The violent crime rate in Pennsylvania increased by **** percent from 2019 to 2020. Nevertheless, average violent crime rate in the United States in 2020 only increased by *** percent from the previous year.

This study was designed to develop crime forecasting as an application area for police in support of tactical deployment of resources. Data on crime offense reports and computer aided dispatch (CAD) drug calls and shots fired calls were collected from the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Bureau of Police for the years 1990 through 2001. Data on crime offense reports were collected from the Rochester, New York Police Department from January 1991 through December 2001. The Rochester CAD drug calls and shots fired calls were collected from January 1993 through May 2001. A total of 1,643,828 records (769,293 crime offense and 874,535 CAD) were collected from Pittsburgh, while 538,893 records (530,050 crime offense and 8,843 CAD) were collected from Rochester. ArcView 3.3 and GDT Dynamap 2000 Street centerline maps were used to address match the data, with some of the Pittsburgh data being cleaned to fix obvious errors and increase address match percentages. A SAS program was used to eliminate duplicate CAD calls based on time and location of the calls. For the 1990 through 1999 Pittsburgh crime offense data, the address match rate was 91 percent. The match rate for the 2000 through 2001 Pittsburgh crime offense data was 72 percent. The Pittsburgh CAD data address match rate for 1990 through 1999 was 85 percent, while for 2000 through 2001 the match rate was 100 percent because the new CAD system supplied incident coordinates. The address match rates for the Rochester crime offenses data was 96 percent, and 95 percent for the CAD data. Spatial overlay in ArcView was used to add geographic area identifiers for each data point: precinct, car beat, car beat plus, and 1990 Census tract. The crimes included for both Pittsburgh and Rochester were aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal mischief, misconduct, family violence, gambling, larceny, liquor law violations, motor vehicle theft, murder/manslaughter, prostitution, public drunkenness, rape, robbery, simple assaults, trespassing, vandalism, weapons, CAD drugs, and CAD shots fired.

Reported crime data for Gate Pa, Bay of Plenty Region over the last 12 months.

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

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Pennsylvania Crime Stoppers

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Beaver County, PA was 3.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Beaver County, PA reached a record high of 19.00000 in January of 2004 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2010. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Beaver County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on September of 2025.

Reported crime data for Pyes Pa North West, Bay of Plenty Region over the last 12 months.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Centre County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Centre County, PA reached a record high of 7.00000 in January of 2005 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2011. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Centre County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on September of 2025.

The visual below shows county-level data from Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program by crime, demographic category (age, sex, race), and year [1]. The bar chart below the map shows a county’s rank among other counties and the state for that combination of variables. Hover over the map or bar chart to highlight corresponding data in the other. It is important to note that participation in the program by law enforcement agencies is voluntary. These data may not be fully complete if additional arrests were reported after the data was downloaded from the PA UCR system. For the latest data, please visit: Crime in Pennsylvania Dashboard. In 2023, arrests for driving under the influence occurred at a rate of 34.5 per 10,000 population (44,163). Arrests for drug possession occurred at a rate of 19.8 per 10,000 population (25,370). Arrests for drug sale/manufacturing occurred at a rate of 7.3 per 10,000 population (9,327). Arrests for drunkenness occurred at a rate of 7.8 per 10,000 population (9,918). Arrests for liquor law violations occurred at a rate of 2.7 per 10,000 population (3,482).

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Pike County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Pike County, PA reached a record high of 1.00000 in January of 2011 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2006. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Pike County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on September of 2025.

The Department of Justice launched Operation Weed and Seed in 1991 as a means of mobilizing a large and varied array of resources in a comprehensive, coordinated effort to control crime and drug problems and improve the quality of life in targeted high-crime neighborhoods. In the long term, Weed and Seed programs are intended to reduce levels of crime, violence, drug trafficking, and fear of crime, and to create new jobs, improve housing, enhance the quality of neighborhood life, and reduce alcohol and drug use. This baseline data collection effort is the initial step toward assessing the achievement of the long-term objectives. The evaluation was conducted using a quasi-experimental design, matching households in comparison neighborhoods with the Weed and Seed target neighborhoods. Comparison neighborhoods were chosen to match Weed and Seed target neighborhoods on the basis of crime rates, population demographics, housing characteristics, and size and density. Neighborhoods in eight sites were selected: Akron, OH, Bradenton (North Manatee), FL, Hartford, CT, Las Vegas, NV, Pittsburgh, PA, Salt Lake City, UT, Seattle, WA, and Shreveport, LA. The "neighborhood" in Hartford, CT, was actually a public housing development, which is part of the reason for the smaller number of interviews at this site. Baseline data collection tasks included the completion of in-person surveys with residents in the target and matched comparison neighborhoods, and the provision of guidance to the sites in the collection of important process data on a routine uniform basis. The survey questions can be broadly divided into these areas: (1) respondent demographics, (2) household size and income, (3) perceptions of the neighborhood, and (4) perceptions of city services. Questions addressed in the course of gathering the baseline data include: Are the target and comparison areas sufficiently well-matched that analytic contrasts between the areas over time are valid? Is there evidence that the survey measures are accurate and valid measures of the dependent variables of interest -- fear of crime, victimization, etc.? Are the sample sizes and response rates sufficient to provide ample statistical power for later analyses? Variables cover respondents' perceptions of the neighborhood, safety and observed security measures, police effectiveness, and city services, as well as their ratings of neighborhood crime, disorder, and other problems. Other items included respondents' experiences with victimization, calls/contacts with police and satisfaction with police response, and involvement in community meetings and events. Demographic information on respondents includes year of birth, gender, ethnicity, household income, and employment status.

Reported crime data for Bridge Pa, Hawke's Bay Region over the last 12 months.

This dataset displays the locations of all the Adult Correctional Facilities in the state of Pennsylvania as of 3.2008. This includes both female and male institutions.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Allegheny County, PA was 316.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2020, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Allegheny County, PA reached a record high of 692.00000 in January of 2004 and a record low of 3.00000 in January of 2019. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Allegheny County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on September of 2025.

The polyshape file shows results of Pennsylvania Democratic primary results by county

The purpose of this study was to examine multiple treatment process measures and post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs or comparison groups provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at five state prisons. The project attempted to examine more closely the relationships among inmate characteristics, treatment process, and treatment outcomes than previous studies in order to explore critical issues in prison-based drug treatment programming and policies. Researchers examined in-treatment measures and multiple post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in TC drug treatment programs or comparison groups at five state prisons: Graterford, Houtzdale, Cresson, Waymart, and Huntingdon. Matched comparison groups were made up of TC-eligible inmates who participated in less intensive forms of treatment (e.g., short-term drug education and outpatient treatment groups) due to a shortage of intensive treatment slots at the five institutions. Included in the treatment sample were all current TC residents as of January 1, 2000. New subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to treatment programs. Between January 1 and November 30, 2000, data on all inmates admitted to or discharged from alcohol or drug treatment programs were collected on a monthly basis. Monthly tracking was continued throughout the study to determine treatment outcomes (e.g., successful vs. unsuccessful). TC clients were asked to complete additional self-report measures that tapped psychological constructs and inmate perceptions of the treatment experience, and TC counselors were asked to complete periodic reassessments of each inmate's participation in treatment. Self-reports of treatment process and psychological functioning were gathered within 30 days after admission, again after six months, again at the end of 12 months, and again at discharge if the inmate remained in TC longer than 12 months. Counselor ratings of inmate participation in treatment were similarly gathered one month, six months, and 12 months following admission to treatment. After release, both treatment and comparison groups were tracked over time to monitor rearrest, reincarceration, drug use, and employment. Measures can be broken down into the following four categories and their sources: (1) Inmate Background Factors were collected from the Pennsylvania Additive Classification System (PACT), the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI), and the TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug Screen. (2) Institutional Indicators: Impacts Internal to the Prison Environment were collected from the Department of Corrections Misconduct Database, research and program records, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (3) Intermediate or "Proximal" Outcomes: Reductions in Risk for Drug Use and Criminal Behavior were collected from research and program records, TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (4) Post-Release Indicators: Inmate Behavior Upon Release from Prison were collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania state police records provided by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and the Department of Corrections inmate records system.

• p<0.05**p<0.01***p<0.0011. All estimates include controls for median age, median household income, percent of the population with less than a high school-level education, and percent of households earning less than the federal poverty standard. 2. IRR: Incidence Rate Ratio; ratio of incidence rate of crimes per square mile at the treatment site to incidence rate of crimes per square mile at the control site 3. SE: Standard ErrorAdjusted Difference-in-Differences Estimates of Violation Compliance on Point-Level Crime Outcomes, by City Section, Philadelphia, PA, January 2010 –April 20131.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Snyder County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2019, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Snyder County, PA reached a record high of 3.00000 in January of 2008 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2005. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Snyder County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on September of 2025.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Schuylkill County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Schuylkill County, PA reached a record high of 2.00000 in January of 2016 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2011. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Schuylkill County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on September of 2025.

This dataset displays the locations of all the public libraries in the state of Pennsylvania. The data included is the name of the library, name of the library system, library's address, phone, and lat/lon coordinates. The data came from publiclibraries.com which is a updated directory of all the public libraries throughout the United States.