Hate Crimes

Joshua D. Freilich 

and Steven M. Chermak

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

No. 72

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 72

Hate Crimes

Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2011-CK-WX-K019 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained 

herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the 

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References 

to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be 

considered an endorsement of the product by the author(s) or the 

U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to 

supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the 

date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant 

flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity.

© 2013 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. Department 

of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to 

reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this 

publication for Federal Government purposes. This publication may be 

freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-932582-78-9

June 2013

Contents

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series ....................................... 1

Acknowledgments ........................................................... 5

The Problem of Hate Crimes .................................................. 7

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover .................................... 7

General Description of the Problem .......................................... 8

Hate Groups ....................................................... 11

Harms Caused by Hate Crimes ............................................. 12

Factors Contributing to Hate Crimes, Community Tension, and Fear ................ 13

Offenders ......................................................... 14

Victims ........................................................... 16

Times ............................................................ 17

Understanding Your Local Problem ........................................... 19

Stakeholders ........................................................... 20

Asking the Right Questions ................................................ 21

Community Characteristics ........................................... 21

Incidents .......................................................... 21

Victims ........................................................... 21

Offenders ......................................................... 22

Locations and Times ................................................. 22

Current Responses .................................................. 22

Measuring Your Effectiveness ............................................. 23

Process Measures .................................................. 23

Outcome Measures ................................................. 24

Responses to the Problem of Hate Crimes ..................................... 25

General Considerations for an Effective Strategy .............................. 25

Specific Responses to Reduce Hate Crimes .................................. 27

Responses with Limited Effectiveness ....................................... 30

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Hate Crimes .............................. 31

References ................................................................ 35

About the Authors .......................................................... 41

Endnotes .................................................................. 43

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police ..................................... 47

| 1 |

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the 

harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and 

to improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling 

specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how to implement 

specific responses. The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be most useful to 

officers who:

•	 Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods. The 

guides are not primers in problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the 

initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem, 

and means to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing project. They are 

designed to help police decide how best to analyze and address a problem they 

have already identified. (A companion series of Problem-Solving Tools guides has 

been produced to aid in various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

•	 Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the complexity of the problem, 

you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you 

design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. 

You should not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must decide 

whether they are appropriate to your local situation. What is true in one place 

may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.

•	 Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business. The guides describe 

responses that other police departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they 

should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 

you cannot implement some of these responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you 

can. In many places, when police have discovered a more effective response, they 

have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving the response to the 

problem. (A companion series of Response Guides has been produced to help you 

understand how commonly-used police responses work on a variety of problems.) 
| 2 |

Hate Crimes

•	 Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge. For some types 

of problems, a lot of useful research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing research 

whereas other guides illustrate the need for more research on that particular problem. 

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you 

might have about the problem. The research may help get you started in designing 

your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This will depend 

greatly on the particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of keeping the 

guides readable, not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed and 

distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. 

•	 Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions to the problem. The 

police alone cannot implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. They 

must frequently implement them in partnership with other responsible private and 

public bodies, including other government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. An 

effective problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships with others 

and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these partnerships work. 

Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in the community with whom 

police might work to improve the overall response to that problem. Thorough 

analysis of problems often reveals that individuals and groups other than the police 

are in a stronger position to address problems and that police ought to shift some 

greater responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that promotes 

organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problemsolving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public 

safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context of addressing specific 

public safety problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and discussion of 

them is beyond the scope of these guides. 
| 3 |

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, 

the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs, and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent 

that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported police 

practice, and each guide is anonymously peer reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive, and a researcher prior to publication. The review process is independently 

managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for ProblemOriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:

•	 The Problem-Specific Guides series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 

•	 Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics 

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 Online access to important police research and practices

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and award programs 

| 5 |

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center for Problem-Oriented 

Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director), and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff, and anonymous peer reviewers 

contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending research, and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein (University 

of Wisconsin Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North Carolina State University). 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and Savannah, Georgia police 

departments provided feedback on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Kimberly Nath oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Phyllis Schultze conducted 

research for the guide at Rutgers University’s Criminal Justice Library. Nancy Leach 

coordinated the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s production process. Marian 

Haggard edited this guide.

| 7 |

The Problem of Hate Crimes

The Problem of Hate Crimes

This guide begins by describing the problem of hate crimes and reviewing factors that 

increase its risks. It then identifies a series of questions to help you analyze your local 

hate crimes problem. It reviews responses to the problem and what is known about these 

from evaluative research and police practice. Specifically, it describes what you can do to 

reduce underlying tension in the community that contributes to hate crimes. This guide 

also outlines what the police can do to address any special fear and trauma experienced by 

the individual victim and the racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual orientation community to 

which the victim belongs. Finally, it reviews the police role in monitoring hate groups that 

have members and conduct activities in your community.

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

Hate crime is a broad area because there is an array of substantive crimes that sometimes 

are committed because of a hate motivation. Hate crime is but one aspect of the larger set 

of problems related to these types of crimes. This guide is limited to addressing community 

tension that may generate hate crimes and the particular harms created by hate crimes to 

the individual victim and the community to which they belong. Related problems not 

directly addressed in this guide, each of which will require separate analysis, include many 

common crime types that are often motivated by hate, such as the following: 

•	 Aggressive driving •	 Graffiti 

•	 Assaults in and around bars •	 Homeless encampments 

•	 Bullying in schools •	 School vandalism 

•	 Cemetery vandalism •	 Stalking 

•	 Drive-by shootings •	 Street robbery 

Many of these related problems are covered in other guides in this series, all of which are 

listed at the end of this guide. For the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, 

see www.popcenter.org. 

Some hate-related activity, such as hate-group meetings, rallies, and leafleting, encompasses 

constitutionally protected legal behaviors. The hate-crime problem at times is thus also 

related to policing political protests (such as a legal hate-group rally or a community protest 

against hate crimes). 
| 8 |

Hate Crimes

General Description of the Problem

Hate crimes—also called bias crimes—are offenses where “the offender intentionally selects 

the victim because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, 

ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.”1 For instance, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Hate Crime Statistics Program 

“collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the 

offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or 

disability and are committed against persons, property, or society.”2 The act is considered a 

hate crime, in other words, if the offender is motivated in whole or in part by bias or hate 

and selects the victim because the victim had one of the above listed characteristics.3 If the 

perpetrator commits the crime for a variety of motives, such as both greed and hate of the 

victim’s characteristic, the offense is still considered a hate crime.4

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder or vandalism with the added element 

of bias.5 Most states have passed hate-crime statutes that allow the penalty for certain 

substantive crimes to be increased if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

offender was motivated by hate. These statutes vary, however, in which groups are protected 

by the statute, whether they mandate the compiling of hate-crime statistics, and in other 

aspects.6 The first federal statute, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, focusing on gathering 

information about the number and types of hate crimes, was passed in 1990. This statute 

directed the U.S. Attorney General to gather data every year about hate crimes through 

the UCR.7 The collection of hate-crime data was continued and extended beyond race, 

religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation to include bias against disability in the passage 

of the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act. The UCR’s data collection of hate 

crimes was made permanent with the passage of the Church Arson Prevention Act passed 

in 1996. Rape is usually not considered a hate crime, however, although certain feminist 

organizations would argue that it should be. The National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS), run by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, began including questions about hate 

crimes in 2000. National-level statistics about the prevalence, nature, and scope of hate 

crimes are thus available from both the UCR and NCVS. 
| 9 |

The Problem of Hate Crimes

According to the NCVS, in recent years the annual number of hate crimes has declined.8

Nonetheless, between 2003 and 2009 an annual average of 195,000 hate-crime 

victimizations occurred against victims aged 12 years and older in the United States. Almost 

90 percent of these hate crimes were thought to be motivated by racial or ethnic bias or 

both. Victims in 15 percent of hate crimes thought it was motivated by sexual orientation, 

in 12 percent of crimes they thought it was motivated by religious bias, and in 10 percent * of crimes they suspected the motivation was against their disability. The most common 

hate crime was simple assault (64 percent), followed by aggravated assault (16 percent). 

Hate crimes are more likely to be violent compared to non-hate crimes. Over 85 percent of 

hate crimes involved violence and almost one-quarter were serious violent crimes (i.e., rape/

sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault). Only 13 percent of hate-crime victimizations 

involved property crimes. These figures are markedly different from non-hate crimes. 

According to the NCVS, only 23 percent of non-hate crimes are violent crimes, with close 

to 8 percent classified as serious violent crimes, and 76 percent are property crimes. These 

figures raise the possibility that victims may be underreporting property-related hate crimes. 

It is possible victims do not recognize that crimes committed against their property were also 

a hate crime. For example, if perpetrators vandalize a victim’s property out of bias but do not 

leave any hate symbols at the crime scene, the victim may never realize it was a hate crime. 

It is important to disaggregate hate crimes since the types of crimes committed against 

various minority groups differ, and how each group responds to their victimization varies. 

For example, anti-religious hate crimes are more likely than other types to involve property 

damage and vandalism. Different types of hate crimes will also vary across different 

locations and in their trends over time. 

Significantly, 54 percent of hate-crime victims did not report their victimizations to the 

police.9 Many factors affect whether a victim reports a hate crime, including whether the 

victim was aware a crime occurred, whether the victim thought the crime was serious 

enough to report, whether the victim thought the police could respond to the crime, and 

the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator.10 Victims of disability hate were the least likely 

to report their victimization to the police. 

* These percentages come to more than 100% because victims may have reported more than one type of bias motivating the 

hate crime.
| 10 |

Hate Crimes

The NCVS estimates that an average of 169,000 violent hate-crime victimizations occur 

each year. The UCR’s hate-crime numbers are lower and indicate that an average of 2,900 

hate-crime victims are known to the police each year. If one takes into account NCVS’s 54 

percent of non-reporting victims and adds in that “12 percent of (NCVS) victims stated a 

complaint was signed, and [only] 7 percent received confirmation from police investigators 

that the crime was a hate crime...[then] the UCR estimate is no longer statistically different 

from the NCVS estimate due the relatively large standard error associated with the NCVS 

estimate.”11

Similar to the NCVS, the UCR’s numbers show a decline in the number of hate-crime 

victimizations known to the police from 2003 to 2009. While the FBI’s National Incident 

Based Reporting System (NIBRS) also seeks to capture information about hate-crime 

incidents, fewer police agencies participate in it compared to the UCR. The UCR’s 

numbers are more frequently cited than NIBRS, and this is why only the UCR’s findings 

are referenced here. Finally, the well-known measurement weaknesses of both the UCR 

and the NCVS, which are heightened in the hate-crime context, must be kept in mind. 

Again, hate-crime victims may not report their victimization because of shame, fear, 

distrust of police, and other reasons. In addition, not all police departments participate 

in the UCR, though around 95 percent of the population does reside in participating 

jurisdictions. Departments that do participate may not collect hate-crime statistics or 

may choose not to report them to the UCR. Importantly, police departments may not 

have received the same amount and types of training on the identification of hate crimes, 

which makes it difficult to make cross jurisdictional comparisons. (Some jurisdictions may 

under-report and other jurisdictions may over-report.) The UCR also only collects data 

on a limited number of motivational types of crime, and a limited number of hate-crime 

offenses. Similarly, victims in the NCVS sample may decide not to report their hate-crime 

victimizations to the NCVS for many of the same reasons. 
| 11 |

The Problem of Hate Crimes

Hate Groups

Although hate crimes are usually not committed by hate groups, white supremacists, or 

other types of political extremists, some are. Some jurisdictions with a larger number of 

hate-group activities also report high numbers of hate crimes. Supporters of organized 

hate groups have committed high-profile fatal attacks such as the August 2012 shooting at 

the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin that killed six, and the 1999 Fourth of July shooting spree 

in Indiana that killed two and wounded nine. The FBI and other data-collection efforts 

focused on terrorist acts, however, often exclude hate-motivated acts from their universe. 

These collection efforts argue that terrorist acts are committed to further a political or social 

goal, while most hate crimes lack these motives. Some disagree because a few hate crimes 

are ideologically motivated offenses committed by white supremacists or other extremists 

while other hate crimes are committed to further a social goal (for example “defending 

one’s neighborhood”).12 The UCR and the NCVS do not note if the perpetrators of hate 

crimes are extremist or if the act was committed, or inspired, by a hate group.13 Since it 

is important, as demonstrated below, to differentiate between hate crimes committed by 

ideological white supremacists, other political extremists and non-extremist perpetrators, 

police and scholars must turn to other sources. 

The U.S. Extremist Crime Database (ECDB) tracks ideologically motivated homicides 

committed by far-rightists and other extremists. It is possible to extract anti-minority 

homicides from the ECDB (i.e., hate-crime homicides committed by white supremacists and 

other extremists) and compare them to non-hate group/extremist hate homicides from the 

UCR.14 Finally, private watch-groups like the Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty 

Law Center, the Anti-Violence Project (formerly the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 

(NGLTF)), and others track specific types of hate crimes, determined by their interest (i.e., 

anti-gay, anti-disability, anti-Jewish, anti-Black, etc.). Some of these sources also document if 

the hate crime was committed by supporters of a hate group or by white supremacists. 

Interestingly, although watch-groups usually identify more hate crimes than the police, the 

two sources sometimes agree where such crimes occur. Thus, either source could be used to 

study differences in the distribution of hate crimes across locations and would provide the 

same results if used to identify where hate crimes are most and least likely to occur.15
| 12 |

Hate Crimes

Harms Caused by Hate Crimes

Hate crimes are thought to be different from other crimes and worthy of extra attention 

for a series of reasons. Violent hate crimes have been found to be more brutal than similar 

non-hate crimes.16 There is a tendency, in other words, for hate-crime offenders to use 

extreme violence and go beyond what is required to simply subdue the victim. Similarly, 

almost 25 percent of hate crimes are serious violent crimes (i.e., rape/sexual assault, 

robbery, aggravated assault), compared to only 8 percent of non-hate crimes that are 

classified in this way.17

Hate crimes often cause the direct victim of the attack to suffer from psychological stress 

such as depression, anxiety and feelings of heightened vulnerability, lack of concentration, 

and unintentional rethinking about an incident. Comparisons between hate-crime and 

non-hate crime victims find that hate-crime victims are significantly more likely to be 

fearful, expect to be targeted for additional victimizations, and are less comfortable visiting 

the area where they were victimized. Hate-crime victims are also more likely to have 

employment problems, suffer from health issues, and have difficulties overcoming the 

victimization.18 Some hate-crime victims are more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress 

disorder compared to other types of victims. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted 

the claim that hate crimes cause ‘distinct emotional harm’ to victims. Hate crimes may 

increase fear in the victim’s family and their community and also lead them to experience 

the negative consequences outlined above. It is apparent that hate crimes can impact the 

spatial mobility of members of the targeted communities. That is, individuals restrict their 

everyday movements to only those environments where they feel safe. These reactions could 

undermine community cohesiveness and strain ties between the police and the community. 

Further, hate crimes could lead to retaliatory strikes from the victim’s community against 

members of the attackers’ community and thereby create a feud-like situation. Such an 

occurrence would further undermine public safety and community stability.19

Police actions that seem to minimize the hate crime and/or dismiss the victim’s concerns 

could have negative consequences. Some victims may feel re-victimized by the official 

response to their initial victimization. Further, the victim’s wider community may perceive 

these actions as reflecting the police department’s policies, and conclude that the police 

ignore their community’s concerns. Thus, police-community relations could be further 

undermined.20
| 13 |

The Problem of Hate Crimes

Factors Contributing to Hate Crimes, Community Tension, and Fear

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will help you frame your own 

local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention 

points, and select appropriate responses. Factors that increase tension in the community 

that contribute to hate crimes are reviewed. Next, there is a discussion of factors that 

contribute to the emergence of hate groups and their increased activities in the area. A 

review of what is known about hate-crime offenders and discussion of the characteristics 

and special needs of hate-crime victims rounds out this section. 

Demographic change, social disorganization, and legal hate-group activity have been found 

to be associated with greater levels of hate crimes. Social disorganization is the “inability of 

a community...to realize the common values of its residents and maintain effective social

controls.”21 It is important to be aware of the sometimes subtly different types of hate 

crimes. Violent hate crimes against racial minorities are more common in neighborhoods 

that are undergoing demographic change. These areas have long been inhabited by 

majority members but are experiencing an immigration of racial minority-group members. 

Majority members may feel threatened personally and conclude that their way of life 

is being undermined by the minority influx. Some commit hate crimes to defend the 

neighborhood. The larger community and its political elites at times endorse a cultural 

framework that understands and may even support the commission of hate crimes.22

Violent hate crimes, like “regular” crimes, also occur in socially disorganized areas. Even 

in neighborhoods that are not socially disorganized, increasing the numbers of minority 

members in majority areas is still associated with more hate offenses.23 Importantly though, 

there is not much evidence to support the idea that hate crimes are caused by or increase 

due to poor economic conditions.24

There are some important differences between anti-black and anti-white hate crimes.25

Anti-black hate crime usually occurs in relatively organized communities with high levels 

of informal social control. In contrast, anti-white hate crimes are more likely to occur in 

disorganized locations where residential turnover is more common. Meanwhile, anti-gay 

hate crimes are more likely to occur in areas where gays are more numerous.26 Again, 

context is important. It has been argued that local hate crimes against Jews are linked to a 

rise in tension or a specific event in the Israel-Palestine conflict or other tensions occurring 

in the Middle East.27 Similarly, some find a correlation between the demonization of 

Muslims in the media and the victimization of local Muslims by hate crimes.28
| 14 |

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes are also more common in areas that have recently experienced hate-group 

activity. For example, more hate crimes occurred in North Carolina counties that had 

recently had a cross burning.29 It is possible these cross-burnings drew attention to the goals 

of the movement and encouraged individuals to act. The climate in these areas may also be 

more accepting of hate crimes. Hate groups may create an environment, in other words, 

that justifies the commission of hate crimes. 

