This dataset contains county-level totals for the years 2002-2014 for eight types of crime: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. These crimes are classed as Part I criminal offenses by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in their Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Each record in the dataset represents the total of each type of criminal offense reported in (or, in the case of missing data, attributed to) the county in a given year.A curated version of this data is available through ICPSR at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38649/versions/V1

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily Tuesday through Sunday. The dataset contains more than 65,000 records/rows of data and cannot be viewed in full in Microsoft Excel. Therefore, when downloading the file, select CSV from the Export menu. Open the file in an ASCII text editor, such as Wordpad, to view and search. To access a list of Chicago Police Department - Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (IUCR) codes, go to http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Chicago-Police-Department-Illinois-Uniform-Crime-R/c7ck-438e

This dataset includes all valid felony, misdemeanor, and violation crimes reported to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) for all complete quarters so far this year (2017). For additional details, please see the attached data dictionary in the ‘About’ section.

Recorded crime figures for CSP areas. Number of offences for the last two years, percentage change, and rates per 1,000 population for the latest year.

Serious violent crimes consist of Part 1 offenses as defined by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Uniform Reporting Statistics. These include murders, nonnegligent homicides, rapes (legacy and revised), robberies, and aggravated assaults. LAPD data were used for City of Los Angeles, LASD data were used for unincorporated areas and cities that contract with LASD for law enforcement services, and CA Attorney General data were used for all other cities with local police departments. This indicator is based on location of residence. Single-year data are only available for Los Angeles County overall, Service Planning Areas, Supervisorial Districts, City of Los Angeles overall, and City of Los Angeles Council Districts.Neighborhood violence and crime can have a harmful impact on all members of a community. Living in communities with high rates of violence and crime not only exposes residents to a greater personal risk of injury or death, but it can also render individuals more susceptible to many adverse health outcomes. People who are regularly exposed to violence and crime are more likely to suffer from chronic stress, depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions. They are also less likely to be able to use their parks and neighborhoods for recreation and physical activity.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Data is no longer provided by the Calgary Police Service. To access latest data click here. This data is considered cumulative as late-reported incidents are often received well after an offence has occurred. Therefore, crime counts are subject to change as they are updated. Crime count is based on the most serious violation (MSV) per incident. Violence: These figures include all violent crime offences as defined by the Centre for Canadian Justice Statistics Universal Crime Reporting (UCR) rules. Domestic violence is excluded. Break and Enter: Residential B&E includes both House and ‘Other’ structure break and enters due to the predominantly residential nature of this type of break in (e.g. detached garages, sheds). B&Es incidents include attempts.

Suburb-based crime statistics for crimes against the person and crimes against property. The Crime statistics datasets contain all offences against the person and property that were reported to police in that respective financial year. The Family and Domestic Abuse-related offences datasets are a subset of this, in that a separate file is presented for these offences that were flagged as being of a family and domestic abuse nature for that financial year. Consequently the two files for the same financial year must not be added together.

This dataset contains Crime and Safety data from the Cary Police Department.

This data is extracted by the Town of Cary's Police Department's RMS application. The police incidents will provide data on the Part I crimes of arson, motor vehicle thefts, larcenies, burglaries, aggravated assaults, robberies and homicides. Sexual assaults and crimes involving juveniles will not appear to help protect the identities of victims.

This dataset includes criminal offenses in the Town of Cary for the previous 10 calendar years plus the current year. The data is based on the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) which includes all victims of person crimes and all crimes within an incident. The data is dynamic, which allows for additions, deletions and/or modifications at any time, resulting in more accurate information in the database. Due to continuous data entry, the number of records in subsequent extractions are subject to change. Crime data is updated daily however, incidents may be up to three days old before they first appear.

About Crime Data

The Cary Police Department strives to make crime data as accurate as possible, but there is no avoiding the introduction of errors into this process, which relies on data furnished by many people and that cannot always be verified. Data on this site are updated daily, adding new incidents and updating existing data with information gathered through the investigative process.

This dynamic nature of crime data means that content provided here today will probably differ from content provided a week from now. Additional, content provided on this site may differ somewhat from crime statistics published elsewhere by other media outlets, even though they draw from the same database.

Withheld Data

In accordance with legal restrictions against identifying sexual assault and child abuse victims and juvenile perpetrators, victims, and witnesses of certain crimes, this site includes the following precautionary measures: (a) Addresses of sexual assaults are not included. (b) Child abuse cases, and other crimes which by their nature involve juveniles, or which the reports indicate involve juveniles as victims, suspects, or witnesses, are not reported at all.

Certain crimes that are under current investigation may be omitted from the results in avoid comprising the investigative process.

Incidents five days old or newer may not be included until the internal audit process has been completed.

This data is updated daily.

The Sheriff's Office provides an online mapping and analysis service that combines the value of law enforcement data with the ease of use of Google-based mapping and an analytics module so that members of the public can view police data in a high-impact map or summary descriptive format.

The online mapping tool allows residents to view information about crimes relevant to their community.

View daily crime reports and significant incident reports.

A log of dataset alerts open, monitored or resolved on the open data portal. Alerts can include issues as well as deprecation or discontinuation notices.

This table contains figures on property, vandalism and public order and violent crimes registered by the police. In addition to absolute numbers, the numbers per 1000 inhabitants of some types of crime are also included. The figures are broken down by municipality, district and neighbourhood. Crimes for which the crime scene cannot be attributed to a neighborhood are not included in this table. Data available on: 2018 Status of the figures: The figures are final. Changes as of February 18, 2021: None, this table has been discontinued. When will new numbers come out? Not applicable anymore. Crime figures per neighborhood can be found on the police data portal. See section 3.

Incidents based on initial police reports taken by officers when responding to calls for service. Data is modified for public use. Address and Location are not exact locations of incidents and have been rounded to nearest hundred block. Lat/Long are approximations only based on rounded hundred block. Incidents reported in this dataset may not correlate with 911 Events datasets and calls for Police service.

The City of Mesa does not disclose information that is inflammatory in nature that impacts our citizens. Crimes reported in this data set have not been adjudicated in a court of law for final determination.

Although sensitive crimes are included, the approximate address are NOT included. Therefore aggregate totals of crimes are accurate, without providing sensitive information. Addresses are not included for: sexual abuse, sexual assault, suicide, incest, molestation of a child or homicide.

Similar information is also provided through the Communitycrimemap.com website, a 3rd party service that visually reviews crime data for Mesa and outlining areas.

Some of the data fields provided are used to report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For a listing of data fields and description please see their UCR Program Data Collections page. Alternatively, please see the Bureau of Justice Statistics NIBRS website for a listing of data fields.

In an effort to measure the effectiveness of crime deterrents and to estimate crime rates, calls for assistance placed to police in Oklahoma City over a two-year period were enumerated. This type of call was studied in order to circumvent problems such as "interviewer's effect" and sampling errors that occur with other methods. The telephone calls were stratified by police district, allowing for analysis on the neighborhood level to determine whether deterrence operates ecologically--that is, by neighbors informing one another about arrests which took place as a result of their calls to the police. In measuring deterrence, only the calls that concerned robbery were used. To estimate crime rates, calls were tallied on a monthly basis for 18 types of offenses: aggravated assault, robbery, rape, burglary, grand larceny, motor vehicle theft, simple assault, fraud, child molestation, other sex offenses, domestic disturbance, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, vice and drugs, petty larceny, shoplifting, kidnapping/hostage taking, and suspicious activity.

This data represents crime reported to the Seattle Police Department (SPD). Each row contains the record of a unique event where at least one criminal offense was reported by a member of the community or detected by an officer in the field. This data is the same data used in meetings such as SeaStat (https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/seastat) for strategic planning, accountability and performance management.

These data contain offenses and offense categorization coded to simulate the standard reported to the FBI under the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and used to generate Uniform Crime Report (UCR) summary statistics. As these records evolve, daily and are continually refreshed, they will not match official UCR statistics. They represent a more accurate state of the record.

Previous versions of this data set have withheld approximately 40% of crimes. This updated process includes all records of crime reports logged in the Departments Records Management System (RMS) since 2008, which are tracked as part of the SeaStat process. In an effort to safeguard the privacy of our community, offense reports will only be located to the “beat” level. Location specific coordinates will no longer be provided.

Beats are the most granular unit of management used for patrol deployment. To learn more about patrol deployment, please visit: https://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/about-policing/precinct-and-patrol-boundaries. In addition to the Departments patrol deployment areas, these data contain the “Neighborhood” where the crime occurred, if available. This coding is used to align crime data with the Micro Community Policing Plan (MCPP). For more information see: https://www.seattle.gov/police/community-policing/about-mcpp.

As with any data, certain condition and qualifications apply: 1) These data are refreshed, daily and represent the most accurate, evolved state of the record.

2) Due to quality control processes, these data will lag between 2 and 6 weeks. Most changes will occur within that record and reports logged in the last 2 weeks should be treated as volatile. Analysts may wish to remove these records from their analysis.

3) Not all offenses are reported here, only the primary offense as determined by the “Hierarchy Rule.” For more information on NIBRS and UCR, see the FBI (https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs-overview).

4) This dataset contains records of offenses that occurred prior to “go-live” of the existing RMS. Records are queried based on the full population of data and are not constrained by “Occurred Date.”

We invite you to engage these data, ask questions and explore.

These data were collected in Oakland, California, and Birmingham, Alabama, to examine the effectiveness of alternative drug enforcement strategies. A further objective was to compare the relative effectiveness of strategies drawn from professional- versus community-oriented models of policing. The professional model emphasizes police responsibility for crime control, whereas the community model stresses the importance of a police-citizen partnership in crime control. At each site, experimental treatments were applied to selected police beats. The Oakland Police Department implemented a high-visibility enforcement effort consisting of undercover buy-bust operations, aggressive patrols, and motor vehicle stops, while the Birmingham Police Department engaged in somewhat less visible buy-busts and sting operations. Both departments attempted a community-oriented approach involving door-to-door contacts with residents. In Oakland, four beats were studied: one beat used a special drug enforcement unit, another used a door-to-door community policing strategy, a third used a combination of these approaches, and the fourth beat served as a control group. In Birmingham, three beats were chosen: Drug enforcement was conducted by the narcotics unit in one beat, door-to-door policing, as in Oakland, was used in another beat, and a police substation was established in the third beat. To evaluate the effectiveness of these alternative strategies, data were collected from three sources. First, a panel survey was administered in two waves on a pre-test/post-test basis. The panel survey data addressed the ways in which citizens' perceptions of drug activity, crime problems, neighborhood safety, and police service were affected by the various policing strategies. Second, structured observations of police and citizen encounters were made in Oakland during the periods the treatments were in effect. Observers trained by the researchers recorded information regarding the roles and behaviors of police and citizens as well as police compliance with the experiment's procedures. And third, to assess the impact of the alternative strategies on crime rates, reported crime data were collected for time periods before and during the experimental treatment periods, both in the targeted beats and city-wide.

Established in 1994, Project ROAR (Reclaiming Our Area Residences) is a public housing drug-crime elimination program sponsored by the Spokane Police Department and the Spokane Housing Authority. This study was undertaken to examine and evaluate the effects and outcomes of Project ROAR as it was implemented in the Parsons' Public Housing Complex, located in downtown Spokane, Washington. In addition, the study sought to determine to what extent the project as implemented reflected Project ROAR as originally conceived, and whether Project ROAR could be considered a comprehensive community policing crime prevention program. Further, the study attempted to determine what effects this collaborative anti-crime program might have on: (1) residents' perceptions of the quality of their neighborhood life, including perceptions of neighborhood inhabitants, satisfaction with their neighborhood, fear of crime, and neighborhood physical and social disorder, (2) objective measures of physical and social disorder, (3) levels of neighborhood crime, and (4) subjective perceptions of the level and quality of policing services. To assess the implementation and short-term impacts of Project ROAR, data were collected from various sources. First, four waves of face-to-face interviews were conducted with Parsons' Public Housing residents at approximately six-month intervals: April 1994, December 1994, May 1995, and November 1995 (Part 1, Public Housing Residents Survey Data). Information collected from interviews with the Parsons' residents focused on their involvement with Project ROAR, community block watches, and tenant councils. Residents commented on whether there had been any changes in the level of police presence, drug-related crimes, prostitution, or any other physical or social changes in their neighborhood since the inception of Project ROAR. Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the housing complex, the neighborhood, the Spokane Police Department, the number of police present in the neighborhood, and the level of police service. Residents were also asked if they had been the victim of any crimes and to rate their level of fear of crime in the complex during the day and night, pre- and post-Project ROAR. The gender and age of each survey participant was also recorded. The second source of data was a city-wide survey mailed to the residents of Spokane (Part 2, Spokane Citizens Survey Data). Information collected from the survey includes demographics on ethnicity, gender, age, highest level of education, present occupation, and family income. The city residents were also asked to assess the level of police service, the number of police present in their neighborhood, the helpfulness of neighbors, whether they felt safe alone in their neighborhood, and overall satisfaction with their neighborhood. Third, a block-level physical and social disorder inventory was taken in April 1994, October 1994, April 1994, and October 1995 (Part 3, Neighborhood Inventory Data). The sex, age, and behavior of the first ten people observed during the inventory period were recorded, as well as the number of people observed loitering. Other observations made included the number of panhandlers, prostitutes, open drug sales, and displays of public drunkenness. The number of residential and commercial properties, restaurants, bars, office buildings, empty lots, unboarded and boarded abandoned buildings, potholes, barriers (walls or fences), abandoned cars, and for-sale signs, along with the amount of graffiti on public and private properties and the amount of litter and broken glass observed in each neighborhood, completed the inventory data. Finally, crime reports were collected from the Spokane Police Department's Crime Analysis Unit (Part 4, Disaggregated Crime Data, and Part 5, Aggregated Crime Data). These data contain monthly counts of robberies and burglaries for the public housing neighborhood, a constructed controlled comparison neighborhood, and the city of Spokane for the period January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1995.