9WM

BOSTON

PUBLIC

LIBRARY

Jnited States Deportment Df Justice

^ /

FBI

Uniform Crime Reports

Release dote Wednesday PM October 24, 1979

Bostca Publ-, u:^ Si:per:ntc-dc-t of Dccuinci

DEPOSITORY

OTHER UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PUBLICATIONS:

Assaults on Federal Officers ( published annually)

Bomb Summary ( published annually )

Law Enforcement Officers Killed Summary ( published annually )

UNIFORM

CRIME

REPORTS

for the United States

SUMMARY

CRIME INDEX

PRINTED ANNUALLY- 1978

CRIMES CLEARED

Advisory: Committee on Uniform Crime Records International Association of Chiefs of Police D. N. Cassidy, Director General Police and Security National Harbours Board Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

PERSONS ARRESTED

LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL

William H. Webster

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20535

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfTice, Washington, D.C. 20402

APPENDICES

FOREWORD

This year's publication. Crime in the United States— 1978, is the 49th such annual document issued by the FBI on behalf of the law enforcement community. The information contained in this book is a social statement. In many respects it represents one of the darker sides of human behavior in this country and should not be taken lightly.

Since 1930, the FBI has been collecting crime-related statistics submitted voluntarily by the law enforcement agencies of this Nation. The great volume of information thus received is correlated periodically and published for the information of the American people and to provide law enforcement and other areas of the criminal justice community with both an insight to criminaUty throughout the United States and a sound basis for studies of criminal activity.

In the late 1960s, the severity of the crime problem caught the attention of the American people, as well as the Congress of the United States. The result was a concerted effort on the part of city, county, state, and Federal agencies to improve their crime-fighting capabilities. Massive sums of money have been infused into the criminal justice system during the past decade. Statistically, it appears that these remarkable efforts have not had the impact on the incidence of crime envisioned earlier in this decade. It is a matter of record, however, that the various elements of the criminal justice community have made great strides by improving their efficiency and professionalism. Studies exist which indicate that the educational levels and the requisite training of police officers have dramatically improved over the years, better preparing those empowered to enforce the law. Other studies document the changes and improvement for progress within other elements of the criminal justice community.

But delegation of this problem to law enforcement agencies, however professional, has not been enough. Unless we as citizens collectively and individually join the crusade against crime, the vast resources of our respective governments will apparently have little or no effect on this Nation's crime situation. A mere perusal of the statistics in this publication conceivably attests to that fact. There are many programs initiated at the community level by law enforcement agencies which actively solicit the support of the citizenry. It is now up to us to respond to this solicitation and work hand-in- hand with law enforcement if we are to make any inroads in this Nation's crime problem.

(aj^UU^ i^CpiA^~^

WiUiam H. Webster Director

Crime Factors

The presence of crime in our Nation's communities is a serious concern not only of the law enforcement profession, but of society at large. Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by many disciplines. However, no definitive conclusions have yet been reached. Instead, a number of factors affecting the volume and type of crime that occurs from place to place have been delineated. Some of these are as follows:

Density and size of community population and its surrounding area.

Variations in composition of the population, particularly age structure.

Stability of population with respect to transient factors.

Economic conditions, including job availability.

Cultural conditions, such as educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.

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).

Attitudes of citizenry toward crime.

Crime reporting practices of citizenry. The Uniform Crime Reports give a nationwide view of crime based on police 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 hsted 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 communities solely on the basis of their population size.

Contents

Page

Section I— Summary of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program 1-5

Section II— Crime Index Offenses Reported 6-174

Narrative comments:

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 7-13

Forcible rape 14-15

Robbery 16-19

Aggravated assault 20-22

Burglar)' 23-26

Larceny-theft 27-31

Motor vehicle theft 32-34

Crime Index total 35-37

Charts:

Crime clock, 1978 6

Murder, monthly variation from annual average 8

Murder, 1974-1978 8

Murder, type of weapon used, 1978 12

Forcible rape, monthly variation from annual average 15

Forcible rape, 1974-1978 15

Robbery, monthly variation from annual average 17

Robbery, 1974-1978 17

Robbery analysis, 1974-1978 18

Aggravated assault, monthly variation from aimual average 21

Aggravated assault, 1974-1978 21

Burglary, monthly variation from annual average 24

Burglary, 1974-1978 24

Burglary analysis, 1974-1978 25

Larceny-theft, monthly variation from annual average 28

Larceny-theft, 1974-1978 28

Larceny analysis, 1974-1978 29

Larceny analysis, 1978 30

Motor vehicle theft, monthly variation from aimual average 33

Motor vehicle theft, 1974-1978 33

Crime Index total, 1974-1978 35

Tables:

Murder:

Circumstance by relationship, 1978 9

Age, sex, and race of victims, 1978 9

Victim/Offender relationship, sex and race, 1978:

Single victim/single offender 10

Single victim/multiple offender 11

Victims— weapons used, 1978 12

Type of weapon used, 1978 13

Type of weapon used, 1974-1978 13

Circumstances/motives, 1976-1978 13

Page

Tables — Continued Robbery:

Percent distribution, region, 1978 17

Type of weapon used, 1978 19

Percent distribution, population group, 1978 19

Aggravated assault, type of weapon used, 1978 21

Larceny analysis, region, 1978 31

Motor vehicle theft, 1978 33

National crime, rate, and percent change 35

Regional offense and population distribution, 1978 36

Crime rate, 1978:

Region 36

Area 36

Index of Crime:

United States, 1978 38

United States, 1969-1978 39

Region, geographic division, and state, 1977-1978 40-45

State, 1978 46-57

Standard MetropoHtan Statistical Area, 1978 58-84

Number of offenses known to the police, 1978:

Cities and towns 10,000 and over in population 85-134

Universities and colleges 135-139

Suburban counties 140-152

Rural counties 25,000 and over in population 153-160

Crime trends, offenses known to the police, 1977-1978:

Population group 161-162

Suburban and nonsuburban cities, population group 163-164

Suburban and nonsuburban counties, population group 165

Offense breakdown, population group 166-167

Crime rates, offenses known to the police, 1978:

Population group 168-169

Suburban and nonsuburban cities, population group 170

Suburban and nonsuburban counties, population group 171

Offense breakdown, population group 172-173

Offense analysis, 1978, and percent change from 1977 174

Type and value of property stolen and recovered, 1978 174

Section III— Crime Index Offenses Cleared 175-183

Narrative comments 175

Chart:

Crimes cleared by arrest, 1978 176

Tables:

Offenses known and percent cleared by arrest, 1978:

Population group 177-178

Geographic division 179

Offense breakdown, population group 180-181

Offenses cleared by arrest of persons under 18 years of age, 1978 ... 182-183

Section IV— Persons Arrested 184-228

Narrative comments 184-1 85

Chart:

Distribution by age, persons arrested and total population, 1978 185

Page

Tables:

Arrests for drug abuse violations, 1978 184

Arrests, region, 1978 185

Total estimated arrests, United States, 1978 186

Arrests, number and rate, population group, 1978 186-187

Total arrest trends:

1969-1978 188

Sex, 1969-1978 189

1974-1978 190

Sex, 1974-1978 191

1977-1978 192

Sex, 1977-1978 193

Total arrests, 1978:

Distribution by age 194-195

Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 196

Distribution by sex 197

Distribution by race 198-200

City arrest trends, 1977-1978 201

City arrests, 1978:

Distribution by age 202-203

Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 204

Distribution by sex 205

City arrest trends, sex, 1977-1978 206

City arrests, distribution by race, 1978 207-209

Suburban arrest trends, 1977-1978 210

Suburban arrests, 1978:

Distribution by age 211-212

Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 213

Distribution by sex 214

Suburban arrest trends, sex, 1977-1978 215

Suburban arrests, distribution by race, 1978 216-218

Rural arrest trends, 1977-1978 219

Rural arrests, 1978:

Distribution by age 220-22 1

Of persons under 15, 18, 21, and 25 years of age 222

Distribution by sex 223

Rural arrest trends, sex, 1977-1978 224

Rural arrests, distribution by race, 1978 225-227

Police disposition of juvenile offenders taken into custody, 1978 228

Section V— Law Enforcement Personnel 229-313

Narrative comments:

Law enforcement employees 230

Assaults on law enforcement officers 300-301

Law enforcement officers killed 307-311

Charts:

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics 229

Police employee data, population group, 1978 231

Law enforcement officers killed:

1969-1978 306

Situations, 1969-1978 308

Page

Charts— Continued

Law enforcement officers killed— Continued

Hour of day, 1969-1978 312

Criminal history of persons identified in the killing of law 313

enforcement officers, 1969-1978

Tables:

Full-time law enforcement employees, October 31, 1978:

Employees, number and rate per 1,000 inhabitants, geographic 232

division and population group

Officers, number and rate per 1,000 inhabitants, geographic division 233

and population group

Employees, percent male and female 234

Civilian employees, percent of total, population group 234

State police and highway patrol 235

Number in cities 25,000 and over in population 236-244

Number in cities with populations under 25,000 245-281

Number in universities and colleges 282-284

Number in suburban counties 285-288

Number in rural counties 289-300

Law enforcement officers assaulted, 1978:

Geographic division and population group 300

Weapon used 301

Police activity and type of weapon 302

Type of weapon and police activity 302

Time of day, population group 303

Percent distribution of officer activity 304

Percent distribution of officer assignment 304

Percent cleared, type of activity, population group 305

Law enforcement officers killed:

Officers feloniously killed, 1978 307

Circumstances and type of assignment, 1969-1978 309

Type of weapon, 1969-1978 310

Profile of victim officers 310

Persons identified in the killing of law enforcement officers:

Profile, 1969-1978 310

Disposition, 1967-1976 311

Section VI— Appendices 314-323

Appendix I— Table Methodology 314-318

Appendix II— Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting 319-320

Appendix III— Uniform Crime Reporting Area Definitions 321-323

SECTION I

SUMMARY OF THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING

PROGRAM

Based on a cooperative effort by over 15,000 law enforcement agencies across the Nation, the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program provides periodic assessments of crime in the United States as mea- sured by offenses coming to the attention of the law enforcement community. The Program's foremost objective is to produce a reliable set of criminal statistics for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management. However, data emanat- ing from the Program are widely utilized by other criminal justice professionals, legislators, and schol- ars who have an interest in the crime problem. Additionally, the statistics have historically provided the general public an indication of fluctuations in the level of crime in our society.

Historical Bacligroiuid

The Committee on Uniform Crime Records of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (lACP) initiated this voluntary national data collection effort in 1930. During that same year, the Congress of the United States authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to serve as the national clearing- house for statistical information on crime. Since that time, data have been obtained from law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation based on uniform classifications and procedures of reporting.

In an effort to provide as complete a picture of crime in the United States as possible, the Committee on Uniform Crime Records of the lACP chose to obtain data on offenses that come to the attention of law enforcement agencies, since these data were more readily available than any other reportable crime information. Seven offenses, because of their seriousness, frequency of occurrence, and likelihood of being reported to police, were selected to serve as an Index for evaluating fluctuations in the volume of crime. These crimes, known as the Crime Index offenses, are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.

To provide nationwide uniformity in the reporting of data, standardized definitions were adopted for all offenses. Such standardization was necessary to overcome the variations in definitions of criminal offenses in different sections of the country. Without regard for local statutes, reporting agencies are required to submit their data in accordance with the UCR definitions of offenses as set forth in Appendix II of this publication. Because of variances in punishment for the same offenses in different state codes, there is no possibility in a program such as this to distinguish between felony and misdemeanor crimes.

The Committee on Uniform Crime Records, lACP, continues to serve in an advisory capacity to the FBI concerning the operation of the UCR Program. In this connection, the lACP, through surveys of poUce records and crime reporting sys- tems, plays an active and effective part. The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) in June, 1966, establish- ed a Committee on Uniform Crime Reporting to serve in an advisory role to the NSA membership and the national UCR Program. This Committee actively encourages sheriffs throughout the country to fully participate in the Program.