Similarly, hate groups may focus on areas that are undergoing demographic change to take 

advantage of the increased tension and use it as an opportunity to mobilize. These groups 

may recruit members, while also encouraging individuals to commit hate crimes in the 

area.30 Some racist Skinhead and other types of hate groups seek to recruit and indoctrinate 

disaffected or alienated white youth who feel excluded from their peers.31

College towns and neighborhoods could also pose a special risk for hate crimes. In some 

primarily white American cities and towns the only racial and ethnic minority members 

residing in these cities may be minority students that came to the city to attend college. 

These minority-group members thus usually constitute only a small part of the overall 

community population. Moreover, where this is true, it often means that these minority 

students lack the normal family/adult support from members of their race or ethnicity. Even 

if these students are welcomed within the college community, they might not be in the 

outside community.

Older and larger hate groups are more likely to be violent. Similarly, groups led by 

charismatic leaders, and groups that advocate for leaderless resistance tactics are also more 

likely to be violent. Interestingly, groups that publish ideological literature are less likely to 

be violent.32

Offenders

Most hate-crime offenders are male and white. Approximately 60 percent of violent hate 

crimes are committed by white males. Hate-crime offenders are usually juveniles or young 

people. In fact, nearly half of all hate-crime offenders are under the age of 20, although 

hate-crime offenders who commit violence tend to be older than those committing 

property crimes. 

There are several hate-crime offender typologies.33 Blending several typologies yields 

five major categories: thrill-seeking, reactive/defensive, retaliatory, mission, and bias 

peripheral/mixed. 
| 15 |

The Problem of Hate Crimes

Thrill-seeking

Thrill-seeking is the most common offender motivation. Thrill-seeking refers to hate crimes 

that are committed for fun: in many cases, any vulnerable minority might be targeted. 

Scholars have documented thrill-seeking offenders committing attacks against racial (e.g., 

African Americans, Asian Americans, white Americans), religious (e.g., Amish, Jewish), 

ethnic (e.g., Latino), and other (e.g., gay) groups. These offenses are often committed 

by groups of juveniles, with no criminal records, who use non-gun weapons. Sometimes 

alcohol and substance abuse is involved, and these crimes tend to occur in public locations 

like parks and streets. 

Reactive/Defensive

Reactive/defensive refers to hate offenses that are committed to defend inferred incursions 

against one’s area or way of life. These crimes are consistent with the defended 

neighborhood thesis discussed above that explains why hate crimes are more common in 

areas that are experiencing increases in minority populations. These crimes also usually 

occur in groups. The offenders specifically seek out victims from the minority group they 

view as encroaching upon their neighborhood. Often the perpetrators are emboldened to 

act because they believe the larger community shares their dislike of the minority group and 

would support or accept their crimes against them. Again, hate groups at times target these 

areas to take advantage of the situation by recruiting disaffected white males in the area and 

encouraging the commission of hate crimes.34

Retaliatory

Retaliatory offenses occur when the offenders perceive that they or their group were 

previously the victims of a hate crime. These offenders subsequently commit a hate crime 

as revenge against members of the group seen as perpetrating the initial hate crime. 

This category illustrates the dangers hate crimes could play in creating tensions that 

undermine communities because retaliatory crimes negatively affect public safety and 

community cohesion. 

Mission

Mission offenses encompass perpetrators subscribing to a belief system that views 

members of the minority group they target as evil. These offenders usually act alone, and 

unlike thrill-seekers, appear to deliberately choose their victims. Mission perpetrators are 

more likely than the other categories to be members of specific hate groups or supporters 

of the movement’s ideology. Mission offenders are also more likely to commit deadly 

attacks, to be suffering from a mental illness, and to commit suicide or be killed during 

or after their attack. 
| 16 |

Hate Crimes

Bias Peripheral/Mixed

Bias peripheral/mixed hate crimes are those committed for mixed reasons, with hate 

appearing to be peripheral. In other words, these are events where two parties argued 

(e.g., about a parking spot or property rights) and in the course of that dispute one 

party attacks the other while referencing their race, religion, or other status. Like mission 

offenders, these perpetrators are more likely to act alone. These types of crimes are 

particularly difficult for the police to classify. Police may also struggle with how to most 

effectively respond to them.35

A few scholars have interviewed hate-crime offenders, focusing on those associated with 

racist hate groups. These studies have found that many offenders feared interracial marriage 

and increased minority immigration.36 As noted, anti-religious hate crimes are more likely 

to involve property crimes while anti-race hate crimes are more likely to involve personal 

contact crimes. Although most hate-crime offenders are young and have no criminal record, 

it has been found that the criminal histories of hate-crime offenders differed based upon 

the groups they targeted. Offenders attacking racial minorities were found to have more 

extensive and violent criminal histories, while perpetrators targeting religious groups had 

fewer prior offenses and less serious criminal histories. Offenders striking against gays had 

prior histories of violence, but these were not hate-crime related. These crimes often involve 

multiple offenders. The offenders are more likely to be under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol and more likely to seriously injure the victim when compared to offenders who 

commit other types of assaults.37

Victims

According to the NCVS, race (58 percent) is the most likely motivation of hate crime, with 

African Americans the most targeted. The next most frequent motivation is ethnicity (30 

percent). Other motivations include sexual orientation (15 percent), religion (12 percent), 

and disability (10 percent). Interestingly, crimes motivated by religious bias are more likely 

to be property rather than personal crimes.38 Similarly, the UCR’s hate-crime data indicates 

that more than half of victims known to police thought it was motivated by race. 

Compared to non-hate crimes, hate offenses are more likely to occur near the victim’s 

home. Some have also noted the importance of opportunities. Perpetrators have been found 

to select victims that stood out (due to visual identifiers such as unique dress or clearly 

identified institutions that are associated with Orthodox Islam, Orthodox Judaism, or the 

Amish religion), and were thought to be more vulnerable because they would not fight back 

or report the crime.39 Compared to regular crimes, hate offenses are more likely to involve 

strangers (as opposed to a family member or acquaintance), multiple offenders and victims, 

and occur in public places. 
| 17 |

The Problem of Hate Crimes

Finally, police departments vary in whether they offer training in recognizing and 

responding to hate crimes. Departments that do offer training may differ in the type of 

training provided, and if hate crime policing is prioritized. Police departments and officers 

differ in their ability to recognize a hate crime. Agencies also vary in how much importance 

they attach to correctly recording hate crimes, and how they treat offenders and victims of 

hate crimes. This in turn influences whether hate-crime victims will report the offense to 

the police. 

Times

Specific local, national, or international events may result in a temporary spike in the 

number of hate crimes in your jurisdiction. Perhaps the most prominent example of this 

is the spike in anti-Muslim attacks that followed the September 11 terrorist attacks. It is 

important to be aware of such events, especially those that are covered extensively in the 

media. Similarly, “Mission” hate-crime offenders sometimes choose to commit their attacks 

on certain “special dates” for the movement, such as Hitler’s birthday. You should be aware 

of these dates’ significance and heighten scrutiny at these times.

| 19 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized description of hate crimes. You must 

go beyond what is required by the UCR in terms of hate-crimes classifications to combine 

the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the 

local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy. 

To begin, consider implementing a two-stage review of hate-crime classifications. This 

review process will capture more hate crimes and lead to improved hate-crime recording by 

police and thus more accurate data that will produce better analyses. Under this system the 

responding police officers initially apply broad criteria (that captures even suspected hate 

crimes) that are subsequently reviewed by specially trained members of a hate-crime unit 

(or a specially trained supervisor in smaller police departments) who conduct follow-up 

investigations. Collecting and analyzing accurate statistics on the scope and trends of hate 

crimes is an important step in preventing and responding to hate crimes.40

Neighborhoods may be composed of different groups, have varying levels of hate crimes, 

and experience different types of hate crimes. It is also likely that these characteristics 

can change significantly over time. Various targeted communities will have higher or 

lower levels of reporting their victimizations to the police. Different communities and 

neighborhoods will thus need to be analyzed separately. Disaggregating hate crimes by 

victim groups (e.g., Black, gay, Jewish, Muslim) will identify which groups are more 

vulnerable. Disaggregating by location will identify “hot spots” and problematic areas. 

Similarly, having an understanding of which communities are least likely to report hatecrime victimizations (e.g., disabled individuals) should inform your personnel- and 

resource-allocation decisions in addressing hate crimes and encouraging reporting. Tracking 

and categorizing hate-crime offenders (e.g., thrill-seekers versus mission perpetrators) will 

document which ones pose the greatest threat in your jurisdiction. For example, thrillseeking hate-crime offenders may target any vulnerable minority while defenders may only 

focus on those viewed as a threat to their community.41
| 20 |

Hate Crimes

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have an interest in the 

hate-crime problem and ought to be considered for the contribution they might make to 

gathering information about the problem and responding to it: 

•	 Mental health officials may be able to assist in crafting responses to hate crimes 

committed by those with mental illnesses, especially mission offenders.

•	 Watch groups (e.g., the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or 

the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) could provide their 

own data on hate-crime incidents against certain minority groups and information on 

organized hate groups, assist in police training initiatives, and help efforts to enhance 

relations between the police and minority communities.

•	 Community organizations representing hate-crime victims could assist victims in coping 

with their crimes, help victims navigate the legal system, act as a bridge between the 

police and the victim, work to reduce fear and trauma in the minority community, and 

assist in maintaining community and police relations. 

•	 Community organizations from the offender’s community could help reduce tension in 

the majority community, create an environment that does not tolerate hate crimes, and 

build a dialogue with the minority community. 

•	 The general media, and minority media outlets, could educate the public about hate crimes, 

help reduce fear and tension and create a sense of calm in the community, encourage 

hate-crime reporting, and reinforce the message that such crimes will not be tolerated. 

•	 Schools, colleges, and universities could sponsor hate/violence-prevention response 

networks, assemblies, and programs that publicize the strategies of hate groups; promote 

diversity and teach about tolerance; feature curricula on intergroup relations; and foster 

police and community dialogue. These institutions could also work with the police to 

improve hate-crime reporting in these institutions.

•	 Victim services organizations could help victims cope with the physical and psychological 

injuries, aid them as they engage the legal system, and assist them in their reintegration 

into the community.

•	 Academics could cooperate with police by analyzing hate crimes to identify 

characteristics of these crimes disaggregated by minority group, crime type, location, and 

offender type. This will aid police in deciding which prevention strategies to use, and 

their allocation of resources. 

•	 Other federal, state, and local government agencies (e.g., federal and community relations 

services, or offices of victim assistance) can help the police craft responses to hate crimes 

that empower individual victims and their communities, and educate the public. 
| 21 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your particular 

problem of hate crimes, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers 

to these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses 

later on.

Community Characteristics

•	 Is your jurisdiction demographically diverse?

•	 Does your jurisdiction have highly visible minority populations (e.g., African 

American, Orthodox Muslims, or Orthodox Jews) or buildings (e.g., Jewish or Muslim 

institutions) associated with them?

•	 Are any areas in your jurisdiction undergoing demographic change?

•	 Is there racial, ethnic, or other community tension in your area?

•	 Is there tension between certain communities and police?

•	 Are there locations in your jurisdiction that are socially disorganized and/or are “hot 

spots” for “regular” crime?

Incidents

•	 How many hate crimes have occurred in your jurisdiction? 

•	 What is the breakdown of hate crimes in terms of types of offenses (e.g., violent versus 

property offenses)?

Victims

•	 Why do some victims choose not to report their hate-crime victimizations?

•	 Which minority groups are most/least targeted by hate-crime offenders? What is the 

breakdown of hate victimization by minority group (e.g., percentage of crimes that are 

anti-African American, Anti-Latino, or anti-gay)?

•	 What percentage of hate-crime victims are under the influence of alcohol or drugs 

during the commission of the crime?

•	 How have hate-crime victims reacted to these offenses? 

•	 How often do victims use community resources or victim-advocacy organizations?
| 22 |

Hate Crimes

Offenders

•	 What are the characteristics of hate-crime offenders (e.g., age, ethnicity, education level, 

and occupation)?

•	 What motivates offenders to commit these crimes (e.g., for thrills, to defend their 

community, in retaliation, or to express hateful attitudes and beliefs)?

•	 What percentage of hate-crime offenders use a weapon? What type of weapon?

•	 What percentage of hate-crime offenders are under the influence of alcohol or drugs 

during the commission of the crime?

•	 How far from the crime scene do offenders live?

•	 How many offenders tend to participate in hate-crime incidents (one perpetrator, two, 

more than three)?

Locations and Times

•	 Where do hate crimes occur? Are there hot spots? 

•	 Are victims attacked in their own neighborhood? The offender’s neighborhood? Another 

location?

•	 Do hate crimes tend to occur on specific “meaningful” dates? 

•	 On what days of the week do most hate crimes occur? At what time of day? 

Current Responses

•	 Do police offer and/or collaborate with community organizations to offer programs to 

educate citizens about hate crimes, reduce victim vulnerability, and encourage reporting?

•	 How have the larger communities that were targeted by hate-crime offenders reacted to 

these crimes? 

•	 What community programs are available to educate the public about crimes? To aid 

victims of hate crimes? To encourage reporting of hate crimes? Has anyone assessed 

their effectiveness? 

•	 What strategies have been used to combat the commission of hate crimes? Has anyone 

assessed their effectiveness?

•	 What percentage of reported hate crimes do police clear by arrest? What percentage 

do prosecutors take to court? What percentage of offenders accused of hate crimes 

are convicted?

•	 What types of sentences do convicted hate-crime offenders receive?
| 23 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeeded, 

and suggests how you might modify your responses if they are not producing the 

intended results. 

You should take measures of your problem before you implement responses, to determine 

how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they have 

been effective. You should take all measures in both the target area and the surrounding 

area. For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see Problem-Solving Tools 

Guide No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers 

and Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 10, Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.

The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to hate 

crime. Process measures show the extent to which responses were properly implemented. 

Outcome measures show the extent to which the responses reduced the level or severity of 

the problem.

Process Measures

•	 Increased number of people willing to report hate crimes

•	 Increased number of officers trained in how to respond to hate crimes

•	 Increased number of officers who take policing hate crimes seriously 

•	 Increased number of officers who respond to and interact with sensitivity with 

hate-crime victims

•	 Increased interactions, communication, and cooperation between the police and 

targeted minority communities about hate crimes 

•	 Improvements in how hate crimes are investigated

•	 Increased number of officers who correctly recognize and categorize hate crimes

•	 Increased number of community members, both majority and minority, who express 

trust in the police

•	 Increased number of people in the community, both majority and minority members, 

who express support for tolerance and diversity, and outrage against hate crimes

•	 Increased compatibility between the number of hate-crime victims reporting their 

victimization to the police and the number who report to watch groups or in 

victimization surveys
| 24 |

Hate Crimes

Outcome Measures

•	 Decreased number of hate crimes in your community

•	 Decreased severity of harm caused by hate crimes (even if the number of hate crimes 

stays the same)

•	 Decreased fear of becoming a hate-crime victim

•	 Decreased number of hate groups in your community
| 25 |

Responses to the Problem of Hate Crimes

Responses to the Problem of Hate Crimes 

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors 

contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline 

for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your 

particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of studies and police reports. 

Several of these strategies may apply to your community’s problem. 

It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify 

each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve 

implementing several different responses. Law-enforcement responses alone are seldom 

effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: carefully consider whether others 

in your community share responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond 

to it. The responsibility of responding, in some cases, may need to be shifted toward 

those who have the capacity to implement more effective responses. For more detailed 

information on shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and 

Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.

For further information on managing the implementation of response strategies, see 

Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 7, Implementing Responses to Problems.

General Considerations for an Effective Strategy

1. Prioritizing the response to hate crime within the police department. Police 

departments that create a culture that takes the investigation of hate crimes seriously 

are more likely to have officers that enforce hate crime laws and adhere to the 

department’s policies in addressing them.42 For example, issuing reminders to your 

department’s officers about the importance of hate crimes at regular intervals will 

make clear to them that the department prioritizes the policing of hate crimes. 

Similarly, setting aside specific times during the year to publicly condemn hate crimes 

will underscore to the public that the department does not tolerate hate crimes. 

Agencies should also work with majority-community leaders such as public officials, 

and religious and business leaders to speak out against hate crimes and violence so 

that citizens understand that these crimes are not supported or accepted by their 

community.43 Other means of prioritizing the police response to hate crimes include 

creating specialized hate-crime units, establishing liaisons for minority communities, 

or creating multi-agency task forces to better understand hate crime in a community. 
| 26 |

Hate Crimes

Some of the advantages of having a hate-crime unit are that personnel develop a 

specialized expertise and can thus review and validate suspected cases of bias. Officers 

are also able to foster relationships with community agencies and prosecutors. Although 

there has not been much research that examines the effectiveness of hate-crime units, 

there is some evidence that such units send a positive message to the community that hate 

crimes are taken seriously, and this in turn could improve police-community relations, 

and lead to increased hate-crime reporting from the community.44 There is some concern 

that even in departments with specialized units the level of organizational commitment 

to policing hate crimes is weak.45 It is recognized that smaller police agencies likely 

lack the resources to create specialized units. Such departments could instead designate 

one officer or supervisor and provide them with specialized training to respond to and 

investigate all suspected hate crimes. This approach is more effective than a decentralized 

approach where officers from all districts/precincts receive specialized hate-crime training 

and are subsequently responsible for investigating hate crimes that occur in their area. 

The decentralized approach has several disadvantages. First, hate crimes are not randomly 

distributed within a community and many geographic areas will not experience any hate 

crimes. Second, since the officers work few cases, they are not able to build a working 

knowledge that will help them better understand hate crimes. Third, since a single officer 

is usually trained for a specific area, the officer is not able to benefit from interactions 

with others about a case. 

Importantly, technology can be used to bolster these initiatives. For example, technology 

could be applied to scan police reports or narratives supplied by detectives to look for 

hate language or phrases. This may identify incidents that were not initially classified as 

hate crimes but should have been.

2. Establishing multi-agency task forces. Establishing task forces to coordinate across 

agencies composed of federal, state, other local police agencies and prosecutor offices 

will facilitate the sharing of information about violent hate groups and hate-crime 

suspects between and among departments. Police departments can also draw upon 

needed resources that they may lack, such as crime labs, software programs, advanced 

technical programs, databases on perpetrators or hate groups, and even additional 

trained personnel that their agency partners possess.46 For example, in the early 1990s 

the Sacramento Police Department formed a multiagency task force to respond to a 

series of hate arsons. This task force coordinated and balanced the demands of the 

various involved agencies and eventually arrested the perpetrator.47 Similarly, and 

more recently, the New York City Police Department’s Hate Crime Task Force has 

played an important role in reducing hate crimes and racial tension in that city.48
| 27 |

Responses to the Problem of Hate Crimes

Specific Responses to Reduce Hate Crimes 

3. Training police officers. Officer training should cover cultural awareness; how to 

correctly identify and categorize hate crimes (such as using an established check-sheet 

to aid in classification decisions); and how to investigate hate offenses, classify the 

perpetrator, interview and interact sensitively with the victim, act with the victim’s 

community, and collaborate with the prosecutor’s office. Taking into account the 

victim’s distinct needs could ensure a better relationship with the victim and their 

community and thus reduce the community’s fear and trauma, thereby encouraging 

better hate-crimes reporting. Training should improve hate-crime investigations 

and increase the likelihood of conviction and punishment of offenders, improve the 

assistance provided to hate-crime victims, and improve the response to the target 

community including better explanations of offenders’ motives and identity. These 

benefits can enhance prevention efforts and increase hate-crime reporting.49 Realize 

though, that increased reporting will result in “increased” numbers of hate crimes. 

But, this does not represent ineffective responses; instead it reflects a successful 

response. Thus, as noted below in response 7, reaching out to minority communities 

to accurately convey these developments is important.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center brings together multijurisdictional teams 

for a four-day intensive training effort that results in a comprehensive 

community coordination plan on how to most effectively address hate crimes. 

This training includes sessions on the (i) characteristics of hate crimes and 

offenders, (ii) understanding hate groups, (iii) identifying tensions that exist 

between groups, (iv) responding to hate crimes, (v) outlining promising 

strategies, and (vi) discussing successful collaborations that have occurred. In 

addition, there is also discussion of the use of the Internet by hate groups and 

combating this significant problem.
| 28 |

Hate Crimes

4. Responding to hate-crime victims’ needs. Hate-crime incidents should be responded 

to quickly and thoroughly. Doing so conveys to the victim and the community 

that police take hate crimes seriously, which also encourages others to report 

their victimization to the police. The quality of the police response is important 

for building trust between the agency and the offended community. Hate-crime 

victims may require special responses. A professional translator may be needed to 

communicate effectively with the victim. Relying on community translators (e.g., the 

victim’s friend or family member) might not be effective if the victim is hesitant to 

discuss their victimization within their community. The investigating officer should 

explain the process to the victim, and assist them in accessing victim support services 

and community advocacy (by providing packets or contact information). The officer 

should also convey verbal support and understanding to the victim and allow the 

victim to express their thoughts and anxieties. Officers must be aware of possible 

special fears that the victim may have of the police or of their victimization or status 

being publicized. Importantly, the officer should provide the victim a specific point of 

contact so they can follow up and receive updates about this incident and assistance 

with their other needs. In addition, officers need to be aware of community resources 

that might help victims. In San Diego, for example, a victim assistance volunteer is 

brought in to assist victims, make them aware of resources, and keep them informed 

about the status of their case. Such relationships are important since the police are not 

always able to meet all victim needs on their own. 

5. Increasing police presence and attention in high-risk neighborhoods. Pay more 

attention to and closely monitor areas that are more likely to experience more hate 

crimes. For instance, since hate crimes are more likely in areas with growing numbers of 

minorities and that are more socially disorganized, these areas should receive more police 

attention.50 Although small agencies might not have the resources to specifically assign 

personnel to an area for a significant period of time, such agencies could strategically use 

specific interventions in these areas if there appears to be an increase in hate activity. 

6. Monitoring hate groups and tracking hate incidents. Collecting information on 

violent hate groups and recording lawful hate activity (like leafleting or demonstrating 

by a white supremacist group) can itself improve minority community-police relations 

by demonstrating police commitment to addressing and preventing hate crime. 

Monitoring hate groups that participate in criminal activities may identify potentially 

threatening members. Since increased lawful hate activity has been associated with 

subsequent hate crimes, documenting this activity should inform police resource 

allocation. By recording lawful hate activity, the police could prevent illegal activity by 

hate-group opponents.51
| 29 |

Responses to the Problem of Hate Crimes

You must be mindful of First Amendment protections for some forms of hateful speech 

and demonstrations, and that includes making sure not to improperly infringe upon 

constitutionally protected free speech. As the FBI notes, “hate itself is not a crime and 

[one] must be mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.”52

Similarly, you should be cautious when collecting data about hate-crime groups. Stay 

abreast of legal restrictions on the intelligence collection process. Intelligence about 

hate-crime groups can only be collected once a criminal predicate is established. Analysis 

of the characteristics of hate-crime groups in a jurisdiction should thus be limited to 

those groups involved in violence or other criminal activities. However, do consider 

establishing communications with non-violent extremist organizations operating in your 

jurisdiction. This outreach could include peacefully discussing issues of concern, assuring 

them that their free-speech rights will be protected, and encouraging them to focus on 

lawful activities while stressing that violence and hate crimes will not be tolerated.53

For both responses 6 and 7, technology could be used to map violent hate groups’ 

headquarters or “hangouts,” as well as the changing demographics of both perpetrator 

and victim groups. This could help you visualize change and where problems might 

originate. 

7. Reaching out to minority communities. Try to build strong relationships with 

support organizations that interact with potential victims. Provide information and 

training so that officers have a better understanding about specific communities, 

their customs, languages, fears, and vulnerabilities. In communities where English 

is a second language for many residents, try to assign officers who are fluent in the 

dominant language and/or familiar with that culture. Co-sponsor and participate in 

community events and conduct direct mailings (including multi-lingual education 

campaigns) to community members. Since community members may distrust the 

police and be fearful of publicizing their victimization by going to a police station, 

make hate-crime reporting forms available in community organizations and online, 

and train organization staff about the reporting process. 

Establish toll-free reporting hotlines. For example, a police department in Great Britain 

was concerned that anti-gay hate crimes were underreported in its jurisdiction. The 

agency installed a touch screen kiosk in a local gay community venue to provide easy 

access for people to report anti-gay hate crimes and access support agencies. The online 

completed forms were sent to the organization that ran the community venue. If the 

victims requested that the report be forwarded to the police the organization then did so. 
| 30 |

Hate Crimes

This strategy was deemed successful because it increased victims’ confidence to 

report these crimes and also resulted in increased reporting of these crimes.54 Other 

departments have communicated successes like these to the public via both the general 

and local community presses.55 Such successful outreach programs could have a 

broader impact on police community relations beyond hate crimes. It could increase 

the perceived legitimacy of the police and enhance community policing and other 

police tactics more generally.

Another step to take is to increase public awareness of hate crimes and educate target 

groups about strategies to reduce their vulnerability to hate crimes. Offenders have at 

times selected victims because they perceived them to be “easy marks,” unlikely to fight 

back or report the crime.56 Educate community members to be cautious of walking alone 

while inebriated, late at night, especially in areas that have been found to be hate crime 

hot spots. Some police departments have distributed multi-lingual videos that contain 

this type of information to help warn community members.57 Stress that reporting 

hate crimes to police is safe and will be taken seriously. Publicize specific initiatives 

that have been undertaken to encourage and/or improve the reporting of hate-crime 

victimizations.58

8. Engaging educational institutions and the mass media. Collaborate with 

educational institutions and the mass media to teach students, staff, and the general 

public about hate crimes and hate groups’ recruitment tactics. Target all levels of 

educational institutions (elementary, middle school, high school, and college) and 

emphasize tolerance.59

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

9. Treating hate crimes as regular crimes. Because hate crimes cause special 

psychological fear and harm to both the individual victim and the targeted 

community, they merit special police attention. Even if the argument that crimes 

motivated by hate should be treated no differently by the courts than those not 

motivated by hate has some legal merit, it does not follow that the entire police 

response should be no different for hate crimes than it is for regular crimes. Effective 

police responses will encourage better hate-crime reporting, prevent retaliatory hate 

crimes, and help maintain community cohesion and public safety. 
| 31 |

Appendix 

Appendix: Summary of Responses to 

Hate Crimes 

The table below summarizes the responses to hate crimes, the mechanism by which they 

are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, and some 

factors you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that 

you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based 

on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several 

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or 

solving the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

General Considerations for an Effective Strategy

1 25 Prioritizing the 

response to hate 

crime within the 

police department

Encourages victim 

reporting, enhances 

the likelihood of 

solving hate crimes, 

and promotes public 

confidence in police

...officers and the 

public are routinely 

reminded of the 

department’s 

commitment to 

addressing hate 

crimes; specialist 

units or officers 

are designated to 

respond to hate 

crimes

Establishing 

specialized hatecrime units will not 

always be feasible for 

smaller agencies

2 26 Establishing multiagency task forcesFacilitates 

information sharing 

about and enhances 

resources to address 

hate crimes

...participating 

agencies are equally 

committed to 

responding to hate 

crimes

Interagency 

protocols are useful 

for clarifying 

responsibilities and 

policies
| 32 |

Hate Crimes

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Specific Responses to Reduce Hate Crimes

3 27 Training police 

officers 

Increases the 

department’s ability 

to identify and 

investigate hate 

crimes 

...the training 

includes multiple 

examples and 

opportunities 

for actively 

applying what is 

learned to specific 

cases; training is 

coordinated with 

other community 

partners

Different employees 

have somewhat 

different training 

needs 

4 28 Responding to hatecrime victims’ needsReduces 

psychological trauma 

to victims and 

encourages other 

victims to report to 

police

...initial responding 

officers treat victims 

with sensitivity and 

professionalism

Specialized language 

translation and 

victim assistance 

may be required

5 28 Increasing police 

presence and 

attention in highrisk neighborhoods

Deters hate-crime 

activity and reassures 

at-risk communities

...data clearly 

indicates high-risk 

areas

Many police 

agencies lack 

the resources to 

significantly enhance 

police presence

6 28 Monitoring hate 

groups and tracking 

hate incidents

Promotes public 

confidence in police 

and improves police 

ability to detect and 

prevent hate crimes; 

deters unlawful hate 

activity

...public is aware 

of police actions 

in addressing hate 

crimes

Police must be 

mindful of legal 

restrictions on 

monitoring groups 

and inhibiting free 

speech and right to 

publicly assemble
| 33 |

Appendix 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

7 29 Reaching out 

to minority 

communities

Encourages victim 

reporting of hate 

crimes; reduces 

fear in minority 

communities

...police are 

willing and able 

to communicate 

effectively 

with minority 

communities; police 

can recommend 

practical measures 

to discourage and 

prevent hate-crime 

victimization

Some communities 

may distrust police 

initially

8 30 Engaging 

educational 

institutions and the 

mass media

Makes large 

numbers of people 

aware of hate-crime 

problems and how 

to respond to them

...educational 

institutions and mass 

media are willing 

to acknowledge and 

discuss the hatecrime problem

Might require 

persuading decisionmakers that hate 

crime is a problem 

worthy of special 

attention

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

9 30 Treating hate crimes 

as regular crimes

Deemphasizes the 

seriousness of the 

hate element and 

ignores the impact 

such crimes can 

have on the broader 

community 

Not a promising 

strategy 

Research establishes 

the unique nature 

of these crimes 

and the types of 

impact such crimes 

produce. Policies 

and approaches to 

deal with this issue 

are necessary 

| 35 |

References

References

American Prosecutors Research Institute. 2003. A Local Prosecutor’s Guide for Responding to 

Hate Crimes. Arlington, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research Institute.

Balboni, Jennifer M., and Jack McDevitt. 2001. “Hate Crime Reporting: Understanding 

Police Officer Perceptions, Department Protocol, and the Role of the Victim: Is 

There Such a Thing as a ‘Love’ Crime?” Justice Research and Policy 3(1): 1–27.

Bell, Jeannine 2009. “Policing and Surveillance.” In Hate Crimes: Responding to 

Hate Crime, Volume 5, ed. Barbara Perry and Frederick M. Lawrence. Westport, 

Connecticut: Praeger Publishing.

Berlet, Chip. 2001. “Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating 

Neighborhood, 1976-1988.” Research in Political Sociology 9:117–163.

Blazak, Randy. 2001. “White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi 

Skinheads.” American Behavioral Scientist 44(6): 982–1000.

Bouman, Walter. 2003. “Best Practices of a Hate/Bias Crime Investigation.” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 72(3): 21–25.

Bowling, Benjamin. 1999. Violent Racism: Victimization, Policing, and Social Context.

Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Boyd, Elizabeth A., Richard A. Berk, and Karl M. Hammer. 1996. “Motivated by Hatred 

or Prejudice: Categorization of Hate-Motivated Crimes in Two Police Divisions.” Law 

& Society Review 30(4): 819–850.

Brimicombe, Allan J., Martin P. Ralphs, Alice Sampson, and Hoi Yuen Tsui. 2001. “An 

Analysis of the Role of Neighbourhood Ethnic Composition in the Geographical 

Distribution of Racially Motivated Incidents.” British Journal of Criminology 41(2): 

293–308.

Bune, Karen L. 2004. “Law Enforcement Must Take Lead on Hate Crimes.” The Police 

Chief 71(4): 41–42, 44.

Byers, Bryan D., and Benjamin W. Crider. 2002. “Hate Crimes against the Amish: A 

Qualitative Analysis of Bias Motivation Using Routine Activities Theory.” Deviant 

Behavior 23(2): 115–148. 

California Attorney General’s Civil Rights Commission on Hate Crimes. 2001. Reporting 

Hate Crimes: The California Attorney General’s Civil Rights Commission on Hate Crimes 

Final Report. Sacramento: Attorney General’s Civil Rights Commission on Hate 

Crimes.
| 36 |

Hate Crimes

Chakraborti, Neil. 2009. “A Glass Half Full? Assessing Progress in the Policing of Hate 

Crime.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 3(2): 121–128.

Chermak, Steven M., Joshua D. Freilich, and Michael Suttmoeller. 2013. “The 

Organizational Dynamics of Far-right Hate Groups in the United States: Comparing 

Violent to Non-violent Organizations.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 36:193–218.

Cogan, Jeannine C. 2002. “Hate Crime as a Crime Category Worthy of Police Attention.” 

American Behavioral Scientist 46(1): 173–185.

Craig, Kellina M., and Craig R. Waldo. 1996. “‘So, What’s a Hate Crime Anyway?’ Young 

Adults’ Perceptions of Hate Crimes, Victims, and Perpetrators.” Law and Human 

Behavior 20(2): 113–129.

Cronin, Shea W., Jack McDevitt, Amy Farrell, and James J. Nolan III. 2007. “Bias-Crime 

Reporting: Organizational Responses to Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Infrequency in 

Eight Police Departments.” American Behavioral Scientist 51(2): 213–231.

Duffy, James E., and Alan C. Brantley. 1997. Militias: Initiating Contact. The FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 66(7): 22–26. 

Dunbar, Edward, Jary Quinones, and Desiree A. Crevecoeur. 2005. “Assessment of Hate 

Crime Offenders: The Role of Bias Intent in Examining Violence Risk.” Journal of 

Forensic Psychology Practice 5(1): 1–19.

Ezekiel, Raphael S. 1995. The Racist Mind: Portraits of American Neo-Nazis and Klansmen. 

New York: Viking Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2012. Hate Crime Statistics 2011. Washington, 

D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice; FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division. www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/hate-crime. 

Franklin, Karen. 2002. “Good Intentions: The Enforcement of Hate Crime PenaltyEnhancement Statutes.” American Behavioral Scientist 46(1): 154–172.

Freilich, Joshua D., and Steven M. Chermak. 2009. “Preventing Deadly Encounters 

Between Law Enforcement and American Far-rightists.” In Reducing Terrorism Through 

Situational Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Volume 25. Monsey, New York: 

Criminal Justice Press: 141–172.

Freilich, Joshua D., Steven M. Chermak, Roberta Belli, Jeffrey Gruenewald, and William 

S. Parkin. Forthcoming. “Introducing the United States Extremist Crime Database 

(ECDB).” Terrorism and Political Violence.
| 37 |

References

Garofalo, James, and Susan E. Martin. 1993. Bias-Motivated Crimes: Their Characteristics 

and Law Enforcement Response. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University, 

Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections.

Gist, Nancy E. 1997. Stopping Hate Crime: A Case History From the Sacramento Police 

Department. Bureau of Justice Assistance Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

Githens-Mazer, Jonathan, and Robert Lambert. 2010. Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim 

Hate Crime: A London Case Study. Exeter, U.K.: European Muslim Research Centre, 

University of Exeter.

Glaser, Jack, Jay Dixit, and Donald P. Green. 2002. “Studying Hate Crime with the 

Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?” Journal of Social Issues

58(1): 177–193.

Gorton, Donald. 2011. Anti-Transgender Hate Crimes: The Challenge for Law Enforcement.

Boston: The Anti-Violence Project of Massachusetts. 

Grattet, Ryken. 2009. “The Urban Ecology of Bias Crime: A Study of Disorganized and 

Defended Neighborhoods.” Social Problems 56(1): 132–150.

Grattet, Ryken, and Valerie Jenness. 2008. “Transforming Symbolic Law into 

Organizational Action: Hate Crime Policy and Law Enforcement Practice.” Social 

Forces 87(1): 501–527.

Green, Donald P., Robert P. Abelson, and Margaret Garnett. 1999. “The Distinctive 

Political Views of Hate-crime Perpetrators and White Supremacists.” In Cultural 

Divides: Understanding and Overcoming Group Conflict, ed. Deborah A. Prentice and 

Dale T. Miller. New York: Russell Sage: 429–464.

Green, Donald P., Dara Z. Strolovitch, and Janelle S. Wong. 1998. “Defended 

Neighborhoods, Integration, and Racially Motivated Crime.” American Journal of 

Sociology 104(2): 372–403.

Green, Donald P., Jack Glaser, and Andrew Rich. 1998. “From Lynching to Gay-Bashing: 

The Elusive Connection Between Economic Conditions and Hate Crime.” Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology 75(1): 82–92.

Green, Donald P., and Andrew Rich. 1998. “White Supremacist Activity and Cross 

Burnings in North Carolina.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 14:263–282.

Green, Donald P., Dara Z. Strolovitch, Janelle S. Wong, and Robert W. Bailey. 2001. 

“Measuring Gay Population Density and the Incidence of Anti-Gay Hate Crime.” 

Social Science Quarterly 82(2): 281–297.
| 38 |

Hate Crimes

Gruenewald, Jeff. 2011. “A Comparative Examination of Homicides Perpetrated by FarRight Extremists.” Homicide Studies 15(2): 177–203.

Haas, Stephen M., James J. Nolan, Erica Turley, and Jake Stump. 2011. Assessing the 

Validity of Hate Crime Reporting: An Analysis of NIBRS Data. Charleston, West 

Virginia: West Virginia Division of Justice and Community Services, Criminal Justice 

Statistical Analysis Center. 

Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2001. “Implementing Controversial Policy: Results from a 

National Survey of Law Enforcement Department Activity on Hate Crime.” Justice 

Research and Policy 3(1): 29–62.

Hall, Nathan. 2005. Hate Crime. Devon, U.K. and Portland, Oregon: Willan Publishing.

Hamm, Mark S. 1993. American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime. 

New York: Praeger Press.

Harlow, Caroline Wolf. 2005. Hate Crime Reported by Victims and Police. Bureau of Justice 

Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics.

Heitmeyer, Wilhelm. 2003. “Right-Wing Extremist Violence.” In International Handbook 

of Violence Research, ed. W. Heitmeyer and J. Hagan. Boston: Kluwer Academic: 

399–436.

Hounslow (U.K.) Community Safety Partnership. 2007. I-Kiosk Third Party Reporting for 

Homophobic Crime. Submission for the Tilley Award.

Iganski, Paul. 2007. “Too Few Jews to Count? Police Monitoring of Hate Crime Against 

Jews in the United Kingdom.” American Behavioral Scientist 51(2): 232–245.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2001. Responding to Hate Crime: A Police 

Officer’s Guide to Investigation and Prevention. Arlington, Virginia: The IACP. 

Jenness, Valerie, and Ryken Grattet. 2005. “The Law-in-Between: The Effects of 

Organizational Perviousness on the Policing of Hate Crime.” Social Problems 52(3): 

337–359.

Johnson, Leslie. 2009. Miami-Dade Police Department and the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 

1990. Miami: Leslie Johnson. 

Kercher, Glen, Claire Nolasco, and Ling Wu. 2008. Hate Crimes. Huntsville, Texas: Crime 

Victims’ Institute, Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston State University.

Kielinger, Vicky, and Susan Paterson. 2007. “Policing Hate Crime in London.” American 

Behavioral Scientist 51(2): 196–204.
| 39 |

References

King, Ryan D. 2007. “The Context of Minority Group Threat: Institutions, and 

Complying with Hate Crime Law.” Law & Society Review 41(1): 189–224.

Krouse, William J. 2010. Hate Crime Legislation. CRS Report to Congress. Washington, 

D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

Lancashire (U.K.) Constabulary. 2005. Return of the Happy Shopper. Submission for the 

Tilley Award.

Lancashire (U.K.) Constabulary. 2002. Chorley Mosque. Submission for the Tilley Award.

Lane, Frank. J., Linda R. Shaw, and Martin Kim. 2009. “Hate Crimes Committed 

Against Persons with Disabilities.” In Hate Crimes: The Victims of Hate Crime, Vol. 3, 

ed. Barbara Perry. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishing. 

Langton, Lynn, and Michael Planty. 2011. “Hate Crime, 2003–2009.” Special Report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. 2009. Confronting the New Faces 

of Hate: Hate Crimes in America. Washington, D.C.: LCCR Education Fund.

Levin, Brian, and Sara-Ellen Amster. 2007. “Make Hate History: Hate Crime and Policing 

in America’s Most Diverse City.” American Behavioral Scientist 51(2): 319–348. 

Levin, Jack, and Jack McDevitt. 1993. Hate Crimes: The Rising Tide of Bigotry and 

Bloodshed. New York: Plenum.

Levin, Jack, and Jack McDevitt. 2002. Hate Crimes Revisited – America’s War on Those Who 

Are Different. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Lyons, Christopher J. 2007. “Community (Dis)Organization and Racially Motivated 

Crimes.” American Journal of Sociology 113(3): 815–863.

Messner, Steven F., Suzanne McHugh, and Richard B. Felson. 2004. “The Distinctive 

Characteristics of Assaults Motivated by Bias.” Criminology 42(3): 585–618.

McDevitt, Jack, Jennifer Balboni, Luis Garcia, and Joann Gu. 2001. “Consequences 

for Victims: A Comparison of Bias- and Non-Bias-Motivated Assaults.” American 

Behavioral Scientist 45(4): 697–713.

Newman, Graeme R., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2008. Policing Terrorism: An Executive’s 

Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. 

Department of Justice.
| 40 |

Hate Crimes

Perry, Barbara. 2009. “Anti-Muslim Violence in the Post-9/11 Era: Motive Forces.” In Hate 

Crimes: Hate Crime Offenders Vol. 4, eds. Barbara Perry and Randy Blazak. Westport, 

Connecticut: Praeger Publishing.

Phillips, Nickie D. 2009. “The Prosecution of Hate Crimes: The Limitations of the Hate 

Crime Typology.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24(5): 883–905. 

Sampson, Robert J., and W. Byron Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: 

Testing Social Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94(4): 774–802.

Walker, Samuel, and Charles M. Katz. 1995. “Less Than Meets the Eye: Police 

Department Bias-Crime Units.” American Journal of Police 14:29–48.
| 41 |

About the Authors

About the Authors

Joshua D. Freilich 

Joshua Freilich is professor of criminal justice at John Jay College, City University of 

New York. He is a lead investigator for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism 

and Responses to Terrorism (START), a Center for Excellence of the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security. Freilich is also a member of START’s Executive Committee and 

member of the Global Terrorism Database’s (GTD) Advisory Board. His research focuses 

on causes of and responses to terrorism as well as environmental criminology. Freilich 

is the co-creator and co-director (with Steven Chermak) of the U.S. Extremist Crime 

Database (ECDB) study, an open source relational database of violent and financial crimes 

committed by political extremists in the United States. He holds a B.A. from Brooklyn 

College, City University of New York, a J.D. from Brooklyn Law School, and a Ph.D. in 

criminal justice from the University at Albany, State University of New York. 

Steven M. Chermak

Steven Chermak is professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University. His research 

focuses on domestic terrorism, intelligence practices and policing strategies, and media 

coverage of crime and justice. He is also a lead investigator for the National Consortium 

for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), a Center of Excellence 

of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Chermak is the co-creator and co-director 

(with Joshua Freilich) of the U.S. Extremist Crime Database (ECDB) study, an open source 

relational database of violent and financial crimes committed by political extremists in 

the United States. He holds a B.A. from Bowling Green State University and a Ph.D. in 

criminal justice from the University at Albany, State University of New York. 

| 43 |

Endnotes

Endnotes

1. Krouse (2010: 1); see also International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001). 

2. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2012: 1).

