Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
Changes from March 22, 2021 to December 16, 2025
This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United
States Updated December 16, 2025 (R46318) Jump to Main Text of Report
March 22, 2021
States
Nathan James
A number of recent and high-profile crimes where the offenders’ actions appeared to be
Analyst in Crime Policy
motivated by their bias or animosity towards a particular race, ethnicity, religion, sex, motivated by their bias or animosity towards a particular race, ethnicity, religion, sex,
sexual orientation, or gender identity sexual orientation, or gender identity hashave contributed to contributed to a perceptionsome observers' perceptions that hate crimes are that hate crimes are
Emily J. Hanson
on the rise in the United States. These incidents might also generate interest among on the rise in the United States. These incidents might also generate interest among
Analyst in Social Policy
policymakers about how the federal government collects data on policymakers about how the federal government collects data on hate crimes committed crimes committed
in the United Statesin the United States.
that are alleged to be bias-motivated.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started its Hate Crime Statistics program The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started its Hate Crime Statistics program
pursuant to the requirement in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HSCA, P.L. 101-275) that the Department of Justice pursuant to the requirement in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HSCA, P.L. 101-275) that the Department of Justice
(DOJ) collect and report data on crimes that (DOJ) collect and report data on crimes that“"manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, gender and gender manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, gender and gender
identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, identity, 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 non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and
destruction, damage or vandalism of property.destruction, damage or vandalism of property.”" In addition to the FBI In addition to the FBI’'s Hate Crime Statistics program, DOJ also s Hate Crime Statistics program, DOJ also
collects data on hate crime victimizations through the Bureau of Justice Statisticscollects data on hate crime victimizations through the Bureau of Justice Statistics’' (BJS (BJS’') National Crime ) National Crime
Victimization Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS measures self-reported criminal victimizations including those Survey (NCVS). The NCVS measures self-reported criminal victimizations including those
perceived by victims to be motivated by an offenderperceived by victims to be motivated by an offender’'s bias against them for belonging to or being associated with s bias against them for belonging to or being associated with
a group largely identifieda group largely identified by the characteristics outlined in the HSCA.by the characteristics outlined in the HSCA.
Scholars, advocates, and members of the media have pointed out that there is a significant disparity between the Scholars, advocates, and members of the media have pointed out that there is a significant disparity between the
number of hate crimes reported by the FBInumber of hate crimes reported by the FBI's Hate Crime Statistics program each year and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by each year and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by
BJSBJS' NCVS. This has led some to criticize the hate crime data published by the FBI as an undercount of the number of . This has led some to criticize the hate crime data published by the FBI as an undercount of the number of
hate crimes committed in the United States each year. However, this statistics gap can be hate crimes committed in the United States each year. However, this statistics gap can bepartial ypartially explained by explained by
the different measures and methodologies utilized by the FBI and BJS to collect these data. For example, the FBI the different measures and methodologies utilized by the FBI and BJS to collect these data. For example, the FBI
only reports on crimes that have been reported to the police, while BJS collects reports of criminal victimizations only reports on crimes that have been reported to the police, while BJS collects reports of criminal victimizations
that may or may not meet the statutory definition of a hate crime and may or may not have been reported to the that may or may not meet the statutory definition of a hate crime and may or may not have been reported to the
police. There are a number of reasons why some victims do not report their victimization to the police, including police. There are a number of reasons why some victims do not report their victimization to the police, including
fear of reprisal, not wanting the offender to get in trouble, believing that police would not or could not do fear of reprisal, not wanting the offender to get in trouble, believing that police would not or could not do
anything to help, and believing the crime to be a personal issue or too trivial to report.anything to help, and believing the crime to be a personal issue or too trivial to report.
There are also several reasons why a hate crime that was reported There are also several reasons why a hate crime that was reported as such to the police might not be subsequently reported to the police might not be subsequently reported
to the FBI for their Hate Crime Statistics program. Deciding whether a crime meets the statutory definition of a to the FBI for their Hate Crime Statistics program. Deciding whether a crime meets the statutory definition of a
hate crime requires law enforcement agencies to investigate hate crime requires law enforcement agencies to investigateal egationsallegations of hate crime motivations before making a of hate crime motivations before making a
final determination. Reporting final determination. Reporting of hate crimes by law enforcement agencies to the FBI might be hampered by the fact that some by law enforcement agencies to the FBI might be hampered by the fact that some
law enforcement agencies do not have the training necessary to investigate potential bias-motivated offenses law enforcement agencies do not have the training necessary to investigate potential bias-motivated offenses
effectively. In addition, differing definitions between the FBI and state statutes as to what constitutes a effectively. In addition, differing definitions between the FBI and state statutes as to what constitutes a hate crime
generate confusion as to which standard should be used to determine whether a hate crime occurred and should be generate confusion as to which standard should be used to determine whether a hate crime occurred and should be
reported.reported.
The FBI transitioned to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) as of January 1, 2021The FBI transitioned to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) as of January 1, 2021, and no
longer accepts non-NIBRS compliant data from law enforcement agencies. Policymakers might have an interest . Policymakers might have an interest
in how NIBRS differs from the FBIin how NIBRS differs from the FBI’s current's previous hate crime reporting program and whether full participation in hate crime reporting program and whether full participation in
NIBRS might improve the quality and completeness of federal hate crime data. However, like the FBINIBRS might improve the quality and completeness of federal hate crime data. However, like the FBI’'s current s current
crime reporting program, participation in the NIBRS program is voluntary, and policymakers might consider steps crime reporting program, participation in the NIBRS program is voluntary, and policymakers might consider steps
Congress could take to promote Congress could take to promotewide-scale adoption of NIBRS.
Congressional Research Service
link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 12 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 14 Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
Contents
The Hate Crime Statistics Act ........................................................................................... 1
Federal Hate Crime Data .................................................................................................. 2
Hate Crime Statistics Program ..................................................................................... 2
National Crime Victimization Survey ........................................................................... 3
Differences in the Two National Measures of Hate Crimes .................................................... 5
Are Hate Crimes Underreported to the FBI by Law Enforcement? .......................................... 6
Improving Hate Crime Data: Considerations for Policymakers ............................................... 9
Figures
Figure 1. Number of Law Enforcement Agencies Participating in the FBI’s Hate Crime
Statistics Program, 1996-2019 ........................................................................................ 7
Tables
Table 1. Comparison of the UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program and the National Crime
Victimization Survey .................................................................................................... 4
Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 11
Congressional Research Service
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
adoption of NIBRS by all law enforcement agencies.
The United States has he United States has recently experienced a series of high-profile violent crimes where the experienced a series of high-profile violent crimes where the
offenders’alleged or convicted offenders' actions appeared to be actions appeared to be or were motivated by their bias or animosity towards a particular motivated by their bias or animosity towards a particular
T race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. For example, shootings race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. For example, shootings
at synagogues in Pittsburgh, PA, and Poway, CA; a driver speeding his car into protestors at a
“Unite the Right” ral y in Charlottesvil e, VA; a shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, TX, where the
shooter al egedly said he was targeting “Mexicans” and espoused concerns about the “invasion”
of the United States by immigrantsat the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC,1 and the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, MN2; a man fatally stabbing a 6-year-old Palestinian American boy near Chicago, IL3; and reports of hate crimes against Asian Americans during ; and reports of hate crimes against Asian Americans during
the Coronavirus pandemic contribute to a perceptionthe COVID-19 pandemic4 contribute to some observers' perceptions that hate crimes are on the rise in the United that hate crimes are on the rise in the United
States. The salience of these events and how they are covered in the media might also contribute States. The salience of these events and how they are covered in the media might also contribute
to the perception that there is a growing number of hate crimes (also known as bias crimes or to the perception that there is a growing number of hate crimes (also known as bias crimes or
bias-motivated offenses) being perpetrated in communities across the country.bias-motivated offenses) being perpetrated in communities across the country.15 Policymakers Policymakers
might turn to hate crime data collected by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to understand if there might turn to hate crime data collected by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to understand if there
has actual yhas actually been an increase in hate crimes in the United States and, if so, the nature of the been an increase in hate crimes in the United States and, if so, the nature of the
increase. Policymakers might also utilize these same data to craft a policy response to hate crimes increase. Policymakers might also utilize these same data to craft a policy response to hate crimes
that is grounded in the data and conduct oversight of the federal governmentthat is grounded in the data and conduct oversight of the federal government’'s efforts to combat s efforts to combat
these crimes.these crimes.
This report begins with an overview of federal sources of data on hate crimes. This includes a This report begins with an overview of federal sources of data on hate crimes. This includes a
brief overview of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA, P.L. 101-275), which requires DOJ to brief overview of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA, P.L. 101-275), which requires DOJ to
collect and report data on hate crimes, and the two systems DOJ employs to collect and report data on hate crimes, and the two systems DOJ employs tocol ectcollect these data: the these data: the
Federal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Bureau of Investigation’'s (FBIs (FBI’'s) Hate Crime Statistics Program and the Bureau of s) Hate Crime Statistics Program and the Bureau of
Justice StatisticsJustice Statistics’' (BJS (BJS’') National Crime Victimization) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The report then discusses Survey (NCVS). The report then discusses
two salient issues regarding hate crime statistics: the two salient issues regarding hate crime statistics: the relatively large difference between the number of hate large difference between the number of hate
crimes reported by the FBI and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by BJS, and crimes reported by the FBI and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by BJS, and
concerns about law enforcement agencies underreporting hate crimes to the FBI. The report concerns about law enforcement agencies underreporting hate crimes to the FBI. The report
concludes with a discussion of whether the concludes with a discussion of whether the wide-scalefull adoption of the FBI adoption of the FBI’'s National Incident s National Incident
Based Reporting System (NIBRS) might serve as a means of improving federal hate crime data.Based Reporting System (NIBRS) might serve as a means of improving federal hate crime data.
The Hate Crime Statistics Act
The HCSA requires DOJ to collect and report data on crimes that The HCSA requires DOJ to collect and report data on crimes that“"manifest evidence of prejudice manifest evidence of prejudice
based on race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, based on race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity,
including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape;
aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of
property.property.”" Congress required DOJ to collect these data because, at the time, few states collected Congress required DOJ to collect these data because, at the time, few states collected
data on hate crimes and there were no national data.data on hate crimes and there were no national data.26 Policymakers believed that national data Policymakers believed that national data
would reveal the scope of the problem and provide a basis for more effective law enforcement would reveal the scope of the problem and provide a basis for more effective law enforcement
efforts to address hate crimes.efforts to address hate crimes.3
Over the years since7
Since the HCSA was enacted, Congress has expanded the definition of what the HCSA was enacted, Congress has expanded the definition of what
constitutes a hate crime for data collection purposes. The act constitutes a hate crime for data collection purposes. The actinitial yinitially required DOJ to collect data on hate crimes based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Congress amended the act to require DOJ to collect data on hate crimes based on the victims' required DOJ to collect data
1 For example, research suggests that increased media coverage of school shootings after a high -profile incident can
lead people to believe that school shootings occur with more frequency than they actually do. See Glenn W. Muschert,
“Research in School Shootings,” Sociology Compass, vol. 1, no. 1 (2007), pp. 60-80; and H. Jaymi Elsass, Jaclyn
Schidkraut, and Mark C. Stafford, “Studying School Shootings: Challenges and Considerations for Research,”
Am erican Journal of Crim inal Justice, vol. 14 (2016), pp. 444-464.
