CIUS 2002 Section VII - Appendices (Document Pages 441-470)

SECTION VII

442 CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES

APPENDIX I – Methodology

Agencies that contribute to the UniformCrime Reporting (UCR) Program forward crimedata through the state UCR Programs in 46states and the District of Columbia. Local agen-cies in states that do not have a state Programsubmit statistics directly to the FBI, whichprovides continuing guidance and support toindividual contributing agencies. State UCRPrograms are very effective liaisons betweenlocal contributors and the FBI. Many of thePrograms have mandatory reporting require-ments and collect data beyond the national UCRscope to address crime problems germane totheir particular locales. In most cases, thesestate agencies also provide more direct andfrequent service to participating law enforce-ment agencies, make information more readilyavailable for use at the state level, andcontribute to more streamlined operations at thenational level.

With the implementation of state crimereporting Programs, the national UCR Programceased direct collection of data from individuallaw enforcement agencies within those states.Currently, the state data collection agencyforwards information it receives from localagencies to the national Program.

The criteria established for state Programsensure consistency and comparability in the datasubmitted to the national Program, as well asregular and timely reporting. These criteria are:(1) The state Program must conform to nationalUCR Program standards, definitions, and infor-mation requirements. The states are not, ofcourse, prohibited from collecting other statisti-cal data beyond the national requirements. (2) The state criminal justice agency must havea proven, effective, statewide Program anddemonstrate acceptable quality control proce-dures. (3) Coverage within the state by a stateagency must be, at least, equal to that attainedby the national UCR Program. (4) The stateagency must have adequate field staff assignedto conduct audits and to assist contributingagencies in recordkeeping practices and crime-reporting procedures. (5) The state agency mustfurnish the FBI with all of the detailed data

regularly collected by the FBI in the form ofduplicate returns, computer printouts, and/ormagnetic tapes. (6) The state agency must havethe proven capability (tested over a period oftime) to supply all the statistical data required intime to meet deadlines established for publica-tion of the national Uniform Crime Reports.

To fulfill its responsibilities in connectionwith the UCR Program, the FBI continues toedit and review individual agency reports forboth completeness and quality. National UCRProgram staff have direct contact with individ-ual contributors within the state as necessary inconnection with crime reporting matters, coordi-nating such contact with the state agency. Onrequest, staff members conduct trainingprograms within the state on law enforcementrecordkeeping and crime-reporting procedures.Following audit standards established by thefederal government, the FBI conducts an auditof each state’s UCR data collection proceduresonce every 3 years. Should circumstancesdevelop whereby the state agency does notcomply with the aforementioned requirements,the national Program may reinstitute a directcollection of Uniform Crime Reports from lawenforcement agencies within the state.

Reporting Procedures

Based on records of all reports of crimereceived from victims, officers who discoverinfractions, or other sources, law enforcementagencies across the country tabulate the numberof Crime Index (Part I) offenses brought to theirattention each month. Specifically, the Indexcrimes reported to the FBI are murder andnonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape,robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

Whenever complaints of crime are deter-mined through investigation to be unfounded orfalse, they are eliminated from an agency’scount. Agencies report to the FBI the numberof actual offenses known regardless of whetheranyone is arrested for the crime, stolen propertyis recovered, or prosecution is undertaken.

443APPENDIX

Another integral part of the monthlysubmission is the total number of actual CrimeIndex offenses cleared. Crimes are cleared inone of two ways: by arrest of at least oneperson, who is charged and turned over to thecourt for prosecution, or by exceptional means,when some element beyond law enforcementcontrol precludes the arrest of a known offender.Law enforcement agencies also report thenumber of Index crime clearances that involveonly offenders under the age of 18, the value ofproperty stolen and recovered in connectionwith the offenses, and detailed informationpertaining to criminal homicide and arson.

In addition to its primary collection ofCrime Index (Part I) offenses, the UCR Programsolicits monthly data on persons arrested for allcrimes except traffic violations. The age, sex,and race of arrestees are reported by crime cate-gory, both Part I and Part II. Part II offensesinclude all crimes not classified as Part I.

Monthly data are also collected on lawenforcement officers killed or assaulted. Thenumber of full-time sworn and civilian person-nel are reported as of October 31 of each year.

At the end of each quarter, summarizedinformation is collected on hate crimes, i.e.,specific offenses that were motivated by anoffender’s bias against the race, religion, ethnicorigin, sexual orientation, or physical or mentaldisability of the victim. Hate crime data fromthose agencies participating in the NationalIncident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) aresubmitted monthly.

Editing Procedures

Each report submitted to the UCR Programis thoroughly examined for arithmetical accuracyand for deviations that may indicate errors. Toidentify any unusual fluctuations in an agency’scrime count, UCR staff compare monthly reportswith previous submissions of the agency andwith those for similar agencies. Large variationsin crime levels may indicate modified recordsprocedures, incomplete reporting, or changes inthe jurisdiction’s geopolitical structure.

Data reliability is a high priority of theProgram, which brings to the attention of thestate UCR Program or the submitting agency

any noted deviations or arithmetical adjust-ments. A standard FBI procedure is to study themonthly reports and to evaluate periodic trendsprepared for individual reporting units. Anysignificant increase or decrease becomes thesubject of a special inquiry. Changes in crimereporting procedures or annexations can influ-ence the level of reported crime. When thisoccurs, the figures for specific crime categoriesor totals, if necessary, are excluded from trendtabulations.

To assist contributors in complying withUCR standards, the national Program providestraining seminars and instructional materials oncrime reporting procedures. Throughout thecountry, the national UCR Program maintainsliaison with state Programs and law enforce-ment personnel and holds training sessions toexplain the purpose of the Program, the rules ofuniform classification and scoring, and themethods of assembling the information forreporting. When an individual agency hasspecific problems in compiling its crime statis-tics and its remedial efforts are unsuccessful,personnel from the FBI’s Criminal JusticeInformation Services Division may visit thecontributor to aid in resolving the difficulties.

The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook,which details procedures for classifying andscoring offenses, is supplied to all contributorsas the basic resource document for preparingreports. To enhance communication amongProgram participants, letters to UCR contribu-tors and UCR State Program Bulletins areproduced as needed. These provide policyupdates and new information, as well as clarifi-cation of reporting issues.

The final responsibility for data submis-sions rests with the individual contributing lawenforcement agency. Although the Programmakes every effort through its editing proce-dures, training practices, and correspondence toassure the validity of the data it receives, theaccuracy of the statistics depends primarily onthe adherence of each contributor to the estab-lished standards of reporting. Deviations fromthese established standards, which cannot beresolved by the national UCR Program, may bebrought to the attention of the Criminal JusticeInformation Systems Committees of the


International Association of Chiefs of Policeand the National Sheriffs’ Association.

Arrest Data

Florida state arrest data are not included inTables 30–68. Limited arrest data were receivedfrom Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, and SouthCarolina. No 2002 arrest data were receivedfrom the District of Columbia and no populationis attributed to the two agencies for which 12months complete arrest data were received.Complete 12-month arrest figures for New YorkCity were not available for inclusion in thisbook. 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 UnitedStates, the UCR Program obtained current popu-lation estimates from the Bureau of the Census toestimate 2002 population counts for all contribut-ing law enforcement agencies. The Bureau ofthe Census provided revised 2001 state/nationalpopulation estimates and 2002 state/nationalpopulation estimates. Using these provisionalcensus data, the national UCR Program updatedthe 2001 Bureau of the Census city and countyestimates and calculated the 2002 state growthrates. Subsequently, the Program updated popu-lation figures for individual jurisdictions byapplying the 2002 state growth rates to theupdated 2001 Bureau of the Census data.

NIBRS Conversion

Several states provide their UCR data inthe expanded NIBRS format. For presentationin this book, NIBRS data were converted to thehistorical summary UCR formats. The NIBRSdatabase was constructed to allow for suchconversion so that UCR’s long-running timeseries 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. Percentchange tabulations in this publication arecomputed only for reporting agencies thatprovided comparable data for the periods underconsideration. The Program excludes from thetrend calculations all figures except thosereceived for common months from commonagencies. Also excluded are unusual fluctua-tions that the Program determines are due tovariables such as improved records procedures,annexations. etc.

Data users should exercise care in makingany direct comparison between data in thispublication and those in prior issues of Crime inthe United States. Due to differing levels ofparticipation from year to year and transientreporting problems that require the Program toestimate crime counts for certain contributors,the data are not comparable from year to year.

Offense Estimation

Tables 1 through 5 and 7 of this publica-tion contain statistics for the entire UnitedStates. Because not all law enforcement agen-cies provide data for complete reporting peri-ods, the UCR Program includes estimated crimecounts in these presentations. Offense estima-tion occurs within each of three areas:Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), citiesoutside MSAs, and rural counties. Using theknown crime experiences of similar areas withina state, the national Program computes esti-mates by assigning the same proportional crimevolumes to nonreporting agencies. The size ofagency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police depart-ment versus sheriff’s office; and geographiclocation are considered in the estimationprocess.

Various circumstances require the nationalProgram to estimate certain state offense totals.For example, some states do not provideforcible rape figures in accordance with UCRguidelines; reporting problems at the state levelhave, at times, resulted in no usable data.Additionally, the conversion of summary report-ing to NIBRS has contributed to the need forunique estimation procedures. A summary ofstate-specific and offense-specific estimationprocedures follows.

445APPENDIX

1992 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to provideforcible rape figures in accordance with UCRguidelines.

The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhab-itants within the eight population groups and assigning the forciblerape volumes proportionally to the state.

1993 Illinois NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estima-tion for Illinois.

Since valid annual totals were available for approximately 60 Illinoisagencies, those counts were maintained. The counts for the remainingjurisdictions were replaced with the most recent valid annual totals orwere generated using standard estimation procedures. The results ofall sources were then combined to arrive at the 1993 state total forIllinois.

The state UCR Program was unable to provideforcible rape figures in accordance with UCRguidelines.


Year State(s) Reason for Estimation Estimation Method







1988 Florida, Kentucky Reporting problems at the state level resultedin no usable data.

State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totalsfor individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percentchanges for each offense within each population group of thegeographic divisions in which the states reside were applied to theprevious valid annual totals. The state totals were compiled from thesums of the population group estimates.

Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to provideforcible rape figures in accordance with UCRguidelines.



The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabi-tants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rapevolumes proportionally to the state.





Iowa NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estima-tion for Iowa.

State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totalsfor individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percentchanges for each offense within each population group of the WestNorth Central Division were applied to the previous valid annualtotals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the populationgroup estimates.

Kansas NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estima-tion for Kansas.

State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totalsfor individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percentchanges for each offense within each population group of the WestNorth Central Division were applied to the previous valid annualtotals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the populationgroup estimates.

Michigan, Minnesota The state UCR Programs were unable toprovide forcible rape figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhab-itants within the eight population groups and assigning the forciblerape volumes proportionally to each state.

1994 Illinois NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estima-tion for Illinois.

Illinois totals were generated using only the valid crime rates for theEast North Central Division. Within each population group, the state’soffense totals were estimated based on the rate per 100,000 inhabitantswithin the remainder of the division.



The state UCR Program was unable to provideforcible rape figures in accordance with UCRguidelines.


Kansas NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estima-tion for Kansas.

State totals were generated using only the valid crime rates for theWest North Central Division. Within each population group, thestate’s offense totals were estimated based on the rate per 100,000inhabitants within the remainder of the division.

Montana The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 1994 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totalsfor individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percentchanges for each offense within each population group of theMountain Division were applied to the previous valid annual totals.The state totals were compiled from the sums of the population groupestimates.

1995 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 1995 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

Valid Crime Index counts were available for most of the largest cities.For other agencies, the only available counts were generated withoutapplication of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requiresthat only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal inci-dent is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to beincluded in national compilations, the total supplied by the IllinoisState Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication ofthe Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multipleoffenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data.Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reductionprocess.

Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 1995 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

The state UCR Program was able to provide valid 1994 state totalswhich were then updated using 1995 crime trends for the West NorthCentral Division.

Montana The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 1995 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

State estimates were computed by updating the previous valid annualtotals using the 1994 versus 1995 percent changes for the MountainDivision.

1996 Florida The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 1996 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

The state UCR Program was able to provide an aggregated state total;data received from 94 individual Florida agencies are shown in the1996 jurisdictional figures presented in Tables 8 through 11.

Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 1996 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.



The Kansas state estimate was extrapolated from 1996 January-Junestate totals provided by the Kansas State UCR Program.

Kentucky, Montana The state UCR Programs were unable toprovide complete 1996 offense figures inaccordance with UCR guidelines.

The 1995 and 1996 percent changes within each geographic divisionwere applied to valid 1995 state totals to generate 1996 state totals.



447APPENDIX




Kansas, Kentucky,Montana

The state UCR Programs were unable toprovide complete 1999 offense figures inaccordance with UCR guidelines.

To arrive at 1999 estimates for Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana, 1998state totals supplied by each state’s Uniform Crime ReportingProgram were updated using 1999 crime trends for the divisions inwhich each state is located.

Maine The state UCR Program was unable toprovide complete 1999 offense figures inaccordance with UCR guidelines.

The Maine Department of Public Safety forwarded monthly Januarythrough October crime counts for each law enforcement contributor;since 12 months of data were not received, the national Program esti-mated for the missing data following standard estimation proceduresto arrive at a 1999 state total.

New Hampshire The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 1999 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

The state total for New Hampshire was estimated by using the 1998figures for the 1999 nonreporting areas and applying the 2-yearpercent change for the New England Division.


The Kansas state estimate was extrapolated from 1996 January-Junestate totals provided by the Kansas State UCR Program.

Kentucky, Montana,New Hampshire,Vermont


The 1996 and 1997 percent changes registered for each geographicdivision in which the states of Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire,and Vermont are categorized were applied to valid 1996 state totals toeffect 1997 state totals.

1998 Delaware The state UCR Program was unable to provideforcible rape figures in accordance withnational UCR guidelines.

The 1998 forcible rape total for Delaware was estimated by reducingthe number of reported offenses by the proportion of male forciblerape victims statewide.




To arrive at 1998 estimates, 1997 state totals supplied by the KansasState UCR Program were updated using 1998 crime trends for theWest North Central Division.

Kentucky, Montana,New Hampshire,Wisconsin


State totals were estimated by using the 1997 figures for the nonre-porting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percentage changes forthe division in which each state is located. The estimates for thenonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crimecounts received.

Vermont Due to changes in reporting procedures, the1997 Vermont Crime Index offense totals werenot comparable to those for 1998.

The 1998 Vermont Crime Index offense totals were excluded fromTable 4. The 1997 Vermont state estimates were, however, retained inthe aggregate national, regional, and divisional volume and rate totals.

2000 Illinois The state UCR Programs were unable toprovide complete 2000 offense figures orforcible rape figures in accordance with UCRguidelines.

Valid Crime Index counts were available for most of the largest cities.For other agencies, the only available counts were generated withoutapplication of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requiresthat only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal inci-dent be counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to beincluded in national compilations, the total supplied by the IllinoisState Program (which was inflated due to the nonapplication of the



Kentucky, Montana The state UCR Programs were unable toprovide complete 2000 offense figures inaccordance with UCR guidelines.

To arrive at 2000 estimates for Kentucky and Montana, 1999 statetotals supplied by each state’s UCR Program were updated using 2000crime trends for the divisions in which each state is located.

Kentucky The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 2001 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

To arrive at the 2001 estimate for Kentucky, the 2000 state estimateswere updated using 2001 crime trends reported for the East SouthCentral Division.

2001 Illinois The state UCR Program submitted completedata for only seven agencies within the state.Additionally, the state UCR Program wasunable to provide forcible rape figures inaccordance with UCR guidelines.


2002 Kentucky The state UCR Program was unable to providecomplete 2002 offense figures in accordancewith UCR guidelines.

To obtain the 2002 state crime count, the state UCR Program wascontacted, and the state agency was able to provide their latest statetotal, 2000. Therefore, the 2001 state estimate was updated for inclu-sion in the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States by using the2001 crime trends for the division in which the state is located. Toderive the 2002 state estimate, the 2002 crime trends for the divisionwere applied to the adjusted 2001 state estimate.


Valid Crime Index counts were only available for most of the largestcities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generatedwithout application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rulerequires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense crimi-nal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to beincluded in national compilations, the total supplied by the IllinoisState Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication ofthe Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multipleoffenses reported with single incidents in the available NIBRS data.Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reductionprocess.

Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offensesreported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Validtotals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.


To arrive at 2000 estimates for Kansas, 1999 state estimates wereupdated using 2000 crime trends for the West North Central Division.

449APPENDIX

Table Methodology

Although most law enforcement agenciessubmit crime reports to the UCR Program, notall agencies send 12 months of complete datafor the reporting year. To be included in thispublication’s Tables 8 through 11, which showspecific jurisdictional statistics, figures for all 12months of the reporting year must have beenreceived by the FBI prior to established publica-tion deadlines. Other tabular presentations are

aggregated on varied levels of submission. Withthe exception of the tables that consist of esti-mates for the total United States population,each table in this publication shows the numberof agencies reporting and the extent of popula-tion coverage.

Designed to assist the reader, this tableexplains the construction of many of this book’stabular presentations.

1 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.Crime statistics include estimated offense totals foragencies submitting less than 12 months of offensereports for each year.

The 2002 statistics are consistent with Table 2. Pre-2002 crime statistics may have been updated and,hence, may not be consistent with prior publica-tions. Population statistics represent July 1 provi-sional estimations for each year except 1990 and2000, which are Bureau of the Census decennialcensus data. (See the Population section in thisappendix.)

Represents an estimation of national reported crimeactivity from 1983 to 2002.

2 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.Crime statistics include estimated offense totals foragencies submitting less than 12 months of offensereports for 2002.

Statistics are aggregated from individual state statis-tics as shown in Table 5. Population statistics for2002 represent estimates based upon the percentchange in state population from Bureau of theCensus 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisionalestimates. (See the Population section in thisappendix.)

Represents an estimation of national reported crimeactivity in 2002.

3 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program(including those submitting less than 12 months ofoffense reports for 2002).

Regional offense distributions are computed fromvolume figures as shown in Table 4. Populationdistributions are based on Bureau of the Censusprovisional estimates for 2002.

Represents the 2002 geographical distribution of esti-mated Crime Index offenses and population.

4 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.Crime statistics include estimated offense totals foragencies submitting less than 12 months of offensereports for 2001 and 2002.

The 2002 statistics are aggregated from individualstate statistics as shown in Table 5. Populationstatistics represent Bureau of the Census 2001revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates.

Represents an estimation of reported crime activityfor Index offenses at the:

1. national level2. regional level3. division level4. state level

Any comparison of UCR statistics should take intoconsideration demographic factors.

(1)Table

(2)Database

(3)Table Construction

(4)General Comments


Population statistics for 2002 represent estimatesbased upon the percent change in state populationfrom Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimatesand 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Populationsection in this appendix.) Statistics under the head-ing Area Actually Reporting represent reportedoffense totals for agencies submitting 12 months ofoffense reports and estimated totals for agenciessubmitting less than 12 but more than 2 months ofoffense reports. The statistics under the headingEstimated Totals represent the above plus estimatedoffense totals for agencies submitting 2 months orless of offense reports.

Represents an estimation of reported crime activityfor Index offenses at the state level. Any comparisonof UCR statistics should take into considerationdemographic factors.


Statistics are published for all MetropolitanStatistical Areas (MSAs) having at least 75% report-ing and for which the central city/cities submitted12 months of data for 2002. Population statisticsfor 2002 represent estimates based upon the percentchange in state population from Bureau of theCensus 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisionalestimates. (See the Population section in thisappendix.) The statistics under the heading AreaActually Reporting represent reported offense

Represents an estimation of the reported crime activ-ity for Index offenses at the individual MSA level.Any comparison of UCR statistics should take intoconsideration demographic factors.


totals for agencies submitting all 12 months ofoffense reports plus estimated offense totals foragencies submitting less than 12 but more than 2months of offense reports. The statistics under theheading Estimated Total represent the above plus theestimated offense totals for agencies submitting 2months or less of offense reports. The tabularbreakdowns are according to UCR definitions. (SeeApp. II.)

(1)Table

(2)Database


(4)General Comments

12-15 All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6common months of complete offense reports for2001 and 2002.

The 2002 crime trend statistics are 2-year compar-isons based on 2002 reported crime activity. Onlycommon reported months for individual agenciesare included in 2002 trend calculations. Populationstatistics for 2002 represent estimates based uponthe percent change in state population from Bureauof the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002provisional estimates. (See the Population sectionin this appendix.) See Appendix III for UCR popu-lation breakdowns. Note that Suburban andNonsuburban Cities are all municipal agencies otherthan central cities in MSAs.

7 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.Crime statistics include estimated offense totals foragencies submitting less than 12 months of offensereports for 1998 through 2002.

Offense totals are for all Index offense categoriesother than aggravated assault.

Represents an estimation of national reported crimeactivity from 1998 to 2002. Aggravated assault is notincluded in the data source from which this table isderived.

8 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 monthsof complete offense reports for 2002.

Cities and Towns are agencies in Population GroupsI through V. Population statistics for 2002 representestimates based upon the percent change in statepopulation from Bureau of the Census 2001 revisedestimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See thePopulation section in this appendix.)

Represents reported crime activity of individualagencies in cities and towns 10,000 and over in popu-lation. Any comparison of UCR statistics shouldtake into consideration demographic factors.

9 All university/college law enforcement agenciessubmitting 12 months of complete offense reportsfor 2002.

The 2000 student enrollment figures, which areprovided by the U.S. Department of Education, arethe most recent available. They include full- andpart-time students. No adjustments to equate part-time enrollments into full-time equivalents havebeen made.

Represents reported crime from those individualuniversity/college law enforcement agenciescontributing to the UCR Program. These agenciesare listed alphabetically by state. Any comparison ofthese UCR statistics should take into considerationsize of enrollment, number of on-campus residents,and other demographic factors.


Suburban Counties are the areas covered by noncityagencies within an MSA. (See App. III.)Population classifications of suburban counties arebased on 2002 UCR estimates for individual agen-cies. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

Represents crime reported to individual law enforce-ment agencies in suburban counties, i.e., the individ-ual sheriff's office, county police department,highway patrol, and/or state police. These figures donot represent the county totals since they exclude citycrime counts. Any comparison of UCR statisticsshould take into consideration demographic factors.


Rural Counties are those outside MSAs whose juris-dictions are not covered by city police agencies.(See App. III.) Population classifications of ruralcounties are based on 2002 UCR estimates for indi-vidual agencies. (See the Population section in thisappendix.)

Represents crime reported to individual rural countylaw enforcement agencies covering populations25,000 and over, i.e., the individual sheriff's office,county police department, highway patrol, and/orstate police. These figures do not represent thecounty totals since they exclude city crime counts.Any comparison of UCR statistics should take intoconsideration demographic factors.

16-19 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 monthsof complete offense reports for 2002.

The 2002 crime rates are the ratios, per 100,000inhabitants, of the aggregated 2002 crime volumesand the aggregated 2002 populations of thecontributing agencies. Population statistics for 2002represent estimates based upon the percent changein state population from Bureau of the Census 2001revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates.(See the Population section in this appendix.) SeeAppendix III for UCR population breakdowns.Note that Suburban and Nonsuburban Cities are allmunicipal agencies other than central cities inMSAs.

The forcible rape figures furnished by the Delawareand Illinois state UCR Programs were not in accor-dance with national guidelines. For inclusion inthese tables, the Delaware and Illinois forcible rapefigures were estimated by using the national rates foreach population group applied to the population bygroup for Delaware and Illinois agencies supplyingall 12 months of data. There is a slight decrease innational coverage for Table 19 due to editing proce-dure and lower submission rate.

451APPENDIX

(1)Table

(2)Database


(4)General Comments

20 All law enforcement agencies submittingSupplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data for2002.

The weapon totals are the aggregate for each murdervictim recorded on the SHRs for calendar year2002.

The SHR is the monthly report form concerninghomicides. It details victim and offender characteris-tics, circumstances, weapons used, etc.

21, 22 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 monthsof complete offense reports for 2002.

The weapon totals are aggregated 2002 totals.Population statistics represent 2002 UCR estimates.

23, 24 All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6months of complete offense reports for 2002.

Offense total and value lost total are computed forall Index offense categories other than aggravatedassault. Percent distribution is derived based onoffense total of each Index offense. Trend statisticsare derived based on agencies with at least 6common months complete for 2001 and 2002.

Aggravated assault is excluded from Table 23. ForUCR Program purposes, the taking of money orproperty in connection with an assault is reported asrobbery.

25-28 All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6months of complete offense reports for 2002.

The 2002 clearance rates are based on offense andclearance volume totals of the contributing agenciesfor 2002. Population statistics for 2002 representestimates based upon the percent change in statepopulation from Bureau of the Census 2001 revisedestimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See thePopulation section in this appendix.) See AppendixIII for UCR Program population breakdowns.

29 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program(including those submitting less than 12 months ofcomplete data for 2002).

The arrest totals presented are national estimatesbased on the arrest statistics of all law enforcementagencies in the UCR Program (including thosesubmitting less than 12 months). The TotalEstimated Arrests statistic is the sum of estimatedarrest volumes for each of 28 offenses, not includingsuspicion. Each individual arrest total is the sum ofthe estimated volumes within each of the eightpopulation groups. (See App. III.) Each group’sestimate is the reported volume (as shown in Table31) divided by the percent of total group populationreporting, according to 2002 UCR estimates forindividual agencies. (See the Population section inthis appendix.)

30, 31 All law enforcement agencies submitting completereports for 12 months of 2002.

The 2002 arrest rates are the ratios, per 100,000inhabitants, of the aggregated 2002 reported arreststatistics and population. The population statisticsfor 2002 represent estimates based upon the percentchange in state population from Bureau of theCensus 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisionalestimates. (See the Population section in thisappendix.) See Appendix III for UCR populationclassifications and geographical configuration.

32, 33 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 monthsof complete reports for 1993 and 2002.

The arrest trends are the percentage differencesbetween 1993 and 2002 arrest volumes aggregatedfrom all common agencies. The population statis-tics for 2002 represent estimates based upon thepercent change in state population from Bureau ofthe Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provi-sional estimates. (See the Population section in thisappendix.) Population statistics for 1993 are basedupon the percent change in state population fromBureau of the Census 1992 and 1993 provisionalestimates.


The arrest trends are the percentage differencesbetween 1998 and 2002 arrest volumes aggregatedfrom common agencies. The population statisticsfor 2002 represent estimates based upon the percentchange in state population from Bureau of theCensus 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisionalestimates. (See the Population section in thisappendix.) Population statistics for 1998 are basedupon the percent change in state population fromthe Bureau of the Census 1997 and 1998 provisionalestimates.


50, 51 All suburban county law enforcement agenciessubmitting 12 months of complete reports for 2001and 2002.

The 2002 suburban county arrest trends representpercentage differences between 2001 and 2002volumes aggregated from contributing agencies.Suburban Counties are the areas covered by noncityagencies within an MSA. (See App. III.)Population statistics for 2001 represent estimatesbased upon the percent change in state populationfrom Bureau of the Census 2000 decennial countsand provisional 2001 estimates. Population statis-tics for 2002 represent estimates based upon thepercent change in state populations from the Bureauof Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provi-sional estimates. (See the Population section in thisappendix.)

52-55 All suburban county law enforcement agenciessubmitting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.

Suburban Counties are the areas covered by noncityagencies within an MSA. (See App. III.)Population statistics for 2002 represent estimatesbased upon the percent change in state populationfrom the Bureau of the Census 2001 revised esti-mates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See thePopulation section in this appendix.)

Slight decrease in coverage for Table 55 due to edit-ing procedure and lower submission of race data.

56, 57 All rural county law enforcement agencies submit-ting 12 months of complete reports for 2001 and2002.

The 2002 rural county arrest trends representpercentage differences between 2001 and 2002volumes aggregated from contributing agencies.Rural Counties are noncity agencies outside MSAs.(See App. III.) Population statistics for 2001 repre-sent estimates based upon the percent change instate population from Bureau of the Census 2000decennial counts and provisional 2001 estimates.Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates

46-49 All city law enforcement agencies submitting 12months of complete reports for 2002.

City Agencies are all agencies within PopulationGroups I-VI. (See App. III.) Population statisticsfor 2002 represent estimates based upon the percentchange in state population from Bureau of Census2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional esti-mates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

Slight decrease in coverage for Table 49 due to edit-ing procedure and lower submission of race data.

38-43 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 monthsof complete reports for 2002.

Population statistics for 2002 represent estimatesbased upon the percent change in state populationfrom Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimatesand 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Populationsection in this appendix.)

44, 45 All city law enforcement agencies submitting 12months of complete reports for 2001 and 2002.

The 2002 city arrest trends represent the percentagedifferences between 2001 and 2002 arrest volumesaggregated from common city agencies. CityAgencies are all agencies within Population GroupsI-VI. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2001represent estimates based upon the percent changein state population from Bureau of the Census 2000decennial counts and provisional 2001 estimates.Population statistics for 2002 represent estimatesbased upon the percent change in state populationfrom Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimatesand 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Populationsection in this appendix.)

(1)Table

(2)Database


(4)General Comments


The arrest trends are 2-year comparisons between2001 and 2002 arrest volumes aggregated fromcommon agencies. Population statistics for 2001represent estimates based upon the percent changein state population from Bureau of the Census 2000decennial counts and provisional 2001 estimates.Population statistics for 2002 represent estimatesbased upon the percent change in state populationsfrom the Bureau of Census 2001 revised estimatesand 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Populationsection in this appendix.)

453APPENDIX

58-61 All rural county law enforcement agencies submit-ting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.

Rural Counties are noncity agencies outside MSAs.(See App. III.) Population statistics for 2002 repre-sent estimates based upon the percent change instate population from the Bureau of the Census 2001revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates.(See the Population section in this appendix.)

62, 63 All suburban area law enforcement agencies submit-ting 12 months of complete reports for 2001 and2002.

The 2002 suburban area arrest trends representpercentage differences between 2001 and 2002arrest volumes aggregated from contributing agen-cies. Suburban Area includes agencies within ametropolitan area excluding those that cover centralcities as defined by the Office of Management andBudget. (See App. III.) Population statistics for2001 represent estimates based upon the percentchange in state population from Bureau of theCensus 2000 decennial counts and provisional 2001estimates. Population statistics for 2002 representestimates based upon the percent change in statepopulations from the Bureau of Census 2001 revisedestimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See thePopulation section in this appendix.)

64-67 All suburban area law enforcement agencies submit-ting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.

Suburban Area includes agencies within a metropol-itan area excluding those that cover central cities asdefined by the Office of Management and Budget.(See App. III.) Population statistics for 2002 repre-sent estimates based upon the percent change instate population from Bureau of the Census 2001revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates.(See the Population section in this appendix.)

68 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 monthsof complete reports for 2002.

Population statistics for 2002 represent estimatesbased upon the percent change in state populationfrom Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimatesand 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Populationsection in this appendix.)

Data furnished are based upon individual state agedefinitions for juveniles.

69 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 monthsof complete reports for 2002.

Arrest totals are aggregated for individual agencieswithin each state. Population statistics representBureau of the Census provisional estimates for2002. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

Any comparison of statistics should take into consid-eration variances in arrest practices, particularly forPart II crimes.

(1)Table

(2)Database


(4)General Comments

based upon the percent change in state populations-from the Bureau of Census 2001 revised estimatesand 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Populationsection in this appendix.)


APPENDIX II – Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting

The Uniform Crime Reporting Programclassifies offenses into two groups, Part I andPart II crimes. Each month, contributing agen-cies submit information on the number of Part Ioffenses (Crime Index) known to law enforce-ment; those offenses cleared by arrest or excep-tional means; and the age, sex, and race ofpersons arrested. Contributors provide onlyarrest data for Part II offenses.

The Part I offenses, those that comprisethe Crime Index due to their seriousness andfrequency, are defined below:

Criminal homicide—a.) Murder andnonnegligent manslaughter: the willful (nonneg-ligent) killing of one human being by another.Deaths caused by negligence, attempts to kill,assaults to kill, suicides, and accidental deathsare excluded. The Program classifies justifiablehomicides separately and limits the definition to:(1) the killing of a felon by a law enforcementofficer in the line of duty; or (2) the killing of afelon, during the commission of a felony, by aprivate citizen. b.) Manslaughter by negligence:the killing of another person through gross negli-gence. Traffic fatalities are excluded. Whilemanslaughter by negligence is a Part I crime, itis not included in the Crime Index.

Forcible rape—The carnal knowledge ofa female forcibly and against her will. Rapes byforce and attempts or assaults to rape regardlessof the age of the victim are included. Statutoryoffenses (no force used—victim under age ofconsent) are excluded.

Robbery—The taking or attempting totake anything of value from the care, custody, orcontrol of a person or persons by force or threatof force or violence and/or by putting the victimin fear.

Aggravated assault—An unlawful attackby one person upon another for the purpose ofinflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury.This type of assault usually is accompanied bythe use of a weapon or by means likely toproduce death or great bodily harm. Simpleassaults are excluded.

Burglary (breaking or entering)—Theunlawful entry of a structure to commit a felonyor a theft. Attempted forcible entry is included.

Larceny-theft (except motor vehicletheft)—The unlawful taking, carrying, leading,or riding away of property from the possessionor constructive possession of another. Examplesare thefts of bicycles or automobile accessories,shoplifting, pocket-picking, or the stealing ofany property or article which is not taken byforce and violence or by fraud. Attemptedlarcenies are included. Embezzlement, confi-dence games, forgery, worthless checks, etc., areexcluded.

Motor vehicle theft—The theft orattempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motorvehicle is self-propelled and runs on the surfaceand not on rails. Motorboats, constructionequipment, airplanes, and farming equipmentare specifically excluded from this category.

Arson—Any willful or malicious burningor attempt to burn, with or without intent todefraud, a dwelling house, public building,motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property ofanother, etc.

The Part II offenses, for which onlyarrest data are collected, are defined below:

Other assaults (simple)—Assaults andattempted assaults where no weapons are usedand which do not result in serious or aggravatedinjury to the victim.

Forgery and counterfeiting—Making,altering, uttering, or possessing, with intent todefraud, anything false in the semblance of thatwhich is true. Attempts are included.

Fraud—Fraudulent conversion andobtaining money or property by false pretenses.Confidence games and bad checks, except forg-eries and counterfeiting, are included.

Embezzlement—Misappropriation ormisapplication of money or property entrustedto one’s care, custody, or control.

Stolen property; buying, receiving,possessing—Buying, receiving, and possessingstolen property, including attempts.

Vandalism—Willful or malicious destruc-tion, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of anypublic or private property, real or personal,without consent of the owner or persons havingcustody or control. Attempts are included.

455APPENDIX

Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.—Allviolations of regulations or statutes controllingthe carrying, using, possessing, furnishing, andmanufacturing of deadly weapons or silencers.Attempts are included.

Prostitution and commercialized vice—Sex offenses of a commercialized nature, suchas prostitution, keeping a bawdy house, procur-ing, or transporting women for immoralpurposes. Attempts are included.

Sex offenses (except forcible rape, pros-titution, and commercialized vice)— Statutoryrape and offenses against chastity, commondecency, morals, and the like. Attempts areincluded.

Drug abuse violations—State and/orlocal offenses relating to the unlawful posses-sion, sale, use, growing, and manufacturing ofnarcotic drugs. The following drug categoriesare specified: opium or cocaine and their deriv-atives (morphine, heroin, codeine); marijuana;synthetic narcotics—manufactured narcoticsthat can cause true addiction (demerol,methadone); and dangerous nonnarcotic drugs(barbiturates, benzedrine).

Gambling—Promoting, permitting, orengaging in illegal gambling.

Offenses against the family and children—Nonsupport, neglect, desertion, orabuse of family and children. Attempts areincluded.

Driving under the influence—Driving oroperating any vehicle or common carrier whiledrunk or under the influence of liquor ornarcotics.

Liquor laws—State and/or local liquorlaw violations except drunkenness and drivingunder the influence. Federal violations areexcluded.

Drunkenness—Offenses relating todrunkenness or intoxication. Driving under theinfluence is excluded.

Disorderly conduct—Breach of thepeace.

Vagrancy—Begging, loitering, etc.Includes prosecutions under the charge of suspi-cious person.

All other offenses—All violations of stateand/or local laws except those listed above andtraffic offenses.

Suspicion—No specific offense; suspectreleased without formal charges being placed.

Curfew and loitering laws (personsunder age 18)—Offenses relating to violationsof local curfew or loitering ordinances wheresuch laws exist.

Runaways (persons under age 18)—Limited to juveniles taken into protectivecustody under provisions of local statutes.


APPENDIX III – Uniform Crime Reporting Area Definitions

This publication presents crime statisticsby area, enabling data users to analyze localcrime counts in relation to other areas of a likegeographic location or population size. TheNation is divided into regions, divisions, andstates. Data are also broken down using popula-tion figures and proximity to metropolitan areas.Sheriffs, county police, and state police gener-ally report crimes within counties but outsidecities; local police report crime in city limits.

Community Types

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)Program displays data aggregated by three typesof communities:

1. Metropolitan Statistical Areas(MSAs)—Each MSA has a central city with atleast 50,000 inhabitants or an urbanized area ofat least 50,000 in population. MSAs include thecounty of the central city and other contiguouscounties that have substantial economic andsocial ties to the central city and county. ForUCR purposes, counties in an MSA are consid-ered suburban. An MSA may cross state lines.Establishing reporting units representing majorpopulation centers assists data users in analyz-ing and presenting uniform statistical data onmetropolitan areas. The Program discouragesdata users from making year-to-year compar-isons of MSA data because of changes in thegeographic composition of MSAs.

New England MSAs are comprised ofcities and towns instead of counties. In thispublication’s tabular presentations, NewEngland cities and towns are assigned to theproper MSA. However, statistics for the areasoutside of these MSAs are compiled in countydata presentations. In the counties that haveboth suburban and rural portions, data for statepolice and sheriffs are included in statistics forthe rural areas.

About 80 percent of the Nation’s popula-tion inhabited MSAs in 2002. Some presenta-tions in this publication refer to suburban areas,which include cities with under 50,000 popula-tion as well as unincorporated areas within the

MSA and exclude central cities. The suburbanarea concept is important because of the uniquecrime conditions in the communities around theUnited States’ largest cities.

2. Cities Outside MSAs—Cities outsideMSAs are mostly incorporated areas and madeup 8 percent of the Nation’s population in 2002.

3. Rural Counties Outside MSAs—Most rural counties are composed of unincorpo-rated areas. Law enforcement agencies in ruralcounties cover areas that are not under the juris-diction of city police departments. Some 12percent of the population in 2002 were servedby rural law enforcement agencies.

Community types are illustrated below:

Population Groups

The UCR Program uses the followingpopulation group classifications:

Population Political PopulationGroup Label Range

I City 250,000 and overII City 100,000 to 249,999III City 50,000 to 99,999IV City 25,000 to 49,999V City 10,000 to 24,999VI City1 Less than 10,000VIII (Rural County) County2 N/AIX (Suburban County) County2 N/A

1 Includes universities and colleges to which no population is attrib-uted.

2 Includes state police to which no population is attributed.

MSA NON-MSA

CITIES

CITIESOUTSIDE

METROPOLITANAREAS

CENTRALCITIES50,000

AND OVER

SUBURBANCITIES

COUNTIES(including

unincorporatedareas)

SUBURBANCOUNTIES

RURALCOUNTIES

457APPENDIX

Individual law enforcement agencies arethe major source of UCR data. Annually, thenumber of agencies included in each populationgroup varies because of population growth,geopolitical consolidation, municipal incorpora-tion, etc. In noncensus years, the UCR Programestimates population figures for individual juris-dictions. A more comprehensive explanation ofpopulation estimations is located in Appendix I.

The table below displays the number ofagencies contributing to the UCR Programwithin each population group for 2002.

Population Number of PopulationGroup Agencies Covered

I 71 53,175,169II 171 25,571,226III 423 29,153,832IV 803 27,912,096V 1,867 29,581,897VI1 8,735 26,310,716VIII (Rural County)2 3,437 34,517,436IX (Suburban County)2 1,817 62,146,326Total 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 fourregions of the United States: the NortheasternStates, the Midwestern States, the SouthernStates, and the Western States. Further, theregions are split into nine divisions. The tablelists the regional, divisional, and state organiza-tion of the Nation for the UCR Program’spurposes.

NORTHEASTERN STATES

New England Middle AtlanticConnecticut New JerseyMaine New YorkMassachusetts PennsylvaniaNew HampshireRhode IslandVermont

MIDWESTERN STATES

East North Central West North CentralIllinois IowaIndiana KansasMichigan MinnesotaOhio MissouriWisconsin Nebraska

North DakotaSouth Dakota

SOUTHERN STATES

South Atlantic East South CentralDelaware AlabamaDistrict of Columbia KentuckyFlorida MississippiGeorgia TennesseeMaryland West South CentralNorth Carolina ArkansasSouth Carolina LouisianaVirginia OklahomaWest Virginia Texas

WESTERN STATES

Mountain PacificArizona AlaskaColorado CaliforniaIdaho HawaiiMontana OregonNevada WashingtonNew MexicoUtahWyoming

Regions and Divisions of the United States, 2002


459APPENDIX

APPENDIX IV – The Nation’s Two Crime Measures

The U.S. Department of Justice adminis-ters two statistical programs to measure themagnitude, nature, and impact of crime in theNation: the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)Program and the National Crime VictimizationSurvey (NCVS). Each of these programsproduces valuable information about aspects ofthe Nation’s crime problem. Because the UCRand NCVS programs are conducted for differentpurposes, use different methods, and focus onsomewhat different aspects of crime, the infor-mation they produce together provides a morecomprehensive panorama of the Nation’s crimeproblem than either could produce alone.

Uniform Crime Reports

The FBI’s UCR Program, which began in1929, collects information on the followingcrimes reported to law enforcement authorities:homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravatedassault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicletheft, and arson. Law enforcement agenciesreport arrest data for 21 additional crimecategories.

The UCR data are compiled from monthlylaw enforcement reports or individual crimeincident records transmitted directly to the FBIor to centralized state agencies that then reportto the FBI. Each report submitted to the UCRProgram is examined thoroughly for reasonable-ness, accuracy, and deviations that may indicateerrors. Large variations in crime levels mayindicate modified records procedures, incom-plete reporting, or changes in a jurisdiction’sboundaries. To identify any unusual fluctuationsin an agency’s crime counts, monthly reports arecompared with previous submissions of theagency and with those for similar agencies.

In 2002, law enforcement agencies activein the UCR Program represented approximately288.4 million United States inhabitants—93.4percent of the total population.

The UCR Program provides crime countsfor the Nation as a whole, as well as for regions,states, counties, cities, and towns. This permitsstudies among neighboring jurisdictions and

among those with similar populations and othercommon characteristics.

UCR findings for each calendar year arepublished in a preliminary release in the springof the following calendar year, then succeededby a detailed annual report, Crime in the UnitedStates, issued in the fall. In addition to crimecounts and trends, this report includes data oncrimes cleared, persons arrested (age, sex, andrace), law enforcement personnel (including thenumber of sworn officers killed or assaulted),and the characteristics of homicides (includingage, sex, and race of victims and offenders;victim-offender relationships; weapons used;and circumstances surrounding the homicides).Other periodic reports are also available fromthe UCR Program.

The UCR Program is continually convert-ing to the more comprehensive and detailedNational Incident-Based Reporting System(NIBRS). NIBRS can provide detailed informa-tion about each criminal incident in 22 broadcategories of offenses.