3. FBI (2012); Harlow (2005).

4. FBI (2012); Haas, Nolan, Turley, and Stump (2011); Phillips (2009).

5. FBI (2012); Phillips (2009). 

6. International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001); Kercher, Nolasco, and Wu (2008).

7. Balboni and McDevitt (2001); Krouse (2010).

8. Langton and Planty (2011).

9. Lane, Shaw, and Kim (2009).

10. Lane, Shaw, and Kim (2009).

11. Langton and Planty (2011: 2).

12. Freilich, Chermam, Belli, Gruenewald, and Parkin (Forthcoming).

13. Freilich, Chermam, Belli, Gruenewald, and Parkin (Forthcoming); Gruenewald (2011).

14. Gruenewald (2011).

15. Green, Strolovitch, Wong, and Bailey (2001).

16. Messner, McHugh, and Felson (2004).

17. Langton and Planty (2011).

18. McDevitt, Balboni, Garcia, and Gu (2001).

19. Balboni and McDevitt (2001); California Attorney General’s Civil Rights Commission 

on Hate Crimes (2001); Cogan (2002); Craig and Waldo (1996); Green, Strolovitch, 

and Wong (1998); International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001); Kercher, 

Nolasco, and Wu (2008); Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education (2009).

20. Balboni and McDevitt (2001); Haas, Nolan, Turley, and Stump (2011); Langton and 

Planty (2011).

21. Sampson and Groves (1989).

22. Brimicombe, Ralphs, Sampson, and Tsui (2001); Bowling (1999); Byers and Crider 

(2002); Glaser, Dixit, and Green (2002); Green, Strolovitch, and Wong (1998).

23. Grattet (2009).
| 44 |

Hate Crimes

24. Green, Glaser, and Rich (1998).

25. Lyons (2007).

26. Green, Strolovitch, Wong, and Bailey (2001).

27. Iganski (2007). 

28. Githens-Mazer and Lambert (2010); Perry (2009).

29. Green and Rich (1998).

30. Berlet (2001); Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education (2009).

31. Blazak (2001); Ezekiel (1995); Hamm (1993).

32. Chermak, Freilich, and Suttmoeller (2013).

33. Levin and McDevitt (1993; 2002); See also Byers and Crider (2002); Franklin (2002); 

Gruenewald (2011); Hamm (1993); Heitmeyer (2003); Kielinger and Paterson (2007); 

Phillips (2009).

34. Berlet (2001); Byers and Crider (2002).

35. Dunbar, Quinones, and Crevecoeur (2005).

36. Glaser, Dixit, and Green (2002); Green, Abelson, and Garnett (1999).

37. Dunbar, Quinones, and Crevecoeur (2005).

38. Langton and Planty (2011).

39. Byers and Crider (2002).

40. Balboni and McDevitt (2001).

41. California Attorney General’s Civil Rights Commission on Hate Crimes (2001); Craig 

and Waldo (1996); Dunbar, Quinones, and Crevecoeur (2005); Franklin (2002); 

Garofalo and Martin (1993); Gorton (2011); International Association of Chiefs of 

Police (2001); Langton and Planty (2011).

42. American Prosecutors Research Institute (2003); Boyd, Berk, and Hammer (1996); 

Haider-Markel (2001); Jenness and Grattet (2005); International Association of Chiefs 

of Police (2001); King (2007).

43. Berlet (2001); Byers and Crider (2002); Johnson (2009). 

44. Bell (2009); Boyd, Berk and Hammer (1996); Bune (2004); Cronin, McDevitt, Farrell, 

and Nolan III (2007); Gist (1997); Hall (2005); Levin and Amerster (2007).
| 45 |

Endnotes

45. Walker and Katz (1995). 

46. American Prosecutors Research Institute (2003); Bowling (1999); Gist (1997); 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001); Lancashire Constabulary (2005); 

Kercher, Nolasco, and Wu (2008). 

47. Gist (1997).

48. Levin and Amster (2007).

49. American Prosecutors Research Institute (2003); Balboni and McDevitt (2001); 

Bouman (2003); Boyd, Berk and Hammer (1996); Bune (2004); Cronin, McDevitt, 

Farrell, and Nolan III (2007); Gist (1997); Gorton (2011); Haider-Markel (2001); 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001); Kercher, Nolasco, and Wu (2008).

50. Brimicombe, Ralphs, Sampson, and Tsui (2001); Bowling (1994); Byers and Crider 

(2002); Glaser, Dixit and Green (2002); Grattet (2009); Green, Strolovitch, and Wong 

(1998); International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001).

51. American Prosecutors Research Institute (2003); Boyd, Berk, and Hammer (1996); 

Bune (2004); International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001); Kielinger and 

Paterson (2007).

52. FBI (2012:1).

53. Duffy and Brantley (1997); Freilich and Chermak (2009); Newman and Clarke (2008).

54. Hounslow Community Safety Partnership (2007). 

55. Lancashire Constabulary (2005).

56. Chakraborti (2009); Gorton (2011); International Association of Chiefs of Police 

(2001).

57. Lancashire Constabulary (2002).

58. American Prosecutors Research Institute (2003); Balboni and McDevitt (2001); 

Bune, (2004); Byers and Crider (2002); California Attorney General’s Civil Rights 

Commission on Hate Crimes (2001); Gorton (2011); Grattet (2009); Grattet and 

Jenness (2008); Gist (1997); International Association of Chiefs of Police (2001); 

Newman and Clarke (2008).

59. Berlet (2001); Blazak (2001); Bune (2004); California Attorney General’s Civil 

Rights Commission on Hate Crimes (2001); Craig and Waldo (1996); International 

Association of Chiefs of Police (2001); Newman and Clarke (2008).

| 47 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott with David K. 

Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting, 2nd Edition. Ronald V. Clarke. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-34-5

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. Braga. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Drug Fraud and Misuse, 2nd Edition. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La 

Vigne. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-37-6 
| 48 |

Hate Crimes

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike Hough. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. Antonacci, and Joel B. 

Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto 

Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob T. Guerette. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana York. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-82-7
| 49 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and Adam Thorpe. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and John E. Eck. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers’ Personal Property in Cafés and Bars. Shane D. Johnson, Kate 

J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen Mamerow, and Anna Warne. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

61. Aggressive Driving. Colleen Laing. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

62. Sexual Assault of Women by Strangers. Kelly Dedel. 2011. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-43-0

63. Export of Stolen Vehicles Across Land Borders. Gohar Petrossian and Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-935676-59-1 

64. Abandoned Buildings and Lots. Jon M. Shane. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-01-7

65. Animal Cruelty. Kelly Dedel. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-05-5

66. Missing Persons. Kenna Quinet. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-20-8

67. Gasoline Drive-Offs. Bruno Meini and Ronald V. Clarke. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-15-4

68. Chronic Public Inebriation. Matthew Pate. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-07-9

69. Drug-Impaired Driving. Joe Kuhns. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-08-6

70. Home Invasion Robbery. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-16-1

71. Physical and Emotional Abuse of the Elderly. Brian K. Payne. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-67-3 

72. Hate Crimes. Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-78-9
| 50 |

Hate Crimes

Response Guides Series

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road?

Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems. Michael S. Scott 

and Herman Goldstein. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of Kelly Socia. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. Jim Hilborn. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. Updated 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0

Problem-Solving Tools Series 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultze. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving. Scott H. Decker. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems. Sharon Chamard. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and Michael S. Scott. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving.

Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units. Matthew B. 

White. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-85-1
| 51 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Rob T. Guerette. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

11. Analyzing and Responding to Repeat Offending. Nick Tilley. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-71-1

12. Understanding the Theft of ‘Hot Products.’ Kate J. Bowers and Shane D. 

Johnson. 2013. ISBN: 978-1-932582-77-2

Special Publications

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. 

Eck. 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive’s Guide. Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke. 

2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented Guide for Mayors, City 

Managers, and County Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 

Implementing POP: Leading, Structuring, and Managing a Problem-Oriented Police 

Agency. Michael S. Scott and Stuart Kirby. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-61-1

Intelligence Analysis for Problem Solvers. John E. Eck and Ronald V. Clarke. 2013. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-55-3

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Robbery of Pharmacies

Problem-Solving Tools

Identifying and Defining Policing Problems

Response Guides

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP Guides, see the Center for 

Problem-Oriented Policing website at www.popcenter.org.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other 

COPS Office publications, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770, 

via e-mail at AskCopsRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Got a problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

•	 Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention

•	 A complete listing of other POP Guides

•	 A listing of forthcoming POP Guides

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Hate Crimes describes the problem and reviews factors that increase its risks. It then 

identifies a series of questions to help police analyze local hate crime problems and 

reviews what is known about responses to the problem from evaluative research and 

police practice. Specifically, it describes what police can do to reduce underlying 

tension in the community that contributes to hate crimes; address the special fear and 

trauma experienced by the individual victim and the racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual 

orientation community to which the victim belongs; and monitor local hate groups.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

June 2013

ISBN: 978-1-932582-78-9 e031322559

Scan this QR code with your 

smartphone for more information 

about the POP Guides Series, or visit 

www.popcenter.org.