U.S. Department of Justice

Offi ce of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

Special Report

June 2011 nCJ 234085

From 2003 to 2009, an annual average of 195,000 hate 

crime victimizations occurred each year against 

persons age 12 or older residing in the United States, 

according to the National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS). Th e 148,400 overall hate crime victimizations 

that occurred in 2009 represent a decline from 2003 when 

residents experienced 239,400 hate crime victimizations. 

During the period, the number and rate of violent hate 

crime victimizations also declined. Th e rate of violent hate 

crime declined from 0.8 violent hate crime victimizations 

per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2003 to 0.5 per 1,000 in 

2009 (fi gure 1). Nearly 90% of the hate crime victimizations 

occurring during the 7-year period were perceived to be 

racially or ethnically motivated.

Th e 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act (P.L. 101-275) defi nes 

bias-motivated or hate crimes as “crimes that manifest 

evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual 

orientation, or ethnicity.” Th e law has since been amended 

twice: once in 1994 to include crimes motivated by bias 

against persons with disabilities, and in late 2009 to include 

crimes of prejudice based on gender or gender identity.1

1Th e NCVS has collected information about hate crime victimizations 

motivated by gender bias since 2003. Th is report excludes gender-based hate 

crimes to allow for comparability with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

(FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and to maintain consistency with the 

legal defi nition of hate crime during the period of analysis. 

Lynn Langton and Michael Planty, BJS Statisticians

HIGHLIGHTS

 From 2003 to 2009, the rate of violent hate crime 

victimizations in the United States decreased from 

0.8 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older to 0.5 per 1,000. 

 From 2003 to 2009, hate crime victimizations accounted 

for less than 1% of the total victimizations captured by 

the NCVS.

 In nearly 90% of hate crime victimizations occurring 

between 2003 and 2009, the victim suspected the 

off ender was motivated by racial or ethnic prejudice or 

both.

 More than 4 in 5 hate crime victimizations involved 

violence; about 23% were serious violent crimes.

 In about 37% of violent hate crimes the off ender knew 

the victim; in violent nonhate crimes, half of all victims 

knew the off ender.

 Police were notifi ed of fewer than half (45%) of all hate 

crime victimizations.

 Eight hate crime homicides (murders/non-negligent 

manslaughters) occurred in 2009.

 From 2003 to 2009, no diff erences were found between 

hate and nonhate crime in the percentage of violent 

victimizations involving a weapon or causing injury to the 

victim.

 The majority of violent hate crimes were interracial while 

the majority of nonhate violent crimes were intraracial.

 Fewer than 1 in 10 hate crime victims stated that the 

off ender left hate symbols at the crime scene; nearly 

all hate crime victims said that the off ender used hate 

language.

Hate Crime, 2003-2009

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2009200820072006*200520042003

Victimization rate

Figure 1

Rate of violent hate crime victimizations, 2003-2009 

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classifi ed as hate crime if the victim perceived that the off ender 

was motivated by bias because the off ender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confi rmed that the incident was a hate crime. Rate is per 1,000 

persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 17 for standard errors. See appendix table 1 for 

base population numbers.

*Due to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 

criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2006,

http://www.bjs.gov, for more information. 

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009. 
2 Hate Crime, 2003-2009

The NCVS and UCR are the two annual sources of 

information that describe hate crime in the United States. 

This report presents data on the characteristics of hate 

crimes and hate crime victims using both of these sources, 

which present similar pictures of the overall trends in and 

characteristics of hate crime victimizations. Unless otherwise 

noted, the information in this report detailing incident and 

victim characteristics is primarily from the NCVS. 

Throughout this report, the terms hate crime and biasmotivated crime are used interchangeably and include 

violent or property offenses motivated by prejudice against 

a victim’s race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or 

disability. The NCVS collects data from the victims about 

the offenders’ motivation for the hate crime. The survey 

measures bias motivated by the offender’s assumption that 

the victim belonged to or was associated with a group largely 

identified by these characteristics. 

Number and rate of hate crime victimizations declined 

in recent years

A hate crime victimization refers to a single victim or 

household that experienced a criminal incident suspected 

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, theft, and 

motor vehicle theft), each household affected by a hate crime 

is counted as a single victimization. 

Overall the number of hate crime victimizations was lower 

in 2009 than 2003—down from 239,400 victimizations to 

148,400 (table 1). A similar declined occurred in violent hate 

crime victimizations as well. 

Measuring hate crime using the National Crime Victimization Survey 

and Uniform Crime Reports

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a survey 

of a nationally representative sample of persons age 12 

or older in U.S. households. Each year victim self-reports 

capture information about the number and characteristics 

of victimizations, both reported and not reported to law 

enforcement. Hate-related victimizations are based on 

victims’ suspicion of the offenders’ motivation. However, 

the NCVS definition requires that victims’ suspicions 

be corroborated by at least one type of evidence that 

hate was the motivation, such as offenders’ use of hate 

language, hate symbols left at the scene, or the police 

investigators’ confirmation that a hate crime occurred.

Imputing offenders’ motives is difficult. Victims, witnesses, 

or police officers may misinterpret symbols or words. The 

NCVS provides a measure of what victims describe as hate 

crimes, but it cannot directly interpret the offenders’ intent.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Hate Crime 

Statistics Program collects information about hate or 

bias-motivated incidents, offenses, and offenders reported 

and classified by law enforcement agencies each year. 

In 2009, the program included 14,422 participating law 

enforcement agencies representing 90.9 percent of the 

nation’s population. These agencies provided 1 to 12 

months of data about bias-motivated crime.

The primary differences between the UCR and NCVS 

programs relate to victim reporting to the police and 

how police process and classify incidents as hate or biasmotivated.

 The NCVS captures incidents and victimizations whether 

they were reported to law enforcement agencies. About 

45% of NCVS respondents who were victims of hate crime 

said that the police were notified about the crime.

 NCVS hate-motivated incidents are defined by the 

victim and the presence of crime scene evidence. They 

include incidents that may not be founded or recorded 

by police investigations as a hate-motivated incident.

 Unlike the NCVS, the UCR captures offenses against all 

individuals, regardless of age, and against organizations, 

institutions, schools, churches, and businesses. The UCR 

also captures hate crime homicides, which are excluded 

from the NCVS. 

The NCVS estimates an annual average of 169,000 violent 

hate crime victimizations per year. When the UCR data are 

restricted to the types of violent crimes collected through 

the NCVS (rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple 

assault), the UCR shows an average of 2,900 hate crime 

victims known to police. The large discrepancy can be 

accounted for in part by determining that 54% of victims 

in the NCVS did not report their crimes to the police, 12% 

stated that a complaint was signed, and 7% received 

confirmation from the police investigators that the crime 

was a hate crime. Once these factors are considered, the 

UCR estimate is no longer statistically different from the 

NCVS estimate due to the relatively large standard error 

associated with the NCVS estimate.
June 2011 3

From 2003 through 2009, hate crime victimizations 

accounted for less than 1% of the total victimizations 

captured by the NCVS. Violent hate crime victimizations 

accounted for an average of 3.1% of all violent 

victimizations.

From 2003 to 2009 the rate of violent hate crime 

victimizations declined by 37%

From 2003 to 2009, persons age 12 or older experienced an 

annual average of about 194,800 hate crime victimizations 

and 179,300 hate crime incidents (table 2). Incidents are 

distinguished from victimizations in that one criminal 

incident may have multiple victims or victimizations. Of 

the hate crime victims, nearly 169,000 (87%) were persons 

who experienced violent hate crime victimization, and about 

24,400 (13%) were households victimized by bias-motivated 

property crimes. 

On average, an annual rate of 0.7 victimizations per 1,000 

persons age 12 or older were victims of a violent hate crime. 

An annual rate of 0.2 per 1,000 households experienced a 

hate-related property crime. The rate of both violent and 

property hate crime victimizations declined from 2003 to 

2009. 

Table 1

Hate crime victimizations, 2003-2009 

Total hate crimesa Violent hate crimesb

Year Number

Percent of total 

victimizationsc Number Rated

Percent of total 

victimizationsc

2003 239,400 1.0% 199,900 0.8 3.5%

2004 151,100 0.6 115,800 0.5 2.1

2005 197,400 0.8 183,400 0.8 3.4

2006e 220,600 0.9 197,200 0.8 3.1

2007 223,500 1.0 193,800 0.8 3.6

2008 183,000 0.8 159,400 0.6 3.1

2009 148,400 0.7 133,500 0.5 3.0

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, or 

the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. See appendix 

table 2 for standard errors.

aincludes rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, larceny, burglary, 

motor vehicle theft, and other theft. 

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

cSee appendix table 1 for number of total victimizations.

dRates calculated per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 1 for base 

population numbers. 

eDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 

criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2006, 

http://www.bjs.gov, for more information. 

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009. 

Table 2

Annual average for hate crime incidents and victimizations, 

2003-2009

Annual hate crimes Incidents Victimizations

Number

Total hate crimesa 179,300 194,800

Violentb 153,500 169,000

Propertyc 24,400 24,400

Percent

Total crimea 0.8% 0.8%

Violentb 3.0 3.1

Propertyc 0.1 0.1

Rate 

Violentd 0.6 0.7

Propertye 0.2 0.2

Percent change in rate, 2003 

to 2009

Violentd -37.5% -37.1%

Propertye -64.8 -64.8

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. An incident is a 

single event that may include multiple victims, while victimization refers to a single victim or 

household. See appendix table 3 for standard errors. 

aIncludes rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, larceny, burglary, 

motor vehicle theft, and other theft. 

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

cIncludes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.

dIncludes rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Rates 

calculated per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 1 for base population 

numbers.

eIncludes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft. Rates calculated per 1,000 

households. See appendix table 1 for base population numbers.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009.
4 Hate Crime, 2003-2009

Offender’s language was evidence that the crime was 

motivated by hate in most hate crime victimizations

For a crime to be classified as a hate crime in the NCVS, the 

victim must report at least one of three types of evidence 

that the act was motivated by hate: the offender used hate 

language, the offender left behind hate symbols, or police 

investigators confirmed that the incident was hate crime. 

Almost all hate crime victims cited the offenders’ use of 

hate language as evidence that the crime was motivated by 

hate. From 2003 to 2009, about 98% of all hate crimes and 

99% of violent hate crimes involved hate language (table 3). 

Fewer than 1 in 10 victims reported that the offender left 

hate symbols at the scene of the crime (9%) or that police 

investigators confirmed that the crime was hate based (7%). 

Victims suspected that more than half of hate crime 

victimizations were motivated by racial bias

The NCVS asks hate crime victims the types of bias they 

suspect motivated the crime. From 2003 to 2009, about 58% 

of hate crime victimizations were suspected to be motivated 

by racial bias (figure 2). About a third of victims suspected 

they were targeted because of their ethnicity (30%), and a 

quarter said it was because of their associations with persons 

having particular characteristics (25%). Victims in about 1 

in 10 hate crimes suspected the motivation to be bias against 

the victim’s disability.

In 2009 a smaller percentage of hate crime victims suspected 

they were targeted because of their associations with persons 

having particular characteristics, or because of the offender’s 

perception of their characteristics or religious beliefs, than 

in 2003 (not shown in table). The percentage of hate crimes 

in which victims suspected motivation of sexual orientation 

bias was slightly greater in 2009 than in 2003 (not shown in 

table). 

Table 3

Victims’ evidence that a hate crime occurred, 2003-2009

Type of hate crime Hate language Hate symbols

Confirmed by police 

investigators

Total* 98% 9% 7%

Violent 99 8 7

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. Detail does not sum 

to 100% due to victims reporting multiple types of evidence that the crime was motivated by 

hate. See appendix table 4 for standard errors.

*Includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, larceny, burglary, 

motor vehicle theft, and other theft.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009. 

0 20 40 60 80

Percent of hate crime victimizations

Disability

Religion

Perceived characteristics

Sexual orientation

Association

Ethnicity

Race

30%

25%

15%

13%

12%

10%

58%

Figure 2

Victims’ account of suspected hate crime motivation, 

2003-2009 

Note: Detail does not sum to 100% because victims may have reported more than 

one type of bias motivating the hate crime. See appendix table 18 for standard errors. 

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009. 
June 2011 5

More than 4 in 5 hate crime victimizations involved 

violence

Overall, nearly 87% of hate crimes involved violence, and 

about 23% were serious violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, 

robbery, aggravated assault) (table 4). In contrast, about 

23% of all nonhate crimes involved violence with about 8% 

classified as serious violent crimes. 

