'■•■1'? tA |j? |f# !*»• r* »* •*■.
I
. . - -. • 1-^ , «:' . I I- 0 «^
:' ',.■'■1 '■-,'
I
.Sll\
.I't'^* l.^f- fr f 9
kK
.,.11 r/v^iW<t.
|-, , I "i i«r llte^^WVlJI^ # % ^ r I I I I I t 1 . ^#<^^<|k # ?
r, I. r. I J v*,%\*^*%^fk% « A * i
«. fc A *
**»v»
V
N^^
>^
:0^
oA^^
cV
xC
V
N*'
<•.
vis
^°
.d^
.^^
A
cO"^-^^.
f^
.0
.9
A"^
<kV
<
v^
A
<^
:0'
"^>^o-
o^5^^
<
-«^
o{iy<?^
^V^
.<^^
A
^^
.0
^V
.d^-^^.
.9
'^.
|
^Q^/OWNIVM |
^lvxFt |
'^S^^^?l |
|k |
|
|
^W |
%»ecci.ii\\ 'L Ji |
#il |
fc |
|
|
II |
II |
1 |
||
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
A^'
^"
><!?'
a
•:s'
A^
A^'
'^
-^
^,
HX
^
V
N^"
?y
,<>^^
^^
#
V
9, J^' • NOJLSoa ■
^
<
v^
^^
.d
.^^'
A^
A^
A
•^
>
a
^
V
x^^
,<^^^
V
y^
^ ^
"^^/
^^\.
^
■^
,<>^
n^
■J)-
-$>^'^
^°
.^^'^
-^
A
0^
A
yo
A\ //#fcig;
14/7:991
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
e in the United Stites 1991. Un.
V
Crime in the United States 1991
Uniform ^ Crime Reports
Release Date Sunday August 30, 1992
TT^T^^^t^ ^^
I SUMMARY
I CRIME INDEX
I CRIMES CLEARED
I PERSONS ARRESTED
:-^'
JUVENILES AND VIOLENCE
NFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
I APPENDICES
Uniform Crime Reporting Data Providers Advisory Policy Board
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
i e ,5; c
i £
. ~ .■ E
:; s s s -
1^1^
' ^ >.
8^3
C O QJ
o) g E
. J«: -^ o
|1 .£ E
c — aj
« rt ^
'^ § i
O; C O !
t^ Ol O O
; o E a. r , fc ^ -° '
S ^
1^^
^ "^ w Q S M -
^^ i-
u- ° OS ;
QJ J- _ > O M
QJ OJ I
E S c: w. > 1= C9 ^ o r/; o rt
s = -a i E 3
13 a.
7; .a C c
0^ 2 w. "t
E & £ .1
1
'«.
Uniform
Crime
Reports
for the United States
1991
mm^^^^
SEPW«92
\m
I SUMMARY
I CRIME INDEX
I CRIMES CLEARED
PERSONS ARRESTED
I JUVENILES AND VIOLENCE
I LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
Printed V^^^^^^^^^^^t^^^a^t^^^am
^^N]SrLJA.LLY Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20535
Committee on Uniform Crime Records
International Association of Chiefs of Police;
Committee on Uniform Crime Reporting
National Sheriffs' Association;
Uniform Crime Reporting Data Providers Advisory Policy Board
I APPENDICES
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
FOREWORD
Essential to law enforcement planning and policy is timely and accurate information. Administered by the FBI since 1930, the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has provided an important component of this information. Throughout the decades, continual effort has been made to improve quality, coverage, and presentation of the crime data supplied to the Program by law enforcement agencies across the country.
Enhancements — As part of that effort, several enhancements have been made to this year's Crime in the United States. Among the changes are an expansion in the time period for which Crime Index figures are presented, improved measures of seasonal variations in crime, enhanced references to tables and graphics, and more information about murder.
New Feature — A new feature is an examination of a currently important topic. This year's focus is upon arrests for juvenile violent, drug, and weapon offenses during the past 25 years.
Telephone Guide — While this publication provides a weahh of information, many users will desire additional detail and explanation. To assist these users, as well as data providers with questions concerning data submissions, a telephone guide has been included to facilitate inquiries.
Future Reports — Crucial to future reports, although not evident in this year's publication, has been increasing participation in the National Incident- Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which will greatly expand the available knowledge of crime in the United States. Likewise, collection of information about prejudice-motivated crimes in the United States was begun during 1991, thereby establishing a basis for examining trends. This first year's information will appear in a separate report.
The FBI, through UCR, is committed to working with other law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation to obtain criminal justice information which has never before been available but is needed for effective law enforcement.
^A.JX^
William S. Sessions Director
UI
CRIME FACTORS
Each year when Crime in the United Slates is published, many entities-news media, tourism agencies, and others with an interest in crime in our Nation-compile rankings of cities and counties based on their Crime Index figures. These simplistic and/or incomplete analyses often create misleading perceptions which adversely affect cities and counties, along with their residents. Assessing criminality and law enforcement's response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction must encompass many elements, some of which, while having significant impact, are not readily measurable nor applicable pervasively among all locales. Geographic and demographic factors specific to each jurisdiction must be considered and applied if crime assessment is to approach completeness and accuracy. There are several sources of information which may assist the responsible researcher. The U.S. Bureau of the Census data, for example, can be utilized to better understand the makeup of a locale's population. The transience of the population, its racial and ethnic makeup, its composition by age and gender, education levels, and prevalent family structures are all key factors in assessing and better understanding the crime issue.
The National League of Cities provides information regarding the economic and cultural makeup of cities and counties. Understanding a jurisdiction's industrial/economic base, its dependence upon neighboring jurisdictions, its transportation system, its economic dependence on nonresidents (such as tourists and convention attendees), its proximity to military reservations, etc., all help in better gauging and interpreting the crime known to and reported by law enforcement. More detailed information can, of course, be obtained from a city's or county's chamber of commerce, planning/information office, or other similar entity.
The strength (personnel and other resources) and the aggressiveness of a jurisdiction's law enforcement agency are also key factors. While information pertaining to the number of sworn and civilian law enforcement employees can be found in this publication, assessment of the law enforcement emphases is, of course, much more difilcult. For example, one city may report more crime than a comparable one, not because there is more crime, but rather because its law enforcement agency through proactive efforts, such as "sting operations," identifies more offenses. Attitudes of the citizens toward crime and their crime reporting practices, especially concerning more minor offenses, have an impact on the volume of crimes known to police.
It is incumbent upon all data users to become as well educated as possible about how to categorize and quantify the nature and extent of crime in the United States and in any of the over 16,000 jurisdictions represented by law enforcement contributors to this Program. This is only possible with careful study and analysis of the various unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction.
Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by varied disciplines. Some factors which are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:
Population density and degree of urbanization with size of locality and its surrounding area.
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
Modes of transportation and highway system.
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
Climate.
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. The Uniform Crime Reports give a nationwide view of crime based on statistics contributed by state and local law enforcement agencies. Population size is the only correlate of crime utilized in this publication. While the other factors listed above are of equal concern, no attempt is made to relate them to the data presented. The reader is. therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, counties, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges and universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment.
Data users are cautioned against comparisons of crime trends presented in this report and those estimated by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Because of differences in methodology and crime coverage, the two programs examine the Nation's crime problem from somewhat different perspectives, and their results are not strictly comparable. The definitional and procedural differences can account for many of the apparent discrepancies in results from the two programs. Appendix IV, "The Nation's Two Crime Measures," contains a detailed description of the NCVS and UCR.
VI
CONTENTS
Page
Section I — Summary of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program 1-3
Section II — Crime Index Offenses Reported 4-201
Narrative comments:
Crime Index Total 5-9
Violent Crime: 10-12
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 1 3-22
Forcible rape 23-25
Robbery 26-30
Aggravated assault 31 -34
Property Crime: 35-37
Burglary 38-42
Larceny-theft 43-48
Motor vehicle theft 49-52
Arson 53-56
Crime Index Tabulations 57
Charts:
Crime clock, 1991 4
Crime Index total, variation from monthly average 7
Crime Index total, 1987-1991 7
Crime Index offenses, percent distribution, 1991 8
Regional violent and property crime rates, 1991 9
Violent crime, variation from monthly average 12
Violent crime, 1987-1991 12
Murder, variation from monthly average 15
Murder, 1987-1991 15
Forcible rape, variation from monthly average 25
Forcible rape, 1987-1991 25
Robbery, variation from monthly average 28
Robbery, 1 987-1 99 1 28
Robbery analysis, 1987-1991 30
Aggravated assault, variation from monthly average 33
Aggravated assault, 1987-1991 33
Property crime, variation from monthly average 37
Property crime, 1987-1991 37
Burglary, variation from monthly average 40
Burglary, 1987-1991 40
Burglary analysis, 1987-1991 41
Larceny-theft, variation from monthly average 45
Larceny-theft, 1987-1991 45
Larceny analysis, 1987-1991 46
Larceny analysis, 1991 47
Motor vehicle theft, variation from monthly average 51
Motor vehicle theft, 1987-1991 51
vu
Page Tables:
Crime Index total by month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
Violent crime total by month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
Murder:
By month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
Age, sex, and race of victims, 1 99 1
Age, sex, and race of offenders, 1991
Victim/offender relationship by age, 1991
Victim/offender relationship by race and sex, 1991
Type of weapons used, 1991
Victims, type of weapons used, 1987-1991
Victims — weapons used, 1 99 1
Circumstances by relationship, 1991
Circumstances by weapon, 1 99 1
Circumstances, 1987-1991
Circumstances by victim sex, 1991
Justifiable homicide by weapon, 1987-1991:
Law enforcement
Private citizen
Forcible rape, by month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
Robbery:
By month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
Percent distribution, region, 1991
Percent distribution, population group, 1991
Type of weapons used, 1991
Aggravated assault:
By month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
Type of weapons used, 1991
Property crime total by month, percent of annual total 1987-1991
Burglary, by month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
Larceny-theft:
By month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
By region, 1991
Motor vehicle theft:
By month, percent of annual total, 1987-1991
By region, 1991
Arson, 1991:
Rate, population group
Type of property
Structures not in use
Monetary value of property damaged
Offenses cleared by arrest
Offenses cleared by arrest of persons under 1 8 years of age
Index of crime:
United States, 1972-1991
United States, 1991
Regional offense and population distribution, 1991
Region, geographic division, and state, 1990-1991 .■.
State, 1991
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 1991 79-106
United States, offense analysis, 1987-1991 107
Number of offenses known to the police, 1991:
Cities and towns 10,000 and over in population 108-156
Universities and colleges 157-165
Suburban counties 1 66- 1 78
Rural counties 25,000 and over in population 179-185
viii
Page Tables — Continued
Crime trends, offenses known to the police, 1990-1991:
Population group 186-187
Suburban and nonsuburban cities, population group 188
Suburban and nonsuburban counties, population group 189
Offense breakdown, population group 1 90- 1 9 1
Crime rates, offenses known to the police, 1991:
Population group 192-193
Suburban and nonsuburban cities, population group 194
Suburban and nonsuburban counties, population group 195
Offense breakdown, population group 196-197
Murder, state, type of weapon, 1991 198
Robbery, state, type of weapon, 1 99 1 1 99
Aggravated assault, state, type of weapon, 1 99 1 200
Offense analysis, 1991, and percent change from 1990 201
Type and value of property stolen and recovered, 1991 201
Section III— Crime Index Offenses Cleared 202-211
Narrative comments 202
Chart:
Crimes cleared by arrest, 1991 203
Tables:
Offenses known and percent cleared by arrest, 1991:
Population group 204-205
Geographic region and division 206-207
Offense breakdown, population group 208-209
Offenses cleared by arrest of persons under 1 8 years of age, 1991 210-211
Section IV — Persons Arrested 212-278
Narrative comments 212-213
Tables:
Arrests for drug abuse violations, 1991 212
Total estimated arrests. United States, 1991 213
Arrests, number and rate, 1991:
Region 214
Population group 215-216
Total arrest trends:
1982-1991 217
Sex, 1982-1991 218
1987-1991 219
Sex, 1987-1991 220
1990-1991 221
Sex, 1990-1991 222
Total arrests, 1991:
Distribution by age 223-224
Male arrests, distribution by age 225-226
Female arrests, distribution by age 227-228
Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 229
Distribution by sex 230
Distribution by race 231-233
City arrest trends:
1990-1991 234
Sex, 1990-1991 235
City arrests, 1991:
Distribution by age 236-237
Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 238
ix
Page Tables — Continued
Distribution by sex 239
Distribution by race 240-242
Suburban county arrest trends:
1990-1991 243
Sex, 1990-1991 244
Suburban county arrests, 1991:
Distribution by age 245-246
Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 247
Distribution by sex 248
Distribution by race 249-25 1
Rural county arrest trends:
1990-1991 252
Sex, 1990-1991 253
Rural county arrests, 1991:
Distribution by age 254-255
Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 256
Distribution by sex 257
Distribution by race 258-260
Suburban area arrest trends:
1990-1991 261
Sex, 1990-1991 262
Suburban area arrests, 1991:
Distribution by age 263-264
Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 265
Distribution by sex 266
Distribution by race 267-269
Arrests by state, 1991 270-277
Police disposition of juvenile offenders taken into custody, 1991 278
Section V — Juveniles and Violence 279-289
Narrative comments 279-289
Charts:
Juvenile violent crime arrest rates. United States:
1965-1990 280
By race, 1965-1990 280
Juvenile murder arrest rates. United States:
1965-1990 281
By race, 1965-1990 281
Juvenile forcible rape arrest rates, United States:
1965-1990 282
By race. 1965-1990 282
Juvenile robbery arrest rates. United States:
1965-1990 284
By race, 1965-1990 284
Juvenile aggravated assault arrest rates. United States:
1965-1990 285
By race, 1965-1990 ,. 285
Juvenile heroin/cocaine arrest rates by race. United States, 1965-1990 286
Juvenile marijuana arrest rates by race. United States, 1965-1990 286
Juvenile synthetic drug arrest rates by race. United States, 1965-1990 287
Juvenile nonnarcotic drug arrest rates by race. United States, 1965-1990 287
Juvenile weapon violations arrest rates. United States:
1965-1990 288
By race, 1965-1990 288
Table:
Percent changes in juvenile arrest rates for crimes related to violence, United States, 1990 over 1980 .. 289
X
Page
Section VI — Law Enforcement Personnel 290-375
Narrative comments 290
Tables:
Full-time law enforcement employees, October 31, 1991: Employees, number and rate per 1,000 inhabitants, geographic region and division by population
group 291
Officers, number and rate per 1,000 inhabitants, geographic region and division by population
group 292
Employees, range in rate per 1,000 inhabitants 293
Officers, range in rate per 1,000 inhabitants 294
Employees, percent male and female 295
Civilian employees, percent of total, population group 295
State law enforcement agencies 296
States 297
Cities 298-356
Universities and colleges 357-36 1
Suburban counties 362-365
Rural counties 366-375
Section VII — Appendices 376-395
Appendix I — Methodology 376-382
Appendix II — Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting 383-384
Appendix III — Uniform Crime Reporting Area Definitions 385-387
Appendix IV — The Nation's Two Crime Measures 388-389
Appendix V — Directory of Uniform Crime Reporting Programs 390-394
Appendix VI — National Uniform Crime Reporting Program Directory 395
XI
SECTION I
Summary of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of over 16,000 city, county, and state law enforcement agencies volun- tarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention. During 1991, law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented approximately 241 million inhabi- tants of the United States, or 96 percent of the total population as established by the Bureau of the Census. The coverage amounted to 98 percent of the United States population living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 91 percent of the population in cities outside metropolitan areas, and 88 percent of the rural population.
Since 1930, the FBI has administered the Program and issued periodic assessments of the nature and type of crime in the Nation. While the Program's primary objective is to generate a reliable set of criminal statistics for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management, its data have over the years become one of the country's leading social indicators. The American public looks to UCR for information on fluctuations in the level of crime, while criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the press, and other students of criminal justice use the statistics for varied research and planning pur^ poses.
Historical Background
Recognizing a need for national crime statistics, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (lACP) formed the Committee on Uniform Crime Records in the 1920s to develop a system of uniform police statistics. Establishing offenses known to law enforcement as the appropriate measure, the Committee evaluated various crimes on the basis of their seriousness, frequency of occurrence, pervasiveness in all geographic areas of the country, and likelihood of being reported to law enforce- ment. After studying state criminal codes and making an evaluation of the recordkeeping practices in use, the Committee in 1929 completed a plan for crime reporting which became the foundation of the UCR Program.
Seven offenses were chosen to serve as an Index for gauging fluctuations in the overall volume and rate of crime. Known collectively as the Crime Index, these ofTenses included the violent crimes of murder and non- negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggra- vated assault and the property crimes of burglary, larceny- theft, and motor vehicle theft. By congressional mandate, arson was added as the eighth Index offense in 1979.
During the early planning of the Program, it was recognized that the differences among criminal codes precluded a mere aggregation of state statistics to arrive at
a national total. Further, because of the variances in punishment for the same offenses in different state codes, no distinction between felony and misdemeanor crimes was possible. To avoid these problems and provide nation- wide uniformity in crime reporting, standardized offense definitions by which law enforcement agencies were to submit data, without regard for local statutes, were formu- lated. The definitions used by the Program are set forth in Appendix II of this publication.
In January, 1930, 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states began participating in the UCR Program. Congress enacted Title 28, Section 534, of the United States Code authorizing the Attorney General to gather crime information that same year. The Attorney General, in turn, designated the FBI to serve as the national clearinghouse for the data collected. Since that time, data based on uniform classifications and procedures for reporting have been obtained from the Nation's law enforcement agencies.
Advisory Groups
Providing vital links between local law enforcement and the FBI in the conduct of the UCR Program are the lACP and the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA). The lACP's Committee on Uniform Crime Records, as it has since the Program began, represents the thousands of police depart- ments nationwide. The NSA's Committee on Uniform Crime Reporting, established in June, 1966, encourages sheriffs throughout the country to participate fully in the Program. Both committees serve in advisory capacities concerning the UCR Program's operation.
To function in an advisory capacity concerning UCR policy and provide suggestions on UCR data usage, a Data Providers Advisory Policy Board was established in August, 1 988. The Board is comprised of 20 city, county, and state law enforcement executives, representing the four geographic regions of the Nation.
The Association of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs and committees on UCR within individual state law enforcement associations are also active in promoting interest in the UCR Program. These organizations foster widespread and more intelligent use of uniform crime statistics and lend assistance to contributors when the needs arise.
Redesign of UCR
While throughout the years the UCR Program remained virtually unchanged in terms of the data collected and disseminated, a broad utility had evolved for UCR by the 1980s. Recognizing the need for improved statistics, law
enforcement called for a thorough evaluative study that would modernize the UCR Program. The FBI fully con- curred with the need for an updated Program and lent its complete support, formulating a comprehensive three- phase redesign effort. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the Department of Justice agency responsible for funding criminal justice information projects, agreed to underwrite the first two phases. Conducted by an inde- pendent contractor, these phases were structured to deter- mine what, if any, changes should be made to the current Program. The third phase would involve implementation of the changes identified. Abt Associates Inc. of Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, overseen by the FBI, BJS, and a Steering Committee comprised of prestigious individuals representing a myriad of disciplines, commenced the first phase in 1982.
During the first phase, the historical evolution of the Program was examined. All aspects of the Program, including the objectives and intended user audience, data items, reporting mechanisms, quality control, publications and user services, and relationships with other criminal justice data systems, were studied.
Early in 1984, a conference on the future of UCR, held in Elkridge, Maryland, launched the second phase of the study, which would examine potential futures for UCR and conclude with a set of recommended changes. Attendees at this conference reviewed work conducted during the first phase and discussed the potential changes that should be considered during phase two.
Findings from the evaluation's first phase and input on alternatives for the future were also major topics of discussion at the seventh National UCR Conference in July, 1984. Overlapping phases one and two was a survey of law enforcement agencies.
Phase two ended in early 1985 with the production of a draft "Blueprint for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program." The study's Steering Committee reviewed the draft report at a March, 1985, meeting and made various recommendations for revision. The Commit- tee members, however, endorsed the report's concepts.
In April, 1985, the phase two recommendations were presented at the eighth National UCR Conference. While various considerations for the final report were set forth, the overall concept for the revised Program was unani- mously approved. The joint lACP/NSA Committee on UCR also issued a resolution endorsing the Blueprint.
The final report, the "Blueprint for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program," was released in the summer of 1985. It specifically outlined recommendations for an expanded, improved UCR Program to meet infor- mational needs into the next century. There were three recommended areas of enhancement to the UCR Program. First, reporting of offenses and arrests would be made by means of an incident-based system. Second, collection of data would be accomplished on two levels. Agencies in level one would report important details about those
offenses comprising the current Crime Index, their victims, and arrestees. Law enforcement agencies covering popula- tions of over 100,000 and a sampling of smaller agencies would be included in level two, which would collect expanded detail on all significant offenses. The third proposal involved introducing a quality assurance pro- gram.
One of the first actions taken by the FBI to begin implementation was to award a contract for the develop- ment of new offense definitions and data elements for the redesigned system. The work involved: (a) revision of the definitions of certain Index offenses; (b) identification of additional significant offenses to be reported; (c) refining definitions for both; and (d) development of data elements (incident details) for all UCR offenses in order to fulfill the requirements of incident-based reporting versus the cur- rent summary reporting.
Concurrent with the preparation of the data elements, the FBI studied the various state systems to select an experimental site for implementation of the redesigned Program. In view of its long-standing incident-based Program and well-established staff dedicated solely to UCR, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) was chosen. The SLED agreed to adapt its existing system to meet the requirements of the redesigned Pro- gram and collect data on both offenses and arrests relating to the newly defined offenses.
To assist SLED in conducting the pilot project, offense definitions and data elements developed under the private contract were put at the staffs disposal. Also, the FBI's Technical Services Division developed "Automated Data Capture Specifications" for use in adapting the state's data processing procedures to incorporate the revised system. The BJS supplied funding to facilitate needed software revisions. Testing of the new Program was completed in late 1987.
Following the completion of the pilot project conducted by SLED, the FBI produced a draft set of guidelines for an enhanced UCR Program. Law enforcement executives from around the country were then invited to a conference in Orange Beach, Alabama, where the guidelines were presented for final review.
During the conference, three overall endorsements were passed without dissent. First, that there be established a new, incident-based national crime reporting system; sec- ond, that the FBI manage this Program; and third, that an Advisory Policy Board composed of law enforcement executives be formed to assist in the direction and imple- mentation of the new Program.
Information about the redesigned UCR Program, called the National Incident-Based Reporting System or NIBRS, is contained in four documents produced subsequent to the Orange Beach Conference. Volume 1, Data Collection Guidelines, contains a system overview and descriptions of the offenses, offense codes, reports, data elements, and data values used in the system. Volume 2, Data Submission
Specifications, is for the use of state and local systems personnel who are responsible for preparing magnetic tapes/floppy disks/etc, for submission to the FBI. Volume 3, Approaches to Implementing an Incident-Based Report- ing (IBR) System, is for use by computer programmers, analysts, etc., responsible for developing a state or local IBR system which will meet NIBRS' reporting require- ments. Volume 4, Error Message Manual, contains desig- nations of mandatory and optional data elements, data element edits, and error messages.
A new NIBRS edition of the UCR Handbook has been produced to assist law enforcement agency data contribu- tors implementing NIBRS within their departments. This document is geared toward familiarizing local and state law enforcement personnel with the definitions, policies, and procedures of NIBRS. It does not contain the technical coding and data transmission requirements presented in Volumes 1-4.
