***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.

Effective March 7, 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) implemented a new Records Management System aligning with the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) requirements. This switch, part of a nationwide mandate, enhances the granularity and specificity of crime data. You can learn more about NIBRS on the FBI's website here: https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/ucr/nibrs NIBRS is more comprehensive than the previous Summary Reporting System (SRS) used in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Unlike SRS, which grouped crimes into general categories, NIBRS collects detailed information for each incident, including multiple offenses, offenders, and victims when applicable. This detail-rich format may give the impression of increased crime levels due to its broader capture of criminal activity, but it actually provides a more accurate and nuanced view of crime in our community. This change sets a new baseline for crime reporting, reflecting incidents in the City of Los Angeles starting from March 7, 2024. NIBRS collects detailed information about each victim per incident, including victim- demographics information and specific crime details, providing more insight into affected individuals within each reported crime.

This dataset reflects incidents of crime in the City of Los Angeles from 2010 - 2019. 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, curated by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), provides detailed records of crime incidents reported across Los Angeles from 2020 to 2023. It reflects the LAPD’s commitment to transparency and public safety, offering insights into crime trends, enforcement actions, and neighborhood-specific challenges. The data serves as a critical resource for researchers, policymakers, and residents to understand urban safety dynamics.

🔗 Source

Directly sourced from the LAPD’s Public Data Portal on Data.gov.

💡 Inspiration

Public Accountability: Empower communities to track crime trends in their neighborhoods.

Policy & Prevention: Aid law enforcement and city planners in resource allocation and hotspot intervention.

Research: Enable academics to study socio-economic factors, seasonal patterns, and the impact of policing strategies.

🔍 Key Attributes

Temporal: Incident date/time (DATE OCC), report date (Date Rptd).

Geospatial: Latitude/longitude 🌐, cross streets, police precinct (AREA NAME).

Crime Details: Type (Crm Cd Desc), weapon used 🔫, premise (e.g., street, store 🏪).

Victim Data: Age, gender ♀️♂️, descent.

Case Status: Arrests 🚨, investigations 🕵️, court outcomes ⚖️.

As of 2020, there were ****** violent crimes reported in Los Angeles by the Los Angeles Police Department. Within the provided time period, the highest number of robberies was reported in 2017, at ******.

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

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.

This dataset reflects calls for service incidents in the City of Los Angeles from 2024 to the present. It is as accurate as the database data. Please note questions or concerns in the comments.

This study used a mixed-methods approach to pursue five interrelated objectives: (1) to document the extent of case attrition and to identify the stages of the criminal justice process where attrition is most likely to occur; (2) to identify the case complexities and evidentiary factors that affect the likelihood of attrition in sexual assault cases; (3) to identify the predictors of case outcomes in sexual assault cases; (4) to provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors that lead police to unfound the charges in sexual assault cases; and (5) to identify the situations in which sexual assault cases are being cleared by exceptional means. Toward this end, three primary data sources were used: (1) quantitative data on the outcomes of sexual assaults reported to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) from 2005 to 2009, (2) qualitative data from interviews with detectives and with deputy district attorneys with the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office who handled sexual assault cases during this time period, and (3) detailed quantitative and qualitative data from case files for a sample of cases reported to the two agencies in 2008. The complete case files for sexual assaults that were reported to the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 2008 were obtained by members of the research team and very detailed information (quantitative and qualitative data) was extracted from the files on each case in Dataset 1 (Case Outcomes and Characteristics: Reports from 2008). The case file included the crime report prepared by the patrol officer who responded to the crime and took the initial report from the complainant, all follow-up reports prepared by the detective to whom the case was assigned for investigation, and the detective's reasons for unfounding the report or for clearing the case by arrest or by exceptional means. The case files also included either verbatim accounts or summaries of statements made by the complainant, by witnesses (if any), and by the suspect (if the suspect was interviewed); a description of physical evidence recovered from the alleged crime scene, and the results of the physical exam (Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam) of the victim (if the victim reported the crime within 72 hours of the alleged assault). Members of the research team read through each case file and recorded data in an SPSS data file. There are 650 cases and 261 variables in the data file. The variables in the data file include administrative police information and charges listed on the police report. There is also information related to the victim, the suspect, and the case. Datasets 2-5 were obtained from the district attorney's office and contain outcome data that resulted in the arrest of a suspect. The outcome data obtained from the agency was for the following sex crimes: rape, attempted rape, sexual penetration with a foreign object, oral copulation, sodomy, unlawful sex, and sexual battery. Dataset 3 (Sexual Assault Case Attrition: 2005 to 2009, Los Angeles Police Department - Adult Arrests) is a subset of Dataset 2 (Sexual Assault Case Attrition: 2005 to 2009, Los Angeles Police Department - All Cases) in that it only contains cases that resulted in the arrest of at least one adult suspect. Dataset 2 (Sexual Assault Case Attrition: 2005 to 2009, Los Angeles Police Department - All Cases) contains 10,832 cases and 29 variables. Dataset 3 (Sexual Assault Case Attrition: 2005 to 2009, Los Angeles Police Department - Adult Arrests) contains 891 cases and 45 variables. Similarly, Dataset 5 (Sexual Assault Case Attrition: 2005 to 2009, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - Adult Arrests) is a subset of Dataset 4 (Sexual Assault Case Attrition: 2005 to 2009, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - All Cases) in that it only contains cases that resulted in the arrest of at least one adult suspect. Dataset 4 (Sexual Assault Case Attrition: 2005 to 2009, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - All Cases) contains 3,309 cases and 33 variables. Dataset 5 (Sexual Assault Case Attrition: 2005 to 2009, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department - Adult Arrests) contains 904 cases and 47 variables.

