Combined Final HC Data Collection Guidelines

U. S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Justice Information Services Division

Criminal Justice Information
Services Division
Uniform Crime Reporting Program

Hate Crime
Data Collection Guidelines
and Training Manual
Version 1.0
Document Date: 06/20/2012
Prepared by:
Law Enforcement Support Section
Crime Statistics Management Unit

CHANGE DESCRIPTIONS

Revision

Change Description

Created/Changed By

Date

Approved By

1.0

Initial Release

Mark Bush/ Kristi Donahue

06/20/2012

Nancy Carnes

PREFACE
The passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention
Act (the Act) in 2009 greatly expanded the bias motivation definitions for hate crimes. The
FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, which collects and publishes information
about crimes motivated by bias, has modified its data collection accordingly by including new
and revised definitions, along with corresponding examples.
This publication, a merger of two earlier publications (Hate Crime Data
Collection Guidelines and the Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection), reflects the
changes in the Act and is intended to assist law enforcement agencies in collecting and
submitting hate crime data to the UCR Program, as well as establishing an updated hate crime
training program for their personnel. In addition to providing suggested model reporting
procedures and training aids for capturing the new bias motivations, the manual is written to
raise law enforcement officers’ awareness of the hate crime problem. The UCR Program is
grateful to all who have assisted in preparing this publication.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.

Introduction
Criteria of hate crime

III.

Definitions for hate crime data collection

IV.

Scenarios of bias motivation

V.

VI.

Understanding how to distinguish sexual orientation, gender identity, anti-transgender,
and anti-gender non-conforming crimes
Learning modules for defining and reporting hate crime
Learning Module One: The Social Psychology of Prejudice
Module Description
Course Objectives
The Social Dynamics of Prejudice
Learning Module Two: Bias-Motivated Crimes—Definitions and Procedures
Module Description
Course Objectives
Definitions for Hate Crime Data Collection
Procedures and Criteria
Learning Module Three: Case Study Exercises of Possible Bias-Related Crimes
Module Description
Course Objectives
Rules for the Exercise Session
Exercise Cases

Appendix I––Hate Crime Statistics Act
Appendix II––Submitting Hate Crime Data to the FBI’s UCR Program
Appendix III––UCR Offense Definitions
Appendix IV––UCR Hate Crime Statistics Data
Appendix V––OMB Race Definitions
Appendix VI––Organizations Offering Information Concerning Anti-Bias Education
Appendix VII––Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, Regional Offices

I.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Scope
This manual is intended to assist law enforcement agencies in reporting incidents
of hate crime to the FBI’s UCR Program. It addresses policy, the types of bias crime to be
reported, how to identify a hate crime, and guidelines for reporting hate crime.
Since 1991, thousands of city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and
federal law enforcement agencies have voluntarily participated in the hate crime data collection.
It is the law enforcement officers within these agencies who investigate offenses, determine
those motivated by bias, and report them as known hate crimes that have made crucial
contributions to the success of the hate crime data collection. Without their continued support
and participation in identifying bias-motivated crimes, the FBI would be unable to annually
publish Hate Crime Statistics. This partnership and, ultimately, this publication serve as the
cornerstone in raising the Nation’s awareness about the occurrence of bias-motivated offenses.
The Nature of Hate Crime
In his work entitled, Taking Rights Seriously, Ronald Dworkin, Ph.D., stated that
“justice as fairness rests on the assumption of a natural right of all men and women to equality of
concern and respect, a right they possess not by virtue of birth or characteristics or merit or
excellence, but simply as human beings.” Dr. Dworkin’s words reflect the Constitutional
protections that are guaranteed to all Americans. And yet, there are those who are victimized,
sometimes subtly and other times very overtly, for no reason other than the color of their skin,
the religion they profess, the heritage of their parents, the disability they possess, their sexual
orientation, their gender, or gender identity. Not only is the individual who is personally touched
by these offenses victimized, but the entire class of individuals residing in the community is
affected.
Background
A.

Legislative Mandate to Report Hate Crime

In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, on April 23, 1990, Congress
passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act. This law required 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 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 system to comply with the congressional mandate.
The UCR Program’s first publication on the subject was Hate Crime Statistics, 1990: A
Resource Book, which was a compilation of hate crime data reported by 11 states that had
collected them under state authority in 1990 and were willing to offer their data as a prototype.
The program continued to work with agencies familiar with investigating hate crimes and
collecting related information so that it could develop and implement a more uniform method of
data collection on a nationwide scale. Hate Crime Statistics, 1992, presented the first data
reported by law enforcement agencies across the country that participated in the UCR hate crime
data collection. Lawmakers then amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include bias against
persons with disabilities by passing the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 in
September of that year. The FBI started gathering data for the additional bias type on January 1,
1997. Next, 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 hate crime data collection
become a permanent part of the UCR Program. Finally, in October 2009, the Matthew Shepard
and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act under
Division E of P.L. 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. As a
result, the FBI’s UCR Program now captures statistics on hate crimes based on gender and
gender identity prejudices, as well as hate crimes committed by/directed against juveniles.
(Appendix I provides the referenced legislation as amended.)
B.

Developing a Collection Approach

The primary emphasis in developing an approach for collecting national hate
crime statistics was to avoid placing major new reporting burdens on law enforcement agencies
contributing data to the UCR Program. To accomplish this goal the following decisions were
made:
1. The hate crime collection is an adjunct to the UCR collection. Hate crimes
are not separate, distinct crimes, but rather traditional offenses motivated by the offender’s bias.
For example, an offender may commit arson because of his/her racial bias. It is, therefore,
unnecessary to create a whole new crime category. To the contrary, hate crime data can be
collected by merely capturing additional information about offenses already being reported to the
UCR Program. Another reason for this approach is the fact that the FBI is in the process of
upgrading the UCR Program from a tally system, known as the Summary Reporting System
(SRS), to an incident-based system, known as the National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS).
Law enforcement agencies reporting in the NIBRS use a data element within their
reporting software that indicates the incident involved a bias motivation. These agencies can
report considerably more information about the hate crime incident because the NIBRS is a

comprehensive data collection system. It enables law enforcement agencies to indicate whether
any of the NIBRS offenses were bias motivated. (For a list of offenses collected via the NIBRS
and reported in conjunction with the data element indicating whether bias motivated the offense,
see Appendix II. For the definition of those offenses collected in the NIBRS, see Appendix III.)
Agencies not yet participating in the NIBRS submit their hate crime data via the
Hate Crime Incident Report and the Quarterly Hate Crime Report. The incident report captures
the following information about each hate crime incident: the offense type and its respective
bias motivation, the location of the incident, the number and type of victims, the number of
known offenders, and the known offender’s race and ethnicity. (For a list of offense categories
collected via the Hate Crime Incident Report in conjunction with the offender’s bias motivation,
see Appendix II. For the definitions of those offenses collected on the Hate Crime Incident
Report, see Appendix III.) To provide for the reporting of hate crimes committed by and/or
directed against juveniles, the FBI has provided for law enforcement to indicate on the Hate
Crime Incident Report if the victim and/or offender were under 18 years of age and/or 18 years
of age and over. Information collected on the Hate Crime Incident Report can be submitted in an
electronic format. The hate crime data submission specifications are provided in Hate Crime
Electronic Submission Specifications for the Summary Reporting System, which is available at
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime.
2. The types of bias motivation to be reported are limited. There are many kinds
of bias. Some of the more common kinds are those against race, religion, disability, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity. But, there are also biases against rich people,
poor people, the elderly, people who dress differently, smokers, drinkers, people who are
overweight, etc. The types of bias to be reported to the FBI’s UCR Program are limited to those
mandated by the Hate Crime Statistics Act and its subsequent amendments, i.e., bias based on
“race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”
Conclusion
The enactment of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 and its subsequent
amendments requiring the collection and publication of nationwide hate crime statistics
underscores the emphasis placed on hate crime. National statistics have resulted in greater
awareness and understanding of the true dimensions of the problem nationwide. Those charged
with the enforcement of the law will be better able to quantify their resource needs and direct
available resources to the areas where they will have the most effectiveness. Likewise,
community service organizations and groups will be better able to respond to the needs of the
victims.
As hate crime offenders are brought to justice and victims regain their sense of
personal safety and respect, justice will be served because it can then be truly said that the rights

of individuals under the Constitution will be theirs “not by virtue of birth or characteristics or
merit or excellence, but simply as human beings.”

II.

CRITERIA OF HATE CRIME

A.

Bias Motivation

The FBI collects hate crime data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated,
in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, gender, or gender identity. Because of the difficulty of ascertaining the offender’s
subjective motivation, bias is to be reported only if investigation reveals sufficient objective facts
to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated,
in whole or in part, by bias. The specific types of bias to be reported, along with their UCR bias
codes, are listed below. (More information about some types of biases is provided in Learning
Module Two.)
Race:
11 = Anti-White
12 = Anti-Black or African American
13 = Anti-American Indian or Alaska Native
14 = Anti-Asian
15 = Anti-Multiple Races, Group1
16 = Anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Religion:
21 = Anti-Jewish
22 = Anti-Catholic
23 = Anti-Protestant
24 = Anti-Islamic (Muslim)
25 = Anti-Other Religion
26 = Anti-Multiple Religions, Group1
27 = Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism
Ethnicity:
32 = Anti-Hispanic or Latino
33 = Anti-Not Hispanic or Latino
Sexual Orientation:
41 = Anti-Gay (Male)
42 = Anti-Lesbian
43 = Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (Mixed Group)1
44 = Anti-Heterosexual
45 = Anti-Bisexual
__________________________________
1

If within the race or religion category, one or more specific bias motivations occur, the
multiple group type should be reported. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender is
referred to as LGBT.

Disability:
51 = Anti-Physical Disability
52 = Anti-Mental Disability
Gender:
61 = Anti-Male
62 = Anti-Female
Gender Identity:
71 = Anti-Transgender
72 = Anti-Gender Non-Conforming
B.

Objective Evidence That the Crime was Motivated by Bias

An important distinction must be made when reporting a hate crime. The mere
fact that the offender is biased against the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, gender, and/or gender identity does not mean that a hate crime was involved. Rather,
the offender’s criminal act must have been motivated, in whole or in part, by his/her bias.
Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a
crime was the result of the offender’s bias. Therefore, before an incident can be reported as a
hate crime, sufficient objective facts must be present to lead a reasonable and prudent person to
conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by bias. While no
single fact may be conclusive, facts such as the following, particularly when combined, are
supportive of a finding of bias:
1. The offender and the victim were of a different race, religion, disability, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, gender, and/or gender identity. For example, the victim was African
American and the offender was white.
2. Bias-related oral comments, written statements, or gestures were made by the
offender which indicates his/her bias. For example, the offender shouted a racial epithet at the
victim.
3. Bias-related drawings, markings, symbols, or graffiti were left at the crime scene.
For example, a swastika was painted on the door of a synagogue, mosque, or LGBT Center.
4. Certain objects, items, or things which indicate bias were used. For example, the
offenders wore white sheets with hoods covering their faces or a burning cross was left in front
of the victim’s residence.

5. The victim is a member of a specific group which is overwhelmingly
outnumbered by other residents in the neighborhood where the victim lives and the incident took
place.
6. The victim was visiting a neighborhood where previous hate crimes had been
committed because of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender
identity and where tensions remained high against his/her group.
7. Several incidents occurred in the same locality, at or about the same time, and the
victims were all of the same race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or
gender identity.
8. A substantial portion of the community where the crime occurred perceived that
the incident was motivated by bias.
9. The victim was engaged in activities related to his/her race, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity. For example, the victim was a
member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) or
participated in a LGBT Pride celebration.
10. The incident coincided with a holiday or a date of particular significance relating
to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity, e.g., Martin
Luther King Day, Rosh Hashanah, or the Transgender Day of Remembrance (November 20).
11. The offender was previously involved in a similar hate crime or is a hate group
member.
12. There were indications that a hate group was involved. For example, a hate group
claimed responsibility for the crime or was active in the neighborhood.
13. A historically-established animosity existed between the victim’s and the
offender’s groups.
14. The victim, although not a member of the targeted racial, religious, disability,
sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity group, was a member of an advocacy
group supporting the victim group.
D.

Cautions

1. Need for Case-by-Case Assessment of the Facts—The aforementioned factors are
not all-inclusive of the types of objective facts which evidence bias motivation. Therefore,
reporting agencies must examine each case for facts which clearly provide evidence that the
offender’s bias motivated him/her to commit the crime.

2. Misleading Facts—Agencies must be alert to misleading facts. For example, the
offender used an epithet to refer to the victim’s race, but the offender and victim were of the
same race.
3. Feigned Facts—Agencies must be alert to evidence left by the offenders which is
meant to give the false impression that the incident was motivated by bias. For example,
students of a religious school vandalize their own school, leaving anti-religious statements and
symbols on its walls in the hope that they will be excused from attending class.
4. Offender’s Mistaken Perception—Even if the offender was mistaken about the
victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity, the
offense is still a hate crime as long as the offender was motivated, in whole or in part, by bias
against that group. For example, a middle-aged, non-gay man walking by a bar frequented by
gays was attacked by six teenagers who mistakenly believed the victim had left the bar and was
gay. Although the offenders were wrong on both counts, the offense is a hate crime because it
was motivated by the offenders’ anti-gay bias.
5. Changes in Findings of Bias—If, after an initial incident report was submitted, a
contrary finding regarding bias occurs, during the course of the investigation, the national UCR
Program file must be updated with the new finding. For example, if an initial finding of no bias
was later changed to racial bias or a finding of racial bias was later changed to religious bias, the
change should be reported to the FBI’s UCR Program. However, an agency should not update
its report based on the findings of a court, coroner, or jury or the decision of a prosecutor.

III.

DEFINITIONS FOR HATE CRIME DATA COLLECTION

To ensure uniformity in reporting nationwide, the following definitions have been
adopted for use in hate crime reporting:
Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on
their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.
Bias Crime—A committed criminal offense that is motivated, in whole or in part, by
the offender’s bias(es) against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or
gender identity; also known as Hate Crime.
Note: Even if the offender was mistaken in his/her perception that the victim was a member of
the group he or she was acting against, the offense is still a bias crime because the offender was
motivated by bias against the group.
Bisexual––(adjective) Of or relating to people who are physically, romantically,
and/or emotionally attracted to both men and women.
Disability Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons
based on their physical or mental impairments, whether such disability is temporary or
permanent, congenital or acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age, or illness.
Person with a Disability––(adjective) Of or relating to persons who have physical or
mental impairments, whether temporary or permanent, due to conditions that are congenital or
acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age, or illness; (noun) person with a disability.
Ethnicity Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of people
whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a
common language, common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or ideology that
stresses common ancestry. The concept of ethnicity differs from the closely related term race in
that “race” refers to grouping based mostly upon biological criteria, while “ethnicity” also
encompasses additional cultural factors.
Note: When the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics Program was initially implemented, ethnicity bias
was reported as ethnicity/national origin bias. It was then modified by the Office of
Management and Budget’s 1997 Revision to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data
on Race and Ethnicity.
Gay—(adjective) Of or relating to people who are physically, romantically, and/or
emotionally attracted to people of the same sex.
Note: Generally this word is used to refer to gay men, but may also be used to describe women;
the term “gay” is preferred over the term “homosexual. For UCR Program purposes, however, if
reporting an anti-gay bias, the victim should be a male.

Gender—(noun) This term is used synonymously with sex to denote whether a
newborn is male or female at birth, e.g., “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl.”
Gender Bias—(noun) A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a person or
group of persons based on their actual or perceived gender, e.g., male or female.
Gender Identity—(noun) A person’s internal sense of being male, female, or a
combination of both; that internal sense of a person’s gender may be different from the person’s
gender as assigned at birth.
Note: A transgender person may express their gender identity through gender characteristics,
such as clothing, hair, voice, mannerisms, or behaviors that do not conform to the gender-based
expectations of society.
Gender Identity Bias—A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a person or
group of persons based on their actual or perceived gender identity, e.g., bias against transgender
or gender non-conforming individuals.
Gender Non-Conforming—(adjective) Describes a person who does not conform to
the gender-based expectations of society, e.g., a woman dressed in traditionally male clothing or
a man wearing makeup.
Note: A gender non-conforming person may or may not be a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
transgender person but may be perceived as such. Additional information is provided in
Section V.
Hate Crime––Bias Crime.
Hate Group––An organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity,
hostility, and malice against persons of or with a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, gender, or gender identity which differs from that of the members or the organization,
e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazi Party.
Heterosexual––(adjective) Of or relating to people who are physically, romantically,
and/or emotionally attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Note: The term straight is a synonym.
Homosexual––(adjective) Of or relating to people who are physically, romantically,
and/or emotionally attracted to people of the same sex.
Note: This is an outdated clinical term considered derogatory and offensive by many people;
current journalistic standards restrict usage of the term; “lesbian” and/or “gay” accurately
describes those who are attracted to people of the same sex.

Lesbian––(adjective) Of or relating to women who are physically, romantically,
and/or emotionally attracted to other women.
Note: Some lesbian women prefer to be described as gay women; preferred over the term
“homosexual;” may be used as a noun. For UCR Program purposes, however, if reporting an
anti-gay bias, the victim should be a male.
LGBT—(noun) Common initialism for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender,”
used here to refer to community organizations or events that serve lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and allied people.
National Incident–Based Reporting System––A reporting system implemented in
the late 1980s to replace the traditional SRS. NIBRS provides for expanded collection and
reporting of offenses and arrests and their circumstances.
Racial Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons
who possess common physical characteristics, e.g., color of skin, eyes, and/or hair, facial
features, etc., genetically transmitted by descent and heredity which distinguish them as a distinct
division of humankind, e.g., Asians, Blacks or African Americans, whites.
Religious Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons
who share the same religious beliefs regarding the origin and purpose of the universe and the
existence or nonexistence of a supreme being, e.g., Catholics, Jews, Protestants, atheists.
Sexual Orientation—(noun) The term for a person’s physical, romantic, and/or
emotional attraction to members of the same and/or opposite sex, including lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and heterosexual (straight) individual.
Note: Avoid the offensive terms “sexual preference” or “lifestyle.”
Sexual-Orientation Bias––(noun) A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a
person or group of persons based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
Summary Reporting System––The traditional tally system which has been used
since 1930 to collect UCR data.
Transgender—(adjective) Of or relating to a person who identifies as a different
gender from their gender as assigned at birth.
Note: The person may also identify himself or herself as “transsexual.” Additional information
is provided in Section V.
Note: A transgender person may outwardly express his or her gender identity all of the time, part
of the time, or none of the time; a transgender person may decide to change his or her body to
medically conform to his or her gender identity.

Note: Avoid the following terms: “he-she,” “she-male,” “tranny,” “it,” “shim,” “drag queen,”
“transvestite,” and “cross-dresser.”

IV.

SCENARIOS OF BIAS MOTIVATION

A. A group home for persons with psychiatric disabilities who were in transition back
into the community was the site of a reported arson. Investigation revealed that neighbors had
expressed many concerns about the group home in town meetings and were angry that the house
was located in their community. Shortly before the fire was reported, a witness heard a white
male state, “I’ll get rid of those ‘crazies.’ I’ll burn them out.” An Anti-Mental Disability Bias
should be reported with this incident because the suspect apparently committed the crime
because of his bias against persons with psychiatric disabilities.
B. A transgender woman met a straight man through a social networking application.
According to the man, when the two met, they spent nearly three days together, during which
time they had a sexual encounter. After their sexual encounter, she admitted that she used to be a
man. The man then began beating her, first with his fists and then with a fire extinguisher, until
she was dead. The man felt justified in beating and killing the transgender woman because he
said he was “fooled by her gender presentation.” In the arrest affidavit, the man said he thought
he had “killed it” before leaving in the victim’s car with the murder weapon and other
incriminating evidence. An Anti-Transgender Bias should be reported with this incident because
the perpetrator targeted the victim as a result of his discovery of her gender identity.
C. A 29-year-old Japanese-American male was attacked by a 51-year-old white male
wielding a tire iron. The victim suffered severe lacerations and a broken arm. The incident took
place in a parking lot next to a bar. Investigation revealed that the offender and victim had
previously exchanged racial insults in the bar, the offender having initiated the exchange by
calling the victim by a well-known and recognized epithet used against the Japanese and
complaining that the Japanese were taking away jobs from Americans. An Anti-Asian Bias
should be reported based on the difference in race of the victim and offender, the exchange of
racial insults, and the absence of other reasons for the attack.
D. Three female hikers--a mother, her teenage daughter, and her daughter’s friend--were
murdered in a national park. The woman and her daughter’s friend were strangled, dumped in
their car trunk, and burned when the car was set on fire. After the murder of the two women, the
second teenager was sexually assaulted for hours and then taken to another location where her
throat was slit. The murders remained unsolved until a man confessed to them more than six
months later. This same man also admitted to the murder of a female naturalist later that year.
The naturalist’s torso was found near her cabin and her head was found nearby. The murderer
stated that he had “fantasized about killing all women” since he was a child. An Anti-Female
Bias should be reported with this incident as the offender made his fantasy about killing women
become a reality.
E. A woman took a handgun into a fitness center, entered the men’s locker room, and
fired numerous shots. Two men were killed and one other man was injured in the shooting. The

killer’s blog revealed that she had planned the attack for some time and harbored a deep “hatred
for men” for rejecting her all of her life. This incident should be reported with an Anti-Male
Bias because the evidence indicated that the offender harbored a deep “hatred for men” for
rejecting her all of her life.
F. Late in the night, a group of individuals broke in to a local Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
and Transgender Center. The group painted “WE HATE FAGS” and “DIE DRAG QUEENS”
on the walls and stole the gay pride rainbow flag that was flown above the front door of the
center. This incident should be reported with an Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender
(Mixed Group) Bias based on the offender’s intent; the property crime was clearly meant to
intimidate those that work at and use the services of the center.
G. While driving through a predominantly Mexican-American neighborhood, an
African-American male stopped his car to repair a flat tire. A group of Mexican-Americans
leaving a bar across the street accosted the driver and then attacked him with bottles and clubs.
During the attack, the offenders called the victim by a well-known and recognized epithet used
against blacks and told him that blacks were not welcome in the neighborhood. This incident
should be reported with an Anti-Black or African American Bias because the victim and
offenders are of different races, the offenders used a racial epithet, and the facts reveal no other
reason for the attack than the stated one, i.e., to keep blacks out of the neighborhood.
H. Overnight, unknown persons broke into a synagogue and destroyed several religious
objects. The perpetrators drew a large swastika on the door and wrote “Death to Jews” on a wall.
Although valuable items were present, none were stolen. This incident should be reported with
an Anti-Jewish Bias because the offenders destroyed religious objects and left anti-Semitic words
and graffiti behind, and theft did not appear to be the motive for the burglary.
I.
A transgender woman was walking down the street near her home, returning from the
corner store. When she was just two houses away, three young men walking toward her said,
“Hey, what’s your problem? Huh?” She kept walking, trying to ignore them. However, as they
got close, one yelled “Let’s get it!” and a second one jumped her, knocking her to the ground.
They kicked her and one yelled, “We don’t allow no drag queen faggots in this neighborhood.”
This incident should be reported with an Anti-Transgender Bias because the issue was the
victim’s gender identity even though an anti-gay slur was also used during the attack.
J. A female doctor at a small hospital found graffiti scratched into her car on three
consecutive nights. The words were illegible. An investigation revealed that the scratches were
deliberately made, but there were no witnesses or suspects. Although she was the only female
doctor at the hospital, there were many female nurses who were not targeted, therefore, that fact
alone was not sufficient to determine motive, and the incident would not be reported as bias
motivated. However, a month later, two adult males were arrested after being caught on tape
vandalizing the female doctor’s car again. They admitted to all the incidents, saying women do

not belong in the medical profession. In addition to the most recent incident being reported with
an Anti-Female Bias, the previous incident should subsequently be reported with an Anti-Female
Bias because the men’s stereotypes about the appropriate gender roles for women prompted
their criminal actions in both incidents.
K. A small neighborhood bar frequented by gay men burned down after being closed for
the night. Investigation revealed that the fire was deliberately set, but there were no witnesses or
suspects. Although the fire was deliberately set, the fact that the bar was frequented by gay men
may have been coincidental. Therefore, the incident should not be reported as bias motivated.
Two weeks later, three white males were arrested on a tip from an informant. They admitted
burning down the bar, saying they did it to keep gays out of the neighborhood. As a result, this
incident should subsequently be reported with an Anti-Gay (Male) Bias.
L. A lesbian went to the local hardware store and as she was entering, heard someone
yell, “Hey there lady, you wanna be a man?” toward her. She went into the store hoping not to
stir up any trouble and heard him say, “you look like a man.” She was wearing painting
coveralls and had short hair. After making her purchase, she left the store only to see the same
individual that had yelled at her slashing her tires. The man fled the scene after spotting her
coming out of the store. An Anti-Gender Non-Conforming Bias should be reported with this
incident since the issue was her clothing and haircut; even though she was a lesbian, her sexual
orientation didn’t seem to be the reason she was targeted.
M. Six black men assaulted and seriously injured a white man and his Asian male friend
as they were walking through a residential neighborhood. Witnesses said that the victims were
attacked because they were trespassing in a “black” neighborhood. An Anti-Multiple Races,
Group Bias should be reported with the incident because the victims and offenders were of
different races, and witnesses reported that the victims were attacked because they were not
Black or African American.
N. A transgender male was outed to the community by a newspaper story after being
arrested on a misdemeanor forged check charge. Wearing short hair and men’s clothes, the
victim had been living and presenting himself as a man to everyone in the community. Two
male friends had become enraged after seeing the story, sought him out at a party, violently
pulled his pants down while yelling to everyone at the party that he was a “girl,” then took him
outside and raped him. After raping him, they threatened to kill him if he went to the authorities.
Five days later, the rapists found the victim in a farmhouse where he was staying with a friend.
The perpetrators murdered the transgender male, his friend, and another individual. This incident
should be reported with an Anti-Transgender Bias because the victim was attacked as a result of
identifying himself as a man despite having been born a female.
O. Five gay, male friends, some of whom were wearing makeup and jewelry, were
exiting a well-known gay bar when they were approached by a group of men who were unknown

to them. The men began to shout “faggot,” “bitch,” “girlie-man,” and other slurs at the group.
The assailants physically assaulted the victims, punching them in their faces and on their bodies.
This incident should be reported with an Anti-Gender Non-Conforming Bias because anti-gay
and gender-related slurs were yelled at the group, showing that the perpetrators viewed some of
the victims as inappropriately crossing gender lines.
P. Overnight, an auditorium that was being used by representatives of several religious
denominations to hold an ecumenical conference was vandalized by unknown subjects.
Extensive damage was caused and statements, such as “There is but one true religion” and
“Down with the nonbelievers,” were spray painted onto the walls. The incident should be
reported with an Anti-Multiple Religions, Group Bias because the offenders clearly evidenced
their hostility against a group representing more than one religion.
Q. A transgender woman was waiting at a bus stop when she was approached by a man
with a history of violent assaults and a previous hate crime conviction. The man punched the
victim in the face several times, threw her to the ground, kicked her and then called her a “shemale” and used other slurs and told her that she “ought to die and go to hell.” The police
confirmed that the victim had been simply waiting at the bus stop and the assault was completely
unprovoked. An Anti-Transgender Bias should be reported with this incident because the victim
was selected solely because of her gender identity and the assailant used an anti-transgender
slur during the assault.
R. A man entered a community college and shot a female in a corridor. He then entered
a classroom with 10 women and 48 men, fired a shot into the ceiling and said, “I want the
women. I hate feminists.” He sent all of the men from the room, lined the women up against the
wall and opened fire, killing 6 of the women and wounding the others. He continued through the
school, shooting only at women--until he reached another classroom. As students attempted to
take cover under desks, the killer leapt on the desks and shot the women hiding beneath. Shortly
after, he killed himself. In total, 14 women were murdered. Motivated by a strong hatred of
women, the killer’s suicide note asserted that he needed to “kill the feminists.” His note included
reasons for killing the women as well as a list of notable women whom he would have killed if
he had more time. This incident should be reported with an Anti-Female Bias because the
offender said “I want the women. I hate feminists.” He also removed all of the men, shot only at
women, and claimed he needed to “kill the feminists.”
S. An African-American man had just finished a midnight riverboat cruise with his
fiancée and friends when he escorted his blind, male friend by the arm into a restroom while
holding his girlfriends’ purse. Inside the restroom, another man hurled anti-black and anti-gay
insults at the men. The perpetrator followed them out of the restroom, continuing his verbal
harassment. He then went to his car, retrieved a gun, returned to confront the men and said,
“Now what you got to say?” The perpetrator fired the gun fatally injuring one of the men. This
incident should be reported with an Anti-Black African American Bias and Anti-Gay (Male) Bias

because the perpetrator used exclusively anti-black and anti-gay slurs and also acted out on his
mistaken perception that the victim was gay.
T. Early in the morning, two Latino immigrant brothers were attacked by two AfricanAmerican men while walking down the street. The brothers were huddled together to stay warm.
The attackers mistakenly believed that the two men were a gay couple because they were
walking so closely together. Using a baseball bat and an empty bottle, the attackers beat the
brothers while using anti-gay and anti-Latino slurs. This incident should be reported with an
Anti-Gay (Male) Bias and Anti-Hispanic or Latino Bias because the perpetrators were motivated
by the perceived sexual orientation of the brothers and their race/ethnicity as evidenced by the
use of both anti-gay and anti-Latino slurs.
U. At a house party, a transgender woman was ridiculed, called “tranny,” “lesbo,” and
made to feel unwelcome. As she attempted to leave, she was hit in the head with a shovel and
strangled with a rope by three men. According to a fourth man, the woman pleaded for her life,
but her cries were ignored. This incident should be reported with an Anti-Transgender Bias
because the victim was targeted due to her gender identity.
V. Two white, gay men were walking through a neighborhood where a number of gay
bars and businesses are located. While on a side street nearing the business district, four Latino
men carrying baseball bats approached them and hit one of the gay men in the face, breaking his
jaw, and rendering him unconscious. The assailants then hurled anti-gay slurs at the men and
demanded their money and cell phones. After robbing the gay men, the assailants fled. One
victim reported that the perpetrators seemed to be enjoying the assault. An Anti-Gay Bias should
be reported with this incident. The bias was evident in the attack, through the use of slurs, and
in the selection of a gay area as the site of the attack, even though robbery was also a motive.
Race should not be identified as the bias because there was no evidence of racial or ethnic
animosity.
W. An adult white male was approached by four white teenagers who requested money
for the bus. When he refused, one of the youths said to the others, “Let’s teach this [epithet for a
gay person] a lesson.” The victim was punched in the face, knocked to the ground, kicked
several times, and robbed of his wristwatch, ring, and wallet. When he reported the crime, the
victim advised he did not know the offenders and that he was not gay. The facts are
ambiguous.* Although an epithet for a gay person was used by one of the offenders, the victim
was not gay. Such epithets are sometimes used as general insults regardless of the target
person’s sexual orientation, and in this case the offenders’ motivation appeared to be limited to
obtaining money from the victim. Therefore, the incident should not be designated bias
motivated until the investigation positively concludes that the offender’s bias was a contributing
factor in the crime.

X. A white juvenile male snatched a Jewish woman’s purse, and in doing so, knocked
her down and called her by a well-known and recognized epithet used against Jews. The
offender’s identity is not known. Although the offender used an epithet for Jews, it is not known
whether he belongs to another religious group or whether his motive was anything more than
robbery. Because the facts are ambiguous,* agencies should not report this incident as biasmotivated until the investigation positively concludes that the offender’s bias was a contributing
factor in the crime.
*Note: If the facts are ambiguous, (i.e., where some facts are present but are not conclusive), it
is only in the NIBRS that incidents involving ambiguous facts can be reported, (i.e., 99 =
Unknown). The intent of bias motivation code 99 = Unknown is to allow a NIBRS agency to
report a crime in which bias motivation is unknown or when the investigation has not been
completed. When it is determined the presence of bias motivation is conclusive, the reported
bias motivation code 99 = Unknown should be modified to indicate the results of the subsequent
investigation. Law enforcement agencies should be diligent in modifying these types of
situations as they become known. In addition, a law enforcement agency not reporting hate
crime in the NIBRS would not submit a Hate Crime Incident Report until the investigation
determined a bias crime did occur.

V.

UNDERSTANDING HOW TO DISTINGUISH SEXUAL ORIENTATION,
GENDER IDENTITY, ANTI-TRANSGENDER, AND ANTI-GENDER NONCONFORMING CRIMES

A.

Sexual Orientation vs. Gender Identity-Motivated Crimes

Transgender and gender non-conforming people may be of any sexual orientation
(gay, lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual). Knowing about a person’s gender identity (as
transgender or gender non-conforming) does not tell you anything about their sexual orientation.
They are separate categories.
When crimes are committed against people based on sexual orientation or gender
identity, epithets often reveal the motive for the attack. Typical gender identity-related epithets
and terms include: “he-she,” “she-male,” “tranny,” “it,” and “transvestite.” Also, the terms
“cross dresser” and “drag queen” may be used in a hateful way, even though some individuals
may self-identify with these terms. Often, the anti-transgender or anti-gender non-conforming
motive for the attack develops right after the perpetrator finds out that the victim is transgender.
Confusion in classifying the motive of a crime can occur when a perpetrator is
motivated solely because of the victim’s gender identity; a perpetrator will sometimes use an
anti-gay term as well. They do this because they are often more familiar with anti-gay terms like
“faggot,” “dyke,” and “queer,” not because they are actually motivated by bias toward the
victim’s sexual orientation. Therefore, a perpetrator may use anti-gay epithets, even though they
have targeted a person entirely because the victim is transgender or gender non-conforming.
B.

Anti-Transgender vs. Anti-Gender Non-Conforming Motivated Crimes

It may not always be obvious whether or not a crime should be classified as “antitransgender” or “anti-gender non-conforming.”
Anti-transgender is the category for crimes that are committed primarily because
the person lives/presents as a gender different than their sex at birth; for example, crimes that
involve someone who identifies as a woman but was born male, or vice versa. The person may
identify themselves as “transgender” or “transsexual.” Also, if this person is cross-dressing but
has not changed to the gender they identify with, that is also an anti-transgender crime; for
example, if a man wearing a dress is attacked after leaving a party, that would be an antitransgender crime. A possible indication that the crime is anti-transgender is if the word(s)
“transgender,” “transsexual,” “tranny,” “transvestite,” “drag king,” or “drag queen,” is used in
the commission of a crime.
Anti-gender non-conforming crimes involve people whose appearance is only
slightly gender non-conforming—they are not presenting 100 percent as the other gender. An
example would be a male who wears men’s clothes and identifies as a male, but wears eyemakeup; when he is attacked for that reason, this is a gender non-conforming crime. The
opposite example is a woman who identifies as a woman, but wears a male item of clothing like

a tie, and is attacked for that reason. A possible indication that the incident was an anti-gender
non-conforming bias is if the word(s) “sissy,” “lady,” “girlie man,” or “tomboy” is used in the
commission of a crime.
C.

Working With Transgender Victims/Witnesses

Transgender people should be addressed according to the gender they identify and
live as now, regardless of the gender they were born as. If someone identifies as a woman (even
if born male), she should be addressed as a woman, by using “she,” “her,” and “Ms.” To refer to
her, use her preferred name (even if she has not yet legally changed her name). If someone
identifies as a man (even if born female), then he should be addressed as a man, with male
pronouns, and his preferred name.
If you need to refer to someone’s gender identity, the term transgender is the
safest to use; be sure to not use words that may be considered offensive epithets. In addition, it
is important to know that the term transgender is an adjective, and should not be changed to
“transgendered” or “transgenders.” If you do not know if someone should be referred to with
female or male pronouns, it is acceptable to ask that person their preferred pronoun.
Disrespectful attitudes toward the victim or witness of a crime can add to their sense of trauma.
By showing respect, officers can avoid a potential conflict with a victim or witness over misuse
of proper names and pronouns and focus everyone’s attention on solving the crime that occurred.
D.

Reporting Victim Sex in the NIBRS if an Anti-Transgender Bias Occurs

The NIBRS collects more detailed data on the victims, offenders, and the
circumstances of crime. For example, a NIBRS participating law enforcement agency should
report within an incident the age, sex, race, and ethnicity of the victim for each crime against
person offense. If the committed offense was bias motivated, or specifically involved an AntiTransgender Bias, the agency should report the victim’s sex as the gender identity expressed by
the victim. Whereas on the Hate Crime Incident Report, if the victim type is Individual, only the
total number of victims, total victims 18 years of age, and total victims under 18 years of age are
collected.

VI.

LEARNING MODULES FOR DEFINING AND REPORTING HATE CRIMES

Use of the Enclosed Learning Modules
Three learning modules are included in this manual for use in the instruction of
law enforcement personnel on hate crime matters. The modules are in no way exhaustive or
exclusive of either what can be taught or the way the material should be taught. Rather, they are
intended merely as a suggested approach to such instruction. In order to obtain the most benefit
from the materials, an agency should tailor them to meet its unique needs. The reader may also
be interested in the model training programs produced by the International Association of Chiefs
of Police (IACP) and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
(NOBLE). This training information can be obtained by contacting the organizations directly.
Learning Module One
“Learning Module One: The Social Psychology of Prejudice”
is directed at the very heart of bias-related criminal behavior, namely, motivation. As an
introduction to the social psychology of prejudice, it directs the student officer to look at the
relationship of bias to stereotypical beliefs, prejudicial attitudes, and discriminatory behavior. It
encourages the student to examine some of the major psychological motivations underlying
prejudice as well as various social contexts which encourage or impede particular behaviors.
The purpose of this module is twofold. First, it gives the student some understanding of how and
why prejudice develops. Second, it increases the sensitivity of the student to the impact of hate
crimes on the victim and the community.
Learning Module Two
“Learning Module Two: Bias-Motivated Crimes—Definitions and Procedures”
provides definitions of terms law enforcement officers need to know in dealing with hate crime.
It includes a hate crime reporting model that can be adapted for use in large, medium, or small
law enforcement agencies.
The most important aspect of the model concerns the two-tier reviewing process.
The purpose of the two-tier procedure is to ensure that suspected bias-motivated incidents
undergo two levels of review within the reporting agency. Under the model system, the officer
who responds to the incident is responsible for determining whether there is any indication that
the offender was motivated by bias. If so, the responding officer should designate the incident as
a “Suspected Bias-Motivated Crime” and pass it on for review by a second officer (or unit)
possessing greater expertise in hate crime matters. This latter officer or unit has the
responsibility for making the final decision as to whether the incident constitutes a hate crime. It
is only after the incident has undergone the second review and is determined to be a hate crime
that it is ready to be reported as such to the FBI’s UCR Program.

Learning Module Three
“Learning Module Three: Case Study Exercises of Possible Bias-Related
Crimes” gives the student officer the opportunity to apply his/her newly-gained knowledge of
hate crime matters to hypothetical cases. The student is to read each case scenario and
(1) classify the type of offense(s) involved in the incident, (2) classify the offense as either “Not
a Bias-Motivated Crime” or a “Suspected Bias-Motivated Crime,” and (3) provide reasons for
his/her decisions.

LEARNING MODULE ONE:
The Social Psychology of Prejudice
MODULE DESCRIPTION:
This module introduces the social dynamics of prejudice with an emphasis on its
relationship to stereotypical beliefs, prejudicial attitudes, and discriminatory behavior.
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
1. The student will be able to define and describe the following terms: prejudice,
stereotype, discrimination, racism, sexism, in-group, out-group, conformity.
2. The student will be able to understand the distinction between institutional
prejudice and personal prejudice.
3. The student will be able to understand and explain ways in which stereotypes
can influence memory for and perceptions of events.
4. The student will be familiar with common stereotypes of specific minority
groups and will be able to differentiate those stereotypes from accurate
descriptions of the minority groups.
5. The student will be able to identify the principal psychological motivations
underlying prejudice.
PREJUDICE, DISLIKING OTHERS1
What is the Nature and Power of Prejudice?
Prejudice comes in many forms—for our own group and against some other group: “northern
liberals” or “southern rednecks,” against Arab “terrorists” or American “infidels,” against people
who are short or fat or homely. Consider some striking examples:
Religion. After 9/11 and the Iraq war, 4 in 10 Americans admitted “some feelings of
prejudice against Muslims” and about half of non-Muslims in western Europe perceived
Muslims negatively and as “violent.” Muslims reciprocated the negativity, with most in Jordan,
Turkey, Egypt, and even Britain seeing Westerners as “greedy” and “immoral.”
1

The author relied most heavily in Learning Module One on the material of Dr. David G. Myers as found in
Chapter 9 of his work, Social Psychology, (10th edition), New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Examples, content
material, and quotations are taken from this reference.

Obesity. When seeking love and employment, overweight people—especially White
women—face slim prospects. In correlational studies, overweight people marry less often, gain
entry to less-desirable jobs, and make less money. In experiments where some people are made
to appear overweight, they are perceived as less attractive, intelligent, happy, self-disciplined,
and successful. Weight discrimination, in fact, exceeds race or gender discrimination and occurs
at every employment stage—hiring, placement, promotion, compensation, discipline, and
discharge. Negative assumptions about and discrimination against overweight people help
explain why overweight women and obese men seldom become CEOs of large corporations.
Sexual Orientation. Many gay youth—two–thirds of gay secondary school students in one
national British survey—report experiencing homophobic bullying. And one in five British
lesbian and gay adults report having been victimized by aggressive harassment, insults, or
physical assaults. In a U.S. national survey, 20 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons
reported having experienced a personal or property crime based on their sexual orientation, and
half reported experiencing verbal harassment.
Age. People’s perceptions of the elderly—as generally kind but frail, incompetent, and
unproductive—predispose patronizing behavior, such as baby-talk speech that leads elderly
people to feel less competent and act less capably.
Immigrants. A fast-growing research literature documents anti-immigrant prejudice among
Germans towards Turks, the French toward North Africans, the British toward West Indians and
Pakistanis, and Americans toward Latin American immigrants. As we will see, the same factors
that feed racial and gender prejudice also feed dislike of immigrants.
Defining Prejudice
Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, racism, sexism—the terms often overlap.
Let’s clarify them. Each of the situations just described involved a negative evaluation of some
group. And that is the essence of prejudice: a preconceived negative judgment of a group and
its individual members. (Some prejudice definitions include positive judgments, but nearly all
uses of “prejudice” refer to negative ones.)
Prejudice is an attitude. An attitude is a distinct combination of feelings,
inclinations to act, and beliefs. It can be easily remembered as the ABCs of attitudes: affect
(feelings), behavior tendency (inclination to act), cognition (beliefs). A prejudiced person may
dislike those different from self and behave in a discriminatory manner, believing them ignorant
and dangerous. Like many attitudes, prejudice is complex. For example, it may include a
component of patronizing affection that serves to keep the target disadvantaged.
The negative evaluations that mark prejudice often are supported by negative
beliefs, called stereotypes. To stereotype is to generalize about a group of people and it may be

true, false, or overgeneralized from a kernel of truth. To simplify the world, we generalize: The
British are reserved. Americans are outgoing. Professors are absent-minded. Stereotypes
(beliefs) are not prejudices (attitudes), yet stereotypes may support prejudice. For example,
during the 1980s, women who assumed the title of “Ms.” were seen as more assertive and
ambitious than those who called themselves “Miss” or “Mrs.” Now that “Ms.” is the standard
female title, the stereotype has shifted. It’s married women who keep their own surnames that
are seen as assertive and ambitious.
Such generalizations can be more or less true (and are not always negative). The
elderly are more frail. Southern countries in the Northern Hemisphere do have higher rates of
violence. People living in the south in those countries do report being more expressive than
those in the northern regions of their country. Teachers’ stereotypes of achievement differences
in students from different gender, ethnic, and class backgrounds tend to mirror reality.
Stereotypes may be positive or negative, accurate or inaccurate. An accurate stereotype may
even be desirable. We call it “sensitivity to diversity” or “cultural awareness in a multicultural
world.” To stereotype the British as more concerned about punctuality than Mexicans is to
understand what to expect and how to get along with others in each culture.
The problem with stereotypes arises when they are overgeneralized or just plain
wrong. For example, to presume that most American welfare clients are African American is to
overgeneralize, because it just is not so. University students’ stereotypes of members of
particular fraternities (as preferring, say, foreign language to economics, or softball to tennis)
contain a germ of truth but are overblown. Individuals within the stereotyped group vary more
than expected.
Prejudice is a negative attitude; discrimination is a negative behavior.
Discriminatory behavior often has its source in prejudicial attitudes. Such was evident when
researchers analyzed the responses to 1,115 identically worded e-mails sent to Los Angeles area
landlords regarding vacant apartments. Encouraging replies came back to 89 percent of notes
signed “Patrick McDougall,” to 66 percent from “Said Al-Rahman,” and to 56 percent from
“Tyrell Jackson.”
However, attitudes and behavior are often loosely linked. Prejudiced attitudes
need not breed hostile acts, nor does all oppression spring from prejudice. Racism and sexism
are institutional practices that discriminate, even when there is no prejudicial intent. If word-ofmouth hiring practices in an all-White business have the effect of excluding potential non-White
employees, the practice could be called racist—even if an employee intended no discrimination.
Prejudice: Subtle and Overt
Prejudice provides one of the best examples of our dual attitude system. We can
have different explicit (conscious) and implicit (automatic) attitudes toward the same target. Our

automatic implicit attitudes regarding someone or something often differ from our consciously
controlled, explicit attitudes. We may retain from childhood a habitual, automatic fear or dislike
of people for whom we now express respect and admiration. Although explicit attitudes may
change dramatically with education, implicit attitudes may linger, changing only as we form new
habits through practice.
A raft of experiments—by researchers at Ohio State University and the University
of Wisconsin, Yale and Harvard universities, Indiana University, the University of Colorado,
have confirmed that prejudiced and stereotypic evaluations can occur outside people’s
awareness. Keeping in mind the distinction between conscious, explicit prejudice and
unconscious, implicit prejudice, let’s examine two forms of prejudice: racial prejudice and
gender prejudice.
Racial Prejudice
In the context of the world, every race is a minority. Non-Hispanic Whites, for
example, are only one-fifth of the world’s people and will be one-eighth within another halfcentury. Thanks to mobility and migration over the past two centuries, the world’s races now
intermingle, in relations that are sometimes hostile, sometimes amiable.
To a molecular biologist skin color is a trivial human characteristic, one controlled
by a miniscule genetic difference. Moreover, nature doesn’t cluster races in neatly defined
categories. It is people, not nature, who label Barack Obama, the son of a White woman, as
“Black,” and who sometimes label Tiger Woods “African American” (his ancestry is 25 percent
African) or “Asian American” (he is also 25 percent Thai and 25 percent Chinese)—or even as
Native American or Dutch (he is one-eighth each).
Gender Prejudice
How pervasive is prejudice against women? Here we consider gender
stereotypes—people’s beliefs about how women and men do behave. Strong gender stereotypes
exist, and, as often happens, members of the stereotyped group accept the stereotypes. Men and
women agree that you can judge the book by its sexual cover. Gender stereotypes were much
stronger than racial stereotypes. For example, only 22 percent of men thought the two sexes
equally “emotional.” Of the remaining 78 percent, those who believed females were more
emotional outnumbered those who thought males were by 15 to 1. And what did the women
believe? To within 1 percentage point, their responses were identical.
Remember that stereotypes are generalizations about a group of people and may be
true, false, or overgeneralized from a kernel of truth. The average man and woman do differ
somewhat in social connectedness, empathy, social power, aggressiveness, and sexual initiative
(though not in intelligence). Do we then conclude that gender stereotypes are accurate?

Sometimes stereotypes exaggerate differences, but not always. For example, Pennsylvania State
University students’ stereotypes of men’s and women’s restlessness, nonverbal sensitivity,
aggressiveness, and so forth were reasonable approximations of actual culture. Averaging data
from 27 countries found that folks everywhere perceive women as more agreeable, men as more
outgoing. The persistence and omnipresence of gender stereotypes leads some evolutionary
psychologists to believe they reflect innate, stable reality.
What are the Social Sources of Prejudice?
Prejudice springs from several sources:
• It may arise from differences in social status and people’s desires to justify and maintain
those differences.
• It may also be learned from our parents as we are socialized about what differences matter
between people.
• Our social institutions, too, may function to maintain and support prejudice. Consider first
how prejudice can function to defend self-esteem and social position.
Social Inequalities: Unequal Status and Prejudice
A principle to remember: Unequal status breeds prejudice. Masters view slaves
as lazy, irresponsible, lacking ambition—as having just those traits that justify the slavery.
Historians debate the forces that create unequal status. But once those inequalities exist,
prejudice helps justify the economic and social superiority of those who have wealth and power.
Historical examples abound. Where slavery was practiced, prejudice ran strong.
Nineteenth-century politicians justified imperial expansion by describing exploited colonized
people as “inferior,” “requiring protection,” and a “burden” to be borne. Six decades ago,
sociologist Helen Mayer Hacker noted how stereotypes of Blacks and women helped rationalize
the inferior status of each: Many people thought both groups were mentally slow, emotional and
primitive, and “contented” with their subordinate role. Blacks were “inferior”; women were
“weak.” Blacks were all right in their place; women’s place was in the home.
Theresa Vescio and her colleagues (2005) tested that reasoning. They found that
powerful men who stereotype their female subordinates give them plenty of praise, but fewer
resources, thus undermining their performance. This sort of patronizing allows the men to
maintain their positions of power. In the laboratory, too, patronizing benevolent sexism
(statements implying that women, as the weaker sex, need support) has undermined women’s
cognitive performance by planting intrusive thoughts—self-doubts, preoccupations, and
decreased self-esteem.
Peter Glick and Susan Fiske’s distinction between “hostile” and “benevolent”
sexism extends to other prejudices. We see other groups as competent or as likable, but often not

as both. These two culturally universal dimensions of social perception—likability (warmth) and
competence—were illustrated by one European’s comment that “Germans love Italians, but
don’t admire them. Italians admire Germans, but don’t love them.” We typically respect the
competence of those high in status and like those who agreeably accept a lower status. In the
United States, report Fiske and her colleagues, Asians, Jews, Germans, nontraditional women,
and assertive African Americans, and gay men tend to be respected but not so well liked.
Traditionally subordinate African Americans and Hispanics, traditional women, less masculine
gay men, and people with disabilities tend to be seen as less competent but liked for emotional,
spiritual, artistic, and athletic qualities.
Socialization
Prejudice springs from unequal status and from other social sources, including our
acquired values and attitudes. The influence of family socialization appears in children’s
prejudices, which often mirror those perceived in their mothers. Even children’s implicit racial
attitudes reflect their parents’ explicit prejudice. Our families and cultures pass on all kinds of
information—how to find mates, drive cars, and divide the household labors, and whom to
distrust and dislike.
Prejudice is maintained largely by inertia. If prejudice is socially accepted, many
people will follow the path of least resistance and conform to the fashion. They will act not so
much out of a need to hate as out of a need to be liked and accepted. Thus, people become more
likely to favor (to oppose) discrimination after hearing someone else do so, and they are less
supportive of women after hearing sexist humor.
Institutional Supports
Social institutions (schools, government, the media) may bolster prejudice
through overt policies such as segregation, or by passively reinforcing the status quo. Until the
1970s many banks routinely denied mortgages to unmarried women and to minority applicants,
with the result that most homeowners were White married couples. Similarly, political leaders
may both reflect and reinforce prevailing attitudes. When Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus in
1957 barred the doors of Central High School in Little Rock to prevent integration, he was both
representing his constituents and lending legitimacy to their views. Schools are one of the
institutions most prone to reinforce dominant cultural attitudes. An analysis of stories in 134
children’s readers written before 1970 found that male characters outnumbered female characters
three to one with male characters being portrayed as showing initiative, bravery, and competitive
more often than female characters.
`
Institutional supports for prejudice, like those readers, are often unintended and
unnoticed. Not until the 1970s, when changing ideas about males and females brought new
perceptions of such portrayals, was this blatant (to us) stereotyping widely noticed and changed.

What are the Motivational Sources of Prejudice?
Prejudice may be bred by social situations, but motivation underlies both the
hostilities of prejudice and the desire to be unbiased. Frustration can feed prejudice, as can the
desire to see one’s group as superior. But in time, people are also motivated to avoid prejudice.
Frustration and Aggression: The Scapegoat Theory
Pain and frustration often evoke hostility. When the cause of our frustration is
intimidating or unknown, we often redirect our hostility. This phenomenon of “displaced
aggression” may have contributed to the lynchings of African Americans in the South after the
Civil War. Between 1882 and 1930, more lynchings occurred in years when cotton prices were
low and economic frustration was therefore presumably high. Hate crimes seem not to have
fluctuated with unemployment in recent decades. However, when living standards are rising,
societies tend to be more open to diversity and to the passage and enforcement of
antidiscrimination laws. Ethnic peace is easier to maintain during prosperous times.
Competition is an important source of frustration that can fuel prejudice. When
two groups compete for jobs, housing, or social prestige, one group’s goal fulfillment can
become the other group’s frustration. Thus, the realistic group conflict theory suggests that
prejudice arises when groups compete for scarce resources. A corresponding ecological
principle, Gause’s law, states that maximum competition will exist between species with
identical needs.
Social Identity Theory: Feeling Superior to Others
Humans are a group-bound species. Our ancestral history prepares us to feed and
protect ourselves—to live—in groups. Humans cheer for their groups, kill for their groups, die
for their groups. Not surprisingly, we also define ourselves by our groups, note Australian social
psychologists John Turner, Michael Hogg, and their colleagues. Self-concept—our sense of who
we are—contains not just a personal identity our sense of our personal attributes and attitudes)
but also a social identity. Fiona identifies herself as a woman, an Aussie, a Labourite, a
University of New South Wales student, a member of the MacDonald family. We carry such
social identities like playing cards, playing them when appropriate. Prime American students to
think of themselves as “Americans” and they will display heightened anger and disrespect
toward Muslims; prime their “student” identity and they will instead display heightened anger
toward police.
Working with the late British social psychologist Henri Tajfel, a Polish native
who lost family and friends in the Holocaust and then devoted much of his career to studying
ethnic hatred, Turner proposed social identity theory. Turner and Tajfel observed the following:

• We categorize: We find it useful to put people, ourselves included, into categories. To
label someone as a Hindu, a Scot, or a bus driver is a shorthand way of saying some other things
about the person.
• We identify: We associate ourselves with certain groups (our ingroups), and gain selfesteem by doing so.
• We compare: We contrast our groups with other groups (outgroups), with a favorable bias
toward our own group.
We evaluate ourselves partly by our group memberships. Having a sense of “weness” strengthens our self-concepts. It feels good. We seek not only respect for ourselves but
also pride in our groups. Moreover, seeing our groups as superior helps us feel even better. It’s
as if we all think, “I am an X [name your group]. X is good. Therefore, I am good.”
Because of our social identifications, we conform to our group norms. We
sacrifice ourselves for team, family, nation. And the more important our social identity and the
more strongly attached we feel to a group, the more we react prejudicially to threats from another
group.
Motivation to Avoid Prejudice
Motivations not only lead people to be prejudiced but also lead people to avoid
prejudice. Try as we might to suppress unwanted thoughts—thoughts about food, thoughts about
romance with a friend’s partner, judgmental thoughts about another group—they sometimes
refuse to go away. This is especially so for older adults, and people under alcohol’s influence
who lose some of their ability to inhibit unwanted thoughts and therefore to suppress old
stereotypes. Patricia Devine and her colleagues report that people low and high in prejudice
sometimes have similar automatic prejudicial responses. The result: Unwanted (dissonant)
thoughts and feelings often persist. Breaking the prejudice habit is not easy.
In real life, encountering a minority person may trigger a knee-jerk stereotype.
Those with accepting and those with disappearing attitudes toward homosexuals may both feel
uncomfortable sitting with a gay male on a bus seat. Encountering an unfamiliar Black male,
people—even those who pride themselves on not being prejudiced—may respond warily.
Seeking not to appear prejudiced, they may divert their attention away from the person.
What are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?
To understand stereotyping and prejudice, it also helps to remember how our minds
work. How does the way we think about the world, and simplify it, influence our stereotypes?
And how do our stereotypes affect our judgments? A newer look at prejudice, fueled by a surge
in studies of stereotyping applies new research on social thinking. The basic point is this:
Stereotyped beliefs and prejudiced attitudes exist not only because of social conditioning and

because they enable people to displace hostilities, but also as by-products of normal thinking
processes. Many stereotypes spring less from malice of the heart than the machinery of the
mind. Like perceptual illusions, which are by-products of our knack for interpreting the world,
stereotypes can be by-products of how we simplify our complex worlds.
Categorization: Classifying People into Groups
One way we simplify our environment is to categorize—to organize the world by
clustering objects into groups. A biologist classifies plants and animals. A human classifies
people. Having done so, we think about them more easily. If persons in a group share some
similarities—if most MENSA members are smart, most basketball players are tall—knowing
their group memberships can provide useful information with minimal effort. Stereotypes
sometimes offer “a beneficial ratio of information gained to effort expended.” Stereotypes
represent cognitive efficiency. They are energy-saving schemes for making speedy judgments
and predicting how others will think and act.
Spontaneous Categorization
We find it especially easy and efficient to rely on stereotypes when we are—
• pressed for time.
• preoccupied.
• tired.
• emotionally.
• aroused.
• too young to appreciate diversity.
Ethnicity and sex are powerful ways of categorizing people. Imagine Tom, a 45year-old African American Atlanta real estate agent. I suspect that your image of “Black male”
predominates over the categories “middle-aged,” “businessperson,” and “American southerner.”
Experiments expose our spontaneous categorization of people by race. Much as we
organize what is actually a color continuum into what we perceive as distinct colors such as red,
blue, and green, so we cannot resist categorizing people into group. We label people of widely
varying ancestry as simply “Black” or “White,” as if such categories were black and white.
When individuals view different people making statements, they often forget who said what, yet
they remember the race of the person who made each statement. By itself, such categorization is
not prejudice, but it does provide a foundation for prejudice.
Distinctiveness: Perceiving People Who Stand Out
Other ways we perceive our worlds also breed stereotypes. Distinctive people and
vivid or extreme occurrences often capture attention and distort judgments.

What are the Consequences of Prejudice?
Beyond causes of prejudice, it is important to examine its consequences. Stereotypes
can be self-perpetuating—their existence can prevent their change. Stereotypes can also create
their own reality. Even if they are initially untrue, their existence can make them become true.
The negative allegations of prejudice can also undermine people’s performance and affect how
people interpret discrimination.
Self-Perpetuating Stereotypes
Prejudice is preconceived judgment. Prejudgments are inevitable: None of us is a
dispassionate bookkeeper of social happenings, tallying evidence for and against our biases.
Prejudgments guide our attention and our memories. People who accept gender
stereotypes often misrecall their own school grades in stereotype-consistent ways. For example,
women often recall receiving worse math grades and better arts grades than were actually the
case.
Moreover, once we judge an item as belonging to a category such as a particular race
or sex, our memory for it later shifts toward the features we associate with that category.
Johanne Huart and his colleagues demonstrated this by showing Belgian university students a
face that was a blend of 70 percent of the features of a typical male and 30 percent female (or
vice versa). Later, those shown the 70 percent male face recalled seeing a male (as you might
expect), but also misrecalled the face as being even more prototypically male.
Prejudgments are self-perpetuating. Whenever a member of a group behaves as
expected, we duly note the fact; our prior belief is confirmed. When a member of a group
behaves inconsistently with our expectations, we may interpret or explain away the behavior as
due to special circumstances. The contrast to a stereotype can also make someone seem
exceptional. Telling some people that “Maria played basketball” and others that “Mark played
basketball” may make Maria seem more athletic than Mark. Stereotypes therefore influence how
we construe someone’s behavior. Prime White folks with negative media images of Black folks
(for example, looting after Hurricane Katrina) and the activated stereotype may be poisonous. In
one experiment, such images produced reduced empathy for other Black people in need.
Discrimination’s Impact: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Attitudes may coincide with the social hierarchy not only as a rationalization for it but
also because discrimination affects its victims. “One’s reputation,” wrote Gordon Allport,
“cannot be hammered, hammered, hammered into one’s head without doing something to one’s
character.” If we could snap our fingers and end all discrimination, it would be naïve for the
White majority to say to Blacks, “The tough times are over, folks! You can now all be attaché-

carrying executives and professionals.” When the oppression ends, its effects linger, like a
societal hangover.
In The Nature of Prejudice, Allport catalogued 15 possible effects of victimization.
Allport believed these reactions were reducible to two basic types—those that involve blaming
oneself (withdrawal, self-hate, aggression against one’s own group) and those that involve
blaming external causes (fighting back, suspiciousness, increased group pride). If victimization
takes a toll—say, higher rates of crime—people can use the result to justify the discrimination:
“if we let those people in our nice neighborhood, property values will plummet.”
Stereotype Threat
Just being sensitive to prejudice is enough to make us self-conscious when living as a
numerical minority—perhaps as a Black person in a White community or as a White person in a
Black community. And as with other circumstances that siphon off our mental energy and
attention, the result can be diminished mental and physical stamina. Placed in a situation where
others expect you to perform poorly, your anxiety may also cause you to confirm the belief. This
self-confirming apprehension that one will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype is called
stereotype threat.
Do Stereotypes Bias Judgments of Individuals
Yes, stereotypes bias judgments, but here is some good news: People often evaluate
individuals more positively than the groups they compose. People may have strong stereotypes,
yet ignore them when judging a particular individual.
What can we say in summing up?
Prejudice is a preconceived negative attitude. Stereotypes are beliefs that may be
accurate, inaccurate, or overgeneralized but based on based on a kernel of truth. Discrimination
is unjustified negative behavior. Racism and sexism may refer to individuals’ prejudicial
attitudes or discriminatory behaviors, or to oppressive institutional practices (even if not
intentionally prejudicial).
Prejudice exists in subtle and unconscious guises as well as overt, conscious
forms. Researchers have devised subtle survey questions and indirect methods for assessing
people’s attitudes and behavior to detect unconscious prejudice.
Racial prejudice against Blacks in the United States was widely accepted until the
1960s; since that time it has become far less prevalent, but it still exists.

Similarly, prejudice against women has lessened in recent decades. Nevertheless,
strong gender stereotypes and a fair amount of gender bias are still found in the United States
and, to a greater degree, around the world.
The social situation breeds and maintains prejudice in several ways. A group that
enjoys social and economic superiority will often use prejudicial beliefs to justify its privileged
position.
Children are also brought up in ways that foster or reduce prejudice. The family,
religious communities, and the broader society can sustain or reduce prejudices.
Social institutions (government, schools, media) also support prejudice,
sometimes through overt policies and sometimes through unintentional inertia.
People’s motivations affect prejudice. Frustration breeds hostility, which people
sometimes vent on scapegoats and sometimes express more directly against competing groups.
People also are motivated to view themselves and their groups as superior to other
groups. Even trivial group memberships lead people to favor their group over others. A threat to
self-image heightens such ingroup favoritism, as does the need to belong.
On a more positive note, if people are motivated to avoid prejudice, they can
break the prejudice habit.
Recent research shows how the stereotyping that underlies prejudice is a byproduct of our thinking—our ways of simplifying the world. Clustering people into categories
exaggerates the uniformity within a group and the differences between groups.
A distinctive individual, such as a lone minority person, has a compelling quality
that makes us aware of differences that would otherwise go unnoticed. The occurrence of two
distinctive events (for example, a minority person committing an unusual crime) helps create an
illusory correlation between people and behavior. Attributing others’ behavior to their
dispositions can lead to the group-serving bias: assigning outgroup members’ negative behavior
to their natural character while explaining away their positive behaviors.
Blaming the victim results from the common presumption that because this is a
just world, people get what they deserve.
Prejudice and stereotyping have important consequences, especially when
strongly held, when judging unknown individuals, and when deciding policies regarding whole
groups.
Once formed, stereotypes tend to perpetuate themselves and resist change. They
also create their own realities through self-fulfilling prophesies.

Prejudice can also undermine people’s performance through stereotype threat, by
making people apprehensive that others will view them stereotypically.
Stereotypes, especially when strong, can predispose how we perceive people and
interpret events.

Suggested Readings
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley
Chatard, A., Guimond, S., & Selimbegovic, L. (2007). Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 1017-1024.
Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Journal of personality and social psychology, 58, 60-67.
Dovidio, J.R., Birgham,J.C., Johnson, B.T., & Gaertner, S.L. (1996). Stereotyping, prejudice,
and discrimination: Another look. In N. Macrae, M. Hewstone, & C. Stangor (Eds.),
Stereotypes and stereotyping. New York: Guilford
Macrae, C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V., Milne, A.B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Journal of personality and
social psychology, 67, 808-817.
Maddux, W.W., Galinsky, A.D., Cuddy, A.J.C., &Polifroni, M. (2008). Personality and social
psychology bulletin, 34, 74-89.
Myers, D.G. (2010). Social psychology (10th edition). New York: McGraw Hill. (Particular
attention should be paid to Chapter 9: Prejudice: Disliking Others.)
Taylor, S.E., (1981). Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

LEARNING MODULE TWO:
Bias-Motivated Crimes—Definitions and Procedures
MODULE DESCRIPTION:
This module provides: (1) definitions of hate crime terminology, (2) a “model”
approach to reporting hate crimes, and (3) criteria for determining whether a hate crime has
occurred.
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
•

The student will be able to define Bias/Hate Crime based on Race, Religion,
Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Gender, and Gender Identity, as well as
Responding Officer, and Second-Level Judgment Officer/Unit.

•

The student will be able to explain the “two-tier” process for reporting hate
crimes.

•

The student will be able to list the types of criteria used to make a determination
of whether a crime was bias motivated.

DEFINITIONS FOR HATE CRIME DATA COLLECTION:
To ensure uniformity in reporting nationwide, the following definitions have been
adopted for use in hate crime reporting:
Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on
their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.
Bias Crime—A committed criminal offense that is motivated, in whole or in part, by
the offender’s bias(es) against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or
gender identity; also known as Hate Crime.
Note: Even if the offender was mistaken in his/her perception that the victim was a member of
the group he or she was acting against, the offense is still a bias crime because the offender was
motivated by bias against the group.
Bisexual––(adjective) Of or relating to people who are physically, romantically,
and/or emotionally attracted to both men and women.
Disability Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons
based on their physical or mental impairments, whether such disability is temporary or
permanent, congenital or acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age, or illness.

Person with a Disability––(adjective) Of or relating to persons who have physical or
mental impairments, whether temporary or permanent, due to conditions that are congenital or
acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age, or illness; (noun) person with a disability.
Ethnicity Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of people
whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a
common language, common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or ideology that
stresses common ancestry. The concept of ethnicity differs from the closely related term race in
that “race” refers to grouping based mostly upon biological criteria, while “ethnicity” also
encompasses additional cultural factors.
Note: When the FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics Program was initially implemented, ethnicity bias
was reported as ethnicity/national origin bias. It was then modified by the Office of
Management and Budget’s 1997 Revision to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data
on Race and Ethnicity.
Gay—(adjective) Of or relating to people who are physically, romantically, and/or
emotionally attracted to people of the same sex.
Note: Generally this word is used to refer to gay men, but may also be used to describe women;
the term “gay” is preferred over the term “homosexual. For UCR Program purposes, however, if
reporting an anti-gay bias, the victim should be a male.
Gender—(noun) This term is used synonymously with sex to denote whether a
newborn is male or female at birth, e.g., “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl.”
Gender Bias—(noun) A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a person or
group of persons based on their actual or perceived gender, e.g., male or female.
Gender Identity—(noun) A person’s internal sense of being male, female, or a
combination of both; that internal sense of a person’s gender may be different from the person’s
gender as assigned at birth.
Note: A transgender person may express their gender identity through gender characteristics,
such as clothing, hair, voice, mannerisms, or behaviors that do not conform to the gender-based
expectations of society.
Gender Identity Bias—A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a person or
group of persons based on their actual or perceived gender identity, e.g., bias against transgender
or gender non-conforming individuals.
Gender Non-Conforming—(adjective) Describes a person who does not conform to
the gender-based expectations of society, e.g., a woman dressed in traditionally male clothing or
a man wearing makeup.

Note: A gender non-conforming person may or may not be a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
transgender person but may be perceived as such. Additional information is provided in
Section V.
Hate Crime––Bias Crime.
Hate Group––An organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity,
hostility, and malice against persons of or with a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, gender, or gender identity which differs from that of the members or the organization,
e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazi Party.
Heterosexual––(adjective) Of or relating to people who are physically, romantically,
and/or emotionally attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Note: The term straight is a synonym.
Homosexual––(adjective) Of or relating to people who are physically, romantically,
and/or emotionally attracted to people of the same sex.
Note: This is an outdated clinical term considered derogatory and offensive by many people;
current journalistic standards restrict usage of the term; “lesbian” and/or “gay” accurately
describes those who are attracted to people of the same sex.
Lesbian––(adjective) Of or relating to women who are physically, romantically,
and/or emotionally attracted to other women.
Note: Some lesbian women prefer to be described as gay women; preferred over the term
“homosexual;” may be used as a noun. For UCR Program purposes, however, if reporting an
anti-gay bias, the victim should be a male.
LGBT—(noun) Common initialism for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender,”
used here to refer to community organizations or events that serve lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and allied people.
National Incident–Based Reporting System––A reporting system implemented in
the late 1980s to replace the traditional SRS. NIBRS provides for expanded collection and
reporting of offenses and arrests and their circumstances.
Racial Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons
who possess common physical characteristics, e.g., color of skin, eyes, and/or hair, facial
features, etc., genetically transmitted by descent and heredity which distinguish them as a distinct
division of humankind, e.g., Asians, Blacks or African Americans, whites.
Religious Bias––A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons
who share the same religious beliefs regarding the origin and purpose of the universe and the
existence or nonexistence of a supreme being, e.g., Catholics, Jews, Protestants, atheists.

