SANDAG provides an annual report on crime in the San Diego region. This dataset contains data from the 2009 through 2022 editions of the report. Data for 2023 is converted from California Incident Based Reporting System (CIBRS) data provided by SANDAG. Additional data comes from Arjis and DOJ OpenJustice. Some data for previous years reports is updated with new editions. "San Diego County" includes all cities and unincorporated areas in San Diego County. "Sheriff - Total" includes the contract cities and the unincorporated area served by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. California and United States data come from the FBI's Annual Crime Reports.
This study was conducted to examine whether a rising crime rate in El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California in 1986 could be attributed to, among other factors, the influx of undocumented aliens. Variables include level of involvement of undocumented aliens in serious felony arrests in San Diego and El Paso Counties, the outcome of serious felony arrest cases involving undocumented persons compared to others arrested for similar offenses, the impact of arrests of undocumented aliens on the criminal justice system in terms of workload and cost, the extent that criminal justice agencies coordinate their efforts to apprehend and process undocumented aliens who have committed serious crimes in San Diego and El Paso counties, and how differences in agency objectives impede or enhance coordination. Data are also provided on how many undocumented persons were arrested/convicted for repeat offense in these counties and which type of policies or procedures could be implemented in criminal justice agencies to address the issue of crimes committed by undocumented aliens. Data were collected in the two cities with focus on serious felony offenses. The collection includes sociodemographic characteristics, citizenship status, current arrest, case disposition, and prior criminal history with additional data from San Diego to compute the costs involving undocumented aliens.
San Diego region, 2017, 2020 and 2021. With Geometries
The central core of SAPD's Community Policing activities is the SAFFE (San Antonio Fear Free Environment) Unit. First established in 1994-95 with 60 officers and supervisors, then enlarged in 1996 with an additional 40 officers, the SAFFE Unit consists of officers who focus on identifying, evaluating and resolving community crime problems with the cooperation and participation of community residents.
SAFFE officers are assigned to specific areas or neighborhoods within the city, and work closely with both residents and the district patrol officers also assigned to those areas. SAFFE officers establish and maintain day-to-day interaction with residents and businesses within their assigned beats, in order to prevent crimes before they happen. SAFFE officers also act as liaisons with other city agencies, work closely with schools and youth programs, coordinate graffiti-removal activities, and serve as resources to residents who wish to take back their neighborhoods from crime and decay.
http://www.sanantonio.gov/SAPD/SAFFE">SAFFE Website
The Criminal Justice Research Division of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) received funds from the National Institute of Justice to assist the Regional Auto Theft Task (RATT) force and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The project involved the development of a computer system to enhance the crime analysis and mapping capabilities of RATT. Following the implementation of the new technology, the effectiveness of task force efforts was evaluated. The primary goal of the research project was to examine the effectiveness of RATT in reducing auto thefts relative to the traditional law enforcement response. In addition, the use of enhanced crime analysis information for targeting RATT investigations was assessed. This project addressed the following research questions: (1) What were the characteristics of vehicle theft rings in San Diego and how were the stolen vehicles and/or parts used, transported, and distributed? (2) What types of vehicles were targeted by vehicle theft rings and what was the modus operandi of suspects? (3) What was the extent of violence involved in motor vehicle theft incidents? (4) What was the relationship between the locations of vehicle thefts and recoveries? (5) How did investigators identify motor vehicle thefts that warranted investigation by the task force? (6) Were the characteristics of motor vehicle theft cases investigated through RATT different than other cases reported throughout the county? (7) What investigative techniques were effective in apprehending and prosecuting suspects involved in major vehicle theft operations? (8) What was the impact of enhanced crime analysis information on targeting decisions? and (9) How could public education be used to reduce the risk of motor vehicle theft? For Part 1 (Auto Theft Tracking Data), data were collected from administrative records to track auto theft cases in San Diego County. The data were used to identify targets of enforcement efforts (e.g., auto theft rings, career auto thieves), techniques or strategies used, the length of investigations, involvement of outside agencies, property recovered, condition of recoveries, and consequences to offenders that resulted from the activities of the investigations. Data were compiled for all 194 cases investigated by RATT in fiscal year 1993 to 1994 (the experimental group) and compared to a random sample of 823 cases investigated through the traditional law enforcement response during the same time period (the comparison group). The research staff also conducted interviews with task force management (Parts 2 and 3, Investigative Operations Committee Initial Interview Data and Investigative Operations Committee Follow-Up Interview Data) and other task force members (Parts 4 and 5, Staff Initial Interview Data and Staff Follow-Up Interview Data) at two time periods to address the following issues: (1) task force goals, (2) targets, (3) methods of identifying targets, (4) differences between RATT strategies and the traditional law enforcement response to auto theft, (5) strategies employed, (6) geographic concentrations of auto theft, (7) factors that enhance or impede investigations, (8) opinions regarding effective approaches, (9) coordination among agencies, (10) suggestions for improving task force operations, (11) characteristics of auto theft rings, (12) training received, (13) resources and information needed, (14) measures of success, and (15) suggestions for public education efforts. Variables in Part 1 include the total number of vehicles and suspects involved in an incident, whether informants were used to solve the case, whether the stolen vehicle was used to buy parts, drugs, or weapons, whether there was a search warrant or an arrest warrant, whether officers used surveillance equipment, addresses of theft and recovery locations, date of theft and recovery, make and model of the stolen car, condition of vehicle when recovered, property recovered, whether an arrest was made, the arresting agency, date of arrest, arrest charges, number and type of charges filed, disposition, conviction charges, number of convictions, and sentence. Demographic variables include the age, sex, and race of the suspect, if known. Variables in Parts 2 and 3 include the goals of RATT, how the program evolved, the role of the IOC, how often the IOC met, the relationship of the IOC and the executive committee, how RATT was unique, why RATT was successful, how RATT could be improved, how RATT was funded, and ways in which auto theft could be reduced. Variables in Parts 4 and 5 include the goals of RATT, sources of information about vehicle thefts, strategies used to solve auto theft cases, location of most vehicle thefts, how motor vehicle thefts were impacted by RATT, impediments to the RATT program, suggestions for improving the program, ways in which auto theft could be reduced, and methods to educate citizens about auto theft. In addition, Part 5 also has variables about the type of officers' training, usefulness of maps and other data, descriptions of auto theft rings in terms of the age, race, and gender of its members, and types of cars stolen by rings.
The central core of SAPD's Community Policing activities is the SAFFE (San Antonio Fear Free Environment) Unit. First established in 1994-95 with 60 officers and supervisors, then enlarged in 1996 with an additional 40 officers, the SAFFE Unit consists of officers who focus on identifying, evaluating and resolving community crime problems with the cooperation and participation of community residents.SAFFE officers are assigned to specific areas or neighborhoods within the city, and work closely with both residents and the district patrol officers also assigned to those areas. SAFFE officers establish and maintain day-to-day interaction with residents and businesses within their assigned beats, in order to prevent crimes before they happen. SAFFE officers also act as liaisons with other city agencies, work closely with schools and youth programs, coordinate graffiti-removal activities, and serve as resources to residents who wish to take back their neighborhoods from crime and decay.SAFFE Website
Not seeing a result you expected?
Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.
SANDAG provides an annual report on crime in the San Diego region. This dataset contains data from the 2009 through 2022 editions of the report. Data for 2023 is converted from California Incident Based Reporting System (CIBRS) data provided by SANDAG. Additional data comes from Arjis and DOJ OpenJustice. Some data for previous years reports is updated with new editions. "San Diego County" includes all cities and unincorporated areas in San Diego County. "Sheriff - Total" includes the contract cities and the unincorporated area served by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. California and United States data come from the FBI's Annual Crime Reports.