Number Crunchers Precision Journalism®

Number Crunchers
PRECISION JOURNALISM®

LINKS

NOTES ON THIS PAGE
1996 CRIME STATISTICS MAIN PAGE
THUNDER & LIGHTNING NEWS SERVICE HOME PAGE
FBI HOME PAGE

CRIME IN THE NINETIES
BIG CITY CRIME RATES
1990 – 1996

Rank	City & State	1996 Population (estimated)	Change in Population, 1990-1996	1996 Crime Rate	Change in Crime Rate, 1995-1996	Change in Crime Rate, 1992-1996	Change in Crime Rate, 1990-1996
1	ANN ARBOR, MI	109,939	0.3%	4,271.5	-13.7%	-24.6%	-49.2%
2	MESQUITE, TX	117,795	16.1%	5,477.3	-13.1%	-30.0%	-47.8%
3	ORANGE, CA	118,445	7.0%	3,448.9	-18.0%	-42.7%	-47.6%
4	NEW YORK, NY	7,339,594	0.2%	5,222.9	-13.4%	-38.5%	-46.2%
5	FORT WORTH, TX	470,254	5.1%	8,272.6	-4.0%	-41.5%	-44.8%
6	SAN DIEGO, CA	1,168,364	5.2%	5,270.0	-5.0%	-34.2%	-42.4%
7	WICHITA FALLS, TX	101,755	5.7%	6,588.4	-6.4%	-25.2%	-41.2%
8	SANTA ANA, CA	294,963	0.4%	4,479.5	-13.8%	-35.2%	-41.0%
9	GARDEN GROVE, CA	150,062	4.9%	4,316.2	-17.1%	-36.2%	-40.6%
10	BRIDGEPORT, CT	133,015	-6.1%	7,548.8	-3.3%	-34.1%	-39.9%
11	PITTSBURGH, PA	354,308	-4.2%	5,295.7	-13.6%	-35.5%	-39.7%
12	PASADENA, TX	134,568	12.7%	5,408.4	4.4%	-32.0%	-39.5%
13	DALLAS, TX	1,060,585	5.3%	9,466.6	0.0%	-23.8%	-39.0%
14	FULLERTON, CA	118,524	3.8%	4,426.1	-19.9%	-39.2%	-38.8%
15	IRVING, TX	170,960	10.3%	5,546.9	-4.8%	-24.9%	-37.8%
16	LONG BEACH, CA	440,023	2.5%	5,978.8	-15.0%	-24.6%	-37.5%
17	FONTANA, CA	105,211	20.2%	5,161.1	-14.3%	-37.7%	-36.5%
18	WEST COVINA, CA	104,766	9.0%	4,742.0	-10.5%	-29.9%	-36.0%
19	EL PASO, TX	602,951	17.0%	7,485.5	6.0%	-17.2%	-33.4%
20	CAMBRIDGE, MA	100,725	5.1%	4,932.2	-11.6%	-21.0%	-32.9%
21	AUSTIN, TX	537,484	15.4%	7,866.1	-3.3%	-28.1%	-32.8%
22	PATERSON, NJ	139,759	-0.8%	6,044.7	-10.0%	-18.4%	-32.7%
23	HOUSTON, TX	1,772,143	8.7%	7,636.5	0.6%	-12.7%	-32.6%
24	BOSTON, MA	552,519	-3.8%	8,092.2	-14.8%	-17.8%	-31.7%
25	GRAND PRAIRIE, TX	112,930	13.4%	6,094.0	4.9%	-20.2%	-31.6%
26	ESCONDIDO, CA	118,003	8.6%	5,810.9	-15.0%	-23.2%	-31.4%
27	SAN ANTONIO, TX	1,021,477	9.1%	8,586.6	7.4%	-23.5%	-31.2%
28	OCEANSIDE, CA	148,308	15.5%	4,852.7	-6.0%	-30.6%	-31.1%
29	HARTFORD, CT	124,223	-11.1%	10,616.4	-20.4%	-29.8%	-31.1%
30	MADISON, WI	197,572	3.3%	4,603.9	-2.8%	-21.7%	-30.2%
31	EL MONTE, CA	106,149	-0.1%	4,330.7	-11.8%	-28.5%	-30.1%
32	IRVINE, CA	127,410	15.5%	3,210.1	-13.9%	-25.8%	-29.5%
33	SIMI VALLEY, CA	108,469	8.2%	2,213.5	-18.2%	-34.4%	-29.5%
