Differential compliance with the reporting of hate crime statistics as a function of state laws

Organizational compliance with legislative mandates relies heavily on organizational meaning-making, where organizations determine how to comply – whether “ceremoniously” or in reality – while protecting organizational goals from legislative interference. The present work examines an example of this problem in the form of police compliance with federal hate crime data collection, conceptualizing this problem as a product of the “law-in-between.” Specifically, we focus on how variation in state-level policies impact police compliance with hate crime reporting. Results indicate that state laws can be influential in determining compliance strategies, in some cases decreasing ceremonious reporting behavior. First, we find that the presence of a law reduces the likelihood of ceremonious compliance, but increases non-compliance and true compliance. Second, while compliance strategies were largely unaffected by which groups were included, the inclusion of gender as a protected category was associated with reduced ceremonious compliance. Most importantly, results indicate that the inclusion of mandatory police training in hate crime legislation is associated with increased true compliance, relative to ceremonious compliance and non-compliance, suggesting policy implications for improving reporting. These results have implications for understanding institutional responses to legislative mandates broadly, as well as criminal justice agency responses to crime and hate crimes. • Many police agencies do not fully comply with reporting requirements. • State legislation can affect hate crime reporting by law enforcement. • Laws mandating police training on hate crimes are most effective. • Findings suggest how to improve police compliance with various laws.