In order to provide the country with accurate uniform crime data, the International Association of Chiefs of Police established the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in 1929. It serves as the beginning point for anyone looking for information on crime in the country, including criminal justice students, law enforcement officials, members of the media, and the general public. (Uniform Reporting Handbook, 2004) The Bureau of Justice Statistics, on the other hand, is the main federal agency for publishing, gathering, analyzing, and disseminating statistical data about crime, the victims and perpetrators of crime, as well as the functioning of the justice system at all levels of government. (BJS). The data collected is crucial to federal, state and the local policymakers in tackling crime and ensuring that justice is both efficient and impartial. (Zhang, Musu- Gillette, and Oudekerk, 2015)
Reported Annual Crime in San Francisco
Statistic
Reported
San Francisco
California
National
Total Crime
59,729
6,915
3,045
2,860
Statistics
Reported Incidents
/100k people
/100k people
/100k people
Murder
53
6.1
4.8
4.9
Rape
344
39.8
32.7
38.6
Robbery
3610
417.9
135.0
101.9
Assault
2703
312.9
253.8
237.8
Violent Crime
6710
777
426
373
Burglary
5186
600.4
504.3
491.4
Theft
40,918
4,737.1
1,677.1
1,775.4
Vehicle theft
6,915
800.5
436.8
220.2
Property Crime
53,019
6,138
2,618
2,487
Each crime is displayed based on the number of crimes per 100,000 people.
The crimes have been broken down into two categories namely; violent crimes and property crimes (Reported Annual Crime In San Francisco, 2017).
San Francisco, CA crime rate is 127% higher than the California average and is 142% higher than the national average (Reported Annual Crime In San Francisco, 2017).
Violent crimes, especially in San Francisco, have a violent crime rate that is 82% higher than the California average and 108% higher than the national average (Reported Annual Crime In San Francisco, 2017).
Property crime in San Francisco, CA is 134% higher than the California average and 147% higher than the national average (Reported Annual Crime In San Francisco, 2017).
Reported Annual Crime in Indianapolis
Statistic
Reported Incidents
Indianapolis /100k people
Indiana /100k people
National /100k people
Total Crime
52,501
6,079
2,984
2,860
Statistic
Reported Incidents
Indianapolis /100k people
Indiana /100k people
National /100k people
Murder
148
17.1
5.6
4.9
Rape
677
78.4
36.3
38.6
Robbery
3,802
440.2
107.4
101.9
Assault
6,497
752.3
238.2
237.8
Violent Crime
11,124
1,288
388
373
Burglary
11,085
1,283.5
519.8
491.4
Theft
25,301
2,929.5
1,872
1,775.4
Vehicle theft
4,991
577.9
204.2
220.2
Property crime
41,377
4,791
2,596
2,487
Overall crime rate in Indianapolis is 113% higher than the national average.
For every 100,000 people, 16.65 daily crimes occur in Indianapolis.
Indianapolis is safer than 3% of the cities in the USA.
Incidents and Rates of Crimes in Austin
Part 1 Index Crimes
2010
2011
%chg
2010
2011
%chg
Murder
38
27
-28.9%
4.8
3.4%
-29.2%
Rape
265
211
-20.4%
33.3
26.4
-20.7%
Robbery
1231
1106
-10.2%
154.6
138.3
-10.5%
Aggravated assault
2,256
2,126
-5.8%
283.3
265.9
-6.1%
Total Violent Crime
3,790
3470
-8.4%
475.9
434.0
-8.8%
Burglary
8,749
7042
-19.5%
1,098.7
880.7
-19.8%
Theft
34,827
33,069
-5.0%
4,373.5
4,135.8
-5.4%
Auto theft
2,250
2,139
-4.9%
282.6
267.5
-5.3%
Total Property Crime
45,826
42,250
-7.8%
5,754.8
5,284.0
-8.2%
Total Index Crime
49,616
45,720
-7.9%
6,231
5,718
-8.2%
Population
796,310
799,578
0.4%
Crime is reported in terms of actual numbers (e.g., incidents, victims) as well as rate per
100,000 residents. (Annual Crime and Traffic Report, 2011)
Austin’s violent crime rate of 434 per 100,000 residents represents a 9% decrease as compared with 2010.
Property crime rate of 5,284 per 100,000 residents represents a decrease of 8% as compared with 2010. The number of murders fell 29%, from 38 in 2010 to 27 in 2011.
Murder rate is about three per 100,000 residents.
Rapes fell 20%, from 265 in 2010 to 211 in 2011. The rate is 26 per 100,000 residents.
Burglary of vehicle (BOV) incidents declined 10%, from 15,178 in 2010 to 13,640 in 2011. Austin's number of auto thefts fell from 2,250 in 2010 to 2,139 in 2011; of all vehicles stolen, 79% were successfully recovered.
