of revealing immigration status Page 39 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Fear of reprisal by the offender Victim preferred to report to the community organization rather than law enforcement Limited English Proficiency Perception that law enforcement would be inefficient, ineffective Victim handled the matter themselves or informally Question 10: For the people served by your organization, please describe any steps that might be helpful to ensure that all hate crimes and hate incidents in Seattle are reported to the police. (respondents could enter any response in an open tex t field) • • • • • • • • • • • • • Build confidence with the Police Departments and have guaranties that the victim will be protected. Continued community outreach and a stronger PR effort. Dump Trump. Flyers, informational flyers or posters to post in building common areas. Full disclosure by police of reports and of resolution. Having a strong community-police relationship and police presence more frequently and accessible around Othello Station area. Hire and promote more police that represent the diverse communities for which the police serve. I believe that training our residents about dementia would result in more reports. Many “blow it off” as the resident being a "drunk". Increased public awareness and advocacy that crimes against the homeless are crimes. More outreach with immigrant communities, especially on matters pertaining to U and T Visas and VAWA. Some was reported and others language barrier. The biggest problem is the one involving the police as perpetrator during graduation ceremonies. The victim reported it to the UW. The Mayor must stop sweeping homeless encampments and denying people any shelter at all, which is what is now happening. There is no shelter to replace that which the Mayor is ordering swept, and the police are carrying out this cruel and we believe unlawful order. Question 11: What else would your organization like us to know about the Seattle Police Department’s response to hate crimes and hate incidents that affected the people served by your organization? (respondents could enter any response in an open tex t field) • • • • • Assign culturally appropriate officers to the neighborhood they serve. Creating a non-criminal civil statute for protection similar to protection from abuse orders. Many survivors do not want to engage with police, prosecutors, or courts and find the process revictimizing without creating additional safety or providing any resources to cope with trauma. Is there any plan to combat and bring awareness on this issue rather than dealing with the issues as they arise? It is hard to handle both sufferer and trespasser in many situations. Community Police do a good job, but those who prey on persons with dementia say they are homeless...hard to know it that is true. It is particularly shocking and misleading to team up police who are sweeping peoples shelters with other 'navigation team' workers who purport to have access to resources that they do not, in reality, have. Page 40 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report • • • • • It's hard to know if age is involved or gender because these are all intersected. I believe the one involving Seattle police was racial, but it could be age since the officer probably mistook the Asian American professor to be younger and threatened him when he was corrected, etc. Police officers who do not comply with the morals and standards of policing. Those minority of officers who violate the rights of individuals get more attention than the good deeds performed. Need to better screen for officers who can mentally handle the job. Seattle PD is working hard to be responsive. Kudos for their efforts. The incident rate of hate crimes against our clientele is of major concern to our organization because of the very physical & emotional negative impact of these hate crimes. We respond to the crises as they happen, provide therapy for those that have happened in the past, and do what we can to decrease the likelihood of a future hate crime, but we've been able make very little progress with motivating our clients to come forward & interact w/ SPD, and many times we do not hear the extent of the harassment & abuse that occurs against our clients - it's hard to even estimate the numbers affected. To educate the community what are their rights and provide interpreters. Question 12: What else would your organization like us to know about how hate crimes and hate incidents in Seattle affect the people served by your organization? (respondents could enter any response in an open tex t field) • • • • • • • • • • • • • A better understanding of the issue officers are dealing with. Help us understand what it is like to be in their shoes. Due to the sweeps more homeless people are physically and mentally suffering, and more are dying - the rate is unprecedented. Hate crimes impact the people served by our organization financially, as they are often denied employment or terminated because of the color of their skin. Hate messages, of course, go beyond the individual or individuals that are specifically targeted. Hate incidents and crimes are intended to send a message to entire communities, and to communicate a feeling of "otherness" or vulnerability. Groups across the spectrum are feeling anxiety due to white supremacist leafleting, swastikas, offensive online comments, etc., which are currently on the uptick here in Seattle, and society in general. How can we support the victims to come forward to make reports and not to wait and suffer mentally? In the disability world, people experience bullying, mistreatment, and oppression that goes unreported. I believe we need to look at this category, and those trying to live in independent housing who don't manage it well. This city needs far more housing for those with memory issues (dementia and related disorders). Just because a person disagrees with your political viewpoint, it is not a hate crime. Just because you feel offended, it is not a hate crime to speak the truth. LGBT+ older adults, especially compared to younger queer folks, are sometimes not "out" to everyone, and may be reluctant to talk about incidents. Many of our members work in Seattle and live outside city limits. Men of color in manufacturing training and on worksites have experienced significant discrimination and bias. Not only immigrants are vulnerable to hate/bias incidents, but those who assist the as advocates or as interpreters are also targeted. Statistics of hate crimes in Seattle and if our group is a typical target for hate criminals. That they are being addressed and followed up on. Page 41 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report • • • • • • • • Our members oppose hate crimes against any individual or group, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or political affiliations. The people being picked on seem to be young API/APIA women. The international students and immigrants seem to be most impacted because of stereotypes and language difficulties. The school district has its own curriculum to deal with bullying and hate crimes, yet I'm sure they still occur. There is significant fear of biased-based crime, and growing fear of interacting with government agencies and officials. Training, information. We see daily institutional policies that are biased against black, brown, and immigrant students. Our students regularly feel discriminated against by white teachers and white institution policies. We work with the youth primarily. Hate crimes can be very triggering for some of them or create its own trauma. Your questionnaire does not list AGE as a source of protection under City Law....why not? This questionnaire shows bias at every level and should be investigated for this use of City funds when it is clearly biased against age related issues. Question 13: What challenges has your organization had in providing support to victims of hate crimes? (respondents could enter any response in an open tex t field) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Our organization would like to work more closely with the City and the Mayor's Office to support our respective efforts and to amplify the good work we are doing, in addition to the challenges we face. A united message of Seattle being "no place for hate" could be very powerful. Bias and racism can still manifest in street level bureaucracy, and that really scares folks away from reporting. Capacity to monitor these incidents. Explaining things to our managers. Finding good legal representation. For five years I have heard lip service and seen no funding, support, or coordination in addressing the issue. It has been deeply frustrating. Funding for staff to focus on services and referrals. Hate crime workshops, speaking out on issues. We have worked with the City of Seattle on these issues, the UW campus, etc. I think it's more significant for my students because of our high population of Somalis. The girls who wear hijabs have been sometimes targeted by other children who think it's funny to try to pull off their hijab. I can't speak to the greater community, but I'm sure there are times when it might be scary to be Somali in America. I feel for the families and what this teaches them about self-worth and self-esteem. All I can say is that we try to teach peace and that we are all human beings. Impeach mayor and all city council members. Knowing where to find legal assistance. Lack of capacity to deal with this. We’re more a health and policy-oriented organization. Lack of interest for safety on public highways (massive potholes on the road and breaks in sidewalks) so that elderly and infirm cannot move easily. But hey, I got a new bike lane sign outside my front yard so it is not a question of money... it is a clear demonstration of lack of fiduciary responsibility and prejudice against persons who rely on cars to get to the grocery store down the block. Not knowing about them. Page 42 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Our challenges have been the SPD's continued disrespect and violent tendencies towards the people we serve. People seeing abuse and mistreatment as a hate crime. Poor attendance of members at meetings. Not all neighborhoods represented. Our organization is an intermediary so we often get the information regarding incidents second hand from our navigators and CBOs. The City of Seattle's Human Service Department is black balling our organization because we object to the sweeps, and counter misinformation about the sweeps. Those in political power do not give equal protection under the law. Thoughts that the police would be ineffective. Under-reporting because of fear/distrust of government that is pervasive in immigrant and refugee communities. We are an all-volunteer organization. As such, we do not enjoy the services of staff which could permit us to offer our direct services. Nevertheless, we have available speakers with considerable experience and expertise in this area. We do not understand the scope though assume it to be large. We encourage reporting any crimes to the authority. We encourage a spiritual approach to seeing the nobility in each soul, and the opportunities for learning and change. We get police and healthcare providers if needed. We have provided bereavement and grief counseling recently as well. We provide emotional support and encourage the victims to report with our assistance. However, often the victims do not want to report and we have to go with their wishes. We share tenant rights. Well, we would need knowledge/training to help them. When they come to us, we expect that they be able to cooperate with us in leading them through the legal system. At some point they may refuse. Willingness to address these matters publicly. Page 43 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report APPENDIX F Demographics and Case Characteristics of Prosecuted Hate Crimes in King County In our review of prosecuted hate crimes in King County, we summarized victim and defendant demographics and other characteristics about the cases. This data includes all cases prosecuted as malicious harassment from all law enforcement agencies in King County for the years 2012 to 2017. There were 118 cases total; SPD referred most of these cases (74), followed by the King County Sheriff’s Office (24). 