Data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) showing breakdowns of victimisation over time and by various demographic characteristics.

This dataset contains aggregate data on violent index victimizations at the quarter level of each year (i.e., January – March, April – June, July – September, October – December), from 2001 to the present (1991 to present for Homicides), with a focus on those related to gun violence. Index crimes are 10 crime types selected by the FBI (codes 1-4) for special focus due to their seriousness and frequency. This dataset includes only those index crimes that involve bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm and are reported to the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Each row is aggregated up to victimization type, age group, sex, race, and whether the victimization was domestic-related. Aggregating at the quarter level provides large enough blocks of incidents to protect anonymity while allowing the end user to observe inter-year and intra-year variation. Any row where there were fewer than three incidents during a given quarter has been deleted to help prevent re-identification of victims. For example, if there were three domestic criminal sexual assaults during January to March 2020, all victims associated with those incidents have been removed from this dataset. Human trafficking victimizations have been aggregated separately due to the extremely small number of victimizations.

This dataset includes a " GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow CPD time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information.

How does this dataset classify victims?

The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type:

Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table.

To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset.

For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization:

1. In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a first-degree murder (IUCR code = 0110) or a second-degree murder (IUCR code = 0130).
2. When a non-fatal shooting victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code that signifies a criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated battery, we enter “UNK” in the IUCR column, “YES” in the GUNSHOT_I column, and “NON-FATAL” in the PRIMARY column to indicate that the victim was non-fatally shot, but the precise IUCR code is unknown.

Other violent crime victims: For other violent crime types, we refer to the IUCR classification that exists in CPD's victim table, with only one exception:

1. When there is an incident that is associated with no victim with a matching IUCR code, we assume that this is an error. Every crime should have at least 1 victim with a matching IUCR code. In these cases, we change the IUCR code to reflect the incident IUCR code because CPD's incident table is considered to be more reliable than the victim table.

Note: All businesses identified as victims in CPD data have been removed from this dataset.

Note: The definition of “homicide” (shooting or otherwise) does not include justifiable homicide or involuntary manslaughter. This dataset also excludes any cases that CPD considers to be “unfounded” or “noncriminal.”

Note: In some instances, the police department's raw incident-level data and victim-level data that were inputs into this dataset do not align on the type of crime that occurred. In those instances, this dataset attempts to correct mismatches between incident and victim specific crime types. When it is not possible to determine which victims are associated with the most recent crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

As of June 2024, watching true-crime content on TV was most common among women and ** to ** year-olds, with ** and ** percent of respondents in the respective group consuming this kind of content on TV. In total, ** percent of adults watch true-crime content on television.

These data examine the effects on total crime rates of changes in the demographic composition of the population and changes in criminality of specific age and race groups. The collection contains estimates from national data of annual age-by-race specific arrest rates and crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary over the 21-year period 1965-1985. The data address the following questions: (1) Are the crime rates reported by the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data series valid indicators of national crime trends? (2) How much of the change between 1965 and 1985 in total crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary is attributable to changes in the age and race composition of the population, and how much is accounted for by changes in crime rates within age-by-race specific subgroups? (3) What are the effects of age and race on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (4) What is the effect of time period on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (5) What is the effect of birth cohort, particularly the effect of the very large (baby-boom) cohorts following World War II, on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (6) What is the effect of interactions among age, race, time period, and cohort on subgroup crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary? (7) How do patterns of age-by-race specific crime rates for murder, robbery, and burglary compare for different demographic subgroups? The variables in this study fall into four categories. The first category includes variables that define the race-age cohort of the unit of observation. The values of these variables are directly available from UCR and include year of observation (from 1965-1985), age group, and race. The second category of variables were computed using UCR data pertaining to the first category of variables. These are period, birth cohort of age group in each year, and average cohort size for each single age within each single group. The third category includes variables that describe the annual age-by-race specific arrest rates for the different crime types. These variables were estimated for race, age, group, crime type, and year using data directly available from UCR and population estimates from Census publications. The fourth category includes variables similar to the third group. Data for estimating these variables were derived from available UCR data on the total number of offenses known to the police and total arrests in combination with the age-by-race specific arrest rates for the different crime types.

This dataset contains demographic information related to reported hate crimes within the jurisdiction of the Anderson Police Department. The data includes details on both victims and alleged perpetrators, with demographic variables such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity. The types of hate crimes covered in the dataset are based on classifications in accordance with relevant local and federal hate crime definitions.

The dataset was obtained through a Public Records Act request and covers the time period from January 1st 2023 through December 31st 2023. This agency had no Hate Crimes to report in 2022. It was provided in MS Word format, where each row represents a unique hate crime incident and the columns capture demographic and other related variables.

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.

The map was created by EGIS in collaboration with the Senior Affairs Commission to display crimes committed against seniors throughout Dallas in an effort to identify patterns and areas to focus senior assistance.The crime data used was derived from the City of Dallas Police Department available crime data. The dashboard is included in the Senior Demographic application.

This dataset includes all arrests with all offenses listed for each arrest. Each offense lists the demographic information for the person arrested for that offense. There may be multiple offenses for an arrestee. This dataset should only be used for counting the number of offenses related to arrests.

Arrest data from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC). Population and demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey.

Overview:

This dataset contains detailed information on cases where a hate or bias crime has been reported to the Bloomington Police Department. Hate crimes are criminal offenses motivated by bias against race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics. This dataset provides insights into the nature and demographics of hate crimes in Bloomington, aiding in understanding and addressing these incidents.

Dataset Details:

The dataset includes the following columns:

Key Features:

• Comprehensive Crime Data: Provides detailed information on hate crimes, including demographics of victims and offenders, types of offenses, and bias motivations.
• Temporal Analysis: Includes timestamps for each incident, allowing for analysis of trends over time.
• Demographic Insights: Offers data on race and gender of both victims and offenders, helping to identify patterns and target interventions.
• Location Information: Contains details about the type of location where the offense occurred, useful for spatial analysis and preventive measures.

Usage:

This dataset can be used for:

• Crime Analysis: Analyzing trends and patterns in hate crimes to inform law enforcement strategies and policies.
• Community Safety: Identifying high-risk areas and times to improve community policing and preventive measures.
• Research and Advocacy: Supporting academic research and advocacy efforts focused on combating hate crimes and promoting social justice.
• Policy Development: Assisting policymakers in developing targeted initiatives to reduce hate crimes and support affected communities.

Data Maintenance:

• Last Updated: July 7, 2024
• Source: Bloomington Police Department Data Portal
• Revisions: The dataset is annually updated to ensure the inclusion of the latest incidents and to maintain data accuracy. Historical data is preserved to support long-term analyses.

Additional Notes

• Data Accuracy: The Bloomington Police Department strives for accuracy in open data; however, errors may occur due to the nature of data collection from multiple sources.
• Data Interpretation: Users should be aware that the dataset may change over time as new information becomes available or corrections are made.
• Race and District Codes: The dataset uses specific codes for race and reading districts, which are detailed in the accompanying documentation to ensure proper interpretation.
• License: Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License

In 2023, the violent crime rate in the United States was 363.8 cases per 100,000 of the population. Even though the violent crime rate has been decreasing since 1990, the United States tops the ranking of countries with the most prisoners. In addition, due to the FBI's transition to a new crime reporting system in which law enforcement agencies voluntarily submit crime reports, data may not accurately reflect the total number of crimes committed in recent years. Reported violent crime rate in the United States The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation tracks the rate of reported violent crimes per 100,000 U.S. inhabitants. In the timeline above, rates are shown starting in 1990. The rate of reported violent crime has fallen since a high of 758.20 reported crimes in 1991 to a low of 363.6 reported violent crimes in 2014. In 2023, there were around 1.22 million violent crimes reported to the FBI in the United States. This number can be compared to the total number of property crimes, roughly 6.41 million that year. Of violent crimes in 2023, aggravated assaults were the most common offenses in the United States, while homicide offenses were the least common. Law enforcement officers and crime clearance Though the violent crime rate was down in 2013, the number of law enforcement officers also fell. Between 2005 and 2009, the number of law enforcement officers in the United States rose from around 673,100 to 708,800. However, since 2009, the number of officers fell to a low of 626,900 officers in 2013. The number of law enforcement officers has since grown, reaching 720,652 in 2023. In 2023, the crime clearance rate in the U.S. was highest for murder and non-negligent manslaughter charges, with around 57.8 percent of murders being solved by investigators and a suspect being charged with the crime. Additionally, roughly 46.1 percent of aggravated assaults were cleared in that year. A statistics report on violent crime in the U.S. can be found here.

The major objective of this study was to examine how physical characteristics of commercial centers and demographic characteristics of residential areas contribute to crime and how these characteristics affect reactions to crime in mixed commercial-residential settings. Information on physical characteristics includes type of business, store hours, arrangement of buildings, and defensive modifications in the area. Demographic variables cover racial composition, average household size and income, and percent change of occupancy. The crime data describe six types of crime: robbery, burglary, assault, rape, personal theft, and shoplifting.

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.

We will build you a custom US crime dataset based on your needs. Data points may include date, time, location, crime type, crime description, victim demographics, offender demographics, arrest records, charges filed, court outcomes, police department response time, incident outcome, weapon used, property stolen or damaged, crime location type, and other related data.

Use our US crime datasets for a range of applications to enhance public safety and policy effectiveness. Analyzing these datasets can help organizations understand crime patterns and trends across different regions of the United States, enabling them to tailor their strategies and interventions accordingly. Depending on your needs, you may access the entire dataset or a customized subset.

Popular use cases include: improving public safety measures, designing targeted crime prevention programs, resource allocation for law enforcement, and more.

Thi

This dataset accompanies the study Crime Metrics in Ibiza: Alternative Models and the Impact of the Floating Population, which analyzes crime trends in Ibiza between 2019 and 2024. The dataset provides comprehensive information on crime rates, population fluctuations, and alternative methodologies for calculating crime incidence in a region characterized by strong seasonal variations. Traditional crime rates are usually calculated based on census population data, which does not account for temporary residents, tourists, or seasonal workers. To address this limitation, two alternative methodologies were applied, incorporating floating population estimates to refine crime rate calculations and provide a more accurate representation of criminal activity on the island.

The dataset is structured into multiple sheets, each containing specific variables related to crime and population estimates. It includes official census population data sourced from the Spanish National Statistics Institute (INE) and crime rates derived from these figures. Additionally, the dataset contains estimated figures for tourism accommodation, based on statistics from the Balearic Institute of Statistics (IBESTAT). Using these estimates, a floating population adjustment has been applied, which allows for a recalculated crime rate that considers the significant impact of tourism on the island’s demographics.

A second approach within the dataset estimates the population using urban waste production data, sourced from the Consell d’Eivissa. Since the amount of waste generated is closely linked to population density, this methodology provides an alternative way to estimate the real number of people present on the island at any given time. The crime rates have been recalculated accordingly, providing an additional perspective on the relationship between demographic fluctuations and crime trends.

The dataset is derived from multiple authoritative sources, including official crime statistics from the Spanish Ministry of the Interior, census population data from INE, and detailed tourism and accommodation figures from IBESTAT. The urban waste methodology is based on data provided by the Consell d’Eivissa, which records the volume of waste generated by municipalities on a yearly basis. By integrating these diverse data sources, the dataset offers a more precise and adaptable model for understanding crime dynamics in a tourism-dependent region.

The methodologies applied in this dataset highlight the importance of accounting for floating populations when analyzing crime rates. The traditional crime rate model, which only considers permanent residents, tends to overestimate crime levels in regions with large seasonal populations. The tourism-based adjustment method corrects this by incorporating official and unofficial accommodation figures, while the urban waste-based method offers an alternative approach by estimating the real-time population based on resource consumption. Both approaches reveal significant differences between conventional crime rates and adjusted figures, emphasizing the need for policymakers to adopt more refined methodologies when developing crime prevention strategies.

This dataset is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY 4.0) license, allowing for its free use, redistribution, and modification, provided that proper attribution is given. Researchers, policymakers, and criminologists are encouraged to use this dataset to further explore crime trends in tourism-heavy regions and to develop more accurate statistical models for crime analysis.

The NLSY97 standalone data files are intended to be used by crime researchers for analyses without requiring supplementation from the main NLSY97 data set. The data contain age-based calendar year variables on arrests and incarcerations, self-reported criminal activity, substance use, demographic variables and relevant variables from other domains which are created using the NLSY97 data. The main NLSY97 data are available for public use and can be accessed online at the NLS Investigator Web site and at the NACJD Web site (as ICPSR 3959). Questionnaires, user guides and other documentation are available at the same links. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) was designed by the United States Department of Labor, comprising the National Longitudinal Survey (NLS) Series. Created to be representative of United States residents in 1997 who were born between the years of 1980 and 1984, the NLSY97 documents the transition from school to work experienced by today's youths through data collection from 1997. The majority of the oldest cohort members (age 16 as of December 31, 1996) were still in school during the first survey round and the youngest respondents (age 12) had not yet entered the labor market.

San Diego region, 2017, 2020, and 2021. With Geometries

India crime rate per 100K population for 2021 was 2.94, a 0.86% increase from 2020.

<ul style='margin-top:20px;'>

<li>India crime rate per 100K population for 2020 was <strong>2.91</strong>, a <strong>0.53% decline</strong> from 2019.</li>
<li>India crime rate per 100K population for 2019 was <strong>2.93</strong>, a <strong>2.24% decline</strong> from 2018.</li>
<li>India crime rate per 100K population for 2018 was <strong>2.99</strong>, a <strong>1.16% decline</strong> from 2017.</li>
</ul>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.

As of June 2024, 35,000 prisoners were incarcerated for property crime, the most common crime charged. Moreover, 27,000 individuals were convicted of crime against the person, whereas 12,000 inmates committed drug-related crimes. As of October 2024, the number of prisoners in Italy was 62,110. Data related to the age of prisoners show that individuals aged between 50 and 59 years constituted the largest group of incarcerated population in Italy.

This dataset provides the rate per 100,000 inhabitants and the number of offenses known to law enforcement for violent crimes (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) nationally and by city and county groupings for law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete data for 2015.