In 2023, Texas had the highest number of forcible rape cases in the United States, with 15,097 reported rapes. Delaware had the lowest number of reported forcible rape cases at 194. Number vs. rate It is perhaps unsurprising that Texas and California reported the highest number of rapes, as these states have the highest population of states in the U.S. When looking at the rape rate, or the number of rapes per 100,000 of the population, a very different picture is painted: Alaska was the state with the highest rape rate in the country in 2023, with California ranking as 30th in the nation. The prevalence of rape Rape and sexual assault are notorious for being underreported crimes, which means that the prevalence of sex crimes is likely much higher than what is reported. Additionally, more than a third of women worry about being sexually assaulted, and most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew.
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:
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:
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.
Open Government Licence 3.0http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
License information was derived automatically
Nature of sexual assault by rape or penetration experienced by adults since the age of 16 years, including breakdowns by age, sex, victim-perpetrator relationship, location and other factors. Analyses from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW).
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.
Description: Pursuant to the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law, 730 ILCS 152/101,et seq., the Chicago Police Department maintains a list of sex offenders residing in the City of Chicago who are required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/2, et seq. To protect the privacy of the individuals, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. The data are extracted from the CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system developed by the Department. Although every effort is made to keep this list accurate and current, the city cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Offenders may have moved and failed to notify the Chicago Police Department as required by law. If any information presented in this web site is known to be outdated, please contact the Chicago Police Department at srwbmstr@chicagopolice.org, or mail to Sex Registration Unit, 3510 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60653. Disclaimer: This registry is based upon the legislature's decision to facilitate access to publicly available information about persons convicted of specific sexual offenses. The Chicago Police Department has not considered or assessed the specific risk of re-offense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included within the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within this registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and Illinois law. The main purpose of providing this data on the internet is to make the information more available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual. Anyone who uses information contained in the Sex Offender Database to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution. Data Owner: Chicago Police Department. Frequency: Data is updated daily. Related Applications: CLEARMAP (http://j.mp/lLluSa).
This is an Official Statistics bulletin produced by statisticians in the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and the Office for National Statistics. It brings together, for the first time, a range of official statistics from across the crime and criminal justice system, providing an overview of sexual offending in England and Wales. The report is structured to highlight: the victim experience; the police role in recording and detecting the crimes; how the various criminal justice agencies deal with an offender once identified; and the criminal histories of sex offenders.
Providing such an overview presents a number of challenges, not least that the available information comes from different sources that do not necessarily cover the same period, the same people (victims or offenders) or the same offences. This is explained further in the report.
Based on aggregated data from the ‘Crime Survey for England and Wales’ in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12, on average, 2.5 per cent of females and 0.4 per cent of males said that they had been a victim of a sexual offence (including attempts) in the previous 12 months. This represents around 473,000 adults being victims of sexual offences (around 404,000 females and 72,000 males) on average per year. These experiences span the full spectrum of sexual offences, ranging from the most serious offences of rape and sexual assault, to other sexual offences like indecent exposure and unwanted touching. The vast majority of incidents reported by respondents to the survey fell into the other sexual offences category.
It is estimated that 0.5 per cent of females report being a victim of the most serious offences of rape or sexual assault by penetration in the previous 12 months, equivalent to around 85,000 victims on average per year. Among males, less than 0.1 per cent (around 12,000) report being a victim of the same types of offences in the previous 12 months.
Around one in twenty females (aged 16 to 59) reported being a victim of a most serious sexual offence since the age of 16. Extending this to include other sexual offences such as sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure, this increased to one in five females reporting being a victim since the age of 16.
Around 90 per cent of victims of the most serious sexual offences in the previous year knew the perpetrator, compared with less than half for other sexual offences.
Females who had reported being victims of the most serious sexual offences in the last year were asked, regarding the most recent incident, whether or not they had reported the incident to the police. Only 15 per cent of victims of such offences said that they had done so. Frequently cited reasons for not reporting the crime were that it was ‘embarrassing’, they ‘didn’t think the police could do much to help’, that the incident was ‘too trivial or not worth reporting’, or that they saw it as a ‘private/family matter and not police business’
In 2011/12, the police recorded a total of 53,700 sexual offences across England and Wales. The most serious sexual offences of ‘rape’ (16,000 offences) and ‘sexual assault’ (22,100 offences) accounted for 71 per cent of sexual offences recorded by the police. This differs markedly from victims responding to the CSEW in 2011/12, the majority of whom were reporting being victims of other sexual offences outside the most serious category.
This reflects the fact that victims are more likely to report the most serious sexual offences to the police and, as such, the police and broader criminal justice system (CJS) tend to deal largely with the most serious end of the spectrum of sexual offending. The majority of the other sexual crimes recorded by the police related to ‘exposure or voyeurism’ (7,000) and ‘sexual activity with minors’ (5,800).
Trends in recorded crime statistics can be influenced by whether victims feel able to and decide to report such offences to the police, and by changes in police recording practices. For example, while there was a 17 per cent decrease in recorded sexual offences between 2005/06 and 2008/09, there was a seven per cent increase between 2008/09 and 2010/11. The latter increase may in part be due to greater encouragement by the police to victims to come forward and improvements in police recording, rather than an increase in the level of victimisation.
After the initial recording of a crime, the police may later decide that no crime took place as more details about the case emerge. In 2011/12, there were 4,155 offences initially recorded as sexual offences that the police later decided were not crimes. There are strict guidelines that set out circumstances under which a crime report may be ‘no crimed’. The ‘no-crime’ rate for sexual offences (7.2 per cent) compare
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38963/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38963/terms
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally-representative sample of residential addresses since 1973. The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. Beginning in 1992, the survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Each respondent is asked a series of screen questions designed to determine whether she or he was victimized during the six-month period preceding the first day of the month of the interview. A "household respondent" is also asked to report on crimes against the household as a whole (e.g., burglary, motor vehicle theft). The data include type of crime, month, time, and location of the crime, relationship between victim and offender, characteristics of the offender, self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those actions, consequences of the victimization, type of property lost, whether the crime was reported to police and reasons for reporting or not reporting, and offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Basic demographic information such as age, race, gender, and income is also collected, to enable analysis of crime by various subpopulations. This dataset represents the concatenated version of the NCVS on a collection year basis for 1992-2023. A collection year contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. Under the collection year format, victimizations are counted in the year the interview is conducted, regardless of the year when the crime incident occurred.For additional information on the dataset, please see the documentation for the data from the most current year of the NCVS, ICPSR Study 38962.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Analysis of ‘Violence Reduction - Victim Demographics - Aggregated’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/6c4e2995-7bdf-4c37-a269-386348be7e65 on 13 February 2022.
--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---
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
--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---
This study offers novel insights into mechanisms associated with sexual assault (SA) among sexual minority women (SMW). Experiences of bias and stigma contribute to lower rates of SA reporting by this population. This results in victims with unmet needs and fewer criminal prosecutions of SA perpetrators. This study used a mixed-methods approach to collect data from lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women to instigate changes that would improve responses from law enforcement, victim services, and anti-violence programs that serve SMW. This study comprised of three parts a: baseline survey, qualitative interview, and daily survey. Self-reported baseline questionnaires included topics like lifetime victimization (childhood sexual abuse, adult sexual aggression, and assault), discrimination, distress, mental health, alcohol use, and sexual history. The qualitative interviews focused on the most recent, and when applicable, the most salient adult sexual assault (ASA) incident. Interviews began by asking the participants to describe their ASA incidents with follow-probes asking about the victimization, perpetrator characteristics (gender and relationship to participant), and context of assault (role of alcohol or drugs and setting). Participants were also asked if they discussed the assault with anyone and their reasons for disclosure or non-disclosure. As well as short and long-term coping patterns. The daily survey asked participants about their mood, alcohol use, drinking contexts, and sexual experiences (consensual and non-consensual). This study contains demographic information such as: age, race, income, education, and BMI.
Open Government Licence 3.0http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
License information was derived automatically
Sexual offence numbers, prevalence and victim characteristics, including breakdowns by type of incident, sex, victim-perpetrator relationship and location based upon findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales and police recorded crime.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
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:
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:
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 2022, there were 313,017 cases filed by the NCIC where the race of the reported missing was White. In the same year, 18,928 people were missing whose race was unknown.
What is the NCIC?
