电话：010-85195300
E-mail：cassoa@cass.org.cn
地址：中国北京建国门内大街5号中国社会科学院1#楼
扫一扫关注微信
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有
Section VII: appendices
Appendix I--methodology
Agencies that contribute to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program forward crime data through the state UCR Programs in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Local agencies in states that do not have a state Program submit statistics directly to the FBI, which provides continuing guidance and support to individual contributing agencies. State UCR Programs are very effective liaisons between local contributors and the FBI. Many of the Programs have mandatory reporting requirements and collect data beyond the national UCR scope to address crime problems germane to their particular locales. In most cases, these state agencies also provide more direct and frequent service to participating law enforcement agencies, make information more readily available for use at the state level, and contribute to more streamlined operations at the national level.
With the implementation of state crime reporting Programs, the national UCR Program ceased direct collection of data from individual law enforcement agencies within those states. Currently, the state data collection agency forwards information it receives from local agencies to the national Program.
The criteria established for state Programs ensure consistency and comparability in the data submitted to the national Program, as well as regular and timely reporting. These criteria are: (1) The state Program must conform to national UCR Program standards, definitions, and information requirements. The states are not, of course, prohibited from collecting other statistical data beyond the national requirements. (2) The state criminal justice agency must have a proven, effective, statewide Program and demonstrate acceptable quality control procedures. (3) Coverage within the state by a state agency must be, at least, equal to that attained by the national UCR Program. (4) The state agency must have adequate field staff assigned to conduct audits and to assist contributing agencies in recordkeeping practices and crime-reporting procedures. (5) The state agency must furnish the FBI with all of the detailed data regularly collected by the FBI in the form of duplicate returns, computer printouts, and/or magnetic tapes. (6) The state agency must have the proven capability (tested over a period of time) to supply all the statistical data required in time to meet deadlines established for publication of the national Uniform Crime Reports.
To fulfill its responsibilities in connection with the UCR Program, the FBI continues to edit and review individual agency reports for both completeness and quality. National UCR Program staff have direct contact with individual contributors within the state as necessary in connection with crime reporting matters, coordinating such contact with the state agency. On request, staff members conduct training programs within the state on law enforcement recordkeeping and crime-reporting procedures. Following audit standards established by the federal government, the FBI conducts an audit of each state's UCR data collection procedures once every 3 years. Should circumstances develop whereby the state agency does not comply with the aforementioned requirements, the national Program may reinstitute a direct collection of Uniform Crime Reports from law enforcement agencies within the state.
Reporting Procedures
Based on records of all reports of crime received from victims, officers who discover infractions, or other sources, law enforcement agencies across the country tabulate the number of Crime Index (Part I) offenses brought to their attention each month. Specifically, the Index crimes reported to the FBI are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Whenever complaints of crime are determined through investigation to be unfounded or false, they are eliminated from an agency's count. Agencies report to the FBI the number of actual offenses known regardless of whether anyone is arrested for the crime, stolen property is recovered, or prosecution is undertaken.
Another integral part of the monthly submission is the total number of actual Crime Index offenses cleared. Crimes are cleared in one of two ways: by arrest of at least one person, who is charged and turned over to the court for prosecution, or by exceptional means, when some element beyond law enforcement control precludes the arrest of a known offender. Law enforcement agencies also report the number of Index crime clearances that involve only offenders under the age of 18, the value of property stolen and recovered in connection with the offenses, and detailed information pertaining to criminal homicide and arson.
In addition to its primary collection of Crime Index (Part I) offenses, the UCR Program solicits monthly data on persons arrested for all crimes except traffic violations. The age, sex, and race of arrestees are reported by crime category, both Part I and Part II. Part II offenses include all crimes not classified as Part I.
Monthly data are also collected on law enforcement officers killed or assaulted. The number of full-time sworn and civilian personnel are reported as of October 31 of each year.
At the end of each quarter, summarized information is collected on hate crimes, i.e., specific offenses that were motivated by an offender's bias against the race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability of the victim. Hate crime data from those agencies participating in the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) are submitted monthly.
Editing Procedures
Each report submitted to the UCR Program is thoroughly examined for arithmetical accuracy and for deviations that may indicate errors. To identify any unusual fluctuations in an agency's crime count, UCR staff compare monthly reports with previous submissions of the agency and with those for similar agencies. Large variations in crime levels may indicate modified records procedures, incomplete reporting, or changes in the jurisdiction's geopolitical structure.
Data reliability is a high priority of the Program, which brings to the attention of the state UCR Program or the submitting agency any noted deviations or arithmetical adjustments. A standard FBI procedure is to study the monthly reports and to evaluate periodic trends prepared for individual reporting units. Any significant increase or decrease becomes the subject of a special inquiry. Changes in crime reporting procedures or annexations can influence the level of reported crime. When this occurs, the figures for specific crime categories or totals, if necessary, are excluded from trend tabulations.
To assist contributors in complying with UCR standards, the national Program provides training seminars and instructional materials on crime reporting procedures. Throughout the country, the national UCR Program maintains liaison with state Programs and law enforcement personnel and holds training sessions to explain the purpose of the Program, the rules of uniform classification and scoring, and the methods of assembling the information for reporting. When an individual agency has specific problems in compiling its crime statistics and its remedial efforts are unsuccessful, personnel from the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division may visit the contributor to aid in resolving the difficulties.
The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, which details procedures for classifying and scoring offenses, is supplied to all contributors as the basic resource document for preparing reports. To enhance communication among Program participants, letters to UCR contributors and UCR State Program Bulletins are produced as needed. These provide policy updates and new information, as well as clarification of reporting issues.
The final responsibility for data submissions rests with the individual contributing law enforcement agency. Although the Program makes every effort through its editing procedures, training practices, and correspondence to assure the validity of the data it receives, the accuracy of the statistics depends primarily on the adherence of each contributor to the established standards of reporting. Deviations from these established standards, which cannot be resolved by the national UCR Program, may be brought to the attention of the Criminal Justice Information Systems Committees of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association.
Arrest Data
Florida state arrest data are not included in Tables 30-68. Limited arrest data were received from Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, and South Carolina. No 2002 arrest data were received from the District of Columbia and no population is attributed to the two agencies for which 12 months complete arrest data were received. Complete 12-month arrest figures for New York City were not available for inclusion in this book. Arrest totals for these areas, however, were estimated for inclusion in Table 29, "Estimated Arrests, United States, 2002."
Population
For the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States, the UCR Program obtained current population estimates from the Bureau of the Census to estimate 2002 population counts for all contributing law enforcement agencies. The Bureau of the Census provided revised 2001 state/national population estimates and 2002 state/national population estimates. Using these provisional census data, the national UCR Program updated the 2001 Bureau of the Census city and county estimates and calculated the 2002 state growth rates. Subsequently, the Program updated population figures for individual jurisdictions by applying the 2002 state growth rates to the updated 2001 Bureau of the Census data.
NIBRS Conversion
Several states provide their UCR data in the expanded NIBRS format. For presentation in this book, NIBRS data were converted to the historical summary UCR formats. The NIBRS database was constructed to allow for such conversion so that UCR's long-running time series could continue.
Crime Trends
By showing fluctuations from year to year, trend statistics offer the data user an added perspective from which to study crime. Percent change tabulations in this publication are computed only for reporting agencies that provided comparable data for the periods under consideration. The Program excludes from the trend calculations all figures except those received for common months from common agencies. Also excluded are unusual fluctuations that the Program determines are due to variables such as improved records procedures, annexations. etc.
