No Hate Crime Reports? New Bill Could Tie Federal Funds to Reporting for Jurisdictions Over 100K

A new piece of legislation, the 'Improving Reporting to Prevent Hate Act of 2025,' proposes tying federal grant eligibility for larger jurisdictions directly to how they report hate crimes. It amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, requiring the Attorney General (AG) to check if jurisdictions with over 100,000 residents are 'credibly reporting' hate crimes when they apply for certain grants. The goal is to get a clearer picture of hate crimes nationwide by ensuring larger communities are actively tracking and submitting data collected under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.

Show Us the Data, or Show Us the Effort

Here’s the core mechanic: if a city or county with more than 100,000 people applies for these grants but hasn't reported any hate crime data to the FBI, or reports zero incidents, they could lose out on that funding. That's the stick. However, there's a potential out. According to Section 2, a jurisdiction can keep its eligibility if the AG certifies it has undertaken 'significant community public education and awareness initiatives on hate crimes.'

What counts as 'significant'? The bill offers examples: making progress towards comprehensive reporting (like adopting the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System), setting up a specialized hate crimes unit, or holding regular public meetings about hate crimes. This offers flexibility, but also raises questions. The term 'significant' isn't precisely defined, leaving room for interpretation by the AG.

The Real-World Ripple Effect

So, what does this mean practically? For local governments in areas over 100,000 people, there’s a new financial incentive – or pressure – to not just track hate crimes, but to ensure their reporting meets an undefined standard of 'credibility,' or prove they're actively working on community awareness. This could push jurisdictions to improve data collection, potentially leading to a more accurate national understanding of hate crime prevalence.

However, the AG holds considerable sway in deciding what's 'credible' reporting and 'significant' education. Without tighter definitions, consistency could be a challenge. There's also the question of resources. Can jurisdictions, especially those already stretched thin, adequately implement robust reporting or the required educational initiatives? A jurisdiction reporting zero incidents might genuinely have none, or it might lack the capacity to identify and report them effectively. Losing grant funding could potentially hit areas that need resources the most. The bill does require the AG to publish an annual report on which jurisdictions get certified, adding a layer of transparency to the process.