The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a digital database that stores crime data for the United States, so criminal justice agencies can access it. As a part of the FBI, it helps criminal justice professionals find criminals, missing people, stolen property, and terrorists. The NCIC database is broken down into 21 files. Seven files belong to stolen property and items, and 14 belong to persons, including the National Sex Offender Register, Missing Person, and Identify Theft. It works alongside federal, tribal, state, and local agencies. The NCIC’s goal is to maintain a centralized information system between local branches and offices, so information is easily accessible nationwide.
Missing people in the United States
A person is considered missing when they have disappeared and their location is unknown. A person who is considered missing might have left voluntarily, but that is not always the case. The number of the NCIC unidentified person files in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, and in 2022, there were slightly more NCIC missing person files for males as compared to females. Fortunately, the number of NCIC missing person files has been mostly decreasing since 1998.
Police-reported hate crime, by type of motivation (race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, disability, sex, age), selected regions and Canada (selected police services), 2014 to 2023.
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38791/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38791/terms
The UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST, 2020 dataset is a compilation of offenses reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States. Due to the vast number of categories of crime committed in the United States, the FBI has limited the type of crimes included in this compilation to those crimes which people are most likely to report to police and those crimes which occur frequently enough to be analyzed across time. Crimes included are criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Much information about these crimes is provided in this dataset. The number of times an offense has been reported, the number of reported offenses that have been cleared by arrests, and the number of cleared offenses which involved offenders under the age of 18 are the major items of information collected.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Version 11 release notes:Changes release notes description, does not change data.Version 10 release notes:The data now has the following age categories (which were previously aggregated into larger groups to reduce file size): under 10, 10-12, 13-14, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, over 64. These categories are available for female, male, and total (female+male) arrests. The previous aggregated categories (under 15, 40-49, and over 49 have been removed from the data). Version 9 release notes:For each offense, adds a variable indicating the number of months that offense was reported - these variables are labeled as "num_months_[crime]" where [crime] is the offense name. These variables are generated by the number of times one or more arrests were reported per month for that crime. For example, if there was at least one arrest for assault in January, February, March, and August (and no other months), there would be four months reported for assault. Please note that this does not differentiate between an agency not reporting that month and actually having zero arrests. The variable "number_of_months_reported" is still in the data and is the number of months that any offense was reported. So if any agency reports murder arrests every month but no other crimes, the murder number of months variable and the "number_of_months_reported" variable will both be 12 while every other offense number of month variable will be 0. Adds data for 2017 and 2018.Version 8 release notes:Adds annual data in R format.Changes project name to avoid confusing this data for the ones done by NACJD.Fixes bug where bookmaking was excluded as an arrest category. Changed the number of categories to include more offenses per category to have fewer total files. Added a "total_race" file for each category - this file has total arrests by race for each crime and a breakdown of juvenile/adult by race. Version 7 release notes: Adds 1974-1979 dataAdds monthly data (only totals by sex and race, not by age-categories). All data now from FBI, not NACJD. Changes some column names so all columns are <=32 characters to be usable in Stata.Changes how number of months reported is calculated. Now it is the number of unique months with arrest data reported - months of data from the monthly header file (i.e. juvenile disposition data) are not considered in this calculation. Version 6 release notes: Fix bug where juvenile female columns had the same value as juvenile male columns.Version 5 release notes: Removes support for SPSS and Excel data.Changes the crimes that are stored in each file. There are more files now with fewer crimes per file. The files and their included crimes have been updated below.Adds in agencies that report 0 months of the year.Adds a column that indicates the number of months reported. This is generated summing up the number of unique months an agency reports data for. Note that this indicates the number of months an agency reported arrests for ANY crime. They may not necessarily report every crime every month. Agencies that did not report a crime with have a value of NA for every arrest column for that crime.Removes data on runaways.Version 4 release notes: Changes column names from "poss_coke" and "sale_coke" to "poss_heroin_coke" and "sale_heroin_coke" to clearly indicate that these column includes the sale of heroin as well as similar opiates such as morphine, codeine, and opium. Also changes column names for the narcotic columns to indicate that they are only for synthetic narcotics. Version 3 release notes: Add data for 2016.Order rows by year (descending) and ORI.Version 2 release notes: Fix bug where Philadelphia Police Department had incorrect FIPS county code. The Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race (ASR) data is an FBI data set that is part of the annual Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data. This data contains highly granular data on the number of people arrested for a variety of crimes (see below for a full list of included crimes). The data sets here combine data from the years 1974-2018 into a single file for each group of crimes. Each monthly file is only a single year as my laptop can't handle combining all the years together. These files are quite large and may take some time to load. Columns are crime-arrest category units. For example, If you choose the data set that includes murder, you would have rows for each age