2 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Hate Crime Statistics Act, report to accompany H.R. 1048, 101st
Cong., 1st sess., June 23, 1989, H.Rept. 101-109, p. 2; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Hate Crim e
Statistics Act, report to accompany S. 419, 101st Cong., 1st sess., May 1, 1989, S.Rept. 101-21, p. 3 (hereinafter, “ House
Judiciary Committee report on the Hate Crime Statistics Act”).
3 House Judiciary Committee report on the Hate Crime Statistics Act, p. 3 .
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
on hate crimes based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. In 2009, Congress
amended the act to require DOJ to collect data on hate crimes based on the victims’ gender or
gender identity (P.L. 111-84) or disability ( disability (P.L. 103-322) in 1994 and gender or gender identity, along with hate crimes committed by and against juveniles (P.L. 111-84), in 2009.
The HCSA initially P.L. 103-322). P.L. 111-84 also required DOJ to collect
and report data on hate crimes committed by and against juveniles.
The HCSA initial y included a sunset provision that would have ended the requirement for DOJ included a sunset provision that would have ended the requirement for DOJ
to collect hate crime data after 1994. However, the Church Arson Prevention Act (P.L. 104-155to collect hate crime data after 1994. However, the Church Arson Prevention Act (P.L. 104-155))
removed that provision.removed that provision.
Federal Hate Crime Data
To meet the requirements of the HCSA and subsequent amendments, DOJ collects and reports To meet the requirements of the HCSA and subsequent amendments, DOJ collects and reports
data on hate crimes that occur in the United States through two sources: the Hate Crime Statistics data on hate crimes that occur in the United States through two sources: the Hate Crime Statistics
program and the NCVS.program and the NCVS.
Hate Crime Statistics Program
DOJ fulfil s
DOJ fulfills the HCSA the HCSA’'s requirement by collecting supplemental data on hate crimes through the s requirement by collecting supplemental data on hate crimes through the
FBI’FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. The Hate Crime Statistics Program collects s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. The Hate Crime Statistics Program collects
data about hate crime offendersdata about hate crime offenders’' alleged bias motivations for the set of offenses already reported to the bias motivations for the set of offenses already reported to the
UCR program.UCR program.48 Under the Hate Crime Statistics Program, the victim of a hate crime can be an Under the Hate Crime Statistics Program, the victim of a hate crime can be an
individual,individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole.a business, an institution, or society as a whole.
Hate Crime Statistics Program data is collected and reported to the FBI by law enforcement Hate Crime Statistics Program data is collected and reported to the FBI by law enforcement
agencies across the country. Agency participation in the Hate Crime Statistics Program, like the agencies across the country. Agency participation in the Hate Crime Statistics Program, like the
UCR program, is voluntary but most agencies participate. In UCR program, is voluntary but most agencies participate. In2019, approximately 15,6002024, 16,419 law law
enforcement agencies in enforcement agencies inal all 50 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Hate Crime 50 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Hate Crime
Statistics ProgramStatistics Program.5, or approximately 85% of all UCR-enrolled agencies.9 The agencies that participated represented jurisdictions that include The agencies that participated represented jurisdictions that include
approximately 305 mil ion people.6 For a point of comparison, in 2008 there were a reported
17,985 state and local law enforcement agencies that employed at least one full-time officer or the
equivalent in part-time officers.7
approximately 323 million people.10
The FBI requires law enforcement agencies to use a two-step process for investigating hate The FBI requires law enforcement agencies to use a two-step process for investigating hate
crimes before reporting them to the Hate Crime Statistics Program.crimes before reporting them to the Hate Crime Statistics Program.811 In the first step, the law In the first step, the law
enforcement officer that enforcement officer thatinitial yinitially responds to a potential hate crime incident is responsible for responds to a potential hate crime incident is responsible for
determining whether there is any indication that the offense was motivated by bias against an determining whether there is any indication that the offense was motivated by bias against an
individual’individual's perceived membership in one of the groups specified in the HCSA. If there is an indication of a bias motivation, the incident is designated as a suspected bias-motivated crime and forwarded to an investigator. Depending on the size of the agency, this may be an individual trained in hate crime matters or a special unit dedicated to this tasks perceived membership in one of the groups specified in the HCSA. If there is an
4 T hese offenses include crimes against persons (homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assaults, intimidation,
human trafficking, and involuntary servitude), crimes against property (robbery, burglary, larceny -theft, motor vehicle
theft, arson, and destruct ion/damage/vandalism), and crimes against society (drugs or narcotics offenses, gambling
offenses, prostitution offenses, and weapons law violations).
5 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics, 2019 (hereinafter, “Hate Crime
Statistics, 2019”).
6 Hate Crime Statistics, 2019.
7 T he number of state and local law enforcement agencies in 2008 is the most recent figure published by BJS. Another
census of state and local law enforcement agencies was conducted by BJS in 2 014, but figures from that census are not
yet available. Duren Banks, Joshua Hendrix, Matthew Hickman et al., National Sources of Law Enforcem ent Em ployee
Data, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau o f Justice Statistics, NCJ 249681, Washington,
DC, revised October 2016, p. 6.
8 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crimes Data Collection Guidelines and Training
Manual, version 2.0, February 27, 2015, pp. 2-3.
Congressional Research Service
2
link to page 7 Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
indication of a bias motivation, the incident is designated as a suspected bias-motivated crime and
forwarded to an investigator. In the second step, the investigator is responsible for reviewing the . In the second step, the investigator is responsible for reviewing the
facts of the incident and making the final determination as to whether the crime meets the HCSA facts of the incident and making the final determination as to whether the crime meets the HCSA
definition of a hate crime. According to the FBI, an agency should only report an incident as a definition of a hate crime. According to the FBI, an agency should only report an incident as a
hate crime when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable hate crime when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable
and prudent person to conclude that the offenderand prudent person to conclude that the offender’'s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by
his or her bias.his or her bias.9
12
Law enforcement agencies can submit data on single and multipleLaw enforcement agencies can submit data on single and multiple bias incidents. Single bias bias incidents. Single bias
incidents are those in which one or more of the offenses committed during an incident are incidents are those in which one or more of the offenses committed during an incident are
motivated by the same bias. Multiple bias incidents are those in which one or more of the motivated by the same bias. Multiple bias incidents are those in which one or more of the
offenses committed during an incident are motivated by two or more biases.offenses committed during an incident are motivated by two or more biases.13
Annual hate crime data published by the FBI differs from traditional UCR crime data published Annual hate crime data published by the FBI differs from traditional UCR crime data published
by the FBI in an important way. For most crimes, the FBI estimates full-year crime data for law by the FBI in an important way. For most crimes, the FBI estimates full-year crime data for law
enforcement agencies that submit less than 12 months of data to the UCR. In contrast, hate crime enforcement agencies that submit less than 12 months of data to the UCR. In contrast, hate crime
data published by the FBI only includes offenses reported by the policedata published by the FBI only includes offenses reported by the police;. Due to the relatively low number of reported hate crimes each year compared to non-bias motivated crime, no estimation for missing no estimation for missing
data is done by the FBI for the Hate Crime Statistics Programdata is done by the FBI for the Hate Crime Statistics Program.
as this could lead to inaccurate estimates.14 National Crime Victimization Survey
BJS has collected data on hate crime victimizations through the NCVS since 2003.BJS has collected data on hate crime victimizations through the NCVS since 2003.1015 The NCVS The NCVS
data is collected data is collected in partnership with the Census Bureau through semiannualthrough annual interviews with residents of a interviews with residents of a national ynationally representative sample of representative sample of
households.households.11 Al 16 All people age 12 or older in the sampled households are interviewed. The NCVS people age 12 or older in the sampled households are interviewed. The NCVS
collects self-reported data on non-fatal personal crime victimizations (sexual assault, robbery, collects self-reported data on non-fatal personal crime victimizations (sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated and simple assaults, and personal larceny) and property crime victimizations aggravated and simple assaults, and personal larceny) and property crime victimizations
(burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other thefts) regardless of whether the crimes were reported to (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other thefts) regardless of whether the crimes were reported to
the police.the police.
The NCVS uses the same HCSA definition of a hate crime as the FBI. The NCVS collects data on The NCVS uses the same HCSA definition of a hate crime as the FBI. The NCVS collects data on
crimes that victims perceive to be motivated by an offendercrimes that victims perceive to be motivated by an offender’'s bias against them based on their s bias against them based on their
race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability,race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Hate crime
victimizations are counts of “a single victim or household that experienced a criminal incident
believed by the victim to be motivated by hate.”12 In the NCVS data, hate crime victimizations In the NCVS data, hate crime victimizations
for personal crimes are counts of individual victims, while hate crime victimizations for property for personal crimes are counts of individual victims, while hate crime victimizations for property
crimes are counts of victimized households.crimes are counts of victimized households.
In order for a victimization to be classified as a hate crime in the NCVS, the victim has to report In order for a victimization to be classified as a hate crime in the NCVS, the victim has to report
one of three types of evidence of the offenderone of three types of evidence of the offender’'s bias: (1) the offender used hate language, (2) the s bias: (1) the offender used hate language, (2) the
offender left hate signs or symbols at the scene, or (3) police investigators confirmed that a hate offender left hate signs or symbols at the scene, or (3) police investigators confirmed that a hate
crime occurred.crime occurred.13
17 Table 1 compares the methodologies of the UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program and the NCVS.compares the methodologies of the UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program and the NCVS.
9 Hate Crime Statistics, 2018, Methodology.
10 Madeline Masucci and Lynn Langton, Hate Crime Victimization, 2004–2015, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 250653, Washington, DC, June 2017, p. 1 (hereinafter “BJS, Hate
Crim e Victim izations”).
11 BJS, Hate Crime Victimizations, p. 9.
12 BJS, Hate Crime Victimizations, p. 2.
13 BJS, Hate Crime Victimizations, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
3
link to page 8 Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
Table 1. Comparison of the
Table 1. Comparison of the UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey
UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program
Statistics Program and the National
Crime Victimization Survey
UCR Hate Crime Statistics
National Crime Victimization
Survey
Program
Survey
Unit of analysis
Individuals, businesses,Individuals, businesses, institutions, or society as a whole
Crimes against persons: homicide, rape, aggravated and simple assaults, intimidation, human trafficking, and involuntary servitude
Crimes against property: robbery, institutions, or
Individuals and households.
society as a whole.
Offenses
Crimes against persons: homicide,
Crimes against persons: sexual
rape, aggravated and simple
assault, robbery, aggravated and
assaults, intimidation, human
simple assaults, and personal
trafficking, and involuntary
larceny.
servitude.
Household property crimes:
Crimes against property: robbery,
burglary, motor vehicle theft, and
burglary, larceny-theft, motor
other thefts.
burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, vehicle theft, arson,
destruction/damage/vandalismdestruction/damage/vandalism.
Crimes
Crimes against society:against society: drug or drug or
narcotics offenses, gambling narcotics offenses, gambling
offenses, prostitution offenses, offenses, prostitution offenses,
weapons law violations,weapons law violations, and and
animal cruelty offenses.a
Biases
Race, gender and gender identity,
animal cruelty offensesa
Race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, Race, gender and gender identity,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, sexual orientation,
religion, disability, or ethnicity
Race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, sexual orientation,
or ethnicity.
or ethnicity
Methodology
Law enforcement agencies submit data
Interviews of persons 12 and older
on known hate crime offenses to the
living in a national y representative
FBI.
sample of households.
Participation
or ethnicity
Voluntary. Participants in the NCVS can decline Voluntary. Law enforcement agencies
Voluntary. Participants in the NCVS
are asked but are not required to
can decline to answer questions about
submit hate crime data to the FBI.
hate crime to answer questions about hate crime victimizations or to victimizations or to
participate in the survey altogetherparticipate in the survey altogether.
Standard for a hate
crime
When law enforcement finds sufficient
The victim perceives the offender’s bias
crime
evidence to lead a reasonable and
against him or her to be motivated by
prudent person to conclude that the
the victim belonging to or being
offender’s actions were motivated, in
associated with one of the groups
whole or in part, by his or her bias.
When law enforcement finds sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender's actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias
The victim perceives the offender's bias against him or her to be motivated by the victim belonging to or being associated with one of the groups specified in the HCSA and (1) the specified in the HCSA and (1) the
offender used hate language, (2) the offender used hate language, (2) the
offender left hate signs or symbolsoffender left hate signs or symbols at at
the scene, or (3) police investigators the scene, or (3) police investigators
confirmed that a hate crimeconfirmed that a hate crime occurred.
National data
Yes.
Yes.
State data
Yes.
No.
Local data
Yes.
No.
Estimation
No. The FBI does not estimate hate
Yes. BJS uses responses from a national
crime data for non-participating law
sample of households to develop
enforcement agencies or for law
national estimates of hate crime
occurred
Frequency ofcollection
enforcement agencies that submit less
victimizations.
than a ful 12 months of data.
Frequency of collection
Annual y.
Annual y.
Source: CRS presentation of informationCRS presentation of information published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of
Justice Statistics.Justice Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
a.
a. Law enforcement agencies that participate in the National Incident Based Reporting SystemLaw enforcement agencies that participate in the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) (NIBRS) col ect
collect and report data on 52 Part A offenses.and report data on 52 Part A offenses. Law enforcementLaw enforcement agencies can report a bias motivation for each Part agencies can report a bias motivation for each Part
A offense if one is present. Part A offenses include the offenses reported by the FBI through the Hate A offense if one is present. Part A offenses include the offenses reported by the FBI through the Hate
Crime Crime Statistics Program along with other offenses. Data for these other offenses are reported as Statistics Program along with other offenses. Data for these other offenses are reported as other hate
crimes "other" hate crimes (in the case of crimes(in the case of crimes against persons or property) or as against persons or property) or as "crimes against society" in the FBI in the FBI’s 's annual annual Hate
Crime Statistics publication. For morepublication. For more information on Part A offenses, seeinformation on Part A offenses, see https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/
ucr/nibrs-quick-facts.pdf/ucr/nibrs-quick-facts.pdf/view.
view.
Differences in the Two National Measures of Hate
Crimes
A perennial issue that can cause confusion for those unfamiliar with the FBI’Crimes
The FBI's and BJSs and BJS’s' data data
collection goals and methodologies collection goals and methodologiesis theare distinct. This distinction results in a difference between the number of hate crime incidents difference between the number of hate crime incidents
reported by the FBI and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by BJS. For example, reported by the FBI and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by BJS. For example,
for 2019 (the most recent data available) the FBIBJS reported that there were an estimated 305,390 hate crime victimizations in 2019 (the most recent data available).18 The FBI, on the other hand, reported that there were approximately 7,300 reported that there were approximately 7,300
hate crime incidents that involved approximately 8,800 victimshate crime incidents that involved approximately 8,800 victims.14 In comparison, BJS reported
that there were an estimated 198,000 hate crime victimizations in 2017.15
in 2019.19
What might explain the difference in the two national measures of hate crimes? The answer lies What might explain the difference in the two national measures of hate crimes? The answer lies
partial ypartially in the fact that the data reported by the FBI and BJS reflect different goals for collecting in the fact that the data reported by the FBI and BJS reflect different goals for collecting
data on hate crimes. The FBI data only reflect hate crime incidents that are reported to law data on hate crimes. The FBI data only reflect hate crime incidents that are reported to law
enforcement, and where law enforcement concludes that a hate crime has occurred and reports it enforcement, and where law enforcement concludes that a hate crime has occurred and reports it
to the FBIto the FBI’'s Hate Crime Statistics Program. In contrast, the goal of the NCVS hate crime data s Hate Crime Statistics Program. In contrast, the goal of the NCVS hate crime data
collection effort is to estimate the total number of hate crime collection effort is to estimate the total number of hate crime victimizations that occur each year, that occur each year,
including victimizations that are not reported to law enforcement agencies (i.e., a portion of the including victimizations that are not reported to law enforcement agencies (i.e., a portion of the
dark figure1620 of crime). Because the NCVS collects data on reported and unreported hate crime of crime). Because the NCVS collects data on reported and unreported hate crime
victimizations, its totals victimizations, its totals wil will always be larger than the FBIalways be larger than the FBI’'s hate crime data.s hate crime data.
Another explanation for the difference between the two measures Another explanation for the difference between the two measures is that there are the different standards are the different standards
needed to be met to be counted as a hate crime in the FBIneeded to be met to be counted as a hate crime in the FBI’'s Hate Crime Statistics Program and s Hate Crime Statistics Program and
the NCVS. For a hate crime to be counted by the FBI, law enforcement must have sufficient the NCVS. For a hate crime to be counted by the FBI, law enforcement must have sufficient
evidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offenderevidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’'s actions s actions
were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias. In contrast, under the NCVS, an incident is were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias. In contrast, under the NCVS, an incident is
counted as a hate crime if the victim believes that the offense was based on their race, ethnicity, counted as a hate crime if the victim believes that the offense was based on their race, ethnicity,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity, and the offender used hate religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity, and the offender used hate
language, hate symbols, or a law enforcement investigation concluded that a hate crime had language, hate symbols, or a law enforcement investigation concluded that a hate crime had
occurred. An independent investigation of the perceived bias is not necessary in every case for the occurred. An independent investigation of the perceived bias is not necessary in every case for the
NCVS interviewers to include the NCVS interviewers to include the offensevictimization as a hate crime. as a hate crime.
The goals and methodologies described above help explain why the NCVS estimates of hate The goals and methodologies described above help explain why the NCVS estimates of hate
crime victimizations are higher than the number of hate crime incidents reported by the FBI. At crime victimizations are higher than the number of hate crime incidents reported by the FBI. At
the same time, the FBIthe same time, the FBI’'s Hate Crime Statistics Program collects data on a larger number of victim s Hate Crime Statistics Program collects data on a larger number of victim
types and crimes that may be motivated by the offendertypes and crimes that may be motivated by the offender’'s bias than the NCVS. For example, the s bias than the NCVS. For example, the
FBI collects data on bias motivated homicides and vandalisms, which are not FBI collects data on bias motivated homicides and vandalisms, which are notbe captured by the captured by the
NCVS. Law enforcement agencies can also report data NCVS. Law enforcement agencies can also report data to the FBI on hate crimes against individuals, on hate crimes against individuals,
businesses, religious institutions, other institutions, and society as a wholebusinesses, religious institutions, other institutions, and society as a whole to the FBI, whereas the
14 Hate Crime Statistics, 2019, T able 1.
15 Barbara Oudekerk, “Hate Crime Statistics,” briefing prepared for the Virginia Advisory Committee, U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
March 29, 2019 (hereinafter, “Oudekerk, ‘Hate Crime Statistics’”).
16 T he dark figure of crime refers to crimes that are not reported to the police or are undetected.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
, whereas the NCVS only collects data on hate crimes against individuals (i.e., personal crimes) and households NCVS only collects data on hate crimes against individuals (i.e., personal crimes) and households
(i.e., property crimes).(i.e., property crimes).
Are Hate Crimes Underreported to the FBI by Law
Enforcement?
A common criticism of the FBIA common criticism of the FBI’'s hate crime data is that a large proportion of participating law s hate crime data is that a large proportion of participating law
enforcement agencies report zero hate crimes in a given year (enforcement agencies report zero hate crimes in a given year (zero-reporting agencies), leading ), leading
some some researchers and advocacy groups to advocacy groups to accusebelieve that the zero-reporting agencies the zero-reporting agencies ofare underreporting hate crimes. underreporting hate crimes.1721 The The
evidence presented to support these accusations are discrepancies between hate crime figures evidence presented to support these accusations are discrepancies between hate crime figures
reported by the FBI and the self-reported hate crime figures tabulated by reported by the FBI and the self-reported hate crime figures tabulated bycommunity
organizations serving the communities that are often the targets of hate crime (e.g., organizations organizations serving the communities that are often the targets of hate crime (e.g., organizations
serving the LGBTQ, Jewish, Muslim, or Arab communities).serving the LGBTQ, Jewish, Muslim, or Arab communities).
22
Research suggests that some law enforcement agencies have underreported the number of hate Research suggests that some law enforcement agencies have underreported the number of hate
crime incidents to the FBI. In one study, researchers reviewed a sample of assault incident reports crime incidents to the FBI. In one study, researchers reviewed a sample of assault incident reports
from seven local law enforcement agencies across the country that were not classified as hate from seven local law enforcement agencies across the country that were not classified as hate
crimes to see if there was any indication that the offenses had a bias motivation.crimes to see if there was any indication that the offenses had a bias motivation.1823 Incidents where Incidents where
there was a clear indication that bias was a predominant motivating factor in the assault were there was a clear indication that bias was a predominant motivating factor in the assault were
coded as coded as bias-motivated, and other incidents were coded as , and other incidents were coded as ambiguous if there was an indication if there was an indication
of bias but also evidence of some other identifiable triggering event or alternative motivation. The of bias but also evidence of some other identifiable triggering event or alternative motivation. The
study found that for some of the incidents, there was evidence that they were motivated by the study found that for some of the incidents, there was evidence that they were motivated by the
al egedalleged perpetrator perpetrator’'s bias, but that these misclassification errors were relatively infrequent and s bias, but that these misclassification errors were relatively infrequent and
varied by law enforcement agency. The estimated proportion of misclassified cases for each varied by law enforcement agency. The estimated proportion of misclassified cases for each
agency ranged from zero to 8% of agency ranged from zero to 8% ofal all assault incidents when both assault incidents when both bias-motivated and and ambiguous
incidents were considered and from zero to 3% when only incidents were considered and from zero to 3% when only bias-motivatedmotivated cases were considered. cases were considered.
