U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics · Statistical Tables

BJS

February 2014, NCJ 244409

Hate Crime Victimization, 

2004–2012 - Statistical Tables

Meagan Meuchel Wilson, Statistician

I

n 2012, an estimated 293,800 nonfatal violent 

and property hate crime victimizations occurred 

against persons age 12 or older residing in U.S. 

households. The apparent increase from 2011 to 

2012 in the rate of overall violent hate crime was not 

statistically significant (figure 1).

The findings from this report came primarily from 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which has 

been collecting data on crimes motivated by hate 

since 2003. The NCVS and the FBI’s Uniform Crime 

Reports (UCR) Hate Crime Statistics Program, which 

are the principal sources of annual information on 

hate crime in the United States, use the definition 

of hate crime provided in the Hate Crime Statistics 

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

“crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on 

race, gender or gender identity, religion, disability, 

sexual orientation, or ethnicity.” The NCVS measures 

crimes perceived by victims to be motivated by 

an offender’s bias against them for belonging to or 

being associated with a group largely identified by 

these characteristics.

Hate crime victimization refers to a single 

victim or household that experienced a criminal 

incident believed by the victim to be motivated 

by hate. For violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, 

robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) 

and for personal larceny, the count of hate crime 

victimizations is the number of individuals who 

experienced a violent hate crime. For crimes against 

households (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other 

theft), each household affected by a hate crime is 

counted as a single victimization.

This report presents NCVS data on the characteristics 

of hate crimes and hate crime victims from 2003 to 

2012. Trend estimates are based on 2-year rolling 

averages centered on the most recent year. This 

method generally improves the reliability and stability 

of estimate comparisons over time. For ease of 

discussion, the report refers to all 2-year estimates by 

the most recent year. For example, estimates reported 

for 2012 represent the average estimates for 2011 

and 2012. The report also compares NCVS and UCR 

overall trends in hate crime victimization.

Figure 1 

Violent hate crime victimizations reported and not reported to police, 2004–2012

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data. Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and 

incidents perceived by victims to be bias-motivated because the offender used hate language or left behind hate symbols. Estimates were based on 

2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 1 for estimates and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Reported to police

Not reported to police

Total violent hate crime

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 2

List of tables

TABLE 1. Hate crime victimizations, 2004–2012

TABLE 2. Victims’ perceptions of offender bias in hate 

crimes, 2004, 2011, and 2012

TABLE 3. Hate and nonhate crime victimizations, by 

type of crime, 2004, 2011, and 2012

TABLE 4. Presence of weapons and injuries sustained 

in violent hate and nonhate crime victimizations, 

2004–2012

TABLE 5. Hate crime victimizations reported to police, 

2004, 2011, and 2012

TABLE 6. Characteristics of violent hate crime victims, 

2004, 2011, and 2012

TABLE 7. Characteristics of violent hate crime offenders 

as reported by victims, 2004, 2011, and 2012

TABLE 8. Hate crime victimizations recorded by the 

NCVS and UCR, 2004–2012

List of appendix tables

APPENDIX TABLE 1. Estimates and standard errors for 

figure 1: Violent hate crime victimizations reported and 

not reported to police, 2004–2012

APPENDIX TABLE 2. Population and total criminal 

victimization counts, 2004–2012

APPENDIX TABLE 3. Standard errors for table 1: Hate 

crime victimizations, 2004–2012

APPENDIX TABLE 4. Standard errors for table 2: 

Victims’ perceptions of offender bias in hate crimes, 

2004, 2011, and 2012

APPENDIX TABLE 5. Standard errors for table 3: Hate 

and nonhate crime victimizations, by type of crime, 

2004, 2011, and 2012

APPENDIX TABLE 6. Standard errors for table 4: 

Presence of weapons and injuries sustained in violent 

hate and nonhate crime victimizations, 2004–2012

APPENDIX TABLE 7. Standard errors for table 5: Hate 

crime victimizations reported to police, 2004, 2011, 

and 2012

APPENDIX TABLE 8. Standard errors for table 6: 

Characteristics of violent hate crime victims, 2004, 2011, 

and 2012

APPENDIX TABLE 9. Standard errors for table 7: 

Characteristics of violent hate crime offenders as 

reported by victims, 2004, 2011, and 2012

APPENDIX TABLE 10. Standard errors for table 8: Hate 

crime victimizations recorded by the NCVS and UCR, 

2004–2012

List of figures

FIGURE 1. Violent hate crime victimizations reported 

and not reported to police, 2004–2012

FIGURE 2. NCVS and UCR hate crime victimizations, 

2004–2012
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 3

Number and rate of hate crimes

 In 2012, hate crimes accounted for 1.2% of all 

victimizations and 4.2% of violent victimizations 

(table 1).

 No statistically significant change was observed in either 

the number of total hate crimes or violent hate crimes that 

occurred from 2004 to 2012.

 After a decline from 2004 to 2005, the property hate crime 

victimization rate remained stable from 2005 to 2012.

Hate crime motivation

 Approximately 58% of hate crime victims reported more 

than one type of motivation in 2012 (not shown in table).

 In 2012, victims perceived that the offender was 

motivated by bias against the victim’s ethnicity in 51% of 

hate crimes (table 2). This was a statistically significant 

increase from 30% of hate crimes motivated by ethnicity 

bias in 2011 and 22% in 2004. 

 The percentage of hate crimes motivated by religious bias 

was nearly three times higher in 2012 (28%) than in 2004 

(10%), but did not have a statistically significant change 

from 2011 to 2012.

 In 2009, Congress passed new legislation amending 

the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include hate crimes 

with evidence of bias against a particular gender or 

gender identity. BJS has been collecting information on 

hate crimes motivated by gender bias since 2003. The 

percentage of hate crimes motivated by gender bias was 

more than two times higher in 2011 (25%) and 2012 

(26%) than in 2004 (12%). 

Table 1

Hate crime victimizations, 2004–2012

Year

Total hate crimesa Violent hate crimesb Property hate crimesc

Number

Percent of total 

victimizationsd Number Ratee Percent of total violent victimizationsd Number Ratef

Percent of total 

property victimizationsd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011g 218,010 1.0 195,880 0.8 3.6 22,130 0.2 0.1

2012 293,790 1.2 263,540 1.0 4.2 30,250 0.2 0.2

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

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

appendix table 2 for population data and appendix table 3 for standard errors. 

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

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

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

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

dSee appendix table 2 for number of total victimizations.

ePer 1,000 persons age 12 or older.

f

Per 1,000 households.

gDue to a revision in the public use file, 2011 victimization counts vary slightly from previous publications. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Table 2

Victims’ perceptions of offender bias in hate crimes, 2004, 

2011, and 2012

Offender bias 2004 2011 2012

Ethnicitya 22% 30% 51%

Race 58 58 46

Associationb 23 40 34

Religion 10 25 28

Gender 12 25 26

Sexual orientation 22 19 ! 13

Disability 11 22 11

Perceived characteristicsc 19 15 ! 7 !

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

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

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Estimates were based on 2-year 

rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Detail does not sum to total 

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

victimizations. See appendix table 4 for standard errors. 

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

variation is greater than 50%.

aMotivated by victim’s ancestral, cultural, social, or national affiliation.

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

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 4

Differences between hate and nonhate crimes

 Each year from 2004 to 2012, violent crimes accounted for 

a higher percentage of hate crimes than nonhate crimes 

(table 3).

 The percentage of hate crimes involving violence 

increased from 78% in 2004 to 90% in both 2011 and 

2012. However, no statistically significant difference 

was observed in the percentage of hate crimes involving 

serious violence or simple assault in these years.

 In 2012, serious violent crime accounted for a higher 

percentage of all hate crime victimizations (27%) than 

nonhate crime victimizations (8%).

 In 2012, no statistically significant difference was 

observed between the percentage of violent hate crimes 

(30%) and violent nonhate crimes (31%) that involved 

serious violence (not shown in table).

Weapons and injuries

 In 2012, the offender had a weapon in at least 24% of 

violent hate crime victimizations (table 4). 

 No statistically significant difference was reported 

between the percentage of violent hate (24%) and violent 

nonhate (20%) crime victimizations in which the offender 

was known to have a weapon in 2012.

 The percentage of violent hate and violent nonhate crime 

victimizations in which the offender was known to have a 

weapon remained stable from 2011 to 2012. 

 In 2012, the victim sustained an injury in about 20% of 

violent hate crime victimizations. 

 No statistically significant difference was observed in 2012 

between the percentage of violent hate (20%) and violent 

nonhate (24%) crime victimizations in which the victim 

sustained an injury.

 The percentage of violent hate and violent nonhate crime 

victimizations in which the victim sustained an injury 

remained stable from 2011 to 2012. 

Table 3

Hate and nonhate crime victimizations, by type of crime, 2004, 2011, and 2012

2004 2011 2012

Type of crime Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate

Violenta 78% 26% 90% 24% 90% 25%

Serious violent crimeb 21 9 29 8 27 8

Simple assault 57 18 61 16 63 17

Propertyc 22% 73% 10% 75% 10% 75%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and incidents perceived by victims to be 

bias-motivated because the offender used hate language or left behind hate symbols. Estimates were based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. 

See appendix table 5 for standard errors.

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

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

cIncludes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 

Table 4

Presence of weapons and injuries sustained in violent hate 

and nonhate crime victimizations, 2004–2012

Presence of weapon Any injury sustainedc

Year Hatea Nonhateb Hate Nonhated

2004 23% 23% 19% 28%

2005 16 ! 24 17 27

2006 18 24 31 28

2007 21 23 26 28

2008 20 20 18 24

2009 28 19 16 25

2010 30 21 12 27

2011 25 21 21 26

2012 24 20 20 24

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

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

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Estimates were based on 2-year 

rolling averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 6 for 

standard errors. 

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

variation is greater than 50%.

aPercentage of violent hate crime victims who did not know whether the 

offender had a weapon (5–15%) is not shown in table.

bPercentage of violent nonhate crime victims who did not know whether the 

offender had a weapon (6–8%) is not shown in table.

cIncludes minor injuries, rape injuries, and serious injuries (i.e., broken bones, lost 

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

two or more days of hospitalization). 

dPercentage of violent nonhate crime victims for whom it was unknown whether 

an injury was sustained (0.4% or less) is not shown in table.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 5

Hate crimes reported to the police

 An estimated 60% of total and violent hate crime 

victimizations were not reported to police in 2012 (table 

5). This was a slight* decline from 2011, when about 

three-quarters of total (74%) and violent (73%) hate crime 

victimizations were not reported to police.

*Differences described as slight or slightly passed a test at the 0.10 level of 

statistical significance (90% confidence level). Caution is required when 

comparing estimates not explicitly discussed in this report.

 Overall, the percentage of hate crime victimizations that 

resulted in the victim signing a complaint or the police 

making an arrest did not have a statistically significant 

change from 2011 to 2012.

Table 5

Hate crime victimizations reported to police, 2004, 2011, and 2012

Total Violent

2004 2011 2012 2004 2011 2012

Reporteda 45% 25% 34% 39% 26% 34%

By victim 26 16 22 15 16 21

By someone elseb 20 9 12 25 10 12

Not reported 53% 74% 60% 59% 73% 59%

Complaint signedc 13% 11% 13% 16% 12% 14%

Arrest madec 9% 6% 4% ! 11% 6% ! 4% !

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and incidents perceived by victims to be 

bias-motivated because the offender used hate language or left behind hate symbols. Hate crimes include violent crimes, personal larceny, and household property 

crimes. Estimates were based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 7 for standard errors. 

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

aPercentage of victims for whom it was unknown whether the police were notified (7% or less) is not shown in table.

bIncludes other household members; other officials, such as guards, apartment managers, and school officials; and others.

cPercentages based on all hate crime victimizations, including those in which the police were not notified or it was unknown whether the police were notified.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 6

Violent hate crime victim and offender characteristics

 From 2011 to 2012, rates of violent hate crime 

victimization did not have a statistically significant change 

for either males or females (table 6).

 In 2011, violent hate crime victimization rates were 

similar among white non-Hispanics, black non-Hispanics, 

and Hispanics. However, in 2012, Hispanics experienced 

a higher rate of violent hate crime victimization 

(2.0 victimizations per 1,000 residents) than whites 

(0.8 per 1,000) and a slightly higher rate than blacks 

(1.1 per 1,000). 

 The rate of violent hate crime victimization against 

Hispanics more than tripled from 0.6 per 1,000 persons 

age 12 or older in 2011 to 2.0 per 1,000 in 2012.

 The rate of violent hate crime victimization increased 

for persons ages 18 to 24 (from 0.6 per 1,000 in 2011 to 

2.0 in 2012) and for persons ages 50 to 64 (from 0.4 to 

0.9 per 1,000), while the rate declined for persons ages 

25 to 34 (from 1.6 to 0.7 per 1,000). Violent hate crime 

victimization rates for persons in all other age groups 

did not have a statistically significant change from 2011 

to 2012.

 Persons residing in households with an income greater 

than $50,000 per year experienced a higher rate of violent 

hate crime victimization in 2012 (1.0 per 1,000) than in 

2011 (0.4 per 1,000).

 In both 2011 and 2012, persons living in households 

with an income of $24,999 or less per year experienced 

the highest rate of violent hate crime victimization (2.1 

per 1,000), compared to persons residing in all other 

households (1.0 or less per 1,0001).