As of 2020, there were 13,773 burglaries reported in Los Angeles by the Los Angeles Police Department. Within the provided time period, the greatest number of burglaries in Los Angeles were in 2010, with 17,410 reported.

This dataset reflects arrest incidents in the City of Los Angeles dating back to 2010. 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.

This dataset reflects arrest incidents in the City of Los Angeles dating back to 2010. 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 purpose of this pilot project was to determine if preliminary investigation report (PIR) data filed by patrol officers could be collected via laptop computers to allow the direct input of the data into the Los Angeles Police Department Crime and Arrest Database without adversely affecting the personnel taking or using the reports. This data collection addresses the following questions: (1) Did officers and supervisors prefer the automated reporting system (ARS) or the handwritten version of the PIR? (2) Did the ARS affect the job satisfaction or morale of officers and supervisors? (3) Did the ARS reduce the amount of time that patrol officers, supervisors, and clerks spent on paperwork? (4) Did the ARS affect the accuracy of information contained in the PIRs? (5) Did detectives and prosecuting attorneys find the ARS a more reliable source than handwritten PIRs? Officers and supervisors in two divisions of the Los Angeles Police Department, Wilshire and Hollywood, participated as control and experimental groups. The control group continued using handwritten ("existing") PIRs while the experimental group used the automated PIRs (ARS). The General Information Questionnaire collected information on each officer's rank, assignment, watch, gender, age, years with the Los Angeles Police Department, education, job morale, job demands, self-esteem, computer anxiety, and relationship with supervisor and other officers. The Job Performance Rating Form gathered data on work efforts, depth of job knowledge, work quality, oral and written skills, and capacity to learn. The Time Study Sheets collected data on investigation time, writing and editing time, travel time, approval and correction time, review time, errors by type, and data input time for both the handwritten and automated forms. The Evaluation of the Existing Form and the Evaluation of the Automated Form both queried respondents on ease of use, system satisfaction, and productivity loss. The ARS Use Questionnaire asked about ease of use, typing skills, computer skills, comfort with the system, satisfaction with training, and preference for the system. The Hollywood Detective Division ARS Use Questionnaire surveyed detectives on the system's ease of use, task improvement, support for continued use, and preference for the system. The PIR Content Evaluation Form collected data on quality of officers' observations, organization and writing skills, physical evidence, statements of victims, witnesses, and suspects, and offense classification. The Caplan Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity subscales were used in the design of the questionnaires.

This research sought to evaluate the implementation of body worn cameras (BWCs) in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Researchers employed three strategies to evaluate the impact of BWCs in the department: 1) two-wave officer surveys about BWCs, 2) two-wave Systematic Social Observations (SSOs) of citizen interactions from officer ride-alongs, and 3) a time series analysis of existing LAPD data of use of force and complaint data. The officer surveys were conducted in the Mission and Newton divisions of the LAPD before and after BWCs were implemented. The survey instrument was designed to measure perceptions of BWCs across a variety of domains and took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Researchers attended roll calls for all shifts and units to request officer participation and administered the surveys on tablets using the Qualtrics software. The pre-deployment survey was administered in both divisions August and September 2015. The post-deployment surveys were conducted with a subset of officers who participated in the pre-deployment surveys during a two-week period in the summer of 2016, approximately nine months following the initial rollout of BWCs. The SSO data was collected in the Mission and Newton divisions prior to and following BWC implementation. The pre-administration SSOs were conducted in August and September 2015 and the post-administration SSOs were conducted in June and August, 2016. Trained observers spent 725 hours riding with and collecting observational data on the encounters between officers and citizens using tablets to perform field coding using Qualtrics software. A total of 124 rides (71 from Wave I and 53 from Wave II) were completed between both Newton and Mission Divisions. These observations included 514 encounters and involved coding the interactions of 1,022 citizens, 555 of which were deemed to be citizens who had full contact, which was defined as a minute or more of face-time or at least three verbal exchanges. Patrol officers (including special units) for ride-alongs were selected from a master list of officers scheduled to work each day and shift throughout the observation period. Up to five officers within each shift were randomly identified as potential participants for observation from this master list and observers would select the first available officer from this list. For each six-hour observation period, or approximately one-half of a shift, the research staff observed the interactions between the assigned officer, his or her partner, and any citizens he or she encountered. In Wave 2, SSOs were conducted with the same officers from Wave 1. The time series data were obtained from the LAPD use of force and complaint databases for each of the 21 separate patrol divisions, a metropolitan patrol division, and four traffic divisions of the LAPD. These data cover the time period where BWC were implemented throughout the LAPD on a staggered basis by division from 2015 to 2018. The LAPD operates using four-week deployment periods (DPs), and there are approximately 13 deployment periods per year. These data span the period of the beginning of 2012 through the 2017 DP 12. These data were aggregated to counts by deployment period based on the date of the originating incident. The LAPD collects detailed information about each application of force by an officer within an encounter. For this reason, separate use of force counts are based on incidents, officers, and use of force applications. Similarly, the LAPD also collects information on each allegation for each officer within a complaint and public complaint counts are based on incidents, officers, and allegations.

This dataset reflects arrest incidents in the City of Los Angeles from 2010 to 2019. 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.

This data displays LAPD Divisions.

This dataset provides the 21 LAPD community police station locations.

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.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Los Angeles Police Foundation

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Los Angeles Police Cadet Scholarship Foundation