Committees on Uniform Crime Reporting within state law enforcement associations are also active in promoting interest in the UCR Program, fostering widespread and more intelligent use of uniform crime statistics and lending assistance to contributors when the need exists.

Methods of Data Collection

Agencies contributing to the UCR Program are responsible for compiling and submitting their crime data in one of two means, either directly to the FBI or through their state UCR Programs. Those which submit directly to the FBI are provided, on an individual basis, continuing guidance and support from the national Program.

Presently, there are 45 operational state-level UCR Programs and others are in various stages of develop- ment. These Programs are very effective in producing increased coverage of law enforcement agencies due to state mandatory reporting requirements; provid- ing more direct and frequent service to law enforce- ment agencies in assuring completeness and quality of information provided by them; and through coordination efforts, making information more readi- ly available for use at the state level. In addition, these state-level agencies have resulted in vastly more efficient operations at the national level.

With the development of a state UCR Program, the FBI ceases collection of data directly from individual law enforcement agencies within the state. Instead, completed information from these agencies is forwarded to the national Program through the state data collection agency.

The conditions under which these systems are developed ensure consistency and comparability in the data submitted to the national Program, as well as provide for regular and timely reporting of national crime data. These conditions are: (1) The state Program must conform to the national Uniform Crime Reports' standards, definitions, and informa- tion required. These requirements, of course, do not prohibit the state from collecting other statistical data beyond the national collection. (2) The state criminal justice agency must have a proven, effective, mandatory, statewide Program and have instituted acceptable quality control procedures. (3) Coverage within the state by a state agency must be, at least, equal to that attained by national Uniform Crime Reports. (4) The state agency must have adequate field staff assigned to conduct audits and to assist contributing agencies in record practices and crime reporting procedures. (5) The state agency must furnish to the FBI 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 must have the proven capability (tested over a period of time) to supply all the statistical data required in time to meet national Uniform Crime Reports' publication deadlines.

To fulfill its responsibilities in coimection with the UCR Program efforts, the FBI continues its internal procedures of editing and reviewing individual agen- cy reports for both completeness and quality; has direct contact with individual contributors within the state when necessary in connection with crime reporting matters, coordinating such contact with the state agency; and upon request, conducts training programs within the state on law enforcement rec-

ords and crime reporting procedures. These training sessions are, of course, coordinated with the state agency. Should circumstances develop whereby the state agency does not comply with the aforemen- tioned requirements, the national Program may reinstitute a direct collection of Uniform Crime Reports from law enforcement agencies within the state.

Reporting Procedures

On a monthly basis, law enforcement agencies report the number of Crime Index offenses (murder and nonneghgent manslaughter, forcible rape, rob- bery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) that become known to them. A count of these crimes, which are also known as Part I offenses, is taken from records of all complaints of crime received by law enforcement agencies from victims, officers who discovered the infractions, or other sources.

Whenever complaints of crime are determined through investigation to be unfounded or false, they are eliminated from the actual count. The number of "actual offenses known" in Part I is reported to the FBI whether anyone is arrested for the crime, the stolen property is recovered, or prosecution is under- taken. Additionally, each month law enforcement agencies report the total number of these crimes cleared. Crimes are "cleared" in one of two ways: (1) at least one person is arrested, charged, and turned over to the court for prosecution; or (2) by exception- al means when some element beyond police control precludes the physical arrest of an offender. The number of clearances which involved only the arrest of offenders under the age of 18; the value of property stolen and recovered in connection with Part I offenses; and detailed information pertaining to criminal homicide are also reported.

Arrest data, which include the age, sex, and race of persons arrested, are reported monthly for both Part I and Part II offenses, by crime category. Part II offenses, while excluding traffic violations, include all other crimes except those classified as Part I.

Various data on law enforcement officers assaulted or killed are collected on a monthly basis. Other law enforcement employee data, specifically the number of full-time sworn officers and other personnel, are reported as of October 31 of each calendar year.

Editing Procedures

Data reliability is a matter of high priority to the UCR Program. Each incoming report is examined not only for arithmetical accuracy but for deviations from the experiences of similar agencies or unusual

variations in crime levels as established by the reporting agency's previous submissions which may indicate errors.

Variations in reported crime levels and ratios may indicate possible incompleteness in reporting or changes in reporting procedures. Necessary arithmet- ical adjustments or noted deviations are brought to the attention of the submitting agency through correspondence. Not only are individual reports studied, but also, periodic trends for individual reporting units are prepared and evaluated. As a standard procedure, crime levels for each reporting agency are analyzed five times a year by the FBI. Any significant increase or decrease is made the subject of a special inquiry to the contributing agency, either directly or through its state Program. The communications containing these inquiries spe- cifically direct attention to possible changes in records or reporting procedures. When it is found that crime reporting procedures are in part responsi- ble for the difference in the level of crime, the figures for specific crime categories, or if necessary, totals are excluded from the trend tabulations.

Variations from reporting standards which cannot be resolved may be brought to the attention of the Committee on Uniform Crime Records of the lACP. In turn, the Committee may designate a representa- tive to make a personal visit and cooperatively assist the agency in authenticating records and reporting methods.

Regardless of the extent of the statistical editing processes used by the FBI, the accuracy of the data assembled under this Program depends primarily on the adherence of each contributor to the established standards of reporting. For this reason, the FBI is not in a position to vouch for the validity of individual agency reports.

Although the final responsibihty for data submis- sions rests with individual law enforcement agencies, the UCR Program endeavors to maintain data validity not only through its editing practices, but also, by providing training seminars and instruction- al materials in UCR procedures. All contributing agencies are supplied with the Uniform Crime Report- ing Handbook which outlines, in detail, procedures for classifying and scoring offenses. The Handbook illustrates and discusses the reporting forms, as well as the tally forms which facihtate the periodic tabulation of statistics.

In addition, the FBI conducts UCR seminars and workshops throughout the country for law enforce- ment personnel. National and state UCR Program personnel are utilized to enlist the cooperation of

new contributors and to explain the purpose of the Program and methods of assembling information for reporting. When reporting problems exist in the individual agencies and remedial efforts are unsuc- cessful, FBI Headquarters' personnel may visit the contributor to aid in resolving the problem.

Since a good records system is essential for accurate crime reporting, the FBI makes available the Manual of Police Records, which can serve as a guide in the establishment of a sound law enforce- ment records system. The Manual is currently undergoing extensive revision and updated copies should soon be available to law enforcement agen- cies.

To enhance communication among Program par- ticipants, the UCR "Newsletter" and State UCR Program Bulletins are utilized to explain revisions in the Program, as well as present information and instructional material. Newsletters are produced periodically as needs arise.

Reporting Area

The presentation of crime data by reporting areas is one method of analyzing the statistics submitted to the UCR Program. Nationwide, the United States is divisible by regions and geographic divisions. Fur- ther breakdowns by city size rely on population figures and proximity to metropolitan areas. The Program follows as closely as practical the defini- tions for geographical entities used by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, United States Department of Commerce.

A Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), generally, is made up of a core city or cities with a combined population of 50,000 or more and the surrounding county or counties which share certain metropolitan characteristics. "Other cities" are those outside SMSAs, most of which are incorporated. For crime reporting purposes, rural areas are made up of the unincorporated portions of counties outside urban places and SMSAs. As a general rule, sheriffs, county police, and many state police report on crimes committed within the limits of the counties but outside cities, while local police report on crimes committed within the city limits (urban places).

Certain tables within this pubUcat->in present statistics relative to "suburban" areas. A suburban area consists of cities with populations less than 50,000 together with counties which are within an SMSA. In this context, the major core city 's, of course, excluded. The concept of suburban area is especially important in a study of this nature because

of the particular crime conditions which exist in these communities surrounding the Nation's largest cities.

During 1978, the law enforcement agencies active in the UCR Program represented 99 percent of the United States population living in the SMSAs, 96 percent of the population in other cities, and 94 percent of the rural population. When considering the national population, as estimated by the Bureau of the Census, the combined coverage accounted for 98 percent of the total.

More detailed information concerning the geo- graphical entities used in this publication can be found in Appendix III.

The Crime Totals

Communities which do not submit crime reports to the UCR Program represent a relatively small per- cent of the total population. In each of the tabular presentations in this publication, the extent of popu- lation coverage represented by the data included is shown. The FBI conducts an ongoing effort to further increase the reporting areas.

Population Data

In computing crime rates by state, SMSA, geo- graphic division and region, and the Nation, popula- tion estimates released by the Bureau of the Census on July 1, 1978, were used. Population estimates for individual cities and counties were prepared using special census reports, state sources and estimates, commercial sources, and interpolation where no other estimate was available. The estimated United States population increase in 1978 was 1 percent over 1977.

Offense Estimation

It is possible that a law enforcement agency would submit fewer than the solicited 12 months of offense reports. Tables 1 through 5 of this publication represent total crime in the United States; therefore, offense counts here are estimated for agencies which fail to submit complete reports for the year. Offense estimation occurs within each of three areas: Stand- ard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, other cities, and rural areas. It is assumed that unreported portions of these areas have the same proportionate crime experience as that for which reports were received. Estimates for unreported areas are based on the reported crime experience of similar areas within a state.

Crime Trends

A further means of studying crime throughout the Nation is to examine trends. Percent change tabula- tions presented in this publication are homogeneous

to the extent that only figures for reporting units which have provided comparable data for the periods under consideration are included. National, geo- graphic, and area trends are computed for 2 consecu- tive years. Exclusions from trend computations are made when figures from a reporting unit are obvious- ly inaccurate for any period or when it is ascertained that unusual fluctuations are due to such variables as improved records procedures.

The current year's reporting is the most complete in terms of volume. Valid 2-year trends in Uniform Crime Reports may be used to reasonably establish long-term trends. In addition, these year-to-year trends can be applied as the basis for reestimating the volume of crime and in reconstructing crime trends for prior years.

The most reliable reports available for the current year are found in the crime rate tables by state and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. Care should be exercised in any direct data comparisons with statistics in prior issues of Crime in the United States. Changes in the crime level may have been due in part to improved reporting or records procedures, redefin- ition of reporting areas, or other variables.

Recent Developments

In October, 1978, the United States Congress passed legislation mandating that arson be classified as a Part I, Crime Index offense in the UCR Program. To fulfill the mandate, the staff of the Program established liaison with members of the law enforcement, fire service, and insurance communities in order to design a collection form which would provide meaningful information to all concerned. UCR contributors have since commenced submitting data on all arson offenses coming to their attention.

In accordance with standard classifications estab- lished by the Office of Management and Budget for all Federal administrative reporting and statistical activities, the UCR Program will modify its collec- tion of data concerning the age, sex, and race of persons arrested effective January 1, 1980. The material solicited concerning race will be condensed from the current categories to encompass only White, Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander. In addition, a collec- tion of ethnic origin, i.e., Hispanic or not Hispanic, will be instituted. Information collected on arrests of persons under the age of 18 will also change slightly. New age breakdowns will be used to show the total number of arrests of persons under the age of 10 and those of persons aged 10 to 12.

Compliance with the new Federal standards re- garding the collection of race and ethnicity data will also require modifications to the Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). The same revised catego- ries used on the Age, Sex, and Race of Persons Arrested form will be employed on the SHR to gather statistics on murder victims and offenders.

In the recent past, a number of the state UCR Programs have found it advantageous to modify their existing system of Uniform Crime Reports to a transactional or incident-based mode. Such a system, in many cases, enables the state agency to better meet the information needs of individual law en- forcement agencies by collecting data using state statute terminology and then converting the informa- tion at the state level to national UCR format. In many states, this approach substantially lessens the reporting burden on individual agencies, and at the same time, provides locally oriented data for com- parison within the state and externally with the Nation. Additionally, a much higher level of detail is captured from which state agencies are able to perform specific analyses upon request. While inci- dent-based crime reporting may not be practical for all states, for many it could be a very desirable goal. Extreme caution is needed in the development of an incident-based crime reporting system to ensure the state agency undertaking such a project is thoroughly cognizant of standard UCR procedures and has demonstrated a proficiency in handling UCR data. It is necessary to coordinate the transition from the

traditional or summary system of crime reporting to incident-based reporting with the national Program in order to ensure that both state and national information needs are addressed.