Data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data in this publication and those in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Due to differing levels of participation from year to year and transient reporting problems that require the Program to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, the data are not comparable from year to year.
Offense Estimation
Tables 1 through 5 and 7 of this publication contain statistics for the entire United States. Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting periods, the UCR Program includes estimated crime counts in these presentations. Offense estimation occurs within each of three areas: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), cities outside MSAs, and rural counties. Using the known crime experiences of similar areas within a state, the national Program computes estimates by assigning the same proportional crime volumes to nonreporting agencies. The size of agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff's office; and geographic location are considered in the estimation process.
Various circumstances require the national Program to estimate certain state offense totals. For example, some states do not provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines; reporting problems at the state level have, at times, resulted in no usable data. Additionally, the conversion of summary reporting to NIBRS has contributed to the need for unique estimation procedures. A summary of state-specific and offense-specific estimation procedures follows.
Year State(s) Reason for Estimation
1985 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR
guidelines.
1986 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
1987 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
1988 Florida, Kentucky Reporting problems at the state
level resulted in no usable data.
Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
1989 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
1990 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
1991 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
Iowa NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in
estimation for Iowa.
1992 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
1993 Illinois NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in
estimation for Illinois.
The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kansas NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in
estimation for Kansas.
Michigan, Minnesota The state UCR Programs were unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
1994 Illinois NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in
estimation for Illinois.
The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kansas NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in
estimation for Kansas.
Montana The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1994 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
1995 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1995 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1995 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Montana The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1995 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
1996 Florida The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1996 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1996 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1996 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kentucky, Montana The state UCR Programs were unable to
provide complete 1996 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
1997 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1997 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1997 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kentucky, Montana, The state UCR Programs were unable to
New Hampshire, provide complete 1997 offense figures
Vermont in accordance with UCR guidelines.
1998 Delaware The state UCR Program was unable to
provide forcible rape figures in
accordance with national UCR guidelines.
Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1998 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1998 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kentucky, Montana, The state UCR Programs were unable to
New Hampshire, provide complete 1998 offense figures in
Wisconsin accordance with UCR guidelines.
Vermont Due to changes in reporting procedures,
the 1997 Vermont Crime Index offense
totals were not comparable to those
for 1998.
1999 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1999 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kansas, Kentucky, The state UCR Programs were unable to
Montana provide complete 1999 offense figures
In accordance with UCR guidelines.
Maine The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1999 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
New Hampshire The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 1999 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
2000 Illinois The state UCR Programs were unable to
provide complete 2000 offense figures
or forcible rape figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 2000 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Kentucky, Montana The state UCR Programs were unable to
provide complete 2000 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
2001 Illinois The state UCR Program submitted complete
data for only seven agencies within the
state. Additionally, the state UCR
Program was unable to provide forcible
rape figures in accordance with UCR
guidelines.
Kentucky The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 2001 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
2002 Kentucky The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 2002 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to
provide complete 2002 offense figures
in accordance with UCR guidelines.
Year State(s) Estimation Method
1985 Illinois The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
1986 Illinois The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
1987 Illinois The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
1988 Florida, Kentucky State totals were estimated by updating
previous valid annual totals for
individual jurisdictions, subdivided by
population group. Percent changes for
each offense within each population
group of the geographic divisions in
which the states reside were applied to
the previous valid annual totals. The
state totals were compiled from the
sums of the population group estimates.
Illinois The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
1989 Illinois The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
1990 Illinois The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups
and assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
1991 Illinois The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups
and assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
Iowa State totals were estimated by updating
previous valid annual totals for
individual jurisdictions, subdivided by
population group. Percent changes for
each offense within each population
group of the West North Central Division
were applied to the previous valid
annual totals. The state totals were
compiled from the sums of the population
group estimates.
1992 Illinois The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
1993 Illinois Since valid annual totals were available
for approximately 60 Illinois agencies,
those counts were maintained. The counts
for the remaining jurisdictions were
replaced with the most recent valid
annual totals or were generated using
standard estimation procedures. The
results of all sources were then
combined to arrive at the 1993 state
total for Illinois.
The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
Kansas State totals were estimated by updating
previous valid annual totals for
individual jurisdictions, subdivided by
population group. Percent changes for
each offense within each population
group of the West North Central Division
were applied to the previous valid
annual totals. The state totals were
compiled from the sums of the population
group estimates.
Michigan, Minnesota The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to each state.
1994 Illinois Illinois totals were generated using
only the valid crime rates for the
East North Central Division. Within
each population group, the state's
offense totals were estimated based on
the rate per 100,000 inhabitants
within the remainder of the division.
The rape totals were estimated using
national rates per 100,000 inhabitants
within the eight population groups and
assigning the forcible rape volumes
proportionally to the state.
Kansas State totals were generated using only
the valid crime rates for the
West North Central Division. Within
each population group, the state's
offense totals were estimated based on
the rate per 100,000 inhabitants within
the remainder of the division.
Montana State totals were estimated by updating
previous valid annual totals for
individual jurisdictions, subdivided by
population group. Percent changes for
each offense within each population
group of the Mountain Division were
applied to the previous valid annual
totals. The state totals were compiled
from the sums of the population group
estimates.
1995 Illinois Valid Crime Index counts were available
for most of the largest cities.
For other agencies, the only available
counts were generated without
application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule.
(The Hierarchy Rule requires that only
the most serious offense in a
multiple-offense criminal incident is
counted.) To arrive at a comparable
state estimate to be included in
national compilations, the total
supplied by the Illinois State Program
(which was inflated because of the
nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule)
was reduced by the proportion of
multiple offenses reported within
single incidents in the available
NIBRS data. Valid totals for the
large cities were excluded from the
reduction process.
Kansas The state UCR Program was able to
provide valid 1994 state totals
which were then updated using 1995
crime trends for the West North
Central Division.
Montana State estimates were computed by
updating the previous valid annual
totals using the 1994 versus 1995
percent changes for the Mountain
Division.
1996 Florida The state UCR Program was able to
provide an aggregated state total;
data received from 94 individual
Florida agencies are shown in the
1996 jurisdictional figures presented
in Tables 8 through 11.
Illinois Valid Crime Index counts were available
for most of the largest cities.
For other agencies, the only available
counts were generated without
application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule.
(The Hierarchy Rule requires that only
the most serious offense in a
multiple-offense criminal incident is
counted.) To arrive at a comparable
state estimate to be included in
national compilations, the total
supplied by the Illinois State Program
(which was inflated because of the
nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule)
was reduced by the proportion of
multiple offenses reported
within single incidents
in the available NIBRS data. Valid
totals for the large cities were
excluded from the reduction process.
Kansas The Kansas state estimate was
extrapolated from 1996 January-June
state totals provided by the Kansas
State UCR Program.
Kentucky, Montana The 1995 and 1996 percent changes
within each geographic division
were applied to valid 1995 state totals
to generate 1996 state totals.
1997 Illinois Valid Crime Index counts were available
for most of the largest cities. For
other agencies, the only available
counts were generated without
application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule.
(The Hierarchy Rule requires that only
the most serious offense in a
multiple-offense criminal incident is
counted.) To arrive at a comparable
state estimate to be included in
national compilations, the total
supplied by the Illinois State Program
(which was inflated because of the
nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule)
was reduced by the proportion of
multiple offenses reported
within single incidents
in the available NIBRS data.
Valid totals for the large
cities were excluded from
the reduction process.
Kansas The Kansas state estimate was
extrapolated from 1996 January-June
state totals provided by the Kansas
State UCR Program.
Kentucky, Montana, The 1996 and 1997 percent changes
New Hampshire, registered for each geographic
Vermont division in which the states of
Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire,
and Vermont are categorized were
applied to valid 1996 state totals
to effect 1997 state totals.
1998 Delaware The 1998 forcible rape total for
Delaware was estimated by reducing
the number of reported offenses by
the proportion of male forcible
rape victims statewide.
Illinois Valid Crime Index counts were
available for most of the largest
cities. For other agencies, the only
available counts were generated without
application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule.
(The Hierarchy Rule requires that only
the most serious offense in a
multiple-offense criminal incident is
counted.) To arrive at a comparable
state estimate to be included in
national compilations, the total
supplied by the Illinois State Program
(which was inflated because of the
nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule)
was reduced by the proportion of
multiple offenses reported
within single incidents
in the available NIBRS data.
Valid totals for the large
cities were excluded from
the reduction process.
Kansas To arrive at 1998 estimates, 1997 state
totals supplied by the Kansas State UCR
Program were updated using 1998 crime
trends for the West North Central
Division.
Kentucky, Montana, State totals were estimated by using
New Hampshire, the 1997 figures for the nonreporting
Wisconsin areas and applying 1997 versus 1998
percentage changes for the division in
which each state is located. The
estimates for the nonreporting areas
were then increased by any actual 1998
crime counts received.
Vermont The 1998 Vermont Crime Index offense
totals were excluded from Table 4.
The 1997 Vermont state estimates were,
however, retained in the aggregate
national, regional, and divisional
volume and rate totals.
1999 Illinois Valid Crime Index counts were
available for most of the largest
cities. For other agencies, the only
available counts were generated without
application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule.
(The Hierarchy Rule requires that only
the most serious offense in a
multiple-offense criminal incident is
counted.) To arrive at a comparable
state estimate to be included in
national compilations, the total
supplied by the Illinois State Program
(which was inflated because of the
nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule)
was reduced by the proportion of
multiple offenses reported
within single incidents
in the available NIBRS data.
Valid totals for the large
cities were excluded from
the reduction process.
Kansas, Kentucky, To arrive at 1999 estimates for Kansas,
Montana Kentucky, and Montana, 1998 state totals
supplied by each state's Uniform Crime
Reporting Program were updated using
1999 crime trends for the divisions in
which each state is located.
Maine The Maine Department of Public Safety
forwarded monthly January through
October crime counts for each law
enforcement contributor; since 12
months of data were not received, the
national Program estimated for the
missing data following standard
estimation procedures to arrive at a
1999 state total.
New Hampshire The state total for New Hampshire was
estimated by using the 1998 figures for
the 1999 nonreporting areas and
applying the 2-year percent change for
the New England Division.
2000 Illinois Valid Crime Index counts were available
for most of the largest cities. For
other agencies, the only available
counts were generated without
application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule.
(The Hierarchy Rule requires that only
the most serious offense in a
multiple-offense criminal incident be
counted.) To arrive at a comparable
state estimate to be included in
national compilations, the total
supplied by the Illinois State Program
(which was inflated due to the
nonapplication of the
Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the
proportion of multiple offenses
reported within single incidents in
the available NIBRS data. Valid
totals for the large cities were
excluded from the reduction process.
Kansas To arrive at 2000 estimates for
Kansas, 1999 state estimates were
updated using 2000 crime trends for
the West North Central Division.
Kentucky, Montana To arrive at 2000 estimates for
Kentucky and Montana, 1999 state
totals supplied by each state's UCR
Program were updated using 2000 crime
trends for the divisions in which
each state is located.
2001 Illinois Valid Crime Index counts were available
for most of the largest cities. For
other agencies, the only available
counts were generated without
application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule.
(The Hierarchy Rule requires that only
the most serious offense in a
multiple-offense criminal incident is
counted.) To arrive at a comparable
state estimate to be included in
national compilations, the total
supplied by the Illinois State Program
(which was inflated because of the
nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule)
was reduced by the proportion of
multiple offenses reported within
single incidents in the available
NIBRS data. Valid totals for the
large cities were excluded from the
reduction process.
Kentucky To arrive at the 2001 estimate for
Kentucky, the 2000 state estimates
were updated using 2001 crime trends
reported for the East South
Central Division.
2002 Kentucky To obtain the 2002 state crime count,
the state UCR Program was contacted,
and the state agency was able to
provide their latest state total,
2000. Therefore, the 2001 state
estimate was updated for inclusion
in the 2002 edition of Crime in the
United States by using the 2001 crime
trends for the division in which the
state is located. To derive the 2002
state estimate, the 2002 crime trends
for the division were applied to the
adjusted 2001 state estimate.
Illinois Valid Crime Index counts were only
available for most of the largest
cities. For other agencies, the only
available counts were generated
without application of the UCR
Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule
requires that only the most serious
offense in a multiple-offense criminal
incident is counted.) To arrive at a
comparable state estimate to be
included in national compilations,
the total supplied by the Illinois
State Program (which was inflated
because of the nonapplication of
the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by
the proportion of multiple offenses
reported with single incidents in the
available NIBRS data. Valid totals
for the large cities were excluded
from the reduction process.
Table Methodology
Although most law enforcement agencies submit crime reports to the UCR Program, not all agencies send 12 months of complete data for the reporting year. To be included in this publication's Tables 8 through 11, which show specific jurisdictional statistics, figures for all 12 months of the reporting year must have been received by the FBI prior to established publication deadlines. Other tabular presentations are aggregated on varied levels of submission. With the exception of the tables that consist of estimates for the total United States population, each table in this publication shows the number of agencies reporting and the extent of population coverage.
Designed to assist the reader, this table explains the construction of many of this book's tabular presentations.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Table Database Table Construction General Comments
1 All law enforcement The 2002 statistics Represents an
agencies in the are consistent with estimation of
UCR Program. Crime Table 2. Pre- 2002 national reported
statistics include crime statistics crime activity
estimated offense may have been from 1983 to 2002.
totals foragencies updated and, hence,
submitting less may not be
than 12 months of consistent with
offense reports for prior publications.
each year. Population
statistics
represent July 1
provisional
estimations for
each year except
1990 and 2000,
which are Bureau
of the Census
decennial census
data. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
2 All law enforcement Statistics are Represents an
agencies in the UCR aggregated from estimation of
Program. Crime individual state national reported
statistics include statistics as shown crime activity in
estimated offense in Table 5. 2002.
totals for agencies Population
submitting less statistics for
than 12 months of 2002 represent
offense reports for estimates based
2002. upon the percent
change in state
population from
Bureau of the
Census 2001
revised estimates
and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
3 All law enforcement Regional offense Represents the
agencies in the distributions are 2002 geographical
UCR Program computed from distribution of
(including those volume figures as estimated Crime
submitting less shown in Table 4. Index offenses and
than 12 months of Population population.
offense reports distributions are
for 2002). based on Bureau of
the Census
provisional
estimates for 2002.
4 All law enforcement The 2002 statistics Represents an
agencies in the UCR are aggregated from estimation of
Program. Crime individual state reported crime
statistics include statistics as shown activity for Index
estimated offense in Table 5. offenses at the:
totals for agencies Population 1. national level
submitting less statistics 2. regional level
than 12 months of represent Bureau of 3. division level
offense reports for the Census 2001 4. state level
2001 and 2002. revised estimates Any comparison of
and 2002 UCR statistics
provisional should take into
estimates. consideration
demographic
factors.