While the proportion of misclassified assault cases for any individual agency is relatively low, if While the proportion of misclassified assault cases for any individual agency is relatively low, if
the percentage of misclassified cases reported in this study was generalizable to the universe of the percentage of misclassified cases reported in this study was generalizable to the universe of
al all assaults, it would account for thousands of hate crimes that were not reported to the Hate assaults, it would account for thousands of hate crimes that were not reported to the Hate
Crime Statistics Program.Crime Statistics Program.
Another study of the accuracy of hate crime reporting utilized incident-based crime data (see Another study of the accuracy of hate crime reporting utilized incident-based crime data (see
discussion of expanding the National Incident Based Reporting System, below) from four local discussion of expanding the National Incident Based Reporting System, below) from four local
law enforcement agencies to evaluate whether hate crimes were being misclassified.law enforcement agencies to evaluate whether hate crimes were being misclassified.1924 This study This study
looked at looked at al all criminal incidents, not just assaults, reported to the four agencies in 2008 and criminal incidents, not just assaults, reported to the four agencies in 2008 and
examined not only whether hate crimes were misclassified as non-bias-motivated offenses, but
17 See, for example, Muslim Advocates, “Muslim Advocates Responds to Rise in Annual Hate Crimes Data, Despite
Rampant Underreporting,” press release, November 14, 2018, https://muslimadvocates.org/2018/11/muslim-advocates-
responds-to-rise-in-annual-hate-crimes-data-despite-rampant-underreporting/; Human Right Campaign, “ New Statistics
Show Alarming Increase in Number of Reported Hate Crimes,” November 13, 2018, https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-
fbi-statistics-show-alarming-increase-in-number-of-reported-hate-crimes; and Arjun Singh Sethi, “ T he FBI Recorded a
Surge of Hate Crimes Last Year. But it Undercounted—By a Lot,” Washington Post, November 14, 2018.
18 Jack McDevitt, James Cronin, and Jennifer Balboni et al., Bridging the Information Disconnect in National
Reporting of Bias Crim e, Research in Brief, T he Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research, Northeastern University,
Boston, MA, p. 5.
19 James J. Nolan, Stephen M. Haas, and Erica T urley et al., “Assessing the ‘Statistical Accuracy’ of the National
Incident -Based Reporting System Hate Crime Data,” Am erican Behavioral Scientist, vol. 59, no. 12 (2015), pp. 1562-
1587 (hereinafter, “Nolan et al., ‘Assessing the “Statistical Accuracy” of the National Incident -Based Reporting System
Hate Crime Data’”).
Congressional Research Service
6
link to page 10 
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
also whether non-bias-motivated offenses were wrongly classified as hate crimes and how these
errors compared to misclassification errors for other non-hate crimes. This study found that
undercounting of hate crimes was the most common misclassification error in the records they
examined. The researchers noted that “extending error rates to the population suggest that the
estimated number of bias crimes that go unaccounted is noticeable.”20
examined not only whether hate crimes were misclassified as non-bias-motivated offenses, but also whether non-bias-motivated offenses were wrongly classified as hate crimes and how these errors compared to misclassification errors for other non-hate crimes. This study found that undercounting of hate crimes was the most common misclassification error in the records they examined. The researchers noted that "extending error rates to the population suggest that the estimated number of bias crimes that go unaccounted is noticeable."25
reported zero hate crimes, it is these agencies in particular that critics argue are likely to have reported zero hate crimes, it is these agencies in particular that critics argue are likely to have
underreported hate crimes.underreported hate crimes.28 As shown As showninin Figure 1, the vast majority of agencies that participate in , the vast majority of agencies that participate in
the Hate Crime Statistics Program are zero-reporting agencies, leading critics to the Hate Crime Statistics Program are zero-reporting agencies, leading critics to assumeconclude that hate that hate
crimes are significantly underreported to the FBI.crimes are significantly underreported to the FBI.
In order for a law enforcement agency to be considered a In order for a law enforcement agency to be considered a “participant,”"participant" in the FBI's hate crime statistics program, it has to submit data on it has to submit data on
the number of hate crimes for at least part of the year or a letter signed by the police chief the number of hate crimes for at least part of the year or a letter signed by the police chief
certifying that no hate crimes occurred that year in its jurisdiction.certifying that no hate crimes occurred that year in its jurisdiction.2129 The proportion of agencies The proportion of agencies
that reported zero hate crimes to the FBI was relatively consistent from 1996 to 2006, increased that reported zero hate crimes to the FBI was relatively consistent from 1996 to 2006, increased
from 2006 to 2014, and then decreased from 2014 to from 2006 to 2014, and then decreased from 2014 to20192024. However, from 1996 to . However, from 1996 to 2019, 80% or
more2024, 84% of participating law enforcement agencies of participating law enforcement agencies on average reported zero hate crimes each year.reported zero hate crimes each year.
Figure 1. Number of Law Enforcement Agencies Participating in the FBI’s Hate
Crime Statistics Program, 1996-2019
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics for 1996-2019.
20 Nolan et al., “Assessing the ‘Statistical Accuracy’ of the National Incident -Based Reporting System Hate Crime
Data,” p. 1582.
21 Stephen M. Haas, James J. Jordan, and Erica T urley et al., Assessing the Validity of Hate Crime Reporting: An
Analysis of NIBRS Data, State of West Virginia, Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, Division of Justice
and Community Services, Office of Research and Strategic Planning, Charleston, WV, July 2011, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
There are also agencies that do not participate in the hate crime statistics program, providing neither data on any hate crime incidents nor an affirmative zero-report. From 1996 to 2024, this portion of non-participation agencies has ranged from 25% to 46% of all agencies across the United States and its territories, though has averaged around 33% of agencies overall.
enforcement agency does not report any hate crimes in a given year. The first, and most enforcement agency does not report any hate crimes in a given year. The first, and most
straightforward, reason is because no hate crimes occurred. Given that law enforcement agency straightforward, reason is because no hate crimes occurred. Given that law enforcement agency
jurisdictions include communities with as little as a few hundred residents, it is not implausible jurisdictions include communities with as little as a few hundred residents, it is not implausible
that some residents, that some residents,especial yespecially those that live in very those that live in very smal small and homogeneous communities, did and homogeneous communities, did
not experience any hate crimes. Second, in order for a law enforcement agency to report a hate not experience any hate crimes. Second, in order for a law enforcement agency to report a hate
crime to the FBI, it must be reported to the police. Data from the NCVS indicates that on average, crime to the FBI, it must be reported to the police. Data from the NCVS indicates that on average,
half of42% of violent hate crime victimizations were not reported to the police from hate crime victimizations were not reported to the police from 2013 to 2017.222015 to 2019.30 Hate crime Hate crime
victims might choose not to report the incident to the police for a variety of reasons, includingvictims might choose not to report the incident to the police for a variety of reasons, including
fear of retaliation,fear of retaliation,
embarrassment that they were victimized,embarrassment that they were victimized,
a belief that the crime was not motivated by the perpetratora belief that the crime was not motivated by the perpetrator’'s bias,s bias,
lack of familiaritylack of familiarity with a statewith a state’'s hate crime laws,s hate crime laws,
distrust of law enforcement,distrust of law enforcement,
a belief that law enforcement a belief that law enforcement wil will not investigate the case,not investigate the case,
fear of being exposed as a member of the LGBTQ community, orfear of being exposed as a member of the LGBTQ community, or
fear of being re-traumatized by the criminal justice system.fear of being re-traumatized by the criminal justice system.23
31Even when a hate crime is reported to state and local law enforcement, Even when a hate crime is reported to state and local law enforcement, as described above, an investigation must be an investigation must be
conducted into the perceived bias to determine if the offense was bias-motivated before conducted into the perceived bias to determine if the offense was bias-motivated beforereporting
the agency reports it to the FBI as a hate crime. This step can be it to the FBI as a hate crime. This step can bechal enging forchallenging for some law enforcement agencies, law enforcement agencies,
especial y smal especially small agencies with relatively few resources. When there is evidence that a hate crime agencies with relatively few resources. When there is evidence that a hate crime
might have occurred, law enforcement agencies have to complete additional investigative steps to might have occurred, law enforcement agencies have to complete additional investigative steps to
determine whether an offense meets the statutory definition of a hate crime, and in some cases determine whether an offense meets the statutory definition of a hate crime, and in some cases
law enforcement officers might not be trained sufficiently on recognizing biases in crimes to law enforcement officers might not be trained sufficiently on recognizing biases in crimes to
conduct such investigations.conduct such investigations.2432 Few states provide mandatory training for law enforcement officers Few states provide mandatory training for law enforcement officers
on investigating, identifying, and reporting hate crimes, and in the states that do, there is little on investigating, identifying, and reporting hate crimes, and in the states that do, there is little
oversight to confirm that law enforcement officers are receiving the training and applying it oversight to confirm that law enforcement officers are receiving the training and applying it
correctly.25
correctly.33
Ambiguity in the circumstances surrounding hate crimes can also lead to an undercounting. Ambiguity in the circumstances surrounding hate crimes can also lead to an undercounting.
Under the Hate Crime Statistics Program, law enforcement agencies report the number of hate Under the Hate Crime Statistics Program, law enforcement agencies report the number of hate
crimes that were crimes that were “"motivated in whole or in part by bias.motivated in whole or in part by bias.”" Law enforcement officers might have Law enforcement officers might have
difficulty applying this standard in cases where a bias motivation might not be obvious, difficulty applying this standard in cases where a bias motivation might not be obvious,especial y
especially when considering hate crimes that were motivated when considering hate crimes that were motivated“"in partin part”" by an offender by an offender’'s bias.s bias.2634 While a cross While a cross
burning on the front yard of a burning on the front yard of ablackBlack family family’'s home is an unambiguous hate crime, in other cases the motivation of the alleged s home is an unambiguous hate crime, in other cases
22 Oudekerk, “Hate Crime Statistics.”
23 Harbani Ahuja, “T he Vicious Cycle of Hate: Systemic Flaws in Hate Crime Documentation in the United States and
the Impact on Minority Communities,” Cardozo Law Review, vol. 37, no. 5 (June 2016), pp. 1882 -1883 (hereinafter,
“Ahuja, ‘T he Vicious Cycle of Hate’”).
24 William B. Rubenstein, “T he Real Story of U.S. Hate Crime Statistics: An Empirical Analysis,” Tulane Law Review,
vol. 78, no. 4 (March 2004), p. 1220 (hereinafter, “ Rubenstein, ‘The Real Story of U.S. Hate Crime Statistics’”).
25 Ahuja, “T he Vicious Cycle of Hate,” p. 1892.
26 Nolan et al., “Assessing the ‘Statistical Accuracy’ of the National Incident -Based Reporting System Hate Crime
Data,” p. 1564.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
the motivation of the al eged perpetrators might not be so clear. These ambiguous hate crimes can
perpetrators might not be so clear. These ambiguous hate crimes can be classified into two categories: response/retaliation events and target-selection events.be classified into two categories: response/retaliation events and target-selection events.27
35 Response/retaliation events are those where the offense was first triggered by are those where the offense was first triggered by
something other than bias, but at some pointsomething other than bias, but at some point, bias exacerbates the incident into a bias exacerbates the incident into a
hate crime.hate crime.2836 For example, a For example, a whiteWhite motorist and a motorist and a blackBlack motorist get into a motorist get into a
dispute because their cars were involved in an accident. However, after a few dispute because their cars were involved in an accident. However, after a few
minutes, the minutes, thewhiteWhite motorist assaults the motorist assaults the blackBlack motorist while motorist while yel ingyelling racial slurs. racial slurs.
In this case, the incident was not initiated because of the In this case, the incident was not initiated because of thewhiteWhite motorist motorist’'s bias s bias
against the against the blackBlack motorist, but the motorist, but the whiteWhite motorist motorist’'s bias s bias eventual yeventually resulted in resulted in
him assaulting the him assaulting theblackBlack motorist. motorist.
Target-selection events are those where a target of a crime is selected because of are those where a target of a crime is selected because of
the offenderthe offender’'s bias against members of the group, but the offenders bias against members of the group, but the offender’'s bias in not s bias in not
obvious.29obvious.37 For example, someone might rob men leaving bars that are known to For example, someone might rob men leaving bars that are known to
be frequented by same sex couples because the offender believes they be frequented by same sex couples because the offender believes theywil will be less be less
likely likely to report the offense because they might not want to be identified as being to report the offense because they might not want to be identified as being
a member of the LGBTQ community.a member of the LGBTQ community.
In addition to issues related to law enforcement officer training on identifying hate crimes for In addition to issues related to law enforcement officer training on identifying hate crimes for
submission to the FBI, differences in how a hate crime is defined under state law and under the submission to the FBI, differences in how a hate crime is defined under state law and under the
HCSA can create its own ambiguities. For example, gender identity is a protected class under the HCSA can create its own ambiguities. For example, gender identity is a protected class under the
HCSA, but it might not be a recognized bias motivation under a stateHCSA, but it might not be a recognized bias motivation under a state’'s lawss laws.; conversely, political affiliation is considered a protected class under some state laws, but is not currently recognized as bias motivation under the HCSA.38 As such, if a law As such, if a law
enforcement officer is more familiar with the stateenforcement officer is more familiar with the state’'s hate crime definition, he or she might not s hate crime definition, he or she might not
identify an offense based on gender-bias as a potential hate crime. As one group of researchers identify an offense based on gender-bias as a potential hate crime. As one group of researchers
noted:noted:
Even when potential bias crimes are reported to a participating agency, the agency must
then recognize any indications of bias, determine whether the incident is bias motivated,
document the motivation, and submit the incident to UCR. Empirical evidence suggests
that the processing of bias -crime reporting across participating law enforcement agencies
is variable and subject to much error and interpretation by local departments.30
Improving Hate Crime Data: Considerations for
Policymakers
Congress passed the HCSA with the intent of collecting national data on bias-motivated offenses Congress passed the HCSA with the intent of collecting national data on bias-motivated offenses
that could be used to inform federal hate crime policy. While DOJ has taken steps to collect these that could be used to inform federal hate crime policy. While DOJ has taken steps to collect these
data, the hate crime data reported by the FBI is incomplete and the NCVS self-reported hate data, the hate crime data reported by the FBI is incomplete and the NCVS self-reported hate
crime victimization data likelycrime victimization data likely includes incidents that would not meet the legalincludes incidents that would not meet the legal standard needed standard needed
to be charged as hate crime. Hate crime data to be charged as hate crime. Hate crime data“missing”"missing" from the FBI from the FBI’'s Hate Crime Statistics s Hate Crime Statistics
27 Nolan et al., “Assessing the ‘Statistical Accuracy’ of the National Incident -Based Reporting System Hate Crime
Data,” p. 1564.
28 Nolan et al., “Assessing the ‘Statistical Accuracy’ of the National Incident -Based Reporting System Hate Crime
Data,” pp. 1564-1565.
29 Nolan et al., “Assessing the ‘Statistical Accuracy’ of the National Incident -Based Reporting System Hate Crime
Data,” p. 1565.
30 Shea W. Cronin, Jack McDevitt, and Amy Farrell et al., “Bias-Crime Reporting: Organizational Responses to
Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Infrequency in Eight Police Departments,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 51, no. 2
(October 2007), p. 216.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
program results from a series of complications associated with collecting these data (e.g., victims program results from a series of complications associated with collecting these data (e.g., victims
might not report the offense to the police, law enforcement agencies might fail to correctly might not report the offense to the police, law enforcement agencies might fail to correctly
identify potential hate crimes, or law enforcement agencies might not routinely and identify potential hate crimes, or law enforcement agencies might not routinely and
systematical ysystematically report hate crime data to the FBI). Policymakers may have an interest in what steps report hate crime data to the FBI). Policymakers may have an interest in what steps
Congress could take to help improve the quality of the FBICongress could take to help improve the quality of the FBI’'s hate crime data. One option on the s hate crime data. One option on the
horizon might be the wide-scale adoption of the National Incident Based Reporting System
(NIBRS).
The FBI phased out the UCR summary reporting system starting January 1, 2021. Going forward,
the FBI is to accept only NIBRS-compliant data from law enforcement agencies.31 To support
state and local law enforcement agencies’ transitions to NIBRS, state and local governments that
are not certified as NIBRS compliant have been required since FY2018 to use 3% of their award
under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program to achieve
compliance.32
Compared to the UCR summary reporting systemhorizon might be law enforcement agencies full adoption of NIBRS.
Compared to the Summary Reporting System (SRS) used by the FBI since the 1930's, NIBRS collects more data on a wider variety , NIBRS collects more data on a wider variety
of offenses.of offenses.3340 NIBRS asks participating law enforcement agencies to collect and report incident- NIBRS asks participating law enforcement agencies to collect and report incident-
level data on offenders, victims, the relationship between victims and offenders, and the level data on offenders, victims, the relationship between victims and offenders, and the
circumstances surrounding the incident for 52 different offenses. In comparison, circumstances surrounding the incident for 52 different offenses. In comparison, the current
summary reporting systemSRS is largely a tabulation of the number of eight Part I offenses reported is largely a tabulation of the number of eight Part I offenses reported
to the police.to the police.34
41
As a part of NIBRS, reporting agencies can identify whether an offense was motivated by an As a part of NIBRS, reporting agencies can identify whether an offense was motivated by an
offender’offender's bias against the victim for each reported offense. Under the Hate Crime Statistics s bias against the victim for each reported offense. Under the Hate Crime Statistics
Program, law enforcement agencies that are not currently submitting NIBRS-compliant data Program, law enforcement agencies that are not currently submitting NIBRS-compliant data
submit a supplemental summary report to the FBI when there is evidence that one or more crimes submit a supplemental summary report to the FBI when there is evidence that one or more crimes
in their jurisdiction involved a bias motivation. It has been argued that hate crime reporting in their jurisdiction involved a bias motivation. It has been argued that hate crime reportingwil
will increase as more agencies adopt NIBRS because reporting the presence or absence of bias increase as more agencies adopt NIBRS because reporting the presence or absence of bias
motivations is built into NIBRS.motivations is built into NIBRS.3542 In addition to making it easier for law enforcement agencies to In addition to making it easier for law enforcement agencies to
report hate crimes to the FBI, NIBRS provides data on a wider variety of offenses, including report hate crimes to the FBI, NIBRS provides data on a wider variety of offenses, including
those that were motivated by offendersthose that were motivated by offenders’' bias against their victims, and data on the context of hate bias against their victims, and data on the context of hate
crimes (e.g., locations where hate crimes occur, the relationship between crimes (e.g., locations where hate crimes occur, the relationship betweenal egedalleged perpetrators and perpetrators and
victims of hate crimes, whether victims of hate crimes, whetheral egedalleged offenders are residents of the community where they offenders are residents of the community where they
committed their offenses, the weapons used in the offenses (if any), and the types and seriousness committed their offenses, the weapons used in the offenses (if any), and the types and seriousness
of injuries sustained by hate crime victims).of injuries sustained by hate crime victims).36
While the FBI has stopped accepting crime data from non-NIBRS compliant law enforcement
agencies,43
Though the adoption of NIBRS has been steadily increasing across the United States,44 participation in the program is participation in the program is stil voluntary. If a law enforcement agency does not
31 For more information on the FBI’s transition to NIBRS, see CRS Report R46668, The National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS): Benefits and Issues.
32 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), updated February 2021, p. 4
(hereinafter, “JAG FAQs”).
33 For more information, see U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, SRS to NIBRS: The Path to
Better UCR Data, March 28, 2017, https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/cjis-link/srs-to-nibrs-the-path-to-better-ucr-data.
34 T he eight Part I offenses are homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny -theft, motor vehicle theft,
and arson.
35 James J. Nolan III, Yoshio Akiyama, and Samuel Berhanu, “T he Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990: Developing a
Method for Measuring the Occurrence of Hate Violence,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 46, no. 1 (September
2002), p. 146 (hereinafter, “ Nolan et al., ‘T he Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990’) .
36 Nolan et al., “T he Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990,” p. 147.
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
voluntary. If a law enforcement agency does not believe it is worth the time and effort to adopt NIBRS and the state does not mandate that it believe it is worth the time and effort to adopt NIBRS and the state does not mandate that it
participates in the program, there is no federal mandate participates in the program, there is no federal mandateor incentive for the agency to participate.
to compel them to adopt NIBRS. Therefore, policymakers might have an interest in what steps Congress could take to promote Therefore, policymakers might have an interest in what steps Congress could take to promote
wide-scale adoption of the program. Congress could consider placing a condition on a program wide-scale adoption of the program. Congress could consider placing a condition on a program
such as such asJAGthe Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) that would require law enforcement agencies to submit NIBRS data to the FBI or that would require law enforcement agencies to submit NIBRS data to the FBI or
face a penalty under the program. However, the JAG program already provides face a penalty under the program. However, the JAG program already providesaan indirect financial financial
incentive to participate fully in the FBIincentive to participate fully in the FBI’'s crime reporting program. Half of a states crime reporting program. Half of a state’s al ocation's allocation is is
based on its proportion of the average number of violent crimes reported in the United States over based on its proportion of the average number of violent crimes reported in the United States over
the past three years, and the past three years, andal ocationsallocations for local governments are based on their proportion of the for local governments are based on their proportion of the
average number of violent crimes reported in the state over the past three years.average number of violent crimes reported in the state over the past three years.37 The Bureau of
Justice Assistance reports that NIBRS data wil be used to calculate JAG awards once NIBRS
replaces the summary reporting system.3845 In addition, in order for local governments to be In addition, in order for local governments to be
eligible eligible for a direct award under the program, they have to have submitted violent crime data for for a direct award under the program, they have to have submitted violent crime data for
at least 3 of the past 10 years.3 of the past 10 years.39 46
Yet, even with these incentivesYet, even with these incentives, some law enforcement agencies in the some law enforcement agencies in the
United States do not participate in the UCR because compiling the data can be difficult and timeUnited States do not participate in the UCR because compiling the data can be difficult and time
-consuming, and many consuming, and manysmal small agencies might not have the resources needed to fully comply with agencies might not have the resources needed to fully comply with
the FBIthe FBI’'s data collection and submission requirements. s data collection and submission requirements. Furthermore, some of these agencies may be so small that they would be unlikely to qualify for more than the minimum grant award allotment for JAG, meaning they do not have even an indirect incentive to participate in the UCR. Thus, Congress could also consider Thus, Congress could also consider
authorizing a new grant program that would provide funding to state and local governments to authorizing a new grant program that would provide funding to state and local governments to
cover expenses related to transitioning to NIBRS, such as purchasing new software and cover expenses related to transitioning to NIBRS, such as purchasing new software and
computers, or training officers on how to use NIBRS.computers, or training officers on how to use NIBRS.
