***In January 2020, as part of implementing a new citywide police incident reporting system the City began moving away from reporting crime to the FBI Unified Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and instead to the new National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) format. For this reason, 2020 UCR data may have inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies. A filtered view of UCR data is available for 2011-2019 at https://citydata.mesaaz.gov/Police/Crime-Reporting-Statistics-Uniform-Crime-Reporting/bfen-qa5d

As of January 1, 2021, the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) became the national crime data collection program. NIBRS was implemented to improve the overall quality of crime data collected by law enforcement, by capturing details on each single crime incident, as well as on separate offenses within the same incident. The historic Summary Reporting System (SRS) data collection, which collects more limited information than the more robust NIBRS, was phased out to make Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) a NIBRS-only data collection.

Coming soon, look for a new dataset based on NIBRS, which will provide more complete and comprehensive data for law enforcement, researchers, and the public.

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program collects statistics on the number of offenses known to City of Mesa Police Department. Address and Location data are not exact location of incidents and have been rounded to nearest hundred block. Lat/Long are approximations only based on rounded hundred block. Part 1 offenses are reported monthly and are chosen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) because they are serious crimes, they occur with regularity in all areas of the country, and they are likely to be reported to police. Part I offenses are defined as: Criminal homicide, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary (breaking or entering), Larceny-theft (except motor vehicle theft), Motor vehicle theft and Arson.

This study investigates rates of serious crime for selected public housing developments in Washington, DC, Phoenix, Arizona, and Los Angeles, California, for the years 1986 to 1989. Offense rates in housing developments were compared to rates in nearby areas of private housing as well as to city-wide rates. In addition, the extent of law enforcement activity in housing developments as represented by arrests was considered and compared to arrest levels in other areas. This process allowed both intra-city and inter-city comparisons to be made. Variables cover study site, origin of data, year of event, offense codes, and _location of event. Los Angeles files also include police division.

The Tempe Police Department prides itself in its continued efforts to reduce harm within the community and is providing this dataset on hate crime incidents that occur in Tempe.This data compares hate crimes in the City of Tempe and the State of Arizona. The data source is from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) at both the national and state level: FBIhttps://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/publications#Hate-Crime%20StatisticsDOJhttps://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/facts-and-statisticsInformation about Tempe Police Department's collection and reporting process for possible hate crimes is included in the story map Projecting Our Community form Hate at https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a963e97ca3494bfc8cd66d593eebabafAdditional InformationSource: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/publications#Hate-Crime%20Statistics, https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/facts-and-statisticsContact: Angelique BeltranContact E-Mail: angelique_beltran@tempe.govData Source Type: TabularPreparation Method: Data extracted from sources, reformatted in Excel and uploaded.Publish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

The purpose of the study was to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the Homicide Clearance Project in the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. The primary objective of the Homicide Clearance Project was to improve homicide clearance rates by increasing investigative time through the transfer of four crime scene specialists to the homicide unit. In 2004, the Phoenix Police Department received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance providing support for the assignment of four crime scene specialists directly to the department's Homicide Unit. Responsibilities of the crime scene specialists were to collect evidence at homicide scenes, prepare scene reports, develop scene diagrams, and other supportive activities. Prior to the project, homicide investigators were responsible for evidence collection, which reduced the time they could devote to investigations. The crime scene specialists were assigned to two of the four investigative squads within the homicide unit. This organizational arrangement provided for a performance evaluation of the squads with crime scene specialists (experimental squads) against the performance of the other squads (comparison squads). During the course of the evaluation, research staff coded information from all homicides that occurred during the 12-month period prior to the transfers (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004), referred to as the baseline period, the 2-month training period (July 1, 2004 - August 31, 2004), and a 10-month test period (September 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). Data were collected on 404 homicide cases (Part 1), 532 homicide victims and survivors (Part 2), and 3,338 records of evidence collected at homicide scenes (Part 3). The two primary sources of information for the evaluation were investigative reports from the department's records management system, called the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) system, and crime laboratory reports from the crime laboratory's Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 each contain variables that measure squad type, time period, and whether six general categories of evidence were collected. Part 1 contains a total of 18 variables including number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, number of crime scene specialists at the scene, number of investigators collecting evidence at the scene, total number of evidence collectors, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, and whether the case was open or closed by arrest. Part 2 contains a total of 37 variables including victim characteristics and motives. Other variables in Part 2 include an instrumental/expressive homicide indicator, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, whether the case was open or closed by arrest, number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, and investigative time to closure. Part 3 contains a total of 46 variables including primary/secondary scene indicator, scene type, number of pieces of evidence, total time at the scene, and number of photos taken. Part 3 also includes variables that measure whether 16 specific types of evidence were found and the number of items of evidence that were collected for 13 specific evidence types.

Over the last several years, the topic of immigration has gained increased attention from politicians, policymakers, and the media. This attention has centered on the prevalence of undocumented immigrants entering and residing within the United States, concern over increasing crime rates involving undocumented immigrants, and the appropriateness of the various policies aimed at controlling the influx of undocumented immigrants into the country. The recent wave of immigration from Latin America has led to a renewed public outcry and overall concerns regarding the relationship between immigration, crime and gang involvement, and the safety of the American public. Thus, the goal of this project was to conduct a multi-methodological study to examine immigrants' involvement in crime, gang membership, and experiences with violent victimization. In addition, this project examined alcohol and drug use among immigrants. This project relied on data collected in Maricopa County, Arizona. Specifically, this project relied on analyses of previously collected quantitative self-report data from a sample of recently booked arrestees, analyses of quantitative self-report data collected from a community sample of immigrants (of different immigration statuses) and US-born citizens, and analysis of qualitative data collected from a community sample of immigrants (of different immigration statuses) and US-born citizens. The results provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between immigration status and crime, gang involvement, and victimization as well as an understanding of immigrants' alcohol and drug use, relative to US-born citizens.

Crime events for FY 2017 reported in the Federally mandated UCR schema.

This dataset provides the crime clearance rate nationally and for the City of Tempe. An overall clearance rate is developed as part of the Department’s report for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Program. The statistics in the UCR Program are based on reports the Tempe Police Department officially submits to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS).In the UCR Program, there are two ways that a law enforcement agency can report that an offense is cleared:(1) cleared by arrest or solved for crime reporting purposes, or(2) cleared by exceptional means.An offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been: (1) arrested; (2) charged with the commission of the offense; and (3) turned over to the court for prosecution.In some situations, an agency may be prevented from arresting and formally charging an offender due to factors outside of the agency's control. In these cases, an offense can be cleared by exceptional means, if the following four conditions are met: (1) identified the offender; (2) gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution; (3) identified offender’s exact location so that suspect can immediately be taken into custody; and (4) encountered a circumstance outside law enforcement"s control that prohibits arresting, charging and prosecuting the offender.The UCR clearance rate is one tool for helping the police to understand and assess success at investigating crimes. However, these rates should be interpreted with an understanding of the unique challenges faced in reporting and investigating crimes. Clearance rates for a given year may be greater than 100% because a clearance is reported for the year the clearance occurs, which may not be the same year that the crime occurred. Often, investigations may take months or years, resulting in cases being cleared years after the actual offense. Additionally, there may be delays in the reporting of crimes, which would push the clearance of the case out beyond the year it happened.This page provides data for the Violent Cases Clearance Rate performance measure. The performance measure dashboard is available at 1.12 Violent Cases Clearance Rate.Additional InformationSource: Tempe Police Department (TPD) Versadex Records Management System (RMS) submitted to Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZ DPS), which submits data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Contact (author): Contact E-Mail (author): Contact (maintainer): Brooks LoutonContact E-Mail (maintainer): Brooks_Louton@tempe.govData Source Type: ExcelPreparation Method: Drawn from the Annual FBI Crime In the United States PublicationPublish Frequency: AnnuallyPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