NIBRS will collect data on each single incident and arrest within 22 crime categories. For each offense known to police within these categories, incident, victim, proper- ty, offender, and arrestee information will be gathered when available. The goal of the redesign is to modernize crime information by collecting data presently maintained in law enforcement records; the enhanced UCR Program is, therefore, a byproduct of current records systems. The integrity of UCR's long-running statistical series will, of course, be maintained.
It became apparent during the development of the prototype system that the level one and level two reporting proposed in the "Blueprint" may not be the most practical approach. Many state and local law enforcement adminis- trators indicated that the collection of data on all pertinent offenses could be handled with more ease than could the extraction of selected ones. While "Limited" participation, equivalent to the "Blueprint's" level one, will remain an option, it appears that most reporting jurisdictions, upon implementation, will go immediately to "Full" participa- tion, meeting all NIBRS data submission requirements.
The implementation of NIBRS will be at a pace com- mensurate with the resources, abilities, and limitations of the contributing law enforcement agencies. The FBI was able to accept NIBRS data as of January, 1989, and four state-level UCR Programs (Alabama, Idaho, North Dako- ta, and South Carolina) are now supplying data in the NIBRS format. An additional 13 state agencies and the Department of the Interior have submitted test tapes containing the expanded data. Twenty-seven other Pro- grams are in various stages of planning and development, with eight of those expected to submit test tapes during 1992.
Recent Developments
HATE CRIME STATISTICS— The Hate Crime Statis- tics Act, passed by the U. S. Congress and signed by the President in April, 1990, mandates a 5-year data collec- tion of crimes motivated by religious, ethnic, racial, or sexual-orientation prejudice. Collection commenced January 1, 1991, and the UCR Program has distributed hate crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Guides to city, county, and state law enforcement agencies. Regional training sessions have been held across the Nation to assist state-level UCR Programs with implemen- tation among their jurisdictions and to prepare state UCR personnel to train local law enforcement representatives within their respective states. Additional sessions are being held for local law enforcement, either in conjunction with their regular periodic UCR training or separately in FBI- sponsored seminars dealing solely with bias crime report- ing. A hate crime "resource book," which draws together all the data now being maintained at the state and local levels concerning the incidence of hate crimes, is being published in the summer of 1992. This publication will precede the FBI's first issuance of statistics gathered under the UCR hate crime collection, which is scheduled for late 1992.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED AND ASSAULTED — The UCR collection of data on law en- forcement officers killed and assaulted was modified with the 1991 reporting year. Data on officers' slayings are expanded to include more information about the circum- stances at the scene, the interaction between the victim and assailant, the weapons used, etc. An addition to the Program, a collection of information on serious assaults, has been developed and is pending final approval. Data identical to those collected on officers killed will be requested on all assaults resulting in injury and during which a firearm or knife was used. The assault information will be solicited from all levels of law enforcement in a manner similar to the current practice concerning officers killed. Initial notification will, of course, be gleaned from the monthly reports on ofTicers killed and assaulted submitted by all UCR contributors.
CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES— Several changes have been made in this year's edition of Crime in the United States to improve the quality of the publication. For example, tables containing frequently requested data not before included in the book have been added, and some presentations have been modified or relocated in an attempt to make the publication easier to use. Additional changes are scheduled for the 1992 issue.
CRIME CLOCK
1991
one MURDER
every 21 minutes
one FORCIBLE RAPE
every 5 minutes
one VIOLENT CRIME
every 1 7 seconds
one ROBBERY
every 46 seconds
one AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
every 29 seconds
one CRIME INDEX OFFENSE
every 2 seconds
one PROPERTY CRIME
every 2 seconds
one BURGLARY
every 1 0 seconds
one LARCENY-THEFT
every 4 seconds
The Crime Clock should be viewed with care. Being the most aggregate representation of UCR data, it is designed to convey the annual reported crime experience by showing the relative frequency of occurrence of the Index Offenses. This mode of display should not be taken to imply a regularity in the commission of the Part I Offenses; rather, it represents the annual ratio of crime to fixed time intervals.
one MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
every 1 9 seconds
SECTION II Crime Index Offenses Reported
CRIME INDEX TOTAL
DEFINITION
The Crime Index is composed of selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in the overall volume and rate of crime reported to law enforcement. The offenses included are the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
|
TRFNn |
||
|
Year 1990 |
Number of offenses' 14.475.613 |
Rate per 100.000 inhabitants' 5.820.3 5.897.8 +1.3 |
|
1991 |
14.872,883 |
|
|
Percent change |
+2.7 |
|
|
'Does not include arson- See page 57 |
The Crime Index total rose 3 percent over 1990 to nearly 15 million offenses reported to law enforcement in 1991. Index increases ranged from 2 percent in the Nation's cities to 5 percent in rural counties. Five- and 10-year percent changes showed the 1991 experience was 10 percent above the 1987 level and 15 percent higher than in 1982.
Geographically, the largest volume of Crime Index offenses was reported in the Southern States, which accounted for 37 percent of the total. Following were the Western States with 24 percent, the Midwestern States with 21 percent, and the Northeastern States with 18 percent. All regions except the Northeast showed Crime Index increases from 1990 to 1991. (See Table 4.)
Crime Index offenses occurred most frequently in Au- gust while the lowest totals were recorded in February.
Table 2.1— Crime Index Total by Month, 1987-1991
[Percent of annual total]
Months
January ... February ..
March
April
May
June
July
August . . . . September October ... November December .
1987
7.8 7.5 8.3 7.9 8.1 8.4 8.9 9.1 8.4 8.5 8.2 8.9
1988
7.8 7.5 8.1 7.7 8.2 8.3 9.0 9.5 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.5
1989
8.2 7.2 8.2 7.8 8.5 8.5 9.2 9.3 8.4 8.7 8.1 7.9
1990
8.3
7.4 8.2 7.9 8.3 8.3 8.9 9.1 8.4 8.7 8.2 8.6
1991
7.9 7.4 8.1 8.0 8.4 8.5 9.1 9.2 8.4 8.7 8.0 8.3
Rate
Crime rates relate the incidence of crime to population. Nationwide in 1991, there were an estimated 5,898 Crime Index offenses for each 100,000 in population. The Crime Index rate was highest in metropolitan areas and lowest in rural counties. (See Table 2.) Overall, the 1991 Crime Index rate was 1 percent higher than in 1991, 6 percent higher than in 1987, and 5 percent above the 1982 total.
Regionally, the Crime Index rates ranged from 6,478 in the West to 5,155 in the Northeast. The 2-year percent changes showed a 1 -percent rate decline in the Northeast and increases in the remaining regions. (See Table 4.)
Nature
The Crime Index is composed of violent and property crime categories, and in 1991, 13 percent of the Index
offenses reported to law enforcement were violent crimes and 87 percent, property crimes. Larceny-theft was the offense with the highest volume, while murder accounted for the fewest offenses. (See Chart 2.4.)
Property estimated in value at $16.7 billion was stolen in connection with all Crime Index offenses, with the largest losses due to thefts of motor vehicles; jewelry and precious metals; and televisions, radios, stereos, etc. Law enforce- ment agencies nationwide recorded a 38-percent recovery rate for dollar losses in connection with stolen property. The highest recovery percentages were for stolen motor vehicles, consumable goods, livestock, clothing and furs, and firearms. (See Table 24.)
Law Enforcement Response
Law enforcement agencies nationwide recorded a 21- percent clearance rate for the - collective Crime Index offenses in 1991 and made an estimated 3 million arrests for Index crimes. Crimes can be cleared by arrest or by exceptional means when some element beyond law en- forcement control precludes the placing of formal charges against the offender. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, or several persons may be arrested in connection with the clearance of one offense.
The Index clearance rate has remained relatively stable throughout the past 10-year period. Similar to the 1991 experience, it was 21 percent in 1987 and 20 percent in 1982.
Arrests for Index crimes were up 2 percent in 1991 as compared to 1990. Considering longer timeframes, law enforcement agencies in 1991 made 13 and 18 percent more arrests than in the years 1987 and 1982, respectively.
When compared to 1990 figures, 3-percent increases in arrests for murder