FOREWORD Statistical publications like Hate Crime Statistics are designed to be factual presentations of data. Their purpose is not to evoke emotion, make pleas, or sway opinion. The neat columns and rows of numbers in this book cannot convey the suffering experienced by victims of crime—particularly when those crimes are motivated by bias against a particular race, religion, disability, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Nor can these statistics depict the turmoil that a hate crime can bring to a community. The facts and figures can only marginally demonstrate the dedication and growing commitment of the law enforcement community to recognizing and documenting crimes that are prompted by hate. Without the courage of the victims who come forward and the diligence of the agencies that contribute to this program, the statistics presented here could not be assembled. Through these findings, law enforcement and government agencies, researchers, academics, and the public at large can gain awareness of the nature and frequency of hate crime. Accordingly, only through awareness can communities further their plans to deal with this toxin of our society. CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Methodology 3 Section I — Hate Crime Statistics, 1998 Narrative comments 5 Number of incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders by bias motivation 7 Location of incidents by bias motivation 8 Number of offenses, victims, and known offenders by offense 9 Number of offenses Bias motivation and offense type 10 Bias motivation and suspected offender’s race 12 Suspected offender’s race 13 Percent distribution of offenses by victim type 13 Number of offenses by state 14 Number of victims by bias motivation and offense type 16 Percent distribution of bias motivation by victim type 18 Number of known offenders by race 18 ii Section II — Jurisdictional Hate Crime Statistics, 1998 Narrative comments 19 Agency hate crime reporting by state 20 Number of incidents by bias motivation Cities 21 Rural counties 80 Suburban counties 92 Universities and colleges 98 State police agencies 104 Other agencies 111 Appendix — Directory of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs 116 iii INTRODUCTION In response to the passage of the Hate reporting program, planners considered many Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the Attorney factors. For example, they recognized that General designated the FBI’s Uniform Crime hate crimes are not separate, distinct crimes Reporting (UCR) Program to develop and but rather traditional offenses motivated by the implement a data collection system for its offender’s bias. An offender, for example, voluntary law enforcement agency partici- may commit an assault because of his/her bias pants, numbering nearly 17,000. With the against the victim’s race, religion, sexual ori- cooperation and assistance of several local and entation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability. state law enforcement agencies already experi- It was, therefore, not necessary to create new enced in the investigation of hate crimes and crime categories. To the contrary, hate crime the collection of related information, compre- data could be obtained by collecting additional hensive guidelines for the compilation of hate information about crimes currently being re- crime data were established. ported to the UCR Program. The bias motiva- The Hate Crime Statistics Act was tions reported would be those specifically ad- amended by the Violent Crime and Law dressed by the Hate Crime Statistics Act as Enforcement Act of 1994 to include those amended, i.e., prejudice against a race, reli- crimes motivated by a bias against persons gion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national with disabilities. In order to comply with this origin, or disability. Because of the difficulty amendment, the FBI began collecting data on in determining an offender’s subjective disability bias-motivated crimes on January 1, motivation in the commission of a crime, bias 1997. Also, the Church Arson Prevention would be reported only after law enforcement Act, signed into law in July 1996, amended the investigation revealed sufficient evidence that Hate Crime Statistics Act by permanently ex- the offender’s actions were motivated, in tending the data collection mandate. The re- whole or in part, by bias. moval of the sunset clause from the original The Hate Crime Data Collection Pro- statute reinforces the FBI’s commitment to gram has been endorsed by the International making hate crime data collection a perma- Association of Chiefs of Police, the National nent part of the UCR Program. Sheriffs’ Association, the former UCR Data Providers’ Advisory Policy Board (now part Collection Design of the Criminal Justice Information Services The data collection effort is designed Advisory Policy Board), the International As- to capture information about the type of bias sociation of Directors of Law Enforcement serving as the motivating factor, the nature Standards and Training, and the Association of the offense, and the characteristics of the of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs. victims and offenders. When developing a These endorsements were crucial to the suc- 1 cessful implementation of the program, for directly from individual agencies in states without law enforcement’s voluntary data without Programs. It is important to note that collection and support, any effort would be the agencies participating in the Hate Crime futile. Data Collection Program in 1998 represented over 216 million United States inhabitants or Training 80 percent of the population. While not all Since the development of the Hate agencies are participating in the Hate Crime Crime Data Collection Program, UCR staff Program, reports from those that are offer have provided training to law enforcement perspectives on the general nature of hate personnel in 50 states, the District of Colum- crime occurrence. bia, and U.S. Territories. Personnel from The collection of hate crime statistics state-level UCR Programs also conduct train- at the national level will increase awareness ing in their respective states. Periodic training and understanding of bias-motivated crimes. sessions continue to focus on the standard This effort will enable law enforcement agen- methodology used to investigate, recognize, cies to better quantify their needs and allocate and report hate crime. resources to the areas in which they are most essential. Law enforcement agencies have Participation historically demonstrated progressive, profes- In 1998, a total of 10,730 law enforce- sional competence in approaching criminal ment agencies in 46 states and the District of problems. Their response to the hate crime Columbia participated in the Hate Crime Data legislation is no exception, and participating Collection Program. Summary and incident- law enforcement agencies are to be com- based data are sent to the FBI either through mended for their efforts in addressing this is- state-level UCR Programs (see Appendix) or sue. 2 METHODOLOGY Tables and narrative comments applies to all 46 Group “A” Offenses, which addressing the volume and types of bias-moti- include the 11 traditional offense categories. vated criminal incidents reported to the FBI in The sum of the 35 Group “A” Offenses not 1998 are presented throughout this publica- listed are combined and reported in this docu- tion. The bias categories listed in the Hate ment as other or as crimes against society, Crime Statistics Act are race, religion, disabil- whichever is appropriate. ity, sexual orientation, and ethnicity/national Hate crime data are submitted to the origin. UCR Program by city, county, and state law Criminal incidents can involve more enforcement agencies in various ways. For than one offense, victim, or offender. For example, data are received on a hard copy counting purposes, one offense is counted for Quarterly Hate Crime Report which consists each victim of a crime against person. One of a quarterly summary and an incident report offense is counted for each distinct incident of for each bias incident. Individual agencies or crime against property and crime against state UCR Programs using personal comput- society, regardless of the number of victims. ers for data collection and storage may submit The total number of victims in a given incident hate crime data on floppy disks. Agencies is the sum of victims associated with each participating in NIBRS are able to include the offense that took place within the incident. hate crime data element in their submissions Hate crime data are collected for 11 via magnetic tape. traditional offense categories. Murder and Section I contains tables showing the nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, ag- totals for the 10,730 law enforcement agen- gravated assault, simple assault, and intimi- cies participating in 1998. These agencies dation are classified as crimes against per- represented over 216 million United States sons, and robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, inhabitants, and reported a total of 7,755 hate motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/ crime incidents to the FBI in 1998. These damage/vandalism of property are classified as reported incidents involved a total of 9,235 crimes against property. offenses, 9,722 victims, and 7,489 known of- In the National Incident-Based fenders. The table on the following page Reporting System (NIBRS), the enhanced shows the number of agencies represented UCR Program, the hate crime data element within each population group and the extent of population coverage. 3 Number of Agencies By Population Group, 1998 Population Number of Population group participating agencies covered Total 10,730 216,235,376 Group I (Cities 250,000 and over) 59 43,635,074 Group II (Cities 100,000 - 249,999) 135 19,561,150 Group III (Cities 50,000 - 99,999) 335 22,671,606 Group IV (Cities 25,000 - 49,999) 612 21,138,591 Group V (Cities 10,000 - 24,999) 1,403 22,179,746 Group VI1 (Cities under 10,000) 5,302 17,909,363 Rural Counties2 1,901 21,540,392 Suburban Counties2 983 47,599,454 1 Includes universities and colleges to which no population is attributed.