From 2003 to 2009, the majority of hate crimes were simple 

assaults (64%). The next most common type of hate crime 

was aggravated assault (16%), followed by theft (8%), 

robbery (6%), and burglary (5%).

No differences were found between hate and nonhate 

crime in the presence of a weapon or injuries suffered 

From 2003 through 2009, no measurable difference was 

detected in the percentage of offenders who had a weapon in 

hate and nonhate crime victimizations. About 20% of violent 

hate crime victims reported that the offender had

a weapon (table 5). 

More than three-quarters of violent hate crime victims 

(77%) did not suffer from any injuries during the event. 

About 20% suffered minor injuries, such as bruises and 

cuts, and 3% suffered serious injuries such as broken bones, 

internal injuries, or stabbing or gunshot wounds. 

Hate crimes were less likely than nonhate crimes to 

occur at or near the victim’s home 

From 2003 through 2009, about a third of hate crimes (32%) 

occurred at or near a victim’s home while more than half 

(57%) of nonhate crime victimizations took place at or 

around the victim’s home (table 6). A greater percentage of 

hate crime victims (18%) than nonhate crime victims (9%) 

said that the victimization occurred at school. 

Table 4

Hate and nonhate crime victimizations, by type of crime, 

2003-2009

Type of crime Hate Nonhate

Total 100% 100%

Violent crime 87 23

Rape/sexual assault 1 ! 1

Robbery 6 3

Aggravated assault 16 4

Simple assault 64 15

Personal larceny 1% ! 1%

Property crime 13% 76%

Burglary 5 14

Motor vehicle theft -- 4

Theft 8 58

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. See appendix 

table 5 for standard errors.

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

is greater than 50%. See Metholodology for standard error computations.

--Less than 0.5%.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009.

Table 5

Presence of weapons and injuries sustained in violent hate 

and nonhate crime victimizations, 2003-2009

Weapon/injury Hate Nonhate

Weapon

Yes 20% 24%

No 69 69

Don’t know 12 7

Injury 

None 77% 73%

Minor 20 22

Serious* 3 4

Rape without other injuries -- 1

Annual average violent victimizations 169,000 5,253,800

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. See appendix 

table 6 for standard errors.

--Less than 0.5%.

*Serious injury includes broken bones, lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and 

any unspecified injury requiring two or more days of hospitalization. 

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009.

Table 6

Hate and nonhate crime victimizations, by location, 

2003-2009

Location Hate Nonhate

At or near victim’s home 32% 57%

At or near a friend or relative’s home 6 5

Commercial place 12 7

Parking lot, on street, or 

 on public transportation 24 18

School 18 9

Other 8 6

Annual average victimizations 194,800 23,369,400

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. See appendix 

table 7 for standard errors.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009.

 
6 Hate Crime, 2003-2009

Police were notified of fewer than half of hate crimes 

From 2003 to 2009, overall about 45% of all hate crime 

victimizations captured in the NCVS were reported to 

the police (table 7). Of those, 26% were reported by the 

victim, 13% by someone else, and 6% in some other way 

(for example, police were present at the scene when the 

crime occurred). More than half (54%) of violent hate crime 

victimizations that resulted in an injury were reported to the 

police. 

Victims signed formal complaints against the offender in 

12% of violent hate crimes and 19% of violent hate crimes 

that resulted in injury. A lower percentage of victims of 

violent hate crime (8%) reported an arrest in conjunction 

with the crime than victims of nonhate violent crime (14%).

Generally, victims targeted because of a disability 

were least likely to report the hate crime to police

With one exception, there was little variation in the 

percentage of hate crime victimizations reported to the 

police, regardless of the suspected motivation behind the 

hate crime (figure 3). The exception involved victims who 

were targeted because of a disability. A lower percentage 

of hate crime victimizations believed to be motivated by 

disability bias were reported to the police (33%), than 

hate crimes motivated by ethnic bias (51%), bias against 

the victim’s associations (47%), or bias against perceived 

characteristics of the victim (46%). 

Approximately a third of hate crime victimizations not 

reported to the police was handled another way

Victims of the approximately 54% of hate crime 

victimizations not reported to the police offered a variety 

of reasons for not reporting. About 1 in 3 victims who 

did not report the hate crime to the police handled the 

victimization in another way, such as privately or through 

a non-law enforcement official, like an apartment manager 

or school official (table 8). For about 19% of hate crimes not 

reported to the police, the victim stated that the crime was 

not important enough to report. Approximately 15% of hate 

crime victims who did not report the crime believed that 

the police would not want to be bothered or to get involved, 

would be inefficient and ineffective, or would cause trouble 

for the victim.

Table 7

Hate and nonhate crime victimizations reported to police, 

2003-2009

Total 

hate

Violent Violent with injury

Reporting to police Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate

Reported by— 45% 45% 48% 54% 61%

Victim 26 25 28 20 30

Someone elsea 13 14 16 21 25

Otherb 6 7 4 12 ! 5

Complaint signed 12 12 17 19 27

Arrest made 8 8 14 13 ! 22

Not reported 54% 54% 51% 45% 38%

Don’t know if reported 1 ! 1 ! 1 2 ! 1

Average annual

 victimizations 194,800 169,000 5,253,800 38,600 1,438,200

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. See appendix 

table 8 for standard errors.

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

variation is greater than 50%. See Methodology for standard error computations.

aIncludes other household members; other officials, such as guards, apartment managers, 

and school officials; and others.

bIncludes victimizations in which the police were already at the scene, or some other way. 

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009. 

Percent of hate crime victimizations reported to police

45%

44%

51%

33%

43%

47%

46%

0 20 40 60 80

Disability

Sexual orientation

Religion

Race

Perceived characteristics

Association

Ethnicity

Figure 3

Hate crime victimizations reported to the police, 

by perceived motivation for the hate crime, 2003-2009

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. See appendix 

table 19 for standard errors. 

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009. 
June 2011 7

Victims of two or more races had the highest rate of 

violent hate crime victimizations

From 2003 to 2009, the greatest percentage of hate crime 

victimizations were against white, non-Hispanic individuals 

(table 9). However, persons of two or more races (4.0 per 

1,000 age 12 or older) had the highest rate of hate crime 

violent victimizations. Persons of more than one race also 

had the highest rate of violent nonhate crime victimizations 

(64.3 per 1,000), compared to persons in other racial and 

ethnic categories. 

For both hate and nonhate violent crime victimizations, 

persons ages 12 through 24 had a higher rate of victimization 

than persons age 50 or older. Also for both categories of 

crime, persons in households with an income of less than 

$25,000 had a higher rate of violent victimization than 

persons in households with an income of $50,000 or more. 

Males (0.9 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older) experienced a 

higher rate of violent hate crime victimizations than females 

(0.5 per 1,000).

Table 8

Most important reason why victimization was not reported 

to police, 2003-2009

Most important reason victim 

did not report to policea

Violentb

Total hate Hate Nonhate

Handled another way 32% 33% 35%

Not important enough 19 19 23

Police could not do anything 4 ! 2 ! 3

Police would not help 15 15 10

Otherc 31 31 29

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. Does not include 

victims who reported offense to the police or did not know whether the offense was 

reported to the police. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.

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

variation is greater than 50%. See Methodology for standard error computations.

aVictims were asked to cite the most important reason why the incident was not reported 

to the police. 

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

cIncludes victims who could not select one reason as most important.

Table 9

Characteristics of hate crime victims, 2003-2009

Annual rate of violent 

victimizations a

Victim characteristic

Percent of total 

hate crime victims Hate Nonhate

Sex 100%

Male 60 0.9 23.8

Female 40 0.5 18.9

Race/Hispanic origin 100%

Whiteb 61 0.6 20.4

Blackb 13 0.6 27.5

Hispanic 17 0.9 20.5

American Indian/Alaskan Nativeb 1 ! 1.8! 46.4

Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islanderb 3 0.5! 9.4

Two or more races 5 4.0 64.3

Age 100%

12-15 14 1.5 45.5

16-24 28 1.2 42.4

25-34 18 0.8 26.0

35-49 25 0.6 18.1

50-64 13 -- 11.4

65 or older 1 ! -- 2.8

Household income 100%

Less than $25,000 29 1.1 33.9

$25,000 - $49,999 22 0.7 23.3

$50,000 or more 29 0.6 17.0

Not reported 21 0.6 17.4

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. See appendix 

table 10 for standard errors

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

variation is greater than 50%. See Methodology for standard error computations.

--Less than 0.5.

aVictimization rates are per 1,000 residents age 12 or older in each category. Includes rape/

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

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009.
8 Hate Crime, 2003-2009

Regardless of sex or race/Hispanic origin, more than 

half of victims suspected the victimization to be 

motivated by racial bias

Among all racial and ethnic groups, victims suspected 

racial or ethnic bias to be the motivation in the majority of 

victimizations (table 10). A greater percentage of Hispanic 

hate crime victims than white non-Hispanic and black nonHispanic victims suspected the hate crime to be motivated 

by ethnic bias. 

From 2003 to 2009, with the exception of hate crimes 

motivated by disability bias, no differences were 

detected between the types of bias motivating hate crime 

victimizations against males versus females (table 11). The 

majority of men (62%) and women (52%) perceived that 

racial bias motivated the hate crime. 

Victims did not know the offender in more than half 

of violent hate crime victimizations 

The NCVS asks victims of violent crime about the 

characteristics of the offender. From 2003 to 2009, a lower 

percentage of victims of violent hate crime (64%) reported 

victimization by a single offender than victims of nonhate 

violent crimes (78%) (table 12). A greater percentage of 

victims of violent hate crime (15%) reported victimization 

by a group of four or more offenders than victims of violent 

nonhate crimes (6%).

Table 10

Victims’ account of suspected hate crime motivation, 

by race/Hispanic origin, 2003-2009

Motivation for hate crime White* Black* Hispanic

Race 55% 64% 53%

Religion 14 6 ! 10 !

Ethnicity 19 38 64

Disability 12 18 ! --

Sexual orientation 18 5 ! 15 !

Association 28 18 ! 25

Perceived characteristics 12 16 ! 13 !

Annual average victimizations 118,500 25,200 ! 33,000 

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, or 

the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. Details will not sum to 

100% within victim categories, because some victims perceived more than one motivation. 

See appendix table 11 for standard errors.

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

variation is greater than 50%. See Methodology for standard error computations.

--Less than 0.5%. 

*Excludes persons of Hispanic/Latino origin.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009.

Table 11

Victims’ account of suspected hate crime motivation, 

by sex, 2003-2009

Motivation for hate crime Male victims Female victims

Race 62% 52%

Religion 11 13

Ethnicity 29 32

Disability 7 15

Sexual orientation 18 11

Association 24 26

Perceived characteristics 13 13

Annual average victimizations 117,000 77,800

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. Details will not 

sum to 100% within victim categories, because some victims perceived more than one 

motivation. See appendix table 12 for standard errors.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009.

Table 12

Characteristics of violent offenders as reported by victims 

of hate and nonhate crime, 2003-2009

Offender characteristic Hate Nonhate

Number of offenders

1 64% 78%

2 or 3 14 12

4 or more 15 6

Unknown 7 4

Sex

Male 67% 74%

Female 19 17

Both male and female 7 4

Unknown 8 6

Race

White 43% 53%

Black 29 24

Other 14 10

Various races* 5 3

Unknown 11 11

Age

17 or younger 17% 18%

18-29 24 30

30 or older 29 32

More than one age group 16 8

Unknown 14 12

Relationship to victim

Stranger 54% 42%

At least casually known 37 50

Unknown 9 8

Perceived gang membership

Gang member 12% 6%

Not a gang member 42 54

Unknown 46 40

Perceived substance use

Drunk or on drugs 30% 28%

Not drunk or on drugs 24 28

Unknown 46 45

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. Details within each 

group of characteristics may not sum to 100% due to rounding. See appendix table 13 for 

standard errors.

*Includes multiple offenders of more than one racial group.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009. 
June 2011 9

Across hate crime and other crimes, a greater percentage of 

offenders were males than females, and a greater percentage 

were white than any other race. A higher percentage of 

violent hate crime victimizations (16%) involved offenders 

from more than one age group than nonhate crime violent 

victimizations (8%). The percentage of offenders age 18 

to 29 was slightly lower in violent hate crime (24%) than 

in nonhate crime violent victimizations (30%). Similar 

percentages of hate and nonhate crime violent victimizations 

involved offenders that were age 17 or younger and age 30 or 

older. 

Victims in about 54% of violent hate crime victimizations 

reported that the offender was a stranger, compared to 42% 

of nonhate crime victims. A greater percentage of hate crime 

victims (12%) than nonhate crime victims (6%) believed 

that the offender was a gang member. Nearly 30% of victims 

involved in hate and nonhate crime violent victimizations 

thought that the offender was drunk or on drugs when the 

crime was committed.

The majority of violent hate crimes were interracial 

while the majority of nonhate violent crimes were 

intraracial

From 2003 to 2009, 4 in 10 violent hate crimes against white 

victims involved a white offender, and 2 in 10 violent hate 

crimes against black victims involved a black offender 

(table 13). In comparison, more than 7 in 10 violent 

crimes against white victims involving no apparent bias 

were perpetrated by white offenders, and more than 8 

in 10 violent nonhate crimes against black victims were 

perpetrated by black offenders. Nearly 70% of Hispanic 

victims of violent hate crime were victimized by white 

offenders. The NCVS does not allow for the identification of 

an offender’s ethnicity. 

Based on police records hate crime incidents have 

recently declined after remaining relatively stable

In 2009, according to the FBI’s UCR hate crime data 

collection, 2,034 law enforcement agencies reported 6,604 

hate crime incidents involving 8,336 victims. The remaining 

85.9% of agencies that participated in the Hate Crime 

Statistics Program reported that no hate crimes occurred in 

their jurisdictions (not shown in a table). 

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

number of hate crime victimizations known to the police 

in 2009, compared to 2003. The number of hate crime 

victimizations known to the police declined by about 9%, 

from 9,100 hate crime victimizations in 2003 to 8,300 in 

2009 (figure 4). 

Table 13

Race and Hispanic origin of victims and race of offenders, by type of violent victimization, 2003-2009

Type of violent victimization and 

race of offendera

Percent of victims by race and Hispanic origin

Whiteb Blackb Hispanic Othera Two or more races

Hate 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 39 57 69 53 ! 57 !

Black 39 22 ! 17 ! 24 ! 30 !

Otherb 22 21 ! 14 ! 23 ! 13 !

Nonhate 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

White 73 10 51 36 59

Black 16 83 22 21 26

Other 12 7 27 43 14

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate 

symbols, or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. Does not include property crime victims or victimizations in which the race of the offender was 

unknown. See appendix table 14 for standard errors.

! Interpret data with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. See Methodology for standard error computations.

aHispanic origin of offenders was not collected. Other may include persons of any race who were not reported as white or black.

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. Other race includes American Indians; Alaskan Natives; Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders; Asians; and persons identifying two or 

more races.

Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009. 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Victimizations

Incidents

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Number

Figure 4

Hate crime incidents and victimizations recorded in official 

police records, 2003-2009

Note: An incident is a single event that may include multiple victims. A victimization refers 

to a single victim.

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics, 2003-2009.
10 Hate Crime, 2003-2009

In more than half of hate crime victimizations known 

to police in the UCR, offenders targeted victims 

because of racial bias against the victim

Similar to NCVS, more than 50% of hate crime victims 

known to the police in the UCR were targeted because of an 

offender’s racial bias (table 14). A similar percentage of hate 

crime victims were targeted because of religious bias and 

sexual orientation in the UCR data when compared to the 

NCVS. 

UCR estimates on hate crimes motivated by the victim’s 

disability differed from findings based on the NCVS. The 

UCR identified about 1% of hate crime victimizations as 

motivated by bias against a victim’s disability, while the 

NCVS identified disability bias to be the motivation for 8% 

of hate crimes that were reported to the police. 

From 2003 to 2009, an average of seven hate crime 

homicides occurred each year

According to the UCR Hate Crime Reporting Program, 

8 people were victims of hate crime homicides (murder/

non-negligent manslaughter) in 2009. Since a high of 14 

homicides in 2003, the number of hate crime homicides has 

ranged between 3 and 9 homicides each year between 2004 

and 2009. This was an average of 7 homicides per year.

Property crimes accounted for 40% of hate crimes 

recorded in the UCR and 12% in the NCVS 

From 2003 to 2009, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and 

simple assault accounted for 31% of hate crimes reported 

to the UCR, compared to about 88% of hate crimes in the 

NCVS that were reported to the police. Intimidation, a 

crime classification not recognized in the NCVS, accounted 

for 28% of the UCR hate crime. About 40% of hate crime 

victimizations collected by the UCR were property crimes, 

such as burglary, theft, and vandalism, with vandalism 

accounting for about 86% of the UCR’s hate crimes against 

property.2

2Vandalism is not one of the major offense categories in the NCVS and 

information about hate crime vandalism was not collected by the NCVS 

after 2008. The estimates of vandalism from the NCVS did not meet 

reporting standards and are not shown.

Table 14

Perceived hate crime motivation as reported to the NCVS 

and UCR, 2003-2009

National Crime Victimization Survey Uniform Crime 

Reporting 

Motivation for hate crime Total Program

Not reported 

to police

Reported 

to police

Race 58% 57% 59% 52%

Religion 12 12 12 17

Ethnicity 30 26 35 14

Disability 10 12 8 1

Sexual orientation 15 15 15 16

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime. Details do not sum 

to 100% due to crimes where the victim perceived more than one motivation. In the UCR 

victims may include persons, businesses, institutions, or society as a whole. See appendix 

table 15 for standard errors.

Sources: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009; FBI, Uniform 

Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics, 2003-2009.

Table 15

Hate crime victimizations recorded by the NCVS and UCR, by 

offense, 2003-2009

National Crime Victimization Survey Uniform Crime 

Reporting 

Hate crime offense Total Program

Not reported 

to policea Reported to policea

Violent crime 87% 87% 88% 60%

Homicide ~ ~ ~ --

Forcible rapeb 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! --

Robbery 6 7 ! 5 ! 2

Aggravated assault 16 10 24 10

Simple assault 64 68 58 19

Intimidation ~ ~ ~ 28

Other violentc ~ ~ ~ --

Property crime 13% 13% 12% 40%

Burglary 5 ! 2 ! 7 ! 2

Larceny-theftd 9 11 5 2

Motor vehicle theft -- -- -- --

Vandalism ~ ~ ~ 34

Other propertye ~ ~ ~ 1

Otherc ~ ~ ~ --

Note: In the NCVS, crime is classified as hate crime if the victim perceived that the offender 

was motivated by bias because the offender used hate language, left behind hate symbols, 

or the police investigators confirmed that the incident was a hate crime.

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

variation is greater than 50%. See Methodology for standard error computations.

~Not applicable.

--Less than 0.5%.

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

bThe NCVS includes rape and other sexual assault.

cIncludes offenses other than those listed that are collected as part of the National IncidentBased Reporting System.

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

eIncludes arson and offenses other than those listed that are collected as part of the National 

Incident Based Reporting System.

Sources: National Crime Victimization Survey, January 2003 - December 2009; FBI, Uniform 

Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics, 2003-2009.
June 2011 11

Methodology

National Crime Victimization Survey

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an 

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

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

information on nonfatal crimes, whether or not reported 

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

representative sample of household in the United States. 

Survey results are based on data gathered from residents 

living throughout the United States, including persons living 

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

religious group dwellings. The survey excludes personnel 

living in military barracks and persons living in institutional 

settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities. For more 

detail, see the Survey Methodology for Criminal Victimization 

in the United States, 2007 at http://www.bjs.gov. Victim 

self-reports capture information about the number and 

characteristics of victimizations reported and not reported 

to law enforcement each year. Hate crime victimizations are 

based on victims’ perception of the offenders’ motivations. 

Victims provide evidence of the hate motivation by words, 

symbols, and actions used by the offenders.

Technical Notes

Standard error computations

Anytime national estimates are derived from a sample rather 

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

caution is warranted when drawing conclusions about the 

size of one population estimate in comparison to another 

or about whether a time series of population estimates 

is changing. Although one estimate may be larger than 

another, estimates based on responses from a sample of the 

population each have some degree of sampling error. The 

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

on several factors, including the amount of variation in the 

responses, the size and representativeness of the sample, and 

the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. 

One measure of the sampling error associated with an 

estimate is the standard error. The standard error can 

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

standard error provides a more reliable approximation of 

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

Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated 

with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted 

with caution. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

variation is greater than 50%.) 

A statistical test is used to determine whether differences 

in means or percentages are statistically significant once 

sampling error is taken into account. Comparisons made in 

the text were tested for statistical significance at the 

p < .05 level to ensure that the differences were larger than 

might be expected due to sampling variation. Significance 

testing calculations were conducted at BJS using statistical 

programs developed specifically for the NCVS by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. These programs take into consideration 

many aspects of the complex NCVS sample design when 

calculating estimates. Standard errors for average annual 

estimates were calculated based on the ratio of the sums of 

victimizations and respondents across years. 

Many of the variables examined in this report may be related 

to one another and to other variables not included in the 

analyses. Complex relationships among variables were not 

fully explored in this report and warrant more extensive 

analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences 

based on the results presented.

Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006

Methodological changes implemented in 2006 impacted 

the total violent crime estimates for that year to an 

extent that they were considered to be not comparable to 

estimates from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later 

data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census 

Bureau have found a high degree of confidence that 

estimates for 2007, 2008, and 2009 are consistent with 

and comparable to those for 2005 and previous years. The 

reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006 (December 2007), 

Criminal Victimization, 2007 (December 2008), Criminal 

Victimization, 2008 (September 2009), and Criminal 

Victimization, 2009 (October 2010) are available on the BJS 

website at http://www.bjs.gov.
12 Hate Crime, 2003-2009

Uniform Crime Reports

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.3 

Incidents and offenses—Crimes reported to the FBI involve 

those motivated by biases based on race, religion, sexual 

orientation, ethnicity/national origin, and disability. The 

2010 UCR data collection will allow the reporting of crimes 

motivated by gender and gender identity bias, as well as 

crimes committed by and directed against juveniles.

Victims—The victim of a hate crime may be an individual, 

business, institution, or society as a whole.

Offenders—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 2009 represented nearly 279 million inhabitants, 

or 90.9% percent of the nation’s population. Their 

jurisdictions covered 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Hate crime legislation

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

Act, which requires the Attorney General to collect data 

“about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on 

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

General delegated the responsibilities of developing the 

procedures for implementing, collecting, and managing 

hate crime data to the Director of the FBI, who in turn, 

assigned the tasks to the Uniform Crime Reporting (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.

Subsequent changes to hate crime data collection

In September 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime 

Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities 

by passing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act of 1994. The FBI started gathering data for the additional 

bias type on January 1, 1997.

3This section references the UCR Hate Crime website, http://ww2.fbi.gov/

ucr/hc2009/abouthcs.html.

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.

As Amended, 28 U.S.C. § 534

§ “[Sec. 1.] (a) This Act may be cited as the ‘Hate Crime 

Statistics Act’.

«(b) 

(1) Under the authority of section 534 of title 28, United 

States Code, the Attorney General shall acquire data, for 

each calendar year, about crimes that manifest evidence 

of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual 

orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the 

crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; 

aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and 

destruction, damage or vandalism of property. 

«(2) The Attorney General shall establish guidelines for the 

collection of such data including the necessary evidence 

and criteria that must be present for a finding of manifest 

prejudice and procedures for carrying out the purposes of 

this section.

«(3) Nothing in this section creates a cause of action or 

a right to bring an action, including an action based on 

discrimination due to sexual orientation. As used in this 

section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual 

homosexuality or heterosexuality. This subsection does not 

limit any existing cause of action or right to bring an action, 

including any action under the Administrative Procedure 

Act or the All Writs Act [5 USCS §§ 551 et seq. or 28 USCS 

§ 1651].

«(4) Data acquired under this section shall be used only for 

research or statistical purposes and may not contain any 

information that may reveal the identity of an individual 

victim of a crime.

«(5) The Attorney General shall publish an annual summary 

of the data acquired under this section.

«(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 

may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section 

through fiscal year 2002.
June 2011 13

Appendix table 1

Population and total criminal victimization counts, 2003-2009

U.S. resident population Total criminal incidents Total criminal victimizations

Year Persons age 12 or older Households Totala Violentb Propertyc Totala Violentb Propertyc

Total 1,729,441,100 827,843,000 162,262,300 35,282,500 125,547,700 164,949,300 37,959,400 125,547,700

2003 239,306,000 114,136,900 24,444,000 5,233,300 18,999,300 24,953,500 5,738,500 18,999,300

2004 241,703,700 115,775,600 24,108,100 4,991,800 18,869,700 24,537,500 5,419,700 18,869,700

2005 244,505,300 117,099,800 23,484,200 4,929,100 18,288,700 23,974,200 5,419,100 18,288,700

2006 247,233,100 117,858,400 25,392,900 5,980,400 19,223,100 25,821,600 6,409,100 19,223,100

2007 250,344,900 119,503,500 23,035,500 5,074,800 17,749,600 23,347,500 5,385,200 17,749,600

2008 252,242,500 121,141,100 21,561,200 4,784,800 16,630,800 21,848,300 5,071,900 16,630,800

2009 254,105,600 122,327,700 20,236,400 4,288,200 15,786,500 20,466,700 4,515,800 15,786,500

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

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

cIncludes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.

Appendix table 2

Standard errors for number, percent, and rate of hate crime victimizations, 2003-2009 

Hate crime victimizations

Total Violent

Year Number

Percent of total 

victimizations Number Rate 

Percent of total 

victimizations

2003 30,928 0.12% 27,966 0.11 0.49%

2004 24,962 0.10 21,605 0.09 0.40

2005 31,641 0.13 30,380 0.13 0.56

2006 33,839 0.13 31,892 0.13 0.49

2007 31,004 0.13 28,590 0.12 0.54

2008 29,892 0.14 27,713 0.11 0.55

2009 26,354 0.13 24,864 0.10 0.55

«Sec. 2. (a) Congress finds that—

«(1) the American family life is the foundation of American 

Society,

«(2) Federal policy should encourage the well-being, financial 

security, and health of the American family,

«(3) schools should not de-emphasize the critical value of 

American family life.

«(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed, nor shall any 

funds appropriated to carry out the purpose of the Act be 

used, to promote or encourage homosexuality.”

In 2009, the U.S. Congress further amended the Hate Crime 

Statistics Act by passing the Matthew Shepard and James 

Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act, Section 4708 of House 

Resolution 2647. The amendment states:

 “SEC. 4708. STATISTICS

“(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the 

Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by 

inserting ‘gender and gender identity,’ after ‘race’.

“(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate 

Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by 

inserting ‘, including data about crimes committed by, and 

crimes directed against, juveniles’ after ‘data acquired under 

this section.’ ”
14 Hate Crime, 2003-2009

Appendix table 3

Standard errors for annual average of hate crime incidents 

and victimizations, 2003-2009

Annual hate crimes Incidents Victimizations

Number

Total hate crimes 35,219 36,779

Violent 32,705 34,386 

Property 10,624 10,624

Percent 

Total crime 0.1% 0.1%

Violent 0.3 0.3

Property 0.0 0.0

Rate per 1,000 persons or households

Violent 0.1 0.1

Property 0.0 0.0

Appendix table 4

Standard errors for victim’s evidence for hate crime, 

2003–2009

Type of hate crime Hate language Hate symbols

Confirmed by police 

investigators

Total 1.0% 2.0% 1.8%

Violent 0.8 2.1 1.9

Appendix table 5

Standard error for hate and nonhate crime victimizations, 

2003-2009

Type of crime Hate Nonhate

Total ~ ~

Violent crime 2.5% 0.4%

Rape/sexual assault 0.7 0.1

Robbery 1.7 0.1

Aggravated assault 2.6 0.2

Simple assault 3.5 0.3

Personal larceny 0.6 0.1%

Property crime 2.2% 0.4%

Burglary 1.4 0.3

Motor vehicle theft ~ 0.1

Theft 1.8 0.5

~ Not applicable.

Appendix table 6

Standard errors for presense of weapons and injury 

sustained in hate and nonhate crime victimizations, 

2003-2009

Weapon/injury Hate Nonhate

Weapon

Yes 3.1% 0.7%

No 3.6 0.8

Don’t know 2.5 0.4

Injury

None 3.3% 0.8%

Minor 3.1 0.7

Serious 1.3 0.3

Rape without other injuries ~ 0.1

Annual average violent crime 

victimizations 34,148 223,290

~Not applicable.

Appendix table 7

Standard errors for hate and nonhate crime victimizations, 

by location, 2003-2009

Location of occurance Hate Nonhate

At or near victim’s home 3.4% 0.5%

At or near a friend or relative’s house 1.7 0.2

Commercial place 2.3 0.2

Parking lot, on street, or public 

transportation 3.1 0.3

School 2.7 0.2

Other 1.9 0.2

Annual average victimizations 36,779 540,128
June 2011 15 Appendix table 8

Standard errors for hate and nonhate crime victimizations 

reported to police, 2003-2009

Violent Violent with injury

Reporting to police Total Hate Nonhate Hate Nonhate

Reported by— 3.6% 3.9% 0.9% 7.9% 1.5%

Victim 3.2 3.4 0.8 6.3 1.3

Someone else 2.4 2.7 0.6 6.4 1.3

Other 1.7 1.9 0.3 5.1 0.6

Complaint signed 2.3 2.5 0.6 6.2 1.3

Arrest made 1.9 2.1 0.6 5.3 1.2

Not reported 3.6 3.9 0.9 7.9 1.4

Don’t know if reported 0.7 0.7 0.1 2.2 0.3

Average annual 

victimizations 36,779 34,386 224,852 16,056 108,142

Appendix table 9

Standard errors for most important reason why victimization 

was not reported to the police, 2003-2009

Most important reason victim 

did not report to police

Violent 

Total hate Hate Nonhate

Handled another way 4.5% 4.9% 1.1%

Not important enough 3.8 4.1 0.9

Police could not do anything 1.9 1.4 0.3

Police would not help 3.4 3.7 0.6

Other 4.5 4.8 1.0 Appendix table 10

Standard errors for characteristics of hate crime victims, 2003-

2009

Percent of hate 

crime victims

Annual rate of violent 

victimizations per 1,000 persons

Victim characteristic Hate Nonhate

Sex

Male 3.6% 0.1 0.6

Female 3.6 0.1 0.5

Race/Hispanic origin

White 3.6% 0.1 0.5

Black 2.7 0.1 1.2

Hispanic 2.4 0.2 0.9

American Indian/Alaskan native 0.9 1.2 6.3

Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.7 0.2 1.0

Two or more races 1.2 1.3 5.6

Age

12-15 2.5% 0.3 1.9

16-24 3.2 0.2 1.4

25-34 2.7 0.1 1.0

35-49 3.1 0.1 0.7

50-64 2.4~ 0.6

65 or older 0.7~ 0.3

Household income

Less than $25,000 3.3% 0.2 1.1

$25,000 - $49,999 2.9 0.1 0.8

$50,000 or more 3.3 0.1 0.6

Not reported 2.9 0.1 0.7

~Not applicable.
16 Hate Crime, 2003-2009

Appendix table 11

Standard errors for victims’ perceptions of hate crime 

motivation, by race/Hispanic origin, 2003-2009

Motivation for hate crime White Black Hispanic

Race 4.6% 9.3% 8.5%

Religion 3.1 4.5 5.0

Ethnicity 3.6 9.4 8.1

Disability 2.9 7.4 ~

Sexual orientation 3.5 4.2 6.0

Association 4.1 7.4 7.3

Perceived characteristics 2.9 7.1 5.7

Annual average victimizations 28,393 12,829 14,719

~Not applicable.

Appendix table 12

Standard error for victims’ perceptions of hate crime 

motivation, by sex, 2003–2009

Motivation for hate crime Male victims Female victims

Race 4.5% 5.6%

Religion 2.8 3.7

Ethnicity 4.2 5.2

Disability 2.3 4.0

Sexual orientation 3.5 3.5

Association 3.9 4.9

Perceived characteristics 3.1 3.7

Annual average victimizations 28,206 22,844 

Appendix table 13

Standard errors for characteristics of violent offenders as 

reported by victims of hate crime, 2003-2009

Characteristics of offenders Hate Nonhate

Number of offenders

1 3.8% 0.7%

2 or 3 2.7 0.5

4 or more 2.7 0.4

Unknown 1.9 0.3

Sex

Male 3.7% 0.8%

Female 3.0 0.6

Both male and female 1.9 0.3

Unknown 2.0 0.3

Race

White 3.9% 0.9%

Black 3.5 0.7

Other 2.6 0.5

Various races 1.6 0.3

Unknown 2.3 0.5

Age

17 or younger 2.9% 0.6%

18-29 3.3 0.8

30 or older 3.5 0.8

More than one age group 2.8 0.4

Unknown 2.7 0.5

Relationship to victim

Stranger 3.9% 0.9%

At least casually known 3.8 0.9

Unknown 2.2 0.4

Perceived gang 

membership

Gang member 2.5% 0.4%

Not a gang member 3.9 0.9

Unknown 3.9 0.8

Perceived substance use

Drunk or on drugs 3.6% 0.8%

Not drunk or on drugs 3.3 0.8

Unknown 3.9 0.9
June 2011 17

Appendix table 14

Standard errors for race and Hispanic origin of victims and race of offenders, by type of violent victimization, 

2003-2009

Type of violent victimization 

and race of offenders 

Percent of victims by race and Hispanic origin

White Black Hispanic Other Two or more races

Hate

White 5.0% 11.8% 9.2% 18.7% 5.8%

Black 5.0 9.8 7.4 16.0 5.4

Other 4.2 9.6 6.8 15.7 3.9

Nonhate

White 1.0% 3.5% 2.2% 4.0% 4.5%

Black 0.7 4.5 1.8 3.4 3.9

Other 0.6 3.0 1.9 4.1 3.1

Appendix table 15

Standard errors for perceived hate crime motivation as 

reported to the NCVS and UCR, 2003-2009

National Crime Victimization Survey Uniform Crime 

Reporting 

Program

Motivation for hate 

crime Total

Not reported 

to police

Reported 

to police

Race 3.6 4.8 5.3 ~

Religion 2.3 3.1 3.4 ~

Ethnicity 3.3 4.2 5.1 ~

Disability 2.1 3.1 2.8 ~

Sexual orientation 2.5 3.4 3.7 ~

~Not applicable.

Appendix table 16

Standard errors for hate crime victimizations recorded by 

the NCVS and UCR, 2003-2009

National Crime Victimization Survey Uniform Crime 

Reporting 

Hate crime offense Total Program

Not reported 

to police

Reported 

to police

Violent crime 2.5 3.4 3.6 ~

Homicide ~ ~ ~ ~

Forcible rape 0.7 0.9 1.1 ~

Robbery 1.7 2.5 2.3 ~

Aggravated assault 2.6 2.8 4.5 ~

Simple assault 3.5 4.6 5.3 ~

Intimidation ~ ~ ~ ~

Other violent ~ ~ ~ ~

Property crime 2.3 3.1 3.2 ~

Burglary 1.5 1.3 2.5 ~

Larceny-theft 2.0 2.8 2.2 ~

Motor vehicle theft ~ ~ ~ ~

Vandalism ~ ~ ~ ~

Other property ~ ~ ~ ~

Other ~ ~ ~ ~

~Not applicable.

Appendix table 17

Standard errors for figure 1: rate of violent hate crime 

victimizations, 2003-2009

Year Violent hate crime victimization rate

2003 0.11

2004 0.09

2005 0.13

2006 0.13

2007 0.12

2008 0.11

2009 0.10

Appendix table 18

Standard errors for figure 2: victims’ perceptions of hate 

crime motivation, 2003-2009

Motivation for hate crime Percent of hate crime victimizations

Race 3.6

Religion 2.3

Ethnicity 3.3

Disability 2.1

Sexual orientation 2.5

Association 3.1

Perceived characteristics 2.4

Appendix table 19

Standard errors for figure 3: perceived motivation of hate 

crime victimizations reported to the police, 2003-2009

Motivation for hate crime Percent of victimizations

Race 4.7%

Religion 10.1

Ethnicity 6.4

Disability 10.1

Sexual orientation 8.9

Association 7.0

Perceived characteristics 9.8
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

ncj234085

Office of Justice Programs • Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods • http://www.ojp.gov

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

Justice. James P. Lynch is the director.

This Special report was written by Lynn Langton and Michael Planty. Jennifer 

Truman verified the report.

Catherine Bird and Jill Thomas edited the report, Tina Dorsey produced the report, 

and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final printing, under the supervision of 

Doris J. James.

June 2011, NCJ 234085

This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related 

statistical data and tables are available at the website: http://www.bjs.gov/index.

cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1760.