The fourth national State Uniform Crime Report- ing Conference was held on June 25 — June 28, 1979, at the FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia. Attendees included representatives from state UCR Programs and from law enforcement agencies devel- oping Programs within their states; members of the Committee on Uniform Crime Records of the lACP and the Uniform Crime Reporting Committee of the NSA; representatives from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and lACP Headquarters; and members of the fire service community. Major topics of discussion were the collection of arson data and the revised categories for the gathering of statistics on race and ethnicity.

These conferences provide a forum atmosphere for the resolution of data collection problems which are national in scope. Further, the bringing together of those responsible for crime statistics collection within the states allows for an exchange of ideas.

The 1979 conference was exceptionally important since the UCR Program, for the first time in 49 years, is faced with a change in the basic structure of the Crime Index. The contributions made by various state UCR Program representatives were of inestima- ble value in giving the national Program direction in arson data collection strategies.

CRIME CLOCK

1978

one VIOLENT CRIME < every 30 seconds

one CRIME INDEX OFFENSE < every 3 seconds

one PROPERTY CRIME < ^ every 3 seconds

one

MURDER

every 27 minutes

one FORCIBLE RAPE every 8 minutes

one

ROBBERY

every 76 seconds

one

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

every 57 seconds

one

BURGLARY

every 10 seconds

one LARCENY-THEFT every 5 seconds

one

MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT

every 32 seconds

The crime clock should be vl	ewed with ca	re. Being the mos	aggregate representation of	UCRdata. It	s designed
convey ihe annual reporlcd cri	ic experienc	c byshowingthe rt	lative frequency of occurre	ccofthclnde	Otfcnscs
This mode of display should nol be taken lo	,mply a regularity	in the commission of the Pa	rt 1 Oftenses;	diher. It
	ime to rixed	time intervals.

SECTION II CRIME INDEX OFFENSES REPORTED

MURDER AND NONNEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER

DEFINITION.

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, is the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

The classification of this offense, as in all other Crime Index offenses, is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. Not included in the count for this offense classification are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides, which are the killings of felons by law enforcement officers in the line of duty or by private citizens; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

I

	TRFNn
		Rate per 100,000
Year	Number of offenses	inhabitants
1977	19,121	8.8
J978	19,555	9.0
Percent change ....	+ 2.3	+ 2.3

Volume

In the United States during 1978, there were an estimated 19,555 murders which represented approxi- mately 2 percent of the total violent crimes.

A geographic breakdown of murder by region revealed that 42 percent of the murders occurred in the Southern States, which account for the largest regional population; 21 percent in the North Central States; 20 percent in the Western States; and 17 percent in the Northeastern States.

In 1978, December had a higher frequency of murder offenses than any other month of the year.

		'
,{MtmBHBY¥mn
jV^U«,F^^An^,MA.„^		/
	/
-^ ^-^ '^ —
J
J
	NOV.	0	EC.

Trend

Nationally, the number of murders increased 2 percent from 1977 to 1978.

Regionally, the number of murder offenses in 1978 rose 5 percent in the Western States and 4 percent in the Southern States. The North Central States reported a 1 -percent decrease, while the Northeast- ern States showed virtually no change.

Large core cities of 250,000 or more inhabitants and suburban areas experienced increases in the number of murders in 1978, 2 and 4 percent, respectively. In the rural areas the volume of murders was down 3 percent.

The following chart reveals a decline of 6 percent from 1974 to 1978 in the murder counts.

Rate

In 1978, there was an average of 9 murder victims for every 100,000 inhabitants in the Nation.

The number of murder victims in relation to population was highest in the Southern States with 12

murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 3-percent ra increase over the previous year. The Western State rate was 10 per 100,000, a 2-percent rise over tl 1977 rate. Both the North Central and Northeastei States experienced rates of 7 per 100,000 populatioi however, the North Central Region's rate represen ed a 1 -percent decrease, while the Northeast's rai showed no change from the previous year.

Collectively, the SMSAs reported a murder rate c 10 victims per 100,000 inhabitants; the rural areas, rate of 8 per 100,000 inhabitants; and cities outsid metropolitan areas (Other Cities) reported a murde rate of 5 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Nature

To allow for a more detailed analysis of murdei the Uniform Crime Reporting Program collect supplemental information on this offense. Data an collected monthly on the age, sex, and race o murder victims and offenders; the types of weapon; used in murders; the circumstances surrounding th( offenses; and the relationships between victims anc offenders.

As has consistently been the experience in recen years, murder victims were male in approximately : of every 4 instances in 1978. On the average, 54 ol each 100 victims were white, 44 were Negro, and 2 were other races.

During 1978, 15,856 offenders were identified in connection with the murders of 14,279 victims. Most of the victims (13,329) were slain in single victim situations. Of these, 11,916 were killed by single offenders and 1,413 were murdered by multiple offenders. Concerning homicides involving multiple victims, 749 persons were killed by 322 offenders in incidents involving one assailant and multiple vic- tims and 201 victims were slain by 215 offenders in multiple victim/multiple offender situations.

In 1978, firearms again predominated as the weapons most often used in the commission of murders throughout the Nation. The accompanying chart illustrates a breakdown by type of weapon used in murder offenses in the United States. In the Southern States, firearms were used in 70 percent of the murders; in the North Central States, 67 percent; in the Western States, 57 percent; and in the Northeastern States. 52 percent. Nationwide, 64 percent of the murders were committed through the use of firearms. Handguns were the weapons used in 49 percent of the total murders.

Cutting or stabbing instruments were used in 19 percent of the murders. The Northeastern States, where 1 of every 4 murders was committed with a

by Relationship, 1978

ercent distribution)
	Total	Felony type	Suspected felony type	Romantic tnangle	Argument over money or property	Other arguments	Miscellaneous non-felony type	Unable to determine
Total'	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
	4.3 5.6 .6 1.0 1.0 1.6 .9 .2 3.4 26.3 3.7 1.3 1.7 1.7 2.9 13.5 30.1	.2	.3 1.2 .2 .4	4.2 3.4	2.7 4.7 .5	9.4 9.1 .7 1.7 .3 1.1 1.6 .3 5.5 33.8 5.0 2.8 3.2 2.4 2.4 8.8 11.9	3.2 8.3 1.2 1.4 3.4 4.8 1.0 .2 4.5 30.7 4.1 .9 1.5 1.6 6.2 13.3 13.6
ift
°' * "	.2 .2	.2 .2
	.7 .3 4.6 .5 .5 .2 .7 4.5 85.6	.8 2.0 .2 3.9 50.3 12.0 .8 .3 3.8 3.5 7.3 7.3
'"	.4
™ "	.1 1.0 18.5 1.5 .4 1.6 1.4 35.0 39.6
	1.1 52.9 7.5 2.5 4.6 2.3 6.3 8.0 6.3
f rf
'^
nknown relationship

■Because of rounding, percentages may not add to total.

Lge, Sex, and Race of Murder Victims,	1978
	Number	Percent	Sex	Race
Age	Male	Female	White	Negro	Indian	Chinese	Japanese	All Others
Total	18,714		14,263 76.2	4,451 23.8	10,111 54.0	8.201 43.8	118 .6	59 .3	21 .1	204
Percent	100.0'	1.1
	207 339 158 247 1,619 3,093 3,025 2.188 1,707 1,378 1,091 1,000 761 555 412 272 411 251	1.1 .8 1.3 8.7 16.5 16.2 11.7 9.1 7.4 5.8 5.3 4.1 3.0 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.3	195 87 125 1,181