Sexual Orientation—(noun) The term for a person’s physical, romantic, and/or
emotional attraction to members of the same and/or opposite sex, including lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and heterosexual (straight) individual.
Note: Avoid the offensive terms “sexual preference” or “lifestyle.”
Sexual-Orientation Bias––(noun) A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a
person or group of persons based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
Summary Reporting System––The traditional tally system which has been used
since 1930 to collect UCR data.
Transgender—(adjective) Of or relating to a person who identifies as a different
gender from their gender as assigned at birth.
Note: The person may also identify himself or herself as “transsexual.” Additional information
is provided in Section V.
Note: A transgender person may outwardly express his or her gender identity all of the time, part
of the time, or none of the time; a transgender person may decide to change his or her body to
medically conform to his or her gender identity.
Note: Avoid the following terms: “he-she,” “she-male,” “tranny,” “it,” “shim,” “drag queen,”
“transvestite,” and “cross-dresser.”
PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA:
Two-Tier Decision-Making Process
The FBI’s UCR Program surveyed state UCR Program managers on hate crime
collection procedures in use at various law enforcement agencies within their states. It found
that most law enforcement agencies that collect hate crime data employ a two-tier decisionmaking process. The first level is the law enforcement officer who initially responds to the
alleged hate crime incident, i.e., the “Responding Officer” (or “First-Level Judgment Officer”).
It is the responsibility of the Responding Officer to determine whether there is any indication
that the offender was motivated by bias. If there is, he/she is to designate the incident as a
“Suspected Bias-Motivated Crime” and forward the case file to a “Second-Level Judgment
Officer/Unit.” In smaller agencies this is usually a person specially trained in hate crime matters,
while in larger agencies it may be a special unit.
It is the task of the Second-Level Judgment Officer/Unit to review carefully the
facts of the incident and make the final determination of whether a hate crime has actually
occurred. If so, the incident is to be reported to the FBI’s UCR Program as a bias-motivated
crime.

Responding Officer’s Responsibilities
Law enforcement’s response to an alleged hate crime begins no differently than to
any other crime. The Responding Officer must quickly evaluate what has happened and take any
necessary action to stabilize the situation. After that has been done, there are two unique areas of
concern which should be recognized by an officer responding to an alleged hate crime:
(1) sensitivity to the needs of the victim and (2) the elements of a bias crime.
First, the Responding Officer should be sensitive to the effects of a bias crime on
the victim. A victim of any crime may feel isolated from others, fearful that the occurrence will
happen again, and angry that he/she has become a victim. However, there is a deeper level of
isolation, fear, and anger that the victim of hate crime feels. This individual has been chosen
from the rest of the population to be victimized for no other reason than his/her race, religion,
disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. There is nothing this person
can do; indeed, there is nothing he/she ought to do to change his/her race, religion, disability,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity. And yet, it is because of these very
innate qualities that he/she was victimized. This type of personal experience can result, many
times, in a feeling of loss of control over one’s life. By recognizing these dynamics, the
Responding Officer can address the special needs of the victim, thereby placing him/her at some
ease and thereby making it easier to elicit from him/her necessary information concerning the
alleged offense. Another task of the Responding Officer is to determine whether additional
resources are needed on the scene, such as community affairs/relations representatives,
mental/physical health professionals, and/or the clergy. At a minimum, the victim should be
referred to appropriate social and legal services.
Second, the Responding Officer must be knowledgeable of the elements of a biasrelated crime. As set forth in this document, a bias crime is a criminal offense committed against
a person or property or society, if reported in the NIBRS, which is motivated by the offender’s
bias against the victim’s race, religion, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or gender
identity. At the level of the Responding Officer, if there is any indication that the offender was
motivated by bias to commit the crime, the incident should be classified as a “Suspected BiasMotivated Crime.”
The types of factors to be considered by the Reporting Officer in making a
determination of whether the incident is a “Suspected Bias-Motivated Crime” are:
•

Is the motivation of the alleged offender known?

•

Was the incident known to have been motivated by racial, religious, disability, ethnic,
sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity bias?

•

Does the victim perceive the action of the offender to have been motivated by bias?

•

Is there no clear other motivation for the incident?

•

Were any racial, religious, disability, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender, or gender
identity bias remarks made by the offender?

•

Were there any offensive symbols, words, or acts which are known to represent a hate
group or other evidence of bias against the victim’s group?

•

Did the incident occur on a holiday or other day of significance to the victim’s or
offender’s group?

•

What do the demographics of the area tell you about the incident?

If these or other factors indicate that the offender may have been motivated by
bias to commit the crime, the incident should be classified as a “Suspected Bias-Motivated
Crime” and sent on to the Second-Level Judgment Officer/Unit for review. While the mere
utterance of a racial epithet by the offender does not provide sufficient basis to report a crime as
a “Suspected Bias-Motivated Crime,” it, combined with other factors indicating bias, could do
so. For the purpose of first-level bias crime reporting, the old adage of “when in doubt, check it
out” should be followed, i.e., questionable cases should be referred to the Second-Level
Judgment Officer/Unit for resolution.
Second-Level Judgment Officer’s/Unit’s Responsibilities
The second tier in the decision-making process is where the final decision is made
regarding whether an offense was bias motivated. Therefore, the people who make final
decisions must be specially trained to the point of being “experts” on bias matters. The
Responding Officer had merely to determine whether there was any indication that the offense
was motivated by bias. On the other hand, the Second-Level Judgment Officer/Unit must
carefully sift through the facts using more stringent criteria to determine whether the incident
was, in fact, a hate crime.
The second level of review can be a specially-trained officer, investigator,
supervisor, or specially-established hate crime unit. This does not mean that every agency must
establish a “Special Hate Crime Unit.” Given the fiscal constraints prevalent throughout most of
the law enforcement community, such a proposition would be an unreasonable requirement.
However, what is suggested is that somewhere in the agency’s already established crime
reporting review process, someone should be specifically tasked with the responsibility of
reviewing “Suspected Bias-Motivated Crimes” and making the final decision as to the existence
or nonexistence of bias motivation.

During the second review, the Second-Level Judgment Officer/Unit should have
time to consider carefully the findings of the Responding Officer and perhaps even conduct
interviews of the victims and witnesses if necessary. For an incident to be reported as a hate
crime, sufficient objective facts must be present to lead a reasonable and prudent person to
conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by bias. While no
single fact may be conclusive, positive answers to the types of questions listed below are
supportive of a finding of bias motivation. But an important distinction should be made. The
mere fact that the offender is biased against the victim’s race, religion, disability, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, gender, and/or gender identity does not mean that a hate crime was involved.
Rather, the offender’s criminal act must have been motivated, in whole or in part, by his/her bias.
The Second-Level Judgment Officer/Unit should seek answers to the following
types of questions before making the final determination of whether an incident was motivated
by bias:
•

Is the victim a member of a specific race, religion, disability, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, gender, or gender identity?

•

Was the offender of a different race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or
gender identity than the victim? For example, the victim was African American and
the offender was white.

•

Would the incident have taken place if the victim and offender were of the same race,
religion, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity?

•

Were biased oral comments, written statements, or gestures made by the offender
which indicated his/her bias? For example, the offender shouted a racial or ethnic
epithet at the victim.

•

Were bias-related drawings, markings, symbols, or graffiti left at the crime scene?
(e.g., a swastika was painted on the door of a synagogue, mosque, or LGBT Center.)

•

Were certain objects, items, or things that indicate bias used, e.g., the offenders wore
white sheets with hoods covering their faces, a burning cross was left in front of the
victim’s residence?

•

Is the victim a member of a specific group which is overwhelmingly outnumbered by
other residents in the neighborhood where the victim lives and the incident took
place?

•

Was the victim visiting a neighborhood where previous hate crimes had been
committed because of race, religion, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender,
or gender identity and where tensions remained high against his/her group?

•

Have several incidents occurred in the same locality, at or about the same time, and
were the victims all of the same race, religion, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
gender, or gender identity?

•

Does a substantial portion of the community where the crime occurred perceive that
the incident was motivated by bias?

•

Was the victim engaged in activities related to his/her race, religion, disability,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity? For example, the victim was
a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (i.e.,
NAACP, participated in LGBT Pride celebration, etc.)?

•

Did the incident coincide with a holiday or a date of particular significance relating to
a race, religion, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity,
e.g., Martin Luther King Day, Rosh Hashanah, or the Transgender Day of
Remembrance (November 20)?

•

Was the offender previously involved in a similar hate crime or is a hate group
member?

•

Were there indications that a hate group was involved? For example, a hate group
claimed responsibility for the crime or was active in the neighborhood.

•

Does a historically-established animosity exist between the victim’s and offender’s
groups?

•

Is this incident similar to other known and documented cases of bias, particularly in
this area? Does it fit a similar modus operandi to these other incidents?

•

Has this victim been previously involved in similar situations?

•

Are there other explanations for the incident, such as a childish prank, unrelated
vandalism, etc.?

•

Did the offender have some understanding of the impact his/her actions would have
on the victim?

The Second-Level Judgment Officer/Unit should respond to the scenes of large
bias incidents, such as race riots, demonstrations, etc. When doing so, a determination should be
made whether additional resources should be called to the scene, such as police tactical units,

community affairs/relations representatives, mental/physical health professionals, and/or faith
leaders.
It is important to note that only after the Second-Level Judgment Officer/Unit has
made a decision that the crime was bias motivated should it be reported to the FBI’s UCR
Program.

LEARNING MODULE THREE:
Case Study Exercises of Possible Bias-Related Crimes
MODULE DESCRIPTION:
This module provides the student officer with hypothetical case scenarios to
practice his/her knowledge gained from Learning Modules One and Two.
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
The student will be able to evaluate a hypothetical case and (1) classify the
offenses involved in the incident, (2) classify the incident as either “Not a Bias-Motivated
Crime” or a “Suspected Bias-Motivated Crime,” and (3) give the reasons for his/her decision.
RULES FOR THE EXERCISE SESSION:
The student officer is to read the hypothetical cases and (1) classify the offense(s)
involved in each incident, (2) classify the fact situations as either ‘Not a Bias-Motivated Crime”
or a “Suspected Bias-Motivated Crime,” and (3) give reasons for his/her bias classification
decisions.
EXERCISE CASES:
Exercise (1): Deputy Sheriff Jackson received a radio call to go to an apartment and
interview an individual complaining of threats made over the telephone. Upon arriving at the
apartment, the complainant, a white female, informed Deputy Jackson that she is a lesbian and
that over the last two weeks she has received repeated telephone calls from a person who stated
that the complainant had been seen going into “gay bars,” and therefore, she would have to be
“punished.”
Crime Classification: Intimidation
Bias Classification: Anti-Lesbian
Reasons: Threats were made to harm the victim physically because of her sexual
orientation.
Note: In addition to collecting hate crimes based on gender and gender identity, the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act requires statistics to be captured on
hate crimes committed by/directed against juveniles. In Exercise 1, however, it is not possible to
report the age of the offender. Therefore, if an agency reports their hate crime incidents on the
Hate Crime Incident Report, for this incident, one offender should be reported and the age
breakdown should be entered as 00.

Exercise (2): On January 1, a woman was walking alone after leaving a party when
she was tackled to the ground by a man. He began choking her and yelling “I hate you,” “You
bitch.” Nearby, an-undercover officer heard the man’s yelling. The officer was able to restrain
the man but he continued screaming “I hate all of the bitches.” The victim indicated she had
never seen the man before. Later the man told the officer that he had been at a bar and had tried
to talk to a woman. She had laughed at him and he said he was not going to take it anymore.
Crime Classification: Aggravated Assault
Bias Classification: Anti-Female
Reasons: The offender attacked the woman because of his bias against women. This
is evidenced by his statements and also by what he told the officer.
Exercise (3): On February 2, at 3:30 a.m., as Detective Phipps was returning home at
the end of his tour, he came across an abandoned vehicle. When he approached the vehicle, he
found an unconscious male who had sustained several bruises to the head and was partially
dressed. Written on the windshield of the vehicle were the words “Drag Queen,” and on the
passenger seat of the vehicle, he saw a woman’s dress and wig.
Crime Classification: Aggravated Assault
Bias Classification: Anti-Transgender
Reasons: The incident should be reported with an Anti-Transgender Bias because the
victim was targeted due to his gender identity.
Exercise (4): As Officer Sloan was walking her “beat,” her attention was drawn to
two individuals who were engaged in a shouting match. As the officer approached, she
overheard the two men, one white and the other black, shouting obscenities at each other. The
argument concerned a parking space to which each believed he was entitled. As the argument
continued, a racial epithet was shouted by one of the men. At this point, Officer Sloan arrived at
the scene and quieted the men. What appeared to have happened was that one of the drivers had
gotten to the parking space first but did not use his turn signal to indicate he was waiting to pull
into the parking space. The second driver, coming upon what appeared to be an unoccupied
parking space, proceeded to maneuver his car around the first driver’s car and into the space.
The argument then began.
Crime Classification: None
Bias Classification: Unbiased Crime Incident

Reasons: The argument only involved the issue of which driver deserved to get the
parking space. One of the questions one should ask in investigating alleged bias incidents is:
“Would the incident have taken place if both the victim and offender were of the same race,
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity? If the answer is ‘Yes,’ it is
“Not a Bias-Motivated Crime.”
Exercise (5): During the midnight tour, Deputy Sheriff Hennessey was patrolling her
assigned watch area. Shining her cruiser light on various business establishments, she noticed
one building had been spray painted. The graffiti included racial epithets used against Asians
and threats against the owners of a Chinese restaurant which is located in the building. The
deputy knows the Chinese owners are the only Asians in that business district. No other
buildings were spray painted.
Crime Classification: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property
Bias Classification: Anti-Asian
Reasons: The offenders apparently were motivated by their bias against Asians.
This is evidenced by their use of Asian epithets and the fact that no other business in the area
was spray painted.
Exercise (6): At 8:30 p.m., Officer Gregory responded to a report of an altercation at
a bar/restaurant. Upon arriving at the scene, he found paramedics providing medical care to an
African-American male. The victim informed him he was accosted by three white male patrons
who repeatedly asked if he were gay. He politely told them he was not. Officer Gregory also
spoke to the bartender who indicated he had noticed the odd behavior in the men, as they took
turns leaving the restaurant to wait outside, then returning while another took their place. Upon
leaving the restaurant, the victim was approached and racial and gay epithets were said and the
male was struck forcefully in the head by one of the men. The blow knocked the victim to the
pavement where he struck his head and was knocked unconscious.
Crime Classification: Aggravated Assault
Bias Classification: Anti-Black or African American and Anti-Gay (Male)
Reasons: The offenders apparently were motivated by their perception that the man
was gay and their bias against African Americans.
Note: Up to five bias motivations per offense type can be reported.