5 All law enforcement Population Represents an
agencies in the UCR statistics for 2002 estimation of
Program. Crime represent estimates reported crime
statistics include based upon the activity for Index
estimated offense percent change in offenses at the
totals for agencies state population state level. Any
submitting less from Bureau of the comparison of UCR
than 12 months of Census 2001 revised statistics should
offense reports for estimates and 2002 take into
2002. provisional consideration
estimates. (See the demographic
Population section factors.
in this appendix.)
Statistics under
the heading Area
Actually Reporting
represent reported
offense totals for
agencies submitting
12 months of
offense reports and
estimated totals
for agencies
submitting less
than 12 but more
than 2 months of
offense reports.
The statistics
under the heading
Estimated Totals
represent the above
plus estimated
offense totals for
agencies submitting
2 months or less
of offense reports.
6 All law enforcement Statistics are Represents an
agencies in the UCR published for all estimation of the
Program. Crime Metropolitan reported crime
statistics include Statistical Areas activity for Index
estimated offense (MSAs) having at offenses at the
totals for agencies least 75% reporting individual MSA
submitting less and for which the level. Any
than 12 months of central city/cities comparison of UCR
offense reports submitted 12 months statistics should
for 2002. of data for 2002. take into
Population consideration
statistics for demographic
2002 represent factors.
estimates based
upon the percent
change in state
population from
Bureau of the
Census 2001
revised estimates
and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See
the Population
section in this
appendix.) The
statistics under
the heading Area
Actually Reporting
represent reported
offense
totals for agencies
submitting all 12
months of offense
reports plus
estimated offense
totals for agencies
submitting less
than 12 but more
than 2 months of
offense reports.
The statistics
under the heading
Estimated Total
represent the above
plus the estimated
offense totals for
agencies submitting
2 months or less of
offense reports.
The tabular
breakdowns are
according to UCR
definitions. (See
App. II.)
7 All law enforcement Offense totals are Represents an
agencies in the for all Index estimation of
UCR Program. Crime offense categories national reported
statistics include other than crime activity
estimated offense aggravated assault. from 1998 to 2002.
totals for agencies Aggravated assault
submitting less is not included in
than 12 months of the data source
offense reports for from which this
1998 through 2002. table is derived.
8 All law enforcement Cities and Towns Represents
agencies submitting are agencies in reported crime
12 months of Population Groups I activity of
complete offense through V. individual
reports for 2002. Population agencies in cities
statistics for 2002 and towns 10,000
represent estimates and over in
based upon the population. Any
percent change in comparison of UCR
state population statistics should
from Bureau of the take into
Census 2001 revised consideration
estimates and 2002 demographic
provisional factors.
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
9 All university/ The 2000 student Represents
college law enrollment figures, reported crime
enforcement which are provided from those
agencies submitting by the U.S. individual
12 months of Department of university/college
complete offense Education, are the law enforcement
reports for 2002. most recent agencies
available. They contributing to
include full- and the UCR Program.
part-time students. These agencies are
No adjustments to listed
equate part-time alphabetically by
enrollments into state. Any
full-time comparison of
equivalents have these UCR
been made. statistics should
take into
consideration size
of enrollment,
number of on-campus
residents, and
other demographic
factors.
10 All law enforcement Suburban Counties Represents crime
agencies submitting are the areas reported to
12 months of covered by noncity individual law
complete offense agencies within an enforcement
reports for 2002. MSA. (See App. agencies in
III.) Population suburban counties,
classifications of i.e., the
suburban counties individual
are based on 2002 sheriff's office,
UCR estimates for county police
individual department,
agencies. (See the highway patrol,
Population section and/or state
in this appendix.) police. These
figures do not
represent the
county totals
since they
exclude city
crime counts. Any
comparison of UCR
statistics should
take into
consideration
demographic
factors.
11 All law enforcement Rural Counties are Represents crime
agencies submitting those outside MSAs reported to
12 months of whose jurisdictions individual rural
complete offense are not covered by county law
reports for 2002. city police enforcement
agencies. (See App. agencies covering
III.) Population populations 25,000
classifications of and over, i.e.,
rural counties are the individual
based on 2002 UCR sheriff's office,
estimates for county police
individual department,
agencies. (See the highway patrol,
Population section and/or state
in this appendix.) police. These
figures do not
represent the
county totals
since they exclude
city crime counts.
Any comparison of
UCR statistics
should take into
consideration
demographic
factors.
12-15 All law enforcement The 2002 crime
agencies submitting trend statistics
at least 6 common are 2-year
months of complete comparisons based
offense reports on 2002 reported
for 2001 and 2002. crime activity.
Only common
reported months
for individual
agencies are
included in 2002
trend calculations.
Population
statistics for 2002
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
See Appendix III
for UCR population
breakdowns. Note
that Suburban and
Nonsuburban Cities
are all municipal
agencies other than
central cities in
MSAs.
16-19 All law enforcement The 2002 crime The forcible rape
agencies submitting rates are the figures furnished
12 months of ratios, per 100,000 by the Delaware
complete offense inhabitants, of and Illinois state
reports for 2002. the aggregated UCR Programs were
2002 crime volumes not in accordance
and the aggregated with national
2002 populations of guidelines. For
the contributing inclusion in these
agencies. tables, the
Population Delaware and
statistics for 2002 Illinois forcible
represent estimates rape figures were
based upon the estimated by using
percent change in the national rates
state population for each
from Bureau of the population group
Census 2001 revised applied to the
estimates and 2002 population by
provisional group for Delaware
estimates. (See and Illinois
the Population agencies supplying
section in this all 12 months of
appendix.) See data. There is a
Appendix III for slight decrease in
UCR population national coverage
breakdowns. Note for Table 19 due
that Suburban and to editing
Nonsuburban Cities procedure and
are all municipal lower submission
agencies other than rate.
central cities
in MSAs.
20 All law enforcement The weapon totals The SHR is the
agencies are the aggregate monthly report
submitting for each murder form concerning
Supplementary victim recorded homicides. It
Homicide Report on the SHRs for details victim and
(SHR) data for calendar year 2002. offender
2002. characteristics,
circumstances,
weapons used, etc.
21, 22 All law enforcement The weapon totals
agencies submitting are aggregated 2002
12 months of totals. Population
complete offense statistics
reports for 2002. represent 2002 UCR
estimates.
23, 24 All law enforcement Offense total and Aggravated assault
agencies submitting value lost total is excluded from
at least 6 months are computed for Table 23. For UCR
of complete offense all Index offense Program purposes,
reports for 2002. categories other the taking of
than aggravated money or property
assault. Percent in connection with
distribution is an assault is
derived based on reported as
offense total of robbery.
each Index offense.
Trend statistics
are derived based
on agencies with
at least 6 common
months complete for
2001 and 2002.
25-28 All law enforcement The 2002 clearance
agencies submitting rates are based on
at least 6 months offense and
of complete offense clearance volume
reports for 2002. totals of the
contributing
agencies for
2002. Population
statistics for
2002 represent
estimates based
upon the percent
change in state
population from
Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
See Appendix III
for UCR Program
population
breakdowns.
29 All law enforcement The arrest totals
agencies in the presented are
UCR Program national estimates
(including those based on the arrest
submitting less statistics of all
than 12 months of law enforcement
complete data for agencies in the UCR
2002). Program (including
those submitting
less than 12
months). The Total
Estimated Arrests
statistic is the
sum of estimated
arrest volumes for
each of 28
offenses, not
including
suspicion. Each
individual arrest
total is the sum of
the estimated
volumes within each
of the eight
population groups.
(See App. III.)
Each group's
estimate is the
reported volume
(as shown in Table
31) divided by the
percent of total
group population
reporting,
according to 2002
UCR estimates for
individual
agencies. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
30, 31 All law enforcement The 2002 arrest
agencies submitting rates are the
complete reports ratios, per 100,000
for 12 months of inhabitants, of the
2002. aggregated 2002
reported arrest
statistics and
population. The
population
statistics for 2002
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See
the Population
section in this
appendix.) See
Appendix III for
UCR population
classifications
and geographical
configuration.
32, 33 All law enforcement The arrest trends
agencies submitting are the percentage
12 months of differences between
complete reports 1993 and 2002
for 1993 and 2002. arrest volumes
aggregated from
all common
agencies. The
population
statistics for
2002 represent
estimates based
upon the percent
change in state
population from
Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
Population
statistics for 1993
are based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 1992 and
1993 provisional
estimates.
34, 35 All law enforcement The arrest trends
agencies submitting are the percentage
12 months of differences between
complete reports 1998 and 2002
for 1998 and 2002. arrest volumes
aggregated from
common agencies.
The population
statistics for 2002
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
Population
statistics for
1998 are based upon
the percent change
in state population
from the Bureau of
the Census 1997
and 1998
provisional
estimates.
36, 37 All law enforcement The arrest trends
agencies submitting are 2-year
12 months of comparisons between
complete reports 2001 and 2002
for 2001 and 2002. arrest volumes
aggregated from
common agencies.
Population
statistics for
2001 represent
estimates based
upon the percent
change in state
population from
Bureau of the
Census 2000
decennial counts
and provisional
2001 estimates.
Population
statistics for
2002 represent
estimates based
upon the percent
change in state
populations from
the Bureau of
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
38-43 All law enforcement Population
agencies submitting statistics for 2002
12 months of represent estimates
complete reports based upon the
for 2002. percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
44, 45 All city law The 2002 city
enforcement arrest trends
agencies submitting represent the
12 months of percentage
complete reports differences between
for 2001 and 2002. 2001 and 2002
arrest volumes
aggregated from
common city
agencies. City
Agencies are all
agencies within
Population Groups
I-VI. (See App.
III.) Population
statistics for 2001
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2000
decennial counts
and provisional
2001 estimates.
Population
statistics for
2002 represent
estimates based
upon the percent
change in state
population from
Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
46-49 All city law City Agencies are Slight decrease in
enforcement all agencies within coverage for Table
agencies submitting Population Groups 49 due to editing
12 months of I-VI. (See App. procedure and
complete reports III.) Population lower submission
for 2002. statistics for 2002 of race data.
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See
the Population
section in this
appendix.)
50, 51 All suburban county The 2002 suburban
law enforcement county arrest
agencies submitting trends represent
12 months of percentage
complete reports differences between
for 2001 and 2002. 2001 and 2002
volumes aggregated
from contributing
agencies. Suburban
Counties are the
areas covered by
noncity agencies
within an MSA. (See
App. III.)
Population
statistics for 2001
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2000
decennial counts
and provisional
2001 estimates.
Population
statistics for 2002
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state populations
from the Bureau of
Census 2001
revised estimates
and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
52-55 All suburban county Suburban Counties Slight decrease in
law enforcement are the areas coverage for Table
agencies submitting covered by noncity 55 due to editing
12 months of agencies within an procedure and
complete reports MSA. (See App. lower submission
for 2002. III.) Population of race data.
statistics for
2002 represent
estimates based
upon the percent
change in state
population from the
Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See
the Population
section in this
appendix.)
56, 57 All rural county The 2002 rural
law enforcement county arrest
agencies trends represent
submitting percentage
12 months of differences between
complete reports 2001 and 2002
for 2001 and 2002. volumes aggregated
from contributing
agencies. Rural
Counties are
noncity agencies
outside MSAs. (See
App. III.)
Population
statistics for 2001
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2000
decennial counts
and provisional
2001 estimates.
Population
statistics for 2002
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state populations-
from the Bureau of
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
58-61 All rural county Rural Counties are
law enforcement noncity agencies
agencies submitting outside MSAs. (See
12 months of App. III.)
complete reports Population
for 2002. statistics for 2002
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from the Bureau of
the Census 2001
revised estimates
and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
62, 63 All suburban area The 2002 suburban
law enforcement area arrest trends
agencies submitting represent
12 months of percentage
complete reports metropolitan area
for 2001 and 2002 excluding those
that cover central
cities as defined
by the Office of
Management and
Budget. (See App.
III.) Population
statistics for 2001
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2000
decennial counts
and provisional
2001 estimates.
Population
statistics for 2002
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state populations
from the Bureau of
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
64-67 All suburban area Suburban Area
law enforcement includes agencies
agencies submitting within a
12 months of metropolitan area
complete reports excluding those
for 2002. that cover central
cities as defined
by the Office of
Management and
Budget. (See App.
III.) Population
statistics for 2002
represent estimates
based upon the
percent change in
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See
the Population
section in this
appendix.)
68 All law enforcement Population Data furnished are
agencies submitting statistics for 2002 based upon
12 months of represent estimates individual state
complete reports based upon the age definitions
for 2002. percent change in for juveniles.
state population
from Bureau of the
Census 2001 revised
estimates and 2002
provisional
estimates. (See the
Population section
in this appendix.)
69 All law enforcement Arrest totals are Any comparison of
agencies submitting aggregated for t statistics should
12 months of individual agencies take into
complete reports within each state. consideration
for 2002. Population variances in
statistics represen arrest practices,
Bureau of the particularly for
Census provisional Part II crimes.
estimates for 2002.
(See the Population
section in this
appendix.)
Appendix II--Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting
The Uniform Crime Reporting Program classifies offenses into two groups, Part I and Part II crimes. Each month, contributing agencies submit information on the number of Part I offenses (Crime Index) known to law enforcement; those offenses cleared by arrest or exceptional means; and the age, sex, and race of persons arrested. Contributors provide only arrest data for Part II offenses.
The Part I offenses, those that comprise the Crime Index due to their seriousness and frequency, are defined below:
Criminal homicide--a.) 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, and accidental deaths are excluded. The Program classifies justifiable homicides separately and limits the definition to: (1) the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty; or (2) the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen. b.) Manslaughter by negligence: the killing of another person through gross negligence. Traffic fatalities are excluded. While manslaughter by negligence is a Part I crime, it is not included in the Crime Index.
Forcible rape--The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape regardless of the age of the victim are included. Statutory offenses (no force used--victim under age of consent) are excluded.
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. Motorboats, construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment are specifically excluded from this category.
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.
The Part II offenses, for which only arrest data are collected, are defined below:
Other assaults (simple)--Assaults and attempted assaults where no weapons are used and which do not result in serious or aggravated injury to the victim.
Forgery and counterfeiting--Making, altering, uttering, or possessing, with intent to defraud, anything false in the semblance of that which is true. Attempts are included.
Fraud--Fraudulent conversion and obtaining money or property by false pretenses. Confidence games and bad checks, except forgeries and counterfeiting, are included.
Embezzlement--Misappropriation or misapplication of money or property entrusted to one's care, custody, or control.
Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing--Buying, receiving, and possessing stolen property, including attempts.
Vandalism--Willful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of any public or private property, real or personal, without consent of the owner or persons having custody or control. Attempts are included.
Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.--All violations of regulations or statutes controlling the carrying, using, possessing, furnishing, and manufacturing of deadly weapons or silencers. Attempts are included.
Prostitution and commercialized vice--Sex offenses of a commercialized nature, such as prostitution, keeping a bawdy house, procuring, or transporting women for immoral purposes. Attempts are included.
Sex offenses (except forcible rape, prostitution, and commercialized vice)--Statutory rape and offenses against chastity, common decency, morals, and the like. Attempts are included.
Drug abuse violations--State and/or local offenses relating to the unlawful possession, sale, use, growing, and manufacturing of narcotic drugs. The following drug categories are specified: opium or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, heroin, codeine); marijuana; synthetic narcotics--manufactured narcotics that can cause true addiction (demerol, methadone); and dangerous nonnarcotic drugs (barbiturates, benzedrine).
Gambling--Promoting, permitting, or engaging in illegal gambling.
Offenses against the family and children--Nonsupport, neglect, desertion, or abuse of family and children. Attempts are included.
Driving under the influence--Driving or operating any vehicle or common carrier while drunk or under the influence of liquor or narcotics.
Liquor laws--State and/or local liquor law violations except drunkenness and driving under the influence. Federal violations are excluded.
Drunkenness--Offenses relating to drunkenness or intoxication. Driving under the influence is excluded.
Disorderly conduct--Breach of the peace.
Vagrancy--Begging, loitering, etc. Includes prosecutions under the charge of suspicious person.
All other offenses--All violations of state and/or local laws except those listed above and traffic offenses.
Suspicion--No specific offense; suspect released without formal charges being placed.
Curfew and loitering laws (persons under age 18)--Offenses relating to violations of local curfew or loitering ordinances where such laws exist.
Runaways (persons under age 18)--Limited to juveniles taken into protective custody under provisions of local statutes.
Appendix III--uniform crime reporting area definitions
This publication presents crime statistics by area, enabling data users to analyze local crime counts in relation to other areas of a like geographic location or population size. The Nation is divided into regions, divisions, and states. Data are also broken down using population figures and proximity to metropolitan areas. Sheriffs, county police, and state police generally report crimes within counties but outside cities; local police report crime in city limits.
Community Types
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program displays data aggregated by three types of communities:
1. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)--Each MSA has a central city with at least 50,000 inhabitants or an urbanized area of at least 50,000 in population. MSAs include the county of the central city and other contiguous counties that have substantial economic and social ties to the central city and county. For UCR purposes, counties in an MSA are considered suburban. An MSA may cross state lines. Establishing reporting units representing major population centers assists data users in analyzing and presenting uniform statistical data on metropolitan areas. The Program discourages data users from making year-to-year comparisons of MSA data because of changes in the geographic composition of MSAs.
New England MSAs are comprised of cities and towns instead of counties. In this publication's tabular presentations, New England cities and towns are assigned to the proper MSA. However, statistics for the areas outside of these MSAs are compiled in county data presentations. In the counties that have both suburban and rural portions, data for state police and sheriffs are included in statistics for the rural areas.
About 80 percent of the Nation's population inhabited MSAs in 2002. Some presentations in this publication refer to suburban areas, which include cities with under 50,000 population as well as unincorporated areas within the MSA and exclude central cities. The suburban area concept is important because of the unique crime conditions in the communities around the United States' largest cities.
2. Cities Outside MSAs--Cities outside MSAs are mostly incorporated areas and made up 8 percent of the Nation's population in 2002.
3. Rural Counties Outside MSAs--Most rural counties are composed of unincorporated areas. Law enforcement agencies in rural counties cover areas that are not under the jurisdiction of city police departments. Some 12 percent of the population in 2002 were served by rural law enforcement agencies.
Community types are illustrated below:
MSA NON-MSA
CENTRAL
CITIES
50,000
AND OVER
CITIES
OUTSIDE
CITIES METROPOLITAN
AREAS
SUBURBAN
CITIES
COUNTIES
(including SUBURBAN RURAL
unincorporated COUNTIES COUNTIES
areas)
Population Groups
The UCR Program uses the following population group classifications: Population Political Population Group Label Range I City 250,000 and over II City 100,000 to 249,999 III City 50,000 to 99,999 IV City 25,000 to 49,999 V City 10,000 to 24,999 VI City (1 Less than 10,000 VIII (Rural County) County (2) N/A IX (Suburban County) County (2) N/A (1) Includes universities and colleges to which no population is attributed. (2) Includes state police to which no population is attributed.
Individual law enforcement agencies are the major source of UCR data. Annually, the number of agencies included in each population group varies because of population growth, geopolitical consolidation, municipal incorporation, etc. In noncensus years, the UCR Program estimates population figures for individual jurisdictions. A more comprehensive explanation of population estimations is located in Appendix I.
The table below displays the number of agencies contributing to the UCR Program within each population group for 2002.
Population Number of Population Group Agencies Covered I 71 53,175,169 II 171 25,571,226 III 423 29,153,832 IV 803 27,912,096 V 1,867 29,581,897 VI1 8,735 26,310,716 VIII (Rural County) (2) 3,437 34,517,436 IX (Suburban County) (2) 1,817 62,146,326 Total 17,324 288,368,698 (1) Includes universities and colleges to which no population is attributed. (2) Includes state police to which no population is attributed.
Regions and Divisions
The accompanying map depicts the four regions of the United States: the Northeastern States, the Midwestern States, the Southern States, and the Western States. Further, the regions are split into nine divisions. The table lists the regional, divisional, and state organization of the Nation for the UCR Program's purposes.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
NORTHEASTERN STATES
New England Middle Atlantic
Connecticut New Jersey
Maine New York
Massachusetts Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
MIDWESTERN STATES
East North Central West North Central
Illinois Iowa
Indiana Kansas
Michigan Minnesota
Ohio Missouri
Wisconsin Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
SOUTHERN STATES
South Atlantic East South Central
Delaware Alabama
District of Columbia Kentucky
Florida Mississippi
Georgia Tennessee
Maryland West South Central
North Carolina Arkansas
South Carolina Louisiana
Virginia Oklahoma
West Virginia Texas
WESTERN STATES
Mountain Pacific
Arizona Alaska
Colorado California
Idaho Hawaii
Montana Oregon
Nevada Washington
New Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
Appendix IV--The Nation's Two Crime Measures
The U.S. Department of Justice administers two statistical programs to measure the magnitude, nature, and impact of crime in the Nation: the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Each of these programs produces valuable information about aspects of the Nation's crime problem. Because the UCR and NCVS programs are conducted for different purposes, use different methods, and focus on somewhat different aspects of crime, the information they produce together provides a more comprehensive panorama of the Nation's crime problem than either could produce alone.
Uniform Crime Reports
The FBI's UCR Program, which began in 1929, collects information on the following crimes reported to law enforcement authorities: homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Law enforcement agencies report arrest data for 21 additional crime categories.
The UCR data are compiled from monthly law enforcement reports or individual crime incident records transmitted directly to the FBI or to centralized state agencies that then report to the FBI. Each report submitted to the UCR Program is examined thoroughly for reasonableness, accuracy, and deviations that may indicate errors. Large variations in crime levels may indicate modified records procedures, incomplete reporting, or changes in a jurisdiction's boundaries. To identify any unusual fluctuations in an agency's crime counts, monthly reports are compared with previous submissions of the agency and with those for similar agencies.
