A CSV file which is updated daily by 11am and includes crime incidents from November 1st, 2015 forward through September 2, 2025*. Homicides, rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, thefts, motor vehicle thefts, arsons, and drug offenses are included (based on the primary offense listed for each incident).

*Note: We want to inform our users that updates to this dataset is currently unavailable from September 3, 2025, forward. The city is actively working with our partners to restore regular data publishing and is committed to resuming daily updates as soon as possible. We appreciate your patience and understanding during this time. Our goal is to ensure the accuracy, consistency, and timeliness of the data we provide. Please check back for updates and thank you for your continued interest in open data.

The purpose of the study was to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the Homicide Clearance Project in the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. The primary objective of the Homicide Clearance Project was to improve homicide clearance rates by increasing investigative time through the transfer of four crime scene specialists to the homicide unit. In 2004, the Phoenix Police Department received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance providing support for the assignment of four crime scene specialists directly to the department's Homicide Unit. Responsibilities of the crime scene specialists were to collect evidence at homicide scenes, prepare scene reports, develop scene diagrams, and other supportive activities. Prior to the project, homicide investigators were responsible for evidence collection, which reduced the time they could devote to investigations. The crime scene specialists were assigned to two of the four investigative squads within the homicide unit. This organizational arrangement provided for a performance evaluation of the squads with crime scene specialists (experimental squads) against the performance of the other squads (comparison squads). During the course of the evaluation, research staff coded information from all homicides that occurred during the 12-month period prior to the transfers (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004), referred to as the baseline period, the 2-month training period (July 1, 2004 - August 31, 2004), and a 10-month test period (September 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). Data were collected on 404 homicide cases (Part 1), 532 homicide victims and survivors (Part 2), and 3,338 records of evidence collected at homicide scenes (Part 3). The two primary sources of information for the evaluation were investigative reports from the department's records management system, called the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) system, and crime laboratory reports from the crime laboratory's Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 each contain variables that measure squad type, time period, and whether six general categories of evidence were collected. Part 1 contains a total of 18 variables including number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, number of crime scene specialists at the scene, number of investigators collecting evidence at the scene, total number of evidence collectors, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, and whether the case was open or closed by arrest. Part 2 contains a total of 37 variables including victim characteristics and motives. Other variables in Part 2 include an instrumental/expressive homicide indicator, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, whether the case was open or closed by arrest, number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, and investigative time to closure. Part 3 contains a total of 46 variables including primary/secondary scene indicator, scene type, number of pieces of evidence, total time at the scene, and number of photos taken. Part 3 also includes variables that measure whether 16 specific types of evidence were found and the number of items of evidence that were collected for 13 specific evidence types.

This map displays the boundary of Police Grid area with a label identifying the number of the grid. Labeling only occurs to the 50,000 scale level.

This study investigates rates of serious crime for selected public housing developments in Washington, DC, Phoenix, Arizona, and Los Angeles, California, for the years 1986 to 1989. Offense rates in housing developments were compared to rates in nearby areas of private housing as well as to city-wide rates. In addition, the extent of law enforcement activity in housing developments as represented by arrests was considered and compared to arrest levels in other areas. This process allowed both intra-city and inter-city comparisons to be made. Variables cover study site, origin of data, year of event, offense codes, and location of event. Los Angeles files also include police division.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Maricopa County, AZ (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC004013) from 2004 to 2017 about Maricopa County, AZ; crime; violent crime; property crime; Phoenix; AZ; and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Pinal County, AZ (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC004021) from 2004 to 2021 about Pinal County, AZ; crime; violent crime; property crime; Phoenix; AZ; and USA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a Repeat Offender Unit in Phoenix. Repeat Offender Programs are police-initiated procedures for patrolling and apprehending likely offenders in communities. These units typically rely on the cooperation of police and prosecutors who work together to identify, convict, and incarcerate individuals who are judged likely to commit crimes, especially serious crimes, at high rates. For this study, previous offenders were assigned either to a control or an experimental group. If an individual assigned to the experimental group was later arrested, the case received special attention by the Repeat Offender Program. Staff of the Repeat Offender Program worked closely with the county attorney's office to thoroughly document the case and to obtain victim and witness cooperation. If the individual was in the control group and was later arrested, no additional action was taken by the Program staff. Variables include assignment to the experimental or control group, jail status, probation and parole status, custody status, number of felony arrests, type of case, bond amount, number of counts against the individual, type of counts against the individual, number of prior convictions, arresting agency, case outcome, type of incarceration imposed, and length of incarceration imposed.

The purpose of the project was to learn more about patterns of homicide in the United States by strengthening the ability to make imputations for Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data with missing values. Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and local police data from Chicago, Illinois, St. Louis, Missouri, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Phoenix, Arizona, for 1990 to 1995 were merged to create a master file by linking on overlapping information on victim and incident characteristics. Through this process, 96 percent of the cases in the SHR were matched with cases in the police files. The data contain variables for three types of cases: complete in SHR, missing offender and incident information in SHR but known in police report, and missing offender and incident information in both. The merged file allows estimation of similarities and differences between the cases with known offender characteristics in the SHR and those in the other two categories. The accuracy of existing data imputation methods can be assessed by comparing imputed values in an "incomplete" dataset (the SHR), generated by the three imputation strategies discussed in the literature, with the actual values in a known "complete" dataset (combined SHR and police data). Variables from both the Supplemental Homicide Reports and the additional police report offense data include incident date, victim characteristics, offender characteristics, incident details, geographic information, as well as variables regarding the matching procedure.