In 2023, the violent crime rate in the United States was 363.8 cases per 100,000 of the population. Even though the violent crime rate has been decreasing since 1990, the United States tops the ranking of countries with the most prisoners. In addition, due to the FBI's transition to a new crime reporting system in which law enforcement agencies voluntarily submit crime reports, data may not accurately reflect the total number of crimes committed in recent years. Reported violent crime rate in the United States The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation tracks the rate of reported violent crimes per 100,000 U.S. inhabitants. In the timeline above, rates are shown starting in 1990. The rate of reported violent crime has fallen since a high of 758.20 reported crimes in 1991 to a low of 363.6 reported violent crimes in 2014. In 2023, there were around 1.22 million violent crimes reported to the FBI in the United States. This number can be compared to the total number of property crimes, roughly 6.41 million that year. Of violent crimes in 2023, aggravated assaults were the most common offenses in the United States, while homicide offenses were the least common. Law enforcement officers and crime clearance Though the violent crime rate was down in 2013, the number of law enforcement officers also fell. Between 2005 and 2009, the number of law enforcement officers in the United States rose from around 673,100 to 708,800. However, since 2009, the number of officers fell to a low of 626,900 officers in 2013. The number of law enforcement officers has since grown, reaching 720,652 in 2023. In 2023, the crime clearance rate in the U.S. was highest for murder and non-negligent manslaughter charges, with around 57.8 percent of murders being solved by investigators and a suspect being charged with the crime. Additionally, roughly 46.1 percent of aggravated assaults were cleared in that year. A statistics report on violent crime in the U.S. can be found here.

In 2022, about *********** violent crimes were reported in the United States. Of these, about ************ were simple assault. A further ************ violent crimes were domestic violence.

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.

This data set contains count data on domestic violence homicide and intimate partner homicide incidents from the 2015 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR) and population from the SHR.

This survey of prosecutors was undertaken to describe current practice and identify "promising practices" with respect to cases involving domestic violence and child victims or witnesses. It sought to answer the following questions: (1) What are the challenges facing prosecutors when children are exposed to domestic violence? (2) How are new laws regarding domestic violence committed in the presence of children, now operating in a small number of states, affecting practice? (3) What can prosecutors do to help battered women and their children? To gather data on these topics, the researchers conducted a national telephone survey of prosecutors. Questions asked include case assignment, jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office, caseload, protocol for coordinating cases, asking about domestic violence when investigating child abuse cases, asking about children when investigating domestic violence cases, and how the respondent found out when a child abuse case involved domestic violence or when a domestic violence case involved children. Other variables cover whether police routinely checked for prior Child Protective Services (CPS) reports, if these cases were heard by the same judge, in the same court, and were handled by the same prosecutor, if there were laws identifying exposure to domestic violence as child abuse, if there were laws applying or enhancing criminal penalties when children were exposed to domestic violence, if the state legislature was considering any such action, if prosecutors were using other avenues to enhance penalties, if there was pertinent caselaw, and if the respondent's office had a no-drop policy for domestic violence cases. Additional items focus on whether the presence of children influenced decisions to prosecute, if the office would report or prosecute a battered woman who abused her children, or failed to protect her children from abuse or from exposure to domestic violence, how often the office prosecuted such women, if there was a batterers' treatment program in the community, how often batterers were sentenced to attend the treatment program, if there were programs to which the respondent could refer battered mothers and children, what types of programs were operating, and if prosecutors had received training on domestic violence issues.

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.

In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.

This dataset contains the yearly statistics on the victim types by bias motivation. Major categories of victim types include individuals, government, business/financial institution, religious organization, society/public and other or multiple victims. Major categories of bias motivations include Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Gender and Gender Identity.

In 2023, an estimated 1,21,467 violent crimes occurred in the United States. This is a decrease from the year before, when 1,256,671 violent crimes were reported. Violent crime in the United States The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that violent crime fell nationwide in the period from 1990 to 2023. Violent crime was at a height of 1.93 million crimes in 1992, but has since reached a low of 1.15 million violent crimes in 2014. When conducting crime reporting, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program considered murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault to be violent crimes, because they are offenses which involve force or threat of violence. In 2023, there were 19,252 reported murder and nonnegligent manslaughter cases in the United States. California ranked first on a list of U.S. states by number of murders, followed by Texas, and Florida.The greatest number of murders were committed by murderers of unknown relationship to their victim. “Girlfriend” was the fourth most common relationship of victim to offender in 2023, with a reported 568 partners murdering their girlfriends that year, while the sixth most common was “wife.” In addition, seven people were murdered by their employees and 12 people were murdered by their employers. The most used murder weapon in 2023 was the handgun, which was used in 7,1 murders that year. According to the FBI, firearms (of all types) were used in more than half of the nation’s murders. The total number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. annually has reached over 13 million units.

The major goals of the project were to use survey data about victimization experiences among American women to examine: (a) the consequences of victimization for women's physical and mental health, (b) how the impact of victimization on women's health sequelae is conditioned by the victim's invoking of family and community support, and (c) how among victims of intimate partner violence, such factors as the relationship between the victim and offender, the offender's characteristics, and police involvement condition the impact of victimization on the victim's subsequent physical and mental health. This data collection consists of the SPSS syntax used to recode existing variables and create new variables from the study, VIOLENCE AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND MEN IN THE UNITED STATES, 1994-1996 (ICPSR 2566). The study, also known as the National Violence against Women Survey (NVAWS), surveyed 8,000 women 18 years of age or older residing in households throughout the United States in 1995 and 1996. The data for the NVAWS were gathered via a national, random-digit dialing sample of telephone households in the United States, stratified by United States Census region. The NVAWS respondents were asked about their lifetime experiences with four different kinds of violent victimization: sexual abuse, physical abuse, stalking, and intimidation. Using the data from the NVAWS, the researchers in this study performed three separate analyses. The study included outcome variables, focal variables, moderator variables, and control variables.

This dataset contains the yearly statistics on the number of victims by offense types and by bias motivation. Major categories of offense types include crimes against persons, crimes against property and crimes against society. Each offense type is further categorized by type of crime such as murder, rape, trafficking, robbery etc. Major categories of bias motivations include Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Gender and Gender Identity.

The purpose of this project was to estimate long-term trends in violent victimization by gender and various socio-demographic factors. These factors included race and ethnicity, age, type of place (urban, suburban, rural), socio-economic status, marital status (for adults), and family status (for juveniles). The principal investigators also further disaggregated these violent victimization trends by victim-offender relationship to reveal trends in violence committed by strangers, intimate partners, and known/non-intimate offenders. The researchers produced these various trends in violent victimization by pooling and appropriately weighting the National Crime Survey and its successor, the National Crime Victimization Survey for the period 1973 to 2005, resulting in 33 years of data. In total, a series of 135 trends in violent victimization were developed.

These data examine the relationships between childhood abuse and/or neglect and later criminal and violent criminal behavior. In particular, the data focus on whether being a victim of violence and/or neglect in early childhood leads to being a criminal offender in adolescence or early adulthood and whether a relationship exists between childhood abuse or neglect and arrests as a juvenile, arrests as an adult, and arrests for violent offenses. For this data collection, adult and juvenile criminal histories of sampled cases with backgrounds of abuse or neglect were compared to those of a matched control group with no official record of abuse or neglect. Variables contained in Part 1 include demographic information (age, race, sex, and date of birth). In Part 2, information is presented on the abuse/neglect incident (type of abuse or neglect, duration of the incident, whether the child was removed from the home and, if so, for how long, results of the placement, and whether the individual was still alive). Part 3 contains family information (with whom the child was living at the time of the incident, family disruptions, and who reported the abuse or neglect) and data on the perpetrator of the incident (relation to the victim, age, race, sex, and whether living in the home of the victim). Part 4 contains information on the charges filed within adult arrest incidents (occasion for arrest, multiple counts of the same type of charge, year and location of arrest, and type of offense or charge), and Part 5 includes information on the charges filed within juvenile arrest incidents (year of juvenile charge, number of arrests, and type of offense or charge). The unit of analysis for Parts 1 through 3 is the individual at age 11 or younger, for Part 4 the charge within the adult arrest incident, and for Part 5 the charge within the juvenile arrest incident.

In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.

United States US: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data was reported at 1.000 NA in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 1.000 NA for 2015. United States US: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data is updated yearly, averaging 1.000 NA from Sep 2013 (Median) to 2017, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.000 NA in 2017 and a record low of 1.000 NA in 2017. United States US: Legislation Exists on Domestic Violence: 1=Yes; 0=No data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.World Bank: Policy and Institutions. Legislation exists on domestic violence is whether there is legislation addressing domestic violence: violence between spouses, within the family or members of the same household, or in interpersonal relationships, including intimate partner violence that is subject to criminal sanctions or provides for protection orders for domestic violence, or the legislation addresses “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” or “harassment” that clearly affects physical or mental health, and it is implied that such behavior is considered domestic violence.; ; World Bank: Women, Business and the Law.; ;

This study provides an evidence-based understanding on etiological issues related to school shootings and rampage shootings. It created a national, open-source database that includes all publicly known shootings that resulted in at least one injury that occurred on K-12 school grounds between 1990 and 2016. The investigators sought to better understand the nature of the problem and clarify the types of shooting incidents occurring in schools, provide information on the characteristics of school shooters, and compare fatal shooting incidents to events where only injuries resulted to identify intervention points that could be exploited to reduce the harm caused by shootings. To accomplish these objectives, the investigators used quantitative multivariate and qualitative case studies research methods to document where and when school violence occurs, and highlight key incident and perpetrator level characteristics to help law enforcement and school administrators differentiate between the kinds of school shootings that exist, to further policy responses that are appropriate for individuals and communities.

1) Data Introduction • The Gun Violence Dataset in US is a tabularized data set for gun violence analysis that includes the date, location, victim and suspect information, and geographic coordinates of major 2024 shootings across the U.S.

2) Data Utilization (1) Gun Violence Dataset in US has characteristics that: • Each row contains key information about the shooting, including incident-specific ID, date of occurrence, state and city/county, number of deaths and injuries, suspects (death, injury, arrest), latitude, and longitude. • Data is designed to analyze the distribution of gun incidents and the extent of damage by month and region, and spatial analysis through geographic coordinates is also possible. (2) Gun Violence Dataset in US can be used to: • Analysis of shooting trends by region: Use data by location, magnitude of damage, and time to visualize and analyze the regional and temporal distribution and risk areas of gun violence. • Establishing public safety policies and prevention strategies: Based on victim and suspect information and incident characteristics, it can be used to establish effective gun control, prevention policies, resource allocation strategies, and more.

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the level of domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States and to promote effective prosecution approaches through dissemination of information. The project sought to identify and connect local attorneys' needs for information with the best knowledge available on the most effective prosecution methods. In order to appraise domestic violence prosecution in the United States, the researchers mailed a survey to a nationally-representative sample of prosecutors to assess prosecution strategies in domestic violence cases (Part 1, Prosecutors' Survey Data). Smaller jurisdictions had such a low response rate to the initial survey that a modified follow-up survey (Part 2, Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data) was administered to those jurisdictions. From these surveys, the researchers identified three sites with pioneering specialized domestic violence prosecution programs: Duluth, Minnesota, King County, Washington, and San Francisco, California. In these three sites, the researchers then conducted a case file analysis of a random sample of domestic violence cases (Part 3, Case File Data). A survey of a random sample of female victims was also undertaken in King County and San Francisco (Part 4, Victim Interview Data). In addition, the researchers conducted on-site evaluations of these three specialized programs in which they interviewed staff about the scope of the domestic violence problem, domestic violence support personnel, the impact of the program on the domestic violence problem, and recommendations for the future. The qualitative data collected from these evaluations are provided only in the codebook for this collection. Parts 1 and 2, the Prosecutors' Surveys, contain variables about case management, case screening and charging, pretrial release policies, post-charge diversion, trial, sentencing options, victim support programs, and office and jurisdiction demographics. Questions cover the volume of domestic violence prosecutions, formal protocols for domestic violence prosecution, ways to deal with uncooperative victims, pro-arrest and no-drop policies, protection orders, types of evidence used, and collaboration with other organizations to prosecute domestic violence cases. In addition, Part 1 includes variables on diversion programs, victim noncompliance, substance abuse problems, victim support programs, and plea negotiations. Variables in Part 3, Case File Data, deal with reporting, initial and final charges, injuries sustained, weapons used, evidence available, protection orders issued, victim cooperation, police testimony, disposition, sentence, costs, and restitution for each domestic violence case. Part 4, Victim Interview Data, includes variables concerning victims' employment history, number of children, and substance abuse, opinions about the charges against the defendant, decision-making in the case, and prosecution strategies, and victims' participation in the case, amount of support from and contact with criminal justice agencies, safety concerns, and performance evaluations of various levels of the criminal justice system.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing nationally representative survey that assesses experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence among adult women and men in the United States and for each individual state. The survey focused exclusively on violence and collects information about Sexual violence by any perpetrator, including information related to rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences Stalking, including the use of technologies such as text messages, emails, monitoring devices (e.g., cameras and GPS, or global positioning system devices), by perpetrators known and unknown to the victim Physical violence by an intimate partner Psychological aggression by an intimate partner, including information on expressive forms of aggression and coercive control Control of reproductive or sexual health by an intimate partner In addition to collecting lifetime and 12 month prevalence data on sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence, the survey collects information on the age at the time of the first victimization, demographic characteristics of respondents, demographic characteristics of perpetrators (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and detailed information about the context in which these types of violence occur. The primary objectives of the survey are to describe the prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence in the United States; who is most likely to experience these forms of violence; the context in which sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence are experienced; and the consequences and impacts of these forms of violence. The data file contains 18,957 cases and 26,114 variables.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:11 PM EASTERN ON JULY 16

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.