How many criminal homicides were there in the U.S.? In 2023, there were 19,252 reported cases of murder or non-negligent manslaughter in the United States, a decrease from 21,781 cases reported in the previous year. This figure has also decreased in comparison to 1991, when there were 24,700 reported murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases. Murder vs. Manslaughter While it is can be easy to confuse the two terms, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter are two different crimes. While there is some variation from state to state, murder is usually seen as having some planning or forethought involved in the crime, while manslaughter is considered to be a “crime of passion,” with the absence of forethought. Courts tend to differentiate between the states of mind of the accused when bringing manslaughter or murder charges against them. The victims In the United States, there were far more male murder victims than female murder victims, and Black victims made up a large proportion of the total number of victims. Additionally, many murders in the U.S. are perpetrated by either an acquaintance of the victim or a stranger.

Number, rate and percentage changes in rates of homicide victims, Canada, provinces and territories, 1961 to 2023.

3,013 murderers in the United States in 2023 were individuals between the ages of 20 and 24. In the same year, there were seven murderer offenders aged between one and four years. Murder rate in the United States Despite some feeling that violent crime in the United States is on the rise, perhaps due to sensationalized media coverage, the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate has declined steeply since 1990. The murder rate has risen some since 2014, but it is nowhere near its peak in 1991. Murder victims in the U.S. The vast majority of murders in the U.S. were committed with firearms, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, and other unidentified guns or firearms. This is generally attributed to the high rate of gun ownership in the United States, which makes guns more accessible than in other countries.

This dataset contains individual-level homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, including homicide data from 1991 to the present, and non-fatal shooting data from 2010 to the present (2010 is the earliest available year for shooting data). 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-access dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

Each row represents a single victimization, i.e., a unique event when an individual became the victim of a homicide or non-fatal shooting. Each row does not represent a unique victim—if someone is victimized multiple times there will be multiple rows for each of those distinct events.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow the Chicago Police Department (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.

A version of this dataset with additional crime types is available by request. To make a request, please email dataportal@cityofchicago.org with the subject line: Violence Reduction Victims Access Request. Access will require an account on this site, which you may create at https://data.cityofchicago.org/signup.

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: 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.” Officer-involved shootings are not included.

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.

Note: In some instances, CPD'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 reliable crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: Homicide victims names are delayed by two weeks to allow time for the victim’s family to be notified of their passing.

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.

Note: This dataset includes variables referencing administrative or political boundaries that are subject to change. These include Street Outreach Organization boundary, Ward, Chicago Police Department District, Chicago Police Department Area, Chicago Police Department Beat, Illinois State Senate District, and Illinois State House of Representatives District. These variables reflect current geographic boundaries as of November 1st, 2021. In some instances, current boundaries may conflict with those that were in place at the time that a given incident occurred in prior years. For example, the Chicago Police Department districts 021 and 013 no longer exist. Any historical violent crime victimization that occurred in those districts when they were in existence are marked in this dataset as having occurred in the current districts that expanded to replace 013 and 021."

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.

This data set is no longer compiled by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Homicides under the Criminal Code include: * murder, first degree * murder, second degree * manslaughter * infanticide Also contains police-reported information on the details of each incident, including the victim and accused. Data is from the homicide survey database. The data can be accessed from Statistics Canada.

Once described by US President Herbert Hoover as "a great social and economic experiment", we now know that Prohibition was ultimately a failure, that led to increased crime and violence and gave way to a new era of mafia and mob influence in the United States. On January 17, 1920, the Volstead Act came into effect and the manufacturing, transportation, importation and sale of alcohol became federally prohibited across the United States, and while consumption was not a federal offence, it was sometimes prohibited on a state level. Opposition to Prohibition remained strong throughout the 1920s, and the Great Depression (starting in 1929) led many to advocate for the sale and taxation of alcoholic beverages in order to ease the US' economic woes. One of the reasons why Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932 was due to his promise of ending Prohibition, which he did with the Ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933.

Impact on homicide rate

In the two decades before Prohibition, the recorded homicide rate in the United States was growing gradually, although often fluctuating in the 1910s. When Prohibition came into effect, the homicide rate continued on it's previous trajectory, but without fluctuating. While homicides related to alcohol consumption may have declined, some historians speculate that the total number could have continued to rise due to the increase in criminal activity associated with the illegal alcohol trade. The homicide rate in the US reached it's highest figure in the final year of Prohibition, with 9.7 homicides per 100,000 people in 1933, before falling to roughly half of this rate over the next ten years (this decrease in the early 1940s was also facilitated by the draft for the Second World War).

Impact on suicide rate

Alcohol's contribution to suicide rates has been significant throughout history, however it is only through more recent studies that society is beginning to form a clearer picture of what the relationship between the two actually is. In the first half of the twentieth century, there was no record of alcohol's role in individual suicide cases, however there was a noticeable change in the US' suicide rate during the 1920s. Prior to Prohibition, the suicide rate had already fallen from over 16 deaths per 100,000 people in 1915 to 11.5 in 1919, however this decline has been attributed to the role played by the First World War, which saw millions enlist and contribute to the war effort (a similar decrease can be observed in the lead up to the Second World War). After an initial spike in 1921, the suicide rate in the US then increases gradually throughout the 1920s, spiking again following the Great Depression in 1929. It is unclear whether the reduction in the US suicide rate in the 1910s and 1920s can be attributed to Prohibition, or whether it should be attributed to a variety of socio-economic factors, however the changing figures does suggest some correlation when compared with other decades.

This data set is no longer compiled by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Homicides under the Criminal Code include: * murder, first degree * murder, second degree * manslaughter * infanticide Also contains police-reported information on the details of each incident, including the victim and accused. Data is from the homicide survey database. The data can be accessed from Statistics Canada.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime that have occurred in the City of Chicago over the past year, minus the most recent seven days of data. 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. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. 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. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited.

The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. Any use of the information for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily.

Summary figures for ‘no crime’ data are published by the Office for National Statistics in the User Guide to Crime Statistics.

Police forces record some crimes which are subsequently ‘no crimed’ where it is judged by the police that no crime actually took place.

The Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) set out circumstances under which a crime report may be ‘no crimed’. These include situations where a crime is considered to have been recorded in error or where, having been recorded, additional verifiable information becomes available that determines that no crime was committed (for further information see the ‘general rules’ section of the HOCR).

‘No crimes’ relate to crimes already recorded and are therefore distinct from incident reports that are not crimed in the first place.

Crime reports that are ‘no crimed’ are removed from police crime data and thus from the police recorded crime statistics. The majority of ‘no crime’ decisions are made by police forces before data are submitted to the Home Office, and although some revisions are made to published crime statistics as a result of ‘no crimes’, these are typically small.

The Home Office routinely collects data from police forces on the number of incidents that have been recorded as crimes but have then been ‘no crimed’. A table showing the numbers and percentages of ‘no crimes’ by offence group is available (in Table UG9 of the User Guide tables) from the http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Crime+in+England+and+Wales" class="govuk-link">ONS website The Home Office has made available the force level data that underpin this table.

Datasets are available below as Excel spreadsheets (.xls) and in Comma Separated Values (.csv) format.

Great care is needed in interpreting ‘no crime’ data. The proportion of ‘no crimes’ does not in itself infer high or low compliance with the overall requirements of the HOCR. Levels of ‘no criming’ are particularly susceptible to local recording practice and the IT systems in use. A police force having a high level of ‘no crimes’ may be indicative of that force having a local recording process that captures all reports as crimes at the first point of contact and before any further investigation has taken place to consider the full facts. Equally a police force with a low level of ‘no crimes’ might be indicative of a recording practice by which reports are retained as incidents only until a fuller investigation has taken place.

In 2012, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in their wider http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/review-police-crime-incident-reports-20120125.pdf" class="govuk-link">review of crime and incident recording examined force ‘no crime’ processes to determine if decisions to ‘crime’ were made correctly. In HMIC’s review, which looked at a small number of ‘no crime’ decisions (less than 5,000 across England and Wales), they found that nationally the ‘no crime’ compliance rate was 87 per cent; this was 84 per cent for violent crime. The range for correct ‘no crime’ decisions was between 75 and 100 per cent across all police forces.

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. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. 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. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily Tuesday through Sunday. The dataset contains more than 65,000 records/rows of data and cannot be viewed in full in Microsoft Excel. Therefore, when downloading the file, select CSV from the Export menu. Open the file in an ASCII text editor, such as Wordpad, to view and search. To access a list of Chicago Police Department - Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (IUCR) codes, go to http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Chicago-Police-Department-Illinois-Uniform-Crime-R/c7ck-438e

The study was a comprehensive analysis of felonious killings of officers. The purposes of the study were (1) to analyze the nature and circumstances of incidents of felonious police killings and (2) to analyze trends in the numbers and rates of killings across different types of agencies and to explain these differences. For Part 1, Incident-Level Data, an incident-level database was created to capture all incidents involving the death of a police officer from 1983 through 1992. Data on officers and incidents were collected from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data collection as coded by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. In addition to the UCR data, the Police Foundation also coded information from the LEOKA narratives that are not part of the computerized LEOKA database from the FBI. For Part 2, Agency-Level Data, the researchers created an agency-level database to research systematic differences among rates at which law enforcement officers had been feloniously killed from 1977 through 1992. The investigators focused on the 56 largest law enforcement agencies because of the availability of data for explanatory variables. Variables in Part 1 include year of killing, involvement of other officers, if the officer was killed with his/her own weapon, circumstances of the killing, location of fatal wounds, distance between officer and offender, if the victim was wearing body armor, if different officers were killed in the same incident, if the officer was in uniform, actions of the killer and of the officer at entry and final stage, if the killer was visible at first, if the officer thought the killer was a felon suspect, if the officer was shot at entry, and circumstances at anticipation, entry, and final stages. Demographic variables for Part 1 include victim's sex, age, race, type of assignment, rank, years of experience, agency, population group, and if the officer was working a security job. Part 2 contains variables describing the general municipal environment, such as whether the agency is located in the South, level of poverty according to a poverty index, population density, percent of population that was Hispanic or Black, and population aged 15-34 years old. Variables capturing the crime environment include the violent crime rate, property crime rate, and a gun-related crime index. Lastly, variables on the environment of the police agencies include violent and property crime arrests per 1,000 sworn officers, percentage of officers injured in assaults, and number of sworn officers.

This data collection contains information about the victimization of District of Columbia residents. The primary objective was to measure the extent of crime in the District of Columbia and the impact of crime on the quality of life in the District. Researchers also studied the degree to which congressional employees working in the Capitol Hill area were subject to victimization and the extent to which fear of crime affected their productivity. However, to protect the confidentiality of the respondents, the data on Capitol Hill employees are not present in these files. The Capitol Hill employees data are archived at the Research Triangle Institute and, as of December 1984, a public-use data file did not exist. The three data files archived at the ICPSR contain information about District of Columbia residents only. The first data file includes person-level data including residential mobility, crime prevention measures, and sociodemographic characteristics such as race, age, income, and location and duration of current residence. Each record in Part 2, In Scope Crimes File, represents a reported criminal victimization. The third data file, Out of Scope File, contains data on crimes that were either outside the analysis time period of May 1, 1982, to April 30, 1983, or not crimes of interest for this study.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

Background:
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), previously known as the British Crime Survey (BCS), has been in existence since 1981. The survey traditionally asks a sole randomly selected adult, in a random sample of households, details pertaining to any instances where they, or the household, has been a victim of a crime in the previous 12 months. These are recorded in the victim form data file (VF). A wide range of questions are then asked covering demographics and crime-related subjects such as attitudes to the police and the criminal justice system (CJS). Most of the questionnaire is completed in a face-to-face interview in the respondent's home; these variables are contained within the non-victim form (NVF) data file. Since 2009, the survey has been extended to children aged 10-15 years old; one resident of that age range has also been selected at random from the household and asked about incidents where they have been a victim of crime, and other related topics. The first set of children's data, covering January-December 2009, had experimental status, and is held separately under SN 6601. From 2009-2010, the children's data cover the same period as the adult data and are included with the main dataset. Further information may be found on the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales web page and for the previous BCS, from the GOV.UK BCS Methodology web page.

Self-completion data:
A series of questions on drinking behaviour, drug use and intimate personal violence (including stalking and sexual victimisation) are administered to adults via a self-completion module which the respondent completes on a laptop computer. Children aged 10-15 years also complete a separate self-completion questionnaire. The questions are contained within the main questionnaire documents, but the data are not available with the main survey; they are available only under Secure Access conditions. Lower-level geographic variables are also available under Secure Access conditions to match to the survey.

History:
Up to 2001, the survey was conducted biennially. From April 2001, interviewing was carried out continually and reported on in financial year cycles and the crime reference period was altered to accommodate this change. The core sample size has increased from around 11,000 in the earlier cycles to over 40,000. Following the National Statistician's Review of Crime Statistics in June 2011 the collation and publication of Crime Statistics moved to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from 1st April 2012, and the survey changed its name to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) accordingly.

Scottish data:
The 1982 and 1988 BCS waves were also conducted in Scotland. The England and Wales data for 1982 and 1988 are held at the UKDA under SNs 1869 and 2706, but the Scottish data for these studies are held separately under SNs 4368 and 4599. Since 1993, separate Scottish Crime and Justice Surveys have been conducted, see the series web page for more details.

New methodology for capping the number of incidents from 2017-18
The CSEW datasets available from 2017-18 onward are based upon a new methodology of capping the number of incidents at the 98th percentile. Incidence variables names have remained consistent with previously supplied data but due to the fact they are based on the new 98th percentile cap, and old data sets are not, comparability has been lost with previous years. More information can be found in the 2017-18 User Guide and the article ‘Improving victimisation estimates derived from the Crime Survey for England and Wales’. ONS intend to publish all micro data back to 1981 with incident data based on the 98th percentile cap later in 2019.

Documentation:
Please see the documentation for the main Secure Access CSEW survey held under SN 7280.

Latest edition information:
For the eighth edition (August 2021), the CSEW 2019-20 geographic data have been added to the study.

Main Topics:

The following geographic variables are included: