Law enforcement agencies that participate in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program forward crime data through their state UCR Program in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Local agencies in those states that do not have a state Program 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. These state Programs, in most cases, 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 (FBI'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.
In order to fulfill its responsibilities in connection with the UCR Program, the FBI continues to edit and review individual agency reports for both completeness and quality. 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. Upon 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.
Law enforcement agencies tabulate the number of Part I offenses brought to their attention based on records of all reports of crime received from victims, officers who discover infractions, or other sources, and submit them each month 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.
Unfounded offenses, clearances, and value of property. 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.
Persons arrested. In addition to reporting Part I offenses, law enforcement agencies provide monthly to the UCR Program 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.
Officers killed or assaulted. Law enforcement agencies also report monthly to the UCR Program information regarding law enforcement officers killed or assaulted, and yearly, the number of full-time sworn and civilian law enforcement personnel employed as of October 31.
Hate crimes. 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-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) submit hate crime data monthly.
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.
Evaluation of trends. Data reliability is a high priority of the FBI, which brings any deviations or arithmetical adjustments to the attention of state UCR Programs or the submitting agency. Typically, FBI 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 FBI excludes the figures for specific crime categories or totals, if necessary, from the trend tabulations.
Training for contributors. In addition, the FBI provides training seminars and instructional materials on crime reporting procedures to assist contributors in complying with UCR standards. 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.
UCR Handbook. 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 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.
The FBI calculated 2005 state growth rates using revised 2004 state/national population estimates and 2005 provisional state/national population estimates provided by the U.S. U.S. Census Bureau. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2005 state growth rate to the updated 2004 U.S. U.S. Census Bureau data.
Thirty state Programs are certified to 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.
By showing fluctuations from year to year, trend statistics offer the data user an added perspective from which to study crime. Percent change tabulations in this publication are computed only for reporting agencies that provided comparable data for the periods under consideration. The FBI excludes from the trend calculations of all figures except those received for common months from common agencies. Also excluded are unusual fluctuations that the FBI 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 FBI to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, the data are not comparable from year to year. In addition, this publication may contain updates to data provided in prior years' publications. Therefore, for example, the 2004 the data in last year's publication may not match the 2004 data in this publication.
Because of changes in state or local agency reporting practices (implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System), figures are not comparable to previous years' data for Colorado (Denver), Michigan (Detroit), Montana, and Rhode Island. Limited arrest data were received from Illinois. No 2005 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. 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, 2005."
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 FBI includes estimated crime numbers in these presentations. The FBI 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1986 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. |
| 1987 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. |
| 1988 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. |
| Florida, Kentucky | Reporting problems at the state level resulted in no usable data. | State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the geographic divisions in which the states reside were applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the population group estimates. | |
| 1989 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. |
| 1990 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. |
| 1991 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. |
| Iowa | NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Iowa. | State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the West North Central Division were applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the population group estimates. | |
| 1992 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. |
| 1993 | Illinois | NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Illinois. | Since valid annual totals were available for approximately 60 Illinois agencies, those counts were maintained. The counts for the remaining jurisdictions were replaced with the most recent valid annual totals or were generated using standard estimation procedures. The results of all sources were then combined to arrive at the 1993 state total for Illinois. |
| The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. | ||
| Kansas | NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Kansas. | State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the West North Central Division were applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the population group estimates. | |
| Michigan, Minnesota | The state UCR Programs were unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to each state. | |
| 1994 | Illinois | NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Illinois. | Illinois totals were generated using only the valid crime rates for the East North Central Division. Within each population group, the state’s offense totals were estimated based on the rate per 100,000 inhabitants within the remainder of the division. |
| The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. | ||
| Kansas | NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Kansas. | State totals were generated using only the valid crimes rates for the West North Central Division. Within each population group, the state’s offense totals were estimated based on the rate per 100,000 inhabitants within the remainder of the division. | |
| Montana | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1994 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the Mountain Division were applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the population group estimates. | |
| 1995 | Kansas | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The state UCR Program was able to provide valid 1994 state totals which were then updated using 1995 crime trends for the West North Central Division. |
| Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Crime Index (Part I) counts were available for most of the largest cities (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 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 was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | State estimates were computed by updating the previous valid annual totals using the 1994 versus 1995 percent changes for the Mountain Division. | |
| 1996 | Florida | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The state UCR Program was able to provide an aggregated state total; data received from 94 individual Florida agencies are shown in the 1996 jurisdictional figures presented in Tables 8 through 11. |
| Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Crime Index (Part I) counts were available for most of the largest cities (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. | |
| Kansas | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The Kansas state estimate was extrapolated from 1996 January-June state totals provided by the Kansas State UCR Program. | |
| Kentucky, Montana | The state UCR Programs were unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The 1995 and 1996 percent changes within each geographic division were applied to valid 1995 state totals to generate 1996 state totals. | |
| 1997 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Crime Index (Part I) counts were available for most of the largest cities (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. |
| Kansas | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The Kansas state estimate was extrapolated from 1996 January-June state totals provided by the Kansas State UCR Program. | |
| Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont | The state UCR Programs were unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The 1996 and 1997 percent changes registered for each geographic division in which the states of Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, and Vermont are categorized were applied to valid 1996 state totals to effect 1997 state totals. | |
| 1998 | Delaware | The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with national UCR guidelines. | The 1998 forcible rape total for Delaware was estimated by reducing the number of reported offenses by the proportion of male forcible rape victims statewide. |
| Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Crime Index (Part I) counts were available for most of the largest cities (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. | |
| Kansas | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | To arrive at 1998 estimates, 1997 state totals supplied by the Kansas State UCR Program were updated using 1998 crime trends for the West North Central Division. | |
| Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin | The state UCR Programs were unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | State totals were estimated by using 1997 figures for the nonreporting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percentage changes for the division in which each state is located. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received. | |
| 1999 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Crime Index (Part I) counts were available for most of the largest cities (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 reductionprocess. |
| Kansas, Kentucky, Montana | The state UCR Programs were unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | To arrive at 1999 estimates for Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana, 1998 state totals supplied by each state’s UCR Program were updated using 1999 crime trends for the divisions in which each state is located. | |
| Maine | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The Maine Department of Public Safety forwarded monthly January through October crime counts for each law enforcement contributor; since 12 months of data were not received, the national Program estimated for the missing data following standard estimation procedures to arrive at a 1999 state total. | |
| New Hampshire | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1999 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | The state total for New Hampshire was estimated by using the 1998 figures for the 1999 nonreporting areas and applying the 2-year percent change for the New England Division. | |
| 2000 | Illinois | The state UCR Programs were unable to provide complete offense figures or forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Crime Index (Part I) counts were available for most of the largest cities (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. |
| Kansas | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | To arrive at 2000 estimates for Kansas, 1999 state estimates were updated using 2000 crime trends for the West North Central Division. | |
| Kentucky, Montana | The state UCR Programs were unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | To arrive at 2000 estimates for Kentucky and Montana, 1999 state totals supplied by each state’s UCR Program were updated using 2000 crime trends for the divisions in which each state is located. | |
| 2001 | Illinois | The state UCR Program submitted complete data for only seven agencies within the state. Additionally, the state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Crime Index (Part I) counts were available for most of the largest cities (100,000 and over in population). For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process. |
| Kentucky | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | To arrive at the 2001 estimate for Kentucky, the 2000 state estimates were updated using 2001 crime trends reported for the East South Central Division. | |
| 2002 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Crime Index (Part I) counts were only available for most of the largest cities (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 was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | To obtain the 2002 state crime count, the FBI contacted the state UCR Program, and the state agency was able to provide their latest state total, 2000. Therefore, the 2001 state estimate was updated for inclusion in the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States by using the 2001 crime trends for the division in which the state is located. To derive the 2002 state estimate, the 2002 crime trends for the division were applied to the adjusted 2001 state estimate. | |
| 2003 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Part I counts were available only for most of the largest cities (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 was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | To obtain the 2003 estimate, the 2003 crime trend for the East South Central Division was applied to an adjusted 2002 state estimate. The 2002 state count was reestimated by applying the 2002 crime trend for the East South Central Division using a more current figure, 2001 state totals, provided by the state UCR Program. The adjusted 2002 estimate differs from the figure published in the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States which was originally estimated using 2002 state totals. | |
| 2004 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Part I counts were available only for agencies in the cities 100,000 and over in 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. |
| 2005 | Illinois | The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. | Valid Part I counts were available only for agencies in the cities 100,000 and over in 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. |
The tables 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. (An explanation of the estimation procedures applied to particular states during specific reporting years is provided in the Offense Estimation section.)
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) Table | (2) Database | (3) Table Construction | (4) General Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1- 1A | All law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data). Crime statistics for the Nation include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year. |
|
|
| 2 | All law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data). Crime statistics for the Nation and for community types include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year. |
|
|
| 3 | All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data). Crime statistics include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year. | The FBI computes regional offense distributions using the volume estimates as shown in Table 4. It bases population distributions on the U.S. Census Bureau’s provisional estimates for 2005. |
|
| 4 | All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data). Crime statistics include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year. |
|
|
| 5 | All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data). Crime statistics include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year. |
|
|
| 6 | All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data). Crime statistics include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year. |
|
|
| 7 | All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data). Crime statistics include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year. | The FBI estimates the breakdowns for robbery, burglary, and larceny-theft by first calculating the proportion of the total offense represented by each of the breakdowns as presented in Table 23 and applying those percentages to the estimated offense total as presented in Table 1. |
|
| 8 | All town and city law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2005. |
|
Readers should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the areas’ crime statistics when making any valid comparisons of crime among different locales. Variables Affecting Crime provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics. |
| 9 | All university/college law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2005. |
|
|
| 10 | All county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2005. |
|
|
| 11 | All state, federal, and territorial law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2005. |
|
|
| 12-15 | All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 common months of complete offense reports for 2004 and 2005. |
|
The data collection methodology for the offense of forcible rape used by the state UCR Program administered by the Illinois State Police does not comply with UCR data collection guidelines. The FBI does not use the Illinois data in computing trends for Table 12. The FBI computes the trends in this table by estimating for forcible rape for Illinois by applying the national rates for each population group to the population by group for Illinois agencies supplying 12 months of complete data. |
| 16-19 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete data (except arson) for 2005. |
|
|
| 20 | All law enforcement agencies submitting SHR data for 2005. | The weapon totals are aggregated from all murders for which the FBI received an SHRs for calendar year 2005. |
|
| 21, 22 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense breakdown data for 2005. | The weapon totals are aggregated from all robberies (Table 21) and aggravated assaults (Table 22) for which the FBI received weapon breakdowns. Jurisdictional population statistics represent 2005 UCR estimates. | The FBI did not receive weapon data from Illinois. |
| 23, 24 | All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 months of complete property/circumstance data for 2005. |
|
|
| 25-28 | All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 months of complete offense reports for 2005. |
|
|
| 29 | All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005). |
|
|
| 30, 31 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005. |
|
|
| 32, 33 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for both 1996 and 2005. |
|
|
| 34, 35 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for both 2001 and 2005. |
|
|
| 36, 37 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for both 2004 and 2005. |
|
|
| 38-43 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005. | Population estimates for 2005 are based on the percent change in state population fromthe U.S. Census Bureau’s 2004 revised estimates and 2005 provisional estimates. (See the Population estimation.) | The totals provided in Table 43 reflect only those persons arrested for which law enforcement agencies provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for the Nation. |
| 44, 45 | All city law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for both 2004 and 2005. |
|
|
| 46-49 | All city law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005. | City agencies are all agencies within Population Groups I-VI. (See the Area Definitions.) Population estimates for 2005 are based on the percent change in state population from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2004 revised estimates and 2005 provisional estimates. (See the Population estimation.) | The totals provided in Table 49 reflect only those persons arrested for which law enforcement agencies provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for the Nation’s cities. |
| 50, 51 | All metropolitan county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for both 2004 and 2005. |
|
|
| 52-55 | All metropolitan county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005. |
|
The totals provided in Table 55 reflect only those persons arrested for which law enforcement agencies provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for metropolitan counties. |
| 56, 57 | All nonmetropolitan county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for both 2004 and 2005. |
|
|
| 58-61 | All nonmetropolitan county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005. |
|
|
| 62, 63 | All suburban area law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for both 2004 and 2005. |
|
|
| 64-67 | All suburban area law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005. |
|
The totals provided in Table 67 reflect only those persons arrested for which law enforcement agencies provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for suburban areas. |
| 68 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005. | Population estimates for 2005 are based on the percent change in state population from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2004 revised estimates and 2005 provisional estimates. (See the Population estimation.) | In constructing this table, the FBI accepts each individual state’s age definition for juveniles. |
| 69 | All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete arrest data for 2005. |
|
|