47
While NIBRS might provide some administrative efficiency with regard to reporting hate crimes, While NIBRS might provide some administrative efficiency with regard to reporting hate crimes,
it does not address some of the other issues law enforcement agencies currently have with it does not address some of the other issues law enforcement agencies currently have with
reporting hate crimes through the UCR program. Implementing NIBRS does not address hate reporting hate crimes through the UCR program. Implementing NIBRS does not address hate
crime victims being reluctant to report an offense to the police, crime victims being reluctant to report an offense to the police,the need for training for law training for law
enforcement officers on how to identify potential hate crimes, or the need to improve law enforcement officers on how to identify potential hate crimes, or the need to improve law
enforcement agenciesenforcement agencies' processes for investigating potential hate crimes, nor processes for investigating potential hate crimes, norwil will it resolve it resolve
differences between the HCSA and state hate crime definitions.differences between the HCSA and state hate crime definitions.
Author Information
Nathan James
Emily J. Hanson
Analyst in Crime Policy
Analyst in Social Policy
37 For more information on how allocations are calculated under the JAG program see CRS In Focus IF10691, The
Edward Byrne Mem orial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program .
38 JAG FAQs, p. 4.
39 34 U.S.C. §10156(e)(3).
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Data on Hate Crimes in the United States
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R46318 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
12
States Updated December 16, 2025 (R46318) Jump to Main Text of Report
Contents
Summary
Reports of crimes where the offenders' actions appear to bepursuant to the requirement in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HSCA, P.L. 101-275) that the Department of Justice pursuant to the requirement in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HSCA, P.L. 101-275) that the Department of Justice
(DOJ) collect and report data on crimes that (DOJ) collect and report data on crimes that
identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, identity, 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 non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and
collects data on hate crime victimizations through the Bureau of Justice Statisticscollects data on hate crime victimizations through the Bureau of Justice Statistics
perceived by victims to be motivated by an offenderperceived by victims to be motivated by an offender
a group largely identifieda group largely identified
hate crimes committed in the United States each year. However, this statistics gap can be hate crimes committed in the United States each year. However, this statistics gap can be
the different measures and methodologies utilized by the FBI and BJS to collect these data. For example, the FBI the different measures and methodologies utilized by the FBI and BJS to collect these data. For example, the FBI
only reports on crimes that have been reported to the police, while BJS collects reports of criminal victimizations only reports on crimes that have been reported to the police, while BJS collects reports of criminal victimizations
police. There are a number of reasons why some victims do not report their victimization to the police, including police. There are a number of reasons why some victims do not report their victimization to the police, including
fear of reprisal, not wanting the offender to get in trouble, believing that police would not or could not do fear of reprisal, not wanting the offender to get in trouble, believing that police would not or could not do
anything to help, and believing the crime to be a personal issue or too trivial to report.anything to help, and believing the crime to be a personal issue or too trivial to report.
hate crime requires law enforcement agencies to investigate hate crime requires law enforcement agencies to investigate
final determination. Reporting final determination. Reporting of hate crimes by law enforcement agencies to the FBI might be hampered by the fact that some by law enforcement agencies to the FBI might be hampered by the fact that some
law enforcement agencies do not have the training necessary to investigate potential bias-motivated offenses law enforcement agencies do not have the training necessary to investigate potential bias-motivated offenses
effectively. In addition, differing definitions between the FBI and state statutes as to what constitutes a effectively. In addition, differing definitions between the FBI and state statutes as to what constitutes a hate crime
reported.reported.
in how NIBRS differs from the FBIin how NIBRS differs from the FBI
NIBRS might improve the quality and completeness of federal hate crime data. However, like the FBINIBRS might improve the quality and completeness of federal hate crime data. However, like the FBI
Congress could take to promote Congress could take to promote
States. The salience of these events and how they are covered in the media might also contribute States. The salience of these events and how they are covered in the media might also contribute
to the perception that there is a growing number of hate crimes (also known as bias crimes or to the perception that there is a growing number of hate crimes (also known as bias crimes or
bias-motivated offenses) being perpetrated in communities across the country.bias-motivated offenses) being perpetrated in communities across the country.
increase. Policymakers might also utilize these same data to craft a policy response to hate crimes increase. Policymakers might also utilize these same data to craft a policy response to hate crimes
that is grounded in the data and conduct oversight of the federal governmentthat is grounded in the data and conduct oversight of the federal government
brief overview of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA, P.L. 101-275), which requires DOJ to brief overview of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA, P.L. 101-275), which requires DOJ to
collect and report data on hate crimes, and the two systems DOJ employs to collect and report data on hate crimes, and the two systems DOJ employs to
Justice StatisticsJustice Statistics
two salient issues regarding hate crime statistics: the two salient issues regarding hate crime statistics: the relatively large difference between the number of hate large difference between the number of hate
crimes reported by the FBI and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by BJS, and crimes reported by the FBI and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by BJS, and
concerns about law enforcement agencies underreporting hate crimes to the FBI. The report concerns about law enforcement agencies underreporting hate crimes to the FBI. The report
The Hate Crime Statistics Act
The HCSA requires DOJ to collect and report data on crimes that The HCSA requires DOJ to collect and report data on crimes that
based on race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, based on race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity,
including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape;
property.property.
data on hate crimes and there were no national data.data on hate crimes and there were no national data.
would reveal the scope of the problem and provide a basis for more effective law enforcement would reveal the scope of the problem and provide a basis for more effective law enforcement
constitutes a hate crime for data collection purposes. The act constitutes a hate crime for data collection purposes. The act
to collect hate crime data after 1994. However, the Church Arson Prevention Act (P.L. 104-155to collect hate crime data after 1994. However, the Church Arson Prevention Act (P.L. 104-155)
Federal Hate Crime Data
To meet the requirements of the HCSA and subsequent amendments, DOJ collects and reports To meet the requirements of the HCSA and subsequent amendments, DOJ collects and reports
Hate Crime Statistics Program
data about hate crime offendersdata about hate crime offenders
UCR program.UCR program.
UCR program, is voluntary but most agencies participate. In UCR program, is voluntary but most agencies participate. In
enforcement agencies in enforcement agencies in
Statistics ProgramStatistics Program
enforcement officer that enforcement officer that
determining whether there is any indication that the offense was motivated by bias against an determining whether there is any indication that the offense was motivated by bias against an
facts of the incident and making the final determination as to whether the crime meets the HCSA facts of the incident and making the final determination as to whether the crime meets the HCSA
definition of a hate crime. According to the FBI, an agency should only report an incident as a definition of a hate crime. According to the FBI, an agency should only report an incident as a
hate crime when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable hate crime when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable
and prudent person to conclude that the offenderand prudent person to conclude that the offender
motivated by the same bias. Multiple bias incidents are those in which one or more of the motivated by the same bias. Multiple bias incidents are those in which one or more of the
Annual hate crime data published by the FBI differs from traditional UCR crime data published Annual hate crime data published by the FBI differs from traditional UCR crime data published
by the FBI in an important way. For most crimes, the FBI estimates full-year crime data for law by the FBI in an important way. For most crimes, the FBI estimates full-year crime data for law
enforcement agencies that submit less than 12 months of data to the UCR. In contrast, hate crime enforcement agencies that submit less than 12 months of data to the UCR. In contrast, hate crime
data published by the FBI only includes offenses reported by the policedata published by the FBI only includes offenses reported by the police
as this could lead to inaccurate estimates.14 National Crime Victimization Survey
BJS has collected data on hate crime victimizations through the NCVS since 2003.BJS has collected data on hate crime victimizations through the NCVS since 2003.
households.households.
collects self-reported data on non-fatal personal crime victimizations (sexual assault, robbery, collects self-reported data on non-fatal personal crime victimizations (sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated and simple assaults, and personal larceny) and property crime victimizations aggravated and simple assaults, and personal larceny) and property crime victimizations
(burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other thefts) regardless of whether the crimes were reported to (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other thefts) regardless of whether the crimes were reported to
crimes that victims perceive to be motivated by an offendercrimes that victims perceive to be motivated by an offender
for personal crimes are counts of individual victims, while hate crime victimizations for property for personal crimes are counts of individual victims, while hate crime victimizations for property
one of three types of evidence of the offenderone of three types of evidence of the offender
offender left hate signs or symbols at the scene, or (3) police investigators confirmed that a hate offender left hate signs or symbols at the scene, or (3) police investigators confirmed that a hate
17 Table 1 compares the methodologies of the UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program and the NCVS.compares the methodologies of the UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program and the NCVS.
National Crime Victimization
Survey
Unit of analysis
Individuals and households
Offenses
destruction/damage/vandalismdestruction/damage/vandalism
narcotics offenses, gambling narcotics offenses, gambling
offenses, prostitution offenses, offenses, prostitution offenses,
weapons law violations,weapons law violations,
- Crimes against persons: sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assaults, and personal larceny
- Household property crimes: burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other thefts
Biases
Methodology
Law enforcement agencies submit data on known hate crime offenses to the FBI
Interviews of persons 12 and older living in a nationally representative sample of households
Participation
Voluntary. Law enforcement agencies are asked but are not required to submit hate crime data to the FBI
participate in the survey altogetherparticipate in the survey altogether
Standard
crime
offender used hate language, (2) the offender used hate language, (2) the
offender left hate signs or symbolsoffender left hate signs or symbols
the scene, or (3) police investigators the scene, or (3) police investigators
confirmed that a hate crimeconfirmed that a hate crime
National data
Yes
Yes
State data
Yes
No
Local data
Yes
No
Estimation
No. The FBI does not estimate hate crime data for non-participating law enforcement agencies or for law enforcement agencies that submit less than a full 12 months of data
Yes. BJS uses responses from a national sample of households to develop national estimates of hate crime victimizations
Annually
Semiannually
Source: CRS presentation of informationCRS presentation of information
Justice Statistics.Justice Statistics.
