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.

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,173 civilians having been shot, 248 of whom were Black, as of December 2024. In 2023, there were 1,164 fatal police shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 6.1 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and 2024. Police brutality in the U.S. In recent years, particularly since the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, police brutality has become a hot button issue in the United States. The number of homicides committed by police in the United States is often compared to those in countries such as England, where the number is significantly lower. Black Lives Matter The Black Lives Matter Movement, formed in 2013, has been a vocal part of the movement against police brutality in the U.S. by organizing “die-ins”, marches, and demonstrations in response to the killings of black men and women by police. While Black Lives Matter has become a controversial movement within the U.S., it has brought more attention to the number and frequency of police shootings of civilians.

An annual publication in which the FBI provides data on officers feloniously or accidentally killed and officers that were assaulted while performing their duties.

The Counted is a project by the Guardian – and you – working to count the number of people killed by police and other law enforcement agencies in the United States throughout 2015 and 2016, to monitor their demographics and to tell the stories of how they died.

The database will combine Guardian reporting with verified crowdsourced information to build a more comprehensive record of such fatalities. The Counted is the most thorough public accounting for deadly use of force in the US, but it will operate as an imperfect work in progress – and will be updated by Guardian reporters and interactive journalists frequently.

Any deaths arising directly from encounters with law enforcement will be included in the database. This will inevitably include, but will likely not be limited to, people who were shot, tasered and struck by police vehicles as well those who died in police custody. Self-inflicted deaths during encounters with law enforcement or in police custody or detention facilities will not be included.

The US government has no comprehensive record of the number of people killed by law enforcement. This lack of basic data has been glaring amid the protests, riots and worldwide debate set in motion by the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in August 2014. The Guardian agrees with those analysts, campaign groups, activists and authorities who argue that such accounting is a prerequisite for an informed public discussion about the use of force by police.

Contributions of any information that may improve the quality of our data will be greatly welcomed as we work toward better accountability. Please contact us at thecounted@theguardian.com.

CREDITS
Research and Reporting: Jon Swaine, Oliver Laughland, Jamiles Lartey
Design and Production: Kenan Davis, Rich Harris, Nadja Popovich, Kenton Powell

An annual publication in which the FBI provides data on officers feloniously or accidentally killed and officers that were assaulted while performing their duties.

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: 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 fi

List of every shooting incident that occurred in NYC during the current calendar year. This is a breakdown of every shooting incident that occurred in NYC during the current calendar year. This data is manually extracted every quarter and reviewed by the Office of Management Analysis and Planning before being posted on the NYPD website. Each record represents a shooting incident in NYC and includes information about the event, the location and time of occurrence. In addition, information related to suspect and victim demographics is also included. This data can be used by the public to explore the nature of police enforcement activity. Please refer to the attached data footnotes for additional information about this dataset.

Since 1930, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has compiled the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to serve as a periodic nationwide assessment of reported crimes not available elsewhere in the criminal justice system. Each year, this information is reported in four types of files: (1) Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest, (2) Property Stolen and Recovered, (3) Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), and (4) Police Employee (LEOKA) Data. The Police Employee (LEOKA) Data provide information about law enforcement officers killed or assaulted (hence the acronym, LEOKA) in the line of duty. The variables created from the LEOKA forms provide in-depth information on the circumstances surrounding killings or assaults, including type of call answered, type of weapon used, and type of patrol the officers were on.

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 dataset includes all criminal offenses reported to the Colorado Springs Police Department. Each case report (incident) may have several offenses. Each offense may have multiple suspects and/or victims.

Important: This dataset provided by CSPD does not apply the same counting rules as official data reported to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This means comparisons to those datasets would be inaccurate.