Exercise (7): On July 9, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Officer Cassidy was
dispatched to investigate a 911 call. Upon arriving at the location, she found a woman who had
been beaten. The victim explained to the officer she had been walking home from an LGBT
Center when she was accosted by two men. She stated the men beat her and were also verbally
abusive and mocked her for her short hair style and for the clothes and shoes she was wearing.
Crime Classification: Aggravated Assault
Bias Classification: Anti-Gender Non-Conforming
Reasons: The perpetrators attacked the victim because she did not fit the image they
associated as female.
Exercise (8): At 11 p.m. Officers Reid and Shandler responded to the scene of a
reported house arson. The target of the arson was a group home for persons with psychiatric
disabilities who were in transition back into the community. Investigation revealed that
neighbors had expressed many concerns about the group home and were angry that the house
was located in their community. Shortly before the fire was reported, a witness heard a male
voice state, “I’ll get rid of those ‘crazies.’ I’ll burn them out.”
Crime Classification: Arson
Bias Classification: Anti-Mental Disability
Reasons: The suspect committed the crime of arson primarily because of his bias
against persons with psychiatric disabilities. The witness heard a statement that supports the bias
motivation finding.
Exercise (9): While on patrol in his police car, Officer Lopez noticed an individual,
who later identified himself as Mr. Chopra, attempting to scrub some painted words and
markings off of his car, which was parked outside the apartment building where he lives. Officer
Lopez asked Mr. Chopra what happened to his car. Mr. Chopra explained that he had moved
into the neighborhood three weeks ago and unknown persons had repeatedly painted his car and
the door of his apartment with Anti-Black or African American symbols and slogans.
Mr. Chopra said he did not understand why this was happening to him because he is not African
American and he had immigrated to the United States from India.
Crime Classification: Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property
Bias Classification: Anti-Black or African American
Reasons: Although Mr. Chopra is not African American, it is the perception of the
offenders that he is a member of a minority against which they are biased. Even when offenders

erroneously target the victims, their offenses are still bias-motivated crimes because the
offenders were motivated by bias.
Note: Additional scenarios of bias motivations are provided in Section IV.

APPENDIX I
Hate Crime Statistics Act
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, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual
orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent
manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and
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 U.S.C.S. §§ 551 et seq. or 28 U.S.C.S. § 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, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed
against, juveniles.
“(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.”

CHRONOLOGY OF ACT AND AMENDMENTS
1990—Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act to collect data “about crimes that manifest
evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.”
1994—The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 amended The Act to include bias
against persons with disabilities.
1996—The Church Arson Prevention Act removed the sunset clause from the original statute
and mandated that hate crime data collection become a permanent part of the UCR Program.
2009—The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act amended the
FBI’s collection to include statistics on hate crimes based on gender and gender identity
prejudices, as well as hate crimes committed by/directed against juveniles.

APPENDIX II
SUBMITTING HATE CRIME DATA TO THE FBI’s UCR PROGRAM
There are two methods for reporting hate crime data to the FBI’s UCR Program:
the hate crime data element in the NIBRS and the Hate Crime Incident Report and/or the
Quarterly Hate Crime Report. The offenses that are reported must be reported in accordance
with the requirements of the NIBRS or SRS, depending on which system is applicable.
A.

NIBRS Hate Crime Reporting

1. Who submits hate crime data in the NIBRS format? Agencies participating
in the NIBRS include the hate crime data element in their electronic data submissions.
2. How are the data transmitted? NIBRS participants use Data Element 8A,
Bias Motivation, as a mandatory data element with the electronic submission of each Group A
offense at the end of the Offense Segment (Level 2). The technical and coding requirements for
reporting data in the NIBRS are provided in the NIBRS Technical Specification, which are
available at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs. The submission of the Hate Crime Incident
Report and the Quarterly Hate Crime Report are not necessary for NIBRS participants.
3. To which offenses does the hate crime data element apply? The hate crime
data element applies to all Group A offenses. They are listed below. (The numbers in
parentheses are UCR Offense Codes for NIBRS.)
200 = Arson
Assault Offenses:
13A = Aggravated Assault
13B = Simple Assault
13C = Intimidation
510 = Bribery
220 = Burglary/Breaking and Entering
250 = Counterfeiting/Forgery
290 = Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property
Drug/Narcotic Offenses:
35A = Drug/Narcotic Violations
35B = Drug/Equipment Violations
270 = Embezzlement

210 = Extortion/Blackmail
Fraud Offenses:
26A = False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game
26B = Credit Card/Automated Teller Machine Fraud
26C = Impersonation
26D = Welfare Fraud
26E = Wire Fraud
Gambling Offenses:
39A = Betting/Wagering
39B = Operating/Promoting/Assisting Gambling
39C = Gambling Equipment Violations
39D = Sports Tampering
Homicide Offenses:
09A = Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter
09B = Negligent Manslaughter
Human Trafficking Offenses:
64A = Commercial Sex Acts
64B = Involuntary Servitude
100 = Kidnapping/Abduction
Larceny/Theft Offenses:
23A = Pocket-picking
23B = Purse-snatching
23C = Shoplifting
23D = Theft From Building
23E = Theft From Coin-Operated Machine or Device
23F = Theft From Motor Vehicle
23G = Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts or Accessories
23H = All Other Larceny
240 = Motor Vehicle Theft
370 = Pornography/Obscene Material
Prostitution Offenses:
40A = Prostitution
40B = Assisting or Promoting Prostitution
40C = Purchasing Prostitution
120 = Robbery

.

Sex Offenses:
11A = Rape
11B = Sodomy
11C = Sexual Assault With An Object
11D = Fondling
36A = Incest
36B = Statutory Rape
280 = Stolen Property Offenses
520 = Weapon Law Violations

The definitions of these offenses for reporting hate crime in the NIBRS can be found in
Appendix III.
4. How does NIBRS Data Element 8A, Bias Motivation, work? This data
element indicates whether the offender was motivated, in whole or in part, to commit the offense
because of his/her bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or
gender identity. Because of the difficulty of ascertaining the offender’s subjective motivation,
bias is to be reported only if investigation reveals sufficient objective facts to lead a reasonable
and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part,
by bias. The most appropriate of the following codes is to be entered into the data element:
Race:
11 = Anti-White
12 = Anti-Black or African American
13 = Anti-American Indian or Alaska Native
14 = Anti-Asian
15 = Anti-Multiple Races, Group2
16 = Anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Religion:
21 = Anti-Jewish
22 = Anti-Catholic
23 = Anti-Protestant
24 = Anti-Islamic (Muslim)
25 = Anti-Other Religion
26 = Anti-Multiple Religions, Group2
27 = Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism
__________________________________
2

If within the race or religion category, one or more specific bias motivations occur, the
multiple group type should be reported.

Ethnicity:
32 = Anti-Hispanic or Latino
33 = Anti-Not Hispanic or Latino
Sexual Orientation:
41 = Anti-Gay (Male)
42 = Anti-Lesbian
43 = Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (Mixed Group)3
44 = Anti-Heterosexual
45 = Anti-Bisexual
Disability:
51 = Anti-Physical Disability
52 = Anti-Mental Disability
Gender:
61 = Anti-Male
62 = Anti-Female
Gender Identity:
71 = Anti-Transgender
72 = Anti-Gender Non-Conforming
None/Unknown: (NIBRS submissions only)
88 = None (no bias)
99 = Unknown (offender’s motivation not known)
Note: In the NIBRS, incidents which do not involve any facts indicating bias motivation on the
part of the offender are to be coded as 88 = None, while incidents involving ambiguous facts
(i.e., where some facts are present but are not conclusive) should be coded as 99 = Unknown.
The intent of bias motivation code 99 = Unknown is to allow an agency to report a crime in
which bias motivation is unknown or when the investigation has not been completed. When it is
determined the presence of bias motivation is conclusive, the reported bias motivation code
99 = Unknown should be modified to indicate the results of the subsequent investigation. Law
enforcement agencies should be diligent in modifying these types of situations as they become
known. A review of year-end hate crime data should have few, if any, hate crimes coded as
99 = Unknown.

__________________________________
3

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender is referred to as LGBT.

B.

SRS Hate Crime Reporting

1. Who submits the Hate Crime Incident Report and/or the Quarterly Hate
Crime Report? Agencies that participate in the SRS submit the Hate Crime Incident Report
and/or the Quarterly Hate Crime Report, along with the UCR Program requirements; i.e., the
offenses which are reported using the incident report must also be reported in accordance with
the requirements of the SRS.
2. How are the data transmitted? (a) Agencies may submit the Hate Crime
Incident Report and/or the Quarterly Hate Crime Report and (b) State UCR Programs which
transmit their agencies’ data in an electronic format may obtain electronic data submission
specifications from the FBI’s UCR program in order to include hate crime data as part of their
regular SRS submissions. The hate crime data submission specifications are provided in Hate
Crime Electronic Submission Specifications for the Summary Reporting System, which is
available at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime.
3. What does the Hate Crime Incident Report and/or the Quarterly Hate
Crime Report look like? The Hate Crime Incident Report and the Quarterly Hate Crime Report
are available at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/reportingforms/quarterly-hate-crime-report.
4. What offenses are to be reported? SRS agencies should use the Hate Crime
Incident Report to report the following offense categories:
01 = Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter
02 = Rape
03 = Robbery
04 = Aggravated Assault
05 = Burglary
06 = Larceny-theft
07 = Motor Vehicle Theft
08 = Arson
09 = Simple Assault
10 = Intimidation
11 = Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property
The definitions of these offenses for reporting hate crime on the Hate Crime Incident Report can
be found in Appendix III.
5. Additional instructions — The following additional instructions are
applicable to law enforcement agencies submitting Hate Crime Incident Reports:
a. Simple Assault and Intimidation — In the SRS, Simple Assault and
Intimidation are not reported separately. Both are reported on the Return A—Monthly Return of

Offenses Known to the Police form as Other Assaults-Simple, Not Aggravated. For the purpose
of hate crime reporting, SRS agencies should report Simple Assault and Intimidation separately
using the definitions found in Appendix III.
b. Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property — In the SRS,
Vandalism is reported on the Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity of Persons Arrested form only when
arrests occur. Likewise, destruction and damage of property, which may be reported as either
Vandalism or All Other Offenses depending on the facts of the case, are reported only when
arrests occur. However, for the purpose of hate crime reporting, all three offenses fall into the
category of Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property and should be reported regardless of
whether arrests have taken place. The offense is defined in Appendix III.
c. Nonapplicability of the Hierarchy Rule — In the SRS under the
Hierarchy Rule, only the most serious Part I offense in a multiple-offense incident is to be
reported. However, for hate crime reporting purposes, all of the above-mentioned offenses
which were identified as bias motivated and occurred during the incident should be reported.
d. UCR Offense and Code Segment — The number of victims involved
in each offense for which bias/hate motivation has been determined should be listed. When
Individual is reported as the Victim Type, the Total Number of Victims, Total Number of
Victims 18 and over, and Total Number of Victims under 18 must also be reported. Similar
information on the offender, if known, is collected.
In the event of multiple offense codes and victims, only those for which bias/hate
motivation exists should be listed. Do not list an offense code and its victims when the
motivation is clearly not bias motivated or when the motivation is unknown.
For example, a robbery occurred at a bar and its patrons were robbed by two
offenders. During the robbery, a female Asian patron was raped by one of the offenders.
Subsequent investigation reveals that while the robbery motive did not involve bias, the rape was
bias motivated. Therefore, only the rape should be reported as a hate crime.
e. Updating — For updating purposes, a copy of the report should be
retained by the agency. Corrections/updates should be accomplished by sending a corrected
Quarterly Hate Crime Report and/or Hate Crime Incident Report with changes made and
“adjustment” indicated or by sending an adjusted record in an electronic submission. Incidents
can be deleted by simply identifying them on the Quarterly Hate Crime Report Summary Page.
Note: In the hate crime data collection, more than one offense can be reported within each
incident once it is determined the offense(s) was motivated by bias. Certain combinations of
offenses, however, cannot occur to the same victim. Specifically, Mutually Exclusive offenses
are offenses that cannot occur to the same victim according to UCR definitions. Lesser Included

offenses are offenses where one offense is an element of another offense and cannot be reported
as having happened to the victim along with the other offense. If reporting a hate crime on the
Hate Crime Incident Report, only the Lesser Included offenses are applicable:
Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter
Mutually Exclusive: Negligent Manslaughter
Lesser Included: Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, and Intimidation
Negligent Manslaughter
Mutually Exclusive: Murder, Aggravated Assault, and Simple Assault, and Intimidation
Rape
Mutually Exclusive: Incest and Statutory Rape
Lesser Included: Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, Intimidation, and Fondling
Sodomy
Mutually Exclusive: Incest and Statutory Rape
Lesser Included: Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, Intimidation, and Fondling
Sexual Assault With an Object
Mutually Exclusive: Incest and Statutory Rape
Lesser Included: Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, Intimidation, and Fondling
Fondling
Mutually Exclusive: Incest and Statutory Rape
Lesser Included: Simple Assault and Intimidation
Robbery
Lesser Included: Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, Intimidation, Larceny-Theft Offenses,
and Motor Vehicle Theft
Aggravated Assault
Lesser Included: Simple Assault and Intimidation
Simple Assault
Lesser Included: Intimidation
Incest
Mutually Exclusive: Rape, Sodomy, Sexual Assault With an Object, and Fondling
Statutory Rape
Mutually Exclusive: Rape, Sodomy, Sexual Assault With an Object, and Fondling

APPENDIX III
UCR OFFENSE DEFINITIONS
A.

