U.S. Department Of Justice 

Office~of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

,-- / ~6/% 

Trends and Patterns in Crime: 

Past, Present, and Future.. 

West 

Compilation and Revision of Materials Presented at 

BJA's ".lustice in the New Millennium" Regional Conferences 

May -]une, 2000 

PROPERTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849-6000 

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov.
U.S. Department Of Justice 

Office~of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Lt 

~7 

Trends and Patterns in Crime: 

Past, Present, and Future.. 

West 

Compilation and Revision of Materials Presented at 

BJA's "Justice in the New Millennium" Regional Conferences 

May - June, 2000 

PROPERTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849-6000 
Trends and Patterns in Crime: 

Past, Present, and Future 

Compilation and Revision of Materials Presented 

at 

BJA's "Justice in the New Millennium" Regional 

Conferences 

May - June, 2000 

Prepared by 

Community Research Associates, Inc. 

William V. Pelfrey, Consultant 

Virginia Commonwealth University 

November 2000 
Bureau of Justice Assistance 

810 7 th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

(202)514-6278 

Community Research Associates, Inc. 

311 Plus Park Blvd., Ste 100 

Nashville, TN 37122 

(615) 399-9908 

309 West Clark Street 

Champaign, IL 61820 

(217) 398-3120 

400 N. Columbus Street, Ste 205 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

(703) 519-4510 

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 95-DD-BX-K001 awarded 

by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of 

Justice to Community Research Associates, Inc. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a 

component of the Office of Justice Programs. Points of view or opinion in this 

document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice and Community Research Associates, Inc. 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................ 1 

Introduction ..................................................................................... 11 

Crime Trends and Patterns: 

Northeast Region ............................................................. 15 

Southeast Region .......................................................... .. 49 

North Central Region ....................................................... 83 

South Central Region ...................................................... 119 

West Region ................................................................ 151 

Methodology ................................................................................. 185 

References .................................................................................... 191 
Trends and Patterns in Crime: 

Past, Present, and Future 

Compilation and Revision of Materials Presented 

at 

BJA's "Justice in the New Millennium" Regional Conferences 

May - June, 2000 

Executive Summary 

In preparation for presentations at the "Justice in the New Millennium" regional 

conferences, existing datasets were identified, explored, collated, and assessed on crime, 

arrests, demographic projections, and social issues. These data were organized so that 

similar presentations could be made at Regional Conferences but tailoring the data to be 

specific to that region and the jurisdictions comprising it. The objective was to provide a 

snapshot of the past trends or patterns related to violent crime and drug use and 

comments of future trends or patterns. This was a daunting task but one which seemed 

imminently logical considering the topic for the Regional Conferences, Justice in the 

New Millennium. The manifest purpose was to provide clear, albeit general, information 

on crime and drugs in the jurisdictions. The latent purpose was to promote interest and 

enquiry into other ways of exploring, assessing, identifying and addressing issues such as 

crime and disorder, utilizing crime data but also utilizing social and demographic data in 

a fashion defensible based on criminological theory. For each of the regional 

presentations, crime and arrest data were used to describe the nature and extent of the 

problem and demographic data were used to describe projected changes in the 

jurisdictions. Together the two types of information provided defensible comments about 

the future. 

Projections of demographic changes such as population growth, rates of change in the 

juvenile population, and race and ethnicity projections, are based on reasonably reliable 

information from governmental sources so there is a presumption of accuracy in these 

figures. Projections of social problems such as crime and drug use are much more 

problematic, however. The document concludes with a description of the Methodology 

used in these assessments. It is clear from the comments about limitations of the data that 

they are not as reliable or valid as we would prefer. They do however, in the absence of 

better, more reliable, more valid data, represent the most useful information reasonably 

available for such a project as this. 

The main document has one section devoted to each of the five geographic Regions of 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), State and Local Assistance Division. The 

conclusion of each section includes comments and observations on crime problems and 

drug problems, not in a statistical probability fashion, that would be guaranteed to be 

incorrect, but in a narrative description, based on the information assessed. The five 
sections of the document are "Crime Trends and Patterns" in each of the BJA regions 

that are designated as the Northeast, Southeast, North Central, South Central, and West 

Regions. This Executive Summary also includes the concluding comments from each of 

the sections as well as general comments on the nation. 

The format of each section of this publication is consistent with that of the regional 

presentations during the "Justice in the New Millennium" regional conference. There is 

redundancy in the format but the data and information for each section is tailored to apply 

to those jurisdictions within each region. 

The objective for the regional presentations and the objective for this publication is to 

provide policy makers with the best, most current information on crime and drug use, as 

well as demographic projections which are likely to affect the jurisdictions, so that better, 

more appropriate plans can be derived from the data. 

Violent Crime 

Violent crime in the United States is lower than it has been in many years. The FBI's 

Uniform Crime Report for 1998, Crime in the United States notes "In 1998, the lowest 

national violent crime rate since 1985 was recorded .... " While this is an appreciated 

trend, there are still problems. 

Most states have shared in the decline in violent crime seen in recent years. In observing 

trends in crime, however, it appears that there are states which have not participated in 

the same levels of decline or which still have unusually high rates of violent crime. 

Within each region, states will be discussed but it is important to view some patterns 

nationally. 

The jurisdictions in the United States with the highest average violent crime rates from 

1996 through 1998 were: 

District of Columbia Louisiana 

Florida Illinois 

South Carolina California 

New Mexico Tennessee 

Maryland Nevada 

These jurisdictions were identified by averaging the violent crime rates, per 100,000 

population for the District of Columbia and each state in the Nation for 1996, 1997 and 

1998. Average rates were used in an effort to "smooth" annual variations and gain a 

more accurate impression of levels of violence, as recorded by the Uniform Crime 

Reporting (UCR) Program. Violent crimes are defined as murder, rape, robbery, and 

aggravated assault, consistent with the UCR definitions. While each of the jurisdictions 

listed above had violent crime rate averages of 750 per 100,000 population or greater (the 

U.S. violent crime rate in 1998 was 566.4 per 100,000 population), the range was 
significant among those jurisdictions. Nevada, with the lowest average of the top ten, 

had 751.24 violent index crimes per 100,000 population while the District of Columbia 

had more than 2,000 per 100,000 population. 

Other jurisdictions had unusually high rates of certain violent crimes. The jurisdictions 

with the highest average murder rates for the three year period were: 

District of Columbia Nevada 

Puerto Rico Maryland 

Louisiana New Mexico 

Mississippi 

Each of these jurisdictions averaged more than l0 murders per 100,000 persons. It 

should be noted that all of these jurisdictions realized decreases in murder rates, 

comparing the average for the three years to the rate seen in 1998, except New Mexico 

that realized an increase in the murder rate from 1997 to 1998. Puerto Rico had an 

average murder rate of almost 20 per 100,000 population for the three year period but 

even that was low in comparison to the murder rate of the District of Columbia at 59.6 

per 100,000 population. 

Those jurisdictions with the highest average rape rates for the three year period were: 

Alaska Florida 

Delaware Minnesota 

New Mexico Washington 

Nevada Tennessee 

Michigan South Carolina 

For all of these states except Alaska and Delaware, the 1998 rape rates were lower than 

the three year average. As is stated in the text of the regional discussions of crime, there 

are reasons for rape rates to vary, other than sheer increases in criminal events. 

Robbery rates were highest in the following jurisdictions, averaged over the period 1996 

through 1998: 

District of Columbia 

Puerto Rico 

Maryland 

New York 

These and most other jurisdictions have seen a decrease in robbery rates, however. 

Robbery rates and population density are positively and significantly correlated. This 

criminological fact may help in understanding the high rates of the jurisdictions listed 

here but, as described in the document, some sparsely populated jurisdictions have 

experienced high rates of robbery, suggesting that it is not a population density 

phenomenon at work but some more subtle issues serving as root causes. 

3 
Aggravated assault, comprising the bulk of violent crime rates in almost every 

jurisdiction, showed the highest averages in the following jurisdictions: 

District of Columbia 

South Carolina 

Florida 

New Mexico 

Louisiana 

New Mexico's aggravated assault rates have increased consistently over the three year 

period, however. With its population growing more heterogeneous, a trait associated 

with difficulties in social control, growing at a rapid pace (42.5% from 2000 to 2025), 

and a growing proportion of juveniles, the state is likely to experience greater violent 

crime in the future. Florida's growth pattern shows a remarkable increase of 39.5% in its 

population from 2000 to 2025, but the juvenile proportion will decrease. This increase in 

total population, combined with ethnic heterogeneity, is likely to continue crime 

problems, either real or perceived (fear). 

Generally, the District of Columbia represents the jurisdiction with the most serious 

violent crime problem in the Nation. It is, however, significantly different from almost 

every other jurisdiction due to its limited geographic size and the number of persons who 

travel into the jurisdiction daily. The population of the city is estimated at 523,000 but 

the population of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is 4,629,510. When the MSA 

crime rates are considered, the area actually had a lower violent crime rate in 1998 than 

Wilmington, North Carolina. This does not, however, diminish the impact of high crime 

rates in the District of Columbia. The diversity of the population of the District of 

Columbia, described later, along with its poverty and juvenile population growth patterns 

over the next 25 years, suggest that crime will continue to plague the city, with social 

disorganization greater in the future than in the past. 

There are some unusual patterns in crime rates discussed in subsequent sections. Puerto 

Rico has high rates of murder and robbery and the lowest rate in the nation for rape, but it 

is suggested that there must be some reporting issues associated with rape in the territory. 

Rural murder rates, for example, are extraordinarily high in New Mexico and South 

Carolina. Criminologists have offered some interesting and insightful explanations for 

the "narrowing of the gap" between urban crime rates and rural crime rates (See Weisheit 

and Donnermeyer, 2000). The demographic projections suggest that ethnic diversity and 

racial diversity will produce less homogeneous populations in those states, perhaps 

further challenging the rural areas to enjoy the diversity that the nation cherishes. 

Drug Use 

According to drug treatment data, treatment rates for drugs (other than alcohol) were 

highest in the following jurisdictions in 1997: 

Connecticut 

Oregon 

Massachusetts 

Maryland 

Rhode Island 

New York 

New Jersey 

District of Columbia 

Washington 

4 
The jurisdictions with high treatment rates, by drug category, varied significantly but it 

was evident from the data that the Western United States has experienced a significant 

influx of stimulant abuse. The rate, per 100,000 population, of treatment for stimulants is 

not as high as with some other drugs but the implications are serious, particularly with 

new drugs such as MDMA (methylenedioxymethamhetamine), known as "Ecstasy," 

becoming popular in a variety of settings. The growth and development of drug usage, as 

measured by treatment is discussed for each region but the implications to crime are 

serious. 

Where drug use data suggest problems and crime data suggest problems, it appears that 

problems will be compounded. Such is the case with the District of Columbia. Crime 

data and demographic trend data, coupled with drug use, suggests serious problems for 

the jurisdiction. 

Drug treatment data appear to be a better source of information on the nature and extent 

of drug use and abuse than arrest data, due to missing data in reported UCR arrest 

statistics and the policy issues associated with aggressive arrest strategies. 

Demographic Changes and Patterns 

Past crime rates combined with future demographic projections, may suggest some things 

about crime in the future. From 2000 to 2025, it is projected by the U.S. Census Bureau 

that California's population will increase 51.55 percent, Hawaii's population will increase 

44.15 percent, New Mexico's 40.43 percent, Florida's 35.9 percent, Alaska's 35.53 

percent and Texas' 35.11 percent. Some of these increases will be due to migration 

(particularly true of Florida) and some due to increases in different age groups. It is 

expected that those states with large increases in juvenile population, particularly 

juveniles aged 5 through 17, will experience increases in juvenile crime and juvenile 

victimization, although Zimring (1998) has insightful warnings on such projections. 

The states with the largest increases in juveniles from 1995 to 2025 are: 

Jurisdiction Increase in Juveniles 1995-2025 Total Population Change 2000-25 

California 70.33% 51.55% 

Hawaii 59.62% 44.15% 

District of Columbia 55.41% 25.24% 

New Mexico 42.54% 40.43% 

Alaska 41.61% 35.53% 

Texas 38.21% 35.11% 

Arizona 35.01% 33.64% 
Three of these jurisdictions currently have more than 53 percent of their children living in 

low income households (District of Columbia, New Mexico, and Arizona). Additionally, 

racial or ethnic diversity will cause changes in the social organization and structure of 

these and other jurisdictions. While Florida is not likely to lead the nation in percent of 

juveniles in the state, it will have significant total population growth over the next 25 

years with an increase in the average age of its citizens. This will suggest other types of 

problems such as fear of crime. 

Most of these states, as well as South Carolina, Maryland, and Louisiana, have 

experienced high rates of violent crime recently. It was suggested at the regional 

conferences that states prepare for the growth and diversity of each state's population so 

that change can be celebrated and welcomed. 

Below are the major conclusions from each of the regional assessments. They are offered 

to provide a more panoramic view of the patterns that appear to be developing within the 

Nation and the regions. 

Conclusions appropriate to the West Region: 

Violent Crime has been and is likely to continue to be highest in New Mexico, 

particularly rural areas of the state and Albuquerque; metro areas of Nevada, 

particularly Clark County; Alaska, with a strong influence from alcohol use 

among juveniles; certain urban areas of California; and Multnomah County, 

Oregon; 

In the next 25 years, due to growth and diversity, pressure will be placed on the 

justice system as an effective means of social control in Nevada, California, New 

Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii; 

Juvenile crime will be a significant factor in California, especially 2015-2025; 

Alaska and New Mexico, especially beginning in 2005; and Hawaii, throughout 

the next 25 years, due to increases in potential juvenile victims and offenders; 

As juvenile-preferred drugs develop, especially in Western states, all drug use and 

abuse will have greater impact and influence on crime, including violent crime 

(particularly with stimulant use) and property crime (with other drugs); 

New Mexico is likely to remain a major pocket of violent crime but California's 

population growth and heterogeneity is likely to produce increases in crime, 

including violent crime; 

High rape rates in Alaska and high violent crime rates in New Mexico and 

Nevada, combined with drug abuse problems in Oregon, and dramatic growth in 

juveniles and Hispanic populations in California, suggest that the West Region is 

likely to be an area of concem in the future. 
Conclusions appropriate to the Southeast Region: 

Rural South Carolina counties, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands are experiencing extraordinary levels of violence, particularly 

high murder rates and robbery rates; 

The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

appear to have extremely high murder rates; 

Florida, metro-Tennessee, and rural South Carolina have had high rape rates, 

among the highest in the Nation; 

Rural South Carolina, the District of Columbia, and Florida appear to have the 

most significant violence problems in the region; 

South Carolina's high level of alcohol abuse treatment suggests a relationship 

may exist between substance abuse and violence; 

Dramatic growth in the population, combined with ethnic heterogeneity and an 

already high violent crime rate, are likely to impact Florida while poverty, racial 

heterogeneity and astounding levels of violence are likely to affect the District of 

Columbia; 

Conclusions appropriate to the South Central Region: 

Louisiana has experienced a violent crime problem that is significant and likely to 

continue. This violent crime problem includes high rates of murder and 

aggravated assault in the New Orleans area but also in the rural areas of the state; 

The St. Louis area has significant juvenile murder and aggravated assault 

problems; 

Oklahoma and Central Alabama have high rates of violence, with Oklahoma's 

violent crime problems almost certainly associated with drug use; 

Ethnic diversity and astounding growth in Texas in terms of total population, 

juvenile population, and ethnic diversity as well as racial diversity and poverty in 

other South Central states, will contribute to social disorganization and increase 

the likelihood of higher levels of crime or disorder in the future; 

Conclusions appropriate to the Northeast Region: 

Murder does not appear to be a problem in the Northeast Region, except for 

unusually high rates in Maryland, where rape and robbery rates are also high; 
Maryland and Delaware appear to have high rates of sexual assaults, as well as 

clusters of counties in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; 

Aggravated assault rates were highest in Massachusetts but Maryland also has had 

high rates; 

Heroin use and cocaine use appear to be highest in the Northeast Region, 

compared to all other regions; 

Race and ethnicity, rather than population growth, are likely to be the leading 

reasons for change in the region over the next 25 years. These variables, 

combined with poverty measures and mobility, suggest that New York will 

recognize crime problems in the future, although there should be a reduction in 

juvenile crime due to a relative reduction in the proportion of juveniles. 

Conclusions appropriate to the North Central Region: 

Non-reporting through the UCR Program makes it difficult to recognize and 

interpret crime problems in some states in the North Central Region. 

Other than Illinois, murder does not appear to be a problem in the region; 

Rape appeared to be a problem only in Michigan and Minnesota, within the 

region, and it appears that rape rates will increase in the region, unlike any other 

region of the country. The increases in rape rates in Michigan, however, appear 

to be due in part or entirely to aggressive facilitation of reporting; 

Illinois, particularly Cook County, has shown clear and consistent high levels of 

violence; 

Minnesota has engaged in higher levels of arrests for drug sales while Wyoming 

has recorded higher rates of drug possession arrests. Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Ohio, however, have shown the highest levels of drug use, based on treatment 

data; 

Illinois is likely to experience significant racial and ethnic changes in the next two 

decades, contributing to some social instability; 

One piece of information is abundantly clear, and it applies to each region: data on 

reported crime and arrests are insufficient to judge the degree of the crime problem. 

Criminal justice planning is severely hampered by the lack of good, reliable, valid data on 

crime. It is recommended that states develop other measures of crime such as 

victimization surveys, in addition to reported crime, to better track the rates and locations 

of problems. Spatial analysis as well as the inclusion of social and demographic 

8 
variables may help to understand the nature and extent of crime and disorder. Clearly, 

good decisions require good data. 
10 
Introduction 

"There is much crime in America, more than ever is reported, far more than ever is 

solved, far too much for the health of the Nation." This statement is certainly accurate 

today, even though violent crime has decreased remarkably in the recent past. We find 

ourselves at about the same level of violent crime as was experienced when this statement 

was printed on the first page of The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: A Report by 

the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 

1967. In 1968, because of the historically high levels of crime and violence, Congress 

passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Our violent crime rates in the 

United States have now fallen back to those high levels that led to the passage of the most 

sweeping efforts to control crime. We can take little comfort in the knowledge that we 

have returned to those levels but with better information and better assessment, we may 

be able to understand the places and patterns posing the most serious crime risks. The 

belief that an analytical approach could contribute to an understanding of the crime 

picture, which could contribute to a more successful amelioration of the problems, was 

the basis for soliciting region-specific and state-specific presentations at the Regional 

Conferences of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), conducted during May - July, 

2000. The Bureau of Justice Assistance has long stressed the importance of 

understanding and articulating the "Nature of the Problem" before considering strategies 

to address crime. The presentations sought to provide specificity regarding crime rates, 

crime regions, and expected problems based on future population trends. This 

publication captures the essence of the information provided in the conferences, as well 

as additional and revised information that became available subsequent to the 

Conferences. 

Through invited, structured, organized presentations, workshops, and panels, BJA 

focused on Justice in the New Millennium as the theme for each of the five Regional 

Conferences conducted in May through July, 2000. A key element in addressing future 

justice, and crime, is establishing a nexus between the past, the present and the future. 

Each conference represented a subtle but serious model for strategic planning. Attendees 

participated in discussions on policy, planning, partnerships, technology, problems, 

analytical tools, tactics, and strategies. The crime problems, past and present, as well as 

demographic projections which may influence crime in the future served as the basis for 

one of the presentations at each conference and this document. 

This publication is organized around the five BJA regions and the states comprising those 

regions. There is also a national component that focuses attention on the changes likely 

to occur in the population of the United States and the implications of those changes to 

the states and regions. While there is a clear preference to have all information reduced 

to state-level or even local level, crime, like most other social ills, is best recognized in 

reference and relationship to other jurisdictions. The use of regions is a defensible 

method of focusing, not for the purpose of drawing invidious comparisons but to 

recognize the arbitrariness of state boundaries in addressing crime, drug use, and 

violence. Where regions are used, generally, state-level information has been maintained 

so those reading this publication can draw their attention to the jurisdiction of greatest 

11 
interest. Performing intensive, specific assessments for every state, as has been done at 

the request of 18 states in the past several years, could not have been done on a timely 

basis for all 50 states, and the "Justice in the New Millennium" regional conference 

schedules could not have accommodated presentations with that degree of specificity. 

Projections of demographic changes such as population growth, rates of change in the 

juvenile population, and race and ethnicity projections, are based on reasonably reliable 

information from governmental sources so there is a presumption of accuracy in these 

figures (See "Methodology" at the end of this publication for documentation and 

limitations of these data). Projections of social problems such as crime and drug use are 

fraught with errors, however. Since there is no statistically sound method for projection, 

any effort is likely to be wrong. Where there are suggestions of future problems, the 

comments are based on criminological foundations combined with historical information 

on crime patterns and projections of population dynamics, so they are believed to have 

some merit. But by raising the issues and making the suggestions, actions may be taken 

to head off the problems, thus nullifying the projections. That is the objective, not to be 

correct but to assist in equipping policy-makers with good information and reasonable 

inferences about the future so that actions may be considered to remedy problems. With 

that lofty objective in mind, we will address the nature and extent of violent crime and 

drug use in the five regions of the Untied States, then offer comments on the national 

trends and patterns. The BJA regions presumably were not defined based on cultural, 

social, or economic similarities but based on geography, contiguity, and caseload 

comparability within BJA. No effort has been made here to support or to challenge the 

organization of regions. Since they are identified, they will be used as an intermediate 

disaggregating criteria. Since the state-level information has remained intact, there 

appears to be no harm in whatever intermediate system is used to focus on trends and 

patterns. As stated in the Methodology, there are limitations to each set of data used but 

those data represent reasonable approximations of the issues being studied. With those 

caveats and disclaimers, what follows is one section devoted to each of the five 

geographic Regions of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, State and Local Assistance 

Division. There is also an Executive Summary that includes the observations and 

conclusions from each of the sections. 

The format of this publication is consistent with that of the regional presentations during 

"Justice in the New Millennium" regional conferences. There is redundancy in the 

format but the data and assessments for each section are tailored to that region. The 

objective for the regional presentations and the objective for this publication is to provide 

policy makers with the best, most current information on crime and drug use, as well as 

demographic projections which are likely to affect the jurisdictions, so that better, more 

appropriate plans can be derived from the data. 

The information contained in this document and discussed during the regional 

conferences certainly does not represent an ending point of assessment. It is more 

consistent with an intermediate method of describing problems and problem areas. A 

comment in the 1994 BJA publication, "Documenting the Extent and Nature of Drug and 

Violent Crime: Developing Jurisdiction-Specific Profiles of the Criminal Justice 

12 
System," describing the ground-breaking work of the Illinois Criminal Justice 

Information Authority to develop county-level profiles of the criminal justice system for 

each of Illinois' counties states: 

"The data can be used to identify emerging problems or areas of need and 

as a tool to facilitate local-level discussions on how to take a systemwide 

approach to criminal justice planning." 

Similarly, the maps prepared for the regional presentations and refined for this 

publication can serve as an elementary form of the spatial analysis needed to better target 

problems and problem areas. It should be stressed, however, that while these crosssectional graphic displays are useful in recognizing possible problem areas or 

discrepancies between different data sources on drug use or arrests versus reports of 

crime, they can be made far more useful with state-specific data, described temporally as 

well as spatially. As stated by Anselin and others in a the recent National Institute of 

Justice publication, Criminal Justice 2000: 

"Many of the capabilities to support computerized mapping and spatial 

statistical analyses emerged only recently during the 1990s. The promise 

of using spatial data and analyses for crime control still remains to be 

demonstrated and depends on the nature of the relationship between crime 

and place. If spatial features serve as actuating factors for crime, either 

because of the people who or facilities that are located there, then 

interventions designed to alter those persons and activities might well 

affect crime." 

There may be many reasons for certain locations to appear to be "hot spots," as has been 

demonstrated in the discussions at the conferences and in the literature (See Sherman, et 

al., 1989). Discerning true problem areas demands location-specific data, over time, and 

location-specific knowledge of the attributes of the places. 

Criminal Justice planners and decision-makers should find the methodology 

demonstrated here useful, even with all of the cautions regarding data and analyses. We 

strive to use the most reliable and valid data that are available. While there may be 

problems with those data, they still serve as our "best" measure of crime and disorder. 

This document utilizes Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data, both for crimes 

reported and arrests, as well as other data on social and demographic topics. Each dataset 

has limitations, some more than others, but the greater the variety of data and sources, the 

more likely it is that the true nature of the phenomenon will become evident. In addition 

to the variety of data shown here, there is the frequent comparison of jurisdictions to 

national rates or national standards. It is important to understand issues such as crime 

and disorder relative to some benchmark in addition to a particularly jurisdiction's past 

experiences. Finally, it is evident in this document that maps are preferred methods of 

displaying large datasets. Charts and tables can be just as useful, arguably more so for 

some purposes, but they cannot capture and display central foci as easily and as 

parsimoniously as maps. These preferences -- using diverse data to describe phenomena, 

13 
using rates and comparisons with benchmarks to determine relative standing, and using 

maps to present patterns-- are those of the author and were not prescribed by BJA. They 

have been useful in state-specific assessments of the nature, extent, patterns and trends in 

crime in more than one-third of the states in the past five years. It is suggested that 

readers refer to the "Methodology" section at the end of each regional discussion for 

more detail on the sources of the data and the limitations, but give consideration to 

conducting state-specific assessments similar to the regional assessments presented here. 

There may certainly be some frustration in not finding concrete "projections" of crime in 

this document. Zimring (1998) has stated forcefully and convincingly that there is no 

single trend for all violent crimes but trends, where they exist, are crime-specific. There 

are better, more complete discussions of future crime patterns such as a variety of 

chapters included in Criminal Justice 2000. An introductory chapter by LaFree et al. 

(2000: 20), includes an instructive comment: 

Probably the only safe predictions that can be made about future violent 

arrest and crime rates, juvenile or otherwise, are that they are unlikely to 

return to the low levels witnessed in the 1950s and early 1960s, and that 

the declines witnessed in the early 1990s, most dramatically in several 

large cities, are unlikely to continue. 

Some patterns are discemable from the data and assessment presented in this document. 

It is clear that violent crime has been higher in certain areas of the nation and, based on 

demographic shifts, some states and regions are more likely to experience future crime 

problems. Only with further, more specific assessment, grounded in criminological 

explanations (See, for example, Tittle, 2000, for an excellent discussion of criminological 

explanations and research), will more accurate pattems and trends become evident. 

14 
Crime Trends and Patterns 

Northeast Region 

Maine 

New York 

Pennsylvania 

The Northeast Region of the United States, as defined by BJA, consists of the following 

states: 

Connecticut New Jersey 

Delaware New York 

Maine Pennsylvania 

Maryland Rhode Island 

Massachusetts Vermont 

New Hampshire 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the current population of the states comprising the 

region to total 58,125,000 persons. The average of the median income for each of the 

states in the region for 1998 was $41,580, according to the Census Bureau, Housing and 

Household Economic Statistics Division. The average median income in the region, by 

state, for 1996 through 1998 ranged from a low of $34,989 in Maine to a high of $49,303 

in New Jersey. The median income average for the United States for the period was 

$37,779. 

The total land mass for the eleven states in the Northeast Region is 174,003 square miles. 

The population density for this region is 334 persons per square mile. 

15 
Index Crime Rates in the Northeast Region I 

The crime rate trends for index violent crimes in the Northeast Region compare favorably 

with the U.S. averages. "Index crimes" reported are defined by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR, 1998: 5): 

The Crime Index is composed of selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in 

the overall volume and rate of crime reported to law enforcement. The offenses 

included are the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible 

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, 

larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. 

Our focus here is on violent crimes so only the first four are described. In order to 

compare crimes across jurisdictions, it is necessary to convert the number of crimes to 

some standard format. The generally accepted measure used in crime analysis is "crimes 

per 100,000 population" where the population statistic is the estimated population for 

reporting jurisdictions for each year considered. For the general tables shown below, the 

UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting Program) data were estimated for non-reporting 

jurisdictions but with the county level data, non-reporting jurisdictions are excluded for 

all except arrest data. 

Murder 

Murder Rates 1991-98 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

m us 

-- Nm-the~asl 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,O00 population 

Murder (including nonnegligent manslaughter) represents the most serious but rarest of 

crimes in the crime index. As the chart above shows, the Northeast Region has had and 

continues to have, a lower rate of murder than the average for the U.S. The average 

murder rate for the Nation in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 population while the average 

murder rate for the eleven states comprising the Northeast Region was 4.78 per 100,000 

population. The national average murder rate was the lowest recorded since 1967. 

Some of the states within the region had exceptionally low murder rates, according to an 

analysis of UCR data. New Hampshire had an extraordinary murder rate of 1.52 per 

'See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for data sources, limitations and methods used. 

16 
100,000 population, about one-fourth the U.S. average. Similarly, Maine and 

Massachusetts had murder rates of about 2 per 100,000 population, one-third the U.S. 

average. In fact, all of the states except one had murder rates below the U.S. average for 

1998. The exception was Maryland with a murder rate of almost 10 per 100,000 

population, about 63 percent higher than the U.S. rate. Maryland's murder rate was 

highest in the metropolitan areas of the state. 

As with most social issues, murder rates were not equally distributed in or among the 

states. As the map below shows, Baltimore and Prince George's County had high rates in 

Maryland while Atlantic County in New Jersey showed higher than average rates. 

Baltimore had the highest murder rate in the region with 47.56 murders per 100,000 

population. The Philadelphia area, including Camden, NJ had very high rates. 

Murder Rate 1998 

Rates per 100,000 Population 

r-] 6.2 to 47.6 (26) 

[] 3.1to 6.2 (53) 

[] 0 to 3.1 (165) 

New York City had higher than average rates and the adjacent counties in New Jersey, 

Hudson and Essex, shared in the high murder rates. Other counties in the region showed 

the isolated presence of high rates, such as Maine's Washington County, New 

Hampshire's Merimack County and Pennsylvania's Cameron and Elk Counties. 

Juvenile violence is a particularly troubling issue for many jurisdictions. Within the 

Northeast Region, however, it appears that juvenile arrests for homicide are isolated. 

Baltimore and Dorchester County, Maryland had juvenile arrest rates for murder that 

were among the highest in the region. Philadelphia's juvenile murder rate was less than 

half that of Baltimore. Fulton County, New York had the highest juvenile arrest rate for 

murder in the region for 1998. 

17 
Juvenile Murder Arrest Rat( .... 

R~s per 10~,0~0 Pop~ 

[] 2.5to 7.51 (7) 

[] 0.5to2.5 (37) 

[] 0 to0.S (2OO) 

Care should be exercised in interpreting rates for one year in sparsely populated areas. 

Single year anomalies do not suggest a pattern and serve simply as a warning that 

patterns might develop. With Baltimore data, however, 51 juveniles were arrested for 

murder in 1997 and 43 were arrested for murder in 1998 in a jurisdiction with almost 

700,000 persons. These figures do suggest a pattern of high rates of juvenile murder. 

The Northeast Region county map compares favorably to the national map regarding 

murder rates, per 100,000 population. As the map below shows, this region, when 

juxtaposed with the rest of the United States, appears not to have a murder problem. 

18 
.81. 

"% 

U~ W~bbld~ 

U.S. Murder Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,000 ~ion 

D 6.31o134 (650) 

[] 1.3to 6.3 (647) 

[] o to 1.3 (1846) 

Similarly, state-wide rates support the impression that murder is generally not a problem 

in the Northeast Region. Maryland represents the exception to that impression. 

1998 Murder Rates 

Rates per 100,000 pOl~ion 

D 82to49.8 (8) 

[] 6 to 6~. (16) 

[] o to 6 (29) 

L ...... I == I co,o~o I ...... S. "~'i .K_./ ?'~',, 

P~n~ Rico 

The historically low rate of murder in the Northeast region, actually decreasing at a faster 

pace than the U.S. rates, suggests that the rate is likely to continue to decrease in the 

region. The chart below shows the regression line, based on past rates. 

19 
Regional Projected Murder Rates 

~0~ 

~4 

a4 

7J 

04 

41 

go 

Murder Rates Northeast Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

m 

o Observed 

o Unell , 

. Pfolectt d i 

99 

The trend lines projected and observed are quite consistent and the slope is significant. 

As stated earlier, murder is the most serious of crimes reported to police, and it is the one 

most likely to be reported when it occurs. The reliability and validity of the statistic 

makes it one of the best measures of violence, based on official statistics (there are more 

valid methods of measuring other crimes than official statistics). Since it is a relatively 

rare event, it becomes difficult to determine pattems or trends in areas with low 

populations since a few crimes can cause unusual spikes in rates. It appears, based on 

historical information, that murder is not generally, and will not generally be a problem in 

the Northeast. Maryland, particularly Baltimore, and areas surrounding Philadelphia and 

New York City are jurisdictions which have shown above-average rates in homicide. 

Rape 

Just as murder is one of the crimes most likely to be reported when it occurs, rape is one 

of the most underreported crimes. Since there is a gap between the actual number of 

forcible rapes occurring (or attempted) and those reported to police as having occurred or 

attempted, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether high rape rates mean more rapes 

occur or more of the rapes that occur are being reported. The crime is certainly a serious 

one and regardless of the interpretation, the data should be studied and the degree of the 

problem assessed. Later there will be recommendations on how best to judge the trend or 

pattern of rapes reported to police. 

As was true of murder, the Northeast Region has rape rates that are and have been far 

below the U.S. average. As the chart below shows, the states of the Northeast Region 

had forcible rape rates more than 30 percent lower than the U.S. average. 

20 
Rape Rates 1991-98 

45 

4O ~"~ 

3S 

30 ~---~'~-~,.~_ 

25 -~-'-- 

20 

15 

10 

--US 

--Northeast 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

In 1998, the U.S. average for forcible rape rates was 34.4 per 100,000 population while 

the average for the region was 25.1 per 100,000 population. There have been no unusual 

spikes or valleys in the trend line for the region and the rates have decreased at about the 

same slope as the national rates. 

When unusual spikes appear in the rates of sexual assaults reported to police, over time, 

for a jurisdiction such as a state, it may suggest an extraordinary increase in sexual 

assaults or, arguably, it may suggest an aggressive and effective effort to facilitate 

reporting of the crime when it occurs. Victim Assistance Coordinators, Rape Crisis 

Centers, and persons within prosecutor offices may be effective in reducing the gap 

between the number of crimes occurring and the number of crimes reported. On a 

regional basis, it appears that there are no unusual pattems in the data so the supposition 

is that the data reflect the same rate of reporting, year after year. 

State-level rape rates show that Delaware had a rape rate of 67.07 per 100,000 population 

for 1998, a rate far higher than any other state in the region. In fact, that rate was the 

second highest in the nation. The 1998 UCR warns, however, that the number of rapes in 

Delaware was estimated from information furnished by the state. The data furnished by 

the state-level UCR program were found not to be in accordance with UCR guidelines so 

rates in local jurisdictions are not available. Only the state total is available. This is why 

the counties in Delaware do not reflect high rates in the map below. 

21 
e Rates by County 1998 

,000 population 

) 81.8 (38) 

) 39 (S2) 

~ ..~21.9 (124) 

This map shows that there are pockets of higher than average rape rates within the 

Northeast Region. Maryland, particularly Baltimore but also all of the counties 

contiguous to Delaware reflected high rates, as did Cumberland, Cape May and Camden 

Counties in New Jersey. Essex County New Jersey in the New York City area also had 

high rape rates. New London County, Connecticut, and clusters of counties in 

Massachusetts and New Hampshire, reflected high rape rates in 1998. 

As was mentioned in the BJA Regional meetings, jurisdictions with colleges and 

universities sometimes have higher than average rape rates. Again, this may be due to 

campuses facilitating the reporting of assaults or it may be due to a higher frequency of 

occurrence. One other statistical explanation might be the increased non-residents (for 

Census purposes) on or around campuses on a semi permanent basis contributing to the 

number of potential victims but not included in the denominator in calculating the crime 

rates. Arguably, population alone is not the most significant factor; otherwise all crime 

rates would appear higher in those jurisdictions. 

As the U.S. map below shows, there are pockets of high forcible rape rates throughout the 

Nation, including the Northeast Region. Again, this map excludes Delaware Counties 

since those data were not available. 

22 
U.S. Rape Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,O0O population 

[] 39 to 986 (650) 

[] 21.9to 39 (651) 

[] 0 to 21.9 (1842) 

On a state-wide examination, the Northeast Region, except for Delaware, appears to have 

low forcible rape rates, compared to other states. While all of the states in the region 

except Delaware have rape rates well below the U.S. average, the range is significant. 

Maine had the lowest rape rates in the region in 1998, with 18 per 100,000 population. 

New Jersey was the next lowest state with an average of 20 per 100,000 population. New 

York and Connecticut were the only other states in the region with rates below the 

regional average of 25 per 100,000 population in 1998. 

Rape Rate 1998 

Rate~ per 100,000 pol0t~ion 

[] 49 to 68.6 (7) 

[] 38to49 (13) 

[] Oto3S (32) 

J 

\ \ ...... I .... I co,~o I ~, .... ~,,,o~ ~ _2"4" ,j'o,,,,~, 

r----x 

23 
Delaware clearly had the highest rate in the region with 67 per 100,000 population and 

the next highest was Rhode Island with 35.5 per 100,000, New Hampshire with 33.76 and 

Maryland with 33.38 per 100,000 population. 

As was the case with murder, the trend line for rape in the Northeast Region is strongly 

declining. 

Regional Projected Rape Rates 

Rape Rates Northeast Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

32, 

3tj 

3o4 

2o,I 

2sJ 

274 

2O4 

2~4 

241 

90 gl 92 gO ~4 g~ g~ g7 @8 

o Observed 

a Unus 

m Projected 

Again, this trend line, based on regression, appears consistent with the national trend and 

this line would have rather accurately predicted the rape rates over the past six years. 

Robbery 

While some states consider robbery a "crime against property," the Uniform Crime 

Report and the accepted definition of the crime place it within the category of violent 

crimes. Robbery is predominately an urban crime, and historically the highest rates have 

been found in metropolitan areas and densely populated jurisdictions. 

As the chart below shows, the Northeast Region has experienced higher than average 

robbery rates although the gap is narrowing. The U.S. robbery rate in 1998 was 165 per 

100,000 population. The rate was significantly higher, 198 per 100,000 population, for 

metropolitan areas of the Nation. The robbery rate in the Northeast Region in 1998 was 

195 per 100,000 population. Two states, New York and Maryland, exceeded that 

regional average with state rates of 270 and 298 per 100,000 population. Vermont, on the 

other hand, had a robbery rate of 9.48 per 100,000 population in 1998 and Maine and 

New Hampshire each had rates of 21 per 100,000 population. 

24 
Robbery Rates 1991-98 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

I00 

50 

0 

mus 

Northeast 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Even though the Northeast has had robbery rates higher than the U.S. average, the rate of 

decline has been steeper and the highest rates have been restricted to very few 

jurisdictions. 

This restriction is evident in the map below showing the county-specific robbery rates for 

1998. 

~er,/Rates by County 1998 

0,000 population 

1 ,I 70 (71) 

62.S (7O) 

v ..~ 20.9 (103) 

25 
Those counties along the east coast and within the most densely populated areas of the 

region had the highest rates of robbery. It should be noted that the ranges for this map 

and the robbery maps for other regions use relatively low rates, even for the highest 

range. This is done to show where, within each region, the rates are highest and may be 

useful in assessing drug-related offenses as well. Robbery is one of the crimes frequently 

associated with drugs and, while it cannot serve as a proxy for drug use, may help to 

focus attention on a serious violent crime which may also serve to reduce drug-related 

offenses. 

Nationally, the Northeast Region reflects more "hot spots" than was seen in previous 

crime maps, as reflected in the map below. 

U.S. Robbery Rates by' County 1998 

R~es per 100,000 population 

17 62.6 to 3,230 (651) 

[] 20.9 to 62.8 (652) 

[] 0 to 20.9 (1840) 

o,,~5= 

The U.S. map depicting the rates for robbery by state show New York and Maryland as 

being among those states with the highest robbery rates. According to UCR analysis of 

robbery rates, the Northeastern States (the FBI does not use the same group of states to 

form the Northeast Region as does BJA so exact comparisons are not possible) have far 

higher incidents of robberies on streets or highways, and lower rates of commercial house 

robberies or gas/service station robberies. 

26 
Robbery Rate 1998 

Rates per 100,000 ~ion 

[] 190to S,.qO (9) 

[] 140to190 (11) 

[] 0 to 140 (32) 

, ~ ..... J 10~,o :L~.,,~ ~ 

Pt~nR Rico 

Again, the robbery rate trend line, as reflected by the regression line, is strongly 

downward. Based on this projection, the robbery rates in the Northeast Region of BJA 

are likely to be at or below the U.S. averages within the next two years. 

Regional Projected Robbery 

Rates 

Robbery Rates Nodheast Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

l o .... "~Proje~td 

27 
Aggravated Assault 

Aggravated Assault, an assault often accompanied by the use of a weapon, is the most 

frequently occurring of the serious violent crimes. The U.S. average for aggravated 

assault in 1998 was 360.5 per 100,000 population. While the average for the Northeast 

Region was lower than the national average in 1998, several states within the region had 

unusually high rates. 

As the table below shows, the Northeast Region has had and continues to have lower than 

average aggravated assault rates. This is due, in part, to some extraordinarily low rates in 

two states. New Hampshire had an aggravated assault rate of 50.4 per 100,000 

population in 1998 and Vermont had a rate of 67 per 100,000 population. Delaware, on 

the other hand, had an aggravated assault rate of 498.3 per 100,000 and Massachusetts 

had a rate of 495.3 per 100,000 population. Maryland also had a high rate of 454.5 per 

100,000 population in 1998. 

Aggravated Assault Rates 

1991-98 

$00 

450 -- -~ 

400 

550 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

$0 I 

.... ~U$ 

~Northeast 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Clearly, the distribution of aggravated assault rates varies significantly. As the map 

below shows, there are pockets of violent, serious assaults within the region. 

28 
;ault Rates by County 199B 

population 

0 (41) 

5.9 (60) 

t.~ ..... 0.2 (143) 

The two obvious pockets of violence are the Maryland and Delaware combination and 

Massachusetts. Delaware's rural counties had an average aggravated assault rate of 615 

per 100,000 population for the 101,111 citizens who lived in those jurisdictions. 

/- 

°o" 

U.S. Aggravated Assault Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,000 population 

I-I 345.9 to 13,090 (650) 

[] 180.2.to 345.9 C650) 

[] 0 to 180.2 (1843) 

The national county-level map above shows that there are clearer, more obvious pockets 

of aggravated assault in other regions and the pockets described earlier are somewhat 

hidden because of the geographic concentration of counties in the Northeast. 

29 
Aggravated Assault Rates 1998 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 495 to 944 (8) 

[] 350to495 (11) 

I-7 0 to 350 (,33) 

Montana s ~Cr'~ ~ ~ 

I .... I ...... I t Ohio, Net=Jersey 

¢---t 

Push.Rico 

The state-level map above shows clearly that Maryland, Delaware, and Massachusetts are 

among those in the top tier of states with high aggravated assault rates. Again, the rates 

are declining in the Northeast and the Nation. 

Regional Projected Aggravated 

Assault Rates 

Aggravated Assault Rates Northeast 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

400 

38O 

340 

32~ g Observed 

o Line,mr 

3~0 "=~Pmjeded 

~0 91 Q2 QC3 04 ~ (~ g7 g8 99 

This projection of the regression line shows the decline of aggravated assault in the 

Northeast Region and suggests that the decline will continue. The states and counties 

representing pockets of violence, however, should not be masked by this trend. 

30 
Drug Use in the Northeast Region 

One of the issues of importance to the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the states is the 

use of illegal drugs. Assessing the use of drugs is even more problematic than assessing 

the incidence of crime. Drug arrests have, historically, been one of the major indices of 

drug presence in a jurisdiction, even though estimates are used widely (See 

Methodology). Drug interdiction and drug arrests are, however, clearly tied to resources 

and policy decisions. Drug enforcement is proactive enforcement. If a jurisdiction has 

resources, human and otherwise, to focus on drug arrests, arrests occur thus proving the 

presence of drugs. If a jurisdiction lacks sufficient resources to proactively address drug 

possession and drug sales, the lack of arrests might spuriously suggest the absence of 

illegal substances. Similarly, policy decisions often determine the location of proactive 

drug enforcement. If drug arrests occur in a neighborhood, community, or school, it 

certainly means there were drugs present in those locations. If, however, no proactive 

enforcement occurs in a neighborhood, community, or school and no drug arrests are 

made, it does not necessarily mean that there were no drugs present. 

Even with those caveats, it would be inappropriate to ignore drug arrests as some 

indication, incomplete as it is, that drugs are present in certain locations. The UCR 

categories for drug arrests include two major categories possession and 

sales/manufacture. Within each category the types of drugs are specified: marijuana, 

opiates, synthetic opiates, and "other." What is described here is arrest rates, by county, 

for all drug offenses, drug possession, and drug sales/manufacture. Other data will be 

shown regarding types of drugs. 

As the map below shows, drug arrests in the region are concentrated along the Maryland, 

Delaware, New Jersey, New York corridor, extending farther north into Connecticut. 

While Massachusetts has two jurisdictions in the highest category, it is New York State's 

Central, Western, Northern and Southeastern sections, along with Southern New Jersey, 

Maryland and Delaware that show the strongest presence of drugs, based on total arrests. 

Notably absent in the high categories are counties in Pennsylvania. 

31 
: Rates 13y County 1998 

)00 popu~ion 

0 (S2) 

6.9 (74) 

_ 1.3 (108) 

When considering drug possession arrests in 1998, virtually the same pattern is present. 

This is not unusual since most arrests for drug crimes are arrests for possession. The map 

below shows the same corridors and concentrations. 

rrest Rates ~ County 1998 

i pop~aUon 

(70) 

5 (TS) 

3 (gg) 

Drug sales and manufacture arrests represent, arguably, more serious issues than 

possession. Many agencies, including BJA, have been encouraging greater attention be 

paid to these offenses. 

32 
As the map below shows, the pattern of arrests for drug sales and manufacture are very 

different from those of possession. 

ares by County 1998 

p~l~lon 

s3) 

97) 

g4) 

As the map rather clearly shows, Eastern Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New 

Jersey, and the New York City area are those most associated with drug sales arrests. 

New York State's other regions, while high in possession arrests, are not as engaged in 

drug sales arrests. This observation is not intended to be a critique. Many issues fit into 

the decisions to engage in certain types of proactive enforcement. 

While drug-crime arrests may serve as an indication of the presence of drugs, they may 

not be as useful in understanding the relative use of drugs. Arrests certainly do not 

suggest the absence of drugs. Other data may be useful in better understanding drug use. 

33 
Almc,~ 

TEDS 1997 Drug Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 poptz~ion 

[] 100to191 (9) 

[] 50to10O (2:2) 

[] 0to 50 (21) 

" R ~d= It, land 

C=mlin= 

The map shown above depicts drug treatment rates, per 100,000 population, gathered by 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. The data is prepared and published by the Office of Applied 

Studies as the "Treatment Episode Data Set" (TEDS). The TEDS system is described as 

one which (OAS, 1999: 3): 

Comprises data on treatment admissions that are routinely collected by states in 

monitoring their individual substance abuse treatment system. Selected data 

items from the individual State data files are converted to standardized format 

consistent across States. These standardized data constitute TEDS. 

TEDS includes, as the unit of analysis, treatment admissions to substance abuse treatment 

facilities receiving federal funding. Typically, these facilities include public and private 

nonprofit programs. Absent are data from for-profit treatment programs. Alcohol 

treatment is included as "substance abuse treatment" and represents the bulk of treatment 

in almost all programs. Since there is an interest here in illegal drug use, alcohol 

treatment has been removed from the data presented. The map above reflects treatment 

rates for all illegal drugs. 

The highest rates for drug treatment in 1997, the most recent year for which data were 

readily available, were observed in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, 

New York, and New Jersey, in order from highest rates (190.9 per 100,000 population in 

Connecticut). Rhode Island only had one jurisdiction appear in the highest category of 

drug arrest rates and that was Providence for drug sales arrests, yet the state was one of 

the highest treatment states in the region, suggesting the use of drugs was occurring. 

34 
.9,, 

TEDS 1997 Heroin Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 40 to109 (8) 

D 7.51o 40 (10) 

D 0 to 7.5 (34) 

/ ~,"== ~ ~ ~ ll>,,',~','l,8~-- ':" 

The map above shows the rates of treatment for heroin use, according to TEDS for 1997. 

The Northeast Region is the major cluster of the nation regarding heroin treatment. 

Within the region, treatment rates were highest in Massachusetts (105.2 per 10,000) and 

Rhode Island (104.4 per 100,000) for heroin use. The next highest states were New 

Jersey and Maryland. 

Below, we see the states with the highest rates of treatment for cocaine and crack 

cocaine. Connecticut, New York and Maryland were the states with the highest rates of 

treatment for cocaine and crack cocaine use in 1997. As with heroin, the Northeast 

represents a cluster of use of cocaine, joined by the states of Ohio and Michigan. 

35 
> Ab,.~a 

TEDS 1997 Cocaine Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 35 to 57.6 (7) 

[] 18to 35 (16) 

[] otole (29) 

Ida,la,l~ M~n Da~ i 

-@ 

There is no presentation here of a map depicting stimulant use in 1997 since the rate of 

use in the Northeast was very low. It appeared not to represent a problem for the region 

or the states in the region. 

It is suggested that TEDS represents a viable corollary to arrest data in understanding the 

presence of drugs within certain jurisdictions. It was surprising to note the high rtes of 

heroin and cocaine use in Connecticut and the high rate of drug treatment, particularly 

heroin treatment, in Rhode Island. These data help to better understand drug use as well 

as enforcement strategies. 

Social and Demographic Issues in the Northeast Region 2 

As this Nation enters the Twenty-first Century, major shifts are occurring in social and 

demographic factors. Of course, all of the shifts are continuations of trends established in 

preceding decades but the impact of some of the changes will be evident in crime. 

In succeeding issues of the annual report on crime published by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the agency comments in the introductory remarks to Crime in the United 

States (1999:iv): 

Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of 

investigation by varied disciplines. Some factors that are known to affect the 

volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are: 

Population density and degree of urbanization. 

2 See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for social and demographic data sources, 

limitations and methods used in this assessment. 

36 
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth 

concentration. 

Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting 

patterns, and transient factors. 

Economic conditions, including income, poverty level, and job 

availability. 

Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 

Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. 

Climate. 

Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. 

Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. 

Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., 

prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). 

Citizens' attitudes toward crime. 

Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. 

Some of these issues have been addressed earlier in this document, such as enforcement 

emphases and resources of law enforcement. Others such as rates of juveniles in 

jurisdictions are obviously important in understanding crime rates and victimization. 

Criminological theory and research support the notion that there are many factors 

influencing crime. One of the theoretical approaches which has proven to be quite robust 

over the past seven decades and which is useful in explaining crime in particular places is 

"Social Disorganization" theory. Generally, the three components of the approach are: 

Heterogeneity 

Mobility 

Poverty 

There are many other approaches that could be used to describe why and where crime 

rates are likely to be high (see Tittle, 2000). However for the Regional BJA presentations 

of 2000, "Social Disorganization" elements, combined with other variables, were 

presented as important components in assessing crime. This is not a test of the theory or 

even a concerted effort to address the theory. The research does serve as a rationale for 

including certain variables in the presentations and those descriptions are used here. 

Rather than an ex post facto description of crime and various elements, what is presented 

here is a description of some past but more future projections of social and demographic 

patterns and trends, in hope of anticipating issues facing regions, states and jurisdictions. 

Heterogeneity, Growth and Change in the Northeast Region 

The Nation is realizing significant change in its citizenry. This change will continue but, 

like crime, change is not equally distributed. The elements of greatest change revolve 

around race, ethnicity and age. These components may be considered "heterogeneity" 

although most of the research suggests race and ethnicity as the key elements. 

One of the things that make this Nation great is its diversity. We celebrate racial, ethnic, 

and cultural diversity and consider it an attribute. Criminological research suggests that 

change, including change in race and ethnicity, can negatively impact the social 

37 
organization of communities. Ethnic and racial heterogeneity are described here in an 

effort to recognize the change that is likely to occur and accommodate, welcome, and 

assimilate the change in such a manner that it does not contribute to disorganization. 

.elaska / 

Ethnic Diversity 2025 

1"7 0.34 to 0.5 (7) 

[] 0.22to034 (6) 

[] 0 too.~ (39) 

I 

zanl e~v ~x[¢o 

Texas i ' 

Ethnic diversity is based on the formula (1 - ~aoo) where p is the proportion of the 

population in each of the categories of Hispanic and Non Hispanic. Racial diversity, 

described below, is based on the same formula but where p represents the proportion of 

persons in each of the racial categories. These formulas were used by Warner and Pierce 

(1993) in applying social disorganization theory to crime data. 

Ethnic diversity, shown in the map above, is likely to be greatest in regions other than the 

Northeast however New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to show strong 

increases in the proportion of the Hispanic population through the year 2025. It is 

projected by the Census Bureau that by 2005, Hispanics will represent 16 percent of the 

population of New York, 14 percent of the population of New Jersey, and 10 percent of 

the population of Connecticut. By 2015 the Hispanic population in those states will have 

increased to 19 percent in New York, 17 percent in New Jersey, and almost 13 percent in 

Connecticut. Additionally, Rhode Island is expected to have Hispanics representing 12.4 

percent of its population by 2015. By 2025, almost one-quarter (21.7 percent) of the 

population of New York will be Hispanic, 19.5 percent of New Jersey and more than 15 

percent of Rhode Island and Connecticut will be Hispanic. 

Racial diversity, shown in the map below, will affect much of the Nation, including the 

Northeast Region states. By the year 2025, it is expected that the Asian and Pacific 

Islands racial category will represent about l0 percent of the population of New York and 

New Jersey. It is projected that by 2025 one-third of the citizens of Maryland will be 

black and more than 20 percent of the citizens of New York will be black. 

38 
Hl~li 

Racial Diversity Scores 2025 

[] 0.34 to 0.54 (17) 

[] 0.22to0.34 (17) 

[] 0 to0.22 (18) 

The combinations of racial diversity and ethnic diversity will have greatest effect on the 

states of New York and New Jersey, within the Northeast Region. It is imperative that, 

among other things, these states insure that their criminal justice agencies and other 

governmental agencies reflect the diversity of the population. 

In the next series of maps, the change in the juvenile population is described. The Census 

Bureau projects that the nation's youth will account for a smaller proportion of the 

population in 2025 than in 1995. Within the Northeast Region, Maryland is expected to 

see a growth of 17 percent in the number of persons aged 5 through 17 by the year 2025. 

This growth rate will be greatest from 2015 through 2025. Delaware will see an increase 

in juveniles through 2005 then the growth will slow remarkably. New Jersey and 

Massachusetts will also see a growth in juvenile population from 2015 through 2025. By 

2025 juveniles will represent about 16 percent of the population with the highest 

proportions in New York (18 percent) and Maryland (17 percent). 

39 
Nevad; 

,i I% 

Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2005 

[] 15 to25.7 (6) 

[] o tols (31) 

[] -asto o (is) 

=h e=k~ ",, 7,£-~. ,/:'-I .I-/',:/ -:~ 

ona ,,o Me~i¢ ~ rkans Camlin 

,I 

Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2015 

[] 15 to38.8 (11) 

[] 0 tolS (21) 

[] -13.7to 0 (20) 

Rtco 

40 
Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2025 

[] 15 to70.4 (17) 

[] 0 to15 (21) 

[] -17.5to 0 (14) 

Momana I 3. ~z's¢'~ ~x....,-~ P i 

~nnes~I. ~ --"Mai / r~4 

fA ' , j 

~ah l~are 

ona 

Mobility in the Northeast Region 

Mobility is represented by data collected by the Census Bureau on domestic migration 

(migration from state to state) and international migration (migration from other 

countries). Only two states in the region have experienced increases in domestic 

migration in the past decade. Those states, Vermont and New Hampshire, have 

recognized relatively small increases of .95 percent to 2.46 percent. New York has lost 

10.38 percent due to domestic migration while Connecticut has lost 6.9 percent and 

Massachusetts and New Jersey about four percent each. 

41 
Nevad 

Changes in Population due to Domestic Migration 1990-99 

~s Expressed in Percentages 

[] 5.2to 24 (11) 

[] -o.sto 5.2 (21) 

[] -28.3to-0.5 (20) 

1,~ ~ o~o,~ "'~-_ 

~ana 

• Maine 

i ,~.A--:-. i t-- ~ t '~'"='°'lt ,_,...,/flew I;,la,mp.~hire i ......... r- ~ o=~ ~)__j .J t 

7-T-----~ "--~,,.,~,.I I o~o, ,,=J,N~ 

¢k n Carolln ~ona . ~ a s etu MeIIo 

PU~;~ Rico 

The map below shows that international migration has benefited New York. The state 

has recognized a gain of more than six percent due to international migration, the second 

highest gain in the nation. 

,e "J~ 

.40= 

Nevad 

Population Change 1990-99 clue to International Migration 

Claarxje Expressed es Percentages 

I-] 2 to 6.88 (17) 

I-I o.r4 to 2 (17) 

[] 0 to0.74 (18) 

/o~lma I S 

.oral ew MeJiO ~r~ 

Population growth rates, while not directly due to "mobility," do represent change. 

Presumably the change is advantageous since growth is generally preferred to decline, 

42 
but rapid or remarkable change must be recognized and proactive steps taken to 

accommodate it. 

The maps below show the population growth expected through 2025. 

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the states of California, Texas and 

Florida are likely to recognize the greatest increase in population through 2025. It 

appears that the net gain of those three states from 1995 to 2025 will be over 32 million 

persons. California alone will increase by almost the entire expected population of New 

York. 

~¢aska I 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2005 

Change Expressed as Percentage Increase 

[] 7.5to10.7 (6) 

[] 5 to 7.5 (12) 

[] o to 5 (3,i) 

M0a~at~ 

I " [ I ......... I ~ i/ i~lcnl~lan I~,..,..,..~l Nelil Hiir~$him 

From the pattern shown in these maps, it appears that the West will lead the growth. Five 

western states are expected to grow by more than 50 percent from 1995 to 2025. 

43 
/~aska 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2015 

Change Expressed in Percentage Increase 

[] 15 to27.3 (15) 

[] 7.5 to 15 (21) 

[] 0 to 7.S (16) 

Montana /~ 

t o~°~-'F-----q so=h o,k=, I ~ .... YP.. L ~;~ Nero H~t~shire 

1 I I I I Nebraska ~, '~" ~ "~. Connecticut 

t t "~'°"° I utah I ~.~^~,~^ I ~. X ...... r~"=L ,I "0i~ttI'~'0f Columbi+ 

ao ~ 

Northeast states will grow but at a far slower pace. By the year 2025, shown in the map 

below, Maryland will have recognized an 19 percent increase in total population, 

compared to the year 2000. This will be the highest percentage of growth in the region. 

New Hampshire and New Jersey will see an increase of about 17 percent followed by 

Rhode Island that will recognize an increase of 14 percent. The smallest gain in the 

region and the third smallest in the Nation will be in Pennsylvania with an increase of 

less than 4 percent. 

~aska l 

J@ 

Montana 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2025 

Change Expressed in Percentage Increase 

[] 15 to 51.6 (29) 

[] 7.5to 15 (17) 

[-I o to 7.s (s) 

10f Cotumbl~ 

44 
Poverty 

By its very nature, poverty is a very quantifiable variable. According to the literature, 

however, it is not as much the poverty rate as the disparity between the poor and the 

wealthy which may be most influential in crime and violence. What is presented below 

are two measures of poverty. The first, shown in the map below, is the three-year 

average percentage of children living at or below 200 percent of the U.S. poverty level. 

This is generally referred to as "Percent of Children in Low Income Homes." The rate for 

each state is averaged for the three year period. 

As a region, the Northeast had a rather low percentage. The U.S. percentage was 42.2 

while the Northeast Region had 36.6 percent of its children living in homes at or below 

that income level. New York had the highest percentage, 44.5 percent, with Maine, 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania following. The lowest percentage was seen in Maryland 

with only 27 percent of children living in low income households. 

Average Percent of Children in Poverty, 1996-98 

[] 43.8to60.2 (17) 

[] 36.1to43.8 (17) 

[] 0 to36.1 (18) 

• t~l/~ Rico 

The other measure suggested here, as a proxy for economic deprivation, is the Gini 

Index. The most recent year for which data are available by state is 1989. Each year the 

U.S. Department of Commerce samples persons throughout the nation to arrive at a U.S. 

Gini Index but the sample size is insufficient to estimate state indexes any years except 

full census years. Again, New York had the highest rate in the region with an index of 

.467. The Gini Index seeks to measure the disparity between the wealthiest and the 

poorest. The higher the index score, the greater the disparity between the wealthiest and 

the poorest in a jurisdiction. 

45 
Nevad 

GINI Scale for Households 1 g89 

[] 0.439to0.492 (17) 

[] 0.42 to 0.439 (1 7) 

[] 0 to0.42 (18) 

 'hlco'o °o I .... 

Texas I , iSJ 

~ PuL;~ P:s¢o 

One other measure of "community stability" was proposed during the presentations. That 

measure was the voting rates during major elections. While it is certainly not suggested 

as a variable directly associated with crime, it may serve as a proxy for community 

activism and may indicate the degree to which community-oriented initiatives might be 

acted upon. 

Within the region, voting rates in the 1996 election were highest in Maine where, of those 

registered, 70 percent of women and 68.5 percent of males voted. Lowest rates were seen 

in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. 

Concluding Comments on the Northeast Region 

Murder does not appear to be a problem in the Northeast Region, except for 

unusually high rates in Maryland, where rape and robbery rates are also high; 

Maryland and Delaware appear to have high rates of sexual assaults, as well as 

clusters of counties in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; 

Aggravated assault rates were highest in Massachusetts but Maryland also had 

high rates; 

Heroin use and cocaine use appear to be highest in the Northeast Region, 

compared to all other regions; 

Race and ethnicity are likely to be the leading reasons for change in the region 

over the next 25 years. These variables, combined with poverty measures and 

46 
mobility, suggest that New York will recognize crime problems in the future, 

although there should be a reduction in juvenile crime. 

47 
48 
Crime Trends and Patterns 

Southeast Region 

ml 

Tennessee 

Virginia ~;~ 

Georgia 

~o 

O ~ Viro~l~land~ 

The Southeast Region of the United States, as defined by BJA, consists of the following 

jurisdictions: 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Georgia 

North Carolina 

Puerto Rico 

South Carolina 

Tennessee 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Virginia 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the current population of the states and territories 

comprising the region to total 51,920,000 persons. The average of the median income for 

each of the states in the region for 1998 was $35,860, according to the Census Bureau, 

Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. 

The total land mass for the nine jurisdictions in the Southeast Region is 275,302 square 

miles. The population density for this region is 188.59 persons per square mile. The 

range of population density in the region is tremendous, however. The District of 

Columbia, consisting of 61.4 square miles, with a population of 523,000 produces a 

population density of more than 8,500 persons per square mile. Puerto Rico and the 

Virgin Islands, have a population density of about 1,000 persons per square mile while 

South Carolina has a population density of 133.9 persons per square mile. 

49 
Index Crime Rates in the Southeast Region 3 

Thecrime rate trends for index violent crimes in the Southeast Region show the region as 

having higher rates of violent crimes, compared with the U.S. averages. "Index crimes" 

reported are defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting 

Program (UCR, 1998: 5): 

The Crime Index is composed of selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in 

the overall volume and rate of crime reported to law enforcement. The offenses 

included are the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible 

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, 

larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. 

Our focus here is on violent crimes so only the first four are described. In order to 

compare crimes across jurisdictions, it is necessary to convert the number of crimes to 

some standard format. The generally accepted measure used in crime analysis is "crimes 

per 100,000 population" where the population statistic is the estimated population for 

reporting jurisdictions for each year considered. For the general tables shown below, the 

UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting Program) data were estimated for non-reporting 

jurisdictions but with the county level data, non-reporting jurisdictions are excluded for 

all except arrest data. 

Murder 

Murder Rates 1991-98 

10 

8 

6 

4 

I 

m us 

Southeast 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter represents the most serious but rarest of crimes in 

the crime index. As the chart above shows, the Southeast Region has had and continues 

to have, a higher rate of murder than the average for the U.S. The average murder rate 

for the Nation in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 population while the average murder rate for 

3 See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for data sources, limitations and methods used. 

50 
the nine jurisdictions comprising the Southeast Region was 9.2 per 100,000 population, 

almost 50 percent higher than the U.S. average. The national average murder rate was 

the lowest recorded since 1967. 

The only jurisdiction with murder rates close to the U.S. average was Virginia, with a 

murder rate of 6.21 per 100,000 population in 1998. Florida's murder rate of 6.48 per 

100,000 population was the next highest with all other jurisdictions at or above 8 murders 

per 100,000 population in 1998. The District of Columbia recorded almost 50 murders 

per 100,000 population and Puerto Rico had almost 18 murders per 100,000 residents. 

Data for the U.S. Virgin Islands are not precisely comparable and are not presented here. 

It appears, however, that that territory's violent crime rates are among the highest in the 

region, per 100,000 population. 

As with most social issues, murder rates were not equally distributed in or among the 

jurisdictions. The map below shows graphically that many counties within the region 

were above the U.S. average murder rate in 1998. Among the most populous 

jurisdictions, the District of Columbia had the highest rate of 49.7 murders per 100,000 

population and Richmond, Virginia was close to that high with 48.45 murders per 

100,000 population. North Carolina, South Carolina, and much of Florida had counties 

with high murder rates for 1998. Care should be taken in interpreting single year rates 

however. 

Southeast Region Murder Rates by Court1 

Rates per 100~00 po~ 

I"1 6.3to 134 (210) 

I--I 1.3to 6.3 (171) 

I--I 0 tO 1~(273) 

__rlo Rico 

l~b U.S. Virgin Islands 

Fulton County Georgia, Robeson County, North Carolina, and Orangeburg County, South 

Carolina, and Davidson County, Tennessee all had murder rates in 1998 that were more 

than three time the U.S. average and all three had significant populations suggesting that 

a single-year assessment is not likely to be an aberration. Additionally, these counties and 

jurisdictions all had high murder rates in 1997. Sparsely populated counties showed high 

rates but unless data for preceding years were inspected, it would be inappropriate to 

51 
<:3 

t~ 

suggest that these represented patterns of problems. It is important to note, however, that 

rural counties in South Carolina, collectively, had an average murder rate that was almost 

40 percent higher than the state's average. These data suggest that, while the state as a 

whole did not have the highest murder rate in the region, the rural areas are experiencing 

a significant problem. 

The Southeast Region county map does not compare favorably to the national map 

regarding murder rates, per 100,000 population. As the map below shows, this region, 

when juxtaposed with the rest of the United States, appears to have a significant murder 

~roblem. 

U.S. Murder Rates by County 1998 

Ra~es per 100,00~ population 

[] S.3 to 134 (SSO) 

[] 13to 6.3 (647) 

[] 0 to 1.3 (1646) 

"~" ¢t 

Similarly, state-wide rates support the impression that murder is a serious problem in the 

Southeast Region. As stated earlier, only Virginia and Florida had murder rates at about 

the U.S. average, although both appear in the intermediate level in the map below. 

Additionally, all of the other jurisdictions were at or above 8 murders per 100,000 

population, with District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Tennessee have 

the highest rates. 

52 
1998 Murder Rate 

Rate per 100,000 ~iorl 

[] 8.2to49.8 (8) 

[] 6 to 8.2 (15) 

[] O to 6 (29) 

Mor4ana nes 

Oh~ rsey 

'~, Texa 

The rate of murder in the Southeast region has decreased, although sporadically, but the 

trend line suggests that the rate is likely to continue to decrease in the region. The chart 

below shows the regression line, based on past rates. 

Regional Projected Murae~ 

Murder Rates Southeast Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

115 e. 

"°1 =1 Inn 

95 

911 

85 

B 

m 

° P II~¢IRO 

: Rates 

53 
The trend lines projected suggests that murder rates in the region are likely to decrease, 

although the rates in the past have shown inconsistency. 

As stated earlier, murder is the most serious of crimes reported to police, and it is the one 

most likely to be reported when it occurs. The reliability and validity of the statistic 

makes it one of the best measures of violence, based on official statistics (there are more 

valid methods of measuring other crimes than official statistics). Since it is a relatively 

rare event, it becomes difficult to determine patterns or trends in areas with low 

populations since a few crimes can cause unusual spikes in rates. It appears, based on 

historical information, that murder is a significant problem in the Southeast, and will 

continue to show rates higher than the U.S. average. The states of South Carolina 

(particularly rural South Carolina), North Carolina, and portions of Florida and 

Tennessee, as well as the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories appear to have the 

greatest murder problems. 

Rape 

While murder is one of the crimes most likely to be reported when it occurs, rape is one 

of the most underreported crimes. Since there is a gap between the actual number of 

forcible rapes occurring (or attempted) and those reported to police as having occurred or 

attempted, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether high rape rates mean more rapes 

occur or more rapes are being reported. The crime is certainly a serious one and 

regardless of the interpretation, the data should be studied and the degree of the problem 

assessed. Later there will be recommendations on how best to judge the trend or pattern 

of rapes reported to police. 

As was true of murder, the Southeast Region has rape rates that are and have been higher 

than the U.S. average. As the chart below shows, the states of the Southeast Region had 

forcible rape rates higher than the U.S. average and the gap has not closed appreciably. 

54 
Rape Rates 1991-98 

5O 

45 / ~ 

35 --'~ 

3O 

25 

20 

15 

10 I , , 

~US 

~ Southeast 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

In 1998, the U.S. average for forcible rape rates was 34.4 per 100,000 population while 

the average for the region was 39.7 per 100,000 population. There have been no unusual 

spikes or valleys in the trend line for the region and the rates have generally tracked the 

national rates. 

When unusual spikes appear in the rates of sexual assaults reported to police, over time, 

for a jurisdiction such as a state, it may suggest an extraordinary increase in sexual 

assaults or, arguably, it may suggest an aggressive and effective effort to facilitate 

reporting of the crime when it occurs. Victim Assistance Coordinators, Rape Crisis 

Centers, and persons within prosecutor offices may be effective in reducing the gap 

between the number of crimes occurring and the number of crimes reported. On a 

regional basis, it appears that there are no unusual patterns in the data so the supposition 

is that the data reflect the same rate of reporting, year after year. 

State-level rape rates show that Florida had a rape rate of 49.6 per 100,000 population for 

1998, a rate higher than any other state in the region. Tennessee had the second highest 

rate in the region with 45.8 rapes per 100,000 population. Tennessee's rape rate has 

decreased remarkably from 1997 when it had one of the highest rates (56.9 per I00,000) 

in the Nation. Even though Florida and South Carolina saw rape rates decrease slightly 

from 1997, the rates were still far higher than the U.S. average. 

As the map below shows, there were clearly pockets of high rape rates. In South 

Carolina, again, the rural rates were extremely high. In fact, the rural rape rates in South 

Carolina and Florida were the highest in the region. The metro rape rates in Tennessee 

were the highest in the region (57.3 per 100,000 population). 

55 
Southeast Region Rape Rates by County 1! 

R~des per 100,000 population 

[] 39 to117 (144) 

[] 21.9to 39 (177) 

[] 0 to 21.9 (283) 

__ .'to Rico I~¢r,--L 

~lb U.S. Virgin Islands 

This map shows that while there are pockets of higher than average rape rates within the 

Southeast Region, there are some areas with exceptionally high rates but that do not form 

clusters. Shelby County and Davidson County Tennessee both had rape rates in 1998 

that exceeded 90 per 100,000 population. This means that almost two of every 1,000 

women were "sexually assaulted in those jurisdictions in 1998. Hamilton County 

Tennessee and Duval County Florida also had unusually high rape rates in 1998. 

As was mentioned in the BJA Regional meetings, jurisdictions with colleges and 

universities sometimes have higher than average rape rates. Again, this may be due to 

campuses facilitating the reporting of assaults or it may be due to a higher frequency of 

occurrence. One other statistical explanation might be the increased non-residents (for 

Census purposes) on or around campuses on a semi permanent basis contributing to the 

number of potential victims but not included in the denominator in calculating the crime 

rates. Arguably, population alone is not the most significant factor, otherwise all crime 

rates would appear higher in those jurisdictions. 

As the U.S. map below shows, there are pockets of high forcible rape rates throughout 

the Nation, including the Southeast Region. South Carolina and Florida show consistent 

patterns of high rape rates. 

56 
'2" 

a,' ¢t 

U.S. Rape Rates by County 1998 

I%t•s per 100,080 populatk~ 

[] 39 to 986 (650) 

[] ~.gto 39 (SSl) 

[] 0 to 21.9 (1842) 

On state-specific examination, the Southeast Region, except for Florida, South Carolina 

and Tennessee, appears to have relatively low forcible rape rates, compared to other 

states. Puerto Rico had the lowest rape rate in the region in 1998, with 6.3 per 100,000 

population. Considering the high rate of violence shown in murder rates, there may be a 

reporting issue in which victims do not readily report sexual assaults to police in that 

jurisdiction. Otherwise, there must be some explanation for the low rates. The other four 

states in the region ranged from 26.7 rapes per 100,000 population in Virginia to 36.3 in 

the District of Columbia. Again, Virgin Islands data were not compatible with those of 

the other jurisdictions but it appears that the rape rates were higher than the national 

average. 

57 
Rape Rate 1998 

Rates per 100,000 popu~ion 

[] 49 to 68.S (7) 

[] 36to 49 (13) 

[] 0to36 (32;) 

iru 

ey 

As was the case with murder, the trend line for rape rates in the Southeast Region is 

declining but the decline is not as consistent as is seen in other regions. 

Regic nal Projected Rape Rates 

Rape Rates Southeast Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

t4 

~J 

go 91 g~ 93 94 95 96 g? 96 

o t~ti 

o GIm~ 

58 
Robbery 

While some states consider robbery a "crime against property," the Uniform Crime 

Report and the accepted definition of the crime places it within the category of violent 

crimes. Robbery is predominately an urban crime, and historically the highest rates have 

been found in metropolitan areas and densely populated jurisdictions. 

As the chart below shows, the Southeast Region has experienced higher than average 

robbery rates since 1993 and the gap is widening. The U.S. robbery rate in 1998 was 165 

per 100,000 population. The rate was much higher, 198 per 100,000 population, for 

metropolitan areas of the Nation. The robbery rate in the Southeast Region in 1998 was 

215 per 100,000 poPulation. The District of Columbia far exceeded the U.S. average 

with a robbery rate of 689.5 per 100,000 population. Puerto Rico had a robbery rate of 

296.6 per 100,000 and Florida's robbery rate was 242.7 per 100,000 population in 1998. 

Virgin Islands' robbery rate also appeared to be higher than the U.S. average. The other 

states had robbery rates ranging from 105.6 in Virginia to 187.2 in Georgia. 

Robbery Rates 1991-98 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 ' 

50 

. 

--US 

Southeast 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

The Southeast has had robbery rates higher than the U.S. average and the rate of decline 

has been shallower for the region. 

It should be noted that the range of rates for robbery in the map below are not consistent 

with the highest range being higher than the U.S. average. Robbery is an urban crime 

59 
and many states have low rates. The range was selected to show pattems. It appears that 

North Carolina, South Carolina, and large portions of Tennessee and Georgia show those 

pattems. 

Southeast Region Robbery Rates by Cou: 

RaCes per 100,000 ~ rto Rico 

20~qto 6~ (179) 

[] 0 to 209 (t72) ~=, U.S.Virginlstan@s 

I 

Below are some of the rates of robbery, per 100,000, reflected in the map above for 1998: 

Rate Jurisdiction 

704.01 Fulton Georgia 

689.48 District of Columbia 

631.37 Richmond, Virginia 

525.36 Durham North Carolina 

518.65 Dade Florida 

518.21 Portsmouth, Virginia 

506.55 Shelby Tennessee 

418.83 Davidson Tennessee 

414.11 De Kalb Georgia 

393.74 Mecklenburg North Carolina 

368.37 Hillsborough Florida 

363.09 Petersburg, Virginia 

320.55 Hamilton Tennessee 

318.60 Norfolk Virginia 

313.04 Orange Florida 

305.40 Madison Tennessee 

296.57 Puerto Rico 

293.23 Wilson North Carolina 

291.13 . Guilford North Carolina 

290.40 Dougherty Georgia 

288.42 Duval Florida 

286.19 Palm Beach Florida 

60 
Those counties and cities shown above are among the most densely populated areas of 

the region, validating the proposition that robbery is an urban crime. Again, it should be 

noted that the ranges for this map and the robbery maps for other regions use relatively 

low rates, even for the highest range. This is done to show where, within each region, the 

rates are highest and may be useful in assessing drug-related offenses as well. Robbery is 

one of the crimes frequently associated with drugs and, while it cannot serve as a proxy 

for drug use, may help to focus attention on a serious violent crime which may also serve 

to reduce drug-related offenses. 

Nationally, the Southeast Region reflects more "hot spots" than was seen in previous 

crime maps, as reflected in the map below. Not surprising, based on other crime rates, 

South Carolina's rural counties had higher rates of robbery than other states rural areas. 

~e 

/ 

0 

Dmt~ili== 

U.S. Robbery Rates Ioy County 1998 

Rates per 100,0~) population 

[] 62.8 to 3,230 (651) 

[] 20.9to 62.8 (652) 

1-] 0 to 20.9 (1840) 

The U.S. map below depicting the rates for robbery by state show District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and Florida as being among those states with the highest robbery rates. 

61 
Robbery Rate 1998 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 190to690 (9) 

[] 140to190 (11) 

[] 01o140 (32) 

I OId=homa 

io ~ Texas 

~a rsey Ire 

~o 

Again, the robbery rate trend line, as reflected by the regression line, is downward but the 

slope is less remarkable than that of the U.S. averages. Based on this projection, the 

robbery rates in the Southeast Region of BJA are not likely to be at or below the U.S. 

averages within the foreseeable future. 

Regional Projected Robbery 

Rates 

Robbery Rates Southeast Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

3W 

62 
Aggravated Assault 

Aggravated Assault, an assault often accompanied by the use of a weapon, is the most 

frequently occurring of the serious violent crimes. The U.S. average for aggravated 

assault in 1998 was 360.5 per 100,000 population. The average for the Southeast Region 

was higher than the national average in 1998 and several states within the region had 

unusually high rates. 

As the table below shows, the Southeast Region has had and continues to have higher 

than average aggravated assault rates. The 1998 rate in the Southeast Region was 482.5 

per 100,000 population, more than 30 percent higher than the U.S. average of 362 per 

100,000. The trend line has been consistent with that Of the U.S. average, only much 

higher. This is due, primarily, to three jurisdictions, the District of Columbia, South 

Carolina, and Florida. Only Puerto Rico, Virginia, and Georgia (by a slight margin) have 

rates lower than the U.S. average. 

Aggravated Assault Rates 

1991-98 

600 ' 

500' 

400' 

500' 

I 

200 

100 ' 

0 ' ] I I I 

--US 

-- Southeast 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Clearly, the distribution of aggravated assault rates varies significantly. As the map 

below shows, there are pockets of violent, serious assaults within the region. Two of 

these pockets could general be described as South Carolina and Florida. Additionally, 

corridors in North Carolina and Tennessee show high rates of aggravated assault. 

63 
<3i 

B 

Southeast Region Aggravated Assault Rate 

Rate~ per 100,000 population 

[] 345.9 to 7,040 (234) 

[] 150.2to 345.9 (175) 

[] 0 to le0.2 (lSS) 

__.to Rico L.._,Cr--t 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Rural South Carolina is, once again, well represented among the jurisdictions with high 

rates. Rural aggravated assault rates in South Carolina in 1998 were 690 per 100,000 

population, almost four times the U.S. average for rural jurisdictions and higher than the 

aggravated assault rates in urban areas of South Carolina. Additionally, Davidson County 

Tennessee and Fulton County Georgia had high rates in 1998. 

"% 

U.S. Aggravated Assault Rates by County 1 998 

Rates per 100,050 

[] 345.9 to 13,000 (650) 

I-I lS02to 345.9 (650) 

17 0 to 180.2 (1843) 

° 

c,,~itl._~q k:o 

64 
The national county-level map above shows that there are obvious pockets of aggravated 

assault in many regions including the counties in South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida 

and portions of Tennessee the Southeast. 

Aggravated Assault Rate 1998 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 49sto 944 (8) 

[] 350to495 (11) 

D oto 3~ (33) 

I Oklahoma I 

a u~ 

SOUn LPseY 

f 

The state-level map above shows clearly that South Carolina, Florida, and the District of 

Columbia are among those in the top tier of states with high aggravated assault rates. 

Again, the rates are declining more slowly in the Southeast compared to the Nation. 

Regional Projected Aggravated 

Assault Rates 

Aggravated Assault Rates Southeast Region 

Observed and Projected 

a¢l 

~il a ~eR.a 

65 
This projection of the regression line shows the decline of aggravated assault in the 

Southeast Region and suggests that the decline will continue somewhat. It is expected 

that 1999 rates will be higher than 1998 rates. 

Drug Use in the Southeast Region 

One of the issues of importance to the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the states is the 

use of illegal drugs. Assessing the use of drugs is even more problematic than assessing 

the incidence of crime. Drug arrests have, historically, been one of the major indices of 

drug presence in a jurisdiction, even though estimates are used widely (See 

Methodology). Drug interdiction and drug arrests are, however, clearly tied to resources 

and policy decisions. Drug enforcement is proactive enforcement. If a jurisdiction has 

resources, human and otherwise, to focus on drug arrests, arrests occur thus proving the 

presence of drugs. If a jurisdiction lacks sufficient resources to proactively address drug 

possession and drug sales, the lack of arrests might spuriously suggest the absence of 

illegal substances. Similarly, policy decisions often determine the location of proactive 

drug enforcement. If drug arrests occur in a neighborhood, community, or school, it 

certainly means there were drugs present in those locations. If, however, no proactive 

enforcement occurs in a neighborhood, community, or school and no drug arrests are 

made, it does not necessarily mean that there were no drugs present. 

Even with those caveats, it would be inappropriate to ignore drug arrests as some 

indication, incomplete as it is, that drugs are present in certain locations. The UCR 

categories for drug arrests include two major categories - possession and 

sales/manufacture. Within each category the types of drugs are specified: marijuana, 

opiates, synthetic opiates, and "other." What is described here is arrest rates, by county, 

for all drug offenses, drug possession, and drug sales/manufacture. Other data will be 

shown regarding types of drugs. 

As the map below shows, drug arrests in the region are concentrated in Georgia, South 

Carolina and portions of Tennessee. Almost every county in Georgia and South Carolina 

was in the highest or intermediate level of arrest rates for 1998, the most recent year for 

which data are available. Complete arrest data were not available to the UCR from 

Florida so no arrest data are included for that state. 

66 
Southeast Region Drug Arrest Rates by Col 

Arrest rates per 100,000 population 

[] 506~q to 2.930 (214) 

[] 301.3to 513S.9 (157) 

[] 0 to 301.3 (233) 

__.,to Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

When considering drug possession arrests in 1998, virtually the same pattern is present. 

This is not unusual since most arrests for drug crimes are arrests for possession. The map 

below shows the same corridors and concentrations. 

Southeast Region Drug Possession Arrest 

Arrest redes per 100,1~010o~ 

D 3~7.sto2~90 (lm) 

[] 225.6to 397.6 (174) 

[] 0 to 22s.s t~oo) 

__;to Rico I--...a_I 

~, U.S. Virgin Islands 

Drug sales and manufacture arrests represent, arguably, more serious issues than 

possession. Many agencies, including BJA, have been encouraging greater attention be 

paid to these offenses. 

67 
As the map below shows, the pattern of arrests for drug sales and manufacture are not 

remarkably different from those of possession. 

Southeast Region Drug Sales Arrest Rates 

Arrest rates per 100,000 10o¢~lstk 

I-I 100.Stol,010 C23S) 

[] 43.6to 100.8 C150) 

[] 0 to 43.6 (219) 

__.to Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

As the map rather clearly shows, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee are fully 

engaged in arrests for sales as well as possession. North Carolina, however, shows a 

higher concentration of arrests for possession than for sales. This observation is not 

intended to be a critique. Many issues fit into the decisions to engage in certain types of 

proactive enforcement. 

While drug-crime arrests may serve as an indication of the presence of drugs, they may 

not be as useful in understanding the relative use of drugs. Arrests certainly do not 

suggest the absence of drugs. Other data may be useful in better understanding drug use. 

68 
AIm=a 

hlcca~ 

n" 

,e ~"% 

TEDS 1997 Drug Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 100to191 (9) 

[] 50to1~]~ (22) 

[] 0to 50 (21) 

Na,~n I)==uta 

Uan~,= k(i 

~n 1¢~ isr.at.i at,iel Ot Calum ala 

rb,i~ 

The map shown above depicts drug treatment rates, per 100,000 population, gathered by 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. The data, prepared and published by the Office of Applied Studies 

as the "Treatment Episode Data Set" (TEDS). The TEDS system is described as one 

which (OAS, 1999: 3): 

Comprises data on treatment admissions that are routinely collected by states in 

monitoring their individual substance abuse treatment system. Selected data 

items from the individual State data files are converted to standardized format 

consistent across States. These standardized data constitute TEDS. 

TEDS includes, as the unit of analysis, treatment admissions to substance abuse treatment 

facilities receiving federal funding. Typically, these facilities include public and private 

nonprofit programs. Absent are data from for-profit treatment programs. Alcohol 

treatment is included as "substance abuse treatment" and represents the bulk of treatment 

in almost all programs. Since there is an interest here in illegal drug use, alcohol 

treatment has been removed from the data presented. The map above reflects treatment 

rates for all illegal drugs. 

The highest rates in the Southeast for drug treatment in 1997, the most recent year for 

which data were readily available, were observed in the District of Columbia (112 per 

100,000 population). The next highest rates of treatment were seen in South Carolina (64 

per 100,000) and North Carolina (62 per 100,000). Although alcohol treatment is not 

included in this map or this analysis in general, it should be noted that South Carolina had 

an unusually high rate of treatment for alcohol use, according to TEDS. The alcohol use 

in South Carolina may very well be associated with the high levels of violent crime in 

that state. 

69 
AIm4= 

Ida 

,o 0"~, 

TEDS 1997 Heroin Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 40 to109 (8) 

[] 7.5to 40 (10) 

[] 0 to 7.5 (34) 

T~n,m.n~m 

The map above shows the rates of treatment for heroin use, according to TEDS for 1997. 

The Southeast Region shows virtually no heroin use, as of 1997, except of the District of 

Columbia. The data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) however, show 

that there has been an increase in Emergency Room visits in Miami attributable to heroin 

use. 

Below, we see the states with the highest rates of treatment for cocaine and crack 

cocaine. The District of Columbia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were the 

jurisdictions in the region with the highest rates of treatment for cocaine and crack 

cocaine use in 1997. The treatment rates for DC were in the highest category and those 

for North Carolina and South Carolina were at the upper limit of the intermediate range. 

70 
,o ~"¢b 

TEDS 1997 Cocaine Treatment Rates 

Rete~ per 100,00010opulat~n 

D ~tosT~ co 

[] ~sto~ o6) 

[] oto~e (29) 

fa ~ 

j~ 

I 

P~F~ 

There is no presentation here of a map depicting stimulant use in 1997 since the rate of 

use in the Southeast was very low. It appeared not to represent a problem for the region 

or the states in the region. Only slight levels of treatment were observed in Georgia in 

1997. 

It is suggested that TEDS represents a viable corollary to arrest data in understanding the 

presence of drugs within certain jurisdictions. It was surprising to note the high rtes of 

heroin and cocaine use in Connecticut and the high rate of drug treatment, particularly 

heroin treatment, in Rhode Island. These data help to better understand drug use as well 

as enforcement strategies. 

Social and Demographic Issues in the Southeast Region 4 

As this Nation enters the Twenty-first Century, major shifts are occurring in social and 

demographic factors. Of course, all of the shifts are continuations of trends established in 

preceding decades but the impact of some of the changes will be evident in crime. 

In succeeding issues of the annual report on crime published by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the agency comments in the introductory remarks to Crime in the United 

States (1999:iv): 

Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of 

investigation by varied disciplines. Some factors that are known to affect the 

volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are: 

4 See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for social and demographic data sources, 

limitations and methods used in this assessment. 

71 
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. 

Economic conditions, including income, poverty level, and job 

availability. 

Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 

Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. 

Climate. 

Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. 

Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. 

Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., 

prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). 

Citizens' attitudes toward crime. 

Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. 

Some of these issues have been addressed earlier in this document, such as enforcement 

emphases and resources of law enforcement. Others such as rates of juveniles in 

jurisdictions are obviously important in understanding crime rates and victimization. 

Criminological theory and research support the notion that there are many factors 

influencing crime. One of the theoretical approaches which has proven to be quite robust 

over the past seven decades and which is useful in explaining crime in particular places is 

"Social Disorganization" theory. Generally, the three components of the approach are: 

Heterogeneity 

Mobility 

Poverty 

There are many other approaches that could be used to describe why and where crime 

rates are likely to be high (see Tittle, 2000). However, for the Regional BJA 

presentations of 2000 "Social Disorganization" elements, combined with other variables, 

were presented as important components in assessing crime. This is not a test of the 

theory or even a concerted effort to address the theory. The research does serve as a 

rationale for including certain variables in the presentations and those descriptions are 

used here. Rather than an ex post facto description of crime and various elements, what 

is presented here is a description of some past but more future projections of social and 

demographic patterns and trends, in hope of anticipating issues facing regions, states and 

jurisdictions. 

Heterogeneity, Growth and Change in the Southeast Region 

The Nation is realizing significant change in its citizenry. This change will continue but, 

like crime, change is not equally distributed. The elements of greatest change revolve 

around race, ethnicity and age. These components may be considered "heterogeneity" 

although most of the research suggests race and ethnicity as the key elements. 

72 
One of the things that make this Nation great is its diversity. We celebrate racial, ethnic, 

and cultural diversity and consider it an attribute. Criminological research suggests that 

change, including change in race and ethnicity, can negatively impact the social 

organization of communities. Ethnic and racial heterogeneity are described here in an 

effort to recognize the change that is likely to occur and accommodate, welcome, and 

assimilate the change in such a manner that it does not contribute to disorganization. 

Alska / Ethnic Diversity 2025 

[] 0.34 to0.5 (7) 

I-I o.22to 0.34 (B) 

[] 0 to 0.22 (39) 

Ethnic diversity is based on the formula (1 - Lo°) where p is the proportion of the 

population in each of the categories of Hispanic and Non Hispanic. Racial diversity, 

described below, is based on the same formula but where p represents the proportion of 

persons in each of the racial categories. These formulas were used by Warner and Pierce 

(1993) in applying social disorganization theory to crime data. 

Ethnic diversity, shown in the map above, is likely to be greatest in regions other than the 

Southeast however Florida is projected to show strong increases in the proportion of the 

Hispanic population through the year 2025. It is projected by the Census Bureau that by 

2025, Hispanics will represent 24 percent of the population of Florida, having had an 

increase of 152 percent during that period. Florida is the only state within the region that 

is likely to have an ethnic diversity score in the highest range. Some may wonder why 

Puerto Rico is not in the highest range since its population is almost 100 percent 

Hispanic. A jurisdiction with almost all of its citizens of one ethnicity is non-diverse, 

regardless of the preponderance of the ethnic category. 

Racial diversity, shown in the map below, will affect much of the Nation, including the 

Southeast Region states. By the year 2025, it is expected that 59 percent of the residents 

of the District of Columbia, 33.4 percent of the citizens of Georgia, 30.2 percent of the 

citizens of South Carolina, and 24 percent of the citizens of North Carolina will be black. 

73 
Virginia will have a remarkable increase in Asian and Pacific Islanders as citizens of the 

state by 2025. 

r 

~eV 

Y 

The combinations of racial diversity and ethnic diversity will affect almost every 

jurisdiction, except Puerto Rico and Tennessee, within the SoutheaSt Region. It is 

imperative that, among other things, the states insure that their criminal justice agencies 

and other governmental agencies reflect the diversity of the population. 

the juvenile population is described- The Census 

In the next series of maps, the change in for a smaller proportion of the 

Southeast RegiOn, the District of Columbia Bureau projects that the nation'S youth will account 

population in 2025 than in 1995. Within the is expected to see a growth of 55 percent in the number of persons aged 5 through 17 by 

the year 2025. This growth rate will be consistent from 2000 through 2025. Georgia 

will see an increase of 24 percent in the number of juveniles from 1995 to 2025. Florida 

will also see a remarkable growth in juvenile population from 2015 through 2025. 

74 
Nevad 

Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2005 

[] 15 to 25.7 (6) 

[] 0 to15 (31) 

[] -8.8to 0 (15) 

,,, I oo,oo0o ooo,----~ ~'~ ~°" 

i . __~~ 

,~ 

abam / 

*9 I% 

Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2015 

[] 15 to36.8 (11) 

[] o tolS (21) 

[] -13.7to 0 (20) 

?5 
Nevad 

,e 

Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2025 

[] 15 to70.4 (17) 

[] 0 to15 (21) 

[] -17.S to o (14) 

~nlana n ;s 

~" pue-~. Rico 

An increase in juvenile-related crime is likely tO occur first in the District of Columbia 

and Georgia, joined by Florida and Virginia. The rapid and remarkable increase in 

juveniles in the District of Columbia is unparalleled. By 2025, juveniles ages 5 to 17 will 

represent almost 18 percent of the population of the District of Columbia and more than 

17 percent of the citizens of Georgia. 

Mobility in the Southeast Region 

Mobility is represented by data collected by the Census Bureau on domestic migration 

(migration from state to state) and international migration (migration from other 

countries). Virginia and South Carolina are the only two states in the region not 

participating in change due to domestic migration. The District of Columbia has seen 28 

percent more people leave the jurisdiction than migrate to the jurisdiction while the other 

states in the region have seen more migration to the state than from. Georgia has seen an 

increase of 8.5 percent, Florida 7.3 percent, North Carolina 7.2 percent, and Tennessee 

6.5 percent. 

76 
r ~laska 

,a 

Changes in Population clue to Domestic Migration 1990-99 

Changes Expressed in Percerdages 

[] 5.2 to 24 (11 ) 

[] -0.5 to 5.2 (21) 

[] -28.3to -0.5 (20) 

,toni ana i ~s 

The map below shows that international migration has benefited the District of Columbia 

and Florida, in particular with Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina also realizing 

above-average gains. 

Montana 

Population Change 1990-99 clue to Intematlonal Migration 

Change Expressed as Percentages 

I-1 2 toS.S8 (17) 

[] 0.74 to 2 (17) 

17 0 to o.r4 (is) 

Ih 

Population growth rates, while not directly due to "mobility," do represent change. 

Presumably the change is advantageous since growth is generally preferred to decline, 

77 
but rapid or remarkable change must be recognized and proactive steps taken to 

accommodate it. 

The maps below show the population growth expected through 2025. 

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the states of California, Texas and 

Florida are likely to recognize the greatest increase in population through 2025. It 

appears that the net gain of those three states from 1995 to 2025 will be over 32 million 

persons. California alone will increase by almost the entire expected population of New 

York. 

t Plaska L 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2005 

Change Exlo~essed as Percentage Increase 

I--I 7.5 to 10.7 (6) [] 5 to 7.5 (12) 17 0 to 5 (34) 

Moraana 

N~ 

,. • L-.-( I I ~ f ~.o*,v~ / 

From the pattern shown in these maps, it appears that the West will lead the growth. Five 

western states are expected to grow by more than 50 percent from 1995 to 2025. 

78 
.~laska / 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2015 

Change Expressed in Perceraage Increa~ 

[] 15 to27.3 (15) 

17 7.5to15 (213 

[] O to 7.5 (163 

Montana 

ire 

Southeast states will grow at a relatively rapid pace. By the year 2025, shown in the map 

below, Florida will have recognized a 36 percent increase in total population, compared 

to the year 2000. This will be the highest percentage of growth in the region. The District 

of Columbia will see an increase of about 25 percent as will Georgia. Virginia, South 

Carolina, and North Carolina will see increases of about 20 percent in population. The 

smallest gain in the region will be in Tennessee with an increase of less than 18 percent. 

~ask~ 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2025 

Ex~essed in Pe~cer~age Increase 

[] 15 to51.6 (29) 

[] 7.5tols (lr) 

[] 0 to 7.5 (6) 

79 
Poverty 

By its very nature, poverty is a very quantifiable variable. According to some 

researchers, however, it is not as much the poverty rate as the disparity between the poor 

and the wealthy which may be most influential in crime and violence. What is presented 

below are two measures of poverty. The first, shown in the map below, is the three-year 

average percentage of children living at or below 200 percent of the U.S. poverty level, 

This is generally referred to as "Percent of Children in Low Income Homes." The rate for 

each state is averaged for the three year period. 

The U.S. had 42.2 percent of children living in low income homes while the Southeast 

Region had 43.5 percent of its children living in homes at that income level. The District 

of Columbia had the highest percentage, 60 percent, with Tennessee following at 48 

percent. Georgia and Florida each averaged more than 45 percent of children living in 

low income households. The lowest percentage was seen in Virginia with 34 percent of 

children living in low income households. 

\ L,,-=~.I~I=,~ ~ ~,,,~,l io~.~-=..=~ -,, \ \ I V-'l c*'~ I~,~ ~o~ ~"/?'°~t~ 

Average Percent of Children in Poverty, 1996-98 

["] 43.8to60.2. (17) 

[] 36.1to43.8 (17) 

[] 0 to36.1 (18) 

The other measure suggested here as a proxy for economic deprivation, is the Gini Index. 

The most recent year for which data are available by state is 1989. Each year the U.S. 

Department of Commerce samples persons throughout the nation to arrive at a U.S. Gini 

Index but the sample size is insufficient to estimate state indexes any years except full 

census years. Again, District of Columbia had the highest rate in the region with an 

index of .49. The Gini Index seeks to measure the disparity between the wealthiest and 

the poorest. The higher the index score, the greater the disparity between the wealthiest 

and the poorest in a jurisdiction. Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee also had high scores 

suggesting a disparity between the poor and the wealthy in those states. 

80 
ot 

GINI Scale for Households 1989 

[] 0.4391o0.492 (17) 

[] 0.42 to0.43g {17) 

[] 0 to0A2 (18) 

• Dal(ol " 

dal~ 

o I ~~( 

¢u~ib aieo 

One other measure of "community stability" was proposed during the presentations. That 

measure was the voting rates during major elections. While it is certainly not suggested 

as a variable directly associated with crime, it may serve as a proxy for community 

activism and may indicate the degree to which community-oriented initiatives might be 

acted upon. 

Within the region, voting rates in the 1996 election were lowest for males and females in 

Georgia with South Carolina showing a low rate of males voting. 

Conclusions appropriate to the Southeast Region: 

Rural South Carolina counties, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands are experiencing extraordinary levels of violence, particularly 

high murder rates and robbery rates; 

The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

appear to have extremely high murder rates; 

Florida, metro-Tennessee, and rural South Carolina have had high rape rates, 

among the highest in the Nation; 

Rural South Carolina, the District of Columbia, and Florida appear to have the 

most significant violence problems in the region; 

South Carolina's high level of alcohol abuse treatment suggests a relationship 

may exist between substance abuse and violence; 

81 
Dramatic growth in the population, combined with ethnic heterogeneity and an 

already high violent crime rate, are likely to impact Florida while poverty, racial 

heterogeneity and astounding levels of violence are likely to affect the District of 

Columbia. 

82 
Crime Trends and Patterns 

North Central Region 

V~o~ng 

North Dakota 

South Dakota 

V~sconsin 

1.,_ 

Kanluelot 

The North Central Region of the United States, as defined by BJA, consists of the 

following states: 

Illinois Ohio 

Indiana South Dakota 

Kentucky West Virginia 

Michigan Wisconsin 

Minnesota Wyoming 

North Dakota 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the current population of the states comprising the 

region to total 57,050,000 persons. The average of the median income for each of the 

states in the region for 1998 was $36,965.82, according to the Census Bureau, Housing 

and Household Economic Statistics Division. The average median income, by state, for 

1996 through 1998 ranged from a low of $26,950 in West Virginia to a high of $44,579 

in Minnesota. The median income average for the U. S. for the period was $37,779. 

The total land mass for the eleven states in the North Central Region is 628,969.2 square 

miles. The population density for this region is 90.7 persons per square mile. There is, 

of course, a significant range in the population density of the states within the region. 

83 
Index Crime Rates in the North Central Region 5 

The crime rate trends for index violent crimes in the North Central Region compare 

favorably with the U.S. averages. "Index crimes" reported are defined by the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR, 1998: 5): 

The Crime Index is composed of selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in 

the overall volume and rate of crime reported to law enforcement. The offenses 

included are the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible 

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, 

larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. 

Our focus here is on violent crimes so only the first four are described. In order to 

compare crimes across jurisdictions, it is necessary to convert the number of crimes to 

some standard format. The generally accepted measure used in crime analysis is "crimes 

per 100,000 population" where the population statistic is the estimated population for 

reporting jurisdictions for each year considered. For the general tables shown below, the 

UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting Program) data were estimated for non-reporting 

jurisdictions but with the county level data, non-reporting jurisdictions are excluded for 

all except arrest data. 

Murder 

Murder Rates 1991-98 

2 " 

V( "'~ ~ 

4 " 

2 • 

0"1 [ t , i 

BUS 

~North CcnU'al 

Rt~on 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter represents the most serious but rarest of crimes in 

the crime index. As the chart above shows, the North Central Region has had, with the 

exception of 1997, and continues to have, a lower rate of murder than the average for the 

U.S. The average murder rate for the Nation in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 population 

5 See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for data sources, limitations and methods used. 

84 
while the average murder rate for the eleven states comprising the North Central Region 

was 5.73 per 100,000 population. The national average murder rate was the lowest 

recorded since 1967. it should be noted that the murder rates for the region followed an 

atypical path. While the rates were decreasing in the Nation, the murder rate in the 

region was flat from 1996 to 1997, then decreased. 

The range of murder rates in the North Central Region was extraordinary. Some of the 

states within the region had exceptionally low murder rates, according to an analysis of 

UCR data. North Dakota had an extraordinary murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 population, 

and South Dakota had a rate of 1.36 per 100,000 population. Similarly, Wisconsin had a 

murder rate in 1998 of about 3.6 per 100,000 population. Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan 

had murder rates in 1998 higher than the U.S. average, with Illinois' rate at 8.4 per 

100,000 population. 

As with most social issues, murder rates were not equally distributed in or among the 

states. The map below is rather misleading regarding the distribution of murder rates in 

the region. Only about 60 percent of the jurisdictions reported Index Crimes to the UCR 

Program, according to the data used for this analysis. Of the 841 counties in the region, 

505 reported data on sufficient enough a basis to allow the UCR to record the crimes by 

month then summarize by the year for 1998. The reporting rate appears to be decreasing. 

In 1997 560 of the 841 counties reported crimes to the UCR and in 1996 data suggest that 

585 of the 841 jurisdictions reported crime. It appears, then, that the reporting rate has 

decreased almost 14 percent since 1996. This nonreporting makes it extraordinarily 

difficult to develop strategy to address problems that cannot be assessed. It may be that 

state-level policy makers have more data at their disposal than others, resulting in better 

plans. Michigan, Minnesota, Wyoming, and West Virginia had the highest rates of 

reporting with all or almost all of the jurisdictions reporting crimes (or the absence of 

crime) to the UCR Program. Illinois, Kentucky and Wisconsin had the lowest 

percentages of reporting by jurisdictions. A footnote in Crime in the United States: 1998 

States that complete data for 1998 were not available for Illinois, Kentucky, and 

Wisconsin so estimates were used in that publication. Some jurisdictions, particularly in 

those states, may appear not to have crime problems but the only assessment that can be 

made at this point is that the degree of the problems are unknown. 

Of those jurisdictions reporting crime, Mahoning County, Ohio and Cook County, Illinois 

were among the highest rates for murder in 1998. Mahoning County had almost 30 

murders per 100,000 population, almost five times the U.S. average. Cook County had 

more than 25 murders per 100,000 population. 

85 
North Central Region Murder Rates by County 1998 

Rate~ per 100,000 poputstion 

J--I 6.3 to 75.4 (80) 

[] 1.3to 6.3 (105) 

[] 0 to 1~ (6S6) 

It appears that there are clusters of counties with higher-than-average murder rates in 

West Virginia and in Michigan. Both of those states are currently engaging in Interstate 

Corridor" analysis to better understand population patterns and crime patterns. 

Juvenile violence is a particularly troubling issue for many jurisdictions. Within the 

North Central Region, however, it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from 

the data on arrests since so many jurisdictions did not report crimes or arrests to the UCR 

Program. 

86 
North Central Regional Juvenile Arrest Rates for Murder by County t 99B 

Arre~ rates per 100,0~0 total poptd~ton 

[] 1.5 to 9.55 (22) 

[] 0.33 to 1.5 (29) 

[] 0 to 0.33 (790) 

Care should be exercised in interpreting rates for one year in sparsely populated areas. 

Single year anomalies do not suggest a pattern and serve simply as a warning that 

patterns might develop. 

The North Central Region county map compares favorably to the national map regarding 

murder rates, per 100,000 population, with the caveats regarding the reporting rates. As 

the map below shows, this region, when juxtaposed with the rest of the United States, 

appears not to have a murder problem. 

U.S. Murder Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 6.3 to 134 (650) 

[] 1.3to s.3 (647) 

[] 0 to 1.3 (1846) 

,,% 

U,~,V~ 

87 
Similarly, state-wide rates support the impression that murder is generally not a problem 

in the North Central Region. Illinois represents the exception to that impression. The 

data used in this map are based on estimates of crime calculated by the UCR Program. 

~ask3 / 

nO 

1998 Murder Rate 

P,~.e per I O0,gO010opulat=~n 

D 8.2 to 49.8 (8) 

[] 6 to 8~. (15) 

I-1 o to 6 (29) 

~*'"= I ~k~,~,~' '~-~ / I 

Regional Projected Murder Rates 

Murder Rates North CentTal Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

Rates per 100,1100 popubl~on 

IIJ1 

6.0 

s.s | 

91 g2 ~o ~ g5 g5 

88 
The trend lines projected and observed are not very consistent. The inconsistency may be 

due to jurisdictions reporting some years and failing to report others. Based on this 

projection, however, it appears that the murder rate in this region is likely to show an 

increase in 1999 and perhaps 2000 then resume the downward trend. 

As stated earlier, murder is the most serious of crimes reported to police, and it is the one 

most likely to be reported when it occurs. The reliability and validity of the statistic 

makes it one of the best measures of violence, based on official statistics (there are more 

valid methods of measuring other crimes than official statistics). That reliability is 

dependant upon the jurisdiction then reporting the crimes to the UCR Program or a 

central agency within the state. Since murder is a relatively rare event, it becomes 

difficult to determine patterns or trends in areas with low populations since a few crimes 

can cause unusual spikes in rates. 

Rape 

While murder is one of the crimes most likely to be reported when it occurs, rape is one 

of the most underreported crimes. Since there is a gap between the actual number of 

forcible rapes occurring (or attempted) and those reported to police as having occurred or 

attempted, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether high rape rates mean more rapes 

occur or more rapes are being reported. The crime is certainly a serious one and 

regardless of the interpretation, the data should be studied and the degree of the problem 

assessed. Later there will be recommendations on how best to judge the trend or pattern 

of rapes reported to police. 

As was the case with murder rates, the North Central Region has rape rates that have 

been, until recently, far below the U.S. average. As the chart below shows, the states of 

the North Central Region had forcible rape rates well below the U.S. average until the 

rates began climbing in 1993, 1994, and 1995. Since 1995, the rape rates have been 

higher than the U.S. average. 

Again, there are reporting problems within the states of this region. Illinois' rape rates 

have been estimated for most of the past decade. It appears, based on the rates reported, 

that an extraordinary event occurred in 1993-94 to cause rates to increase so dramatically. 

This "spike" suggests that it is due to changes in the reporting of crime, rather than 

changes in the incidence of crime. Increases in victim assistance or increases in reporting 

by agencies may influence patterns such as this. The uncertainty makes it impossible to 

draw any conclusions regarding the true nature of the rate of rape in the region. 

89 
Rape Rates 1991-98 

45" 

40. 

$5- 

30. 

2.5 

20" 

15. 

10, 

._..-.~ 

\/ 

v 

--us 

--North Central 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

In 1998, the U.S. average for forcible rape rates was 34.4 per 100,000 population while 

the average for the region was 38 per 100,000 population. 

When unusual spikes appear in the rates of sexual assaults reported to police, over time, 

for a jurisdiction such as a state, it may suggest an extraordinary increase in sexual 

assaults or, arguably, it may suggest an aggressive and effective effort to facilitate 

reporting of the crime when it occurs. Victim Assistance Coordinators, Rape Crisis 

Centers, and persons within prosecutor offices may be effective in reducing the gap 

between the number of crimes occurring and the number of crimes reported. On a 

regional basis, it appears that there are no unusual patterns in the data so the supposition 

is that the data reflect the same rate of reporting, year after year. 

State-level rape rates show that Michigan had a rape rate of 50.38 per 100,000 population 

for 1998, a rate higher than any other state in the region. Minnesota's rape rate was a 

close second at 49.9 per 100,000 population. Additionally, the rural rape rates for those 

two states were the highest in the regionwith Michigan's rural rape rate actually higher 

than the state's average. That rate, 51.47 per 100,000 and the coverage shown by the 

county-level map below, suggests either rape is at epidemic proportions in Michigan or 

the reporting of sexual assaults in Michigan is at a higher level than most other states. 

Based on a state-specific assessment in 1999, it appears that the later is the more accurate 

representation of the high rape rates. Complicating the picture is the sparse reporting of 

crime in the region. 

90 
I I 

North Cerr~a! Region Rape Rates by County 1998 

Rstes per 100~00 pepu~on 

I-I 39 ~ (Ir~ 

D ~ 39 (loo) 

I-I o to 21.9 (sTs) 

The county-level assessment of reported rapes in 1998 shows that there were 21 counties 

with rape rates over 100 per 100,000 population. Of these 21 counties, one was in North 

Dakota, one in South Dakota, one in Wyoming, three in Indiana and the remainder were 

in Michigan and Minnesota. 

As was mentioned in the BJA Regional meetings, jurisdictions with colleges and 

universities sometimes have higher than average rape rates. Again, this may be due to 

campuses facilitating the reporting of assaults or it may be due to a higher frequency of 

occurrence. One other statistical explanation might be the increased non-residents (for 

Census purposes) on or around campuses on a semi permanent basis contributing to the 

number of potential victims but not included in the denominator in calculating the crime 

rates. Arguably, population alone is not the most significant factor, otherwise all crime 

rates would appear higher in those jurisdictions. 

As the U.S. map below shows, there are pockets of high forcible rape rates throughout 

the Nation, including the North Central Region. Again, this map excludes Illinois 

Counties since those data were not available. 

91 
U.S. Rape Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,000 ~ion 

i"1 39 to 986 (650) 

[] 21.9 to 39 (651) 

[] 0 to 21.9 (1842) 

On a state-wide examination shown in the map below, the North Central Region shows 

high rape rates in Michigan and Minnesota. West Virginia had very low rape rates, at 

about 19 per 100,000 population. Rates were estimated by the UCR for those regions not 

reporting and it would be misleading to report those comparative rates here. 

Rape Rate 1998 

Rstes per 100,000 i~gula~on 

[] 49tossJs (7) 

[] 3sto4e (13) 

[] 0to36 (32) 

Montana -% ~. 

I ~° ILL/ s---~r 

\ '*ol o- co ol .... 

92 
Unlike other regions and the Nation, the trend line for rape in the North Central Region 

shows increases expected in the future. It is unclear whether this trend is due to reporting 

issues, however. 

Regi( al Projected Rape Rates 

Rape Rates North Central Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

Rates per 100~00 population 

SB -- 

m 

"11 

l 

m 

a G1~¢~Jtd 

Robbery 

While some states consider robbery a "crime against property," the Uniform Crime 

Report and the accepted definition of the crime places it within the category of violent 

crimes. Robbery is predominately an urban crime, and historically the highest rates have 

been found in metropolitan areas and densely populated jurisdictions. 

As the chart below shows, the North Central Region has experienced lower than average 

robbery rates although the gap has narrowed. The U.S. robbery rate in 1998 was 165 per 

100,000 population. The rate was significantly higher, 198 per 100,000 population, for 

metropolitan areas of the Nation. The robbery rate in the North Central Region in 1998 

was 141 per 100,000 population. Illinois exceeded that regional average with rates of 

249 per 100,000 population. North Dakota, on the other hand, had a robbery rate of 10.2 

per 100,000 population in 1998 and South Dakota and West Virginia had robbery rates of 

20 and 16 per 100,000 population. 

93 
Roobery Rates 1991-98 

300 " 

250" 

200 • 

150 - 

100 " 

50" 

O" 

r~ 

V ~, --us 

North Central 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

The map below shows the distribution of robbery rates in the region. 

robbery rates are restricted to certain counties. 

Clearly, high 

North Central Region Robbery Rates ~ County 1998 

R=des per 100,000 ~ion 

[] 62.8 to 841 (69) 

[] 209to 62.6 (89) 

I-'l 0 to 20.9 (687) 

94 
Of those counties reporting crimes to the UCR in 1998, the following showed the highest 

robbery rates: 

Cook Illinois Peoria Illinois 

Milwaukee Wisconsin Franklin Ohio 

Wayne Michigan Sangamon Illinois 

Winnebago Illinois Mahoning Ohio 

Cuyahoga Ohio Jefferson Kentucky 

Marion Indiana Hennepin Minnesota 

Clark Ohio Montgomery Ohio 

Each of these counties showed robbery rates higher than 250 per 100,000 population with 

Cook County reporting a robbery rate of more than 800 per 100,000 population. These 

counties were almost all densely populated counties, consistent with research suggesting 

that robbery is an urban crime. 

Again there were reporting issues seen in the data. Only 332 of the 841 counties in the 

region reported any robberies. Another 173 counties reported crimes to the UCR but 

reported no robberies. The remaining 336 counties did not report anything to the UCR 

regarding robbery or other crimes. 

Because of the sparse reporting, the North Central Region reflects fewer "hot spots" than 

were seen in previous crime maps, as reflected in the map below. 

U.S. Robbery Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,000 popu~tion 

O s2.sto 3.230 if, s1) 

[] 20.sto b-'2a (ss2) 

F] 0 to 204 Os¢o) 

The U.S. map depicting the rates for robbery by state shows rather clearly that Illinois is 

the state within the region that has the greatest robbery problem, followed by Michigan. 

95 
to ~"bo 

Robbery Rate 1998 

Rate~ per 100,00010opu~ion 

r-] 190to6~0 (9) 

[] 140to190 (11) 

[] 0 to 140 (32) 

/ ~: .... ~r--~~--.-~.. 

\ I! no,~ o,wo,,. -~.:~-~ ,,.. 

\ Mo,~=, "~ !: ..'%,.~- / 1 

Idaho~.,J 

: ;i ~=.. \ "-" 73J~7-',, u-cf----~d~ 

,ada ~a:h Co oi /' :, ",';:"" 

.r~' 

Puea~co 

Again, the robbery rate trend line, as reflected by the regression line, is strongly 

downward. Based on this projection, the robbery rates in the North Central Region of 

BJA are likely to be at or below the U.S. averages within the next three years, although it 

appears the line shows an increase is likely in 1999 or 2000. 

96 
Regional Projected Robbery 

Rates 

Robbery Rates North Central Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

Rates per 100~00 population 

210 q 

i 

i n~j 

I 

Aggravated Assault 

Aggravated Assault, an assault often accompanied by the use of a weapon, is the most 

frequently occurring of the serious violent crimes. The U.S. average for aggravated 

assault in 1998 was 360.5 per 100,000 population. While the average for the North 

Central Region was lower than the national average in 1998, several states within the 

region had unusually high rates. 

As the table below shows, the North Central Region has had and continues to have lower 

than average aggravated assault rates. This is due, in part, to some extraordinarily low 

rates in the states of North and South Dakota. High rates of aggravated assault were seen 

in Illinois and Michigan in 1998. 

97 
Aggravated Assault Rates 

1991-98 

500' 

450 ---- '~ 

400 ~"'"~ 

350' -""~ /'---"'-~ 

300 ~'/ 

250' 

200' 

150 

100. 

50 

" I I I 

mus 

North Central 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Clearly, the distribution of aggravated assault rates varies significantly. As the map 

below shows, there are pockets of violent, serious assaults within the region. The 

distribution in this map is somewhat inconsistent with the UCR rate for Illinois reported 

by the FBI. This discrepancy is due to incomplete data on crimes from many 

jurisdictions in the region, as noted in Crime in the United States. It appears that 95 of 

Illinois' counties did not report or the reports were unacceptable to the UCR. The 

estimates of aggravated assault, based on counties that did report and the estimating 

process used by the UCR suggest high rates in the state. Cook County Illinois that did 

report, had an aggravated assault rate of more than 1,300 per 100,000 population in 1998. 

98 
North Centxal Region Aggravated Assault Rates by County 1998 

Rate~ ~ 1CO~0 popu~Uon 

D 34s.gto 2~10 (ss) 

[] 1802to 345.9 (78) 

[] o ~ leo2(~n 

West Virginia's rural counties had an average aggravated assault rate of 168 per 100,000 

population. Michigan and Wyoming had rather wide distributions of high and 

intermediate rates for aggravated assault but that may be an aberration due to 

nonreporting by other jurisdictions. 

• I;P~, 

U.S. Aggravated Assault Rates by Count/1 g98 

Rates ~ t 00,O00 popu~Uon 

ri 34s.9~o 13mo (sso) 

D Im2to 34s.9 (s.~ 

17 0 to 180.2 (1843) 

tl ~ vwgl~l~am~ 

The national county-level map above shows that there are clearer, more obvious pockets 

of aggravated assault in other regions. Care should be taken in interpreting crime data in 

99 
this region because of the reporting issues in some states. Clearly, no state should be 

penalized for diligence in reporting crimes to the UCR. 

Aggravated AssauR Rate 1998 

Retes per 10=3,0130 poput~ion 

[] 495to944 (8) 

[] 350to495 (11) 

[] 0 to 350 (33) 

;s, It, :. .... v.~. hi~ on No~rth O=d~o~a ' ~ " - 

-- Net= Mexico Sol :lm:, 

lueiit~Rioo 

The state-level map above shows Illinois is the only state in the top tier for aggravated 

assault rates but the data were estimated by the UCR for the state. 

Regic,nal Projected Aggravated 

Assault Rates 

Aggravated Assault Rates North Central Region 

Observed and Projected 

Rates per 100,000 population 

31'O~ 

o 0~11 

100 
This projection of the regression line shows the decline of aggravated assault in the North 

Central Region but suggests that the near-term rates will increase. The mercurial pattem 

suggests reporting issues. 

Drug Use in the North Central Region 

One of the issues of importance to the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the states is the 

use of illegal drugs. Assessing the use of drugs is even more problematic than assessing 

the incidence of crime. Drug arrests have, historically, been one of the major indices of 

drug presence in a jurisdiction, even though estimates are used widely (See 

Methodology). Drug interdiction and drug arrests are, however, clearly tied to resources 

and policy decisions. Drug enforcement is proactive enforcement. If a jurisdiction has 

resources, human and otherwise, to focus on drug arrests, arrests occur thus proving the 

presence of drugs. If a jurisdiction lacks sufficient resources to proactively address drug 

possession and drug sales, the lack of arrests might spuriously suggest the absence of 

illegal substances. Similarly, policy decisions often determine the location of proactive 

drug enforcement. If drug arrests occur in a neighborhood, community, or school, it 

certainly means there were drugs present in those locations. If, however, no proactive 

enforcement occurs in a neighborhood, community, or school and no drug arrests are 

made, it does not necessarily mean that there were no drugs present. 

Even with those caveats, it would be inappropriate to ignore drug arrests as some 

indication, incomplete as it is, that drugs are present in certain locations. The UCR 

categories for drug arrests include two major categories possession and 

sales/manufacture. Within each category the types of drugs are specified: marijuana, 

opiates, synthetic opiates, and "other." What is described here is arrest rates, by county, 

for all drug offenses, drug possession, and drug sales/manufacture. Other data will be 

shown regarding types of drugs. 

As the map below shows, drug arrests in the region are concentrated in Wyoming, 

sections of Minnesota, Indiana and Michigan. These area show the strongest presence of 

drugs, based on total arrests. The reporting of arrests to the UCR was more consistent by 

the states in the region than was the reporting of crimes. 

101 
North Central Region Drug Arrest Rates by County 1998 

Arrest rates per 100,000 iooPtd~ion 

[] 506.9 to 2~320 (58) 

[] 301.3to 50S.9 (140) 

[] 0 to 301.3 (643) 

When considering drug possession arrests in 1998, virtually the same pattern is present. 

This is not unusual since most arrests for drug crimes are arrests for possession. The map 

below shows the same corridors and concentrations. 

North Central Region Drug Possession Arrest Rates by County 1 g98 

Arrest rates pet 100,1~00 population 

D 397.6to 1,170 (62) 

[] 225.6to 397.6 (134) 

[] 0 to 22s.6 (s45) 

Drug sales and manufacture arrests represent, arguably, more serious issues than 

possession. Many agencies, including BJA, have been encouraging greater attention be 

paid to these offenses. 

102 
As the map below shows, the pattern of arrests for drug sales and manufacture is very 

different from that of possession. 

North Central Region Drug Sales Arrest Rates by County 1998 

Arrest rates per 100,(]00 

D 100.81o1,160 (78) 

D 43.61o 100.8 (1~1) 

[] o to 43Js (.~os) 

As the map rather clearly shows, Minnesota, Indiana and Wyoming showed the highest 

concentrations of arrests for sale or manufacture, with high levels also seen in Michigan 

and portions of West Virginia. Again, there are reporting concerns. While Cook County 

Illinois reported arrests for many crimes, including total drug arrests, there was no 

breakdown of arrests for possession or sales and manufacture. 

While drug-crime arrests may serve as an indication of the presence of drugs, they may 

not be as useful in understanding the relative use of drugs. Arrests certainly do not 

suggest the absence of drugs. Other data may be useful in better understanding drug use. 

103 
AI=~4= 

OIl=~om= T~n 

TEDS 1997 Drug Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 1OOtolSl (s) 

[] 50to100 (22) 

[] Oto SO (~) 

The map shown above depicts drug treatment rates, per 100,000 population, gathered by 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. The data, prepared and published by the Office of Applied Studies 

as the "Treatment Episode Data Set" (TEDS). The TEDS system is described as one 

which (OAS, 1999: 3): 

Comprises data on treatment admissions that are routinely collected by states in 

monitoring their individual substance abuse treatment system. Selected data 

items from the individual State data files are converted to standardized format 

consistent across States. These standardized data constitute TEDS. 

TEDS includes, as the unit of analysis, treatment admissions to substance abuse treatment 

facilities receiving federal funding. Typically, these facilities include public and private 

nonprofit programs. Absent are data from for-profit treatment programs. Alcohol 

treatment is included as "substance abuse treatment" and represents the bulk of treatment 

in almost all programs. Since there is an interest here in illegal drug use, alcohol 

treatment has been removed from the data presented. The map above reflects treatment 

rates for all illegal drugs. 

The highest rates in the region for drug treatment in 1997, the most recent year for which 

data were readily available, were observed in Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio, in order 

from highest rates (97.4 per 100,000 population in Michigan). West Virginia and Indiana 

did not participate in the TEDS program in 1997 but both had unusually low rates of 

treatment in 1996. Although alcohol treatment is not included in the data presented here, 

it should be noted that South Dakota had an alcohol treatment rate of 2 Y2 times the 

national rate in 1997. 

104 
,o ~'%. 

TEDS 1997 Heroin Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100.0013 population 

[] 4o toloe (s) 

[] 7.5to 40 (10) 

[] 0 to 7.5 (34) 

' ~* I)a*aa " " ")/'~'- 

Hmcacla tl~n I~m~.~db~ mW 

• lir~nla ~etlc~ V't~ MJ 

The map above shows the rates of treatment for heroin use, according to TEDS for 1997. 

The Northeast Region is the major cluster of the nation regarding heroin treatment. 

Within the North Central Region, treatment rates were highest in Michigan(24 per 

10,000), Ohio (11 per 100,000) and Minnesota (8 per 100,000) for heroin use. These 

rates were still relatively low. 

Below, we see the states with the highest rates of treatment for cocaine and crack 

cocaine. Michigan and Ohio were the states with high rates of treatment for cocaine and 

crack cocaine use in 1997. These states showed treatment rates of 36 to 38 per 100,000 

population while Minnesota's treatment rate was 25.6 per 100,000. All other states in the 

region were in single digits. 

105 
"rEDS 1997 Cocaine Treatment Rates 

Rates 10~ 100~00 population 

13 ~StoSr~ (7) 

[] lSto3S 06") 

D otols (29) 

IDa~,laff~m , °. 

Stimulant treatment was highest in Wyoming (11.7 per 100,000), South Dakota (8.9 per 

100,000) and Minnesota (7.7 per 100,000) it appears, however that about 10 percent of 

everyone treated for substance abuse in Wyoming, including alcohol abuse, were treated 

for methamphetamine use. That is important and consistent with the development of 

methamphetamine abuse from the Northwest. 

"rEDS 1997 Stimulant Treatment Rates 

Rates pm 100.600 poseidon 

B 15 to55.4 (10) 

1.5t015 (12) 

[] 0 to ~5 t'~O) 

106 
It is suggested that TEDS represents a viable corollary to arrest data in understanding the 

presence of drugs within certain jurisdictions. These data help to better understand drug 

use as well as enforcement strategies. 

Social and Demographic Issues in the North Central Region 6 

As this Nation enters the Twenty-first Century, major shifts are occurring in social and 

demographic factors. Of course, all of the shifts are continuations of trends established in 

preceding decades but the impact of some of the changes will be evident in crime. 

In succeeding issues of the annual report on crime published by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the agency comments in the introductory remarks to Crime in the United 

States (1999:iv): 

Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of 

investigation by varied disciplines. Some factors 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. 

Economic conditions, including income, poverty level, and job 

availability. 

Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 

Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. 

Climate. 

Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. 

Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. 

Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., 

prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). 

Citizens' attitudes toward crime. 

Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. 

Some of these issues have been addressed earlier in this document, such as enforcement 

emphases and resources of law enforcement. Others such as rates of juveniles in 

jurisdictions are obviously important in understanding crime rates and victimization. 

Criminological theory and research support the notion that there are many factors 

influencing crime. One of the theoretical approaches which has proven to be quite robust 

over the past seven decades and which is useful in explaining crime in particular places is 

"Social Disorganization" theory. Generally, the three components of the approach are: 

Heterogeneity 

Mobility 

Poverty 

See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for social and demographic data sources, 

limitations and methods used in this assessment. 

107 
There are many other approaches that could be used to describe why and where crime 

rates are likely to be high (See Tittle, 2000). However, for the Regional BJA 

presentations of 2000 "Social Disorganization" elements, combined with other variables, 

were presented as important components in assessing crime. This is not a test of the 

theory or even a concerted effort to address the theory. The research does serve as a 

rationale for including certain variables in the presentations and those descriptions are 

used here. Rather than an ex post facto description of crime and various elements, what 

is presented here is a description of some past but more future projections of social and 

demographic patterns and trends, in hope of anticipating issues facing regions, states and 

jurisdictions. 

Heterogeneity, Growth and Change in the North Central Region 

The Nation is realizing significant change in its citizenry. This change will continue but, 

like crime, change is not equally distributed. The elements of greatest change revolve 

around race, ethnicity and age. These components may be considered "heterogeneity" 

although most of the research suggests race and ethnicity as the key elements. 

One of the things that makes this Nation great is its diversity. We celebrate racial, ethnic, 

and cultural diversity and consider it an attribute. Criminological research suggests that 

change, including change in race and ethnicity, can negatively impact the social 

organization of communities. Ethnic and racial heterogeneity are described here in an 

effort to recognize the change that is likely to occur and accommodate, welcome, and 

assimilate the change in such a manner that it does not contribute to disorganization. 

Ettmic Diversity 2025 

[] 0.34 to 05 (7) 

D o~too.34 (s) 

[] 0 to022 (39) 

Ethnic diversity is based on the formula (1 - ~oo) where p is the proportion of the 

population in each of the categories of Hispanic and Non Hispanic. Racial diversity, 

108 
described below, is based on the same formula but where p represents the proportion of 

persons in each of the racial categories. These formulas were used by Warner and Pierce 

(1993) in applying social disorganization theory to crime data. 

Ethnic diversity, shown in the map above, is likely to be greatest in regions other than the 

North Central however Illinois is projected to show moderate increases in the proportion 

of the Hispanic population through the year 2025. It is projected by the Census Bureau 

that by 2025, Hispanics will represent 17 percent of the population of Illinois, having 

grown at a rate of 108 percent from 1995. 

Racial diversity, shown in the map below, will affect much of the Nation, including the 

North Central Region states. By the year 2025, it is expected that 17 percent of the 

population of Michigan will be black as will 16 percent of the population of Illinois. 

/:4aska / 

Racial Diversity Scores 2025 

[] 0.34to0.54 (17) 

[] 0.22100.34 (17) 

[] 0 to0.22 (18) 

"~'' ' ,~,,.....(r+"---.<::~'~_. • /. l 

t [ Nt 'i ~ ~ • 4 - . - 

The combinations of racial diversity and ethnic diversity will have greatest effect on the 

state of Illinois, within the North Central Region. 

In the next series of maps, the change in the juvenile population is described. The Census 

Bureau projects that the nation's youth will account for a smaller proportion of the 

population in 2025 than in 1995. Within the North Central Region, Illinois and Wyoming 

will be most affected by increases in the juvenile population. Wyoming is expected to 

show and increase of almost 20 percent from 1995 to 2025 while Illinois will see an 

increase of 9.6 percent. 

109 
,tl 

e,.a~ 

Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2005 

[] is to 25.7 (6) 

[] 0 to15 (31) 

[] -o.Sto 0 (15) 

IS--7q~=hO'k°~ :,, (~'= _.~old,~'g', 

r i i 

-- Ohio . = ~Jey 

oe 

Percent Change In Juvenile Population 1995-2015 

[] 15 to3S.8 (11) 

[] 0 to 15 (21) 

[] -13.7 to 0 (20) 

110 
Percent Change in Juvenile PooulatJon 1995-2025 

[] 15 to70.4 (17) 

[] 0 to15 (21) 

[] -17.5to 0 (14) 

.. 

Pu~ P,~ o 

Some states within the region will regress in juvenile populations. West Virginia is 

expected to see a decrease of 17 percent (from 316,000 to 261,000 juveniles 5-17 years 

old), Kentucky a decrease of almost 8 percent and Ohio a decrease of 6 percent. These 

states can expect to see decreases in traditionally juvenile crimes such as auto theft. 

Mobility in the North Central Region 

Mobility is represented by data collected by the Census Bureau on domestic migration 

(migration from state to state) and international migration (migration from other 

countries). None of the states in the North Central Region have gained much from 

domestic migration in the past decade. North Dakota, Illinois, and Michigan have 

recognized net losses in population due to domestic migration of 2 to 5.9 percent. 

Ill 
/~aska 

"r)gt¢ 

,i 

Changes in Population due to Domestic Migration 1990-99 

Changes Exl~essed in Percentages 

[] 5.2to 24 (11) 

[] =0.5 to 5.2 (21) 

[] -28.3to -O.S (20) 

"-- ~f. M °s -, " 

r I .... "~. Ioma .l \/.. (.._.~,c~.-~ 

putti~~Ric o 

The map below shows that international migration has benefited Illinois. The state has 

recognized a gain of about three percent due to international migration. 

°o 

Population Change 1990-99 due to Intemational Migration 

Change Expressed ws Perce~es 

[] 2 to6.88 (17) 

[] 0.74to 2 (17) 

I-] 0 to0.74 (18) 

Montana ~ . 

o~ D'~ ora " 

-- 0tio mey 

Population growth rates, while not directly due to "mobility," do represent change. 

Presumably the change is advantageous since growth is generally preferred to decline, 

but rapid or remarkable change must be recognized and proactive steps taken to 

accommodate it. 

112 
The maps below show the population growth expected through 2025. 

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the states of California, Texas and 

Florida are likely to recognize the greatest increase in population through 2025. It 

appears that the net gain of those three states from 1995 to 2025 will be over 32 million 

persons. California alone will increase by almost the entire expected population of New 

York. 

t ~aska / Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2005 

Change Expces~ed as Percentage Increase 

[] 7.5to10.7 (6) 

[] 5 to 7.5 (12) 

[] 0 to S (34) 

\ \ ...... I""1 c~ I ~ ;,s,~ . ~.,,,,;n 

From the pattern shown in these maps, it appears that the West will lead the growth. Five 

western states are expected to grow by more than 50 percent from 1995 to 2025. 

113 
.elaska 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2015 

Change Exp~,essed in Percentage Increase 

[] 15 to27.3 (15) 

[] 7.5to15 (21) 

[] 0 to 7.5 (16) 

t v I M Montana "_~. £ "~, _ ' "~..'-:~-. f I 

North Central states will grow but at a far slower pace. By the year 2025, shown in the 

map below, Wyoming will have recognized an 32 percent increase in total population, 

compared to the year 2000. This will be the highest percentage of growth in the region. 

Minnesota will realize a growth of 14 percent while Illinois and South Dakota will see an 

increase of about 11 percent. The smallest gain in the region and the smallest in the 

Nation, will be in West Virginia with an increase of .2 percent. 

Alaska 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2025 

Expres~d in Pere~tage Increase 

['-I 15 to 51.6 (29) 

[] 7.Stot5 (17) 

[] 0 to r.S ¢S) 

J@ 

114 
Poverty 

By its very nature, poverty is a very quantifiable variable. According to the literature, 

however, it is not as much the poverty rate as the disparity between the poor and the 

wealthy which may be most influential in crime and violence. What is presented below 

are two measures of poverty. The first, shown in the map below, is the three-year 

average percentage of children living at or below 200 percent of the U.S. poverty level, 

this is generally referred to as "Percent of Children in Low Income Homes." The rate for 

each state is averaged for the three year period. 

The North Central had one state in the highest category of states with children living in 

low income households. West Virginia had 51.4 percent of its children living in low 

income households in 1996098, on the average. The U.S. percentage was 42.2 percent. 

Kentucky had 43.1 percent of its children living in low income homes, as did Wyoming. 

~ask~ 

Average Percent of Children in Poverty', 1996-98 

[-] 43.8to602 (17) 

El 36.1to43.6 (17) 

[] 0 to36.1 (18) 

L--~--JL,,,,~,,,,,"~ ~"?g--)J ~Z~~ 

The other measure suggested here as a proxy for economic deprivation, is the Gini Index. 

The most recent year for which data are available by state is 1989. Each year the U.S. 

Department of Commerce samples persons throughout the nation to arrive at a U.S. Gini 

Index but the sample size is insufficient to estimate state indexes any years except full 

census years. Kentucky had the highest rate in the region with an index of .456 while 

West Virginia had a Gini score of .448 and Illinois a score of .44.. The Gini Index seeks 

to measure the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. The higher the index 

score, the greater the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in a jurisdiction. 

115 
GINI Scale for Households 1 g89 

[] 0.439 to 0.492 (17) 

B 0.42 to 0.439 (17) 

0 to 0.42 (18) 

-- e~bie " 

One other measure of "community stability" was proposed during the presentations. That 

measure was the voting rates during major elections. While it is certainly not suggested 

as a variable directly associated with crime, it may serve as a proxy for community 

activism and may indicate the degree to which community-oriented initiatives might be 

acted upon. 

Within the region, voting rates in the 1996 election were lowest in West Virginia, by far. 

North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming had the highest voting 

rates for men and women in 1996. 

Conclusions appropriate to the North Central Region: 

Nonreporting through the UCR Program makes it difficult to recognize and 

interpret crime problems in some states. 

Other than Illinois, murder does not appear to be a problem in the region; 

Rape appeared to be a problem only in Michigan and Minnesota, within the 

region, and it appears that rape rates will increase in the region, unlike any other 

region of the country; 

Illinois, particularly Cook County, has shown clear and consistent high levels of 

violence; 

Minnesota has engaged in higher levels of arrests for drug sales while Wyoming 

has recorded higher rates of drug possession arrests. Michigan, Minnesota, and 

116 
Ohio, however, have shown the highest levels of drug use, based on treatment 

data; 

Illinois is likely to experience significant racial and ethnic changes in the next two 

decades, contributing to some social instability. 

117 
118 
Crime Trends and Patterns 

South Central Region 

The South Central Region of the United States, as defined by BJA, consists of the 

following states: 

Alabama Mississippi 

Arkansas Missouri 

Colorado Nebraska 

Iowa Oklahoma 

Kansas Texas 

Louisiana 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the current population of the states comprising the 

region to total 54,796,000 persons. The average of the median income for each of the 

states in the region for 1998 was $34,910.73, according to the Census Bureau, Housing 

and Household Economic Statistics Division. The average median income, by state, for 

1996 through 1998 ranged from a low of $27,471 in Arkansas and $28,592 in Mississippi 

to a high of $44,349 in Colorado. The median income average for the United States for 

the period was $37,779. 

The total land mass for the eleven states in the South Central Region is 911,100.6 square 

miles. The population density for this region is 60 persons per square mile. 

119 
Index Crime Rates in the South Central Region 7 

The crime rate trends for index violent crimes in the South Central Region are higher but 

generally consistent with the U.S. averages. "Index crimes" reported are defined by the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR, 1998: 5): 

The Crime Index is composed of selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in 

the overall volume and rate of crime reported to law enforcement. The offenses 

included are the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible 

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, 

larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. 

Our focus here is on violent crimes so only the first four are described. In order to 

compare crimes across jurisdictions, it is necessary to convert the number of crimes to 

some standard format. The generally accepted measure used in crime analysis is "crimes 

per 100,000 population" where the population statistic is the estimated population for 

reporting jurisdictions for each year considered. For the general tables shown below, the 

UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting Program) data were estimated for non-reporting 

jurisdictions but with the county level data, non-reporting jurisdictions are excluded for 

all except arrest data. 

Murder 

Murder Rates 1991-98 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 | ! I I 

mus 

South Central 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter represents the most serious but rarest of crimes in 

the crime index. As the chart above shows, the South Central Region has had and 

7 See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for data sources, limitations and methods used. 

120 
continues to have, a higher rate of murder than the average for the U.S. The average 

murder rate for the Nation in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 population while the average 

murder rate for the eleven states comprising the South Central Region was 7.2 per 

100,000 population. The national average murder rate was the lowest recorded since 

1967. 

Some of the states within the region had exceptionally low murder rates, according to an 

analysis of UCR data. Two states in the region had extraordinarily high murder rates in 

1998. Louisiana had the highest rate in the region with 12.8 per 100,000 population, 

more than twice the U.S. average. Mississippi also had a high murder rate with 11.45 per 

100,000 population 

As with most social issues, murder rates were not equally distributed in or among the 

states. As the map below shows, large sections of central Alabama, Southern and central 

Louisiana, and potions of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado had high murder 

rates. The jurisdictions in the New Orleans area, including Orleans had very high rates. 

Orleans Parish had 48.8 murders per 100,000 population in 1998. 

II 

II 

I 

South Central Region Murder Rates by County 1998 

Rste~ per 100.000 pepula~ion 

I"1 6.3to58.1 (256) 

[7 1.3to 6.3 (168) 

["1 0 to 1.3 (670) 

As with the North Central Region, some states did not participate in reporting crime to 

the UCR Program. Only two counties of the 104 jurisdictions in Kansas reported 

through the UCR Program in 1998. Also missing were 24 counties in Mississippi, 23 

counties in Missouri, and five in Colorado. Still, this region had a far higher rate of 

reporting than did the North Central Region. The nonreporting is mentioned to clarify 

what might appear to be the absence of crime in Kansas when, actually, it is an absence 

of data. 

121 
Juvenile violence is a particularly troubling issue for many jurisdictions. Within the 

South Central Region it appears that juvenile arrests for homicide are isolated. Murder is 

a rare event in any state and juvenile arrests for murder are even more rare. Counties 

with low populations are susceptible to high rates during any one year. Rather than 

suggest that sparsely populated counties have a juvenile murder problems, here we will 

identify only heavily populated jurisdictions that appeared to have higher than average 

rates. St. Louis Missouri and East Baton Rouge had juvenile murder rates at or above 5 

per 100,000 population. Pueblo County Colorado, Montgomery County Alabama, and 

Jackson County Missouri had murder rates that were at or above 3.5 per 100,000 

population. Caddo Parish Louisiana and Denver Colorado each had juvenile murder rates 

exceeding 2.5 per 100,000 population in 1998. Since juveniles, ages 0-17, comprised 

only about 14 percent of the population in 1998, it would be expected that the murder rate 

for juveniles would be approximately .88 per 100,000 population. 

D--- 

I"- 

z 

I 

i 

I 

~urder by Cot~y lgg8 

~ion 

) 

) 

Care should be exercised in interpreting rates for one year in sparsely populated areas. 

Ashley County Arkansas, for example, had three juveniles arrested for murder in 1998. 

With a population of 24,500, that produced a juvenile murder rate of 12.2 per 100,000 

population. In 1997, however, there were no juveniles arrested for murder in that 

County. St. Louis Missouri, on the other hand, had 19 juveniles arrested for murder in 

1998, producing a juvenile murder rate of 5.52 per 100,000, and 18 juveniles arrested for 

murder in 1997. The figures for St. Louis do suggest a pattern. 

The South Central Region county map, compared to the national map regarding murder 

rates, per 100,000 population, shows a concentration of high murder rate counties in the 

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Southern Arkansas East Texas, and East Okalahoma 

area.. 

122 
dr 

U.S. Murder Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,000 pop.ion 

[] 6.3 to 134 (850) 

[] 1.3to s.3 (s4;,) 

[] 0 to 1.3 (1846) 

Similarly, state-wide rates support the impression that Mississippi and Louisiana 

represent the "hot spots" within the South Central Region. 

1998 Murder Rate 

Rate per 100,000 pol0ulation 

[] 82to49.8 (8) 

[] 6 to 82 (lS) 

[] 0 to 6 (29) 

~,~o 

The historically high rate of murder in the South Central Region, combined with a trend 

line that is decreasing at a slower pace than the U.S. rates, suggests that the rate is likely 

to continue to be higher in the region than the Nation. The chart below shows the 

regression line, based on past rates. 

123 
Regional Projected Murder Rates 

Murder Rates South Central Region 1991-1998 

Observed and Projected 

Rates per 100.000 population 

11 

I 

s~ 

~4 

ii etl 

I "77.°,.~., 

The trend lines projected and observed are quite consistent and the slope is rather 

gradual. 

As stated earlier, murder is the most serious of crimes reported to police, and it is the one 

most likely to be reported when it occurs. The reliability and validity of the statistic 

makes it one of the best measures of violence, based on official statistics (there are more 

valid methods of measuring other crimes than official statistics). Since it is a relatively 

rare event, it becomes difficult to determine patterns or trends in areas with low 

populations since a few crimes can cause unusual spikes in rates. 

Rape 

Just as murder is one of the crimes most likely to be reported when it occurs, rape is one 

of the most underreported crimes. Since there is a gap between the actual number of 

forcible rapes occurring (or attempted) and those reported to police as having occurred or 

attempted, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether high rape rates mean more rapes 

occur or more rapes are being reported. The crime is certainly a serious one and 

regardless of the interpretation, the data should be studied and the degree of the problem 

assessed. Later there will be recommendations on how best to judge the trend or pattern 

of rapes reported to police. 

124 
As was true of murder, the South Central Region has rape rates that are and have been 

higher than the U.S. average. As the chart below shows, the states of the South Central 

Region has had forcible rape rates almost than 10 percent higher than the U.S. average. 

Rape Rates 1991-98 

50  ̧ 

45. -"----',,, 

40 -~... -.....--."-'- ---- ~ 

30. 

25, 

20 ~ 

15, 

0 ' I I I I 

m us 

South Central 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

In 1998, the U.S. average for forcible rape rate was 34.4 per 100,000 population while the 

average for the region was 37.3 per 100,000 population. There have been no unusual 

spikes or valleys in the trend line for the region and the rates have decreased at about the 

same slope as the national rates. 

When unusual spikes appear in the rates of sexual assaults reported to police, over time, 

for a jurisdiction such as a state, it may suggest an extraordinary increase in sexual 

assaults or, arguably, it may suggest an aggressive and effective effort to facilitate 

reporting of the crime when it occurs. Victim Assistance Coordinators, Rape Crisis 

Centers, and persons within prosecutor offices may be effective in reducing the gap 

between the number of crimes occurring and the number of crimes reported. On a 

regional basis, it appears that there are no unusual patterns in the data so the supposition 

is that the data reflect the same rate of reporting, year after year. 

State-level rape rates show that Colorado had a rape rate of 47.4 per 100,000 population 

for 1998, a rate higher than any other state in the region. Oklahoma had a rape rate of 

45.2 per 100,000 in 1998 for the second highest rate in the region. 

125 
i 

South Central Region Rap~ 

Rates per 100,0[ 

El ~ to24 

[] 21.sto 

[] o to~ 

This map shows that there are pockets of higher than average rape rates within the South 

Central Region. Concentrations of high rape rates appeared in East Texas, Central 

Alabama, and the New Orleans area. Additionally, Central Oklahoma reflected high rape 

rates in 1998. 

As was mentioned in the BJA Regional meetings, jurisdictions with colleges and 

universities sometimes have higher than average rape rates. Again, this may be due to 

campuses facilitating the reporting of assaults or it may be due to a higher frequency of 

occurrence. One other statistical explanation might be the increased non-residents (for 

Census purposes) on or around campuses on a semi permanent basis contributing to the 

number of potential victims but not included in the denominator in calculating the crime 

rates. Arguably, population alone is not the most significant factor, otherwise all crime 

rates would appear higher in those jurisdictions. 

As the U.S. map below shows, there are pockets of high forcible rape rates throughout 

the Nation, including the South Central Region. Those pockets just mentioned are the 

most prominent in the region. Other areas of the nation appear to show higher 

concentrations of rape rates, such as the Central Alaska, Northwest Washington, 

Michigan, New Mexico, and Nevada areas. 

126 
U.S. Rape Rates by Rates per l=,O00 popt~tio~ / / 

13 39 to986 (sso) I I 

[] 2~.9to 39 (~s!? I 1 

[] 0 to 21.9 (1~29~__.__J 

On a state-wide examination, the South Central Region appears to have moderate forcible 

rape rates, compared to other states. 

I Rape Rate 1999~'~ 

I ~ | O 49 to 68.6 (7) I 

~=~ / [] 3sto49 (13) I 

As was the case with murder, the trend line for rape in the South Central Region is 

declining. It appears that the rape rates will continue to decrease for the region. 

127 
Regic)ral Projected R Lpe Rates 

Rape Rates South Central Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

Rates per 100,000 popula0on 

4~q 

304 

341 

m 

a Ob ~er*ed 

Lunelr 

a pio|*~*d 

gD 

Again, this trend line, based on regression, appears consistent with the national trend and 

this line would have rather accurately predicted the rape rates over the past six years. 

Robbery 

While some states consider robbery a "crime against property," the Uniform Crime 

Report and the accepted definition of the crime places it within the category of violent 

crimes. Robbery is predominately an urban crime, and historically the highest rates have 

been found in metropolitan areas and densely populated jurisdictions. 

As the chart below shows, the South Central Region has experienced lower than average 

robbery rates although the gap is narrowing. The U.S. robbery rate in 1998 was 165 per 

100,000 population. The rate was significantly higher, 198 per 100,000 population, for 

metropolitan areas of the Nation. The robbery rate in the South Central Region in 1998 

was 127 per 100,000 population. Since robbery is an urban crime and the population 

density, 60 persons per square mile, is low, it would be expected that the robbery rate 

would be lower than that of the U.S. Three states, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas, 

exceeded that regional average with rates of 198, 149, and 140 per 100,000 population. 

Iowa, on the other hand, had a robbery rate of 51 per 100,000 population in 1998. 

128 
Robbery Rates 1991-98 

34}O 

250 

200 

150 

IO0 

50 

0 

--US 

-- South Cen/ral 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Even though the South Central has had robbery rates lower than the U.S. average, the rate 

is declining slower than the U.S. average. Robbery has, however, been restricted to 

certain areas of the region. 

This restriction is evident in the map below showing the county-specific robbery rates for 

1998. 

-+__ 

.,1_ 

I 

Z 

/ 

J 

,~j 

South Central Region Robbery Rates by County 1998 

Rste~ per 100,000 iOOl0¢~on 

I") ~.9to1~0 0ss) 

[] 2o.9to ~B (22s) 

[] 0 to 20.9 (684) 

129 
o,~5=* 

Clusters of counties in Alabama, Southem Louisiana, and Eastern Texas had high rates of 

robbery. It should be noted that the ranges for this map and the robbery maps for other 

regions use relatively low rates, even for the highest range. This is done to show where, 

within each region, the rates are highest and may be useful in assessing drug-related 

offenses as well. Robbery is one of the crimes frequently associated with drugs and, 

while it cannot serve as a proxy for drug use, may help to focus attention on a serious 

violent crime which may also serve to reduce drug-related offenses. 

Nationally, the South Central Region reflects a few "hot spots" as seen in previous crime 

maps and as reflected in the map below. 

U.S. Robbery Rates by County 1998 

Rstes per 100,000 population 

[] 62.8 to 3,230 (651) 

[] 20.91o 62.8 (652) 

[] 0 to 204 (1840) 

The U.S. map depicting the rates for robbery by state show Louisiana and Texas as being 

among those states with high robbery rates. 

130 
h~on 

emg~ 

to 

Robbery' Rate 1998 

Rate~ per 100,000 popula~n 

[] 190to690 (9) 

[] 140to190 (11) 

[] 0to 140 (32) 

Nollh O-~oti .- 

~ana re 

ILIt~h ,.t Colorado . I<~laa~l ~~rsey 

Again, the robbery rate trend line, as reflected by the regression line, is downward. 

Based on this projection, the robbery rates in the South Central Region of BJA are likely 

to be at or below the U.S. average for the foreseeable future. 

Regicnal Projected Poblgery 

Rates 

2"( 

22C 

20¢ 

t¢¢ 

t4C 

12C 

I0¢ 

O0 

Robbery Rates South Central Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

Rates pe~" 100.000 popula'~Jon 

OI 02 03 ~-z O~ ¢~, g't ~ ¢u~ ~mi*cljd | [ J 

131 
Aggravated Assault 

Aggravated Assault, an assault often accompanied by the use of a weapon, is the most 

frequently occurring of the serious violent crimes. The U.S. average for aggravated 

assault in 1998 was 360.5 per 100,000 population. While the average for the South 

Central Region was slightly lower than the national average in 1998, several states within 

the region had unusually high rates. 

As the table below shows, the South Central Region has had and continues that are 

almost perfectly in consonance with the U.S. average aggravated assault rates. 

Aggravated Assault Rates 

19_9_1_-_9-8 

500 

450 '~" "-" 

400 -- ~"~ ~ ~ ~'~ 

350 

300 

7.50 

200 

150 

104) 

50 

O, , I I 

mus 

South Cen~al 

Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Clearly, the distribution of aggravated assault rates shows a concentration in Louisiana. 

As the map below shows, there are pockets of violent, serious assaults within the region 

in Alabama, Oklahoma, East Texas, but particularly in Louisiana. Seven of the 13 

jurisdictions with aggravated assault rates higher than 1,000 per 100,000 population in 

1998 were in Louisiana. One of the other six was St. Louis Missouri with an aggravated 

assault rate of 1,472 per 100,000 population in 1998. Rural jurisdictions in Louisiana had 

aggravated assault rates higher than the aggravated assault rates of any other state's rural 

areas, and more than twice that of almost all of the other states' rural areas. 

132 
..¢.- 

i 

There are states with more obvious pockets of violence than the South Central Region but 

the concentrations in Louisiana cannot be ignored. 

# 

IJ :l.Vl~bl=ell. 

U.S. Aggravated ,assault Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,000 population 

I'-] 34S~ to 13~0 (650) 

[] 180.2to 345.9 (65O) 

[] 0 to 160.2 (1843) 

133 
/~aska / Aggravated Assault Rate 1998 

Rate~ per 100,000 po~pu~ion 

[] 495 to 944 (8) 

r-J 350to496 (11) 

[] 0 to 350 (33) 

Nath D;~ Olll , - 

L~ Nebraska Iowa . I 

U~zh Colorado linois Psey 

P~ 

The state-level map above shows clearly that Louisiana is among those states in the top 

tier with high aggravated assault rates 

Regic,nal Projected Aggr Lvated 

Assault r ates 

Aggravated Assault Rates South Central Regi( 

Observed and Projected 

Rates pet 100.000 population 

480, 

44 

4~ 

40 

38 

35 

34~ 

32~r. 

m 

o Obl.~.d 

~namr 

m 

a Pmj*d*d 

GG 

134 
This projection of the regression line shows the decline of aggravated assault in the South 

Central Region and suggests that the decline will continue, although the 1999 rates may 

be higher than the 1998 rates. The,states and counties representing pockets of violence, 

however, should not be masked by this trend. 

Drug Use in the South Central Region 

One of the issues of importance to the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the states is the 

use of illegal drugs. Assessing the use of drugs is even more problematic than assessing 

the incidence of crime. Drug arrests have, historically, been one of the major indices of 

drug presence in a jurisdiction, even though estimates are used widely (See 

Methodology). Drug interdiction and drug arrests are, however, clearly tied to resources 

and policy decisions. Drug enforcement is proactive enforcement. If a jurisdiction has 

resources, human and otherwise, to focus on drug arrests, arrests occur thus proving the 

presence of drugs. If a jurisdiction lacks sufficient resources to proactively address drug 

possession and drug sales, the lack of arrests might spuriously suggest the absence of 

illegal substances. Similarly, policy decisions often determine the location of proactive 

drug enforcement. If drug arrests occur in a neighborhood, community, or school, it 

certainly means there were drugs present in those locations. If, however, no proactive 

enforcement occurs in a neighborhood, community, or school and no drug arrests are 

made, it does not necessarily mean that there were no drugs present. 

Even with those caveats, it would be inappropriate to ignore drug arrests as some 

indication, incomplete as it is, that drugs are present in certain locations. The UCR 

categories for drug arrests include two major categories - possession and 

sales/manufacture. Within each category the types of drugs are specified: marijuana, 

opiates, synthetic opiates, and "other." What is described here is arrest rates, by county, 

for all drug offenses, drug possession, and drug sales/manufacture. Other data will be 

shown regarding types of drugs. 

As the map below shows, drug arrests in the region are concentrated in six states. 

Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas are fully engaged in 

drug arrests. Notably absent in the medium or high categories are counties in Kansas due 

to reporting issues but also in Nebraska, even though the agencies reported crimes and 

arrests. 

135 
O 

rWhen considering drug possession arrests in 1998, virtually the same pattern is present. 

This is not unusual since most arrests for drug crimes are arrests for possession. The map 

below shows the same corridors and concentrations. Alabama actually appears stronger 

in arrests for possession in this map. 

Drug sales and manufacture arrests represent, arguably, more serious issues than 

possession. Many agencies, including BJA, have been encouraging greater attention be 

paid to these offenses. 

136 
As the map below shows, the pattern of arrests for drug sales and manufacture are very 

different from those of possession for some states. Alabama appears not to engage in 

arrests for sales and manufacture to the same degree most other states do. Additionally, 

Texas appears not to have the same concentrations of arrests it did with possession. 

rAs the map rather clearly shows, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri are 

those states most associated with drug sales arrests. Alabama seems not to be associated 

with arrests for drug sales. This observation is not intended to be a critique. Many issues 

fit into the decisions to engage in certain types of proactive enforcement. 

While drug-crime arrests may serve as an indication of the presence of drugs, they may 

not be as useful in understanding the relative use of drugs. Arrests certainly do not 

suggest the absence of drugs. Other data may be useful in better understanding drug use. 

The maps below show drug treatment rates, excluding alcohol treatment. It should be 

noted, however, that Colorado had an extremely high rate of treatment for alcohol abuse 

in 1997. Iowa had the highest rates for drug treatment in the region in 1997. Mississippi 

did not participate in the TEDS program in 1997 or previous years. 

137 
TEDS 1 997 Drug Treatment Rates 

Rates pet 100,000 popu~tion 

[] 100to191 (9) 

[] 50to100 (22) 

[] Oto 5o (21) 

t.Canm~ in 

The map shown above depicts drug treatment rates, per 100,000 population, gathered by 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. The data, prepared and published by the Office of Applied Studies 

as the "Treatment Episode Data Set" (TEDS). The TEDS system is described as one 

which (OAS, 1999: 3): 

Comprises data on treatment admissions that are routinely collected by states in 

monitoring their individual substance abuse treatment system. Selected data 

items from the individual State data files are converted to standardized format 

consistent across States. These standardized data constitute TEDS. 

TEDS includes, as the unit of analysis, treatment admissions to substance abuse treatment 

facilities receiving federal funding. Typically, these facilities include public and private 

nonprofit programs. Absent are data from for-profit treatment programs. Alcohol 

treatment is included as "substance abuse treatment" and represents the bulk of treatment 

in almost all programs. Since there is an interest here in illegal drug use, alcohol 

treatment has been removed from the data presented. The map above reflects treatment 

rates for all illegal drugs. 

138 
:' AIm.~= 

Q 

TEDS 1997 Heroin Treatment Rates 

Rafes per 100,0~0 popu~tion 

C] 40 to 109 (8) 

I-3 7.5to 4o (10) 

I--1 0 to 7.s (34) 

The map above shows the rates of treatment for heroin use, according to TEDS for 1997. 

The South Central Region exhibited no problems related to heroin use. Colorado was the 

only state to appear in the intermediate level and the treatment rate there for heroin abuse 

was only 10.7 per 100,000 population. 

Below, we see the states with the highest rates of treatment for cocaine and crack 

cocaine. Several states in the South Central Region appear in the intermediate level for 

cocaine. Missouri and Arkansas are the highest in the region for this drug. 

139 
,o 

TEDS 1997 Cocaine Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 population 

[] 35 to 57.6 (7) 

[] 18to 35 (16) 

[] oto16 (29) 

Mo~ Balu~ 

__ .. ~ .~-~ 

--,.._.t7%, T.= ~/'~' ~5 ' I 

Stimulant use, particularly methamphetamine, in 1997 was a problem in the South 

Central Region. While other states showed more serious problems, clearly the use of 

stimulants had migrated to the region. 

TEDS 1997 Stimulant Treatment Rates 

Redes pot 100~BO popul~ 

[] 15 to55.4 (10) 

[] 1.5to 15 (12) 

[] o to 1~(3o) 

Oklahoma had the highest rate of treatment for stimulants in 1997. Almost one in five 

persons treated for drug abuse in Oklahoma was treated for stimulant abuse. Iowa also 

had higher than average rates of treatment but not as high as those for Oklahoma. 

140 
It is suggested that TEDS represents a viable corollary to arrest data in understanding the 

presence of drugs within certain jurisdictions. It was surprising to note the high rtes of 

heroin and cocaine use in Connecticut and the high rate of drug treatment, particularly 

heroin treatment, in Rhode Island. These data help to better understand drug use as well 

as enforcement strategies. 

Social and Demographic Issues in the South Central Region 8 

As this Nation enters the Twenty-first Century, major shifts are occurring in social and 

demographic factors. Of course, all of the shifts are continuations of trends established in 

preceding decades but the impact of some of the changes will be evident in crime. 

In succeeding issues of the annual report on crime published by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the agency comments in the introductory remarks to Crime in the United 

States (1999:iv): 

Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of 

investigation by varied disciplines. Some factors 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. 

Economic conditions, including income, poverty level, and job 

availability. 

Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 

Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. 

Climate. 

Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. 

Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. 

Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., 

prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). 

Citizens' attitudes toward crime. 

Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. 

Some of these issues have been addressed earlier in this document, such as enforcement 

emphases and resources of law enforcement. Others such as rates of juveniles in 

jurisdictions are obviously important in understanding crime rates and victimization. 

Criminological theory and research support the notion that there are many factors 

influencing crime. One of the theoretical approaches which has proven to be quite robust 

over the past seven decades and which is useful in explaining crime in particular places is 

"Social Disorganization" theory. Generally, the three components of the approach are: 

Heterogeneity 

8 See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for social and demographic data sources, 

limitations and methods used in this assessment. 

141 
Mobility 

Poverty 

There are many other approaches that could be used to describe why and where crime 

rates are likely to be high (see Tittle, 2000). However, for the Regional BJA 

presentations of 2000 "Social Disorganization" elements, combined with other variables, 

were presented as important components in assessing crime. This is not a test of the 

theory or even a concerted effort to address the theory. The research does serve as a 

rationale for including certain variables in the presentations and those descriptions are 

used here. Rather than an ex post facto description of crime and various elements, what 

is presented here is a description of some past but more future projections of social and 

demographic patterns and trends, in hope of anticipating issues facing regions, states and 

jurisdictions. 

Heterogeneity, Growth and Change in the South Central Region 

The Nation is realizing significant change in its citizenry. This change will continue but, 

like crime, change is not equally distributed. The elements of greatest change revolve 

around race, ethnicity and age. These components may be considered "heterogeneity" 

although most of the research suggests race and ethnicity as the key elements. 

One of the things that makes this Nation great is its diversity. We celebrate racial, ethnic, 

and cultural diversity and consider it an attribute. Criminological research suggests that 

change, including change in race and ethnicity, can negatively impact the social 

organization of communities. Ethnic and racial heterogeneity are described here in an 

effort to recognize the change that is likely to occur and accommodate, welcome, and 

assimilate the change in such a manner that it does not contribute to disorganization. 

I E~nlc Diversity 2025 

0.34 to 0.5 [7) 

0.22 to 034 (6) 

0 to 022 (39) 

[-CZ--11 

I 

142 
Ethnic diversity is based on the formula (1 - ~ o) where p is the proportion of the 

population in each of the categories of Hispanic and Non Hispanic. Racial diversity, 

described below, is based on the same formula but where p represents the proportion of 

persons in each of the racial categories. These formulas were used by Warner and Pierce 

(1993) in applying social disorganization theory to crime data. 

Ethnic diversity, shown in the map above, is likely to be greatest in the Southwest. Texas 

is projected to show strong increases in the proportion of the Hispanic population through 

the year 2025. It is projected by the Census Bureau that by 2005, Hispanics will 

represent 30 percent of the population of Texas, 34 percent by 2015, and 38 percent by 

2025. This will represent a growth rate of almost 100 percent from 1995 and will make 

Texas one of the most ethnically diverse states in the Nation. 

Racial diversity, shown in the map below, will affect much of the Nation, including the 

South Central Region states. It is projected that by 2025 37 percent of the citizens of 

Mississippi will be black and more than 36 percent of the citizens of Louisiana will be 

black. Texas, in addition to an ethnically diverse population, will have 14 percent of its 

citizens black and almost 4 percent Asian. American Indians will represent almost 10 

percent of the citizens of Oklahoma by 2025. 

,~laska ~ ' 

Racial Diversity Scores 2025 

17 0.34 to 0.54 (17) 

[] 0.22 to 0,34 (17) 

[] 0 to0.22 (18) 

ssoun 

~ ~ ~° 

The combinations of racial diversity and ethnic diversity will have greatest effect on 

Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Oklahoma will also see changes in the 

demographics of their populations. It is imperative that, among other things, these states 

insure that their criminal justice agencies and other governmental agencies reflect the 

diversity of the population. 

143 
In the next series of maps, the change in the juvenile population is described. The Census 

Bureau projects that the nation's yo.uth will account for a smaller proportion of the 

population in 2025 than in 1995. Within the South Central Region, Texas is expected to 

see a growth of 38 percent in the number of persons aged 5 through 17 by the year 2025. 

Colorado will see a growth of 19 percent in its juvenile population, ages 5 through 17. 

For these two jurisdictions in particular, juvenile crime and juvenile victimization may be 

serious problems. When racial changes, ethnic changes, population changes, and juvenile 

growth changes are combined, they will affect Texas quite dramatically. 

Ne 

Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2005 

[] 15 to2S.7 (6) 

[] o to~s (3~) 

[] .e.sto 0 (15) 

L~lh sas sSow'P 

144 
Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2015 

1-1 is to3sa (11) 

[] 0 to 15 (21) 

[] -13.7to 0 (20) 

Percent Change In Juvenile PopulaUon 1995-2025 

I-I ls to70.4 (17) 

[] 0 to15 (21) 

[] -lr.sto 0 (14) 

l 

i 

Mobility in the South Central Region 

Mobility is represented by data collected by the Census Bureau on domestic migration 

(migration from state to state) and international migration (migration from other 

countries). Colorado has experienced the most dramatic growth within the region in the 

past decade due to domestic migration. The net growth from domestic migration for 

145 
:~ Alaska 

da 

Colorado has been 9.9 percent. Most other states in the region have benefited from stateto-state migration but none to the degree that Colorado has. 

Changes in Population due to Domestic Migration 1990-99 

Changes Expressed in Percerdages 

[] 5.2to 24 Cll) 

[] -o.sto s.2 C21) 

[] -28.31o -0.5 (20) 

', ~lua r," 

The map below shows that international migration has benefited Texas. The state has 

recognized a gain of more than 3.6 percent due to international migration. This has 

contributed to the heterogeneity in the population as well as the mobility of the 

population. 

Population Change 1990-99 due to International Migration 

Change Exl0res~ed as Pe~c~tages 

I-] 2 to6~8 (17) 

[] 0.74 to 2 (17) 

[] 0 to0.74 (16) 

146 
Population growth rates, while not directly due to "mobility," do represent change. 

Presumably the change is advantageous since growth is generally preferred to decline, 

but rapid or remarkable change must be recognized and proactive steps taken to 

accommodate it. 

The maps below show the population growth expected to 2025. 

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the states of California, Texas and 

Florida are likely to recognize the greatest increase in population through 2025. It 

appears that the net gain of those three states from 1995 to 2025 will be over 32 million 

persons. California alone will increase by almost the entire expected population of New 

York. 

t ~aska l Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2005 

Change Expressed es Percentage Increase 

0 7.5to10.7 (6) 

[] 5 to 7.5 (12) 

[] o to s (3,=) 

~k-4-----~ ~ - 

" " Illir~i t 

From the pattern shown in these maps, it appears that the West will lead the growth. Five 

western states are expected to grow by more than 50 percent from 1995 to 2025. 

147 
~aska 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2015 

Exloress~ in Percentage Increase 

[] 15 to27.3 (15) 

[] 7.5to15 (21) 

[] 0 to 7.5 (16) 

Montana tre 

,@ 

South Central states will grow at a relatively fast pace. By the year 2025, shown in the 

map below, Texas will have recognized an 35 percent increase in total population, 

compared to the year 2000. This will be the highest percentage of growth in the region. 

Colorado will see an increase of about 24 percent followed by Oklahoma that will 

recognize an increase of 20 percent. The smallest gain in the region and one of the 

smallest in the Nation, will be in Iowa with an increase of.4.8 percent. 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2025 

Expressed in PeTcentage tncrease 

[] 15 to 51.6 (29) 

[7 ?.Sto 15 (17) 

[] 0 to r.5 (6) 

~e 

148 
Poverty 

By its very nature, poverty is a very quantifiable variable. According to the literature, 

however, it is not as much the poverty rate as the disparity between the poor and the 

wealthy which may be most influential in crime and violence. What is presented below 

are two measures of poverty. The first, shown in the map below, is the three-year 

average percentage of children living at or below 200 percent of the U.S. poverty level, 

this is generally referred to as "Percent of Children in Low Income Homes." The rate for 

each state is averaged for the three year period. 

As a region, the South Central has a high percentage of children living in low income 

households. The U.S. percentage was 42.2 while the South Central Region had 45.4 

percent of its children living in homes at that income level. Four states in the region have 

50 percent or more of their children living at or below the "low income" level. Arkansas 

and Mississippi had the most children in low income homes with over 54 percent, 

followed by Louisiana and Texas. 

°g 

a.j~ 

Average Percent of Children in Poverty, 1996-98 

I-] 43.8to60.2 (17) 

[] 36.1to43.8 (17) 

I-] 0 to36.1 (18) 

JL' =" 

The other measure suggested here as a proxy for economic deprivation, is the Gini Index. 

The most recent year for which data are available by state is 1989. Each year the U.S. 

Department of Commerce samples persons throughout the nation to arrive at a U.S. Gini 

Index but the sample size is insufficient to estimate state indexes any years except full 

census years. While all of the Gulf coast states in the region scored high on the Gini 

Scale, Louisiana and Mississippi scored the highest. The Gini Index seeks to measure the 

disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. The higher the index score, the greater 

the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in a jurisdiction. 

149 
GINI Scale for Households 1989 

17 0.439to0A~ 07) 

I'-I 0.42 to 0.4~ 07) 

[] o too.42 00) 

~a 

T~ 

One other measure of "community stability" was proposed during the presentations. That 

measure was the voting rates during major elections. While it is certainly not suggested 

as a variable directly associated with crime, it may serve as a proxy for community 

activism and may indicate the degree to which community-oriented initiatives might be 

acted upon. 

Within the region, voting rates in the 1996 election were lowest in Texas and Arkansas, 

suggesting less community cohesion. 

Conclusions appropriate to the South Central Region: 

Louisiana has experienced a violent crime problem that is significant and likely to 

continue. This violent crime problem includes high rates of murder and 

aggravated assault in the New Orleans area but also in the rural areas of the state. 

The St. Louis area has significant juvenile murder and aggravated assault 

problems. 

Oklahoma and Central Alabama have high rates of violence, with Oklahoma's 

violent crime problems almost certainly associated with drug use. 

Ethnic diversity and astounding growth in Texas in terms of total population and 

juvenile population, as well as racial diversity and poverty in other South Central 

states, particularly Arkansas and Louisiana, will contribute to social 

disorganization and increase the likelihood of higher levels of crime or disorder in 

the future. 

150 
Crime Trends and Patterns 

West Region 

ok,. 

The West Region of the United States, as defined by BJA, consists of the following 

jurisdictions: 

Alaska Montana 

American Samoa Nevada 

Arizona New Mexico 

California Northern Marianas 

Guam Oregon 

Hawaii Utah 

Idaho Washington 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the current population of the jurisdictions comprising 

the region to total 56,995,000 persons. The average of the median income for each of the 

states in the region for 1998 was $39,267.82, according to the Census Bureau, Housing 

and Household Economic Statistics Division. The average median income, by state, for 

1996 through 1998 ranged from a low of $29,386 in New Mexico to a high of $51,421 in 

Alaska. The median income average for the United States for the period was $37,779. 

The total land mass for the fourteen jurisdictions in the West Region is 1,551,125 square 

miles. The population density for this region is 36.7 persons per square mile. This land 

mass and population density is influenced significantly by the state of Alaska, which has 

a total land mass greater than that of the entire Northeast and Southeast Regions of the 

nation, combined, but with a population of only about 603,000 persons. 

151 
Information on crime, economy, and demographics on the territories of Guam, American 

Samoa, and the Northern Marianas is limited. Even the International Data Base, 

maintained by the Census Bureau has limited information on these territories. For these 

reasons, the crime data and assessment provided in the sections below include only the 

eleven states in the region. Summary information in the conclusion is offered regarding 

the territories. 

Index Crime Rates in the West Region 9 

The crime rate trends for index violent crimes in the West Region compare favorably 

with the U.S. averages. "Index crimes" reported are defined by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR, 1998: 5): 

The Crime Index is composed of selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in 

the overall volume and rate of crime reported to law enforcement. The offenses 

included are the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible 

rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, 

larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. 

Our focus here is on violent crimes so only the first four are described. In order to 

compare crimes across jurisdictions, it is necessary to convert the number of crimes to 

some standard format. The generally accepted measure used in crime analysis is "crimes 

per 100,000 population" where the population statistic is the estimated population for 

reporting jurisdictions for each year considered. For the general tables shown below, the 

UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting Program) data were estimated for non-reporting 

jurisdictions but with the county level data, non-reporting jurisdictions are excluded for 

all except arrest data. 

Murder 

Murder Rates 1991-98 

JL~ 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

-[ US 

-- West 

Re,ion 

UCR Data. Rates per 1 OO,OOO population 

9 See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for data sources, limitations and methods used. 

152 
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter represents the most serious but rarest of crimes in 

the crime index. As the chart above shows, the West Region has had a slightly higher 

rate of murder than the average for the U.S. Beginning in 1997, however, the murder rate 

for the West Region fell below the U.S. average. The average murder rate for the Nation 

in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 population while the average murder rate for the eleven 

states comprising the West Region was 6.2 per 100,000 population. The national average 

murder rate was the lowest recorded since 1967. 

Some of the states within the region had exceptionally low murder rates, according to an 

analysis of UCR .data. Hawaii had an extraordinary murder rate of 2.0 per 100,000 

population, less than one-third the U.S. average. Similarly, Idaho and Utah had murder 

rates at about 3 per 100,000 population, one-half the U.S. average. Other states with 

murder rates below the U.S. average in 1998 were Oregon, Washington, and Montana. 

Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico had murder rates much higher than the U.S. average. 

As with most social issues, murder rates were not equally distributed in or among the 

states. Rural counties in New Mexico had extraordinarily high rates of murder, averaging 

24.5 per 100,000 population for the 309,514 persons residing in rural counties of the 

state. Additionally, metropolitan areas of Nevada had the highest murder rate in the 

region for similar areas, with a rate of 10.2 per 100,000 population. Among the counties 

with population exceeding 100,000, Bernalillo County, San Juan County, and Dona Ana 

County New Mexico, and Clark County Nevada had the highest murder rates, each with 

at least 10.78 murders per 100,000 population in 1998. Notable also was Los Angeles 

County with 10.36 murders per 100,000 population or a total of 959 murders in 1998. 

West Region Murder Rates by County 1998 Rate~ per 100,000 population 

[] 6.:3 to 42.6 (79) 

[] t3to 6.3 (87) 

[] 0 to 1.3 (189) 

Waehlngeor Montana 

Califomi 

New Mexico 

'= "%~l~Hawai I Arizona 

153 
Only about 10 percent of the 360 counties or boroughs in the Region failed to report 

crimes to the UCR in 1998. Twelve of these were in Alaska and 20 were in Montana. 

The result is a generally representative set of counties in the data set. 

Eighty of the 324 counties in the region had murder rates higher than the U.S. average in 

1998. Almost half of the top 25 counties in murder rates was in New Mexico. 

Juvenile violence is a particularly troubling issue for many jurisdictions. Within the West 

Region, however, it appears that juvenile arrests for homicide are highest in only a few 

jurisdictions. McKinley County New Mexico had an astounding juvenile murder rate of 

55 per 100,000 population in 1998. It is a county of almost 68,000 persons and there 

were 38 juveniles arrested for murder in 1998. In 1997, however, there were no juveniles 

arrested for murder in that county. This certainly suggests that 1998 was an aberration, 

unless high rates continue. 

West Region Juvenile Arrest Rates for Murder 1998 

Arrest rates per 1GO,000 total population 

1"7 1.5 to 56 (37) 

0.33 to 1.5 (30) 

0 to 0.33 (288) 

Washington~ Montana 

Oreg°n~h o 

Califomi~ 

=~New Mexico 

~Hawaii Arizona 

Care should be exercised in interpreting rates for one year, particularly in sparsely 

populated areas. Single year anomalies do not suggest a pattern and serve simply as a 

warning that patterns might develop. Chaves County New Mexico, Twin Falls County 

Idaho, and Tooele County Utah also had high rates of juvenile arrests for murder in 1998 

but in order to determine a pattern of problems, prior years must be assessed. 

The West Region counties in the national map appear to have more "hot spots" regarding 

murder rates, per 100,000 population. One explanation for that appearance is the 

geographic size of counties in the West Region, compared to the other regions. Large 

counties appear more prominent in these shaded maps. 

154 
U S Murder Rates by~ 

" R=es Pe~ 100'000 P°Ot'a~i°n II 

[3 s.3to 134 mso) I I 

Ii] 1.3to 8.3 m47~ I1 

0 o to 13 o849~___J 

It does appear from the data, however, that New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and 

significant portions of California had higher than average murder rates in 1998.. 

I ' i¢~t,o , ' so~th I)ad~== 

Two states, New Mexico and Nevada, had murder rates higher than 9.7 per 100,000 in 

1998. Most states were in the lower range, however. The chart below shows the 

regression line, based on past rates. 

155 
Regional Projected Murder Rates 

Murder Rates West Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

~o4 

oJ 

e4 

74 

04 

m 

o Observed 

~'o Linear 

o Projected 

GO 

/ 

The trend lines projected and observed are quite consistent and the projected line would 

suggest that the murder rate in the region will increase slightly in 1999 then continue to 

decrease in future years. 

As stated earlier, murder is the most serious of crimes reported to police, and it is the one 

most likely to be reported when it occurs. The reliability and validity of the statistic 

makes it one of the best measures of violence, based on official statistics (there are more 

valid methods of measuring other crimes than official statistics). Since it is a relatively 

rare event, it becomes difficult to determine patterns or trends in areas with low 

populations since a few crimes can cause unusual spikes in rates. It appears, based on 

historical information, that murder is a significant problem in two states in the West. 

New Mexico, particularly Bernalillo County and rural areas of the state, as well as Clark 

County Nevada, have serious murder problems. Guam's murder rate in 1998 was 6 per 

100,000 population, suggesting consistency with the national rate. 

Rape 

Just as murder is one of the crimes most likely to be reported when it occurs, rape is one 

of the most underreported crimes. Since there is a gap between the actual number of 

forcible rapes occurring (or attempted) and those reported to police as having occurred or 

attempted, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether high rape rates mean more rapes 

occur or more rapes are being reported. The crime is certainly a serious one and 

regardless of the interpretation, the data should be studied and the degree of the problem 

assessed. Later there will be recommendations on how best to judge the trend or pattern 

of rapes reported to police. 

156 
As was true of murder, the West Region has rape rates that have been higher than the 

U.S. average. As the chart below shows, the states of the West Region had forcible rape 

rates that came into consistency with the U.S. rates in 1997 and remained consistent with 

the National rates in 1998. 

Rape Rates 1991-98 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

m_..% 

--US 

--West Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

In 1998, the U.S. average for forcible rape rates was 34.4 per 100,000 population while 

the average for the region was 34.6 per 100,000 population. There have been no unusual 

spikes or valleys in the trend line for the region and the rates have decreased faster than 

the slope shown in the national rates. 

When unusual spikes appear in the rates of sexual assaults reported to police, over time, 

for a jurisdiction such as a state, it may suggest an extraordinary increase in sexual 

assaults or, arguably, it may suggest an aggressive and effective effort to facilitate 

reporting of the crime when it occurs. Victim Assistance Coordinators, Rape Crisis 

Centers, and persons within prosecutor offices may be effective in reducing the gap 

between the number of crimes occurring and the number of crimes reported. On a 

regional basis, it appears that there are no unusual patterns in the data so the supposition 

is that the data reflect the same rate of reporting, year after year. Utah's rape rates, for 

example, showed unusual increases in 1990 and 1991. Investigation by Utah's 

Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice showed rather conclusively that the 

157 
increases were due to new Victim Assistance Units improving the reporting of crimes 

rather than a significant increase in the occurrence of crimes. 

State-level rape rates show that Alaska had an extremely high rape rate of 68.6 per 

100,000 population for 1998, a rate higher than any other state in the region. That rate 

was also the highest in the nation. As was stated earlier, 12 jurisdictions in Alaska did 

not report to the UCR Program. This is why some of the jurisdictions do not reflect high 

rates in the map below. Based solely on those jurisdictions that did report however, there 

were so many rapes that if the non-reporting jurisdictions had no crimes, the rate for 

Alaska would still exceed 61 per 100,000 population for the entire population of the state. 

West Region Rape Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,000 iooptd~ion 

39 to246 (101) 

B 21.9to 39 (94) [] 0 to 21.9 (160) 

Washington~ Montana 

Oregon~h o 

~ Utah 

Califomia~~.l ~ 

" ~lb -'~New~"-r-xrl ,~v",r-c-J-~JI Meldco 

~Hawali 

This map shows that there are pockets of higher than average rape rates within the West 

Region. New Mexico, Nevada, and portions of Washington had high rape rates. 

As was mentioned in the BJA Regional meetings, jurisdictions with colleges and 

universities sometimes have higher than average rape rates. Again, this may be due to 

campuses facilitating the reporting of assaults or it may be due to a higher frequency of 

occurrence. One other statistical explanation might be the increased non-residents (for 

Census purposes) on or around campuses on a semi permanent basis contributing to the 

number of potential victims but not included in the denominator in calculating the crime 

rates. Arguably, population alone is not the most significant factor, otherwise all crime 

rates would appear higher in those jurisdictions. 

As the U.S. map below shows, there are pockets of high forcible rape rates throughout 

the Nation, including the West Region. Again, this map excludes many Montana 

Counties and Alaska jurisdictions since those data were not available. 

158 
;z ~' 

,. ~ ~ .~,,- .... -...,<,::~,,,;. , 

U.S. Rape Rates by' County 1998 

Rates per 100,00010optd~on 

[] 39 to 986 (650) 

[] 21.9to 39 (651) 

[] 0 to 21.9 (1S42) 

I~ql~kZ= 

U .~ VI~ I~la=ds 

On a state-wide examination, the West Region appears to have high forcible rape rates, 

compared to other states. As the map below shows, the rates were highest in Alaska, 

New Mexico, and Nevada but also high in Washington, Oregon and Utah. 

Rape Rate 1998 

R~tes per 100,000 populatio~ 

17 4stoss.6 CO 

[] 3Sto49 (13) 

[] oto 3s (3~ 

I~ ' I MonlIrta - - ' Nolt~ I]=k°tal "1 

Specifically, the rape rates for the highest states were: 

Alaska 68.60 

Nevada 52.10 

159 
New Mexico 55.10 

Oregon 39.80 

Utah 41.70 

Washington 48.20 

It should be noted that New Mexico and Nevada also had very high murder rates in 1998. 

As was the case with murder, the trend line for rape in the West Region is strongly 

declining. 

Regkmal Projected Rape ?_ates 

Rape Rates West Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

50~ 

~4 

30~ 

201 

" Observed 

o Linear 

o Projected 

00 01 02 03 94 95 00 97 9:8 99 

Again, this trend line, based on regression, appears consistent with the national trend and 

this line would have rather accurately predicted the rape rates over the past six years. 

Robbery 

While some states consider robbery a "crime against property," the Uniform Crime 

Report and the accepted definition of the crime places it within the category of violent 

crimes. Robbery is predominately an urban crime, and historically the highest rates have 

been found in metropolitan areas and densely populated jurisdictions. 

As the chart below shows, the West Region has experienced higher than average robbery 

rates although the gap narrowed in 1997 and the rate is now consistent with that of the 

U.S. The U.S. robbery rate in 1998 was 165 per 100,000 population. The rate was 

significantly higher, 198 per 100,000 population, for metropolitan areas of the Nation. 

160 
The robbery rate in the West Region in 1998 was 174.5 per 100,000 population. While 

this may appear to be a laudatory trend, it is imperative to remember that the population 

density is low and there is a dearth of metropolitan areas in many states of the region. 

One would expect the robbery rate to be lower, given the non-urban nature of many of 

the jurisdictions. 

Robbery Rates 1991-98 

3OO 

200 

150 

100 

50 

| I I ! ! 

~US 

~ V~est ][legion 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Even though the West has had robbery rates higher than the U.S. average, the rate of 

decline has been steeper and the highest rates have been restricted to very few 

jurisdictions. 

This restriction is evident in the map below showing the county-specific robbery rates for 

1998. 

161 
West Region Robbery Rates by County 1998 

J - -% Rates per 100,000 poput~ion 

~--~------~-,- ~ [] 62.8 to 3,230 C72) 

'~=¢~" Washington~ Montana 

Oregon~h o 

~ Utah 

Califomi~ 

• "~[~1~ New Mexico 

~lbHawaii 

Those counties along the West coast and within the most densely populated areas of the 

region had the highest rates of robbery. It should be noted that the ranges for this map 

and the robbery maps for other regions use relatively low rates, even for the highest 

range. This is done to show where, within each region, the rates are highest and may be 

useful in assessing drug-related offenses as well. Robbery is one of the crimes frequently 

associated with drugs and, while it cannot serve as a proxy for drug use, may help to 

focus attention on a serious violent crime which may also serve to reduce drug-related 

offenses. 

The ten counties with the highest robbery rates in the region in 

population greater than 500,000 persons. 

rates: 

San Francisco California 

Bernalillo New Mexico 

Clark Nevada 

Los Angeles California 

Alameda California 

Multnomah Oregon 

Sacramento Califomia 

San Joaquin California 

Fresno California 

Pima Arizona 

1998 each had a 

These were, in order from highest robbery 

The range of robbery rates shown by these jurisdictions was 533 per 100,000 population 

for San Francisco County to 218 per 100,000 for Pima County. 

Nationally, the West Region reflects more "hot spots" than was seen in previous crime 

maps, as is evident in the map below. 

162 
. , .° .~. U.S. Robbery Rates by County 1998 

R~tes per 100,00~ pepul~ion 

[] 62.8 to 3,230 (651) 

[] 20.91o 62.8 (652) 

[] 0 to 2o90s40) 

The U.S. map depicting the rates for robbery by state show New York and Maryland as 

being among those states with the highest robbery rates. According to UCR analysis of 

robbery rates, the Western States (the FBI does not use the same group of states to form 

the West Region as does BJA so exact comparisons are not possible) have far higher 

incidents of commercial robberies and bank robberies than other regions of the nation. 

Clearly, robbery rates were highest in Nevada (254 per 100,000) and California (210 per 

100,000), as shown below. 

163 
. Jillsl<;i L 

Robbery Rate 1998 

R~ie~l per 1(]0,000 populalion 

[] lgOtoSSO (9) 

[] 140tolg0 (11) 

[] 0 to 140 (32) 

ttL"~ i<-,ol---_-;_, o" - 

Again, the robbery rate trend line, as reflected by the regression line, is strongly 

downward. Based on this projection, the robbery rates in the West Region of BJA are 

likely to be at or below the U.S. averages by 1999 or 2000. 

Regional Projected Rq)bbc ry 

Rates 

Robbery Rates West Region 1991-98 

Observed and Projected 

2ool 

lOOl 

n 

*.ll Obiewed 

o Lineal 

o Plojected 

164 
Aggravated Assault 

Aggravated Assault, an assault often accompanied by the use of a weapon, is the most 

frequently occurring of the serious violent crimes. The U.S. average for aggravated 

assault in 1998 was 360.5 per 100,000 population. While the average for the West 

Region was higher than the national average in 1998, only four states within the region 

had rates that were higher than the U.S. average in 1998. 

As the table below shows, the West Region has had and continues to have higher than 

average aggravated assault rates. This is due, in part, to the extraordinarily high rate in 

New Mexico. 

Aggravated Assault Rates 

1991-98 

600 

. ~ ~l'~ ~ ~m'i~ ~ 

200 

100 

0 '1 I I I 

~US 

West Region 

UCR Data, Rates per 100,000 population 

Clearly, the distribution of aggravated assault rates varies significantly. As the map 

below shows, there are pockets of violent, serious assaults within the region. 

165 
West Region Aggravated Assault Rates by County t 998 

Rales per 100,000 population 

[] 345.9to 13,000 (95) 

[] 180.2to 345.9 (93) 

[] 0 to 1B02 (16"/) 

Washington~ Montana 

Oreg°n~ldaho 

~ New Mexico 

" I=~ Arizona 

~lbHawal I

The obvious pockets of violence are those jurisdictions in New Mexico, California, and 

Alaska, as well as some pockets in Arizona. 

% 

• .,,e.., 

US Aggravated Assault Rates by County 1998 

Rates per 100,0130 population 

[] 34S~to 13/~0 (6S0) 

t--I lS02to 34s.s (65o) 

[] o to 18o.2 (1843) 

The national county-level map above shows that the pockets and clusters of high 

aggravated assault jurisdictions in the West are as striking as those in the Southeast. 

166 
jo t= 

Aggravated Assault Rate 1998 

Rstes per 1(~0,000 pop,.d~ion 

[] 495 to 944 (8) 

[7 350 to 495 (11) 

t-t oto~so (33) 

~eT-~--~. ~ -~ ( ' M. 

- r ~ i~,,. ~,or, tana ~ _._.. L _t""'¢~"~-'-'~ / I 

' "~, Nhoma Te~'~L~ $ e 'J 

v 

The state-level map above shows clearly that New Mexico is the state with the highest 

aggravated assault rates in the region. New Mexico also had extremely high murder 

rates, rape rates, and burglary rates in 1998 

Again, the rates are declining in the West and the Nation although the rates in the West 

may not decline in 1999. 

Regional Projected Aggravated 

Assault Rates 

Aggrevated Assaufl Rates West Region 1991-91 

Observed and Projected 

90 0t 02 ~3 04 ~ ~ 07 08 

167 
This projection of the regression line shows the decline of aggravated assault in the West 

Region and suggests that the decline will continue after a flat year in 1999. The states 

and counties representing pockets of violence, however, should not be masked by this 

trend. 

Drug Use in the West Region 

One of the issues of importance to the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the states is the 

use of illegal drugs. Assessing the use of drugs is even more problematic than assessing 

the incidence of crime. Drug arrests have, historically, been one of the major indices of 

drug presence in a jurisdiction, even though estimates are used widely (See 

Methodology). Drug interdiction and drug arrests are, however, clearly tied to resources 

and policy decisions. Drug enforcement is proactive enforcement. If a jurisdiction has 

resources, human and otherwise, to focus on drug arrests, arrests occur thus proving the 

presence of drugs. If a jurisdiction lacks sufficient resources to proactively address drug 

possession and drug sales, the lack of arrests might spuriously suggest the absence of 

illegal substances. Similarly, policy decisions often determine the location of proactive 

drug enforcement, ff drug arrests occur in a neighborhood, community, or school, it 

certainly means there were drugs present in those locations. If, however, no proactive 

enforcement occurs in a neighborhood, community, or school and no drug arrests are 

made, it does not necessarily mean that there were no drugs present. 

Even with those caveats, it would be inappropriate to ignore drug arrests as some 

indication, incomplete as it is, that drugs are present in certain locations. The UCR 

categories for drug arrests include two major categories - possession and 

sales/manufacture. Within each category the types of drugs are specified: marijuana, 

opiates, synthetic opiates, and "other." What is described here is arrest rates, by county, 

for all drug offenses, drug possession, and drug sales/manufacture. Other data will be 

shown regarding types of drugs. 

As the map below shows, drug arrests in the region are concentrated in California, 

Nevada, and Arizona. California had the highest rate of drug arrests in the region, with 

809 per 100,000 population, followed by Arizona with 641 per 100,000 population and 

Nevada with 624 per 100,000 population. 

168 
West Region Drug Arrest Rates by County 1 998 

Arre~st redes per 100,000 populalion 

[] 5013.9 to 3,S50 (134) 

[] 301.3to 506.9 (96) 

il~~ 0 to 3013 (12o") 

Washinglon~ Montana 

Oreg°n~dah o 

~ Utah 

Calif°mi~New Mexico 

~l'Hawaii 

When considering drug possession arrests in 1998, virtually the same pattern is present. 

This is not unusual since most arrests for drug crimes are arrests for possession. The map 

below shows the same corridors and concentrations. 

west Region Drug Possession Arrest Rates by County 1 gg8 

Arrest r~es loaf I00,000 pol~ 

i'-I 39;,.sto3,s.so (1,=s) 

225,6to 397.6 (86) 

o to 22sJs (124) 

% 

Washingten~ Montana 

Oreg°n~dah o 

~ Utah 

:~New Mexico "% 

~-Iawaii Arizona 

Drug sales and manufacture arrests represent, arguably, more serious issues than 

possession. Many agencies, including BJA, have been encouraging greater attention be 

paid to these offenses. 

169 
As the map below shows, the pattern of arrests for drug sales and manufacture, while 

generally consistent with possession shows some differences for Nevada. 

West Region Drug Sales Arrest Rates by County 1998 .__/,'- - -~-----~ A.=~ ,=es ~ loo,ooo pop,,t~o. 

=~¢=;~ * Washington~ Montana 

Oregon~h o 

~ Utah 

Callfomi~ 

1~~[~ New Mexico "% 

(~Hawall Arizona 

As the map rather clearly shows, Nevada is far less involved in arrests for drug sales, 

compared to drug possession. The same is true of Oregon. This observation is not 

intended to be a critique. Many issues fit into the decisions to engage in certain types of 

proactive enforcement. 

While drug-crime arrests may serve as an indication of the presence of drugs, they may 

not be as useful in understanding the relative use of drugs. Arrests certainly do not 

suggest the absence of drugs. Other data may be useful in better understanding drug use. 

170 
TEDS 1997 Drug Treatment Rates 

Rate~ per 100,000 tool~on 

[] 100totSt (9) 

I--] 50to100 (22) 

[] Oto 50 (21) 

The map shown above depicts drug treatment rates, per 100,000 population, gathered by 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. The data, prepared and published by the Office of Applied Studies 

as the "Treatment Episode Data Set" (TEDS). The TEDS system is described as one 

which (OAS, 1999: 3): 

Comprises data on treatment admissions that are routinely collected by states in 

monitoring their individual substance abuse treatment system. Selected data 

items from the individual State data files are converted to standardized format 

consistent across States. These standardized data constitute TEDS. 

TEDS includes, as the unit of analysis, treatment admissions to substance abuse treatment 

facilities receiving federal funding. Typically, these facilities include public and private 

nonprofit programs. Absent are data from for-profit treatment programs. Alcohol 

treatment is included as "substance abuse treatment" and represents the bulk of treatment 

in almost all programs. Since there is an interest here in illegal drug use, alcohol 

treatment has been removed from the data presented. The map above reflects treatment 

rates for all illegal drugs. 

The highest rates for drug treatment in 1997 in the West Region, the most recent year for 

which data were readily available, were observed in Washington and Oregon. These data 

are somewhat inconsistent with the arrest data. It should be noted that Arizona did not 

participate in the TEDS program in 1997. 

171 
TEDS 1997 Heroin Treatment Rates 

Rates pet 100,000 

[] 40 to109 (8) 

[] 7.5to 40 (10) 

[] 0 to 7.s (34) 

-,a i 

The map above shows the rates of treatment for heroin use, according to TEDS for 1997. 

The West Region is the major cluster of the nation regarding heroin treatment. Within 

the region, treatment rates were highest in California (47.5 per 10,000) and Oregon (42.4 

per 100,000) for heroin use. While these states were highest in the region, the rates of 

heroin use were not as high as those in the Northeast. 

Below, we see the states with the highest rates of treatment for cocaine and crack 

cocaine. The treatment data suggest that cocaine is not a significant problem in the West 

Region. 

172 
r ~" Abel= 

• " ¢=%, 

"rEDS 1997 Cocaine Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 POl0taalion 

17 3.5to57.6 (7) 

[] 18to 35 (16) 

[] 0 to 18 (29) 

(/ t! i """ 

I) ii ~l--~--t-4 "-" 

'~ ~ A.=,n~-T--"V"--~- "'~ -.7. -e 

There is clear evidence that stimulant use in 1997 was highest in the West Region of the 

Nation. It appeared not to represent a problem for the rest of the Nation but is a 

significant problem in the West. Most of this use was methamphetamine. Oregon had 

the highest rate of treatment for stimulants, followed by Nevada, California, and 

Montana. 

TEDS 1997 Stimulant Treatment Rates 

Rates per 100,000 popuZ~ 

[] lS to55.4 (10) 

I-I l~tols (12) 

[] o to 1.s (3o) 

173 
It is suggested that TEDS represents a viable corollary to arrest data in understanding the 

presence of drugs within certain jurisdictions. These data help to better understand drug 

use as well as enforcement strategies. 

Social and Demographic Issues in the West Region ~° 

As this Nation enters the Twenty-first Century, major shifts are occurring in social and 

demographic factors. Of course, all of the shifts are continuations of trends established in 

preceding decades but the impact of some of the changes will be evident in crime. 

In succeeding issues of the annual report on crime published by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the agency comments in the introductory remarks to Crime in the United 

States (1999:iv): 

Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of 

investigation by varied disciplines. Some factors 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. 

Economic conditions, including income, poverty level, and job 

availability. 

Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 

Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. 

Climate. 

Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. 

Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. 

Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., 

prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational). 

Citizens' attitudes toward crime. 

Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. 

Some of these issues have been addressed earlier in this document, such as enforcement 

emphases and resources of law enforcement. Others such as rates of juveniles in 

jurisdictions are obviously important in understanding crime rates and victimization. 

Criminological theory and research support the notion that there are many factors 

influencing crime. One of the theoretical approaches which has proven to be quite robust 

over the past seven decades and which is useful in explaining crime in particular places is 

"Social Disorganization" theory. Generally, the three components of the approach are: 

Heterogeneity 

Mobility 

Poverty 

~o See "Methodology" section at the end of the document for social and demographic data sources, 

limitations and methods used in this assessment. 

174 
There are many other approaches that could be used to describe why and where crime 

rates are likely to be high (see Tittle, 2000). However, for the Regional BJA 

presentations of 2000 "Social Disorganization" elements, combined with other variables, 

were presented as important components in assessing crime. This is not a test of the 

theory or even a concerted effort to address the theory. The research does serve as a 

rationale for including certain variables in the presentations and those descriptions are 

used here. Rather than an ex post facto description of crime and various elements, what 

is presented here is a description of some past but more future projections of social and 

demographic patterns and trends, in hope of anticipating issues facing regions, states and 

jurisdictions. 

Heterogeneity, Growth and Change in the West Region 

The Nation is realizing significant change in its citizenry. This change will continue but, 

like crime, change is not equally distributed. The elements of greatest change revolve 

around race, ethnicity and age. These components may be considered "heterogeneity" 

although most of the research suggests race and ethnicity as the key elements. 

One of the things that makes this Nation great is its diversity. We celebrate racial, ethnic, 

and cultural diversity and consider it an attribute. Criminological research suggests that 

change, including change in race and ethnicity, can negatively impact the social 

organization of communities. Ethnic and racial heterogeneity are described here in an 

effort to recognize the change that is likely to occur and accommodate, welcome, and 

assimilate the change in such a manner that it does not contribute to disorganization. 

Ethnic Diversity 2025 

[] 0.34to o.s (7) 

[] 0.22to0.34 (6) 

[] 0 to022 (39) 

Ethnic diversity is based on the formula (1 - ~,p°) where p is the proportion of the 

population in each of the categories of Hispanic and Non Hispanic. Racial diversity, 

175 
described below, is based on the same formula but where p represents the proportion of 

persons in each of the racial categories. These formulas were used by Warner and Pierce 

(1993) in applying social disorganization theory to crime data. 

Ethnic diversity, shown in the map above, is likely to be greatest in the West. It is 

projected by the Census Bureau that by 2025, Hispanics will represent 48 percent of the 

population of New Mexico, 43 percent of the population of California, and 32 percent of 

the population of Arizona. 

Racial diversity, shown in the map below, will affect much of the Nation, including the 

West Region states. By the year 2025, it is expected that the Asian and Pacific Islands 

racial category will represent about 18.4 percent of the population of California and 22 

percent of the population of Alaska. Hawaii will have 66 percent of its population Asian 

and Pacific Islander. It is projected that by 2025 one-third of the citizens of Maryland 

will be black and more than 20 percent of the citizens of New York will be black. 

Racial Diversity Scores 2025 

I-I 0.34 to 0.54 (17) 

[] 0.22to0.34 (17) 

[] 0 to0.22 (18) 

h Idah°' : ~ ~es 

~ f 

P~o ~ 

The combinations of racial diversity and ethnic diversity will have greatest effect on 

California within the West Region. It is imperative that, among other things, states insure 

that their criminal justice agencies and other governmental agencies reflect the diversity 

of the population. 

In the next of map, the change in the juvenile population is described. The Census 

Bureau projects that the nation's youth will account for a smaller proportion of the 

population in 2025 than in 1995. Within the West Region, California is expected to see a 

growth of 70 percent in the number of persons aged 5 through 17 by the year 2025, the 

largest growth in the Nation. This growth rate will be greatest from 2015 through 2025. 

Hawaii will see an increase in juvenile through 2005 then another growth period from 

176 
2015 to 2025. The percent growth in juveniles in Hawaii will be 60 percent. Alaska and 

New Mexico will see 42 percent growth in their juvenile population, generally from2005 

to 2025. Montana will recognize the slowest growth in juveniles in the region, with only 

a 2 percent increase. 

,. " - Percent Change in Juvenile Population 1995-2025 

[] is to 7o., c~ 

[] 0 to15 (21) 

[] -lr~to 0 (14) 

Mobility in the West Region 

Mobility is represented by data collected by the Census Bureau on domestic migration 

(migration from state to state) and international migration (migration from other 

countries). Six states in the region have experienced increases in domestic migration in 

the past decade. Nevada has experienced the greatest increase, 24 percent, in the nation 

while Arizona (12.1 percent), Idaho (10.9 percent) and Oregon (8.2 percent) have also 

seen net increases due to domestic migration. California and Hawaii have recognized net 

losses of 6.6 percent and 8.4 percent respectively.. 

177 
")j4y 

Changes in Population due to Domestic Migration 1990-g9 

Char~=s Expe¢~ ~ Perce~t=~es 

[] 5.2 to 24 (11) 

El -283to -05 (20) 

 'WCi[ ....... 

The map below shows that international migration has benefited California (6.9 percent 

increase in population), Hawaii (4.2 percent increase) and Nevada (3.1 percent increase).. 

California recognized the highest gain in the nation. 

" fZ" 

~m:D 

Population Change 1990-99 due to International Migration 

O~r~e Expressed =s ~ 

[] 2 tos~ (17) 

[] 0.74 to 2 (17) 

[] 0 to0.74 (lS) 

Population growth rates, while not directly due to "mobility," do represent change. 

Presumably the change is advantageous since growth is generally preferred to decline, 

178 
but rapid or remarkable change must be recognized and proactive steps taken to 

accommodate it. 

The maps below show the population growth expected to 2025. 

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the states of California, Texas and 

Florida are likely to recognize the greatest increase in population through 2025. It 

appears that the net gain ofthose three states from 1995 to 2025 will be over 32 million 

persons. California alone will increase by almost the entire expected population of New 

York. 

Population Change Projected from 2000 to 2005 

Change Exlxessed as Perc~aage Increase 

[] 7.5to10.7 (6) 

[] 5 to 7.5 (12) 

[] 0 to S (34) 

From the pattern shown in these maps, it appears that the West will lead the growth. Five 

western states are expected to grow by more than 50 percent from 1995 to 2025. The 

growth will begin with Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. California, New 

Mexico, Hawaii, and Utah grow fastest during the period 2000 to 2015. 

179 
PopulaUon Change Projected from 2000 to 2015 

Change Expensed in Percentage Increase 

[] 15 to27.3 (15) 

[] 7.5to15 (21) 

I-I o to 7.s (IS) 

II \ 

West states will grow but at a far slower pace. By the year 2025, shown in the map 

below, California will have recognized a 51.6 percent increase, the greatest in the nation. 

California is expected to add 2 million persons from 2000 to 2005, 7 million from 2005 

to 2015, and 8 million from 2015 to 2025. the eight states with the highest percentage 

increases in population through 2025 are California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Arizona, 

Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska. Clearly, the West Region should brace itself for 

unprecedented and unparalleled growth. 

~'~ r 

PopulaQon Change Projected from 2000 to 2025 

Change Expressed in Percer~ege In.ease 

[] 15 to51.6 (29) 

[] 7.5to 15 (17) 

[] 0 to 7.5 (6) 

_~F----qN/ 

! 

180 
Poverty 

By its very nature, poverty is a very quantifiable variable. According to the literature, 

however, it is not as much the poverty rate as the disparity between the poor and the 

wealthy which may be most influential in crime and violence. What is presented below 

are two measures of poverty. The first, shown in the map below, is the three-year 

average percentage of children living at or below 200 percent of the U.S. poverty level, 

this is generally referred to as "Percent of Children in Low Income Homes." The rate for 

each state is averaged for the three year period. 

As a region, the West has had a high percentage of its children living in low income 

households. The U.S. percentage was 42.2 while the West Region had 45.5 percent of its 

children living in homes at that income level. New Mexico had the highest percentage in 

the region and second in the Nation (the District of Columbia was highest), at 57 percent. 

Alaska and Utah had very low percentages of children living in low income households. 

Average Percent of Chllclren in Poverty, 1996-98 

[] 43.8to60.2 (17) 

[] 36.1to43.8 (17) 

[] o to3s.1 (18) 

..,,5 /~ .-''~ "-'~----...~...,~.~ 

,a 

The other measure suggested here as a proxy for economic deprivation, is the Gini Index. 

The most recent year for which data are available by state is 1989. Each year the U.S. 

Department of Commerce samples persons throughout the nation to arrive at a U.S. Gini 

Index but the sample size is insufficient to estimate state indexes any years except full 

census years. California and New Mexico had the highest rates in the region. The Gini 

Index seeks to measure the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. The higher 

the index score, the greater the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in a 

jurisdiction. 

181 
GINI Scale for Households 1989 

[] 0.43~ to 0A92 (17) 

[] 0A2 to 0.439 (17) 

I-1 0 to0.42 (18) 

"~" ~*~ ~i t~n it------ I

One other measure of "community stability" was proposed during the presentations. That 

measure was the voting rates during major elections. While it is certainly not suggested 

as a variable directly associated with crime, it may serve as a proxy for community 

activism and may indicate the degree to which community-oriented initiatives might be 

acted upon. 

Within the region, voting rates in the 1996 election were lowest in Hawaii, Nevada, and 

Arizona. 

Conclusions appropriate to the West Region: 

Violent Crime has been and is likely to continue to be highest in New Mexico, 

particularly rural areas of the state and Albuquerque; metro areas of Nevada, 

particularly Clark County; Alaska, with a strong influence from alcohol use 

among juveniles; certain urban areas of California; and Multnomah, Oregon. 

In the next 25 years, due to growth and diversity, pressure will be placed on the 

justice system as an effective means of social control in Nevada, California, New 

Mexico, Alaska, and Hawaii. 

Juvenile crime will be a significant factor in California, especially 2015-2025; 

Alaska and New Mexico, especially beginning in 2005; and Hawaii, throughout 

the next 25 years. 

As juvenile-preferred drugs develop, especially in Western states, all drug use and 

abuse will have greater impact and influence on crime, including violent crime 

and property crime. 

182 
New Mexico is likely to remain a major pocket of violent crime but Califomia's 

growth is likely to produce increases in crime, including violent crime. The two 

state's change patterns, low income levels, heterogeneity, and historical crime 

patterns suggest ominous crime and drug trends for the future. 

High rape rates in Alaska and high violent crime rates in New Mexico and 

Nevada, combined with drug abuse problems in Oregon, and dramatic growth in 

juveniles and Hispanic populations in California, suggest that the West Region is 

likely to be an area of concern in the future. 

183 
184 
Methodology 

The approach used in developing the charts, graphs, maps, and assessments is one that 

has been used in numerous jurisdictions at the state and local levels. This was the first 

time it has been used at the regional level and, given the lack of homogeneity of the 

jurisdictions in some of the regions, this may not be as useful as state-specific 

assessments. Regional assessment, however, was requested. 

The first step in conducting the assessment was to gather crime and arrest data. These 

data came from several sources but all emanated from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The eight-year charts showing each 

region's violent crime rates compared to the United States' crime rates were based on data 

from each year's UCR Table 4. Similarly, the 1998 U.S. maps of crime by state were 

based on Table 4. As such, the UCR notes: 

Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting 

periods, estimated crime counts are included in these presentations ..... Using the 

known crime experiences of similar areas within a state, the estimates are 

computed by assigning the same proportional crime volumes to nonreporting 

agencies. The size of the agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police versus sheriffs 

office; and geographic location are considered in the estimation process. 

Each year's UCR includes the notes on states which do not report complete or sufficient 

data and for which estimation is necessary. 

The county-level data were derived from UCR data tapes, extracted from data maintained 

by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. These data include 

county-level information on crimes reported and arrests. The following is an excerpt 

from the 1998 codebook for these data: 

(1) Two major changes to the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) county-level files 

were implemented beginning with the 1994 data. A new imputation algorithm 

to adjust for incomplete reporting by individual law enforcement jurisdictions 

was adopted. Within each county, data from agencies reporting 3 to 11 months 

of information were weighted to yield 12-month equivalents. Data for 

agencies reporting less than 3 months of data were replaced with data 

estimated by rates calculated from agencies reporting 12 months of data 

located in the agency's geographic stratum within its state. Secondly, a new 

Coverage Indicator was created to provide users with a diagnostic measure of 

aggregated data quality in a particular county. Data from agencies reporting 

only statewide figures were allocated to the counties in the state in proportion 

to each county's share of the state population. 

(2) In the arrest files (Parts 1-3 and 5-7), data were estimated for agencies 

reporting 0 months based on the procedures mentioned above. However, due 

to the structure of the data received from the FBI, estimations could not be 

produced for agencies reporting 0 months in the Crimes Reported files (Parts 

4 and 8). Offense data for agencies reporting 1 or 2 months are estimated 

using the above procedures. Users are encouraged to refer to the codebook for 

more information. 

185 
(3) No arrest data were provided for Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin, and 

Washington, DC. Limited arrest data were available for Illinois, Kentucky, 

and New Hampshire. Limited offense data were available for Alaska, Illinois, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin. 

(4) UCR program staff at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were 

consulted in developing the new adjustment procedures. However, these UCR 

county-level files are not official FBI UCR releases and are being provided for 

research purposes only. Users with questions regarding these UCR countylevel data files can contact the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at 

ICPSR. 

The appropriate citation for these data is: 

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. UNIFORM CRIME 

REPORTING PROGRAM DATA [UNITED STATES]: COUNTY-LEVEL 

DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1998 [Computer file]. ICPSR ed. 

Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 

[producer and distributor], 2000. 

Next the data, state-level and county-level, were geocoded for mapping purposes. All 

3,145 counties or county-like jurisdictions in the nation were similarly linked to the data 

for that particular location. Rates were established based on population statistics in the 

crime and arrest data, consistent with estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

The limitations on the use of UCR data are evident. Nonreporting jurisdictions will have 

rates estimated and imputed. While these rates are the best estimates available, they are, 

nonetheless, estimates. The options are: (1) use the estimates as the best evidence 

available of crime in a jurisdiction; (2) reject the data and calculate no information on 

something as important as crime within a jurisdiction; or (3) supplement the estimated 

data with information from other sources such as victimization surveys. For purposes of 

this project, option 1 was selected. For better information and insight, option 3 is the 

clear choice. Survey data were not available for all jurisdictions so, for the Summer 2000 

conferences, it would have been inappropriate to report crime from only a few 

jurisdictions. Option 2 is the least responsible choice. In the absence of better data, UCR 

data remains the best, most reliable information available. 

Drug arrest data were suspect, based on nonreporting as well as the data's reflection of 

policy decisions as much as or more than the actual use of drugs. Other drug use data 

were sought and the Treatment Episode Data Set was utilized. The citation for this 

dataset is: 

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. TREATMENT EPISODE 

DATA SET (TEDS), 1997 [Computer file]. 2nd ICPSR version. Chicago, 

IL: National Opinion Research Center [producer], 1999. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1999. 

186 
These data included more than 396,000 cases or episodes of treatment. The following 

comments are excerpted from the TEDS (1997) codebook: 

Universe 

The universe for TEDS is treatment admissions to substance abuse treatment units 

receiving federal funds. Treatment units receiving any federal funds are requested 

to provide TEDS data on publicly and privately funded clients. There are some 

instances, however, in which information is provided only for clients whose 

treatment is funded through public monies. 

Response rates 

TEDS attempts to include ("capture") all admissions to providers receiving any 

public funds. Because each state or jurisdiction decides the TEDS eligibility of a 

provider, there is no independent check on the actual sources of funding. For 

1997, the estimated inclusion rate for TEDS-eligible providers was 85 percent, 

with the inclusion rate for all treatment providers estimated at 58 percent 

(including privately funded providers). A more complete discussion is provided in 

Appendix B of Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 1992-1997: National 

Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services". 

Data Limitations 

Some limitations regarding the use of the TEDS files should be noted. TEDS is 

collected by states according to their own systems for monitoring substance abuse 

treatment and then crosswalked to the TEDS data elements, according to a 

mutually-approved protocol. Given variation among the states in how they define 

and collect substance abuse treatment data, the following should be considered 

when using these data: 

1. The way an admission is defined may vary from state to state such that the 

absolute number of admissions is not a valid measure for comparing states. 

2. States continually review the quality of their data processing. As states identify 

systematic errors, they may revise or replace historical TEDS data files. While 

this system improves the data set over time, reported historical statistics may 

change slightly from year to year. 

3. The number and client mix of TEDS records depends, to some extent, on 

external factors -including the availability of public funds. In states with higher 

funding levels, a larger percentage of the substance abusing population may be 

admitted to treatment, including the less severely impaired and the less 

economically disadvantaged. 

4. Public funding constraints may direct states to selectively target special 

populations, for example, pregnant women or adolescents. 

5. States vary in the extent to which coercion plays a role in referral to treatment. 

This variation derives from criminal justice practices and differing concentrations 

of abuser sub-populations. 

6. States vary in their reporting practices. For instance, drunk drivers who are 

referred to education or treatment are excluded from TEDS reporting in all but a 

few states. 

7. TEDS includes treatment admissions and in many states the files may include 

multiple admissions for the same client. Therefore, any statistics derived from the 

data will represent admissions, not clients. It is possible for clients to have 

187 
multiple initial admissions within a state and even within providers that have 

multiple treatment sites within the state. A few states uniquely identify clients at 

the state-level and several more states are attempting to achieve this level of client 

identification. The TEDS provides a good national snapshot of what is seen at 

admission to treatment, but is currently unable to follow individual clients through 

a sequence of treatment episodes. 

8. The TEDS distinguishes between "transfer admissions" and "initial 

admissions." Transfer admissions include clients transferred for distinct services 

within an episode of treatment. Only initial admissions are included on the public 

use files.(Emphasis in original source.) 

Clearly the SAMSHA, Office of Applied Statistics, staff are conscientious in their 

activities but there are some data limitations that cannot be resolved. These data do, 

however, offer better indications of the nature and extent of drug abuse than arrest data. 

These data were grouped by state, rates established, and the data were geocoded for 

thematic mapping. 

Other data were located which were believed to be instructive in assessing social and 

demographic issues, consistent with criminological theory. The theories relied upon were 

those generally consistent with social ecology or "Social Disorganization." The theory 

suggests that heterogeneity, mobility, and poverty or economic deprivation will be 

important in explaining the location of crime, violence, and disorder. Consistent with this 

approach, demographic data were gathered from several sources. 

Economic deprivation can be measured many ways. One of the accepted and reasonably 

available methods is to measure the percentage of those under the age of 19 who live at 

or below 200 percent of the poverty level. This is not technically "children in poverty" 

but a measure of those who live in desperate circumstances. These data were derived 

from the U.S. Census Bureau. As stated in Dalaker (1999): 

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Statistical Policy 

Directive 14, the U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that 

vary by family size and composition to detect who is poor. ff a family's total 

income is less than that family's threshold, then that family, and every individual 

in it, is considered poor. The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but 

they are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). 

The official poverty definition counts money income before taxes and does not 

include capital gains and noncash benefits (such as public housing, medicaid, and 

food stamps). Poverty is not defined for people in military barracks, institutional 

group quarters, or for unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children). 

They are excluded from the poverty universe--that is, they are considered 

neither as "poor" nor as "nonpoor." 

Specifically, the data showing the percent of children (under 19) at or below the poverty 

level, averaged for the three years 1996-98 were used. The standard error of the average 

percent ranged from 1.2 (California) to 3.7 (District of Columbia) but generally reliable. 

These data were the most recent available and were geocoded for mapping. 

188 
Another indicator of relative deprivation was the Gini Index. It is an index of income 

concentration. The ratio is a statistical measure of income equality ranging from 0 to 1. A 

measure of 1 indicates perfect inequality; i.e., one person has all the income and rest have 

none. A measure of 0 indicates perfect equality; i.e., all people have equal shares of 

income. The data and explanations can be found in "Current Population Reports, Series 

P-60, No. 123." U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Fertility & Family Statistics 

Branch, Maintained By Laura K. Yax (Population Division). These data were available 

at the state level only for 1989 although they were available nationally, through sampling, 

for more recent years. 

Race, ethnicity, and age were gathered, by state, although they were available at the 

county level. The state level was viewed as sufficient for purposes of determining 

migration trends. State-to-State migration data were used to model migration flows 

between States explicitly. Similarly, race, ethnicity, age, and total population were 

extracted from U.S. Census Bureau data, by state. Without going into too much detail, 

the following excerpt captures the essence of the development of the data by the Census 

Bureau (Campbell, 1996): 

The 1995 to 2025 State population projections were prepared using a cohortcomponent method. Each component of population change --- births, deaths, 

State-to-State migration flows, international in-migration, and international outmigration --- was projected separately for each birth cohort by sex, race, and 

Hispanic origin. The race/ethnic groups projected were non-Hispanic White; nonHispanic Black; non-Hispanic American Indian; non-Hispanic Asian; Hispanic 

White; Hispanic Black; Hispanic American Indian; and Hispanic Asian The basic 

framework was the same as in past Census Bureau projections. Detailed 

components necessary to create the projections were obtained from vital statistics, 

administrative records, census data, and national projections. 

The cohort-component method is based on the 

accounting system: 

P1 = P0 + B - D + DIM - DOM + IIM - IOM 

where: 

P1 = population at the end of the period 

P0 = population at the beginning of the period 

B = births during the period 

D = deaths during the period 

DIM = domestic in-migration during the period 

DOM = domestic out-migration during the period 

(Both DIM and DOM are aggregations of the 

State-to-State migration flows) 

IIM = international in-migration during the period 

IOM = international out-migration during the period 

traditional demographic 

To generate population projections with this model, we first created separate data 

sets for each of these components. The assumptions and procedures by which 

these data were generated by single year of age, sex; race, and Hispanic origin are 

189 
described in the following sections. In general, the assumptions concerning the 

future levels of fertility, mortality, and international migration are consistent with 

the assumptions developed for the national population projections released by the 

Census Bureau. 

Once the data for each component were developed, it was a relatively 

straightforward process to apply the cohort-component method and produce the 

projections. 

These projections were calculated based on rates of change and the data are reflected in 

the document. The methodology used by the Census Bureau appears to reflect every 

variable that can be reasonably measured in assessing rate of change. At the state level, it 

is expected that the data will be extremely accurate, with the accuracy deteriorating at the 

local levels. 

Once the racial and ethnic characteristics were determined, calculated, and categorized 

within the datasets, heterogeneity was calculated based on the formula used by Warner 

and Pierce (1993). The resulting ratio scale would have allowed more complex analyses 

than simply describing the differences and relative position of states and jurisdictions but 

no further analyses were conducted due to time limitations. 

One other dataset proved valuable in serving as an example of data that could be useful in 

determining social cohesion. These data were voting rates of registered voters within 

jurisdictions. These data are compiled by U.S. Census Bureau. Population data from U.S. 

Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P25-1117 and Statistical Brief (SB/96-2); 

votes cast from Elections Research Center, Chevy Chase, MD, America Votes, biennial, 

(copyright); and 1994, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Congressional Quarterly Weekly 

Report, Vol. 53, No. 15, April 15, 1995 (copyright). 

The weakest element in the methodology is the crime and arrest data, due to reporting 

inconsistencies. The data are used here, however, to establish "indications" of problems 

and then apply other data to determine the likelihood of continuation of the problems. 

190 
Major References Used in the Document 

Anselin, Luc, Jacqueline Cohen, David Cook, Wilpen Gorr, and George Tita. (2000) 

"Spatial Analyses of Crime" In Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Vol. 4. 

Crime and Justice 2000. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1994) "Documenting the Extent and Nature of Drug and 

Violent Crime: Developing Jurisdiction-Specific Profiles of the Criminal Justice 

System." Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Campbell, Paul R., 1996, Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and 

Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025, U.S. 

Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL-47. 

Curry, David, and Irving Spergel. 1988. Gang homicide, delinquency, and community. 

Criminology 26:381-405. 

Dalaker, Joseph, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P60-207, 

Poverty in the United States: 1998, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 

1999. 

Office of Applied Statistics (OAS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration. (1999). Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 1992-1997. Washington, 

DC: Department of Health and Human Services. 

LaFree, Gary, Robert J. Bursik, Sr., James Short, and Ralph B. Taylor. (2000) "The 

Changing Nature of Crime in America" Criminal Justice 2000, Vol. 1. National Institute 

of Justice 

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The 

Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

Sherman, L.W., P.R. Gartin, and M.E. Buerger. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: 

Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27:27-55. 

Tittle, Charles R. (2000). "Theoretical Developments in Criminology" In Vol. 1, The 

Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change. Criminal Justice 2000. Washington: National 

Institute of Justice. 

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1999). 

Crime in the United States 1998. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

191 
U.S. Census Bureau. Population data from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population 

Reports, P25-1117 and Statistical Brief (SB/96-2); votes cast from Elections Research 

Center, Chevy Chase, MD, America Votes, biennial, (copyright); and 1994, 

Congressional Quarterly Inc., Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Vol. 53, No. 15, 

April 15, 1995 (copyright); Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. "Population 

Projections and Estimates; .... Historical Income Tables; .... Gini Ratios for Households;" 

"International Data Base Summary Demographic Data." 

Warner, B.D. and G.L. Pierce. (1993) "Reexamining social disorganization theory using 

calls to police as a measure of crime." Criminology, 31(4): 493-517. 

Weisheit, Ralph A. and Joseph F. Donnermyer (2000). "Change and Continuity in Crime 

in Rural America." In Vol. 1, The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change. Criminal 

Justice 2000. Washington: National Institute of Justice. 

Zimring, F.E. (1998) "The youth violence epidemic: Myth or reality?" Wake Forest Law 

Review 33:727-744. 

PROPERTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849-6000 _i-- 

192 
0 

0 

0