In 2022, there were slightly more female victims of violent crime than male victims in the United States, with about ********* male victims and ********* female victims. These figures are a significant increase from the previous year, when there were ********* male victims and ********* female victims. What counts as violent crime? Violent crime in the United States includes murder, rape, sexual assault, robbery, and assault. While violent crime across all areas has been steadily falling over the past few decades, the rate of aggravated assault is still relatively high, at ***** cases per 100,000 of the population. In 2021, there were more property crimes committed in the U.S. than there were violent crimes. Keep your enemies closer It is usually said that most victims know their attacker, and the data backs this up. In 2021, very few murders were committed by strangers. The same goes for rape and sexual assault victims; the majority were perpetrated by acquaintances, intimate partners, or relatives.

In 2023, there were 14,327 murder offenders in the United States who were male, in comparison to 1,898 who were female. However, there were also 5,279 murder offenders where their gender was unknown. Homicides in the U.S. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the United States is defined as the willful killing of another human being. Justifiable homicides, or cases where a felon is killed by an officer in the line of duty or a felon is killed during a felony by a private citizen, are not included in murder counts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The total number of murders varies from state to state in the U.S., with more populous states having higher numbers of murders. Murder offenders and victims Most murder offenders in the United States are between the ages of 17 and 39, with the number of offenders declining steadily after age 40. Additionally, the highest rate of death by homicide was found among males between the ages of 15 and 24. The highest rate of death by homicide for females was for girls under the age of one.

The dataset contains year-, state-, type-of-crime- and gender-wise compiled data on the number of different types of crimes which were committed against children and the number of victims who were affected by the same crimes. The different types of crimes covered in the dataset include kidnapping and abduction crimes such as kidanapping and abduction for the purpose of murder, begging, ransom, compelling for marriage, procuration of minor girls, importation of girls from foreign countries, missing deemed as kidnapped, etc., fatal crimes such as murder, attempt to commit murder, muder with rape, abetment of suicide of child, infanticide, foeticide, trafficking and sexual crimes such buying and selling of minors for prostitution, use of children for pornography, transmiting sexual content and material involving children in sexually explicit acts, sexual assualt, penetrative sexual assault, rape, and other crimes such as child labour, child marriage, exposure, abandaonment, simple hurt, grievous hurt, insult and assualt of damage modesty, crimes under juvenile justice act and transplantation of organs act, etc.

Alaska crime data from 2000 to present from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Information includes data on both violent and property crime.The UCR Program's primary objective is to generate reliable information for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management; over the years, however, the data have become one of the country’s leading social indicators. The program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics.Source: US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)This data has been visualized in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) format and is provided as a service in the DCRA Information Portal by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Division of Community and Regional Affairs (SOA DCCED DCRA), Research and Analysis section. SOA DCCED DCRA Research and Analysis is not the authoritative source for this data. For more information and for questions about this data, see: FBI UCR ProgramOffenses Known to Law Enforcement, by State by City, 2017 The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Important note about rape data In 2013, the FBI’s UCR Program initiated the collection of rape data under a revised definition within the Summary Based Reporting System. The term “forcible” was removed from the offense name, and the definition was changed to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” In 2016, the FBI Director approved the recommendation to discontinue the reporting of rape data using the UCR legacy definition beginning in 2017. General comment This table provides the volume of violent crime (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) as reported by city and town law enforcement agencies (listed alphabetically by state) that contributed data to the UCR Program. (Note: Arson is not included in the property crime total in this table; however, if complete arson data were provided, it will appear in the arson column.) Caution against ranking Readers should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to an area’s crime statistics when making any valid comparisons of crime among different locales. UCR Statistics: Their Proper Use provides more details. Methodology The data used in creating this table were from all city and town law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2017. Rape figures, and violent crime, which rape is a part, will not be published in this table for agencies submitting rape using the UCR legacy rape definition. The rape figures, and violent crime, which rape is a part, published in this table are from only those agencies using the UCR revised rape definition as well as converted data from agencies that reported data for rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object via NIBRS. The FBI does not publish arson data unless it receives data from either the agency or the state for all 12 months of the calendar year. When the FBI determines that an agency’s data collection methodology does not comply with national UCR guidelines, the figure(s) for that agency’s offense(s) will not be included in the table, and the discrepancy will be explained in a footnote. Population estimation For the 2017 population estimates used in this table, the FBI computed individual rates of growth from one year to the next for every city/town and county using 2010 decennial population counts and 2011 through 2016 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Each agency’s rates of growth were averaged; that average was then applied and added to its 2016 Census population estimate to derive the agency’s 2017 population estimate.

