Appendix I--methodology.Agencies that contribute to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR (Under Color Removal) A method for reducing the amount of printing ink used. It substitutes black for gray color (equal amounts of cyan, magenta and yellow). Thus black ink is used instead of the three CMY inks. See GCR and dot gain. ) Program forward crime data through the state UCR Programs in 46 states and the District of Columbia District of Columbia, federal district (2000 pop. 572,059, a 5.7% decrease in population since the 1990 census), 69 sq mi (179 sq km), on the east bank of the Potomac River, coextensive with the city of Washington, D.C. (the capital of the United States). . 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. The state UCR Programs are very effective liaisons between local contributors and the FBI. Many of the state Programs have mandatory reporting mandatory reporting The obligatory reporting of a particular condition to local or state health authorities, as required for communicable disease and substance abuse Infectious disease State boards of health maintain records and collect data resulting from MR of requirements and collect data beyond the national UCR Program's scope to address crime problems germane ger·mane adj. Being both pertinent and fitting. See Synonyms at relevant. [Middle English germain, having the same parents, closely connected; see german2. to their particular locales. In most cases, these state Programs also provide more direct and frequent service to participating law enforcement agencies A law enforcement agency (LEA) is a term used to describe any agency which enforces the law. This may be a local or state police, federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). , make information more readily available for statewide use, and streamline streamline, path of a fluid flowing steadily and without appreciable turbulence. A body is said to be streamlined if its shape offers the least possible resistance to a current of air, water, or other fluid. the national Program's operations. The criteria criteria (krītēr´ē  ),n. established for state Programs ensure consistency Consistency can refer to:
fit, meet coordinate - be co-ordinated; "These activities coordinate well" national UCR Program standards, definitions, and information required. (2) The state criminal justice agency must have a proven, effective, statewide Program and have instituted acceptable quality control procedures. (3) The state crime reporting must cover a percentage of the population at least equal to that covered by the national UCR Program through direct reporting. (4) The state Program must have adequate field staff assigned as·sign tr.v. as·signed, as·sign·ing, as·signs 1. To set apart for a particular purpose; designate: assigned a day for the inspection. 2. to conduct audits and to assist contributing agencies in record-keeping practices and crime-reporting procedures. (5) The state Program must furnish fur·nish tr.v. fur·nished, fur·nish·ing, fur·nish·es 1. To equip with what is needed, especially to provide furniture for. 2. the FBI with all of the detailed data regularly collected by the FBI from individual agencies that report to the State Program in the form of duplicate DUPLICATE. The double of anything. 2. It is usually applied to agreements, letters, receipts, and the like, when two originals are made of either of them. Each copy has the same effect. returns, computer printouts, and/or and/or conj. Used to indicate that either or both of the items connected by it are involved. Usage Note: And/or is widely used in legal and business writing. appropriate electronic media. (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 publication deadlines of the national UCR Program. To fulfill ful·fill also ful·fil tr.v. ful·filled, ful·fill·ing, ful·fills also ful·fils 1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises. 2. its responsibilities in connection with the UCR Program, the FBI continues to edit To make a change to existing data. See update. (application) edit - Use of some kind of editor program to modify a document. Also used to refer to the modification itself, e.g. "my last edit only made things worse". and review individual agency reports for both completeness and quality. The national UCR Program staff have direct contact with individual contributors within the state, as necessary, in connection with crime-reporting matters, coordinating co·or·di·nate n. 1. One that is equal in importance, rank, or degree. 2. coordinates A set of articles, as of clothing or luggage, designed to match or complement one other, as in style or color. 3. such contact with the state agency. On request, staff members conduct training programs within the state on law enforcement record-keeping 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 CIRCUMSTANCES, evidence. The particulars which accompany a fact. 2. The facts proved are either possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or extraordinary and improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us, or afar off; they are public or develop whereby the state agency does not comply with the aforementioned a·fore·men·tioned adj. Mentioned previously. n. The one or ones mentioned previously. aforementioned Adjective mentioned before Adj. 1. requirements, the national Program may reinstitute a direct collection of Uniform Crime Reports from law enforcement agencies within the state. Reporting Procedures Each month the UCR Program tabulates the number of Part I offenses brought to the attention of law enforcement agencies based on all reports of crime received from victims, officers who discover infractions, or other sources. Specifically, the Part I crimes reported to the FBI are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter manslaughter, homicide committed without justification or excuse but distinguished from murder by the absence of the element of malice aforethought. Modern criminal statutes usually divide it into degrees, the most common distinction being between voluntary and , forcible forc·i·ble adj. 1. Effected against resistance through the use of force: The police used forcible restraint in order to subdue the assailant. 2. Characterized by force; powerful. rape, robbery robbery, in law, felonious taking of property from a person against his will by threatening or committing force or violence. The injury or threat may be directed against the person robbed, his property, or the person or property of his relative or of anyone in his , aggravated assault A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or , burglary burglary, at common law, the breaking and entering of a dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony, whether the intent is carried out or not. , larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft Motor vehicle theft or grand theft auto is a criminal act of theft generally understood to refer to the stealing of automobiles, buses, motorcycles, snowmobiles, trucks, trailers or any other motorized vehicle legally allowed on public roads and highways, including attempted , and arson arson, at common law, the malicious and willful burning of the house of another. Originally, it was an offense against the security of habitation rather than against property rights. . Law enforcement 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 prosecution n. 1) in criminal law, the government attorney charging and trying the case against a person accused of a crime. 2) a common term for the government's side in a criminal case, as in "the prosecution will present five witnesses" or "the prosecution rests" is undertaken. Complaints of crime that are determined through investigation to be unfounded or false are eliminated from an agency's count. Another integral part of the monthly submission Submission Elliott, Anne reluctantly gives up her fiancé on her family’s advice. [Br. Lit.: Jane Austen Persuasion in Magill I, 734] is the total number of actual Part I 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 offender n. an accused defendant in a criminal case or one convicted of a crime. (See: defendant, accused) . Law enforcement agencies also report the number of 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 per·tain intr.v. per·tained, per·tain·ing, per·tains 1. To have reference; relate: evidence that pertains to the accident. 2. to criminal homicide homicide (hŏm`əsīd), in law, the taking of human life. Homicides that are neither justifiable nor excusable are considered crimes. A criminal homicide committed with malice is known as murder, otherwise it is called manslaughter. and arson. In addition to its primary collection of Part I offenses, the UCR Program solicits monthly data on persons arrested for all crimes except traffic violations. Agencies report the age, sex, and race of arrestees for both Part I and Part II offenses. Part II offenses include all crimes not classified as Part I. The UCR Program also collects monthly data on law enforcement officers killed or assaulted, and, yearly, the number of full-time full-time adj. Employed for or involving a standard number of hours of working time: a full-time administrative assistant. full sworn and civilian CIVILIAN. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. law enforcement personnel employed on October October: see month. 31. At the end of each quarter, the Program collects summarized information on hate crimes, i.e., specific offenses that were motivated mo·ti·vate tr.v. mo·ti·vat·ed, mo·ti·vat·ing, mo·ti·vates To provide with an incentive; move to action; impel. mo by an offender's bias against the perceived per·ceive tr.v. per·ceived, per·ceiv·ing, per·ceives 1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing. 2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation sexual orientation n. The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. , or physical or mental disability of the victim. Those agencies participating in the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS NIBRS National Incident-Based Reporting System (US DoD) ) submit hate crime data monthly. Editing Procedures The UCR Program thoroughly examines each report it receives 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 mod·i·fy v. mod·i·fied, mod·i·fy·ing, mod·i·fies v.tr. 1. To change in form or character; alter. 2. records procedures, incomplete reporting, or changes in the jurisdiction's geopolitical ge·o·pol·i·tics n. (used with a sing. verb) 1. The study of the relationship among politics and geography, demography, and economics, especially with respect to the foreign policy of a nation. 2. a. 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 deviations or arithmetical adjustments noted by the national staff. 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 UCR Program excludes the figures for specific crime categories or totals, if necessary, 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 Liaison may refer to:
tr.v. com·piled, com·pil·ing, com·piles 1. To gather into a single book. 2. To put together or compose from materials gathered from several sources: its crime statistics and its remedial REMEDIAL. That which affords a remedy; as, a remedial statute, or one which is made to supply some defects or abridge some superfluities of the common law. 1 131. Com. 86. The term remedial statute is also applied to those acts which give a new remedy. Esp. Pen. Act. 1. efforts are unsuccessful, personnel from the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division The Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) is a division of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A computerized criminal justice information system that is a counterpart of FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) in may visit the contributor to aid in resolving the difficulties. The national UCR Program publishes a Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook
This article is about reference works. For the subnotebook computer, see .
The removal of small amounts of fine, particulate solids from liquids. The purpose is almost invariably to improve the quality of the liquid, and the removed solids often are discarded. of reporting issues. The final responsibility for data submissions rests with the individual contributing law enforcement agency Noun 1. law enforcement agency - an agency responsible for insuring obedience to the laws FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation - a federal law enforcement agency that is the principal investigative arm of the Department of Justice . 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 adherence /ad·her·ence/ (ad-her´ens) the act or condition of sticking to something. immune 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
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) was founded in Chicago in 1893 as the National Chiefs of Police Union. and the National Sheriffs' Association The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) is a U.S. non-profit trade association dedicated to raising the level of professionalism among U.S.sheriffs, their deputies and others in the fields of criminal justice and public safety. . Arrest Data Due to changes in reporting practices, arrest data for Arkansas Arkansas, river, United States Arkansas (ärkăn`zəs, är`kənsô'), river, c.1,450 mi (2,330 km) long, rising in the Rocky Mts., central Colo. and New Hampshire New Hampshire, one of the New England states of the NE United States. It is bordered by Massachusetts (S), Vermont, with the Connecticut R. forming the boundary (W), the Canadian province of Quebec (NW), and Maine and a short strip of the Atlantic Ocean (E). are not comparable to previous years' data. Twelve months of complete arrest data were not received for contributing Nevada Nevada (nəvăd`ə, –vä–), far western state of the United States. It is bordered by Utah (E), Arizona (SE), California (SW, W), and Oregon and Idaho (N). law enforcement agencies by the established publication deadline. Limited arrest data were received from Illinois Illinois, river, United States Illinois, river, 273 mi (439 km) long, formed by the confluence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee rivers, NE Ill., and flowing SW to the Mississippi at Grafton, Ill. It is an important commercial and recreational waterway. , Kentucky Kentucky, state, United States Kentucky (kəntŭk`ē, kĭn–), one of the so-called border states of the S central United States. It is bordered by West Virginia and Virginia (E); Tennessee (S); the Mississippi R. , and South Carolina South Carolina, state of the SE United States. It is bordered by North Carolina (N), the Atlantic Ocean (SE), and Georgia (SW). Facts and Figures Area, 31,055 sq mi (80,432 sq km). Pop. (2000) 4,012,012, a 15. . No 2003 arrest data were received from the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department; the two agencies (Zoological Police and Metro Transit There is more than one public transit system named Metro Transit. Some of the most significant include:
emanating from or pertaining to attribute. attributable proportion see attributable risk (below). attributable risk population. Twelve months of arrest figures for New York City New York City: see New York, city. New York City City (pop., 2000: 8,008,278), southeastern New York, at the mouth of the Hudson River. The largest city in the U.S. Police Department, New York New York, state, United States New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of ; law enforcement agencies in Florida This is a list of law enforcement agencies in the state of Florida. State agencies
Population For the 2003 edition of Crime in the United States Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries although this is explained by the fact that criminals in America are more likely to use firearms. , the UCR Program obtained current population estimates from the Bureau of the Census Noun 1. Bureau of the Census - the bureau of the Commerce Department responsible for taking the census; provides demographic information and analyses about the population of the United States Census Bureau to estimate 2003 population counts for all contributing law enforcement agencies. The Bureau of the Census provided revised 2002 state/national population estimates and 2003 state/national population estimates. Using these provisional Temporary; not permanent. Tentative, contingent, preliminary. A provisional civil service appointment is a temporary position that fills a vacancy until a test can be properly administered and statutory requirements can be fulfilled to make a permanent appointment. census census, periodic official count of the number of persons and their condition and of the resources of a country. In ancient times, among the Jews and Romans, such enumeration was mainly for taxation and conscription purposes. data, the national UCR Program updated the 2002 Bureau of the Census city and county estimates and calculated the 2003 state growth rates Growth Rates The compounded annualized rate of growth of a company's revenues, earnings, dividends, or other figures. Notes: Remember, historically high growth rates don't always mean a high rate of growth looking into the future. . Subsequently, the Program updated population figures for individual jurisdictions by applying the 2003 state growth rates to the updated 2002 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 A malfunction that occurs at random intervals and lasts for a short duration such as a spike or surge in a power line or a memory cell that intermittently fails. See spike and power surge. transient - 1. reporting problems that require the Program to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, the data are not comparable from year to year. Offense Estimation estimation In mathematics, use of a function or formula to derive a solution or make a prediction. Unlike approximation, it has precise connotations. In statistics, for example, it connotes the careful selection and testing of a function called an estimator. 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 nonmetropolitan counties. Using the known crime experiences of similar areas within a state, the national Program computes estimates by assigning as·sign tr.v. as·signed, as·sign·ing, as·signs 1. To set apart for a particular purpose; designate: assigned a day for the inspection. 2. the same proportional proportional values expressed as a proportion of the total number of values in a series. proportional dwarf the patient is a miniature without disproportionate reductions or enlargements of body parts. crime volumes to nonreporting agencies. The population size of agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriffs office; and geographic geographic /geo·graph·ic/ (je?o-graf´ik) in pathology, of or referring to a pattern that is well demarcated, resembling outlines on a map. geographic pertaining to geography. 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 Accordance is Bible Study Software for Macintosh developed by OakTree Software, Inc.[] As well as a standalone program, it is the base software packaged by Zondervan in their Bible Study suites for Macintosh. with UCR guidelines guidelines, n.pl a set of standards, criteria, or specifications to be used or followed in the performance of certain tasks. ; reporting problems at the state level have, at times, resulted in no usable USable is a special idea contest to transfer US American ideas into practice in Germany. USable is initiated by the German Körber-Stiftung (foundation Körber). It is doted with 150,000 Euro and awarded every two years. 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 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to provide
forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR
guidelines.
Florida, Reporting problems at the state level resulted in
Kentucky no usable data.
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 Michigan, The state UCR Programs were unable to provide
Minnesota forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR
guidelines.
Kansas NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation
for Kansas.
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.
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 Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to provide
complete 1995 offense figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
Illinois 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, The state UCR Programs were unable to provide
Montana 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, The state UCR Programs were unable to provide
Montana, complete 1997 offense figures in accordance
New with UCR guidelines.
Hampshire,
Vermont
1998 Delaware The state UCR Program was unable to provide
forcible rape figures in accordance with
national UCR guidelines.
Kentucky, The state UCR Programs were unable to provide
Montana, complete 1998 offense figures in accordance
New with UCR guidelines.
Hampshire,
Wisconsin
Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to provide
complete 1998 offense figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to provide
complete 1998 offense figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
1999 Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to 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.
Kansas, The state UCR Programs were unable to provide
Kentucky, complete 1999 offense figures in accordance
Montana with UCR guidelines.
New The state UCR Program was unable to provide
Hampshire complete 1999 offense figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
2000 Kansas The state UCR Program was unable to provide
complete 2000 offense figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
Kentucky, The state UCR Programs were unable to provide
Montana complete 2000 offense figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
Illinois The state UCR Programs were unable to
provide complete 2000 offense figures or
forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR
guidelines.
2001 Kentucky The state UCR Program was unable to provide
complete 2000 offense figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
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.
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.
2003 Kentucky The state UCR Program was unable to provide
complete 2003 offense figures in accordance
with UCR guidelines.
Illinois The state UCR Program was unable to provide
complete 2003 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 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.
Florida, State totals were estimated by updating previous
Kentucky 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.
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 Michigan, The rape totals were estimated using national
Minnesota rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight
population groups and assigning the forcible rape
volumes proportionally to each 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.
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.
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 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.
Illinois Valid Crime Index (Part I) 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.
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 (Part I) 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, The 1995 and 1996 percent changes within each
Montana geographic division were applied to valid 1995
state totals to generate 1996 state totals.
1997 Illinois Valid Crime Index (Part I) 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, The 1996 and 1997 percent changes registered for
Montana, each geographic division in which the states of
New Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, and Vermont are
Hampshire, categorized were applied to valid 1996 state
Vermont 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.
Kentucky, State totals were estimated by using the 1997
Montana, figures for the nonreporting areas and applying
New 1997 versus 1998 percentage changes for the
Hampshire, division in which each state is located. The
Wisconsin estimates for the nonreporting areas were then
increased by any actual 1998 crime counts
received.
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.
Illinois Valid Crime Index (Part I) 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.
1999 Illinois Valid Crime Index (Part I) 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.
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.
Kansas, To arrive at 1999 estimates for Kansas, Kentucky,
Kentucky, and Montana, 1998 state totals supplied by each
Montana state's UCR Program were updated using 1999 crime
trends for the divisions in which each state is
located.
New The state total for New Hampshire was estimated
Hampshire by using the 1998 figures for the 1999
nonreporting areas and applying the 2- year
percent change for the New England Division.
2000 Kansas To arrive at 2000 estimates for Kansas, 1999
state estimates were updated using 2000 crime
trends for the West North Central Division.
Kentucky, To arrive at 2000 estimates for Kentucky and
Montana Montana, 1999 state totals supplied by each
state's UCR Program were updated using 2000 crime
trends for the divisions in which each slate is
located.
Illinois Valid Crime Index (Part I) 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.
2001 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.
Illinois Valid Crime Index (Part I) 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.
2002 Kentucky To obtain the 2002 state crime count, the FBI
contacted the state UCR Program, 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 (Part I) 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 within single
incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid
totals for the large cities were excluded from
the reduction process.
2003 Kentucky To obtain the 2003 state estimate, the 2003 crime
trend for the East South Central Division was
applied to an adjusted 2002 state estimate. The
2002 state count was reestimated by applying the
2002 crime trend for the East South Central
Division using a more current figure, 2001 state
totals, provided by the state UCR Program. The
adjusted 2002 estimate differs from the figure
published in the 2002 edition of Crime in the
United States which was originally estimated
using 2000 state totals.
Illinois Valid Part I counts were available only for most
of the largest cities. For other agencies, the
only available counts were generated by the
Illinois State Program 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 NIBRS
total (which was inflated because the Hierarchy
Rule was not applied) supplied by the Illinois
State Program was reduced by the proportion of
multiple offenses reported within single
incidents in NIBRS data nationwide.
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. For example, to be included in this publication's Tables 8 through 11, which show specific jurisdictional statistics, the FBI must receive figures for all 12 months of the reporting year prior to established publication deadlines. Other tabular tab·u·lar adj. 1. Having a plane surface; flat. 2. Organized as a table or list. 3. Calculated by means of a table. tabular resembling a table. presentations are based 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, the following table explains the construction of many of this book's tabular presentations.
(1) (2)
Table Database
1 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.
Crime statistics include estimated offense totals
(except arson) for agencies submitting less
than 12 months of offense reports for each year.
2 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.
Crime statistics include estimated offense totals
(except arson) for agencies submitting less
than 12 months of offense reports for 2003.
3 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program
(including those submitting less than 12
months of offense reports for 2003). Arson is
not included.
4 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.
Crime statistics include estimated offense totals
(except arson) for agencies submitting less
than 12 months of offense reports for 2002 and
2003
5 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.
Crime statistics include estimated offense totals
(except arson) for agencies submitting less
than 12 months of offense reports for 2003.
6 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program.
Crime statistics include estimated offense totals
(except arson) for agencies submitting less
than 12 months of offense reports for 2003.
7 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR
Program. Crime statistics include estimated offense
totals for agencies submitting less than 12
months of offense reports for 1999 through 2003.
8 All city and town law enforcement agencies
(10,000 and over in population) submitting 12
months of complete data for 2003.
9 All university/college law enforcement agencies
submitting 12 months of complete data for 2003.
10 10 All county law enforcement agencies submitting
12 months of complete data for 2003.
11 All state law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete data for 2003.
12-15 All law enforcement agencies submitting at least
6 common months of complete offense reports
for 2002 and 2003.
16-19 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete data (except arson) for 2003.
20 All law enforcement agencies submitting Supplementary
Homicide Report (SHR) data for 2003.
21,22 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete offense reports for 2003.
23,24 All law enforcement agencies submitting at least
6 months of complete offense reports for 2003.
25-28 All law enforcement agencies submitting at least
6 months of complete offense reports for 2003.
29 All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program
(including those submitting less than 12
months of complete arrest data for 2003).
30,31 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete arrest data for 2003.
32,33 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete arrest data for 1994 and
2003
34,35 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete arrest data for 1999 and
2003
36,37 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete arrest data for 2002 and
2003
38-43 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete arrest data for 2003.
44,45 All city law enforcement agencies submitting
12 months of complete arrest data for 2002 and
2003
46-49 All city law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete arrest data for 2003.
50,51 All metropolitan county law enforcement agencies
submitting 12 months of complete arrest data
for 2002 and 2003.
52-55 All metropolitan county law enforcement agencies
submitting 12 months of complete arrest data
for 2003.
56,57 All nonmetropolitan county law enforcement
agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest
data for 2002 and 2003.
58-61 All nonmetropolitan county law enforcement
agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest
data for 2003.
62,63 All suburban area law enforcement agencies
submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for
2002 and 2003.
64-67 All suburban area law enforcement agencies
submitting 12 months of complete arrest data
for 2003.
68 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete arrest data for 2003.
69 All law enforcement agencies submitting 12
months of complete arrest data for 2003.
(1) (3)
Table Table Construction
1 The 2003 statistics are consistent with Table 2. Pre-2003
crime statistics may have been updated and, therefore,
may not be consistent with those published in prior
publications. Population statistics represent July 1
provisional estimations for each year except 1990 and
2000, which are the Census Bureau's decennial census data.
(See the Population section in this appendix.)
2 Statistics are aggregated from individual state statistics
as shown in Table 5. Population statistics for
2003 represent estimates based on the percent change
in state population from the Census Bureau's 2002 revised
estimates and 2003 provisional estimates. (See
the Population section in this appendix.)
3 Regional offense distributions are computed from
volume figures as shown in Table 4. Population
distributions are based on the Census Bureau's provisional
estimates for 2003.
4 The 2003 statistics are aggregated from individual
state statistics as shown in Table 5. Population statistics
represent the Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and
2003 provisional estimates.
5 Population statistics for 2003 represent estimates
based on the percent change in state population from
the Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section 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 Statistics are published for all currently designated
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) having at
least 75% of the area's agencies reporting and for
which the principal city/cities submitted 12 months
of complete data for 2003. Population statistics for
2003 represent estimates based on the percent change
in state population from the Census Bureau's 2002
revised estimates and 2003 provisional estimates.
(See the Population section in this appendix.) The
statistics under the heading Area Actually Reporting
represent offense totals for agencies submitting
12 months of complete data and estimated totals for
agencies submitting less than 12 but more than 2
months of data. The statistics under the heading Estimated
Total represent the above plus estimated totals for
agencies submitting 2 months or less of data. The
tabular breakdowns are according to UCR definitions.
(See Appendix IL)
7 Offense totals are for all Part I offenses other than
aggravated assault and arson. (Appendix II of this
report defines the UCR Program's Part I offenses.)
8 Cities and towns are agencies in Population Groups
I through V Population statistics for 2003 represent
estimates based on the percent change in state
population from the Census Bureau's 2002 revised
estimates and 2003 provisional estimates. (See the
Population section in this appendix.)
9 The 2001 student enrollment figures, which are provided
by the U.S. Department of Education, are the most recent
available. They include full- and part-time students. No
adjustments to equate part-time enrollments into
full-time equivalents have been made.
10 Metropolitan counties are the areas covered by non-city
agencies within a currently designated MSA. Nonmetropolitan
counties are those outside currently designated MSAs whose
jurisdictions are not covered by city police agencies.
(See Appendix III.) Population classifications for counties
are based on 2003 UCR estimates for individual agencies.
(See the Population section in this appendix.)
11 State and federal agencies are those agencies, regardless
of jurisdiction, that are managed by their respective
state and federal governments.
12-15 The 2003 crime trend statistics are 2-year comparisons
based on 2003 reported crime. Only common reported
months for individual agencies are included in 2003
trend calculations. Population statistics for 2003
represent estimates based on the percent change in
state population from the Census Bureau's 2002 revised
estimates and 2003 provisional estimates. (See the
Population section in this appendix.) UCR population
breakdowns are furnished in Appendix III. Note that
suburban and nonsuburban cities are all municipal
agencies other than central cities in MSAs.
16-19 The 2003 crime rates are the ratios, per 100,000 inhabitants,
of the aggregated 2003 crime volumes and the aggregated
2003 populations of the contributing agencies. Population
statistics for 2003 represent estimates based on the
percent change in state population from the Census Bureau's
2002 revised estimates and 2003 provisional estimates. (See
the Population section in this appendix.) UCR population
breakdowns are furnished in Appendix III. Note that
suburban and nonsuburban cities are all municipal
agencies other than central cities in MSAs.
20 The weapon totals are the aggregate for each murder
victim recorded on the SHRs for calendar year 2003.
21,22 The weapon totals are aggregated 2003 totals. Population
statistics represent 2003 UCR estimates.
23,24 Offense total and value lost total are computed for
all Part I offenses other than aggravated assault and
arson. Percent distribution is derived based on the
offense total of each Part I offense. Trend statistics
are derived based on agencies with at least 6 common
months of complete data for 2002 and 2003. (Appendix
II of this report defines the UCR Program's
Part I offenses.)
25-28 The 2003 clearance rates are based on offense and
clearance volume totals of the contributing agencies
for 2003. Population statistics for 2003 represent estimates
based on the percent change in state population from the
Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section in
this appendix.) UCR population breakdowns are furnished
in Appendix III.
29 The arrest totals presented are national estimates
based on the arrest statistics of all law enforcement
agencies in the UCR Program (including those
submitting less than 12 months). The estimated
total number of arrests 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 Appendix III.) Each group's
estimate is the reported volume (as shown in Table
31) divided by the percent of the total group population
reporting, according to 2003 UCR estimates for
individual agencies. (See the Population section in
this appendix.)
30,31 The 2003 arrest rates are the ratios, per 100,000
inhabitants, of the aggregated 2003 reported arrest
statistics and population. The population statistics for
2003 represent estimates based on the percent change
in state population from the Census Bureau's 2002
revised estimates and 2003 provisional estimates.
(See the Population section in this appendix.) UCR
population classifications and geographical configuration
are provided in Appendix III.
32,33 The arrest trends are the percentage differences between
1994 and 2003 arrest volumes aggregated from all common
agencies. The population statistics for 2003 represent
estimates based on the percent change in state
population from the Census Bureau's 2002 revised
estimates and 2003 provisional estimates. (See the
Population section in this appendix.) Population
statistics for 1994 are based on the percent change in
state population from the Census Bureau's 1993 and
1994 provisional estimates.
34,35 The arrest trends are the percentage differences between
1999 and 2003 arrest volumes aggregated from common
agencies. The population statistics for 2003 represent
estimates based on the percent change in state population
from the Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section in
this appendix.) Population statistics for 1999 are based
on the percent change in state population from the Census
Bureau's 1998 and 1999 provisional estimates.
36,37 The arrest trends are 2-year comparisons between
2002 and 2003 arrest volumes aggregated from common
agencies. Population statistics for 2002 represent
estimates based on the percent change in state
population from the Census Bureau's 2001 revised
estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. Population
statistics for 2003 represent estimates based on the
percent change in state populations from the Census
Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003 provisional
estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)
38-43 Population statistics for 2003 represent estimates
based on the percent change in state population from
the Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section in
this appendix.)
44,45 The 2003 city arrest trends represent the percentage
differences between 2002 and 2003 arrest volumes
aggregated from common city agencies. City agencies
re all agencies within Population Groups I-VI.
(See Appendix III.) Population statistics for 2002
represent estimates based on the percent change in
state population from the Census Bureau's 2001
revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates.
Population statistics for 2003 represent estimates
based on the percent change in state population from
the Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section in
this appendix.)
46-49 City agencies are all agencies within Population
Groups I-VI. (See Appendix III.) Population statistics
or 2003 represent estimates based on the percent change
in state population from the Census Bureau's 2002
revised estimates and 2003 provisional estimates.
(See the Population section in this appendix.)
50,51 The 2003 metropolitan county arrest trends represent
percentage differences between 2002 and 2003 volumes
aggregated from contributing agencies. Metropolitan
counties are the areas covered by noncity agencies
within a currently designated MSA. (See Appendix III.)
Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates
based on the percent change in state population from
the Census Bureau's 2001 revised estimates and 2002
provisional estimates. Population statistics for 2003
represent estimates based on the percent change in state
populations from the Census Bureau's 2002 revised
estimates and 2003 provisional estimates. (See the
Population section in this appendix.)
52-55 Metropolitan counties are the areas covered by noneity
agencies within a currently designated MSA. (See
Appendix III.) Population statistics for 2003 represent
estimates based on the percent change in state population
from the Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this
appendix.)
56,57 The 2003 nonmetropolitan county arrest trends
represent percentage differences between 2002 and
2003 volumes aggregated from contributing agencies.
Nonmetropolitan counties are noncity agencies outside
currently designated MSAs. (See Appendix III.)
Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates
based on the percent change in state population from
the Census Bureau's 2001 revised estimates and 2002
provisional estimates. Population statistics for 2003
represent estimates based on the percent change in
state populations from the Census Bureau's 2002 revised
estimates and 2003 provisional estimates. (See the
Population section in this appendix.)
58-61 Nonmetropolitan counties are noncity agencies outside
currently designated MSAs. (See Appendix III.)
Population statistics for 2003 represent estimates
based on the percent change in state population from
the Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section in
this appendix.)
62,63 The 2003 suburban area arrest trends represent
percentage differences between 2002 and 2003 arrest
volumes aggregated from contributing agencies.
Suburban area includes agencies within a currently
designated metropolitan area excluding those that
cover principal cities as defined by the Office of Management
and Budget. (See Appendix III.) Population statistics for
2002 represent estimates based on the percent change in
state population from the Census Bureau's 2001 revised
estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. Population
statistics for 2003 represent estimates based on the
percent change in state populations from the Census
Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003 provisional
estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)
64-67 Suburban area includes agencies within a currently
designated metropolitan area excluding those that
cover principal cities as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget. (See Appendix III.) Population
statistics for 2003 represent estimates based
on the percent change in state population from the
Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section in
this appendix.)
68 Population statistics for 2003 represent estimates
based on the percent change in state population from
the Census Bureau's 2002 revised estimates and 2003
provisional estimates. (See the Population section in
this appendix.)
69 Arrest totals are aggregated for individual agencies
within each state. Population statistics represent the
Census Bureau's provisional estimates for 2003. (See
the Population section in this appendix.)
(1) (4)
Table General Comments
1 * Represents an estimation of reported crime for
the Nation from 1984 to 2003.
* Sufficient data are not available to provide
arson estimates.
2 * Represents an estimation of reported crime in
2003 for the:
1. Nation
2. MSAs
3. Cities outside metropolitan areas
4. Nonmetropolitan counties
* Sufficient data are not available to provide
arson estimates.
3 * Represents the 2003 geographical distribution
of estimated offenses and population.
* Sufficient data are not available to provide
arson estimates.
4 * Represents an estimation of reported crime
for the:
1. Nation
2. Regions
3. Divisions
4. States
* Sufficient data are not available to provide
arson estimates.
* Any comparison of UCR statistics should take
into consideration factors in addition to reported
crime. More details concerning the proper use
of UCR statistics are provided in Crime Factors
in this report.
5 * Represents an estimation of reported crime for
states.
* Sufficient data are not available to provide
arson estimates.
* Any comparison of UCR statistics should take
into consideration factors in addition to reported
crime. More details concerning the proper use
of UCR statistics are provided in Crime Factors
in this report.
6 * Represents an estimation of reported crime for
MSAs.
* Sufficient data are not available to provide
arson estimates.
* Any comparison of UCR statistics should take
into consideration factors in addition to reported
crime. More details concerning the proper use
of UCR statistics are provided in Crime Factors
in this report.
7 * Represents an estimation of reported crime for
the Nation from 1999 to 2003.
* Aggravated assault and arson are not included
in the data source from which this table is derived.
8 * Represents reported crime of individual
agencies in cities and towns 10,000 and over in
population.
* Any comparison of UCR statistics should take
into consideration factors in addition to reported
crime. More details concerning the proper use
of UCR statistics are provided in Crime Factors
in this report.
9 * Represents reported crime from those individual
university/college law enforcement agencies
(listed alphabetically by state) contributing data
to the UCR Program.
* Any comparison of these UCR statistics should
take into consideration size of enrollment,
number of on-campus residents, and other
demographic factors.
10 * Represents reported crime from individual law
enforcement agencies in metropolitan counties
and nonmetropolitan counties covering
populations of 25,000 and over (i.e., the
individual sheriff's office and/or county police
department).
* These figures do not represent the county totals
because they exclude city crime counts.
* Any comparison of UCR statistics should take
into consideration factors in addition to reported
crime. More details concerning the proper use
of UCR statistics are provided in Crime Factors
in this report.
11 * Represents reported crime from individual state
law enforcement agencies (i.e., state police,
highway patrol and/or other law enforcement
agencies managed by the state) and any
federally-managed law enforcement agency
participating in the UCR Program.
* Any comparison of UCR statistics should take
into consideration factors in addition to reported
crime. More details concerning the proper use
of UCR statistics are provided in Crime Factors
in this report.
12-15 Due to changes in reporting practices, agencies in
Arkansas (which otherwise would meet the criteria
for this table) were excluded.
16-19 * The forcible rape figures furnished by the
Delaware and Illinois state UCR Programs
were not in accordance with national guidelines.
For inclusion in these tables, the Delaware and
Illinois forcible rape figures were estimated by
using the national rates for each population
group applied to the population by group for
Delaware and Illinois agencies supplying all 12
months of complete data.
* Sufficient data are not available to provide
arson estimates.
* There is a slight decrease in national coverage
for Table 19 due to FBI editing procedures and
fewer submissions from reporting agencies.
* Due to changes in reporting practices, agencies
in Arkansas (which otherwise would meet the
criteria for this table) were excluded.
20 The SHR is the monthly report form concerning
homicides. It details victim and offender characteristics,
circumstances, weapons used, etc.
21,22
23,24 * Aggravated assault and arson are excluded from
Table 23.
* For UCR Program purposes, the taking of
money or property in connection with an assault
is reported as robbery.
* Arson is not included in the data source from
which this table is derived.
25-28 Due to changes in reporting practices, agencies in
Arkansas (which otherwise would meet the criteria
for this table) were excluded.
29
30,31
32,33
34,35
36,37
38-43
44,45
46-49 There is a slight decrease in coverage for Table 49
due to FBI editing procedures and fewer submissions
of race data from reporting agencies.
50,51
52-55 There is a slight decrease in coverage for Table 55
due to FBI editing procedures and fewer submissions
of race data from reporting agencies.
56,57
58-61
62,63
64-67
68 Data furnished are based on individual states' age
definitions for juveniles.
69 Any comparison of statistics should take into consideration
variances in arrest practices, particularly for Part II
crimes. (Appendix II of this report defines the UCR
Program's Part II offenses.)
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion