FOREWORD terilized from emotion, hate crime, also called bias crime, is those offenses motivated in part or singularly by personal prejudice against others because of a diversity—race, sexual orientation, Sreligion, ethnicity/national origin, or disability. The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s responsibility regarding hate crime is to provide a reliable set of statistics through the Hate Crime Data Collection Program. Through this program, law enforcement agencies nationwide voluntar- ily submit data about hate crimes within their jurisdictions (i.e., the number of incidents, offenses, victims, and offenders) for publication in the annual report, Hate Crime Statistics. Though law enforce- ment agencies need only report data for one month of a year to be included in this publication, most agencies that participate in the Program submit four quarters of data. In 2000, a total of 91.9 percent of all contributing agencies submitted four quarters of data. All data reported by law enforcement agencies are presented in this publication, free of the nuances that many factions of society impose upon the subject. The uses for hate crime data vary widely among the different sectors of society. The statistics may assist law enforcement agencies in addressing potentially problematic issues for their particular locales or provide lawmakers with justification for certain legislation. The data may supply the media with credible information or simply show hate crime victims that they are not alone. Analyses of these data can also aid researchers in determining trends in hate crimes. Whatever the use of the statistics may be, the goal of this publication is to enable these data users to create an awareness about hate crime and advance the study of this complex facet of crime. The national Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program would like to hear from you. The staff at the national UCR Program are continuously striving to improve our publications. We would appreciate it if the primary user of this publication would complete the evaluation form at the end of this book and either mail it to us at the indicated address or fax it to 304-625-5394. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Methodology 3 Section I 5 Hate Crime Statistics Table 1 7 Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation Table 2 8 Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Offense Type Table 3 9 Offenses Known Offender’s Race by Offense Type Table 4 10 Offenses Offense Type by Bias Motivation Table 5 12 Offenses Known Offender’s Race by Bias Motivation Table 6 13 Offenses Victim Type by Offense Type Table 7 14 Victims Offense Type by Bias Motivation Table 8 16 Incidents Victim Type by Bias Motivation Table 9 16 Race of Known Offenders Table 10 17 Incidents Bias Motivation by Location Table 11 18 Offenses Offense Type by Participating State Section II 21 Jurisdictional Hate Crime Statistics Table 12 22 Profile of States Participating in Hate Crime Reporting Table 13 23 Hate Crime Incidents Bias Motivation by State, Agency Type, and Number of Quarters Reported Table 14 48 Zero Hate Crime Data Submitted Number of Quarters Reported by State and Agency Type APPENDIX 121 Directory of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs iii INTRODUCTION Background ith the passage of the Hate Crime Statistics developmental phase of the Hate Crime Data Collec- Act of 1990, Congress mandated the collec- tion Program recognized that hate crimes are not Wtion of information about crimes motivated separate, distinct crimes; instead, they are traditional by a bias against a person’s race, religion, sexual offenses motivated by the offender’s bias. An of- orientation, and/or ethnicity/national origin. Under the fender, for example, may damage or vandalize prop- commission of the Attorney General and with the aid erty because of his/her bias against the owner’s of several local and state law enforcement agencies (victim’s) race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/ already investigating and collecting information about national origin, or disability. Therefore, rather than hate crimes, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting create new crime categories, Program developers felt (UCR) Program developed a data collection system for that collecting additional information about crimes that purpose. Hate Crime Statistics, 1990: A Re- currently being reported to the UCR Program would source Book was the first publication that made avail- fulfill the directives addressed in the Hate Crime able the hate crime data collected in 1990 by 11 Statistics Act as amended. individual states. Once the national UCR Program Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to implemented a uniform data collection method, the know with certainty whether a crime was the result of 1992 edition of Hate Crime Statistics premiered the the offender’s bias. Law enforcement investigation is data reported by law enforcement agencies across the imperative in that it must reveal sufficient evidence as Nation. to whether or not the offender’s actions were moti- Bias against persons with disabilities became an vated, in whole or in part, by bias. For this reason, the element of hate crime data collection with the enact- success of the Program rests with the law enforcement ment of the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act officers who determine that a bias motivation does of 1994, which amended the Hate Crime Statistics indeed exist and forward this information to the Act. (Actual collection of data from disability bias- national Program so that the law enforcement commu- motivated crimes began on January 1, 1997.) Another nity and others may learn from it. amendment followed in July 1996 when the Church The International Association of Chiefs of Police, Arson Prevention Act was signed into law, removing the National Sheriffs’ Association, the former UCR the sunset clause from the original statute and perma- Data Providers’ Advisory Policy Board (now part of nently extending the data collection mandate. The FBI the Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory shares with each law enforcement agency that is a Policy Board), the International Association of Direc- voluntary participant of the Program its commitment tors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, and to make hate crime data collection a permanent part of the Association of State Uniform Crime Reporting the UCR Program. Programs have all endorsed the Hate Crime Data Collection Program. Without their support and law Collection Design enforcement’s voluntary data collection, any effort toward the successful implementation of the Program The goal of the Hate Crime Statistics Act and its would be futile. subsequent amendments is to capture information about the type of bias serving as the motivating factor Participation of a hate crime, the nature of the offense, and the number and types of the victim(s) and offender(s). In 2000, nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies While identifying the criteria that distinguish hate nationwide reported data to the UCR Program. A total crimes from other offenses, the parties involved in the of 11,690 law enforcement agencies in 48 states and 1 the District of Columbia submitted summary or inci- agencies are insufficient to allow a valid national or dent-based reports to the Hate Crime Data Collection regional measure of the volume and types of crimes Program. The table below shows the number of motivated by hate, they offer perspectives on the agencies represented within each population group and general nature of hate crime occurrence. the extent of the population covered. Of the agencies The law enforcement community has long recog- participating in this Program, most sent their data to nized that valid information is central to developing their respective state UCR Programs (see Appendix) effective measures to deal with crime; the same is true that, in turn, forwarded the state’s information to the for bias-motivated crime. Through the collection of national Program. Participating agencies in states local hate crime statistics, law enforcement agencies without state UCR Programs sent their data directly to have the ability to heighten the awareness and the the FBI. Collectively, these agencies represented understanding of bias-motivated crimes both locally 236.9 million people in the United States, 84.2 percent and nationwide. of the population. Though the reports from these Number of Participating Agencies and Population Covered by Population Group, 2000 Number of Population Population group participating agencies covered Total 11,690 236,929,512 Group I (Cities 250,000 and over) 64 48,620,572 Group II (Cities 100,000 - 249,999) 155 22,692,156 Group III (Cities 50,000 - 99,999) 357 24,324,241 Group IV (Cities 25,000 - 49,999) 682 23,622,944 Group V (Cities 10,000 - 24,999) 1,527 23,991,596 Group VI1(Cities under 10,000) 5,731 19,012,664 Suburban Counties2 1,057 50,765,022 Rural Counties2 2,117 23,900,317 1Includes universities and colleges, state police agencies, and other agencies to which no population is attributed. 2Includes state police agencies and other agencies to which no population is attributed. 2 METHODOLOGY Data Reporting n accordance with the Hate Crime Statistics Act In NIBRS, the hate crime data element applies to and its subsequent amendments, the Uniform all 46 Group “A” Offenses, which include the previ- ICrime Reporting (UCR) Program compiles data ously mentioned 11 offense categories. The remaining regarding crimes motivated by racial, religious, dis- 35 Group “A” Offenses not listed are reported in this ability, sexual-orientation, and ethnicity/national origin publication as other or as crimes against society, biases. Law enforcement agencies report hate crime whichever is appropriate. occurences to the UCR Program using the Quarterly Hate Crime Report form or the hate crime data ele- Data Compilation ment for the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).