34	INGLEWOOD, CA	111,650	1.9%	5,589.8	-9.3%	-33.3%	-29.4%
35	ANAHEIM, CA	286,146	7.4%	5,119.8	-16.6%	-24.5%	-28.6%
36	RIVERSIDE, CA	245,081	8.2%	6,321.6	-22.0%	-26.1%	-28.3%
37	MIAMI, FL	384,976	7.4%	13,745.8	-12.0%	-21.4%	-27.7%
38	LOS ANGELES, CA	3,498,139	0.4%	6,725.2	-12.4%	-28.2%	-27.1%
39	CHATTANOOGA, TN	156,524	2.7%	9,383.9	1.7%	-4.6%	-26.6%
40	AMHERST TOWN, NY	107,331	1.1%	2,561.2	-3.6%	-18.9%	-26.5%
41	GARLAND, TX	201,336	11.5%	4,749.3	-17.7%	-29.3%	-26.2%
42	POMONA, CA	145,916	10.8%	5,338.0	-8.9%	-26.7%	-25.9%
43	SANTA CLARITA, CA	125,435	13.4%	2,595.0	-17.9%	-20.0%	-25.7%
44	PASADENA, CA	136,077	3.4%	5,455.0	-21.7%	-26.8%	-25.6%
45	STOCKTON, CA	225,799	7.0%	8,592.2	-7.5%	-20.9%	-25.3%
46	NORFOLK, VA	245,956	-5.8%	7,665.6	-9.3%	-8.8%	-25.2%
47	HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA	191,911	5.7%	3,806.5	-10.6%	-15.9%	-25.0%
48	BEAUMONT, TX	119,715	4.7%	8,611.3	-9.7%	-25.3%	-24.8%
49	TULSA, OK	379,798	3.4%	7,207.3	-2.3%	-12.2%	-24.4%
50	PROVIDENCE, RI	149,805	-6.8%	8,754.0	-6.3%	-8.8%	-24.4%
51	STERLING HEIGHTS, MI	120,737	2.5%	3,785.1	3.0%	-1.0%	-24.1%
52	AURORA, CO	262,188	18.0%	6,095.6	-7.3%	-28.8%	-24.1%
53	CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG, NC	554,070	39.9%	9,660.0	0.9%	-23.3%	-23.3%
54	LITTLE ROCK, AR	182,799	4.0%	11,496.8	-6.4%	-24.0%	-22.7%
55	KNOXVILLE, TN	174,054	5.4%	6,185.4	-22.2%	-30.9%	-22.1%
56	NEW HAVEN, CT	119,566	-8.4%	12,575.5	-0.9%	-6.3%	-21.9%
57	LIVONIA, MI	101,450	0.6%	3,373.1	-7.5%	-23.4%	-21.9%
58	CHULA VISTA, CA	151,377	12.0%	5,827.8	-3.6%	-21.4%	-21.4%
59	SAN FRANCISCO, CA	745,127	2.9%	7,595.1	-7.3%	-25.5%	-21.4%
60	RENO, NV	159,559	19.2%	6,802.5	-5.4%	-14.6%	-21.2%
61	ST. PETERSBURG, FL	246,229	3.2%	9,683.3	2.4%	-6.6%	-21.2%
62	GLENDALE, CA	181,019	0.5%	3,848.2	-13.3%	-13.2%	-21.1%
63	YONKERS, NY	183,650	-2.4%	4,470.5	-2.1%	-6.8%	-21.0%
64	JERSEY CITY, NJ	228,424	0.0%	7,312.7	-8.0%	-17.9%	-20.3%
65	MIDLAND, TX	100,087	11.9%	4,961.7	0.5%	-17.7%	-20.2%
66	GLENDALE, AZ	183,029	23.6%	7,365.0	-17.0%	-9.2%	-19.9%
67	BAKERSFIELD, CA	193,777	10.8%	6,493.5	-9.7%	-18.9%	-19.4%
68	FORT WAYNE, IN	186,196	7.6%	7,500.7	8.7%	-16.3%	-19.1%
69	NEWARK, NJ	261,909	-4.8%	13,148.5	-15.2%	-10.1%	-19.1%
70	LAREDO, TX	156,032	27.0%	7,203.7	8.4%	-8.0%	-19.0%
71	ONTARIO, CA	136,742	2.7%	6,513.7	-15.0%	-12.9%	-18.5%
72	SEATTLE, WA	539,591	4.5%	10,310.8	-1.6%	-14.1%	-18.2%
