Retirement Notice: This item is in mature support as of June 2023 and will be retired in December 2025. A replacement item has not been identified at this time. Esri recommends updating your maps and apps to phase out use of this item.This map shows the total crime index in the U.S. in 2022 in a multi-scale map (by state, county, ZIP Code, tract, and block group). The layer uses 2020 Census boundaries. The pop-up is configured to include the following information for each geography level:Total crime indexPersonal and Property crime indices Sub-categories of personal and property crime indices Permitted use of this data is covered in the DATA section of the EsriMaster Agreement (E204CW) and these supplemental terms.

This map shows the total crime index in the U.S. in 2020 in a multi-scale map (by state, county, ZIP Code, tract, and block group). The pop-up is configured to include the following information for each geography level:Total crime indexPersonal and Property crime indices Sub-categories of personal and property crime indicesThe values are all referenced by an index value. The index values for the US level are 100, representing average crime for the country. A value of more than 100 represents higher crime than the national average, and a value of less than 100 represents lower crime than the national average. For example, an index of 120 implies that crime in the area is 20 percent higher than the US average; an index of 80 implies that crime is 20 percent lower than the US average.Additional Esri Resources:Esri DemographicsU.S. 2020/2025 Esri Updated DemographicsEssential demographic vocabularyEsri's arcgis.com demographic map layersPermitted use of this data is covered in the DATA section of the Esri Master Agreement (E204CW) and these supplemental terms.

The data provided in this dataset is preliminary in nature and may have not been investigated by a detective at the time of download. The data is therefore subject to change after a complete investigation. This data represents only calls for police service where a police incident report was taken. Due to the variations in local laws and ordinances involving crimes across the nation, whether another agency utilizes Uniform Crime Report (UCR) or National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) guidelines, and the results learned after an official investigation, comparisons should not be made between the statistics generated with this dataset to any other official police reports. Totals in the database may vary considerably from official totals following the investigation and final categorization of a crime. Therefore, the data should not be used for comparisons with Uniform Crime Report or other summary statistics.Data is broken out by year into separate CSV files. Note the file grouping by year is based on the crime's Date Reported (not the Date Occurred).Older cases found in the 2003 data are indicative of cold case research. Older cases are entered into the Police database system and tracked but dates and times of the original case are maintained.Data may also be viewed off-site in map form for just the last 6 months on communitycrimemap.comData Dictionary:Field NameField DescriptionIncident Numberthe number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence roomsDate Reportedthe date the incident was reported to LMPDDate Occurredthe date the incident actually occurredBadge IDBadge ID of responding OfficerOffense ClassificationNIBRS Reporting category for the criminal act committedOffense Code NameNIBRS Reporting code for the criminal act committedNIBRS_CODEthe code that follows the guidelines of the National Incident Based Reporting System. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2011/resources/nibrs-offense-codes/viewNIBRS Grouphierarchy that follows the guidelines of the FBI National Incident Based Reporting SystemWas Offense CompletedStatus indicating whether the incident was an attempted crime or a completed crime.LMPD Divisionthe LMPD division in which the incident actually occurredLMPD Beatthe LMPD beat in which the incident actually occurredLocation Categorythe type of location in which the incident occurred (e.g. Restaurant)Block Addressthe location the incident occurredCitythe city associated to the incident block locationZip Codethe zip code associated to the incident block locationContact:LMPD Open Records lmpdopenrecords@louisvilleky.gov

This table contains data on the rate of violent crime (crimes per 1,000 population) for California, its regions, counties, cities and towns. Crime and population data are from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports. Rates above the city/town level include data from city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Ten percent of all deaths in young California adults aged 15-44 years are related to assault and homicide. In 2010, California law enforcement agencies reported 1,809 murders, 8,331 rapes, and over 95,000 aggravated assaults. African Americans in California are 11 times more likely to die of assault and homicide than Whites. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

This map shows the total crime index in the U.S. in 2021 in a multi-scale map (by state, county, ZIP Code, tract, and block group). The pop-up is configured to include the following information for each geography level:Total crime indexPersonal and Property crime indices Sub-categories of personal and property crime indicesThe values are all referenced by an index value. The index values for the US level are 100, representing average crime for the country. A value of more than 100 represents higher crime than the national average, and a value of less than 100 represents lower crime than the national average. For example, an index of 120 implies that crime in the area is 20 percent higher than the US average; an index of 80 implies that crime is 20 percent lower than the US average.For more information about the AGS Crime Indices, click here. Additional Esri Resources:Esri DemographicsU.S. 2021/2026 Esri Updated DemographicsEssential demographic vocabularyEsri's arcgis.com demographic map layersPermitted use of this data is covered in the DATA section of the EsriMaster Agreement (E204CW) and these supplemental terms.

