Arizona Agency NCIC Numbers

This info will be only of interest for those working with the ADOT Data Safety Mart database.

There are a couple of places on the ACR form for NCIC numbers. That stands for National Crime Information Center; and the actual number in question apparently is called an Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) and it’s keeper is the FBI. Below I will refer to this number only as the “NCIC number”.

I found it surprisingly difficult to find a list. The only place I found it was in a 12 year old(!) AZ Crash Manual (“Manual of Instructions for use with State of Arizona Traffic Accident Report Forms” published by ADOT dated December 2000), so the info regarding Agency name should be suspect.

It is plain to see that some of it is easily verifyable  and correlates to any of the “big” cities/jurisdictions: Phoenix PD is 0723, DPS is 0799, Tucson PD is 1003, etc. Beyond a couple of dozen, though, things get pretty sketchy.

Of more interest is the meaning of the distinction between data fields ExtendedNcic, and OfficerNcic — the field on the ACR is marked simply NCIC No. (Block 1e), which i imagine maps to ExtendedNcic; however I can’t find a block on the ACR that might correspond to OfficerNcic. They are usually, but by no means always, the same. There’s another thing called Officer ID No., Block 1f, but that maps to OfficerID in table incident.

This info is also in my famous catch-all spreadsheet adsm.xls; and will undoubtedly either turn into enumerations, or probably its own table.

 

