Appendix I--methodology.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). 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). voluntarily contribute crime data 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 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 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 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 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" 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 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 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 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, 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. Members of the national Program's staff directly contact individual contributors within the state, as necessary, in connection with crime-reporting matters, and coordinate Belonging to a system of indexing by two or more terms. For example, points on a plane, cells in a spreadsheet and bits in dynamic RAM chips are identified by a pair of coordinates. Points in space are identified by sets of three coordinates. 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 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 Program 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 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 (1) To arrange data into a columnar format. (2) To sum and print totals. 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 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's monthly submission Submission Elliott, Anne reluctantly gives up her fiancé on her family’s advice. [Br. Lit.: Jane Austen Persuasion in Magill I, 734] 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 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" or by exceptional means--when some element beyond law enforcement's 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 submit monthly to the FBI 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 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 CIVILIAN. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. law enforcement personnel employed as of October October: see month. 31. At the end of each quarter, law enforcement agencies report summarized data 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 UCR Program's National Incident-Base 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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. . Population For the 2004 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 U.S. Census Bureau Noun 1. Census Bureau - the bureau of the Commerce Department responsible for taking the census; provides demographic information and analyses about the population of the United States Bureau of the Census 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 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 2003 U.S. Census Bureau city and county estimates and calculated the 2004 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 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 Montana (mŏntăn`ə), Rocky Mt. state in the NW United States. It is bounded by North Dakota and South Dakota (E), Wyoming (S), Idaho (W), and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (N). are not available for 2004. The 2004 arrest data contained in this publication 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 Maine Maine, ship Maine, U.S. battleship destroyed (Feb. 15, 1898) in Havana harbor by an explosion that killed 260 men. The incident helped precipitate the Spanish-American War (Apr., 1898). Commanded by Capt. Charles Sigsbee, the ship had been sent (Jan. are not comparable to previous years' data. 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 2004 arrest data were received from the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department; the only agency (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 the 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 and law enforcement agencies in Florida This is a list of law enforcement agencies in the state of Florida. State agencies
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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. , or 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. 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 appendix, small, worm-shaped blind tube, about 3 in. (7.6 cm) long and 1-4 in. to 1 in. (.64–2.54 cm) thick, projecting from the cecum (part of the large intestine) on the right side of the lower abdominal cavity. .) 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 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. 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.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion