Half of the cities on Law Street’s list of Most Dangerous Cities over 200,000 experienced an increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015, following the national trend according to FBI statistics released Tuesday. Violent crime was up approximately 1.7 percent across the United States. St. Louis, Missouri experienced the single largest increase in violent crime in 2015 relative to 2014 with an increase of 22.9 percent. Detroit, Michigan experienced the largest decrease, as the city saw its violent crime drop by over 9 percent in 2014. Two of the top 10 Most Dangerous Cities do not have preliminary data available.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2015–the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations greater than 200,000 people appears below as an update to our most recent Crime In America Rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE SAFEST AND MOST DANGEROUS STATES.

#1 Detroit, Michigan

In the first six months of 2015, Detroit–the most dangerous city over 200,000–continued its downward trend with a notable decrease in violent crime. In total, Detroit had 581 fewer violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the same period in 2014, a drop of over 9 percent. Violent crime was down in every category in Detroit, but the most significant drop occurred in the city’s robbery statistics, which fell by nearly 30 percent last year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -9.2 %
(2014: 6,292; 2015: 5,711)
Murder: -20.7%
(2014: 135 ; 2015:107)
Rape: -17.6%
(2014: 284; 2015: 234)
Robbery: -29%
(2014: 1,589; 2015: 1,128)
Aggravated Assault: -1%
(2014: 4,284; 2015: 4,242)

#2 Memphis, Tennessee

Memphis experienced a slight decrease in violent crime in the first six months of 2015, going down 2.1 percent relative to the previous year. Although Memphis experienced a small increase in aggravated assaults, decreases in all three of the other categories contributed to the overall drop. The largest decreases occurred in the city’s reported rape and robbery statistics, which fell by 10.4 percent and 9.9 percent, respectively. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -2.1%
(2014: 5,633; 2015: 5,517)
Murder: -1.5%
(2014: 65; 2015: 64)
Rape: -10.4%
(2014: 269; 2015: 241)
Robbery: -9.9%
(2014: 1,553; 2015: 1,400)
Aggravated Assault: +1.8%
(2014: 3,746; 2015: 3,812)

#3 Oakland, California

Oakland, California is the #3 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population over 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Oakland’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information.

#4 St. Louis, Missouri

St. Louis experienced a notable increase in violent crime in the first six months of 2015, reporting an increase of 22.9 percent. In total, the city had 522 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 than it did in the first half of 2014. St. Louis saw increases in three of the four categories of violent crime. One of the most noteworthy increases occurred in its murder statistics, which went from 58 in the first half of 2014 to 92 in the first half of 2015, an increase of almost 60 percent. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +22.9%
(2014: 2,284; 2015: 2,806)
Murder: +58.6%
(2014: 58; 2015: 92)
Rape: -11.8%
(2014: 144; 2015: 127)
Robbery: +40.1%
(2014: 594; 2015: 832)
Aggravated Assault: +17.9
(2014: 1,488; 2015: 1,755)

#5 Birmingham, Alabama

Birmingham, Alabama experienced a modest increase in its reported violent crimes in the first half of 2015. In total, the city had 137 more violent crimes from January to June 2015 than it did in the same period of the previous year. Higher numbers of robberies and aggravated assaults largely explain the increase overall, which rose by 11.7 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +8.5%
(2014: 1,619; 2015: 1,756)
Murder: +30.4%
(2014: 23; 2015: 30)
Rape: -7.2%
(2014: 83; 2015: 77)
Robbery: +11.7%
(2014: 454; 2015: 507)
Aggravated Assault: +7.8%
(2014: 1,059; 2015: 1,142)

#6 Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Milwaukee, Wisconsin experienced a very slight decrease in crime in the first half of 2015, going down about 1 percent relative to the previous year. Although crime was down overall the city did have a notable spike in murders, which went from 36 in the first half of 2014 to 75 in the first half of 2015, an increase of 108 percent. Aside from murders, the other categories of violent crime either remained constant or decreased. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -0.9%
(2014: 3,957; 2015: 3,921)
Murder: 108.3%
(2014: 36; 2015: 75)
Rape: -12.5%
(2014: 192; 2015: 168)
Robbery: -3.2%
(2014: 1,551; 2015: 1,501)
Aggravated Assault: 0%
(2014: 2,178; 2015: 2,177)

#7 Baltimore, Maryland

Baltimore, Maryland experienced a 6 percent increase in violent crime in the first half of 2015, with 235 more crimes than in the previous year. Much of that increase can be attributed to the city’s higher number of robberies, which went up by 11.3 percent. The city also had a notable increase in murders, going from 99 in 2014 to 144 in 2015, a 45.5 percent increase. Baltimore faced several challenges in terms of policing and crime last year, some of which may not be accounted for in these statistics because they only include data from the first half of the year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +5.9%
(2014: 3,989; 2015: 4,224)
Murder: +45.5
(2014: 99; 2015: 144)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 129 ; 2015 revised definition: 140)
Robbery: +11.3%
(2014: 1,641; 2015: 1,826)
Aggravated Assault: -0.3%
(2014: 2,120; 2015: 2,114)

*Baltimore, Maryland began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#8 Cleveland, Ohio

Cleveland experienced a modest decrease in violent crime in the first half of last year, going down 4.4 percent. Much of the city’s overall drop can be attributed to a decrease in the number of reported robberies, which fell by nearly 9 percent. While the city did have an overall drop, it reported an increase in aggravated assaults and murders in the first half of the year. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: -4.4%
(2014: 2,499; 2015: 2,390)
Murder: +42.3%
(2014: 26; 2015: 37)
Rape: -19.2%
(2014: 266; 2015: 215)
Robbery: -8.7%
(2014: 1,408; 2015: 1,286)
Aggravated Assault: +6.6%
(2014: 799; 2015: 852)

#9 Stockton, California

Stockton, California followed the national trend with a modest increase in its violent crime statistics from January to June last year. In total, Stockton’s violent crime went up by 2.4 percent, reporting 47 more violent crimes in the first half of 2015 relative to the previous year. The largest increase came in the city’s robbery statistics, which were up by over 7 percent. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

Total Violent Crime: +2.4%
(2014: 1,972; 2015: 2,019)
Murder: -14.3%
(2014: 21; 2015: 18)
Rape: N/A*
(2014 legacy definition: 61; 2015 revised definition: 65)
Robbery: +7.1
(2014: 532; 2015: 570)
Aggravated Assault: +0.6
(2014: 1,358; 2015: 1,366)

*Stockton, California began reporting its rape statistics using the FBI’s revised definition of rape in 2015. As a result, its statistics are not comparable to the previous year. For more information click here.

#10 Indianapolis, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana is the #10 Most Dangerous City in the country with a population over 200,000 people; however, we cannot provide an update on its preliminary 2015 data. According to the FBI, Oakland’s data was incomplete at the Uniform Crime Report deadline. If the data becomes available through the FBI, we will post an update with that information. Data below reflects changes from January to June 2015 versus the same period in 2014.

—

Research and analysis by Law Street Media’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Alexis Evans, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dangerous Cities Over 200,000: Detroit, St. Louis See Big Changes appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street Media’s comprehensive Crime in America 2016 coverage provides a look at the safety of our cities and towns around the United States. Based on data provided in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, Law Street analyzes the data to provide lists of the safest and most dangerous cities around the U.S. Take a look at the rankings and features below to discover how safe your city actually is. Check back regularly for continued reporting and additional features.

Rankings

Metro Area Rankings

Interactive Dashboard

Crime Trends in America’s Largest Cities

CHARTS AND DATA

NOTES

• What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports
• Methodology

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI released its Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report last week indicating that violent crime in the United States is down 4.6 percent overall. The report, which marks the first FBI statistics for the 2014 calendar year, compares crime levels from January to June to the same period in 2013. The charts below highlight five important takeaways from the FBI’s report. Click here to read Law how the Top 10 Safest and Most Dangerous Cities fared with the latest data.

1. Crime is Down… Again

Despite a slight uptick in 2012, violent crime levels have been decreasing for years, and the preliminary numbers for 2014 are no exception. Overall violent crime was down 4.6 percent in the first six months of last year relative to the first six months of 2013. This downward trend in violent crime is not limited to the first six months of the year; annual statistics have shown a decrease in violent crime in six of the last seven years. The full year statistics for 2013 indicate that violent crime was down 18 percent when compared to the level in 2000.

The chart below details the change in violent crime from January to June for the past seven years. Note: each bar represents a percent change relative to the first six months of the previous year.

2. Better Data on Rape in America

Starting January 1, 2013, the FBI began using a new definition of rape to make the measure more inclusive and as a result more representative of the crimes that occur. Due to the nature of the UCR program, where cities and states voluntarily report their crime statistics to the FBI, it is up to individual law enforcement agencies set a time frame for adopting new procedures. It typically takes several years before a change in the reporting system is universally adapted by reporting agencies.

The preliminary semiannual report only includes agencies with three to six months of comparable data in two consecutive years. This means that the report does not cover the details of every agency in the United States, particularly agencies that recently transitioned to the new rape definition in 2014, as comparable data is not available. A better understanding of how many agencies use the new definition we be available once all full-year data for 2014 is submitted to the FBI.

The chart below indicates the total number of agencies that report using the revised and legacy definitions of rape as well as the the share of the population that they cover. Note: because this graphic is only based on agencies included in the recent report, the total number of agencies and total population is lower than it would be for the entire United States.

3. Violent Crime Fell Across Nearly All Categories

With the exception of the legacy definition of rape as discussed above, crime numbers decreased for every category of violent crime. The number of robberies experienced the steepest decline, falling more than ten percent relative to the first six months of 2013. Agencies using the revised definition of rape also had a significant decrease, though those numbers only cover about 55 percent of the population in this report. The total number of murders also had a notable decrease, going down six percent or more for the second year in a row.

4. Midwestern Crime is Dropping Faster Than the Rest of the Nation

According to the recent FBI report, violent crime decreased in every region during the first six months of 2014. The Midwest saw the largest decline at -7.6 percent, followed by the Northeast at -6.6 percent, then the South at -3 percent, ending with the West at -2.7 percent. The chart below indicates the regions defined by the FBI and the change in their violent crime levels.

Source: FBI Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report 2014, Table 2

5. Crime Dropped Across Every Population Group

The recent FBI report indicates that violent crime went down in every single population grouping. Led by cities with populations of 10,000 people or fewer, which saw a 6.7 percent decrease in overall violent crime and a 17.8 percent drop in murders. The chart below shows the change in violent crime for each of the eight population groupings used by the FBI as well as the number of law enforcement agencies in each grouping and their population coverage.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the FBI’s Latest Crime Statistics appeared first on Law Street.

Tucked into the hills of Clarksburg, West Virginia sits one of the FBI’s largest and most secure facilities. The 1,000-acre technology campus holds the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), providing critical support services to American law enforcement across the country.

When arriving at the Clarksburg complex the heightened level of security is easy to notice. Visitors are background checked in advance and escorted while on the property. Although walls do not surround the complex, FBI agents patrol its grounds on ATVs. Visitors trade their drivers license for a temporary ID in order to to pass through the security checkpoint at the entrance.

The 500,000-square-foot facility in the center spans the length of nearly three football fields, housing roughly 2,600 employees. Also inside on the property is a daycare center, a 600-seat cafeteria, a fitness center, and even a power plant.

So what exactly does the FBI do there, and why does it need such security?

Not only does it house the largest division within the FBI, underneath the main office building is one of the FBI’s most important data centers. It is the home of the Law Enforcement Records Management System, which includes the largest fingerprint repository in the world, the FBI’s centralized criminal records database, the National Instant Background Check System, and several technology services for law enforcement across the country. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC), a database containing over 11 million records of criminal justice information, is used millions of times each day by American law enforcement. Whether you are buying a gun, having your background checked, or simply being pulled over by a police officer, the CJIS Division’s servers are contacted millions of times daily. Considering the importance of the information stored there and the services provided by CJIS, the security at the Clarksburg complex seems understandable.

Underneath this courtyard sits the FBI’s 100,000-square-foot data center. It provides 24/7 support to law enforcement across the United States. Courtesy of Law Street Media.

Beyond supporting the internal operations of American law enforcement, the West Virginia campus is also home to one of the FBI’s most important public facing services: the nation’s crime statistics.

Inside the Uniform Crime Report

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is tasked with collecting and publishing crime statistics for nearly every law enforcement agency across the country. At its inception in 1930, the program gathered statistics from 400 cities representing roughly 20 million Americans. Over time the program expanded and today it covers more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies representing 98 percent of Americans. Each year the UCR Program publishes the Crime in the United States publication, which details the country’s crime statistics on a national, state, and local level. The report is arguably the most talked about FBI publication each year, providing standardized crime statistics for agencies across the country.

Throughout its existence, the Program has undergone several important changes and improvements, but few are as extensive and as significant as the recent updates to the UCR system. From updating crime definitions to the adaptation of an entirely new system for collecting and evaluating data, the UCR is rapidly modernizing, and it is long overdue.

“We are running on 1970s technology,” said Amy Blasher, the Unit Chief of the Crime Statistics Management Unit within the CJIS. “We are in the middle of a major redesign, overhaul, [for a] brand new UCR system.” Historically, the process has been done manually, by reviewing stacks of paper submitted by law enforcement agencies, but the new system aims to eliminate paper reports altogether. Starting in July 2013, the UCR Program required all reporting agencies to begin submitting statistics in a computerized format.

The recent changes to the UCR program aim to automate much of the quality checking process, create more comprehensive data, reduce the use of paper, and ultimately decrease the amount of time it takes for information to be publicly available. “What the new system is going to allow us to do is have a public facing piece that will be able to push the data out from the states,” Blasher said. And in doing so people “will be able to go in more real time and see the data.”

The creation of each publication is a very intensive process, involving constant interaction with reporting agencies, reviewing all data to ensure quality, and collaboration among UCR staff. The FBI receives most of the statistics from state UCR agencies that collect the information from individual agencies. Currently, 46 states have a centralized UCR program. Agencies in the remaining four states report to the FBI directly. Each month the UCR program compiles and reviews each state’s data, but the statistics are not publicly available until the end of the following year. In addition to collecting the statistics, the UCR Program also creates annual reports for law enforcement and the public. The Multimedia Publications Group ensures that the information is effectively presented to the public by highlighting key findings and putting them in terms that are easy to understand.

Current Problems

The statistics provided by the Uniform Crime Reporting Program do have their limitations. The Summary Reporting System, which is used in the annual report, has been criticized for providing incomplete data.The Summary system’s hierarchy rule requires only the most significant offense to be recorded. The Summary system only tracks eight specific crimes that are grouped into two categories, violent crimes and property crimes. Statistics only detail the number of crimes known to law enforcement and only provide limited information about the nature of each offense. Law enforcement agencies and state UCR programs provide statistics voluntarily, as there is no federal reporting requirement for agencies. While the UCR Program audits state programs every three years, individual agency audits are voluntarily and cannot result in any form of punishment if statistics are inaccurate or incomplete. This essentially means that reporting practices are up to the discretion of each agency.

Despite its drawbacks, the UCR remains the most definitive source of crime information available. According to statistician and UCR Unit Chief Dr. Samuel Berhanu, “it is one of the richest data sets in this country,” and is one of the longest standing series of crime data in the entire world. Throughout the UCR Program’s lifespan, the FBI has a history of responding to criticism and improving its statistics. Recently, updates to the UCR are starting to happen at a much faster rate. As demand for more accurate and more frequent statistics grows, the FBI has responded with better definitions and new procedures that are more efficient.

One of most notable improvements is the redefinition of rape, which the Bureau expanded to record the crime more accurately. Many law enforcement agencies began using the new definition in January 2013, and the most recent Crime in the United States publication, released in November, marks the first full year statistics with the updated definition.

Further changes to the UCR Program include the addition of human trafficking and animal cruelty to the list of crimes in the Summary Reporting System. Significant expansions of hate crime definitions and reporting codes have also started to take effect. The FBI will now track hate crimes with gender and gender identity biases, seven new religious biases, and an anti-Arab bias. The new and improved definitions will allow law enforcement and the public to understand the nature of crime in the United States in unprecedented ways.

Even more changes are likely to come, as new recommendations are making their way through the FBI. There are two ways that changes to the UCR can occur: by legislation from Congress or internally through CJIS’ Advisory Policy Board (APB). The APB is divided into regional working groups that include representatives from states and localities. Changes from the APB are generally preferred by the FBI because the recommendations generally have law enforcement buy in.

The Advisory Policy Board has its second annual meeting this month where it will likely discuss several policy changes and additions. Two upcoming recommendations are the addition of cyberspace as an offense location and the creation of new policies and definitions for domestic abuse. Changes through the APB help ensure that law enforcement buys into the new procedures and that the changes reflect existing issues with reporting.

Although the UCR Program is undergoing several changes–both in terms of what is collected and how it is processed–important obstacles and limitations remain. When changes to the reporting system occur it typically takes a long time for individual agencies to implement them. In the meantime, inconsistencies exist between different states and even local agencies, making it harder to identify and interpret trends. Similarly, many criticize the available amount of information provided by the Summary Reporting System, as supplemental data is often limited and sometimes unavailable.

The Solution: NIBRS

Criticism of the Summary Reporting System is longstanding, as scholars, the media, and the public have called for more accurate and informative statistics, but what you may not know is that a solution for many of these issues already exists.

The FBI approved the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in 1991, and since then several law enforcement agencies have begun to implement the new comprehensive reporting system. The fundamental goal of the NIBRS is to collect a wide variety of data about each individual incident. NIBRS eliminated the hierarchy rule and collects information about each crime that occurs, even if they all happen at once. It also collects data about the relationship between the victim and the offender, the location of the crime, the time of day, whether a weapon was used, and much more. While the Summary System only uses nine categories for offenses, NIBRS has 22 offense categories with 46 specific crimes. As Blasher explains, “In Summary you know a crime occurred, in NIBRS you know a crime occurred, how it occurred, and a lot more of the specifics.”

However, despite the significant improvements that NIBRS can provide, it has faced its own set of obstacles. The most notable challenge is the fact that NIBRS has not been adopted by most law enforcement agencies. According to the 2012 NIBRS publication, there are 6,115 agencies that report statistics using the new system accounting for roughly 33 percent of all law enforcement agencies. Because so few agencies use NIBRS, the data that the system provides cannot provide any conclusions about trends on a national or state level.

The FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has acknowledged the current limitations of the NIBRS data, and in 2012, they announced a plan to expand the system to make its findings nationally significant. A study conducted by the BJS found that a nationally representative sample could exist if the NIBRS program spread to 400 additional agencies. This means that if the additional agencies started using the new system then national trends could be identified without universal implementation of NIBRS. The National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) initiative sought to reach that goal by providing resources and assessments to help the selected agencies adopt the system.

The problem with NIBRS gets to a much larger issue with crime statistics on a national level, and it is not a problem with the FBI. Participation in the Uniform Crime Report is a voluntary decision made by individual agencies, and individual agencies set their own time frame for implementing new changes. Although the FBI works with agencies to implement changes, it is limited by the ability of each agency to comply with the new standards. There have been some notable advancements, as cities like Seattle have adapted NIBRS and created publications to help other agencies follow suit; however, a lot of work remains to bring agencies up to pace and to get the public the full data picture that it demands.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Modernizing American Crime Stats: A Look Inside the FBI’s Data Division appeared first on Law Street.

With the vast majority of Americans living in cities and suburbs, safety is a major concern across the country. Each city has a unique set of challenges to address in order to provide security to its residents, and the results vary widely. Law Street Media’s Crime in America 2015  coverage is the first comprehensive look at the FBI’s latest crime statistics for every American city with a population over 100,000 people, as well as metro areas as determined by the FBI. Take a look at the rankings and features below to discover how safe your city actually is. Check back regularly for continued reporting and additional features.

Rankings

Safest and Most Dangerous States

Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Metro Area Rankings

Interactive Dashboard

Crime Trends in America’s Largest Cities

CHARTS AND DATA

NOTES

• What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports
• Methodology

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s Crime Team used the FBI’s four major violent crime categories–murders, aggravated assaults, robberies, and forcible rapes–to create a standard measure of violent-crimes-per-100,000 people among all cities over 100,000 people reporting crime data to the FBI. This allows year-to-year and city-to-city comparisons. To derive the ratio, the total number of violent crimes reported to the FBI  is divided by the city’s population, with  the result then multiplied by 100,000. The formula for this calculation is shown below. Crime rankings were further broken down by population, with 200,000 used as the dividing point.

Violent Crime Rate = (Total Violent Crime in a City/City Population) x 100,000

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime Ranking Methodology appeared first on Law Street.

Irvine, California is the Safest City in the United States for the second year in a row, according to data released today by the FBI. The 235,000-person city experienced a five percent decrease in violent crime throughout 2013–the most recent year for which the FBI has provided data. Gilbert, Arizona also maintained its rank at #2, followed by Fremont, California, which moved up to #3 from #4 last year. Look at the slideshow below to see the full list of Top 10 Safest Cities in the United States, and click here to see full Crime in America 2015 coverage.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES IN SINGLE-PAGE FORMAT.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 200,000.

[SlideDeck2 id=28366 ress=1 proportional=false]

—

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kevin Rizzo, Chelsey Goff, and Anneliese Mahoney.

Click here for additional information on Law Street’s crime-ranking methodology.

Sources:

FBI: Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics, measured January – December 2013.

U.S. Census Bureau: Median household income, measured 2007-2011.

U.S. Census Bureau: Poverty, measured 2008-2012.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2015: Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000 appeared first on Law Street.

The following is the full text of the FBI’s disclaimer about the use of its Uniform Crime Reports. The disclaimer appears here in its entirety.

Since 1930, participating local, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies have voluntarily provided the Nation with a reliable set of crime statistics through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The FBI, which administers the program, periodically releases the crime statistics to the public.Uniform Crime Report Ranking Disclaimer is from the FBI. 

Usefulness of UCR Data

UCR crime statistics are used in many ways and serve many purposes. They provide law enforcement with data for use in budget formulation, planning, resource allocation, assessment of police operations, etc., to help address the crime problem at various levels. Chambers of commerce and tourism agencies examine these data to see how they impact the particular geographic jurisdictions they represent. Criminal justice researchers study the nature, cause, and movement of crime over time. Legislators draft anti-crime measures using the research findings and recommendations of law enforcement administrators, planners, and public and private entities concerned with the problem of crime. The news media use the crime statistics provided by the UCR Program to inform the public about the state of crime.

Pitfalls of Ranking

UCR data are sometimes used to compile rankings of individual jurisdictions and institutions of higher learning. These incomplete analyses have often created misleading perceptions which adversely affect geographic entities and their residents. For this reason, the FBI has a long-standing policy against ranking participating law enforcement agencies on the basis of crime data alone. Despite repeated warnings against these practices, some data users continue to challenge and misunderstand this position.

Data users should not rank locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place. UCR statistics include only jurisdictional population figures along with reported crime, clearance, or arrest data. Rankings ignore the uniqueness of each locale. 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 the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and
  transient factors.
• Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
• Modes of transportation and highway systems.
• 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 on 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.

Ranking agencies based solely on UCR data has serious implications. For example, if a user wants to measure the effectiveness of a law enforcement agency, these measurements are not available. As a substitute, a user might list UCR clearance rates, rank them by agency, and attempt to infer the effectiveness of individual law enforcement agencies. This inference is flawed because all the other measures of police effectiveness were ignored. The nature of the offenses that were cleared must be considered as those cleared may not have been the most serious, like murder or rape. The agency’s clearances may or may not result in conviction, the ultimate goal. The agency may make many arrests for Part II offenses, like drug abuse violations, which demonstrate police activity but are not considered in the clearance rate. The agency’s available resources are also critical to successful operation, so its rate of officers to population and budget should be considered. The UCR clearance rate was simply not designed to provide a complete assessment of law enforcement effectiveness. In order to obtain a validpicture of an agency’s effectiveness, data users must consider an agency’s emphases and resources; and its crime, clearance, and arrest rates; along with other appropriate factors.

Because of concern regarding the proper use of UCR data, the FBI has the following policies:

• The FBI does not analyze, interpret, or publish crime statistics based solely on single-dimension inter-agency ranking.
• The FBI does not provide agency-based crime statistics to data users in a ranked format.
• When providing/using agency-oriented statistics, the FBI cautions and, in fact, strongly discourages, data users against using rankings to evaluate locales or the effectiveness of their law enforcement agencies.

Promoting Responsible Crime Analysis

For more information about the UCR Program, visit http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr. For Web assistance, please contact the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division at (304) 625-4995.

Click here to read more Crime in America 2015 coverage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI is changing the way that it deals with animal abuse. The abuse of animals is going to become a top-tier Group A felony with its own category, similar to homicide or assault. Interestingly, though, the logic behind the new classification of animal abuse has almost nothing to do with animals, and much more with preventative action.

The logic behind the new classification is that abusing animals can be a precursor to significantly more violent behavior. The pop culture archetype of a young child killing the neighbor’s cat, and then going on to become a serial killer, while overdramatic, is rooted in fact. The examples are easy to find and well known, according to PETA:

Albert DeSalvo (the ‘Boston Strangler’), who killed 13 women, trapped dogs and cats and shot arrows at them through boxes in his youth. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer impaled frogs, cats, and dogs’ heads on sticks. Dennis Rader (the BTK killer), who terrorized people in Kansas, wrote in a chronological account of his childhood that he hanged a dog and a cat. During the trial of convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, a psychology professor testified that the teenager, who killed 10 people with a rifle, had ‘pelted—and probably killed—numerous cats with marbles from a slingshot when he was about 14.’

The idea behind changing the way in which the FBI characterizes crimes against animals, is that they may be able to earlier identify these potentially troubled people. Before this change, the crimes were just filed as “other” and characterized as less serious. Often prior issues involving animals are overlooked or fall through the cracks and don’t come out until the perpetrator is arrested for a significantly more serious crime.

The ability to collect and analyze this data will also give more credence to the above theory, and hopefully convince more law enforcement officials that they need to take the abuse of animals seriously, because it could easily turn into the abuse of humans. John Thompson, a retired sheriff from Maryland, pointed out that the aggregation of data will help convince people that the connection between the abuse of animals and future crimes is “not just somebody saying the ‘Son of Sam’ killed animals before he went to human victims and 70-some percent of the school shooters abused animals prior to doing their acts before people.”

The new Group A Felony crimes will require the reporting of a few different kinds of crimes — certain levels of animal neglect, intentional abuse and torture, and organized abuse (such as dog fighting). The new classification will also require the police to review animal cruelty cases more frequently, hopefully helping them to pinpoint patterns. It may also allow them to get help for young people who are found abusing animals.

Another motivation for the new classifications is that they will help prosecutors get convictions, as well as lead to more plea bargains and sway juries.

Overall, this seems like a good move for the FBI. As little as it seemed to have been incorporated into the decision to upgrade animal abuse crimes, it is of course a great thing that more animals will be protected from abuse. And the preventative-measure aspect of the upgrade to classifications, even if it helps pinpoint just a few who have potential to hurt humans, will be worth it.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Rick Kimpel via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI: Animal Abuse Now Top-Tier Crime appeared first on Law Street.

Recent media attention has shed light on many of the controversial aspects of police militarization, from excessive force to the use of paramilitary units in routine policing. Less frequently discussed, however, is the significant lack of transparency of these trends. The public lacks information about the extent and impact of equipment transfers and the increasingly hostile police culture. While the military has historically been able to invoke claims to national security to justify its secrecy, should local police departments, tasked to serve and protect our communities, be able to do the same?

Despite the significant lack of information on police militarization, Peter Kraska, a justice studies professor at Eastern Kentucky University, found some disturbing trends among law enforcement agencies. His article, “Militarizing Mayberry and Beyond,” documents research on police departments in small localities and demonstrates the recent changes in U.S. law enforcement. Kraska’s findings suggest that more and more low-population areas are forming SWAT teams, which are increasingly used for proactive deployment.

Roughly 40 percent of police paramilitary units, or PPUs, were engaged in warrant work in 1984. By 1995 that  statistic skyrocketed: 94 percent of these specialized, soldier-like teams were used to serve warrants. Kraska notes that the majority “of these PPUs serve in the organization as regular patrol officers during their normal duties.” Despite being trained and designed for emergency situations, PPUs are most often deployed for routine practices.

Capt. Chris Cowan of the Richland County (South Carolina) Sheriff’s Department, told the New York Times that an armored vehicle with a mounted gun, “allows the department to stay in step with the criminals who are arming themselves more heavily every day.” Kraska dismisses this perceived arms race saying, “there’s not evidence that the citizenry is grabbing this heavy weaponry themselves, going after cops.”

There is little information about the weaponization of criminals in general, which seems to be a recurring theme in FBI data collection. Kraska claims, “we don’t have good national-level statistics that provide us a good measure of the extent to which the police are fired upon using heavy weaponry, or the policing occupation is more dangerous.” The absence of data is twofold, as little information is available about the increasing militarization of both criminals and police forces.

The Relationship Between Police and Criminals

The U.S. lacks important data on the relationship between police and criminals. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report does include a publication called “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted,” which contains an entire table specifically dedicated to the “Number of victim officers killed with firearms while wearing body armor and receiving torso wounds,” yet they provide no national statistics on killings by police.

“You would think that given these are all taxpayer-funded items, and that they’re coming either directly out of the Department of Defense or they’re coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, and they’re being transferred to supposedly democratically-controlled civilian-based police agencies all over the country, that sort of simple, straight-forward program based in tax dollars, that the data and all the information about that would be easily coughed up.”

-Peter Kraska

Where’s the Data?

It is disturbing that we know so little and that such information is consistently difficult to come by. To gather information about the effects of police militarization, we have to rely on nongovernmental organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or the Cato Institute. Moreover, the little information that is available is constrained, as many law enforcement agencies will not answer independent surveys.

While data should be limited in certain circumstances, I question the possible reasons for concealing or not collecting so much important data about our law enforcement. What justification could there be for not granting U.S. citizens access to information about our law enforcement? Agencies’ justifications for refusing to provide information to the ACLU include, “the requested documents contained trade secrets, concerns about jeopardizing law enforcement effectiveness… and the costs associated with producing the documents were simply prohibitive.”

As the issue of proactive, if not aggressive, paramilitary units becomes increasingly prevalent, the situation is exacerbated by the disturbing secrecy with which our government handles data. As Kraska says in his 1997 work, the deep bureaucracy behind this kind of law enforcement “acts as a barrier to police-community ties by fostering a ‘we-they’ attitude.” This barrier not only distinguishes our police from citizens, but also separates citizens from information about our police.

Why isn’t our government providing us with uniform information? Kraska says it is a result of “the nature of military bureaucracy, and increasingly police bureaucracy. The bottom line is it’s one of secrecy.” As police culture transforms into military culture, law enforcement naturally distances itself from the community. The increase in police militarization is inexorably linked with a tightened grip on information about law enforcement practices.

I know I will not stand alone in demanding different treatment by not only those who enforce the law, but also by those who create the law. I demand that this policing style come to end. I demand that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports include information on how many people are killed by our police. I created a petition on WhiteHouse.gov asking the President to request this and filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI. We are all disenfranchised when deprived of information about the enforcement of our laws, so I think we should all demand.

#WeDemand

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [CHPSocialMedia via Wikimedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arming the Police Against American Citizens, Part II appeared first on Law Street.

Seattle Pacific University lost one student and three others were wounded last Thursday in a shooting on campus. The university has suffered a tragedy, and while I do not disapprove of the time that the media has invested in covering it, I would like to call another, more prevalent, issue to mind. Shootings occur more frequently and affect an even greater number of people in our cities than on college campuses, yet have largely been disregarded or overlooked as news.

Forgotten and Forlorn

Inner-cities in America suffer greatly and receive little national coverage. On Friday, June 6, a man named Andew Perez was shot to death in his car in Camden, NJ. On the same day in Newark, NJ, two men were shot and killed and one woman was wounded. Between Friday afternoon and Saturday morning, three people were killed and at least 19 others were wounded in Chicago shootings. On Saturday, a 15-year-old girl was shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. Mostly untouched by the news, there were at least seven gun-related deaths and even more injuries in American cities last weekend.

Events like the one at Seattle Pacific University and the recent mass shooting at UC Santa Barbara have revived fears about mass shootings in schools and colleges. The prevalence of these incidents is, while not inconsequential, a small part in the larger picture of American gun violence. Media attention for school shootings is always high. We become upset when a place that is created for improvement and learning face something as destructive as gun violence. Neglected, however, are the places that we do not assign such positive values.

As the FBI’s crime reports show, metropolitan areas are afflicted with high rates of violence. Violent crimes (robbery, rape, aggravated assault, and murder) have particularly high rates in cities. In 2012, each category of metropolitan counties had a higher violent crime rate than their non-metropolitan parallels.

Crimes occur much more frequently in metropolitan areas than they do in their non metropolitan counterparts.

Compared to urban areas, campuses are relatively safe, but the difference in the American mentality that surrounds college campuses and urban environments is significant. The poorest, most dilapidated parts of cities are forgotten and forlorn by the media. Shootings there are frequent, while shootings at schools are few and far between. This is not to say that people should care less about violence at schools like Seattle Pacific University, in fact, they should care more. People should care enough to advocate for and vote in favor of gun restrictions. Instead, people are shocked when shootings happen at schools but hear nothing about, or completely ignore, the recurring murders in America’s cities. While shootings and schools do not make sense together, we all-too-readily understand that gun violence and cities go hand-in-hand.