73	VIRGINIA BEACH, VA	439,851	11.9%	4,733.2	1.7%	-9.3%	-18.1%
74	ROCHESTER, NY	231,373	-0.1%	9,045.1	-8.1%	-23.2%	-18.1%
75	STAMFORD, CT	107,165	-0.8%	4,623.7	-18.1%	-16.5%	-17.7%
76	JACKSONVILLE, FL	690,367	8.4%	8,623.5	-4.2%	-18.0%	-17.6%
77	MOBILE, AL	207,106	5.5%	9,421.3	0.0%	-11.5%	-17.4%
78	BERKELEY, CA	101,250	-1.4%	10,204.4	-10.2%	-19.5%	-17.3%
79	CLEVELAND, OH	496,049	-1.9%	7,541.4	-3.4%	-9.0%	-17.3%
80	COLORADO SPRINGS, CO	331,020	17.7%	6,199.9	-8.4%	-9.1%	-17.1%
81	WATERBURY, CT	103,490	-5.0%	7,683.8	-9.6%	-9.5%	-16.8%
82	HAMPTON, VA	142,248	6.3%	5,038.4	0.9%	-14.0%	-16.8%
83	TUCSON, AZ	472,385	16.5%	9,921.1	-18.4%	-4.7%	-16.5%
84	SALINAS, CA	121,517	11.7%	6,216.4	-10.1%	-17.2%	-16.4%
85	ARLINGTON, TX	298,632	14.1%	7,136.5	2.2%	-15.9%	-16.3%
86	DES MOINES, IA	195,455	1.2%	7,753.2	-6.3%	-8.0%	-15.4%
87	SPRINGFIELD, MO	152,024	8.2%	7,567.9	-5.5%	-1.2%	-15.3%
88	SAN JOSE, CA	830,374	6.2%	4,129.1	-5.9%	-15.8%	-15.2%
89	ELIZABETH, NJ	107,427	-2.3%	8,572.3	-5.0%	-1.8%	-15.1%
90	TAMPA, FL	294,670	5.2%	14,549.5	2.6%	-7.9%	-15.0%
91	RICHMOND, VA	204,881	0.9%	9,650.0	-6.6%	-9.2%	-15.0%
92	MILWAUKEE, WI	627,139	-0.2%	7,916.3	-6.5%	-8.7%	-14.9%
93	CHANDLER, AZ	129,554	43.1%	6,599.6	0.8%	0.4%	-14.8%
94	SUNNYVALE, CA	121,284	3.5%	2,875.9	-8.5%	-27.8%	-14.7%
95	FLINT, MI	139,588	-0.8%	11,501.0	-7.8%	-12.3%	-14.6%
96	DENVER, CO	516,224	10.4%	6,647.1	-3.3%	-18.5%	-14.3%
97	LAKEWOOD, CO	131,786	4.2%	5,763.1	1.3%	-10.4%	-14.1%
98	NORWALK, CA	102,176	8.4%	4,294.6	-9.8%	-15.0%	-13.7%
99	PORTSMOUTH, VA	105,404	1.4%	8,142.0	-5.1%	-7.1%	-13.6%
100	DAYTON, OH	179,680	-1.3%	9,929.3	-6.0%	-10.5%	-13.5%
101	TORRANCE, CA	140,185	5.3%	5,031.9	-8.5%	-11.6%	-13.4%
102	GRAND RAPIDS, MI	192,358	1.7%	7,590.0	-0.2%	-14.3%	-12.5%
103	TOLEDO, OH	324,610	-2.5%	8,468.0	0.9%	-2.8%	-11.9%
104	MORENO VALLEY, CA	141,292	19.0%	6,180.8	-5.8%	-19.3%	-11.8%
105	LEXINGTON, KY	241,150	7.0%	6,356.2	-4.4%	-1.3%	-11.8%
106	FORT LAUDERDALE, FL	168,059	12.5%	15,165.5	0.1%	-5.7%	-11.4%
107	PHOENIX, AZ	1,139,793	15.9%	9,541.1	-12.3%	3.5%	-11.3%
108	ATLANTA, GA	413,123	4.8%	17,073.8	0.0%	-1.6%	-11.2%
109	PUEBLO, CO	105,059	6.5%	7,017.0	-7.6%	-1.1%	-11.2%
110	NEW ORLEANS, LA	488,300	-1.7%	11,042.2	0.7%	10.6%	-11.2%
111	WICHITA, KS	312,706	2.9%	7,956.7	-3.2%	-12.8%	-10.9%
112	NEWPORT NEWS, VA	182,487	7.3%	5,386.1	-13.3%	-24.6%	-10.6%
113	COLUMBIA, SC	105,316	7.4%	11,540.5	-6.4%	2.2%	-10.5%
114	OXNARD, CA	147,937	4.0%	5,346.9	0.9%	-21.2%	-10.2%
115	KANSAS CITY, MO	448,474	3.2%	11,661.8	-1.2%	-6.5%	-10.0%
116	EVANSVILLE, IN	131,455	4.1%	5,633.1	-1.6%	10.7%	-9.9%
117	TACOMA, WA	189,568	7.3%	10,625.7	-9.2%	-0.9%	-9.8%
118	BROWNSVILLE, TX	117,511	18.7%	8,397.5	14.9%	-20.2%	-9.3%
119	ORLANDO, FL	182,616	10.9%	13,172.4	14.0%	10.7%	-8.7%
120	AKRON, OH	223,303	0.1%	7,168.3	0.5%	-5.8%	-8.6%
121	HOLLYWOOD, FL	128,996	6.0%	9,717.4	1.5%	7.8%	-7.8%
122	ERIE, PA	108,432	-0.3%	5,101.8	-2.9%	3.0%	-7.4%
123	DOWNEY, CA	101,309	10.8%	4,723.2	-1.0%	-2.4%	-7.0%
124	ALEXANDRIA, VA	114,996	3.4%	6,211.5	-4.5%	-5.6%	-6.9%
125	GREEN BAY, WI	104,283	8.1%	4,484.9	-4.6%	-5.7%	-6.7%
126	HIALEAH, FL	200,339	6.6%	9,089.6	14.4%		-6.3%
127	BURBANK, CA	101,082	7.9%	4,116.5	-2.6%	-14.0%	-6.2%
128	PLANO, TX	163,817	27.3%	5,077.6	6.4%	-6.2%	-6.0%
129	SAVANNAH, GA	146,534	6.5%	9,006.8	7.6%	-4.3%	-6.0%
130	LANCASTER, CA	120,881	24.2%	4,919.7	-6.0%	-19.8%	-5.9%
131	COLUMBUS, GA	194,345	8.4%	6,323.8	-3.1%	3.7%	-5.7%
132	TEMPE, AZ	156,788	10.5%	8,949.0	-9.2%	15.6%	-5.6%
133	SPOKANE, WA	199,636	12.7%	8,157.8	-3.0%	-3.2%	-5.5%
134	AMARILLO, TX	171,779	9.0%	8,201.2	3.7%	-2.2%	-5.3%
135	RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA	116,431	14.8%	4,146.7	-1.2%	-18.1%	-5.1%
136	JACKSON, MS	196,619	0.0%	10,409.0	-11.9%	-20.4%	-5.1%
137	CHESAPEAKE, VA	183,965	21.0%	4,600.3	-1.7%	-18.8%	-4.9%
138	ST. PAUL, MN	267,292	-1.8%	7,745.8	1.2%	0.9%	-4.8%
139	BIRMINGHAM, AL	272,169	2.3%	10,759.1	-11.8%	-10.0%	-4.5%
140	BUFFALO, NY	313,238	-4.5%	8,506.0	-7.6%	-15.2%	-4.4%
141	LAS VEGAS, NV	831,303	34.9%	6,849.8	-9.7%	-6.8%	-3.9%
142	HUNTSVILLE, AL	162,376	1.6%	8,825.2	8.9%	-8.9%	-3.8%
143	PHILADELPHIA, PA	1,528,403	-3.6%	6,920.0	-2.1%	13.9%	-3.8%
144	COLUMBUS, OH	640,297	1.2%	9,539.8	3.8%	5.4%	-3.7%
145	FORT COLLINS, CO	103,472	17.9%	5,265.2	-4.2%		-3.7%
146	OAKLAND, CA	372,145	0.0%	10,526.5		-15.5%	-3.5%
147	LUBBOCK, TX	202,403	8.7%	6,397.1	-5.5%	-7.4%	-3.2%
148	PORTLAND, OR	467,906	7.0%	10,751.3	-10.9%	-4.6%	-3.1%
149	ABILENE, TX	114,523	7.4%	5,213.8	-3.4%	6.8%	-3.1%
150	WACO, TX	110,213	6.4%	10,482.4	12.4%	6.9%	-3.1%
151	LANSING, MI	120,821	-5.1%	8,064.8	-0.9%	12.6%	-2.9%
152	SACRAMENTO, CA	379,283	2.7%	8,906.3	-13.7%	-11.1%	-2.4%
153	LAFAYETTE, LA	103,134	9.2%	8,224.3	-15.4%	-8.9%	-2.3%
154	DETROIT, MI	1,002,299	-2.5%	11,991.2	0.4%	6.8%	-1.6%
155	SALT LAKE CITY, UT	180,180	12.7%	12,367.1	-1.7%	2.3%	-1.1%
