Data Visualization with Tableau

Notes: National or state offense totals are based on data from all reporting agencies and estimates for unreported areas.

United States-Total -

• The 168 murder and nonnegligent homicides that occurred as a result of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 are included in the national estimate.
• The 2,823 murder and nonnegligent homicides that occurred as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, are not included in the national estimates.

Alabama -

• 2011 - because of changes in the state’s reporting practices, figures are not comparable to previous years’ data.

Delaware -

• Since complete 1995 data were not available from Delaware, standard estimation procedures were applied to derive the 1995 state estimate.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide 1998 forcible rape figures in accordance with national UCR guidelines. The 1998 forcible rape total for Delaware was estimated by reducing the number of reported offenses by the proportion of male forcible rape victims statewide.

District of Columbia -

• 1999-2008 District of Columbia data include reports from the Zoological Police
• 2002-2008 data include reports from the Metro Transit Police
• 2012 data includes offenses reported by the Zoological Police and the Metro Transit Police.

Florida -

• Reporting problems at the state resulted in no usable 1988 data. The state total was estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the geographic division in which the state resides was applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state total was compiled from the sums of the population group estimates.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1996 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. * The state UCR Program was able to provide an aggregated state total and data were received from 94 individual Florida agencies.

Illinois -

• The state UCR Program was unable to provide 1985-current forcible rape figures in accordance with national UCR Program guidelines. The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state. Rockford, Illinois, has provided valid forcible rape counts as of 2006.
• For 1993 state NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Illinois. Since valid annual totals were available for approximately 60 Illinois agencies, those counts were maintained. The counts for the remaining jurisdictions were replaced with the most recent valid annual totals or were generated using standard estimation procedures. The results of all sources were then combined to arrive at the 1993 state total for Illinois.
• For 1994 state NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Illinois. Illinois totals were generated using only the valid crime rates for the East North Central Division. Within each population group, the state’s offense totals were estimated based on the rate per 100,000 inhabitants within the remainder of the division.
• For 1996-current, the state UCR Program was unable to provide complete offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. Valid Part I counts were available for most of the largest cities (100,000 and over in population). For other agencies, the only available counts generated by the Illinois State Program were state totals based upon an incident-level system without indication of multiple offenses recorded within single incidents. Therefore, the UCR Hierarchy Rule could not be applied in order to convert the state’s data to Summary Reporting System data. (The Hierarchy Rule requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident is counted.) To arrive at a comparable state estimate to be included in national compilations, the Illinois State Program’s state totals (which were inflated because of the nonapplication of the Hierarchy Rule) were reduced by the proportion of multiple offenses reported within single incidents in the NIBRS database. Valid totals for the large cities were excluded from the reduction process.

Iowa -

• NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Iowa in 1991. State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the West North Central Division were applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the population group estimates.

Kansas -

• NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Kansas in 1993. State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the West North Central Division were applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the population group estimates.
• NIBRS conversion efforts resulted in estimation for Kansas in 1994. State totals were generated using only the valid crime rates for the West North Central Division. Within each population group, the state’s offense totals were estimated based on the rate per 100,000 inhabitants within the remainder of the division. The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1995 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The state UCR Program was able to provide valid 1994 state totals which were then updated using 1995 crime trends for the West North Central Division.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1996 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The Kansas state estimate was extrapolated from 1996 January-June state totals provided by the Kansas State UCR Program.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1997 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The Kansas state estimate was extrapolated from 1996 January-June state totals provided by the Kansas State UCR Program. The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1998 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To arrive at 1998 estimates, 1997 state totals supplied by the Kansas State UCR Program were updated using 1998 crime trends for the West North Central Division.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1999 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To arrive at the 1999 estimate for Kansas, the 1998 state total supplied by the state UCR Program was updated using 1999 crime trends for the division in which Kansas is located.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2000 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To arrive at the 2000 estimate for Kansas, the 1999 state estimate was updated using 2000 crime trends for the West North Central Division.

Kentucky -

• Reporting problems at the state resulted in no usable 1988 data. The state total was estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the geographic division in which the state resides was applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state total was compiled from the sums of the population group estimates.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1996 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The 1995 and 1996 percent changes within the geographic division in which Kentucky is categorized were applied to the valid 1995 state total to generate the 1996 state total. The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1997 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The 1996 and 1997 percent changes within the geographic division in which Kentucky is categorized were applied to the valid 1996 state total to effect the 1997 state total.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1998 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The state total was estimated by using 1997 figures for the nonreporting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percentage changes for the division in which Kentucky is located. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1999 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To arrive at the 1999 estimate for Kentucky, the 1998 state total supplied by the state UCR Program was updated using 1999 crime trends for the division in which Kentucky is located.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2000 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To arrive at the 2000 estimate for Kentucky, the 1999 state total supplied by the state UCR Program was updated using 2000 crime trends for the division in which Kentucky is located. The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2001 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To arrive at the 2001 estimate for Kentucky, the 2000 state estimate was updated using 2001 crime trends reported for the East South Central Division.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2002 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To obtain the 2002 state crime count, the FBI contacted the state UCR Program, and the state agency was able to provide their latest state total, 2000. Therefore, the 2001 state estimate was updated for inclusion in the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States by using the 2001 crime trends for the division in which the state is located. To derive the 2002 state estimate, the 2002 crime trends for the division were applied to the adjusted 2001 state estimate.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2003 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To obtain the 2003 estimate, the 2003 crime trend for the East South Central Division was applied to an adjusted 2002 state estimate. The 2002 state count was reestimated by applying the 2002 crime trend for the East South Central Division using a more current figure, 2001 state totals, provided by the state UCR Program. The adjusted 2002 estimate differs from the figure published in the 2002 edition of Crime in the United States which was originally estimated using 2002 state totals

Maine -

• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1999 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The Maine Department of Public Safety forwarded monthly January through October crime counts for each law enforcement contributor; since 12 months of data were not received, the national Program estimated for the missing data following standard estimation procedures to arrive at a 1999 state total.

Michigan -

• The state UCR Program was unable to provide 1993 forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The rape totals were estimated using national rates per 100,000 inhabitants within the eight population groups and assigning the forcible rape volumes proportionally to the state.

Minnesota -

• All agencies 1993 and 2005-Present (with the exception of Minneapolis and St. Paul) - The data collection methodology for the offense of forcible rape used by the State Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program does not comply with national UCR Program guidelines. Consequently, their figures for forcible rape and violent crime (of which forcible rape is part) are not included in this tool.

Montana -

• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1994 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. State totals were estimated by updating previous valid annual totals for individual jurisdictions, subdivided by population group. Percent changes for each offense within each population group of the Mountain Division were applied to the previous valid annual totals. The state totals were compiled from the sums of the population group estimates. The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1995 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. State estimates were computed by updating the previous valid annual totals using the 1994 versus 1995 percent changes for the Mountain Division.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1996 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The 1995 and 1996 percent changes within the geographic division in which Montana is categorized were applied to the valid 1995 state total to generate the 1996 state total. The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1997 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The 1996 and 1997 percent changes within the geographic division in which Montana is categorized were applied to the valid 1996 state total to effect the 1997 state total.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1998 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The state total was estimated by using 1997 figures for the nonreporting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percentage changes for the division in which Montana is located. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1999 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To arrive at the 1999 estimate for Montana, the 1998 state total supplied by the state UCR Program was updated using 1999 crime trends for the division in which Montana is located.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 2000 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. To arrive at the 2000 estimate for Montana, the 1999 state total supplied by the state UCR Program was updated using 2000 crime trends for the division in which Montana is located.
• 2011 - because of changes in the state’s reporting practices, figures are not comparable to previous years’ data.

New Hampshire -

• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1997 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The 1996 and 1997 percent changes within the geographic division in which New Hampshire is categorized were applied to the valid 1996 state total to effect the 1997 state total.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1998 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The state total was estimated by using 1997 figures for the nonreporting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percentage changes for the division in which New Hampshire is located. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received.
• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1999 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The state total for New Hampshire was estimated by using the 1998 figures for the 1999 nonreporting areas and applying the 2-year percent change for the New England Division.

New York -

• 2012 - because of changes in the state/local agency’s reporting practices, figures are not comparable to previous years’ data.

Oklahoma -

• For 1995, the increase in murders was the result of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Pennsylvania -

• Since complete 1995 data were not available from Pennsylvania, standard estimation procedures were applied to derive the 1995 state estimate.

Vermont -

• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1997 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The 1996 and 1997 percent changes within the geographic division in which Vermont is categorized were applied to the valid 1996 state total to effect the 1997 state total.

Wisconsin -

• The state UCR Program was unable to provide complete 1998 offense figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. The state total was estimated by using 1997 figures for the nonreporting areas and applying 1997 versus 1998 percentage changes for the division in which Wisconsin is located. The estimates for the nonreporting areas were then increased by any actual 1998 crime counts received.

United States

• The murder and nonnegligent homicides that occurred as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, are not included.

Sources: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports as prepared by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data