Traffic fatalities grew from 49 in 2010 to 54 in 2011; the number of fatal collisions grew 2%, from 47 in 2010 to 48 in 2011.
Fatal collisions involving an alcohol-impaired driver decreased 60%, from 25 in 2010 to 10 in 2011.
San Francisco Demographics Profile
Statistic
San Francisco
California
National
Population
829,072
38,066,920
314,107,084
Population density (sq mi)
17,680
239
91
Median age
38.6
35.6
37.4
Male/Female Ratio
1.0:1
1.0:1
1.0:1
Married (15yrs & older)
44%
53%
55%
Speak English
55%
56%
79%
Speak Spanish
11%
29%
13%
The median age in San Francisco is 8% higher than California.
In San Francisco, 33.56% of the population is Asian.
5.74% of the population in San Francisco is African American.
49.48% of the population in San Francisco is Caucasian.
The population density in San Francisco is 7295% higher than California.
Indianapolis Demographic Profile
Statistics
Indianapolis
Indiana
National
Population
835,097
6,542,411
314,107,084
Population density (sq mi)
2,310
181
91
Median age
33.9
37.2
37.4
Male/Female Ratio
0.9:1
1.0:1
1.0:1
Married (15yrs & older)
46%
57%
55%
Speak English
87%
92%
79%
Speak Spanish
8%
5%
13%
In Indianapolis, 2.39% of the population is Asian (Reported Annual Crime In Indianapolis, 2017).
27.85% of the population is African American (Reported Annual Crime In Indianapolis, 2017).
62.02% of the population is Caucasian (Reported Annual Crime In Indianapolis, 2017).
The median age in Indianapolis is 9% lower than Indiana (Reported Annual Crime In Indianapolis, 2017).
The population density in Indianapolis is 1176% higher than Indiana (Reported Annual Crime In Indianapolis, 2017).
Austin Population Demographics
Total population
991,010
Male population
498,396
Female
492,614
Median age
32.90
Percentage change since 2000
53.2%
Percentage change since 2010
5.5%
Married
261,554
In summary, the questions that we should be asking ourselves are how do we address these issues in attempting to prevent delinquency? Whose responsibility is it to address these issues? What approaches need to be utilized, and who pays?
The Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative has established certain core strategies to handle this situation. Some of these strategies are: collaboration between the major juvenile justice agencies, other governmental entities, and community organization, the use of accurate data both to diagnose the system’s problems and proclivities and to assess the impact of various reforms, objective admissions criteria and instruments have been developed to replace subjective decision making at all points where choices to place children in secure custody are made, new or enhanced non–secure alternatives to detention have been implemented in order to increase the options available for arrested youth, the reduction of racial disparities aimed at eliminating bias and ensuring a level playing field for youth of color, special detention cases—youth in custody as a result of probation violations, writs, and warrants, as well as youth awaiting placement—have been re–examined and new practices implemented to minimize their presence in the secure facility and the improvement of the conditions of confinement have occurred since the facilities are routinely inspected by knowledgeable individuals applying rigorous protocols and ambitious standards.
Additionally, essential programs and schools too are not regularly provided in juvenile detention centers. Just warehousing juveniles does nothing to rehabilitate them, and they face the probability of releasing the young people back into the communities without addressing any of their needs. Unfortunately, the recidivism rate for juveniles is quite high because they fail to understand the nature of the precise problem. In response to this, the American Correctional Association (ACA) has developed national standards for juvenile facilities, which examine not only the physical structure of the facility but also examine and include medical, educational, and vocational programs.
These particular programs have eventually and successfully reduced the use of secure detention for juveniles without increasing the safety concerns of their communities. In addition to this, they have saved their communities millions of dollars. All that it required was the courage of these certain communities to realize and discover that they had been doing something wrong. In a San Francisco study of high–risk youths, participants placed in an alternative program to detention were 26 percent less likely to be re–arrested upon the completion of the program than similar youths released from secure detention facilities (Center on Juvenile Crime and Criminal Justice, 1999). What is generally necessary is the courage to reallocate the resources used for the detention into programs that truly and precisely address the causes and conditions of delinquency. It is very clear that where the focus is solely on punishment and deterrence, the problem only grows larger.
References
Annual Crime and Traffic Report. (2017). Reported annual crime in Indianapolis. Retrieved from http://www.areavibes.com/indianapolis-in/crime/
Reported Annual Crime In San Francisco. (2017). Retrieved from areavibes: http://www.areavibes.com/san%20francisco-ca/crime/
(2004). Uniform Reporting Handbook . Wshington, D.C.US.
Zhang A Musu- Gillette.L and Oudekerk, B. (2015). Indicators of School Crime and Safety.
