THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:11 PM EASTERN ON JULY 30

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.

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

Experimental research on racial attitudes examines how Whites’ stereotypes of Black Americans shape their attitudes about the death penalty, violent crime, and other punitive measures. Marginally discussed in the race-to-crime literature are Blacks’ perceptions of retribution and justice. We fill this void by using an original survey experiment of 900 Black Americans to examine how exposure to intra-and-intergroup violent crime shapes their policy attitudes and emotional reactions to crime. We find that Blacks are more likely to support increased prison sentences for violent crimes when the perpetrator is White and the victim is Black, and reduced sentences for “Black-on-Black” crime. Our analyses further reveal that Black people express higher levels of anger when the victim is Black and the perpetrator is White; levels of shame and anger also increase in instances of Black-on-Black crime. Given current race relations in America, we conclude by speculating about how these emotional reactions might shape one’s willingness to participate in the political arena.

Since 1976, the United States has witnessed a steady and precipitous decline in intimate partner homicides. This study builds on the work of Dugan et al. (1999, 2000) and Browne and Williams (1989) by examining, in greater detail, the relationship between intimate partner homicide and gender, race, criminal justice system response, and domestic violence services. Specifically, the study examines the net effect of criminal justice system response and federally-funded domestic violence shelters on victimization of white, African American, and Hispanic males and females. This study used aggregated data from the 58 counties in California from 1987 to 2000. Homicide data were gathered by the State of California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Data on domestic violence resources were obtained from the Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning, Domestic Violence Branch, in the form of detailed reports from domestic violence shelters in the state. Based on these records, the researchers computed the number of federally-funded shelter-based organizations in a given county over time. Data on criminal justice responses at the county level were gathered from the State of California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center. These data included domestic violence arrests and any convictions and incarceration that followed those arrests. The researchers disaggregated these criminal justice system measures by race and gender. In order to account for population differences and changes over time, rates were computed per 100,000 adults (age 18 and older).

In 2022, there were 313,017 cases filed by the NCIC where the race of the reported missing was White. In the same year, 18,928 people were missing whose race was unknown.

What is the NCIC?

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a digital database that stores crime data for the United States, so criminal justice agencies can access it. As a part of the FBI, it helps criminal justice professionals find criminals, missing people, stolen property, and terrorists. The NCIC database is broken down into 21 files. Seven files belong to stolen property and items, and 14 belong to persons, including the National Sex Offender Register, Missing Person, and Identify Theft. It works alongside federal, tribal, state, and local agencies. The NCIC’s goal is to maintain a centralized information system between local branches and offices, so information is easily accessible nationwide.

Missing people in the United States

A person is considered missing when they have disappeared and their location is unknown. A person who is considered missing might have left voluntarily, but that is not always the case. The number of the NCIC unidentified person files in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, and in 2022, there were slightly more NCIC missing person files for males as compared to females. Fortunately, the number of NCIC missing person files has been mostly decreasing since 1998.

This data collection effort was undertaken to analyze the outcomes of capital appeals in the United States between 1973 and 1995 and as a means of assessing the reliability of death penalty verdicts (also referred to herein as "capital judgments" or "death penalty judgments") imposed under modern death-sentencing procedures. Those procedures have been adopted since the decision in Furman v. Georgia in 1972. The United States Supreme Court's ruling in that case invalidated all then-existing death penalty laws, determining that the death penalty was applied in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner and violated Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Data provided in this collection include state characteristics and the outcomes of review of death verdicts by state and year at the state direct appeal, state post-conviction, federal habeas corpus, and all three stages of review (Part 1). Data were compiled from published and unpublished official and archived sources. Also provided in this collection are state and county characteristics and the outcome of review of death verdicts by county, state, and year at the state direct appeal, state post-conviction, federal habeas corpus, and all three stages of review (Part 2). After designing a systematic method for identifying official court decisions in capital appeals and state and federal post-conviction proceedings (no official or unofficial lists of those decisions existed prior to this study), the authors created three databases original to this study using information reported in those decisions. The first of the three original databases assembled as part of this project was the Direct Appeal Database (DADB) (Part 3). This database contains information on the timing and outcome of decisions on state direct appeals of capital verdicts imposed in all years during the 1973-1995 study period in which the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute. The appeals in this database include all those that were identified as having been finally decided during the 1973 to 1995 period (sometimes called "the study period"). The second original database, State Post-Conviction Database (SPCDB) (Part 4), contains a list of capital verdicts that were imposed during the years between 1973 and 2000 when the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute and that were finally reversed on state post-conviction review between 1973 and April 2000. The third original database, Habeas Corpus Database (HCDB) (Part 5), contains information on all decisions of initial (non-successive) capital federal habeas corpus cases between 1973 and 1995 that finally reviewed capital verdicts imposed during the years 1973 to 1995 when the relevant state had a valid post-Furman capital statute. Part 1 variables include state and state population, population density, death sentence year, year the state enacted a valid post-Furman capital statute, total homicides, number of African-Americans in the state population, number of white and African-American homicide victims, number of prison inmates, number of FBI Index Crimes, number of civil, criminal, and felony court cases awaiting decision, number of death verdicts, number of Black defendants sentenced to death, rate of white victims of homicides for which defendants were sentenced to death per 100 white homicide victims, percentage of death row inmates sentenced to death for offenses against at least one white victim, number of death verdicts reviewed, awaiting review, and granted relief at all three states of review, number of welfare recipients and welfare expenditures, direct expenditures on the court system, party-adjusted judicial ideology index, political pressure index, and several other created variables. Part 2 provides this same state-level information and also provides similar variables at the county level. Court expenditure and welfare data are not provided in Part 2, however. Part 3 provides data on each capital direct appeal decision, including state, FIPS state and county code for trial court county, year of death verdict, year of decision, whether the verdict was affirmed or reversed, and year of first fully valid post-Furman statute. The date and citation for rehearing in the state system and on certiorari to the United States Supreme Court are provided in some cases. For reversals in Part 4 information was collected about state of death verdict, FIPS state and county code for trial court county, year of death verdict, date of relief, basis for reversal, stage of trial and aspect of verdict (guilty of aggravated capital murder, death sentence) affected by reversal, outcome on retrial, and citation. Part 5 variables include state, FIPS state and county codes for trial court county, year of death verdict, defendant's history of alcohol or drug abuse, whether the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime, whether the defense attorney was from in-state, whether the defendant was connected to the community where the crime occurred, whether the victim had a high standing in the community, sex of the victim, whether the defendant had a prior record, whether a state evidentiary hearing was held, number of claims for final federal decision, whether a majority of the judges voting to reverse were appointed by Republican presidents, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, whether habeas corpus relief was granted, what claims for habeas corpus relief were presented, and the outcome on each claim that was presented. Part 5 also includes citations to the direct appeal decision, the state post-conviction decision (last state decision on merits), the judicial decision at the pre-penultimate federal stage, the decision at the penultimate federal stage, and the final federal decision.

Note: Due to a system migration, this data will cease to update on March 14th, 2023. At this time we are updating this dataset manually once per month as resources allow. For real time crime data please utilize communitycrimemap.comA list of all uniform citations from the Louisville Metro Police Department, the CSV file is updated daily, including case number, date, location, division, beat, offender demographics, statutes and charges, and UCR codes can be found in this Link.INCIDENT_NUMBER or CASE_NUMBER links these data sets together:Crime DataUniform Citation DataFirearm intakeLMPD hate crimesAssaulted OfficersCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER links these data sets together:Uniform Citation DataLMPD Stops DataNote: When examining this data, make sure to read the LMPDCrime Data section in our Terms of Use.AGENCY_DESC - the name of the department that issued the citationCASE_NUMBER - the number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence rooms and can be used to connect the dataset to the following other datasets INCIDENT_NUMBER:1. Crime Data2. Firearms intake3. LMPD hate crimes4. Assaulted OfficersNOTE: CASE_NUMBER is not formatted the same as the INCIDENT_NUMBER in the other datasets. For example: in the Uniform Citation Data you have CASE_NUMBER 8018013155 (no dashes) which matches up with INCIDENT_NUMBER 80-18-013155 in the other 4 datasets.CITATION_YEAR - the year the citation was issuedCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER - links this LMPD stops dataCITATION_TYPE_DESC - the type of citation issued (citations include: general citations, summons, warrants, arrests, and juvenile)CITATION_DATE - the date the citation was issuedCITATION_LOCATION - the location the citation was issuedDIVISION - the LMPD division in which the citation was issuedBEAT - the LMPD beat in which the citation was issuedPERSONS_SEX - the gender of the person who received the citationPERSONS_RACE - the race of the person who received the citation (W-White, B-Black, H-Hispanic, A-Asian/Pacific Islander, I-American Indian, U-Undeclared, IB-Indian/India/Burmese, M-Middle Eastern Descent, AN-Alaskan Native)PERSONS_ETHNICITY - the ethnicity of the person who received the citation (N-Not Hispanic, H=Hispanic, U=Undeclared)PERSONS_AGE - the age of the person who received the citationPERSONS_HOME_CITY - the city in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_STATE - the state in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_ZIP - the zip code in which the person who received the citation livesVIOLATION_CODE - multiple alpha/numeric code assigned by the Kentucky State Police to link to a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of codes visit: https://kentuckystatepolice.org/crime-traffic-data/ASCF_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the American Security Council Foundation. For more details visit https://www.ascfusa.org/STATUTE - multiple alpha/numeric code representing a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of Kentucky Revised Statute information visit: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/CHARGE_DESC - the description of the type of charge for the citationUCR_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the Uniform Crime Report. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/UCR_DESC - the description of the UCR_CODE. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/

A list of all uniform citations from the Louisville Metro Police Department, the CSV file is updated daily, including case number, date, location, division, beat, offender demographics, statutes and charges, and UCR codes can be found in this Link.INCIDENT_NUMBER or CASE_NUMBER links these data sets together:Crime DataUniform Citation DataFirearm intakeLMPD hate crimesAssaulted OfficersCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER links these data sets together:Uniform Citation DataLMPD Stops DataNote: When examining this data, make sure to read the LMPDCrime Data section in our Terms of Use.AGENCY_DESC - the name of the department that issued the citation CASE_NUMBER - the number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence rooms and can be used to connect the dataset to the following other datasets INCIDENT_NUMBER: 1. Crime Data 2. Firearms intake 3. LMPD hate crimes 4. Assaulted Officers NOTE: CASE_NUMBER is not formatted the same as the INCIDENT_NUMBER in the other datasets. For example: in the Uniform Citation Data you have CASE_NUMBER 8018013155 (no dashes) which matches up with INCIDENT_NUMBER 80-18-013155 in the other 4 datasets. CITATION_YEAR - the year the citation was issued CITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER - links this LMPD stops data CITATION_TYPE_DESC - the type of citation issued (citations include: general citations, summons, warrants, arrests, and juvenile) CITATION_DATE - the date the citation was issued CITATION_LOCATION - the location the citation was issued DIVISION - the LMPD division in which the citation was issued BEAT - the LMPD beat in which the citation was issued PERSONS_SEX - the gender of the person who received the citation PERSONS_RACE - the race of the person who received the citation (W-White, B-Black, H-Hispanic, A-Asian/Pacific Islander, I-American Indian, U-Undeclared, IB-Indian/India/Burmese, M-Middle Eastern Descent, AN-Alaskan Native) PERSONS_ETHNICITY - the ethnicity of the person who received the citation (N-Not Hispanic, H=Hispanic, U=Undeclared) PERSONS_AGE - the age of the person who received the citation PERSONS_HOME_CITY - the city in which the person who received the citation lives PERSONS_HOME_STATE - the state in which the person who received the citation lives PERSONS_HOME_ZIP - the zip code in which the person who received the citation lives VIOLATION_CODE - multiple alpha/numeric code assigned by the Kentucky State Police to link to a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of codes visit: https://kentuckystatepolice.org/crime-traffic-data/ ASCF_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the American Security Council Foundation. For more details visit https://www.ascfusa.org/ STATUTE - multiple alpha/numeric code representing a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of Kentucky Revised Statute information visit: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/ CHARGE_DESC - the description of the type of charge for the citation UCR_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the Uniform Crime Report. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/ UCR_DESC - the description of the UCR_CODE. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Neighborhood Watch signs on perceived crime rates, likelihood of victimization, community safety, and estimates of home and community quality. Part 1 (Study One Data) assessed the causal impact of Neighborhood Watch sign presence and content on perceptions of the community. Three Neighborhood Watch signs were incorporated into a series of slide show presentations. The signs utilized the traditional orange and white color scheme with black text and were used to represent an injunctive norm alone, a low descriptive norm for crime, or a high descriptive norm for crime. Digital color images of a for-sale home and the surrounding neighborhood of a middle class community in North San Diego County were shown to 180 undergraduates recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University, San Marcos, between July and November of 2005. Three of the slide shows were designated as Neighborhood Watch communities with one of the three sign types posted, and the fourth slide show served as a control with no posted crime prevention signs. Each slide show consisted of 20 images of the home and community, along with four instruction slides. Part 2 (Study Two Data) replicated the basic effect from Study 1 and extended the research to examine the moderating role of community social economic status (SES) on the effects of the Neighborhood Watch signs. Participants were 547 undergraduate students recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University and Palomar Community College in San Marcos, between January and September 2006. A total of 12 slide shows were utilized in Study Two, such that each of the four sign conditions from Study One was represented across each of the three communities (Low, Middle, and High SES). Part 3 (Study Three Data) examined the potential for the physical condition of the Neighborhood Watch signs posted in the community to convey normative information about the presence and acceptance of crime in the community. Participants were 364 undergraduate students recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University and Palomar Community College in San Marcos, between October 2006 and March 2007. Study Three used the same generic (Injunctive Norm, Program Only) sign that was utilized in Studies One and Two. However, three variations (new, aged, and defaced) of the sign were used. The surveys used for Study One, Study Two, and Study Three, were identical. The data include variables on perceived crime rates, perceived likelihood of victimization, perceived community safety, community ratings, self-protective behavior, burglar's perspective, manipulation check, and demographics of the respondent.

Note: Due to a system migration, this data will cease to update on March 14th, 2023. The current projection is to restart the updates within 30 days of the system migration, on or around April 13th, 2023A list of all uniform citations from the Louisville Metro Police Department, the CSV file is updated daily, including case number, date, location, division, beat, offender demographics, statutes and charges, and UCR codes can be found in this Link.INCIDENT_NUMBER or CASE_NUMBER links these data sets together:Crime DataUniform Citation DataFirearm intakeLMPD hate crimesAssaulted OfficersCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER links these data sets together:Uniform Citation DataLMPD Stops DataNote: When examining this data, make sure to read the LMPDCrime Data section in our Terms of Use.AGENCY_DESC - the name of the department that issued the citationCASE_NUMBER - the number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence rooms and can be used to connect the dataset to the following other datasets INCIDENT_NUMBER:1. Crime Data2. Firearms intake3. LMPD hate crimes4. Assaulted OfficersNOTE: CASE_NUMBER is not formatted the same as the INCIDENT_NUMBER in the other datasets. For example: in the Uniform Citation Data you have CASE_NUMBER 8018013155 (no dashes) which matches up with INCIDENT_NUMBER 80-18-013155 in the other 4 datasets.CITATION_YEAR - the year the citation was issuedCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER - links this LMPD stops dataCITATION_TYPE_DESC - the type of citation issued (citations include: general citations, summons, warrants, arrests, and juvenile)CITATION_DATE - the date the citation was issuedCITATION_LOCATION - the location the citation was issuedDIVISION - the LMPD division in which the citation was issuedBEAT - the LMPD beat in which the citation was issuedPERSONS_SEX - the gender of the person who received the citationPERSONS_RACE - the race of the person who received the citation (W-White, B-Black, H-Hispanic, A-Asian/Pacific Islander, I-American Indian, U-Undeclared, IB-Indian/India/Burmese, M-Middle Eastern Descent, AN-Alaskan Native)PERSONS_ETHNICITY - the ethnicity of the person who received the citation (N-Not Hispanic, H=Hispanic, U=Undeclared)PERSONS_AGE - the age of the person who received the citationPERSONS_HOME_CITY - the city in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_STATE - the state in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_ZIP - the zip code in which the person who received the citation livesVIOLATION_CODE - multiple alpha/numeric code assigned by the Kentucky State Police to link to a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of codes visit: https://kentuckystatepolice.org/crime-traffic-data/ASCF_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the American Security Council Foundation. For more details visit https://www.ascfusa.org/STATUTE - multiple alpha/numeric code representing a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of Kentucky Revised Statute information visit: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/CHARGE_DESC - the description of the type of charge for the citationUCR_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the Uniform Crime Report. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/UCR_DESC - the description of the UCR_CODE. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/

A list of all uniform citations from the Louisville Metro Police Department, the CSV file is updated daily, including case number, date, location, division, beat, offender demographics, statutes and charges, and UCR codes can be found in this Link.INCIDENT_NUMBER or CASE_NUMBER links these data sets together:Crime DataUniform Citation DataFirearm intakeLMPD hate crimesAssaulted OfficersCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER links these data sets together:Uniform Citation DataLMPD Stops DataNote: When examining this data, make sure to read the LMPDCrime Data section in our Terms of Use.AGENCY_DESC - the name of the department that issued the citationCASE_NUMBER - the number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence rooms and can be used to connect the dataset to the following other datasets INCIDENT_NUMBER:1. Crime Data2. Firearms intake3. LMPD hate crimes4. Assaulted OfficersNOTE: CASE_NUMBER is not formatted the same as the INCIDENT_NUMBER in the other datasets. For example: in the Uniform Citation Data you have CASE_NUMBER 8018013155 (no dashes) which matches up with INCIDENT_NUMBER 80-18-013155 in the other 4 datasets.CITATION_YEAR - the year the citation was issuedCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER - links this LMPD stops dataCITATION_TYPE_DESC - the type of citation issued (citations include: general citations, summons, warrants, arrests, and juvenile)CITATION_DATE - the date the citation was issuedCITATION_LOCATION - the location the citation was issuedDIVISION - the LMPD division in which the citation was issuedBEAT - the LMPD beat in which the citation was issuedPERSONS_SEX - the gender of the person who received the citationPERSONS_RACE - the race of the person who received the citation (W-White, B-Black, H-Hispanic, A-Asian/Pacific Islander, I-American Indian, U-Undeclared, IB-Indian/India/Burmese, M-Middle Eastern Descent, AN-Alaskan Native)PERSONS_ETHNICITY - the ethnicity of the person who received the citation (N-Not Hispanic, H=Hispanic, U=Undeclared)PERSONS_AGE - the age of the person who received the citationPERSONS_HOME_CITY - the city in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_STATE - the state in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_ZIP - the zip code in which the person who received the citation livesVIOLATION_CODE - multiple alpha/numeric code assigned by the Kentucky State Police to link to a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of codes visit: https://kentuckystatepolice.org/crime-traffic-data/ASCF_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the American Security Council Foundation. For more details visit https://www.ascfusa.org/STATUTE - multiple alpha/numeric code representing a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of Kentucky Revised Statute information visit: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/CHARGE_DESC - the description of the type of charge for the citationUCR_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the Uniform Crime Report. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/UCR_DESC - the description of the UCR_CODE. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/

Distribution of organization and jurisdiction characteristics among agencies involved in all and race-specific police killings in The Counted during 2015–2016.

Context

This dataset reflects incidents of crime in the City of Los Angeles dating back from 2010 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 th the data in the database.

Attribute Description

DR_NO: Division of Records Number: Official file number made up of a 2 digit year, area ID, and 5 digits. API Field Name: MM/DD/YYYY. DATE OCC: MM/DD/YYYY. TIME OCC: In 24 hour military time. AREA: The LAPD has 21 Community Police Stations referred to as Geographic Areas within the department. These Geographic Areas are sequentially numbered from 1-21. AREA NAME: The 21 Geographic Areas or Patrol Divisions are also given a name designation that references a landmark or the surrounding community that it is responsible for. For example 77th Street Division is located at the intersection of South Broadway and 77th Street, serving neighborhoods in South Los Angeles. Rpt Dist No: A four-digit code that represents a sub-area within a Geographic Area. All crime records reference the "RD" that it occurred in for statistical comparisons. Crm Cd: Indicates the crime committed. (Same as Crime Code 1) Crm Cd Desc: Defines the Crime Code provided. Mocodes: Modus Operandi: Activities associated with the suspect in commission of the crime. Vict Age: Two character numeric. Vict Sex: F - Female M - Male X - Unknown. Vict Descent: Descent Code: A - Other Asian B - Black C - Chinese D - Cambodian F - Filipino G - Guamanian H - Hispanic/Latin/Mexican I - American Indian/Alaskan Native J - Japanese K - Korean L - Laotian O - Other P - Pacific Islander S - Samoan U - Hawaiian V - Vietnamese W - White X - Unknown Z - Asian Indian. Premis Cd: The type of structure, vehicle, or location where the crime took place. Premis Desc: Defines the Premise Code provided. Weapon Used Cd: The type of weapon used in the crime. Weapon Desc: Defines the Weapon Used Code provided. Status: Status of the case. (IC is the default). Status DEsc: Defines the Status Code provided. Crm Cd 1: Indicates the crime committed. Crime Code 1 is the primary and most serious one. Crime Code 2, 3, and 4 are respectively less serious offenses. Lower crime class numbers are more serious. Crm Cd 2: May contain a code for an additional crime, less serious than Crime Code 1. Crm Cd 3: May contain a code for an additional crime, less serious than Crime Code 1. Crm Cd 4: May contain a code for an additional crime, less serious than Crime Code 1. LOCATION: Street address of crime incident rounded to the nearest hundred block to maintain anonymity. Cross Street: Cross Street of rounded Address. LAT: Latitude. LON: Longitude.

Acknowledgements

Los Angeles Police Department

Distribution of 2013 LEMAS policies among agencies involved in all and race-specific police killings in The Counted during 2015–2016.

A list of all uniform citations from the Louisville Metro Police Department, the CSV file is updated daily, including case number, date, location, division, beat, offender demographics, statutes and charges, and UCR codes can be found in this Link.INCIDENT_NUMBER or CASE_NUMBER links these data sets together:Crime DataUniform Citation DataFirearm intakeLMPD hate crimesAssaulted OfficersCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER links these data sets together:Uniform Citation DataLMPD Stops DataNote: When examining this data, make sure to read the LMPDCrime Data section in our Terms of Use.AGENCY_DESC - the name of the department that issued the citationCASE_NUMBER - the number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence rooms and can be used to connect the dataset to the following other datasets INCIDENT_NUMBER:1. Crime Data2. Firearms intake3. LMPD hate crimes4. Assaulted OfficersNOTE: CASE_NUMBER is not formatted the same as the INCIDENT_NUMBER in the other datasets. For example: in the Uniform Citation Data you have CASE_NUMBER 8018013155 (no dashes) which matches up with INCIDENT_NUMBER 80-18-013155 in the other 4 datasets.CITATION_YEAR - the year the citation was issuedCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER - links this LMPD stops dataCITATION_TYPE_DESC - the type of citation issued (citations include: general citations, summons, warrants, arrests, and juvenile)CITATION_DATE - the date the citation was issuedCITATION_LOCATION - the location the citation was issuedDIVISION - the LMPD division in which the citation was issuedBEAT - the LMPD beat in which the citation was issuedPERSONS_SEX - the gender of the person who received the citationPERSONS_RACE - the race of the person who received the citation (W-White, B-Black, H-Hispanic, A-Asian/Pacific Islander, I-American Indian, U-Undeclared, IB-Indian/India/Burmese, M-Middle Eastern Descent, AN-Alaskan Native)PERSONS_ETHNICITY - the ethnicity of the person who received the citation (N-Not Hispanic, H=Hispanic, U=Undeclared)PERSONS_AGE - the age of the person who received the citationPERSONS_HOME_CITY - the city in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_STATE - the state in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_ZIP - the zip code in which the person who received the citation livesVIOLATION_CODE - multiple alpha/numeric code assigned by the Kentucky State Police to link to a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of codes visit: https://kentuckystatepolice.org/crime-traffic-data/ASCF_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the American Security Council Foundation. For more details visit https://www.ascfusa.org/STATUTE - multiple alpha/numeric code representing a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of Kentucky Revised Statute information visit: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/CHARGE_DESC - the description of the type of charge for the citationUCR_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the Uniform Crime Report. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/UCR_DESC - the description of the UCR_CODE. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the creation of Habitual Offender Units (HOUs) in 13 cities. HOUs were created to prosecute habitual juvenile offenders by deploying the most experienced attorneys to handle these cases from start to finish. By targeting the earliest points in the career sequence of the juvenile offenders, the greatest number of serious offenses can potentially be averted. Selection criteria to qualify for priority prosecution by an HOU usually encompassed one or more generic components relating to aspects of a juvenile's present and prior offense record. In Philadelphia, to be designated a serious habitual offender and to qualify for priority prosecution by the HOU, a youth had to have two or more prior adjudications or open cases for specific felonies, as well as a current arrest for a specified felony. The first three police contacts in a Philadelphia juvenile offender's record were of special interest because they included the earliest point (i.e., the third contact) at which a youth could be prosecuted in the Philadelphia HOU, under their selection criteria. The main objectives of this study were to determine how well the selection criteria identified serious habitual offenders and which variables, reflecting HOU selection criteria, criminal histories, and personal characteristics, were most strongly and consistently related to the frequency and seriousness of future juvenile and young adult offending. To accomplish this, an assessment was conducted using a group of juveniles born in 1958 whose criminal career outcomes were already known. Applying the HOU selection criteria to this group made it possible to determine the extent to which the criteria identified future habitual offending. Data for the analyses were obtained from a birth cohort of Black and white males born in 1958 who resided in Philadelphia from their 10th through their 18th birthdays. Criminal careers represent police contacts for the juvenile years and arrests for the young adult years, for which police contacts and arrests are synonymous. The 40 dependent variables were computed using 5 different criminal career aspects for 4 crime type groups for 2 age intervals. The data also contain various dummy variables related to prior offenses, including type of offense, number of prior offenses, disposition of the offenses, age at first prior offense, seriousness of first prior offense, weapon used, and whether it was a gang-related offense. Dummy variables pertaining to the current offenses include type of offense, number of crime categories, number of charges, number of offenders, gender, race, and age of offenders, type of intimidation used, weapons used, number of crime victims, gender, race, and age of victims, type of injury to victim, type of victimization, characteristics of offense site, type of complainant, and police response. Percentile of the offender's socioeconomic status is also provided. Continuous variables include age at first prior offense, age at most recent prior offense, age at current offense, and average age of victims.

A list of all uniform citations from the Louisville Metro Police Department, the CSV file is updated daily, including case number, date, location, division, beat, offender demographics, statutes and charges, and UCR codes can be found in this Link.INCIDENT_NUMBER or CASE_NUMBER links these data sets together:Crime DataUniform Citation DataFirearm intakeLMPD hate crimesAssaulted OfficersCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER links these data sets together:Uniform Citation DataLMPD Stops DataNote: When examining this data, make sure to read the LMPDCrime Data section in our Terms of Use.AGENCY_DESC - the name of the department that issued the citationCASE_NUMBER - the number associated with either the incident or used as reference to store the items in our evidence rooms and can be used to connect the dataset to the following other datasets INCIDENT_NUMBER:1. Crime Data2. Firearms intake3. LMPD hate crimes4. Assaulted OfficersNOTE: CASE_NUMBER is not formatted the same as the INCIDENT_NUMBER in the other datasets. For example: in the Uniform Citation Data you have CASE_NUMBER 8018013155 (no dashes) which matches up with INCIDENT_NUMBER 80-18-013155 in the other 4 datasets.CITATION_YEAR - the year the citation was issuedCITATION_CONTROL_NUMBER - links this LMPD stops dataCITATION_TYPE_DESC - the type of citation issued (citations include: general citations, summons, warrants, arrests, and juvenile)CITATION_DATE - the date the citation was issuedCITATION_LOCATION - the location the citation was issuedDIVISION - the LMPD division in which the citation was issuedBEAT - the LMPD beat in which the citation was issuedPERSONS_SEX - the gender of the person who received the citationPERSONS_RACE - the race of the person who received the citation (W-White, B-Black, H-Hispanic, A-Asian/Pacific Islander, I-American Indian, U-Undeclared, IB-Indian/India/Burmese, M-Middle Eastern Descent, AN-Alaskan Native)PERSONS_ETHNICITY - the ethnicity of the person who received the citation (N-Not Hispanic, H=Hispanic, U=Undeclared)PERSONS_AGE - the age of the person who received the citationPERSONS_HOME_CITY - the city in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_STATE - the state in which the person who received the citation livesPERSONS_HOME_ZIP - the zip code in which the person who received the citation livesVIOLATION_CODE - multiple alpha/numeric code assigned by the Kentucky State Police to link to a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of codes visit: https://kentuckystatepolice.org/crime-traffic-data/ASCF_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the American Security Council Foundation. For more details visit https://www.ascfusa.org/STATUTE - multiple alpha/numeric code representing a Kentucky Revised Statute. For a full list of Kentucky Revised Statute information visit: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/CHARGE_DESC - the description of the type of charge for the citationUCR_CODE - the code that follows the guidelines of the Uniform Crime Report. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/UCR_DESC - the description of the UCR_CODE. For more details visit https://ucr.fbi.gov/The Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) began operations on January 6, 2003, as part of the creation of the consolidated city-county government in Louisville, Kentucky. It was formed by the merger of the Jefferson County Police Department and the Louisville Division of Police. The Louisville Metro Police Department is headed by Chief Jacquelyn Gwinn-Villaroel. LMPD divides Jefferson County into eight patrol divisions and operates a number of special investigative and support units.

Much of the analysis of juvenile justice reform to date has focused on assessing particular programs and their impacts on subgroups of cases at a particular point in time. While this is instructive as to the effects of those initiatives, it is essential to evaluate the impact of policy across multiple levels and with multiple stakeholders in mind. Ohio has implemented a series of initiatives in its juvenile justice system designed to reduce reliance on state custody of youth in favor of local alternatives. In doing so, they have focused on multiple segments of the population of justice involved-youths throughout the state. The main vehicle for these shifts has been the state's Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM) legislation and a series of initiatives that have followed from its inception. Other steps were followed and programming modifications were made during the study period as well. This research project focused on these initiatives as a case study of juvenile justice reform initiatives in order to provide insights about the impact of those recent reforms across multiple dimensions that were viewed as relevant to the discussion of juvenile justice reform. The data set analyzed at the individual level included the records of more than 5,000 youths sampled from cases processed from 2008 to 2015. First, presumed reductions in the number of youth committed to state residential correctional facilities in favor of community-based alternatives were analyzed. The relative effectiveness of residential facilities and community-based alternatives in terms of youth recidivism were then assessed with a subsample of 2,855 case records from randomly-selected counties. A third research objective focused on county-level trends and variation. Specifically, the longitudinal trends in key juvenile justice inputs and official juvenile crime rates across Ohio's 88 counties were formally modeled using data from public reports, data collection with counties, and official juvenile arrest data archived by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Elements of the previous analyses (especially comparative recidivism rates) and cost data collected from existing sources and public reports were used in a preliminary fashion to quantify the potential return on investment that accrued from Ohio's investment in these juvenile justice initiatives. This deposit contains two datasets: Individual Level Data and County Level Data. The Individual Level Data contains the following demographic data: age at admission, sex, and race (White, Black, Asian, Native American, and other).

EDS total score, EDS items, and EDS reasons by race/ethnicity and gender for entire sample and trauma-exposed sample.

This dataset provides information on non-compliance of imported food and related products.