U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

VIOLENT CRIME !
ASSAULT I PROPERTY

THE

TBI M( TO

ed;

GGRAVATED

ATE CRIME

STATES I 2003

Release Date: October 27, 2004

IN THE UNITED STATES I 2003

Uniform Crime Reports

Printed Annually
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20535

Advisory:

Criminal Justice Information Systems Committee,
International Association of Chiefs of Police;
Criminal Justice Information Services Committee,
National Sheriffs' Association;

Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board

For sale by Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, D.C. 20402-9328

Foreword

In the 1929 Foreword to Uniform Crime Reporting: A Complete Manual for the Police, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police's Committee on Uniform Crime Reports stated,
"The urgent need for national crime statistics in the United States is so well recognized as to require
no debate."

That need is as great today as it was 75 years ago. Police executives, governmental officials,
and others maintain an "unflagging interest in reliable compilations dealing with crime and
criminals."

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was created by law enforcement for law
enforcement, to meet the need for crime statistics used in operational planning and policymaking.
Police departments and sheriff's offices rely on the data to help them support staffing decisions,
allocate funding and resources, gauge the effectiveness of specific law enforcement programs, and
support legislative and judicial mandates. Many local and state agencies use UCR data to support
their requests to secure federal grant monies, to design new crime-fighting initiatives, or to craft anti-
crime legislation.

UCR data has also become a staple for researchers and criminologists, news and information
services, academics, and others seeking a better understanding of crime in the United States. Today's
UCR data consumers may range from a renowned criminologist whose research will be widely
quoted in the media to the president of a small-town PTA who is preparing documentation on juvenile
crime to help obtain funding for after-school programs.

Initiated by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and assigned to the FBI to manage
in 1930, the UCR Program has changed a great deal over the years. In order to meet the critical
assignment of amassing pertinent crime statistics, the FBI is constantly reconciling the need to
change and improve with the need to protect the integrity of the long-running data series upon which
law enforcement and the public have come to rely. This year's Crime in the United States reflects
some of these well-considered changes. As outlined in the Recent Developments segment of Section
I, we have suspended the Crime Index and further refined the Metropolitan Statistical Area concept as
part of our efforts to keep the Program vital and relevant to all of its users.

While there have been many such changes since its creation, the fundamentals of the UCR
Program have remained constant. First, the UCR Program has never lost sight of its purpose: to
collect accurate and pertinent crime data for the daily use of law enforcement, as well as the
government and citizens of this nation. Second, the Program has always gathered its data at the
grassroots level. It is the law enforcement officers who are in a position to know what crimes have
been committed, the results of investigations, and the facts concerning persons arrested for these
offenses. This is the source from which the UCR gathers its information.

These fundamentals, coupled with the flexibility to adapt to the needs of its users, make the
UCR Program a vital part of the FBI's efforts to support our partners in law enforcement. We
continue striving to improve Crime in the United States, and we hope that the 2003 edition will help
law enforcement leaders around the country make the best possible decisions to secure safety and
prosperity in their communities.

Robert S. Mueller, III

Director

iii

Data users are cautioned against comparing 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.

The national Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
Program would like to hear from you.

The staff at the national UCR Program are continually striving to
improve the publications. We would appreciate it if the primary
user of this publication would complete the evaluation form at the
end of this book and either mail it to us at the indicated address or
fax it: (304)625-5394.

Crime Factors

Each year when Crime in the
United States is published, many enti-
ties — news media, tourism agencies, and
other groups with an interest in crime
in our Nation — use reported figures to
compile rankings of cities and counties.
These rankings, however, are merely a
quick choice made by the data user; they
provide no insight into the many variables
that mold the crime in a particular town,
city, county, state, or region. Conse-
quently, these rankings lead to simplistic
and/or incomplete analyses that often
create misleading perceptions adversely
affecting cities and counties, along with
their residents. To assess criminality and
law enforcement's response from juris-
diction to jurisdiction, one must consider
many variables, some of which, while
having significant impact on crime, are
not readily measurable nor applicable
pervasively among all locales. Geo-
graphic and demographic factors specific
to each jurisdiction must be considered
and applied if one is going to make
an accurate and complete assessment
of crime in that jurisdiction. Several
sources of information are available that
may assist the responsible researcher in
exploring the many variables that affect
crime in a particular locale. The U.S.
Census Bureau data, for example, can
be used 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, educational levels, and prevalent
family structures are all key factors in
assessing and comprehending the crime
issue.

