This data collection contains responses to victimization surveys that were administered as part of both the planning and evaluation stages of the Hartford Project, a crime opportunity reduction program implemented in a residential neighborhood in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1976. The Hartford Project was an experiment in how to reduce residential burglary and street robbery/purse snatching and the fear of those crimes. Funded through the Hartford Institute of Criminal and Social Justice, the project began in 1973. It was based on a new "environmental" approach to crime prevention: a comprehensive and integrative view addressing not only the relationship among citizens, police, and offenders, but also the effect of the physical environment on their attitudes and behavior. The surveys were administered by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. The Center collected Hartford resident survey data in five different years: 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1979. The 1973 survey provided basic data for problem analysis and planning. These data were updated twice: in 1975 to gather baseline data for the time of program implementation, and in the spring of 1976 with a survey of households in one targeted neighborhood of Hartford to provide data for the time of implementation of physical changes there. Program evaluation surveys were carried out in the spring of 1977 and two years later in 1979. The procedures for each survey were essentially identical each year in order to ensure comparability across time. The one exception was the 1976 sample, which was not independent of the one taken in 1975. In each survey except 1979, respondents reported on experiences during the preceding 12-month period. In 1979 the time reference was the past two years. The survey questions were very similar from year to year, with 1973 being the most unique. All surveys focused on victimization, fear, and perceived risk of being victims of the target crimes. Other questions explored perceptions of and attitudes toward police, neighborhood problems, and neighbors. The surveys also included questions on household and respondent characteristics.

The Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM) was the Connecticut state agency charged with implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for criminal justice and energy programs. Approximately $4.3 million of federal funds was distributed to 159 police departments/municipalities with the primary purpose to assist towns with participating in the ARRA of 2009 distribution of criminal justice grant funds. This dataset provides detail on criminal justice projects funded through the ARRA.

Context

Approximately 10 people are shot on an average day in Chicago.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-homicide-victims-2017-htmlstory.html

Content

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. This data includes unverified reports supplied to the Police Department. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time.

Update Frequency: Daily

Fork this kernel to get started.

Acknowledgements

https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/bigquery-public-data:chicago_crime

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/chicago-crime-data

Dataset Source: City of Chicago

This dataset is publicly available for anyone to use under the following terms provided by the Dataset Source —https://data.cityofchicago.org — and is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, express or implied, from Google. Google disclaims all liability for any damages, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the dataset.

Banner Photo by Ferdinand Stohr from Unplash.

Inspiration

What categories of crime exhibited the greatest year-over-year increase between 2015 and 2016?

Which month generally has the greatest number of motor vehicle thefts?

How does temperature affect the incident rate of violent crime (assault or battery)?

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/images/chicago-scatter.png" alt=""> https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/images/chicago-scatter.png

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This research was conducted in two phases. Phase one analyzed a random sample of approximately 2,000 case files from 2006 through 2009 that contain forensic analyses from the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory, along with corresponding police and court case file data. As with Peterson, et al. (2010), this research had four objectives: 1) estimate the percentage of cases in which crime scene evidence is collected; 2) discover what kinds of forensic are being collected; 3)track such evidence through the criminal justice system; and 4)identify which forms of forensic evidence are most efficacious given the crime investigated. Phase two consisted of a survey administered to detectives within the State of Connecticut regarding their comparative assessments of the utility of forensic evidence. These surveys further advance our understanding of how the success of forensic evidence in achieving arrests and convictions matches with detective opinion.

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.

The Children at Risk (CAR) Program was a comprehensive, neighborhood-based strategy for preventing drug use, delinquency, and other problem behaviors among high-risk youth living in severely distressed neighborhoods. The goal of this research project was to evaluate the long-term impact of the CAR program using experimental and quasi-experimental group comparisons. Experimental comparisons of the treatment and control groups selected within target neighborhoods examined the impact of CAR services on individual youths and their families. These services included intensive case management, family services, mentoring, and incentives. Quasi-experimental comparisons were needed in each city because control group youths in the CAR sites were exposed to the effects of neighborhood interventions, such as enhanced community policing and enforcement activities and some expanded court services, and may have taken part in some of the recreational activities after school. CAR programs in five cities -- Austin, TX, Bridgeport, CT, Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Savannah, GA -- took part in this evaluation. In the CAR target areas, juveniles were identified by case managers who contacted schools and the courts to identify youths known to be at risk. Random assignment to the treatment or control group was made at the level of the family so that siblings would be assigned to the same group. A quasi-experimental group of juveniles who met the CAR eligibility risk requirements, but lived in other severely distressed neighborhoods, was selected during the second year of the evaluation in cities that continued intake of new CAR participants into the second year. In these comparison neighborhoods, youths eligible for the quasi-experimental sample were identified either by CAR staff, cooperating agencies, or the staff of the middle schools they attended. Baseline interviews with youths and caretakers were conducted between January 1993 and May 1994, during the month following recruitment. The end-of-program interviews were conducted approximately two years later, between December 1994 and May 1996. The follow-up interviews with youths were conducted one year after the program period ended, between December 1995 and May 1997. Once each year, records were collected from the police, courts, and schools. Part 1 provides demographic data on each youth, including age at intake, gender, ethnicity, relationship of caretaker to youth, and youth's risk factors for poor school performance, poor school behavior, family problems, or personal problems. Additional variables provide information on household size, including number and type of children in the household, and number and type of adults in the household. Part 2 provides data from all three youth interviews (baseline, end-of-program, and follow-up). Questions were asked about the youth's attitudes toward school and amount of homework, participation in various activities (school activities, team sports, clubs or groups, other organized activities, religious services, odd jobs or household chores), curfews and bedtimes, who assisted the youth with various tasks, attitudes about the future, seriousness of various problems the youth might have had over the past year and who he or she turned to for help, number of times the youth's household had moved, how long the youth had lived with the caretaker, various criminal activities in the neighborhood and the youth's concerns about victimization, opinions on various statements about the police, occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school, or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the number of times that various crimes had been committed against the youth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away from home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal acts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C covered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug sales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline and end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of the presence of various positive and negative neighborhood characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in the past year, activities that the youth currently participated in, curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or she was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the caretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and where he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the youth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed by the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems or problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions focused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any alcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools, police, and courts. School data include the youth's grades, grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police records include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses, drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR program and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges prior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the charges were disposed.

This study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of New Haven, Connecticut's Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) project, named TimeZup, by measuring the impact of the program on public safety, public fear, and law enforcement relationships and operations. The study was conducted using data retrieved from the New Haven Police Department's computerized records and logs, on-site questionnaires, and phone interviews. Important variables included in the study are number of violent gun crimes committed, number and type of guns seized by the police, calls to the police involving shootings or gun shots, the date and time of such incidents, residents' perception of crime, safety and quality of life in New Haven, and supervisees' perceptions of the TimeZup program.