***Starting on March 7th, 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will adopt a new Records Management System for reporting crimes and arrests. This new system is being implemented to comply with the FBI's mandate to collect NIBRS-only data (NIBRS — FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/nibrs). During this transition, users will temporarily see only incidents reported in the retiring system. However, the LAPD is actively working on generating new NIBRS datasets to ensure a smoother and more efficient reporting system. *** **Update 1/18/2024 - LAPD is facing issues with posting the Crime data, but we are taking immediate action to resolve the problem. We understand the importance of providing reliable and up-to-date information and are committed to delivering it. As we work through the issues, we have temporarily reduced our updates from weekly to bi-weekly to ensure that we provide accurate information. Our team is actively working to identify and resolve these issues promptly. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding. Rest assured, we are doing everything we can to fix the problem and get back to providing weekly updates as soon as possible. ** This dataset reflects incidents of crime in the City of Los Angeles dating back to 2020. This data is transcribed from original crime reports that are typed on paper and therefore there may be some inaccuracies within the data. Some location fields with missing data are noted as (0°, 0°). Address fields are only provided to the nearest hundred block in order to maintain privacy. This data is as accurate as the data in the database. Please note questions or concerns in the comments.

This dataset is about books. It has 5 rows and is filtered where the book subjects is Crime-California-Los Angeles-History-20th century. It features 9 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.

This evaluation was developed and implemented by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office to examine the effectiveness of specialized prosecutorial activities in dealing with the local problem of rising gang violence, in particular the special gang prosecution unit Operation Hardcore. One part of the evaluation was a system performance analysis. The purposes of this system performance analysis were (1) to describe the problems of gang violence in Los Angeles and the ways that incidents of gang violence were handled by the Los Angeles criminal justice system, and (2) to document the activities of Operation Hardcore and its effect on the criminal justice system's handling of the cases prosecuted by that unit. Computer-generated listings from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office of all individuals referred for prosecution by local police agencies were used to identify those individuals who were subsequently prosecuted by the District Attorney. Data from working files on all cases prosecuted, including copies of police, court, and criminal history records as well as information on case prosecution, were used to describe criminal justice handling. Information from several supplementary sources was also included, such as the automated Prosecutors Management Information System (PROMIS) maintained by the District Attorney's Office, and court records from the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County, the local felony court.

***Starting on March 7th, 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will adopt a new Records Management System for reporting crimes and arrests. This new system is being implemented to comply with the FBI's mandate to collect NIBRS-only data (NIBRS — FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/nibrs). During this transition, users will temporarily see only incidents reported in the retiring system. However, the LAPD is actively working on generating new NIBRS datasets to ensure a smoother and more efficient reporting system. ***

This dataset reflects arrest incidents in the City of Los Angeles from 2020 to present. This data is transcribed from original arrest reports that are typed on paper and therefore there may be some inaccuracies within the data. Some location fields with missing data are noted as (0.0000°, 0.0000°). Address fields are only provided to the nearest hundred block in order to maintain privacy. This data is as accurate as the data in the database. Please note questions or concerns in the comments.

The study addressed the growing problem of untested sexual assault kits that have been collected and stored in law enforcement agencies' storage facilities and forensic laboratories throughout the nation. Project researchers randomly collected a 20 percent sample of the 10,895 backlogged sexual assault cases (cases with untested sexual assault kits) at the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles Sherriff's Department (LASD) to be tested and to evaluate the scientific results achieved by private testing laboratories. After sorting through files and eliminating many due to time constraints, case count fluctuations throughout the course of the data collection, the inability to locate every case file, and removing cases due to the suspects' age, the researchers collected and coded sexual assault case information on 1,948 backlogged cases from 1982 to 2009. Data were also collected on 371 non-backlogged sexual assault cases with sexual assault kits that were tested between January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2010. Data collection focused on the respective agencies' crime laboratory files and the DNA reports submitted by outside private testing laboratories. Data collection tools for this project focused on key descriptive, investigative, critical event times/dates, physical evidence, and analytical tests performed on the evidence. Records yielded information on DNA profiles and related Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) submission activity. Criminal justice case disposition information was also collected on a total of 742 cases including a sample of 371 backlogged cases and the 371 non-backlogged cases to examine the impact of evidence contained in sexual assault kits on criminal justice disposition outcomes. The resulting 2,319 case dataset, which is comprised of 1,948 backlogged cases and 371 non-backlogged cases, contains 377 variables relating to victim, suspect, and crime characteristics, laboratory information and testing results, CODIS information, and criminal justice dispositions.

The purpose of this data collection was to investigate the effects of crime rates, city characteristics, and police departments' financial resources on felony case attrition rates in 28 cities located in Los Angeles County, California. Demographic data for this collection were obtained from the 1983 COUNTY AND CITY DATA BOOK. Arrest data were collected directly from the 1980 and 1981 CALIFORNIA OFFENDER BASED TRANSACTION STATISTICS (OBTS) data files maintained by the California Bureau of Criminal Statistics. City demographic variables include total population, minority population, population aged 65 years or older, number of female-headed families, number of index crimes, number of families below the poverty level, city expenditures, and police expenditures. City arrest data include information on number of arrests disposed and number of males, females, blacks, and whites arrested. Also included are data on the number of cases released by police, denied by prosecutors, and acquitted, and data on the number of convicted cases given prison terms.

Collection of these data was undertaken in order to develop offender classification criteria that could be used to identify career criminals for priority prosecution. In addition to the crime records obtained from official sources and defendants' self- reports, information about prosecutors' discretionary judgments on sampled cases was obtained from interviews of prosecutors and case review forms completed by attorneys. Respondent and nonrespondent files, taken from official court records, contain information on current and past records of offenses committed, arrests, dispositions, sentences, parole and probation histories, substance abuse records, juvenile court appearances, criminal justice practitioners' assessments, and demographic characteristics. The prosecutor interview files contain variables relating to prosecutors' opinions on the seriousness of the defendant's case, subjective criteria used to decide suitability for prosecution, and case status at intake stage. Information obtained from prosecutors' case review forms include defendants' prior records and situational variables related to the charged offenses. The self-report files contain data on the defendants' employment histories, substance abuse and criminal records, sentence and confinement histories, and basic socioeconomic characteristics.

The purpose of this data collection was to measure the validity or accuracy of four recidivism prediction instruments: the INSLAW, RAND, SFS81, and CGR scales. These scales estimate the probability that criminals will commit subsequent crimes quickly, that individuals will commit crime frequently, that inmates who are eligible for release on parole will commit subsequent crimes, and that defendants awaiting trial will commit crimes while on pretrial arrest or detention. The investigators used longitudinal data from five existing independent studies to assess the validity of the four predictive measures in question. The first data file was originally collected by the Vera Institute of Justice in New York City and was derived from an experimental evaluation of a jobs training program called the Alternative Youth Employment Strategies Project implemented in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Miami, Florida, and New York City, New York. The second file contains data from a RAND Corporation study, EFFECTS OF PRISON VERSUS PROBATION IN CALIFORNIA, 1980-1982 (ICPSR 8700), from offenders in Alameda and Los Angeles counties, California. Parts 3 through 5 pertain to serious juvenile offenders who were incarcerated during the 1960s and 1970s in three institutions of the California Youth Authority. A portion of the original data for these parts was taken from EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHRONIC OFFENDER, 1978-1980: CALIFORNIA. All files present demographic and socioeconomic variables such as birth information, race and ethnicity, education background, work and military experience, and criminal history, including involvement in criminal activities, drug addiction, and incarceration episodes. From the variables in each data file, standard variables across all data files were constructed. Constructed variables included those on background (such as drug use, arrest, conviction, employment, and education history), which were used to construct the four predictive scales, and follow-up variables concerning arrest and incarceration history. Scores on the four predictive scales were estimated.

The California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000 targeted nonviolent offenders who have a history of substance abuse and were primarily charged with misdemeanor or felony possession, excluding selling charges, for diversion from incarceration into community-based substance abuse programs. The two sites selected for this study (the El Monte Drug Court in Los Angeles County and San Joaquin County Drug Court) had SACPA programs that differed from each other and from the Drug Court model. The data for the outcome analysis were collected from administrative databases and from paper files where necessary and available. The data link an individial's criminal activity data, treatment data, and other program activity data. The outcome analysis consisted of Drug Court and Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) samples from San Joaquin and El Monte (Los Angeles) counties. Part 1, San Joaquin County Data, had a total of 725 participants and Part 2, El Monte (Los Angeles) County Data, had a total of 587 participants. The Drug Court cohort included pre- and post-SACPA Drug Court participants. The pre-SACPA Drug Court participants included all those who entered the Drug Court program July 1998 through June 1999 and included 202 participants in San Joaquin and 127 participants in El Monte. The post-SACPA Drug Court participants included all those who entered the Drug Court program in July 2002 through June 2003. This sample provided 128 participants in San Joaquin and 147 participants in El Monte who experienced the Drug Court program after any changes in eligibility and Drug Court processes due to SACPA, as well as allowing for outcome data for three years post-program entry. The SACPA samples in San Joaquin and El Monte consisted of all SACPA participants who were first time enrollees in SACPA programs between July 2002 and June 2003. These samples included 395 participants in San Joaquin and 313 participants in El Monte who experienced a reasonably well-established SACPA program while still allowing three years of outcomes post-program entry. The data for both San Joaquin county and El Monte (Los Angeles) county include the demographic variables age, race, gender, and drug of choice. Drug Court Treatment variables include dates or number of group sessions, dates or number of individual sessions, dates or number of days in residential treatment, other Drug Court service dates and types. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) Treatment variables include dates or number of group sessions or episodes, dates or number of individual sessions or episodes, dates or number of urinalysis tests, dates or number of days in residential treatment, and other SACPA service dates and types. Other variables include arrest data, new court cases data, jail data, prison data, and probation data.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the role and impact of forensic science evidence on the criminal justice process. The study utilized a prospective analysis of official record data that followed criminal cases in five jurisdictions (Los Angeles County, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; Evansville, Indiana; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and South Bend, Indiana) from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. The data were based on a random sample of the population of reported crime incidents between 2003 and 2006, stratified by crime type and jurisdiction. A total of 4,205 cases were sampled including 859 aggravated assaults, 1,263 burglaries, 400 homicides, 602 rapes, and 1,081 robberies. Descriptive and impact data were collected from three sources: police incident and investigation reports, crime lab reports, and prosecutor case files. The data contain a total of 175 variables including site, crime type, forensic variables, criminal offense variables, and crime dispositions variables.

In 1986, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funded a demonstration project of intensive supervision programs (ISPs), alternatives to control sanctions that involve community sanctions and emphasize stringent conditions and close monitoring of convicted offenders. The primary intent of the demonstration project was to determine the effects of participation in an ISP program on the subsequent behavior of offenders and to test the feasibility of the ISP's stated objectives: (1) to reduce recidivism by providing a seemingly cost-effective alternative to imprisonment, and (2) to provide an intermediate punishment between incarceration and regular probation that allows the punishment to fit the crime. Fourteen sites in nine states participated in the project and each of the selected sites was funded for 18 to 24 months. Individual agencies in each site tailored their ISP programs to their local needs, resources, and contexts, developed their own eligibility criteria, and determined whether probationers met those criteria. While the individual ISP projects differed, each site was required to follow identical procedures regarding random assignment, data collection, and overall program evaluation. Data collection instruments that differed in the amount of drug-related questions asked were used for the six- and twelve-month reviews. The "non-drug" data collection instrument, used in Contra Costa, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties, CA, Marion County, OR, and Milwaukee, WI, gathered drug data only on the number of monthly drug and alcohol tests given to offenders. The "drug" data collection instrument was distributed in Atlanta, Macon, and Waycross, GA, Seattle, WA, Santa Fe, NM, Des Moines, IA, and Winchester, VA. Variables regarding drug use included the number of drug tests ordered, the number of drug tests taken, and the number of positives for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, uppers, downers, quaaludes, LSD/hallucinogens, PCP, marijuana/hashish, and "other". The drug questions on the instrument used in Dallas and Houston, TX, were the same as those asked at the drug sites. Once a site determined that an offender was eligible for inclusion, RAND staff randomly assigned the offender to either the experimental ISP program (prison diversion, enhanced probation, or enhanced parole) or to a control sanction (prison, routine probation, or parole). Assignment periods began in January 1987 and some sites continued to accept cases through January 1990. Each offender was followed for a period of one year, beginning on the day of assignment to the experimental or control program. The six-month and twelve-month review data contain identical variables: the current status of the offender (prison, ISP, or terminated), record of each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction. Information was also recorded for each month during the follow-up regarding face-to-face contacts, phone and collateral contacts, monitoring and record checks, community service hours, days on electronic surveillance (if applicable), contacts between client and community sponsor, number and type of counseling sessions and training, days in paid employment and earnings, number of drug and alcohol tests taken, and amount of restitution, fines, court costs, and probation fees paid. Background variables include sex, race, age at assignment, prior criminal history, drug use and treatment history, type of current offense, sentence characteristics, conditions imposed, and various items relating to risk of recidivism and need for treatment. For the two Texas sites, information on each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction was recorded in separate recidivism files (Parts 10 and 17). Dates were converted by RAND to time-lapse variables for the public release files that comprise this data collection.