This dataset provides the crime clearance rate nationally and for the City of Tempe. An overall clearance rate is developed as part of the Department’s report for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Program. The statistics in the UCR Program are based on reports the Tempe Police Department officially submits to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS).In the UCR Program, there are two ways that a law enforcement agency can report that an offense is cleared:(1) cleared by arrest or solved for crime reporting purposes, or(2) cleared by exceptional means.An offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been: (1) arrested; (2) charged with the commission of the offense; and (3) turned over to the court for prosecution.In some situations, an agency may be prevented from arresting and formally charging an offender due to factors outside of the agency's control. In these cases, an offense can be cleared by exceptional means, if the following four conditions are met: (1) identified the offender; (2) gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution; (3) identified offender’s exact location so that suspect can immediately be taken into custody; and (4) encountered a circumstance outside law enforcement"s control that prohibits arresting, charging and prosecuting the offender.The UCR clearance rate is one tool for helping the police to understand and assess success at investigating crimes. However, these rates should be interpreted with an understanding of the unique challenges faced in reporting and investigating crimes. Clearance rates for a given year may be greater than 100% because a clearance is reported for the year the clearance occurs, which may not be the same year that the crime occurred. Often, investigations may take months or years, resulting in cases being cleared years after the actual offense. Additionally, there may be delays in the reporting of crimes, which would push the clearance of the case out beyond the year it happened.This page provides data for the Violent Cases Clearance Rate performance measure. The performance measure dashboard is available at 1.12 Violent Cases Clearance Rate.Additional InformationSource: Tempe Police Department (TPD) Versadex Records Management System (RMS) submitted to Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZ DPS), which submits data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Contact (author): Contact E-Mail (author): Contact (maintainer): Brooks LoutonContact E-Mail (maintainer): Brooks_Louton@tempe.govData Source Type: ExcelPreparation Method: Drawn from the Annual FBI Crime In the United States PublicationPublish Frequency: AnnuallyPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

Please click here to view the Data Dictionary, a description of the fields in this table.The police incident report generates from the police department Record Management System (RMS) and includes one rolling year of data. Information automatically updates Sunday night. The most recent data available will begin one week prior from the updated date to allow for report approvals, ensuring the most accurate information available. Incidents included may not directly correlate to information found in other data sets nor should this data be considered for official Uniform Crime Reporting. For all official crime statistics please refer to the FBI and Arizona Department of Public Safety.Some information has been excluded and addresses shortened to the hundred block to protect privacy of victims and juveniles.

Victim legal services generally, and victims rights enforcement legal services specifically, are still relatively new victim assistance fields compared with other forms of crime victim services. Therefore, the field of victim legal services has so far lacked a conceptual framework that articulates the ultimate goals of these services, and how the provision of these services is intended to promote those goals. This formative evaluation, which is a collaboration between the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) and the National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) and funded by the National Institute of Justice, seeks to address this gap by first creating a conceptual model and theory of change, and then testing it in practice.

This data collection was designed to gauge the impact of a victim assistance program on the behavior and attitudes of victims and to evaluate the program as assessed by police and prosecutors. Program impact was estimated by examining the change in psychological, social, and financial conditions of the victims following the service intervention. Three types of victim service conditions can be compared: crisis intervention service, delayed assistance service, and no service. The victim files contain information on the victim's demographic characteristics, various kinds of psychological indicators and stress symptoms following the incident, respondent's assessments of impacts of victimization on social activity, family, job, and financial conditions. The follow-up files have information on the victims' financial and emotional state some time after the incident. The police files include respondent's personal background, types and frequency of victim-witness services used, and opinions about contacts with police. The prosecutor files include variables relating to personal background and satisfaction with the court system.

Please click here to view the Data Dictionary, a description of the fields in this table.The police citation report generates from the police department (Record Management System (RMS) and includes one rolling year of data. Information automatically updates Sunday night. The most recent data available will begin one week prior from the updated date to allow for report approvals, ensuring the most accurate information available. Incidents included may not directly correlate to information found in other data sets nor should this data be considered for official Uniform Crime Reporting. For all official crime statistics please refer to the FBI and Arizona Department of Public Safety.Some information has been excluded and addresses shortened to the hundred block to protect privacy of victims and juveniles.

Incidents based on initial police reports taken by officers when responding to calls for service. Data is modified for public use. Address and Location are not exact locations of incidents and have been rounded to nearest hundred block. Lat/Long are approximations only based on rounded hundred block. Incidents reported in this dataset may not correlate with 911 Events datasets and calls for Police service.

The City of Mesa does not disclose information that is inflammatory in nature that impacts our citizens. Crimes reported in this data set have not been adjudicated in a court of law for final determination.

Although sensitive crimes are included, the approximate address are NOT included. Therefore aggregate totals of crimes are accurate, without providing sensitive information. Addresses are not included for: sexual abuse, sexual assault, suicide, incest, molestation of a child or homicide.

Similar information is also provided through the Communitycrimemap.com website, a 3rd party service that visually reviews crime data for Mesa and outlining areas.

Some of the data fields provided are used to report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For a listing of data fields and description please see their UCR Program Data Collections page. Alternatively, please see the Bureau of Justice Statistics NIBRS website for a listing of data fields.

Please click here to view the Data Dictionary, a description of the fields in this table.If you would like information that occurred more than a year ago, please submit a request through the Police Records Police Records Request.The police Calls for Service (CFS) report generates from the police department Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and includes one rolling year of data. Information automatically updates Sunday night. The most recent data available will begin one week prior from the updated date to allow for report approvals, ensuring the most accurate information available. Incidents included may not directly correlate to information found in other data sets nor should this data be considered for official Uniform Crime Reporting. For all official crime statistics please refer to the FBI and Arizona Department of Public Safety.Some information has been excluded and addresses shortened to the hundred block to protect privacy of victims and juveniles.

Azerbaijan Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data was reported at 2.482 Ratio in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3.153 Ratio for 2014. Azerbaijan Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data is updated yearly, averaging 3.153 Ratio from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2016, with 5 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3.238 Ratio in 2013 and a record low of 2.482 Ratio in 2016. Azerbaijan Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Azerbaijan – Table AZ.World Bank: Health Statistics. Intentional homicides, male are estimates of unlawful male homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.; ; UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database.; ;

Please click here to view the Data Dictionary, a description of the fields in this table.The police arrest report generates from the police department (Record Management System (RMS)) and includes one rolling year of data. Information automatically updates Sunday night. The most recent data available will begin one week prior from the updated date to allow for report approvals, ensuring the most accurate information available. Incidents included may not directly correlate to information found in other data sets nor should this data be considered for official Uniform Crime Reporting. For all official crime statistics please refer to the FBI and Arizona Department of Public Safety.Some information has been excluded and addresses shortened to the hundred block to protect privacy of victims and juveniles.

The objective of this study was to examine the observable offending patterns of recent and past drug offenders to assess the crime control potential associated with recent increases in the incarceration of drug offenders. The periods examined were 1986 (representing the second half of the 1980s, when dramatic shifts toward increasing incarceration of drug offenders first became evident), and 1990 (after escalating sentences were well under way). Convicted offenders were the focus, since these cases are most directly affected by changes in imprisonment policies, particularly provisions for mandatory prison terms. Offending patterns of convicted and imprisoned drug offenders were contrasted to patterns of convicted robbers and burglars, both in and out of prison. The researchers used data from the National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for information on the court processing of individual felony convictions. The National Association of Criminal Justice Planners (NACJP), which maintains data for the approximately 50 counties included in the NJRP, was contracted to determine the counties to be sampled (Los Angeles County and Maricopa County in Arizona were chosen) and to provide individual criminal histories. Variables include number of arrests for robbery, violent crimes, property crimes, and other felonies, number of drug arrests, number of misdemeanor arrests, rate of violent, property, robbery, weapons, other felony, drug, and misdemeanor arrests, offense type (drug trafficking, drug possession, robbery, and burglary), total number of incarcerations, total number of convictions, whether sentenced to prison, jail, or probation, incarceration sentence in months, sex, race, and age at sampled conviction, and age at first arrest (starting at age 17).

A dashboard used by government agencies to monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) and communicate progress made on strategic outcomes with the general public and other interested stakeholders.

Azerbaijan Intentional Homicides: per 100,000 People data was reported at 1.910 Ratio in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 2.236 Ratio for 2020. Azerbaijan Intentional Homicides: per 100,000 People data is updated yearly, averaging 2.423 Ratio from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2021, with 27 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 7.379 Ratio in 1992 and a record low of 1.642 Ratio in 2019. Azerbaijan Intentional Homicides: per 100,000 People data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Azerbaijan – Table AZ.World Bank.WDI: Social: Health Statistics. Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.;UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database.;Weighted average;

Please click here to view the Data Dictionary, a description of the fields in this table.The police arrest report generates from the police department (Record Management System (RMS)) and includes one rolling year of data. Information automatically updates Sunday night. The most recent data available will begin one week prior from the updated date to allow for report approvals, ensuring the most accurate information available. Incidents included may not directly correlate to information found in other data sets nor should this data be considered for official Uniform Crime Reporting. For all official crime statistics please refer to the FBI and Arizona Department of Public Safety.Some information has been excluded and addresses shortened to the hundred block to protect privacy of victims and juveniles.