65% Race, Ethnicity, Ancestry, National Origin 32% Gender Identity/ Sexual Orientation bias Victims in Prosecuted Hate Crimes The percentages of the bias categories from our review of prosecution data are consistent with those of reported crimes, with race and ethnicity crimes accounting for the largest percentages. This indicates that hate crimes are being evenly prosecuted across all bias categories. 3% Disability bias 38% In or Near Businesses or Public Buildings 31% On the Street 23% On Buses and at Bus Stops 6% Crime Locations in Prosecuted Hate Crimes Most hate crimes occurred in or just outside of businesses or public buildings, or on the street. These typically involved a passing interaction with a stranger as the victim was patronizing a store or walking from one place to another. About a quarter of hate crimes occurred on a bus or at a bus stop. These cases were also random in nature. A small percentage were inside living areas, such as homes and apartments. These instances were typically more personal in nature, meaning the perpetrator knew the victim before the crime occurred. Only two cases involved an online hate crime. This could be an area for police agencies to give greater attention and outreach, as online crimes continue to rise with the increase of social media use. In Residences 2% Online via Facebook Page 44 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report 85% Male 83% Had a Criminal History 20% Intoxicated 22% Living Unsheltered 20% Perpetrators in Prosecuted Hate Crimes The majority of the perpetrators of hate crimes were male (85 percent), with a median age of 37. Police records show that 77 percent of perpetrators were White and 19 percent were Black. Most perpetrators had prior convictions (83 percent), acted alone in committing the crime (91 percent), and did not know their victim (87 percent). Twenty percent of the perpetrators were suspected to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime. Most perpetrators live in Seattle (41 percent) or in surrounding cities (30 percent), and 22 percent reported they were homeless. Twenty percent of the defendants either claimed to be or were suspected of suffering from mental illness. Six percent of the cases prosecuted as malicious harassment were transferred to the King County District Court Regional Mental Health Court. This program is available to people that meet certain eligibility requirements, and provides access to medication and treatment services. Mentally Ill 64% Had a Witness 16% Video/Audio Recorded 25% Other Attributes of Prosecuted Hate Crimes In 64 percent of the cases, the police report mentioned the corroboration of the crime by a witness at the scene. Few cases were recorded by video and/or audio (16 percent). Senior King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mike Hogan told us that a credible witness and video evidence can significantly aid in prosecution. In 25 percent of the cases, the defendant displayed and/or used a weapon against the victim. The most common weapon was a knife. Involved a Weapon Page 45 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report APPENDIX G Geographic and Demographic Analysis of Hate Crimes in Seattle Page 46 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Findings 1. Hate Crime Counts The data used for this analysis are veri?ed bias related incidents3 reported to SPD between January 2012 and December 2016. After cleaning the data, a total of 808 hate crimes were aggregated into three main categories based on the victim?s race and ethnicity (9.9., Black, White, Asian, other), sexual orientation male, female), and other (a catch?all for less frequent hate crimes such as religious, political, or homeless). Among the three primary hate crime types in Figure 1.a, the highest number of incidents are directed towards the race and ethnicity of the victim (n 437) followed by sexual orientation (n 262) and other (n 109).4 Figure 1.a: Aggregated Hate Crime Counts by Category, 2012-2016 400 300 200 Count 100 Race Ethnicity Sexual Orientation Other Aggregated Categories Figure 1b shows the breakdown of hate crimes as de?ned and reported by SPD. Each hate crime is grouped into subicategories consisting of gender identity (GI on the xiaxis), other (0th), race and/or ethnicity (RE), religion (Rel), or sexual orientation (SO). The two most prevalent hate crime types are directed towards Black and LGB individuals with over, or near, 200 incidents. Hate crimes against White and Jewish individuals had over 50 occurrences each while Asia n, transgender, ethnicity, Latinx, and Native American had over, or near, 25 a piece. 3 SPD tracks three categories of bias related incidents: bias crimes, crimes with bias elements, and non?criminal bias incidents. 4 A small number of cases have a combination of race and ethnicity and sexual orientation/identity identifiers, such as LGB/Black. These combined instances are aggregated into the race and ethnicity category. Page 2 of 20 Page 47 Review of Hate Crime Prevention, Response, and Reporting in Seattle: Phase 2 Report Figure 1.b: Detailed Bias Counts by Disaggregated Categories, 2012-2016 200 150 ,o :5 8100 50 I 0 (I) 06) w<1: zxx?r?'x Enni?bo?awtg- >