Home About Us CJIS UCR Crime in the U.S. 2012 Crime in the U.S. 2012 Methodology

Methodology

Download Printable Document

UCR Programs gather crime information from the law enforcement agencies under their domain and forward the data to the FBI. Forty-seven states in the nation have their own UCR Programs that streamline the collection of UCR data from local law enforcement agencies, ensure consistency and comparability of data, and provide a higher quality of service to the law enforcement community. Establishment of a UCR Program is not limited to state governments. Territorial, tribal, and federal agencies may also institute UCR Programs. Agencies in states without a program, i.e., direct contributors, submit their crime statistics directly to the FBI, which provides continuous guidance and support to those participating agencies. 

Criteria for UCR Programs

The following are the standards under which a UCR Program must operate:

  1. A UCR Program must conform to the FBI UCR Program’s submission standards, definitions, specifications, and required deadlines.
  2. A UCR Program must establish data integrity procedures and have personnel assigned to assist contributing agencies in quality assurance practices and crime reporting procedures. Data integrity procedures should include crime trend assessments, offense classification verification, and technical specification validation.
  3. A UCR Program’s submissions must cover more than 50 percent of the law enforcement agencies within its established reporting domain and be willing to recover any and all UCR-contributing agencies that wish to use the UCR Program from within its domain. (An agency wishing to become a UCR Program must be willing to report for all of the agencies within the state.)
  4. A UCR Program must furnish the FBI UCR Program with all of the UCR data collected by the law enforcement agencies within its domain.

These requirements do not prohibit the state from gathering other statistical data beyond the national collection.

Data completeness and quality

In order to fulfill its responsibilities in connection with the UCR Program, the FBI edits and reviews individual agency reports for both completeness and quality. Members of the national program’s staff contact the state UCR Program in connection with crime-reporting matters and, as necessary, when approved by the state, individual contributors. 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 3 years. Should circumstances develop whereby the state program does not comply with the aforementioned requirements, the national program may institute a direct collection of data from law enforcement agencies within the state.

Reporting procedures 

Offenses known and value of property–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 Programs. Part I offenses include murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. 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.

Unfounded offenses and clearances—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.) 

Persons arrested—In addition to reporting Part I offenses, law enforcement agencies provide monthly to the UCR Program data on the age, sex, and race of persons arrested for 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, and law enforcement employment—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/national 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.

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’ data that may indicate errors. The UCR staff members compare aggregated data from agencies of similar population size to identify any unusual fluctuations in an agency’s crime counts. 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 agencies. 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 to the evaluation of trends, 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 UCR 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 published the 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, State Program Bulletins, and UCR Newsletters 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 the national UCR Program cannot resolve may be brought to the attention of the Criminal Justice Information Systems Committees of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs’ Association.

Population estimation  

The FBI calculated 2012 states growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

Population totals for 2000 and 2010 are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s decennial population counts.

NIBRS conversion

Thirty-two 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 SRS 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

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 all figures except those received for common months from common agencies. Also excluded are unusual fluctuations of data that the FBI determines are the result of such variables as improved records procedures, annexations, etc.

Caution to users

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, some data may not be comparable from year to year. In addition, this publication may contain updates to data provided in prior years’ publications. For example, because of the receipt of additional data after the 2011 publication deadline, the 2011 Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data in last year’s publication may not match the 2011 SHR data in this 2012 publication.

2012 arrest data considerations

  • Limited arrest data were received from Alabama. Arrest counts were received for Hoover only.
  • No 2012 arrest data were received from the District of Columbia.
  • For 2012, only arrest totals (with no age or gender breakdowns) are available for Florida. Therefore, Florida arrest totals are included only in Table 69, “Arrests by State, 2012.”
  • Limited arrest data were received from Illinois. Arrest counts were received for Chicago and Rockford only.
  • Except for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the Minnesota state UCR Program’s guidelines for reporting forcible rape arrest counts do not comply with the national UCR Program’s guidelines; i.e., Minnesota data include arrests made for forcible rapes of male victims. Therefore, the state forcible rape counts that are published include only the totals received from Minneapolis and St. Paul.
  • No 2012 arrest data were received from the New York City Police Department. However, arrest totals for this agency were estimated by the national UCR Program and were included in Table 29 “Estimated Number of Arrests, United States, 2012.”
  • Beginning in 2010, the national UCR Program no longer publishes data for runaways.

Offense estimation

Tables 1 through 5 and Table 7 of this publication contain statistics for the entire United States. Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting periods, the FBI includes estimated crime numbers in these national presentations. The FBI estimates data for three areas:  Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), cities outside MSAs, and nonmetropolitan counties. The FBI computes estimates for participating agencies not providing 12 months of complete offense data. For agencies supplying 3 to 11 months of offense data, the national UCR Program estimates for the missing data by following a standard estimation procedure using the data provided by the agency. If an agency has supplied less than 3 months of data, the FBI 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. The estimation process considers the following:  population size covered by the agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff’s office; and geographic location. 

Estimation of state-level data

In response to various circumstances, the FBI calculates estimated offense totals for certain states. For example, some states do not provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. In addition, problems at the state level have, at times, resulted in no useable data. Also, the efforts to convert to the NIBRS have contributed to the need for unique estimation procedures. A summary of state-specific and offense-specific estimation procedures follows.

 

State

Year(s)

Reason for Estimation

Estimation Method

Delaware

1998

The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with national UCR guidelines.

The forcible rape total was estimated by reducing the number of reported offenses by the proportion of male forcible rape victims statewide.

Florida

1996

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

1992 1993 1994

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 1994

NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation.

1993–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 state total.

1994–State 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 geographic division.

 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

Valid violent crime and property crime offense counts, with the exception of forcible rape, 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 UCR 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 Reporting System 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 UCR 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.

 

2006 2007 2008 2009

The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

Forcible rape figures for Rockford include only the forcible rape offenses with female victims that were extracted from the agency’s NIBRS data.

To derive the state forcible rape estimate, the percentage of female forcible rape victims was extracted from all NIBRS incidents in which a forcible sex offense was reported. That percentage was applied to the forcible rape count received from the Illinois state UCR Program.

Kansas

1993 1994

NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation.

1993–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.

1994–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 geographic division.

 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

1995–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.

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

1997–The Kansas state estimate was extrapolated from 1996 January-June state totals provided by the Kansas state UCR Program.

1998–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.

1999–To arrive at 1999 estimates, 1998 state totals supplied by the Kansas state UCR Program were updated using 1999 crime trends for the West North Central Division.

2000–To arrive at 2000 estimates, 1999 state estimates were updated using 2000 crime trends for the West North Central Division.

Kentucky

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

1996–The 1995 and 1996 percent changes within the East South Central Division were applied to valid 1995 state totals to generate 1996 state totals.

1997–The 1996 and 1997 percent changes registered for the East South Central Division were applied to valid 1996 state totals to effect 1997 state totals.

1998–State totals were estimated by using 1997 figures for the nonreporting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percent changes in the East South Central Division. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received.

1999–To arrive at 1999 estimates, 1998 state totals supplied by the Kentucky state UCR Program were updated using 1999 crime trends for the East South Central Division.

2000–To arrive at 2000 estimates, 1999 state totals supplied by the Kentucky state UCR Program were updated using 2000 crime trends for the East South Central Division.

2001–To arrive at the 2001 estimates, the 2000 state estimates were updated using 2001 crime trends reported for the East South Central Division.

2002–To obtain the 2002 state crime counts, the FBI contacted the state UCR Program, and the state agency provided their latest state totals, 2000. Therefore, the 2001 state estimates were updated for inclusion in the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States by using the 2001 crime trends for the East South Central Division. To derive the 2002 state estimate, the 2002 crime trends for the geographic division were applied to the adjusted 2001 state estimate.

2003–To obtain the 2003 estimates, the 2003 crime trends for the East South Central Division were applied to adjusted 2002 state estimates. The 2002 state counts were reestimated by applying the 2002 crime trends for the East South Central Division using more current figures, 2001 totals provided by the state UCR Program. The adjusted 2002 estimates differ from the figures published in the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States which were originally estimated using 2001 totals.

Maine

1999

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 FBI estimated for the missing data following standard estimation procedures to arrive at a 1999 state total.

Michigan

1993

The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

The rape total was estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state.

Minnesota

1993 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2010
2011
2012

The state UCR Program was unable to provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

1993–The rape total was estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state.

2005–To arrive at a comparable state estimate for forcible rape offenses to be included in national compilations, Minnesota’s forcible rape total was estimated by using the national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and proportionally assigning forcible rape volumes to Minnesota’s population groups.

2006-2012–Valid forcible rape figures were available for Minneapolis and St. Paul. To arrive at a comparable state estimate for forcible rape offenses to be included in national compilations, the rest of Minnesota’s forcible rape totals were estimated by using the national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and proportionally assigning forcible rape volumes to Minnesota’s population groups.

Montana

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

1994–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–State estimates were computed by updating the previous valid annual totals using the 1994 versus 1995 percent changes for the Mountain Division.

1996–The 1995 and 1996 percent changes within the Mountain Division were applied to valid 1995 state totals to generate 1996 state totals.

1997–The 1996 and 1997 percent changes registered for the Mountain Division, in which Montana is categorized, were applied to valid 1996 state totals to effect 1997 state totals.

1998–State totals were estimated by using 1997 figures for the nonreporting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percent changes for the Mountain Division. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received.

1999–To arrive at 1999 estimates, 1998 state totals supplied by the Montana state UCR Program were updated using 1999 crime trends for the Mountain Division.

2000–To arrive at 2000 estimates, 1999 state totals supplied by the Montana state UCR Program were updated using 2000 crime trends for the Mountain Division.

New Hampshire

1997 1998 1999

The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

1997–The 1996 and 1997 percent changes registered for the New England Division were applied to valid 1996 state totals to effect 1997 state totals.

1998–State totals were estimated by using 1997 figures for the nonreporting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percent changes for the New England Division. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received.

1999–The state totals were estimated by using the 1998 figures for the 1999 nonreporting areas and applying the 2-year percent change for the New England Division.

Vermont

1997

The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.

The 1996 and 1997 percent changes registered for the New England Division were applied to valid 1996 state totals to effect 1997 state totals.

Wisconsin

1998

The state UCR Program was 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 percent changes for the East North Central Division. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received.

 


Table methodology

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 for missing offense data for agencies with partial reports and for nonreporting agencies and then aggregates these estimates with data reported to determine the number of offenses for each state and the nation. Tables 1–5, 7, and 29 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 and 22, which provide statistics for specific jurisdictions and states, 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 data. Tables 12–19, 23–28, 30–75, and 77 provide the number of reporting agencies (data source) and the total population covered by their collective jurisdictions. To be included in Tables 78–81, agencies must submit officer and civilian law enforcement employee counts as of October 31. For information on the classification of jurisdictions, see Area Definitions.

 

 

The tabular presentation that follows briefly describes the data sources and the methods used to construct Tables 1–81. 

(1) Table

(2)  Database

(3)  Table Construction

(4)  General Comments

1- 1A

The data used in creating the estimates for these tables were from 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.

These tables provide the estimated number and rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of reported crimes in the United States for 1993 through 2012, as well as the 2-, 5-, and 10-year trends for 2012 based on these estimates.

The 2012 statistics in these tables are consistent with the national totals published in Tables 2 and 4.

The population estimates used in this table are U.S. Census Bureau provisional estimates as of July 1 for each year except for 2000 and 2010, which are decennial census counts, and 2008 through 2012, each of which have been adjusted. 

 

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

The crime figures for 2008-2012 have been adjusted from prior year’s publications.

2

The data used in creating the estimates for this table were from 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.

 

This table provides estimated crime statistics for the nation, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), cities outside metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan counties; the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) for each grouping; and their estimated populations. For MSAs, cities outside metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan counties, the table also includes crime statistics by area actually reporting.

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 totals under “Area actually reporting” plus estimated totals for agencies submitting 2 months or less of data.

The FBI derives national statistics for community types by using the community type estimates for individual states as shown in Table 5. 

The population estimate for the nation used in this table is the U.S. Census Bureau provisional estimate as of July 1, 2012. For the remaining population estimates, the FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 state/national population figures and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

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

 

3

The data used in creating this table were from all law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data).

This table provides the 2012 percent distribution of violent crime, property crime, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft offenses and population by region.

The FBI computes regional offense distribution percentages using the volume estimates as shown in Table 4.

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

4

The data used in creating the estimates for this table were from 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.

 

This table provides estimated number and rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of crime in each region, geographic division, and state in 2011 and 2012, and the percent change in each.

The FBI derives state totals by estimating for nonreporting and partially reporting agencies within each state. Using the state’s individual agency data and estimates, the program aggregates a state total.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The data collection methodology for the offense of forcible rape used by Minnesota (with the exception of Minneapolis and  St. Paul, Minnesota) does not comply with national UCR Program guidelines. Consequently, their figures for forcible rape were estimated for inclusion in this table.

Any comparisons of crime among different locales should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the area’s crime statistics. Caution Against Ranking provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

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

5

The data used in creating the estimates for this table were from 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.

 

This table provides the estimated number of offenses and the rate of offenses per 100,000 inhabitants for each state.

This table provides the estimated number of offenses and the actual number of offenses reported in MSAs, cities outside metropolitan areas, and nonmetropolitan counties; the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) for each grouping; and the estimated population for each state.

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 in the table under the heading “Estimated total” represent the totals under “Area actually reporting” plus estimated totals for agencies submitting 2 months or less of data.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The data collection methodology for the offense of forcible rape used by Minnesota (with the exception of Minneapolis and St. Paul) does not comply with national UCR Program guidelines. Consequently, their figures for forcible rape were estimated for inclusion in this table.

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

Any comparisons of crime among different locales should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the area’s crime statistics. Caution Against Ranking provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

6

The data used in creating the estimates for this table were from 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.

 

This table provides actual and estimated crime data for MSAs and their estimated populations, the counties included in each MSA, and estimated populations for principal cities in MSAs. The table also includes the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of offenses for each MSA.

This table provides crime statistics for the Metropolitan Divisions (MDs), which are subdivisions of MSAs that have a core population of at least 2.5 million people. The table also includes the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of offenses for each MD and estimated and actual offense totals.

This table includes all currently designated MSAs in which at least 75 percent of the agencies within the MSA reported data to the UCR Program and for which the principal city/cities submitted 12 months of complete data for 2012.

The statistics under the heading “Total 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 “Total area actually reporting” plus estimated totals for agencies submitting 2 months or less of data.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

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

Any comparisons of crime among different locales should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the area’s crime statistics. Caution Against Ranking provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

 

7

The data used in creating the estimates for this table were from all law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data).

Crime statistics include estimated offense tables (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This table provides the estimated number of offenses for the crimes of murder, forcible rape, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft for the nation from 2008 to 2012.

This table provides additional detail for the following offenses:

Robbery by location (such as street/highway, bank, residence).

Burglary by location (residence or nonresidence) and time of day (night, day, or unknown).

Larceny-theft by type (such as pocket-picking, purse-snatching, and shoplifting).

The FBI estimates the breakdowns for robbery, burglary, and larceny-theft by first calculating the proportion of the total offenses represented by the breakdowns as presented in Table 23 and applying those percentages to the estimated offense totals as presented in Table 1.

The data source from which the FBI derives Table 7 does not include aggravated assault or arson data.

 

8

 

 

The data used in creating this table were from all city and town law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2012.

 

This table provides the volume of violent crime (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft), and arson as reported by city and town law enforcement agencies (listed alphabetically by state) that contributed data to the UCR Program.

The FBI does not publish arson data unless it receives data from either the agency or the state for all 12 months of the calendar year.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

Readers should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the areas’ crime statistics when making any valid comparisons of crime among different locales. Caution Against Ranking provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

When the FBI determines that an agency’s data collection methodology does not comply with national UCR guidelines, the figures for that agency’s offense(s) will not be included in the table, and the discrepancy will be explained in a footnote.

9

The data used in creating this table were from all university/college law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2012.

 

This table provides the volume of violent crime (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft), and arson as reported by those individual university/college law enforcement agencies (listed alphabetically by state) that contributed data to the UCR Program.

The student enrollment figures provided by the U.S. Department of Education are for 2011, the most recent available. They include full- and part-time students.

The FBI does not publish arson data unless it receives data from either the agency or the state for all 12 months of the calendar year.

Readers should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the areas’ crime statistics when making any valid comparisons of crime among different locales. Caution Against Ranking provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

When the FBI determines that an agency’s data collection methodology does not comply with national UCR guidelines, the figure for that agency’s offense(s) will not be included in the table, and the discrepancy will be explained in a footnote.

10

 

The data used in creating this table were from all county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2012.

 

This table provides the volume of violent crime (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft), and arson as reported by those individual law enforcement agencies (such as individual sheriffs’ offices and/or county police departments) in metropolitan counties and nonmetropolitan counties (listed alphabetically by state) that contributed data to the UCR Program.

The Metropolitan Counties classification encompasses jurisdictions covered by noncity law enforcement agencies located within currently designated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). The Nonmetropolitan Counties classification encompasses jurisdictions covered by noncity agencies located outside currently designated MSAs.

The FBI does not publish arson data unless it receives data from either the agency or the state for all 12 months of the calendar year.

These data do not represent county totals because they exclude crime counts for city agencies and other types of agencies that have jurisdiction within each county.

Readers should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the areas’ crime statistics when making any valid comparisons of crime among different locales. Caution Against Ranking provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

When the FBI determines that an agency’s data collection methodology does not comply with national UCR guidelines, the figure for that agency’s offense(s) will not be included in the table, and the discrepancy will be explained in a footnote.

11

The data used in creating this table were from all state, tribal, and other law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2012.

 

This table provides the volume of violent crime (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft), and arson as reported by state agencies and other agencies (listed alphabetically by state) that contributed data to the UCR Program.

The FBI does not publish arson data unless it receives data from either the agency or the state for all 12 months of the calendar year.

 

These data represent reported crime from individual state or territorial law enforcement agencies (i.e., state police, highway patrol, tribal, and/or other law enforcement agencies managed by the state or territory) and any federally managed law enforcement agency participating in the UCR Program.

Readers should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the areas’ crime statistics when making any valid comparisons of crime among different locales. Caution Against Ranking provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

When the FBI determines that an agency’s data collection methodology does not comply with national UCR guidelines, the figure for that agency’s offense(s) will not be included in the table, and the discrepancy will be explained in a footnote.

12–15

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 common months of complete offense reports for 2011 and 2012.

 

These 2-year trend tables provide the number of offenses for 2011 and 2012 and the percent change between these 2 years.

In calculating trends, the UCR Program includes only common reported months for individual agencies.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

 

16–19

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete data (except arson, which is not included in these tables) for 2012.

 

These tables provide the rate per 100,000 inhabitants and the number of offenses known to law enforcement for violent crime (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) for law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete data (except arson) for 2012. In addition, these tables furnish the number of agencies meeting the criteria for inclusion in these tables and provide the estimated population for each population group.

The FBI derived the offense rates by first dividing the total aggregated offense estimates by the aggregated populations covered by contributing agencies for which 12 months of complete data were supplied and then multiplying the resulting figure by 100,000.

The suburban and nonsuburban cities classifications in Table 17 encompasses all cities other than principal cities served by municipal law enforcement agencies in MSAs.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The FBI publishes only data that conform to UCR data collection guidelines. The data collection methodology for the offense of forcible rape used by the state UCR Program administered by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety does not comply with these guidelines, and, therefore, are not available for inclusion in these tables. Instead, the FBI computes the rates by estimating forcible rape offenses for each population group for participating agencies in Minnesota. The figures are estimated using the national rates for each population group applied to the population by group for Minnesota agencies supplying 12 months of complete data.

The UCR Program does not have sufficient data to publish arson offenses. Information about arson can be found in Arson Tables 1 and 2.

The UCR Program does not include murder or arson offenses in Table 19. Information about these offenses can be found in the respective sections of this report:  Expanded Homicide Data and Arson.

The totals provided in Table 19 reflect only those offenses for which law enforcement agencies provided additional information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals will not match those shown in other rate tables.

20

 

The data used in creating this table were from all law enforcement agencies that submitted supplementary homicide data for 2012.

 

This table provides the type of weapons used in murder offenses. The data are based on the aggregated data from agencies within each state for which supplementary homicide data (i.e., weapon information) were reported to the FBI. The table also includes a breakdown of the types of firearms used in murders (i.e., handguns, rifles, shotguns, or firearms [type unknown]).

The weapon totals are aggregated from all murders for which the FBI received supplemental homicide data for calendar year 2012.

The supplementary homicide data submitted by Florida did not meet UCR guidelines and was not included in this table.

The FBI received limited supplementary homicide data from Illinois.

21, 22

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies that submitted complete reports for 12 months in 2012.

 

These tables provide the type of weapons used in robberies (Table 21) and aggravated assaults (Table 22). The tables include the number of agencies that submitted data by state and the population covered by those agencies.

The weapon totals are aggregated from all robberies and aggravated assaults for which the FBI received weapon breakdowns.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The FBI received limited weapon data from Illinois.

 

23, 24

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 months of complete property/ circumstance data for 2012.

 

The FBI derives trends by comparing statistics from agencies with at least 6 common months of complete data reports for 2011 and 2012.

Table 23 provides an analysis of the crimes of murder, forcible rape, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The table also lists the number of these offenses reported in 2012 and the percentage change in the number of these offenses when compared with 2011 data.

The offense of aggravated assault is not included in Table 23. In the UCR Program, the taking of money or property in connection with an assault is reported as robbery.

The percent distribution statistics are based on the offense totals for the crimes of robbery, burglary, and larceny-theft.

Table 24 provides property types, the reported value of stolen property, and the value of recovered property. This table also lists the percentage of recovered value of each property type.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The FBI presents offense totals for the crimes of murder and forcible rape, and then, based on supplemental data supplied by law enforcement, the FBI computes value lost totals for the crimes of robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.

The data source from which the FBI derives the information for this table does not include arson. 

Information regarding the average value of property damage due to arson can be found in Arson Table 2.

25-28

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 months of complete offense reports for 2012.

 

These tables provide the number of violent crimes, property crimes, and arsons with a breakdown of the offenses known to law enforcement and the percentage of those offenses that were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.

Not all agencies submit reports for arson to the FBI. As a result, the number of reports the FBI uses to compute the percent of offenses cleared for arson is less than the number it uses to compute the percent of offenses cleared for all other offenses.

The FBI bases percent cleared statistics on aggregated offense and clearance totals.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The following information pertains only to Table 28:

When an offender under the age of 18 is cited to appear in juvenile court or before other juvenile authorities, the UCR Program considers the incident to be cleared by arrest, even though a physical arrest may not have occurred.

Clearances for offenses that include both adult and juvenile offenders are classified as clearances for crimes committed by adults and are, therefore, not included in this table.

Because the clearance percentages for crimes committed by juveniles include only those clearances in which no adults were involved, the figures in this table should not be used to present a definitive picture of juvenile involvement in crime.

29

The data used in creating the estimates for this table were from all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for 2012.

 

This table provides the estimated number of persons arrested for the 28 offenses for which the UCR Program collects data for the United States in 2012. 

The arrest totals presented are national estimates based on the arrest statistics of all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data to the UCR Program.

The estimated total number of arrests in this table is the sum of estimated arrest volumes for 28 offenses, not including suspicion.

The arrest data for each of the individual offenses in this table is the sum of the estimated volume of arrests for that offense within each of the eight population groups. (See Area Definitions.)

The FBI calculated each of the eight population group’s arrest estimates by dividing the reported      12-month 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 UCR Program.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

The FBI publishes only data that conform to UCR data collection guidelines. The data collection methodology for arrests for forcible rape used by the state program administered by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (with the exception of Minneapolis and St. Paul) does not comply with these guidelines. Therefore, arrests for forcible rape for Minnesota are not available for inclusion in this table. Instead, the FBI computed the number and the rate by estimating the forcible rape arrests for each population group for participating agencies in Minnesota. The figures were estimated using the national forcible rape numbers for each population group applied to the population by group for Minnesota agencies.

30, 31

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for 2012.

 

These tables provide the number of persons arrested and the arrest rate per 100,000 inhabitants for the four regions of the United States (Table 30), the eight UCR population groups (Table 31), and the nation as a whole (both tables) in 2012.

The FBI derived the arrest rates by first dividing the total number of arrests by the aggregated populations covered by contributing agencies and then multiplying the resulting figure by 100,000.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

The FBI publishes only data that conform to UCR data collection guidelines. The data collection methodology for arrests for forcible rape used by the state program administered by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (with the exception of Minneapolis and St. Paul) does not comply with these guidelines. Therefore, arrests for forcible rape for Minnesota are not available for inclusion in this table. Instead, the FBI computed the number and the rate by estimating the forcible rape arrests for each population group for participating agencies in Minnesota. The figures were estimated using the national forcible rape numbers for each population group applied to the population by group for Minnesota agencies.

32, 33

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for both 2003 and 2012.

 

These 10-year trend tables provide the number of persons arrested in 2003 and 2012 and the percent change when the data for these 2 years are compared. The tables furnish a breakdown of these data by juveniles (persons under age 18) and adults.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

 

34, 35

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for both 2008 and 2012.

 

These 5-year trend tables provide the number of persons arrested in 2008 and 2012 and the percent change when the data for these 2 years are compared. Table 34 furnishes a breakdown of these data by juveniles (persons under age 18) and adults. Table 35 furnishes a breakdown of these data by gender for juveniles.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data. Population estimates for 2008 are based on the percent change in the state population from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 revised estimates and 2008 provisional estimates.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

 

36, 37

The data used in creating this table were from all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for both 2011 and 2012.

 

These 2-year trend tables provide the number of persons arrested in 2011 and 2012 and the percent change when the data for these 2 years are compared. Table 36 furnishes a breakdown of these data by juveniles (persons under age 18) and adults. Table 37 furnishes a breakdown of these data by gender for juveniles.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data. Population estimates for 2011 are based on U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 provisional estimates.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

 

 

38-43

The data used in creating these tables were from all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for 2012.

 

These tables provide the number of persons arrested nationwide in 2012 for the 28 offenses for which the UCR Program collects arrest data. Tables 38–40 provide these data broken down by the age of the arrestee and include the percent distribution of arrests by offense type. Table 41 furnishes the data within the following age groups:  Under 15, Under 18, Under 21, and Under 25 years. Table 42 supplies breakdowns of these data for each offense and supplies a percent distribution of males and females arrested among all offense types. Table 43 provides the data by the race of the arrestee and the percent distribution of arrests by race for each offense. 

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

Table 39 provides these data for males only and Table 40 provides the data for females only. 

The totals provided in Table 43 reflect only those persons arrested by law enforcement agencies that provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for the nation.

44, 45

The data used in creating these tables were from all city law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for both 2011 and 2012.

 

These 2-year trend tables provide the number of persons arrested in cities in 2011 and 2012 and the percent change when the data for these 2 years are compared. Table 44 furnishes a breakdown of these data by juveniles (persons under age 18) and adults. Table 45 furnishes a breakdown of these data by gender for juveniles.  

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data. Population estimates for 2011 are based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 provisional estimates.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in these tables could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

 

46–49

The data used in creating these tables were from all city law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for 2012.

 

These tables provide the number of persons arrested in cities in 2012 for the 28 offenses for which the UCR Program collects arrest data. Table 46 provides these data broken down by the age of the arrestee and includes the percent distribution of arrests by offense type. Table 47 furnishes the data within the following age groups:  Under 15, Under 18, Under 21, and Under 25 years. Table 48 supplies breakdowns of these data for each offense and supplies a percent distribution of males and females arrested among all offense types. Table 49 provides the data by the race of the arrestee and the percent distribution of arrests by race for each offense. 

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

 

 

 

50, 51

The data used in creating these tables were from all metropolitan county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for both 2011 and 2012.

 

These 2-year trend tables provide the number of persons arrested in metropolitan counties in 2011 and 2012 and the percent change when the data for these 2 years are compared. Table 50 furnishes a breakdown of these data by juveniles (persons under age 18) and adults. Table 51 furnishes a breakdown of these data by gender for juveniles.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data. Population estimates for 2011 are based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 provisional estimates.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

The totals provided in Table 50 reflect only those persons arrested by law enforcement agencies that provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for cities.

52–55

The data used in creating these tables were from all metropolitan county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for 2012.

 

These tables provide the number of persons arrested in metropolitan counties in 2012 for the 28 offenses for which the UCR Program collects arrest data. The data in Table 52 are broken down by age of the arrestee and include the percent distribution of arrests by offense type. Table 53 supplies the number arrested within the following age groups:  Under 15, Under 18, Under 21, and Under 25 years. Table 54 furnishes breakdowns of these data for each offense and supplies a percent distribution of males and females arrested among all offense types. Table 55 furnishes a breakdown by race of the arrestee and the percent distribution of arrests by race for each offense. 

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

The totals provided in Table 56 reflect only those persons arrested by law enforcement agencies that provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for metropolitan counties.

56, 57

The data used in creating these tables were from all nonmetropolitan county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for both 2011 and 2012.

 

These 2-year trend tables provide the number of persons arrested in nonmetropolitan counties in 2011 and 2012 and the percent change when the data for these 2 years are compared. Table 56 furnishes a breakdown of these data by juveniles (persons under age 18) and adults. Table 57 furnishes a breakdown of these data by gender for juveniles.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data. Population estimates for 2011 are based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 provisional estimates.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

 

58–61

The data used in creating these tables were from all nonmetropolitan county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for 2012.

 

These tables provide the number of persons arrested in nonmetropolitan counties in 2012 for the 28 offenses for which the UCR Program collects arrest data. Table 58 supplies these data broken down by age of the arrestee and include the percent distribution of arrests by offense type. Table 59 furnishes the number arrested within the following age groups:  Under 15, Under 18, Under 21, and Under 25 years. Table 60 provides breakdowns of these data for each offense and supplies a percent distribution of males and females arrested among all offense types. Table 61 furnishes the data broken down by race of the arrestee and the percent distribution of arrests by race for each offense.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

 

 

 

62, 63

The data used in creating these tables were from all suburban area law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for both 2011 and 2012.

 

These 2-year trend tables provide the number of persons arrested in suburban areas for 2011 and 2012 and the percent change when the data for these 2 years are compared. Table 62 furnishes a breakdown of these data by juveniles (persons under age 18) and adults. Table 63 furnishes a breakdown of those data by gender for juveniles

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data. Population estimates for 2011 are based on U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 provisional estimates.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

The totals provided in Table 62 reflect only those persons arrested by law enforcement agencies that provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for nonmetropolitan counties.

64–67

The data used in creating these tables were from all suburban area law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for 2012.

 

These tables provide the number of arrests in suburban areas in 2012 for the 28 offenses for which the UCR Program collects arrest data. The data included in Table 64 are broken down by age of the arrestee and include the percent distribution of arrests by offense type. Table 65 provides the number arrested within the following age groups:  Under 15, Under 18, Under 21, and Under 25 years. Table 66 furnishes breakdowns for each offense and supplies a percent distribution of males and females arrested among all offense types. Table 67 furnishes the data broken down by race of the arrestee. In addition, the table shows the percent distribution of arrests by race for each offense. 

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

The totals provided in Table 67 reflect only those persons arrested by law enforcement agencies that provided race information to the UCR Program; therefore, the totals may not match those shown in other arrest tables for suburban areas.

 

 

68

The data used in creating this table were from all law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of arrest data for 2012 and providing juvenile disposition information.

 

The totals in this table represent the reported number of juvenile offenders taken into custody, aggregated by population group. In addition, this table provides the number of juveniles handled within five different disposition categories. The percent distribution within these categories for each population group is also included.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the reported number of juvenile offenders taken into custody; however, some juveniles may be taken into custody more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple detentions of the same person.

In constructing this table, the FBI accepted each individual state’s age definition for juveniles.

69

The data used in creating this table were from all law enforcement agencies that submitted 12 months of arrest data for 2012.

 

This table provides arrest data for the 28 offenses for which the UCR Program collects data and broken down by state for 2012. The table provides both total arrests and arrests of juveniles (persons under the age of 18).

Arrest totals are aggregates of the totals reported by agencies providing data to the UCR Program within each state.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

These data represent the number of persons arrested; however, some persons may be arrested more than once during a year. Therefore, the statistics in this table could, in some cases, represent multiple arrests of the same person.

Any comparison of statistics in this table should take into consideration variances in arrest practices, particularly for Part II crimes. (Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting defines the UCR Program’s Part II offenses.)

70

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table provides the number and rate of law enforcement employees broken down by region, geographic division, and population group.

The totals for full-time law enforcement employees in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties are combined in this table.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

71

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement officer counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table provides the number and rate of sworn law enforcement officers broken down by region, geographic division, and population group.

For the data presentation in this table, the totals for full-time law enforcement officers in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties are combined.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

 

72

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table includes the number of agencies that fall within specified rate ranges of employment by population group for law enforcement personnel, both sworn officers and civilian employees.

The FBI derived the rate of full-time law enforcement employees per population group by first dividing the aggregated total of personnel for the group by the aggregated estimated populations covered by the contributing agencies within the group and then multiplying the resulting figure by 1,000.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

Agencies with no resident population; i.e., those associated with universities and colleges (see Table 79), other agencies (see Table 81), and some state agencies; are excluded from this table. Therefore, the total number of agencies used in this table differs from that provided in other law enforcement employee tables.

73

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement officer counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table includes the number of agencies that fall within specified rate ranges of employment by population group for law enforcement officers.

The FBI derived the rate of full-time law enforcement officers per population group by first dividing the aggregated total of officers for the group by the aggregated estimated populations covered by the contributing agencies within the group and then multiplying the resulting figure by 1,000.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Agencies with no resident population; i.e., those associated with universities and colleges (see Table 79), other agencies (see Table 81), and some state agencies; are excluded from this table. Therefore, the total number of agencies used in this table differs from that provided in other law enforcement officer tables.

74

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table includes the number of reported sworn law enforcement officers and civilian employees broken down by population group. The totals are also broken down by percent male and percent female.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

75

The information in this table is derived from civilian law enforcement counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table includes data about civilian law enforcement employees by population group.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

 

76

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table provides the number of state law enforcement employees, the number of male officers, the number of female officers, the number of male civilian employees, and the number of female civilian employees listed alphabetically by state.

 

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

Caution should be used when comparing data from one state to that of another. The responsibilities of the various state police, highway patrol, and department of public safety agencies range from full law enforcement duties to only traffic patrol, which can impact both the level of employment for agencies as well as the ratio of sworn officers to civilians employed. Any valid comparison must take these factors and the other identified variables affecting crime into consideration.

77

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table provides the number of law enforcement employees, the number of male officers, the number of female officers, the number of male civilian employees, and the number of female civilian employees listed alphabetically by state.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

78

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table provides the number of law enforcement officers and civilians employed by city/town law enforcement agencies listed alphabetically by state.

The FBI calculated 2012 state growth rates using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 and 2012 provisional state/national population estimates. The FBI then estimated population figures for city and county jurisdictions by applying the 2012 state growth rate to the updated 2011 U.S. Census Bureau data.

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

79

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table provides the number of law enforcement officers and civilians employed by universities and colleges listed alphabetically by state.

The student enrollment figures provided by the United States Department of Education are for the 2011 school year, the most recent year for which the data are available. The figures include full-time and part-time students.

 

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

80

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table provides the number of law enforcement officers and civilians employed by agencies in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties listed alphabetically by state.

 

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.

81

The information in this table is derived from law enforcement employee counts (as of October 31, 2012) submitted by participating agencies.

 

This table provides the number of law enforcement officers and civilians employed by state, tribal, and other agencies, listed alphabetically by state. The table also includes the number of law enforcement officers and civilians employed by a participating federal agency, the National Institutes of Health.

 

The UCR Program defines law enforcement officers as individuals who ordinarily carry a firearm and a badge, have full arrest powers, and are paid from governmental funds set aside specifically to pay sworn law enforcement.

Civilian employees include full-time agency personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, meter attendants, stenographers, jailers, correctional officers, and mechanics.