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.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime that have occurred in the City of Chicago over the past year, minus the most recent seven days of data. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited.

The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. Any use of the information for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily.

Records from the Crimes - 2001 to Present dataset for the indicated year.

Please see the description section of the full dataset for further information about the data.

Context

Approximately 10 people are shot on an average day in Chicago.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-homicide-victims-2017-htmlstory.html

Content

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. This data includes unverified reports supplied to the Police Department. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time.

Update Frequency: Daily

Fork this kernel to get started.

Acknowledgements

https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/dataset/bigquery-public-data:chicago_crime

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/public-data/chicago-crime-data

Dataset Source: City of Chicago

This dataset is publicly available for anyone to use under the following terms provided by the Dataset Source —https://data.cityofchicago.org — and is provided "AS IS" without any warranty, express or implied, from Google. Google disclaims all liability for any damages, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the dataset.

Banner Photo by Ferdinand Stohr from Unplash.

Inspiration

What categories of crime exhibited the greatest year-over-year increase between 2015 and 2016?

Which month generally has the greatest number of motor vehicle thefts?

How does temperature affect the incident rate of violent crime (assault or battery)?

https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/images/chicago-scatter.png" alt=""> https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/images/chicago-scatter.png

This dataset contains aggregate data on violent index victimizations at the quarter level of each year (i.e., January – March, April – June, July – September, October – December), from 2001 to the present (1991 to present for Homicides), with a focus on those related to gun violence. Index crimes are 10 crime types selected by the FBI (codes 1-4) for special focus due to their seriousness and frequency. This dataset includes only those index crimes that involve bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm and are reported to the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Each row is aggregated up to victimization type, age group, sex, race, and whether the victimization was domestic-related. Aggregating at the quarter level provides large enough blocks of incidents to protect anonymity while allowing the end user to observe inter-year and intra-year variation. Any row where there were fewer than three incidents during a given quarter has been deleted to help prevent re-identification of victims. For example, if there were three domestic criminal sexual assaults during January to March 2020, all victims associated with those incidents have been removed from this dataset. Human trafficking victimizations have been aggregated separately due to the extremely small number of victimizations.

This dataset includes a " GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow CPD time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information.

How does this dataset classify victims?

The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type:

Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table.

To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset.

For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization:

1. In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a first-degree murder (IUCR code = 0110) or a second-degree murder (IUCR code = 0130).
2. When a non-fatal shooting victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code that signifies a criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated battery, we enter “UNK” in the IUCR column, “YES” in the GUNSHOT_I column, and “NON-FATAL” in the PRIMARY column to indicate that the victim was non-fatally shot, but the precise IUCR code is unknown.

Other violent crime victims: For other violent crime types, we refer to the IUCR classification that exists in CPD's victim table, with only one exception:

1. When there is an incident that is associated with no victim with a matching IUCR code, we assume that this is an error. Every crime should have at least 1 victim with a matching IUCR code. In these cases, we change the IUCR code to reflect the incident IUCR code because CPD's incident table is considered to be more reliable than the victim table.

Note: All businesses identified as victims in CPD data have been removed from this dataset.

Note: The definition of “homicide” (shooting or otherwise) does not include justifiable homicide or involuntary manslaughter. This dataset also excludes any cases that CPD considers to be “unfounded” or “noncriminal.”

Note: In some instances, the police department's raw incident-level data and victim-level data that were inputs into this dataset do not align on the type of crime that occurred. In those instances, this dataset attempts to correct mismatches between incident and victim specific crime types. When it is not possible to determine which victims are associated with the most recent crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily Tuesday through Sunday. The dataset contains more than 65,000 records/rows of data and cannot be viewed in full in Microsoft Excel. Therefore, when downloading the file, select CSV from the Export menu. Open the file in an ASCII text editor, such as Wordpad, to view and search. To access a list of Chicago Police Department - Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (IUCR) codes, go to http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Chicago-Police-Department-Illinois-Uniform-Crime-R/c7ck-438e

This dataset contains individual-level homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, including homicide data from 1991 to the present, and non-fatal shooting data from 2010 to the present (2010 is the earliest available year for shooting data). This dataset includes a "GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized-access dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

Each row represents a single victimization, i.e., a unique event when an individual became the victim of a homicide or non-fatal shooting. Each row does not represent a unique victim—if someone is victimized multiple times there will be multiple rows for each of those distinct events.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow the Chicago Police Department (CPD) time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information.

A version of this dataset with additional crime types is available by request. To make a request, please email dataportal@cityofchicago.org with the subject line: Violence Reduction Victims Access Request. Access will require an account on this site, which you may create at https://data.cityofchicago.org/signup.

How does this dataset classify victims?

The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type:

Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table.

To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset. For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization:

1. In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a first-degree murder (IUCR code = 0110) or a second-degree murder (IUCR code = 0130).
2. When a non-fatal shooting victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code that signifies a criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated battery, we enter “UNK” in the IUCR column, “YES” in the GUNSHOT_I column, and “NON-FATAL” in the PRIMARY column to indicate that the victim was non-fatally shot, but the precise IUCR code is unknown.

Other violent crime victims: For other violent crime types, we refer to the IUCR classification that exists in CPD's victim table, with only one exception:

1. When there is an incident that is associated with no victim with a matching IUCR code, we assume that this is an error. Every crime should have at least 1 victim with a matching IUCR code. In these cases, we change the IUCR code to reflect the incident IUCR code because CPD's incident table is considered to be more reliable than the victim table.

Note: The definition of “homicide” (shooting or otherwise) does not include justifiable homicide or involuntary manslaughter. This dataset also excludes any cases that CPD considers to be “unfounded” or “noncriminal.” Officer-involved shootings are not included.

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

Note: In some instances, CPD's raw incident-level data and victim-level data that were inputs into this dataset do not align on the type of crime that occurred. In those instances, this dataset attempts to correct mismatches between incident and victim specific crime types. When it is not possible to determine which victims are associated with the most reliable crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: Homicide victims names are delayed by two weeks to allow time for the victim’s family to be notified of their passing.

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

Note: This dataset includes variables referencing administrative or political boundaries that are subject to change. These include Street Outreach Organization boundary, Ward, Chicago Police Department District, Chicago Police Department Area, Chicago Police Department Beat, Illinois State Senate District, and Illinois State House of Representatives District. These variables reflect current geographic boundaries as of November 1st, 2021. In some instances, current boundaries may conflict with those that were in place at the time that a given incident occurred in prior years. For example, the Chicago Police Department districts 021 and 013 no longer exist. Any historical violent crime victimization that occurred in those districts when they were in existence are marked in this dataset as having occurred in the current districts that expanded to replace 013 and 021."

In 2023, around 3,640.56 violent crimes per 100,000 residents were reported in Oakland, California. This made Oakland the most dangerous city in the United States in that year. Four categories of violent crimes were used: murder and non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery; and aggravated assault. Only cities with a population of at least 200,000 were considered.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Cook County, IL (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC017031) from 2011 to 2020 about Cook County, IL; crime; violent crime; property crime; Chicago; IL; and USA.

In 2022, the New Orleans-Metairie, LA metro area recorded the highest homicide rate of U.S. cities with a population over 250,000, at **** homicides per 100,000 residents, followed by the Memphis, TN-MS-AR metro area. However, homicide data was not recorded in all U.S. metro areas, meaning that there may be some cities with a higher homicide rate. St. Louis St. Louis, which had a murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate of **** in 2022, is the second-largest city by population in Missouri. It is home to many famous treasures, such as the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team, Washington University in St. Louis, the Saint Louis Zoo, and the renowned Gateway Arch. It is also home to many corporations, such as Monsanto, Arch Coal, and Emerson Electric. The economy of St. Louis is centered around business and healthcare, and boasts ten Fortune 500 companies. Crime in St. Louis Despite all of this, St. Louis suffers from high levels of crime and violence. As of 2023, it was listed as the seventh most dangerous city in the world as a result of their extremely high murder rate. Not only does St. Louis have one of the highest homicide rates in the United States, it also reports one of the highest numbers of violent crimes. Despite high crime levels, the GDP of the St. Louis metropolitan area has been increasing since 2001.

This study sought to answer the question: If a woman is experiencing intimate partner violence, does the collective efficacy and community capacity of her neighborhood facilitate or erect barriers to her ability to escape violence, other things being equal? To address this question, longitudinal data on a sample of 210 abused women from the CHICAGO WOMEN'S HEALTH RISK STUDY, 1995-1998 (ICPSR 3002) were combined with community context data for each woman's residential neighborhood taken from the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) evaluation, LONGITUDINAL EVALUATION OF CHICAGO'S COMMUNITY POLICING PROGRAM, 1993-2000 (ICPSR 3335). The unit of analysis for the study is the individual abused woman (not the neighborhood). The study takes the point of view of a woman standing at a street address and looking around her. The characteristics of the small geographical area immediately surrounding her residential address form the community context for that woman. Researchers chose the police beat as the best definition of a woman's neighborhood, because it is the smallest Chicago area for which reliable and complete data are available. The characteristics of the woman's police beat then became the community context for each woman. The beat, district, and community area of the woman's address are present. Neighborhood-level variables include voter turnout percentage, organizational involvement, percentage of households on public aid, percentage of housing that was vacant, percentage of housing units owned, percentage of feminine poverty households, assault rate, and drug crime rate. Individual-level demographic variables include the race, ethnicity, age, marital status, income, and level of education of the woman and the abuser. Other individual-level variables include the Social Support Network (SSN) scale, language the interview was conducted in, Harass score, Power and Control score, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis, other data pertaining to the respondent's emotional and physical health, and changes over the past year. Also included are details about the woman's household, such as whether she was homeless, the number of people living in the household and details about each person, the number of her children or other children in the household, details of any of her children not living in her household, and any changes in the household structure over the past year. Help-seeking in the past year includes whether the woman had sought medical care, had contacted the police, or had sought help from an agency or counselor, and whether she had an order of protection. Several variables reflect whether the woman left or tried to leave the relationship in the past year. Finally, the dataset includes summary variables about violent incidents in the past year (severity, recency, and frequency), and in the follow-up period.

This dataset reflects reported incidents of crime (with the exception of murders where data exists for each victim) that occurred in the City of Chicago from 2001 to present, minus the most recent seven days. Data is extracted from the Chicago Police Department's CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system. In order to protect the privacy of crime victims, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. Should you have questions about this dataset, you may contact the Research & Development Division of the Chicago Police Department at 312.745.6071 or RandD@chicagopolice.org. Disclaimer: These crimes may be based upon preliminary information supplied to the Police Department by the reporting parties that have not been verified. The preliminary crime classifications may be changed at a later date based upon additional investigation and there is always the possibility of mechanical or human error. Therefore, the Chicago Police Department does not guarantee (either expressed or implied) the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or correct sequencing of the information and the information should not be used for comparison purposes over time. The Chicago Police Department will not be responsible for any error or omission, or for the use of, or the results obtained from the use of this information. All data visualizations on maps should be considered approximate and attempts to derive specific addresses are strictly prohibited. The Chicago Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Chicago or Chicago Police Department web page. The user specifically acknowledges that the Chicago Police Department is not responsible for any defamatory, offensive, misleading, or illegal conduct of other users, links, or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user. The unauthorized use of the words "Chicago Police Department," "Chicago Police," or any colorable imitation of these words or the unauthorized use of the Chicago Police Department logo is unlawful. This web page does not, in any way, authorize such use. Data is updated daily Tuesday through Sunday. The dataset contains more than 65,000 records/rows of data and cannot be viewed in full in Microsoft Excel. Therefore, when downloading the file, select CSV from the Export menu. Open the file in an ASCII text editor, such as Wordpad, to view and search. To access a list of Chicago Police Department - Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting (IUCR) codes, go to http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Chicago-Police-Department-Illinois-Uniform-Crime-R/c7ck-438e

In 2025, Pietermaritzburg in South Africa ranked as the world's most dangerous city with a crime rate of 82 per 100,000 inhabitants. Five of the 10 cities with the highest crime rates worldwide are found in South Africa. The list does not include countries where war and conflict exist. South Africa dominates crime statistics When looking at crime rates, among the 10 most dangerous cities in the world, half of them are found in South Africa. The country is struggling with extremely high levels of inequality, and is struggling with high levels of crime and power outages, harming the country's economy and driving more people into unemployment and poverty. Crime in Latin America On the other hand, when looking at murder rates, Latin America dominates the list of the world's most dangerous countries. Violence in Latin America is caused in great part by drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and gang wars.

The goal of the Chicago Women's Health Risk Study (CWHRS) was to develop a reliable and validated profile of risk factors directly related to lethal or life-threatening outcomes in intimate partner violence, for use in agencies and organizations working to help women in abusive relationships. Data were collected to draw comparisons between abused women in situations resulting in fatal outcomes and those without fatal outcomes, as well as a baseline comparison of abused women and non-abused women, taking into account the interaction of events, circumstances, and interventions occurring over the course of a year or two. The CWHRS used a quasi-experimental design to gather survey data on 705 women at the point of service for any kind of treatment (related to abuse or not) sought at one of four medical sites serving populations in areas with high rates of intimate partner homicide (Chicago Women's Health Center, Cook County Hospital, Erie Family Health Center, and Roseland Public Health Center). Over 2,600 women were randomly screened in these settings, following strict protocols for safety and privacy. One goal of the design was that the sample would not systematically exclude high-risk but understudied populations, such as expectant mothers, women without regular sources of health care, and abused women in situations where the abuse is unknown to helping agencies. To accomplish this, the study used sensitive contact and interview procedures, developed sensitive instruments, and worked closely with each sample site. The CWHRS attempted to interview all women who answered "yes -- within the past year" to any of the three screening questions, and about 30 percent of women who did not answer yes, provided that the women were over age 17 and had been in an intimate relationship in the past year. In total, 705 women were interviewed, 497 of whom reported that they had experienced physical violence or a violent threat at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year (the abused, or AW, group). The remaining 208 women formed the comparison group (the non-abused, or NAW, group). Data from the initial interview sections comprise Parts 1-8. For some women, the AW versus NAW interview status was not the same as their screening status. When a woman told the interviewer that she had experienced violence or a violent threat in the past year, she and the interviewer completed a daily calendar history, including details of important events and each violent incident that had occurred the previous year. The study attempted to conduct one or two follow-up interviews over the following year with the 497 women categorized as AW. The follow-up rate was 66 percent. Data from this part of the clinic/hospital sample are found in Parts 9-12. In addition to the clinic/hospital sample, the CWHRS collected data on each of the 87 intimate partner homicides occurring in Chicago over a two-year period that involved at least one woman age 18 or older. Using the same interview schedule as for the clinic/hospital sample, CWHRS interviewers conducted personal interviews with one to three "proxy respondents" per case, people who were knowledgeable and credible sources of information about the couple and their relationship, and information was compiled from official or public records, such as court records, witness statements, and newspaper accounts (Parts 13-15). In homicides in which a woman was the homicide offender, attempts were made to contact and interview her. This "lethal" sample, all such homicides that took place in 1995 or 1996, was developed from two sources, HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1995 (ICPSR 6399) and the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office. Part 1 includes demographic variables describing each respondent, such as age, race and ethnicity, level of education, employment status, screening status (AW or NAW), birthplace, and marital status. Variables in Part 2 include details about the woman's household, such as whether she was homeless, the number of people living in the household and details about each person, the number of her children or other children in the household, details of any of her children not living in her household, and any changes in the household structure over the past year. Variables in Part 3 deal with the woman's physical and mental health, including pregnancy, and with her social support network and material resources. Variables in Part 4 provide information on the number and type of firearms in the household, whether the woman had experienced power, control, stalking, or harassment at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, whether she had experienced specific types of violence or violent threats at the hands of an intimate partner in the past year, and whether she had experienced symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to the incidents in the past month. Variables in Part 5 specify the partner or partners who were responsible for the incidents in the past year, record the type and length of the woman's relationship with each of these partners, and provide detailed information on the one partner she chose to talk about (called "Name"). Variables in Part 6 probe the woman's help-seeking and interventions in the past year. Variables in Part 7 include questions comprising the Campbell Danger Assessment (Campbell, 1993). Part 8 assembles variables pertaining to the chosen abusive partner (Name). Part 9, an event-level file, includes the type and the date of each event the woman discussed in a 12-month retrospective calendar history. Part 10, an incident-level file, includes variables describing each violent incident or threat of violence. There is a unique identifier linking each woman to her set of events or incidents. Part 11 is a person-level file in which the incidents in Part 10 have been aggregated into totals for each woman. Variables in Part 11 include, for example, the total number of incidents during the year, the number of days before the interview that the most recent incident had occurred, and the severity of the most severe incident in the past year. Part 12 is a person-level file that summarizes incident information from the follow-up interviews, including the number of abuse incidents from the initial interview to the last follow-up, the number of days between the initial interview and the last follow-up, and the maximum severity of any follow-up incident. Parts 1-12 contain a unique identifier variable that allows users to link each respondent across files. Parts 13-15 contain data from official records sources and information supplied by proxies for victims of intimate partner homicides in 1995 and 1996 in Chicago. Part 13 contains information about the homicide incidents from the "lethal sample," along with outcomes of the court cases (if any) from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Variables for Part 13 include the number of victims killed in the incident, the month and year of the incident, the gender, race, and age of both the victim and offender, who initiated the violence, the severity of any other violence immediately preceding the death, if leaving the relationship triggered the final incident, whether either partner was invading the other's home at the time of the incident, whether jealousy or infidelity was an issue in the final incident, whether there was drug or alcohol use noted by witnesses, the predominant motive of the homicide, location of the homicide, relationship of victim to offender, type of weapon used, whether the offender committed suicide after the homicide, whether any criminal charges were filed, and the type of disposition and length of sentence for that charge. Parts 14 and 15 contain data collected using the proxy interview questionnaire (or the interview of the woman offender, if applicable). The questionnaire used for Part 14 was identical to the one used in the clinic sample, except for some extra questions about the homicide incident. The data include only those 76 cases for which at least one interview was conducted. Most variables in Part 14 pertain to the victim or the offender, regardless of gender (unless otherwise labeled). For ease of analysis, Part 15 includes the same 76 cases as Part 14, but the variables are organized from the woman's point of view, regardless of whether she was the victim or offender in the homicide (for the same-sex cases, Part 15 is from the woman victim's point of view). Parts 14 and 15 can be linked by ID number. However, Part 14 includes five sets of variables that were asked only from the woman's perspective in the original questionnaire: household composition, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), social support network, personal income (as opposed to household income), and help-seeking and intervention. To avoid redundancy, these variables appear only in Part 14. Other variables in Part 14 cover information about the person(s) interviewed, the victim's and offender's age, sex, race/ethnicity, birthplace, employment status at time of death, and level of education, a scale of the victim's and offender's severity of physical abuse in the year prior to the death, the length of the relationship between victim and offender, the number of children belonging to each partner, whether either partner tried to leave and/or asked the other to stay away, the reasons why each partner tried to leave, the longest amount of time each partner stayed away, whether either or both partners returned to the relationship before the death, any known physical or emotional problems sustained by victim or offender, including the four-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) scale of depression, drug and alcohol use of the victim and offender, number and type of guns in the household of the victim and offender, Scales of Power and Control (Johnson, 1996) or Stalking and Harassment (Sheridan, 1992) by either intimate partner in the year prior to the death, a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)

These datasets contain information on every homicide in the murder analysis files of the Chicago Police Department for the years 1965-1995. For the victim-level file, Part 1, data are provided on the relationship of victim to offender, whether the victim or offender had previously committed a violent or nonviolent offense, time of occurrence and place of homicide, type of weapon used, cause and motivation for the incident, whether the incident involved drugs, alcohol, gangs, child abuse, or a domestic relationship, if or how the offender was identified, and information on the death of the offender(s). Demographic variables such as the age, sex, and race of each victim and offender are also provided. The victim-level file contains one record for each victim. Information for up to five offenders is included on each victim record. The same offender information is duplicated depending on the number of victims. For example, if a sole offender is responsible for five victims, the file contains five victim records with the offender's information repeated on each record. Part 2, Offender-Level Data, is provided to allow the creation of offender rates and risk analysis that could not be accurately prepared using the victim-level file due to the repeating of the offender information on each victim record. Offender variables were reorganized during the creation of the offender file so that each known offender is associated with a single record. A majority of the variables in the offender-level file are replicas of variables in the victim-level file. The offender records contain demographic information about the offender, demographic and relationship information about the offender's first victim (or sole victim if there was only one), and information about the homicide incident. Information pertaining to the homicide incident such as _location, weapon, or drug use are the same as in the victim-level file. In cases where the offender data were completely missing in the victim-level data, no offender records were generated in the offender-level file. The offender-level data do not contain information about the victims in these cases. Geographic variables in both files include the census tract, community area, police district, and police area.

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.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Lake County, IL (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC017097) from 2010 to 2020 about Lake County, IL; crime; violent crime; property crime; Chicago; IL; and USA.

These data were prepared in conjunction with a project using Bureau of Labor Statistics data (not provided with this collection) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data to examine the relationship between unemployment and violent crime. Three separate time-series data files were created as part of this project: a national time series (Part 1), a state time series (Part 2), and a time series of data for 12 selected cities: Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New York City, Paterson (New Jersey), and Philadelphia (Part 3). Each data file was constructed to include 82 monthly time series: 26 series containing the number of Part I (crime index) offenses known to police (excluding arson) by weapon used, 26 series of the number of offenses cleared by arrest or other exceptional means by weapon used in the offense, 26 series of the number of offenses cleared by arrest or other exceptional means for persons under 18 years of age by weapon used in the offense, a population estimate series, and three date indicator series. For the national and state data, agencies from the 50 states and Washington, DC, were included in the aggregated data file if they reported at least one month of information during the year. In addition, agencies that did not report their own data (and thus had no monthly observations on crime or arrests) were included to make the aggregated population estimate as close to Census estimates as possible. For the city time series, law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the 12 central cities were identified and the monthly data were extracted from each UCR annual file for each of the 12 agencies. The national time-series file contains 82 time series, the state file contains 4,083 time series, and the city file contains 963 time series, each with 228 monthly observations per time series. The unit of analysis is the month of observation. Monthly crime and clearance totals are provided for homicide, negligent manslaughter, total rape, forcible rape, attempted forcible rape, total robbery, firearm robbery, knife/cutting instrument robbery, other dangerous weapon robbery, strong-arm robbery, total assault, firearm assault, knife/cutting instrument assault, other dangerous weapon assault, simple nonaggravated assault, assaults with hands/fists/feet, total burglary, burglary with forcible entry, unlawful entry-no force, attempted forcible entry, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, auto theft, truck and bus theft, other vehicle theft, and grand total of all actual offenses.

This study evaluated CeaseFire, a program of the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention. The evaluation had both outcome and process components. The outcome evaluation assessed the program's impact on shootings and killings in selected CeaseFire sites. Two types of crime data were compiled by the research team: Time Series Data (Dataset 1) and Shooting Incident Data (Dataset 2). Dataset 1 is comprised of aggregate month/year data on all shooting, gun murder, and persons shot incidents reported to Chicago police for CeaseFire's target beats and matched sets of comparison beats between January 1991 and December 2006, resulting in 1,332 observations. Dataset 2 consists of data on 4,828 shootings that were reported in CeaseFire's targeted police beats and in a matched set of comparison beats for two-year periods before and after the implementation of the program (February 1998 to April 2006). The process evaluation involved assessing the program's operations and effectiveness. Researchers surveyed three groups of CeaseFire program stakeholders: employees, representatives of collaborating organizations, and clients. The three sets of employee survey data examine such topics as their level of involvement with clients and CeaseFire activities, their assessments of their clients' problems, and their satisfaction with training and management practices. A total of 154 employees were surveyed: 23 outreach supervisors (Dataset 3), 78 outreach workers (Dataset 4), and 53 violence interrupters (Dataset 5). The six sets of collaborating organization representatives data examine such topics as their level of familiarity and contact with the CeaseFire program, their opinions of CeaseFire clients, and their assessments of the costs and benefits of being involved with CeaseFire. A total of 230 representatives were surveyed: 20 business representatives (Dataset 6), 45 clergy representatives (Dataset 7), 26 community representatives (Dataset 8), 35 police representatives (Dataset 9), 36 school representatives (Dataset 10), and 68 service organization representatives (Dataset 11). The Client Survey Data (Dataset 12) examine such topics as clients' involvement in the CeaseFire program, their satisfaction with aspects of life, and their opinions regarding the role of guns in neighborhood life. A total of 297 clients were interviewed.

Graph and download economic data for Combined Violent and Property Crime Offenses Known to Law Enforcement in Newton County, IN (DISCONTINUED) (FBITC018111) from 2004 to 2015 about Newton County, IN; crime; violent crime; property crime; Chicago; IN; and USA.