Esri's Crime Indexes data incorporates information from the AGS national CrimeRisk database that is based on an extensive analysis of several years of crime incidents reported by most US law enforcement jurisdictions. The Crime Indexes database includes standardized indexes for a range of serious crimes against both persons and property. The data vintage is 2019. All attributes are available at the following geography levels: State, County, Tract, Block Group, ZIP Code, Place, CBSA and DMA. Attributes include total crime index, personal crime index, and other indexes for serious crimes. To view ArcGIS Online items using this service, including the terms of use, visit http://goto.arcgisonline.com/demographics5/USA_Crime.

Much research has examined how crime rates vary across urban neighborhoods, focusing particularly on community-level demographic and social characteristics. A parallel line of work has treated crime at the individual level as an expression of certain behavioral patterns (e.g., impulsivity). Little work has considered, however, whether the prevalence of such behavioral patterns in a neighborhood might be predictive of local crime, in large part because such measures are hard to come by and often subjective. The Facebook Advertising API offers a special opportunity to examine this question as it provides an extensive list of “interests” that can be tabulated at various geographic scales. Here we conduct an analysis of the association between the prevalence of interests among the Facebook population of a ZIP code and the local rate of assaults, burglaries, and robberies across 9 highly populated cities in the US. We fit various regression models to predict crime rates as a function of the Facebook and census demographic variables. In general, models using the variables for the interests of the whole adult population on Facebook perform better than those using data on specific demographic groups (such as Males 18-34). In terms of predictive performance, models combining Facebook data with demographic data generally have lower error rates than models using only demographic data. We find that interests associated with media consumption and mating competition are predictive of crime rates above and beyond demographic factors. We discuss how this might integrate with existing criminological theory.

Version 4 release notes:I am retiring this dataset - please do not use it. The reason that I made this dataset is that I had seen a lot of recent articles using the NACJD version of the data and had several requests that I make a concatenated version myself. This data is heavily flawed as noted in the excellent Maltz & Targonski's (2002) paper (see PDF available to download here and important paragraph from that article below) and I was worried that people were using the data without considering these flaws. So the data available here had the warning below this section (originally at the top of these notes so it was the most prominent thing) and had the Maltz & Targonski PDF included in the zip file so people were aware of it. There are two reasons that I am retiring it. First, I see papers and other non-peer reviewed reports still published using this data without addressing the main flaws noted by Maltz and Targonski. I don't want to have my work contribute to research that I think is fundamentally flawed. Second, this data is actually more flawed that I originally understood. The imputation process to replace missing data is based off of a bad design, and Maltz and Targonski talk about this in detail so I won't discuss it too much. The additional problem is that the variable that determines whether an agency has missing data is fatally flawed. That variable is the "number_of_months_reported" variable which is actually just the last month reported. So if you only report in December it'll have 12 months reported instead of 1. So even a good imputation process will be based on such a flawed measure of missingness that it will be wrong. How big of an issue is this? At the moment I haven't looked into it in enough detail to be sure but it's enough of a problem that I no longer want to release this kind of data (within the UCR data there are variables that you can use to try to determine the actual number of months reported but that stopped being useful due to a change in the data in 2018 by the FBI. And even that measure is not always accurate for years before 2018.).!!! Important Note: There are a number of flaws in the imputation process to make these county-level files. Included as one of the files to download (and also in every zip file) is Maltz & Targonski's 2002 paper on these flaws and why they are such an issue. I very strongly recommend that you read this paper in its entirety before working on this data. I am only publishing this data because people do use county-level data anyways and I want them to know of the risks. Important Note !!!The following paragraph is the abstract to Maltz & Targonski's paper: County-level crime data have major gaps, and the imputation schemes for filling in the gaps are inadequate and inconsistent. Such data were used in a recent study of guns and crime without considering the errors resulting from imputation. This note describes the errors and how they may have affected this study. Until improved methods of imputing county-level crime data are developed, tested, and implemented, they should not be used, especially in policy studies.Version 3 release notes: Adds a variable to all data sets indicating the "coverage" which is the proportion of the agencies in that county-year that report complete data (i.e. that aren't imputed, 100 = no imputation, 0 = all agencies imputed for all months in that year.). Thanks to Dr. Monica Deza for the suggestion. The following is directly from NACJD's codebook for county data and is an excellent explainer of this variable.The Coverage Indicator variable represents the proportion of county data that is reported for a given year. The indicator ranges from 0 to 100. A value of 0 indicates that no data for the county were reported and all data have been imputed. A value of 100 indicates that all ORIs in the county reported for all 12 months in the year. Coverage Indicator is calculated as follows: CI_x = 100 * ( 1 - SUM_i { [ORIPOP_i/COUNTYPOP] * [ (12 - MONTHSREPORTED_i)/12 ] } ) where CI = Coverage Indicator x = county i = ORI within countyReorders data so it's sorted by year then county rather than vice versa as before.Version 2 release notes: Fixes bug where Butler University (ORI = IN04940) had wrong FIPS state and FIPS state+county codes from the LEAIC crosswa

