[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69046-69048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29090]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Justice Statistics

[OJP (BJS)-1307]


Hate Crime Statistics Data Collection in Selected Police and 
Sheriffs' Departments

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
Justice.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation for award of cooperative agreement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce a public 
solicitation for services related to understanding why police and 
sheriff's departments do not report hate crimes to the FBI that are 
known to officers in their jurisdiction.

DATES: Proposals must arrive at the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 
on or before 5 p.m. ET, Sunday, December 31, 2000, or be postmarked on 
or before December 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Proposals should be mailed to: Application Coordinator, 
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh St. NW., Washington, DC 
20531; (202) 616-3497.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles R. Kindermann, Ph.D., Senior 
Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (202) 616-3489 or Carol 
Kaplan, Chief, National Criminal History Improvement Program (202) 307-
0759.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Background

    The Hate Crime Statistics Act, reauthorized in June 1996, mandates 
that the Attorney General collect statistics and publish an annual 
report on hate crimes. During hearing testimony and in subsequent 
letters, members of Congress expressed an interest in a study that will 
facilitate better participation by police agencies. BJS, consistent 
with its role as the statistical arm of the Justice Department and its 
longstanding interest in hate crime statistics, developed this 
solicitation to learn more about the impediments to local 
jurisdictions' participation in the collection of hate crime statistics 
and transmission of the statistics to the FBI for compilation at the 
national level.
    BJS funded a project that resulted in the report Improving the 
Quality and Accuracy of Bias Crime Statistics Nationally: An Assessment 
of the First Ten Years of Bias Crime Data Collection. The project 
included a review of national hate crime trends, a summary of results 
from a national law enforcement survey regarding officer attitudes 
about hate crime, and several other sources. The compilation of these 
data sources gives key insight into how hate crime reporting can be 
improved and how hate crime data should be interpreted. Electronic 
copies of the full report and an executive summary can be found at 
www.dac.neu.edu/cj/>.
    A survey of 2,657 law enforcement agencies was conducted to 
document impressions from law enforcement departments about the factors 
which impede or encourage accurate hate crime reporting. The findings 
from the report are as follows:
    <bullet> There are serious disparities between what officers 
believed about the prevalence of bias crime and their agencies' 
official hate crime statistics.
    <bullet> One of the major reasons cited for the disparity involves 
the break down in the two-step process of a local agency reporting to a 
state agency, which then compiles the hate crime reports. Many 
respondents felt that the indication of bias was occasionally lost 
within the departmental bureaucracy or process of transmitting data.
    <bullet> Although it has been recommended by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, as well as advocacy groups, that 
police agencies develop and approve a formal policy for dealing with 
hate crime incidents, still only a minority of police agencies from 
across the country state that they had an official policy regarding 
hate crime.
    The impetus for this solicitation is the report's recommendation 
that ``the data indicate that in some number of cases an information 
disconnect occurs between the investigating officer and UCR reporting. 
Many officers stated that they knew of hate crimes that occurred in 
their jurisdiction but were not reflected in the official report. It is 
possible that officers note bias motivation in incident report 
narratives, but the information from such narrative is never documented 
into the UCR records. A more detailed analysis of the breakdown between 
hate crimes that are investigated locally and those that are reported 
nationally should be undertaken.''
    There are a number of possible explanations why an agency's numbers 
reported to the FBI might not reflect hate crimes that are known to 
officers on the street. Among the possibilities are these:

[[Page 69047]]

    <bullet> The definition of hate crime provided by the FBI may be 
inconsistent with the State's definition (or local definition), and 
officers follow their state law in classifying events as incidents of 
hate crime. If this hypothesis is true, it is particularly troublesome 
in states that do not have any hate crime statute.
    <bullet> The incident forms used by some departments contain so 
many information elements (checks/boxes/narrative) that a specific item 
indicating bias is not checked off although other information on the 
form clearly indicates that the offense was bias motivated.
    <bullet> During the review process (post-incident report), a 
decision is made that the incident was bias motivated. Yet the crime 
report as sent to the FBI is not categorized as a hate crime. For 
example, the original officer doesn't put an indication of hate crime, 
the responding detective identifies it as a hate crime, but the crime 
report as entered into UCR data remains the same as the first officer 
noted.
    <bullet> There may be very little revising of the data sent to the 
FBI regardless of changes in determination and circumstance. The 
reversal of a decision that an incident is a hate crime (e.g., by a 
community review group) may also not be reflected in the database.
    <bullet> Because the vast majority of the crime report forms do not 
have the ``bias motivated'' box checked off, it is a natural instinct 
to skip it.
    <bullet> The transfer of information and data forms from local, 
state, and federal agencies creates additional ``slippage'' points 
where the ``bias crime'' indicator may be omitted in the data files.
    The work to be carried out under this solicitation will be closely 
coordinated with the FBI, which assembles information provided by state 
and local agencies and publishes national hate crime statistics.

