In 2023, Texas had the highest number of forcible rape cases in the United States, with 15,097 reported rapes. Delaware had the lowest number of reported forcible rape cases at 194. Number vs. rate It is perhaps unsurprising that Texas and California reported the highest number of rapes, as these states have the highest population of states in the U.S. When looking at the rape rate, or the number of rapes per 100,000 of the population, a very different picture is painted: Alaska was the state with the highest rape rate in the country in 2023, with California ranking as 30th in the nation. The prevalence of rape Rape and sexual assault are notorious for being underreported crimes, which means that the prevalence of sex crimes is likely much higher than what is reported. Additionally, more than a third of women worry about being sexually assaulted, and most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew.

The primary research objective of this study was to examine the prevalence, nature, and reporting of various types of sexual assault experienced by university students in an effort to inform the development of targeted intervention strategies. In addition, the study had two service-oriented objectives: (1) to educate students about various types of sexual assault, how they can maximize their safety, and what they can do if they or someone they know has been victimized and (2) to provide students with information about the campus and community resources that are available should they need assistance or have any concerns or questions. The study involved a Web-based survey of random samples of undergraduate students at two large public universities, one located in the South (University 1) and one located in the Midwest (University 2). Researchers drew random samples of students aged 18-25 and enrolled at least three-quarters' time at each university to participate in the study. The survey was administered in the winter of 2005-2006, and a total of 5,446 undergraduate women and 1,375 undergraduate men participated for a grand total of 6,821 respondents. Sampled students were sent an initial recruitment e-mail that described the study, provided a unique study ID number, and included a hyperlink to the study Web site. During each of the following weeks, students who had not completed the survey were sent follow-up e-mails and a hard-copy letter encouraging them to participate. The survey was administered anonymously and was designed to be completed in an average of 15 minutes. Respondents were provided with a survey completion code that, when entered with their study ID number at a separate Web site, enabled them to obtain a $10 Amazon.com gift certificate. The survey was divided into six modules. The Background Information module included survey items on demographics, school classification (year of study, year of enrollment, transfer status), residential characteristics, academic performance, and school involvement. An Alcohol and Other Drug Use module generated a number of measures of alcohol and drug use, and related substance use behaviors. A Dating module included items on sexual orientation, dating, consensual sexual activity, and dating violence. The Experiences module was developed after extensive reviews of past surveys of sexual assault and generated information on physically forced sexual assault and incapacitated sexual assault. For both physically forced and incapacitated sexual assault, information was collected on completed and attempted assaults experienced before entering college and since entering college. For male respondents, a Behaviors module asking about the perpetration of the same types of sexual assault covered in the Experiences module was included. The final module of the survey covered attitudes about sexual assault and attitudes about the survey. The data file contains 747 variables.

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. The study contains data on sexual assault cases reported to the police for the years 2006-2012, collected from six police agencies and also their corresponding public prosecutor's offices across the United States. The study analyzed the attrition of sexual assault cases from the criminal justice system. This study includes two SPSS data files: Court-Form-2008-2010-Sample-Revised-Nov-2018.sav (801 variables, 417 cases) Police-Form-2008-2010-Sample-Revised-Nov-2018.sav (1,276 variables, 3,269 cases) This study also includes two SPSS syntax files: ICPSR-Court-Form-Variable-Construction-2008-2010.sps ICPSR-Constructed-Variables-Syntax.sps The study also contains qualitative data which are not available as part of this data collection at this time. The qualitative data includes interviews, field observations, and focus groups which were conducted with key personnel to examine organizational and cultural dimensions of handling sexual assault cases in order to understand how these factors influence case outcomes.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Series, previously called the National Crime Surveys (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally-representative sample of residential addresses since 1973. The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. The survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual attack, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Each respondent is asked a series of screen questions designed to determine whether she or he was victimized during the six-month period preceding the first day of the month of the interview. A "household respondent" is also asked to report on crimes against the household as a whole (e.g., burglary, motor vehicle theft). The data include type of crime, month, time, and location of the crime, relationship between victim and offender, characteristics of the offender, self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those actions, consequences of the victimization, type of property lost, whether the crime was reported to police and reasons for reporting or not reporting, and offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Basic demographic information such as age, race, gender, and income is also collected, to enable analysis of crime by various subpopulations. This version of the NCVS, referred to as the collection year, contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. This dataset represents the revised version of the NCVS on a collection year basis for 2016. A collection year contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. Under the collection year format, victimizations are counted in the year the interview is conducted, regardless of the year when the crime incident occurred. The 2016 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) violent and property crime estimates were significantly higher than 2015, but it was not possible to determine the degree to which the change in rates resulted from the sample redesign rather than real changes in U.S. victimization levels. Therefore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) examined the 2015 and 2016 victimization rates separately for new and continuing sample counties in the 2016 Criminal Victimization bulletin. The BJS requested that the Census Bureau create a 2016 revised file with outgoing county interviews from July-December 2015, continuing county interviews from January-June 2016, and all interviews (continuing and new counties) from July-December 2016. In other words, the outgoing 2015 cases replaced the new 2016 cases in the first half of 2016. The files in this study serve as a separate research file to allow data users to make comparisons between 2015, 2016, and 2017 NCVS estimates using a nationally representative sample. It provides a sample that still represents the entire country but does not have the inflated crime rates seen in the new counties in 2016.

Since 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has funded sites to engage in reforms intended to improve the national response to sexual assault cases. The goals of this initiative are to (1) create a coordinated community response that ensures just resolution to unsubmitted sexual assault kit (SAK) cases through a victim-centered approach and (2) build jurisdictions' capacity to prevent the development of conditions that lead to high numbers of unsubmitted sexual assault kits. Site efforts to address these issues include agencies such as law enforcement, prosecution, forensic laboratories, and victim advocacy service organizations. Westat was awarded a contract by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to assess components of BJA's Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI). The study includes (1) an evaluability assessment of 17 sites to determine their readiness for an evaluation, (2) a process evaluation and system reform assessment of the 17 sites, (3) a feasibility assessment of using case level data for an outcome evaluation, and analysis of a subset of unsubmitted SAK cases to identify how characteristics of incidents, offenders, and victims are associated with case processing decisions and outcomes, and (4) development of a long-term outcome evaluation plan. Two sources of data are archived with NAJCD: (1) coded qualitative data from primarily on-site interviews the Westat Team conducted in 2018 with stakeholders from 17 of the fiscal year (FY) 2015 SAKI grantees and 2 private lab facilities and 2) quantitative case-level data from the 2 FY 2015 SAKI grantees on SAKI cases associated with previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits that were determined to contain foreign DNA or biological evidence through laboratory testing. The interview data file contains coded data from 172 interviews the research team conducted with one or more agency representatives regarding their organization's goals, strategies, and activities for processing sexual assault kits, and associated lessons learned, challenges, and expected outcomes. The quantitative case-level data file includes case-level information on 576 sexual assault kits determined to have DNA and associated cases included in the 2 sites' SAKI inventories. The case-level data captures information on case or offense-level information (e.g., date of offense, date offense reported to police, number of victims and suspects involved, investigation and prosecution activities), victim-level information (e.g., victim age, sex, race, participation in investigation), and suspect-level information (e.g., suspect's age, race, sex, criminal history).

This dataset includes all valid felony, misdemeanor, and violation crimes reported to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for all complete quarters so far this year (2016). For additional details, please see the attached data dictionary in the ‘About’ section.

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

This study had four key goals. The first goal was to identify how many women in the United States and in college settings have ever been raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime and within the past year. The next goal was to identify key case characteristics of drug-facilitated and forcible rapes. The third goal was to examine factors that affect the willingness of women to report rape to law enforcement or seek help from their support network. The last goal was to make comparisons between the different types of rape. Part 1 (General Population) data consisted of a national telephone household sample of 3,001 United States women, whereas Part 2 (College Population) data consisted of 2,000 college women selected from a reasonably representative national list of women attending four year colleges and universities. Both data parts contain the same 399 variables. Interviews were completed between January 23 and June 26, 2006. Respondents were asked questions regarding risk perception, fear of violence, and accommodation behavior. The women were also asked their opinions and attitudes about reporting rape to the authorities and disclosing rape to family members, peers, or other individuals. This includes questions about barriers to reporting and experiences that women have had being the recipient of a disclosure from a friend, relative, or other individual. The respondents were asked a series of questions about rape, including different types of forcible, drug- or alcohol-facilitated, and incapacitated rape. For women who endorsed one or more rape experiences, a wide range of rape characteristics were assessed including characteristics around the nature of the event, perpetrator-victim relationship, occurrence of injury, involvement of drugs or alcohol, receipt of medical care, and whether the rape was reported to the authorities. The respondents were also asked a series of questions regarding substance use, including prescription and illegal drugs and alcohol. Additionally, a series of questions related to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression were asked. Finally, the women were asked to provide basic demographic information such as age, race, ethnicity, and income.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally-representative sample of residential addresses since 1973. The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. Beginning in 1992, the survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Each respondent is asked a series of screen questions designed to determine whether she or he was victimized during the six-month period preceding the first day of the month of the interview. A "household respondent" is also asked to report on crimes against the household as a whole (e.g., burglary, motor vehicle theft). The data include type of crime, month, time, and location of the crime, relationship between victim and offender, characteristics of the offender, self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those actions, consequences of the victimization, type of property lost, whether the crime was reported to police and reasons for reporting or not reporting, and offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Basic demographic information such as age, race, gender, and income is also collected to enable analysis of crime by various subpopulations. This dataset represents the revised concatenated version of the NCVS on a collection year basis for 1992-2016. A collection year contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. Under the collection year format, victimizations are counted in the year the interview is conducted, regardless of the year when the crime incident occurred. The 2016 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) violent and property crime estimates were significantly higher than 2015, but it was not possible to determine the degree to which the change in rates resulted from the sample redesign rather than real changes in U.S. victimization levels. Therefore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) examined the 2015 and 2016 victimization rates separately for new and continuing sample counties in the 2016 Criminal Victimization bulletin. The BJS requested that the U.S. Census Bureau create a 2016 revised file with outgoing county interviews from July-December 2015, continuing county interviews from January-June 2016, and all interviews (continuing and new counties) from July-December 2016. In other words, the outgoing 2015 cases replaced the new 2016 cases in the first half of 2016. The files in this study serve as a separate research file to allow data users to make comparisons between 2015, 2016, and 2017 NCVS estimates using a nationally representative sample. It provides a sample that still represents the entire country but does not have the inflated crime rates seen in the new counties in 2016. For additional information on the dataset, please see the documentation for the data from the most current year of the NCVS, ICPSR Study 37296.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they are 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 accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator if further information is needed. This mixed methods study examined the criminal justice outcomes and help-seeking experiences of sexual assault survivors with disabilities. The specific objectives of this study were to: Describe criminal justice reporting of sexual assault against persons with disabilities (e.g., number and source of reports, characteristics or survivors and perpetrators, case characteristics, and case outcomes)Assess how cases of sexual assault survivors with disabilities proceeded through the criminal court system.Describe help-seeking experiences of sexual assault survivors with disabilities from formal and informal sources, including influences on how and where they seek help, their experiences in reporting, barriers to reporting, and outcome of this reporting, drawn from interviews with community based survivors and service providers.The study contains one data file called 'Data_Sexual Violence Survivors with Disabilities.sav'. This file has 26 variables and 417 cases.

Despite the fact that most states enacted rape reform legislation by the mid-1980s, empirical research on the effect of these laws was conducted in only four states and for a limited time span following the reform. The purpose of this study was to provide both increased breadth and depth of information about the effect of the rape law changes and the legal issues that surround them. Statistical data on all rape cases between 1970 and 1985 in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC, were collected from court records. Monthly time-series analyses were used to assess the impact of the reforms on rape reporting, indictments, convictions, incarcerations, and sentences. The study also sought to determine if particular changes, or particular combinations of changes, affected the case processing and disposition of sexual assault cases and whether the effect of the reforms varied with the comprehensiveness of the changes. In each jurisdiction, data were collected on all forcible rape cases for which an indictment or information was filed. In addition to forcible rape, other felony sexual assaults that did not involve children were included. The names and definitions of these crimes varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To compare the pattern of rape reports with general crime trends, reports of robbery and felony assaults during the same general time period were also obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation when available. For the adjudicated case data (Parts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11), variables include month and year of offense, indictment, disposition, four most serious offenses charged, total number of charges indicted, four most serious conviction charges, total number of conviction charges, type of disposition, type of sentence, and maximum jail or prison sentence. The time series data (Parts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) provide year and month of indictment, total indictments for rape only and for all sex offenses, total convictions and incarcerations for all rape cases in the month, for those on the original rape charge, for all sex offenses in the month, and for those on the original sex offense charge, percents for each indictment, conviction, and incarceration category, the average maximum sentence for each incarceration category, and total police reports of forcible rape in the month. Interviews were also conducted in each site with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and this information is presented in Part 13. These interviewees were asked to rate the importance of various types of evidence in sexual assault cases and to respond to a series of six hypothetical cases in which evidence of the victim's past sexual history was at issue. Respondents were also presented with a hypothetical case for which some factors were varied to create 12 different scenarios, and they were asked to make a set of judgments about each. Interview data also include respondent's title, sex, race, age, number of years in office, and whether the respondent was in office before and/or after the reform.

This project undertook the systematic collection of first-generation data concerning the nature, extent, and seriousness of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the United States. The project was organized around the following research objectives: (1) identification of the nature, extent, and underlying causes of CSE and the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) occurring in the United States, (2) identification of those subgroups of children that were at the greatest risk of being sexually exploited, (3) identification of subgroups of adult perpetrators of sex crimes against children, and (4) identification of the modes of operation and other methods used by organized criminal units to recruit children into sexually exploitative activities. The study involved surveying senior staff members of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government organizations (GOs) in the United States known to be dealing with persons involved in the transnational trafficking of children for sexual purposes. Part 1 consists of survey data from nongovernment organizations. These were local child and family agencies serving runaway and homeless youth. Part 2 consists of survey data from government organizations. These organizations were divided into local, state, and federal agencies. Local organizations included municipal law enforcement, county law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, and corrections. State organizations included state child welfare directors, prosecutors, and public defenders. Federal organizations included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Public Defenders, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Attorneys, United States Customs, and the United States Postal Service. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 include the organization's city, state, and ZIP code, the type of services provided or type of law enforcement agency, how the agency was funded, the scope of the agency's service area, how much emphasis was placed on CSEC as a policy issue or a service issue, conditions that might influence the number of CSEC cases, how staff were trained to deal with CSEC cases, how victims were identified, the number of children that experienced child abuse, sexual abuse, pornography, or other exploitation in 1999 and 2000 by age and gender, methods of recruitment, family history of victims, gang involvement, and substance abuse history of victims.

Crime Trends in India from 2001 to 2020

A Statistical Overview of Criminal Victimization and Offender Action

By Rajanand Ilangovan [source]

About this dataset

This Dataset provides an up-to-date analysis of crime trends in India from 2001 to the present. It contains complete information about different types of crimes such as rape, murder, and theft that were committed across India. By analyzing this dataset we can determine the areas where crimes were most prevalent, what type of offenders were usually involved in the crime and which year had the highest number of registered cases. Additionally, we can also analyse which group experienced most complaints and what kind of punishments or consequences they faced like departmental enquiries, magisterial enquiries or police personnel trials completed. This data set is perfect for further research into crime trends in India and will help us better understand why certain types of crimes take place more frequently than others

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

• Area Name (state or UT) where the crime was reported. • Year in which the crime was reported. • Subgroup (type of crime). • Number of cases registered, number of cases reported for departmental action etc., related to a particular type of crime and state/UT.
• Number of complaints/cases declared false/unsubstantiated, number of police personnel convictions etc., related to a particular type of crime and state/UT.
• Number of cases in which offenders were others known persons to the victims, neighbours or relatives to the victims etc., related to a particular type of crime and state/UT.

By studying this dataset one might explore different angles by analysing factors like:

• What are the top states with high rate criminal activities? Which areas are relatively safer?
• Are any states witnessing higher incidences than national average levels? Alternatively, are there any regions which have recorded lower rates than national average levels?
• What is trend between sub crimes across India both regional & time wise? How has it changed over time ? (2001-20) ;
Movement among crimes on monthly basis during period 2001 - 2020 Comparison among ages , genders & professions involved with Crime Rates && Timeline comparison between Types Of Crime , Crimes Involving Police Personnel Contractors in Crimes as timeline . Immigration Report . Is absolute difference btw urban & rural up from previous years ? Open conversations about what government efforts need more focus & why . Fundamentals impacting reducing / increasing rate behind closed doors . Any impactful key insights about SelfDefence Degree given out that year highlighting decreasing / increasing amount if increase thenwhat extra activity got curated btw that law was enacted vs before enactment if possible Outliers Analysis on same murders done by pediphiles or sexual assault against women under minorities if exists

Research Ideas

• Analyzing crime trends over time by analyzing the Year, Sub_group and Area_Name columns to understand different types of crimes and patterns of criminal activity in India.

• Evaluating the effectiveness of police response to different types of crimes, such as comparing the CPA_-_Cases_Registered, CPA_-_Cases_Reported_for_Dept._Action and CPB_-_Police_PersonnelAcquitted data fields across different time periods, sub-groups and areas to assess how well law enforcement is responding to crimes reported.

• Tracking changes in punishment awarded for different crimes by analyzing the CPC_-_Police_-Personnel_-Major-Punishment_-awarded data field for changes over ti...

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing, nationally representative survey to assess experiences of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and stalking among adults in the United States. It measures lifetime victimization for these types of violence as well as in the previous 12 months. In 2010, a total of 18,049 interviews from the general population sample were conducted. Raw data are currently unavailable. State report tables are available in pdf format. Other key statistics are included in the summary and full reports.

This dataset was created from a collection of over nine hundred incidents of sexual violence identified in the mainland North American British colonies and early United States from 1700-1820. Gathered from legal, manuscript, and print records in twenty archives, it identifies over four hundred individuals who were enslaved, of African descent, and/or of Native American descent. This collection offers unique historical evidence about individuals who may not appear in any other extant records. Significantly, it reveals how enslaved and free(d) Black and Indigenous people both addressed and were involved in incidents of sexual violence, revealing how communities of color are far more visible in historical records than has been traditionally recognized.

Crime in the United States, by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2015–2016

The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

FBI link

Important note about rape data

In 2013, the FBI UCR Program initiated the collection of rape data under a revised definition and removed the term “forcible” from the offense name. The UCR Program now defines rape as follows:

Rape (revised definition): Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. (This includes the offenses of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object as converted from data submitted via the National Incident-Based Reporting System [NIBRS].)

Rape (legacy definition): The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.

General comments

• This table provides the estimated number of offenses and the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of crime in each region, geographic division, and state in 2015 and 2016, and the 2-year percent change in each.
• Violent crime includes the offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape (revised definition), robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
• The UCR Program does not have sufficient data to estimate for arson.

Caution against ranking

Any comparisons of crime among different locales should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the area’s crime statistics. UCR Statistics: Their Proper Use provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

Methodology

• The data used in creating this table were from all law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data).
• Crime statistics include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year.
• The FBI derives state totals by estimating for nonreporting and partially reporting agencies within each state. The UCR Program aggregates a state total using the state’s individual agency estimates.

Offense estimation

These tables contain statistics for the entire United States. Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting periods, the FBI includes estimated crime numbers in these presentations. The FBI computes estimates for participating agencies not providing 12 months of complete data. For agencies supplying 3 to 11 months of data, the national UCR Program estimates for the missing data by following a standard estimation procedure using the data provided by the agency. If an agency has supplied less than 3 months of data, the FBI computes estimates by using the known crime figures of similar areas within a state and assigning the same proportion of crime volumes to nonreporting agencies. The estimation process considers the following: population size covered by the agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff’s office; and geographic location.

In response to various circumstances, the FBI has estimated offense totals for some states. For example, problems at the state level (e.g., noncompliance with UCR guidelines, technological difficulties) have, at times, resulted in data that cannot be used for publication, and estimation was necessary. Also, efforts by an agency to convert to NIBRS have contributed to the need for unique estimation procedures.

A summary of state-specific and offense-specific estimation procedures is available in the “Estimation of state-level data” section of the Methodology.

Rape estimation

This table contains estimates based on both the legacy and revised definitions of rape. Agencies submit data based on only one of these definitions. Within each population group size, the proportion of female rape victims was calculated from all NIBRS reports of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object. For agencies that reported using the revised definition, the actual number of reported rapes was decreased by the calculated proportion to arrive at an estimate for the number of rapes using the legacy definition. Conversely, for agencies that reported using the legacy definition, the actual number of reported rapes was increased by the inverse of the proportion to arrive at an estimate for the number of rapes using the revised definition.

Population estimation

For the 2016 population estimates used in this table, the FBI computed individual rates of growth from one year to the next for every city/town and county using 2010 decennial population counts and 2011 through 2015 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Each agency’s rates of growth were averaged; that average was then applied and added to its 2015 Census population estimate to derive the agency’s 2016 population estimate.

In this live, online seminar, co-sponsored by NIJ and Harvard University’s Government Innovators Network, experts examined the prevalence, nature, and reporting of sexual assault on campus and discussed evidence-based prevention strategies.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether adult sexual assault cases in a Midwestern community were more likely to be investigated and prosecuted after the implementation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program, and to identify the 'critical ingredients' that contributed to that increase. Part 1 (Study 1: Case Records Quantitative Data) used a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent comparison group cohort design to compare criminal justice systems outcomes for adult sexual assault cases treated in county hospitals five years prior to the implementation of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program (January 1994 to August 1999) (the comparison group, n=156) to cases treated in the focal SANE program during its first seven years of operation (September 1999 to December 2005) (the intervention group, n=137). Variables include focus on case outcome, law enforcement agency that handled the case, DNA findings, and county-level factors, including prosecutor elections and the emergence of the focal SANE program. Part 2 (Study 2: Case Characteristics Quantitative Data) used the adult sexual assault cases from the Study 1 intervention group (post-SANE) (n=137) to examine whether victim characteristics, assault characteristics, and the presence and type of medical forensic evidence predicted case progression outcomes. Part 3 (Study 3: Police and Prosecutors Interview Qualitative Data) used in-depth interviews in April and May of 2007 with law enforcement supervisors (n=9) and prosecutors (n=6) in the focal county responsible for the prosecution of adult sexual assault crimes to explore if and how the SANEs affect the way in which police and prosecutors approach such cases. The interviews focused on four main topics: (1) whether they perceived a change in investigations and prosecution of adult sexual assault cases in post-SANE, (2) their assessment of the quality and utility of the forensic evidence provided by SANEs, (3) their perceptions regarding whether inter-agency training has improved the quality of police investigations and reports post-SANE, and (4) their perceptions regarding if and how the SANE program increased communication and collaboration among legal and medical personnel, and if such changes have influenced law enforcement investigational practices or prosecutor charging decisions.Part 4 (Study 4: Police Reports Quantitative Data) examined police reports written before and after the implementation of the SANE program to determine whether there had been substantive changes in ways sexual assaults cases were investigated since the emergence of the SANE program. Variables include whether the police had referred the case to the prosecutor, indicators of SANE involvement, and indicators of law enforcement effort. Part 5 (Study 5: Survivor Interview Qualitative Data) focused on understanding how victims characterized the care they received at the focal SANE program as well as their expriences with the criminal justices system. Using prospective sampling and community-based retrospective purposive sampling, twenty adult sexual assault vicitims were identified and interviewed between January 2006 and May 2007. Interviews covered four topics: (1) the rape itself and initial disclosures, (2) victims' experiences with SANE program staff including nurses and victim support advocates, (3) the specific role forensic evidence played in victims' decisions to participate in prosecution, and (4) victims' experiences with law enforcement, prosecutors, and judicial proceedings, and if/how the forensic nurses and advocates influenced those interactions. Part 6 (Study 6: Forensic Nurse Interview Qualitative Data) examined forensic nurses' perspectives on how the SANE program could affect survivor participation with prosecution indirectly and how the interactions between SANEs and law enforcement could be contributing to increased investigational effort. Between July and August of 2008, six Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs) were interviewed. The interviews explored three topics: (1) the nurses' philosophy on victim reporting and participating in prosecution, (2) their perceptions regarding how patient care may or may not affect victim participation in the criminal justice system, and (3) their perception of how the SANE programs influence the work of law enforcement investigational practices.The interviews explored three topics: (1) the nurses' philosophy on victim reporting and participating in prosecution, (2) their perceptions regarding how patient care may or may not affect victim participation in the criminal justice system, and (3) their perception of how the SANE programs influence the work of law enforcement investigational practices.

The sample for the Cold Case Survey Data (n = 1,051) was drawn from a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) database of chiefs of police and sheriffs. The database was comprised of 15,884 chiefs of police from all police departments in the United States, including Native American tribal police departments. A stratified sample of 5,000 agencies was drawn from the database. The resulting sample of 5,000 included Native American tribal police departments (n = 44) and all other departments with more than 100 full-time sworn officers (n = 997). The balance of the sample (n = 3,959) was comprised of police departments in the following size categories: 1,886 from departments with zero to 25 full-time sworn officers; 1,000 from departments with 26 to 50 full-time sworn officers; 707 from departments with 51 to 75 full-time sworn officers; and 366 from departments with 76 to 99 full-time sworn officers. The results from the national survey were used to select sites for an analysis of case files. To ensure that researchers could obtain a large number of cases for analysis, only sites that reported conducting in excess of 50 cold-case investigations per year were considered. There were a dozen agencies that reported conducting more than 50 cold-case investigations per year; from these researchers selected the District of Columbia, Baltimore, and Dallas for analysis of cold-case homicide investigations (Cold Case Homicide Data) based on the additional considerations of travel distance, relationships with departments and feasibility. None of the three homicide case sites had computer files that were suitable for sampling cases. Further, cases in which a cold-case investigation had been conducted were mixed in with other homicide files, with no special notations on the case folder that indicated that a cold-case investigation had been undertaken. Therefore, at all three sites, researchers had to rely on cold-case investigators to create the sample. In all, 189 homicide cases were sampled in the District of Columbia, 113 in Dallas, and 127 in Baltimore. In each of the homicide sites, roughly half of the cases had been solved and half remained unsolved. Denver was selected for the analysis of sexual assault cold-cases (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data) because it had received a Department of Justice (DOJ) grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual-assault cold cases. The Denver sample consisted of cases in which a DNA match had been made. To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In November 2008, the chiefs of police in the sample were sent a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to participate. Potential respondents were directed to the web-based survey instrument through a provided web address. Three separate mails were made. The first mailing went to all 5,000 potential respondents. Two weeks later, letters were mailed to the 4,919 respondents who had not yet completed the survey. Two weeks after the second letter was sent, letters were mailed to the 4,570 respondents who had not yet completed the survey. The survey was taken down from the web in February 2009.To determine the types of cold cases that were most likely to be solved, researchers used the results from the national survey to identify four jurisdictions that conduct large numbers of cold-case investigations. Researchers chose three jurisdictions that conducted a large number of cold-case homicide investigations: the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas (Cold Case Homicide Data, n = 429). To these three sites, researchers added Denver, Colorado, (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data, n = 105) because it had received a Department of Justice grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual assault cold cases. At all four sites, cold cases were examined for seven categories of data including victim's characteristics, crime context, motivation, human capital, physical evidence, basis for cold-case investigations and cold-case actions. These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In Novembe...

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 project explored the use and impact of injury evidence and biological evidence through a study of the role of these forms of evidence in prosecuting sexual assault in an urban district attorney's office in a metropolitan area in the eastern United States. The research questions addressed in this summary overview were as follows: How frequent were different forms of injury evidence and biological evidence in the sample? Is the presence of injury evidence and biological evidence correlated with the presence of other forms of evidence?Which types of cases and case circumstances are more likely to yield injury evidence and biological evidence? Do the presence of injury evidence and biological evidence predict criminal justice outcomes, taking into account the effects of other predictors? In what ways do prosecutors use injury evidence and biological evidence and what is their appraisal of their impact on case outcomes? The collection contains 1 SPSS data file, DataArchiveFile_InjuryEvidenceForensicEvidenceandthe ProsecutionofSexualAssault4-7-17.sav (n=257; 417 variables).The qualitative data files were excluded from deposit with ICPSR and are not available as part of this data collection at this time.