U.S. Department of Justice
Oce of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
SEPTEMBER 2021
N
CJ 300954
Hate Crime Victimization, 2005–2019
Grace Kena and Alexandra ompson, BJS Statisticians
I
n 2019, the overall rate of hate crime victimizations
involving nonfatal violence was 1.0 hate crimes
per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, according to
the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
(gure 1). During the 15-year period of 2005 to 2019,
the rate of total violent hate crime victimizations
uctuated, ranging from about 0.6 to 1.1 per 1,000.
1,2
e 2016 rate of violent hate crime victimizations
(0.6 per 1,000) was lower than the rates in most years
during the period. Between 2016 and 2019, this rate
increased, reaching 1.0 per 1,000 in 2019. Despite
the increase between 2016 and 2019, the 2019 rate
was not signicantly dierent from the 2005 rate
(0.8 per 1,000).
Rates of hate crimes involving simple assault (0.7 per
1,000) and aggravated assault (0.2 per 1,000) in 2019
were not statistically dierent from the respective rates
in 2005. Patterns for these crime types over the 15-year
period were similar to those for total violent hate
crime victimizations.
1
In this report, statistical signicance is reported at both the 90%
and 95% condence levels for estimates based on the NCVS. See
gures and tables for testing on specic ndings.
2
Nonfatal violent victimization in the NCVS includes rape or
sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
FIGURE 1
Rates of violent hate crime victimizations per 1,000
persons age 12 or older, 2005–2019
Rate
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Simple assault
Aggravated assault
b
Total violent
a
’19’18’17’16’15’14’13’12’11’10’09’08’07’06’05
Note: Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated,
the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used
hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the
oender(s) left behind hate symbols. Estimates are based on 2-year
rolling averages centered on the most recent year (e.g., a 2005 estimate
includes data for 2004 and 2005). See appendix table 2 for estimates
and standard errors.
a
Includes rape or sexual assault and robbery (not shown due to small
numbers of sample cases), aggravated assault, and simple assault.
b
The 2005 estimate for aggravated assault should be interpreted with
caution as it is based on 10 or fewer sample cases or has a coecient of
variation greater than 50%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2005–2019.
HIGHLIGHTS
In 2019, there were 1.0 violent hate crime
victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
Hate crime victimizations accounted for 1.6% of all
nonfatal victimizations in 2019, up from 0.9% in 2005.
During 2015-19, nearly two-thirds (62%) of hate
crime victimizations were simple assaults.
A bias against the victim’s race, ethnicity, or national
origin was the most common motivation for nonfatal
violent hate crimes during 2015-19.
During 2010-19, persons ages 12 to 17 accounted for
a higher share of hate crime victims (17%) than their
share of the U.S. population (9%).
Most nonfatal violent hate crimes motivated by
gender bias involved female victims during 2010-19.
During 2015-19, more than half (56%) of nonfatal
violent hate crime incidents were committed by
a stranger.
A greater percentage of violent hate crimes (23%)
than violent nonhate crimes (13%) involved multiple
oenders during 2015-19.
2
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
Measures and denitions of hate crime
This report presents trends and patterns in hate crime
violence using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’
(BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The
report also presents data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) Hate Crime Statistics Program (HCSP).
The NCVS and HCSP are the principal sources of annual
information on hate crime in the United States and use
the denition established by the Hate Crime Statistics
Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. § 534).
3
These two data sources have dierent methodologies
and provide distinct information about hate crimes.
Together, the complementary measures provide an
overview of ocial statistics on hate crime violence in
the U.S.
4
National Crime Victimization Survey
The NCVS is a self-reported household survey that
measures nonfatal crimes against individuals and
households reported and not reported to police.
In the NCVS, hate crimes include those that victims
perceive as motivated by the oender’s bias against
their race, ethnic background, or national origin;
gender; association with people who have certain
characteristics or religious beliefs; sexual orientation;
disability; religion; and perceived characteristics or
religious beliefs. Violent crimes in the NCVS include
rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault,
and simple assault; personal larceny includes purse
snatching and pick pocketing. Crimes against
households, or property crimes, include burglary or
trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other theft. See
Methodology for more information about the NCVS and
measures used in this report.
BJS continues to rene and improve its measurement
of hate crime in the NCVS. For more information, see
the BJS-sponsored third-party report Enhancing the
Measurement of Hate Crime in the NCVS: Developing
and Testing Improvements to the Survey Questions
(NCJ 301033, BJS, August 2021).
UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program
The HCSP includes crimes reported to police that, after
investigation, reveal sucient evidence to support
being recorded as hate crimes. These include crimes
against individual victims, as well as hate crimes
committed against businesses, religious institutions,
other organizations, and society as a whole.
Through the HCSP, the UCR collects hate crime data
on crimes that were motivated by an oender’s bias
against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, gender, or gender identity. Bias motivation
can be connected to only the following specic
oenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape,
aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, human
tracking/commercial sex acts, human tracking/
involuntary servitude, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft,
motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/
damage/vandalism.
5
For more ndings on hate crimes
as measured in the UCR, see Hate Crime Recorded
by Law Enforcement, 2010-2019 (NCJ 301554, BJS,
September 2021).
Dierences in hate crime counts collected by the NCVS
and the UCR Program can largely be attributed to
victims’ reporting and police classication
Because the NCVS and the UCR Program measure an
overlapping, but not identical, set of oenses and use
dierent approaches in measuring and classifying hate
crimes, complete congruity should not be expected
between hate crime estimates from these two sources.
During 2010-19, the NCVS captured an annual average
of 243,770 hate crime victimizations of persons age 12
or older. (See appendix table 1.) Restricting the NCVS
to crimes that were reported to police and conrmed
by police investigators as hate crimes enhances the
compatibility of the NCVS and UCR measures.
6
About 44% (107,850) of the overall count of hate
crime victimizations during 2010-19 were reported
to police. Of those reported to police, 13% (13,850)
were conrmed by police investigators as hate crimes,
according to victims. (The remaining 87% (94,000) of
those reported to police met the NCVS denition of a
hate crime because the oender(s) used hate language
or left hate symbols at the crime scene.) The UCR
recorded an annual average of 7,830 hate crime victims
during this same period.
3
See the full text of the Hate Crime Statistics Act at https://www.
congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/1048/text.
4
For more information on the dierences between the NCVS
and UCR data collections, see e Nation’s Two Crime Measures
(NCJ 246832, BJS, September 2014).
5
For more information, see the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting
Program’s Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training
Manual at https://www.i.gov/le-repository/ucr/ucr-hate-
crime-data-collection-guidelines-training-manual-02272015.
pdf/view.
6
In the NCVS, information on whether a crime was conrmed
by police investigators as a hate crime is reported by the victim.
3
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
Victimization estimates
Numbers of nonfatal violent and property hate
crimes remained relatively stable between 2005
and 2019
On average, U.S. residents experienced approximately
246,900 hate crime victimizations each year between
2005 and 2019 (not shown in table). e number of
hate crimes ranged from about 173,600 to 305,390
during this period (table 1). e number of total,
violent, and property hate crime victimizations did not
change signicantly from 2005 to 2019.
e total number of victimizations (including hate
and nonhate) decreased from 26.1 million in 2005
to 19.4 million in 2019. Similarly, the total number
of property crime victimizations decreased from
19.0 million to 13.2 million during this period.
Overall, hate crime victimizations accounted for 1.6%
of the total victimizations captured by the NCVS in
2019, up from 0.9% in 2005. In 2019, violent hate
crime victimizations accounted for 4.4% of all violent
victimizations, an increase from 2.9% in 2005. Property
hate crime victimizations accounted for less than 1% of
all property crime victimizations in 2019 (32,540) and
throughout this period.
TablE 1
Hate crime victimizations, by type of crime, 2005–2019
Total
a
Violent Property
Hate crime Hate crime Hate crime
Year Total Number Percent Total Number Rate
b
Percent Total Number Rate
c
Percent
2005 26,097,760 † 223,060 0.9% † 6,836,930 198,400 0.8 2.9% † 19,034,070 † 21,740 0.2 0.1% †
2006 27,184,240 † 230,490 0.8 † 7,689,110 † 211,730 0.9 2.8 † 19,293,780 † 15,830 0.1 0.1 †
2007 27,037,120 † 263,440 1.0 † 7,622,310 † 236,860 1.0 3.1 † 19,215,320 † 24,640 0.2 0.1 ‡
2008 24,699,350 † 266,640 1.1 † 6,603,830 241,800 1.0 3.7 17,897,050 † 22,890 0.2 0.1 ‡
2009 22,933,870 † 284,620 1.2 6,031,350 267,170 1.1 4.4 16,750,320 † 17,450 ! 0.1 0.1 †
2010 21,255,680 ‡ 273,100 1.3 5,302,610 ‡ 255,810 1.0 4.8 15,817,290 † 17,290 ! 0.1 0.1 ‡
2011 21,763,690 † 218,010 1.0 † 5,374,250 195,880 0.8 3.6 16,237,380 † 22,130 0.2 0.1
2012 24,830,300 † 293,790 1.2 ‡ 6,327,560 263,540 1.0 4.2 18,343,060 † 30,250 0.2 0.2
2013 24,830,130 † 272,420 1.1 ‡ 6,484,510 242,190 0.9 3.7 18,198,530 † 30,230 0.2 0.2
2014 21,897,530 † 215,010 1.0 † 5,743,000 194,310 0.7 3.4 16,031,280 † 19,000 0.1 0.1 ‡
2015 20,230,240 207,880 1.0 † 5,183,090 † 192,020 0.7 3.7 14,949,760 † 14,160 ! 0.1 ! 0.1 !
2016 20,483,610 173,600 † 0.8 † 5,180,220 † 155,740 † 0.6 † 3.0 † 15,213,180 † 17,860 ! 0.1 0.1 ‡
2017 20,157,090 215,150 1.1 † 5,483,240 194,890 0.7 ‡ 3.6 14,577,760 † 20,260 0.2 0.1
2018 19,540,490 260,910 1.3 5,999,090 241,740 0.9 4.0 13,421,530 19,160 0.2 0.1
2019* 19,384,510 305,390 1.6 6,099,460 268,910 1.0 4.4 13,160,420 32,540 0.3 0.2
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as
bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate
symbols. Estimates are based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year (e.g., 2005 estimates include 2004 and 2005). See appendix
table 5 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 90% condence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault), personal theft or larceny, and property crime
(burglary or trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other theft).
b
Victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
c
Victimizations per 1,000 households.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005–2019.
4
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
During 2015-19, nearly two-thirds (62%) of
nonfatal hate crimes were simple assaults
During the 5-year aggregate period of 2015-19,
nearly 90% of all hate crimes captured by the NCVS
were violent crimes, while 10% were property crimes
(table 2). e majority of hate crimes involved simple
assault (62%) and aggravated assault (18%).
While simple assaults accounted for the largest
percentage of hate crimes during 2015-19, aggravated
assault hate crimes (68%) were more likely than simple
assault hate crimes (56%) to be reported to police. By
comparison, about one-third (35%) of hate crimes
involving burglary or trespassing were reported to
police during this period.
TablE 2
Hate crime victimizations, by type of crime and reporting to police, 2015–19
Type of crime Number
Percent of hate
crime victimizations
a
Percent of crime type—
Reported to police Not reported to police
Violent 1,075,470 89.3% 57.3% 41.8%
Rape/sexual assault 32,760 † 2.7 † 42.0 ! 58.0
Robbery 80,000 † 6.6 † 48.2 51.8
Aggravated assault 216,710 † 18.0 † 68.2 ‡ 30.4 ‡
Simple assault* 746,010 62.0 55.7 43.3
Property
b
120,480 10.0% 29.4% 68.1%
Burglary/trespassing 63,880 † 5.3 † 35.2 ‡ 60.1 !
Other theft
c
55,980 † 4.7 † 21.9 ! 78.1 †
Average annual victimizations
a
240,770
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data on reporting to police. For about 1% of all violent hate crime victimizations, it
was unknown whether the respondent reported the victimization to police. Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the
victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left
behind hate symbols. See appendix table 6 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault), personal theft or larceny (not separately shown in
table), and property crime (burglary or trespassing, motor vehicle theft (not separately shown in table), and other theft).
b
Includes motor vehicle theft, which is not shown separately due to a small number of sample cases.
c
Includes other unlawful taking or attempted unlawful taking of property or cash without personal contact with the victim. An incident involving theft
of property from within the same household is classied as theft if the oender had a legal right to be in the house (such as a maid, delivery person, or
guest). If the oender had no legal right to be in the house, the incident is classied as a burglary.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
Measures and denitions of race and ethnicity
In the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) uses the race and
ethnicity categories for data collection as specied by
the Oce of Management and Budget’s Standards for
Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on
Race and Ethnicity. The standards have ve categories
for data on race: American Indian or Alaska Native,
Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian
or Other Pacic Islander, and White. There are two
categories for data on ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino, and
Not Hispanic or Latino.
Given that NCVS data are derived from surveyed
respondents, the relatively small sizes of certain
population groups compared to the overall
U.S. population can pose measurement diculties. In
addition, the relatively rare occurrence of hate crime
victimization in the population can compound these
measurement challenges, often leading to even smaller
sample sizes for particular demographic groups,
including persons who are American Indian, Alaska
Native, Native Hawaiian, Other Pacic Islander, or
Asian. In accordance with standard statistical analysis
methodology for reporting estimates from sample data,
BJS may combine categories into an “Other” group to
generate valid and reliable estimates or to protect the
identity of individuals.
In this report, NCVS estimates for specic race and
ethnicity groups are shown for dierent years based
on data availability and measures of reliability. Some
dierences between these estimates that may seem
substantial may not be statistically signicant, due to
the larger standard errors that typically result from
smaller sample sizes. (See Methodology.)
5
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
Race, ethnicity, or national origin bias was the
most common motivation for nonfatal violent
hate crimes during 2015-19
e NCVS asks hate crime victims about the types
of bias they suspected motivated the crime. Victims
may report more than one type of bias for a given
victimization; therefore, hate crime data may reect
incidents involving multiple bias motivations of the
oender(s). Victims suspected that oender(s) were
motivated by race, ethnicity, or national origin bias
in 59% of violent hate crime victimizations during
2015-19 (table 3).
7
In nearly one-quarter of violent
hate crime victimizations, victims believed they were
targeted because of bias against their gender (24%).
In about 1 in 5 violent hate crime victimizations,
victims believed the hate crime was motivated by
bias against persons or groups they were associated
with (23%) or by bias against their sexual orientation
(20%). Approximately 1 in 10 violent hate crime
victimizations were thought to be motivated by bias
against the victim’s disability (11%) or religion (9%).
Similar to violent hate crime victimizations, victims
suspected that race, ethnicity, or national origin
bias was the motivation for the crime in a majority
of property hate crime victimizations (69%) during
2015-19. In nearly half of property hate crime
victimizations, victims believed that the crime was
motivated by bias against their religion (48%) or
disability (45%). About 2 in 5 property hate crime
victimizations were thought to be motivated by bias
against the victim’s gender (43%).
7
In the NCVS, respondents are asked separately about bias against
race and bias against ethnicity and national origin.
TablE 3
Hate crime victimizations, by type of crime and bias motivation, 2015–19
Violent hate crime victimizations Property hate crime victimizations
Bias motivation Number Percent Number Percent
Race/ethnicity/national origin
a
* 639,700 59.5% 82,980 68.9%
Gender
b
260,140 † 24.2 † 52,190 43.3 ‡
Association
c
242,170 † 22.5 † 23,930 † 19.9 †
Sexual orientation
d
218,160 † 20.3 † 10,950 ! 9.1 !
Disability
e
117,930 † 11.0 † 54,300 45.1 ‡
Religion
f
101,230 † 9.4 † 57,540 47.8
Perception
g
74,630 † 6.9 † 20,910 † 17.4 !