Offenses and Definitions Collected in the NIBRS

Arson—To unlawfully and intentionally damage, or attempt to damage, any real or personal
property by fire or incendiary device.
Assault Offenses—An unlawful attack by one person upon another.
Aggravated Assault—An unlawful attack by one person upon another wherein the offender
uses a weapon or displays it in a threatening manner, or the victim suffers obvious severe or
aggravated bodily injury involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal
injury, severe laceration, or loss of consciousness. This also includes assault with disease (as
in cases when the offender is aware that he/she is infected with a deadly disease and
deliberately attempts to inflict the disease by biting, spitting, etc.).
Simple Assault—An unlawful physical attack by one person upon another where neither the
offender displays a weapon, nor the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury
involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or
loss of consciousness.
Intimidation—To unlawfully place another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm
through the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon
or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack.
Bribery—(Except “Sports Bribery”) The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of anything of
value (i.e., a bribe, gratuity, or kickback) to sway the judgment or action of a person in a position
of trust or influence.
Burglary/Breaking and Entering—The unlawful entry into a building or other structure with
the intent to commit a felony or a theft.
Counterfeiting/Forgery—The altering, copying, or imitation of something, without authority or
right, with the intent to deceive or defraud by passing the copy or thing altered or imitated as that
which is original or genuine; or the selling, buying, or possession of an altered, copied, or
imitated thing with the intent to deceive or defraud.
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property—(Except “Arson”) To willfully or maliciously
destroy, damage, deface, or otherwise injure real or personal property without the consent of the
owner or the person having custody or control of it.

Drug/Narcotic Offenses—(Except “Driving Under the Influence”) The violation of laws
prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled substances and the
equipment or devices utilized in their preparation and/or use.
Drug/Narcotic Violations—The unlawful cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale,
purchase, use, possession, transportation, or importation of any controlled drug or narcotic
substance.
Drug Equipment Violations—The unlawful manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, or
transportation of equipment or devices utilized in preparing and/or using drugs or narcotics.
Embezzlement—The unlawful misappropriation by an offender to his/her own use or purpose of
money, property, or some other thing of value entrusted to his/her care, custody, or control.
Extortion/Blackmail—To unlawfully obtain money, property, or any other thing of value, either
tangible or intangible, through the use or threat of force, misuse of authority, threat of criminal
prosecution, threat of destruction of reputation or social standing, or through other coercive
means.
Fraud Offenses—(Except “Counterfeiting/Forgery” and “Bad Checks”) The intentional
perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another person, or other entity, in reliance
upon it to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game—The intentional misrepresentation of existing
fact or condition, or the use of some other deceptive scheme or device, to obtain money,
goods, or other things of value.
Credit Card/Automated Teller Machine Fraud—The unlawful use of a credit (or debit)
card or automated teller machine for fraudulent purposes.
Impersonation—Falsely representing one’s identity or position, and acting in the character
or position thus unlawfully assumed, to deceive others and thereby gain a profit or advantage,
enjoy some right or privilege, or subject another person or entity to an expense, charge, or
liability which would not have otherwise been incurred.
Welfare Fraud—The use of deceitful statements, practices, or devices to unlawfully obtain
welfare benefits.
Wire Fraud—The use of an electric or electronic communications facility to intentionally
transmit a false and/or deceptive message in furtherance of a fraudulent activity.
Gambling Offenses—To unlawfully bet or wager money or something else of value; assist,
promote, or operate a game of chance for money or some other stake; possess or transmit
wagering information; manufacture, sell, purchase, possess, or transport gambling equipment,
devices or goods; or tamper with the outcome of a sporting event or contest to gain a gambling
advantage.

Betting/Wagering—To unlawfully stake money or something else of value on the
happening of an uncertain event or on the ascertainment of a fact in dispute.
Operating/Promoting/Assisting Gambling—To unlawfully operate, promote, or assist in
the operation of a game of chance, lottery, or other gambling activity.
Gambling Equipment Violations—To unlawfully manufacture, sell, buy, possess, or
transport equipment, devices, and/or goods used for gambling purposes.
Sports Tampering—To unlawfully alter, meddle in, or otherwise interfere with a sporting
contest or event for the purpose of gaining a gambling advantage.
Homicide Offenses—The killing of one human being by another.
Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter—The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one
human being by another.
Negligent Manslaughter—The killing of another person through negligence.
Human Trafficking Offenses—The inducement of a person to perform a commercial sex act, or
labor, or services, through force, fraud, or coercion. Human trafficking has also occurred if a
person under 18 persons of age has been induced, or enticed, regardless of force, fraud, or
coercion, to perform a commercial sex act.
Commercial Sex Acts––Inducing a person by force, fraud, or coercion to participate in
commercial sex acts, or in which the person induced to perform such act(s) has not attained
18 years of age.
Involuntary Servitude––The obtaining of a person(s) through recruitment, harboring,
transportation, or provision, and subjecting such persons by force, fraud, or coercion into
voluntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery (not to include commercial sex acts).
Kidnapping/Abduction—The unlawful seizure, transportation, and/or detention of a person
against his/her will, or of a minor without the consent of his/her custodial parent(s) or legal
guardian.
Larceny/Theft Offenses—The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property
from the possession, or constructive possession, of another person.
Pocket-picking—The theft of articles from another person’s physical possession by stealth
where the victim usually does not become immediately aware of the theft.
Purse-snatching—The grabbing or snatching of a purse, handbag, etc., from the physical
possession of another person.

Shoplifting—The theft, by someone other than an employee of the victim, of goods or
merchandise exposed for sale.
Theft From Building—A theft from within a building which is either open to the general
public or where the offender has legal access.
Theft From Coin-Operated Machine or Device—A theft from a machine or device which
is operated or activated by the use of coins.
Theft From Motor Vehicle—(Except “Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts or Accessories”) The
theft of articles from a motor vehicle, whether locked or unlocked.
Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts or Accessories—The theft of any part or accessory affixed to
the interior or exterior of a motor vehicle in a manner which would make the item an
attachment of the vehicle, or necessary for its operation.
All Other Larceny—All thefts which do not fit any of the definitions of the specific
subcategories of Larceny/Theft listed above.
Motor Vehicle Theft—The theft of a motor vehicle.
Pornography/Obscene Material—The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting the
manufacture, publishing, sale, purchase, or possession of sexually explicit material, e.g.,
literature, photographs, etc.
Prostitution Offenses—To unlawfully engage in or promote sexual activities for anything of
value.
Prostitution—To engage in commercial sex acts for anything of value.
Assisting or Promoting Prostitution—To solicit customers or transport persons for
prostitution purposes; to own, manage, or operate a dwelling or other establishment for the
purpose of providing a place where prostitution is performed; or to otherwise assist or
promote prostitution.
Purchasing Prostitution—To purchase or trade anything of value for commercial sex acts.
Robbery—The taking, or attempting to take, anything of value under confrontational
circumstances from the control, custody, or care of another person by force or threat of force or
violence and/or by putting the victim in fear of immediate harm.
Sex Offenses—Any sexual act directed against another person, without the consent of the victim
including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent.
Rape—(Except “Statutory Rape”) The carnal knowledge of a person, without the consent of
the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of
his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

Sodomy—Oral or anal sexual intercourse with another person, without the consent of the
victim including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her
youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.
Sexual Assault With An Object—To use an object or instrument to unlawfully penetrate,
however slightly, the genital or anal opening of the body of another person, including
instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her youth or because
of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.
Fondling—The touching of the private body parts of another person for the purpose of
sexual gratification, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is
incapable of giving consent because of his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or
permanent mental or physical incapacity.
Sex Offenses, Nonforcible—(Except “Prostitution Offenses”) Unlawful, nonforcible sexual
intercourse.
Incest—Nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within
the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.
Statutory Rape—Nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory
age of consent.
Stolen Property Offenses—Receiving, buying, selling, possessing, concealing, or transporting
any property with the knowledge that it has been unlawfully taken, as by Burglary,
Embezzlement, Fraud, Larceny, Robbery, etc.
Weapon Law Violations—The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture,
sale, purchase, transportation, possession, concealment, or use of firearms, cutting instruments,
explosives, incendiary devices, or other deadly weapons.
B.

Offenses and Definitions Collected on the Hate Crime Incident Report

Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter—The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human
being by another. Deaths caused by negligence, attempts to kill, assaults to kill, suicides,
accidental deaths, and justifiable homicides are excluded.
Rape—Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or
oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
Robbery—The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control
of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.
Aggravated Assault—An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of
inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the

use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Simple assaults are
excluded.
Burglary (Breaking or Entering)—The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a
theft. Attempted forcible entry is included.
Larceny-theft (Except Motor Vehicle Theft)—The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding
away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another. Examples are thefts
of bicycles or automobile accessories, shoplifting, pocket-picking, or the stealing of any property
or article which is not taken by force and violence or by fraud. Attempted larcenies are included.
Embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, worthless checks, etc., are excluded.
Motor Vehicle Theft—The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is self–
propelled and runs on the surface and not on rails. Specifically excluded from this category are
motorboats, construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment.
Arson—Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a
dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.
Simple Assault—An unlawful physical attack by one person upon another where neither the
offender displays a weapon, nor the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury
involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss
of consciousness.
Intimidation—To unlawfully place another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the
use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the
victim to actual physical attack.
Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property—To willfully or maliciously destroy, damage,
deface, or otherwise injure real or personal property without the consent of the owner or the
person having custody or control of it.

APPENDIX IV
UCR HATE CRIME STATISTICS DATA
The FBI annually publishes Hate Crime Statistics. This publication includes data
on criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.
More detailed data (e.g., the subcategory breakdowns of bias motivations, the
known offenders’ races, and the victim types for each agency submitting hate crime data to the
UCR Program) are furnished in the UCR Program’s Hate Crime Master Files. For information
on obtaining these data, please contact the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division
via e-mail at cjis_comm@leo.gov or by telephone at (304) 625-4995.

APPENDIX V
OMB RACE DEFINITIONS
The OMB is part of the Executive Office of the President. The OMB is
comprised of four resource management offices, which were created by statute. The Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) established the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the OMB to develop and oversee the implementation of Governmentwide policies, principles, standards, and guidelines concerning statistical collection procedures
and methods. The PRA covers all aspects of Federal information resources management,
including OMB review and approval of agency information collection. This oversight involves a
triennial review and approval of all FBI UCR Program reporting forms. Therefore, compliance
with the OMB’s directives is imperative to the national UCR Program’s operations.
In 1994, in response to the need to reflect the increasing diversity of the
population of the United States, OMB began a comprehensive review of the racial and ethnic
categories being used in collaboration with the Interagency Committee for the Review of the
Racial and Ethnic Standards. The OMB accepted the recommendations of the Interagency
Committee in 1997 and released standards for federal data on race. Because the FBI’s UCR
Program had been granted a temporary variance, the program held the changes in abeyance until
its data submission methods were updated. In order to conform to the new guidelines, the FBI
issued its own guidance on how law enforcement agencies should collect and maintain race and
ethnicity data. These revised standards have two categories for data on ethnicity and five
minimum categories for data on race. The new categories and their definitions are as follow:
Ethnic Categories (Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino)
Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or
other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, “Spanish origin,” can be used in
addition to “Hispanic or Latino.”
Racial Categories
American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or
community attachment.
Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or
the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or
North Africa.

APPENDIX VI
ORGANIZATIONS OFFERING INFORMATION CONCERNING
ANTI-BIAS EDUCATION
American Association of University Women
1111 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
www.aauw.org
Anti-Defamation League
605 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10158-3560
www.adl.org
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
www.hrc.org
International Association of Chiefs of Police
515 North Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
http://www.theiacp.org
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
10th Floor
1629 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
www.civilrights.org
National Center for Transgender Equality
Suite 700
1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
http://transequality.org
National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)
Suite 1901
475 Riverside Drive
New York, New York 10115
http://www.ncjw.org

National Disability Rights Network
Suite 211
900 Second Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
http://www.napas.org
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
6th Floor
1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
www.theTaskForce.org

APPENDIX VII
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE,
REGIONAL OFFICES
The Community Relations Service (CRS) serves as “America’s Peacemaker” for
the U.S. Department of Justice, by responding to community conflicts that arise from differences
of race, color, and national origin. CRS helps communities mediate disputes, provides conflict
resolution training, and helps communities enhance their capacity to independently prevent and
resolve future conflicts.
New England Regional Office (Region I—ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI)
Suite 222
408 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Telephone: (617) 424-5715
Facsimile: (617) 424-5727
Northeast Regional Office (Region II—NY, NJ, VI, PR)
Suite 36-118
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Telephone: (212) 264-0700
Facsimile: (212) 264-2143
Mid-Atlantic Regional Office (Region III—DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)
Suite 208
200 2nd & Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Telephone: (215) 597-2344
Facsimile: (215) 597-9148
Southeast Regional Office (Region IV—AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)
Suite 900
75 Piedmont Avenue, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Telephone: (404) 331-6883
Facsimile: (404) 331-4471
Midwest Regional Office (Region V—IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)
Room 2130
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Telephone: (312) 353-4391
Facsimile: (312) 353-4390

Southwest Regional Office (Region VI—AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Suite 2050
1999 Bryan Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 655-8175
Facsimile: (214) 655-8184
Central Regional Office (Region VII—IA, KS, MO, NE)
Suite 0802
601 E. 12th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Telephone: (816) 426-7434
Facsimile: (816) 426-7441
Rocky Mountain Regional Office (Region VIII—CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
Suite 650
1244 Speer Boulevard
Denver, Colorado 80204-3584
Telephone: (303) 844-2973
Facsimile: (303) 844-2907
Western Regional Office (Region IX—AZ, CA, GU, HI, NV)
Suite 1880
888 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 894-2941
Facsimile: (213) 894-2880
Northwest Regional Office (Region X—AK, ID, OR, WA)
Suite 1808
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174
Telephone: (206) 220-6706
Facsimile: (206) 220-6706
Field Offices
Suite 624
51 S.W. First Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130
Telephone: (305) 536-5206
Facsimile: (305) 536-6778
Suite 1404
211 W. Fort Street
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Telephone: (313) 226-4010
Facsimile: (313) 226-2568

Suite 12605
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 718-4861
Facsimile: (713) 718-4862
Suite 3-330
90 Seventh Street
San Francisco, California 94103
Telephone: (415) 744-6565
Facsimile: (415) 744-6590