Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Washington County, OR (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC041067) from 2005 to 2021 about Washington County, OR; crime; violent crime; property crime; Portland; OR; and USA.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Portland Crime Stoppers Inc.

As part of its organization-wide transition to community policing in 1989, the Portland Police Bureau, in collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee of Multnomah County, developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The creation of a special police unit to focus exclusively on misdemeanor domestic crimes was the centerpiece of the plan. This police unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), had two goals: to increase the sanctions for batterers and to empower victims. This study was designed to determine whether DVRU strategies led to reductions in domestic violence. Data were collected from official records on batterers (Parts 1-10), and from surveys on victims (Parts 11-12). Part 1 (Police Recorded Study Case Data) provides information on police custody reports. Part 2 (Batterer Arrest History Data) describes the arrest history during a five-year period prior to each batterer's study case arrest date. Part 3 (Charges Data for Study Case Arrests) contains charges filed by the prosecutor's office in conjunction with study case arrests. Part 4 (Jail Data) reports booking charges and jail information. Part 5 (Court Data) contains sentencing information for those offenders who had either entered a guilty plea or had been found guilty of the charges stemming from the study case arrest. Data in Part 6 (Restraining Order Data) document the existence of restraining orders, before and/or after the study case arrest date. Part 7 (Diversion Program Data) includes deferred sentencing program information for study cases. Variables in Parts 1-7 provide information on number of batterer's arrests for domestic violence and non-domestic violence crimes in the past five years, charge and disposition of the study case, booking charges, number of hours offender spent in jail, type of release, type of sentence, if restraining order was filed after case arrest, if restraining order was served or vacated, number of days offender stayed in diversion program, and type of diversion violation incurred. Part 8 (Domestic Violence Reduction Unit Treatment Data) contains 395 of the 404 study cases that were randomly assigned to the treatment condition. Variables describe the types of services DVRU provided, such as taking photographs along with victim statements, providing the victim with information on case prosecution, restraining orders, shelters, counseling, and an appointment with district attorney, helping the victim get a restraining order, serving a restraining order on the batterer, transporting the victim to a shelter, and providing the victim with a motel voucher and emergency food supply. Part 9 (Police Record Recidivism Data) includes police entries (incident or arrest) six months before and six months after the study case arrest date. Part 10 (Police Recorded Revictimization and Reoffending Data) consists of revictimization and reoffending summary counts as well as time-to-failure data. Most of the variables in Part 10 were derived from information reported in Part 9. Part 9 and Part 10 variables include whether the offense in each incident was related to domestic violence, whether victimization was done by the same batterer as in the study case arrest, type of police action against the victimization, charges of the victimization, type of premises where the crime was committed, whether the police report indicated that witnesses or children were present, whether the police report mentioned victim injury, weapon used, involvement of drugs or alcohol, whether the batterer denied abuse victim, number of days from study cases to police-recorded revictimization, and whether the recorded victimization led to the batterer's arrest. Part 11 (Wave 1 Victim Interview Data) contains data obtained through in-person interviews with victims shortly (1-2 weeks) after the case entered the study. Data in Part 12 (Wave 2 Victim Interview Data) represent victims' responses to the second wave of interviews, conducted approximately six months after the study case victimization occurred. Variables in Part 11 and Part 12 cover the victim's experience six months before the study case arrest and six months after the study case arrest. Demographic variables in both files include victim's and batterer's race and ethnicity, employment, and income, and relationship status between victim and batterer. Information on childhood experiences includes whether the victim and batterer felt emotionally cared for by parents, whether the victim and batterer witnessed violence between parents while growing up, and whether the victim and batterer were abused as children by a family member. Variables on the batterer's abusive behaviors include whether the batterer threatened to kill, swore at, pushed or grabbed, slapped, beat, or forced the victim to have sex. Information on the results of the abuse includes whether the abuse led to cuts or bruises, broken bones, burns, internal injury, or damage to eyes or ears. Information was also collected on whether alcohol or drugs were involved in the abuse events. Variables on victims' actions after the event include whether the victim saw a doctor, whether the victim talked to a minister, a family member, a friend, a mental health professional, or a district attorney, whether the victim tried to get an arrest warrant, went to a shelter to talk, and/or stayed at a shelter, whether the victim asked police to intervene, tried to get a restraining order, talked to an attorney, or undertook other actions, and whether the event led to the batterer's arrest. Variables on victim satisfaction with the police and the DVRU include whether police or the DVRU were able to calm things down, recommended going to the district attorney, informed the victim of her legal rights, recommended that the victim contact shelter or support groups, transported the victim to a hospital, and listened to the victim, whether police treated the victim with respect, and whether the victim would want police or the DVRU involved in the future if needed. Variables on the victim's emotional state include whether the victim was confident that she could keep herself safe, felt her family life was under control, and felt she was doing all she could to get help. Other variables include number of children the victim had and their ages, and whether the children had seen violence between the victim and batterer.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Portland Police Association

In 2023, the rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in the United States was at 5.7 cases per 100,000 of the population. This is a decrease from the previous year, when the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate stood at 6.5 per 100,000 of the population. However, due to the FBI's transition to a new crime reporting system, only not all law enforcement agencies submitted crime data to the FBI for 2023. As a result, figures may not accurately reflect the rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in the U.S. in this year.

This study provides statistical information on how prosecutors and the courts disposed of criminal cases involving adults arrested for felony crimes in two individual urban jurisdictions, Portland, Oregon and Washington, D.C. Cases in the data files were initiated or filed in 1982. Both the Washington, D.C. file and the Portland file contain information on all felony arrests (which include arrests declined as well as those filed), cases filed, and cases indicted. Sentencing information is provided in the Portland file but is not available for Washington D.C.

This study examined the use of arrestee urinalysis results as a predictor of other community drug problems. A three-stage public health model was developed using drug diffusion and community drug indicators as aggregate measures of individual drug use careers. Monthly data on drug indicators for Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, were used to: (1) estimate the correlations of drug problem indicators over time, (2) examine the correlations among indicators at different stages in the spread of new forms of drug abuse, and (3) estimate lagged models in which arrestee urinalysis results were used to predict subsequent community drug problems. Variables included arrestee drug test results, drug-overdose deaths, crimes reported to the local police department, and child maltreatment incidents. Washington variables also included drug-related emergency room episodes. The unit of analysis was months covered by the study. The Washington, DC, data consist of 78 records, one for each month from April 1984 through September 1990. The Portland, Oregon, data contain 33 records, one for each month from January 1988 through September 1990.

This study was undertaken to assess the connections between administratively controllable sources of fatigue among police patrol officers and problems such as diminished performance, accidents, and illness. The study sought to answer: (1) What is the prevalence of officer fatigue, and what are officers' attitudes toward it? (2) What are the causes or correlates of officer fatigue? (3) How does fatigue affect officer safety, health, and job performance? and (4) Can officer fatigue be measured objectively? The final sample was comprised of all sworn, nonsupervisory police officers assigned full-time to patrol and/or community policing functions on the day that data collection began at each of four selected sites: Lowell, Massachusetts, Polk County, Florida, Portland, Oregon, and Arlington County, Virginia. Part 1, Fatigue Survey Data, includes demographic data and officers' responses from the initial self-report survey. Variables include the extent to which the respondent felt hot or cold, experienced uncomfortable breathing, bad dreams, or pain while sleeping, the time the respondent usually went to bed, number of hours slept each night, quality of sleep, whether medicine was taken as a sleep aid, estimated hours worked in a one-, two-, seven-, and thirty-day period, how overtime affected income, family relationships, and social activities, and reasons for feeling tired. Part 2, Demographic and Fatigue Survey Data, is comprised of data obtained from administrative records and demographic data forms. Several measures from the initial self-report survey are also included in Part 2. Variables focus on respondents' age, sex, race, marital status, global score on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scale, total years as a police officer assigned to any agency and current agency, and total years worked in current shift. Data for Part 3, FIT and Administrative Data, were obtained from administrative records and from the fitness-for-duty (FIT) workplace screener test. Variables include a pupilometry index score and the dates, time, and particular shift (days, evenings, or midnight) the officer started working when the pupilometry test was administered. Part 3 also includes the number of hours worked by the officer in a regular shift or in association with overtime, the number of sick leave hours taken by the officer, and whether the officer was involved in an on-duty accident, injured on duty, or commended by his/her department during a particular shift.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of South Portland Police Patrolmens Association

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Portland Police Association Cover Foundation Inc.