A. SUMMARY This table contains all fatalities resulting from a traffic crash in the City of San Francisco. Fatality year-to-date crash data is obtained from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OME) death records, and only includes those cases that meet the San Francisco Vision Zero Fatality Protocol maintained by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH), San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Injury crash data is obtained from SFPD’s Interim Collision System for 2018 to YTD, Crossroads Software Traffic Collision Database (CR) for years 2013-2017 and the Statewide Integrated Transportation Record System (SWITRS) maintained by the California Highway Patrol for all years prior to 2013. Only crashes with valid geographic information are mapped. All geocodable crash data is represented on the simplified San Francisco street centerline model maintained by the Department of Public Works (SFDPW). Collision injury data is queried and aggregated on a quarterly basis. Crashes occurring at complex intersections with multiple roadways are mapped onto a single point and injury and fatality crashes occurring on highways are excluded.

The fatality table contains information about each party injured or killed in the collision, including any passengers.

B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED Traffic crash injury data is collected from the California Highway Patrol 555 Crash Report as submitted by the police officer within 30 days after the crash occurred. All fields that match the SWITRS data schema are programmatically extracted, de-identified, geocoded, and loaded into TransBASE. See Section D below for details regarding TransBASE. This table is filtered for fatal traffic crashes.

C. UPDATE PROCESS After review by SFPD and SFDPH staff, the data is made publicly available approximately a month after the end of the previous quarter (May for Q1, August for Q2, November for Q3, and February for Q4).

D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET This data is being provided as public information as defined under San Francisco and California public records laws. SFDPH, SFMTA, and SFPD cannot limit or restrict the use of this data or its interpretation by other parties in any way. Where the data is communicated, distributed, reproduced, mapped, or used in any other way, the user should acknowledge the Vision Zero initiative and the TransBASE database as the source of the data, provide a reference to the original data source where also applicable, include the date the data was pulled, and note any caveats specified in the associated metadata documentation provided. However, users should not attribute their analysis or interpretation of this data to the City of San Francisco. While the data has been collected and/or produced for the use of the City of San Francisco, it cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Accordingly, the City of San Francisco, including SFDPH, SFMTA, and SFPD make no representation as to the accuracy of the information or its suitability for any purpose and disclaim any liability for omissions or errors that may be contained therein. As all data is associated with methodological assumptions and limitations, the City recommends that users review methodological documentation associated with the data prior to its analysis, interpretation, or communication.

TransBASE is a geospatially enabled database maintained by SFDPH that currently includes over 200 spatially referenced variables from multiple agencies and across a range of geographic scales, including infrastructure, transportation, zoning, sociodemographic, and collision data, all linked to an intersection or street segment. TransBASE facilitates a data-driven approach to understanding and addressing transportation-related health issues, informed by a large and growing evidence base regarding the importance of transportation system design and land use decisions for health. TransBASE’s purpose is to inform public and private efforts to improve transportation system safety, sustainability, community health and equity in San Francisco.

E. RELATED DATASETS Traffic Crashes Resulting in Injury Traffic Crashes Resulting in Injury: Parties Involved Traffic Crashes Resulting in Injury: Victims Involved iSWITRS TIMS

Use of force is a sometimes necessary, yet often controversial, police power. Attempts to understand and explore police use of force have often been hampered by a lack of data, both nationally and internationally, with much research reliant on a very small number of datasets, often in the United States of America. This new data, collected by police forces in England and Wales and collated and published by the Home Office, represents an exciting new resource.

According to the Home Office, 'these statistics cover incidents where police officers have used force and includes: the tactics used, the reason for force, the outcome, any injuries (to the officers and or the subject) and subject information (age, gender, ethnicity and disability, as perceived by the reporting officer). From April 2017, all police forces in the UK have been required to record this data. The use of force data collection is intended to hold police forces to account and to provide the public with greater information on the different types of force used and the context in which this occurs' https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-use-of-force-statistics.

This project (ES/N016564/1, Less Lethal Force in Law Enforcement) involved, in part, working with various stakeholders to help advise on the creation and maintenance of a new template form for police officers to record their use of force, which in turn has resulted in the collection of new use of force data.

