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 data collection documents an evaluation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Regimented Inmate Diversion (RID) program conducted with male inmates who were participants in the program during September 1990-August 1991. The evaluation was designed to determine whether county-operated boot camp programs for male inmates were feasible and cost-effective. An evaluation design entailing both process and impact components was undertaken to fully assess the overall effects of the RID program on offenders and on the county jail system. The process component documented how the RID program actually operated in terms of its selection criteria, delivery of programs, length of participation, and program completion rates. Variables include demographic/criminal data (e.g., race, date of birth, arrest charge, bail and amount, sentence days, certificates acquired, marital status, employment status, income), historical state and county arrest data (e.g., date of crime, charge, disposition, probation time, jail time, type of crime), boot camp data (e.g., entry into and exit from boot camp, reason for exit, probation dates, living conditions, restitution order), drug history data (e.g., drug used, frequency, method), data on drug tests, and serious incidence data. The impact data were collected on measures of recidivism, program costs, institutional behavior, and RID's effect on jail crowding.

Created for the 2023-2025 State of Black Los Angeles County (SBLA) interactive report. To learn more about this effort, please visit the report home page at https://ceo.lacounty.gov/ardi/sbla/. For more information about the purpose of this data, please contact CEO-ARDI. For more information about the configuration of this data, please contact ISD-Enterprise GIS. table name indicator name Universe source race notes timeframe source url

traffic_stops Traffic stops Traffic violation stops; ORI CA019xxxx (LA County Law Enforcement Agencies) CA DOJ Race is perceived by officer; any one race is alone or in combination with another race 2019 Annual Download from LAC Open Data

perceived_neighborhood_safe_2018 Perceived Their Neighborhood to Be Safe from Crime Estimate (%) Adults (Ages 18 Years and Older) LAC Health Survey

2018 https://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/LACHSDataTopics2018.htm

jail_pop_per100k_2016jail_pop_per100k_2019jail_pop_per100k_2021 Jail population rate per 100k population Average daily number of people held in jail in a given year; population denominator is ages 15 - 64 Vera Institute

2016 2019 2021 https://github.com/vera-institute/incarceration-trends/blob/master/README.mdhttps://trends.vera.org/state/CA/county/los_angeles_county

prison_pop_per100k_2016 Prison population rate per 100k population Point in time count of people in prison on December 31 of a given year; population denominator is ages 15 - 64 Vera Institute

2016 https://github.com/vera-institute/incarceration-trends/blob/master/README.md

arrests_adult_felony Total Felony Arrests - Adult Los Angeles County Arrests CA DOJ The subjectivity of the classification and labeling process must be considered in the analysis of race/ethnic group data. 2017-2021 https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data

arrests_adult_misdemeanor Total Misdemeanor Arrests - Adult Los Angeles County Arrests CA DOJ The subjectivity of the classification and labeling process must be considered in the analysis of race/ethnic group data. 2017-2021 https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data

domestic_violencedv_maledv_female Percent of Adults (Ages 18 Years and Older) Who Reported Ever Experiencing Physical and/or Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner.
Adults/td> Los Angeles County Health Survey Overall and broken down by gender 2018 https://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/HA_DATA_TRENDS.htm

This collection presents survey data from 12 cities in the United States regarding criminal victimization, perceptions of community safety, and satisfaction with local police. Participating cities included Chicago, IL, Kansas City, MO, Knoxville, TN, Los Angeles, CA, Madison, WI, New York, NY, San Diego, CA, Savannah, GA, Spokane, WA, Springfield, MA, Tucson, AZ, and Washington, DC. The survey used the current National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with a series of supplemental questions measuring the attitudes in each city. Respondents were asked about incidents that occurred within the past 12 months. Information on the following crimes was collected: violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, personal crimes of theft, and household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Part 1, Household-Level Data, covers the number of household respondents, their ages, type of housing, size of residence, number of telephone lines and numbers, and language spoken in the household. Part 2, Person-Level Data, includes information on respondents' sex, relationship to householder, age, marital status, education, race, time spent in the housing unit, personal crime and victimization experiences, perceptions of neighborhood crime, job and professional demographics, and experience and satisfaction with local police. Variables in Part 3, Incident-Level Data, concern the details of crimes in which the respondents were involved, and the police response to the crimes.

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

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

There has been little research on United States homicide rates from a long-term perspective, primarily because there has been no consistent data series on a particular place preceding the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which began its first full year in 1931. To fill this research gap, this project created a data series on homicides per capita for New York City that spans two centuries. The goal was to create a site-specific, individual-based data series that could be used to examine major social shifts related to homicide, such as mass immigration, urban growth, war, demographic changes, and changes in laws. Data were also gathered on various other sites, particularly in England, to allow for comparisons on important issues, such as the post-World War II wave of violence. The basic approach to the data collection was to obtain the best possible estimate of annual counts and the most complete information on individual homicides. The annual count data (Parts 1 and 3) were derived from multiple sources, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports and Supplementary Homicide Reports, as well as other official counts from the New York City Police Department and the City Inspector in the early 19th century. The data include a combined count of murder and manslaughter because charge bargaining often blurs this legal distinction. The individual-level data (Part 2) were drawn from coroners' indictments held by the New York City Municipal Archives, and from daily newspapers. Duplication was avoided by keeping a record for each victim. The estimation technique known as "capture-recapture" was used to estimate homicides not listed in either source. Part 1 variables include counts of New York City homicides, arrests, and convictions, as well as the homicide rate, race or ethnicity and gender of victims, type of weapon used, and source of data. Part 2 includes the date of the murder, the age, sex, and race of the offender and victim, and whether the case led to an arrest, trial, conviction, execution, or pardon. Part 3 contains annual homicide counts and rates for various comparison sites including Liverpool, London, Kent, Canada, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco.

The objective of this study was to examine the observable offending patterns of recent and past drug offenders to assess the crime control potential associated with recent increases in the incarceration of drug offenders. The periods examined were 1986 (representing the second half of the 1980s, when dramatic shifts toward increasing incarceration of drug offenders first became evident), and 1990 (after escalating sentences were well under way). Convicted offenders were the focus, since these cases are most directly affected by changes in imprisonment policies, particularly provisions for mandatory prison terms. Offending patterns of convicted and imprisoned drug offenders were contrasted to patterns of convicted robbers and burglars, both in and out of prison. The researchers used data from the National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), for information on the court processing of individual felony convictions. The National Association of Criminal Justice Planners (NACJP), which maintains data for the approximately 50 counties included in the NJRP, was contracted to determine the counties to be sampled (Los Angeles County and Maricopa County in Arizona were chosen) and to provide individual criminal histories. Variables include number of arrests for robbery, violent crimes, property crimes, and other felonies, number of drug arrests, number of misdemeanor arrests, rate of violent, property, robbery, weapons, other felony, drug, and misdemeanor arrests, offense type (drug trafficking, drug possession, robbery, and burglary), total number of incarcerations, total number of convictions, whether sentenced to prison, jail, or probation, incarceration sentence in months, sex, race, and age at sampled conviction, and age at first arrest (starting at age 17).