Since 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has funded sites to engage in reforms intended to improve the national response to sexual assault cases. The goals of this initiative are to (1) create a coordinated community response that ensures just resolution to unsubmitted sexual assault kit (SAK) cases through a victim-centered approach and (2) build jurisdictions' capacity to prevent the development of conditions that lead to high numbers of unsubmitted sexual assault kits. Site efforts to address these issues include agencies such as law enforcement, prosecution, forensic laboratories, and victim advocacy service organizations. Westat was awarded a contract by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to assess components of BJA's Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI). The study includes (1) an evaluability assessment of 17 sites to determine their readiness for an evaluation, (2) a process evaluation and system reform assessment of the 17 sites, (3) a feasibility assessment of using case level data for an outcome evaluation, and analysis of a subset of unsubmitted SAK cases to identify how characteristics of incidents, offenders, and victims are associated with case processing decisions and outcomes, and (4) development of a long-term outcome evaluation plan. Two sources of data are archived with NAJCD: (1) coded qualitative data from primarily on-site interviews the Westat Team conducted in 2018 with stakeholders from 17 of the fiscal year (FY) 2015 SAKI grantees and 2 private lab facilities and 2) quantitative case-level data from the 2 FY 2015 SAKI grantees on SAKI cases associated with previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits that were determined to contain foreign DNA or biological evidence through laboratory testing. The interview data file contains coded data from 172 interviews the research team conducted with one or more agency representatives regarding their organization's goals, strategies, and activities for processing sexual assault kits, and associated lessons learned, challenges, and expected outcomes. The quantitative case-level data file includes case-level information on 576 sexual assault kits determined to have DNA and associated cases included in the 2 sites' SAKI inventories. The case-level data captures information on case or offense-level information (e.g., date of offense, date offense reported to police, number of victims and suspects involved, investigation and prosecution activities), victim-level information (e.g., victim age, sex, race, participation in investigation), and suspect-level information (e.g., suspect's age, race, sex, criminal history).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
For a comprehensive guide to this data and other UCR data, please see my book at ucrbook.comVersion 12 release notes:Adds 2019 data.Version 11 release notes:Changes release notes description, does not change data.Version 10 release notes:The data now has the following age categories (which were previously aggregated into larger groups to reduce file size): under 10, 10-12, 13-14, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, over 64. These categories are available for female, male, and total (female+male) arrests. The previous aggregated categories (under 15, 40-49, and over 49 have been removed from the data). Version 9 release notes:For each offense, adds a variable indicating the number of months that offense was reported - these variables are labeled as "num_months_[crime]" where [crime] is the offense name. These variables are generated by the number of times one or more arrests were reported per month for that crime. For example, if there was at least one arrest for assault in January, February, March, and August (and no other months), there would be four months reported for assault. Please note that this does not differentiate between an agency not reporting that month and actually having zero arrests. The variable "number_of_months_reported" is still in the data and is the number of months that any offense was reported. So if any agency reports murder arrests every month but no other crimes, the murder number of months variable and the "number_of_months_reported" variable will both be 12 while every other offense number of month variable will be 0. Adds data for 2017 and 2018.Version 8 release notes:Adds annual data in R format.Changes project name to avoid confusing this data for the ones done by NACJD.Fixes bug where bookmaking was excluded as an arrest category. Changed the number of categories to include more offenses per category to have fewer total files. Added a "total_race" file for each category - this file has total arrests by race for each crime and a breakdown of juvenile/adult by race. Version 7 release notes: Adds 1974-1979 dataAdds monthly data (only totals by sex and race, not by age-categories). All data now from FBI, not NACJD. Changes some column names so all columns are <=32 characters to be usable in Stata.Changes how number of months reported is calculated. Now it is the number of unique months with arrest data reported - months of data from the monthly header file (i.e. juvenile disposition