Summary of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program
is a nationwide, cooperative statistical
effort of more than 17,000 city, county,
and state law enforcement agencies
voluntarily reporting data on crimes
brought to their attention. During 2003,
law enforcement agencies active in the
UCR Program represented 93.0 percent
of the total population. The coverage
amounted to 94.9 percent of the United
States population in Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs), 84.8 percent
of the population in cities outside
metropolitan areas, and 82.8 percent in
nonmetropolitan counties.

Since 1930, the FBI has
administered the Uniform Crime
Reporting Program and continued to
assess and monitor the nature and type
of crime in the Nation. The Program's
primary objective is to generate reliable
information for use in law enforcement
administration, operation, and
management; however, its data have over
the years become one of the country's
leading social indicators. The American
public looks to the Uniform Crime
Reports for information on fluctuations
in the level of crime, and criminologists,
sociologists, legislators, municipal
planners, the media, and other students
of criminal justice use the statistics for
varied research and planning purposes.

Historical Background

Recognizing a need for national crime
statistics, the International Association
of Chiefs of Police (IACP) formed the
Committee on Uniform Crime Records
in the 1920s to develop a system of
uniform crime 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
enforcement. After studying state
criminal codes and making an evaluation
of the recordkeeping practices in use, the
Committee completed a plan for crime
reporting that became the foundation of
the UCR Program in 1929.

Seven main offense classifications,
known as Part I crimes, were chosen to
gauge the state of crime in the Nation.
These seven offense classifications
that eventually became known as
the Crime Index included the violent
crimes of murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault, and the property
crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and
motor vehicle theft. By congressional
mandate, arson was added as the eighth
Index offense category in 1979. (See
Recent Developments at the end of
this Summary for information on the
suspension of the Crime Index.)

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 nationwide uniformity in
crime reporting, standardized offense
definitions by which law enforcement
agencies were to submit data without
regard for local statutes were
formulated. 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 crime data
collected. Since that time, data based on
uniform classifications and procedures
for reporting have been obtained from
the Nation's law enforcement agencies
every year.

Advisory Groups

Providing vital links between local law
enforcement and the FBI in the conduct
of the UCR Program are the Criminal
Justice Information Systems Committees
of the IACP and the National Sheriffs'
Association (NSA). The IACP, as it
has since the Program began, represents
the thousands of police departments
nationwide. The NSA 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 to
provide suggestions on UCR data usage,
a Data Providers' Advisory Policy Board
(APB) was established in August 1988.
The Board operated until 1993 when a
new Board, designed to address all FBI
criminal justice information services,
was approved. The Board functions in
an advisory capacity concerning UCR
policy and data collection and use.
The UCR Subcommittee of the Board
ensures continuing emphasis on UCR-
related issues.

SUMMARY OF THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING (UCR) PROGRAM

3

The Association of State Uniform
Crime Reporting Programs (ASUCRP)
and committees focus on UCR within
individual state law enforcement
associations and 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 needed.

Redesign of UCR

Although UCR data collection had
originally been conceived as a tool for
law enforcement administration, by the
1980s, the data were widely used by
other entities involved in various forms
of social planning. Recognizing the
need for more detailed crime statistics,
law enforcement called for a thorough
evaluative study that would modernize
the UCR Program. The FBI fully
concurred 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
independent contractor, these phases
were structured to determine 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
Cambridge, Massachusetts, overseen by
the FBI, BJS, and a Steering Committee
comprised of highly qualified
individuals representing a myriad of
disciplines, commenced the first phase
in 1982.

During the first phase, the
historical evolution of the UCR Program
was examined. All aspects of the
Program, including the objectives and

intended user audience, data items,
reporting mechanisms, quality control
issues, 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 that examined the potential
of UCR and concluded with a set of
recommended changes. Attendees
at this conference reviewed work
conducted during the first phase and
discussed the recommendations 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. A survey of
law enforcement agencies overlapped
phases one and two.

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 Committee members,
however, endorsed the report's concepts.

In April 1985, the phase two
recommendations were presented at
the eighth National UCR Conference.
Various considerations for the final
report were set forth, and the overall
concept for the revised Program was
unanimously approved. The joint IACP/
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 future informational needs.
There were three recommended areas

of enhancement to the UCR Program.
First, offenses and arrests would be
reported using an incident-based system.
Second, data would be collected 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
populations of over 100,000 and a
sampling of smaller agencies that would
collect expanded detail on all significant
offenses would be included in level two.
The third proposal involved introducing
a quality assurance program.

To begin implementation, the
FBI awarded a contract to develop new
offense definitions and data elements
for the redesigned system. The work
involved (a) revising the definitions of
certain Index offenses, (b) identifying
additional significant offenses to be
reported, (c) refining definitions for
both, and (d) developing data elements
(incident details) for all UCR offenses
in order to fulfill the requirements of
incident-based reporting versus the
current summary system.

Concurrent with the preparation
of the data elements, the FBI studied
the various state systems to select an
experimental site for implementing
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. SLED agreed to adapt its
existing system to meet the requirements
of the redesigned Program and collect
data on both offenses and arrests relating
to the newly defined offenses.

To assist SLED with the pilot
project, offense definitions and data
elements developed under the private
contract were put at the staff's disposal.
Also, FBI automated data processing
personnel developed Automated Data

4

CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES

Capture Specifications for use in
adapting the state's data processing
procedures to incorporate the revised
system. The BJS supplied funding to
facilitate software revisions needed by
the state. SLED completed its testing of
the new Program in late 1987.

Following the completion of the
pilot project conducted by SLED, the
FBI produced a draft 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 recommendations were passed
without dissent: first, that there be
established a new, incident-based
national crime reporting system; second,
that the FBI manage this Program;
and third, that an Advisory Policy
Board composed of law enforcement
executives be formed to assist in
directing and implementing the new
Program.

Information about the redesigned
UCR Program, called the National
Incident-Based Reporting System, or
NIBRS, is contained in three documents.
Data Collection Guidelines contains a
system overview and descriptions of the
offenses, offense codes, reports, data
elements, and data values used in the
system. Data Submission Specifications
is for the use of state and local
systems personnel who are responsible
for preparing magnetic media for
submission to the FBI. Error Message
Manual contains designations of
mandatory and optional data elements,
data element edits, and error messages.

A NIBRS edition of the UCR
Handbook was published to assist law
enforcement agency data contributors
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 the other three
NIBRS publications.

NIBRS collects data on each
single incident and arrest within 22
crime categories. For each offense
known to police within these categories,
incident, victim, property, offender, and
arrestee information are 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 by-product
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 might not
be the most practical approach. Many
state and local law enforcement
administrators indicated that the
collection of data on all pertinent
offenses could be handled with more
ease than could the extraction of selected
ones. Although "Limited" participation,
equivalent to the Blueprint's level one,
remains an option, most reporting
jurisdictions, upon implementation, go
immediately to "Full" participation,
meeting all NIBRS' data submission
requirements.

Implementation of NIBRS is
occurring at a pace commensurate 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 to date, the following 25 state
Programs have been certified for NIBRS
participation: Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa,

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Among those that submit NIBRS data,
eight states (Delaware, Idaho, Iowa,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Vermont) submit all
their data via NIBRS.

Twelve state Programs are in
various stages of testing NIBRS.
Eight other state agencies, as well as
agencies in the District of Columbia,
are in various stages of planning and
development.