Table 6

Characteristics of violent hate crime victims, 2004, 2011, and 2012

Percent Ratea

Victim characteristic 2004 2011 2012 2004 2011 2012

Sex 100% 100% 100%

Male 60 56 53 1.1 0.9 1.1

Female 40 44 47 0.7 0.7 0.9

Race/Hispanic origin 100% 100% 100%

Whiteb 74 64 52 1.0 0.7 0.8

Black/African Americanb 4 ! 13 ! 13 0.3 ! 0.9 ! 1.1

Hispanic/Latino 17 12 30 1.2 0.6 2.0

Otherb,c 5 ! 10 ! 5 ! 0.9 ! 1.2 ! 0.8 !

Age 100% 100% 100%

12–17 33 25 24 2.9 2.0 2.5

18–24 20 10 23 1.6 0.6 2.0

25–34 14 35 11 0.8 1.6 0.7

35–49 23 18 20 0.8 0.6 0.9

50–64 8 11 21 0.4 0.4 0.9

65 or older 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! 0.1 ! 0.1 ! 0.1 !

Household income 100% 100% 100%

$24,999 or less 33 38 32 1.5 1.9 2.1

$25,000–$49,999 23 15 15 0.9 0.6 0.8

$50,000 or more 26 18 37 0.7 0.4 1.0

Not reported 17 28 16 0.7 0.7 0.6

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Hate crime includes incidents confirmed by police as bias-motivated and incidents perceived by victims to be biasmotivated because the offender used hate language or left behind hate symbols. Violent hate crimes include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and 

simple assault. Estimates were based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 8 for standard errors. 

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

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

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

cIncludes persons identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; and two or more races.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 7

 From 2011 to 2012, no statistically significant change 

was observed in the percentage of violent hate crimes 

committed by either a single offender or by multiple 

offenders (table 7). 

 In 2012, the percentage of violent hate crimes committed 

by a single offender (64%) was higher than the percentage 

committed by two or more offenders (34%). 

 Each year from 2004 to 2012, victims reported that males 

committed the majority of violent hate crimes.

 The percentage of violent hate crime victims who 

perceived the offender to be white decreased from 58% 

in 2011 to 34% in 2012. However, the percentage of white 

offenders was similar in 2004 and 2012.

 The percentage of offenders ages 18 to 29 declined from 

29% in 2011 to 13% in 2012. In 2012, persons age 30 

and over made up the largest percentage of hate crime 

offenders (41%).

 In 2012, the percentage of violent hate crimes committed 

by someone known to the victim was slightly higher 

(53%) than the percentage committed by a stranger 

(40%).

Hate crimes recorded by the NCVS and UCR

 The FBI’s UCR collects data on hate crimes known to the 

police. It includes offenses excluded from the NCVS, such 

as murder or nonnegligent manslaughter, intimidation, 

arson, vandalism, and crimes against institutions (e.g., 

churches, synagogues, and businesses). The NCVS collects 

data on hate crimes both reported and not reported to 

police and allows the victim to define whether a hate 

crime occurred.

 Hate crime victimizations recorded by the UCR declined 

steadily from 2008 to 2012 (table 8). However, no 

statistically significant change was observed in NCVS 

hate crime victimizations reported to police from 2008 to 

2012. 

 UCR hate crime victimizations were lower in 2012 than in 

2004. No statistically significant difference was observed 

between the number of NCVS hate crime victimizations 

reported to police in 2004 (127,390) and 2012 (98,460).

Table 7

Characteristics of violent hate crime offenders as reported 

by victims, 2004, 2011, and 2012

Offender characteristic 2004 2011 2012

Number of offenders 100% 100% 100%

One 71 57 64

Two or more 27 42 34

Unknown 2 ! 1 ! 2 !

Sex 100% 100% 100%

Male 66 65 61

Female 27 24 16

Both male and female 3 ! 10 ! 8 !

Unknown 3 ! 2 ! 15 !

Race 100% 100% 100%

White 30 58 34

Black/African American 41 24 32

Othera 17 5 ! 17 !

Various racesb 7 ! 7 ! 6 !

Unknown 6 ! 6 ! 11 !

Age 100% 100% 100%

17 or younger 28 23 19

18–29 20 29 13

30 or older 24 34 41

Two or more age groups 22 8 ! 10

Unknown 6 ! 6 ! 17 !

Relationship to victim 100% 100% 100%

Intimate/family/casual acquaintance 51 61 53

Stranger 39 33 40

Unknown 11 ! 6 ! 7 !

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Hate crime includes incidents 

confirmed by police as bias-motivated and incidents perceived by victims to be 

bias-motivated because the offender used hate language or left behind hate 

symbols. Violent hate crimes include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated 

assault, and simple assault. Estimates were based on 2-year rolling averages 

centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 9 for standard errors. 

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

variation is greater than 50%.

aIncludes persons identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native 

Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; and two or more races.

bIncludes multiple offenders of two or more racial groups.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 

Table 8

Hate crime victimizations recorded by the NCVS and UCR, 

2004–2012

NCVSa

Year

Not reported 

to police

Reported 

to police UCRb

2004 148,020 127,390 9,310

2005 116,500 101,940 9,170

2006 122,120 108,370 9,230

2007 152,680 110,760 9,590

2008 155,090 111,550 9,610

2009 171,150 113,470 9,010

2010 189,390 83,710 8,270

2011 161,970 53,970 7,960

2012 177,130 98,460 7,440

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

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

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Estimates were based on 2-year 

rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Numbers rounded to the 

nearest ten. See appendix table 10 for standard errors. 

aThe number of hate crime victimizations for which it was unknown whether the 

police were notified (6% or less) is not shown in table.

bIncludes murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, 

simple assault, intimidation, other crimes against persons, robbery, burglary, 

larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, destruction/vandalism, other crimes 

against property, and crimes against society. Excludes crimes against juveniles.

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

Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics, 2003–2012; and National Crime 

Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 8

 Based on data from the NCVS, persons age 12 or older 

experienced an annual average of 269,140 hate crime 

victimizations from 2004 to 2012, of which 105,890 were 

reported to police (figure 2). 

 According to the NCVS, an annual average of 14,380 

hate crime victimizations were confirmed by police 

investigators from 2004 to 2012. This estimate was 

not statistically different from the FBI’s UCR annual 

average number of hate crime victims (8,770) during the 

same period.

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

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

hate language or left behind hate symbols. Estimates were based on 10-year 

rolling averages due to small sample sizes. Numbers rounded to the nearest ten. 

Error bars on NCVS estimates are based on 95% confidence levels. The standard 

error for average annual victimizations is 40,701; reported to police is 24,180; and 

confirmed by police investigators is 8,345.

*Includes murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, 

simple assault, intimidation, other crimes against persons, robbery, burglary, 

larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, destruction/vandalism, other crimes 

against property, and crimes against society.

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

variation is greater than 50%.

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

Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics, 2003–2012; and National Crime 

Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Figure 2 

NCVS and UCR hate crime victimizations, 2004–2012

Annual average victimizations

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

UCR - 

victims*

NCVS - conrmed 

by police 

investigators

NCVS - reported to police NCVS - average annual 

victimizations

269,140 

8,770 14,380 !

105,890
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 9

Methodology

Survey coverage

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an 

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

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

self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked 

about the number and characteristics of victimizations 

experienced during the prior 6 months. The NCVS collects 

information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual 

assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and personal 

larceny) and household property crimes (burglary, motor 

vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not 

reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and 

change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is 

the primary source of information on the nature of criminal 

victimization incidents.

Survey respondents provide information about themselves 

(e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, 

education level, and income) and whether they experienced 

a victimization. Information is collected for each 

victimization incident about the offender (e.g., age, race 

and Hispanic origin, sex, and victim-offender relationship), 

characteristics of the crime (including time and place of 

occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic 

consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, 

reasons the crime was or was not reported, and experiences 

with the criminal justice system.

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from 

a nationally representative sample of households in the 

United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of 

members who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are 

considered household members when the sampled address is 

their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and 

when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Once 

selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and 

eligible persons in these households are interviewed every 

6 months either in-person or over the phone, for a total of 

seven interviews. 

Generally, all first interviews are conducted in-person. New 

households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to 

replace outgoing households that have been in the sample 

for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living 

in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, 

and religious group dwellings, and excludes persons living 

in military barracks and institutional settings, such as 

correctional or hospital facilities, and the homeless. (For 

more information, see the Survey Methodology for Criminal 

Victimization in the United States, 2008, NCJ 231173, BJS 

web, May 2011.)

Nonresponse and weighting adjustments

In 2012, 92,390 households and 162,940 persons age 12 

or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household 

was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate 

was 87% for households and 87% for eligible persons. 

Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States 

were excluded from this report. In 2012, less than 1% of the 

unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United 

States and were excluded from the analyses.

Estimates in this report use data from the 2003 to 2012 

NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates 

of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. 

households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample rather 

than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are 

designed to inflate sample point estimates to known 

population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse 

and other aspects of the sample design.

The NCVS data files include both household and person 

weights. The household weight is commonly used to 

calculate estimates of property crimes, such as motor vehicle 

theft or burglary, which are identified within the household. 

