San Jose City Council
June 14, 2022

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND FROM: Councilmember Esparza

CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: 6/13/2022

Approved Maya Esparza Date: 6/13/22

SUBJECT: MAYOR’S JUNE BUDGET MESSAGE

RECOMMENDATION

1. Accept the Mayor’s June Budget Message with additional direction to the City Manager to prioritize the following actions that align with the recommendations from the Santa Clara County Hate Prevention and Inclusion Task Force:
a. With the adoption of MBA #41, Rebuilding the San José Police Department, prioritize the addition of a Crime and Intelligence Analyst Position during the 2023- 2024 budget development process; and
b. Funding of up to $100,000 in FY 22-23 from the Budget Stabilization Reserve or another identified source for a Warmline to report hate incidents.

BACKGROUND

I thank the Mayor for his thoughtful June Budget Message that balances the many needs of our communities as we continue to grapple with our long recovery from the challenges of Covid.

And I thank the hardworking team in the City Manager’s Budget Office, and all of the employees who have worked tirelessly over the past months to bring us a balanced budget that provides our departments the resources they need to effectively provide vital services for our communities.

In the summer of 2019, thousands of residents and community members from throughout the South Bay were enjoying the festivities of the Gilroy Garlic Festival, when a domestic terrorist influenced by White Supremacist ideology, opened fire on the crowd, and took the lives of three community members—six year old Stephen Romero, thirteen year old Keyla Salazar, and twenty-five year old Trevor Keon Dirby—and wounded seventeen others. In response to this horrendous tragedy, part of the deeply disturbing, intertwined increase of hate crimes, white supremacist violence, and gun violence in our nation that we have seen over the past decade, the COUNCIL AGENDA: 6/14/2022
ITEM: 3.3
City Council unanimously supported a proposal I brought forward with Councilmembers Carrasco, Arenas, and Foley to create and join a county-wide task force on addressing hate crimes, which is now the Santa Clara County Hate Prevention and Inclusion Task Force.

The Task Force, co-chaired by Supervisor Chavez and myself, has met regularly over the past year and a half, bringing together dozens of community stakeholders, who have worked together to build a concrete set of recommendations and actions. As part of this work, the San José State University Research Foundation (SJSURF) created a comprehensive report with 36 recommendations for implementation across the broad spectrum of partners involved in this work, including the County, City, DA, law enforcement agencies, and various community partners. The SJSURF report is included as an attachment to this memorandum. On May 24, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors directed the County Executive to develop an implementation plan for many of the recommendations made in the report. While the County is the lead agency for many of these, successful implementation will require proactive support and resources from the City.

Since the beginning of the Covid Pandemic, we have seen the rise of anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander hate crimes and incidents, with over 700 incidents reported in the Bay Area during 2020, 58 of those in San Jose. In total during 2020, we had 120 hate incidents in Santa Clara County, including 94 right here in San José. Although horrific tragedies such as the Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting or the recent shooting in Buffalo, New York receive the most attention, the reality is that hate crimes and incidents directed toward our marginalized communities are on the rise throughout our nation, including here in San José.

We have also seen a proliferation of illegal firearms, from those trafficked from out of state, to unserialized “ghost guns.” Just in this past week SJPD reported seizing 65 weapons, including two dozen illegal assault weapons, some of those ghost guns, from a homicide suspect. If we are to reverse these disturbing and destructive trends, we need to commit to dedicating sustained resources to this effort.

Recommendation 4.3.1 of the SJSURF report calls for an additional Crime Intelligence Analyst (non-sworn) within SJPD to provide real-time data related to hate crimes to shape targeted strategies for both enforcement and education strategies. This work would include monitoring open-source social media hate groups, monitoring documented hate or harassment incidents and vandalism to look for patterns, and coordinating with the Intelligence Unit and Crime Data Intelligence Center on specific threats. The Analyst would also help compile data related to hate incidents, allowing for that data to be more readily available to City and County task forces as well as for potential grant applications for further funding. Given the nexus of hate and proliferation of illegal weapons, this position will also track and monitor data related to illegal firearms as part of this work. I recommend prioritizing this position part of the scope of work outlined in MBA #41, Rebuilding the Police Department, that will add nine nonsworn civilian positions in the coming year.

Recommendation 4.1.1 of the SJSURF report directs creation of a Warmline 211 System for reporting and receiving support for hate-based incidents. Creation of a non-governmental warmline was the top request of various stakeholder subgroups and listening sessions that provided critical input for the report. Unfortunately, it is well established that for many reasons, hate incidents and hate crimes remain consistently underreported in our communities. This often stems from the lack of trust that many targeted communities may have toward law enforcement.

Warmlines provide a trustworthy service that members of underserved communities are more likely to feel comfortable using that encourages reporting of hate incidents and discriminatory practices, providing trained professionals to document, direct information, and coordinate supportive measures and resources. The County’s current 211 system focuses on Covid-related information, as well as various safety net services, and significant investments would be needed to either build off of this system, or create a new Warmline system to provide hate-based incidents services. Given the resources needed, and the importance of this Warmline in promoting reporting of hate incidents, including providing that connection between residents and our Police Department, it is crucial that the City support funding for this County-led effort.

As the County develops its implementation plan, there will be additional opportunities for partnership and collaboration in order to accomplish the significant scope of work involved in realizing the recommendations from the Task Force. Providing this initial funding will allow two crucial pieces of this work to move forward, and allow us as a City to respond more effectively to address the growing threat of hate crimes and incidents in our communities. This work is just beginning, and stemming the tide of hate crimes will require our sustained commitment over the long term. I urge the Mayor and my colleagues on the Council to support including these additional resources to address hate crimes as part of our budget in the coming year.

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Submitted for the Hate Prevention and Inclusion Task Force February 25, 2022 Meeting

San José State University Research Foundation

Final Draft of Recommendations

Hate Prevention & Inclusion Task Force
Of Santa Clara County

4.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Contents

1. Forward ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 3

2. Background, Definitions, Concepts on Hate ................................ ............................... 5

3. Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9

4. Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......12

4.1 Address hate crimes and violence incited by hate speech in our community.........12

4.2 New and existing state and federal laws & gender-based hate crimes ....................23

4.3 Firearms accessibility, hate crimes, hate speech, law enforcement ........................28

4.4 Pathology of hate crimes to develop the best methods and policies .......................39

4.5 School or school-based programs to promote change in community culture ........45

4.6 Recommendations based on findings from Affinity Focus Groups .........................46 5 Summary of Recommendations in Section 4 ................................ .............................68 6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................73 7 Resources and References ................................ ................................ ..........................74

4.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE San José State University Research Foundation DRAFT Report Santa Clara County Hate Prevention and Inclusion Task Force

1. Forward
The SJSU Research Foundation (SJSURF) is contracted by Santa Clara County to convene working stakeholder groups facilitated by SJSU faculty and staff experts for the purposes of compiling a report that consolidates recommendations born out of applied research informed by guided discussions with community participants.

SJSURF conducted a total of: twelve 75-minute stakeholder working meetings, three 75- minute affinity identity focus groups, and two 75-minute youth working stakeholder meetings.

This report is the final draft of summary of findings and recommendations from SJSURF to the Hate Prevention and Inclusion Task Force. SJSURF has been providing these deliverables as per the agreed workplan and timelines. At the December 10, 2021 HPITF meeting, SJSURF was directed to finalize their draft recommendations and summary of findings and consider incorporating the feedback from the TF for a final report back on February 25, 2022 The Hate Prevention and Inclusion Task Force is tasked with:

1. developing a clear set of recommendations to address hate crimes and violence incited by hate speech in our community;

2. developing recommendations to employ existing state and federal laws to protect against gender-based hate crimes and to assess new policies and legislation to achieve this end;

3. examining the pathology of hate crimes to develop the best methods and policies to address them;

4. examining the relationship of firearm accessibility to hate crimes and developing recommendations on investments in law enforcement intelligence to combat the illegal gun trade and to monitor the proliferation of hate speech; and

5. recommending school or school-based programs to promote a change in our community culture relative to hate crimes and violence.

Stakeholder Working Groups
SJSURF scheduled two sessions per working group, each lasting approximately 75 minutes for a total of twelve meetings. All sessions were held virtually on Zoom and took place in the last week of October 2021 and through November 2021. The six working stakeholder groups recommended to the SJSURF are listed below. The working groups were facilitated by faculty experts and staff facilitators who led and guided discussions during these sessions.

4.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

1. Legislative Policies and Advocacy
Goals: Research and assess current local, state, and federal legislation that can be used for all types of, or specific to, certain hate incidents and hate crimes.

Research and recommend upcoming legislation that the task force and County should support and/or recommend to the County’s legislative affairs team for advocacy. If the legislation is already in place, recommend steps for the County to implement it effectively.

2. Gender-Based Violence as a Hate Crime
Goals: Research gender-based violence laws and models in other countries/jurisdictions and recommend similar models for the County of Santa Clara and next steps to successfully implement these models and practices to ensure women and trans individuals are protected and perpetrators follow due process.

3. Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Improvements
Goals: Research and recommend modifications to law enforcement and criminal justice trainings and/or alternative approaches to handling hate incidents, crimes, and climate. Examine the relationship of firearm accessibility to hate crimes and develop recommendations for law enforcement intelligence to combat the illegal gun trade and to monitor the proliferation of hate speech.

4. School-Based Programs and Models
Goals: Research and recommend best practices and models that have been successful in reducing bullying in K-12 schools and childcare centers. This is including but not limited to, prevention programs, after school programs, mental and behavioral health programs, school curriculum, etc.

5. Cyberhate Prevention and Intervention
Goals: Research the extent of cyberhate in today’s climate, and recommend legislation, models, and means by which hate can be mitigated online towards youth and adults. Recommend collaboration with law enforcement and partner tech companies in Silicon Valley to address and reduce cyberhate and hate speech.

6. Countywide Outreach and Education Campaigns
Goals: Recommend a robust accessible, cultural, and linguistically appropriate countywide outreach and education campaign relating to the County’s efforts with partners to address and reduce hate climate. Recommend countywide events, activities, and training programs that will foster understanding and collaboration with the public and private sector, schools, organizations, cultural institutions, and other stakeholders.

4.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Affinity Focus Groups
Additionally, three focus groups of 75 minutes each were conducted for specific affinity groups with the goal of providing a caucus dynamic so that the facilitators could hold space for these affinity groups. These focus groups were constructed based on consistent concerns expressed at HPITF meetings that the issues and experiences of some affinity groups were often given token discussion time as discussions tended to gravitate primarily back to race and ethnicity- based hate crimes and incidents. The rationale for conducting additional affinity identity based sessions was to provide a facilitated space for focused and sustained discussions on experiences and recommendations on hate crimes, hate incidents, and hate prevention. The focus groups are:

1. People with Disabilities Affinity Group

2. Jewish Affinity Group

3. Muslim Affinity Group

SJSURF did not conduct focus groups for an LGBTQ+ affinity group as the concerns would fall under working group “Gender-Based/Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity-Based Violence as Hate.” There is also already a substantial and timely array of Anti-Asian Hate prevention recommendations work currently contained in a special report of the County Board of Supervisors. These recommendations will be analyzed for gaps.

2. Background, Definitions, Concepts on Hate

What is hate?

Hate generally starts with bias that is left unchecked. Bias is a preference either for or against an individual or group that affects someone’s ability to judge fairly. When that bias is left unchecked, it becomes normalized or accepted, and may even escalate into violence. When hate manifests against a person or group of people, it usually derives from ignorance, anger, fear, a sense of injury, or a perceived threat to the status quo.

When the word “hate” is used in law, such as “hate crime law,” it does not mean rage, anger, or general dislike. In this context, “hate” means bias against people or groups with specific characteristics (Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia).

The pyramid of hate shows how bias can escalate from attitudes to more severe forms of hate.

4.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE The term “hate crime” is actually a legal misnomer. To be a “hate crime,” a crime must be motivated by bias, not necessary hate. Quote the definitions in Penal Code Sections 422.55 and 422.56(d).

Hate crime law covers protected characteristics, not “protected classes” or “protected groups.” Every person has or may have these actual or perceived characteristics. Yet many people still think that hate crime laws only cover certain people, creating “special rights” for some or resulting in “reverse discrimination” against, or even “replacement” of, persons mistakenly believed to be not covered, e.g. straight, White, native-born, non-transgender, non-disabled, Christian men. Hate crime laws protect everyone.

Under California Penal Code 422.55, a criminal act committed against another person that is motivated “in whole or part” by prejudice against certain characteristics of that person is considered a hate crime. The term “in whole or in part” means that a prohibited bias against the alleged victim does not have to be the only motivating factor for the alleged crime. For example, if the court finds that you committed battery that was motivated in part by the alleged victim’s race or ethnicity, and also by robbery, you could be convicted of a hate crime motivated by racial prejudice. These characteristics include:

Disability
Gender
Nationality

4.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Race or ethnicity
Religion
Sexual orientation
Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

California Penal Code 422.6(a) states that it is unlawful to use force or threat of force to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of California or the United States.

Additionally, it is a hate crime to knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the US Constitution or state law.

Santa Clara County Characteristics and Context

Santa Clara County is California’s 6th most populous county with a population of approximately

1.9 million people with 640,215 households as of the 2020 US Census. The county encompasses 15 cities within 1,290 square miles ranging from the largest, San José with 1.5 million residents within 181 square miles to 9 cities under 60,000 residents each under an average of 15 square miles each. The cities differ widely in diversity in terms of race/ethnicity, religious identity, migration status, primary languages spoken at home and population density as well as economic disparities.

Santa Clara County’s characteristics in terms of diversity:
 Racial/ethnic demographics (U.S. Census 2020 categories) o Asian alone 39.0%
o White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 30.6%
o Hispanic or Latino 25.0%
o Black or African American 2.8%
o American Indian & Alaska Native 1.2%
o Native Hawai’ian or Pacific Islander .5%
o Two or More Races 4.2%
 53% of households speak a language other than English at home  39.2% foreign born
 LGBTQ identified 4.0% [Santa Clara County Public
Health]

4.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE  5th most religiously diverse county in the U.S. Public Religion Research Institute calculates a religious diversity score of 0.876 for Santa Clara County, where 1 represents complete diversity (each religious group of equal size) and 0 a total lack of diversity.
 Persons with disabilities under age 65 4.6%
Trends in Terms of Hate and Bias in Santa Clara County

Hate Crimes in California

Hate crime in California surged 31% in 2020, fueled mainly by a big jump in crimes targeting Black people during a year that saw the worst racial strife in decades, according to an annual report from the California State Attorney G eneral.

Overall hate crimes increas ed from 1,015 to 1,330 in 2020 , while the number of victims increased 23%, from 1,247 to 1,536.

Black people account for 6.5% of the state’s population of nearly 40 million people but were victims in 30% of all hate crimes — 456 overall, up 87% from the previous year.

The report found that hate crimes motivated by bias against Black or African American people were the highest of any particular group, with 522 incidents reported, compared to 297 incidents in 2019, a rise of 75.8% in a single year. This was the highest number of anti - Black hate crimes reported in over a decade at least,

There were 204 alleged offenses reported of hate crimes motivated by bias against Latino or Hispanic people, compared to 154 such alleged offenses in 2019, a rise of 32.9%. It is the second most -common category of hate crime by race, ethnicity, and national origin.

Anti-Asian hate crimes rose by 84.5% amid the COVID -19 pandemic, from 58 in 2019 to 107 in 2020.

Anti-Jewish hate crimes accounted for almost two -thirds of hate crimes motiva ted by bias in religion, with 122 alleged offenses reported in 2020, a decline from 165 alleged offenses reported in 2019.

There were 235 incidents of hate crimes motivated by bias on the basis of sexual orientation, compared to 263 in 2019, a decline of 24.2%. These include 182 motivated by bias against gay men, 21 motivated by bias against lesbians, and 28 motivated by bias

4.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE against "homosexual" people. There were zero reports of hate crimes motivated by bias against heterosexual people, and just four mot ivated by bias against bisexual people.

Hate crimes motivated by bias against transgender people rose 72.2%, from 36 in 2019 to 62 in 2020. Hate crimes motivated by bias against gender -nonconforming people went from four instances in 2019 to six instances in 2020.

Hate Crimes in Santa Clara County [Hate Crime in California, 2020]

CA DOJ 2020 Events Offenses Victims Suspects
Santa Clara County 120 137 137 119
Sherriff’s Dept
(unincorporated)
6 7 6 3
Campbell 3 4 4 2
Cupertino 1 1 1 2
Los Altos 1 1 1 1
Los Gatos 1 1 1 1
Mountain View 1 2 2 0
Palo Alto 4 4 4 3
San Jose 94 107 108 101
Santa Clara Transit 2 2 2 2
Sunnyvale 7 8 8 4

Hate Crime – A criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a characteristic of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.

Event – An occurrence where a hate crime is involved. (In this report, the information about the event is a crime report or source document that meets the criteria for a hate crime.) There may be one or more suspects involved, one or more victims targeted, and one or more offenses involved for each event.

Offenses – Criminal acts that are recorded as follows: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, simple assault, intimidation, and destruction/ vandalism as defined in the UCR and the national Hate Crimes Statistics Report.

3. Executive Summary

Hate Crimes, Hate Incidents, Prejudice and Exclusionary Behaviors

4.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE In “The Psychology of Hate Crimes as Domestic Terrorism: U. S. and Global Issues” [3 volumes] (2017), Carl C. Bell discusses the “law problem” of framing a multi-faceted problem such as bias-motivated aggression as a legal criminal violation. This tight framing minimizes how chronic, widespread and normative prejudice is in the general population. Another challenge is that solutions are guided by our legal tradition. The ways in which hate crimes are prosecuted with specific categories of race-based or religious hatred, for example, fails to consider the diverse motivation and ideological forces that fuel much of hate violence today.

White supremacist organizations across the U.S. intertwine racial hatred with misogyny, with xenophobia, and with religious hatred, though in many hate crime cases only one element may emerge or be substantiated in terms of evidence. Furthermore, incarceration for young hate offenders can further harden and heighten their sense of their own ingroup persecution and of their outgroup hate while not addressing the underlying social psychological pathologies of hate. While policing and incarceration necessarily utilize hate crime laws and their enforcement, the system is not designed for addressing the “why” of hate violence and hate behavior.

This report will make recommendations about how policing and legal systems can improve their impact on hate crime enforcement and improve on its practices to reflect more of an understanding of the social psychological mechanisms of hate.

This report will also make recommendations that expand to the prevention of hate crimes, hate incidents, prejudice and exclusion. It is clear in the findings from the many working groups and focus groups that participants want to address the “root cause” of hate crimes, hate speech, hate incidents, and prejudice. Consistently comments were made on the experience of hate encompassing microaggressions, expressions of disdain and dehumanization, and other exclusionary behaviors and interactions. For the targeted individual the experience of hate is a triangulated experience from multiple sources and settings with some perpetrators in the workplace, schools, health care, neighborhoods and even from within families and friendship networks. The recommendations and interventions in this report reflect this understanding.

This report on recommendations is organized by the five tasks listed in the forward. While the content was collected organized by stakeholder working groups. The five task areas reflect findings and recommendations that sometimes overlapped across stakeholder groups. The notes for those stakeholder groups are not contained in this report so as not to be repetitive.

The recommendations range from very specific legislative actions to Youth Participation Research Programs, data transparency, professional development, county wide programming,

4.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE and a warmline to provide non-emergency support. In most sections there is background information provided and there is a list of resources at the end.

4.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

4. Recommendations

This section contains recommendations. For each of the recommendations there is an analysis of priority level in terms of effort and impact.

High Priority
Level 1: more low effort with a medium to high impact (level 1) Urgent: urgent need but high effort and require long term focus and investment. There may also be relevant supportive legislation to be enacted or existing resources are already in use by the County and could be expanded, supplemented or modified.

Lower Priority
Level 2: high effort, medium impact.

SJSURF’s hope is that there will be a balance of recommendations made by this Task Force to address these complex issues.

4.1 Address hate crimes and violence incited by hate speech in our community

Paradox of Policing and Hate Prevention and Hate Crimes

Brennan Center for Restorative Justice

“Another factor complicating the government’s fight against white nationalist violence is law enforcement itself. Sadly, the communities targeted by white supremacists — African Americans, LGBTQ, and undocumented people — are also the same communities who experience disproportionate amounts of police violence and abuse. Justice Department crime victim surveys indicate that more than half of hate crime victims refuse to report to police, citing a lack of trust.”
The authors of the Stanford study identified similar issues. For one, distrust of law enforcement deters many people from reporting crimes, making criminal prosecution an “insufficient response.” Evidence hasn’t confirmed that current measures actually mitigate hate crimes, but their enforcement could further harm heavily policed communities.

4.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE “Many people don’t report hate crimes because they don’t trust the criminal justice system,” Sinnar said.
“Even when they’re reported, many incidents of hate speech don’t constitute crimes, and even in the case of actual crimes, it’s often hard to prove that crimes were motivated by bias.

Moreover, even on those rare occasions when you can prove a hate crime, the laws don’t directly address the trauma of communities that are targeted.” Alternative approaches to addressing hate crimes, hate speech, and hate incidents can utilize the legal and criminal law expertise of law enforcement and legal counsels as consultants or resources alongside community partners and culturally informed experts.

Recommendation 4.1.1
Develop a Warmline 211 System for Reporting and Receiving Support for Hate Based Incidents. [High Priority Long Term: Effort is high, need is urgent, opportunities/resources high]
Warmlines-Peer-run or agency-run phone lines that provide assistance to callers to report and seek support for hate or discriminatory incidents that are non-emergency (as opposed to a hot- line which is for immediate urgent/emergency incidents or 911 emergency response line).

Warmlines for reporting hate incidents have been established in different municipalities for the primary reason of the gross and consequential underreporting of hate incidents and hate crimes across a large spectrum of targeted communities. Research from academic scholars, anti-hate agencies, governmental agencies and community based non-profits have established the significant underreporting of hate incidents being attributed to a lack of trust and the paradoxical dynamic of seeking help from law enforcement institutions whose relationships with targeted communities have been historically racist, sexist, nativist, ablest, and homophobic.

The premise of warmlines is that if they are staffed and managed in collaboration with trained community members, underserved communities are more likely to feel safe reporting incidents and seeking support without putting themselves or their families at risk of exposure to law enforcement.

Some of the challenges of warmlines is that they are costly to run well in order to accomplish the very things they are designed to do which is to provide a trustworthy service that encourages reporting of hate incidents and discriminatory practices as well as provide trained

4.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE professionals to document, triage, direct information, and coordinate possible supportive measures and resources. Warmlines need be resourced in a manner that provides:
 multi-lingual support
 inclusive technologies for a range of interfaces
 cultural competency to engage across a broad spectrum of communities and hate issues and dynamics (e.g. –hate against disabled people or LGBTQ community may come from care-takers, family and friends)
 administrative support to track and refer cases that need to be handed off to law enforcement and district attorneys agencies.
 communication strategy to raise awareness and usage of warmlines.  administrative support to maintain staffing continuity and capacity  technical material support for the physical call system

District Attorney Run and Supported Warmlines and Hotlines DA supported warmlines are staffed by DA’s office staff and community partners. The professional training, intake, and management of data and cases are designed to address key outcomes:
 increasing the reporting of hate incidents and hate crimes  increasing the efficacy of hate crimes laws, and that hate crimes are investigated and prosecuted.
 Some warmlines have more extensive partnerships with community and county agencies to resource and support those individuals whose cases do not meet the level of a hate crime.

Advantages:
 DA’s offices can more readily ramp up their hate crimes staffing as staff are already subject matter experts in determining and distinguishing between hate incidents versus criminal offenses.
 Hate incidents/Hate crimes are more likely to be investigated within the criminal justice system which may result in charges and prosecution.
 Avoids the all of the challenges of an accurate and effective warm handoff between community warmline staff and the DA’s Office for hate incidents that may be criminal which may involve further investigation.

Disadvantages
 Many underserved communities may not feel safe or comfortable calling a warmline that is connected to the District Attorney’s Office for many reasons including fear of deportation, and experiences of systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of exclusion.

4.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE  If not funded, framed or partnered effectively, there may be less follow through on those incidents of hate and discrimination that do not meet the level of a hate crime, especially those incidents that could escalate to a criminal level much further down the line.

Examples of DA County Hotlines with No Assistance from Board of Supervisors

San Diego County District Attorney’s Office (DAO) Hotline Model

The San Diego County DAO started it’s Hate Crime Hotline. It is marketed as an avenue for community to report hate crimes and in communication materials does not encourage reporting of hate incidents but instead urges individuals to report to someone of authority such as store managers, supervisors, etc.
 There are three pathways to the hotline: 1) an online form directly via the DAO website; 2) calling the hotline number (619-515-8805); 3) sending an email to the email address listed on the website.
 The Hate Crimes Hotline is monitored by an assigned lead Deputy District Attorney.  Hotline’s creation last year announced via news release and a variety of virtual town hall events hosted by the DA. The hotline was supported by the San Diego Human Relations Commission.
 If Lead DDA Trinh thinks there was a crime, he calls is colleagues at the applicable law enforcement agency (LEA). The relevant colleague at the LEA is the officer who is assigned to the SD DAO Hate Crime Commission. The LEAs work up the cases.  The hotline received about 250 tips over the year and a half of existence. It receives at least 3-4 each week. A spreadsheet is to track all contacts.  If there is a hate incident as opposed to a hate crime, he urges the complainant to commit to future reporting if anything else occurs so that town halls can be planned and other outreach can be done.
 The DAO’s victim advocates are sometimes involved at this stage as they can provide services even if a crime is not filed.

Advantages of this hotline
 There are three ways for individuals to report hate crimes including online form, phone, and email.
 Cases of criminal offenses involving hate are more likely to be accurately and efficiently communicated and handed off to law enforcement agencies including all of the materials and documentation that can be used in investigations through an assigned LEA officer.
 Victim advocates can provide resources and support for those cases that do not meet the level of a hate crime offense.

4.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE  The high number of 250 hotline intakes suggests that it is successful at increasing the number of reports of hate crimes/incidents.
 Lower cost in terms of staffing, training and technology.  Does not require CBO funds or support.
 Can set this up in a fairly short time
Disadvantages of this hotline
 There may be lack of trust and use by victims from underrepresented communities particularly those who have not historically reported hate crimes including undocumented people, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people as well as many other marginalized groups.

Alameda County Hotline Model

DA Investigators within their Special Operations Unit monitor the hotline which is a phoneline.

At peak times, they’ll get dozens of messages a week, while other weeks none.  Hotline receives a fair amount of “5150” calls. The DA staff review the calls and if they think there is a crime that needs to be investigated, they contact the LEA within whose jurisdiction the crime the crime occurred. They don’t alert CBOs or other County departments.
 Hotline is a clearinghouse for the LEAs, with the DAO being the hub of the wheel.  If follow up investigation is needed, the DAO’s Special Response Team works the case with the LEA.
 The hotline features messages in Spanish, Farsi, Mandarin, Cantonese and Tagalog in addition to English.

Advantages of this hotline
 High number of peak time calls suggest that it is being utilized.  Cases of criminal offenses involving hate are more likely to be accurately and efficiently communicated and handed off to law enforcement agencies including all of the materials and documentation that can be used in investigations through a LEA.  Lower cost in terms of staffing, training and technology.  Does not require CBO funds or support.
 Can set this up in a fairly short time.

Disadvantages of this hotline
 This is more of a clearing house between DAO and LEA. They do not alert or consult with County Board Offices or other County departments. This would greatly reduce the possibility of longterm preventative and supportive work for hate incidents and hate crimes.

4.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE  Priority may not be placed on addressing or handing off cases that do not meet level of a criminal offense based in hate.
 There may be lack of trust and use by victims from underrepresented communities particularly those who have not historically reported hate crimes including undocumented people, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people as well as many other marginalized groups.

County Agency Run Warmlines/Hotlines

LA 211 hotline embedded under the LA versus Hate campaign for individuals who have been victims or witnesses to acts of bullying or incidents motivated by hate or discrimination

The 211 LA system developed this hotline under the Board of Supervisors directive and is in partnership with the LA Human Relations Commission and the Los Angeles County Workforce Development Aging and Community Services (WDACS).

 employs trained 211 care coordinators who share the reports received with partner agencies that provide advocacy, counseling services and hate prevention guidance and legal aid. The
 211 hotline has received approximately 256 calls in the first six months of 2020  has on its list of partner agencies the Anti-Defamation League; Antelope Valley Partners for Health; Asian Pacific Policy & Planning Council; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of L.A. (CHIRLA); Hate Violence Prevention Partnership of L.A. (includes Bienestar, Brotherhood Crusade, California Conference for Equality & Justice, and Muslim Public Affairs Council); Not In Our Town; and San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center, Inc.
 Service excludes investigating of a hate act/crime, which must be directly and separately reported by the individual caller to law enforcement.
 211 LA model works in close partnership with the LA Human Relations and with the LA county Workforce Development and LA’s Commission and Department of Mental Health, The Human Relations Commission and the Los Angeles County Workforce Development.

Advantages of this hotline
 Staffed by personnel who are more likely to be community centered as well as resource and support centered versus more exclusively criminal justice and law enforcement centered in approaching hate incidents and hate crimes.  Has extensive community collaborations that are deep and wide to provide support and warm hand-offs and referrals for victims.

4.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE  211LA system does not hand over information to LEAs which may encourage trust and thus reporting of incidents among those historically unwilling to report to LEAs.  Not just hate crime and criminal offense focused which encourages more early reporting of incidents that could escalate to hate crimes.

Disadvantages of this hotline
 Replicating such a model would take a considerable amount of time for building capacity in staffing, technology, budget, and operational framework and it’s unclear if such a framework capacity is something that our local 211 has or is interested in building  All of the commissions in Santa Clara County including the Santa Clara Human Rights Commission (which was a nonprofit decades ago) are now in the scope of a Brown Act advisory board with no oversight or programmatic function. Would need to come up with alternative collaborations and relationships.
 Cases are not handed off to DAO by the 211 LA system but individuals are told to report to LEAs themselves. Some cases of hate crime may never be investigated.  211 LA system has been developed in a span of many years with a robust budget of over million dollars and large staffing capacity, and has an established multi-faceted framework with specialized offering for warm hand-off referrals, and an extensive database of community resources.
 This is a longterm initiative that will require extensive planning, network of collaborators, and significant consistent funding.

Santa Clara’s 211 Warmline system [Currently NOT a hate crimes/hate incident reporting line]

Santa Clara County’s 211 warmline has been in operation and is currently focused on COVID health information such as where to obtain testing services and other safety net assistance.  Currently, the County’s 211 system provided by United Way receives calls across the Bay Area for various services including safety net referrals with a very accessible and extensive language bank.
 Caseworker/County social worker can look up services for clients from a resources referral depository and requires callers to write down the offered resource information to self-refer and contact.
 Santa Clara County is currently looking for ways for the current 211 system to be expanded to provide warm hand-offs so that callers can be connected in real time to a service provider. This is still in initial phase and may require significant time and funding to work through the technical support, staffing capacity and training.  Santa Clara County currently pays $150,000 a year which is less costly than most models.

Advantages of this system

4.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE  Already in operation and utilized for community COVID safety and safety net concerns.

This might be a beneficial history for the 211 line being seen as not LEA based.  Has an accessible language bank.
 Keeps focus on providing support, referrals, and resources.  Can currently connect concerns to DA’s Office when appropriate.  Uses a nominal budget at the moment and is contracted through the United Way.

Disadvantages of this system
 The 211 system would need to be rebranded and communicated out to the larger community as having a new hate incident, hate crimes, reporting function.  Analysis needs to be done to see 211 would be able to keep its existing functions for COVID safety and other safety net in addition to its new expanded function.  Would need additional significant funding for staffing, development of new scripts and protocols, and technology expansion.

Relevant Legislation

AB 557-Hate Crimes: Hotline Introduced by Assembly Members Muratsuchi and Chiu (Coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Quirk, Bauer-Kahan, Chau, Lee, and Wicks) (Coauthor: Senator Min) on February 11, 2021.

This bill would require the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, subject to an appropriation of funds, to provide grants to community-based organizations and local governmental agencies, as specified, to operate telephone hotlines or online reporting portals for the reporting of hate crimes and hate incidents, as defined, and for the sharing of information about the characteristics of hate crimes and hate incidents, protected classes, civil remedies, and reporting options as specified. The bill would require the department to collaborate with grand recipients and the Department of Justice to develop uniform training and procedures as specified.

The bill is currently as of February 2022 in the Senate Inactive File. The Senate Inactive File contains legislation that is ready for floor consideration but for a variety of reasons is dormant. The bill has until August 31, 2022 to be brought up onto the Senate floor. AB 557 coauthors may try to introduce it before August.

Recommendation 4.1.2
Pilot a Community of Practice on Restorative Justice [Level 2: effort is medium, impact is high for longterm gains]

4.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE According to the Brennan Center for Restorative Justice, some 300 restorative justice programs exist throughout the U.S., and studies link these programs to increased satisfaction among victims, a greater sense of accountability among offenders, decreased recidivism and reduced costs.

Evaluating these programs both as substitutes for and supplements to existing legal approaches, the report notes that such programs need sufficient staff, funding and “culturally competent” resources to effectively serve communities.

Pilot a restorative justice community of practice with culturally knowledgable members of communities, criminal legal experts with knowledge of diversionary judicial practices, trauma informed counselor/advisor advocates, and individuals from private sector and public sector who are motivated to contribute support and learn. The collective goal of the group would be to identify a victim and a perpetrator who are both willing to work through alternatives to incarceration or punitive fines by developing joint agreed upon restorative practices in a plan that provides some restoration and healing for the targeted individual as well as for the perpetrator.

Recommendation 4.1.3
County Infrastructure and Support to Deploy Community Driven Programs to counter programming incidents of hate speech and hate violence that goes beyond rallies at City Halls [Level 2: effort is medium, impact is medium]

Participants stressed the need for infrastructure within the County that addresses monetary resources, community cohesion, and organizational leadership. A primary issue related to support that arose was the lack of financial support from Santa Clara County to support community programming. The overall discussion among the three participants centered on the deep rooted issues of hate and violence that cannot be solved without resources from the county to enact county wide initiatives.

Recommendation 4.1.4
Office at the County Level Dedicated to Preventing Community Hate [Level 3: effort high, high cost for staffing and resourcing; impact medium to high] The primary recommendation that can be made is to have an office at the county level explicitly dedicated to combating, addressing and preventing community hate. The participants suggested that the office needs to be staffed and resourced at a level that it can do community

4.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE outreach and strategize with specific community groups and public entities on programming and events that are preventative and prosocial. The office should also inventory and conduct participatory studies with groups already involved in addressing community hate issues.

Recommendations 4.1.5

County Executed Educational Programming [Level 2: effort high, impact medium/low]

Much in line with their previous recommendations, participants indicated that they wanted both (1) county-sponsored and -executed educational programming and (2) county support for educational programming that other organizations are providing. In particular, participants highlighted two main types of programming they would like to have the county organize and/or support: (1) speakers’ panels through which community members could share their experiences and (2) training sessions that would build community members’ capacity to respond to hate crimes.

Participants mentioned that they would like to see speakers’ panels along a number of lines of difference and diversity [culture, gender, sexuality, language, religion, ability, etc.] so that the broader Santa Clara community could be better understand the wealth of diversity we have and could better empathize with the experiences of their fellow community members. They suggested that these panels could be collaborative between the county and local non-profit organizations that serve different facets of the community.

In addition to these panels, participants indicated that they felt that, on the whole, community members were not prepared to intervene to de-escalate or prevent potential hate crimes.

Participants therefore recommended that the county partner with local organizations to provide trainings around bystander interventions and de-escalation, specifically focused on ways to keep our marginalized community members safe from bias- and hate-based violence.

Recommendation 4.1.6 [Level 1: Effort is low, Impact is medium high] County Supported Block Parties and Community Events that Bring People Together to Fight Hate
Neighborhood based and city based rotations of events that are supported by respective community leaders including county supervisors. Some events in the past have been successful but they are not regularized and are special one off events often driven by a specific local politician or community leader. Participants in community based programs would like to see

4.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE this practice institutionalized and supported in terms of advertising campaigns and participation by public employees and local leaders.

4.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

4.2 New and existing state and federal laws & gender-based hate crimes

Gender-Based and Sexual Orientation-Based Hate

2021 was the deadliest year for trans and gender non-conforming Americans with at least 36 people killed, the majority of whom were Black and Latinx transgender women.

According to a UCLA study:
 LGBT people (16+) are nearly 4 times more likely to experience violent victimization, compared to non-LGBT people.
 LGBT people are about 6 times more likely to experience violence by someone who is well known to them and about 2.5 times more likely to undergo it at the hands of a stranger, compared to non-LGBT people.
 LBT women are 5 times more likely than non-LBT women to experience violent victimization. The risk of violence for GBT men is more than twice that of non-GBT men.  About half of all victimizations are not reported to police. LGBT people are as likely as non-LGBT people to report violence to police.

AB-1094 Sexual orientation and gender identity data collection pilot project This bill was signed into California law on September 16, 2021 by Governor Newsom. Santa Clara County is one of up to six California counties participating in a 3-year pilot program requiring county coroners and medical examiners to be trained in the data collection of gender identity and sexual orientation in cases of violent death. The data will be required to be aggregated, de-identified and annually reported. This training and data collection is consistent with the existing law that requires the coroner to inquire into and determine the circumstances, manner, and cause of all violent deaths.

AB-1094 was developed in response to the rise in violent and deadly assaults against transgender individuals in California and across the nation as well as indicators of inconsistent data collection and underreporting of hate crimes against transgender individuals and other members of the LGBTQ community. California will become the first state in the US to track the violent deaths of LGBTQ+ people, a move that advocacy groups are hailing as a “huge victory” and a critical tool in understanding disproportionate rates of violence against the LGBTQ+ community.

.

4.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Recommendation 4.2.1

Santa Clara County law enforcement agencies should investigate for evidence of gender bias in violent crimes such as sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking utilizing existing hate crimes laws and POST protocols. [Level 2: Effort is high even though the tools and laws are there; Impact is high]
Utilize hate crime laws, designations, and protocols for gender-based domestic violence.

Santa Clara County law enforcement agencies should investigate for evidence of gender bias in all such crimes as described in this section using the supplemental report form called a “hate crimes check list” in the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) model hate crime policy.

Other evidence could include discriminatory selection of victims, e.g. the fact that, in a case of assaults of multiple women and girls, there were also men and boys available to be assaulted but the perpetrator selected only women and girls, and other indicators listed in Penal Code Section 422.89(a)(3)(B) and in The California Attorney General’s Guidance to Prosecutors on Hate Crimes, June 2021, page 9.

Also, the Legislature should require all law enforcement agencies to investigate these crimes for evidence of bias motivation using the supplemental report form in the POST model policy and should require POST to expand the form to include other indicators listed in Penal Code Section 422.89(a)(3)(B) and in The California Attorney General’s Guidance to Prosecutors on Hate Crimes.

In the U.S., a crime motivated by gender bias may be charged as a hate crime under federal hate crime law and in 35 states, under state hate crime laws. However, the prosecution of hate crimes related to gender bias is rare, with only .9% of 7,013 hate crime incidents categorized as being related to gender bias. This low number is in contradiction with the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which reports that 27.2% of all crimes from 2013 to 2017 were motivated by gender bias as well as 55% of all homicide victims were female and killed by a current or former partner who is male.

Gender based violence, sexual assault, domestic abuse, stalking, and sexual harassment are all based in biased and discriminatory beliefs about women and girls:
 Objectification and degradation of women
 Rape culture
 Harmful gender norms
 Inequality
Domestic violence and gender-based assaults on women are rarely described as hate crimes. In cases of mass shootings, even when the mass shooter leaves behind misogynistic writings or selected women shooting victims, the press and even law enforcement does not categorize the

4.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE mass shooting incident as a hate crime. This removes from the public eye and even policy makers, the larger mechanism of misogyny and gender bias when examining efficacy in hate crime legislation, protocols and prosecution. In the annual release of hate crime statistics, hate crimes against women are rarely cited or referenced in the U.S.

1. "Reforms to hate crime laws to make them fairer, and to protect women for the first time". www.lawcom.gov.uk. 23 September 2020.

2. ^ Scott, Jennifer (23 September 2020). "Misogyny: Women 'should be protected' under hate crime laws". BBC News. Retrieved 23 September 2020.

Most prevention work on violence against women has focused on helping empower women, empowering them to report domestic violence, and to seek services including shelter, financial resources, and protective orders as well as mental health services. These programs are important and address an important critical need for women.

Prevention work that focuses on men tends to be violence prevention and anger management workshops. Toxic masculinity is the focus with the view that men’s violence is the result of an inability to cope under the straightjacket of narrow gender roles available to be men or manly.

Men act out because their manhood is seen to be attacked by women’s employment, women’s rising educational status, changes to the global economy and the perception that the political climate has favored women and other special minoritized groups and not men, particularly white men (Kimmel).

What is less emphasized is a direct analysis of misogyny which provides the lens through which men view their role as men, as having unquestioned power and authority over people who are women, LGBTQ+, non-white, disabled, and religious minorities. Misogyny violence is viewed as justified as a form of defense to claim what is rightfully theirs as well as setting the world straight back to the path when the ideal masculine man was unquestioned.

Mass Shootings and Gun Violence is a Highly Gendered
Men commit the majority of mass shootings, single homicides, and intimate partner homicides.

The majority of mass shootings are related to intimate partner violence and/or domestic violence. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is violence between current or former partners (including dating). Domestic violence (DV) includes not only intimate partners and exes, but also those who share a child or family member. The majority of mass shootings are related to DV.

According to Geller, Booty, and Crifasi, “59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV.”

Expressed misogyny and domestic violence have been found to be precursors in incidents of mass violence, public mass shootings, and acts of terror particularly in the Western world and the United States.

4.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Intimate Partner Homicide, Youth Intimate Partner Homicide, Family Violence This area is being partially addressed by existing programs in Santa Clara County on gender and violence prevention. However, these areas of focus are invaluable to frame the understanding on gender and sexual orientation-based violence.

Men commit the majority of intimate partner homicides (IPH) with a single victim and those with multiple victims. The victims of intimate partner homicides are overwhelmingly women.

Intimate partner homicides often involve multiple victims, which may include the children and family members of the victim, roommates, and co-workers. If the homicide involves a gun, it is more likely there will be multiple victims, which is different than gun homicides not associated with IPV.

If we think globally, it is estimated that 1 out of every 7 homicides is perpetrated by an intimate partner. In the United States, it is estimated that more than half of all homicides of women are related to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).

Youth Intimate Partner Homicide
Many studies on intimate partner homicides do not include youth homicide in their research.

The more recent work on youth IPH acknowledges that we need to do better when thinking about youth homicide related to IPV, especially since homicide is the third leading cause of death for adolescents. In a recent study, Adhina et al. looked at data from 2003 to 2016 from 32 states and found that one quarter of all the girls murdered during that time period were murdered by a youth partner or ex-partner, making the murders IPH. The most cited reasons were over a break up, jealousy, and unwanted pregnancy of the victim.

IPH Interventions in schools:

If we want to stop hate crimes against women and girls, we have to seriously take up the issue of intimate partner violence and family violence more broadly. We understand some of the risk factors for becoming a perpetrator of IPV, such as being male, substance use disorder, unemployment, witnessing domestic violence, a history of family violence, etc, but how do we address these risk factors? It is clear that many risk factors originate in childhood through violence in families. Are we willing to have conversations on all types of family violence? Are we willing to implement best practices for reducing family violence? If education was the best methodology to decrease family violence, how would we implement those programs? Teaching children is helpful, but it does not address many kinds of family violence. Would we be willing to educate parents and relatives on the impacts of family violence? Do we count the daily child abuse happening in our county as hate crimes against children?

Recommendation 4.2.2 [Level 2: effort is high; impact high]

Develop Resources for the Trans Community Led by the Trans Community

4.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

Several participants brought up the fact that we need to make sure spaces are trans supportive, which means they need to be led by the trans community. Spaces that serve the larger LGBTQ community may not be trans s upportive, or trans inclusive and should prioritize the lived experiences of the trans community:

We often state we care about what community members think, but we do not share power with community members. It is not enough to include folks in the discussions, they have to be able to make decisions about their own communities. Prioritizing lived experiences is of particular importance to not only the trans community, but to most marginalized communities. Meaning, we may prioritize trans voices, but are we prioritizing BIPoC trans voices? This may seem trivial, but many community members voiced the need to not tokenize trans folks by including one trans person on a committee.

Recommendation 4.2.3

Make Accessible, Multilingual Resources for LGBTQ Community [Level 2: effort medium; impact high]
Santa Clara County more broadly may need to make resources easily accessible across all platforms and languages. Given the diverse languages spoken in Santa Clara County, resources should be made available in the most commonly spoken languages, including any LGBTQ+ resources or community training. Santa Clara sponsored programs also need to include members from the LGBTQ+ community in any policy recommendations, training, or programming.

Recommendation 4.2.4

Develop Depth-Based Education in Schools, Government, and Organizations with Sponsored Community Members [Level 3: effort high; impact high]
Participants elaborated on the recommendations they would like to see presented to Santa Clara County officials. First, is a collective and deep education process that all country school districts and community-based organizations could adhere to. Education as an institution plays a pivotal role. One participant stated that the idea of gender as a social construction is not taught or discussed. This participant recommended surveys and forums in communities for these topics to be discussed at length. As part of this education, there was a recommendation of required employee training in all sectors in Santa Clara County on gender, sexual orientation, and LGTBQ+. One participant highlighted that Santa Clara County can sponsor “everyday folks” to help in this educational process. Essential to this education is for multilingual and

4.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE multicultural services that incorporate all communities, such as Latinx, Vietnamese, Filipino, Black, Native American, and so many more.

Recommendation 4.2.5

Develop Education on Healthy Masculinity that Includes the Whole Family [Level 2: effort medium; impact high]

Education cannot just be in the classroom to create lasting change. The whole family must take part in the process, as one participant spoke to “How we raise our boys and how we can educate others on hate crimes committed against women.” These questions and types of education can be directed towards young students and their family members. The importance of including family members in such discussions is important to move towards stopping hate incidents and crimes rather than just alleviating harm after an incident. There was a discussion of programs like Gender Spectrum and supporting families to engage in those type of whole family educational processes.

Recommendation 4.2.6

Develop Education on Healthy Gender Relations Churches and Religious Leaders Can Contribute [Level 2: effort medium; impact high]

Participants acknowledged that gatekeepers such as faith leaders, community leaders, and trusted community elders need to be included in discussions and working plans. That is, Santa Clara County must be focused on a community and participatory model of programming. To implement programming without the knowledge and cooperation of gatekeepers is not acceptable.

4.3 Firearms accessibility, hate crimes, hate speech, law enforcement According to the Santa Clara County hate crime law, a hate incident is “an action or behavior motivated by hate or bias but legally protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression: (a) name calling, (b) insults, (c), distributing hate material in public, and (d) displaying hate material on your own property.”

The hate crime law in Santa Clara County, a reflection of Federal law, represents a significant challenge for criminal justice responses against hate speech. For example, would hate speech or material on a person’s Facebook or Twitter be an arrestable offense? In many cases, the answer

4.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE is no, unless the content clearly falls in the non-protected speech category. The anti-hate crime law in Santa Clara County cites the U.S. Constitution in specifying what types of speech are not protected, “the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution protects most speech, even when it is disagreeable, offensive, or hurtful.” The following are not protected: (a) fighting words, (b) true threats, (c) perjury, (d) blackmail, (e) incitement to lawless action, (f) conspiracy, (g) solicitation to commit any crime. The non-protected speech offers a space where police, prosecutors, or communities may be able to meaningfully address hate speech.

Hate speech and violence have been well documented in the literature. For example, in an analysis from 2015 to 2017, the number of anti-refugee posts on Facebook by a right wing group in Germany “Alternative fur Deutschland (Alternative for Germany)” were linked to the number of anti-refugee incidents reported. Below, please find the recommendations from two working groups on addressing hate speech in Santa Clara County.

Recommendations 4.3.1 [Level 2: effort medium; impact high] Create an additional non-sworn Crime Intelligence Analyst position to:

Provide real-time data related to Hate Crimes to help shape targeted strategies for both education conducted by the Crime Prevention Unit and enforcement strategies conducted by the Assaults Unit/Hate Crime Investigators

Monitor open-source social media hate groups in compliance with the specific intent requirement of the California Penal Code sections pertaining to Criminal Threats (PC 422) and other related laws, thus allowing detectives to follow up on cases where weapons are displayed and/or specific threats are made to the community as well as coordinate with the Department’s Intelligence Unit and Crime Data Intelligence Center (CDIC) on specific threats, thus reducing the siloed nature of intelligence within the organization.

Currently, the Department conducts limited proactive tracking of explicit or clandestine hate groups who may be inclined to cause harm to protected groups. The monitoring of hate speech, as a general practice, is problematic for law enforcement as the line between hate speech and the freedoms afforded by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution are often blurred.

Another challenge stems from the specific intent requirement of the California Penal Code sections pertaining to Criminal Threats (PC 422). Thus, much of the Department’s response

4.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE (monitoring of hate speech) relates to reactive enforcement based upon specific leads, giving rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, of those who would do harm to others based upon their hateful ideologies.

These leads are provided by reporting parties or shared intelligence from the Federal Government, local agencies, or other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), such as the Anti-Defamation League. As a general rule, law enforcement is prohibited from widespread monitoring of any group who exercises their freedom of speech and are not otherwise violating the law. For changes to this paradigm, legislators may want to consider a review of the Penal Code and suggest a section under PC 422 that pertains to the prohibition of hate speech.

A full-time Crime Intelligence Analyst assigned to the Assaults Unit would allow the Department to better monitor open-source social media hate groups, thus allowing detectives to follow up on cases where weapons are displayed and/or specific threats are made to the community. The Analyst would also coordinate with the Department’s Intelligence Unit and Crime Data Intelligence Center (CDIC) on specific threats, thus reducing the siloed nature of intelligence within the organization. The sharing of information would allow the Assaults Unit to compare actionable intelligence against crime trends occurring in San Jose to see if there is a nexus between the hate violence and identified hate groups.

The Analyst would also monitor documented hate or harassment incidents, crimes involving minor vandalism, or hate speech incidents for patterns in an effort to identify suspect(s). By understanding correlating trends, the SJPD will be better equipped to mitigate more significant incidents or crimes from occurring.

The additional Crime Intelligence Analyst would serve a dual role of providing real-time to help shape targeted strategies for both education conducted by the Crime Prevention Unit and enforcement strategies conducted by the Assaults Unit/Hate Crime Investigators as well as monitoring open-source social media hate groups.

An example of the Crime Intelligence Analyst’s duties are as follows:
• Analyze hate incidents / crimes to locations within the city for actionable intelligence leading to proactive enforcement (predictive policing). • Conduct threat assessment and history of suspects.
• Monitor social media hate groups to obtain social media evidence in cases of specific, credible threats.
• Maintain an ongoing list of police report errors which generate investigative rejects from the District Attorney’s Office, which can then be submitted to Field Training, Patrol and the Police Academy as training points.
• Ensure that Trak flyers, All Points Bulletins (APBs), and similar criminal flyers are updated and distributed.

4.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE • Coordinate with the SJPD Intelligence Unit over hate groups and persons suspected of hate crimes.
• Compile statistics so SJPD Assaults can be positioned to apply for and obtain grant funding.
• Compile statistics and support requests stemming from City and County-wide Hate Crime Prevention committees and task forces.

Recommendation 4.3.2

Make Data on Hate Incidents and Hate Crimes Public and Transparent [Level 1: effort medium, impact medium to high]
This desire was expressed across almost all of the working groups and the affinity focus groups.

There was a desire for the county to provide easily accessible, transparent data on hate incidents and crimes. The County needs to pull together alternative data sources to gather them in one accessible place (could be web page) on hate crimes, hate incidents, and hate speech based on the following identities for children and adults in Santa Clara County:
1) Disability
2) Gender
3) Nationality
4) Race or ethnicity
5) Religion
6) Sexual orientation
7) Association with a person or group with one of more of these actual or perceived characteristics
Within this data transparency should be a breakdown of sexual assault, domestic violence, intimate partner violence not usually included with other hate crime and hate/bias incident reporting. The sources, agencies, and methodology for gathering data needs to be framed so that communities can gain a better understanding of DV, IPV and other types of hate for these communities that is not captured by hate crime data. That is, if data has not been collected regularly for the county, other researched sources such as statewide reports put out by state agencies or credible non-profits should be referenced. This may require the support of an expert research data analyst full or part time in order to identify and interpret data sources and produce data collection protocols to maintain the data web page. It may require less time to maintain once page and data sources and protocols are established.

Recommendation 4.3.3
Additional Detective Assigned to Illegal Gun Trade and Monitoring of Hate Speech [Level 1:
effort medium, impact medium to high]

4.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE According to the California Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), there were a total of 354 firearms recovered and traced in San Jose in 2020.

Out of the 354 firearms recovered, the SJPD recovered a total of 215 firearms. Between January 2021 and May 2021, there were a total of 166 firearms recovered in San Jose. Out of those 166 firearms, the SJPD recovered a total of 127 firearms.

Currently, the SJPD has one Sergeant assigned to the Crime Strategies Unit of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. This collaboration is, in part, to address the proliferation of Privately Manufactured Firearms (PMFs) as well as other illegal firearm crimes.

Part of the Sergeant’s assignment is to ensure that those weapons confiscated by San Jose Police are processed through the Santa Clara County Crime Lab to determine if the weapon was used in a previous crime(s), thus linking cases and suspect(s) for successful apprehension and prosecution. Furthermore, part of the Sergeant’s job is to develop intelligence on possible sources from where the illegal firearms and PMFs are originating and to develop confidential informants who can provide information on illegal gun trade/sales. Often, this intelligence can lead to collaboration with the ATF resulting in arrests and seizures that may be prosecuted federally for greater sentencing.

With one Sergeant assigned to the Crime Strategies Unit of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, there are limitations to expanding the collection of intelligence to combat the illegal gun trade. Assigning an additional Detective to the Crime Strategies Unit will expand intelligence collection capacity to further address the proliferation of Privately Manufactured Firearms (PMFs) as well as other illegal firearm crimes.

Recommendation 4.3.4
Resource Investigative Tools Currently Available for Procurement [Level 2: effort medium, impact medium to high]

Additional investigative tools and trainings, such as Covert Portable Cameras, Training for Officers in analyzing Cell Phone Report (CDR) data, and Cellphone Forensic Technology, would both assist law enforcement in identifying and/or investigating those who would commit acts of hate through both hate speech and/or criminal behavior.

For example, Covert Portable Cameras can be positioned to specific neighborhoods, such as Little Saigon or Japan Town, in order to capture surveillance evidence quickly when hate crimes, targeted assault crimes, or robberies occur against a specific group.

With development of technologies and trainings that would further law enforcement’s ability to

4.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE both monitor hate speech and preserve electronic evidence in combating hate crime and incidents, an evaluation of investigative tools currently available for procurement is warranted.

It is recommended that a community advisory process is established to provide input on the ethical boundaries of the scope of use of these tools so that they do not over time, creep to expand to collect evidence for intelligence beyond investigations of crimes based in bias.

Investments in Law Enforcement to Combat the Illegal Gun Trade

The United States Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center conducted an analysis of mass shootings in 2019. They found that the majority of firearms had been obtained illegally and that in 71% of the cases one or more firearms were used. The same report also identified several characteristics of mass shooting offenders that identify the early warning signs of offenders. The majority of attackers experienced unemployment, substance abuse, mental health symptoms, and stressful events. Mass shooters also had a history of prior criminal charges or arrests, and domestic violence. Lastly, most attackers had a track record of concern from family, friends, neighbors, classmates, co-workers, and those individuals had expressed fear for themselves or others.

Addressing gun violence is a pressing issue. Evidence shows that across the U.S., gun violence has increased during the pandemic. Further, “ghost guns”—untraceable firearms without serial numbers—accounted for 25 to 50% of firearms recovered at crime scenes in California. The Department of Justice is creating a comprehensive strategy for reducing gun violence which includes four fundamental principles: (1) building trust and earning legitimacy (e.g., meaningful law enforcement engagement and accountability with the community), (2) investment in prevention and intervention programs (i.e., violent crime cannot be solved by law enforcement alone), (3) targeting enforcement efforts and priorities (i.e., identifying, investigating, prosecuting the most significant drivers of gun violence), and (4) measuring results (i.e., the goal is to reduce gun violence not increase the number or arrests and prosecutions.

Prosecutions and arrests alone are not evidence of effectiveness).

In June of 2021, the White House announced several strategies to prevent and respond to gun crimes that are useful for this report:
● Stem the flow of firearms used to commit violence, including by holding rogue firearms dealers accountable for violating federal laws. This involves revoking the license of dealers the first time they are “willfully 1) transferring a firearm to a prohibited person, 2) failing to run a required background check, 3) falsifying records, such as a firearms

4.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE transaction form, 4) failing to respond to an ATF tracing request, or 5) refusing to permit ATF to conduct an inspection in violation of the law.”
● Support local law enforcement with federal tools and resources to help address summer violent crime;

Recommendation 4.3.5

Support a Santa Clara County Ordinance that Bans Sale or Possession of Ghost Guns, Kits or Parts [Priority recommendation: Effort is high; impact is high and long term but urgent]

Reducing access to guns for potential bias motivated mass shooters is one level of strategy.

Although not all mass shooters motivated by bias use ghost guns, a sizeable percentage have used them. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors could consider an ordinance similar to those of San Francisco and San Diego which could ban the sale or possession of ghost guns, ghost gun kits or parts in Santa Clara County with each violation punishable by a $1000 or higher fine. In addition to preventing individuals from buying or possessing ghost guns, this ordinance would allow Santa Clara County to sue ‘ghost gun’ manufacturers and fine or arrest small home based garage manufacturers who willingly sell ghost guns, ghost gun kits or parts to Santa Clara County residents.

Santa Clara County could also encourage counties in the nine county Bay Area to consider similar ordinances.

A September 2021 article in the San Francisco Examiner states other California jurisdictions have also been examining similar ghost gun bans of their own, including Los Angeles, Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond and San Mateo. The City of San José has also stated that it is examining a ghost gun ban among a list of initiatives to reduce gun violence in the wake of the VTA mass shooting in May 2021.

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-moves-forward-with-first-californias-ghost-gun-ban/

Ghost Guns or Privately Made Firearms (PMF) Appeal to Violent Extremists The untraceable nature of ghost guns also makes them appealing to extremists, according to the Joint Terrorism Assessment Team (JCAT) report, referencing ghost gun seizure from hate groups. The memo which was meant for distribution among law enforcements agencies around the U.S. highlights the connection between ghost guns and crime, including attacks and plots

4.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE orchestrated by terrorists, extremists and hate groups. JCAT is a partnership between the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, and Homeland Security.

Ghost guns have surfaced in the hands of white supremacists around the country. Police outside Seattle in 2019 seized ghost gun materiel from the leader of a neo-Nazi guerrilla organization implicated in several homicides and bomb plots. The following year in Maryland, federal agents arrested three white supremacists after they manufactured an AR-15 ghost gun.

And in North Carolina, a grand jury in July indicted a 21-year-old national guardsman for allegedly supplying ghost guns to members of a white nationalist group who’d appeared in videos giving the “Heil Hitler” salute.
“If you’re a member of a terrorist organization or a violent extremist group or you’re just somebody that wants to commit a mass casualty attack, the problem is that, prior to that event, we have no indicators that that person has a weapon,” Michael Sena, director of the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center said. “When we run that person for firearms, nothing will show up.”
Ghost guns have been used in mass shootings and attacks by alleged extremists across California, including a 2013 mass shooting in Santa Monica and a 2017 mass shooting in Tehama County that each killed five people.

Steven Carrillo, the Air Force sergeant and alleged Boogaloo adherent accused of murdering a federal security officer guarding the Oakland federal building and a Santa Cruz sheriff’s deputy in 2020, used a homemade AR-15-style rifle to carry out his attacks, according to police.

Ghost Guns in Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen says the Santa Clara County crime lab examined 114 ghost guns in 2019 compared to just 25 in 2017.

Santa Clara county has garage based home industries because building private manufactured firearms with gun kits is easy, profitable, and available to anyone including felons because they bypass background checks.

4.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/ghost-guns-sought-by-violent-extremists-tied-to- thousands-of-potential-crimes-feds-warn/2624959/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21037846-pmf-report

Red Flag Laws
“Red Flag” laws such as AB 1057 signed into California law by Governor Newsom takes effect on July 1, 2022. “Red Flag” gun laws allow courts to temporarily restrict gun access to dangerous individuals such as in the case in the issuance of a gun violence restraining order and domestic violence restraining orders. AB 1057 allows police, along with family members, colleagues, employers and teachers, to ask judges to take these ghost guns from those they fear are a possible threat to themselves or others. California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms also has a list of persons for whom it is unlawful to own and/or possess firearms based on State and federal laws.

Red Flag laws do not outright ban ghost guns.

Ghost Gun Regulations
California Assembly of Firearms Law requires consumers who purchase a frame or receiver blank and assemble the firearm to apply to the California Department of Justice for a serial number and complete a background check to demonstrate that they are not prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The California Unsafe Handgun Act requires handguns sold within the state to pass a firing test and drop safety test by the manufacturer or in the case of ghost guns, the individual putting the gun together.

4.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE In October 2021 California Attorney General Roberto Bonta and San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin filed a complaint against three ghost gun companies alleging that they undermine and evade the law and employ false and deceptive advertising practices by leading buyers to believe that frames and receivers purchased in gun kits are legal, without explaining the legal obligations they will face to request serial numbers for specific parts of the gun under the Assembly of Firearms Law if they assemble the firearm. Blackhawk and Glockstore also violate the California Manufacturer of Firearms Law by failing to comply with the requirement that certain California firearm manufacturers engrave all frame and receiver blanks with a unique serial number.

California Assembly Bill, AB 879, signed into law in 2019 closed a loophole in our firearm regulatory framework. By ensuring that all precursor parts for building firearms are sold by licensed vendors, and that each of these parts are sold only after the buyer undergoes a state background check, this bill eliminates access to firearms to people on the prohibited persons list in California. This bill will also allow the Attorney General to seek injunctions to stop the manufacture, importation, selling, giving, or offering to sell, of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles. Additionally, this bill will also require the California Department of Justice to retain a digital database of precursor part purchasers. However, key components of this bill do not go into effect until July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025.

Ghost Gun Bans
In most states ghost guns are legal but are regulated as in California. California does not have a ban on ghost guns.

The Biden Administration has directed the Department of Justice to draft ghost gun rules that could lead to regulations and a potential ban.

In September 2021, San Diego City Council approved an ordinance that bans firearms without serial numbers, home-built firearms, or “ghost guns.” The Eliminate Non-Serialized Untraceable Firearm (ENUF) ordinance prohibits the possession, purchase, sale, receipt and transportation of non-serialized, unfinished frames, unfinished receivers, and non-serialized firearms within the City of San Diego. San Francisco Board of Supervisors in September 2021 unanimously voted to outlaw the sale and possession of “ghost guns,” ghost gun kits and parts in the city. These bans have drawn statewide and national attention in the battle against the untraceable weapons.

The San Francisco ghost gun ban ordinance allows police and the city attorney’s office to go after manufacturers and providers who profit off the sale of ghost gun kits and parts. Each violation or sale of a part would be punishable by a $1,000 fine. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/prohibcatmisd.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/consumer-alert.pdf

4.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

Hate Crime Related Gun Laws
In 2017 California passed a law that denies access to guns to individuals convicted of hate misdemeanors for a period of ten years. This is similar to the proposed Disarm Hate Act at the Federal level. The Disarm Hate Act [H.R. 2708/S. 1462] has been proposed. It is a bill that would amend federal law to prohibit firearm sale or transfer to and receipt or possession by any individual who was convicted of violent or threatening misdemeanor crimes committed against someone based on their perceived or actual race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

States can also pass Extreme Risk laws to help prevent access to guns by people who have exhibited serious warning signs that they are a threat to others, including those who are motivated by bias. Extreme Risk laws give family members and law enforcement a way to intervene before warning signs escalate into tragedies. Under these laws, a petitioner can obtain a court order—often known as an extreme risk protection order (ERPO)—to temporarily remove guns from a dangerous situation.

Recommendation 4.3.6
Support a Lifetime ban on gun possession by certain high-risk individuals [Level 2: effort medium to high; impact high]

Either at a County level ordinance or best to support a state level law banning criminals who have been convicted of certain violent crimes in California or elsewhere. This lifetime ban would be similar to the rationale of lifetime restrictions imposed on registered sex offenders as they pose a risk of future violence. Crimes triggering such a ban should include, when the crimes involve violence:

Hate crimes, religious terrorism by destructive device (Penal Code Section 11412), domestic violence, multi-mission extremist crimes (Penal Code Section 13519.6(b)(6))

Recommendation 4.3.7

Provide Consultation or Referrals on Target hardening [Level 1: effort is lower; impact is medium]
By understanding the characteristics of places where mass shootings occur, and making it more difficult (i.e., target hardening) for the attack to occur, spaces can be made safer. The most common locations identified in attacks were business/service areas (44%) and open spaces (32%). Hardening areas can range from simple protections like gates, locks, and alarms to more elaborate architectural design.

4.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

4.4 Pathology of hate crimes to develop the best methods and policies

Motivations for Committing Hate Crimes
Hate crimes research on perpetrators frames the offender’s motivations fall into four types:
thrill, defense, retaliation, and mission (Levin and McDevitt).  Thrill-seeking, mostly be groups of teenagers
 Anger and fear, defending a way of living against intruders  Retaliatory, revenge against previous hate crimes or terrorist attacks  Mission, on a moral mission to destroy outgroup members considered not human

Social Norms Influence Attitudes Influence the Degree of Prejudice and Hateful Behavior

Certain conditions can cause hate prejudice and hostility to spike. Xenophobia, a specific type of hate directed at immigrants can spike when the economy slows down even though evidence may show that immigrants have an overall positive impact on the economy.

It is important to note that even though hate and prejudice can stem from a sense of threat, there may be an actual material loss such as the loss of a job. But the actual material threat is not the cause, it is a symbolic threat, with perpetrators of hate believing that their own struggles are directly tied to outgroup members.

Not everyone responds to threats in the same way.

 People who are deeply prejudiced whose attitudes are deeply entrenched and will act on those attitudes when under threat.
 People who are deeply open to differences superficial and meaningful whose attitudes rarely make attributions of anger, retaliation, or morally based missions to destroy outgroups even when under extreme threat.
 People who fall somewhere in the middle. For the people in the middle, social norms are extremely important.

Susan Fiske, a researcher in psychology and public affairs states, “Attitudes follow norms, and there are a lot of people whose attitudes are malleable. If we have leadership that isn’t promoting intergroup tolerance, it sets norms for the rest of society.”

Chris S. Crandall, PhD, a professor of social psychology at the University of Kansas, studies those social standards. He's found that social norms can shift in response to social and cultural

4.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE phenomena. "People work hard to suppress their own prejudices," Crandall says. Suppressing prejudices needs to be continual and ongoing. Social norms and cultural phenomena that justify or exemplify hate can contribute to the re-emergence or emergence of prejudicial attitudes and subsequently prejudicial behavior.

Lastly, hate is something that is very different than anger in terms of social psychology. A person or community is a target of hate not because of that individual’s specific actions. In fact, the perpetrator may know nothing about the target’s everyday life, values, or past actions. In other words, hate crimes, hate speech, and other hate behavior is characterized by stable beliefs and perception of a person or group that is extremely negative and unchangeable (Allport, 1954; Royzman et al., 2005; Schoenewolf, 1996; Sternberg, 2003). Even new information from the target’s behavior that counters these negative stereotypes and beliefs about causing harm to the perpetrator’s group will not work on its own.

Recommendation 4.4.1 [Level 2: effort medium; impact high]

Be Attentive to Keeping Social Norming Front of Mind

Though Santa Clara County has little opportunity to impact the national rhetoric and normative messages regarding comments that feed the normalization of hate, it can provide messaging and consistency in its initiatives that normalize anti-hate, and the social acceptance to intervene and provide counter narratives that reduce stereotyping, simplistic thinking and simplistic blaming.

The county can also examine its existing and new programming to assess the social norms being reinforced about exclusion, inclusion, stereotyping, and simplistic thinking about groups and the centering of white heterosexist misogyny in its program content as well as its practices. Use liberatory frameworks on which work can be scaffolded. This is not about being “politically correct” but about being intentional in our contributions to social norms in everything we do in intentional design of programming and decision-making processes.

Recommendation 4.4.2 [Level 1: effort low; impact high]

Segment Work in Terms of Potential to Move Participants’ Attitudes Away from Hate

• Extemists-extremely bigoted and almost immovable from their bigotry. Interventions for those who are incarcerated for hate crimes or who have perpetrated hate. • Moveable Middle-attitudes are responsive to social norms on hate, exclusion, xenophobia, etc.

4.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE • The Choir- Committed allies and advocates but need tools, reinforcement, and continued self-work to deepen their literacy and skills about their own groups, other groups and intersectionality (versus multiple identities).

Recommendation 4.4.3

Engaging “Communities of Practice” to Build Santa Clara County Capacity to Reduce Hate [Priority recommendation: effort medium; impact high]

The concept of community of practice originated in Etienne Wenger’s work with Jean Lave (Lave and Wenger, 1991), which challenged long-standing notions about learning. In particular, they argued that learning does not rest with the individual but is a social process that is situated in a cultural and historical context. The theory was further developed in an empirical study of one insurance firm where Etienne focused primarily on theorizing the concept of community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Over time Wenger’s work has spread across organizations in the private and non-profit world and in education.

In the public sector, Communities of Practice have been convened that pull together professionals, advocates, community leaders, and community members into learning communities which work through three key phases:
1) deep learning and literacy about the problem with an emphasis on self-learning to apply to one’s context or sphere of influence or work;
2) collective strategizing about applying the learning to implement specific changes within one’s sphere of influence or work;
3) cross-support and cross-learning through continued sharing and meeting through implementation phases.

One can imagine Communities of Practice on reducing hate for specific communities across county and city agencies as well as the private sector. Communities of Practices are scaffolded to form social learning communities rooted in historical understanding. The individuals who join ideally should have intrinsic motivation and interest in learning and taking action. Resources and administrative support are ideal with a balance of self-leadership and light management. There needs to be a balance of deep collective social learning and collective problem solving with management of time and outcomes. The key is to maintain the synergy of a community motivated towards a higher goal enjoying the collective energy and wisdom while also producing outcomes.

Santa Clara County could partner with San Jose State University, Santa Clara University, Stanford University, San Jose City College, and Evergreen Community College to develop communities of practice that are collaborative sharing experts, costs and administrative support while opening these communities to county residents and higher education institutions.

4.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

4.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

Etienne Wenger
https://thesystemsthinker.com/communities-of-practice-learning-as-a-social-system/ https://hbr.org/2000/01/communities-of-practice-the-organizational-frontier

Intergroup Contact under Structured Conditions

Interacting with members of other groups is also an effective strategy. The contact hypothesis of structured interaction between groups that reduce prejudice (Allport) has been researched with the following conditions recommended for maximal change in attitudes and reduction in prejudice:

 equal status between the groups
 sharing common goals
 cooperation with one another and
 support from institutional authorities.

Recent research has shown that not all four conditions need to be present but one feature is essential, that of meaningful connection. The example cited to compare is that cooperating on a work project or volunteer committee will likely go further toward reducing prejudice than multiple brief interactions with the grocery store cashier.

Meaningful contact reduces anxiety and feelings of threat and positively impacts a person’s ability to have empathy.

4.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE "Contact helps reduce feelings of anxiety and threat, and enhances one's capacity for empathy," says Tropp. "When we think about trying to dismantle the building blocks of hate, we have to have meaningful engagement across group lines." Tropp, along with Thomas Pettigrew, PhD, of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 515 studies examining the effects of intergroup contact. They found contact typically reduces prejudice and increases trust and forgiveness between groups, especially when some or all of Allport's conditions are met. Contact effects aren't limited to racial or ethnic groups, they found. Meaningful contact also reduces prejudice toward people in same-sex relationships, those with disabilities and those who have mental illness (International Journal of Intercultural Relations).

Recommendation 4.4.4 [Level 2:effort is medium; impact medium]

Intergroup Dialogues
Intergroup dialogue is "a facilitated, face-to-face encounter that strives to create new levels of understanding, relating and action between two or more social identity groups who have a history of conflict or potential conflict" (Zúñiga & Nagda, 2003). Programs such as difficult dialogues and story circles have similar structures. All of these dialogues use systemic change models and frame dialogues within anti-oppression and social justice within an engagement at interpersonal, group, and societal level. Ideally these levels are layered progressively throughout sustained multiple dialogue sessions with trained facilitators.

Recommendation 4.4.5

Communication Campaigns [Level 1: effort is low; impact medium] One important benefit of interacting with people from other social groups might be that it allows people to see others as individuals, not stereotypes. And research suggests that when people recognize that not all black people or all Muslims are the same, they are less prejudiced toward those groups. In a series of experiments, Markus Brauer, PhD, a professor of social psychology at the University of Wisconsin, and colleagues tested posters that featured Arab people with different ages, hairstyles and clothing styles and with captions that highlighted their different personality traits (such as "optimist" or "stingy"). The people who had been exposed to the posters viewed Arab people more positively and were less prejudiced against them compared with people who viewed no poster or a control poster (Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2013).

4.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

4.5 School or school-based programs to promote change in community culture

Recommendation 4.5.1

Go Beyond Race and Ethnicity in Anti-Hate Education [Level 2: effort medium to high; impact high]

Develop literacy about neurodivergent-based hate as well as hate against people with disabilities. Also develop literacy on hate against Jews, Muslims, LGBTQ+ individuals. • https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613324.2020.1798374 • https://www.dcyf.org/sel-wellness-and-trauma-informed-curriculum • https://www.partnerforchildren.org/social-emotional-learning • https://ing.org/
• https://belonging.berkeley.edu/subini-annamma-excavating-possibilities-disability- criticalrace-theory-discrit-education
• https://brownstargirl.org

Ethnic Studies

Current research has found that students who participate in ethnic studies are more academically engaged, develop a stronger sense of self-efficacy and personal empowerment, perform better academically and graduate at higher rates. Students also attended college at higher rates than students who did not take ethnic studies courses. The longitudinal study in a partnership between Stanford researchers and San Francisco Unified School District examined the intervention of one ethnic studies class in the 9th grade. How can taking one class in 9th grade produce differences of passing six more courses in their high school career as well as a 15% higher rate of graduation and college attendance? Ethnic Studies constitutes a targeted psychological intervention that promotes a sense of belonging in school, affirms personal values and forewarns about stereotypes which improves student engagement and motivation particularly for students of color. Ethnic studies has also been found to have a positive impact on white students as well with a greater ability to consider the perspectives and experiences of others as well as an increased ability to talk directly about prejudice and stereotypes and their impact on society.

Recommendation 4.5.2

4.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

Utilize Ethnic Studies Models for Teacher Training and Professional Development as well as for curriculum for students and families. [Level 2: Effort high, impact high] There are many models of programs that utilize Ethnic Studies frameworks at varying grade levels. Specific training for white teachers and parents to serve as advocates and allies were requested by group participants.
• https://www.myceliumyouthnetwork.org
• http://t4sj.org
• https://www.apocalypticeducation.org
• https://communityresponsive.org

Specific Training for white educators and parents who are potential advocates for Ethnic Studies:
• https://www.mirastern.com
• https://t4sj.org
• https://kateaslater.com

Youth Participatory Action Research Models
Youth-led participatory action research (YPAR) is an approach to scientific inquiry and social change grounded in principles of equity that engages young people in identifying problems relevant to their own lives, conducting research to understand the problems, and advocating for changes based on research evidence.

Recommendation 4.5.3

Santa Clara County Provides YPAR grants to school based groups [Level 2: effort medium; impact high but focused on small group]
Youth from different schools can conduct a YPAR project where they identify a problem of hate or exclusion in their school, conduct research to understand the problem and advocate for transformative change based on an action suggested by their research and engagement. YPARs have a strong potential to develop engaged learners who develop systematic ways of thinking about the problem they are addressing, in this case hate and exclusion. They also learn to think in complex ways with cognitive complexity, something which mitigates stereotyping and simplistic thinking about social situations.
http://yparhub.berkeley.edu/
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dycd/digital_toolkit/StopHate.html

4.6 Recommendations based on findings from Affinity Focus Groups

4.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

Affinity Focus Groups

Three focus groups of 75 minutes each were conducted for specific affinity groups with the goal of providing a caucus dynamic so that the facilitators could hold space for these affinity groups.

These focus groups were constructed based on consistent concerns expressed at HPITF meetings that the issues and experiences of some affinity groups were often given token discussion time as discussions tended to gravitate primarily back to race and ethnicity-based hate crimes and incidents. The rationale for conducting additional affinity identity based sessions was to provide a facilitated space for focused and sustained discussions on experiences and recommendations on hate crimes, hate incidents, and hate prevention. The focus groups are:

1. People with Disabilities Affinity Group

2. Jewish Affinity Group

3. Muslim Affinity Group

SJSURF did not conduct focus groups for an LGBTQ+ affinity group as the concerns would fall under working group “Gender-Based/Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity-Based Violence as Hate.” There is also already a substantial and timely array of Anti-Asian Hate prevention recommendations work currently contained in a special report of the County Board of Supervisors. These recommendations will be analyzed for gaps.

Lastly two additional 75 minute working group sessions were scheduled for youth of high school age. These sessions were scheduled on the weekend so that students could attend as weekdays are spent in school and in after school extracurricular activities.

Working Groups on Education and on Legislative Recommendations are in process as are Focus Groups.

The three Affinity Identity Focus Groups for people with disabilities, Jews and Muslims were held the week of November 15th, with the last focus group meeting on Friday, November 18th. As such the careful analysis of themes and findings is not complete at the time of the writing of this report. However, there are some strong preliminary themes that emerged from these focus groups.

Lack of general literacy on hate issues and climate issues for all three groups.

This lack of literacy means that interventions often miss important dynamics, mechanisms, and pathways for hate and exclusion that are very specific to communities. Additionally, many people think that anti-semitism, Islamophobia, and hate against people with disabilities is rare and not as common as hate against communities based on race or ethnicity. There is also a

4.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE lack of awareness of the significant presence and numbers of populations within each of these groups. All three groups felt that microaggressions, stereotyping, and simple exclusion was far more acceptable and normalized for their groups than for other types of identity-based hate and exclusion.

Patterns of Hate, Relationships to Perpetrators, and Specifics of Hate and Exclusion Matter in Terms of Intervention

As an example, participants gave compelling examples of people with disabilities experiencing hateful and dehumanizing behaviors from people within their family networks, friendship networks, work settings, and settings where they receive critical support such as health care settings. For people with disabilities in particular their need for even imperfect scarce resources makes them vulnerable to not receiving their help (such as assistance from a family member or health care provider) but also vulnerable to fear of losing this essential support if they complain about hateful and exclusionary behavior. Similar to LGBTQ+ community many people with disabilities must rely on their family members for shelter and support even if that family member abuses them or stigmatizes them as uneducable, unemployable, and an unfair burden on resources. Because of employment discrimination and insufficient funding and mutual aid, people with disabilities may feel trapped in their living situation even if they are the target of hate. Similar dynamics can happen in the workplace as well as in health care.

Afterthought, Simple Disclaimer or Token Inclusion in Hate Prevention and Anti-Bias Work

All three groups expressed that the exclusion and at times hypocrisy of serving on committees, attending programs on hate prevention, equity, social justice, and anti-bias work only to find that their group was not included in any substantial way but only as a one sentence add-on or as an identity listed among a list of many. There is rarely a presentation of data specific to their group and not even an attempt to research and find alternative sources of credible data (from non- profits or agencies charged with support for specific groups or perhaps national data if local data is not available). Even rarer are deep dive types of workshops where participants can focus on their community and the specifics of hate prevention and anti-bias as applied to the arena of focus whether it be in the private sector or in public sector agencies.

Overall Impacts

People who are targeted are less likely to report incidents of bias or hate to agencies because there is little basic fundamental understanding about their community. They also have less faith that they will not be microaggressed or discounted by the very people and agencies designed to help them (not with ill intent, but with benign neglect).

People from these communities experience microaggressions at trainings, workshops, panels and other initiatives designed to reduce bias or increase inclusion. The microaggressions and exclusions occur at the level of pure representation, but even more detrimentally the lack of

4.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE knowledge about specifics can encourage harmful misapplication of recommendations for their communities.

4.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

Focus Group on People with Disabilities on Hate and Exclusion

This focus group was particularly powerful with participants who are advocates as well as experienced in helping address problems for individuals with disabilities on an everyday basis with residents in Santa Clara County. The information that was shared by participants was elucidating and instructive of the need to address hate, exclusion, abuse, neglect, and invisibility in almost every aspect of daily interactions across a span of arenas including within families and neighborhoods.

Invisibility of Hate

4. 6 People with Disabilities

Recommendation 4.6.1

Develop and/or refine coordinated bias/hate incident Intake Processes that Provide Interim Personal Care and Health Care Support [Level 2: effort is high; impact is medium to high]

Santa Clara County should be providing a comprehensive hate incident intake process that involves professionals and advocates who can provide interim housing, personal care, and health care so that people with disabilities can feel empowered to report hate incidents perpetrated by family caregivers or professional caregivers. The intakers should be trained and be supported by resources and networks that can provide timely interim care for people with disabilities who report incidents of hate perpetrated by their caretakers to protect them from retaliation. In all aspects of interim measures, the primary criteria for interim arrangements should maximize independent living, autonomy, and protection in the home of the person with disabilities unless the targeted individual is interested in being removed from their home environment. Advocacy and technical support should be provided so that the interim measures are not done “to” the person with disabilities but done “with” the person with disabilities. Law enforcement, social service agencies and other entities need to be able to coordinate and access these intake and care coordination services when they suspect or learn that a person with disabilities is a victim of bias and hate from their caregivers.

Santa Clara County should partner with disability independent living service agencies as well as other disability rights organizations to implement this level of intake and interim support.

Ideally, the trained intakers should be from these organizations as they are potentially the most qualified, knowledgeable, and approachable professionals to do this work. A strategic

4.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE communication campaign should be devised to publicize these hate and bias incident intake services so that the disability community and their allies are aware that such services are available. Additionally, a level of training regarding protocols for contacting and coordinating with intake support should be provided for law enforcement and other service agencies.

SB-338 Senior and disability victimization: law enforcement policies signed into law October 8, 2019.

It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to accomplish each of the following:
(1) List in one place all of law enforcement agencies’ statutory powers and responsibilities that are particular to protecting senior citizens, and adults and children with disabilities, while making no changes in these powers and responsibilities.
(2) Draw the attention of law enforcement agencies and the public to the wide extent of abuse, sexual assault, hate crimes, domestic violence, human trafficking, and other serious crimes against adults and children with disabilities, including disabilities caused by advanced age. (3) Reinforce understanding of the fact that elder and dependent adult abuse is a crime, not merely a civil matter.
(4) Strongly encourage every local law enforcement agency to adopt a com prehensive policy concerning these crimes, including effective, accountable, and locally developed protocols for carrying out the agency’s existing responsibilities.
(5) Build greater cooperation and collaboration among law enforcement agencies and other agencies with overlapping responsibilities for response to, and investigation of, these crimes, making no change in those responsibilities, while also reinforcing that law enforcement agencies retain exclusive responsibility for criminal investigations. (6) Increase respect for, and protection of, people with disabilities by further clarifying that the statutory terms “dependent adult” and “dependent person” extend legal protections to many people with disabilities regardless of the fact that they live independently.

Focus Group on People with Disabilities on Hate and Exclusion

This focus group was particularly powerful with participants who are advocates as well as experienced in helping address problems for individuals with disabilities on an everyday basis with residents in Santa Clara County. The information that was shared by participants was elucidating and instructive of the need to address hate, exclusion, abuse, neglect, and invisibility in almost every aspect of daily interactions across a span of arenas including within families and neighborhoods.

Invisibility of Hate for People with Disabilities

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 157 hate crime incidents based on disability were reported in 2019, a 35% increase from 2017.

4.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE While the number of reported hate crimes rose significantly, those targeting people with disabilities are on the decline, according to new data from the FBI.

The agency’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program shows that there were 83 incidents stemming from disability bias in 2020, down from 144 the year before.

This comes as overall reports of hate crimes increased 6% last year to 7,759 incidents. That’s the highest number since 2008.

The figures are based on statistics submitted by 15,136 of the nation’s 18,623 law enforcement agencies. Hate crimes data includes information about incidents motivated by disability as well as race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, gender and gender identity.

The report found that 1% of hate crime victims were targeted because of their disability.

Among disability-related incidents, the FBI said that 45 were considered anti-mental disability while 38 were anti-physical disability.

The FBI report likely represents an incomplete picture of the true level of hate crimes occurring, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group noted that fewer police agencies participated in the data collection this year than last meaning that thousands of agencies either did not supply any information or reported no hate crimes.

However, advocates for the disability community who also spoke during the dialogue said that many people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) still face challenges in reporting these incidents. “In general, the stigma that people with IDD still face is an issue,” said Leigh Ann Davis, director of criminal justice initiatives at The Arc. Ms. Davis said that many police departments and victim advocates need education on how to provide proper accommodations for people with disabilities. She said that as a result, many people with disabilities may not be able to report crimes and are unable to access crime victim services.

The Southern Poverty Law Center calls hate against people with disabilities “invisible” hate to the general public because victims are often powerless to report on people who care for them, heal them or teach them. People who report being victimized may risk losing their ability to live independently to “protect” them either by pressure from care providers or from their own family members. In many cases, the person with disabilities who suffers physical, psychological or sexual abuse from a caregiver is in a particularly vulnerable position. The targeted individual needs to feel safe reporting a hate incident and must know that a standard of logistical support

4.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE is provided so that their personal care and health care is not interrupted, threatening their very existence.

Hate crimes and attacks against people with disabilities may be viewed as crimes based on opportunity because of perceptions that the person being unable to fight back versus being based in hate. In addition to the under-reporting of disability hate crimes, data on hate and bias incidents against people with disabilities are often not collected at agency and service levels.

Bias, prejudicial treatment, and micro-aggressions are experienced in almost every interaction from everyday work interactions, Zoom meetings, in person meetings, retail, schooling and health care. The lack of proactive provision of accommodations often invisible to the non- disabled people running or attending events creates a situation where those with disabilities who need accommodations must ask for them. And often the organization or personnel do not have the expertise, skill or knowledge to provide access to accommodations even if the tools they use, such as Zoom have some limited features for accommodations.

Ableism is the systemic oppression of people with disabilities and includes a lack of access to public buildings, the media’s often-negative depictions of disabled bodies, disregarding invisible physical or mental symptoms and the rampant use of “inspiration porn” and pity towards people with disabilities. Although these sometimes occur separately, the effects of a lifetime of feeling displaced or unwelcome in society often build up over time and significantly affect disabled people’s mental health.

Studies have shown that 17.4 percent of people with disabilities experience “frequent mental distress” — a higher percentage than in the able-bodied, neurotypical population. Additionally, depression symptoms are two to 10 times more common in people with disabilities, and higher levels of anxiety have been reported in people with disabilities as well. While some may attribute these mental illnesses to frustration with physical limitations, this high prevalence of anxiety and depression is more often related to how society views, treats and excludes people with disabilities rather than to disability symptoms themselves.

Impact on Under-reporting of Hate Incidents, Hate Crimes, and Abuse These experiences for people with disabilities impact a sense of belonging, agency, and ability to participate fully. It also contributes to underreporting of hate and exclusionary experiences because of the lack of trust that the institution or organization demonstrates through its exclusionary practices.

4.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Additionally, the lack of assurance of continued personal care and health care support to simply live and/or live independently when caregivers are the perpetrators of hate makes it virtually impossible for people with disabilities to consider reporting hate incidents or abuse.

Target people with disabilities or perceived to have disabilities.

Attacks against the person as well as disability aids such as hearing aids, canes, wheelchairs, etc.

Often involve cruelty, humiliation and degrading treatment related to the nature of the disability.

Often involve prejudices that people with disabilities are dependent, unintelligent, unemployable therefore justifying attitude and behavior.

May involve theft and abuse.

Perpetrators are often known to the victim such as friends, acquaintances, caregivers, teachers and even family members.

May involve multiple perpetrators in the same setting of work, schooling, neighborhood or families with encouragement and norming of behavior.

Perpetrators targeting people with disabilities can also be strangers to the person targeted.

Mistaken belief that the “Americans with Disabilities Act” takes care of everything.

Makes it complicated for those who are targeted to report on people with whom they have existing relations.

People with disabilities are often isolated in organizations in terms of not having a critical mass to compare notes or find mentors on how to deal with treatment.

May be the first, or the only person with their specific disabilities employed by the organization, team, office, etc.

The irony is that employment discrimination creates this token dynamic.

There is a visibility/invisibility and fluidity of disability identity.

People with learning disabilities will often not self-disclose to their health care providers, teachers, or co-workers because of their experience of stigma. They describe being treated as less intelligent, stupid, or inferior and sometimes spoken about as if they are not in the room once they disclose that they may need longer processing time, written materials provided ahead of time or other accommodations. There are few social spaces free of being seen as

4.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE creating an imposition or being viewed with stigma. People with intellectual and physical disabilities also experience being treated paternalistically and as people who are forever children to be pitied or treated as a burden to the team, the service provider, and to their families.

Social Isolation Impacts Community Building and Connection

Some individuals with disabilities without adequate support and access to inclusive environments and services are isolated with few deep meaningful relationships because their social surroundings and built environments prevent them from engaging with others socially on a regular basis. Unlike many social identities based on race/ethnicity, gender, and religion, people with disabilities rarely have family members, community neighbors or community groups where they can socialize and gather with other people with disabilities to commune, connect, share and process collective experiences to build connections. There are no churches, temples, neighborhood organizations, restaurants and business districts that are recognizably disability identified. Additionally, people with disabilities have very wide ranging unmet social and mobility needs with some identifying primarily as learning disabled, some as physically disabled, and some having both intellectual and physical disabilities.

This social isolation built on ablest standards creates a tremendous power differential for people with disabilities who are not only reluctant to ask for inclusive accommodations but are also reluctant to report hate incidents to a system that excludes them on a daily basis.

Recommendations
The California Senate Office of Research (“Crimes Against Persons with Disabilities,” in Protecting Californians from Hate Crimes: A Progress Report, 2004) found, “A large body of research indicates that, throughout the country, persons with disabilities are victimized by violent crime at much higher rates than the general population and that the large majority of these crimes go unreported.” It concluded “there is no evidence that California’s limited efforts to use hate-crime laws in particular to protect these persons have had any effect.”

More recently, a 2017 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of hate crime victims estimated 40,000 hate crimes against people with disabilities per year. This figure is certainly an underestimation because hate crime victims often don’t recognize that the crimes they suffered were hate crimes, those with serious disabilities often find it difficult or impossible to report the crimes, and the estimate omits crimes in hospices, nursing homes, group homes, prisons, jails, and other institutions. In 2019, law enforcement agencies reported just 177 anti- disability hate crimes to the FBI, less than 0.5 percent of the earlier estimate. In California in 2020, law enforcement agencies reported just five hate crimes against people with disabilities.

4.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

A legislative finding that became California law on January 1, 2022, states, “Many of the estimated 9,000,000 Californians with disabilities, including disabilities caused by aging, are always at high risk of becoming hate crime victims, and these hate crimes in California and nationally are justifiably called the invisible hate crimes.” (Assembly Bill 57 (Gabriel), Section 1(f)).

Penal Code Section 358.6, the Senior and Disability Justice Act, effective April 13, 2020, spells out potential provisions of law enforcement agency senior and disability victimization policies.

The provisions are aimed at bringing about a culture change in law enforcement to provide better protection of people with disabilities and older adults from hate crimes and other serious crimes. POST last year developed a model policy that agencies can adopt to conform with PC 358.6, which is mandatory on local law enforcement agencies in some cases and voluntary in others.

Recommendation 4.6.2 [Level 1: effort is low; impact medium to high]

Local law enforcement agencies in Santa Clara County should adopt the POST model senior and disability victimization policy.

Recommendation 4.6.3

Form a “Community of Practice” with disability inclusion experts/advocates and motivated practitioners across sectors of the economy, public institutions and non-profits.

[Please cross-reference with Recommendation 4.53]

4.5.3 Engaging “Communities of Practice” to Build Santa Clara County Capacity to Reduce Hate [Priority recommendation: effort medium; impact high]

In the public sector, Communities of Practice have been convened that pull together professionals, advocates, community leaders, and community members into learning communities which work through three key phases:
4) deep learning and literacy about the problem with an emphasis on self-learning to apply to one’s context or sphere of influence or work;
5) collective strategizing about applying the learning to implement specific changes within one’s sphere of influence or work;

4.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE 6) cross-support and cross-learning through continued sharing and meeting through implementation phases.

One can imagine Communities of Practice on reducing hate for specific communities across county and city agencies as well as the private sector. Communities of Practices are scaffolded to form social learning communities rooted in historical understanding. The individuals who join ideally should have intrinsic motivation and interest in learning and taking action. Resources and administrative support are ideal with a balance of self-leadership and light management. There needs to be a balance of deep collective social learning and collective problem solving with management of time and outcomes. The key is to maintain the synergy of a community motivated towards a higher goal enjoying the collective energy and wisdom while also producing outcomes.

Suggested key experts in community of practice collaborators (these are only some):
 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
 California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
 Pacific ADA Center
 VISTA Center

Participants should represent a wide variety of service providers including law enforcement agencies from across the county, private and public health care providers and various public agency offices at county and city levels.

Santa Clara County could partner with San Jose State University, Santa Clara University, Stanford University, San Jose City College, and Evergreen Community College to develop communities of practice that are collaborative sharing experts, costs and administrative support while opening these communities to county residents and higher education institutions.

4.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Jewish Focus Group

The Jewish Focus Group had a large number of participants who shared knowledge about local and national experiences of hate, anti-Semitism, and exclusion. The participants had a wide reach in the Jewish community and access to the perspectives and experiences of students, and private and public sectors. Participants also had professional experience related to advocacy, education and training on identifying and addressing anti-Semitism, hate and bias against Jews.

It was clear from the participants that a key issue was the lack of awareness by non-Jews and public entities about the everyday experiences of bias that Jews endure across a broad swath of organizations, workplaces, and public and private life. These experiences have a profound harmful impact with an ever present fear of violent and verbal attack. Many participants cited that everyday expressions of Jewish identity such as attending places of worship, wearing Jewish artifacts, or references to Israel that may indicate one's Jewish identity are often suppressed or hidden because of these fears.

In social science, anti-Semitism has three components: prejudice, an affective unconscious negative or positive attitude towards a distinguishable member of a group; stereotype, a cognitive general essentializing of all members of a group regardless of differences within that group; discrimination, an unjustified negative behavior towards members of a group based solely on their group membership. Bias or hate crimes and incidents fall under the umbrella of discrimination.

Normative conformity research has found that people’s prejudice and discrimination are subject to change when they move to an area with different norms.

Classic anti-Semitism in the form of hate graffiti and hate speech remains at higher levels.

However, in recent years modern anti-Semitism may utilize opposition to Israel as a mechanism to justify hostility towards Jews. Though being anti-Israel for its policies is not equated with anti-Semitism, opposition to Israel is often used to justify anti-Semitism. In so far as anti-Israel criticisms are applied differently than for other groups and nation-states, it can be viewed by many Jews as a form of holding Israel and Jews to different standards and be experienced as anti-Semitic.

Unsurprisingly, anti-Semitic hate escalates during escalated military conflict between Israel and other Muslim neighbors. However, it should be noted that even without a recent conflict anti- Semitic acts of hate and even deadly hate violence against Jews still continue at a high level nationally.

UNESCO Report on “Addressing Anti-Semitism Through Education: Guidelines for Policymakers” states:
“If left unaddressed, all forms of anti-Semitism and intolerance undermine and pose a threat to democratic values and can feed violent extremism. Contemporary anti-Semitism often takes

4.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE tacit, covert and coded forms, making it a complex and controversial phenomenon that has mutated over time. The changing geo-political climate, as well as the new media environment, has led to a situation where open anti-Semitism is no longer confined to extremist circles and has become increasingly mainstreamed. Education about the Holocaust, while important, is not an adequate substitute for education that aims to prevent anti-Semitism. “ For example, education about the Holocaust is not sufficient. The Holocaust needs to be understood within the context of historical and modern anti-Semitism as well as extremist conspiracy theories on Holocaust denial that impact Jewish communities today. Educators and governmental entities need to be familiarized with anti-Semitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories and how they emerge in order to be able to identify and respond to them appropriately and in a timely manner. Education about anti-Semitism needs to be integrated into other curriculum on reducing hate and systemic inequity as well as human rights. 1 in 4 Jews experienced Anti-Semitism last year
The report also highlights a stark divide between the number of Jews who believe antisemitism is a problem in the U.S. versus the rest of the population. Some 90% of American Jews think antisemitism is a problem in the country, while just 60% of the general population said the same.

Recommendation

4.6.4 Establish a Jewish Network Resource for Education, Training and Support [Level 1:
effort low; impact medium to high]
Santa Clara County should organize and support a Jewish Network Resource Working Group that helps develop capacity in the private and public sector to reduce anti-Semitism, hate, and exclusion against Jews. The Working Group should have highly informed representatives from local Jewish organizations and include those organizations who have had experience in delivering research based curriculum and training on bias and hate against Jews. Organizations such as ADL (Anti-Defamation League), Hillel of Silicon Valley, Modern anti-Semitism can be difficult to identify by non-Jews because of its subtlety in how it shows up in everyday life. Many anti-Semitic beliefs are based in conspiracy theories that have endured globally through extremist organizations, social media and even in subtler accumulation of everyday acts rooted in anti-Semitic stereotypes that become normative. Also, many institutions private and public do not respond to hate or bias against Jews with the same attention to systemic issues as they might in their addressing systemic anti-racism and other types of bias. There are various reasons including unconscious bias, lack of literacy about issues, and fear of political backlash.

4.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE The working group should also target DEI specialists from different sectors of the economy and public employees from each of the cities in Santa Clara County to serve as participating representatives in the working group as well as to recruit participants for training.

Suggested experts and collaborators include. Additional outreach should be done to invite other organizations and collaborators:
 Hillel of Silicon Valley
 ADL Anti-Defamation League
 AJC American Jewish Committee San Francisco
 Jewish Silicon Valley
The Jewish Network Resource Group could also be deployed to provide support, check-ins and programming when acts of hate emerge in Santa Clara County.

Santa Clara County could partner with San Jose State University, Santa Clara University, Stanford University, San Jose City College, and Evergreen Community College to develop communities of practice that are collaborative sharing experts, costs and administrative support while opening these communities to county residents and higher education institutions.

4.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Muslim Focus Group

The Muslim Focus Group had a large number of participants who shared knowledge about local and national experiences of hate, islamophobia, and exclusion. The participants had a wide reach in the Muslim community and access to the perspectives and experiences of students, and private and public sectors. Participants also had professional experience related to advocacy, education and training on identifying and addressing Islamophobia, hate and bias against Muslims. It was clear from the participants that a key issue was the lack of awareness by non-Muslims and public entities about the everyday experiences of bias that Muslims endure across a broad swath of organizations, workplaces, and public and private life. These experiences have a profound harmful impact with an ever present fear of violent and verbal attack. Many participants cited that everyday expressions of Muslim identity such as attending places of worship, wearing clothing adherent to one’s faith, using one’s given Arabic name, fasting for faith, and praying are seen to put one at risk for being targeted for bias, hate, and assault. In particular, Muslim women who wear head coverings such as hijabs and scarfs are overrepresented in hate crimes and bias incidents at a higher rate than others. And men are stereotyped for being terrorists. Hate incidents against Muslims are grossly under reported with institutions treating these incidents as if they are an accepted part of the norm. What does not work is simply stating that hate is generically wrong. Literacy and specificity about the mechanisms of hate for Muslims is necessary in order to directly address the underlying basis of hate.

Although hate and bias against Muslims existed prior to 2001, the terror attacks of 9/11 dramatically changed the view and treatment of Muslim Americans across the U.S. and around the world. Hate crimes and hate speech against Muslim people and Islam escalated across the U.S. Islamophobic hate speech became normalized in public and political discourse. Though September 11, 2001 was twenty years ago, Islamophobia and hate bias against Muslims has been sustained by extremist organizations, social media, and political discourse equating Islam with terrorism and Muslims with terrorists.

As reported from the Islamic Networks Group:

“Recent polls and surveys illustrate the increasing level of Islamophobia. According to a 2017 Pew poll rating “warmth” or “coldness” Americans felt toward various religious groups on a scale from 1 to 100, Muslims were rated most negatively of all religious groups, with an average rating of 48, two points below atheists’ rating of 50. According to a 2015 YouGov poll, only 21% of Americans have a favorable view of Islam, while 55% have an unfavorable view and the rest are not sure (25%).

According to a 2014 Zogby Associates poll, the percentage of Americans viewing Muslims favorably declined from 35% in 2010 to 27% in 2014 with Arabs and Muslims having the highest unfavorable and lowest favorable ratings of any group. A previous poll shows a clear correlation between ignorance about Islam or not having a Muslim friend and negative attitudes towards the faith and its adherents. The authors of the report point out that, “What really seems to

4.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE impact one’s perception of a group much more than knowing an individual is having a positive opinion of that group’s distinguishing characteristic, which in this case is their faith.”

According to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey, most Americans (59%) agree that there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims in the United States today. About three-quarters of Americans (76%) also said discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. was increasing. These anti- Muslim attitudes often result in real life consequences; these include: violence and hate crimes against Muslims, vandalism and burning of mosques, and hate incidents towards Muslim homes and schools. In 2015 these incidents reached 9/11 levels, with the FBI reporting 257 incidents of anti-Muslim hate crimes, a 67% increase from the previous year.”

Recommendation

4.6.5 Establish a Muslim Network Resource for Education, Training and Support [Level 1:
effort low; impact medium to high]

Santa Clara County should organize and support a Muslim Network Resource Working Group that helps develop capacity in the private and public sector to reduce Islamophobia, hate, and exclusion against Muslims. The Working Group should have highly informed representatives from local Muslim organizations and include those advocacy organizations who have had experience in delivering research based curriculum and training on bias and hate against Muslims. Organizations such as the Islamic Networks Group (ING), Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR), and the leadership of local mosques and community centers should be resourced and supported. Please note that some of the experts may be from outside of Santa Clara County. For example, the local CAIR organization is based in San Francisco and many mosques and Islamic cultural centers are also located in Fremont, California.

