Cincinnati committee discusses new tracking, regional reporting and public outreach for hate-motivated incidents

At a meeting of the Cincinnati Public Safety and Governance Committee, Chair Scotty Johnson opened discussion on the city’s procedures for recording and responding to hate-motivated incidents and crimes, saying the city should ensure “everybody that comes to work, play, and live in our city is gonna be treated with respect and ... dignity.”

The committee reviewed a report prepared with Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) input that cites CPD Procedure 12417 and references the Ohio Revised Code and the city’s municipal code as legal frameworks used when officers evaluate and investigate reported incidents. Committee members and staff focused discussion on whether Cincinnati needs a dedicated hotline or portal, how noncriminal “hate incidents” should be collected, and whether tracking should be handled regionally.

Why it matters: committee members said public reporting, consistent data and visible outreach are central to residents’ sense of safety. Vice Mayor Jan Michelle Kearney and Committee member Anna Albee emphasized that some incidents fall short of criminal conduct but still affect victims and should be captured in city data and public-facing dashboards.

On reporting channels, staff and CPD representatives said the city routes nonemergency requests through 311 and emergency situations through 911. A CPD representative told the committee: “Between 911 and 311, both are handled by my team,” and said both systems are intended to connect callers to the correct response. Committee members discussed public education to reduce confusion about which number to use.

Committee members asked whether incidents that are not charged as crimes could still appear on a public dashboard. A CPD presenter said the department believes a dashboard is feasible but that further work is needed between CPD and the Office of Performance and Data Analytics (OPDA) to determine which reports and classifications would populate a public display.

Legal staff member Frank warned the committee that distinguishing protected speech from prosecutable conduct can be legally complex: “It is a fine line as far as where that line crosses,” he said, noting that intimidation and threats are commonly where protected expression becomes criminally actionable. The committee discussed data-collection limits tied to public-records requirements and the potential for regional or nonprofit-run reporting systems to accept anonymous submissions.

The committee discussed staffing and training. City presenters said CPD’s intelligence and investigative units would handle pattern-or-practice investigations when warranted and that the report did not recommend immediately creating dedicated hate-crimes investigators; instead, existing units would be used while the Office of Opportunity and OPDA mature. The report also flagged potential training needs for 311 staff if that system becomes a routine intake point for noncriminal hate-incident reporting.

Several members urged a regional approach. Mark Jeffries said a regional portal or partnership (for example, with a 2-1-1 provider such as United Way) would better capture incidents that affect residents across jurisdictional lines. The report cited the Los Angeles “LA vs Hate” model as an example of a regionally oriented public-reporting campaign that paired outreach with data collection.

Votes at a glance: The committee moved to “approve and file” the report (Item 1). The chair announced approval and filing with no further recorded debate or roll-call vote in the transcript.

Next steps and context: committee members directed staff to continue discussions with CPD, OPDA and the newly forming Office of Opportunity to define what noncrime incident reporting will look like, how data will be classified for public dashboards, and whether the city should pursue a regional partnership or public-education campaign similar to LA’s model.