Person weights provide an estimate of the population 

represented by each person in the sample. After proper 

adjustment, both household and person weights are also 

typically used to form the denominator in calculations of 

crime rates.

The victimization weights used in this analysis account 

for the number of persons present during an incident 

and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (or series 

victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type but 

occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall 

each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey 

procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify 

these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to 

collect detailed information on only the most recent incident 

in the series.

The weight counts series incidents as the actual number 

of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 

ten incidents. Including series victimizations in national 

rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent 

victimization. However, trends in violence are generally 

similar regardless of whether series victimizations 

are included.

In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% of 

all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. 

Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to 

a maximum of ten produces more reliable estimates of crime 

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

outliers on the rates. Additional information on the series 
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 10

enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting 

High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime 

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

Due to slight revisions in the public use file weights, 2011 

victimization estimates may vary slightly from previous 

publications. These differences were determined to be 

statistically insignificant changes.

Standard error computations

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as with 

the NCVS, caution must be taken when comparing one 

estimate to another estimate or when comparing estimates 

over time. Although one estimate may be larger than 

another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of 

sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends 

on several factors, including the amount of variation in the 

responses and the size of the sample. When the sampling 

error around an estimate is taken into account, the estimates 

that appear different may not be statistically different.

One measure of the sampling error associated with an 

estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary 

from one estimate to the next. In general, for a given metric, 

an estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more 

reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate 

with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively large 

standard errors are associated with less precision and 

reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

In order to generate standard errors around numbers and 

estimates from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produced 

generalized variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. 

The GVFs take into account aspects of the NCVS complex 

sample design and represent the curve fitted to a selection of 

individual standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated 

Replication technique. The GVF parameters were used to 

generate standard errors for each point estimate (e.g., counts, 

percentages, and rates) in this report. 

In this report, BJS conducted tests to determine whether 

differences in estimated numbers and percentages were 

statistically significant once sampling error was taken into 

account. Using statistical programs developed specifically 

for the NCVS, BJS tested the significance of all comparisons 

in the text. The Student’s t-statistic was the primary test 

procedure, which tests the difference between two sample 

estimates. To ensure that the observed differences between 

estimates were larger than might be expected due to 

sampling variation, the significance level was set at the 95% 

confidence level. Differences described as slight or slightly 

passed a test at the 0.10 level of statistical significance (90% 

confidence level). Caution is required when comparing 

estimates not explicitly discussed in this report.

Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of 

the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence 

interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of 

error. The following example illustrates how standard errors 

can be used to generate confidence intervals:

According to the NCVS, in 2012, the violent hate crime 

victimization rate among persons age 12 or older was 

1.0 per 1,000 persons (see table 1). Using the GVFs, BJS 

determined that the estimate has a standard error of 0.1 

(see appendix table 3). A confidence interval around the 

estimate was generated by multiplying the standard errors 

by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed distribution 

that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). 

Therefore, the 95% confidence interval around the 1.0 

estimate from 2012 is 1.0 ± (0.1 X 1.96) or (0.8 to 1.2). 

In other words, if different samples using the same 

procedures were taken from the U.S. population in 2012, 

95% of the time the violent hate crime victimization rate 

would fall between 0.8 and 1.2 per 1,000 persons.

In this report, a coefficient of variation (CV) for all 

estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error to 

the estimate, was also calculated for all estimates. CVs 

provide a measure of reliability and a means to compare the 

precision of estimates across measures with differing levels 

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

the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate 

was noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution; 

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

of variation is greater than 50%).

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) 

The UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program captures 

information about the types of bias that motivate hate 

crimes, the nature of the offenses, and some information 

about the victims and offenders by attaching the collection of 

hate crime statistics to the established UCR data collection 

procedures. The hate crime data presented here comprise a 

subset of information that law enforcement agencies submit 

to the UCR program.

Crimes reported to the FBI involve those motivated by 

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

national origin, and disability. Forthcoming data collection 

changes will allow the reporting of crimes motivated by 

gender and gender identity bias, as well as crimes committed 

by and directed against juveniles. The victim of a hate crime 

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

whole. In UCR data, law enforcement specifies the number 

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

or offenders as a group. Agencies that participated in the 

Hate Crime Statistics Program in 2012 represented nearly 

249 million residents, or 79.3% percent of the nation’s 

population, covering 48 states and the District of Columbia. 
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 11

Hate crime legislation 

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

Act, which requires the Attorney General to collect data 

“about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on 

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

General delegated the responsibilities of developing the 

procedures for implementing, collecting, and managing hate 

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

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

Attorney General and with the cooperation and assistance 

of many local and state law enforcement agencies, the UCR 

program created a hate crime data collection to comply with 

the congressional mandate.