Recent Developments

Suspension of the Crime Index — In
June 2004, the CJIS APB approved
discontinuing the use of the Crime
Index in the UCR Program and its
publications and directed that the
FBI publish a violent crime total and
a property crime total until a more
viable index is developed. The Crime
Index was first published in Crime in
the United States in 1960. However,
in recent years the Crime Index has
not been a true indicator of the degree
of criminality. The Crime Index was
simply the title used for an aggregation
of the seven main offense classifications,
known as Part I crimes, for which data
has been collected since the Program's
implementation. The Crime Index
was driven upward by the offense
with the highest number, in this case
larceny-theft, creating a bias against
a jurisdiction with a high number of
larceny-thefts, but a low number of
other serious crimes such as murder and
forcible rape. Currently, larceny-theft
makes up nearly 60 percent of reported
crime, and thus the sheer volume
of those offenses overshadow more

SUMMARY OF THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING (UCR) PROGRAM

5

serious, but less frequently committed
offenses. The CJIS Division staff have
been studying the appropriateness
and usefulness of the Crime Index for
several years and have brought the
matter before many advisory groups
including the UCR Subcommittee of
the CJIS Advisory Board, the ASUCRP,
and a meeting of leading criminologists
and sociologists hosted by the Bureau
of Justice Statistics. The consensus was
that the Crime Index no longer served its
original purpose, that the UCR Program
should suspend its use, and that a more
robust index should be developed.

Creation of New Statistical
Compilation Areas — The UCR Program
began publishing data aggregated
into metropolitan areas in 1958. The
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) criteria for metropolitan areas
undergoes minor revisions with each
decennial Census. Prior to the 2000
Census, the qualifying standards for a
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
included a combination of commuting
data, population density data, and some
indication as to major industry for the
county to be considered metropolitan.
Following the 2000 Census, the OMB
bases its metropolitan designation solely

on the journey-to- work information
collected in the decennial Census.
The OMB's current definition of an
MSA is "a Core Based Statistical Area
associated with at least one urbanized
area that has a population of at least
50,000. The Metropolitan Statistical
Area comprises the central county
or counties containing the core, plus
adjacent outlying counties having a
high degree of social and economic
integration with the central county as
measured through commuting." (Fed.
Reg. 65(249): 82238). Based on the
revised standards for defining MSAs, the
UCR Program now refers to suburban
counties as metropolitan counties, rural
counties as nonmetropolitan counties,
and central cities as principal cities.
The Program will continue to use the
current designations for suburban
areas and cities outside of metropolitan
areas. In addition, this publication
now includes Metropolitan Division,
subdivisions of an MSA that consist
of "a core with a population of at least
2.5 million. A Metropolitan Division
consists of one or more main/secondary
counties that represent an employment
center or centers, plus adjacent counties
associated with the main county or

counties thought commuting ties,"
(Fed. Reg. 65(249): 82238).

Quality Assurance Review — Effective
October 1, 2003, the CJIS Audit Unit
included the Quality Assurance Reviews
(QARs) in the triennial audit of all
systems managed by the FBI's CJIS
Division. As approved on by the CJIS
Advisory Policy Board, each state
Program is subject to a QAR every
three years. Agencies interested in
participating in a QAR should contact
their state's UCR Program manager for
more details.

NIBRS — The detailed, accurate, and
meaningful data produced by NIBRS
benefit local agencies. Armed with
comprehensive crime data, local
agencies can better make their case
to acquire and effectively allocate
the resources needed to fight crime.
Currently, 5,271 law enforcement
agencies contribute NIBRS data to
the national UCR Program. The data
submitted by these agencies represent
20 percent of the U.S. population and 16
percent of the crime statistics collected
by the UCR Program.

6

CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES

Every 22.8 seconds

Every 31.8 minutes
Every 5.6 minutes
Every 1.3 minutes

Every 36.8 seconds

Every 3.0 seconds

Every 14.6 seconds
Every 4.5 seconds
Every 25.0 seconds

One Violent Crime

One Murder

One Forcible Rape

One Robbery

One Aggravated Assault

One Property Crime

One Burglary

One Larceny-theft

One Motor Vehicle Theft

The Crime Clock should be viewed with care. The most aggregate representation of UCR data, it
conveys the annual reported crime experience by showing a relative frequency of occurrence of
Part I offenses. It should not be taken to imply a regularity in the commission of crime. The Crime
Clock represents the annual ratio of crime to fixed time intervals.

SUMMARY OF THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING (UCR) PROGRAM

7