A subset of this information, which is generated by the police and published by the Home Office, is routinely made publicly available and this record has been set up to help signpost researchers towards this resource.

Further details about the broader ESRC funded project is below:

Use of force by law enforcement officials, including police and correctional officers, is a highly important issue. Yet whilst the situations in which these officials use firearms, and the effects of this use, are relatively well documented and understood, this is not the case with 'less lethal' weapons and 'less lethal' force. At least three key topics around less lethal weapons remain under-researched, and this project will tackle all three directly. First we lack a basic understanding of when, why, on whom, and how often, less lethal weapons are used - and whether certain groups of people (those of a particular gender, ethnic minority, mental health status or geographical origin) are more or less likely to have less lethal force used on them. This project will see the PI work closely with the National Police Chief's Council, the Home Office and UK police forces, utilizing datasets previously unavailable to academic researchers to answer such questions. Such issues are also relevant internationally, as shown by recent debates on police less lethal force in countries as varied as Armenia, Hungary and New Zealand.

Second, whilst these weapons are associated with saving lives, they have also been associated with serious injuries and fatalities. In the UK alone, several high profile deaths-including that of Ian Tomlinson and Jordan Begley-have occurred following police use of less lethal weapons. There are key questions around how so called less lethal force can impact the right to life, and their association with fatalities worldwide. Building on my PhD work focusing on injuries associated with Taser, this project will see the PI work with the UN Special Rapporteur to research the impact less lethal force has on the right to life in the UK and globally.

Third, if it is important to attend to the situations in which force is used, it is also important to look at how such force is monitored and governed. This requires working with police and government to help understand what data on less lethal force should be gathered and analyzed, and working with the independent oversight bodies that monitor places of detention (including police custody) to ensure that they have the necessary research to enable them to document the LLF used by state authorities. The UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture has highlighted the need for research to assist them in addressing and monitoring less lethal weapons and other physical infrastructure found in places of detention. The PI will work with key decision makers on these issues; with the UK government on reporting, and with oversight bodies via the SPT and its network of over 40 national bodies.

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

Statistics on the deaths reported on by the IPCC including suicides following release from police custody which were reported to the IPCC.

Number of victims and rate per 100,000 population of police-reported violent crime and traffic violations causing bodily harm or death committed by family members or other persons, by age and gender of victim, Canada, provinces, territories and census metropolitan areas, 2019 to 2023.

This dataset consists of gun violence within Jefferson county that may fall within LMPDs radar, including non-fatal shootings, homicides, as well as shot-spotter data. The mapping data points where there are victims have been obfuscated to maintain privacy, while still being accurate enough to be placed in its correct boundaries, particularly around, neighborhoods, ZIP Codes, Council districts, and police divisions. The data also excludes any victim information that could be used to identify any individual. this data is used to make the public aware of what is going on in their communities. The data consists of only criminal incidents, excluding any cases that are deemed non-criminal.Field NameField DescriptionCase numberPolice report number. For ShotSpotter detections, it is the ShotSpotter ID.DateTimeDate and time in which the original incident occurred. Time is rounded down.AddressAddress rounded down to the one hundred block of where the initial incident occured. Unless it is an intersection.NeighborhoodNeighborhood in which the original incident occurred.Council DistrictCouncil district in which the original incident occurred.LatitudeLatitude coordinate used to map the incidentLongitudeLongitude coordinate used to map the incidentZIP CodeZIP Code in which the original incident occurred.Crime Typea distinction between incidents, whether it is a non-fatal shooting, homicide, or a ShotSpotter detection.CauseUsed to differentiate on the cause of death for homicide victims.SexGender of the victim of the initial incident.RaceRace/Ethnicity of the victim in a given incident.Age GroupCategorized age groups used to anonymize victim information.Division NamePolice division or department where the initial incident occurred.Crime report data is provided for Louisville Metro Police Divisions only; crime data does not include smaller class cities, unless LMPD becomes involved in smaller agency incident.The data provided in this dataset is preliminary in nature and may have not been investigated by a detective at the time of download. The data is therefore subject to change after a complete investigation. This data represents only calls for police service where a police incident report was taken. Due to the variations in local laws and ordinances involving crimes across the nation, whether another agency utilizes Uniform Crime Report (UCR) or National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) guidelines, and the results learned after an official investigation, comparisons should not be made between the statistics generated with this dataset to any other official police reports. Totals in the database may vary considerably from official totals following the investigation and final categorization of a crime. Therefore, the data should not be used for comparisons with Uniform Crime Report or other summary statistics.Contact:Ivan Benitez, Ph.D.Gun Violence Data FellowOffice for Safe and Healthy Neighborhoodsivan.benitez@louisvilleky.gov

