U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

Special Report

MARCH 2013 NCJ 241291

Hate Crime 

Victimization, 2003-2011

Nathan Sandholtz, BJS Intern, Lynn Langton, Ph.D., and Michael Planty, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

From 2007 to 2011, an estimated annual average of 

259,700 nonfatal violent and property hate crime 

victimizations occurred against persons age 12 or older 

residing in U.S. households. Of these hate crimes, victims 

perceived that the offender was motivated by bias against the 

victim’s religion in 21% of victimizations. The percentage of 

hate crimes motivated by religious bias more than doubled 

in 2007-11, compared to the 10% motivated by religious bias 

in 2003-06 (figure 1). In comparison, the percentage of hate 

crimes motivated by racial bias was slightly lower in 2007-11 

(54%) than in 2003-06 (63%). 

The findings from this report came primarily from 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS), which has been collecting 

data on crimes motivated by hate since 2003. The NCVS 

and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Hate Crime 

Statistics Program, which are the principal sources of annual 

information on hate crime in the United States, use the 

definition of hate crime provided in the Hate Crime Statistics 

Act (28 U.S.C. § 534). The act defines hate crimes as “crimes 

that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, gender 

or gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, 

or ethnicity.” The NCVS measures crimes perceived by 

victims to be motivated by an offender’s bias against them 

for belonging to or being associated with a group largely 

identified by these characteristics. 

Figure 1

Victim perceptions of offender bias in hate crime, 2003–2006 

and 2007–2011

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used 

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Detail does not sum to 100% due 

to victims reporting more than one type of bias motivating the hate-related 

victimizations. See appendix table 2 for standard errors. 

aMotivated by offender’s perception of victim’s characteristics.

bMotivated by victim’s association with people having certain characteristics.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Race

Associationb

Ethnicity

Religion

Sexual

 orientation

Gender

Disability

Perceived

 characteristicsa

Percent

Oender bias

2007–2011

2003–2006

HIGHLIGHTS

 Across the periods from 2003-06 and 2007-11, there was no 

change in the annual average number of total, violent, or 

property hate crime victimizations. 

 The percentage of hate crimes motivated by religious bias 

more than doubled between 2003-06 and 2007-11 (from 

10% to 21%), while the percentage motivated by racial bias 

dropped slightly (from 63% to 54%). 

 Violent hate crime accounted for a higher percentage of 

all nonfatal violent crime in 2007-11 (4%), compared to 

2003-06 (3%).

 About 92% of all hate crimes collected by the NCVS 

between 2007 and 2011 were violent victimizations.

 About a third of hate crime victimizations occurred at or 

near the victim’s home. 

 Between 2003-06 and 2007-11, the percentage of hate 

crime victimizations reported to police declined from 46% 

to 35%.

 In 2007-11, whites, blacks, and Hispanics had similar rates of 

violent hate crime victimization.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 2

Changes to the measurement of hate crime in the NCVS

Since the release of the previous BJS report on hate crime 

victimization (Hate Crime, 2003-2009, NCJ 234085, June 

2011), BJS has instituted two changes to the measurement 

of hate crime using NCVS data. Beginning with the 2010 

NCVS data, BJS modified the approach for counting high 

frequency repeat victimizations, or series victimizations. 

Series victimizations are those that are similar in type but 

occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall 

each individual event or to describe each event in detail. 

Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and 

classify these similar victimizations as series victimizations 

and collect detailed information on only the most recent 

incident in the series. Prior to the release of the 2010 

NCVS data, BJS counted series victimizations as one 

victimization. In order to capture these events, BJS now 

counts series victimizations as the number of incidents 

experienced by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 (see 

Methodology). 

This new approach to counting series victimizations 

impacts trends in the rate of violent hate crime 

victimization. With the previous approach to counting 

series victimizations, the rate of violent hate crime 

victimizations declined slightly from 2008 to 2010 and 

stabilized from 2010 to 2011 (figure 2). In comparison, 

when series victimizations are counted up to a maximum 

of 10 victimizations, the rate of violent hate crime 

victimizations was stable from 2008 to 2010 and declined 

slightly from 2010 to 2011. Regardless of the approach 

used for counting hate crime victimizations, no significant 

change was observed in the rate of violent hate crime 

victimization in 2011 compared to 2004.

The second change to the measurement of hate crime 

is the inclusion of gender or gender identity bias in the 

hate crime definition. In 2009, the passage of the Matthew 

Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act 

made gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation 

protected categories under federal hate crime statutes. The 

Hate Crime Statistics Act was also amended to reflect the 

newly protected categories of sexual orientation, gender, 

and gender identity. 

BJS and the FBI have been collecting and reporting on 

hate crimes motivated by bias against a victim’s sexual 

orientation since 2003. BJS has also previously reported 

on hate crimes motivated by gender bias when the victim 

reported an additional bias motivation (e.g., racial or 

ethnic bias, as well as gender bias). However, beginning 

with 2010, BJS began including crimes motivated solely by 

gender or gender identity bias in the hate crime statistics. 

The inclusion of crimes motivated solely by gender or 

gender identity bias did not significantly change the 

number or rate of hate crime victimizations in 2010 or 

2011 (table 1). 

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Series = Number of incidents up to 10

Series = 1 incident 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Figure 2

Rate of violent hate crime victimizations, by method used 

to count high frequency repeat (series) victimizations, 

2004–2011

Note: Estimates are based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most 

recent year. Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as biasmotivated and incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because 

the offender used hate language or left behind hate symbols. See appendix 

table 1 for base population numbers and appendix table 3 for estimates and 

standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011. 

Table 1

Violent hate crimes, excluding and including gender 

bias, 2010–2011

Number

Rate per 1,000 persons 

age 12 or older

Year

Excluding 

gender bias 

Including 

gender bias

Excluding 

gender bias

Including 

gender bias

Annual average 187,450 195,500 0.7 0.8

2010 193,710 196,620 0.8 0.8

2011 181,190 194,390 0.7 0.8

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated 

and incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the 

offender used hate language or left behind hate symbols. Violent hate 

crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and 

simple assault. Numbers rounded to the nearest ten. See appendix table 1 

for base population numbers and appendix table 4 for standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2010–2011.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 3

Hate crime victimization refers to a single victim or 

household that experienced a criminal incident believed 

to be motivated by hate. For violent crimes (rape or sexual 

assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) and 

for personal larceny, the count of hate crime victimizations 

is the number of individuals who experienced a violent 

hate crime. For crimes against households (burglary, motor 

vehicle theft, or other theft), each household affected by a 

hate crime is counted as a single victimization. 

This report presents NCVS data on the characteristics of 

hate crimes and hate crime victims from 2003 to 2011. Trend 

estimates are based on 2-year rolling averages centered on 

the most recent year. For example, estimates reported for 

2011 represent the average estimates for 2010 and 2011. 

Subgroup estimates are aggregated annual estimates for two 

periods—2003 to 2006 and 2007 to 2011. This approach 

increases the reliability and stability of estimates, which 

facilitates comparing estimates over time. The report also 

presents comparisons between the NCVS and the UCR in 

terms of overall trends in hate crime victimization and the 

type of bias that motivated the crime. 

As a percentage of total violent crime, violent hate 

crime was greater in 2007-11 (4%) than in 2003-06 (3%)

Overall, the total number of hate crime victimizations 

remained stable from 2004 to 2011 (table 2). Across the 

periods from 2003-06 and 2007-11, no change was detected 

in the annual average number of total, violent, or property 

hate crime victimizations (table 3). However, violent hate 

crimes accounted for a higher percentage of all nonfatal 

violent victimizations in the 2007-11 period (4%) than in the 

2003-06 period (3%). 

For both periods, the rate of violent hate crime victimization 

remained unchanged at about 0.9 victimizations per 1,000 

persons age 12 or older. The rate of property hate crime 

victimization was between 0.2 and 0.3 victimizations per 

1,000 households in both periods. (Data do not include 

arson or vandalism.) 

Table 2

Hate crime victimizations, 2004–2011

Total hate crimesa Violent hate crimesb Property hate crimesc

Year Number

Percent of total 

victimizationsd Number Ratee Percent of total violent victimizationsd Number Ratef

Percent of total 

property victimizationsd

2004 281,670 1.0% 220,060 0.9 3.1% 61,610 0.5 0.3%

2005 223,060 0.9 198,400 0.8 2.9 21,740 0.2 0.1

2006 230,490 0.8 211,730 0.9 2.8 15,830 0.1 0.1

2007 263,440 1.0 236,860 1.0 3.1 24,640 0.2 0.1

2008 266,640 1.1 241,800 1.0 3.7 22,890 0.2 0.1

2009 284,620 1.2 267,170 1.1 4.4 17,450 0.1 0.1

2010 273,100 1.3 255,810 1.0 4.8 17,290 0.1 0.1

2011 217,640 1.0 195,500 0.8 3.6 22,140 0.2 0.1

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used hate 

language or left behind hate symbols. Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Numbers rounded to the nearest ten. See appendix 

table 1 for population data and appendix table 5 for standard errors. 

aIncludes violent crimes, personal larceny, and household property crimes. 

bIncludes rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. 

cIncludes household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft. 

dSee appendix table 1 for number of total victimizations.

ePer 1,000 persons age 12 or older. 

f

Per 1,000 households. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2011.

Table 3

Annual average distribution for hate crime victimizations, by 

offense, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Annual hate crimes 2003–2006 2007–2011

Numbera 256,080 259,690 

Violentb 215,900 237,920 

Propertyc 38,720 20,990 

Percent of all crimes

Total crimea 0.9% 1.1%

Violent crimeb 2.9 4.0

Property crimec 0.2 0.1

Rate

Violentb,d 0.9 0.9

Propertyb,e 0.3 0.2

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used 

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Numbers rounded to the nearest ten. 

See appendix table 6 for standard errors. 

aIncludes violent crimes, personal larceny, and household property crimes. In 

2003-06 there were 108.4 million total victimizations. In 2007-11 there were 114.9 

million total victimizations. 

bIncludes rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple 

assault. In 2003-06 there were 836,000 violent victimizations. In 2007-11 there 

were 834,000 violent victimizations. 

cIncludes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft. In 2003-06 there were 

77.8 million property crime victimizations. In 2007-11 there were 84.5 million 

property crime victimizations. 

dPer 1,000 persons age 12 or older. 

ePer 1,000 households. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 4

Violent victimizations accounted for 92% of all hate 

crimes in 2007-11

The percentage of hate crimes that involved violence was 

greater in 2007-11 (92%) than in 2003-06 (84%) (table 4). 

Property crimes accounted for a lower percentage of 

hate crime victimizations in 2007-11 (8%), compared to 

2003-06 (15%). The lower percentage of property hate crime 

victimizations in 2003-06 was driven by a decline in haterelated burglaries. Hate-related burglaries accounted for 2% 

of all hate crimes during 2007-11 and 9% of all hate crimes 

during 2003-06.

While a greater percentage of hate crimes were violent 

victimizations in 2007-11 than in 2003-06, the opposite was 

true for nonhate crimes. The percentage of nonhate crimes 

that were violent victimizations declined from 2003-06 to 

2007-11 (not shown in a table). Overall, from 2003 through 

2011, violent crimes accounted for a greater percentage of hate 

crimes than nonhate crimes (figure 3). 

The percentage of violent hate crimes resulting in 

victim injury declined over time

In 2007-11, the offender had a weapon in at least 25% of 

violent hate crime victimizations, and the victim sustained 

an injury in about 17% of violent hate crime victimizations 

(table 5). No differences were detected in the percentage of 

hate crime victimizations in which the offender was known 

to have a weapon between the 2003-06 and 2007-11 periods. 

However, the victim sustained an injury in a slightly higher 

percentage of violent hate crime victimizations in 2003-06 

(25%) than in 2007-11 (17%). 

Figure 3

Hate and nonhate victimizations, by type of crime, 

2003–2011 

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used 

hate language or left behind hate symbols. See appendix table 8 for estimates 

and standard errors. 

aIncludes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.

bIncludes rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Property crimea

Simple assault

Serious 

violent crimeb

Property crimea

Simple assault

Serious 

violent crimeb

Hate Non-hate

Percent

Table 4

Hate crime victimizations, by type of crime, 2003–2006 and 

2007–2011

Type of crimea 2003–2006 2007–2011

Violent 84% 92%

Serious violent 23 29

Rape/sexual assault 1 ! 3 !

Robbery 5 ! 8

Aggravated assault 17 19

Simple assault 61 62

Propertyb 15% 8%

Burglary 9 2 !

Theft 7 6

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias motivated because the offender used hate 

language or left behind hate symbols. See appendix table 7 for standard errors.

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer cases, or the coefficient of 

variation is greater than 50%.

aPersonal larceny is not shown. It accounted for about 1% of hate crime 

victimizations in 2003–06 and less than 0.5% in 2007–11.

bMotor vehicle theft is included in property crime total but not shown in the 

table due to the small percentage of hate crimes involving motor vehicle theft. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011. Table 5

Presence of weapons and injuries sustained in violent hate 

crime victimizations, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Weapon/injury 2003–2006 2007–2011

Weapon 100% 100%

Yes 21 25

No 68 67

Don’t know 11 8

Injury 100% 100%

None 75 83

Any* 25 17

Note: Includes incidents confirmed by police as hate crimes or perceived by 

victims as motivated by bias because the offender used hate language or left 

behind hate symbols. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.

*Includes minor injuries, rape injuries, and serious injuries (broken bones, 

lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and any unspecified injury 

requiring 2 or more days of hospitalization). 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 5

About 30% of hate crime victimizations occurred at or 

near the victim’s home 

The locations in which hate crimes occurred did not change 

significantly from 2003-06 to 2007-11 (table 6). During both 

periods, about a third of hate crime victimizations occurred 

at or near the victim’s home. In 2007-11, about 24% of hate 

crime victimizations occurred in public places (such as 

parking lots, on the street, or on public transportation) and 

about 19% occurred at school. 

From 2003 to 2011, the overall percentage of violent nonhate 

victimizations (36%) that occurred at or near the victim’s 

home was greater than the percentage of violent hate 

victimizations (27%) that occurred at or near the victim’s 

home (figure 4). In comparison, the percentage of violent 

hate crimes that occurred in commercial places (16%) and 

at school (22%) was greater than the percentage of nonhate 

crimes occurring in these locations. A similar percentage of 

hate (24%) and nonhate (22%) violent crimes occurred in 

parking lots, on the street, or on public transportation. 

The percentage of hate crimes reported to police 

declined over time

The percentage of all hate crime victimizations reported 

to police declined from 46% in 2003-06 to 35% in 2007-11 

(table 7). The percentage of violent hate crimes reported to 

police was 36% in 2007-11.

The decline in the percentage of total hate crimes reported 

to police was partially attributed to a drop in reporting by 

persons other than the victim, such as other household 

members or bystanders. In 2003-06, someone other than the 

victim reported 21% percent of hate crime victimizations, 

compared to 11% in 2007-11. About a quarter of all hate 

crime victimizations were reported to police by the victim, 

which was consistent across both time periods. 

The percentage of violent hate crime victimizations that 

resulted in the victim signing a complaint remained stable 

at about 10% from 2003-06 to 2007-11. However, the 

percentage of violent hate crimes that resulted in an arrest 

declined from 10% in 2003-06 to 4% in 2007-11. 

Table 6

Hate crime victimizations, by location, 2003–2006 and 

2007–2011

Location 2003–2006 2007–2011

At or near victim’s home 30% 33%

At or near friend or relative’s home 5 3 !

Commercial place 12 16

Parking lot/on street/on public 

 transportation 20 24

School 24 19

Other 9 5

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used 

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Hate crimes include violent crimes, 

personal larceny, and household property crimes. See appendix table 10 for 

standard errors. 

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer cases, or the coefficient of 

variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Table 7

Hate crime victimizations reported to police, 2003–2006 and 

2007–2011

Total Violent

2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011

Reported bya— 46% 35% 43% 36%

Victim 25 24 19 24

Someone elseb 21 11 24 11

Complaint signedc 12% 10% 13% 10%

Arrest madec 9% 4% 10% 4%

Not reporteda 53% 65% 56% 64%

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used 

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Hate crimes include violent crimes, 

personal larceny, and household property crimes. See appendix table 12 for 

standard errors.

a

The percentage of victims (1% or less) who did not know whether the police 

were notified is not shown in the table.

bIncludes other household members; other officials, such as guards, apartment 

managers, and school officials; and others.

cPercentages based on all hate crime victimizations, including those in which the 

police were not notified or it was unknown whether the police were notified.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011. 

Figure 4

Violent hate and nonhate victimizations, by location, 

2003–2011

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used 

hate language or left behind hate symbols. See appendix table 11 for estimates 

and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Hate Nonhate

Parking lot/ School Other

on street/

on public 

transportation

Commercial 

place

At or near 

friend or 

relative’s 

home

At or 

near victim's 

home

Percent
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 6

From 2003-06 to 2007-11, serious violent hate crimes 

reported to police declined

The percentage of serious violent and property hate crimes 

reported to police declined from 2003-06 to 2007-11 (figure 

5). However, the percentage of reported simple assault hate 

crimes did not change significantly across the two periods. 

The percentage of all types of nonhate crimes reported to 

police remained stable across both periods. 

In 2007-11, the percentage of hate violent crimes reported 

to police was lower than the percentage of violent nonhate 

crimes reported. No differences were observed in the 

percentage of serious violent and simple assault hate 

and nonhate crimes reported to police in 2003-06. The 

percentage of property hate crimes reported to police was 

greater than the percentage of nonhate property crimes 

reported in 2003-06, but a similar percentage of hate and 

nonhate property crime was reported to police in 2007-11. 

The percentage of violent hate crime victimizations that 

were unreported due to a belief that police could not or 

would not help increased from 2003-06 to 2007-11 

The NCVS asks violent hate crime victims who did not 

report the crime to police why the crime was not reported. 

The reasons victims described as most important to them 

varied between 2003-06 and 2007-11. In 2003-06, the most 

common reason for not reporting the violent hate crime 

to police was that it was dealt with in another way (e.g., 

reported to an official other than law enforcement) or that 

the victim considered it a private or personal matter (35%). 

The percentage of victims who dealt with the crime another 

way or considered it a private matter declined in 2007-11 

to 23% (figure 6). 

In 2003-06, 14% of hate crime victims said they did not 

report the crime because they believed that the police 

could not or would not help, compared to 24% in 2007-11. 

A slightly higher percentage of violent hate crime victims 

stated that fear of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble 

was the most important reason for not reporting the crime 

to the police in 2007-11 (15%) than in 2003-06 (9%).

Figure 6

Most important reason why violent hate crime victimization 

was not reported to police, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated 

and incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender 

used hate language or left behind hate symbols. Based on violent hate crime 

victimizations not reported to police. See appendix table 14 for standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Other or not one most

 important reason

Afraid of reprisal/did not want to get oender in trouble/ advised not to report

Police could not or

 would not help

Not important enough to respondent/no insurance gain

Dealt with another way/

private or personal matter

35 

23

20 

18

14 

9 

15 

22 

20 

24

Reason

Percent

2003–2006

2007–2011

Figure 5

Hate and nonhate victimizations reported to the police, by 

type of crime, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used 

hate language or left behind hate symbols. See appendix table 13 for estimates 

and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011. 

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Property

Simple assault

Serious violence

2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011

Hate Nonhate 
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 7

Whites, blacks, and Hispanics had similar rates of 

violent hate crime victimization in 2007-11

In 2003-06, Hispanics (1.4 per 1,000) experienced a higher 

rate of violent hate crime victimization than white nonHispanics (0.8 per 1,000) and black non-Hispanics (0.5 per 

1,000) (table 8). In 2007-11, the rate of violent hate crime 

victimization was similar for all three groups. 

During both time periods, males consistently had a higher 

rate of violent hate crime victimization than females, 

and persons under age 18 experienced higher rates of 

victimization than adults age 18 or older. Persons in 

households with an income of under $25,000 per year 

consistently experienced a higher rate of violent hate crime 

victimization than persons in higher income categories in 

both time periods. 

Table 8

Characteristics of violent hate crime victims, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Percent Ratea

Victim characteristic 2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011

Sex 100% 100%

Male 63 61 1.1 1.2

Female 37 39 0.6 0.7

Race/ethnicity 100% 100%

Whiteb 61 65 0.8 0.9

Black/African Americanb 7 13 0.5 1.0

Hispanic 20 15 1.4 1.0

American Indian/Alaska Nativeb 1 ! 1 ! 2.6 ! 1.0 !

Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanderb 3 ! 3 ! 0.5 ! 0.7 !

Two or more racesb 8 ! 3 ! 8.9 ! 2.9 !

Age 100% 100%

12–17 31 23 2.6 2.2

18–24 18 18 1.3 1.4

25–34 17 20 0.9 1.1

35–49 23 22 0.8 0.8

50–64 10 16 0.4 0.7

65 or older 1 ! 2 ! 0.1 ! 0.1 !

Household income 100% 100%

Less than $25,000 33 31 1.5 2.0

$25,000–$49,999 21 17 0.9 0.8

$50,000 or more 30 25 0.7 0.7

Not reported 16 27 0.6 0.9

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used hate 

language or left behind hate symbols. Violent hate crimes include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. See appendix table 15 for 

standard errors. 

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

aPer 1,000 persons age 12 or older in each category. 

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2011.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 8

The percentage of violent hate crimes committed by 

one offender declined from 70% in 2003-06 to 53% in 

2007-11

The percentage of violent hate crimes committed by two or 

three offenders increased from 11% during 2003-06 to 25% 

during 2007-11, while the percentage committed by a single 

offender declined across the two time periods (table 9). The 

percentage of violent hate crime committed by a group of 

four or more offenders remained relatively stable.

The percentage of violent hate crime victims who perceived 

the offender to be white increased from 37% in 2003-06 to 

53% in 2007-11. The age of offenders and the relationship 

between the victim and offender remained relatively 

unchanged across the two time periods. In 2007-11, about 

46% of violent hate crime victims reported that the offender 

was a stranger, compared to 45% in 2003-06. 

Police records indicate that hate crime incidents 

declined after a period of relative stability

According to the FBI’s UCR hate crime data collection, 

1,944 law enforcement agencies reported 6,222 hate crime 

incidents involving 7,713 victims in 2011. The remaining 

87% of agencies that participated in the Hate Crime Statistics 

Program reported no hate crimes in their jurisdictions (not 

shown in a table).

Similar to the NCVS, the UCR showed a decline in the 

number of hate crime victimizations known to the police 

in 2011, compared to 2003. The number of hate crime 

victimizations known to the police declined by 15%, from 

9,100 hate crime victimizations in 2003 to 7,700 in 2011 

(figure 7).

Table 9

Characteristics of violent hate crime offenders as reported 

by victims, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Offender characteristic 2003–2006 2007–2011

Number of offenders 100% 100%

1 70 53

2 or 3 11 25

4 or more 13 16

Unknown 6 ! 6

Sex 100% 100%

Male 70 65

Female 20 19

Both male and female 4 ! 11

Unknown 6 6 !

Racea 100% 100%

White 37 53

Black 32 27

Otherb 17 5

Various racesc 6 ! 7

Unknown 8 9

Age 100% 100%

17 or younger 25 22

18–29 20 19

30 or older 27 29

More than one age group 15 22

Unknown 13 9

Relationship to victim 100% 100%

Stranger 45 46

Intimate/family/casual acquaintance 43 46

Unknown 12 8

Note: Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used 

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Detail may not sum to total due to 

rounding. See appendix table 16 for standard errors. 

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

aPrior to 2011, data on the perceived Hispanic origin of offenders were not 

collected. 

bIncludes American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders.

cIncludes multiple offenders of more than one racial group.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011. 

Figure 7

Hate crime victimizations recorded in official police records, 

2003–2011

Note: Includes the following offenses: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, 

forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, other crimes 

against persons, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, 

destruction/vandalism, other crimes against property, and crimes against society. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on files provided by the FBI, Uniform 

Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics, 2003–2011.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of victimizations
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 9

From 2003 to 2011, an average of seven hate crime 

homicides occurred each year

According to the UCR Hate Crime Reporting Program, four 

people were victims of hate crime homicides (murder or 

non-negligent manslaughter) in 2011 (not shown in table). 

Since a high of 14 homicides in 2003, the number of hate 

crime homicides ranged from three to nine victims each 

year between 2004 and 2011. This was an average of six 

homicides per year.

Property crimes accounted for 39% of hate crimes 

recorded in the UCR and 14% of hate crimes reported 

to police in the NCVS

From 2003 to 2011, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and 

simple assault accounted for 32% of hate crimes reported to 

the UCR, compared to about 86% of hate crimes reported 

to police in the NCVS (table 10). Intimidation, a crime 

classification not recognized in the NCVS, accounted for 

28% of the UCR hate crimes. About 39% of hate crime 

victimizations collected by the UCR were property crimes, 

such as burglary, theft, and vandalism. Vandalism, another 

crime not captured through the NCVS, accounted for about 

86% of the UCR’s property hate crimes (not shown in table).

Table 10

Hate crime victimizations recorded by the NCVS and UCR, by offense, 2003–2011

National Crime Victimization Survey

Hate crime offense Total Not reported to policea Reported to policea Uniform Crime Reporting Program

Violent crime 88.4% 90.3% 85.9% 60.2%

Homicide ~ ~ ~ 0.1

Forcible rapeb 2.1 2.8 1.1 0.1

Robbery 6.5 7.9 4.5! 1.9

Aggravated assault 18.0 12.1 27.2 10.6

Simple assault 61.7 67.4 53.1 19.0

Intimidation ~ ~ ~ 27.8

Otherc ~ ~ ~ 0.2

Property crime 11.6% 9.7% 14.1% 39.4%

Burglary 4.8 ! 1.1 ! 10.2 1.9

Larceny-theftd 6.7 8.6 3.7 ! 2.4

Motor vehicle theft 0.1 -- 0.2 0.2

Vandalism ~ ~ ~ 33.8

Othere ~ ~ ~ 1.9

Otherf ~% ~% ~% 0.4%

Note: See appendix table 17 for standard errors.

~Not applicable.

! Interpret data with caution. Estimates based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. 

--Less than 0.05%.

aExcludes victims who did not know whether the hate crime was reported to the police.

bThe NCVS also measures attempted and threatened rape and completed, attempted, and threatened sexual assault.

cIncludes other violent offenses that are collected as part of the National Incident-Based Reporting System.

dLarceny is classified as a personal crime rather than property crime in the NCVS.

eIncludes arson and property offenses not shown that are collected as part of the National Incident-Based Reporting System.

f

Includes other offenses not shown that are collected as part of National Incident-Based Reporting System.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on files provided by the FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics, 2003–2011; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2011.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 10

Offenders targeted victims because of racial bias 

against the victim in more than half of hate crime 

victimizations reported to the UCR 

Similar to NCVS data, UCR data indicated that more than 

50% of hate crime victims known to the police were targeted 

because of an offender’s racial bias (figure 8). In both data 

collections, the percentage of hate crimes motivated by 

racial bias declined from 2003-06 to 2007-11. In 2007-11, 

UCR and NCVS data showed a similar percentage of hate 

crime victims targeted due to bias against religion and sexual 

orientation bias.

The percentage of hate crimes motivated by the victim’s 

disability and the victim’s ethnicity differed between the 

UCR and the NCVS. In 2007-11, the UCR identified about 

1% of hate crime victimizations as motivated by bias against 

a victim’s disability, compared to 14% identified in the 

NCVS. Similarly, bias against the victim’s ethnicity was the 

motivation for 13% of hate crimes in the UCR, compared to 

30% of hate crimes in the NCVS. One potential reason for 

the differences between the two sources is that while 60% of 

victims surveyed by the NCVS reported multiple perceived 

types of bias against them (not shown in a table), in the UCR 

about 0.1% of hate crime victims were recorded as being 

targeted for multiple sources of bias. 

Figure 8

Offender bias in hate crimes recorded in official police 

records, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Note: In the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), a victim can include a 

person, business, institution, or society as a whole.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on files provided by the FBI, Uniform 

Crime Report, Hate Crime Statistics, 2003–2011. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Race

Sexual

 orientation

Religion

Ethnicity/ national origin

Disability

Percent

Oender bias

2007–2011

2003–2006
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 11

Methodology

National Crime Victimization Survey

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an 

annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau 

for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS collects 

information on nonfatal crimes, whether or not reported 

to the police, against persons age 12 or older in a nationally 

representative sample of household in the United States.