156	SCOTTSDALE, AZ	165,644	27.4%	5,878.3	-14.2%	1.1%	-1.1%
157	GARY, IN	116,024	-0.5%	9,678.2		-4.0%	-0.6%
158	SANTA ROSA, CA	118,625	4.7%	5,820.9	-6.6%	-5.3%	-0.6%
159	LINCOLN, NB	206,704	7.7%	6,943.7	-1.5%	-8.5%	-0.5%
160	SYRACUSE, NY	160,033	-2.3%	6,873.0	-3.3%	-4.2%	-0.5%
161	CINCINNATI, OH	360,457	-1.0%	7,616.7	1.7%	-13.8%	0.8%
162	FRESNO, CA	392,049	10.7%	10,633.4	-10.7%	-12.2%	1.0%
163	VALLEJO, CA	113,069	3.5%	7,957.1	-1.4%	-6.6%	1.9%
164	BOISE, ID	153,258	21.9%	5,672.1	-4.2%	2.0%	2.0%
165	CONCORD, CA	113,479	1.9%	6,434.7	-6.0%	1.1%	2.4%
166	MONTGOMERY, AL	197,972	5.8%	6,668.6	-0.3%	2.6%	2.7%
167	ST. LOUIS, MO	374,041	-5.7%	15,128.8	-5.9%	2.2%	3.1%
168	CORPUS CHRISTI, TX	286,660	11.3%	10,628.3	1.9%	3.0%	3.1%
169	GREENSBORO, NC	203,186	10.7%	8,068.0	-10.7%	-2.0%	3.3%
170	WINSTON-SALEM, NC	160,678	12.0%	11,808.7	-5.1%	1.8%	3.6%
171	RALEIGH, NC	245,176	17.9%	6,966.4	-4.2%	-7.9%	4.6%
172	HAYWARD, CA	117,233	5.1%	6,717.4	-2.2%	-2.9%	4.7%
173	MESA, AZ	340,818	18.3%	7,551.0	-15.1%	7.5%	6.6%
174	MODESTO, CA	178,865	8.6%	7,178.6	-17.5%	4.3%	8.7%
175	SIOUX FALLS, SD	110,891	10.0%	4,828.2	-7.6%	8.2%	8.8%
176	OMAHA, NB	350,607	4.4%	7,683.5	-2.1%		9.0%
177	WASHINGTON, DC	543,000	-10.5%	11,889.0	-2.3%	4.3%	10.3%
178	SHREVEPORT, LA	199,418	0.4%	11,863.0	5.7%	12.2%	10.4%
179	ANCHORAGE, AK	254,774	12.6%	6,349.9	-12.1%	-10.0%	10.5%
180	MACON, GA	113,802	6.7%	12,267.8	23.5%	22.0%	11.4%
181	SALEM, OR	119,822	11.2%	8,956.6	-14.7%	4.0%	11.5%
182	HONOLULU, HI	878,044	5.0%	6,840.1	-10.3%	11.8%	12.1%
183	ALBUQUERQUE, NM	426,736	10.9%	11,307.2	14.2%	19.4%	12.3%
184	MEMPHIS, TN	631,626	3.5%	11,127.3	5.8%	13.0%	12.7%
185	ALLENTOWN, PA	105,372	0.3%	7,064.5	6.0%	18.2%	12.9%
186	BALTIMORE, MD	716,446	-2.7%	12,001.2	-9.9%	0.6%	13.3%
187	FREMONT, CA	186,186	7.4%	4,172.7	-10.5%	9.3%	13.4%
188	OKLAHOMA CITY, OK	469,632	5.6%	12,143.6	5.6%	8.6%	14.4%
189	ALBANY, NY	104,919	3.8%	7,748.8	-2.7%	1.3%	18.1%
190	BATON ROUGE, LA	229,501	-1.8%	14,708.9	9.4%	3.1%	18.8%
191	LOUISVILLE, KY	274,506	2.0%	7,661.4	7.2%	12.7%	19.3%
192	INDEPENDENCE, MO	113,382	1.0%	7,735.8	-3.0%	22.2%	20.8%
193	DURHAM, NC	148,571	8.8%	11,330.6	4.2%	5.1%	22.3%
194	EUGENE, OR	122,637	8.8%	9,932.6	0.6%	24.7%	24.0%
195	TOPEKA, KS	121,495	1.3%	12,670.5	-3.6%	26.5%	33.1%
196	NASHVILLE, TN	530,059	6.1%	11,218.9	4.7%	15.8%	42.4%
197	INDIANAPOLIS, IN	376,531	-22.1%	10,070.1		38.7%	49.2%

