Scholar says FBI counts undercount but reveal reliable trends over decades

Dr. James Nolan, a sociologist and former FBI crime‑data official, told the California Commission on the State of Hate that official hate‑crime counts understate the true number of incidents but still provide a useful, mostly stable measure for identifying trends.

Nolan, a professor at West Virginia University, outlined the ‘‘assembly‑line’’ of reporting that begins with a victim recognizing and reporting an event and ends with the FBI’s published figures. At each stage he said cases can be lost — victims may not report, officers may misclassify incidents, or technical problems can prevent submission to federal databases. "The FBI undercount the number of hate crimes that occur," he said, adding that the undercount is nonetheless often stable enough to compare year‑to‑year.

Why it matters: the commission heard that despite low absolute counts, patterns persist across time and place. Nolan illustrated how national or international events—such as the September 2001 attacks, the O.J. Simpson verdict, the 2020 murder of George Floyd, or the 2023–24 Gaza war—produce measurable spikes in particular bias categories in month‑by‑month heat maps.

Key findings Nolan highlighted included comparative odds derived from NIBRS: nationwide and in California, hate crimes show higher odds of serious injury, are more likely to target religious institutions, and have elevated odds of juvenile victims compared with non‑bias crimes. He used example statistics to explain the method (odds ratios and percent differences) rather than to claim absolute prevalence.

Commissioners pressed on practice and policy. Commissioner Suthers asked which agencies ‘‘collect best’’ data; Nolan said department culture and leadership—where officers and supervisors value and are trained to record bias motivation—produce better reports. Commissioner Che sought clarification about an example statistic and Nolan explained that the cited 89% figure described higher odds that the victim in a hate crime would be juvenile compared with non‑hate crimes (an odds‑ratio result), not that 89% of hate‑crime victims are juveniles.

Nolan warned that federal data collections can be politically vulnerable and urged vigilance by NGOs, researchers and officials to defend enumerations. "We've taken 30 plus years to get to this point," he said, and while he offered no single fix, he recommended continued advocacy, local capacity building, and use of multiple data sources to triangulate trends.

Next steps and context: Commissioners signaled interest in using these analyses for local prevention planning and in combining multiple sources (victim surveys, CHIS, local police NIBRS submissions) to fill gaps. Nolan offered to serve as a future resource to the commission on measurement questions.

Ending: The commission moved from Nolan’s presentation into a detailed question‑and‑answer sequence; the chair thanked Nolan for the presentation and opened discussion of the department’s data products.