Crime severity index (violent, non-violent, youth) and weighted clearance rates (violent, non-violent), Canada, provinces, territories and Census Metropolitan Areas, 1998 to 2024.

***Starting on March 7th, 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will adopt a new Records Management System for reporting crimes and arrests. This new system is being implemented to comply with the FBI's mandate to collect NIBRS-only data (NIBRS — FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/nibrs). During this transition, users will temporarily see only incidents reported in the retiring system. However, the LAPD is actively working on generating new NIBRS datasets to ensure a smoother and more efficient reporting system. *** **Update 1/18/2024 - LAPD is facing issues with posting the Crime data, but we are taking immediate action to resolve the problem. We understand the importance of providing reliable and up-to-date information and are committed to delivering it. As we work through the issues, we have temporarily reduced our updates from weekly to bi-weekly to ensure that we provide accurate information. Our team is actively working to identify and resolve these issues promptly. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding. Rest assured, we are doing everything we can to fix the problem and get back to providing weekly updates as soon as possible. ** This dataset reflects incidents of crime in the City of Los Angeles dating back to 2020. This data is transcribed from original crime reports that are typed on paper and therefore there may be some inaccuracies within the data. Some location fields with missing data are noted as (0°, 0°). Address fields are only provided to the nearest hundred block in order to maintain privacy. This data is as accurate as the data in the database. Please note questions or concerns in the comments.

This map shows the total crime index in the U.S. in 2018 in a multi-scale map (by state, county, ZIP Code, tract, and block group). The pop-up is configured to include the following information for each geography level:Total crime indexPersonal and Property crime indices Sub-categories of personal and property crime indicesThe values are all referenced by an index value. The index values for the US level are 100, representing average crime for the country. A value of more than 100 represents higher crime than the national average, and a value of less than 100 represents lower crime than the national average. For example, an index of 120 implies that crime in the area is 20 percent higher than the US average; an index of 80 implies that crime is 20 percent lower than the US average.Additional Esri Resources:Esri DemographicsU.S. 2018/2023 Esri Updated DemographicsEssential demographic vocabularyEsri's arcgis.com demographic map layers

This study examined spatial and temporal features of crime guns in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in order to ascertain how gun availability affected criminal behavior among youth, whether the effects differed between young adults and juveniles, and whether that relationship changed over time. Rather than investigating the general prevalence of guns, this study focused only on those firearms used in the commission of crimes. Crime guns were defined specifically as those used in murders, assaults, robberies, weapons offenses, and drug offenses. The emphasis of the project was on the attributes of crime guns and those who possess them, the geographic sources of those guns, the distribution of crime guns over neighborhoods in a city, and the relationship between the prevalence of crime guns and the incidence of homicide. Data for Part 1, Traced Guns Data, came from the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Gun trace data provided a detailed view of crime guns recovered by police during a two-year period, from 1995 to 1997. These data identified the original source of each crime gun (first sale to a non-FFL, i.e., a person not holding a Federal Firearms License) as well as attributes of the gun and the person possessing the gun at the time of the precipitating crime, and the ZIP-code location where the gun was recovered. For Part 2, Crime Laboratory Data, data were gathered from the local county crime laboratory on guns submitted by Pittsburgh police for forensic testing. These data were from 1993 to 1998 and provided a longer time series for examining changes in crime guns over time than the data in Part 1. In Parts 3 and 4, Stolen Guns by ZIP-Code Data and Stolen Guns by Census Tract Data, data on stolen guns came from the local police. These data included the attributes of the guns and residential neighborhoods of owners. Part 3 contains data from 1987 to 1996 organized by ZIP code, whereas Part 4 contains data from 1993 to 1996 organized by census tract. Part 5, Shots Fired Data, contains the final indicator of crime gun prevalence for this study, which was 911 calls of incidents involving shots fired. These data provided vital information on both the geographic location and timing of these incidents. Shots-fired incidents not only captured varying levels of access to crime guns, but also variations in the willingness to actually use crime guns in a criminal manner. Part 6, Homicide Data, contains homicide data for the city of Pittsburgh from 1990 to 1995. These data were used to examine the relationship between varying levels of crime gun prevalence and levels of homicide, especially youth homicide, in the same city. Part 7, Pilot Mapping Application, is a pilot application illustrating the potential uses of mapping tools in police investigations of crime guns traced back to original point of sale. NTC. It consists of two ArcView 3.1 project files and 90 supporting data and mapping files. Variables in Part 1 include date of manufacture and sale of the crime gun, weapon type, gun model, caliber, firing mechanism, dealer location (ZIP code and state), recovery date and location (ZIP code and state), age and state of residence of purchaser and possessor, and possessor role. Part 2 also contains gun type and model, as well as gun make, precipitating offense, police zone submitting the gun, and year the gun was submitted to the crime lab. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 include month and year the gun was stolen, gun type, make, and caliber, and owner residence. Residence locations are limited to owner ZIP code in Part 3, and 1990 Census tract number and neighborhood name in Part 4. Part 5 contains the date, time, census tract and police zone of 911 calls relating to shots fired. Part 6 contains the date and census tract of the homicide incident, drug involvement, gang involvement, weapon, and victim and offender ages. Data in Part 7 include state, county, and ZIP code of traced guns, population figures, and counts of crime guns recovered at various geographic locations (states, counties, and ZIP codes) where the traced guns first originated in sales by an FFL to a non-FFL individual. Data for individual guns are not provided in Part 7.

Retirement Notice: This item is in mature support as of June 2023 and will be retired in December 2025. A replacement item has not been identified at this time. Esri recommends updating your maps and apps to phase out use of this item.This map shows the property crime index in the U.S. in 2022 in a multi-scale map (by state, county, ZIP Code, tract, and block group). The layer uses 2020 Census boundaries.The pop-up is configured to include the following information for each geography level:Property crime indexSub-categories of the property crime index Permitted use of this data is covered in the DATA section of the EsriMaster Agreement (E204CW) and these supplemental terms.

This project aims to identify areas in Los Angeles that are at high risk of crime in the future and to propose optimal locations for new police stations in those areas. By applying machine learning to post-COVID-19 crime data and various socioeconomic indicators, we predict crime risk at the ZIP Code level. Using a location-allocation model, we then determine suitable locations for new police stations to improve coverage of high-risk zones. The results of our analysis can support the efficient allocation of public safety resources in response to growing demand and budget constraints, helping city officials optimize law enforcement services. The content of the archive- Jupyter Notebook- Data (GeoJSON, CSV)- Summary report PDF FileThe platform on which the notebook should be run.This notebook is designed to run on Datahub.Project materials - Project Material we created on AGOL 1 Los Angeles Crime Hotspothttps://ucsdonline.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4bddbae65c164f2d9b0285e09cb2820e 2 Choropleth Map of Predicted Crime Levels by ZIP Codehttps://ucsdonline.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=e47abb448f0a411ab77c6ac754ba0c34 3. Optimizing LA Police Station: A Location Allocation Analysishttps://ucsdonline.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=2409da85c3fe410e9578a0eaaed8471e - ArcGIS StoryMaphttps://ucsdonline.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=cfbd4fc27a3b400296e4e31555951d27 Software dependencies - pandas: Used for loading, formatting, and performing matrix operations on tabular data.- geopandas: Used for loading and processing spatial data, including spatial joins and coordinate transformations.- shapely.geometry.Point: Used to create spatial point objects from latitude and longitude coordinates.- arcgis.gis, arcgis.features, arcgis.geometry, arcgis.geoenrichment: Used to retrieve and manipulate geographic data from ArcGIS Online and to extract population statistics using the GeoEnrichment module.- numpy: Used for feature matrix formatting and numerical computations prior to model training.- IPython.display (display, Markdown, Image): Used to format and display Markdown text, data tables, and images within Jupyter Notebooks.- scikit-learn: Used for building and evaluating machine learning models. Specifically, it was used for data preprocessing (StandardScaler), splitting data (train_test_split), model selection and tuning (GridSearchCV, cross_val_score), training various regressors (e.g.,LinearRegression, RandomForestRegressor, KNeighborsRegressor), and assessing performance using metrics such as R², RMSE, and MAE.Other Components we used - ArcGIS Online: Used to create and host interactive web maps for spatial visualization and public presentation purposes.- Flourish: Used to create interactive graphs and charts for visualizing trends and supporting the analysis.

The Justice Equity Need Index (JENI), by Advancement Project California, offers a means to map out the disparate burden that criminalization and a detention-first justice model place on specific communities. The index includes the following indicators:System Involvement: The system-involved population by ZIP Code results in direct needs for justice equity, as measured by adult and youth probation. Indicators: Adult Probation (per 1,000 people); Youth Probation (per 1,000 people) Inequity Drivers: Root inequities across communities that contribute to racial and economic disparities as seen in incarceration and policing. Indicators: Black, Latinx, AIAN, and NHPI Percentages of Population (average percentile); Unemployment Rate (%); Population aged 25+ without a High School Diploma (%); Population below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (%); Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 people) Criminalization Risk: Conditions where the criminal justice system has historically taken a detention-first, prevention-last approach. Indicators: Mental Health Hospitalizations (per 1,000 people); Substance Use-Related Hospitalizations (per 1,000 people); Homelessness Rate (per 1,000 people) Learn more at https://www.catalystcalifornia.org/campaign-tools/maps-and-data/justice-equity-need-index.Supervisorial Districts, SPAs, and CSAs determined by ZIP Code centroid.

This project sought to investigate a possible relationship between sentencing guidelines and family structure in the United States. The research team developed three research modules that employed a variety of data sources and approaches to understand family destabilization and community distress, which cannot be observed directly. These three research modules were used to discover causal relationships between male withdrawal from productive spheres of the economy and resulting changes in the community and families. The research modules approached the issue of sentencing guidelines and family structure by studying: (1) the flow of inmates into prison (Module A), (2) the role of and issues related to sentencing reform (Module B), and family disruption in a single state (Module C). Module A utilized the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data for 1984 and 1993 (Parts 1 and 2), the 1984 and 1993 National Correctional Reporting Program (NCRP) data (Parts 3-6), the Urban Institute's 1980 and 1990 Underclass Database (UDB) (Part 7), the 1985 and 1994 National Longitudinal Survey on Youth (NLSY) (Parts 8 and 9), and county population, social, and economic data from the Current Population Survey, County Business Patterns, and United States Vital Statistics (Parts 10-12). The focus of this module was the relationship between family instability, as measured by female-headed families, and three societal characteristics, namely underclass measures in county of residence, individual characteristics, and flows of inmates. Module B examined the effects of statewide incarceration and sentencing changes on marriage markets and family structure. Module B utilized data from the Current Population Survey for 1985 and 1994 (Part 12) and the United States Statistical Abstracts (Part 13), as well as state-level data (Parts 14 and 15) to measure the Darity-Myers sex ratio and expected welfare income. The relationship between these two factors and family structure, sentencing guidelines, and minimum sentences for drug-related crimes was then measured. Module C used data collected from inmates entering the Minnesota prison system in 1997 and 1998 (Part 16), information from the 1990 Census (Part 17), and the Minnesota Crime Survey (Part 18) to assess any connections between incarceration and family structure. Module C focused on a single state with sentencing guidelines with the goal of understanding how sentencing reforms and the impacts of the local community factors affect inmate family structure. The researchers wanted to know if the aspects of locations that lose marriageable males to prison were more important than individual inmate characteristics with respect to the probability that someone will be imprisoned and leave behind dependent children. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 document arrests by race for arson, assault, auto theft, burglary, drugs, homicide, larceny, manslaughter, rape, robbery, sexual assault, and weapons. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 document prison admissions, while variables in Parts 5 and 6 document prison releases. Variables in Part 7 include the number of households on public assistance, education and income levels of residents by race, labor force participation by race, unemployment by race, percentage of population of different races, poverty rate by race, men in the military by race, and marriage pool by race. Variables in Parts 8 and 9 include age, county, education, employment status, family income, marital status, race, residence type, sex, and state. Part 10 provides county population data. Part 11 contains two different state identifiers. Variables in Part 12 describe mortality data and welfare data. Part 13 contains data from the United States Statistical Abstracts, including welfare and poverty variables. Variables in Parts 14 and 15 include number of children, age, education, family type, gender, head of household, marital status, race, religion, and state. Variables in Part 16 cover admission date, admission type, age, county, education, language, length of sentence, marital status, military status, sentence, sex, state, and ZIP code. Part 17 contains demographic data by Minnesota ZIP code, such as age categories, race, divorces, number of children, home ownership, and unemployment. Part 18 includes Minnesota crime data as well as some demographic variables, such as race, education, and poverty ratio.

Retirement Notice: This item is in mature support as of July 2022 and will be retired in December 2025. A new version of this item is available for your use. Esri recommends updating your maps and apps to use the new version. This layer uses 2010 Census geographies. This layer shows the USA property crime index in the U.S. in 2021 in a multi-scale map (by state, county, ZIP Code, tract, and block group). The pop-up is configured to include the following information for each geography level:Personal and Property crime indices Sub-categories of personal and property crime indices Permitted use of this data is covered in the DATA section of the EsriMaster Agreement (E204CW) and these supplemental terms.

Retirement Notice: This item is in mature support as of July 2022 and will be retired in December 2025. A new version of this item is available for your use. Esri recommends updating your maps and apps to use the new version. This layer uses 2010 Census geographies. This layer shows the total crime index in the U.S. in 2021 in a multi-scale map (by state, county, ZIP Code, tract, and block group). The pop-up is configured to include the following information for each geography level:Personal and Property crime indices Sub-categories of personal and property crime indices Permitted use of this data is covered in the DATA section of the EsriMaster Agreement (E204CW) and these supplemental terms.

Report Volume Data The report counts in this data set are broken down by activity sector, report type, the year and month of receipt, and reporting entity location. The reporting entity location is represented by the forward sortation area (FSA) component of the Canadian postal code (i.e. the first three characters of the Canadian postal code, e.g. “K1P”) that designates the postal district where the reporting entity is located. ##Modernization of Reporting Forms The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) is engaged in a multi-year initiative to implement important changes to its reporting forms. Part of this modernization now allows reporting entities to submit reports containing transactions from multiple locations, increasing efficiency and reducing burden. This will change how FINTRAC publishes statistics for reports that have been modernized. FINTRAC implemented the new Large Cash Transaction Report in October 2023. As such, reporting volume statistics for the Large Cash Transaction Report will be published at a national level for quarters 3 and 4 of 2023-2024 (from October to December, and January to March, respectively). The publication of this dataset has been temporarily paused to accommodate the transition to new reporting forms. This transition is part of our ongoing efforts to enhance the quality and consistency of the data we collect. ##Protecting the Identity of Reporting Entities By law, FINTRAC must protect the identity of the persons and entities that are required to submit financial transaction reports to the Centre under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. In keeping with this responsibility to protect information, FINTRAC cannot provide more specific geographic data than is contained in this data set. Whenever possible, the data set includes the full FSA to identify the location of reporting entities submitting reports to FINTRAC. However, in any case where a certain location contains fewer than five reporting entities, or fewer than five reports submitted, only partial characters of the FSA are shown. This means that certain FSAs may contain only one or two characters (e.g., K or K1) instead of the standard three characters (e.g., K1P). In rare cases, it was not possible to provide a reporting entity location or report count without risking revealing the identity of reporting entities in a given activity sector or identifying a specific report, and so the data is provided at a national level only. All FSA levels are hierarchically inclusive. This means, for example, that the total number of report counts for K1 includes all reports submitted within all FSAs that start with K1 (i.e. K1A, K1B, K1C), including those that may not be visible because they include fewer than five reporting entities in a given activity sector. E&OE

Description: Pursuant to the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law, 730 ILCS 152/101,et seq., the Chicago Police Department maintains a list of sex offenders residing in the City of Chicago who are required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/2, et seq. To protect the privacy of the individuals, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. The data are extracted from the CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system developed by the Department. Although every effort is made to keep this list accurate and current, the city cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Offenders may have moved and failed to notify the Chicago Police Department as required by law. If any information presented in this web site is known to be outdated, please contact the Chicago Police Department at srwbmstr@chicagopolice.org, or mail to Sex Registration Unit, 3510 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60653. Disclaimer: This registry is based upon the legislature's decision to facilitate access to publicly available information about persons convicted of specific sexual offenses. The Chicago Police Department has not considered or assessed the specific risk of re-offense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included within the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within this registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and Illinois law. The main purpose of providing this data on the internet is to make the information more available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.

Anyone who uses information contained in the Sex Offender Database to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution. Data Owner: Chicago Police Department. Frequency: Data is updated daily. Related Applications: CLEARMAP (http://j.mp/lLluSa).