In September 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime 

Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities 

in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 

1994. The FBI started gathering data for the additional bias 

type on January 1, 1997.

The Church Arson Prevention Act, which was signed into 

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

statute and mandated that the collection of hate crime data 

become a permanent part of the UCR program.

In 2009, Congress further amended the Hate Crime Statistics 

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

Hate Crime Prevention Act. The amendment includes the 

collection of data for crimes motivated by bias against a 

particular gender and gender identity, as well as for crimes 

committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles. The 

FBI is currently making plans to implement changes to 

collect these data.

The Hate Crime Statistics Act can be accessed at 

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/hatecrimestatistics.html.
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 12

Appendix table 1

Estimates and standard errors for figure 1: Violent hate 

crime victimizations reported and not reported to police, 

2004–2012

Rate of violent hate crime* Standard error

Year Total

Not reported 

to police

Reported 

to police Total

Not reported 

to police

Reported 

to police

2004 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

2005 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

2006 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

2007 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

2008 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

2009 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1

2010 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

2011 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

2012 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding and missing data.

*Per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Appendix table 2

Population and total criminal victimization counts, 2004–2012

U.S. resident population

Year

Persons age 

12 or older Households

Total criminal victimizations

Alla Violentb Propertyc

2004 240,504,850 114,956,250 27,012,660 7,202,560 19,593,620 

2005 243,104,500 116,437,690 26,097,760 6,836,930 19,034,070 

2006 245,869,190 117,479,100 27,184,240 7,689,110 19,293,790 

2007 248,788,980 118,680,960 27,037,130 7,622,310 19,215,320 

2008 251,293,700 120,322,300 24,699,350 6,603,830 17,897,050 

2009 253,174,070 121,734,360 22,933,870 6,031,350 16,750,320 

2010 255,033,770 122,606,410 21,255,680 5,302,610 15,817,290 

2011d 256,752,090 122,961,860 21,763,690 5,374,250 16,237,380 

2012 259,769,280 124,479,520 24,830,300 6,327,560 18,343,060 

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

recent year. Numbers rounded to the nearest ten. 

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

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

cIncludes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.

dDue to a revision in the public use file, 2011 victimization counts vary slightly 

from previous publications. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.

Appendix table 3

Standard errors for table 1: Hate crime victimizations, 2004–2012

Total hate crimes Violent hate crimes Property hate crimes

Year Number

Percent of total

victimizations Number Rate

Percent of total 

violent victimizations Number Rate

Percent of total 

property victimizations

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

2005 36,153 0.1 33,915 0.1 0.4 9,299 0.1 --

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

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

2008 45,320 0.1 42,750 0.1 0.5 10,321 0.1 --

2009 61,025 0.2 58,627 0.2 0.7 8,907! 0.1 --

2010 54,876 0.2 52,530 0.2 0.7 9,133! 0.1 --

2011 42,840 0.2 39,880 0.1 0.6 10,119 0.1 --

2012 48,156 0.1 44,941 0.1 0.5 12,029 0.1 --

-- Less than 0.05 or 0.05%.

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012.
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 13

Appendix table 4

Standard errors for table 2: Victims’ perceptions of offender 

bias in hate crimes, 2004, 2011, and 2012

Offender bias 2004 2011 2012

Ethnicity 3.7% 5.2% 5.1%

Race 4.5 5.9 5.1

Association 3.8 5.7 4.7

Religion 2.6 4.8 4.4

Gender 2.9 4.8 4.3

Sexual orientation 3.7 4.3 ! 3.2

Disability 2.7 4.5 2.8

Perceived characteristics 3.5 3.8 ! 2.3 !

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

variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 

Appendix table 5

Standard errors for table 3: Hate and nonhate crime 

victimizations, by type of crime, 2004, 2011, and 2012

2004 2011 2012

Type of crime Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate

Violent 3.8% 0.6% 3.7% 1.1% 3.2% 0.9%

Serious violent crime 3.2 0.3 5.0 0.6 4.3 0.5

Simple assault 4.6 0.5 5.7 0.9 4.9 0.7

Property 3.6% 0.6% 3.1% 0.7% 2.8% 0.7%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 

Appendix table 6

Standard errors for table 4: Presence of weapons and injuries 

sustained in violent hate and nonhate crime victimizations, 

2004–2012

Presence of weapon Any injury sustained

Year Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate

2004 4.3% 0.9% 4.0% 1.0%

2005 4.2 ! 1.0 4.3 1.1

2006 4.3 1.0 5.2 1.0

2007 4.2 1.0 4.5 1.1

2008 4.5 1.2 4.2 1.3

2009 5.9 1.7 4.7 1.9

2010 5.5 1.7 3.6 2.0

2011 5.0 1.6 4.7 1.7

2012 4.3 1.3 4.0 1.4

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

variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 

Appendix table 7

Standard errors for table 5: Hate crime victimizations 

reported to police, 2004, 2011, and 2012

Total Violent

2004 2011 2012 2004 2011 2012

Reported 4.5% 4.8% 4.7% 5.0% 5.1% 4.9%

By victim 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.5 4.1 4.1

By someone else 3.6 2.9 3.0 4.4 3.2 3.2

Not reported 4.6% 5.3% 5.1% 5.1% 5.6% 5.3%

Complaint signed 3.0% 3.3% 3.1% 3.7% 3.6% 3.4%

Arrest made 2.5% 2.3% 1.8% ! 3.2% 2.4% ! 1.9% !

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

variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 
Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2012 - Statistical Tables | February 2014 14

Appendix table 8

Standard errors for table 6: Characteristics of violent hate crime victims, 2004, 2011, and 2012

Percent Rate

Victim characteristic 2004 2011 2012 2004 2011 2012

Sex

Male 5.0% 6.1% 5.3% 0.2 0.2 0.2

Female 5.0 6.0 5.3 0.1 0.1 0.2

Race/Hispanic origin

White 4.5% 6.0% 5.3% 0.1 0.1 0.1

Black/African American 1.8 ! 3.7 ! 3.3 0.1 ! 0.3 ! 0.3

Hispanic/Latino 3.8 3.5 4.7 0.3 0.2 0.4

Other 2.2 ! 3.3 ! 2.1 ! 0.4 ! 0.4 ! 0.3 !

Age

12–17 4.8% 5.0% 4.3% 0.5 0.5 0.6

18–24 4.0 3.2 4.2 0.4 0.2 0.5

25–34 3.5 5.7 3.1 0.2 0.4 0.2

35–49 4.3 4.3 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.2

50–64 2.8 3.4 4.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

65 or older 1.1 ! 1.1 ! 0.9 ! 0.1 ! 0.1 ! 0.1 !

Household income

$24,999 or less 4.8% 5.8% 4.8% 0.3 0.4 0.4

$25,000–$49,999 4.3 4.0 3.5 0.2 0.2 0.2

$50,000 or more 4.5 4.4 5.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Not reported 3.8 5.2 3.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 

Appendix table 9

Standard errors for table 7: Characteristics of violent hate 

crime offenders as reported by victims, 2004, 2011, and 2012

Offender characteristic 2004 2011 2012

Number of offenders

One 4.7% 6.1% 5.2%

Two or more 4.5 6.0 4.9

Unknown 1.4 ! 0.6 ! 1.3 !

Sex

Male 4.9% 6.0% 5.3%

Female 4.5 4.9 3.6

Both male and female 1.6 ! 3.2 ! 2.5 !

Unknown 1.8 ! 1.3 ! 3.5 !

Race

White 4.6% 6.1% 4.9%

Black/African American 5.0 5.0 4.8

Other 3.8 2.2 ! 3.7 !

Various races 2.5 ! 2.6 ! 2.2 !

Unknown 2.3 ! 2.4 ! 3.1 !

Age

17 or younger 4.6% 4.8% 3.9%

18–29 4.0 5.3 3.3

30 or older 4.3 5.6 5.2

Two or more age groups 4.2 2.9 ! 3.0

Unknown 2.3 ! 2.4 ! 3.7 !

Relationship to victim

Intimate/family/casual acquaintance 5.1% 6.1% 5.3%

Stranger 5.0 5.6 5.2

Unknown 3.1 ! 2.4 ! 2.4 !

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

variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 

Appendix table 10

Standard errors for table 8: Hate crime victimizations 

recorded by the NCVS and UCR, 2004–2012

NCVS

Year Not reported to police Reported to police 

2004 26,809 24,716 

2005 25,442 23,689 

2006 26,136 24,519 

2007 28,894 24,266 

2008 32,896 27,174 

2009 44,352 34,455 

2010 43,032 25,336 

2011 35,142 17,239 

2012 35,004 24,399 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2003–2012. 
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice Programs, 

U.S. Department of Justice, collects, analyzes, and disseminates statistical 

information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the 

operation of justice systems at all levels of government. William J. Sabol is 

acting director.

This report was written by Meagan Meuchel Wilson, on detail from the 

U.S. Census Bureau. Lynn Langton verified the report.

Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced 

the report.

February 2014, NCJ 244409