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and some victims reporting more than one type of bias motivation. Includes nonfatal incidents
that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived
as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate symbols. See appendix table 7 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes victims who suspected that oender(s) targeted them because of bias against their race, ethnicity, or national origin. In the National Crime
Victimization Survey, respondents are asked separately about bias against race and bias against ethnicity and national origin.
b
Includes victims who suspected that the oender(s) targeted them because of their gender.
c
Includes victims who suspected that oender(s) targeted them because of bias against their association with persons having certain characteristics
or religious beliefs.
d
Includes victims who suspected that oender(s) targeted them because of bias against their sexual orientation, such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or
straight or heterosexual.
e
Includes victims who suspected that oender(s) targeted them because of bias against their physical, mental, or developmental disabilities.
f
Includes victims who suspected that oender(s) targeted them because of bias against their religion.
g
Includes victims who suspected that oender(s) targeted them because of bias against their perceived characteristics or religious beliefs.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
6
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
About 2 in 5 violent hate crime victimizations not
reported to police were handled another way
During 2015-19, approximately 42% of violent hate
crime victimizations were not reported to police
(gure 2). e most common reason that victims gave
for not reporting to police was that the victimization
was handled another way (38% of victimizations not
reported to police), such as privately or through a
non-law enforcement ocial. About one-quarter (23%)
of violent hate crime victimizations not reported
to police involved victims who believed that police
could not or would not do anything to help. In about
16% of violent hate crime victimizations not reported
to police, the victim believed that the crime was not
important enough to report to police. In 14% of violent
hate crime victimizations not reported to police,
victims indicated that there was another reason for
not reporting, that it was too inconvenient, or that no
one reason was most important. Another 5% were not
reported to police because the victim feared reprisal.
FIGURE 2
Violent hate crime victimizations, by reporting to police and most important reason for not reporting, 2015–19
Percent
†
†
†
†
!
Other, unknown, or no single
most important reason
d
Did not want to get offender in trouble
with law or was advised not to report
Fear of reprisal
Not important enough to respondent
c
Police could not or would not
do anything to help
b
Dealt with it another way
a
*
Not reported
Reported
Among victimizations not reported to police
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data on reporting to police. For about 1% of all violent hate crime victimizations, it was
unknown whether the respondent reported the victimization to police. Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim
perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind
hate symbols. The National Crime Victimization Survey asks respondents about 19 potential reasons for not reporting a victimization to police. For ease of
presentation, those data are collapsed into the six categories presented here. See appendix table 3 for estimates and standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes crime reported to another ocial (e.g., guard, apartment manager, or school ocial) or victims who took care of it themselves or informally.
b
Includes victims who indicated they did not nd out about the crime until too late, they could not nd or identify the oender, they lacked proof
of the incident, they thought police would not think it was important enough, they believed police would be inecient or ineective, they thought
police would cause trouble for the victim, or the oender was a police ocer.
c
Includes victims who said it was a minor or unsuccessful crime, the oender(s) was a child, it was not clear the incident was criminal or that harm was
intended, or insurance would not cover the losses.
d
Includes victims who indicated they did not want to or could not take time to report, provided some other reason for not reporting, said no one
reason was more important than another, or had unknown reasons for not reporting.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
7
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
Victim demographic characteristics in nonfatal violent hate crimes
During 2010-19, persons who are American Indian,
Alaska Native, or two or more races had the highest
rate of violent hate crime victimizations
During the 10-year aggregate period of 2010-19,
the National Crime Victimization Survey captured
2.2 million violent hate crime victimizations, resulting in
a rate of 0.8 violent hate crime victimizations per 1,000
persons age 12 or older (table 4).
8
Rates were similar for
males (0.9 per 1,000) and females (0.8 per 1,000).
Persons of other races (2.4 per 1,000)—those who are
American Indian, Alaska Native, or two or more
races—and Hispanic persons (1.1 per 1,000)
experienced higher rates of violent hate crime
victimizations than white persons (0.7 per 1,000)
during this period. The rate for Asian, Native Hawaiian,
and Other Pacic Islander persons (0.4 per 1,000) was
lower than the rate for white persons. The rate for black
persons (0.9 per 1,000) was not signicantly dierent
from the rate for white persons.
The rate of violent hate crime victimizations was higher
for persons ages 12 to 17 (1.5 per 1,000) than for
persons ages 18 to 24 (1.0 per 1,000) during 2010-19.
Compared to the rate for persons ages 18 to 24, the rate
was lower for persons age 65 or older (0.1 per 1,000) but
was not signicantly dierent from the rates for other
age groups.
During 2010-19, the percentage of violent hate crime
victimizations involving male victims (52%) was similar
to the share of males in the U.S. population (49%).
Likewise, females accounted for similar percentages
of victims in violent hate crimes (48%) and of the
population (51%).
8
To facilitate comparisons for victims of violent hate crime
victimizations among various demographic groups, table 5 and
gure 3 use a 10-year span.
TablE 4
Violent hate crime victimizations, by victim and population characteristics, 2010–19
Population
a
Violent hate crime victimizations
Victim characteristic Number Percent Rate
b
Number Percent
Total 2,672,974,360 100% 0.8 2,187,780 100%
Sex
Male* 1,301,950,340 48.7% 0.9 1,131,890 51.7%
Female 1,371,024,020 51.3 0.8 1,055,890 48.3
Race/ethnicity
White
c
* 1,725,137,350 64.5% 0.7 1,221,870 55.8%
Black
c
324,567,800 12.1 0.9 304,260 † 13.9 †
Hispanic 423,787,920 15.9 1.1 † 482,640 † 22.1 †
Asian/Native Hawaiian/Other Pacic Islander
c,d
151,421,920 5.7 0.4 † 64,270 † 2.9 †
Other
c,d,e
48,059,360 1.8 2.4 † 114,740 † 5.2 †
Age
12–17 248,575,290 9.3% 1.5 † 372,820 17.0%
18–24* 301,596,250 11.3 1.0 300,880 13.8
25–34 433,819,250 16.2 1.0 446,180 † 20.4 †
35–49 614,690,210 23.0 0.9 529,560 † 24.2 †
50–64 617,322,150 23.1 0.8 470,190 † 21.5 †
65 or older 456,971,210 17.1 0.1 † 68,160 † 3.1 †
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as
bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate
symbols. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
a
Includes persons age 12 or older living in noninstitutionalized residential settings in the U.S.
b
Victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
c
Excludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
d
Categories are not shown separately due to small numbers of sample cases.
e
Includes American Indians and Alaska Natives and persons of two or more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010–19.
Continued on next page
8
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
Victim demographic characteristics in nonfatal violent hate crimes
(continued)
Hispanic persons accounted for 16% of the U.S.
population that was age 12 or older but were victims
in 22% of violent hate crime victimizations. A similar
nding was observed for persons of other races—
American Indian persons, Alaska Native persons, and
persons of two or more races—who collectively made
up 2% of the population but 5% of victims in violent
hate crime victimizations. In comparison, during
2010-19, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacic
Islander persons accounted for a smaller proportion
of victims (3%) of violent hate crimes than of the
population (6%). White persons also made up a smaller
proportion of victims of violent hate crime (56%) than
of the population (65%).
During 2010-19, persons ages 12 to 17 accounted
for a higher share of hate crime victims (17%) than
the population (9%). This was also true for persons
ages 25 to 34, who made up 20% of hate crime
victims versus 16% of the population. In comparison,
persons age 65 or older had a smaller representation
among hate crime victims (3%) than their share of the
population (17%).
Most nonfatal violent hate crimes motivated by
gender bias during 2010-19 involved female victims
Victims were female in most nonfatal violent hate
crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s gender
(81%) during 2010-19 (gure 3).
9,10
This percentage
was greater than the proportion of female persons in
the U.S. population (51%). Males were victims in 19% of
violent hate crime victimizations motivated by gender
bias, compared to 49% of the population.
During 2010-19, nearly one-quarter (24%) of victims
of violent hate crimes motivated by race, ethnicity, or
national origin bias were Hispanic, which was greater
than the share of the U.S. population that was Hispanic
(16%).
Black persons accounted for 18% of victims
of violent hate crimes motivated by race, ethnicity,
national origin bias but 12% of the population. Persons
who are American Indian or Alaska Native or who are
two or more races also made up a greater proportion of
victims of such hate crimes (5%) than of the population
(2%). Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacic
Islanders collectively made up similar shares of victims
(5%) and the population (6%), while white persons
accounted for a smaller proportion of victims (48%)
than of the population (65%).
9
e NCVS measures sex by asking respondents whether they
are male or female.
10
Figure 3 examines the victim’s sex in nonfatal violent hate
crimes motivated by gender bias and the victim’s race and
ethnicity in nonfatal violent hate crimes motivated by bias
against the victim’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.
FIGURE 3
Percent of violent hate crime victimizations, by select
characteristics of victims, bias motivations, and
population, 2010–19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Population
b
Hate crimes
motivated by
race/ethnicity/
national origin bias
f
Population
b
Hate crimes
motivated
by gender bias
a
Percent
Other
c,d,e
Hispanic
Black
c
White
c
Hispanic
Black
c
White
c
Female
Female
Male
Male
Asian/Native Hawaiian/
Other Pacific Islander
c,d
Asian/Native Hawaiian/
c
Other Pacific Islander
,
d
Other
c
,
d
,
e
Note: Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as
bias-motivated, the victim perceived as bias-motivated because
the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived as
bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate symbols.
See appendix table 4 for estimates and standard errors.
a
Includes victims who suspected that the oender(s) targeted them
because of their gender.
b
Includes persons age 12 or older living in noninstitutionalized
residential settings in the U.S.
c
Excludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to
non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
d
Categories are not shown separately due to small numbers of
sample cases.
e
Includes American Indians and Alaska Natives and persons of two or
more races.
f
Includes victims who suspected that the oender(s) targeted them
because of bias against their race, ethnicity, or national origin. In
the National Crime Victimization Survey, respondents are asked
separately about bias against race and bias against ethnicity and
national origin.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2010–19.
9
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
Incident estimates
Males were oenders in 72% of nonfatal violent
hate crime incidents during 2015-19
During 2015-19, there were a total of 944,570
incidents of violent hate crime involving victims
age 12 or older (table 5).
11,12
e share of victims in
violent hate crime incidents who were female was
not signicantly dierent from the share of females
in the U.S. population of persons age 12 or older. e
portion of males among violent hate crime victims
was also similar compared to the portion of males in
the population. However, according to victim reports,
males were oenders in a higher percentage (72%)
of violent hate crime incidents during 2015-19 than
their share of the U.S. population (49%).
13
Females
were reported to be oenders in a lower percentage
of violent hate crime incidents (20%) than their
population share (51%). Victims also reported that 8%
of violent hate crime incidents involved both male and
female oenders.
During 2015-19, the percentage of violent hate crime
incidents involving white victims (53%) was lower
than the portion of the population that was white
(63%). Similarly, the percentage of violent hate crime
incidents in which white persons were perceived to
11
An incident in the NCVS is a specic criminal act involving one
or more victims.
12
Tables 5 and 6 present incident-level data to facilitate comparisons
between victim and oender demographic characteristics.
13
e NCVS asks victims of violent crime about the characteristics of
oenders. Oender characteristics in the NCVS (sex, race, ethnicity,
national origin, and age) are based on victims’ perceptions of the
oenders and are reported at the incident level. e NCVS began
collecting expanded race data on oenders in 2012. See Methodology.
TablE 5
Violent hate crime incidents, by demographic characteristics of victims, oenders, and population, 2015–19
Number of incidents
Percent of
population
a
*
Percent of incidents
Demographic characteristic Population
a
Victim Oender
b
Victim Oender
b
Total 1,366,396,990 944,570 944,570 100% 100% 100%
Sex
Male 664,732,880 529,140 614,990 48.6% 56.0% 72.4% †
Female 701,664,110 415,420 169,780 51.4 44.0 20.0 †
Both male and female oenders ~ ~ 64,350 ~ ~ 7.6
Race/ethnicity
White
c
860,297,530 501,280 361,940 63.0% 53.1% † 45.3% †
Black
c
166,095,160 128,470 266,820 12.2 13.6 33.4 †
Hispanic
d
228,155,830 235,320 123,200 16.7 24.9 † 15.4
Other
c,e
111,848,480 79,502 34,802 8.2 8.4 4.4 †
Multiple oenders of various races
c
~ ~ 12,690 ! ~ ~ 1.6 !
Age
f
12–17 124,639,490 123,460 95,480 9.1% 13.1% 12.0%
18–29 264,033,150 242,690 177,870 19.3 25.7 22.4
30 or older 977,724,360 578,410 438,860 71.6 61.2 † 55.3 †
Multiple oenders of various ages ~ ~ 81,550 ~ ~ 10.3
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data on oender characteristics. Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed
as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated
because the oender(s) left behind hate symbols. An incident is a specic criminal act involving one or more victims. Oender characteristics are
based on victims’ perceptions of oenders. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
~Not applicable.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes persons age 12 or older living in noninstitutionalized residential settings in the U.S.
b
Includes nonfatal hate crime incidents in which the perceived oender characteristics were reported. The sex of the oender was unknown in 10% of
incidents, the race or ethnicity in 15% of incidents, and the age in 16% of incidents.
c
Excludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
d
If the victim perceived any of the oenders in a multiple-oender incident to be of Hispanic origin, they were classied as Hispanic.
e
Includes Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacic Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races. Categories are
not shown separately due to small numbers of sample cases.
f
While the National Crime Victimization Survey does not survey victims age 11 or younger, victims may report the oender(s) to be age 11 or younger.
In this table, the count for oenders age 11 or younger rounds to 0 or the percentage is less than 0.05%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
10
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
be oenders (45%) was lower than their share of the
population. e percentage of violent hate crime
incidents that involved black victims (14%) was similar
to the share of the population for black persons (12%).
irty-three percent of violent hate crime incidents
involved oenders perceived by the victim to be black,
which was higher than the share of the population that
was black.
Hispanic persons were victims in a higher percentage
of violent hate crime incidents (25%) than the
percentage of the population that was Hispanic (17%).
e percentage of oenders believed to be Hispanic
was statistically similar (15%) to the share of the
population that was Hispanic. Persons in other racial
or ethnic groups—namely Asians, Native Hawaiians,
Other Pacic Islanders, American Indians, Alaska
Natives, and persons of two or more races—accounted
for a similar share of victims in violent hate crime
incidents to their collective share of the population
(both 8%). e percentage of oenders believed to be
persons of other races (4%) was lower than their share
of the population.
Persons age 30 or older made up a smaller share of
both victims (61%) and oenders (55%) in violent
hate crime incidents than their portion of the
U.S. population (72%). For persons ages 12 to 17 and
ages 18 to 29, there were no signicant dierences
between their representation in the population and
their portion of victims or oenders in violent hate
crime incidents. In 10% of violent hate crime incidents,
victims reported multiple oenders of various ages.
A greater percentage of violent hate crimes (23%)
than violent nonhate crimes (13%) involved
multiple oenders
During 2015-19, an average of 188,910 violent hate
crime incidents and 5.1 million violent nonhate crime
incidents occurred each year (table 6).
14
As reported
by victims, the majority of oenders acted alone in
both violent hate crime incidents (69%) and violent
nonhate crime incidents (83%). However, a greater
percentage of violent hate crimes (23%) than violent
nonhate crimes (13%) involved multiple oenders.
Victims reported that a greater percentage of oenders
were male than female across violent hate and nonhate
crimes. However, the percentage of males who were
oenders in violent hate crimes was not statistically
dierent from the percentage in violent nonhate
crimes. e same was true for female oenders.
During 2015-19, the percentage of black oenders
was higher in violent hate crimes (28%) than violent
nonhate crimes (21%).
More than half (56%) of nonfatal violent hate
crime incidents were committed by a stranger
during 2015-19
Among all age groups, persons age 30 or older
accounted for the largest share of oenders in both
violent hate crimes (46%) and violent nonhate crimes
(43%). A smaller percentage of oenders were ages
18 to 29 in violent hate crimes (19%) than in violent
nonhate crimes (24%). Violent hate crime incidents
(9%) were more likely than violent nonhate crime
incidents (4%) to involve oenders in multiple
age groups.
More than half (56%) of violent hate crime incidents
were committed by a stranger during 2015-19, according
to victim reports. In comparison, the majority (53%)
of violent nonhate victimizations were committed by
someone at least casually known to the victim.
14
Nonhate incidents include those that were not motivated by bias
against the victim’s characteristics or religious beliefs, as dened by
NCVS criteria.
11
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
TablE 6
Violent hate and nonhate crime incidents, by oender characteristics reported by victims, 2015–19
Oender characteristic Hate incidents Nonhate incidents*
Number of oenders 100% 100%
1 68.5 † 82.8
2–3 13.6 † 7.8
4 or more 9.5 † 4.9
Unknown 8.4 ‡ 4.5
Sex 100% 100%
Male 65.1 70.4
Female 18.0 17.9
Both male and female oenders 6.8 4.0
Unknown 10.1 7.6
Race/ethnicity 100% 100%
White
a
38.3 44.3
Black
a
28.2 † 21.3
Hispanic
b
13.0 13.5
Asian/Native Hawaiian/Other Pacic Islander
a,c
2.7 1.6
Other
a,c,d
1.0 ! 2.6
Multiple oenders of various races
a
1.3 ! 0.9
Unknown 15.4 15.8
Age 100% 100%
11 or younger -- 2.1
12–17 10.1 12.6
18–29 18.8 ‡ 24.0
30 or older 46.5 42.7
Two or more age groups 8.6 † 4.3
Unknown 16.0 14.4
Relationship to victim 100% 100%
At least casually known 30.7 † 53.3
Stranger 56.2 † 36.9
Unknown 13.1 9.8
Average annual incidents 188,910 † 5,055,360
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as
bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate
symbols. An incident is a specic criminal act involving one or more victims. Oender characteristics are based on victims’ perceptions of oenders.
Nonhate incidents include those that were not motivated by bias according to the above denition. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
--Rounds to less than 0.05%.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Excludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
b
If the victim perceived any of the oenders in a multiple-oender incident to be of Hispanic origin, they were classied as Hispanic.
c
Categories are not shown separately due to small numbers of sample cases.
d
Includes American Indians and Alaska Natives and persons of two or more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
12
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
Methodology
Survey coverage in the National Crime
Victimization Survey
e National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an
annual data collection carried out by the U.S. Census
Bureau on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS). e NCVS is a self-reported survey that is
administered annually from January 1 to December 31.
Annual NCVS estimates are based on the number and
characteristics of crimes that respondents experienced
during the prior 6 months, not including the month
in which they were interviewed. erefore, the 2019
survey covers crimes experienced from July 1, 2018 to
November 30, 2019, with March 15, 2019 as the middle
of the reference period. Crimes are classied by the
year of the survey and not by the year of the crime.
e NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or
older from a nationally representative sample of
U.S. households and collects information on personal
and property crimes. Personal crimes include personal
larceny (purse snatching and pick pocketing) and
nonfatal violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated assault, and simple assault). Household
property crimes include burglary or trespassing, motor
vehicle the, and other types of the. e survey
collects information on threatened, attempted, and
completed crimes. It collects data both on crimes
reported and not reported to police. Unless specied
otherwise, estimates in this report include threatened,
attempted, and completed crimes. In addition to
providing annual level and change estimates on
criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary
source of information on the nature of criminal
victimization incidents.
Survey respondents provide information about
themselves, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital
status, education level, and income and whether they
experienced a victimization. For each victimization
incident, respondents report information about the
oender (including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and
victim-oender relationship), characteristics of
the crime (including time and place of occurrence,
use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic
consequences), whether the crime was reported to
police, reasons the crime was or was not reported, and
experiences with the criminal justice system.
Household information, including household-level
demographics (e.g., income) and property
victimizations committed against the household
(e.g., burglary or trespassing), is typically collected
from the reference person. e reference person is any
responsible adult member of the household who is not
likely to permanently leave the household. Because
an owner or renter of the sampled housing unit is
normally the most responsible and knowledgeable
household member, this person is generally designated
as the reference person and household respondent.
However, a household respondent does not have to
be one of the household members who owns or rents
the unit.
In the NCVS, a household is dened as a group of
persons who all reside at a sampled address. Persons
are considered household members when the sampled
address is their usual place of residence at the time of
the interview and when they have no primary place of
residence elsewhere. Once selected, households remain
in the sample for 3 1/2 years, and eligible persons in
these households are interviewed every 6 months,
either in person or over the phone, for a total of
seven interviews.
First interviews are typically conducted in person, with
subsequent interviews conducted either in person or
by phone. New households rotate into the sample on an
ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have
been in the sample for the full 3 1/2-year period. e
sample includes persons living in group quarters, such
as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group
dwellings, and excludes persons living on military
bases or in institutional settings such as correctional or
hospital facilities.
Measurement of crime in the NCVS
BJS presents data from the NCVS on victimization
and incident rates. Victimization rates measure the
extent to which violent and property victimizations
occur in a specied population during a specied time.
Victimization numbers show the total number of times
that people or households are victimized by crime.
For crimes aecting persons, NCVS victimization
rates are estimated by dividing the number of
victimizations that occur during a specied time (T)
by the population at risk for those victimizations and
multiplying the rate by 1,000.
Victimization rate
T
=
Number of
victimizations experienced
by a specied population
T
× 1,000
Number of unique persons
(or households) in the
specied population
T
13
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
For victimization rates, each victimization represents
one person (for personal crimes) or one household (for
property crimes) aected by a crime.
15
Every
victimization experienced by a person or household
during the year is counted. For example, if one person
experiences two violent crimes during the year, both
are counted in the victimization rate. If one household
experiences two property crimes, both are counted in
the victimization rate. Victimization estimates are
presented in gures 1 through 4, tables 1 through 3,
and table 5 in this report.
Incidents are another measure of crime. e number
of incidents is the number of specic criminal acts
involving one or more victims. If every victimization
had one victim, the number of incidents would be the
same as the number of victimizations. If there was
more than one victim, the incident estimate is adjusted
to compensate for the possibility that the incident
could be reported several times by multiple victims and
thus be overcounted. For example, if two people were
robbed during the same incident, this crime would
be counted as one incident and two victimizations.
Incident estimates are presented in tables 4 and 6 in
this report.
is report presents NCVS data on the characteristics
of hate crimes and of hate crime victims and oenders
from 2005 to 2019, the most recent data year available.
Trend estimates are presented as 2-year rolling averages
(e.g., estimates reported for 2019 represent the average
of the estimates for 2018 and 2019). Other NCVS tables
and gures in this report focus on aggregate periods
of multiple data years, such as 2015-19, with some
presenting the data as aggregate estimates and others
as annual average estimates for the period. ese
approaches—using rolling averages and aggregating
years—increase the reliability and stability of hate
crime victimization estimates, facilitating comparisons
over time and between subgroups.
Estimates are shown for dierent years based on
data availability and measures of reliability. Some
dierences between estimates that may seem
substantial may not be statistically signicant, and are
therefore not discussed in the text. NCVS estimates
presented in this report include rates, percentages, and
numbers. Rates are used to account for the size of the
population in question for a given measure.
NCVS nonresponse and weighting adjustments
e 2019 NCVS data le includes 155,076 household
interviews. Overall, 71% of eligible households
completed interviews. Within participating
households, interviews with 249,008 persons were
completed in 2019, representing an 83% response rate
among eligible persons from responding households.
Victimizations that occurred outside of the U.S. were
excluded from this report. In 2019, about 1% of the
unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the U.S.
NCVS data are weighted to produce annual estimates
of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in
U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample
rather than a census of the entire U.S. population,
weights are designed to adjust to known population
totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and
other aspects of the complex sample design.
NCVS data les include person, household,
victimization, and incident weights. Person weights
provide an estimate of the population represented by
each person in the sample. Household weights provide
an estimate of the household population represented by
each household in the sample. Aer proper adjustment,
both person and household weights are also typically
used to form the denominator in calculations of
crime rates. For personal crimes, the incident weight
is derived by dividing the person weight of a victim
by the total number of persons victimized during an
incident, as reported by the respondent. For property
crimes measured at the household level, the incident
weight and the household weight are the same, because
the victim of a property crime is considered to be the
household as a whole. e incident weight is most
frequently used to calculate estimates of oenders’ and
victims’ demographics.
Victimization weights used in this report account for
the number of persons victimized during an incident
and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (i.e.,
series victimizations). Series victimizations are similar
in type to one another but occur with such frequency
that a victim is unable to recall each individual event
or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures
allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these
similar victimizations as series victimizations and to
collect detailed information on only the most recent
incident in the series.
15
In the NCVS, personal crimes are personal larceny (purse
snatching and pick pocketing) and nonfatal violent victimizations
(rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault). Homicide is not included because the NCVS is based on
interviews with victims. Property crimes are burglary, residential
trespassing, motor vehicle the, and other the.
14
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
e weighting counts series victimizations as the actual
number of victimizations reported by the victim,
up to a maximum of 10. Doing so produces more
reliable estimates of crime levels than counting such
victimizations only once, while the cap at 10 minimizes
the eect of extreme outliers on rates. According to the
2019 data, series victimizations accounted for 1.4% of
all victimizations and 3.1% of all violent victimizations.
Additional information on the enumeration of series
victimizations is detailed in the report Methods for
Counting High-Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 237308, BJS,
April 2012).
Revised 2016 NCVS data le
For 2016, BJS greatly increased the NCVS sample
size to facilitate the ability to produce state-level
victimization estimates for the 22 most populous states.
At the same time, the sample was adjusted to reect the
U.S. population counts in the 2010 decennial census.
ese changes resulted in a historically large number
of new households and rst-time interviews in the rst
half of 2016 and produced challenges in comparing
2016 results to prior data years.
Working with the U.S. Census Bureau, BJS
subsequently devised the methodology that was
used to create the revised 2016 NCVS data le. e
result was revised criminal victimization estimates
that were nationally representative for 2016 and
could be compared with prior and future years. For
more information, see National Crime Victimization
Survey revised 2016 estimates text box (pp. 3-4) and
Methodology (pp. 15-18) in Criminal Victimization,
2016: Revised (NCJ 252121, BJS, October 2018).
Changes to the NCVS household weighting
adjustment in 2017
e 2017 NCVS weights included a new adjustment
that modied household weights to reect independent
housing-unit totals available internally at the
U.S. Census Bureau. is new weighting adjustment
improves on the prior one and better aligns the
number of estimated households in the NCVS with
other Census household-survey estimates. For more
information on this household weighting adjustment
and on weighting in the NCVS, see Nonresponse
and weighting adjustments in this methodology and
the report National Crime Victimization Survey,
2016 Technical Documentation (NCJ 251442, BJS,
December 2017).
NCVS standard error computations
When national estimates are derived from a sample, as
with the NCVS, caution must be used when comparing
one estimate to another or when comparing estimates
over time. Although one estimate may be larger than
another, estimates based on a sample have some degree
of sampling error. e sampling error of an estimate
depends on several factors, including the amount of
variation in the responses and the size of the sample.
When the sampling error around an estimate is taken
into account, estimates that appear dierent may not
be statistically signicant.
One measure of the sampling error associated with
an estimate is the standard error. e standard error
may vary from one estimate to the next. Generally,
an estimate with a smaller standard error provides a
more reliable approximation of the true value than an
estimate with a larger standard error. Estimates with
relatively large standard errors have less precision and
reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
For complex sample designs, there are several methods
that can be used to generate standard errors around a
point estimate (e.g., numbers, percentages, and rates).
In this report, generalized variance function (GVF)
parameters were used for variance estimation. e U.S.
Census Bureau produces GVF parameters for BJS,
which account for aspects of the NCVS’s complex
sample design and represent the curve tted to a
selection of individual standard errors, using a
specialized version of Balanced Repeated Replication
based on Fay’s method. GVFs express the variance as a
function of the expected value of the survey estimate.
16
16
Wolter, K. M. (1984). An Investigation of Some Estimators
of Variance for Systematic Sampling. Journal of the American
Statistical Association 79, 781-790.
For more information on GVFs, see National Crime
Victimization Survey, 2016 Technical Documentation
(NCJ 251442, BJS, December 2017).
BJS conducted statistical tests to determine whether
dierences in estimated numbers, percentages, and
rates from the NCVS in this report were statistically
signicant once sampling error was taken into
account. Using statistical analysis programs developed
specically for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text
were tested for signicance. e primary test procedure
was the Student’s t-statistic, which tests the dierence
between two sample estimates. Findings described in
this report as increases or decreases passed a test at
either the 0.05 level (95% condence level) or 0.10 level
15
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
(90% condence level) of signicance. Figures and
tables in this report should be referenced for testing on
specic ndings.
NCVS estimates and standard errors of the estimates
provided in this report may be used to generate a
condence interval around the estimate as a measure
of the margin of error. e following example
illustrates how standard errors may be used to generate
condence intervals:
According to the NCVS, during the aggregate
period of 2015-19, the percent of violent hate crime
victimizations reported to police was 57.3%. (See
table 2.) Using the GVFs, BJS determined that the
estimated percentage has a standard error of 3.69%.
(See appendix table 6.) A condence interval around
the estimate is generated by multiplying the standard
error by ± 1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed
distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of
the distribution). erefore, the 95% condence
interval around the 57.3% estimate during 2015-19
is 57.3 ± (3.69 × 1.96) or (50.02 to 64.49). In other
words, if BJS used the same sampling method to
select dierent samples and computed an interval
estimate for each sample, it would expect the true
population parameter (percent of violent hate crime
victimizations reported to police) to fall within the
interval estimates 95% of the time.
For this report, BJS also calculated a coecient of
variation (CV) for all NCVS estimates, representing
the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. CVs (not
shown in tables) provide another measure of reliability
and a means for comparing the precision of estimates
across measures with diering levels or metrics.
Classication of hate crimes in the NCVS
e NCVS has collected data on hate crime since 2003.
For an NCVS crime to be classied as a hate crime,
the victim had to report one of three types of evidence
that the oender(s) were motivated by bias: (1) e
oender(s) used hate language, (2) the oender(s)
le hate signs or symbols at the scene, or (3) police
investigators conrmed that it was a hate crime
(gure 4).
In addition, victims may have had other reasons for
believing that the victimization was bias-motivated.
Victims could have also reported that—
the oender(s) committed similar hate crimes or
crimes of bigotry in the past
the incident occurred on or near a holiday, event,
location, gathering place, or building commonly
associated with a specic group (e.g., a gay pride
march, synagogue, or Korean church)
other hate crimes or crimes of prejudice or
bigotry happened to the victim or occurred in
the neighborhood
their feelings, instincts, or perception led them to
suspect the incident was a hate crime or crime of
prejudice or bigotry, even though there was not
enough evidence to know for sure.
About 92% of persons who reported these other types
of evidence also reported one of the three types needed
to classify the crime as a hate crime for the NCVS.
Modifying the classication standard to include these
other types of evidence would have no statistically
signicant impact on the average annual number of
hate crime victimizations. From 2015 to 2019, there
were about 256,400 hate crime victimizations each year
using the additional evidence categories, which was
not statistically dierent from the 240,800 under the
current denition.
16
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
FIGURE 4
Classifying hate crimes in the National Crime Victimization Survey
Criminal incident/
victimization
a,b
Classifying evidence
d
Crime involved hate
c
Crime did not involve
hate
f
Offender committed similar
hate crimes in the past
Incident occurred on/near
a holiday/event/location/
gathering place/building
commonly associated with
a specific group
Other hate crimes happened
to the victim/occurred in the
neighborhood
Victim’s feelings/instincts/
perception led them to suspect
the incident was a hate crime
though there was not enough
evidence to know for sure
Nonclassifying evidence
g
Police investigators
confirmed it was a hate crime
Offender used hate language
Offender left hate
signs/symbols at the scene
Hate crime
e
Nonhate crime
f
a
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) provides data on criminal incidents and criminal victimizations. An incident is a specic nonfatal
criminal act involving one or more victims, whereas a victimization refers to a single victim or household that experienced a nonfatal criminal
incident. Violent crimes in the NCVS include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Personal larceny includes purse
snatching and pick pocketing. Crimes against households (property crimes) include burglary or trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.
b
NCVS data includes crimes reported and not reported to police. For crimes that are reported to police, police notication may occur during or
immediately following a criminal incident or at a later date. In the NCVS, “police” includes municipal police departments, sheri’s oces, and other
state or local law enforcement agencies.
c
A nonfatal incident or victimization in which the victim suspected the oender’s motivation for committing the crime was based on bias against the
victim’s characteristics or religious beliefs.
d
Evidence based on the victim’s report. At least one type of classifying evidence is needed to classify the crime as a hate crime in the NCVS, though a
victim may report a mix of classifying and nonclassifying evidence. See footnote e for evidence types.
e
A nonfatal incident or victimization that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used
hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate symbols. At least one of these evidence types is
needed to classify the crime as a hate crime. NCVS classications of bias motivation rely on victim reports and include at least one of the following:
bias against the victim’s race, ethnic background, or national origin; gender; association with people who have certain characteristics or religious
beliefs; sexual orientation; disability; religion; and perceived characteristics or religious beliefs. A victim may report multiple bias motivations.
f
A nonfatal incident or victimization that was not motivated by bias against the victim’s characteristics or religious beliefs.
g
Evidence based on the victim’s report. If a victim reports only nonclassifying evidence of a bias motivation, the incident or victimization is not
classied as a hate crime in the NCVS.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey.
17
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
NCVS data on violent oenders’ race and
ethnicity
e NCVS collects oender information from victims
in the Crime Incident Report (CIR).
17
Oender
demographic characteristics are based on victims’
perceptions. e section in the CIR on oenders begins
with a question about the number of oenders. For
violent crime incidents involving a single oender,
respondents are asked about the oender’s relationship
to the victim, demographic characteristics (including
sex, race, ethnicity, and age), membership in a street
gang, use of alcohol or drugs at the time of the
incident, and previous crimes against the respondent
or respondent’s household.
For violent incidents involving multiple oenders,
respondents are asked similar questions, such as
whether the oender demographic characteristics
applied to all or most of the oenders. Respondents are
asked if any of the oenders were Hispanic or Latino,
followed by whether they were mostly Hispanic, mostly
non-Hispanic, or an equal number of Hispanic and
non-Hispanic persons. Respondents were then asked
what the race or races were of the oenders. Following
the Oce of Management and Budget standards
for measuring race and ethnicity, the oender race
categories in the NCVS are white, black or African
American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian,
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacic Islander, and
persons of two or more races. Oenders reported as
Hispanic are classied as Hispanic, regardless of their
reported race.
17
For all questions included on the NCVS CIR, see the BJS website.
18
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
appEndIx TablE 1
Average annual hate crimes reported to the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, 2010–19
95% condence interval
Average annual number Standard error Lower bound Upper bound
NCVS - total victimizations
a
243,770 37,602 170,072 317,470
NCVS - reported to police 107,850 23,288 62,203 153,491
NCVS - conrmed by police investigators 13,850 ! 7,478 0 28,505
UCR - victims
b
7,830 ~ ~ ~
Note: Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate
language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate symbols. At least one of these evidence types is needed
to classify the crime as a hate crime in the National Crime Victimization Survey.
~Not applicable.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault), personal theft or larceny, and property crime
(burglary or trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other theft).
b
Includes victims of murder or nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, other crimes against
persons, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, destruction or vandalism, other crimes against property, and crimes against
society. Annual average is based on incidents reported directly to law enforcement. Standard errors cannot be produced for Uniform Crime Reporting
data and are not found in this report.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010–19; and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Hate
Crime Statistics Program, 2010–19.
appEndIx TablE 2
Estimates and standard errors for gure 1: Rates of violent hate crime victimizations per 1,000 persons age12 or
older, 2005–2019
Total violent
a
Aggravated assault Simple assault
Rate per 1,000
persons age 12
or older
Standard
error
95% condence
interval
Rate per 1,000
persons age 12
or older
Standard
error
95% condence
interval
Rate per 1,000
persons age 12
or older
Standard
error
95% condence
interval
Year
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
2005 0.8 0.13 0.56 1.07 0.1 ! 0.04 0.05 0.20 0.7 0.12 0.44 0.90
2006 0.9 0.12 0.62 1.10 0.1 0.04 0.07 0.22 0.6 0.10 0.42 0.82
2007 1.0 0.13 0.71 1.20 0.2 0.04 0.09 0.25 0.7 0.10 0.47 0.87
2008 1.0 0.14 0.68 1.24 0.2 0.04 0.09 0.27 0.7 0.11 0.44 0.88
2009 1.1 0.18 0.70 1.41 0.3 0.07 0.15 0.44 0.7 0.13 0.41 0.92
2010 1.0 0.16 0.68 1.33 0.2 0.06 0.12 0.35 0.7 0.12 0.43 0.90
2011 0.8 0.12 0.52 1.01 0.1 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.5 0.09 0.34 0.70
2012 1.0 0.14 0.75 1.28 0.2 0.05 0.11 0.30 0.7 0.10 0.51 0.92
2013 0.9 0.15 0.63 1.21 0.3 0.06 0.15 0.37 0.6 0.11 0.38 0.80
2014 0.7 0.11 0.51 0.95 0.2 0.04 0.07 0.24 0.5 ‡ 0.08 0.29 0.62
2015 0.7 0.11 0.49 0.94 0.1 † 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.5 0.09 0.34 0.70
2016 0.6 † 0.10 0.39 0.76 0.1 0.04 0.06 0.22 0.4 † 0.08 0.24 0.53
2017 0.7 ‡ 0.10 0.53 0.91 0.2 0.04 0.12 0.27 0.5 ‡ 0.07 0.32 0.61
2018 0.9 0.10 0.69 1.07 0.2 0.04 0.11 0.27 0.6 0.07 0.44 0.73
2019* 1.0 0.12 0.73 1.22 0.2 0.04 0.09 0.23 0.7 0.10 0.49 0.87
Note: Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate
language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate symbols. Estimates are based on 2-year rolling averages
centered on the most recent year (e.g., a 2005 estimate includes data for 2004 and 2005).
*Comparison year.
†Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison year is signicant at the 90% condence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes rape or sexual assault and robbery (not shown due to small numbers of sample cases), aggravated assault, and simple assault.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005–2019.
19
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
appEndIx TablE 3
Estimates and standard errors for gure 2: Violent hate crime victimizations, by reporting to police and most
important reason for not reporting, 2015–19
95% condence interval 95% condence interval
Most important reason Number
Standard
error
Lower
bound
Upper
bound Percent
Standard
error
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Total 1,075,470 98,861 881,703 1,269,239 100% ~ ~ ~
Reported 615,750 69,139 480,238 751,264 57.3% 3.69% 50.02% 64.49%
Not reported 449,480 56,719 338,312 560,650 41.8% 3.61% 34.71% 48.88%
Reason not reported 449,480 56,719 338,312 560,650 100 ~ ~ ~
Dealt with it another way
a
* 169,180 31,239 107,953 230,411 37.6 5.07 27.69 47.58
Police could not or would not do
anything to help
b
101,640 ‡ 23,138 56,288 146,988 22.6 † 4.28 14.21 31.01
Not important enough to respondent
c
74,080 † 19,272 36,304 111,852 16.5 † 3.75 9.13 23.83
Fear of reprisal 22,950 † 9,998 3,358 42,550 5.1 † 2.13 0.93 9.28
Did not want to get oender in trouble
with law or advised not to report18,470
!
8,881 1,066 35,880 4.1 ! 1.91 0.37 7.85
Other, unknown, or no single most
important reason
d
63,160 † 17,592 28,676 97,636 14.1 † 3.49 7.21 20.89
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data on reporting to police. For about 1% of all violent hate crime victimizations, it
was unknown whether the respondent reported the victimization to police. Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the
victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left
behind hate symbols. The National Crime Victimization Survey asks respondents about 19 potential reasons for not reporting a victimization to police.
For ease of presentation, those data are collapsed into the six categories presented here.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
‡Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 90% condence level.
~Not applicable.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coecient of variation is greater than 50%.
a
Includes crime reported to another ocial (e.g., guard, apartment manager, or school ocial) or victims who took care of it themselves or informally.
b
Includes victims who indicated they did not nd out about the crime until too late, they could not nd or identify the oender, they lacked proof of
the incident, they thought police would not think it was important enough, they believed police would be inecient or ineective, they thought police
would cause trouble for the victim, or the oender was a police ocer.
c
Includes victims who said it was a minor or unsuccessful crime, the oender(s) was a child, it was not clear the incident was criminal or that harm was
intended, or insurance would not cover the losses.
d
Includes victims who indicated they did not want to or could not take time to report, provided some other reason for not reporting, said no one
reason was more important than another, or had unknown reasons for not reporting.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
20
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
appEndIx TablE 4
Estimates and standard errors for gure 3: Percent of violent hate crime victimizations, by select characteristics of
victims, bias motivations, and population, 2010–19
Hate crimes motivated by gender bias
b
Hate crimes motivated by
race/ethnicity/national origin bias
c
95% condence
interval
95% condence
interval
Sex
Percent of
population
a
* Percent
Standard
error
Lower
bound
Upper
bound Race/ethnicity
Percent of
population
a
* Percent
Standard
error
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Male 48.7% 18.7% † 3.52% 11.77% 25.58% White
d
64.5% 47.8% † 3.40% 41.14% 54.47%
Female 51.3 81.3 † 3.78 73.91 88.73 Black
d
12.1 18.3 † 2.47 13.40 23.10
Hispanic 15.9 24.2 † 2.79 18.74 29.69
Asian/Native Hawaiian/
Other Pacic Islander
d,e
5.7 4.8 1.27 2.33 7.32
Other
d,e,f
1.8 4.9 † 1.28 2.38 7.42
Note: Includes nonfatal incidents that police conrmed as bias-motivated, the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) used hate
language, or the victim perceived as bias-motivated because the oender(s) left behind hate symbols.
*Comparison group.
†Dierence with comparison group is signicant at the 95% condence level.
a
Includes persons age 12 or older living in noninstitutionalized residential settings in the U.S.
b
Includes victims who suspected that the oender(s) targeted them because of their gender.
c
Includes victims who suspected that the oender(s) targeted them because of bias against their race, ethnicity, or national origin. In the National Crime
Victimization Survey, respondents are asked separately about bias against race and bias against ethnicity and national origin.
d
Excludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
e
Categories are not shown separately due to small numbers of sample cases.
f
Includes American Indians and Alaska Natives and persons of two or more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010–19.
appEndIx TablE 5
Standard errors for table 1: Hate crime victimizations, by type of crime, 2005–2019
Total Violent Property
Hate crime Hate crime Hate crime
Year Total Number Percent Total Number Rate Percent Total Number Rate Percent
2005 901,494 43,684 0.13% 372,799 40,606 0.13 0.44% 494,752 9,178 0.06 0.03%
2006 916,809 41,304 0.12 398,205 39,155 0.12 0.38 452,613 7,903 0.05 0.03
2007 891,531 41,808 0.12 384,240 38,905 0.13 0.38 479,226 10,939 0.07 0.04
2008 904,234 47,841 0.15 373,405 44,861 0.14 0.50 476,875 10,208 0.06 0.04
2009 934,446 61,025 0.20 382,847 58,627 0.18 0.71 451,645 8,907 0.05 0.04
2010 897,819 54,876 0.20 344,867 52,530 0.16 0.73 415,377 9,133 0.05 0.04
2011 917,397 42,840 0.15 349,735 39,880 0.12 0.55 424,610 10,119 0.06 0.04
2012 785,907 48,156 0.15 322,829 44,941 0.14 0.52 477,437 12,029 0.07 0.05
2013 952,239 52,884 0.16 391,586 48,992 0.15 0.56 424,178 11,367 0.06 0.04
2014 820,976 40,019 0.14 331,121 37,437 0.11 0.48 382,901 8,868 0.05 0.04
2015 735,167 41,455 0.16 299,929 39,429 0.11 0.56 386,384 8,055 0.04 0.04
2016 690,897 36,079 0.13 281,607 33,728 0.10 0.48 404,186 9,784 0.05 0.05
2017 593,049 36,274 0.14 256,236 34,122 0.10 0.45 295,000 8,802 0.05 0.04
2018 562,285 35,866 0.14 256,935 34,167 0.10 0.42 259,594 8,296 0.05 0.04
2019 683,577 47,019 0.18 313,440 43,310 0.12 0.52 265,151 10,763 0.06 0.06
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005–2019.
21
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
appEndIx TablE 6
Standard errors for table 2: Hate crime victimizations, by type of crime and reporting to police, 2015–19
Type of crime Number
Percent of hate crime
victimizations
Percent of crime type—
Reported to police Not reported to police
Violent 98,861 2.26% 3.69% 3.61%
Rape/sexual assault 12,608 1.02 17.68 17.77
Robbery 17,829 1.39 10.09 10.10
Aggravated assault 32,705 2.31 6.18 5.94
Simple assault 78,189 3.48 4.29 4.23
Property 24,512 1.92% 9.07% 9.31%
Burglary/trespassing 15,053 1.21 11.08 11.38
Other theft 16,904 1.37 12.30 12.34
Average annual victimizations 38,623
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
appEndIx TablE 7
Standard errors for table 3: Hate crime victimizations, by type of crime and bias motivation, 2015–19
Violent hate crime victimizations Property hate crime victimizations
Bias motivation Number Percent Number Percent
Race/ethnicity/national origin 70,833 3.67% 20,229 9.25%
Gender 40,482 3.04 15,950 9.88
Association 38,759 2.95 10,723 7.93
Sexual orientation 36,386 2.82 7,216 5.70
Disability 25,238 2.12 16,276 9.92
Religion 23,083 1.96 16,767 9.96
Perception 19,355 1.68 10,012 7.52
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
appEndIx TablE 8
Standard errors for table 4: Violent hate crime
victimizations, by victim and population
characteristics, 2010–19
Violent hate crime victimizations
Victim characteristic Rate Number Percent
Total 0.06 150,055 ~
Sex
Male 0.07 97,632 2.71%
Female 0.07 93,367 2.69
Race/ethnicity
White 0.06 102,566 2.70%
Black 0.13 42,971 1.72
Hispanic 0.13 56,997 2.12
Asian/Native Hawaiian/
Other Pacic Islander 0.11 17,338 0.77
Other 0.50 24,135 1.04
Age
12–17 0.19 48,626 1.89%
18–24 0.14 42,681 1.71
25–34 0.12 54,296 2.05
35–49 0.10 60,374 2.20
50–64 0.09 56,083 2.10
65 or older 0.04 17,923 0.79
~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2010–19.
22
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
appEndIx TablE 9
Standard errors for table 5: Violent hate crime incidents, by demographic characteristics of victims, oenders, and
population, 2015–19
Number of incidents
Percent of incidents
Victim Oender
Standard
error
95% condence interval
Standard
error
95% condence interval
Demographic characteristic
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Lower
bound
Upper
boundVictim Oender
Total 90,899 90,899 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Sex
Male 62,828 69,085 3.90% 48.38% 63.66% 3.71% 65.15% 79.70%
Female 54,000 31,304 3.84 36.45 51.51 3.10 13.92 26.07
Both male and female oenders ~ 17,781 ~ ~ ~ 1.95 3.75 11.41
Race/ethnicity
White 60,728 49,575 3.91% 45.41% 60.72% 4.13% 37.17% 53.37%
Black 26,538 41,113 2.49 8.73 18.47 3.85 25.83 40.92
Hispanic 38,091 25,893 3.24 18.56 31.27 2.83 9.86 20.96
Other 9,593 10,106 1.96 4.57 12.27 1.51 1.39 7.31
Multiple oenders of various races ~ 6,843 ~ ~ ~ 0.89 0.00 3.34
Age
12–17 25,925 22,313 2.44% 8.29% 17.85% 2.53% 7.08% 16.98%
18–29 38,810 32,187 3.28 19.26 32.13 3.34 15.86 28.96
30 or older 66,456 55,878 3.84 53.70 68.77 4.18 47.09 63.49
Multiple oenders of various ages ~ 20,367 ~ ~ ~ 2.34 5.69 14.86
~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
23
HATE CRIME VICTIMIZATION, 2005–2019 | SEPTEMBER 2021
appEndIx TablE 10
Standard errors for table 6: Violent hate and nonhate crime incidents, by oender characteristics reported by
victims, 2015–19
Oender characteristic Hate incidents Nonhate incidents
Number of oenders ~ ~
1 3.69% 0.97%
2–3 2.48 0.52
4 or more 2.09 0.40
Unknown 1.96 0.38
Sex ~ ~
Male 3.77% 1.16%
Female 2.83 0.83
Both male and female oenders 1.76 0.35
Unknown 2.15 0.52
Race/ethnicity ~ ~
White 3.73% 1.19%
Black 3.40 0.90
Hispanic 2.44 0.71
Asian/Native Hawaiian/Other Pacic Islander 1.08 0.20
Other 0.66 0.27
Multiple oenders of various races 0.76 0.14
Unknown 2.63 0.77
Age ~ ~
11 or younger ~ 0.24%
12–17 2.15% 0.68
18–29 2.89 0.96
30 or older 3.87 1.18
Two or more age groups 1.99 0.37
Unknown 2.68 0.74
Relationship to victim ~ ~
At least casually known 3.50% 1.23%
Stranger 3.90 1.14
Unknown 2.44 0.59
Average annual incidents 33,369 276,979
~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015–19.
e Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the
principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal
victimization, criminal oenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime,
and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and
valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports
improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and
participates with national and international organizations to develop and
recommend national standards for justice statistics. Doris J. James is the
acting director.
is report was written by Grace Kena and Alexandra ompson. Erica L. Smith
contributed to this report. Erika Harrell, Jennifer L. Truman, Heather
Brotsos, and Sean Goodison veried the report. Alexia D. Cooper also
contributed to verication.
David Fialko and Edrienne Su edited the report. Morgan Young and
Carrie Epps-Carey produced the report.
September 2021, NCJ 300954
Oce of Justice Programs
Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice
www.ojp.gov