Arizona NCIC Numbers
National Crime Information Center number is a code that uniquely identifies each law enforcement agency. Numbers are assigned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (See pages 66 through 68 [of the year 2000 version of AZ Crash Manual] for a complete list of Arizona NCIC Numbers.)
ExtendedNcic, OfficerNcic’s value/count data from ADOT safety data mart year 2010. Agency name list from pages 66 -68 of the year 2000 version of AZ Crash Manual
ExtendedNcic OfficerNcic From 2000 AZ Crash Manual
value count value count agency name value
100 474 100 40 Apache County S.O. 100
101 28 101 28 Eagar 101
103 18 103 18 St. Johns 103
105 12 105 10 Springerville 105
Whitemountain Apache Res. (Apache) 162
189 73 Navajo Reservation (Apache) 189
200 693 200 224 Cochise County S.O. 200
201 89 201 55 Benson 201
203 4 203 1 Bisbee 203
205 41 205 37 Douglas 205
207 7 207 8 Huachuca City 207
209 756 209 763 Sierra Vista 209
211 1 Tombstone 211
213 39 213 32 Willcox 213
300 1539 300 223 Coconino County S.O. 300
301 1909 301 1762 Flagstaff 301
302 1 Hualapai Reservation (Coconino) 302
303 6 Fredonia 303
307 97 307 43 Williams 307
308 21 308 21 Page 308
310 195 310 197 Sedona 310
Hopi Reservation (Coconino) 365
389 34 Navajo Reservation (Coconino) 389
Northern Arizona University 397
400 484 400 134 Gila County S.O. 400
401 172 401 178 Globe 401
403 2 403 1 Hayden 403
405 13 405 13 Miami 405
406 142 406 139 Payson 406
407 1 489 4 Winkelman 407
Whitemountain Apache Res. (Gila) 465
San Carlos Reservation (Gila) 489
500 124 500 38 Graham County S.O. 500
501 3 Pima 501
503 105 503 95 Safford 503
505 45 505 49 Thatcher 505
San Carlos Reservation (Graham) 562
600 60 600 13 Greenlee County S.O. 600
601 6 601 3 Clifton 601
603 4 Duncan 603
700 5242 700 3036 Maricopa County S.O. 700
701 1044 701 890 Avondale 701
703 405 703 256 Buckeye 703
704 56 Cave Creek 704
705 3516 705 3007 Chandler 705
707 321 707 311 El Mirage 707
709 20 Gila Bend 709
711 2378 711 2250 Gilbert 711
713 4822 713 4492 Glendale 713
715 939 715 635 Goodyear 715
Ft. McDowell Reservation 716
717 6130 717 4744 Mesa 717
719 193 719 131 Paradise Valley 719
721 2237 721 1855 Peoria 721
723 29065 723 21442 Phoenix 723
725 3529 725 3329 Scottsdale 725
727 1027 727 904 Surprise 727
729 6659 729 4084 Tempe 729
731 366 731 237 Tolleson 731
733 93 733 89 Wickenburg 733
735 13 Youngtown 735
739 300 Guadalupe 739
744 3
753 41
755 116
756 97 Fountain Hills 756
760 15 Carefree 760
Gila Bend Reservation 762
Tohono O’Odham Res. (Maricopa) 763
Gila River reservation (Maricopa) 764
789 1 Salt River Reservation 789
Arizona State University 797
799 25587 Dept. of Public Safety 799
800 1140 800 326 Mohave County S.O. 800
801 537 801 478 Kingman 801
804 629 804 632 Hualapai Reservation (Mohave) 802
805 683 805 684 Lake Havasu City 804
806 18 806 18 Bullhead City 805
Colorado City 806
Kaibab-Paiute Reservation 860
862 3 Ft.Mohave Reservation 862
900 647 900 141 Navajo County S.O. 900
901 60 901 41 Holbrook 901
902 19 Hopi Reservation (Navajo) 902
903 164 903 167 Show Low 903
905 64 905 81 Snowflake 905
907 19 Taylor 907
909 134 909 117 Winslow 909
913 118 913 124 Pinetop/Lakeside 913
962 72 Navajo Reservation (Navajo) 962
989 2 Whitemountain Apache Res. (Navajo) 989
1000 4424 1000 3324 Pima County S.O. 1000
1001 70 1001 69 South Tucson 1001
1003 9718 1003 9058 Tucson 1003
1004 192 1004 157 Sahuarita / Green Valley (both same code??) 1004
1007 454 1007 462 Oro Valley 1007
1009 916 1009 679 Marana 1009
San Xavier Reservation 1062
1089 220 Tohono O’Odham Res. (Pima) 1089
1097 117 University of Arizona 1097
1100 1779 1100 703 Pinal County S.O. 1100
1101 853 1101 796 Casa Grande 1101
1103 172 1103 179 Coolidge 1103
1105 149 1105 97 Eloy 1105
1107 81 1107 111 Florence 1107
1109 5 1109 4 Kearney 1109
1111 4 1111 4 Mammoth 1111
1112 2 1112 1 Superior 1112
1113 417 1113 377 Apache Junction 1113
1117 215 1117 211
1164 7 Tohono O’Odham Res. (Pinal) 1164
Maricopa Reservation 1165
1189 345 Gila River Reservation (Pinal) 1189
Central Arizona College 1197
1200 294 1200 75 Santa Cruz County S.O. 1200
1201 342 1201 313 Nogales 1201
Patagonia 1203
1300 1378 1300 283 Yavapai County S.O. 1300
1301 1 1301 1 Clarkdale 1301
1303 244 1303 237 Cottonwood 1303
1305 6 1305 5 Jerome 1305
1307 760 1307 749 Prescott 1307
1311 539 1311 536 Prescott Valley 1311
1312 87 1312 87 Chino Valley 1312
1313 92 1313 72 Camp Verde 1313
1314 1
1358 11
Hualapai Reservation (Yavapai) 1363
1400 716 1400 484 Yuma County S.O. 1400
1403 26 1403 31 Somerton 1403
1405 1891 1405 1849 Yuma 1405
1407 7 Wellton 1407
1408 137 1408 139 San Luis 1408
1410 5
1497 1 Arizona Western College 1497
1500 330 1500 32 La Paz County S.O. 1500
1501 33 1501 31 Parker 1501
1503 35 1503 18 Quartzite 1503
Colorado River Reservation 1506
Sums → 106301 106301
Below are listed Federal Parks and Monuments, and US Military – it is not clear how, or even if, these codes (from 2000) map to the Adot data, which is all numeric; and perhaps doesn’t even cover “federal” investigations?
Canyon De Chelly National Monument I007
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument I012
Chiricauha National Monument I013
Glen Canyon National Monument I003
Montezuma Castle National Monument I014
Navajo National Monument I009
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument I015
Petrified Forest National Park I004
Saguaro National Monument I005
Sunset Crater National Monument I010
Tonto National Monument I016
Tumacacori National Monument I017
Tuzigoot National Monument I018
Walnut Canyon National Monument I019
Wupatki National Monument I011
Davis Monthan AFB F001
Ft. Huachuca Army Base USA0
Luke AFB F003
Yuma Proving Grounds Army Base SA02 SA02

 

Most at Fault vs. NCIC

It can be illuminating to study who, the bicyclist or the motorist, was most at fault (MaF) in a Bike-MV collision. All things being equal, we would expect a 50:50 split, because in the vast majority of collisions there is one bicycle operator, and one MV operator.

The MaF data is available in the yearly collision database from ADOT, a.k.a. the ASDM; the vehicle/person/bicyclist listed as Unit #1 is always the MaF, in the determination of the investigating officer.

Reassuringly, overall the MaF rates are indeed fairly close to 50:50 — for example, in 2009 the split was 55:45, indicating bicyclists were slightly more likely to be found at fault. Deviations from this nominal rate might indicate something is amiss; perhaps bicyclists in one community are more likely to break the law, or perhaps police are misinterpreting laws in someone’s favor…

The NCICs associated with the city of Phoenix has a particularly high bicyclist MaF rate: e.g. 68% in 2010 — compare this to, e.g. Scottsdale where it was only 48%. I find it pretty unlikely that bicyclists in Phoenix behave significantly different than Scottsdale; though without looking at a lot of ACRs it’s not possible to tell. On the other hand, 2010 seems to have been anomolously high that year, 2011 and 2012 were 61 and 60%, respectively; so perhaps just a data glitch. On the other hand Tempe, at 68% in 2012, and seems persistantly somewhat high.

Here are some queries; note that similar results are used using either OfficerNcic as ExtendedNcic. The first is very fancy, computing the percentages and everything!

SELECT sum(atfault)/count(1), Name, sum(atfault), count(1) FROM LOVNcic, (SELECT ExtendedNcic, u.eUnitType='PEDALCYCLIST' atfault FROM 2012_incident i, 2012_unit u WHERE i.IncidentID=u.IncidentID AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u2 WHERE u2.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u2.eUnitType='PEDALCYCLIST') AND UnitNumber=1) x WHERE ID=ExtendedNcic GROUP BY ExtendedNcic HAVING count(1)>20 ORDER BY 1;

Here is how to select the total number of bike crashes by ncic, and then the number of those where bicyclist is MaF

SELECT ExtendedNcic,count(1) FROM 2012_incident i WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u WHERE u.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u.eUnitType IN ('PEDALCYCLIST')) GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 1 ASC;
SELECT ExtendedNcic,count(1) FROM 2012_incident i WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u WHERE u.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u.eUnitType IN ('PEDALCYCLIST') AND u.UnitNumber=1 ) GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 1 ASC;

4 thoughts on “Arizona Agency NCIC Numbers”

  1. I found this document related to the National Parks Service:
    “Servicewide Traffic Accident Reporting System (STARS) or Successor Systems
    All motor vehicle collisions that occur within National Park Service jurisdiction will be reported monthly to the WASO Road Program Safety Manager…”

  2. Bicyclist Most At Fault (MaF) rates; for larger jurisdictions (those investigating more than 20 bike-MV crashes a year). Note that the statewide overall average rate hangs around 52% (i.e. 0.52)…

    First is the 2009-2013 Five year composite results:

    cyclist MaF City / jurisdiction atfault count
    0.2717 Pima County S.O. 72 265
    0.3954 Gilbert 138 349
    0.4019 Scottsdale 168 418
    0.4081 Tucson 451 1105
    0.4087 Maricopa County S.O. 94 230
    0.4812 Flagstaff 166 345
    0.4885 Glendale 234 479
    0.4904 Peoria 102 208
    0.4926 Chandler 233 473
    0.5426 Mesa 579 1067
    0.6072 Tempe 674 1110
    0.6219 Phoenix 1553 2497
    0.7317 Yuma 120 164

    Here is 2013-only results; note the results tend to be consistent over time: Scottsdale, Gilbert, Tucson tend to be significantly below the average; while Tempe, Phoenix, Yuma (ESPECIALLY Yuma) tend to be well-above average — why is that?

    cyclist MaF City / jurisdiction atfault
    0.2381 Avondale 5 21
    0.3194 Gilbert 23 72
    0.3472 Pima County S.O. 25 72
    0.3585 Maricopa County S.O. 19 53
    0.3594 Tucson 78 217
    0.4063 Flagstaff 26 64
    0.4176 Scottsdale 38 91
    0.4519 Chandler 47 104
    0.4922 Mesa 95 193
    0.5263 Peoria 20 38
    0.5476 Glendale 46 84
    0.5546 Tempe 132 238
    0.6230 Phoenix 319 512
    0.7619 Yuma 16 21