The research project is a subproject of the research association “Strengthening of integration potentials within a modern society” (Scientific head: Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Heitmeyer, Bielefeld) which contains 17 subprojects and is supported by the ministry of education and research.
In almost all the economically highly developed countries violent crime increased significantly in the second part of the last century - in contrast to the long term trend of decline of individual (non-governmental) violence since the beginning of modern times. The authors develop an explanatory approach for these facts which is inspired mainly by Norbert Elias´s civilization theory and Emil Durkheim´s theory on society. Detailed time series on the development of different forms of violent crime are presented and set in relation with certain aspects of economic and social structural changes in three countries and also refer to the changes in integration of modern societies. The analysis deals especially with effectivity and legitimacy of the governmental monopoly of violence, the public beneficial security and power system, forms of building social capital, economic and social inequality, precarity of employment, different aspects of increasing economization of society, changes in family structures and usage of mass media and modern communication technologies.

Register of tables in HISTAT:

A: Crime statistics

A.01 Frequency of types of crimes in different countries (1953-2000) A.02 Suspects by crimes of 100.000 inhabitants of Germany, England and Sweden (1955-1998) A.03 Murders, manslaughter and intentional injuries by other persons by sex of 100.000 persons after the statistics of causes of death (1953-2000) A.04 Clearance rate by types of crimes in Germany, England and Sweden (1953-1997) A.05 Prisoners of 100.000 inhabitants of Germany, Great Britain and Sweden (1950-2000)

B: Key indicators for economic development in Germany, Great Britain, Sweden and the USA

B1: Data on the overall economic framework

B1.01 Percent changes in the real GDP per capita in purchasing power parities (1956-1987) B1.02 Percent changes in GDP per capita in prices from 2000 (1955-1998) B1.03 GDP of Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom in purchasing power parities in percent og the US GDP (1950-1992) B1.04 Labor productivity index for different countries, base: USA 1996 = 100 (1950-1999) B1.05 GDP per hour of labor in different countries in EKS-$ from 1999 (1950-2003) B1.06 Foreign trade - exports and imports in percent of the GDP of different countries (1949-2003) B1.07 GDP, wages and Unit-Labor-Cost in different countries (1960-2003)

B2: Unemployment

B2.01 Standardized unemployment rate in different countries with regard to the entire working population (1960-2003) B2.02 Share of long-term unemployed of the total number of unemployed in different countries in percent (1992-2004) B2.03 Youth unemployment in different countries in percent (1970-2004) B2.04 Unemployment rate in percent by sex in different countries (1963-2000)

B3: Employment

B3.01 Employment rate in percent in different countries (1960-2000) B3.02 Share of fixed-term employees and persons in dependent employment in percent in different countries (1983-2004) B3.03 Share of part-time employees by sex compared to the entire working population in different countries (1973-2000) B3.04 Share of un-voluntarily part-time employees by sex in different countries (1983-2003) B3.05 Share of contract workers in different countries in percent of the entire working population (1975-2002) B3.06 Share of self-employed persons in different countries in percent of the entire working population (1970-2004) B3.07 Shift worker rate in different countries in percent (1992-2005) B3.08 Yearly working hours per employee in different countries (1950-2004) B3.09 Employment by sectors in different countries (1950-2003) B3.10 Share of employees in public civil services in percent of the population between 15 and 64 years in different countries (1960-1999) B3.11 Female population, female employees and female workers in percent of the population between 16 and 64 years in different countries (1960-2000) B3.12 Employees, self-employed persons in percent of the entire working population in different countries (1960-2000)

B4: Taxes and duties

B4.01 Taxes and social security contributions in percent of the GDP (1965-2002) B4.02 Social expenditure in percent of the GDP (1965-2002) B4.03 Social expenditure in perc...

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is a part of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In the late 1970s, the law enforcement community called for a thorough evaluative study of the UCR with the objective of recommending an expanded and enhanced UCR program to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The FBI fully concurred with the need for an updated program to meet contemporary needs and provided its support, formulating a comprehensive redesign effort. Following a multiyear study, a "Blueprint for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program" was developed. Using the "Blueprint," and in consultation with local and state law enforcement executives, the FBI formulated new guidelines for the Uniform Crime Reports. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) was implemented to meet these guidelines. NIBRS data as formatted by the FBI are stored in a single file. These data are organized by various segment levels (record types). There are six main segment levels: administrative, offense, property, victim, offender, and arrestee. Each segment level has a different length and layout. There are other segment levels which occur with less frequency than the six main levels. Significant computing resources are necessary to work with the data in its single-file format. In addition, the user must be sophisticated in working with data in complex file types. While it is convenient to think of NIBRS as a hierarchical file, its structure is more similar to a relational database in that there are key variables that link the different segment levels together. NIBRS data are archived at ICPSR as 11 separate data files per year, which may be merged by using linkage variables. Prior to 2013 the data were archived and distributed as 13 separate data files, including three separate batch header record files. Starting with the 2013 data, the FBI combined the three batch header files into one file. Consequently, ICPSR instituted new file numbering for the data. NIBRS data focus on a variety of aspects of a crime incident. Part 2 (formerly Part 4), Administrative Segment, offers data on the incident itself (date and time). Each crime incident is delineated by one administrative segment record. Also provided are Part 3 (formerly Part 5), Offense Segment (offense type, location, weapon use, and bias motivation), Part 4 (formerly Part 6), Property Segment (type of property loss, property description, property value, drug type and quantity), Part 5 (formerly Part 7), Victim Segment (age, sex, race, ethnicity, and injuries), Part 6 (formerly Part 8), Offender Segment (age, sex, and race), and Part 7 (formerly Part 9), Arrestee Segment (arrest date, age, sex, race, and weapon use). The Batch Header Segment (Part 1, formerly Parts 1-3) separates and identifies individual police agencies by Originating Agency Identifier (ORI). Batch Header information, which is contained on three records for each ORI, includes agency name, geographic location, and population of the area. Part 8 (formerly Part 10), Group B Arrest Report Segment, includes arrestee data for Group B crimes. Window Segments files (Parts 9-11, formerly Parts 11-13) pertain to incidents for which the complete Group A Incident Report was not submitted to the FBI. In general, a Window Segment record will be generated if the incident occurred prior to January 1 of the previous year or if the incident occurred prior to when the agency started NIBRS reporting. As with the UCR, participation in NIBRS is voluntary on the part of law enforcement agencies. The data are not a representative sample of crime in the United States. Recognizing many differences in computing resources and that many users will be interested in only one or two segment levels, ICPSR has decided to make the data available as multiple files. Each NIBRS segment level in the FBI's single-file format has been made into a separate rectangular ASCII data file. Linkage (key) variables are used to perform analyses that involve two or more segment levels. If the user is interested in variables contained in one segment level, then the data are easy to work with since each segment level file is simply a rectangular ASCII data file. Setup files are available to read each segment level. Also, with only one segment level, the issue of

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.The data were obtained from one state prison system that was characterized by a diverse and rising prison population. This prison system housed more than 30,000 inmates across 15 institutions (14 men's facilities; 1 women's facility). The data contain information on inmates' placements into different housing units across all 15 state prison complexes, including designated maximum security, restrictive housing units. Inmates placed in restrictive housing were in lockdown the majority of the day, had limited work opportunities, and were closely monitored. These inmates were also escorted in full restraints within the institution. They experienced little recreational time, visitation and phone privileges, and few interactions with other inmates. The data contain information on inmates' housing placements, institutional misconduct, risk factors, demographic characteristics, criminal history, and offense information. These data provide information on every housing placement for each inmate, including the time spent in each placement, and the reasons documented by correctional staff for placing inmates in each housing unit. Demographic information includes inmate sex, race/ethnicity, and age. The collection contains 1 Stata data file "Inmate-Housing-Placements-Data.dta" with 16 variables and 124,942 cases.