Survey results are based on data gathered from residents 

living throughout the United States, including persons living 

in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and 

religious group dwellings. The survey excludes personnel 

living in military barracks and persons living in institutional 

settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities. For more 

detail, see the Survey Methodology for Criminal Victimization 

in the United States, 2008, NCJ 231173, BJS website, May 

2011. Victim self-reports capture information about the 

number and characteristics of victimizations reported and 

not reported to law enforcement each year. Hate crime 

victimizations are based on victims’ perceptions of the 

offenders’ motivations. Victims provide evidence of the 

hate motivation by words, symbols, and actions used by the 

offenders.

Weighting adjustments for estimating household 

victimization

In 2011, about 79,800 households and 143,120 individuals 

age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. The response 

rate was 90% for households and 88% of eligible individuals. 

Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States 

were excluded from this report.

Estimates in this report use data from the 1994 to 2011 

NCVS data files. These files can be weighted to produce 

annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older 

living in U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a 

sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, 

weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to 

known population totals and to compensate for survey 

nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design. 

The NCVS data files include both person and household 

weights. Person weights provide an estimate of the 

population represented by each person in the sample. 

Household weights provide an estimate of the total U.S. 

household population. Both household and person weights, 

after proper adjustment, are also typically used to form the 

denominator in calculations of crime rates.

Victimization weights used in this analysis account for the 

number of persons present during an incident and for repeat 

victims of series incidents. The weight counts series incidents 

as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, 

up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Series victimizations are 

similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim 

is unable to recall each individual event or describe each 

event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers 

to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series 

victimizations and to collect detailed information on only 

the most recent incident in the series. In 2010, about 3% 

of all victimizations were series incidents. Weighting series 

incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum 

of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime 

levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme 

outliers on the rates. Additional information on the series 

enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting 

High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime 

Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS website, April 2012.

Year-to-year trend estimates are based on 2-year rolling 

averages centered on the most recent year. For example, 

estimates reported for 2011 represent the average estimates 

for 2010 and 2011. For other tables in this report, aggregate 

data for the time from 2003 through 2006, and 2007 through 

2011 are the focus. These methods of analysis improve the 

reliability and stability of comparisons over time. 

Standard error computations

Anytime national estimates are derived from a sample rather 

than the entire population, as is the case with the NCVS, 

caution is warranted when drawing conclusions about the 

size of one population estimate in comparison to another 

or about whether a time series of population estimates is 

changing. Estimates based on responses from a sample of 

the population each have some degree of sampling error. The 

sampling error, or margin of error, of an estimate depends 

on several factors, including the amount of variation in the 

responses, the size and representativeness of the sample, 

and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is 

computed. One measure of the sampling error associated 

with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error 

can vary from one estimate to the next. In general, a smaller 

standard error provides a more reliable approximation of 

the true value than an estimate with a higher standard error. 

Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated 

with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted 

with caution.

The coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of an estimate’s 

reliability. The CV is the ratio of the standard error to 

the estimate. In this report, the CV was calculated for all 

estimates. In cases where the CV was greater than 50% or 

the estimate was based on 10 or fewer sample cases, the 

estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (interpret data with 

caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%). A statistical 

test is used to determine whether differences in means or 

percentages are statistically significant once sampling error 
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 12

is taken into account. Comparisons made in the text were 

tested for statistical significance at the p < .05 level to ensure 

that the differences were larger than might be expected due 

to sampling variation. 

Significance testing calculations were conducted at BJS 

using statistical programs developed specifically for the 

NCVS by the U.S. Census Bureau. These programs take 

into consideration many aspects of the complex NCVS 

sample design when calculating estimates. Standard errors 

for average annual estimates were calculated based on the 

ratio of the sums of victimizations and respondents across 

years. Many of the variables examined in this report may be 

related to one another and to other variables not included in 

the analyses. Complex relationships among variables were 

not fully explored in this report and warrant more extensive 

analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences 

based on the results presented.

Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006

Methodological changes implemented in 2006 impacted 

the total violent crime estimates for that year to an extent 

that they were considered to be not comparable to estimates 

from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from 

the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau have 

found a high degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 

2008, and 2009 are consistent with and comparable to 

those for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal 

Victimization, 2006, NCJ 219413, December 2007; Criminal 

Victimization, 2007, NCJ 224390, December 2008; Criminal 

Victimization, 2008, NCJ 227777, September 2009; Criminal 

Victimization, 2009, NCJ 231327, October 2010; Criminal 

Victimization, 2010, NCJ 235508, September 2011; and 

Criminal Victimization, 2011, NCJ 239437, October 2012, 

are available on the BJS website.

Although caution is warranted when comparing data from 

2006 to other years, the aggregation of multiple years of data 

in this report diminishes the potential variation between 

2006 and other years. In general, findings do not change 

significantly if data for 2006 are excluded.

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)

The UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program captures 

information about the types of bias that motivate hate 

crimes, the nature of the offenses, and some information 

about the victims and offenders by attaching the collection of 

hate crime statistics to the established UCR data collection 

procedures. The hate crime data presented here comprise a 

subset of information that law enforcement agencies submit 

to the UCR Program. 

Crimes reported to the FBI involve those motivated by 

biases based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/

national origin, and disability. The 2012 UCR data collection 

will allow the reporting of crimes motivated by gender 

and gender identity bias, as well as crimes committed by 

and directed against juveniles. The victim of a hate crime 

may be an individual, business, institution, or society as a 

whole. In UCR data, law enforcement specifies the number 

of offenders and, when possible, the race of the offender 

or offenders as a group. Agencies that participated in the 

Hate Crime Statistics Program in 2011 represented nearly 

285 million residents, or 92.3% percent of the nation’s 

population. Their jurisdictions covered 49 states and the 

District of Columbia.

Hate crime legislation

On April 23, 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics 

Act, which requires the Attorney General to collect data 

“about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on 

race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” The Attorney 

General delegated the responsibilities of developing the 

procedures for implementing, collecting, and managing hate 

crime data to the director of the FBI, who in turn assigned 

the tasks to the UCR Program. Under the direction of the 

Attorney General and with the cooperation and assistance 

of many local and state law enforcement agencies, the UCR 

Program created a hate crime data collection to comply with 

the congressional mandate.

In September 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime 

Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities 

in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 

1994. The FBI started gathering data for the additional bias 

type on January 1, 1997. 

The Church Arson Prevention Act, which was signed into 

law in July 1996, removed the sunset clause from the original 

statute and mandated that the collection of hate crime data 

become a permanent part of the UCR Program.

In 2009, Congress further amended the Hate Crime Statistics 

Act by passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. 

Hate Crime Prevention Act. The amendment includes the 

collection of data for crimes motivated by bias against a 

particular gender and gender identity, as well as for crimes 

committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles. The 

FBI is currently making plans to implement changes to 

collect these data.

The Hate Crime Statistics Act can be accessed at http://www.

ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/D-USC-28.html.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 13

Appendix table 1

Population and total criminal victimization counts, 2003–2011

U.S. resident population Total criminal victimizations

Year Persons age 12 or older Households Alla Violentb Propertyc

Total 2003–2011 2,242,945,200 1,073,766,700 224,845,600 59,401,600 162,270,300

2004 240,504,800 114,956,200 27,012,700 7,202,600 19,593,600

2005 243,104,500 116,437,700 26,097,800 6,836,900 19,034,100

2006 245,869,200 117,479,100 27,184,200 7,689,100 19,293,800

Total 2003–2006 972,748,100 464,870,700 108,393,800 29,783,300 77,774,800

2007 248,789,000 118,681,000 27,037,100 7,622,300 19,215,300

2008 251,293,700 120,322,300 24,699,300 6,603,800 17,897,000

2009 253,174,100 121,734,400 22,933,900 6,031,400 16,750,300

2010 255,033,800 122,606,400 21,255,700 5,302,600 15,817,300

2011 256,752,100 122,961,900 22,513,900 5,370,700 16,239,200

Total 2007–2011 1,270,197,200 608,896,000 116,451,800 29,618,300 84,495,500

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Numbers rounded to the nearest hundred. 

aIncludes violent crimes, personal larceny, and household property crimes.

bIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

cIncludes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2011.

Appendix table 2

Estimates and standard errors for figure 1: Victim perceptions 

of offender motivation in hate crime, 2003–2006 and 

2007–2011

Percent Standard errors

Offender motivation 2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011

Perceived characteristics 14% 13% 2.5% 1.8%

Disability 10 14 2.2 1.8

Gender 15 18 2.6 2.1

Sexual orientation 16 18 2.7 2.1

Religion 10 21 2.1 2.2

Ethnicity 27 30 3.2 2.5

Association 29 31 3.3 2.5

Race 63 54 3.6 2.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 3

Estimates and stardard errors for figure 2: Rate of violent 

hate crime victimizations, by method used to count high 

frequency repeat (series) victimizations, 2004–2011

Rate per 1,000 persons 

age 12 or older Standard error

Year Series = 1

Series = number of 

incidents up to 10 Series = 1

Series = number of 

incidents up to 10

2004 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.1

2005 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.1

2006 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.1

2007 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.1

2008 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.1

2009 0.6 1.1 0.1 0.1

2010 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.1

2011 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 4

Standard errors for table 1: Violent hate crimes with crimes 

motivated by gender bias excluded and included, 2010–2011

Number

Rate per 1,000 persons 

age 12 or older

Year

Excluding 

gender bias

Including 

gender bias

Excluding 

gender bias

Including 

gender bias

2010 30,247 30,507 0.1 0.1

2011 30,689 31,945 0.1 0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2010–2011.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 14

Appendix table 5

Standard errors for table 2: Hate crime victimizations, 2004–2011

Total hate crimes Violent hate crimes Property hate crimes

Year

Annual 

average

Percent of total 

victimizations

Annual 

average Rate

Percent of total 

violent victimizations

Annual 

average Rate

Percent of total 

property victimizations

2004 38,150 0.1% 33,292 0.1 0.3% 16,218 0.1 0.1%

2005 36,153 0.1 33,915 0.1 0.4 9,298 0.1 0.0

2006 36,840 0.1 35,175 0.1 0.3 7,375 0.0 0.0

2007 39,039 0.1 36,798 0.1 0.3 10,435 0.1 0.0

2008 38,338 0.1 36,306 0.1 0.4 9,819 0.1 0.0

2009 42,075 0.1 40,625 0.1 0.5 8,512 0.1 0.0

2010 41,847 0.1 40,334 0.1 0.5 8,072 0.0 0.0

2011 31,065 0.1 29,258 0.1 0.4 9,757 0.1 0.0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2011.

Appendix table 6

Standard errors for table 3: Annual average for hate crime 

victimizations, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Annual average hate crimes

Annual average 2003–2006 2007–2011

Number 38,431 31,988 

Violent 35,066 30,504 

Property 11,207 10,771 

Percent

Total crime 0.1% 0.1%

Violent crime 0.2 0.2

Property crime 0.0 0.0

Rate 

Violent 0.1 0.1

Property 0.0 0.0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 7

Standard errors for table 4: Hate crime victimizations, by 

type of crime, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Type of crime 2003–2006 2007–2011

Violent 2.7% 1.5%

Serious violent 3.1 2.5

Rape and sexual assault 0.6 ! 0.6 !

Robbery 1.2 ! 1.3

Aggravated assault 2.5 2.1

Simple assault 3.5 2.8

Property 2.0% 1.8%

Burglary 1.5 0.9 !

Theft 1.4 1.6

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 8

Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Hate and nonhate 

victimizations, by type of crime, 2003–2011

Percent Standard error

Type of crime Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate

Serious violent 27% 9% 1.8% 0.2%

Simple assault 62 17 2.1 0.2

Property 11 73 1.6 0.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 9

Standard errors for table 5: Presence of weapons and injuries 

sustained in violent hate crime victimizations, 2003–2006 

and 2007–2011

2003–2006 2007–2011

Weapon

Yes 3.2% 2.4%

No 3.8 2.7

Don’t know 2.4 1.5

Injury

None 3.5% 2.2%

Any 3.4 2.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 10

Standard errors for table 6: Hate crime victimizations, 

by location, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Location 2003–2006 2007–2011

At or near victim’s home 3.4% 2.5%

At or near friend or relative’s home 1.6 0.8

Commercial place 2.3 2.0

Parking lot/street/public transportation 2.9 2.3

School 3.1 2.1

Other 2.1 1.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 15

Appendix table 11

Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Violent hate 

and nonhate victimizations, by location, 2003–2011 

Percent Standard error

Location Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate

At or near victim’s home 27% 36% 1.9% 0.5%

At or near friend or relative’s home 4 8 0.8 0.2

Commercial place 16 11 1.5 0.3

Parking lot/on street/

 public transportation 24 22 1.8 0.4

School 22 13 1.7 0.3

Other 7 10 1.1 0.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 12

Standard errors for table 7: Hate crime victimizations 

reported to police, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Total Violent

2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011

Reported by— 3.7% 2.6% 4.0% 2.7%

Victim 3.2 2.3 3.1 2.4

Someone else 3.0 1.6 3.4 1.7

Complaint signed 2.3% 1.6% 2.6% 1.7%

Arrest made 2.0% 1.1% 2.3% 1.1%

Not reported 3.7% 2.6% 4.0% 2.8%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 13

Estimates and standard errors for figure 5: Hate and nonhate victmizations reported to police, by type of crime, 2003–2006 

and 2007–2011

Percent Standard errors 

Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate

Type of crime 2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011

Serious violence 61% 42% 57% 57% 7.3% 4.8% 1.3% 1.2%

Simple assault 36 33 43 43 4.3 3.3 1.0 0.9

Property 61 25 38 38 7.0 9.9 0.5 0.6

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2011.

Appendix table 14

Standard errors for figure 6: Most important reason why violent hate crime victimization was not reported to police, 

2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Percent Standard error

Reason 2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011

Dealt with another way/private or personal matter 35% 23% 5.0% 2.9%

Not important enough to respondent/no insurance gain 20 18 4.2 2.7

Police could not or would not help 14 24 3.6 3.0

Afraid of reprisal/did not want to get offender in trouble/advised not to report 9 15 2.9 2.5

Other or not one most important reason 22 20 4.4 2.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2011.
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2003–2011 | MARCH 2013 16

Appendix table 15

Standard errors for table 8: Characteristics of violent hate crime victims, 2003–2006 and 2007–2011

Percent Rate

Victim characteristic 2003–2006 2007–2011 2003–2006 2007–2011

Sex

Male 3.9% 2.8% 0.12 0.09

Female 3.9 2.8 0.09 0.07

Race/ethnicity

White 3.9% 2.7% 0.08 0.07

Black/African American 1.9 1.9 0.15 0.16

Hispanic 3.2 2.0 0.25 0.15

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.9 0.4 1.76 0.73

Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 1.2 1.0 0.26 0.20

Two or more races 2.1 0.9 2.46 0.88

Age

12–17 3.7% 2.4% 0.39 0.27

18–24 3.0 2.1 0.26 0.19

25–34 3.0 2.2 0.18 0.15

35–49 3.3 2.3 0.13 0.10

50–64 2.4 2.0 0.11 0.10

65 or older 0.7 0.7 0.05 0.05

Household income

Less than $25,000 3.7% 2.6% 0.22 0.21

$25,000–$49,999 3.2 2.1 0.15 0.11

$50,000 or more 3.6 2.4 0.11 0.08

Not reported 2.9 2.5 0.13 0.10

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2011.

Appendix table 16

Standard errors for table 9: Characteristics of violent hate 

crime offenders as reported by victims, 2003–2006 and 

2007–2011

Offender characteristic 2003–2006 2007–2011

Number of offenders

1 3.7% 2.9%

2 or 3 2.5 2.4

4 or more 2.6 2.0

Unknown 1.8 1.3

Sex

Male 3.7% 2.7%

Female 3.2 2.2

Both male and female 1.5 1.7

Unknown 1.9 1.3

Race

White 3.9% 2.9%

Black 3.7 2.5

Other 2.9 1.2

Various races 1.8 1.4

Unknown 2.1 1.5

Age

17 or younger 3.4% 2.3%

18–29 3.1 2.2

30 or older 3.5 2.6

More than one age group 2.8 2.3

Unknown 2.7 1.5

Relationship to victim

Stranger 4.0% 2.8%

Intimate/family/casual acquaintance 4.0 2.8

Unknown 2.5 1.5

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.

Appendix table 17

Standard errors for table 10: Hate crime victimizations 

recorded by the NCVS and UCR, by offense, 2003–2011

National Crime Victimization Survey

Hate crime offense Total

Not reported 

to police

Reported 

to police

Violent crime 1.3% 1.6% 2.2%

Homicide ~ ~ ~

Forcible rape 0.4 0.6 0.4

Robbery 0.9 1.3 1.2 !

Aggravated assault 1.5 1.6 2.7

Simple assault 2.1 2.6 3.3

Intimidation ~ ~ ~

Other violent ~ ~ ~

Property crime 1.6% 2.0% 2.8%

Burglary 0.8 ! 0.5 ! 1.7

Larceny-theft 1.3 1.9 1.6 !

Motor vehicle theft 0.1 ~ 0.3

Vandalism ~ ~ ~

Other property ~ ~ ~

Other ~ ~ ~

~Not applicable.

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

2003–2011.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. William J. Sabol is acting director.

This report was written by Nathan Sandholtz, Lynn Langton, and Michael Planty. 

Erika Harrell verified the report.

Catherine Bird and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced the 

report under the supervision of Doris J. James.

March 2013, NCJ 241291

NCJ241291