The Improving Reporting to Prevent Hate Act of 2025 amends Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to make participation in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program—and credible hate-crime reporting—an explicit condition of receiving certain DOJ allocations. The Attorney General must develop an evaluation method, using data gathered under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, to flag covered jurisdictions that either fail to submit hate-crime data to the FBI or report zero incidents.
A covered jurisdiction found not to have ‘‘credibly reported’’ will be ineligible for an allocation under this statutory subpart unless the Attorney General certifies it has carried out significant community public education and awareness initiatives (set out in the bill). The measure creates a three-year window to implement evaluations, an annual public DOJ list of certified exceptions, and a statutory definition of covered jurisdictions and ‘‘significant’’ initiatives—tying grant access to reporting practices and local capacity-building.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Attorney General to establish, within three years, a method using Hate Crimes Statistics Act data to evaluate whether large local jurisdictions credibly report hate crimes to the FBI; jurisdictions that fail the evaluation lose eligibility for certain allocations unless they earn a certification exception.
Who It Affects
Units of local government with populations over 100,000 that have applied for grants under the relevant subpart of Section 505, plus state and local law-enforcement offices responsible for UCR/NIBRS submissions and DOJ grant managers.
Why It Matters
The measure links federal grant dollars to reporting quality, effectively creating a compliance incentive for jurisdictions to improve hate-crime identification, data collection and submission to NIBRS, and to invest in community outreach or dedicated hate-crime capacity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a short set of new subsections into Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. It directs the Attorney General to use existing hate-crime data collected under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to create an evaluation method that identifies covered jurisdictions that are not ‘‘credibly reporting’’ hate crimes.
The statute gives the Attorney General up to three years after enactment to put that evaluation in place.
The evaluation is binary in its triggers: it looks specifically for jurisdictions that either did not report hate-crime data to the FBI at all in a given year or that reported zero incidents. If a covered jurisdiction is found not to have credibly reported, the bill removes that jurisdiction’s eligibility for allocations under the referenced Section 505 subpart.
The bill, however, builds in an exception: the Attorney General may exempt a jurisdiction from the penalty if the jurisdiction earns a certification by demonstrating ‘‘significant community public education and awareness initiatives on hate crimes.’nThe certification standard is defined in two alternative ways. One path requires demonstrable progress toward comprehensive reporting, an adopted policy for identifying/investigating/reporting hate crimes, and a standardized system to collect, analyze, and report to the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
The alternative path allows for establishing a specialized unit or liaison for hate-crime identification and community relations, or for holding regular public meetings and educational forums about hate-crime impacts, victim services, and applicable laws. The Attorney General must publish an annual list of jurisdictions that receive the certification on the DOJ website.Finally, the bill defines ‘‘covered jurisdiction’’ narrowly: it applies only to units of local government with population over 100,000 that requested a grant under the subpart.
The bill also cross-references federal statutes to define ‘‘hate crime,’’ pointing to the Hate Crime Statistics Act definition and several federal criminal statutes. In practice the measure ties grant eligibility to both reporting behavior and to a jurisdiction’s demonstrable steps to build investigative/reporting capacity or community outreach.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General must establish an evaluation method within three years using data from the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to assess whether covered jurisdictions credibly report hate crimes to the FBI.
The bill treats a jurisdiction as suspect if, for any year, it either failed to report hate-crime data to the FBI or reported zero hate-crime incidents.
A covered jurisdiction is a local government unit that requested a grant under the subpart and has a population exceeding 100,000; only such jurisdictions face eligibility loss under this provision.
A finding of non-credible reporting renders the jurisdiction ineligible for allocations under Section 505 unless the AG certifies the jurisdiction completed ‘‘significant community public education and awareness initiatives,’’ which the statute precisely defines with two alternative compliance paths.
The Attorney General must publish annually on DOJ’s website a report listing jurisdictions that received the certification exception under the bill.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Evaluation method for credible hate-crime reporting
This subsection directs the Attorney General to create a method—based on data obtained under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act—to evaluate whether covered jurisdictions ‘‘credibly report’’ hate crimes. The mechanics are narrow: the evaluation checks whether a jurisdiction failed to submit hate-crime data to the FBI or submitted zero incidents for a given year. The practical implication is that the DOJ will operationalize a test that converts reporting behavior (including zeros) into a compliance metric tied to federal funding.
Grant eligibility rule and certification exception
Subsection (k)(1) makes a negative evaluation outcome an automatic bar to receiving allocations under the governing Section 505 subpart. Subsection (k)(2) creates an escape valve: the Attorney General may certify a jurisdiction that otherwise failed the evaluation if it has implemented ‘‘significant community public education and awareness initiatives.’nThis creates a discretionary but structured waiver mechanism that ties an exception to concrete capacity-building, policy adoption, or community-engagement milestones spelled out later in the text.
Annual public reporting of certified jurisdictions
This short provision requires the Attorney General to publish, each year, the list of covered jurisdictions that earned the certification exception on the DOJ website. That publicly available list functions as both transparency and accountability: it signals which jurisdictions avoided penalization through the statutory exception and gives stakeholders a way to monitor whether jurisdictions follow through on claimed initiatives.
Definitions: covered jurisdiction, hate crime, and ‘significant’ initiatives
Subsection (m) sets three definitions critical to implementation. It confines the rule to local governments that applied for the subpart grant and have populations over 100,000. It defines ‘‘hate crime’’ by cross-reference to the Hate Crime Statistics Act and specific federal criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§241, 245, 247, 249). It supplies two alternative formulations of ‘‘significant community public education and awareness initiatives,’’ one focused on measurable progress toward NIBRS reporting and internal policies, the other on creating dedicated units/liaisons or conducting sustained public forums—giving jurisdictions multiple, concrete pathways to meet the certification standard.
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
- Victim advocacy organizations — They gain leverage because the bill conditions federal funds on reporting and community outreach, which can increase detection, victim services referrals, and public awareness of hate crimes.
- Communities and at-risk populations in jurisdictions that improve reporting — Improved identification and NIBRS-level reporting can produce better local data, enabling targeted prevention and resources for affected communities.
- Department of Justice and federal data users — The bill centralizes and standardizes the use of Hate Crimes Statistics Act data for grant compliance, improving transparency and the DOJ’s ability to track reporting gaps across large jurisdictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local law enforcement agencies in large jurisdictions — They may need to invest in personnel, new data systems, training, and policy development to meet the reporting and certification criteria, absorbing implementation costs unless covered by other grants.
- Local governments applying for Section 505 subpart grants — Jurisdictions that fail the evaluation risk losing access to allocations, which could reduce funding for community policing and other programs tied to the subpart.
- State agencies and DOJ grant managers — They will need to design, administer, and defend the evaluation and certification processes, adding administrative burden and requiring clear guidance and oversight to avoid inconsistent application.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to balance two legitimate aims—ensuring accurate, comparable hate-crime data at the federal level and avoiding punitive treatment of under-resourced jurisdictions—by using federal grant leverage plus a certification carve-out; the tension is that stronger enforcement of reporting improves data but can punish jurisdictions that lack capacity, while generous exceptions protect under-resourced areas but weaken the policy’s ability to compel meaningful improvements.
The statute converts reporting outputs (including ‘‘zero’’ reports) into a funding lever without prescribing detailed thresholds or statistical adjustments to distinguish true zero-incidence years from undercounting. That raises implementation questions: how will the Attorney General distinguish a legitimately low-incident jurisdiction from one that is misclassifying or failing to identify incidents?
The law gives the AG discretion to develop the evaluation method, but it does not require specific validation steps, minimum sample sizes, or corroborating indicators (like victimization surveys) to reduce false positives.
The certification exception is specific but broad in application: it offers two alternative compliance routes, one technical (policy plus NIBRS system) and one programmatic (education, liaison, forums). That flexibility helps jurisdictions with different starting points, but it may also create uneven outcomes—small differences in what counts as ‘‘substantial progress’’ or ‘‘ongoing and regular’’ public meetings could lead to inconsistent certifications.
Operationalizing the standard will demand detailed guidance, rubrics, and possibly audits to prevent gaming (for example, minimal trainings or token meetings intended solely to avoid penalties). Finally, tying eligibility to reporting risks perverse incentives: jurisdictions might underreport to avoid being the focus of federal scrutiny, or conversely, prioritize reporting mechanics over substantive investigative capacity and victim services.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.