A offense if one is present. Part A offenses include the offenses reported by the FBI through the Hate A offense if one is present. Part A offenses include the offenses reported by the FBI through the Hate
Crime Statistics
ucr/nibrs-quick-facts.pdf/ucr/nibrs-quick-facts.pdf/
collection goals and methodologies collection goals and methodologies
reported by the FBI and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by BJS. For example, reported by the FBI and the number of hate crime victimizations reported by BJS. For example,
hate crime incidents that involved approximately 8,800 victimshate crime incidents that involved approximately 8,800 victims
data on hate crimes. The FBI data only reflect hate crime incidents that are reported to law data on hate crimes. The FBI data only reflect hate crime incidents that are reported to law
enforcement, and where law enforcement concludes that a hate crime has occurred and reports it enforcement, and where law enforcement concludes that a hate crime has occurred and reports it
to the FBIto the FBI
including victimizations that are not reported to law enforcement agencies (i.e., a portion of the including victimizations that are not reported to law enforcement agencies (i.e., a portion of the
dark figure
needed to be met to be counted as a hate crime in the FBIneeded to be met to be counted as a hate crime in the FBI
the NCVS. For a hate crime to be counted by the FBI, law enforcement must have sufficient the NCVS. For a hate crime to be counted by the FBI, law enforcement must have sufficient
evidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offenderevidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender
counted as a hate crime if the victim believes that the offense was based on their race, ethnicity, counted as a hate crime if the victim believes that the offense was based on their race, ethnicity,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity, and the offender used hate religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity, and the offender used hate
language, hate symbols, or a law enforcement investigation concluded that a hate crime had language, hate symbols, or a law enforcement investigation concluded that a hate crime had
occurred. An independent investigation of the perceived bias is not necessary in every case for the occurred. An independent investigation of the perceived bias is not necessary in every case for the
crime victimizations are higher than the number of hate crime incidents reported by the FBI. At crime victimizations are higher than the number of hate crime incidents reported by the FBI. At
types and crimes that may be motivated by the offendertypes and crimes that may be motivated by the offender
FBI collects data on bias motivated homicides and vandalisms, which are not FBI collects data on bias motivated homicides and vandalisms, which are not
NCVS. Law enforcement agencies can also report data NCVS. Law enforcement agencies can also report data to the FBI on hate crimes against individuals, on hate crimes against individuals,
businesses, religious institutions, other institutions, and society as a wholebusinesses, religious institutions, other institutions, and society as a whole
Are Hate Crimes Underreported to the FBI by Law
Enforcement?
A common criticism of the FBIA common criticism of the FBI
enforcement agencies report zero hate crimes in a given year (enforcement agencies report zero hate crimes in a given year (zero-reporting agencies), leading ), leading
evidence presented to support these accusations are discrepancies between hate crime figures evidence presented to support these accusations are discrepancies between hate crime figures
reported by the FBI and the self-reported hate crime figures tabulated by reported by the FBI and the self-reported hate crime figures tabulated by
from seven local law enforcement agencies across the country that were not classified as hate from seven local law enforcement agencies across the country that were not classified as hate
crimes to see if there was any indication that the offenses had a bias motivation.crimes to see if there was any indication that the offenses had a bias motivation.
there was a clear indication that bias was a predominant motivating factor in the assault were there was a clear indication that bias was a predominant motivating factor in the assault were
coded as coded as bias-motivated, and other incidents were coded as , and other incidents were coded as ambiguous if there was an indication if there was an indication
study found that for some of the incidents, there was evidence that they were motivated by the study found that for some of the incidents, there was evidence that they were motivated by the
varied by law enforcement agency. The estimated proportion of misclassified cases for each varied by law enforcement agency. The estimated proportion of misclassified cases for each
agency ranged from zero to 8% of agency ranged from zero to 8% of
While the proportion of misclassified assault cases for any individual agency is relatively low, if While the proportion of misclassified assault cases for any individual agency is relatively low, if
the percentage of misclassified cases reported in this study was generalizable to the universe of the percentage of misclassified cases reported in this study was generalizable to the universe of
discussion of expanding the National Incident Based Reporting System, below) from four local discussion of expanding the National Incident Based Reporting System, below) from four local
law enforcement agencies to evaluate whether hate crimes were being misclassified.law enforcement agencies to evaluate whether hate crimes were being misclassified.
Beyond misclassification of bias-motivated offenses reported to police, evidence suggests that victims of hate crimes may be particularly unlikely to report their victimization to police compared to victims of non-hate crimes. In one study analyzing 2014 NCVS data, researchers found that the odds of victims of violent hate crimes reporting the offense to the police were 17% lower than victims of non-hate crimes, even when statistically controlling for other variables such as victim demographics (e.g., sex, race) and situational factors (e.g., weapon used).26 These same researchers also examined the self-reported reasons victims either did or did not report the hate crime to the police. They found that the most common reason for not reporting the incident to law enforcement was that they reported the incident to a different official. On the other hand, the most common reason for reporting the incident to the police was to try to stop the perpetrator while the incident was ongoing.27
Even though the research described above did not focus on local law enforcement agencies who Even though the research described above did not focus on local law enforcement agencies whoreported zero hate crimes, it is these agencies in particular that critics argue are likely to have reported zero hate crimes, it is these agencies in particular that critics argue are likely to have
underreported hate crimes.underreported hate crimes.28 As shown As shown
certifying that no hate crimes occurred that year in its jurisdiction.certifying that no hate crimes occurred that year in its jurisdiction.
that reported zero hate crimes to the FBI was relatively consistent from 1996 to 2006, increased that reported zero hate crimes to the FBI was relatively consistent from 1996 to 2006, increased
from 2006 to 2014, and then decreased from 2014 to from 2006 to 2014, and then decreased from 2014 to
Figure 1. Number of Law Enforcement Agencies by Participation Status in the FBI's Hate Crime Statistics Program, 1996-2024 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics and UCR Program Participation Data for 1996-2024, downloaded at https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/downloads.
Note: These data represent the sum total of federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories. Note that some of the non-participating agencies captured in these yearly totals may not be agencies where it would be reasonably expected for them to handle hate crime cases as part of their regular functions (e.g., The Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Unit, special jurisdiction agencies like airport police).
*The FBI only accepted NIBRS data and no Summary Reporting System (SRS) data in 2021, before reverting to accepting both formats from 2022 onward. This likely caused a noticeable reduction in hate crime data submissions.
Aside from misclassification errors, there are several reasons that might explain why a law Aside from misclassification errors, there are several reasons that might explain why a lawenforcement agency does not report any hate crimes in a given year. The first, and most enforcement agency does not report any hate crimes in a given year. The first, and most
straightforward, reason is because no hate crimes occurred. Given that law enforcement agency straightforward, reason is because no hate crimes occurred. Given that law enforcement agency
jurisdictions include communities with as little as a few hundred residents, it is not implausible jurisdictions include communities with as little as a few hundred residents, it is not implausible
that some residents, that some residents,
not experience any hate crimes. Second, in order for a law enforcement agency to report a hate not experience any hate crimes. Second, in order for a law enforcement agency to report a hate
conducted into the perceived bias to determine if the offense was bias-motivated before conducted into the perceived bias to determine if the offense was bias-motivated before
the agency reports it to the FBI as a hate crime. This step can be it to the FBI as a hate crime. This step can be
might have occurred, law enforcement agencies have to complete additional investigative steps to might have occurred, law enforcement agencies have to complete additional investigative steps to
law enforcement officers might not be trained sufficiently on recognizing biases in crimes to law enforcement officers might not be trained sufficiently on recognizing biases in crimes to
conduct such investigations.conduct such investigations.
on investigating, identifying, and reporting hate crimes, and in the states that do, there is little on investigating, identifying, and reporting hate crimes, and in the states that do, there is little
oversight to confirm that law enforcement officers are receiving the training and applying it oversight to confirm that law enforcement officers are receiving the training and applying it
Under the Hate Crime Statistics Program, law enforcement agencies report the number of hate Under the Hate Crime Statistics Program, law enforcement agencies report the number of hate
difficulty applying this standard in cases where a bias motivation might not be obvious, difficulty applying this standard in cases where a bias motivation might not be obvious,
especially when considering hate crimes that were motivated when considering hate crimes that were motivated
burning on the front yard of a burning on the front yard of a
hate crime.hate crime.
dispute because their cars were involved in an accident. However, after a few dispute because their cars were involved in an accident. However, after a few
minutes, the minutes, the
In this case, the incident was not initiated because of the In this case, the incident was not initiated because of the
him assaulting the him assaulting the
be frequented by same sex couples because the offender believes they be frequented by same sex couples because the offender believes they
a member of the LGBTQ community.a member of the LGBTQ community.
submission to the FBI, differences in how a hate crime is defined under state law and under the submission to the FBI, differences in how a hate crime is defined under state law and under the
HCSA can create its own ambiguities. For example, gender identity is a protected class under the HCSA can create its own ambiguities. For example, gender identity is a protected class under the
HCSA, but it might not be a recognized bias motivation under a stateHCSA, but it might not be a recognized bias motivation under a state
identify an offense based on gender-bias as a potential hate crime. As one group of researchers identify an offense based on gender-bias as a potential hate crime. As one group of researchers
Some particularly severe bias incidents may easily be classified as hate crimes. For most hate incidents, however, the task of investigating and finding evidence for bias motivation can be a difficult one for law enforcement officers; officers often do not have all the information and lack adequate training and resources to easily identify bias motivation.39
Improving Hate Crime Data: Considerations for PolicymakersCongress passed the HCSA with the intent of collecting national data on bias-motivated offenses Congress passed the HCSA with the intent of collecting national data on bias-motivated offenses
that could be used to inform federal hate crime policy. While DOJ has taken steps to collect these that could be used to inform federal hate crime policy. While DOJ has taken steps to collect these
data, the hate crime data reported by the FBI is incomplete and the NCVS self-reported hate data, the hate crime data reported by the FBI is incomplete and the NCVS self-reported hate
crime victimization data likelycrime victimization data likely
to be charged as hate crime. Hate crime data to be charged as hate crime. Hate crime data
might not report the offense to the police, law enforcement agencies might fail to correctly might not report the offense to the police, law enforcement agencies might fail to correctly
identify potential hate crimes, or law enforcement agencies might not routinely and identify potential hate crimes, or law enforcement agencies might not routinely and
Congress could take to help improve the quality of the FBICongress could take to help improve the quality of the FBI
of offenses.of offenses.
level data on offenders, victims, the relationship between victims and offenders, and the level data on offenders, victims, the relationship between victims and offenders, and the
Program, law enforcement agencies that are not currently submitting NIBRS-compliant data Program, law enforcement agencies that are not currently submitting NIBRS-compliant data
submit a supplemental summary report to the FBI when there is evidence that one or more crimes submit a supplemental summary report to the FBI when there is evidence that one or more crimes
in their jurisdiction involved a bias motivation. It has been argued that hate crime reporting in their jurisdiction involved a bias motivation. It has been argued that hate crime reporting
motivations is built into NIBRS.motivations is built into NIBRS.
report hate crimes to the FBI, NIBRS provides data on a wider variety of offenses, including report hate crimes to the FBI, NIBRS provides data on a wider variety of offenses, including
those that were motivated by offendersthose that were motivated by offenders
crimes (e.g., locations where hate crimes occur, the relationship between crimes (e.g., locations where hate crimes occur, the relationship between
victims of hate crimes, whether victims of hate crimes, whether
participates in the program, there is no federal mandate participates in the program, there is no federal mandate
to compel them to adopt NIBRS. Therefore, policymakers might have an interest in what steps Congress could take to promote Therefore, policymakers might have an interest in what steps Congress could take to promote
wide-scale adoption of the program. Congress could consider placing a condition on a program wide-scale adoption of the program. Congress could consider placing a condition on a program
such as such as
face a penalty under the program. However, the JAG program already provides face a penalty under the program. However, the JAG program already provides
based on its proportion of the average number of violent crimes reported in the United States over based on its proportion of the average number of violent crimes reported in the United States over
the past three years, and the past three years, and
average number of violent crimes reported in the state over the past three years.average number of violent crimes reported in the state over the past three years.
at least 3 of the past 10 years.3 of the past 10 years.
United States do not participate in the UCR because compiling the data can be difficult and timeUnited States do not participate in the UCR because compiling the data can be difficult and time
-consuming, and many consuming, and many
authorizing a new grant program that would provide funding to state and local governments to authorizing a new grant program that would provide funding to state and local governments to
cover expenses related to transitioning to NIBRS, such as purchasing new software and cover expenses related to transitioning to NIBRS, such as purchasing new software and
it does not address some of the other issues law enforcement agencies currently have with it does not address some of the other issues law enforcement agencies currently have with
reporting hate crimes through the UCR program. Implementing NIBRS does not address hate reporting hate crimes through the UCR program. Implementing NIBRS does not address hate
crime victims being reluctant to report an offense to the police, crime victims being reluctant to report an offense to the police,
enforcement agenciesenforcement agencies' processes for investigating potential hate crimes, nor processes for investigating potential hate crimes, nor
This report was originally authored by Nathan James, CRS Analyst in Crime Policy, and Emily J. Hanson, former CRS Analyst in Social Policy.
Footnotes
| 1. |
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, "Alleged Perpetrator of Shooting in Washington, D.C. Charged with Hate Crimes," press release, August 7, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alleged-perpetrator-shooting-washington-dc-charged-hate-crimes. |
| 2. |
Steve Karnowski and Mark Vancleave, "Two children killed, 17 wounded during Mass in a Minneapolis Catholic school shooting," PBS News, August 27, 2025, Online Edition. |
| 3. |
Nadine Yousif, "Illinois man convicted for hate crime murder of Palestinian boy," BBC, February 28, 2025, Online Edition. |
| 4. |
Sungil Han, Jordan R Riddell, and Alex R Piquero, "Anti-Asian American Hate Crimes Spike During the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Journal of interpersonal violence, vol. 38, no. 3-4 (2023), p. 3513. |
| 5. |
For example, research suggests that increased media coverage of school shootings after a high-profile incident can lead people to believe that school shootings occur with more frequency than they actually do. See Glenn W. Muschert, "Research in School Shootings," Sociology Compass, vol. 1, no. 1 (2007), pp. 60-80; and H. Jaymi Elsass, Jaclyn Schidkraut, and Mark C. Stafford, "Studying School Shootings: Challenges and Considerations for Research," American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 14 (2016), pp. 444-464. |
| 6. |
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Hate Crime Statistics Act, report to accompany H.R. 1048, 101st Cong., 1st sess., June 23, 1989, H.Rept. 101-109, p. 2; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Hate Crime Statistics Act, report to accompany S. 419, 101st Cong., 1st sess., May 1, 1989, S.Rept. 101-21, p. 3 (hereinafter, "House Judiciary Committee report on the Hate Crime Statistics Act"). |
| 7. |
House Judiciary Committee report on the Hate Crime Statistics Act, p. 3. |
| 8. |
These offenses include crimes against persons (homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assaults, intimidation, human trafficking, and involuntary servitude), crimes against property (robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism), and crimes against society (drugs or narcotics offenses, gambling offenses, prostitution offenses, and weapons law violations). |
| 9. |
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, UCR Summary of Reported Crimes in the Nation, 2024, August 2025, p. 18, (hereinafter, "Reported Crimes in the Nation, 2024"). |
| 10. |
For a point of comparison, in 2018 (the most recent year of data published by BJS) there were a reported 17,541 state and local law enforcement agencies that employed at least one full-time officer or the equivalent in part-time officers. Andrea M. Gardner and Kevin M. Scott, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2018 – Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 302187, Washington, DC, October 2022, p. 1. |
| 11. |
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crimes Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual, version 3.0, March 1, 2022, p. 3. https://le.fbi.gov/file-repository/hate-crime-data-collection-guidelines-and-training-manual.pdf/view. |
| 12. |
Reported Crimes in the Nation, 2024, p. 37. |
| 13. |
Up to five different bias motivations can be reported per offense. See U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Hate Crime: Frequently Asked Questions," December 2022, (hereinafter, "Hate Crime FAQs"). |
| 14. |
Hate Crime FAQs, p. 9. |
| 15. |
Grace Kena and Alexandra Thompson, Hate Crime Victimization, 2005–2019, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 300954, Washington, DC, September 2021, p. 15 (hereinafter "BJS, Hate Crime Victimizations"). |
| 16. |
BJS, Hate Crime Victimizations, p. 12. |
| 17. |
BJS, Hate Crime Victimizations, p. 15. |
| 18. |
BJS, Hate Crime Victimizations, p. 3. |
| 19. |
Though the FBI has more recently available data, 2019 numbers are cited here as a point of comparison to the BJS data. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics, 2019 (hereinafter, "Hate Crime Statistics, 2019"), Table 1. |
| 20. |
The dark figure of crime refers to crimes that are not reported to the police or are undetected. |
| 21. |
See, for example, Sergio Olmos, "Researchers say the FBI's statistics on hate crimes across the country are flawed," NPR, January 1, 2023. |
| 22. |
See, for example, Muslim Advocates, "Muslim Advocates: 2019 FBI Data Undercounts Hate Crimes," press release, November 17, 2020, https://muslimadvocates.org/2020/11/muslim-advocates-2019-fbi-data-undercounts-hate-crimes/. |
| 23. |
Jack McDevitt, James Cronin, and Jennifer Balboni et al., Bridging the Information Disconnect in National Reporting of Bias Crime, Research in Brief, The Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, p. 5. |
| 24. |
James J. Nolan, Stephen M. Haas, and Erica Turley et al., "Assessing the 'Statistical Accuracy' of the National Incident-Based Reporting System Hate Crime Data," American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 59, no. 12 (2015), pp. 1562-1587 (hereinafter, "Nolan et al., 'Assessing the "Statistical Accuracy" of the National Incident-Based Reporting System Hate Crime Data'"). |
| 25. |
Nolan et al., "Assessing the 'Statistical Accuracy' of the National Incident-Based Reporting System Hate Crime Data," p. 1582. |
| 26. |
Frank S. Pezzella, Matthew D. Fetzer, and Tyler Keller, "The Dark Figure of Hate Crime Underreporting," American Behavioral Scientist, 2019, p. 15. (hereinafter, "Pezzella et al., 'The Dark Figure of Hate Crime Underreporting'"). |
| 27. |
Pezzella et al., "The Dark Figure of Hate Crime Underreporting," pp. 16-17. |
| 28. |
See, for example, Matthew Vanden Bosch and Brendan Lantz, "Differential compliance with the reporting of hate crime statistics as a function of state laws," Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 98 (2025). |
| 29. |
Stephen M. Haas, James J. Jordan, and Erica Turley et al., Assessing the Validity of Hate Crime Reporting: An Analysis of NIBRS Data, State of West Virginia, Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, Division of Justice and Community Services, Office of Research and Strategic Planning, Charleston, WV, July 2011, p. 4. |
| 30. |
BJS, Hate Crime Victimizations, p. 6. |
| 31. |
Harbani Ahuja, "The Vicious Cycle of Hate: Systemic Flaws in Hate Crime Documentation in the United States and the Impact on Minority Communities," Cardozo Law Review, vol. 37, no. 5 (June 2016), pp. 1882-1883 (hereinafter, "Ahuja, 'The Vicious Cycle of Hate'") and Pezzella et al., "The Dark Figure of Hate Crime Underreporting," pp.4-6. |
| 32. |
Brendan Lantz, Andrew S. Gladfelter, and Barry R. Ruback, "Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing: A Multi-Dataset Comparison of Bias Crime Arrest Patterns by Offender and Victim Race," Justice Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 2 (2019), pp. 197-199 (hereinafter "Lantz et al., 'Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing'"). |
| 33. |
For more information on state-specific statutes, see Movement Advancement Project. "Equality Maps: Hate Crime Laws." https://www.mapresearch.org/equality-maps/hate_crime_laws (accessed December 4, 2025). |
| 34. |
Nolan et al., "Assessing the 'Statistical Accuracy' of the National Incident-Based Reporting System Hate Crime Data," p. 1564. |
| 35. |
Nolan et al., "Assessing the 'Statistical Accuracy' of the National Incident-Based Reporting System Hate Crime Data," p. 1564. |
| 36. |
Nolan et al., "Assessing the 'Statistical Accuracy' of the National Incident-Based Reporting System Hate Crime Data," pp. 1564-1565. |
| 37. |
Nolan et al., "Assessing the 'Statistical Accuracy' of the National Incident-Based Reporting System Hate Crime Data," p. 1565. |
| 38. |
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, State-By-State Hate Crime Laws, Washington, DC, September 9, 2021, https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/naacp_hate_crime_laws_by_state.pdf. |
| 39. |
Lantz et al., "Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing," p. 199. |
| 40. |
For more information, see CRS Report R46668, The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): Benefits and Issues, by Nathan Kemper. |
| 41. |
The eight Part I offenses are homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. |
| 42. |
James J. Nolan III, Yoshio Akiyama, and Samuel Berhanu, "The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990: Developing a Method for Measuring the Occurrence of Hate Violence," American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 46, no. 1 (September 2002), p. 146 (hereinafter, "Nolan et al., 'The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990'). |
| 43. |
Nolan et al., "The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990," p. 147. |
| 44. |
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "NIBRS Estimation Program," August 3, 2022, https://bjs.ojp.gov/nibrs-estimation-program. |
| 45. |
For more information on how allocations are calculated under the JAG program see CRS In Focus IF10691, The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. |
| 46. |
34 U.S.C. §10156(e)(3). |
| 47. |
For more information on past and current efforts to assist law enforcement agencies transitioning to NIBRS, see CRS In Focus IF13087, Federal Support for Law Enforcement Agencies' Transition to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), by Nathan Kemper |