In 2002, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented approximately 288.4 million United States inhabitants--93.4 percent of the total population.
The UCR Program provides crime counts for the Nation as a whole, as well as for regions, states, counties, cities, and towns. This permits studies among neighboring jurisdictions and among those with similar populations and other common characteristics.
UCR findings for each calendar year are published in a preliminary release in the spring of the following calendar year, then succeeded by a detailed annual report, Crime in the United States, issued in the fall. In addition to crime counts and trends, this report includes data on crimes cleared, persons arrested (age, sex, and race), law enforcement personnel (including the number of sworn officers killed or assaulted), and the characteristics of homicides (including age, sex, and race of victims and offenders; victim-offender relationships; weapons used; and circumstances surrounding the homicides). Other periodic reports are also available from the UCR Program.
The UCR Program is continually converting to the more comprehensive and detailed National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). NIBRS can provide detailed information about each criminal incident in 22 broad categories of offenses.
National Crime Victimization Survey
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' NCVS, which began in 1973, provides a detailed picture of crime incidents, victims, and trends. After a substantial period of research, the survey completed an intensive methodological redesign in 1993. The redesign was undertaken to improve the questions used to uncover crime, update the survey methods, and broaden the scope of crimes measured. The redesigned survey collects detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. It does not measure homicide or commercial crimes (such as burglaries of stores).
Two times a year, U.S. Bureau of the Census personnel interview all household members at least 12 years old in a nationally representative sample of approximately 49,000 households (about 80,000 people). Approximately 160,000 interviews are conducted annually. Households stay in the sample for 3 years. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis.
The NCVS collects information on crimes suffered by individuals and households, whether or not those crimes were reported to law enforcement. It estimates the proportion of each crime type reported to law enforcement, and it summarizes the reasons that victims give for reporting or not reporting.
The survey provides information about victims (age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, income, and educational level), offenders (sex, race, approximate age, and victim-offender relationship), and the crimes (time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences). Questions also cover the experiences of victims with the criminal justice system, self-protective measures used by victims, and possible substance abuse by offenders. Supplements are added periodically to the survey to obtain detailed information on topics like school crime.
The first data from the redesigned NCVS were published in a BJS bulletin in June 1995. BJS publication of NCVS data includes Criminal Victimization in the United States, an annual report that covers the broad range of detailed information collected by the NCVS. BJS publishes detailed reports on topics such as crime against women, urban crime, and gun use in crime. The NCVS data files are archived at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan to enable researchers to perform independent analyses.
Comparing UCR and NCVS
Because the NCVS was designed to complement the UCR Program, the two programs share many similarities. As much as their different collection methods permit, the two measure the same subset of serious crimes, defined alike. Both programs cover rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. Rape, robbery, theft, and motor vehicle theft are defined virtually identically by both the UCR and NCVS. (While rape is defined analogously, the UCR Crime Index measures the crime against women only, and the NCVS measures it against both sexes.)
There are also significant differences between the two programs. First, the two programs were created to serve different purposes. The UCR Program's primary objective is to provide a reliable set of criminal justice statistics for law enforcement administration, operation, and management. The NCVS was established to provide previously unavailable information about crime (including crime not reported to police), victims, and offenders.
Second, the two programs measure an overlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. The NCVS includes crimes both reported and not reported to law enforcement. The NCVS excludes, but the UCR includes, homicide, arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against children under age 12. The UCR captures crimes reported to law enforcement, but it excludes simple assaults and sexual assaults other than forcible rape from the Crime Index.
Third, because of methodology, the NCVS and UCR definitions of some crimes differ. For example, the UCR defines burglary as the unlawful entry or attempted entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. The NCVS, not wanting to ask victims to ascertain offender motives, defines burglary as the entry or attempted entry of a residence by a person who had no right to be there.
Fourth, for property crimes (burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft), the two programs calculate crime rates using different bases. The UCR rates for these crimes are per capita (number of crimes per 100,000 persons), whereas the NCVS rates for these crimes are per household (number of crimes per 1,000 households). Because the number of households may not grow at the same rate each year as the total population, trend data for rates of property crimes measured by the two programs may not be comparable.
In addition, some differences in the data from the two programs may result from sampling variation in the NCVS and from estimating for nonresponse in the UCR. The NCVS estimates are derived from interviewing a sample and are, therefore, subject to a margin of error. Rigorous statistical methods are used to calculate confidence intervals around all survey estimates. Trend data in NCVS reports are described as genuine only if there is at least a 90 percent certainty that the measured changes are not the result of sampling variation. The UCR data are based on the actual counts of offenses reported by law enforcement jurisdictions. In some circumstances, UCR data are estimated for nonparticipating jurisdictions or those reporting partial data.
Apparent discrepancies between statistics from the two programs can usually be accounted for by their definitional and procedural differences or resolved by comparing NCVS sampling variations (confidence intervals) of those crimes said to have been reported to police with UCR statistics.
For most types of crimes measured by both the UCR and NCVS, analysts familiar with the programs can exclude from analysis those aspects of crime not common to both. Resulting long-term trend lines can be brought into close concordance. The impact of such adjustments is most striking for robbery, burglary, and motor vehicle theft, whose definitions most closely coincide.
With robbery, annual victimization rates are based only on NCVS robberies reported to the police. It is also possible to remove UCR robberies of commercial establishments such as gas stations, convenience stores, and banks from analysis. When the resulting NCVS police-reported robbery rates are compared to UCR noncommercial robbery rates, the results reveal closely corresponding long-term trends.
Each program has unique strengths. The UCR provides a measure of the number of crimes reported to law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The UCR's Supplementary Homicide Reports provide the most reliable, timely data on the extent and nature of homicides in the Nation. The NCVS is the primary source of information on the characteristics of criminal victimization and on the number and types of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities.
By understanding the strengths and limitations of each program, it is possible to use the UCR and NCVS to achieve a greater understanding of crime trends and the nature of crime in the United States. For example, changes in police procedures, shifting attitudes towards crime and police, and other societal changes can affect the extent to which people report and law enforcement agencies record crime. NCVS and UCR data can be used in concert to explore why trends in reported and police-recorded crime may differ.