data) are not considered in this calculation. Version 6 release notes: Fix bug where juvenile female columns had the same value as juvenile male columns.Version 5 release notes: Removes support for SPSS and Excel data.Changes the crimes that are stored in each file. There are more files now with fewer crimes per file. The files and their included crimes have been updated below.Adds in agencies that report 0 months of the year.Adds a column that indicates the number of months reported. This is generated summing up the number of unique months an agency reports data for. Note that this indicates the number of months an agency reported arrests for ANY crime. They may not necessarily report every crime every month. Agencies that did not report a crime with have a value of NA for every arrest column for that crime.Removes data on runaways.Version 4 release notes: Changes column names from "poss_coke" and "sale_coke" to "poss_heroin_coke" and "sale_heroin_coke" to clearly indicate that these column includes the sale of heroin as well as similar opiates such as morphine, codeine, and opium. Also changes column names for the narcotic columns to indicate that they are only for synthetic narcotics. Version 3 release notes: Add data for 2016.Order rows by year (descending) and ORI.Version 2 release notes: Fix bug where Philadelphia Police Department had incorrect FIPS county code. The Arrests by Age, Sex, and Race (ASR) data is an FBI data set that is part of the annual Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data. This data contains highly granular data on the number of people arrested for a variety of crimes (see below for a full list of included crimes). The data sets here combine data from the years 1974-2019 into a single file for each group of crimes. Each monthly file is only a single year as my laptop can't handle combining all the years together. These files are quite large and may take some time to load. Col
A. SUMMARY These data represent hate crimes reported by the SFPD to the California Department of Justice. Read the detailed overview of this dataset here. What is a Hate Crime? A hate crime is a crime against a person, group, or property motivated by the victim's real or perceived protected social group. An individual may be the victim of a hate crime if they have been targeted because of their actual or perceived: (1) disability, (2) gender, (3) nationality, (4) race or ethnicity, (5) religion, (6) sexual orientation, and/or (7) association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. Hate crimes are serious crimes that may result in imprisonment or jail time. B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED How is a Hate Crime Processed? Not all prejudice incidents including the utterance of hate speech rise to the level of a hate crime. The U.S. Constitution allows hate speech if it does not interfere with the civil rights of others. While these acts are certainly hurtful, they do not rise to the level of criminal violations and thus may not be prosecuted. When a prejudice incident is reported, the reporting officer conducts a preliminary investigation and writes a crime or incident report. Bigotry must be the central motivation for an incident to be determined to be a hate crime. In that report, all facts such as verbatims or statements that occurred before or after the incident and characteristics such as the race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or sexual orientations of the victim and suspect (if known) are included. To classify a prejudice incident, the San Francisco Police Department’s Hate Crimes Unit of the Special Investigations Division conducts an analysis of the incident report to determine if the incident falls under the definition of a “hate crime” as defined by state law. California Penal Code 422.55 - Hate Crime Definition C. UPDATE PROCESS These data are updated monthly. D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET This dataset includes the following information about each incident: the hate crime offense, bias type, location/time, and the number of hate crime victims and suspects. The data presented mirrors data published by the California Department of Justice, albeit at a higher frequency. The publishing of these data meet requirements set forth in PC 13023. E. RELATED DATASETS California Department of Justice - Hate Crimes Info California Department of Justice - Hate Crimes Data
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset contains deidentified case level records of individuals starting probation supervision in the community. Data begins with the FY 2016 cohort. It also provides an individual's status at three years to assess whether probation was successful or whether the individual was reincarcerated. Research shows most individuals are at the highest risk to be reincarcerated within the first 12 months of community supervision. After three years, the risk of reincarceration becomes much lower.
Dataset includes information regarding age, sex, race, original offense committed, convicting offense causing recidivism where applicable.
In 2023, Texas had the highest number of forcible rape cases in the United States, with 15,097 reported rapes. Delaware had the lowest number of reported forcible rape cases at 194. Number vs. rate It is perhaps unsurprising that Texas and California reported the highest number of rapes, as these states have the highest population of states in the U.S. When looking at the rape rate, or the number of rapes per 100,000 of the population, a very different picture is painted: Alaska was the state with the highest rape rate in the country in 2023, with California ranking as 30th in the nation. The prevalence of rape Rape and sexual assault are notorious for being underreported crimes, which means that the prevalence of sex crimes is likely much higher than what is reported. Additionally, more than a third of women worry about being sexually assaulted, and most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew.