FBI - Crime in the US, 2002

APPENDIX I – Methodology

Agencies that contribute to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program forward crime data through the state UCR Programs in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Local agencies in states that do not have a state Program submit statistics directly to the FBI, which provides continuing guidance and support to individual contributing agencies. State UCR Programs are very effective liaisons between local contributors and the FBI. Many of the Programs have mandatory reporting requirements and collect data beyond the national UCR scope to address crime problems germane to their particular locales. In most cases, these state agencies also provide more direct and frequent service to participating law enforcement agencies, make information more readily available for use at the state level, and contribute to more streamlined operations at the national level.

With the implementation of state crime reporting Programs, the national UCR Program ceased direct collection of data from individual law enforcement agencies within those states. Currently, the state data collection agency forwards information it receives from local agencies to the national Program.

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 national UCR Program standards, definitions, and information requirements. The states are not, of course, prohibited from collecting other statistical data beyond the national requirements. (2) The state criminal justice agency must have a proven, effective, statewide Program and demonstrate acceptable quality control procedures. (3) Coverage within the state by a state agency must be, at least, equal to that attained by the national UCR Program. (4) The state agency must have adequate field staff assigned to conduct audits and to assist contributing agencies in recordkeeping practices and crime-reporting procedures. (5) The state agency must furnish the FBI with all of the detailed data regularly collected by the FBI in the form of duplicate returns, computer printouts, and/or magnetic tapes. (6) The state agency must have the proven capability (tested over a period of time) to supply all the statistical data required in time to meet deadlines established for publication of the national Uniform Crime Reports.

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. National UCR Program staff have direct contact with individual contributors within the state as necessary in connection with crime reporting matters, coordinating such contact with the state agency. On request, staff members conduct training programs within the state on law enforcement recordkeeping 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 agency does not comply with the aforementioned requirements, the national Program may reinstitute a direct collection of Uniform Crime Reports from law enforcement agencies within the state.

Reporting Procedures

Based on records of all reports of crime received from victims, officers who discover infractions, or other sources, law enforcement agencies across the country tabulate the number of Crime Index (Part I) offenses brought to their attention each month. Specifically, the Index crimes reported to the FBI are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

Whenever complaints of crime are determined through investigation to be unfounded or false, they are eliminated from an agency's count. Agencies report to the FBI the number of actual offenses known regardless of whether anyone is arrested for the crime, stolen property is recovered, or prosecution is undertaken.

Another integral part of the monthly submission is the total number of actual Crime Index offenses cleared. Crimes are cleared in one of two ways: by arrest of at least one person, who is charged and turned over to the court for prosecution, or by exceptional means, when some element beyond law enforcement control precludes the arrest of a known offender. Law enforcement agencies also report the number of Index crime clearances that involve only offenders under the age of 18, the value of property stolen and recovered in connection with the offenses, and detailed information pertaining to criminal homicide and arson.

In addition to its primary collection of Crime Index (Part I) offenses, the UCR Program solicits monthly data on persons arrested for all crimes except traffic violations. The age, sex, and race of arrestees are reported by crime category, both Part I and Part II. Part II offenses include all crimes not classified as Part I.

Monthly data are also collected on law enforcement officers killed or assaulted. The number of full-time sworn and civilian personnel are reported as of October 31 of each year.

At the end of each quarter, summarized information is collected on hate crimes, i.e., specific offenses that were motivated by an offender's bias against the race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability of the victim. Hate crime data from those agencies participating in the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) are submitted monthly.

Editing Procedures

Each report submitted to the UCR Program is thoroughly examined for arithmetical accuracy and for deviations that may indicate errors. To identify any unusual fluctuations in an agency's crime count, UCR staff compare monthly reports with previous submissions of the agency and with those for similar agencies. Large variations in crime levels may indicate modified records procedures, incomplete reporting, or changes in the jurisdiction's geopolitical structure.

Data reliability is a high priority of the Program, which brings to the attention of the state UCR Program or the submitting agency any noted deviations or arithmetical adjustments. A standard FBI procedure is to study the monthly reports and to evaluate periodic trends prepared for individual reporting units. Any significant increase or decrease becomes the subject of a special inquiry. Changes in crime reporting procedures or annexations can influence the level of reported crime. When this occurs, the figures for specific crime categories or totals, if necessary, are excluded from trend tabulations.

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

The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, which details procedures for classifying and scoring offenses, is supplied to all contributors as the basic resource document for preparing reports. To enhance communication among Program participants, letters to UCR contributors and UCR State Program Bulletins are produced 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 Program makes every effort through its editing procedures, training practices, and correspondence to assure the validity of the data it receives, the accuracy of the statistics depends primarily on the adherence of each contributor to the established standards of reporting. Deviations from these established standards, which cannot be resolved by the national UCR Program, may be brought to the attention of the Criminal Justice Information Systems Committees of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association.

Arrest Data

Florida state arrest data are not included in Tables 30–68. Limited arrest data were received from Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, and South Carolina. No 2002 arrest data were received from the District of Columbia and no population is attributed to the two agencies for which 12 months complete arrest data were received. Complete 12-month arrest figures for New York City were not available for inclusion in this book. Arrest totals for these areas, however, were estimated for inclusion in Table 29, "Estimated Arrests, United States, 2002."

Population

For the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States, the UCR Program obtained current population estimates from the Bureau of the Census to estimate 2002 population counts for all contributing law enforcement agencies. The Bureau of the Census provided revised 2001 state/national population estimates and 2002 state/national population estimates. Using these provisional census data, the national UCR Program updated the 2001 Bureau of the Census city and county estimates and calculated the 2002 state growth rates. Subsequently, the Program updated population figures for individual jurisdictions by applying the 2002 state growth rates to the updated 2001 Bureau of the Census data.

NIBRS Conversion

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

Crime Trends

By showing fluctuations from year to year, trend statistics offer the data user an added perspective from which to study crime. Percent change tabulations in this publication are computed only for reporting agencies that provided comparable data for the periods under consideration. The Program excludes from the trend calculations all figures except those received for common months from common agencies. Also excluded are unusual fluctuations that the Program determines are due to variables such as improved records procedures, annexations. etc.

Data users should exercise care in making any direct comparison between data in this publication and those in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Due to differing levels of participation from year to year and transient reporting problems that require the Program to estimate crime counts for certain contributors, the data are not comparable from year to year.

Offense Estimation

Tables 1 through 5 and 7 of this publication contain statistics for the entire United States. Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting periods, the UCR Program includes estimated crime counts in these presentations. Offense estimation occurs within each of three areas: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), cities outside MSAs, and rural counties. Using the known crime experiences of similar areas within a state, the national Program computes estimates by assigning the same proportional crime volumes to nonreporting agencies. The size of agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff's office; and geographic location are considered in the estimation process.

Various circumstances require the national Program to estimate certain state offense totals. For example, some states do not provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines; reporting problems at the state level have, at times, resulted in no usable data. Additionally, the conversion of summary reporting to NIBRS has contributed to the need for unique estimation procedures. A summary of state-specific and offense-specific estimation procedures follows.

Year	State(s)	Reason for Estimation	Estimation Method


1985	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.

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	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.

	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.

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 crime rates for the West North Central Division. Within each population group, the state's offense totals were estimated based on the rate per 100,000 inhabitants within the remainder of the division.

	Montana	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	Illinois	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1995 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	Valid Crime Index counts were available for most of the largest cities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

	Kansas	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1995 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.

	Montana	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1995 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 1996 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 1996 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	Valid Crime Index counts were available for most of the largest cities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

	Kansas	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1996 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 1996 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 1997 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	Valid Crime Index counts were available for most of the largest cities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

	Kansas	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1997 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 1997 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 1998 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	Valid Crime Index counts were available for most of the largest cities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

	Kansas	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1998 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 1998 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	State totals were estimated by using the 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.

	Vermont	Due to changes in reporting procedures, the 1997 Vermont Crime Index offense totals were not comparable to those for 1998.	The 1998 Vermont Crime Index offense totals were excluded from Table 4. The 1997 Vermont state estimates were, however, retained in the aggregate national, regional, and divisional volume and rate totals.

1999	Illinois	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1999 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	Valid Crime Index counts were available for most of the largest cities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

	Kansas, Kentucky, Montana	The state UCR Programs were unable to provide complete 1999 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 Uniform Crime Reporting 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 1999 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 2000 offense figures or forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	Valid Crime Index counts were available for most of the largest cities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident be counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated due to the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

	Kansas	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2000 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 2000 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 counts were available for most of the largest cities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

	Kentucky	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2001 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	Kentucky	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2002 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	To obtain the 2002 state crime count, the state UCR Program was contacted, and the state agency was able to provide their latest state total, 2000. Therefore, the 2001 state estimate was updated for inclusion in the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States by using the 2001 crime trends for the division in which the state is located. To derive the 2002 state estimate, the 2002 crime trends for the division were applied to the adjusted 2001 state estimate.

	Illinois	The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2002 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines.	Valid Crime Index counts were only available for most of the largest cities. For other agencies, the only available counts were generated without application of the UCR Hierarchy Rule. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the total supplied by the Illinois State Program (which was inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) was reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported with single incidents in the available NIBRS data. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

Table Methodology

Although most law enforcement agencies submit crime reports to the UCR Program, not all agencies send 12 months of complete data for the reporting year. To be included in this publication's Tables 8 through 11, which show specific jurisdictional statistics, figures for all 12 months of the reporting year must have been received by the FBI prior to established publication deadlines. Other tabular presentations are aggregated on varied levels of submission. With the exception of the tables that consist of estimates for the total United States population, each table in this publication shows the number of agencies reporting and the extent of population coverage.

Designed to assist the reader, this table explains the construction of many of this book's tabular presentations.

(1) Table	(2) Database	(3) Table Construction	(4) General Comments


1	All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program. Crime statistics include estimated offense totals for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year.	The 2002 statistics are consistent with Table 2. Pre-2002 crime statistics may have been updated and, hence, may not be consistent with prior publications. Population statistics represent July 1 provisional estimations for each year except 1990 and 2000, which are Bureau of the Census decennial census data. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Represents an estimation of national reported crime activity from 1983 to 2002.

2	All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program. Crime statistics include estimated offense totals for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for 2002.	Statistics are aggregated from individual state statistics as shown in Table 5. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Represents an estimation of national reported crime activity in 2002.

3	All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for 2002).	Regional offense distributions are computed from volume figures as shown in Table 4. Population distributions are based on Bureau of the Census provisional estimates for 2002.	Represents the 2002 geographical distribution of estimated Crime Index offenses and population.

4	All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program. Crime statistics include estimated offense totals for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for 2001 and 2002.	The 2002 statistics are aggregated from individual state statistics as shown in Table 5. Population statistics represent Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates.	Represents an estimation of reported crime activity for Index offenses at the: 1. national level 2. regional level 3. division level 4. state level Any comparison of UCR statistics should take into consideration demographic factors.

5	All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program. Crime statistics include estimated offense totals for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for 2002.	Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.) Statistics under the heading Area Actually Reporting represent reported offense totals for agencies submitting 12 months of offense reports and estimated totals for agencies submitting less than 12 but more than 2 months of offense reports. The statistics under the heading Estimated Totals represent the above plus estimated offense totals for agencies submitting 2 months or less of offense reports.	Represents an estimation of reported crime activity for Index offenses at the state level. Any comparison of UCR statistics should take into consideration demographic factors.

6	All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program. Crime statistics include estimated offense totals for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for 2002.	Statistics are published for all Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) having at least 75% reporting and for which the central city/cities submitted 12 months of data for 2002. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.) The statistics under the heading Area Actually Reporting represent reported offense totals for agencies submitting all 12 months of offense reports plus estimated offense totals for agencies submitting less than 12 but more than 2 months of offense reports. The statistics under the heading Estimated Total represent the above plus the estimated offense totals for agencies submitting 2 months or less of offense reports. The tabular breakdowns are according to UCR definitions. (See App. II.)	Represents an estimation of the reported crime activity for Index offenses at the individual MSA level. Any comparison of UCR statistics should take into consideration demographic factors.

7	All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program. Crime statistics include estimated offense totals for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for 1998 through 2002.	Offense totals are for all Index offense categories other than aggravated assault.	Represents an estimation of national reported crime activity from 1998 to 2002. Aggravated assault is not included in the data source from which this table is derived.

8	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense reports for 2002.	Cities and Towns are agencies in Population Groups I through V. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Represents reported crime activity of individual agencies in cities and towns 10,000 and over in population. Any comparison of UCR statistics should take into consideration demographic factors.

9	All university/college law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense reports for 2002.	The 2000 student enrollment figures, which are provided by the U.S. Department of Education, are the most recent available. They include full- and part-time students. No adjustments to equate part-time enrollments into full-time equivalents have been made.	Represents reported crime from those individual university/college law enforcement agencies contributing to the UCR Program. These agencies are listed alphabetically by state. Any comparison of these UCR statistics should take into consideration size of enrollment, number of on-campus residents, and other demographic factors.

10	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense reports for 2002.	Suburban Counties are the areas covered by noncity agencies within an MSA. (See App. III.) Population classifications of suburban counties are based on 2002 UCR estimates for individual agencies. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Represents crime reported to individual law enforcement agencies in suburban counties, i.e., the individual sheriff's office, county police department, highway patrol, and/or state police. These figures do not represent the county totals since they exclude city crime counts. Any comparison of UCR statistics should take into consideration demographic factors.

11	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense reports for 2002.	Rural Counties are those outside MSAs whose jurisdictions are not covered by city police agencies. (See App. III.) Population classifications of rural counties are based on 2002 UCR estimates for individual agencies. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Represents crime reported to individual rural county law enforcement agencies covering populations 25,000 and over, i.e., the individual sheriff's office, county police department, highway patrol, and/or state police. These figures do not represent the county totals since they exclude city crime counts. Any comparison of UCR statistics should take into consideration demographic factors.

12-15	All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 common months of complete offense reports for 2001 and 2002.	The 2002 crime trend statistics are 2-year comparisons based on 2002 reported crime activity. Only common reported months for individual agencies are included in 2002 trend calculations. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.) See Appendix III for UCR population breakdowns. Note that Suburban and Nonsuburban Cities are all municipal agencies other than central cities in MSAs.

16-19	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense reports for 2002.	The 2002 crime rates are the ratios, per 100,000 inhabitants, of the aggregated 2002 crime volumes and the aggregated 2002 populations of the contributing agencies. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.) See Appendix III for UCR population breakdowns. Note that Suburban and Nonsuburban Cities are all municipal agencies other than central cities in MSAs.	The forcible rape figures furnished by the Delaware and Illinois state UCR Programs were not in accordance with national guidelines. For inclusion in these tables, the Delaware and Illinois forcible rape figures were estimated by using the national rates for each population group applied to the population by group for Delaware and Illinois agencies supplying all 12 months of data. There is a slight decrease in national coverage for Table 19 due to editing procedure and lower submission rate.

20	All law enforcement agencies submitting Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data for 2002.	The weapon totals are the aggregate for each murder victim recorded on the SHRs for calendar year 2002.	The SHR is the monthly report form concerning homicides. It details victim and offender characteristics, circumstances, weapons used, etc.

21, 22	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense reports for 2002.	The weapon totals are aggregated 2002 totals. Population statistics represent 2002 UCR estimates.

23, 24	All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 months of complete offense reports for 2002.	Offense total and value lost total are computed for all Index offense categories other than aggravated assault. Percent distribution is derived based on offense total of each Index offense. Trend statistics are derived based on agencies with at least 6 common months complete for 2001 and 2002.	Aggravated assault is excluded from Table 23. For UCR Program purposes, the taking of money or property in connection with an assault is reported as robbery.

25-28	All law enforcement agencies submitting at least 6 months of complete offense reports for 2002.	The 2002 clearance rates are based on offense and clearance volume totals of the contributing agencies for 2002. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.) See Appendix III for UCR Program population breakdowns.

29	All law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of complete data for 2002).	The arrest totals presented are national estimates based on the arrest statistics of all law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months). The Total Estimated Arrests statistic is the sum of estimated arrest volumes for each of 28 offenses, not including suspicion. Each individual arrest total is the sum of the estimated volumes within each of the eight population groups. (See App. III.) Each group's estimate is the reported volume (as shown in Table 31) divided by the percent of total group population reporting, according to 2002 UCR estimates for individual agencies. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

30, 31	All law enforcement agencies submitting complete reports for 12 months of 2002.	The 2002 arrest rates are the ratios, per 100,000 inhabitants, of the aggregated 2002 reported arrest statistics and population. The population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.) See Appendix III for UCR population classifications and geographical configuration.

32, 33	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 1993 and 2002.	The arrest trends are the percentage differences between 1993 and 2002 arrest volumes aggregated from all common agencies. The population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.) Population statistics for 1993 are based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 1992 and 1993 provisional estimates.

34, 35	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 1998 and 2002.	The arrest trends are the percentage differences between 1998 and 2002 arrest volumes aggregated from common agencies. The population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.) Population statistics for 1998 are based upon the percent change in state population from the Bureau of the Census 1997 and 1998 provisional estimates.

36, 37	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2001 and 2002.	The arrest trends are 2-year comparisons between 2001 and 2002 arrest volumes aggregated from common agencies. Population statistics for 2001 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2000 decennial counts and provisional 2001 estimates. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state populations from the Bureau of Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

38-43	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.	Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

44, 45	All city law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2001 and 2002.	The 2002 city arrest trends represent the percentage differences between 2001 and 2002 arrest volumes aggregated from common city agencies. City Agencies are all agencies within Population Groups I-VI. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2001 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2000 decennial counts and provisional 2001 estimates. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

46-49	All city law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.	City Agencies are all agencies within Population Groups I-VI. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Slight decrease in coverage for Table 49 due to editing procedure and lower submission of race data.

50, 51	All suburban county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2001 and 2002.	The 2002 suburban county arrest trends represent percentage differences between 2001 and 2002 volumes aggregated from contributing agencies. Suburban Counties are the areas covered by noncity agencies within an MSA. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2001 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2000 decennial counts and provisional 2001 estimates. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state populations from the Bureau of Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

52-55	All suburban county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.	Suburban Counties are the areas covered by noncity agencies within an MSA. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from the Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Slight decrease in coverage for Table 55 due to editing procedure and lower submission of race data.

56, 57	All rural county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2001 and 2002.	The 2002 rural county arrest trends represent percentage differences between 2001 and 2002 volumes aggregated from contributing agencies. Rural Counties are noncity agencies outside MSAs. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2001 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2000 decennial counts and provisional 2001 estimates. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state populationsfrom the Bureau of Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

58-61	All rural county law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.	Rural Counties are noncity agencies outside MSAs. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from the Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

62, 63	All suburban area law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2001 and 2002.	The 2002 suburban area arrest trends represent percentage differences between 2001 and 2002 arrest volumes aggregated from contributing agencies. Suburban Area includes agencies within a metropolitan area excluding those that cover central cities as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2001 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2000 decennial counts and provisional 2001 estimates. Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state populations from the Bureau of Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

64-67	All suburban area law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.	Suburban Area includes agencies within a metropolitan area excluding those that cover central cities as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. (See App. III.) Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)

68	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.	Population statistics for 2002 represent estimates based upon the percent change in state population from Bureau of the Census 2001 revised estimates and 2002 provisional estimates. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Data furnished are based upon individual state age definitions for juveniles.

69	All law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete reports for 2002.	Arrest totals are aggregated for individual agencies within each state. Population statistics represent Bureau of the Census provisional estimates for 2002. (See the Population section in this appendix.)	Any comparison of statistics should take into consideration variances in arrest practices, particularly for Part II crimes.