Appendix V--directory of state uniform crime reporting programs
Alabama Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center
Suite 350
770 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
334-242-4900
Alaska Uniform Crime Reporting Section
Department of Public Safety Information System
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
907-451-5166
American Samoa Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 1086
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
684-633-1111
Arizona Access Integrity Unit
Uniform Crime Reporting Program
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 6638
Phoenix, Arizona 85005-6638
602-223-2263
Arkansas Arkansas Crime Information Center
One Capitol Mall, 4D-200
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
501-682-2222
California Criminal Justice Statistics Center
Department of Justice
Post Office Box 903427
Sacramento, California 94203-4270
916-227-3282
Colorado Uniform Crime Reporting
Colorado Bureau of Investigation
Suite 3000
690 Kipling Street
Denver, Colorado 80215
303-239-4300
Connecticut Uniform Crime Reporting Program
Post Office Box 2794
Middletown, Connecticut 06457-9294
860-685-8030
Delaware Delaware State Bureau of Identification
Post Office Box 430
Dover, Delaware 19903
302-739-5875
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department
300 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
202-727-1077
Florida Criminal Justice Information Services
Uniform Crime Reports
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Post Office Box 1489
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
850-410-7121
Georgia Georgia Crime Information Center
Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Uniform Crime Reporting Unit
Post Office Box 370748
Decatur, Georgia 30037-0748
404-244-2840
Guam Guam Police Department
Planning, Research and Development
Building #233
Central Avenue
Tiyan, Guam 96913
671-475-8421
Hawaii Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division
Department of the Attorney General
Suite 401
235 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
808-586-1416
Idaho Bureau of Criminal Identification
Idaho Department of Law Enforcement
Post Office Box 700
Meridian, Idaho 83680
208-884-7156
Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting
Division of Administration; Crime Statistics
Illinois State Police
3rd Floor
400 Iles Park Place
Springfield, Illinois 62708
217-782-5794
Iowa Iowa Department of Public Safety
Wallace State Office Building
East Ninth and Grand
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
515-281-8494
Kansas Criminal Justice System
Kansas Bureau of Investigation
Crime Data Information Center
1620 Southwest Tyler Street
Topeka, Kansas 66612
785-296-8200
Kentucky Criminal Identification and Records Branch
Kentucky State Police
1250 Louisville Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
502-227-8790
Louisiana Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement
Uniform Crime Reporting
12th Floor
1885 Wooddale Boulevard
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806
225-925-7465
Maine Records Management Services
Uniform Crime Reporting Division
Maine Department of Public Safety
Maine State Police
36 Hospital Street, Station 42
Augusta, Maine 04333
207-624-7003
Maryland Central Records Division
Maryland State Police
1711 Belmont Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21244
410-298-3883
Massachusetts Crime Reporting Unit
Uniform Crime Reports
Massachusetts State Police
470 Worcester Road
Framingham, Massachusetts 01702
508-820-2111
Michigan Uniform Crime Reporting Section
Criminal Justice Information Center
Michigan State Police
7150 Harris Drive
Lansing, Michigan 48913
517-322-1424
Minnesota Criminal Justice Information Systems
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
Minnesota Department of Public Safety
1246 University Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651-642-0670
Missouri Missouri State Highway Patrol
1510 East Elm Street
Post Office Box 568
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0568
573-526-6278
Montana Montana Board of Crime Control
Post Office Box 201408
Helena, Montana 59620-1408
406-444-4298
Nebraska Uniform Crime Reporting Section
The Nebraska Commission on Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice
Post Office Box 94946
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
402-471-3982
Nevada Criminal Information Services
Nevada Highway Patrol
808 West Nye Lane
Carson City, Nevada 89703
775-687-1600
New Hampshire Uniform Crime Reporting Unit
New Hampshire State Police
New Hampshire Department of Public Safety
10 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03305
603-271-2509
New Jersey Uniform Crime Reporting Unit
New Jersey State Police
Post Office Box 7068
West Trenton, New Jersey 08628-0068
609-882-2000 x 2392
New York Statistical Services
New York State Division of Criminal Justice
Services
8th Floor, Mail Room
4 Tower Place
Albany, New York 12203
518-457-8381
North Carolina Crime Reporting and Criminal Statistics
State Bureau of Investigation
Post Office Box 29500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0500
919-662-4509
North Dakota Information Services Section
Bureau of Criminal Investigation
Attorney General's Office
Post Office Box 1054
Bismarck, North Dakota 58502
701-328-5500
Ohio * Office of Criminal Justice Services
Suite 300
400 East Town Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614-644-6797
Oklahoma Uniform Crime Reporting Section
Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
Suite 300
6600 North Harvey
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116
405-879-2533
Oregon Law Enforcement Data System Division
Oregon State Police
3225 State Street
Salem, Oregon 97301
503-378-3055
Pennsylvania Bureau of Research and Development
Pennsylvania State Police
1800 Elmerton Avenue
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
717-783-5536
Puerto Rico Statistics Division
Puerto Rico Police
Post Office Box 70166
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-8166
787-793-1234 x 3113
Rhode Island Rhode Island State Police
311 Danielson Pike
North Scituate, Rhode Island 02857
401-444-1121
South Carolina South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
Post Office Box 21398
Columbia, South Carolina 29221-1398
803-896-7016
South Dakota South Dakota Statistical Analysis Center
500 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
605-773-6310
Tennessee * Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
901 R.S. Gass Boulevard
Nashville, Tennessee 37216-2639
615-744-4014
Texas Uniform Crime Reporting
Crime Information Bureau
Texas Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 4143
Austin, Texas 78765-9968
512-424-2734
Utah Data Collection and Analysis
Uniform Crime Reporting
Bureau of Criminal Identification
Utah Department of Public Safety
Post Office Box 148280
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-8280
801-965-4566
Vermont Vermont Crime Information Center
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05671-2101
802-241-5220
Virginia Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Virginia State Police
Post Office Box 27472
Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472
804-674-2023
Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Police Department
Criminal Justice Complex
Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802
809-774-2211
Washington Uniform Crime Reporting Program
Washington Association of Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs
Suite 200
3060 Willamette Drive, Northeast
Lacey, Washington 98516
360-486-2380
West Virginia Uniform Crime Reporting Program
West Virginia State Police
725 Jefferson Road
South Charleston, West Virginia 25309
304-746-2159
Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance
Suite 202
131 West Wilson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53702-0001
608-266-0936
Wyoming Uniform Crime Reporting
Criminal Records Section
Division of Criminal Investigation
316 West 22nd Street
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
307-777-7625
* National Incident-Based Reporting System Only
Appendix VI--National Uniform Crime Reporting Directory
Administration 304-625-3691
Program administration; management; policy
Crime Analysis, Research and Development 304-625-3600
Statistical models; special studies and analyses;
crime forecasting
Information Dissemination 304-625-4995
Requests for published and unpublished data;
printouts, magnetic tapes, and books
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) 304-625-2998
Information for law enforcement agencies regarding
the NIBRS certification process; federal funding
for NIBRS-compliant records management systems;
and data submission specifications
Quality Assurance 304-625-2941
Assistance in confirming statistical validity and
ensuring agency reporting integrity
Statistical Processing 304-625-4830
Processing of summary and incident-based reports
from data contributors; reporting problems;
requests for reporting forms; data processing;
data quality
Training/Education 304-625-3691
Requests for training of law enforcement personnel;
information on police reporting systems;
technical assistance
Send correspondence to: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Justice Information
Services Division
Attention: Uniform Crime Reports
1000 Custer Hollow Road
Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306
Appendix VII--Uniform Crime Reporting Publications List
Crime in the United States (annual) *
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (annual) *
Hate Crime Statistics (annual) *
Killed in the Line of Duty: A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement Officers (special report)
In the Line of Fire: Violence Against Law Enforcement--A Study of Felonious Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers (special report)
Uniform Crime Reports: Their Proper Use (brochure)
National Incident-Based Reporting System (brochure)
Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June *
Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report *
Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook:
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
Summary System
NIBRS:
Data Collection Guidelines *
Data Submission Specifications *
Error Message Manual *
Addendum to the NIBRS Volumes *
Conversion of NIBRS Data to Summary Data *
NIBRS Addendum for Submitting LEOKA Data *
Supplemental Guidelines for Federal Participation
Manual of Law Enforcement Records
Hate Crime:
Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines *
Hate Crime Magnetic Media Specifications for Tapes & Diskettes
Hate Crime Statistics, 1990: A Resource Book
Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection *
Age-Specific Arrest Rates and Race-Specific Arrest Rates for Selected Offenses
Periodic Press Releases:
Hate Crime *
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted *
* These publications are available on the FBI's Internet site at www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Federal Bureau of Investigation
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group