Printer Friendly

Appendix I--methodology.

Law enforcement agencies in 46 states and the District of Columbia voluntarily contribute crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program through their respective state UCR Program. For those states that do not have a state Program, local agencies submit crime statistics directly to the FBI, which provides continuous guidance and support to those participating agencies. The state UCR Programs function as liaisons between local agencies and the FBI. Many states have mandatory reporting requirements, and many state Programs collect data beyond those typically called for by the UCR Program to address crime problems specific to their particular jurisdiction. In most cases, these state Programs also provide direct and frequent service to their participating law enforcement agencies, make information readily available for statewide use, and help to streamline the national Program's operations.

The criteria established for state Programs ensure consistency and comparability in the data submitted to the national Program, as well as regular and timely reporting. These criteria are (1) The state Program must conform to the 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 to conduct audits and to assist contributing agencies in record-keeping practices and crime-reporting procedures. (5) The state Program must furnish 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 returns, computer printouts, and/or appropriate electronic media. (6) The state Program 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.

The FBI, in order to fulfill its responsibilities in connection with the UCR Program, continues to edit and review individual agency reports for both completeness and quality. Members of the national Program's staff directly contact individual contributors within the state, as necessary, in connection with crime-reporting matters, and coordinate such contact with the UCR Program. 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 three years. Should circumstances develop whereby the state Program does not comply with the aforementioned requirements, the national Program may institute a direct collection of Uniform Crime Reports from law enforcement agencies within the state.

Reporting Procedures

Based on records of all reports of crime received from victims, officers who discover infractions, or other sources, law enforcement agencies tabulate the number of Part I offenses brought to their attention and submit them monthly to the FBI either directly or through their state UCR Program. Part I offenses include murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

Law enforcement's monthly submission to the FBI includes other important information. When, through investigation, an agency determines that complaints of crimes are unfounded or false, the agency eliminates that offense from its crime tally through an entry on the monthly report. The report also provides the total number of actual Part I offenses, the number of offenses cleared, and the number of clearances that involve only offenders under the age of 18. (Law enforcement can clear crimes in one of two ways: by the 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's control precludes the arrest of a known offender.) Law enforcement agencies also submit monthly to the FBI the value of property stolen and recovered in connection with the offenses and detailed information pertaining to criminal homicide and arson.

In addition to reporting Part I offenses, law enforcement agencies provide to the UCR Program monthly data on persons arrested for all crimes except traffic violations. These arrest data include the age, sex, and race of arrestees for both Part I and Part II offenses. Part II offenses encompass all crimes, except traffic violations, that are not classified as Part I offenses.

The UCR Program also requires law enforcement agencies to report data regarding law enforcement employees. In addition to reporting monthly data on law enforcement officers killed or assaulted, agencies report yearly on the number of fulltime sworn and civilian law enforcement personnel employed as of October 31.

At the end of each quarter, law enforcement agencies report summarized data on hate crimes, i.e., specific offenses that were motivated by an offender's bias against the perceived race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability of the victim. Those agencies participating in the UCR Program's National Incident-Base Reporting System (NIBRS) submit hate crime data monthly.

Editing Procedures

The UCR Program thoroughly examines each report it receives for arithmetical accuracy and for deviations in crime data from month to month and from present to past years that may indicate errors. The UCR staff members compare an agency's monthly reports with the agency's previous submissions and with those from similar agencies to identify any unusual fluctuations in an agency's crime count. Large variations in crime levels may indicate modified records procedures, incomplete reporting, or changes in the jurisdiction's geopolitical structure.

Data reliability is a high priority of the national UCR Program, which brings any deviations or arithmetical adjustments to the attention of state UCR Programs or the submitting agency. Typically, staff members study the monthly reports 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 that affect an agency's jurisdiction 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 the trend tabulations.

To assist contributors in complying with UCR standards, the national UCR Program provides training seminars and instructional materials on crime reporting procedures. Throughout the country, the national Program maintains liaison with state Programs and law enforcement personnel and holds training sessions to explain the purpose of the Program, the rules of uniform classification and scoring, and the methods of assembling the information for reporting. When an individual agency has specific problems in compiling its crime statistics and its remedial efforts are unsuccessful, personnel from the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division may visit the contributor to aid in resolving the difficulties.

The national UCR Program publishes a Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook (revised 2004), which details procedures for classifying and scoring offenses and serves as the contributing agencies' basic resource for preparing reports. The national staff also produces letters to UCR contributors and UCR State Program Bulletins as needed. These provide policy updates and new information, as well as clarification of reporting issues.

The final responsibility for data submissions rests with the individual contributing law enforcement agency. Although the FBI makes every effort through its editing procedures, training practices, and correspondence to ensure the validity of the data it receives, the accuracy of the statistics depends primarily on the adherence of each contributor to the established standards of reporting. Deviations from these established standards that cannot be resolved by the national UCR Program may be brought to the attention of the Criminal Justice Information Systems Committees of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association.

Population

For the 2004 edition of Crime in the United States, the UCR Program obtained current population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate 2004 population counts for all contributing law enforcement agencies. The U.S. Census Bureau provided revised 2003 state/national population estimates and the 2004 state/national population estimates. Using these revised census data, the national UCR Program updated the 2003 U.S. Census Bureau city and county estimates and calculated the 2004 state growth rates. Subsequently, the Program updated the population figures for individual jurisdictions by applying the 2004 state growth rates to the updated 2003 U.S. Census Bureau data.