National Crime Victimization Survey

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ NCVS,which began in 1973, provides a detailed pictureof crime incidents, victims, and trends. After asubstantial period of research, the surveycompleted an intensive methodological redesignin 1993. The redesign was undertaken toimprove the questions used to uncover crime,update the survey methods, and broaden thescope of crimes measured. The redesignedsurvey collects detailed information on thefrequency and nature of the crimes of rape,sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated andsimple assault, household burglary, theft, andmotor vehicle theft. It does not measure homi-cide or commercial crimes (such as burglariesof stores).

Two times a year, U.S. Bureau of theCensus personnel interview all householdmembers at least 12 years old in a nationallyrepresentative sample of approximately 49,000households (about 80,000 people). Approxi-


mately 160,000 interviews are conducted annu-ally. Households stay in the sample for 3 years.New households rotate into the sample on anongoing basis.

The NCVS collects information on crimessuffered by individuals and households, whetheror not those crimes were reported to lawenforcement. It estimates the proportion of eachcrime type reported to law enforcement, and itsummarizes the reasons that victims give forreporting or not reporting.

The survey provides information aboutvictims (age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status,income, and educational level), offenders (sex,race, approximate age, and victim-offender rela-tionship), and the crimes (time and place ofoccurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury,and economic consequences). Questions alsocover the experiences of victims with the crimi-nal justice system, self-protective measures usedby victims, and possible substance abuse byoffenders. Supplements are added periodicallyto the survey to obtain detailed information ontopics like school crime.

The first data from the redesigned NCVSwere published in a BJS bulletin in June 1995.BJS publication of NCVS data includesCriminal Victimization in the United States, anannual report that covers the broad range ofdetailed information collected by the NCVS.BJS publishes detailed reports on topics such ascrime against women, urban crime, and gun usein crime. The NCVS data files are archived atthe National Archive of Criminal Justice Data atthe University of Michigan to enable researchersto perform independent analyses.

Comparing UCR and NCVS

Because the NCVS was designed tocomplement the UCR Program, the twoprograms share many similarities. As much astheir different collection methods permit, thetwo measure the same subset of serious crimes,defined alike. Both programs cover rape,robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, andmotor vehicle theft. Rape, robbery, theft, andmotor vehicle theft are defined virtually identi-cally by both the UCR and NCVS. (While rapeis defined analogously, the UCR Crime Index

measures the crime against women only, and theNCVS measures it against both sexes.)

There are also significant differencesbetween the two programs. First, the twoprograms were created to serve differentpurposes. The UCR Program’s primary objec-tive is to provide a reliable set of criminaljustice statistics for law enforcement administra-tion, operation, and management. The NCVSwas established to provide previously unavail-able information about crime (including crimenot reported to police), victims, and offenders.

Second, the two programs measure anoverlapping but nonidentical set of crimes. TheNCVS includes crimes both reported and notreported to law enforcement. The NCVSexcludes, but the UCR includes, homicide,arson, commercial crimes, and crimes againstchildren under age 12. The UCR capturescrimes reported to law enforcement, but itexcludes simple assaults and sexual assaultsother than forcible rape from the Crime Index.

Third, because of methodology, the NCVSand UCR definitions of some crimes differ. Forexample, the UCR defines burglary as theunlawful entry or attempted entry of a structureto commit a felony or theft. The NCVS, notwanting to ask victims to ascertain offendermotives, defines burglary as the entry orattempted entry of a residence by a person whohad no right to be there.

Fourth, for property crimes (burglary,theft, and motor vehicle theft), the twoprograms calculate crime rates using differentbases. The UCR rates for these crimes are percapita (number of crimes per 100,000 persons),whereas the NCVS rates for these crimes areper household (number of crimes per 1,000households). Because the number of house-holds may not grow at the same rate each yearas the total population, trend data for rates ofproperty crimes measured by the two programsmay not be comparable.

In addition, some differences in the datafrom the two programs may result fromsampling variation in the NCVS and from esti-mating for nonresponse in the UCR. TheNCVS estimates are derived from interviewinga sample and are, therefore, subject to a marginof error. Rigorous statistical methods are used

461APPENDIX

to calculate confidence intervals around allsurvey estimates. Trend data in NCVS reportsare described as genuine only if there is at leasta 90 percent certainty that the measured changesare not the result of sampling variation. TheUCR data are based on the actual counts ofoffenses reported by law enforcement jurisdic-tions. In some circumstances, UCR data areestimated for nonparticipating jurisdictions orthose reporting partial data.

Apparent discrepancies between statisticsfrom the two programs can usually be accountedfor by their definitional and procedural differ-ences or resolved by comparing NCVSsampling variations (confidence intervals) ofthose crimes said to have been reported topolice with UCR statistics.

For most types of crimes measured byboth the UCR and NCVS, analysts familiar withthe programs can exclude from analysis thoseaspects of crime not common to both. Resultinglong-term trend lines can be brought into closeconcordance. The impact of such adjustments ismost striking for robbery, burglary, and motorvehicle theft, whose definitions most closelycoincide.

With robbery, annual victimization ratesare based only on NCVS robberies reported tothe police. It is also possible to remove UCR

robberies of commercial establishments such asgas stations, convenience stores, and banks fromanalysis. When the resulting NCVS police-reported robbery rates are compared to UCRnoncommercial robbery rates, the results revealclosely corresponding long-term trends.

Each program has unique strengths. TheUCR provides a measure of the number ofcrimes reported to law enforcement agenciesthroughout the country. The UCR’sSupplementary Homicide Reports provide themost reliable, timely data on the extent andnature of homicides in the Nation. The NCVSis the primary source of information on thecharacteristics of criminal victimization and onthe number and types of crimes not reported tolaw enforcement authorities.

By understanding the strengths and limita-tions of each program, it is possible to use theUCR and NCVS to achieve a greater under-standing of crime trends and the nature of crimein the United States. For example, changes inpolice procedures, shifting attitudes towardscrime and police, and other societal changes canaffect the extent to which people report and lawenforcement agencies record crime. NCVS andUCR data can be used in concert to explore whytrends in reported and police-recorded crimemay differ.


APPENDIX V – Directory of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs

Alabama Alabama Criminal Justice Information CenterSuite 350770 Washington AvenueMontgomery, Alabama 36104334-242-4900

Alaska Uniform Crime Reporting SectionDepartment of Public Safety Information System5700 East Tudor RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99507907-451-5166

American Samoa Department of Public SafetyPost Office Box 1086Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799684-633-1111

Arizona Access Integrity UnitUniform Crime Reporting Program Arizona Department of Public SafetyPost Office Box 6638Phoenix, Arizona 85005-6638602-223-2263

Arkansas Arkansas Crime Information CenterOne Capitol Mall, 4D-200Little Rock, Arkansas 72201501-682-2222

California Criminal Justice Statistics CenterDepartment of JusticePost Office Box 903427Sacramento, California 94203-4270916-227-3282

Colorado Uniform Crime ReportingColorado Bureau of InvestigationSuite 3000690 Kipling StreetDenver, Colorado 80215303-239-4300

463APPENDIX

Connecticut Uniform Crime Reporting ProgramPost Office Box 2794Middletown, Connecticut 06457-9294860-685-8030

Delaware Delaware State Bureau of IdentificationPost Office Box 430Dover, Delaware 19903302-739-5875

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department300 Indiana Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20001202-727-1077

Florida Criminal Justice Information ServicesUniform Crime ReportsFlorida Department of Law EnforcementPost Office Box 1489Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489850-410-7121

Georgia Georgia Crime Information CenterGeorgia Bureau of InvestigationUniform Crime Reporting UnitPost Office Box 370748Decatur, Georgia 30037-0748404-244-2840

Guam Guam Police DepartmentPlanning, Research and DevelopmentBuilding #233Central AvenueTiyan, Guam 96913671-475-8421

Hawaii Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance DivisionDepartment of the Attorney GeneralSuite 401235 South Beretania StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96813808-586-1416

Idaho Bureau of Criminal Identification Idaho Department of Law EnforcementPost Office Box 700Meridian, Idaho 83680208-884-7156


Illinois Uniform Crime ReportingDivision of Administration; Crime StatisticsIllinois State Police3rd Floor400 Iles Park PlaceSpringfield, Illinois 62708217-782-5794

Iowa Iowa Department of Public SafetyWallace State Office BuildingEast Ninth and GrandDes Moines, Iowa 50319515-281-8494

Kansas Criminal Justice SystemKansas Bureau of InvestigationCrime Data Information Center1620 Southwest Tyler StreetTopeka, Kansas 66612785-296-8200

Kentucky Criminal Identification and Records BranchKentucky State Police1250 Louisville RoadFrankfort, Kentucky 40601502-227-8790

Louisiana Louisiana Commission on Law EnforcementUniform Crime Reporting12th Floor1885 Wooddale BoulevardBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70806225-925-7465

Maine Records Management ServicesUniform Crime Reporting DivisionMaine Department of Public SafetyMaine State Police36 Hospital Street, Station 42Augusta, Maine 04333207-624-7003

Maryland Central Records DivisionMaryland State Police1711 Belmont AvenueBaltimore, Maryland 21244410-298-3883

465APPENDIX

Massachusetts Crime Reporting UnitUniform Crime ReportsMassachusetts State Police470 Worcester RoadFramingham, Massachusetts 01702508-820-2111

Michigan Uniform Crime Reporting SectionCriminal Justice Information CenterMichigan State Police7150 Harris DriveLansing, Michigan 48913517-322-1424

Minnesota Criminal Justice Information Systems Bureau of Criminal ApprehensionMinnesota Department of Public Safety1246 University AvenueSt. Paul, Minnesota 55104651-642-0670

Missouri Missouri State Highway Patrol1510 East Elm StreetPost Office Box 568Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0568573-526-6278

Montana Montana Board of Crime ControlPost Office Box 201408Helena, Montana 59620-1408406-444-4298

Nebraska Uniform Crime Reporting SectionThe Nebraska Commission on Law

Enforcement and Criminal JusticePost Office Box 94946Lincoln, Nebraska 68508402-471-3982

Nevada Criminal Information ServicesNevada Highway Patrol808 West Nye LaneCarson City, Nevada 89703775-687-1600

New Hampshire Uniform Crime Reporting UnitNew Hampshire State PoliceNew Hampshire Department of Public Safety10 Hazen DriveConcord, New Hampshire 03305603-271-2509


New Jersey Uniform Crime Reporting UnitNew Jersey State PolicePost Office Box 7068West Trenton, New Jersey 08628-0068609-882-2000 x 2392

New York Statistical ServicesNew York State Division of Criminal Justice Services8th Floor, Mail Room4 Tower PlaceAlbany, New York 12203518-457-8381

North Carolina Crime Reporting and Criminal StatisticsState Bureau of InvestigationPost Office Box 29500Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0500919-662-4509

North Dakota Information Services SectionBureau of Criminal InvestigationAttorney General’s OfficePost Office Box 1054Bismarck, North Dakota 58502701-328-5500

Ohio* Office of Criminal Justice ServicesSuite 300400 East Town StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215614-644-6797

Oklahoma Uniform Crime Reporting SectionOklahoma State Bureau of InvestigationSuite 3006600 North HarveyOklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116405-879-2533

Oregon Law Enforcement Data System DivisionOregon State Police3225 State StreetSalem, Oregon 97301503-378-3055

Pennsylvania Bureau of Research and DevelopmentPennsylvania State Police1800 Elmerton AvenueHarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110717-783-5536

*National Incident-Based Reporting System Only

467APPENDIX

Puerto Rico Statistics DivisionPuerto Rico PolicePost Office Box 70166San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-8166787-793-1234 x 3113

Rhode Island Rhode Island State Police311 Danielson PikeNorth Scituate, Rhode Island 02857401-444-1121

South Carolina South Carolina Law Enforcement DivisionPost Office Box 21398Columbia, South Carolina 29221-1398803-896-7016

South Dakota South Dakota Statistical Analysis Center500 East Capitol AvenuePierre, South Dakota 57501-5070605-773-6310

Tennessee* Tennessee Bureau of Investigation901 R.S. Gass BoulevardNashville, Tennessee 37216-2639615-744-4014

Texas Uniform Crime ReportingCrime Information BureauTexas Department of Public SafetyPost Office Box 4143Austin, Texas 78765-9968512-424-2734

Utah Data Collection and AnalysisUniform Crime ReportingBureau of Criminal IdentificationUtah Department of Public SafetyPost Office Box 148280Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-8280801-965-4566

Vermont Vermont Crime Information Center103 South Main StreetWaterbury, Vermont 05671-2101802-241-5220

*National Incident-Based Reporting System Only


Virginia Criminal Justice Information Services DivisionVirginia State PolicePost Office Box 27472Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472804-674-2023

Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Police DepartmentCriminal Justice ComplexSaint Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802809-774-2211

Washington Uniform Crime Reporting ProgramWashington Association of Sheriffs and Police ChiefsSuite 2003060 Willamette Drive, NortheastLacey, Washington 98516360-486-2380

West Virginia Uniform Crime Reporting ProgramWest Virginia State Police725 Jefferson RoadSouth Charleston, West Virginia 25309304-746-2159

Wisconsin Office of Justice AssistanceSuite 202131 West Wilson StreetMadison, Wisconsin 53702-0001608-266-0936

Wyoming Uniform Crime ReportingCriminal Records SectionDivision of Criminal Investigation316 West 22nd StreetCheyenne, Wyoming 82002307-777-7625

469APPENDIX

APPENDIX VI – National Uniform Crime Reporting Directory

Administration 304-625-3691Program administration; management; policy

Crime Analysis, Research and Development 304-625-3600Statistical models; special studies and analyses; crime forecasting

Information Dissemination 304-625-4995Requests for published and unpublished data; printouts, magnetic tapes, and books

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) 304-625-2998Information for law enforcement agencies regarding the NIBRS certification process; federal funding for NIBRS-compliant records management systems; and data submission specifications

Quality Assurance 304-625-2941Assistance in confirming statistical validity and ensuring agency reporting integrity

Statistical Processing 304-625-4830Processing of summary and incident-based reports from data contributors; reporting problems; requests for reporting forms; data processing; data quality

Training/Education 304-625-3691Requests for training of law enforcement personnel; information on police reporting systems; technical assistance

Send correspondence to: Federal Bureau of InvestigationCriminal Justice Information Services DivisionAttention: Uniform Crime Reports1000 Custer Hollow RoadClarksburg, West Virginia 26306


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 & DiskettesHate Crime Statistics, 1990: A Resource BookTraining 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.

APPENDIX VII – Uniform Crime Reporting Publications List

CIUS 2002 Section VII - Appendices (Document Pages 441-470)

Documents

Transcript of CIUS 2002 Section VII - Appendices (Document Pages 441-470)