The violent crime rate in Pennsylvania increased by 27.3 percent from 2019 to 2020. Nevertheless, average violent crime rate in the United States in 2020 only increased by 4.6 percent from the previous year.

This study examined spatial and temporal features of crime guns in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in order to ascertain how gun availability affected criminal behavior among youth, whether the effects differed between young adults and juveniles, and whether that relationship changed over time. Rather than investigating the general prevalence of guns, this study focused only on those firearms used in the commission of crimes. Crime guns were defined specifically as those used in murders, assaults, robberies, weapons offenses, and drug offenses. The emphasis of the project was on the attributes of crime guns and those who possess them, the geographic sources of those guns, the distribution of crime guns over neighborhoods in a city, and the relationship between the prevalence of crime guns and the incidence of homicide. Data for Part 1, Traced Guns Data, came from the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Gun trace data provided a detailed view of crime guns recovered by police during a two-year period, from 1995 to 1997. These data identified the original source of each crime gun (first sale to a non-FFL, i.e., a person not holding a Federal Firearms License) as well as attributes of the gun and the person possessing the gun at the time of the precipitating crime, and the ZIP-code location where the gun was recovered. For Part 2, Crime Laboratory Data, data were gathered from the local county crime laboratory on guns submitted by Pittsburgh police for forensic testing. These data were from 1993 to 1998 and provided a longer time series for examining changes in crime guns over time than the data in Part 1. In Parts 3 and 4, Stolen Guns by ZIP-Code Data and Stolen Guns by Census Tract Data, data on stolen guns came from the local police. These data included the attributes of the guns and residential neighborhoods of owners. Part 3 contains data from 1987 to 1996 organized by ZIP code, whereas Part 4 contains data from 1993 to 1996 organized by census tract. Part 5, Shots Fired Data, contains the final indicator of crime gun prevalence for this study, which was 911 calls of incidents involving shots fired. These data provided vital information on both the geographic location and timing of these incidents. Shots-fired incidents not only captured varying levels of access to crime guns, but also variations in the willingness to actually use crime guns in a criminal manner. Part 6, Homicide Data, contains homicide data for the city of Pittsburgh from 1990 to 1995. These data were used to examine the relationship between varying levels of crime gun prevalence and levels of homicide, especially youth homicide, in the same city. Part 7, Pilot Mapping Application, is a pilot application illustrating the potential uses of mapping tools in police investigations of crime guns traced back to original point of sale. NTC. It consists of two ArcView 3.1 project files and 90 supporting data and mapping files. Variables in Part 1 include date of manufacture and sale of the crime gun, weapon type, gun model, caliber, firing mechanism, dealer location (ZIP code and state), recovery date and location (ZIP code and state), age and state of residence of purchaser and possessor, and possessor role. Part 2 also contains gun type and model, as well as gun make, precipitating offense, police zone submitting the gun, and year the gun was submitted to the crime lab. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 include month and year the gun was stolen, gun type, make, and caliber, and owner residence. Residence locations are limited to owner ZIP code in Part 3, and 1990 Census tract number and neighborhood name in Part 4. Part 5 contains the date, time, census tract and police zone of 911 calls relating to shots fired. Part 6 contains the date and census tract of the homicide incident, drug involvement, gang involvement, weapon, and victim and offender ages. Data in Part 7 include state, county, and ZIP code of traced guns, population figures, and counts of crime guns recovered at various geographic locations (states, counties, and ZIP codes) where the traced guns first originated in sales by an FFL to a non-FFL individual. Data for individual guns are not provided in Part 7.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Beaver County, PA was 3.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Beaver County, PA reached a record high of 19.00000 in January of 2004 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2010. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Beaver County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on May of 2025.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Washington County, PA was 5.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2020, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Washington County, PA reached a record high of 7.00000 in January of 2012 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2006. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Washington County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study was designed to investigate whether the presence of CCTV cameras can reduce crime by studying the cameras and crime statistics of a controlled area. The viewsheds of over 100 CCTV cameras within the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were defined and grouped into 13 clusters, and camera locations were digitally mapped. Crime data from 2003-2013 was collected from areas that were visible to the selected cameras, as well as data from control and displacement areas using an incident reporting database that records the location of crime events. Demographic information was also collected from the mapped areas, such as population density, household information, and data on the specific camera(s) in the area. This study also investigated the perception of CCTV cameras, and interviewed members of the public regarding topics such as what they thought the camera could see, who was watching the camera feed, and if they were concerned about being filmed.

Introduction

Each year schools in Pennsylvania are required to report weapons violations, substance abuse, cyber harassment, and other crimes committed during school, at school events, or on a bus (or waiting at a bus stop) to and from school.

The raw data can be found at www.safeschools.state.pa.us

Important: (LEA Types)

The rows in this Dataset include several "LEA Types" (Legal Entity Types): "School", "School District", "County"... etc. Please note that several Schools may fall under a single "School District", and there maybe several "School Districts" in a single county. Hence, if you include both "LEA Types", the counts could be off.

Key Pennsylvania Safe Schools Legislation

The Safe Schools Act of 1995 (Act 26) was amended in 1997 (Act 30) to mandate annual reporting of all incidents of violence, weapons, alcohol, drugs and tobacco possession to the Department of Education. Local education agencies also are required to develop a Memorandum of Understanding with local law enforcement agencies and provide for other procedural safeguards to enhance school safety. Another amendment to Act 26 (Act 36 of 1999) empowers schools to acquire the tools and resources needed to develop and enhance safe learning environments.

How this data was collected for Kaggle.

See the following gist.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Allegheny County, PA was 316.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2020, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Allegheny County, PA reached a record high of 692.00000 in January of 2004 and a record low of 3.00000 in January of 2019. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Allegheny County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

The Department of Justice launched Operation Weed and Seed in 1991 as a means of mobilizing a large and varied array of resources in a comprehensive, coordinated effort to control crime and drug problems and improve the quality of life in targeted high-crime neighborhoods. In the long term, Weed and Seed programs are intended to reduce levels of crime, violence, drug trafficking, and fear of crime, and to create new jobs, improve housing, enhance the quality of neighborhood life, and reduce alcohol and drug use. This baseline data collection effort is the initial step toward assessing the achievement of the long-term objectives. The evaluation was conducted using a quasi-experimental design, matching households in comparison neighborhoods with the Weed and Seed target neighborhoods. Comparison neighborhoods were chosen to match Weed and Seed target neighborhoods on the basis of crime rates, population demographics, housing characteristics, and size and density. Neighborhoods in eight sites were selected: Akron, OH, Bradenton (North Manatee), FL, Hartford, CT, Las Vegas, NV, Pittsburgh, PA, Salt Lake City, UT, Seattle, WA, and Shreveport, LA. The "neighborhood" in Hartford, CT, was actually a public housing development, which is part of the reason for the smaller number of interviews at this site. Baseline data collection tasks included the completion of in-person surveys with residents in the target and matched comparison neighborhoods, and the provision of guidance to the sites in the collection of important process data on a routine uniform basis. The survey questions can be broadly divided into these areas: (1) respondent demographics, (2) household size and income, (3) perceptions of the neighborhood, and (4) perceptions of city services. Questions addressed in the course of gathering the baseline data include: Are the target and comparison areas sufficiently well-matched that analytic contrasts between the areas over time are valid? Is there evidence that the survey measures are accurate and valid measures of the dependent variables of interest -- fear of crime, victimization, etc.? Are the sample sizes and response rates sufficient to provide ample statistical power for later analyses? Variables cover respondents' perceptions of the neighborhood, safety and observed security measures, police effectiveness, and city services, as well as their ratings of neighborhood crime, disorder, and other problems. Other items included respondents' experiences with victimization, calls/contacts with police and satisfaction with police response, and involvement in community meetings and events. Demographic information on respondents includes year of birth, gender, ethnicity, household income, and employment status.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study examines municipal crime levels and changes over a nine year time frame, from 2000-2008, in the fifth largest primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the United States, the Philadelphia metropolitan region. Crime levels and crime changes are linked to demographic features of jurisdictions, policing arrangements and coverage levels, and street and public transit network features.

Source:

Creator: Michael Redmond (redmond '@' lasalle.edu); Computer Science; La Salle University; Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA -- culled from 1990 US Census, 1995 US FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1990 US Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey, available from ICPSR at U of Michigan. -- Donor: Michael Redmond (redmond '@' lasalle.edu); Computer Science; La Salle University; Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA -- Date: July 2009

Data Set Information:

Many variables are included so that algorithms that select or learn weights for attributes could be tested. However, clearly unrelated attributes were not included; attributes were picked if there was any plausible connection to crime (N=122), plus the attribute to be predicted (Per Capita Violent Crimes). The variables included in the dataset involve the community, such as the percent of the population considered urban, and the median family income, and involving law enforcement, such as per capita number of police officers, and percent of officers assigned to drug units.

The per capita violent crimes variable was calculated using population and the sum of crime variables considered violent crimes in the United States: murder, rape, robbery, and assault. There was apparently some controversy in some states concerning the counting of rapes. These resulted in missing values for rape, which resulted in incorrect values for per capita violent crime. These cities are not included in the dataset. Many of these omitted communities were from the midwestern USA.

Data is described below based on original values. All numeric data was normalized into the decimal range 0.00-1.00 using an Unsupervised, equal-interval binning method. Attributes retain their distribution and skew (hence for example the population attribute has a mean value of 0.06 because most communities are small). E.g. An attribute described as 'mean people per household' is actually the normalized (0-1) version of that value.

The normalization preserves rough ratios of values WITHIN an attribute (e.g. double the value for double the population within the available precision - except for extreme values (all values more than 3 SD above the mean are normalized to 1.00; all values more than 3 SD below the mean are normalized to 0.00)).

However, the normalization does not preserve relationships between values BETWEEN attributes (e.g. it would not be meaningful to compare the value for whitePerCap with the value for blackPerCap for a community)

A limitation was that the LEMAS survey was of the police departments with at least 100 officers, plus a random sample of smaller departments. For our purposes, communities not found in both census and crime datasets were omitted. Many communities are missing LEMAS data.

Attribute Information:

'(125 predictive, 4 non-predictive, 18 potential goal) ', ' communityname: Community name - not predictive - for information only (string) ', ' state: US state (by 2 letter postal abbreviation)(nominal) ', ' countyCode: numeric code for county - not predictive, and many missing values (numeric) ', ' communityCode: numeric code for community - not predictive and many missing values (numeric) ', ' fold: fold number for non-random 10 fold cross validation, potentially useful for debugging, paired tests - not predictive (numeric - integer) ', ' population: population for community: (numeric - expected to be integer) ', ' householdsize: mean people per household (numeric - decimal) ', ' racepctblack: percentage of population that is african american (numeric - decimal) ', ' racePctWhite: percentage of population that is caucasian (numeric - decimal) ', ' racePctAsian: percentage of population that is of asian heritage (numeric - decimal) ', ' racePctHisp: percentage of population that is of hispanic heritage (numeric - decimal) ', ' agePct12t21: percentage of population that is 12-21 in age (numeric - decimal) ', ' agePct12t29: percentage of population that is 12-29 in age (numeric - decimal) ', ' agePct16t24: percentage of population that is 16-24 in age (numeric - decimal) ', ' agePct65up: percentage of population that is 65 and over in age (numeric - decimal) ', ' numbUrban: number of people living in areas classified as urban (numeric - expected to be integer) ', ' pctUrban: percentage of people living in areas classified as urban (numeric - decimal) ', ' medIncome: median household income (numeric - may be integer) ', ' pctWWage: percentage of households with wage or salary income in 1989 (numeric - decimal) ', ' pctWFarmSelf: percentage of households with farm or self employment income in 1989 (numeric - decimal) ', ' pctWInvInc: percentage of households with investment / rent income in 1989 (numeric - decimal) ', ' pctWSocSec: percentage of households with social security income in 1989 (numeric - decimal) ', ' pctWPubAsst: pe...

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Cumberland County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Cumberland County, PA reached a record high of 1.00000 in January of 2005 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2006. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Cumberland County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

In 2023, law enforcement officers committed 303 justifiable homicides in the United States. A justifiable homicide is defined as the killing of a felon during the commission of a felony. What is homicide? Homicide occurs when one person kills another; however it is not exactly the same as murder. It may or may not be considered criminal. Legal examples include a person killing an intruder in their home or capital punishment. There are different types of homicide, which includes murder and manslaughter. Homicide trends in the United States As of 2023, California had the highest number of homicides, followed by Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. That same year, murders with one victim and one offender were the most common in the United States. Overall, the United States has had a much higher rate of homicide in the past years when compared to their neighbor, Canada.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Snyder County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2019, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Snyder County, PA reached a record high of 3.00000 in January of 2008 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2005. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Snyder County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on May of 2025.

This data ceased updating with the transition to a new records management system on 11/14/2023. Access to the updated data set has been added as of April 11, 2025 here: Crime Data Guide.

Panama PA: Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data was reported at 17.103 Ratio in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 19.992 Ratio for 2015. Panama PA: Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data is updated yearly, averaging 19.992 Ratio from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2016, with 17 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 31.834 Ratio in 2012 and a record low of 11.838 Ratio in 2006. Panama PA: Intentional Homicides: Male: per 100,000 Male data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Panama – Table PA.World Bank: Health Statistics. Intentional homicides, male are estimates of unlawful male homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.; ; UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database.; ;

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Union County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Union County, PA reached a record high of 1.00000 in January of 2005 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2011. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Union County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on May of 2025.

PA: Intentional Homicides: per 100,000 People data was reported at 11.400 Ratio in 2015. This records a decrease from the previous number of 14.700 Ratio for 2014. PA: Intentional Homicides: per 100,000 People data is updated yearly, averaging 11.400 Ratio from Dec 1995 (Median) to 2015, with 21 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 23.000 Ratio in 2009 and a record low of 9.079 Ratio in 1996. PA: Intentional Homicides: per 100,000 People data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Panama – Table PA.World Bank: Health Statistics. Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.; ; UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database.; Weighted average;

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Clarion County, PA was 1.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Clarion County, PA reached a record high of 4.00000 in January of 2008 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2005. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Clarion County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Westmoreland County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Westmoreland County, PA reached a record high of 2.00000 in January of 2014 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2011. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Westmoreland County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.

Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Centre County, PA was 0.00000 Known Incidents in January of 2018, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Centre County, PA reached a record high of 7.00000 in January of 2005 and a record low of 0.00000 in January of 2011. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Centre County, PA - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on June of 2025.