Local chambers of commerce,
planning offices, or similar entities
provide information regarding the eco-
nomic and cultural makeup of cities and
counties. Understanding a jurisdiction's
industrial/economic base; its depen-
dence upon neighboring jurisdictions;
its transportation system; its economic
dependence on nonresidents (such as
tourists and convention attendees); its
proximity to military installations, cor-

rectional facilities, etc.; all contribute to
accurately gauging and interpreting the
crime known to and reported by law en-
forcement.

The strength (personnel and other
resources) and the aggressiveness of a
jurisdiction's law enforcement agency
are also key factors. Although informa-
tion pertaining to the number of sworn
and civilian law enforcement employees
can be found in this publication, it can-
not alone be used as an assessment of
the emphasis that a community places
on enforcing the law. 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 identifies more offenses. At-
titudes of the citizens toward crime and
their crime reporting practices, espe-
cially 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 understand and quantify
the nature and extent of crime in the
United States and in any of the more
than 17,000 jurisdictions represented
by law enforcement contributors to this
Program. Valid assessments are possible
only 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 inves-
tigation by many disciplines. Some fac-
tors that are known to affect the volume
and type of crime occurring from place
to place are:

• Population density and degree of
urbanization.

• 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.,
prosecutory, judicial, correctional,
and probational).

• Citizens' attitudes toward crime.

• Crime reporting practices of the
citizenry.

Crime in the United States pro-
vides a nationwide view of crime based
on statistics contributed by local, state,
tribal, and federal law enforcement
agencies. Population size is the only
correlate of crime presented in this pub-
lication. Although many of the listed
factors equally affect the crime of a
particular area, the UCR Program makes
no attempt to relate them to the data
presented. The reader is, therefore,
cautioned against comparing statisti-
cal data of individual reporting units
from cities, counties, metropolitan ar-
eas, states, or colleges and universities
solely on the basis of their population
coverage or student enrollment. Until
data users examine all the variables that
affect crime in a town, city, county, state,
region, or college or university, they can
make no meaningful comparisons.

v

Contents

Section I — Summary of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program 3

Section II — Offenses Reported 9

Narrative comments:

Violent Crime: 1 1

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 15

Forcible rape 27

Robbery 3 1

Aggravated assault 37

Property Crime: 41

Burglary 45

Larceny-theft 49

Motor vehicle theft 55

Arson 61

Hate Crime 65

Offense Tabulations 69

Figures:

(2.1) Crime clock 7

(2.2) Violent crime, 1999-2003 11

(2.3) Murder, 1999-2003 15

(2.4) Murder by relationship, 2003 21

(2.5) Forcible rape, 1999-2003 27

(2.6) Robbery, 1999-2003 31

(2.7) Robbery categories, 1999-2003 33

(2.8) Aggravated assault, 1999-2003 37

(2.9) Property crime, 1999-2003 41

(2.10) Burglary, 1999-2003 45

(2.11) Burglary residential/nonresidential, 1999-2003 47

(2.12) Larceny-theft, 1999-2003 49

(2.13) Larceny-theft categories, 1999-2003 51

(2.14) Larceny-theft analysis, 2003 52

(2.15) Motor vehicle theft, 1999-2003 55

(2.16) Regional violent and property crime rates, 2003 59

(2.17) Bias-motivated offenses, 2003 65

Tables:

(2.1) Violent crime by month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 12
Murder:

(2.2) Month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 16

(2.3) Victims, by race and sex, 2003 16

(2.4) Victims, by age, sex, and race, 2003 17

(2.5) Offenders, by age, sex, and race, 2003 17

(2.6) Victim/offender relationship, by age, 2003 18

(2.7) Victim/offender relationship, by race and sex, 2003 18

(2.8) Types of weapons used, percent distribution by region, 2003 19

(2.9) Victims, by weapon, 1999-2003 19

Tables — Continued

(2.10) Victims by age, by weapon, 2003 19

(2.11) Circumstances, by relationship, 2003 20

(2.12) Circumstances, by weapon, 2003 22

(2.13) Circumstances, 1999-2003 23

(2.14) Circumstances, by victim sex, 2003 23
Justifiable homicide by weapon, 1999-2003:

(2.15) Law enforcement 24

(2.16) Private citizen 24
Forcible rape:

(2.17) Month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 28
Robbery:

(2.18) Month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 32

(2.19) Region, percent distribution, 2003 32

(2.20) Population group, percent distribution, 2003 34

(2.21) Types of weapons used, by region, percent distribution, 2003 36
Aggravated assault:

(2.22) Month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 38

(2.23) Types of weapons used, by region, percent distribution, 2003 38
Property crime:

(2.24) Month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 42
Burglary:

(2.25) Month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 46
Larceny-theft:

(2.26) Month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 50

(2.27) Percent distribution by region, 2003 50
Motor vehicle theft:

(2.28) Month, percent distribution, 1999-2003 56

(2.29) Region, percent distribution, 2003 56
Arson:

(2.30) Rate, by population group, 2003 61

(2.31) Type of property, 2003 62
Hate Crime:

(2.32) Number of incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders,

by bias motivation, 2003 66

(2.33) Number of incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders,

by offense type, 2003 66

(2.34) Number of known offenders, by race, 2003 67

(2.35) Agency hate crime reporting, by state, 2003 67
Offense tabulations:

(1) United States, by volume and rate, 1984-2003 70

(2) United States, by community type, 2003 71

(3) Offense and population distribution by region, 2002 71

(4) Region, geographic division, and state, 2002-2003 72

(5) State, 2003 82

(6) Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2003 93

(7) Offense analysis, United States, 1999-2003 130
Offenses known to law enforcement:

(8) City 10,000 and over in population, 2003 131

(9) University and college, 2003 179

(10) Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan counties, 2003 191

(11) State Agency, 2003 212

viii

Tables — Continued

Crime trends:

(12) Population group, 2002-2003 236

(13) Suburban and nonsuburban cities, by population group, 2002-2003 238

(14) Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by population group, 2002-2003 239

(15) Breakdown of offenses known, by population group, 2002-2003 240
Rate: number of crimes per 100,000 inhabitants:

(16) Population group, 2003 243

(17) Suburban and nonsuburban cities, by population group, 2003 245

(18) Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by population group, 2003 246

(19) Breakdown of offenses known, by population group, 2003 247

(20) Murder, by state, 2003, type of weapon 249

(21) Robbery, by state, 2003, type of weapon 250

(22) Aggravated assault, by state, 2003, type of weapon 251

(23) Offense analysis, number and percent change, 2002-2003 252

(24) Property stolen and recovered, by type and value, 2003 252

Section III — Offenses Cleared 253

Narrative comments 255

Figure:

(3.1) Crimes cleared by arrest, 2003 256
Tables:

Percent of offenses cleared by arrest or exceptional means:

(25) Population group, 2003 257

(26) Geographic region and division, 2003 259

(27) Breakdown of offenses known, by population group, 2003 261

(28) Number of offenses cleared by arrest or exceptional means,
percent of clearances involving persons under 18 years of age,

by population group, 2003 264

Section IV — Persons Arrested 267

Narrative comments 268

(4.1) Arrests for drug abuse violations, by region, 2003 269

Tables:

(29) Estimated arrests, United States, 2003 270
Number and rate of arrests:

(30) Geographic region, 2003 271

(31) Population group, 2003 272
Ten-year arrest trends:

(32) Totals, 1994-2003 274

(33) Sex, 1994-2003 275
Five-year arrest trends:

(34) Totals, 1999-2003 276

(35) Sex, 1999-2003 277
Current year over previous year arrest trends:

(36) Totals, 2002-2003 278

(37) Sex, 2002-2003 279
Arrests:

(38) Age, 2003 280

(39) Males, by age, 2003 282

(40) Females, by age, 2003 284

ix

Tables — Continued

(41) Persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age, 2003 286

(42) Sex, 2003 287

(43) Race, 2003 288
City arrest trends:

(44) 2002-2003 291

(45) Sex, 2002-2003 292
City arrests:

(46) Age, 2003 293

(47) Persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age, 2003 295

(48) Sex, 2003 296

(49) Race, 2003 297
Metropolitan county arrest trends:

(50) 2002-2003 300

(51) Sex, 2002-2003 301
Metropolitan county arrests:

(52) Age, 2003 302

(53) Persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age, 2003 304

(54) Sex, 2003 305

(55) Race, 2003 306
Nonmetropolitan county arrest trends:

(56) 2002-2003 309

(57) Sex, 2002-2003 310
Nonmetropolitan county arrests:

(58) Age, 2003 311

(59) Persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age, 2003 313

(60) Sex, 2003 314

(61) Race, 2003 315
Suburban area arrest trends:

(62) 2002-2003 318

(63) Sex, 2002-2003 319
Suburban area arrests:

(64) Age, 2003 320

(65) Persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age, 2003 322

(66) Sex, 2003 323

(67) Race, 2003 324

(68) Police disposition of juvenile offenders taken into custody, 2003 327

(69) Arrests, by state, 2003 328

Section V — Special Reports 337

Violence Among Family Members and Intimate Partners 339

Narrative comments 339

Tables:

(5.1) Number of incidents reported in NIBRS, 1996-2001 341

(5.2) Number of incidents with a violent crime, NIBRS, 1996-2001 342

(5.3) Number of offenses by violent crime, 1996-2001 343

(5.4) Relationship of victim to offender, 1996-2001 343

(5.5) Relationship of victim to offender within family relationship, 1996-2001 344

(5.6) Violent offenses by family relationship, 1996-2001 344

(5.7) Weapons used in violent offenses, 1996-2001 345

(5.8) Weapons used, Number of offenses by family relationship, 1996-2001 345

X

Tables — Continued

(5.9) Number of family violence incidents involving substance abuse, 1996-2001 346

(5.10) Number of offenses involving substance abuse by family relationship, 1996-2001 346

(5.11) Victims of violent crime in family relationships by gender, 1996-2001 346

(5.12) Victims of violent crime in family relationships by race, 1996-2001 346

(5.13) Victims of violent crime in family relationships by age, 1996-2001 346

(5.14) Number of confrontations specific to family relationships by age of victim and offender 347

(5.15) Number and type of injuries in violent offenses, 1996-2001 348

(5.16) Number of injuries in violent offenses by victim category, 1996-2001 348

Homicide as a Community Problem in the United States 351

Narrative comments 35 1

Figures:

(5.1) Mean center of homicides reported as incident data, 1981-2001 353

(5.2) Mean center of homicides reported as incident data by region, 1981-2001 355

(5.3) Murder rate and percent of category of Unknowns, 1981-2001 356

(5.4) Murder rate and percent of category of Unknowns by region, 1981-2001 357

(5.5) Mean center of homicide by type, 1981-2001 359

(5.6) Regional mean center of homicide by type, 1981-2001 360

Table:

(5.17) Characteristics of detected homicide clusters 358

Section VI — Law Enforcement Personnel 363

Narrative comments 364

Tables:

Full-time law enforcement employees as of October 31, 2003:

(70) Employees, number and rate per 1,000 inhabitants, geographic region and division

by population group 366

(71) Officers, number and rate per 1,000 inhabitants, geographic region and division

by population group 367

(72) Employees, range in rate per 1,000 inhabitants by population group 368

(73) Officers, range in rate per 1,000 inhabitants by population group 369

(74) Employees, percent male and female by population group 370

(75) Civilian employees, percent of total by population group 371

(76) State law enforcement employees 372

(77) Law enforcement employees by state 374

(78) City by state 375

(79) University and college by state 448

(80) Metropolitan county by state 454

(81) Nonmetropolitan county by state 463

(82) Other agencies by state 478

Section VII — Appendices 481

Appendix I — Methodology 482

Appendix II — Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting 497

Appendix III — Uniform Crime Reporting Area Definitions 499

Appendix IV — The Nation's Two Crime Measures 502

Appendix V — Directory of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs 505

Appendix VI — National Uniform Crime Reporting Directory 514

Appendix VII — Uniform Crime Reporting Publications List 515

xi