About
The Hanover Institute for Public Policy studies the inputs fueling antisemitism in the United States, and publishes what the evidence shows.
Its work is content analysis, computational social science, and other data-driven research. Each report ships the data, the breakdowns, and the methodology behind it, and takes no policy positions.
What we publish
Interactive reports, each built on a single study, with the data, the breakdowns, and the methodology that produced them. Cited research is peer-reviewed and academic.
Who funds this work
The Institute’s materials are distributed by Piro, Inc. on behalf of Havas Media Germany GmbH, acting for the Israel Government Advertising Agency (LaPam). That relationship is registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, registration 7732, and every report published here is filed with the Department of Justice, where the registration and the filings can be read in full, and the funding page sets out when the relationship began and what the funder does not decide.
That registration is why this site does not call itself independent, nonpartisan or neutral. What it offers instead is a method a reader can check: every figure carries the body that produced it, the year and the number, inside the sentence that makes the claim; sources that are a party to the events they describe are labelled as such and their counts are never presented as independently verified; and where the evidence is contested, the competing findings are given by name and date rather than settled. No report recommends a policy or tells a reader what to conclude. Those are properties of the work that can be tested against the work, which is the only kind of claim worth making here.
Why this work is personal
The Institute’s original founder traced this work to a moment in his own childhood. At ten, he asked the man his grandmother had married about the numbers tattooed on his arm; the man had survived Auschwitz. What a child could not fully grasp, the adult came to understand: that such hatred is recent rather than distant, that it reached within a single lifetime and within his own family.
That is his account of why the work exists. It is not offered as a credential for it. The Institute is government-funded, as the section above sets out, and the only answer to that worth making is research a reader can check line by line. Critique is invited, and it belongs to the reporting and the sources rather than to whoever assembled them.
The Institute’s response is documentary, not declarative. It does not tell anyone what to conclude; it holds that a phenomenon measured carefully and shown plainly serves the public better than any argument about it.
Bylines
Reports are published under the Institute’s name rather than an individual’s. That is the convention at institutional publishers, and it fits how the work is made: every report is produced against one standard and one citation bank. A reader is asked to weigh the sources, which are named in the sentence that carries each figure, rather than the author.
Accountability for the material is not anonymous. The registrant responsible for distributing it is named in the disclosure at the foot of every page and on the public register at the Department of Justice, where each report is filed. The researchers are not named because a finding should stand or fall on its sources rather than on the standing of whoever assembled it, and because the subject attracts harassment. That is a considered editorial position, not an oversight.