NOTES

A number of cities with populations greater than 100,000 are not included on this list.. These cities either do not participate in the FBI's voluntary Uniform Crime Reporting problem, or have not reported crimes completely for the years in question.

Cities not included in this report:

City & State

AURORA, IL

BABYLON TOWN, NY

BROOKHAVEN, NY

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA

CHICAGO, IL

CLEARWATER, FL

HENDERSON, NV

HUNTINGTON, NY

ISLIP, NY

KANSAS CITY, KS

MINNEAPOLIS, MN

NAPERVILLE, IL

OVERLAND PARK, KS

PALMDALE, CA

PEORIA, IL

ROCKFORD, IL

SAN BERNARDINO, CA

SOUTH BEND, IN

SPRINGFIELD, IL

SPRINGFIELD, MA

TALLAHASSEE, FL

THOUSAND OAKS, CA

WARREN, MI

WORCESTER, MA

METHODOLOGY

Statistics were drawn from FBI Uniform Crime Reports, specifically 9-track computer tape versions of the FBI's Return A Master for 1990, 1992, and 1995; and from the 1996 Uniform Crime Reports Preliminary Annual Report (June 1, 1997), and in additions made to the Preliminary Annual Report through June 5, 1997.

Population statistics are estimates from the U. S. Census Bureau, as provided to the FBI and included on Return-A master. In the case of the 1996 Preliminary Annual Report, populations are 1996 estimates provided to the FBI by the U. S. Census Bureau.

Calculations and ranking were performed by Number Crunchers Precision Journalism®.

Over that period of time, some law-enforcement agencies have substantially changed jurisdictions, which means that figures and rates for successive years may not be comparable.

THE INDEX There are seven crimes included in the FBI's Crime Index. Four are crimes against persons, also known as violent crimes. Three are crimes against property. A fourth category of property crime – arson – was added to the FBI Crime Index in the late 1970s. However, not all agencies report the category. Thus, seven crimes are included in these statistics. They are:

VIOLENT CRIME	PROPERTY CRIME
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter	Burglary
Forcible Rape	Larceny-Theft
Robbery	Motor Vehicle Theft
Aggravated Assault

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

The FBI Crime Index has several substantial strengths and weaknesses as a measure of crime. Primary among its strengths is how widespread it is. The overwhelming majority of law-enforcement agencies across the country voluntarily contribute data to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting program each year.

Among the weaknesses is that the FBI Crime Index counts only those incidents in selected categories known to police. Crimes – such as rape, for instance – in categories where reporting is known to be less than complete may not be accurately represented. Also, crimes within certain communities which may not cooperate fully with and trust their law-enforcement agencies may be skewed.