Objectives

    This solicitation is being issued to address the following 
recommendation: ``The study identified several problem areas in the 
reporting process where bias crime information may be overlooked or 
misclassified. Further research should look in more depth at the areas 
of disconnect to better improve the quality of the data.''
    Up to $150,000 will be made available for this project.
    The organization that is awarded the grant will select specific law 
enforcement agencies as hosts for the study, and must include both 
agencies believed to have ``good'' hate crime reporting, and agencies 
that have not reported hate crime statistics at all to the FBI or are 
believed to report only a small fraction of the hate crimes that do 
occur. The purpose of selecting host agencies will be to assist them in 
improving their hate crime reporting and also to develop 
recommendations for improving hate crime reporting by law enforcement 
agencies nationwide. The law enforcement agencies must agree in writing 
to participate in the study and will become partners with the FBI and 
BJS to address and recommend solutions to the impediments to accurate 
hate crime reporting. A steering committee will be appointed that will 
direct the introduction of new procedures and practices to improve the 
reporting of hate crimes in law enforcement agencies that agree to 
participate in the study.
    Funding provided under this solicitation will support a data 
collection program which will follow the sequence of events from a 
crime report which is known or presumed to be a hate crime by the 
officer completing the report through the crime reporting procedures to 
ascertain whether the crimes were reported to the FBI as hate crimes, 
and if not, whether the failure to report accurately reflects the 
nature of the event or is the result of gaps in the transmission of 
information to the FBI's UCR data files. The project, in addition to 
helping the participating departments improve their practices, will 
result in recommendations for other agencies' practices and a more 
detailed statistical analysis of hate crimes that are investigated 
locally as compared to those that are reported nationally to the FBI.

Type of Assistance

    Assistance will be made available under a cooperative agreement

Statutory Authority

    The cooperative agreement to be awarded pursuant to this 
solicitation will be funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
consistent with its mandate as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 3732.

Eligibility Requirements

    Both profit making and nonprofit organizations may apply for funds. 
Consistent with OJP fiscal requirements, however, no fees may be 
charged against the project by profit-making organizations.

Scope of Work

    The recipient of funds will perform the following tasks in pursuit 
of the objectives stated above:
    1. Develop a detailed timetable for each task involved in the 
project. After the BJS grant monitor has agreed to the timetable, all 
work must be completed as scheduled.
    2. Collect data about hate crime incidents in the participating 
agencies' jurisdictions and prepare a statistical summary showing the 
status of ``bias crime indicators'' in each of the stages through which 
the data are transmitted until included or not included in the FBI's 
hate crimes report.
    3. Develop recommendations for improving hate crime reporting by 
law enforcement agencies, both those with ``good'' hate crime reporting 
practices and those who have not reported hate crime statistics to the 
FBI, to develop recommendations for improving hate crime reporting by 
police departments.
    4. Prepare a final report summarizing the results in a way that 
will help BJS, the FBI, and law enforcement agencies improve hate crime 
reporting.
    5. Archive the data that are collected in the study.

Award Procedures

    Proposals should describe in appropriate detail the procedures to 
be undertaken in furtherance of each of the activities described under 
Scope of Work. Information on staffing levels and qualifications should 
be included for each task and descriptions of experience relevant to 
the project should be included. Resumes of the proposed project 
director and key staff should be enclosed with the proposal.
    Applications will be reviewed competitively by a panel comprised of 
members selected by BJS. The panel will make recommendations to the 
Director, BJS. Final authority to enter into a cooperative agreement is 
reserved for the Director, BJS, or his designee.
    Applications will be evaluated on the overall extent to which they 
respond to the priorities and technical complexities of the scope of 
work, conform to standards of high data collection quality, and appear 
to be fiscally feasible and efficient. Applicants will be evaluated on 
the basis of:
    1. Familiarity with both the full report and executive summary of 
the report, Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Bias Crime Statistics 
Nationally: An Assessment of the First Ten Years of Bias Crime Data 
Collection.
    2. Familiarity with FBI annual reports, Crime in the United States 
and Hate Crime Statistics.
    3. Knowledge of issues related to hate crime data collection.
    4. Knowledge of issues related to the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) 
and the

[[Page 69048]]

National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
    5. Experience in organizing meetings of Federal, state, or local 
professionals related to criminal justice issues.
    6. Research expertise and experience in data gathering and report 
writing.
    7. Availability of qualified professional and support staff and 
suitable equipment for project activities.
    8. Demonstrated fiscal, management and organizational capability 
and experience suitable for providing sound data within budget and time 
constraints.
    9. Reasonableness of estimated costs for the total project and for 
individual cost categories.

Application and Awards Process

    An original and five (5) copies of a full proposal must be 
submitted with SF 424 (Rev. 1988), Application for Federal Assistance, 
as the cover sheet. Proposals must be accompanied by OJP Form 7150/1, 
Budget Detail Worksheet; OJP Form 4000/3 (Rev. 1-93), Assurances; OJP 
Form 4061/6, Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension 
and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements; 
and OJP Form 7120-1 (Rev. 1-93), Accounting System and Financial 
Capability Questionnaire (to be submitted by applicants who have not 
previously received Federal funds from the Office of Justice Programs). 
If appropriate, applicants must complete and submit Standard Form LLL, 
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. All applicants must sign Certified 
Assurances that they are in compliance with the Federal laws and 
regulations which prohibit discrimination in any program or activity 
that receives Federal funds. To obtain appropriate forms, contact Joyce 
Stanford, BJS Administrative Assistant, at (202) 616-3497 or go to the 
BJS web site at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/apply.htm>.

    The application should cover a 1-year period with information 
provided for completion of the entire project. Proposals must include a 
program narrative, detailed budget, and budget narrative. The program 
narrative shall describe activities as stated in the scope of work and 
address the evaluation criteria. The detailed budget must provide costs 
including salaries of staff involved in the project and portion of 
those salaries to be paid from the award; fringe benefits paid to each 
staff person; travel costs, and supplies required to complete the 
project. The budget narrative closely follows the content of the 
detailed budget. The narrative should relate the items budgeted to the 
project activities and should provide a justification and explanation 
for the budgeted items. Refer to the aforementioned timetable when 
developing the program narrative and budget information. This award 
will not be used to procure equipment for the conduct of the study.

    Dated: November 8, 2000.
Jan M. Chaiken,
Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
[FR Doc. 00-29090 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P