This dataset contains Phoenix Police Department officer demographics as of January 1st of each year starting in 2018. All ranks of sworn employees are included.

Provide your feedback!

Help us improve this site and complete the Open Data Customer Survey.

In 2020, **** percent of full-time sworn officers in local police departments in the United States identified as white males, followed by **** percent of officers who identified as Hispanic males.

Data on police personnel (police officers by gender, civilian and other personnel), police officers and authorized strength per 100,000 population, authorized police officer strength, population, net gain or loss from hirings and departures, police officers eligible to retire and selected crime statistics. Data is provided for municipal police services, 2000 to 2023.

How many police officers are there in the U.S.? In 2023, there were 720,652 full-time law enforcement officers employed in the United States, an increase from 708,001 the previous year. Within the provided time period, the number of full-time law enforcement officers was lowest in 2013, with 626,942 officers. Employment in law enforcement According to the source, law enforcement officers are defined as those individuals who regularly carry a firearm and an official badge on their person, have full powers of arrest, and whose salaries are paid from federal funds set aside specifically for sworn law enforcement. Law enforcement, particularly when it comes to officers, is a male-dominated field. Law enforcement employees can either be officers or civilians, and federal law enforcement agencies cover a wide area of jurisdictions -- from the National Park Service to the FBI.
Police in the United States The police in the United States have come under fire over the past few years for accusations of use of unnecessary force and for the number of people who are shot to death by police in the U.S. Police officers in the United States are regularly armed, and in comparison, 19 countries, including Iceland, New Zealand, and Ireland, do not regularly arm their police forces.

This data collection was undertaken to gather information on the extent of police officers' knowledge of search and seizure law, an issue with important consequences for law enforcement. A specially-produced videotape depicting line duty situations that uniformed police officers frequently encounter was viewed by 478 line uniformed police officers from 52 randomly-selected cities in which search and seizure laws were determined to be no more restrictive than applicable United States Supreme Court decisions. Testing of the police officers occurred in all regions as established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, except for the Pacific region (California, Oregon, and Washington), since search and seizure laws in these states are, in some instances, more restrictive than United States Supreme Court decisions. No testing occurred in cities with populations under 10,000 because of budget limitations. Fourteen questions to which the officers responded were presented in the videotape. Each police officer also completed a questionnaire that included questions on demographics, training, and work experience, covering their age, sex, race, shift worked, years of police experience, education, training on search and seizure law, effectiveness of various types of training instructors and methods, how easily they could obtain advice about search and seizure questions they encountered, and court outcomes of search and seizure cases in which they were involved. Police department representatives completed a separate questionnaire providing department characteristics and information on search and seizure training and procedures, such as the number of sworn officers, existence of general training and the number of hours required, existence of in-service search and seizure training and the number of hours and testing required, existence of policies and procedures on search and seizure, and means of advice available to officers about search and seizure questions. These data comprise Part 1. For purposes of comparison and interpretation of the police officer test scores, question responses were also obtained from other sources. Part 2 contains responses from 36 judges from states with search and seizure laws no more restrictive than the United States Supreme Court decisions, as well as responses from a demographic and work-experience questionnaire inquiring about their age, law school attendance, general judicial experience, and judicial experience and education specific to search and seizure laws. All geographic regions except New England and the Pacific were represented by the judges. Part 3, Comparison Data, contains answers to the 14 test questions only, from 15 elected district attorneys, 6 assistant district attorneys, the district attorney in another city and 11 of his assistant district attorneys, a police attorney with expertise in search and seizure law, 24 police academy trainees with no previous police work experience who were tested before search and seizure law training, a second group of 17 police academy trainees -- some with police work experience but no search and seizure law training, 55 law enforcement officer trainees from a third academy tested immediately after search and seizure training, 7 technical college students with no previous education or training on search and seizure law, and 27 university criminal justice course students, also with no search and seizure law education or training.

Data on police personnel (police officers by gender, civilian and other personnel), police-civilian ratio, police officers and authorized strength per 100,000 population, authorized police officer strength and selected crime statistics. Data is provided for Canada, provinces, territories and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) headquarters, training academy depot division and forensic labs, 1986 to 2023.

This set of raw data identifies race, sex, and age of all Bloomington Police Department employees, as well as lists the education of all sworn personnel.

In 2020, there was the full-time equivalent of ****** state and local police officers in the state of California. In that same year, there were ****** state and local police officers in the state of New York.

The Ferndale Police Department protects the rights and safety of all persons within its jurisdiction. In order to more effectively carry out our public safety function, we seek to reflect the diversity of the city within our department. As part of this commitment to diversity, the Ferndale Police Department is releasing an open data set of Officer Demographics so that citizens can better understand the makeup of the officers serving their community. It is our hope that increased transparency will help foster increased trust between officers and the citizens we serve.

This data contains information related to officer-initated stops by the City of Boulder Police Department. Information on the demographics of the person stopped (sex, race, ethnicity, year of birth, whether they are a Boulder resident) is included in this file. See the "Outcomes of Police Stops" dataset for more details on the outcome of the stop (stop location, duration, search, and result). This demographic data is collected at the stop level, and no individual-level identifiers are recorded in the system during a stop.The data published are limited to stops where the officer initiated, or had discretion, in making a stop. Instances where an officer is responding to a community or police call are considered non-discretionary, and demographics information is not collected for those stops and not included here. There are some instances of non-discretion within a stop interaction as well. For example, there may be instances where there is an outstanding felony warrant for the person stopped, and by law the officer must arrest that person.Please read the methodology and data dictionary documents for more information. The fields for this demographics dataset are referred to as the "Main" file in the data dictionary.

This table contains demographics information for employees of the Chapel Hill Police Department.

A. SUMMARY This dataset provides aggregated counts of victims and suspects involved in crimes that fall under San Francisco’s mandated crime reporting categories, as recorded by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). The data is sourced from Crime Data Warehouse (CDW), which has been in operation since January 1, 2013.

Because CDW was implemented on that date, data prior to 2013 is incomplete or unavailable. To protect the privacy and safety of vulnerable individuals, the dataset is aggregated and does not contain any personally identifiable information or individual case records. Crime categories are organized using:

• San Francisco’s 96A.5 “Quarterly Crime Victim Data Reporting”, legislated for victim demographic reporting (Definitions of crime types can be found in Chapter 96A.1)

• FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system (Definitions can be found on the SFPD website.)

This dataset also powers the public crime dashboards on the SFPD website, where users can explore summary statistics.

B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED Data is added to open data once a quarter after extraction, transformation, and aggregation.

Disclaimer: The San Francisco Police Department does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or correct sequencing of the information as the data is subject to change as modifications and updates are completed.

C. UPDATE PROCESS Information is updated on a quarterly basis.

D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET This dataset provides aggregated counts of individuals involved in reported crimes, categorized by key demographics and crime-related attributes. It is used to power public-facing dashboards on the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) website, where summary statistics and visualizations allow users to explore crime and victimization trends across the city. While the SFPD public dashboard provides many useful summaries and visualizations, not all data details are displayed there. For deeper or custom analysis, the full dataset can be downloaded for personal use.

Data on police officers (by detailed ranks and gender), civilian personnel and special constables (by detailed duties and gender), and recruits (by gender). Data is provided for Canada, provinces, territories and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) headquarters, training academy depot division and forensic labs, 1986 to 2023.

Related Tables / Normalized VersionThis dataset provides demographic information related to arrests made by the Tempe Police Department. Demographic fields include race and ethnicity, age range at the time of arrest, and gender for each party. The data is sourced from the Police Department’s Records Management System (RMS) and supports analysis of patterns related to arrests, enforcement activity, and demographic trends over time. This information is a component of ongoing efforts to promote transparency and provide context for law enforcement within the community.For detailed guidance on interpreting arrest counts and demographic breakdowns, please refer to the User Guide: Understanding the Arrest Demographic Datasets - Related Tables.Why this Dataset is Organized this Way?The related tables such as persons, charges, and locations follow a normalized data model. This structure is often preferred by data professionals for more advanced analysis, filtering, or joining with external datasets.Providing this format supports a wide range of users, from casual data explorers to experienced analysts.Understanding the Arrests Data (as related tables)The related tables represent different parts of the arrest data. Each one focuses on a different type of information, like the officers, individuals arrested, charges, and arrest details.All of these tables connect back to the arrests table, which acts as the central record for each event. This structure is called a normalized model and is often used to manage data in a more efficient way. Visit the User Guide: Understanding the Arrest Demographic Datasets - Related Tables for more details outlining the relationships between the related tables.Data DictionaryAdditional InformationContact Email: PD_DataRequest@tempe.govContact Phone: N/ALink: N/AData Source: Versaterm RMSData Source Type: SQL ServerPreparation Method: Automated processPublish Frequency: DailyPublish Method: Automatic

In 2023, the majority of law enforcement officers that were killed in the United States were white. That year, ** white law enforcement officers as well as **** Black officers were killed. Overall, a total of ** law enforcement officers were killed in the United States in that year.

The study was a comprehensive analysis of felonious killings of officers. The purposes of the study were (1) to analyze the nature and circumstances of incidents of felonious police killings and (2) to analyze trends in the numbers and rates of killings across different types of agencies and to explain these differences. For Part 1, Incident-Level Data, an incident-level database was created to capture all incidents involving the death of a police officer from 1983 through 1992. Data on officers and incidents were collected from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data collection as coded by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. In addition to the UCR data, the Police Foundation also coded information from the LEOKA narratives that are not part of the computerized LEOKA database from the FBI. For Part 2, Agency-Level Data, the researchers created an agency-level database to research systematic differences among rates at which law enforcement officers had been feloniously killed from 1977 through 1992. The investigators focused on the 56 largest law enforcement agencies because of the availability of data for explanatory variables. Variables in Part 1 include year of killing, involvement of other officers, if the officer was killed with his/her own weapon, circumstances of the killing, location of fatal wounds, distance between officer and offender, if the victim was wearing body armor, if different officers were killed in the same incident, if the officer was in uniform, actions of the killer and of the officer at entry and final stage, if the killer was visible at first, if the officer thought the killer was a felon suspect, if the officer was shot at entry, and circumstances at anticipation, entry, and final stages. Demographic variables for Part 1 include victim's sex, age, race, type of assignment, rank, years of experience, agency, population group, and if the officer was working a security job. Part 2 contains variables describing the general municipal environment, such as whether the agency is located in the South, level of poverty according to a poverty index, population density, percent of population that was Hispanic or Black, and population aged 15-34 years old. Variables capturing the crime environment include the violent crime rate, property crime rate, and a gun-related crime index. Lastly, variables on the environment of the police agencies include violent and property crime arrests per 1,000 sworn officers, percentage of officers injured in assaults, and number of sworn officers.

CMPD is the largest metropolitan police department between Atlanta, GA and Washington, DC. The department consists of over 1,850 sworn and 400 non-sworn personnel committed to providing the best services possible to the residents and guests of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. We believe the department should be reflective demographically of the community we serve. We are continually striving to achieve this through recruiting efforts.

This dataset contains demographic information related to reported hate crimes within the jurisdiction of the Anderson Police Department. The data includes details on both victims and alleged perpetrators, with demographic variables such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity. The types of hate crimes covered in the dataset are based on classifications in accordance with relevant local and federal hate crime definitions.

The dataset was obtained through a Public Records Act request and covers the time period from January 1st 2023 through December 31st 2023. This agency had no Hate Crimes to report in 2022. It was provided in MS Word format, where each row represents a unique hate crime incident and the columns capture demographic and other related variables.

The Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collects data from a nationally representative sample of state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. Although the data collection instrument (see page 150 of the codebook) uses the year 2012 for the title, most questions have a reference date of January 1, 2013. For this reason, the study title uses the year 2013. The 2013 LEMAS sample design called for the survey questionnaire to be sent to 3,336 general purpose state and local law enforcement agencies including 2,353 local police departments, 933 sheriffs' offices, and the 50 primary state law enforcement agencies. The design called for all agencies employing 100 or sworn personnel to be included with certainty (self-representing) and for smaller agencies to be sampled from strata base on number of officers employed. A total of 26 local police departments were determined to be out-of-scope for the survey because they were closed, outsourced, or operating on a part-time basis. A total of 38 sheriffs' offices were excluded from the survey because they had no primary law enforcement jurisdiction. The final mailout total of 3,272 agencies included 2,327 local police departments, 895 sheriffs' offices, and the 50 state agencies.