This data collection was designed to assess the impact of line-of-duty deaths of law enforcement officers on their family members in terms of the psychological, emotional, and financial effects. To assess the impact of the traumatic event, a wide variety of clinical and psychiatric measures of psychological disorder were employed. The data are stored in two files. Included in the first file are variables concerning the respondent's personal characteristics such as age, sex, ethnic origin, marital status, educational level, relationship to deceased officer, and employment. Also included are experiences and emotional reactions to the death of the officer and clinical symptoms of psychological distress. The file also offers information on the deceased officer's demographic characteristics such as age at time of death, sex, ethnic origin, educational level, number of times married, and number of years in law enforcement, as well as the date and time of the incident. The second file contains variables on the respondent's relationship with friends and relatives before and after the traumatic event, behavioral changes of survivors' children following the death, financial impacts on survivors, and satisfaction with treatment and responses received from police departments.

Investigator(s): Federal Bureau of Investigation Since 1930, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has compiled the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to serve as periodic nationwide assessments of reported crimes not available elsewhere in the criminal justice system. With the 1977 data, the title was expanded to Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data. Each year, participating law enforcement agencies contribute reports to the FBI either directly or through their state reporting programs. ICPSR archives the UCR data as five separate components: (1) summary data, (2) county-level data, (3) incident-level data (National Incident-Based Reporting System [NIBRS]), (4) hate crime data, and (5) various, mostly nonrecurring, data collections. Summary data are reported in four types of files: (a) Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest, (b) Property Stolen and Recovered, (c) Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), and (d) Police Employee (LEOKA) Data (Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted). The county-level data provide counts of arrests and offenses aggregated to the county level. County populations are also reported. In the late 1970s, new ways to look at crime were studied. The UCR program was subsequently expanded to capture incident-level data with the implementation of the National Incident-Based Reporting System. The NIBRS data focus on various aspects of a crime incident. The gathering of hate crime data by the UCR program was begun in 1990. Hate crimes are defined as crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. In September 1994, disabilities, both physical and mental, were added to the list. The fifth component of ICPSR's UCR holdings is comprised of various collections, many of which are nonrecurring and prepared by individual researchers. These collections go beyond the scope of the standard UCR collections provided by the FBI, either by including data for a range of years or by focusing on other aspects of analysis. NACJD has produced resource guides on UCR and on NIBRS data.

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

EMSIndicators:The number of individual patients administered naloxone by EMSThe number of naloxone administrations by EMSThe rate of EMS calls involving naloxone administrations per 10,000 residentsData Source:The Vermont Statewide Incident Reporting Network (SIREN) is a comprehensive electronic prehospital patient care data collection, analysis, and reporting system. EMS reporting serves several important functions, including legal documentation, quality improvement initiatives, billing, and evaluation of individual and agency performance measures.Law Enforcement Indicators:The Number of law enforcement responses to accidental opioid-related non-fatal overdosesData Source:The Drug Monitoring Initiative (DMI) was established by the Vermont Intelligence Center (VIC) in an effort to combat the opioid epidemic in Vermont. It serves as a repository of drug data for Vermont and manages overdose and seizure databases. Notes:Overdose data provided in this dashboard are derived from multiple sources and should be considered preliminary and therefore subject to change. Overdoses included are those that Vermont law enforcement responded to. Law enforcement personnel do not respond to every overdose, and therefore, the numbers in this report are not representative of all overdoses in the state. The overdoses included are limited to those that are suspected to have been caused, at least in part, by opioids. Inclusion is based on law enforcement's perception and representation in Records Management Systems (RMS). All Vermont law enforcement agencies are represented, with the exception of Norwich Police Department, Hartford Police Department, and Windsor Police Department, due to RMS access. Questions regarding this dataset can be directed to the Vermont Intelligence Center at dps.vicdrugs@vermont.gov.Overdoses Indicators:The number of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deathsThe number of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deaths with cocaine involvementThe percent of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deaths with cocaine involvementThe rate of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deathsThe rate of heroin nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsThe rate of opioid nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsThe rate of stimulant nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsData Source:Vermont requires towns to report all births, marriages, and deaths. These records, particularly birth and death records are used to study and monitor the health of a population. Deaths are reported via the Electronic Death Registration System. Vermont publishes annual Vital Statistics reports.The Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics (ESSENCE) captures and analyzes recent Emergency Department visit data for trends and signals of abnormal activity that may indicate the occurrence of significant public health events.Population Health Indicators:The percent of adolescents in grades 6-8 who used marijuana in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who used marijuana in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who drank any alcohol in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who binge drank in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who misused any prescription medications in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who consumed alcohol in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who binge drank in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who used marijuana in the past 30 daysData Sources:The Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is part of a national school-based surveillance system conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The YRBS monitors health risk behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of death and disability among youth and young adults.The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a telephone survey conducted annually among adults 18 and older. The Vermont BRFSS is completed by the Vermont Department of Health in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Notes:Prevalence estimates and trends for the 2021 Vermont YRBS were likely impacted by significant factors unique to 2021, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the delay of the survey administration period resulting in a younger population completing the survey. Students who participated in the 2021 YRBS may have had a different educational and social experience compared to previous participants. Disruptions, including remote learning, lack of social interactions, and extracurricular activities, are likely reflected in the survey results. As a result, no trend data is included in the 2021 report and caution should be used when interpreting and comparing the 2021 results to other years.The Vermont Department of Health (VDH) seeks to promote destigmatizing and equitable language. While the VDH uses the term "cannabis" to reflect updated terminology, the data sources referenced in this data brief use the term "marijuana" to refer to cannabis. Prescription Drugs Indicators:The average daily MMEThe average day's supplyThe average day's supply for opioid analgesic prescriptionsThe number of prescriptionsThe percent of the population receiving at least one prescriptionThe percent of prescriptionsThe proportion of opioid analgesic prescriptionsThe rate of prescriptions per 100 residentsData Source:The Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS) is an electronic data system that collects information on Schedule II-IV controlled substance prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies. VPMS proactively safeguards public health and safety while supporting the appropriate use of controlled substances. The program helps healthcare providers improve patient care. VPMS data is also a health statistics tool that is used to monitor statewide trends in the dispensing of prescriptions.Treatment Indicators:The number of times a new substance use disorder is diagnosed (Medicaid recipients index events)The number of times substance use disorder treatment is started within 14 days of diagnosis (Medicaid recipients initiation events)The number of times two or more treatment services are provided within 34 days of starting treatment (Medicaid recipients engagement events)The percent of times substance use disorder treatment is started within 14 days of diagnosis (Medicaid recipients initiation rate)The percent of times two or more treatment services are provided within 34 days of starting treatment (Medicaid recipients engagement rate)The MOUD treatment rate per 10,000 peopleThe number of people who received MOUD treatmentData Source:Vermont Medicaid ClaimsThe Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS)Substance Abuse Treatment Information System (SATIS)