U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Hate Crimes Reported in NIBRS, 1997-99 September 2001, NCJ 186765 -------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the table. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hcrn97.htm -------------------------------------------------------- By Kevin J. Strom BJS Statistician -------------------------------------------------------- Highlights NIBRS hate crime data from 1997-99 showed that -- * In 60% of hate crime incidents, the most serious offense was a violent crime, most commonly intimidation or simple assault. *Intimidation, defined as verbal or related threats of bodily harm, is one of the additional offenses collected in NIBRS.* * In nearly 4 out of 10 incidents the most serious crime was a property offense, 73% of which were damage, destruction, or vandalism of property. * Sixty-one percent of hate crime incidents were motivated by race, 14% by religion, 13% by sexual orientation, 11% by ethnicity, and 1% by victim disability. * The majority of incidents motivated by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability involved a violent offense, while two-thirds of incidents motivated by religion involved a property offense, most commonly vandalism. * Of incidents motivated by hatred of a religion, 41% targeted Jewish victims and 31%, unspecified religious groups. * Racially motivated hate crimes most frequently targeted blacks. Six in ten racially biased incidents targeted blacks, and 3 in 10 targeted whites. * Younger offenders were responsible for most hate crimes. Thirty-one percent of violent offenders and 46% of property offenders were under age 18. * Thirty-two percent of hate crimes occurred in a residence, 28% in an open space, 19% in a retail/commercial establishment or public building, 12% at a school or college, and 3% at a church, synagogue, or temple. ----------------------------------------------------- Over the past decade, Federal and State legislation has mandated the identification and reporting of offenses known as hate crimes. Today nearly every State and the Federal Government have laws which require sentencing enhancements for offenders who commit hate crimes. These incidents, also referred to as bias crimes, are criminal offenses motivated by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity (FBI, 1999). Bias crimes are not separate types of offenses but are crimes against persons, property, or society identified by a specific motivation of the offender. The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-275) required the establishment of a system to provide information on the nature and prevalence of hate crimes. This responsibility was given to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, which began compiling hate crime statistics reported to law enforcement departments in 1990. The UCR data reflected aggregate counts of incidents, victims, suspected offenders, and categories of bias motivation. In recent years a growing number of law enforcement agencies has reported incident- level crime data to the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). NIBRS represents a more comprehensive and detailed crime reporting system, with the ability to capture a wide range of information on specific incidents. In 1997, 1,878 agencies from 10 States submitted NIBRS data to the FBI, representing 6% of the U.S. population. In 1999, 3,396 agencies submitted NIBRS data, from 17 States (Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia) representing 13% of the total population. This report analyzes those NIBRS cases identified by law enforcement agencies as hate crimes from 1997 to 1999. Overall, bias crimes accounted for a relatively small percentage of all criminal incidents reported in NIBRS during this period. Of the nearly 5.4 million NIBRS incidents reported by law enforcement agencies between 1997 and 1999, about 3,000 were identified as hate crimes. Bias motivation NIBRS reporting requirements dictate that hate crimes be categorized according to the perceived bias motivation of the offender. Due to the difficulty in determining an offender's motivations, law enforcement agencies record hate crimes only when investigation reveals facts sufficient to conclude that the offender's actions were bias motivated. Evidence used to support the existence of bias could include oral comments, written statements, or gestures made by the offender at the time of the incident or drawings or graffiti left at the crime scene. Other factors, including victim reporting and law enforcement procedure, can also impact the quality and accuracy of hate crime reporting. (See Methodology.) Among those bias incidents reported by NIBRS-participating States from 1997 to 1999, 61% were motivated by racial bias, 14% by religious bias, 13% by sexual orientation bias, 11% by ethnicity or national origin bias, and 1% by disability bias. * Among racially motivated hate crimes, 6 in 10 targeted blacks and 3 in 10 targeted whites. * Among crimes motivated by bias against a