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.

Nationwide and San Diego County Violent Crime Rates from 1980 - 2022 in Long Data Format.

San Diego Region and United States Violent and Property Crime Rates from 1980 - 2020 in Long Data Format.

This study focused on the effect of economic resources and racial/ethnic composition on the change in crime rates from 1970-2004 in United States cities in metropolitan areas that experienced a large growth in population after World War II. A total of 352 cities in the following United States metropolitan areas were selected for this study: Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Orange County, Orlando, Phoenix, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Silicon Valley (Santa Clara), and Tampa/St. Petersburg. Selection was based on the fact that these areas developed during a similar time period and followed comparable development trajectories. In particular, these 14 areas, known as the "boomburbs" for their dramatic, post-World War II population growth, all faced issues relating to the rapid growth of tract-style housing and the subsequent development of low density, urban sprawls. The study combined place-level data obtained from the United States Census with crime data from the Uniform Crime Reports for five categories of Type I crimes: aggravated assaults, robberies, murders, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts. The dataset contains a total of 247 variables pertaining to crime, economic resources, and race/ethnic composition.

Property Crime Rate in both San Diego County and the United States as a whole from 1980 - 2022.

This study had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000 violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60 homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1, Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2, Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any, contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state, local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment status, and type of job of each violent crime victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors, and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected, and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3 also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These services included counseling, explanation of medical and police procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing, psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of the original questions was administered one year later to members of the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours of training required, and the topics covered in the training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the specific types of services they provided to victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals, paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service provider organization, as well as which California counties they serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services and asked if they provided any of those services to victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g., employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido, San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the program, the extent to which they used or referred others to intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency of each law enforcement respondent.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Neighborhood Watch signs on perceived crime rates, likelihood of victimization, community safety, and estimates of home and community quality. Part 1 (Study One Data) assessed the causal impact of Neighborhood Watch sign presence and content on perceptions of the community. Three Neighborhood Watch signs were incorporated into a series of slide show presentations. The signs utilized the traditional orange and white color scheme with black text and were used to represent an injunctive norm alone, a low descriptive norm for crime, or a high descriptive norm for crime. Digital color images of a for-sale home and the surrounding neighborhood of a middle class community in North San Diego County were shown to 180 undergraduates recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University, San Marcos, between July and November of 2005. Three of the slide shows were designated as Neighborhood Watch communities with one of the three sign types posted, and the fourth slide show served as a control with no posted crime prevention signs. Each slide show consisted of 20 images of the home and community, along with four instruction slides. Part 2 (Study Two Data) replicated the basic effect from Study 1 and extended the research to examine the moderating role of community social economic status (SES) on the effects of the Neighborhood Watch signs. Participants were 547 undergraduate students recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University and Palomar Community College in San Marcos, between January and September 2006. A total of 12 slide shows were utilized in Study Two, such that each of the four sign conditions from Study One was represented across each of the three communities (Low, Middle, and High SES). Part 3 (Study Three Data) examined the potential for the physical condition of the Neighborhood Watch signs posted in the community to convey normative information about the presence and acceptance of crime in the community. Participants were 364 undergraduate students recruited from the Psychology Department's Human Participant Pool, and from other lower division general education courses at California State University and Palomar Community College in San Marcos, between October 2006 and March 2007. Study Three used the same generic (Injunctive Norm, Program Only) sign that was utilized in Studies One and Two. However, three variations (new, aged, and defaced) of the sign were used. The surveys used for Study One, Study Two, and Study Three, were identical. The data include variables on perceived crime rates, perceived likelihood of victimization, perceived community safety, community ratings, self-protective behavior, burglar's perspective, manipulation check, and demographics of the respondent.

San Diego region, 2017, 2020 and 2021. With Geometries

This collection presents survey data from 12 cities in the United States regarding criminal victimization, perceptions of community safety, and satisfaction with local police. Participating cities included Chicago, IL, Kansas City, MO, Knoxville, TN, Los Angeles, CA, Madison, WI, New York, NY, San Diego, CA, Savannah, GA, Spokane, WA, Springfield, MA, Tucson, AZ, and Washington, DC. The survey used the current National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with a series of supplemental questions measuring the attitudes in each city. Respondents were asked about incidents that occurred within the past 12 months. Information on the following crimes was collected: violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, personal crimes of theft, and household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Part 1, Household-Level Data, covers the number of household respondents, their ages, type of housing, size of residence, number of telephone lines and numbers, and language spoken in the household. Part 2, Person-Level Data, includes information on respondents' sex, relationship to householder, age, marital status, education, race, time spent in the housing unit, personal crime and victimization experiences, perceptions of neighborhood crime, job and professional demographics, and experience and satisfaction with local police. Variables in Part 3, Incident-Level Data, concern the details of crimes in which the respondents were involved, and the police response to the crimes.

For current version see: https://data.sandiegocounty.gov/Health/2021-Injuries/kcur-nm3s

Basic Metadata Note: Assault deaths are also known as Homicides.

*Rates per 100,000 population. Age-adjusted rates per 100,000 2000 US standard population.

**Blank Cells: Rates not calculated for fewer than 5 events. Rates not calculated in cases where zip code is unknown.

***API: Asian/Pacific Islander. ***AIAN: American Indian/Alaska Native.

Prepared by: County of San Diego, Health & Human Services Agency, Public Health Services, Community Health Statistics Unit, 2019.

Code Source: ICD-9CM - AHRQ HCUP CCS v2015. ICD-10CM - AHRQ HCUP CCS v2018. ICD-10 Mortality - California Department of Public Health, Group Cause of Death Codes 2013; NHCS ICD-10 2e-v1 2017.

Data Guide, Dictionary, and Codebook: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/CHS/Community%20Profiles/Public%20Health%20Services%20Codebook_Data%20Guide_Metadata_10.2.19.xlsx

Property Crime Rate In the San Diego Region From 1980 - 2023.

San Diego Region and United States Violent and Property Crime Rates from 1980 - 2022 in Long Data Format.

Indexed violent crime rates from 1980-2021 in the San Diego region

Violent Crime in the Different Jurisdictions Across San Diego County Since 2018.

Indexed property crime from 1980-2021 in the San Diego region.

Data for SDG Indicator 16.1.3 comes from the SANDAG's ARJIS report "42 Years of Crime in the San Diego Region: 1980 Through 2021" Appendix Table 8 published in April 2022. We summed the number of homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assault by year for the San Diego region. The rate is reported as the rate of violent crimes per 100,000 persons.

Violent Crime as a Percentage Increase From 1980 Until 2022

Clearance rates for FBI index crimes in 2017, 2020, and 2021 in the San Diego region. For each category, clearance rates are calculated by dividing the number of crimes solved by the total amount of crimes committed.

Total Number of FBI Index Crimes in the San Diego Region (homicide, rape, aggravated assaults, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft) from 2000-2021