There has been little research on United States homicide rates from a long-term perspective, primarily because there has been no consistent data series on a particular place preceding the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which began its first full year in 1931. To fill this research gap, this project created a data series on homicides per capita for New York City that spans two centuries. The goal was to create a site-specific, individual-based data series that could be used to examine major social shifts related to homicide, such as mass immigration, urban growth, war, demographic changes, and changes in laws. Data were also gathered on various other sites, particularly in England, to allow for comparisons on important issues, such as the post-World War II wave of violence. The basic approach to the data collection was to obtain the best possible estimate of annual counts and the most complete information on individual homicides. The annual count data (Parts 1 and 3) were derived from multiple sources, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports and Supplementary Homicide Reports, as well as other official counts from the New York City Police Department and the City Inspector in the early 19th century. The data include a combined count of murder and manslaughter because charge bargaining often blurs this legal distinction. The individual-level data (Part 2) were drawn from coroners' indictments held by the New York City Municipal Archives, and from daily newspapers. Duplication was avoided by keeping a record for each victim. The estimation technique known as "capture-recapture" was used to estimate homicides not listed in either source. Part 1 variables include counts of New York City homicides, arrests, and convictions, as well as the homicide rate, race or ethnicity and gender of victims, type of weapon used, and source of data. Part 2 includes the date of the murder, the age, sex, and race of the offender and victim, and whether the case led to an arrest, trial, conviction, execution, or pardon. Part 3 contains annual homicide counts and rates for various comparison sites including Liverpool, London, Kent, Canada, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco.

Crime in the United States, by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2015–2016

The FBI collects these data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

FBI link

Important note about rape data

In 2013, the FBI UCR Program initiated the collection of rape data under a revised definition and removed the term “forcible” from the offense name. The UCR Program now defines rape as follows:

Rape (revised definition): Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. (This includes the offenses of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object as converted from data submitted via the National Incident-Based Reporting System [NIBRS].)

Rape (legacy definition): The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.

General comments

• This table provides the estimated number of offenses and the rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of crime in each region, geographic division, and state in 2015 and 2016, and the 2-year percent change in each.
• Violent crime includes the offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape (revised definition), robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crime includes the offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
• The UCR Program does not have sufficient data to estimate for arson.

Caution against ranking

Any comparisons of crime among different locales should take into consideration relevant factors in addition to the area’s crime statistics. UCR Statistics: Their Proper Use provides more details concerning the proper use of UCR statistics.

Methodology

• The data used in creating this table were from all law enforcement agencies in the UCR Program (including those submitting less than 12 months of data).
• Crime statistics include estimated offense totals (except arson) for agencies submitting less than 12 months of offense reports for each year.
• The FBI derives state totals by estimating for nonreporting and partially reporting agencies within each state. The UCR Program aggregates a state total using the state’s individual agency estimates.

Offense estimation

These tables contain statistics for the entire United States. Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting periods, the FBI includes estimated crime numbers in these presentations. The FBI computes estimates for participating agencies not providing 12 months of complete data. For agencies supplying 3 to 11 months of data, the national UCR Program estimates for the missing data by following a standard estimation procedure using the data provided by the agency. If an agency has supplied less than 3 months of data, the FBI computes estimates by using the known crime figures of similar areas within a state and assigning the same proportion of crime volumes to nonreporting agencies. The estimation process considers the following: population size covered by the agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff’s office; and geographic location.

In response to various circumstances, the FBI has estimated offense totals for some states. For example, problems at the state level (e.g., noncompliance with UCR guidelines, technological difficulties) have, at times, resulted in data that cannot be used for publication, and estimation was necessary. Also, efforts by an agency to convert to NIBRS have contributed to the need for unique estimation procedures.

A summary of state-specific and offense-specific estimation procedures is available in the “Estimation of state-level data” section of the Methodology.

Rape estimation

This table contains estimates based on both the legacy and revised definitions of rape. Agencies submit data based on only one of these definitions. Within each population group size, the proportion of female rape victims was calculated from all NIBRS reports of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object. For agencies that reported using the revised definition, the actual number of reported rapes was decreased by the calculated proportion to arrive at an estimate for the number of rapes using the legacy definition. Conversely, for agencies that reported using the legacy definition, the actual number of reported rapes was increased by the inverse of the proportion to arrive at an estimate for the number of rapes using the revised definition.

Population estimation

For the 2016 population estimates used in this table, the FBI computed individual rates of growth from one year to the next for every city/town and county using 2010 decennial population counts and 2011 through 2015 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Each agency’s rates of growth were averaged; that average was then applied and added to its 2015 Census population estimate to derive the agency’s 2016 population estimate.

To further the understanding of violence against women, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jointly sponsored the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey. To provide a context in which to place women's experiences, the NVAW Survey sampled both women and men. Completed interviews were obtained from 8,000 women and 8,005 men who were 18 years of age or older residing in households throughout the United States. The female version of the survey was fielded from November 1995 to May 1996. The male version of the survey was fielded during February to May 1996. Spanish versions of both the male and female surveys were fielded from April to May 1996. Respondents to the NVAW Survey were queried about (1) their general fear of violence and the ways in which they managed their fears, (2) emotional abuse they had experienced by marital and cohabitating partners, (3) physical assault they had experienced as children by adult caretakers, (4) physical assault they had experienced as adults by any type of perpetrator, (5) forcible rape or stalking they had experienced by any type of perpetrator, and (6) incidents of threatened violence they had experienced by any type of perpetrator. Respondents disclosing victimization were asked detailed questions about the characteristics and consequences of victimization as they experienced it, including injuries sustained and use of medical services. Incidents were recorded that had occurred at any time during the respondent's lifetime and also those that occurred within the 12 months prior to the interview. Data were gathered on both male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner victimization as well as abuse by same-sex partners. Due to the sensitive nature of the survey, female respondents were interviewed by female interviewers. In order to test for possible bias caused by the gender of the interviewers when speaking to men, a split sample was used so that half of the male respondents had female interviewers and the other half had male interviewers. The questionnaires contained 14 sections, each covering a different topic, as follows. Section A: Respondents' fears of different types of violence, and behaviors they had adopted to accommodate those fears. Section B: Respondent demographics and household characteristics. Section C: The number of current and past marital and opposite-sex and same-sex cohabitating relationships of the respondent. Section D: Characteristics of the respondent's current relationship and the demographics and other characteristics of their spouse and/or partner. Section E: Power, control, and emotional abuse by each spouse or partner. Sections F through I: Screening for incidents of rape, physical assault, stalking, and threat victimization, respectively. Sections J through M: Detailed information on each incident of rape, physical assault, stalking, and threat victimization, respectively, reported by the respondent for each type of perpetrator identified in the victimization screening section. Section N: Violence in the respondent's current relationship, including steps taken because of violence in the relationship and whether the violent behavior had stopped. The section concluded with items to assess if the respondent had symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Other variables in the data include interviewer gender, respondent gender, number of adult women and adult men in the household, number of different telephones in the household, and region code.

Number, percentage and rate (per 100,000 population) of homicide victims, by racialized identity group (total, by racialized identity group; racialized identity group; South Asian; Chinese; Black; Filipino; Arab; Latin American; Southeast Asian; West Asian; Korean; Japanese; other racialized identity group; multiple racialized identity; racialized identity, but racialized identity group is unknown; rest of the population; unknown racialized identity group), gender (all genders; male; female; gender unknown) and region (Canada; Atlantic region; Quebec; Ontario; Prairies region; British Columbia; territories), 2019 to 2023.

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.

In 2023, the FBI reported that there were 9,284 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,289 white murder victims. In comparison, there were 554 murder victims of unknown race and 586 victims of another race. Victims of inequality? In recent years, the role of racial inequality in violent crimes such as robberies, assaults, and homicides has gained public attention. In particular, the issue of police brutality has led to increasing attention following the murder of George Floyd, an African American who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Studies show that the rate of fatal police shootings for Black Americans was more than double the rate reported of other races. Crime reporting National crime data in the United States is based off the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new crime reporting system, which requires law enforcement agencies to self-report their data in detail. Due to the recent implementation of this system, less crime data has been reported, with some states such as Delaware and Pennsylvania declining to report any data to the FBI at all in the last few years, suggesting that the Bureau's data may not fully reflect accurate information on crime in the United States.

The data were collected across four different legal environments, with reference to legislation governing sex work and sexual violence: legalisation (Nevada USA) where legal brothels are permitted in 10 of Nevada’s 17 counties; client criminalisation (Northern Ireland) whereby following the Nordic model, paying for sexual services is now a summary offence with a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison; decriminalisation (New Zealand) where prostitution, including the operation of brothels is permitted subject to municipal regulation and partial criminalisation (England, Scotland and Wales) whereby the act of selling sex itself is not illegal, but laws have been drafted around a number of facets of sex work such as brothel keeping, soliciting, living of the proceeds of prostitution and so forth.

The data files contains a Microsoft excel worksheet with 17 tabs – a contents page is provided on the first tab. The frequency data for the survey responses has been presented by question or topic. The full wording of the questions has been provided at the top of each of the data tables or the top of each of the tabs.

Globally, the most important public health issue that sex workers face is their experience of high levels of violence (Kinnell 2006, 2008; Alexander, 1999) with a systematic review estimating levels of sexual violence 'between 15-55%' (Deering, A., et al, 2014). The marginalisation of sex workers leaves them vulnerable to victimisation and with restricted access to the criminal justice system (Amnesty International 2016). Repeat victimisation is common, as is significant under-reporting of crimes to the police (Ahrens 2006; Krusi, A., et al. 2014; Penfold, C., et al. 2004). Even when cases do get reported, sex workers often experience discrimination (Kinnell 2008, Sullivan 2004; Shannon and Csete, 2010). This has led to increased evidence-based calls to make violence against sex workers a public health and human rights priority on national and international policy agendas (Amnesty International 2016, WHO 2012).

A detailed examination of the research and policy literature shows the issue of violence against marginalised sex working populations has been dominated by the 'politics of sex work', with violence often used rhetorically in battles over what overall legal model would best promote safety (Pitcher and Wijers 2014; Shannon et al 2004). In order to facilitate a more collaborative public health response, there is an urgent need for studies that document not only sex workers' experiences of violence, but also for comparative and peer-led research to better document and respond to the contextual factors shaping sexual violence against sex working populations and the interventions that best promote a sense of justice for victims (Connelly et al 2018, Platt et al 2018).

In this research, we will explore how the legal boundaries of sexual assault and rape are constructed in practice (not just in abstract debates) and compare how criminal justice processes operate in different jurisdictions and in different contexts. This project will be the first international, comparative study to examine the contextual factors that shape sexual violence against sex workers, initiating a programme of research in New Zealand, the UK, Northern Ireland and Nevada, USA. Our aims are threefold:

1. Theoretical: to explore sex workers' experiences and prevalence of sexual violence against the legal norms and boundaries in each of the four legislative models, also examining the least investigated inflictions such as 'stealthing' (removal of condom). This will be operationalised across the four study locations through online surveys of sex workers on sexual violence, which will measure prevalence, experiences, understandings of the law, experiences with the police, courts and other agencies, support received and interventions, and outcomes of cases.

2. Empirical: to enhance what is known about sex workers' experiences of the criminal justice system by excavating new empirical data on how the system operates in different jurisdictions, looking at the impact of legislative models on how sexual violence is responded to, the impact of different settings and attrition, outcome, and conviction. This will be operationalised through case observations (n=5 per country, total 20) of sexual assaults which have gone through the criminal justice system, with analysis for characteristics, perpetrator, outcome, and conviction.

3. Practice-based: to facilitate the integration of best practice from review of what works regarding supporting victims into safety and health-related provision, policies and agencies, led by 'experts by experience'. This will be operationalised through interviews with practitioners, police, and criminal justice personnel (n=30 per country) to assess issues such as reporting, signposting, available resources, therapy, and criminal justice support.

Incident-based crime statistics (actual incidents, rate per 100,000 population, percentage change in rate, unfounded incidents, percent unfounded, total cleared, cleared by charge, cleared otherwise, persons charged, adults charged, youth charged / not charged), by detailed violations (violent, property, traffic, drugs, other Federal Statutes), police services in Ontario, 1998 to 2023.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

This research focused on crime and its relation to risk of victimisation and the suggestion that high-risk groups, in particular, young men, report lower fear than low-risk groups, in particular, older women.
The notion of anxiety as a mediating influence in the relationship between risk of victimisation and fear of crime was examined. Through a set of face-to-face interviews, the research found that the effect of risk figured prominently in interviewee's accounts of their fear of crime and their previous victimisation. They not only positioned themselves as more or less at risk but more actively were recurrently engaged in more or less ‘risky’ practices. The research suggests that the relations between risk and fear of crime cannot be understood without theorising the multiple meanings attaching to a person’s identity which become invested with anxiety.
The data consists of interview transcripts with men and women living on estates where the incidence of crime was either high or low. The interviews aimed to understand the differences in fear of crime among different social groups, integrating demographic characteristics, analyses of gender, ethnicity and age.
Main Topics:

Anxiety; childhood; community life; crime; crime victims; fear of crime; gender; psychoanalysis; risk; violence.

The gender or sex ratio in China has been a contentious issue since the introduction of the one-child policy in 1979, intended to limit the population of the country. Although the policy is no longer in place, the population gender difference throughout the country is still evident. In 2023, fifteen to nineteen-year-old children had the largest gender disparity of 115.3 males to every 100 females. Gender imbalance While the difference of gender at birth has been decreasing in the country over the past decade, China still boasts the world’s most skewed sex ratio at birth at around 110 males born for every 100 females as of 2023. That means there are about 31 million more men in the country than women. This imbalance likely came from the country’s traditional preference for male children to continue the family lineage, in combination with the population control policies enforced. Where does that leave the population? The surplus of young, single men across the country poses a risk for China in many different socio-economic areas. Some of the roll-on effects include males overrepresenting specific labor markets, savings rates increasing, consumption reducing and violent crime increasing across the country. However, the adult mortality rate in China, that is, the probability of a 15-year-old dying before reaching age 60, was significantly higher for men than for women. For the Chinese population over 60 years of age, the gender ratio is in favor of women, with more females outliving their male counterparts.

This statistic shows the percentage of victimizations of a serious violent crime in the United States from 2003 to 2012 distinguished by victim-offender relationship and the victim's gender. Between 2003 and 2012, around 65% of all serious violent crime against women was committed by someone the victim knew. In comparison, around 55% of all serious violent crime against men was committed by a stranger.

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.

This study examined the ways in which the model of the Kings County Felony Domestic Violence Court (FDVC) changed the way cases were processed and adjudicated, the impact of this approach on outcomes, and its effects on recidivism. In order to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the FDVC, the researchers selected three samples of cases for collection of detailed data and comparisons on case characteristics, processing, and outcomes. First, felony domestic violence cases indicted from 1995 to early 1996 before the FDVC was established, and adjudicated by various parts of the state Supreme Court were studied. These pre-FDVC cases provided a comparison group for assessing differences associated with the FDVC model. Very few of these cases had felony protection order violations as the sole or top indictment charge, since they predated the implementation of the expanded criminal contempt law that went into effect in September 1996. Second, a sample of cases adjudicated by FDVC in its early period (the first half of 1997, after the model was fully implemented) and similar in indictment charges to the pre-FDVC cases was selected. These were cases that had indictment charges other than, or in addition to, felony criminal contempt charges for protection order violations. In other words, these were cases that would have been indicted and adjudicated in the state Supreme Court even without application of the September 1996 law. Third, because the September 1996 law felonizing many protection order violations (under criminal contempt statutes) broadened the types of cases handled by the Supreme Court, compared with those handled in the Supreme Court prior to this law, an additional sample of cases adjudicated by the FDVC (beginning in the first half of 1997) was selected. This was a small sample in which felony protection order violations were the only indicted felony charges. These cases would not have been indicted on felonies during the pre-FDVC period, and so would have remained in the criminal courts as misdemeanors. The inclusion of this sample allowed the researchers to assess how the protection order violation cases were different from the general population of FDVC cases, and how they might be handled differently by the Court and partner agencies. These cases were designated "CC-only" because their only felony indictment was for criminal contempt, the law under which felony protection order violations were charged. Variables in Part 1, Recidivism Data, contain information on number of appearance warrants issued, days incarcerated for predisposition, number of appearances for predisposition and post-disposition, bail conditions (i.e., batterer treatment or drug treatment), top charge at arrest, indictment, and disposition, indications of defendant's substance abuse of alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, and psychological problems, types of disposition and probation, months of incarceration, sentence conditions, history of abuse by defendant against the victim, length of abuse in months, history of physical assault and sexual abuse, past weapon use, and medical attention needed for past domestic violence. Additional variables focus on whether an order of protection was issued before the current incident, whether the defendant was arrested for past domestic violence with this victim, total number of known victims, weapon used during incident, injury during the incident, medical attention sought, number of final orders of protection, whether the defendant was jailed throughout the pending case, number of releases during the case, number of reincarcerations after release, whether the victim lived with the defendant, whether the victim lived with children in common with the defendant, relationship between the victim and the defendant, number of months the victim had known the defendant, number of children in common with the defendant, whether the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence, disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex and race of the defendant.