    Here are the ill-formatted 2012 and earlier year-by-year results

    
    +-----------------------+-----------------------+--------------+----------+
    | 2012 Bicyclist Fault  | Name                  | sum(atfault) | count(1) |
    +-----------------------+-----------------------+--------------+----------+
    |                0.3043 | Avondale              |           7 |      23 |
    |                0.3571 | Pima County S.O.      |          15 |      42 |
    |                0.3814 | Scottsdale            |          37 |      97 |
    |                0.4167 | Dept. of Public Safety|          10 |      24 |
    |                0.4179 | Gilbert               |          28 |      67 |
    |                0.4255 | Maricopa County S.O.  |          20 |      47 |
    |                0.4272 | Tucson                |          88 |     206 |
    |                0.4599 | Mesa                  |         109 |     237 |
    |                0.4685 | Chandler              |          52 |     111 |
    |                0.4815 | Flagstaff             |          39 |      81 |
    |                0.5111 | Peoria                |          23 |      45 |
    |                0.5204 | Glendale              |          51 |      98 |
    |                0.6007 | Phoenix               |         322 |     536 |
    |                0.6780 | Tempe                 |         160 |     236 |
    |                0.8333 | Yuma                  |          35 |      42 |
    +-----------------------+------------------------+--------------+----------+
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+
    | 2011 Bicyclist Fault  | Name                 | sum(atfault) | count(1) |
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+
    |                0.1522 | Pima County S.O.     |            7 |       46 |
    |                0.2857 | Avondale             |            6 |       21 |
    |                0.3692 | Scottsdale           |           24 |       65 |
    |                0.3896 | Tucson               |           60 |      154 |
    |                0.3953 | Maricopa County S.O. |           17 |       43 |
    |                0.4100 | Glendale             |           41 |      100 |
    |                0.4359 | Gilbert              |           34 |       78 |
    |                0.4714 | Flagstaff            |           33 |       70 |
    |                0.5532 | Chandler             |           52 |       94 |
    |                0.5600 | Peoria               |           28 |       50 |
    |                0.5767 | Mesa                 |          124 |      215 |
    |                0.6116 | Phoenix              |          307 |      502 |
    |                0.6368 | Tempe                |          142 |      223 |
    |                0.7436 | Yuma                 |           29 |       39 |
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+
    | 2010 Bicyclist Fault  | Name                 | sum(atfault) | count(1) |
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+
    |                0.3043 | Pima County S.O.     |           14 |       46 |
    |                0.4252 | Tucson               |          108 |      254 |
    |                0.4429 | Gilbert              |           31 |       70 |
    |                0.4639 | Glendale             |           45 |       97 |
    |                0.4762 | Scottsdale           |           40 |       84 |
    |                0.5000 | Maricopa County S.O. |           22 |       44 |
    |                0.5109 | Chandler             |           47 |       92 |
    |                0.5333 | Peoria               |           16 |       30 |
    |                0.5556 | Yuma                 |           15 |       27 |
    |                0.5781 | Flagstaff            |           37 |       64 |
    |                0.6205 | Mesa                 |          121 |      195 |
    |                0.6212 | Tempe                |          123 |      198 |
    |                0.6775 | Phoenix              |          313 |      462 |
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+
    | 2009 Bicyclist Fault  | Name                 | sum(atfault) | count(1) |
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+
    |                0.2075 | Pima County S.O.     |           11 |       53 |
    |                0.3276 | Gilbert              |           19 |       58 |
    |                0.3556 | Maricopa County S.O. |           16 |       45 |
    |                0.3580 | Scottsdale           |           29 |       81 |
    |                0.3696 | Peoria               |           17 |       46 |
    |                0.4222 | Tucson               |          114 |      270 |
    |                0.4776 | Flagstaff            |           32 |       67 |
    |                0.4872 | Chandler             |           38 |       78 |
    |                0.5000 | Glendale             |           50 |      100 |
    |                0.5583 | Tempe                |          115 |      206 |
    |                0.5677 | Mesa                 |          130 |      229 |
    |                0.5992 | Phoenix              |          287 |      479 |
    |                0.7568 | Yuma                 |           28 |       37 |
    +-----------------------+----------------------+--------------+----------+

    Here is the statewide totals for bike-MV collisions, and Bicyclist most at fault:

           total	bikeFlt	rate
    2012	2121	1106	52.1%
    2011	1910	985	51.6%
    2010	1912	1046	54.7%
    2009	2000	994	49.7%
    4yrs	7943	4131	52.0%

    SELECT count(1) FROM 2012_incident i WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u WHERE u.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u.eUnitType IN (‘PEDALCYCLIST’) AND u.UnitNumber=1 ) ;

    here is the fancy query to compute rates by jurisdiction (that handle at least 20 bike-MV crashes) — for example for the year 2012:

    SELECT sum(atfault)/count(1), Name, sum(atfault), count(1) FROM LOVNcic, (SELECT ExtendedNcic, u.eUnitType=’PEDALCYCLIST’ atfault FROM 2012_incident i, 2012_unit u WHERE i.IncidentID=u.IncidentID AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u2 WHERE u2.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u2.eUnitType=’PEDALCYCLIST’) AND UnitNumber=1) x WHERE ID=ExtendedNcic GROUP BY ExtendedNcic HAVING count(1)>20 ORDER BY 1;

  3. Yuma has a smaller number of crashes (smaller population), but has a consistently (and abnormally) high fault rate of bicyclists:

    Rank Year Fraction
    1 2013 76%
    1 2012 80%
    1 2011 74%
    5 2010 56%
    1 2009 76%

    (see this comment for a note about yuma and sidewalk cycling)

Comments are closed.