Many biased beliefs against Muslims are based in conspiracy theories about Islam that have endured globally through extremist organizations, social media. These conspiracy theories place Mosques, imams, and community leaders as part of a supposed network of terrorists with fears about wanted to invoke “shariah law” or wanting to commit violent acts against “Americans.” This competitive defense type of patriotism is based in a stagnant belief in the white Judeo Christian heritage of the United States justifying hostility, hate and bias against Muslims who are seen as a threat to that heritage. Also, many institutions private and public do not respond to hate or bias against Muslims with the same attention to systemic issues as they might in their addressing systemic anti-racism and other types of bias. There are various reasons including unconscious bias, lack of literacy about issues, and fear of political backlash.

The working group should also target DEI specialists from different sectors of the economy and public employees from each of the cities in Santa Clara County to serve as participating representatives in the working group as well as to recruit participants for training.

4.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Suggestions for experts and collaborators include. Additional outreach should be done to invite other organizations and collaborators:

 Islamic Network Group
 CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) San Francisco Bay Area  Muslim Community Association

The Muslim Network Resource Working Group could also be deployed to provide support, check-ins and programming when acts of hate emerge in Santa Clara County.

Santa Clara County could partner with San Jose State University, Santa Clara University, Stanford University, San Jose City College, and Evergreen Community College to develop communities of practice that are collaborative sharing experts, costs and administrative support while opening these communities to county residents and higher education institutions.

Youth Focus Groups

The Youth/Cyberhate Prevention and Intervention Focus Group’s central objective was to reflect upon the role played by the internet in the creation and dissemination of hate as well as the mechanisms that should be put in place at the county level to minimize its negative impact. It also aims to ensure that victims of cyberhate have access to all services they need to maintain or regain their physical and mental wellbeing.

Cyberhate involves but is not limited to threats of violence, slurs, harassment, reputation-harming lies and calls for strangers to harm victims. While some forms of cyberhate count as crimes (e.g., threats of violence), others do not (e.g., the use slurs without threats).

Like all forms of hate, cyberhate is often motivated by racism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and religious intolerance. Its costs include physical harm, psychological harm and harm to reputation.

An analysis of the focus groups with Santa Clara stakeholder youth identified the following needs, which inform five recommendations. It is worth noting that some of those recommendations focus on the wellbeing of our youth, which is especially vulnerable to cyberhate considering the large amount of time it spends online. There was a consistent level of frustration by youth that schools are not addressing the root causes of cyberhate and cyberharassment including not addressing misogyny and racism. Students, especially those from school districts in the county that were not as racially diverse believed that there was a culture to not talk directly about or to teach about toxic masculinity, misogyny, and racism. This culture carries through in how school personnel address cyberhate and cyberharassment ineffectively by sometimes committing microaggressions while handling incidents, school assemblies, messaging, and interventions. Students shared feeling revictimized and experiencing mysogynistic shaming by the interventions from school personnel and especially from law enforcement trainings on how to prevent revenge pornography.

4.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

Needs:

 A better knowledge of forms of hateful online actions which qualify as crime and of hateful online actions which qualify as hate incidents (i.e., are not crimes);  School personnel need to have clear protocols to handle cyberhate and cyberharassment. If they have protocols they need to consistently apply them.  Access to channels of communication which explicitly recognize that the internet is one of the spaces in which county residents are the most likely to experience hate;  Educational campaigns which explicitly recognize the role played by the internet in the spread of hate and address potential victims without blaming them;  Accompaniment and counselling services specifically targeted at the victims of online hate (including those that have experience incidents as opposed to hate crimes);  Interaction with school personnel and law enforcement officers who have been educated about the role that misogyny, toxic masculinity and victim-blaming play in the spread of cyberhate.
 Interaction with school personnel and law enforcement officers who have been educated about cyberhate crimes such as cyberstalking, cyberharassment and revenge pornography.

Recommendations

4.6.6 Develop more holistic framework that guides schools that explicitly recognizes that the internet is a space which makes hate more effective and easier to engage. Level 2: effort high; impact high

Cyberhate in schools is difficult to address because: (i) perpetrators can hide their identity, (ii) perpetrators can easily engage in group hate, (iii) some hateful posts are never removed (iv) victims can be especially vulnerable because of their young age and may be reluctant to report, (iv) cyberhate, cyberstalking, and cyberharassment images and messages are so common and somewhat normed that targets and victims themselves do not think to report.

Cyberstalking, cyberharassment, and revenge pornography are behaviors that need to be at least examined as potentially criminal and as hate crimes. Misogynistic images of violence should also be viewed as a form of hate.

This framework should explicitly relate hate crimes and hate incidents to online forms of behavior which count as crimes according to the California Penal Code (e.g., “cyberstalking,”

4.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE “cyberharassment,” and “revenge pornography”). As a form of misogynistic violence, revenge pornography is rarely recognized as a form of hate. Yet, its harmful effects are all too real.

All current plans which relate to (i) the training of county employees to address hate crimes and incidents, (i) methods of reporting hate crimes and incidents (e.g., anonymous hate reporting outlines) or (iii) disseminate information about hate crimes and incidents include modules and information which explicitly focus on cyberhate.

Recommendation 4.6.7

Create Victim Advocates services for Victims of Cyberhate Incidents [Level 2: effort medium to high; impact high]

Discussions with hate crimes prosecutors and Santa Clara youth suggest a creation of a victim advocates service for victims of cyberhate incidents (as opposed to hate crimes). Currently, only victims of forms of cyberhate which qualify as crimes have access to this service in Santa Clara county. Yet, the physical and psychological harm caused by cyberhate incidents can be just as serious.

Victims of cyberhate incidents should have access to the help of victim advocates who can help them fight victim blaming, regain mental health and minimize the professional costs of cyberhate. For instance, a frequent form of cyberhate amounts to presenting women as available for sex on the internet by creating fake profiles or websites, which can in turn make it difficult for them to obtain employment once they have been targeted. I believe victim advocates should be available to all victims of cyberhate incidents regardless of their age.

Focus group participants underlined that the role of high school counselors is to advocate for all students as opposed to specifically advocating for victims. This can lead to situations in which counselors’ attempt to reconcile perpetrators with victims in a way that is unfair and disrespectful to the latter. Counselors’ interventions in schools are often also focused on making the hate stop as opposed to accompanying victims of hate and cyberhate on a long- term basis.

Recommendation 4.6.8

Audit and Vet Cyberhate Educational Materials for Victim Blaming, Inadvertent Misogyny [Level 2: effort medium to high; impact high]

4.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Participants also had mixed feelings about the current state of educational campaigns which focus on hate and cyberhate. While recognizing the value of these campaigns, they also identified some problems. The role played by misogyny, toxic masculinity, and victim blaming in the spread of cyberhate is not always recognized in these campaigns. For instance, repeatedly telling youth never to take and send nudes of themselves – which is understandable given that it is meant to ensure that teens comply with California’s sexting laws – can have the unintended effect of inducing shame in victims. This shame can in turn incite youth not to seek the help of counselors when they have been the victim of revenge pornography.

To avoid this situation, all county actors – including police officers – involved in educational campaigns about hate should be educated about the harmful effects of victim blaming.

Educators’ task is especially delicate as they must incite teens to follow the law while also ensuring that those who may have broken the law (for instance, by sending a nude) receive the help that they need. To do so, it is crucial to avoid victim blaming (e.g., “You’re the one who sent a nude in the first place. You should not complain now.”).

In general, all educators should also be familiar with legal concepts such as cyberstalking, cyber harassment and revenge pornography. Participants stated that they were not even aware that these forms of behavior count as crimes according to California law. Here, there is clearly gap in the knowledge of both educators and our youth.

Participants have also emphasized that education campaigns are especially effective when they contain first-hand accounts of cyberhate by victims (e.g., recorded interviews or TED talks) and when they are integrated to a school’s regular curriculum. For instance, it is preferable to tackle the concepts of victim blaming and toxic masculinity in the context of an English course as opposed to holding “special sessions” about these topics. Indeed, instructors who have already built community and developed a pedagogical relationship with youth can more effectively discuss these issues compared with guest educators.

Recommendation 4.6.9

Widen Understanding and Protocols to Expand Understanding that Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment and Revenge Porn are Hate Incidents and Possibly Criminal Level 2: effort medium to high; impact high

Cybercrime units (e.g., the Santa Clara “High Technology Crimes Unit”) widen their current mandate to investigate forms of cyberhate which count as crimes at the county level. Currently, such units focus on financial crimes such as theft and sale of electronic items (computers,

4.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE computer components and the like), theft of trade secrets, and hacking and other illicit intrusions into computer systems. They do not explicitly focus on cyberhate crimes such as cyberstalking, cyberharassment and revenge pornography.

As mentioned above, it is also worth noting that cyberhate crimes might not be reported because relationships of trust between victims and police officers are not sufficiently strong. To confidently report a cyberhate crime, a victim must (i) know that they have been the victim of a crime, (ii) understand that they are not at fault, (iii) believe that they will be taken seriously by law enforcement. For this reason, recommendations (4) and (5) should be implemented jointly and simultaneously.

4.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE 5 Summary of Recommendations in Section 4

Section 4.1: Address hate crimes and violence incited by hate speech in our community

Recommendation 4.1.1 Develop a Warmline 211 System
for Reporting and Receiving
Support for Hate Based
Incidents.
[High Priority Long Term:

Effort is high, need is urgent,
opportunities/resources
high]

Recommendation 4.1.2 Pilot a Community of Practice on
Restorative Justice
Level 2: effort medium;
impact high for longterm
gains
Recommendation 4.1.3 County Infrastructure and
Support to Deploy Community
Driven Programs to counter
programming incidents of hate
speech and hate violence that
goes beyond rallies at City Halls
[Level 2: effort is medium,
impact is medium]
Recommendation 4.1.4

Office at the County Level
Dedicated to Preventing
Community Hate
[Level 3: effort high, high cost
for staffing and resourcing;
impact medium to high]

Recommendations 4.1.5

County Executed Educational
Programming
[Level 2: effort high, impact
medium/low]
Recommendations 4.1.6

County Supported Block Parties
and Community Events that
Bring People Together to Fight
Hate

[Level 1: Effort is low, Impact
is medium high]

4.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Recommendations 4.2.1

Santa Clara County law
enforcement agencies should
investigate for evidence of
gender bias in violent crimes
such as sexual assault, domestic
violence and stalking utilizing
existing hate crimes laws and
POST protocols.
[Level 2: Effort is high even
though the tools and laws
are there; Impact is high]

Recommendations 4.2.2

Develop Resources for the Trans
Community Led by the Trans
Community

Level 2: effort is high; impact
high]
Recommendations 4.2.3

Make Accessible, Multilingual
Resources for LGBTQ Community
[Level 2: effort medium;
impact high]
Recommendations 4.2.4

Develop Depth-Based Education
in Schools, Government, and
Organizations with Sponsored
Community Members
[Level 3: effort high; impact
high]
Recommendation 4.2.5

Develop Education on Healthy
Masculinity that Includes the
Whole Family

[Level 2: effort medium;
impact high]

Recommendation 4.2.6

Develop Education on Healthy
Gender Relations Churches and
Religious Leaders Can Contribute
[Level 2: effort medium;
impact high]
Recommendation 4.3.1

Create an additional non-sworn
Crime Intelligence Analyst
position to:

[Level 2: effort medium;
impact high]

Recommendation 4.3.2

Make Data on Hate Incidents
and Hate Crimes Public and
Transparent
High Priority Level 1: effort
high, impact medium to
high]

4.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Recommendation 4.3.3

Additional Detective Assigned to
Illegal Gun Trade and
Monitoring of Hate Speech
[Level 1: effort medium,
impact medium to high]

Recommendation 4.3.4 Resource Investigative Tools
Currently Available for
Procurement

[Level 2: effort medium,
impact medium to high]

Recommendation 4.3.5

Support a Santa Clara County
Ordinance that Bans Sale or
Possession of Ghost Guns, Kits
or Parts
[Priority recommendation:

Effort is high; impact is high
and long term but urgent]
Recommendation 4.3.6

Support a Lifetime ban on gun
possession by certain high-risk
individuals
[Level 2: effort medium to
high; impact high]

Recommendation 4.3.7

Provide Consultation or
Referrals on Target hardening
[Level 1: effort is lower;
impact is medium]

Recommendation 4.4.1 Be Attentive to Keeping Social
Norming Front of Mind

[Level 2: effort medium;
impact high]
Recommendation 4.4.2 Segment Work in Terms of
Potential to Move Participants’
Attitudes Away from Hate

[Level 1: effort low; impact
high]
Recommendation 4.4.3

Engaging “Communities of
Practice” to Build Santa Clara
County Capacity to Reduce Hate
[Priority recommendation:
effort medium; impact high]
Recommendation 4.4.4 Intergroup Dialogues

[Level 2:effort is medium;
impact medium]
Recommendation 4.4.5

Communication Campaigns [Level 1: effort is low; impact medium]
Recommendation 4.5.1

Go Beyond Race and Ethnicity in
Anti-Hate Education
[Level 2: effort medium to
high; impact high]

Recommendation 4.5.2

Utilize Ethnic Studies Models for
Teacher Training and
[Level 2: Effort high, impact
high]

4.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Professional Development as
well as for curriculum for
students and families
Recommendation 4.5.3

Santa Clara County Provides
YPAR grants to school based
groups
[Level 2: effort medium;
impact high but focused on
small group]

Recommendation 4.6.1

Develop and/or refine
coordinated bias/hate incident
Intake Processes that Provide
Interim Personal Care and
Health Care Support
[Level 2: effort is high;
impact is medium to high]

Recommendation 4.6.2 Local law enforcement agencies
in Santa Clara County should
adopt the POST model senior
and disability victimization
policy.

[Level 1: effort is low; impact
medium to high]

Recommendation 4.6.3

Form a “Community of Practice”
with disability inclusion
experts/advocates and
motivated practitioners across
sectors of the economy, public
institutions and non-profits.

[Priority recommendation:
effort medium; impact high][
Recommendation 4.6.4

Establish a Jewish Network
Resource for Education, Training
and Support
[Level 1: effort low; impact
medium to high]

Recommendation 4.6.5

Establish a Muslim Network
Resource for Education, Training
and Support
[Level 1: effort low; impact
medium to high]
Recommendation 4.6.6 Develop more holistic
framework that guides schools
that explicitly recognizes that
the internet is a space which
makes hate more effective and
easier to engage.

Level 2: effort high; impact
high
Recommendation 4.6.7 Create Victim Advocates services
for Victims of Cyberhate
Incidents
Level 2: effort medium to
high; impact high]

4.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

Recommendation 4.6.8 Audit and Vet Cyberhate
Educational Materials for Victim
Blaming, Inadvertent Misogyny
[Level 2: effort medium to
high; impact high]
Recommendation 4.6.9 Widen Understanding and
Protocols to Expand
Understanding that
Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment
and Revenge Porn are Hate
Incidents and Possibly Criminal
[Level 2: effort medium to
high; impact high]

4.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

6 Conclusion

There are numerous recommendations in this document. They cover a wide variety of in depth and long term initiatives with some requiring an investment on the part of Santa Clara County.

As the Task Force deliberates it is important to keep in mind that the priority recommendations should ideally cover a variety of scope and entry points for different members of the Santa Clara County community. The section on the pathology of hate (Section 4.5) provides some guidance to in thinking of analyzing recommendations so that they cover people who are in the moveable middle of our communities who may need the exposure, connectedness, and engagement in pro-social norms in their community as well as the wider community. We also need to provide deeper literacy for those who are already pro-social and supportive of anti- hate work.

The full utilization of existing hate crimes laws and regulations and protocols to approach domestic partner violence and intimate partner violence on par with other hate crimes is not only conceptually important but logistically important as it helps us see the important connection between mass shootings and misogyny and family violence. When we are looking at the root causes of hate based mass shootings this is a key element as well as the social norms that support hate and white supremacist misogynistic beliefs.

We need to go deeper in understanding root causes of hate and hate violence. This was a consistent statement from participants.

Lastly we need to not only talk about prevention but providing support, resources, and trustworthy connections for those who are targeted by hate to recognize that they are being violated (in some cases of hate incidents people may believe it is not worth reporting to anyone), feel safe to report, and have long term connection to have their harms addressed for them and their families and communities.

4.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE

7 Resources and References

Resources for “Recommendations from Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Improvements”

Uniform Crime Report published by the FBI
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses

NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey
https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/hcv0519_1.pdf

Department of Justice Report on Hate Crimes in California https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/state-specific-information/california

Santa Clara County hate crime law
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70945/637425887835970000

Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crimes https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/crschwarz/fanning-flames-hate.pdf

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Racism/IEE/Session6/TimothyQuinn_8May2019.pdf

Hate Speech Intensity Scale
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/8/846/files/2019/03/Monitoring-Hate- Speech-in-the-US-Media-3_22-z0h5kk.pdf

Peace Tech Lab on Combating Hate Speech
https://www.peacetechlab.org/hate-speech

Hatebase-Multilingual Platform to Identify Hate Speech
https://hatebase.org/

The Datafication of Hate Speech: Expectations and Challenges in Automated Hate Speech https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2020.00003/full

Methods for Monitoring and Mapping Hate Speech
http://gsdrc.org/docs/open/hdq1121.pdf

Mass Attacks in Public Spaces, U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2020-09/MAPS2019.pdf

Murders Spiked in 2020 in Cities Across the United States

4.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/fbi-murders-2020-cities.html

‘Ghost Guns’: Firearms Kits Bought Online Fuel Epidemic of Violence https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/14/us/ghost-guns-homemade-firearms.html

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Announces New Effort to Reduce Violent Crime https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-announces-new-effort- reduce-violent-crime

Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime and Ensure Public Safety
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/23/fact-sheet- biden-harris-administration-announces-comprehensive-strategy-to-prevent-and-respond-to- gun-crime-and-ensure-public-safety/

Healing Communities in Crisis: Lifesaving Solutions to the Urban Gun Violence Epidemic https://giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Healing-Communities-in-Crisis.pdf

Polymer80 (‘Ghost Gun’ seller)
https://www.polymer80.com/

Architectural Design for Crime Prevention
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/147952NCJRS.pdf

Resources for “Recommendations for Gender-Based, LGTBQ+, Sexual Orientation” *(This is a very brief list--this still needs to be filled out. In addition, we need to add research to overall document)

Chang, Stewart. “Our National Psychosis: Guns, Terror, and Hegemonic Masculinity.” Harvard civil rights-civil liberties law review 53, no. 2 (2018): 495–532.

Gregory, Dennis E. “Violence Goes to College: The Authoritative Guide to Prevention, Intervention and Response Ed. by Christopher Bollinger, et Al. (review).” Journal of college student development 60, no. 2 (2019): 252–253.

Gyamerah, Akua O, Glenda Baguso, Edda Santiago-Rodriguez, Aria Sa’id, Sean Arayasirikul, Jess Lin, Caitlin M Turner, et al. “Experiences and Factors Associated with Transphobic Hate Crimes Among Transgender Women in the San Francisco Bay Area: Comparisons Across Race.” BMC public health 21, no. 1 (2021): 1–1053.

Herek, Gregory M. “Documenting Hate Crimes in the United States: Some Considerations on Data Sources.” Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity 4, no. 2 (2017): 143–151.

4.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Javaid, Aliraza. “The Haunting of Hate: Rape as a Form of Hate Crime.” Sexuality & culture 24, no. 3 (2019): 573–595.

Kiesha Warren-Gordon. “Perceiving Hate Crimes: A Comparative Analysis of Major Newspaper Coverage of Hate Crimes in the United States and the United Kingdom.” International journal of criminal justice sciences 13, no. 1 (2018): 172–.

Langton, Lynn, Michael Planty, and James P Lynch. “Second Major Redesign of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).” Criminology & public policy 16, no. 4 (2017): 1049–1074.

Lewis, Ruth, Michael Rowe, and Clare Wiper. “Misogyny Online: Extending the Boundaries of Hate Crime.” Journal of Gender-Based Violence 2, no. 3 (2018): 519–536.

Maher, JaneMaree, Jude McCulloch, and Gail Mason. “Punishing Gendered Violence as Hate Crime: Aggravated Sentences as a Means of Recognising Hate as Motivation for Violent Crimes Against Women.” The Australian feminist law journal 41, no. 1 (2015): 177–193.

Marganski, Alison J. “Making a Murderer: The Importance of Gender and Violence Against Women in Mass Murder Events.” Sociology compass 13, no. 9 (2019).

Mason-Bish, Hannah. “Examining the Boundaries of Hate Crime Policy: Considering Age and Gender.” Criminal justice policy review 24, no. 3 (2013): 297–316.Mercier-Dalphond, Geneviéve, and Denise Helly. “Anti-Muslim Violence, Hate Crime, and Victimization in Canada:

A Study of Five Canadian Cities.” Canadian ethnic studies 53, no. 1 (2021): 1–22.

Mason-Bish, Hannah, and Marian Duggan. “‘Some Men Deeply Hate Women, and Express That Hatred Freely’: Examining Victims’ Experiences and Perceptions of Gendered Hate Crime.” International review of victimology 26, no. 1 (2020): 112–134.

Mirpuri, Anoop. “Racial Violence, Mass Shootings, and the U.S. Neoliberal State.” Critical ethnic studies 2, no. 1 (2016): 73–106.

Plumm, Karyn M, and Cheryl A Terrance. “Gender-Bias Hate Crimes: What Constitutes a Hate Crime from a Potential Juror’s Perspective?: Gender Bias Hate Crime.” Journal of applied social psychology 43, no. 7 (2013): 1468–1479.

Ramirez, Johanna L, Kirsten A Gonzalez, and M. Paz Galupo. “‘Invisible During My Own Crisis’:

Responses of LGBT People of Color to the Orlando Shooting.” Journal of homosexuality 65, no. 5 (2018): 579–599.

4.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Sheehan, Brynn E, Ralitsa S Maduro, and Valerian J Derlega. “Sexual/Gender Minority-Related Individual Differences Predict Likelihood of Social Action After a Hate Crime.” Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity 8, no. 1 (2020): 48–56.

Silva, Jason R, Joel A Capellan, Margaret A Schmuhl, and Colleen E Mills. “Gender-Based Mass Shootings: An Examination of Attacks Motivated by Grievances Against Women.” Violence against women 27, no. 12-13 (2021): 2163–2186.

Truong, Dieu M, Marie L Tanaka, Jennifer M Cooper, Sam Song, Devadrita Talapatra, Prena Arora, Pamela Fenning, et al. “School Psychology Unified Call for Deeper Understanding, Solidarity, and Action to Eradicate Anti-AAAPI Racism and Violence.” School psychology review50, no. 2-3 (2021): 469–483.

Vergani, Matteo, Carolina Navarro, Joshua D Freilich, and Steven M Chermak. “Comparing Different Sources of Data to Examine Trends of Hate Crime in Absence of Official Registers.” American journal of criminal justice 46, no. 3 (2020): 445–460.

Walters, Mark Austin, and Jessica Tumath. “Gender ‘Hostility’, Rape, and the Hate Crime Paradigm.” Modern law review 77, no. 4 (2014): 563–596.

Resources on Community Based Care- Lay Health Workers
Dixon Chibanda TED talk 2017

Bell, A. C., & D'Zurilla, T. J. (2009). Problem-solving therapy for depression: a meta-analysis.

Clinical psychology review, 29(4), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.02.003

Chibanda, Dixon. “Dixon Chibanda: Grandmothers Help to Scale up Mental Health Care.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 96, no. 6 (2018): 376–377.

Cavanaugh, Ray. “Dixon Chibanda—‘Taking Mental Health to the Community.’” The Lancet.

Psychiatry 4, no. 11 (2017): 833–833.

Chibanda, Dixon. “Programmes That Bring Mental Health Services to Primary Care Populations in the International Setting.” International review of psychiatry (Abingdon, England) 30, no. 6 (2018): 170–181.

Chibanda, D. “Reducing the Treatment Gap for Mental, Neurological and Substance Use Disorders in Africa: Lessons from the Friendship Bench in Zimbabwe.” Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences 26, no. 4 (2017): 342–347.

Chibanda, D., Bowers, T., Verhey, R., Rusakaniko, S., Abas, M., Weiss, H. A., & Araya, R. (2015).

The Friendship Bench programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a brief psychological intervention for common mental disorders delivered by lay health workers in Zimbabwe.

4.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE International journal of mental health systems, 9, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-015- 0013-y

Chibanda, Dixon, Petra Mesu, Lazarus Kajawu, Frances Cowan, Ricardo Araya, and Melanie A Abas. “Problem-Solving Therapy for Depression and Common Mental Disorders in Zimbabwe:

Piloting a Task-Shifting Primary Mental Health Care Intervention in a Population with a High Prevalence of People Living with HIV.” BMC public health 11, no. 1 (2011): 828–828.

Chibanda D, Weiss HA, Verhey R, et al. Effect of a Primary Care–Based Psychological Intervention on Symptoms of Common Mental Disorders in Zimbabwe: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316(24):2618–2626. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.19102

Ouansafi, Ilhame, Dixon Chibanda, Epiphania Munetsi, and Victoria Simms. “Impact of Friendship Bench Problem-Solving Therapy on Adherence to ART in Young People Living with HIV in Zimbabwe: A Qualitative Study.” PloS one 16, no. 4 (2021): e0250074–e0250074.

Kamvura, Tiny Tinashe, Jean Turner, Ephraim Chiriseri, Jermaine Dambi, Ruth Verhey, and Dixon Chibanda. “Using a Theory of Change to Develop an Integrated Intervention for Depression, Diabetes and Hypertension in Zimbabwe: Lessons from the Friendship Bench Project.” BMC health services research 21, no. 1 (2021): 1–928.

Patel, V., Chisholm, D., Parikh, R., Charlson, F. J., Degenhardt, L., Dua, T., Ferrari, A. J., Hyman, S., Laxminarayan, R., Levin, C., Lund, C., Medina Mora, M. E., Petersen, I., Scott, J., Shidhaye, R., Vijayakumar, L., Thornicroft, G., Whiteford, H., & DCP MNS Author Group (2016). Addressing the burden of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition. Lancet (London, England), 387(10028), 1672–1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-

Wogrin, Carol, Nicola Willis, Abigail Mutsinze, Silindweyinkosi Chinoda, Ruth Verhey, Dixon Chibanda, and Sarah Bernays. “It Helps to Talk: A Guiding Framework (TRUST) for Peer Support in Delivering Mental Health Care for Adolescents Living with HIV.” PloS one 16, no. 3 (2021):
e0248018–e0248018.

Woolston, Chris. “Therapy at the Bench.” Nature (London) 582, no. 7812 (2020): 452–452.

Ryan, Bauer, A., Endale, T., Qureshi, O., Doukani, A., Cerga-Pashoja, A., Brar, S. K., Eaton, J., & Bass, J. K. (2021). Lay-delivered talk therapies for adults affected by humanitarian crises in low- and middle-income countries. Conflict and Health, 15(1), 30–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-021-00363-8

Synowski, J., Weiss, H. A., Velleman, R., Patel, V., & Nadkarni, A. (2021). A lay-counsellor delivered brief psychological treatment for men with comorbid Alcohol Use Disorder and depression in primary care: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Drug and alcohol dependence, 227, 108961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108961

4.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Resources on Mass Shootings and IPH
Adhia, Kernic, M. A., Hemenway, D., Vavilala, M. S., & Rivara, F. P. (2019). Intimate Partner Homicide of Adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(6), 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0621
Banks, L., Crandall, C., Sklar, D., & Bauer, M. (2008). A comparison of intimate partner homicide to intimate partner homicide-suicide: One hundred and twenty-four New Mexico cases.

Violence Against Women, 14(9), 1065-1078.

Barber, C. W., Azrael, D., Hemenway, D., Olson, L. M., Nie, C., Schaechter, J., & Walsh, S. (2008).

Suicides and suicides attempts following homicide: Victim-suspect relationship, weapon type, and presence of antidepressants. Homicide Studies, 12(3), 285-297.

Barrett JT, Lee LK, Monuteaux MC, Farrell CA, Hoffmann JA, Fleegler EW. Association of County- Level Poverty and Inequities With Firearm-Related Mortality in US Youth. JAMA Pediatr.

Published online November 22, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.4822 Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(3), 246-269.

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1069-1097.

Chang, Stewart. “Our National Psychosis: Guns, Terror, and Hegemonic Masculinity.” Harvard civil rights-civil liberties law review 53, no. 2 (2018): 495–532.

Coyne-Beasley T, Moracco KE, Casteel MJ. Adolescent Femicide: A Population-Based Study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157(4):355–360. doi:10.1001/archpedi.157.4.355 Diez, Kurland, R. P., Rothman, E. F., Bair-Merritt, M., Fleegler, E., Xuan, Z., Galea, S., Ross, C. S., Kalesan, B., Goss, K. A., & Siegel, M. (2017). State intimate partner violence-related firearm laws and intimate partner homicide rates in the United States, 1991 to 2015. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(8), 536–543. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2849 Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2012). Who died? The murder of collaterals related to intimate partner conflict. Violence Against Women, 18(6), 662-671.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Serial murder: Multi-disciplinary perspectives for investigators. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/stats- services/publications/serial-murder
Fridel, E. E. (2017). A multivariate comparison of family, felony, and public mass murders in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, online first. Doi: 10.1177/0886260517739286.

4.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Fox, J. A., & Fridel, E. E. (2017). Gender differences in patterns and trends in U.S. homicide, 1976-2015. Violence and Gender, 4(2), 37-43.

Holland, K. M., Brown, S. V., Hall, J. E., & Logan, J. E. (2018). Circumstances preceding homicide- suicides involving child victims: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(3), 379-401.

Knoll, J. L., & Hatters-Friedman, S. (2015). The homicide-suicide phenomenon: Findings of psychological autopsies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(5): 1253-1257.

Kafka, Moracco, K. E., Young, B.-R., Taheri, C., Graham, L. M., Macy, R. J., & Proescholdbell, S. K. (2021). Fatalities related to intimate partner violence: towards a comprehensive perspective.

Injury Prevention, 27(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043704 Koziol-McLain, J., Webster, D., McFarlane, J., Block, C. R., Ulrich, Y., Glass, N., & Campbell, J. C. (2006). Risk factors for femicide-suicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. Violence and Victims, 21(1), 3-21.

Kivisto A. Male perpetrators of intimate partner homicide: a review and proposed typology. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2015;43(3):300–12 Available from:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26438808/.

Kivisto A, Porter M. Firearm use increases risk of multiple victims in domestic homicides. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2020;48(1):26–34 Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31753965.

Liem, M., Levin, J., Holland, C., & Fox, J.A. (2013). The nature and prevalence of familicide in the United States, 2000-2009. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 351-358.

Liem, M., & Reichelmann, A. (2014). Patterns of multiple family homicide. Homicide Studies, 18(1), 44-58..

Lund, L. F., & Smorodinsky, S. (2001). Violent death among intimate partners: A comparison of homicide and homicide followed by suicide in California. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31(4), 451-459.

Morton, E., Runyan, C. W., Moracco, K. E., & Butts, J. (1998). Partner homicide-suicide involving female homicide victims: A population-based study in North Carolina, 1988-1992. Violence and Victims, 13(2), 91-106
Petrosky, E., Blair, J. M., Betz, C. J., Fowler, K. A., Jack, S. P. D., & Lyons, B. H. (2017). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Homicides of Adult Women and the Role of Intimate Partner Violence - United States, 2003-2014. MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 66(28), 741–746. https://doi-org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6628a1

4.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE Podlogar, M. C., Gai, A. R., Schneider, M., Hagan, C. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2018). Advancing the prediction and prevention of murder-suicide. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 10(3), 223-234.

Reaves, B. A. (2017). Police response to domestic violence, 2005-2015. In Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report: U.S. Department of Justice.

Saltzman, L.E., Mercy, J. A., O’Carrol, P., Rosenberg, M., & Rhodes, P. (1992). Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3043-3047.

Sillito, C. L., & Salari, S. (2011). Child Outcomes and Risk Factors in US Homicide-Suicide Cases 1999-2004. [Article]. Journal of Family Violence, 26(4), 285-297.

Smith, S. G., Fowler, K. A., & Niolon, P. H. (2014). Intimate partner homicide and corollary victims in 16 states: National Violent Death Reporting System, 2003-2009. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 461-466.

Smucker, S., Kerber, R. E., & Cook, P. J. (2018). Suicide and additional homicides associated with intimate partner homicide: North Carolina 2004-2013. Journal of Urban Health, 95, 337-343.

Stack, S. (1997). Homicide followed by suicide: An analysis of Chicago data. Criminology, 35(3), 435-453.

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Taylor, M. A. (2018). A comprehensive study of mass murder precipitants and motivations of offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(2), 427- 449.

Teplin LA, Meyerson NS, Jakubowski JA, et al. Association of Firearm Access, Use, and Victimization During Adolescence With Firearm Perpetration During Adulthood in a 16-Year Longitudinal Study of Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2034208. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34208 Websdale, N. (2010). Familicidal hearts: The emotional styles of 211 killers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Daniele, A. (1995). Familicide: The killing of spouse and children.

Aggressive Behavior, 21, 275-291.

Yousuf, S., McLone, S., Mason, M., Snow, L., Gall, C., & Sheehan, K. (2017). Factors associated with intimate partner homicide in Illinois, 2005-2010: Findings from the Illinois Violent Death Reporting System. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 83, S217-S221

4.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)

FEBRUARY 25, 2022 HATE PREVENTION AND INCLUSION TASK FORCE San José State University Research Foundation Team

Etienne Brown, Assistant Professor, Philosophy, SJSU
Michael Dao, Assistant Professor, Kinesiology, SJSU
Soma de Bourbon, Assistant Professor, Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, SJSU Val Jenness, Professor, UC Irvine
Tiffani Marie, Assistant Professor, Teacher Education, SJSU Robert Marx, Assistant Professor, Child and Adolescent Development, SJSU Judith Randle, Lecturer, Justice Studies
Claudio Vera Sanchez, Associate Professor, Criminal Justice, SJSU Wanda Watson, Associate Professor, Teacher Education, SJSU

Principal Investigator

Kathleen Wong(Lau), Chief Diversity Officer, SJSU, Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Facilitators
craig Alimo, Director of Social Justice Education, SJSU Patience Bryant, Director of Black/African American Equity, SJSU Fernanda Perdomo-Arciniegas, Interim Director of Chicanx/Latinx Equity, SJSU Felicia Fegans, Executive Assistant and Diversity Program Specialist, SJSU

4.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: SJSURF HPITF Final Report for 2-25-22 (109511 : San Jose State University Research Foundation Final Report)