NIBRS Conversion

Several states provide their UCR data in the expanded NIBRS format. For presentation in this book, the NIBRS data were converted to the historical Summary UCR data. The UCR Program staff constructed the NIBRS database to allow for such conversion so that UCR's long-running time series could continue.

Crime Trends

Trend statistics offer the data user an added perspective from which to study crime by showing fluctuations from year to year. 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 the result of such variables 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. Because of differing levels of participation from year to year and reporting problems that require the Program to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, the data are not comparable from year to year.

2004 Arrest Data

Because of changes in reporting practices, arrest data for Montana are not available for 2004. The 2004 arrest data contained in this publication for Arkansas and Maine are not comparable to previous years' data. Limited arrest data were received from Illinois, Kentucky, and South Carolina. No 2004 arrest data were received from the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department; the only agency (Metro Transit Police) in the District of Columbia for which 12 months of arrest data were received have no attributable population. Twelve months of arrest figures for the New York City Police Department and law enforcement agencies in Florida were not available to be included in the arrest tables in this book. However, arrest totals for these areas were estimated by the national UCR Program and were included in Table 29, "Estimated Number of Arrests, United States, 2004."

Offense Estimation

Tables 1 through 5 and Table 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 numbers in these presentations. The Program estimates offenses that occur within each of three areas: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), cities outside MSAs, and nonmetropolitan counties. The national Program computes estimates by using the known crime figures of similar areas within a state and assigning the same proportion of crime volumes to nonreporting agencies or agencies with missing data. The estimation process considers the following: population size of agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff's office; and geographic location.

Various circumstances require the national Program to estimate offense totals for certain states. For example, some states do not provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines, or reporting problems at the state level have, at times, resulted in no usable data. In addition, the conversion of NIBRS data to Summary data 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 Estimation Method

1985 Illinois The state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

1986 Illinois The state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

1987 Illinois The state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

1988 Illinois The state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

 Florida, Reporting problems at State totals were
 Kentucky the state level estimated by updating
 resulted in no usable previous valid annual
 data. 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 state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

1990 Illinois The state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

1991 Illinois The state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

 Iowa NIBRS conversion State totals were
 efforts resulted in estimated by updating
 estimation for Iowa. 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 state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

1993 Illinois NIBRS conversion Since valid annual
 efforts resulted in totals were available
 estimation for for approximately 60
 Illinois. 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 state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

 Kansas NIBRS conversion State totals were
 efforts resulted in estimated by updating
 estimation for previous valid annual
 Kansas. totals for individual
 jurisdictions,
 subdivided by population
 group. Percent changes
 for each offense within
 each population group of
 the West North Central
 Division were applied to
 the previous valid
 annual totals. The state
 totals were compiled
 from the sums of the
 population group
 estimates.

 Michigan, The state UCR The rape totals were
 Minnesota Programs were unable estimated using national
 to provide forcible rates per 100,000
 rape figures in inhabitants within the
 accordance with UCR eight population groups
 guidelines. and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to each
 state.

1994 Illinois NIBRS conversion Illinois totals were
 efforts resulted in generated using only the
 estimation for valid crime rates for
 Illinois. 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 state UCR Program The rape totals were
 was unable to provide estimated using national
 forcible rape figures rates per 100,000
 in accordance with inhabitants within the
 UCR guidelines. eight population groups
 and assigning the
 forcible rape volumes
 proportionally to the
 state.

 Kansas NIBRS conversion State totals were
 efforts resulted in generated using only the
 estimation for valid crimes rates for
 Kansas. 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 The state UCR Program State totals were
 was unable to provide estimated by updating
 complete 1994 offense previous valid annual
 figures in accordance totals for individual
 with UCR guidelines. 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 The state UCR Program
 was unable to provide was able to provide
 complete offense valid 1994 state totals
 figures in accordance which were then updated
 with UCR guidelines. using 1995 crime trends
 for the West North
 Central Division.

 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Crime Index (Part
 was unable to provide I) counts were available
 complete offense for most of the largest
 figures in accordance cities (100,000 and over
 with UCR guidelines. in population). For
 other agencies, the only
 available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were state totals based
 upon an incident-level
 system without
 indication of multiple
 offenses recorded within
 single incidents.
 Therefore, the UCR
 Hierarchy Rule could not
 be applied in order to
 convert the state's data
 to Summary data. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 state totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.

 Montana The state UCR Program State estimates were
 was unable to provide computed by updating the
 complete offense previous valid annual
 figures in accordance totals using the 1994
 with UCR guidelines. versus 1995 percent
 changes for the Mountain
 Division.

1996 Florida The state UCR Program The state UCR Program
 was unable to provide was able to provide an
 complete offense aggregated state total;
 figures in accordance data received from 94
 with UCR guidelines. individual Florida
 agencies are shown in
 the 1996 jurisdictional
 figures presented in
 Tables 8 through 11.

 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Crime Index (Part
 was unable to provide I) counts were available
 complete offense for most of the largest
 figures in accordance cities (100,000 and over
 with UCR guidelines. in population). For
 other agencies, the only
 available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were state totals based
 upon an incident-level
 system without
 indication of multiple
 offenses recorded within
 single incidents.
 Therefore, the UCR
 Hierarchy Rule could not
 be applied in order to
 convert the state's data
 to Summary format. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 state totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.

 Kansas The state UCR Program The Kansas state
 was unable to provide estimate was
 complete offense extrapolated from 1996
 figures in accordance January-June state
 with UCR guidelines. totals provided by the
 Kansas State UCR
 Program.

 Kentucky, The state UCR The 1995 and 1996
 Montana Programs were unable percent changes within
 to provide complete each geographic division
 offense figures in were applied to valid
 accordance with UCR 1995 state totals to
 guidelines. generate 1996 state
 totals.

1997 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Crime Index (Part
 was unable to provide I) counts were available
 complete offense for most of the largest
 figures in accordance cities (100,000 and over
 with UCR guidelines. in population). For
 other agencies, the only
 available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were state totals based
 upon an incident-level
 system without
 indication of multiple
 offenses recorded within
 single incidents.
 Therefore, the UCR
 Hierarchy Rule could not
 be applied in order to
 convert the state's data
 to Summary format. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 state totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.

 Kansas The state UCR Program The Kansas state
 was unable to provide estimate was
 complete offense extrapolated from 1996
 figures in accordance January-June state
 with UCR guidelines. totals provided by the
 Kansas State UCR
 Program.

 Kentucky, The state UCR The 1996 and 1997
 Montana, New Programs were unable percent changes
 Hampshire, to provide complete registered for each
 Vermont offense figures in geographic division in
 accordance with UCR which the states of
 guidelines. Kentucky, Montana, New
 Hampshire, and Vermont
 are categorized were
 applied to valid 1996
 state totals to effect
 1997 state totals.

1998 Delaware The state UCR Program The 1998 forcible rape
 was unable to provide total for Delaware was
 forcible rape figures estimated by reducing
 in accordance with the number of reported
 national UCR offenses by the
 guidelines. proportion of male
 forcible rape victims
 statewide.

 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Crime Index (Part
 was unable to provide I) counts were available
 complete offense for most of the largest
 figures in accordance cities (100,000 and over
 with UCR guidelines. in population). For
 other agencies, the only
 available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were state totals based
 upon an incident-level
 system without
 indication of multiple
 offenses recorded within
 single incidents.
 Therefore, the UCR
 Hierarchy Rule could not
 be applied in order to
 convert the state's data
 to Summary format. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 state totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.

 Kansas The state UCR Program To arrive at 1998
 was unable to provide estimates, 1997 state
 complete offense totals supplied by the
 figures in accordance Kansas State UCR Program
 with UCR guidelines. were updated using 1998
 crime trends for the
 West North Central
 Division.

 Kentucky, The state UCR State totals were
 Montana, New Programs were unable estimated by using 1997
 Hampshire, to provide complete figures for the
 Wisconsin offense figures in nonreporting areas and
 accordance with UCR applying 1997 versus
 guidelines. 1998 percentage changes
 for the division in
 which each state is
 located. The estimates
 for the nonreporting
 areas were then
 increased by any actual
 1998 crime counts
 received.

1999 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Crime Index (Part
 was unable to provide I) counts were available
 complete offense for most of the largest
 figures in accordance cities (100,000 and over
 with UCR guidelines. in population). For
 other agencies, the only
 available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were state totals based
 upon an incident-level
 system without
 indication of multiple
 offenses recorded within
 single incidents.
 Therefore, the UCR
 Hierarchy Rule could not
 be applied in order to
 convert the state's data
 to Summary format. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 state totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.

 Kansas, The state UCR To arrive at 1999
 Kentucky, Programs were unable estimates for Kansas,
 Montana to provide complete Kentucky, and Montana,
 offense figures in 1998 state totals
 accordance with UCR supplied by each state's
 guidelines. UCR Program were updated
 using 1999 crime trends
 for the divisions in
 which each state is
 located.

 Maine The state UCR Program The Maine Department of
 was unable to provide Public Safety forwarded
 complete offense monthly January through
 figures in accordance October crime counts for
 with UCR guidelines. each law enforcement
 contributor; since 12
 months of data were not
 received, the national
 Program estimated for
 the missing data
 following standard
 estimation procedures to
 arrive at a 1999 state
 total.

 New The state UCR Program The state total for New
 Hampshire was unable to provide Hampshire was estimated
 complete 1999 offense by using the 1998
 figures in accordance figures for the 1999
 with UCR guidelines. nonreporting areas and
 applying the 2-year
 percent change for the
 New England Division.

2000 Illinois The state UCR Valid Crime Index (Part
 Programs were unable I) counts were available
 to provide complete for most of the largest
 offense figures or cities (100,000 and over
 forcible rape figures in population). For
 in accordance with other agencies, the only
 UCR guidelines. available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were state totals based
 upon an incident-level
 system without
 indication of multiple
 offenses recorded within
 single incidents.
 Therefore, the UCR
 Hierarchy Rule could not
 be applied in order to
 convert the state's data
 to Summary format. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 state totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.

 Kansas The state UCR Program To arrive at 2000
 was unable to provide estimates for Kansas,
 complete offense 1999 state estimates
 figures in accordance were updated using 2000
 with UCR guidelines. crime trends for the
 West North Central
 Division.

 Kentucky, The state UCR To arrive at 2000
 Montana Programs were unable estimates for Kentucky
 to provide complete and Montana, 1999 state
 offense figures in totals supplied by each
 accordance with UCR state's UCR Program were
 guidelines. updated using 2000 crime
 trends for the divisions
 in which each state is
 located.

2001 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Crime Index (Part
 submitted complete I) counts were available
 data for only seven for most of the largest
 agencies within the cities (100,000 and over
 state. Additionally, in population). For
 the state UCR Program other agencies, the only
 was unable to provide available counts were
 forcible rape figures generated without
 in accordance with application of the UCR
 UCR guidelines. Hierarchy Rule. (The
 Hierarchy Rule requires
 that only the most
 serious offense in a
 multiple-offense
 criminal incident is
 counted.) To arrive at a
 comparable state
 estimate to be included
 in national
 compilations, the total
 supplied by the Illinois
 State Program (which was
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) was
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 available NIBRS data.
 Valid totals for the
 large cities were
 excluded from the
 reduction process.

 Kentucky The state UCR Program To arrive at the 2001
 was unable to provide estimate for Kentucky,
 complete offense the 2000 state estimates
 figures in accordance were updated using 2001
 with UCR guidelines. crime trends reported
 for the East South
 Central Division.

2002 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Crime Index (Part
 was unable to provide I) counts were only
 complete offense available for most of
 figures in accordance the largest cities
 with UCR guidelines. (100,000 and over in
 population). For other
 agencies, the only
 available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were state totals based
 upon an incident-level
 system without
 indication of multiple
 offenses recorded within
 single incidents.
 Therefore, the UCR
 Hierarchy Rule could not
 be applied in order to
 convert the state's data
 to Summary format. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 state totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.

 Kentucky The state UCR Program To obtain the 2002 state
 was unable to provide crime count, the FBI
 complete offense contacted the state UCR
 figures in accordance Program, and the state
 with UCR guidelines. 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.

2003 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Part I counts were
 was unable to provide available only for most
 complete offense of the largest cities
 figures in accordance (100,000 and over in
 with UCR guidelines. population). For other
 agencies, the only
 available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were state totals based
 upon an incident-level
 system without
 indication of multiple
 offenses recorded within
 single incidents.
 Therefore, the UCR
 Hierarchy Rule could not
 be applied in order to
 convert the state's data
 to Summary format. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 state totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.

 Kentucky The state UCR Program To obtain the 2003
 was unable to provide estimate, the 2003 crime
 complete offense trend for the East South
 figures in accordance Central Division was
 with UCR guidelines. 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 2002 state totals.

2004 Illinois The state UCR Program Valid Part I counts were
 was unable to provide available only for
 complete offense agencies in the cities
 figures in accordance 100,000 and over in
 with UCR guidelines. population. For other
 agencies, the only
 available counts
 generated by the
 Illinois State Program
 were totals based upon
 an incident-level system
 without indication of
 multiple offenses
 recorded within single
 incidents. Therefore,
 the UCR Hierarchy Rule
 could not be applied in
 order to convert the
 state's data to Summary
 format. (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
 Illinois State Program's
 totals (which were
 inflated because of the
 nonapplication of the
 Hierarchy Rule) were
 reduced by the
 proportion of multiple
 offenses reported within
 single incidents in the
 NIBRS database. Valid
 totals for the large
 cities were excluded
 from the reduction
 process.


Table Methodology

The tables published in this report are based upon varying levels of data submissions. For example, some participating agencies may submit data for some but not all months of the reporting year. Using well-established procedures, the FBI estimates missing months of data for agencies with partial reports and then aggregates these estimates to determine the number of offenses for the total U.S. population. Tables 1-7 and 23 present these approximations. In addition, various circumstances require the FBI to estimate offense totals from time to time for some states. (For an explanation of the estimation procedures applied to particular states during specific reporting years, see the Offense Estimation section of this appendix.)

To be included in Tables 8-11 and 21-22, which provide statistics for specific jurisdictions, agencies must submit 12 months of complete data prior to the FBI's established deadlines. To be included in Table 20, agencies must submit Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHRs). Each of the remaining tables provides the number of reporting agencies (data source) and the total population covered by their collective jurisdictions.

The tabular presentation that follows briefly describes the data sources and the methods used to construct Tables 1-69.
 (1) (2) (3)
 Table Database Table Construction

1 - 1 A All law enforcement * The 2004 statistics are
 agencies participating consistent with those published
 in the UCR Program in Table 2.
 (including those
 submitting less than 12 * Prior to publication of this
 months of data). Crime book, the FBI reestimated the
 statistics for the state offense totals published
 Nation include estimated in the previous edition of Crime
 offense totals (except in the United States to reflect
 arson) for agencies data received after its
 submitting less than 12 publication. Because of this,
 months of offense the national totals for 2003 may
 reports for each year. have been adjusted.

 * Population statistics represent
 the Census Bureau's July 1
 provisional estimations for each
 year except 1990 and 2000, which
 are the decennial census years.
 (See the Population section in
 this appendix.)

2 All law enforcement * The FBI estimates statistics for
 agencies participating community types by aggregating
 in the UCR Program the individual state statistics
 (including those as shown in Table 5.
 submitting less than 12
 months of data). Crime * Population estimates for 2004
 statistics for the are based on the percent change
 Nation and for community in state population from the
 types include estimated Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 offense totals (except estimates and 2004 provisional
 arson) for agencies estimates. (See the Population
 submitting less than 12 section in this appendix.)
 months of offense
 reports for each year.

3 All law enforcement * The FBI computes regional
 agencies in the UCR offense distributions using the
 Program (including those volume estimates as shown in
 submitting less than 12 Table 4. It bases population
 months of data). Crime distributions on the Census
 statistics include Bureau's provisional estimates
 estimated offense totals for 2004.
 (except arson) for
 agencies submitting
 less than 12 months of
 offense reports for
 each year.

4 All law enforcement * The FBI derives state totals by
 agencies in the UCR estimating for nonreporting and
 Program (including those partially reporting agencies
 submitting less than 12 within each state. Using the
 months of data). Crime state's individual agency
 statistics include estimates, the Program
 estimated offense totals aggregates a state total.
 (except arson) for
 agencies submitting * State totals for the prior year
 less than 12 months of have been reestimated to reflect
 offense reports for each data received after the
 year. publication of the prior edition
 of Crime in the United States.

 * Population statistics represent
 the Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 provisional
 estimates.

5 All law enforcement * Population estimates for 2004
 agencies in the UCR are based on the percent change
 Program (including those in state population from the
 submitting less than 12 Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 months of data). Crime estimates and 2004 provisional
 statistics include estimates. (See the Population
 estimated offense totals section in this appendix.)
 (except arson) for
 agencies submitting less * Statistics under the heading
 than 12 months of Area Actually Reporting
 offense reports for represent reported offense
 each year. 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 data.

 * The statistics under the heading
 Estimated Totals represent the
 above plus estimated offense
 totals for agencies submitting 2
 months or less of offense
 reports.

6 All law enforcement * Table 6 includes all currently
 agencies in the UCR designated Metropolitan
 Program (including those Statistical Areas (MSAs) in
 submitting less than 12 which at least 75 percent of the
 months of data). Crime agencies within the MSA reported
 statistics include to the UCR Program and for
 estimated offense totals which the principal city/cities
 (except arson) for submitted 12 months of complete
 agencies submitting data for 2004.
 less than 12 months of
 offense reports for * Population estimates for 2004
 each year. are based on the percent change
 in state population from the
 Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 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
 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.

7 All law enforcement * The FBI estimates the breakdowns
 agencies in the UCR for robbery, burglary, and
 Program (including those larceny-theft by first
 submitting less than 12 calculating the proportion of
 months of data). Crime the total offense represented by
 statistics include each of the breakdowns as
 estimated offense totals presented in Table 23 and
 (except arson) for applying those percentages to
 agencies submitting the estimated offense total
 less 12 months of as presented in Table 1.
 offense reports for
 each year.

8 All law enforcement * The FBI estimated the 2004
 agencies serving cities population for each jurisdiction
 and towns of 10,000 and based on the percent change in
 over in population the state population using the
 submitting 12 months of Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 complete offense data estimates and 2004 provisional
 for 2004. estimates. (Sec; the Population
 section in this appendix.)

9 All university/college * The 2002 student enrollment
 law enforcement agencies figures provided by the U.S.
 submitting 12 months of Department of Education are the
 complete offense data most recent available. They
 for 2004. include full and part-time
 students. The FBI does not
 convert part-time enrollments
 into full-time equivalents.

10 All county law * The Metropolitan Counties
 enforcement agencies classification encompasses
 submitting 12 months of jurisdictions covered by noncity
 complete offense data law enforcement agencies located
 for 2004. within currently designated
 MSAs. The Nonmetropolitan
 Counties classification
 encompasses jurisdictions
 covered by noncity agencies
 located outside currently
 designated MSAs. (See Appendix
 III.)

11 All state, federal, * State, federal, and territorial
 and territorial law agencies are those agencies,
 enforcement agencies regardless of jurisdiction, that
 submitting 12 months of are managed by their respective
 complete offense data state, federal, or territorial
 for 2004. governments.

12-15 All law enforcement * The tables present 2-year
 agencies submitting at comparisons based on 2003 and
 least 6 common months 2004 reported crime. In
 of complete offense calculating trends, the UCR
 reports for 2003 Program includes only common
 and 2004. reported months for individual
 agencies.

 * The FBI estimated the 2004
 population for each jurisdiction
 based on the percent change in
 the state's population using the
 Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 provisional
 estimates. (See the Population
 section in this appendix.)

 * The Suburban and Nonsuburban
 Cities classification
 encompasses all cities other
 than principal cities served by
 municipal law enforcement
 agencies within MSAs.

16-19 All law enforcement * The FBI derived the offense
 agencies submitting 12 rates by first dividing the
 months of complete data total aggregated offense
 (except arson) for 2004. estimates by the aggregated
 populations covered by
 contributing agencies and
 then multiplying the resulting
 figure by 100,000.

 * The FBI estimated the 2004
 population based on the percent
 change in state population from
 the Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 provisional
 estimates. (See the Population
 section in this appendix.) UCR
 population breakdowns are
 furnished in Appendix III.

 * The Suburban and Nonsuburban
 Cities classifications in Table
 17 encompass all cities other
 than principal cities served
 by municipal law enforcement
 agencies in MSAs.

20 All law enforcement * The offense totals for each
 agencies submitting SHR weapon are the aggregate for
 data for 2004. each murder victim recorded on
 the SHRs for calendar year 2004.

21, 22 All law enforcement * The weapon totals are aggregated
 agencies submitting 12 from all robberies (Table 21)
 months of complete and aggravated assaults (Table
 offense breakdown data 22) for which the FBI received
 for 2004. weapon breakdowns.
 Jurisdictional population
 statistics represent 2004 UCR
 estimates.

23, 24 All law enforcement * The FBI computes offense total
 agencies submitting at and value lost total for all
 least 6 months of Part I offenses other than
 complete property/ aggravated assault and arson.
 circumstance data
 for 2004. * The percent distribution
 statistics are based on the
 offense total for each Part I
 offense.

 * The FBI derives vends by
 comparing statistics from
 agencies with at least 6 common
 months of complete data reports
 for 2003 and 2004. (Appendix II
 of this report defines the UCR
 Program's Part I offenses.)

25-28 All law enforcement * The FBI bases percent cleared
 agencies submitting at statistics on aggregated offense
 least 6 months of and clearance totals.
 complete offense reports
 for 2004. * Population estimates for 2004
 represent the percent change in
 state population from the Census
 Bureau's 2003 revised estimates
 and 2004 provisional estimates.
 (See the Population section in
 this appendix.) UCR population
 breakdowns are furnished in
 Appendix III.

29 All law enforcement * The arrest totals presented are
 agencies in the UCR national estimates based on the
 Program (including those arrest statistics of all law
 submitting less than 12 enforcement agencies in the UCR
 months of complete Program (including those
 arrest data for 2004). submitting less than 12 months
 of data).

 * The estimated total number of
 arrests is the sum of estimated
 arrest volumes for each of the
 28 offenses, not including
 suspicion.

 * The arrest total for each of the
 individual offenses is the sum
 of the estimated volumes within
 each of the eight population
 groups. (See Appendix III.)

 * The FBI calculated each group's
 estimate by dividing the
 reported volume figures (as
 shown in Table 31) by the
 contributing agencies'
 jurisdictional populations.
 The resulting figure was then
 multiplied by the total
 population for each population
 group as estimated by the
 Program. (See the Population
 section in this appendix.)

30, 31 All law enforcement * The FBI derived the arrest rates
 agencies submitting 12 by first dividing the total
 months of complete aggregated arrests by the
 arrest data for 2004. aggregated populations covered
 by contributing agencies and
 then multiplying the resulting
 figure by 100,000.

 * The population estimates for
 2004 represent the percent
 change in state population from
 the Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 provisional
 estimates. (See the Population
 section in this appendix.)
 Appendix III contains the UCR
 population and geographical
 configuration.

32, 33 All law enforcement * The arrest trends are the
 agencies submitting 12 percent differences between 1995
 months of complete and 2004 arrest volumes
 arrest data for both aggregated from all agencies
 1995 and 2004. that submitted 12 months of
 arrest data for both years.

 * The population estimates for
 2004 are based on the percent
 change in state population from
 the Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 provisional
 estimates. (See the Population
 section in this appendix.)
 Population statistics for 1995
 are based on the percent change
 in state population from the
 Census Bureau's 1994 revised
 estimates and 1995 provisional
 estimates.

34, 35 All law enforcement * The arrest trends reflect the
 agencies submitting 12 percent differences between 2000
 months of complete and 2004 arrest volumes
 arrest data for both aggregated from all agencies
 2000 and 2004. that submitted 12 months of
 arrest data for both years.

 * The population estimates for
 2004 are based on the percent
 change in state population from
 the Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 provisional
 estimates. (See the Population
 section in this appendix.) The
 population counts used for 2000
 are the Census Bureau's
 decennial census figures.

36, 37 All law enforcement * The arrest trends are 2-year
 agencies submitting 12 comparisons between 2003 and
 months of complete 2004 arrest volumes aggregated
 arrest data for both from agencies that submitted 12
 2003 and 2004. months of arrest data in both
 years.

 * Population estimates for 2003
 are based on the percent change
 in state population from the
 Census Bureau's 2002 revised
 estimates and 2003 provisional
 estimates. Population estimates
 for 2004 are based on the
 percent change in state
 population from the Census
 Bureau's 2003 revised estimates
 and 2004 provisional estimates.
 (See the Population section in
 this appendix.)

38-43 All law enforcement * Population estimates for 2004
 agencies submitting 12 are based on the percent change
 months of complete in state population from the
 arrest data for 2004. Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 provisional
 estimates. (See the Population
 section in this appendix.)

44, 45 All city law enforcement * The 2004 city arrest trends
 agencies submitting 12 represent the percent
 months of complete differences between 2003 and
 arrest data for both 2004 arrest volumes aggregated
 2003 and 2004. from all city agencies that
 submitted complete arrest data
 for both years. City agencies
 are all agencies within
 Population Groups I-VI.
 (See Appendix III.)

 * Population estimates for 2003
 are based on the percent change
 in state population from the
 Census Bureau's 2002 revised
 estimates and 2003 provisional
 estimates. Population estimates
 for 2004 are based on 2003
 revised estimates and 2004
 provisional estimates. (See the
 Population section in this
 appendix.)

46-49 All city law enforcement * City agencies are all agencies
 agencies submitting 12 within Population Groups I-VI.
 months of complete (See Appendix III.) Population
 arrest data for 2004. estimates for 2004 are based on
 the percent change in state
 population from the Census
 Bureau's 2003 revised estimates
 and 2004 provisional estimates.
 (See the Population section in
 this appendix.)

50, 51 All metropolitan county * The 2004 metropolitan county
 law enforcement agencies arrest trends represent percent
 submitting 12 months of differences between 2003 and
 complete arrest data for 2004 volumes aggregated from
 both 2003 and 2004. contributing agencies.

 * The Metropolitan Counties
 classification encompasses
 jurisdictions covered by noncity
 law enforcement agencies located
 within currently designated
 MSAs. (See Appendix III.)

 * Population estimates for 2003
 are based on the percent change
 in state population from the
 Census Bureau's 2002 revised
 estimates and 2003 provisional
 estimates. Population estimates
 for 2004 are based on the
 percent change in state
 population from the Census
 Bureau's 2003 revised estimates
 and 2004 provisional estimates.
 (See the Population section in
 this appendix.)

52-55 All metropolitan county * The Metropolitan Counties
 law enforcement agencies classification encompasses
 submitting 12 months of jurisdictions covered by noncity
 complete arrest data law enforcement agencies located
 for 2004. within currently designated
 MSAs. (See Appendix III.)

 * Population estimates for 2004
 are based on the percent change
 in state population from the
 Census Bureau's 2003 revised
 estimates and 2004 provisional
 estimates. (See the Population
 section in this appendix.)

56, 57 All nonmetropolitan * The 2004 nonmetropolitan county
 county law enforcement arrest trends represent percent
 agencies submitting 12 differences between 2003 and
 months of complete 2004 arrest volumes aggregated
 arrest data for both from contributing agencies.
 2003 and 2004.
 * The Nonmetropolitan Counties
 classification encompasses
 jurisdictions covered by noncity
 agencies located 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.
 Population statistics for 2004
 represent estimates based on the
 percent change in state
 population from the Census
 Bureau's 2003 revised estimates
 and 2004 provisional estimates.
 (See the Population section in
 this appendix.)

 (1) (2) (4)
 Table Database General Comments

1 - 1 A All law enforcement * Represents an estimation of
 agencies participating reported crime for the Nation
 in the UCR Program from 1985 to 2004.
 (including those
 submitting less than 12 * The UCR Program does not have
 months of data). Crime sufficient data to estimate
 statistics for the arson offenses.
 Nation include estimated
 offense totals (except
 arson) for agencies
 submitting less than 12
 months of offense
 reports for each year.

2 All law enforcement * Represents an estimation of
 agencies participating reported crime in 2004 for the:
 in the UCR Program
 (including those 1. Nation
 submitting less than 12
 months of data). Crime 2. MSAs
 statistics for the
 Nation and for community 3. Cities outside metropolitan
 types include estimated areas
 offense totals (except
 arson) for agencies 4. Nonmetropolitan counties
 submitting less than 12
 months of offense * The UCR Program does not have
 reports for each year. sufficient data to estimate
 arson offenses.

3 All law enforcement * Represents the 2004 geographical
 agencies in the UCR distribution of estimated
 Program (including those offenses and population.
 submitting less than 12
 months of data). Crime * The UCR Program dots not have
 statistics include sufficient data to estimate
 estimated offense totals arson offenses.
 (except arson) for
 agencies submitting
 less than 12 months of
 offense reports for
 each year.

4 All law enforcement * Represents an estimation of
 agencies in the UCR reported crime for the:
 Program (including those
 submitting less than 12 1. Nation
 months of data). Crime
 statistics include 2. Regions
 estimated offense totals
 (except arson) for 3. Divisions
 agencies submitting
 less than 12 months of 4. States
 offense reports for each
 year. * The UCR Program does not have
 sufficient data to estimate
 arson offenses.

 * The Offense Estimation section
 of this appendix supplies an
 explanation of the estimation
 procedures used for Illinois.

 * Any comparisons of crime among
 different locales should take
 into consideration relevant
 factors in addition to the
 areas' crime statistics. The
 essay Crime Factors (in this
 report) provides more details
 concerning the proper use of UCR
 Statistics.

5 All law enforcement * Represents an estimation of
 agencies in the UCR reported crime for states.
 Program (including those
 submitting less than 12 * The UCR Program does not have
 months of data). Crime sufficient data to estimate
 statistics include arson offenses.
 estimated offense totals
 (except arson) for * The Offense Estimation section
 agencies submitting less of this appendix supplies an
 than 12 months of explanation of the estimation
 offense reports for procedures used for Illinois.
 each year.
 * Any comparisons of crime among
 different locales should take
 into consideration relevant
 factors in addition to the
 areas' crime statistics. The
 essay Crime Factors (in this
 report) provides more details
 concerning the proper use of UCR
 statistics.

6 All law enforcement * Represents an estimation of
 agencies in the UCR reported crime for MSAs.
 Program (including those
 submitting less than 12 * The UCR Program does not have
 months of data). Crime sufficient data to estimate
 statistics include arson offenses.
 estimated offense totals
 (except arson) for * Any comparisons of crime among
 agencies submitting different locales should take
 less than 12 months of into consideration relevant
 offense reports for factors in addition to the
 each year. areas' crime statistics. The
 essay Crime Factors (in this
 report) provides more details
 concerning the proper use of UCR
 statistics.

7 All law enforcement * Represents an estimation of
 agencies in the UCR reported crime for the Nation
 Program (including those from 2000 to 2004.
 submitting less than 12
 months of data). Crime * The data source from which the
 statistics include FBI derives Table 7 does not
 estimated offense totals include aggravated assault or
 (except arson) for arson.
 agencies submitting
 less 12 months of
 offense reports for
 each year.

8 All law enforcement * Any comparisons of crime among
 agencies serving cities different locales should take
 and towns of 10,000 and into consideration relevant
 over in population factors in addition to the
 submitting 12 months of areas' crime statistics. The
 complete offense data essay Crime Factors (in this
 for 2004. report) provides more details
 concerning the proper use of UCR
 statistics.

9 All university/college * Represents reported crime from
 law enforcement agencies those individual college/
 submitting 12 months of university law enforcement
 complete offense data agencies (listed alphabetically
 for 2004. by state) contributing data to
 the UCR Program.

 * Any comparison of crimes among
 colleges/universities should
 take into consideration size of
 enrollment, number of on-campus
 residents, and other demographic
 factors.

10 All county law * Represents reported crime from
 enforcement agencies individual law enforcement
 submitting 12 months of agencies in metropolitan
 complete offense data counties and nonmetropolitan
 for 2004. 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.

 * The state of Illinois did not
 contribute data for any county
 law enforcement agency.

 * Any comparisons of crime among
 different locales should take
 into consideration relevant
 factors in addition to the
 areas' crime statistics. The
 essay Crime Factors (in this
 report) provides more details
 concerning the proper use of
 UCR statistics.

11 All state, federal, * Represents reported crime from
 and territorial law individual state or territorial
 enforcement agencies law enforcement agencies (i.e.,
 submitting 12 months of state police, highway patrol
 complete offense data and/or other law enforcement
 for 2004. agencies managed by the state
 or territory) and any federally
 managed law enforcement agency
 participating in the UCR
 Program.

 * Any comparisons of crime among
 different locales should take
 into consideration relevant
 factors in addition to the
 areas' crime statistics. The
 essay Crime Factors (in this
 report) provides more details
 concerning the proper use of
 UCR statistics.

12-15 All law enforcement
 agencies submitting at
 least 6 common months
 of complete offense
 reports for 2003
 and 2004.

16-19 All law enforcement * The forcible rape figures
 agencies submitting 12 furnished by the Illinois state
 months of complete data UCR Program were not in
 (except arson) for 2004. accordance with national
 guidelines. For inclusion in
 these tables, the Illinois
 forcible rape figures were
 estimated using the national
 rates for each population group
 applied to the population by
 group for Illinois agencies
 supplying all 12 months of
 complete data.

 * The UCR Program does not have
 sufficient data to estimate
 arson offenses.

 * There is a slight decrease in
 national coverage for Table 19
 as a result of the FBI's editing
 procedures and fewer submissions
 from reporting agencies.

20 All law enforcement * The SHR is the monthly law
 agencies submitting SHR enforcement report to the UCR
 data for 2004. Program concerning homicides. It
 details victim and offender
 characteristics, circumstances,
 weapons used, etc.

 * The SHR data submitted by
 Florida and Washington, D.C. did
 not meet UCR guidelines and were
 not included in this table.

21, 22 All law enforcement * The FBI did not receive weapon
 agencies submitting 12 data from Illinois.
 months of complete
 offense breakdown data
 for 2004.

23, 24 All law enforcement * The offense of aggravated
 agencies submitting at assault is not included in these
 least 6 months of tables. For UCR Program
 complete property/ purposes, the taking of money
 circumstance data or property in connection with
 for 2004. an assault is reported as
 robbery.

 * The data source from which the
 FBI derives Table 23 does not
 include arson.

25-28 All law enforcement
 agencies submitting at
 least 6 months of
 complete offense reports
 for 2004.

29 All law enforcement
 agencies in the UCR
 Program (including those
 submitting less than 12
 months of complete
 arrest data for 2004).

30, 31 All law enforcement
 agencies submitting 12
 months of complete
 arrest data for 2004.

32, 33 All law enforcement
 agencies submitting 12
 months of complete
 arrest data for both
 1995 and 2004.

34, 35 All law enforcement
 agencies submitting 12
 months of complete
 arrest data for both
 2000 and 2004.

36, 37 All law enforcement
 agencies submitting 12
 months of complete
 arrest data for both
 2003 and 2004.

38-43 All law enforcement * There is a slight decrease in
 agencies submitting 12 coverage for Table 43 as a
 months of complete result of the FBI's editing
 arrest data for 2004. procedures and fewer submissions
 of race data from reporting
 agencies.

44, 45 All city law enforcement
 agencies submitting 12
 months of complete
 arrest data for both
 2003 and 2004.

46-49 All city law enforcement * There is a slight decrease in
 agencies submitting 12 coverage for Table 49 as a
 months of complete result of the FBI's editing
 arrest data for 2004. procedures and fewer submissions
 of race data from reporting
 agencies.

50, 51 All metropolitan county
 law enforcement agencies
 submitting 12 months of
 complete arrest data for
 both 2003 and 2004.

52-55 All metropolitan county * There is a slight decrease in
 law enforcement agencies coverage for Table 55 as a
 submitting 12 months of result of the FBI's editing
 complete arrest data procedures and fewer submissions
 for 2004. of race data from reporting
 agencies.

56, 57 All nonmetropolitan
 county law enforcement
 agencies submitting 12
 months of complete
 arrest data for both
 2003 and 2004.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Federal Bureau of Investigation
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:SECTION VII: Appendices
Publication:Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2004
Words:9527
Previous Article:Table 81: full-time law enforcement employees as of October 31, 2004.
Next Article:Appendix II--offenses in uniform crime reporting.
Topics:


Related Articles
JOINT FINAL RULE--AMENDMENT TO RISK-BASED CAPITAL STANDARDS FOR MARKET RISK.
Nutritional biochemistry. Second edition. (Book Reviews).
Isralowitz, R., & Rawson, R. (Eds). (2002). Drug Problems: Cross-Cultural Policy and Program Development.
Section VII: appendix I: methodology.
OMB issues Circular A-133 2005 Compliance Supplement.
Appendix I--methodology.
Appendix II--offenses in uniform crime reporting.
Appendix III--uniform crime reporting area definitions.
Appendix VII--publications provided by the UCR program.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters