AB 2347 adds Penal Code Section 13519.65 and forces the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to perform a statewide audit of existing hate‑crime training beginning January 1, 2027, with the review due one year later. The statute directs POST to evaluate gaps in how hate crimes are recorded, how officers respond, and how effective existing POST courses are, then to adopt evidence‑based training requirements to fill those gaps by July 1, 2028.
This matters for agencies that design and deliver police training, for local law enforcement that must implement any new requirements, and for community groups tracking hate‑crime reporting and investigations. The bill frames training reform as a data‑driven exercise — shifting responsibility to POST to define what “effective” hate‑crime training looks like across California’s wide range of departments and academies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates a comprehensive review of hate‑crime training offered to employed peace officers and recruits in the basic course, requires POST to evaluate three discrete areas (data collection disparities, law enforcement response effectiveness, and existing POST trainings), and directs POST to adopt evidence‑based training requirements by July 1, 2028.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are POST, police academies, and local law enforcement agencies that deliver or rely on POST curriculum; the requirement also touches prosecutors, victim‑service organizations, and researchers who rely on more consistent hate‑crime data and investigative practices.
Why It Matters
It elevates hate‑crime training from an advisory curriculum to a subject of mandated review and standard‑setting, potentially producing uniform statewide requirements and new expectations for basic training and in‑service instruction.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2347 creates a short, tightly‑timed process that puts POST in charge of diagnosing and fixing weaknesses in how California trains officers to prevent, identify, and investigate hate crimes. The statute sets two deadlines: begin the review on January 1, 2027 and finish it by January 1, 2028; then use the findings to adopt new, evidence‑based training requirements by July 1, 2028.
The law expressly ties the review to trainings already covered under Section 13519.6 and to the population of both employed peace officers and those enrolled in the basic course.
The required review is limited to three evaluation areas: disparities in hate‑crime data collection, the effectiveness of law enforcement’s response to incidents, and the efficacy of existing POST hate‑crime trainings. That means POST must look beyond classroom hours and materials and examine how incidents are identified, coded, reported to state systems, investigated, and adjudicated — and whether current instruction changes officer behavior or investigative outcomes.When POST adopts the new training requirements it must ground them in evidence.
The statute does not prescribe a curriculum; instead it forces POST to translate the review’s findings into minimum standards or requirements that address identified gaps in prevention, identification, and investigation. Because the bill applies to the basic course and to employed officers, POST’s work is likely to affect both entry‑level curriculum and continuing education expectations.The law references the statutory definition of “hate crime” in Penal Code Section 422.55, so the review and any new requirements operate within the existing legal definition rather than creating a new one.
The bill does not specify funding, enforcement mechanisms, or penalties for noncompliance, and it does not itself require particular consultation or interim reporting steps, leaving implementation details to POST during the review and adoption phases.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The review must begin January 1, 2027, and be completed no later than January 1, 2028.
POST must evaluate three specific areas during the review: disparities in hate‑crime data collection; how effectively law enforcement responds to hate crimes; and the efficacy of existing POST hate‑crime trainings.
By July 1, 2028, POST is required to adopt evidence‑based training requirements that address the prevention, identification, and investigation gaps the review identifies.
The statute applies to trainings offered under Section 13519.6 and to peace officers who are employed or enrolled in the basic course, bringing both academy and in‑service instruction within scope.
AB 2347 ties its work to the existing legal definition of hate crime by referencing Penal Code Section 422.55 rather than creating a new statutory definition.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandated review: scope and timeline
This subsection requires POST to conduct a comprehensive review of hate‑crime training starting January 1, 2027 and to complete that review by January 1, 2028. Practically, POST must inventory current offerings for both recruits in the basic course and employed peace officers, set a methodology for evaluating training, and produce a report or deliverable that can be translated into training requirements during the subsequent adoption phase.
Evaluate disparities in hate‑crime data collection
POST must examine where and why hate‑crime reporting and coding vary across jurisdictions. This is likely to require comparing incident classification practices, reporting rates to state databases, and barriers to reporting by victims or officers. The practical implication is that POST will need to assess not just classroom instruction but also how data systems, forms, and local policies contribute to inconsistent statistics.
Assess law enforcement response and training efficacy
The statute directs a two‑part evaluation: one of operational response (investigative practices, victim engagement, interagency coordination) and one of POST’s own training materials (content, delivery methods, learning outcomes). POST must therefore link curriculum content to operational outcomes — for example, whether certain training approaches correlate with better investigations or higher reporting accuracy.
Adopt evidence‑based training requirements
After completing the review, POST must, by July 1, 2028, adopt training requirements grounded in the evidence the review produces. The language mandates requirement‑setting but leaves open how prescriptive those requirements will be — they could be minimum hours, curriculum topics, assessment standards, or performance measures. The subsection is the statutory vehicle for turning findings into statewide expectations for prevention, identification, and investigation training.
Reference to existing hate‑crime definition
This short clause keeps the bill tethered to the existing Penal Code definition of “hate crime” in Section 422.55. That avoids definitional changes and confines POST’s review and resulting requirements to the established statutory categories of protected characteristics and conduct.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims and affected communities — clearer, evidence‑driven training and improved data collection aim to increase accurate identification and tracking of hate crimes, which can improve investigations and access to victim services.
- Prosecutors and investigators — standardized investigative training and better reporting practices should produce more reliable case files and evidentiary consistency across jurisdictions.
- State and local training academies — POST’s adoption of minimum requirements provides curriculum guidance and a statewide benchmark to build training modules that meet accepted standards.
- Researchers and civil‑rights organizations — improved data quality and standardized definitions will make trends easier to analyze and policy interventions easier to evaluate.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement agencies — will face personnel time, overtime, and possibly overtime backfill costs to send officers to any newly required trainings and to implement revised reporting processes.
- POST — will need staff time, subject‑matter expertise, and possibly contractors to conduct the review and develop evidence‑based requirements within the statutory timeline.
- Police academies and instructor cadre — will have to revise curricula, re‑train instructors, and develop assessments to meet POST’s new requirements.
- Smaller or rural departments — with constrained budgets and training capacity, these agencies may struggle more than larger departments to absorb new training requirements without state funding or technical assistance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is between standardizing training to raise baseline investigative and reporting quality statewide and respecting the operational diversity and resource constraints of California’s many law enforcement agencies; tightening standards improves consistency and accountability but risks imposing unfunded mandates and one‑size‑fits‑all training that may not fit every local context.
The statute creates a short, front‑loaded cycle: a one‑year review window followed by a six‑month adoption period. That compresses complex work — assessing reporting systems, measuring training outcomes, and synthesizing evidence across diverse jurisdictions — into a tight schedule that will test POST’s capacity.
The bill requires “evidence‑based” requirements but provides no statutory definition of what counts as evidence, who qualifies as an expert, or what burden of proof POST must meet before changing curriculum. That leaves room for interpretive variation and places significance on POST’s internal rulemaking choices.
Another implementation challenge is funding and enforcement. AB 2347 does not appropriate money or impose penalties for agencies that fail to meet post‑adoption training expectations; it simply requires POST to adopt requirements.
Local agencies with limited budgets will bear the practical costs of compliance unless separate funding or phased implementation is provided. Finally, the requirement to evaluate data disparities raises structural questions about whether the root causes are training, community reporting barriers, IT systems, or prosecutorial charging practices — solutions will likely need to span multiple systems and actors beyond POST’s statutory authority.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.