religion, the majority were anti-Jewish crimes or crimes against unnamed religious groups. * Almost all incidents resulting from bias against a sexual orientation were committed against male or female homosexuals. * Crimes motivated by hatred of an ethnicity or national origin most frequently targeted Hispanics. Offense committed during hate crime incidents The majority of offenses committed during NIBRS hate crimes were violent. This compared to all NIBRS offenses reported between 1997-99, of which about 1 in 5 involved a violent offense. In 60% of hate crime incidents, the most serious offense was a violent crime while property crimes were the most serious offenses reported in 38% of incidents. In about 2% of hate crime incidents the most serious crime reported was a drug, weapon, or other type of offense. Intimidation, simple assault, and aggravated assault were the most commonly reported violent hate crime offenses, representing the most serious offense in nearly 6 in 10 of all bias incidents combined. Intimidation, which refers to verbal or related threats of bodily harm, was the most serious offense reported in 23% of incidents. Simple assault, which defines physical attacks without a weapon or serious victim injury, was the most serious offense recorded in 22% of incidents. Aggravated assault, which refers to attacks in which the offender uses or displays a weapon and/or the victim suffers serious injury, was the most serious offense reported in 13% of incidents. In an additional 1% of hate crime incidents, the most serious offense was robbery, and in less than 1%, murder and nonnegligent or negligent manslaughter. Property crimes were the most serious offense recorded in nearly 4 in 10 hate crime incidents, most commonly involving the damage, destruction, or vandalism of personal or public property. Overall, damage, destruction, or vandalism of property was the most serious offense recorded in 28% of all bias incidents. Arson was the most serious crime reported in nearly 1% of bias incidents. Offense type by bias motivation While hate crimes predominantly involved assault-related or vandalism offenses, the type of offense differed by bias motivation. Racially and ethnically motivated incidents were the most likely to be violent. Overall, 66% of race-related incidents and 69% of ethnic-related incidents involved a violent crime. In a quarter of racial or ethnically motivated incidents, intimidation was the most serious offense. Among crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias, 56% were violent and 42% were property offenses. Simple or aggravated assault was the most serious offense recorded in 37% of these incidents, intimidation in 16%, and rape or sexual assault in 2%. Violent crimes were reported in 12 of the 17 incidents motivated by disability bias recorded in NIBRS between 1997 and 1999. In contrast to other bias crimes, the majority of crimes motivated by religious bias involved property offenses. In 53% of these incidents the most serious offense reported was damage, destruction, or vandalism of property. ----------------------------------------- Measuring hate crime victimizations not reported to the police In general, the majority of crimes experienced by the public are not reported to the police. To examine both reported and unreported crime, BJS has collected data through its National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) since 1972. In the NCVS, representative national samples of the population are interviewed, with each victim of a crime queried about whether the victimization they experienced was reported to a law enforcement agency. In 2000 just under half of violent crimes and just over a third of property crimes were brought to the attention of the police. NIBRS hate crime data reflect only those incidents in which a law enforcement agency was notified and properly recorded the event (see Methodology for further discussion). On July 1, 2000, BJS initiated the addition of new items to the NCVS designed to uncover hate crime victimizations which go unreported to law enforcement agencies. The NCVS hate crime questions ask victims about the basis for their belief that the crime they experienced was motivated by prejudice or bigotry, as well as the specific behavior of the offender or evidence which may have led to the victim's perception of bias. Preliminary data from the first 6 months of fielding these questions indicate that the majority of hate crime victims, like victims of many other crimes, do not report the incident to law enforcement. For the list of questions used in the NCVS to measure hate crime victimization see p.21 of . ------------------------------------------ Victim characteristics Type of victim The targets of hate crimes were most commonly individuals (84%) as opposed to targets such as businesses or religious organizations. Businesses or financial institutions represented 6% of bias victims, governments 4%, religious organizations 2%, and society or the general public represented 2%. Victim demographics Overall, victims of bias crimes were relatively evenly distributed by age, with slightly smaller percentages reported among victims age 45 or older. The age of hate crime victims varied according to the nature of the offense, as a larger percentage of victims of violent hate crime were young. More than half of victims of violence were age 24 or under, and nearly a third were under 18. In comparison, of all violent crime victims reported in NIBRS between 1997-99, about 2 in 10 were under age 18 and more than 4 in 10 were under age 25. Among hate crime victims of aggravated assault, 30% were under 18, as were 34% of victims of simple assault (not shown in table). Victims of intimidation tended to be older, as nearly 40% were age 35 or over. About 3 out of 4 property crime victims were 25 or older, and nearly a third were 45 or older. Forty percent of all hate crime victims were white males, 25% white females, 20% black males, and 12% black females. An additional 2% of victims were Asian, and nearly 1% were American Indian. Overall, blacks represented 36% of violent hate crime victims and 22% of property crime victims. Whites represented 62% and 74%, respectively. Victim-offender relationships NIBRS allows specification of the relationship between the victim and offender for violent offenses and nonviolent sex offenses. Among victims of violent hate crimes, 38% listed their attackers as acquaintances, 26% as strangers, and 7% as intimates, relatives, or friends. The victim- offender relationship remained unknown or unreported for 30% of bias victims. Among cases in which the victim and offender were acquaintances, 82% provided no additional information other than the offender was known to the victim, 16% reported that the offender was a neighbor, and 2% that the offender was an employer or employee (not shown in table). Younger victims were more likely to be victimized by persons known to them (not shown in table). Of violent victims age 12 or younger, 61% were victimized by an acquaintance, 20% by a stranger, and 2% by a relative or friend. For the remainder, the victim-offender relationship was unknown. Among victims age 13 to 17, 51% were victimized by an acquaintance, 21% by a stranger, and 4% by a relative or friend. In comparison, 31% of victims age 21 or older were victimized by an acquaintance, 29% by a stranger, and 7% by an intimate, relative, or friend. Group victimization patterns More than 4 out of 5 violent hate crime incidents reported in NIBRS involved the victimization of a single individual with- in a single incident. Two or more victims were involved in nearly a quarter of incidents in which the most serious offense was aggravated assault (23%). Violent incidents in which the most serious offense was rape (0 cases out of 6), robbery (13%), or intimidation (14%) were the least likely to involve multiple victims. Offender characteristics Offender demographics Similar to characteristics of the victims, the characteristics of hate crime offenders varied according to offense. Among all NIBRS hate crime incidents, 33% of known offenders, which implies only that some characteristic of the suspect was identified, were age 17 or younger; 29%, age 18 to 24; 17%, age 25 to 34; and 21%, age 35 or older. Violent offenders were generally older than property offenders. Of violent offenders, 31% were age 17 or younger and 60% were age 24 or younger. Of property offenders, 46% were age 17 or younger and 71% were age 24 or younger. The majority of persons suspected of committing hate crimes were white males. Among those suspected of violent hate crimes, 60% were white males, 21% black males, 10% white females, and 6% black females. Whites also represented a larger share of persons suspected of committing property-related hate crimes, as 69% of property offenders were white males and 15% were white females. By bias motivation, whites represented the majority of offenders suspected of committing hate crimes: religious, (88%), disability (85%), sexual orientation (84%), ethnic (82%), and racial (66%) (not shown in table). Among racially motivated incidents, 55% of suspected offenders were white males, 25% black males,11% white females, and 6% black females. Group offending patterns About 3 in 4 violent hate crimes involved a single offender in a single incident. Two or more offenders were involved in 66% of robbery incidents, in 33% of aggravated assaults, in 30% of simple assaults, and 15% of intimidation incidents. Incident characteristics Location of hate crime incidents Of all bias incidents reported in NIBRS, 32% were committed in a residence, 28% in an open space, 19% in a commercial/retail business or public building, 12% in a school or college, 7% in another or unknown location, and 3% in a church, synagogue or temple. (See Methodology for definitions.) Open spaces primarily refer to roadways and parking garages or parking lots. Thirty percent or more of racial, ethnic, and disability-biased incidents were committed in an open space. Among incidents motivated by sexual orientation bias, 41% occurred at a residence, 23% in an open space, 16% at a school or college, and 15% at a commercial /retail business or public building. A third of religious-biased crimes occurred at an educational or religious institution. Weapons in hate crimes Weapons were used in about 18% of all violent hate crimes. Firearms were used or brandished in 4% of violent incidents, knives or sharp objects in 4%, and a blunt object in 4%. By specific offense, homicides (3 out of 3 incidents) and aggravated assaults were the most likely to involve the use or presence of a weapon. Firearms were used or brandished in 17% of aggravated assault incidents, knives in 17%, and blunt objects in 19%. The differences in weapon use and offense type correspond to victim injury, with aggravated assault victims the most likely to sustain a serious injury (not shown in table). Among all hate-related violent cases that provided information on injury outcome, 47% reported no injury to the victim, 45% a minor injury, 3% a severe laceration,2% broken bones, and 3% some other type of major injury. In comparison, more than half of aggravated assault victims sustained some type of injury and 1 in 5 reported a more serious injury such as broken bones, an internal injury, or a severe laceration. Time of day of hate crime incidents The time of day at which violent hate crimes were reported to have occurred was related to the age of the victim. Victims age 17 or younger were most likely to be victimized during the day, as nearly two-thirds of these incidents occurred between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., with a peak between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. Other research has also reported this afternoon period as a peak time for juvenile victimization.*For additional information see Howard N. Snyder, Sexual Assault of Young children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, BJS, 2000, NCJ 182990; and Howard N. Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999, NCJ 178257.* In comparison, violent hate crimes involving victims age 18 to 24 were more likely to occur in the late evening, with a peak around midnight. More than a quarter of violent incidents involving victims age 18 to 24 occurred between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m. Law enforcement response Clearance rates NIBRS data indicate that 1 in 4 hate crime incidents were cleared either by arrest or exceptional means. Overall, an arrest was made in about 20% of hate crime incidents. An additional 5% of cases were cleared by exceptional means, which most commonly refers to cases in which either the victim refused to cooperate or prosecution was declined because of a lack of evidence. Crimes in which the most serious offense was homicide (67% of cases cleared), forcible rape (67% cleared), kidnaping (50% cleared), aggravated assault (40% cleared), simple assault (39% cleared), or forgery/ fraud (39% cleared) were the most likely to be cleared through arrest or exceptional means. In comparison, cases in which the most serious offense was intimidation (21%), vandalism (10%), arson (10%), or burglary (15%) were the least likely to be cleared. Arrestee characteristics In NIBRS, more than a third of persons arrested for hate crimes were under 18, and over a half were under 25 at the time of arrest. Younger persons were more likely to be arrested for property-related offenses. Fifty-six percent of persons arrested for property offenses were age 17 or younger compared to 28% of persons arrested for violent hate crimes. Offenders under age 18 comprised sizable proportions of persons arrested for simple assault (29%), intimidation (33%), and damage, destruction, or vandalism of property (66%) offenses. Three-fourths of hate crime arrestees were white. Eighty-five percent were male, including 66% white males and 18% black males. The vast majority (93%) of persons arrested for hate crimes were not armed at the time of arrest. About 2% of arrestees were armed with a firearm, 2% with a knife, and 3% with another type of weapon such as a blunt object (not shown in table). About 38% of hate crime arrests reported in NIBRS were listed as on-view arrests, suggesting that the officer caught the offender during or shortly following the incident (not shown in table). An additional 25% of arrests involved the issuance of a citation or summons in which the offender was not taken into custody, and 37% involved apprehensions in which suspects were taken into custody in connection with warrants or earlier crime incidents. Of cases providing data, two-thirds indicated that arrestees were residents of the locality in which the crime occurred. Among persons under 18 at the time of arrest, nearly 3 out of 4 were residents of the locality where the incident took place. --------------------------------------------- National hate crime statistics reported through summary UCR, 1991-99 In 1990 the FBI began collecting information on hate crimes reported by law enforcement agencies as part of their Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Since 1991 participation in the program has increased substantially. In 1999, 12,122 agencies in 48 States and the District of Columbia reported summary hate crime data to the FBI. While the number of participating agencies has grown, most agencies continue to submit zero hate crimes for the year (figure). In 1991, 27% of the 2,771 participating agencies submitted 1 or more hate crime incidents, compared to 15% of the 12,122 participating agencies in 1999. Nationally, the number of hate crimes reported has fluctuated between about 6,000 and 9,000 incidents annually since 1991. In 1996, 8,759 bias incidents were reported to the FBI; in 1999, 7,876 incidents. In the 1997-99 period covered in this report, NIBRS accounted for nearly 13% of the 23,680 hate crime incidents reported nationally through the UCR program. Overall, the characteristics of hate crimes reported nationally through the UCR Hate Crime Data Collection Program were similar to those bias incidents reported in NIBRS-participating States. The summary UCR figures do reflect a higher percentage of intimidation offenses (37% versus 22%), and the NIBRS figures include a slightly higher percentage of simple assault offenses (21% versus 19%). Bias motivation types were similar across both summary UCR and NIBRS reporting agencies. For additional information on hate crime statistics, as well as a copy of the UCR hate crime incident form and hate crime collection guidelines go to . ----------------------------------------------- Methodology To analyze the characteristics of hate crime incidents four files were constructed from the 1997, 1998, and 1999 NIBRS master files. Cases with incident dates prior to 1997 were excluded, as were incidents from States that had not yet been officially certified by the FBI to report NIBRS data. The first file constructed was an incident-level file that included characteristics of the 2,976 hate crime incidents reported in NIBRS, including offense type, time of day, incident location, use or presence of weapons, and the proportion of crimes cleared by arrest or exceptional means. The second file was a victim-level file containing information on the 3,534 hate crime victims reported in NIBRS over the 3-year period. The third file was an offender-level file that contained information on 3,072 known hate crime offenders, which implies that some characteristic of the suspect was identified distinguishing him/her from an unknown offender. The fourth file was an arrestee-level file that contained records on the 808 persons arrested for hate crime offenses. Variable recoding Victim-offender relationship was based on calculations from the victim-level file. For cases involving multiple offenders, the victim -offender relationship reflects a hierarchy from best known to least known to the victim. For example, if two of the offenders were coded as strangers and one as an acquaintance to the victim, the victim-offender relationship was coded as acquaintance. Certain incident locations were recoded into more general categories. Open spaces includes offenses committed at construction sites, field or woods, highway/road/alleys, lakes or waterways, and parking lots or garages. The category retail/commercial establishments and public buildings includes incidents that occurred in air/bus/train terminals, banks, bars or nightclubs, office buildings, con- venience stores, department or specialty stores, grocery stores or supermarkets, drug stores or hospitals, liquor stores, rental storage, government or other types of public buildings, gas stations, hotels or motels, and restaurants. Incidents occurring in jails or prisons were recoded into the other/unknown category. Multiple offenses reported for single incident The NIBRS reporting structure allows for two or more offenses to be recorded for a single incident. Overall, multiple offenses were reported in about 5% of all NIBRS hate crime incidents. For those incidents in which multiple offenses were reported the "hierarchy rule" was used to determine the most serious Part I offense in the incident (See Effects of NIBRS on Crime Statistics, BJS Special Report, NCJ 178890, July 2000, for details). The only exception to this rule was for arson. If arson was committed in an incident along with other property crimes, arson was considered the most serious property offense. For Part II offenses the following hierarchy was used: violent, property, drugs, and weapons offenses. Of those secondary hate crime offenses that occurred during an incident in the 1997-99 period, nearly 2 out 3 were damage, destruction, or vandalism offenses. In cases in which vandalism was reported as a secondary offense, the most serious offense in the incident was most frequently burglary (31%), intimidation (30%), simple assault (19%), or aggravated assault (11%). Limitations of NIBRS hate crime statistics At present the NIBRS data reported by law enforcement agencies are not a nationally representative sample of hate crimes incidents throughout the country. In particular, large urban areas are under- represented in NIBRS, as only one city with a population of 500,000 or more participated in the reporting system as of yearend 1999. Despite these limitations, the total number of hate crime incidents in the NIBRS universe and the detailed characteristics provided in this reporting system represent a unique opportunity for a better understanding of hate crime incidents. A number of factors can impact the quality and accuracy of national hate crime statistics. Many of these factors are summarized in the BJS-funded report, Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Bias Crime Statistics Nationally: An Assessment of the First Ten Years of Bias Crime Data Collection (September 2000), available at http://www.dac.neu.edu/cj/ crimereport.pdf>. This report suggests that the barriers to hate crime reporting can be separated into two general categories: (1) victim-related reporting factors and (2) factors that effect police recording bias incidents or reporting them to the FBI. The report identifies 7 decision-making points necessary for accurate national reporting: 1. The victim acknowledges a crime was committed; 2. The victim recognizes that hate bias was a motivating factor for the crime; 3. The victim or another party contacts police about the incident; 4. The victim or another party communicates to police that bias was a motivating factor; 5. Law enforcement recognizes the element of hate; 6. Law enforcement documents the type of bias, which could lead to the suspect being charged with a civil rights or bias offense; 7. Law enforcement records the incident and submits the information to the FBI's UCR Hate Crime Reporting Unit. Selected NIBRS offense definitions Arson: To unlawfully and intentionally damage, or attempt to damage, any real or personal property by fire or incendiary device. Assault, aggravated: An unlawful attack by one person upon another wherein the offender uses a weapon or displays it in a threatening manner, or the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss of consciousness. This also includes assault with disease (as in cases when the offender is aware that he/she is infected with a deadly disease and deliberately attempts to inflict the disease by biting, spitting, etc.). Assault, simple: An unlawful attack by one person upon another where neither the offender displays a weapon nor the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury. Assault, intimidation: To unlawfully place another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack. Destruction/damage/vandalism of property: To willfully or maliciously destroy, damage, deface, or otherwise injure real or personal property without the consent of the owner or the person having custody or control of it. (Note: This offense is reported only if the reporting agency deems that substantial injury to the property has occurred. The offense includes a broad range of injury to property, from deliberate, extensive destruction to less extensive damage. It does not include destruction or damage to property caused by the crime of arson.) Forcible sex offenses: Any sexual act directed against another person, forcibly and/or against the person's will; or not forcibly or against the person's will where the victim is incapable of giving consent. Forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling are included in this category. Forcible rape: The carnal knowledge or a person, forcibly, and/or against that person's will; or not forcibly or against the person's will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his /her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity (or because of his/her youth). Homicide: The killing of one human being by another. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. Negligent manslaughter: The killing of another person through negligence. Kidnaping/abduction: The unlawful seizure, transportation, and/or detention of a person against his/her will, or of a minor without the consent of his/her custodial parent(s) or legal guardian. Robbery: The taking, or attempting to take, anything of value under confrontational circumstances from the control, custody, or care of another person by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear of immediate harm. ----------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Lawrence A. Greenfeld is acting director. Kevin J. Strom wrote this report under the supervision of Steven K. Smith, Chief, Law Enforcement, Adjudication, and Federal Statistics. Ramona Rantala gave statistical assistance and provided statistical review. Greg Steadman also provided statistical review. Victoria Major, Sharon Propheter, Christopher Enourato, and Thomas Edwards of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI reviewed and commented on the report. Ellen Goldberg and Tom Hester edited the report. Jayne Robinson prepared the report for publication. September 2001, NCJ 186765 ------------------------------------------- End of file 09/05/01 ih