“Nearly Half of All Homicides”

A special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), “Black Victims of Violent Crime,” shows how this violence is particularly prevalent among blacks.The report states that, “While blacks accounted for 13% of the U.S. population in 2005, they were victims in 15% of all nonfatal violent crimes and nearly half of all homicides”. The BJS used statistics from 1993 through 2005. The data comes from its National Crime Victimization Survey, which collects first-hand victim testimonies about incidents that have gone unreported to police, as well as the Supplementary Homicide Reports from the FBI. While staggering, this information is nothing new, nor are the 2005 numbers out of date. According to the FBI’s 2012 Uniform Crime Report, there were 3,128 white and 2,648 black victims of murder. These numbers, relative to the population proportions of whites and blacks, reveal an epidemic in the black community, and only reflect offenses reported to police. When taking into account crimes that go unreported and the instances of blacks being wrongfully shot by police officers, that murder rate would be even higher.

Uniquely, the disparity here is so great that the numbers are difficult to observe in a single graph. The difference is astounding. Although both have been decreasing recently, the homicide rate for blacks is dramatically larger than it has been for whites for over a decade.

In a Washington Post article last year, Dan Keating notes the difference between firearm deaths of whites and blacks,

“A white person is five times as likely to commit suicide with a gun as to be shot with a gun; for each African American who uses a gun to commit suicide, five are killed by other people with guns… Gun deaths in urban areas are much more likely to be homicides, while suicide is far and away the dominant form of gun death in rural areas”.

That’s one more statistic in a set of disturbing facts.

The Wall Street Journal compiled data sets from 2000 to 2010 in an article about blacks killing other blacks. Their charts show how no other group of people in the United States has been killed as frequently by firearms than blacks, not even when taking population proportions into account. Between 2000 and 2010 there were at least 60,028 black Americans were killed by firearms. A Slate.com article tracks the number of deaths as a result of school shootings from 1980 to 2012: the total is 297. Any shooting on a college campus deserves attention and a swift, appropriate reaction. But that number, 60,028, is the mass shooting we should be paying attention to.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Mass Shooting, Ignored appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about marijuana lately. This year we’ve seen the implementation of Amendment 64 in Colorado and Initiative 502 in Washington, both passed in 2012. Aside from the 18 states and the District of Columbia that have approved marijuana for medical use, two states have approved measures to legalize recreational use for adults 21 and over. With the sophisticated enforcement of these initiatives we must ask ourselves, has marijuana gone mainstream?

One might think, but this is a paradox when it comes to the criminal justice system. The latest FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that the highest amount of arrests were for drug abuse violations, with more than 42 percent of violators being arrested for marijuana possession. So marijuana is cleared for medical use but possessing it is a crime that led to more arrests than any other in 2012. Not only that, but these arrests consume massive amounts of money due to the cost of prosecuting, incarcerating, and having offenders under the watchful eye of the courts as a result probation or parole. These non-violent criminals are a drain of financial resources and increase criminal justice caseloads. As a result, many states are considering decriminalizing marijuana as is the case in places like Maryland and the District of Columbia.

The prohibition of marijuana seems to be losing popularity as the combination of decreased funds in state budgets continue, and more medical uses for the drug are found. On top of efforts to decriminalize and legalize marijuana, there seems to be a new level of acceptance when you consider the number of apps that have been created that allow potential marijuana dispensary customer to locate dispensaries from their phones. Even more than being able to get directions to the local dispensary, there are game-like apps such as Weed Firm that allow users to create their own cyber pot shops.

Weed Firm, a creation of Manitoba Games, was offered by the Apple App Store and allowed users to create their own marijuana plant mixtures that could then be sold to virtual customers. The game was complete with seed, potting, and fertilizer options for growers to make their favorite combinations. One of the more unsavory game features was the option to either pay the local thugs for the ability to sell marijuana on their turf, or have them take all of your plants and profit as payment. Manitoba Games was pleased to announce that Weed Firm was number one on every Apple App Store category. Unfortunately for Manitoba Games, Apple recently decided to remove the app from the store. As you can expect, the gaming company was not pleased with this decision and released a hilarious statement discussing the matter. In their statement, Manitoba Games has vowed to return to Apple’s App Store with a more acceptable, censored version of Weed Firm.

If technology is any indication of the changing opinion on marijuana, then its safe to say marijuana is no longer considered taboo. This change is a result of realizing the prohibition of marijuana has been unsuccessful. Financially, states cannot support the incarceration of large amounts of people for non-violent crimes like marijuana possession. It’s even harder to explain that people are being classified as criminals as a result of being in possession of a plant that is used for medical purposes. It seems that the evolution of marijuana and its negative associations are as old as Reefer Madness. This post does not advocate for the legalization of marijuana, but rather to explain some of the changes in public opinion and the influence it has on technology.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [O’Dea via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana Apps May Indicate a Change in Public Opinion appeared first on Law Street.