U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics June 2011, NCJ 234085 Hate Crime, 2003-2009 Lynn Langton and Michael Planty, BJS Statisticians ---------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=1760 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=72 ----------------------------------------------------------- From 2003 to 2009, an annual average of 195,000 hate crime victimizations occurred each year against persons age 12 or older residing in the United States, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The 148,400 overall hate crime victimizations that occurred in 2009 represent a decline from 2003 when residents experienced 239,400 hate crime victimizations. During the period, the number and rate of violent hate crime victimizations also declined. The rate of violent hate crime declined from 0.8 violent hate crime victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2003 to 0.5 per 1,000 in 2009 (figure 1). Nearly 90% of the hate crime victimizations occurring during the 7-year period were perceived to be racially or ethnically motivated. The 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act (P.L. 101-275) defines bias-motivated or hate crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." The law has since been amended twice: once in 1994 to include crimes motivated by bias against persons with disabilities, and in late 2009 to include crimes of prejudice based on gender or gender identity. ***FOOTNOTE 1 The NCVS has collected information about hate crime victimizations motivated by gender bias since 2003. This report excludes gender-based hate crimes to allow for comparability with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and to maintain consistency with the legal definition of hate crime during the period of analysis***. ------------------------------------------------------------- Highlights * From 2003 to 2009, the rate of violent hate crime victimizations in the United States decreased from 0.8 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older to 0.5 per 1,000. From 2003 to 2009, hate crime victimizations accounted for less than 1% of the total victimizations captured by the NCVS. * In nearly 90% of hate crime victimizations occurring between 2003 and 2009, the victim suspected the offender was motivated by racial or ethnic prejudice or both. * More than 4 in 5 hate crime victimizations involved violence; about 23% were serious violent crimes. * In about 37% of violent hate crimes the offender knew the victim; in violent nonhate crimes, half of all victims knew the offender. * Police were notified of fewer than half (45%) of all hate crime victimizations. * Eight hate crime homicides (murders/non-negligent manslaughters) occurred in 2009. * From 2003 to 2009, no differences were found between hate and nonhate crime in the percentage of violent victimizations involving a weapon or causing injury to the victim. * The majority of violent hate crimes were interracial while the majority of nonhate violent crimes were intraracial. * Fewer than 1 in 10 hate crime victims stated that the offender left hate symbols at the crime scene; nearly all hate crime victims said that the offender used hate language. ----------------------------------------------------------- The NCVS and UCR are the two annual sources of information that describe hate crime in the United States. This report presents data on the characteristics of hate crimes and hate crime victims using both of these sources, which present similar pictures of the overall trends in and characteristics of hate crime victimizations. Unless otherwise noted, the information in this report detailing incident and victim characteristics is primarily from the NCVS. Throughout this report, the terms hate crime and bias-motivated crime are used interchangeably and include violent or property offenses motivated by prejudice against a victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability. The NCVS collects data from the victims about the offenders' motivation for the hate crime. The survey measures bias motivated by the offender's assumption that the victim belonged to or was associated with a group largely identified by these characteristics. Number and rate of hate crime victimizations declined in recent years A hate crime victimization refers to a single victim or household thatexperienced a criminal incident suspected to be motivated by hate. For violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) and for personal larceny, the count of hate crime victimizations is the number of individuals who experienced a violent hate crime. For crimes against households (burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft), each household affected by a hate crime is counted as a single victimization. Overall the number of hate crime victimizations was lower in 2009 than 2003-down from 239,400 victimizations to 148,400 (table 1). A similar declined occurred in violent hate crime victimizations as well. --------------------------------------------------- Measuring hate crime using the National Crime Victimization Survey and Uniform Crime Reports The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a survey of a nationally representative sample of persons age 12 or older in U.S. households. Each year victim self-reports capture information about the number and characteristics of victimizations, both reported and not reported to law enforcement. Hate-related victimizations are based on victims' suspicion of the offenders' motivation. However, the NCVS definition requires that victims' suspicions be corroborated by at least one type of evidence that hate was the motivation, such as offenders' use of hate language, hate symbols left at the scene, or the police investigators' confirmation that a hate crime occurred. Imputing offenders' motives is difficult. Victims, witnesses, or police officers may misinterpret symbols or words. The NCVS provides a measure of what victims describe as hate crimes, but it cannot directly interpret the offenders' intent. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Hate Crime Statistics Program collects information about hate or bias-motivated incidents, offenses, and offenders reported and classified by law enforcement agencies each year. In 2009, the program included 14,422 participating law enforcement agencies representing 90.9 percent of the nation's population. These agencies provided 1 to 12 months of data about bias-motivated crime. The primary differences between the UCR and NCVS programs relate to victim reporting to the police and how police process and classify incidents as hate or bias-motivated. * The NCVS captures incidents and victimizations whether they were reported to law enforcement agencies. About 45% of NCVS respondents who were victims of hate crime said that the police were notified about the crime. * NCVS hate-motivated incidents are defined by the victim and the presence of crime scene evidence. They include incidents that may not be founded or recorded by police investigations as a hate-motivated incident. * Unlike the NCVS, the UCR captures offenses against all individuals, regardless of age, and against organizations, institutions, schools, churches, and businesses. The UCR also captures hate crime homicides, which are excluded from the NCVS. The NCVS estimates an annual average of 169,000 violent hate crime victimizations per year. When the UCR data are restricted to the types of violent crimes collected through the NCVS (rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault), the UCR shows an average of 2,900 hate crime victims known to police. The large discrepancy can be accounted for in part by determining that 54% of victims in the NCVS did not report their crimes to the police, 12% stated that a complaint was signed, and 7% received confirmation from the police investigators that the crime was a hate crime. Once these factors are considered, the UCR estimate is no longer statistically different from the NCVS estimate due to the relatively large standard error associated with the NCVS estimate. --------------------------------------------------- From 2003 through 2009, hate crime victimizations accounted for less than 1% of the total victimizations captured by the NCVS. Violent hate crime victimizations accounted for an average of 3.1% of all violent victimizations. From 2003 to 2009 the rate of violent hate crime victimizations declined by 37% From 2003 to 2009, persons age 12 or older experienced an annual average of about 194,800 hate crime victimizations and 179,300 hate crimeincidents (table 2). Incidents are distinguished from victimizations in that one criminal incident may have multiple victims or victimizations. Of the hate crime victims, nearly 169,000 (87%) were persons who experienced violent hate crime victimization, and about 24,400 (13%) were households victimized by bias-motivated property crimes. On average, an annual rate of 0.7 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older were victims of a violent hate crime. An annual rate of 0.2 per 1,000 households experienced a hate-related property crime. The rate of both violent and property hate crime victimizations declined from 2003 to 2009. Offender's language was evidence that the crime was motivated by hate in most hate crime victimizations For a crime to be classified as a hate crime in the NCVS, the victim must report at least one of three types of evidence that the act was motivated by hate: the offender used hate language, the offender left behind hate symbols, or police investigators confirmed that the incident was hate crime. Almost all hate crime victims cited the offenders' use of hate language as evidence that the crime was motivated by hate. From 2003 to 2009, about 98% of all hate crimes and 99% of violent hate crimes involved hate language (table 3). Fewer than 1 in 10 victims reported that the offender left hate symbols at the scene of the crime (9%) or that police investigators confirmed that the crime was hate based (7%). Victims suspected that more than half of hate crime victimizations were motivated by racial bias The NCVS asks hate crime victims the types of bias they suspect motivated the crime. From 2003 to 2009, about 58% of hate crime victimizations were suspected to be motivated by racial bias (figure 2). About a third of victims suspected they were targeted because of their ethnicity (30%), and a quarter said it was because of their associations with persons having particular characteristics (25%). Victims in about 1 in 10 hate crimes suspected the motivation to be bias against the victim's disability. In 2009 a smaller percentage of hate crime victims suspected they were targeted because of their associations with persons having particular characteristics, or because of the offender's perception of their characteristics or religious beliefs, than in 2003 (not shown in table). The percentage of hate crimes in which victims suspected motivation of sexual orientation bias was slightly greater in 2009 than in 2003 (not shown in table). More than 4 in 5 hate crime victimizations involved violence Overall, nearly 87% of hate crimes involved violence, and about 23% were serious violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault) (table 4). In contrast, about 23% of all nonhate crimes involved violence with about 8% classified as serious violent crimes. From 2003 to 2009, the majority of hate crimes were simple assaults (64%). The next most common type of hate crime was aggravated assault (16%), followed by theft (8%), robbery (6%), and burglary (5%). No differences were found between hate and nonhate crime in the presence of a weapon or injuries suffered. From 2003 through 2009, no measurable difference was detected in the percentage of offenders who had a weapon in hate and nonhate crime victimizations. About 20% of violent hate crime victims reported that the offender had a weapon (table 5). More than three-quarters of violent hate crime victims (77%) did not suffer from any injuries during the event. About 20% suffered minor injuries, such as bruises and cuts, and 3% suffered serious injuries such as broken bones, internal injuries, or stabbing or gunshot wounds. Hate crimes were less likely than nonhate crimes to occur at or near the victim's home From 2003 through 2009, about a third of hate crimes (32%) occurred at or near a victim's home while more than half (57%) of nonhate crime victimizations took place at or around the victim's home (table 6). A greater percentage of hate crime victims (18%) than nonhate crime victims (9%) said that the victimization occurred at school. Police were notified of fewer than half of hate crimes From 2003 to 2009, overall about 45% of all hate crime victimizations captured in the NCVS were reported to the police (table 7). Of those, 26% were reported by the victim, 13% by someone else, and 6% in some other way (for example, police were present at the scene when the crime occurred). More than half (54%) of violent hate crime victimizations that resulted in an injury were reported to the police. Victims signed formal complaints against the offender in 12% of violent hate crimes and 19% of violent hate crimes that resulted in injury. A lower percentage of victims of violent hate crime (8%) reported an arrest in conjunction with the crime than victims of nonhate violent crime (14%). Generally, victims targeted because of a disability were least likely to report the hate crime to police With one exception, there was little variation in the percentage of hate crime victimizations reported to the police, regardless of the suspected motivation behind the hate crime (figure 3). The exception involved victims who were targeted because of a disability. A lower percentage of hate crime victimizations believed to be motivated by disability bias were reported to the police (33%), than hate crimes motivated by ethnic bias (51%), bias against the victim's associations (47%), or bias against perceived characteristics of the victim (46%). Approximately a third of hate crime victimizations not reported to the police was handled another way Victims of the approximately 54% of hate crime victimizations not reported to the police offered a variety of reasons for not reporting. About 1 in 3 victims who did not report the hate crime to the police handled the victimization in another way, such as privately or through a non-law enforcement official, like an apartment manager or school official (table 8). For about 19% of hate crimes not reported to the police, the victim stated that the crime was not important enough to report. Approximately 15% of hate crime victims who did not report the crime believed that the police would not want to be bothered or to get involved, would be inefficient and ineffective, or would cause trouble for the victim. Victims of two or more races had the highest rate of violent hate crime victimizations From 2003 to 2009, the greatest percentage of hate crime victimizations were against white, non-Hispanic individuals (table 9). However, persons of two or more races (4.0 per 1,000 age 12 or older) had the highest rate of hate crime violent victimizations. Persons of more than one race also had the highest rate of violent nonhate crime victimizations (64.3 per 1,000), compared to persons in other racial and ethnic categories. For both hate and nonhate violent crime victimizations, persons ages 12 through 24 had a higher rate of victimization than persons age 50 or older. Also for both categories of crime, persons in households with an income of less than $25,000 had a higher rate of violent victimization than persons in households with an income of $50,000 or more. Males (0.9 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older) experienced a higher rate of violent hate crime victimizations than females (0.5 per 1,000). Regardless of sex or race/Hispanic origin, more than half of victims suspected the victimization to be motivated by racial bias Among all racial and ethnic groups, victims suspected racial or ethnic bias to be the motivation in the majority of victimizations (table 10). A greater percentage of Hispanic hate crime victims than white non-Hispanic and black non-Hispanic victims suspected the hate crime to be motivated by ethnic bias. From 2003 to 2009, with the exception of hate crimes motivated by disability bias, no differences were detected between the types of bias motivating hate crime victimizations against males versus females (table 11). The majority of men (62%) and women (52%) perceived that racial bias motivated the hate crime. Victims did not know the offender in more than half of violent hate crime victimizations The NCVS asks victims of violent crime about the characteristics of the offender. From 2003 to 2009, a lower percentage of victims of violent hate crime (64%) reported victimization by a single offender than victims of nonhate violent crimes (78%) (table 12). A greater percentage of victims of violent hate crime (15%) reported victimization by a group of four or more offenders than victims of violent nonhate crimes (6%). Across hate crime and other crimes, a greater percentage of offenders were males than females, and a greater percentage were white than any other race. A higher percentage of violent hate crime victimizations (16%) involved offenders from more than one age group than nonhate crime violent victimizations (8%). The percentage of offenders age 18 to 29 was slightly lower in violent hate crime (24%) than in nonhate crime violent victimizations (30%). Similar percentages of hate and nonhate crime violent victimizations involved offenders that were age 17 or younger and age 30 or older. Victims in about 54% of violent hate crime victimizations reported that the offender was a stranger, compared to 42% of nonhate crime victims. A greater percentage of hate crime victims (12%) than nonhate crime victims (6%) believed that the offender was a gang member. Nearly 30% of victims involved in hate and nonhate crime violent victimizations thought that the offender was drunk or on drugs when the crime was committed. The majority of violent hate crimes were interracial while the majority of nonhate violent crimes were intraracial From 2003 to 2009, 4 in 10 violent hate crimes against white victims involved a white offender, and 2 in 10 violent hate crimes against black victims involved a black offender (table 13). In comparison, more than 7 in 10 violent crimes against white victims involving no apparent bias were perpetrated by white offenders, and more than 8 in 10 violent nonhate crimes against black victims were perpetrated by black offenders. Nearly 70% of Hispanic victims of violent hate crime were victimized by white offenders. The NCVS does not allow for the identification of an offender's ethnicity. Based on police records hate crime incidents have recently declined after remaining relatively stable In 2009, according to the FBI's UCR hate crime data collection, 2,034 law enforcement agencies reported 6,604 hate crime incidents involving 8,336 victims. The remaining 85.9% of agencies that participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program reported that no hate crimes occurred in their jurisdictions (not shown in a table). Similar to the NCVS, the UCR showed a decline in the number of hate crime victimizations known to the police in 2009, compared to 2003. The number of hate crime victimizations known to the police declined by about 9%, from 9,100 hate crime victimizations in 2003 to 8,300 in 2009 (figure 4). In more than half of hate crime victimizations known to police in the UCR, offenders targeted victims because of racial bias against the victim Similar to NCVS, more than 50% of hate crime victims known to the police in the UCR were targeted because of an offender's racial bias (table 14). A similar percentage of hate crime victims were targeted because of religious bias and sexual orientation in the UCR data when compared to the NCVS. UCR estimates on hate crimes motivated by the victim's disability differed from findings based on the NCVS. The UCR identified about 1% of hate crime victimizations as motivated by bias against a victim's disability, while the NCVS identified disability bias to be the motivation for 8% of hate crimes that were reported to the police. From 2003 to 2009, an average of seven hate crime homicides occurred each year According to the UCR Hate Crime Reporting Program, 8 people were victims of hate crime homicides (murder/non-negligent manslaughter) in 2009. Since a high of 14 homicides in 2003, the number of hate crime homicides has ranged between 3 and 9 homicides each year between 2004 and 2009. This was an average of 7 homicides per year. Property crimes accounted for 40% of hate crimes recorded in the UCR and 12% in the NCVS From 2003 to 2009, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault accounted for 31% of hate crimes reported to the UCR, compared to about 88% of hate crimes in the NCVS that were reported to the police. Intimidation, a crime classification not recognized in the NCVS, accounted for 28% of the UCR hate crime. About 40% of hate crime victimizations collected by the UCR were property crimes, such as burglary, theft, and vandalism, with vandalism accounting for about 86% of the UCR's hate crimes against property.***FOOTNOTE 2 Vandalism is not one of the major offense categories in the NCVS and information about hate crime vandalism was not collected by the NCVS after 2008. The estimates of vandalism from the NCVS did not meet reporting standards and are not shown***. Methodology National Crime Victimization Survey The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes, whether or not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older in a nationally representative sample of household in the United States. Survey results are based on data gathered from residents living throughout the United States, including persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings. The survey excludes personnel living in military barracks and persons living in institutional settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities. For more detail, see the Survey Methodology for Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007 at http://www.bjs.gov. Victim self-reports capture information about the number and characteristics of victimizations reported and not reported to law enforcement each year. Hate crime victimizations are based on victims' perception of the offenders' motivations. Victims provide evidence of the hate motivation by words, symbols, and actions used by the offenders. Technical Notes Standard error computations Anytime national estimates are derived from a sample rather than the entire population, as is the case with the NCVS, caution is warranted when drawing conclusions about the size of one population estimate in comparison to another or about whether a time series of population estimates is changing. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on responses from a sample of the population each have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error, or margin of error, of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses, the size and representativeness of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. In general, a smaller standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a higher standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of an estimate's reliability. The CV is the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. In this report, the CV was calculated for all estimates. In cases where the CV was greater than 50% or the estimate was based on 10 or fewer sample cases, the estimate was noted with a "!" symbol. (Interpret data with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.) A statistical test is used to determine whether differences in means or percentages are statistically significant once sampling error is taken into account. Comparisons made in the text were tested for statistical significance at the p < .05 level to ensure that the differences were larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. Significance testing calculations were conducted at BJS using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS by the U.S. Census Bureau. These programs take into consideration many aspects of the complex NCVS sample design when calculating estimates. Standard errors for average annual estimates were calculated based on the ratio of the sums of victimizations and respondents across years. Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables were not fully explored in this report and warrant more extensive analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based on the results presented. Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006 Methodological changes implemented in 2006 impacted the total violent crime estimates for that year to an extent that they were considered to be not comparable to estimates from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau have found a high degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, and 2009 are consistent with and comparable to those for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006 (December 2007), Criminal Victimization, 2007 (December 2008), Criminal Victimization, 2008 (September 2009), and Criminal Victimization, 2009 (October 2010) are available on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov. Uniform Crime Reports The UCR Hate Crime Statistics Program captures information about the types of bias that motivate hate crimes, the nature of the offenses, and some information about the victims and offenders by attaching the collection of hate crime statistics to the established UCR data collection procedures. The hate crime data presented here comprise a subset of information that law enforcement agencies submit to the UCR Program.***FOOTNOTE 3 This section references the UCR Hate Crime website, http://ww2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/abouthcs.html***. Incidents and offenses--Crimes reported to the FBI involve those motivated by biases based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, and disability. The 2010 UCR data collection will allow the reporting of crimes motivated by gender and gender identity bias, as well as crimes committed by and directed against juveniles. Victims--he victim of a hate crime may be an individual, business, institution, or society as a whole. Offenders--Law enforcement specifies the number of offenders and, when possible, the race of the offender or offenders as a group. Agencies that participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program in 2009 represented nearly 279 million inhabitants, or 90.9% percent of the nation's population. Their jurisdictions covered 49 states and the District of Columbia. Hate crime legislation On April 23, 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which requires the Attorney General to collect data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." The Attorney General delegated the responsibilities of developing the procedures for implementing, collecting, and managing hate crime data to the Director of the FBI, who in turn, assigned the tasks to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Under the direction of the Attorney General and with the cooperation and assistance of many local and state law enforcement agencies, the UCR Program created a hate crime data collection to comply with the congressional mandate. Subsequent changes to hate crime data collection In September 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities by passing the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The FBI started gathering data for the additional bias type on January 1, 1997. The Church Arson Prevention Act, which was signed into law in July 1996, removed the sunset clause from the original statute and mandated that the collection of hate crime data become a permanent part of the UCR Program. In 2009, Congress further amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act by passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act. The amendment includes the collection of data for crimes motivated by bias against a particular gender and gender identity, as well as for crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles. The FBI is currently making plans to implement changes to collect these data. As Amended, 28 U.S.C. 534 "[Sec. 1.] (a) This Act may be cited as the 'Hate Crime Statistics Act." (b) (1) Under the authority of section 534 of title 28, United States Code, the Attorney General shall acquire data, for each calendar year, about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of property. (2) The Attorney General shall establish guidelines for the collection of such data including the necessary evidence and criteria that must be present for a finding of manifest prejudice and procedures for carrying out the purposes of this section. (3) Nothing in this section creates a cause of action or a right to bring an action, including an action based on discrimination due to sexual orientation. As used in this section, the term 'sexual orientation' means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality. This subsection does not limit any existing cause of action or right to bring an action, including any action under the Administrative Procedure Act or the All Writs Act [5 USCS & 551 et seq. or 28 USCS & 1651]. (4) Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of an individual victim of a crime. (5) The Attorney General shall publish an annual summary of the data acquired under this section. (c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section through fiscal year 2002. Sec. 2. (a) Congress finds that- (1) the American family life is the foundation of American Society, (2) Federal policy should encourage the well-being, financial security, and health of the American family, (3) schools should not de-emphasize the critical value of American family life. (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed, nor shall any funds appropriated to carry out the purpose of the Act be used, to promote or encourage homosexuality." In 2009, the U.S. Congress further amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act by passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act, Section 4708 of House Resolution 2647. The amendment states: SEC. 4708. STATISTICS (a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting 'gender and gender identity,' after 'race'. (b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting,' including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles' after 'data acquired under this section.' " -------------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs * Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.gov ------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is the director. This Special report was written by Lynn Langton and Michael Planty. Jennifer Truman verified the report. Catherine Bird and Jill Thomas edited the report, Tina Dorsey produced the report,and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final printing, under the supervision of Doris J. James. June 2011, NCJ 234085 This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the website: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1760. ----------------------------------------------------------- 6/10/2011/JER/12:28pm