Despite the fact that most states enacted rape reform legislation by the mid-1980s, empirical research on the effect of these laws was conducted in only four states and for a limited time span following the reform. The purpose of this study was to provide both increased breadth and depth of information about the effect of the rape law changes and the legal issues that surround them. Statistical data on all rape cases between 1970 and 1985 in Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC, were collected from court records. Monthly time-series analyses were used to assess the impact of the reforms on rape reporting, indictments, convictions, incarcerations, and sentences. The study also sought to determine if particular changes, or particular combinations of changes, affected the case processing and disposition of sexual assault cases and whether the effect of the reforms varied with the comprehensiveness of the changes. In each jurisdiction, data were collected on all forcible rape cases for which an indictment or information was filed. In addition to forcible rape, other felony sexual assaults that did not involve children were included. The names and definitions of these crimes varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To compare the pattern of rape reports with general crime trends, reports of robbery and felony assaults during the same general time period were also obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation when available. For the adjudicated case data (Parts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11), variables include month and year of offense, indictment, disposition, four most serious offenses charged, total number of charges indicted, four most serious conviction charges, total number of conviction charges, type of disposition, type of sentence, and maximum jail or prison sentence. The time series data (Parts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) provide year and month of indictment, total indictments for rape only and for all sex offenses, total convictions and incarcerations for all rape cases in the month, for those on the original rape charge, for all sex offenses in the month, and for those on the original sex offense charge, percents for each indictment, conviction, and incarceration category, the average maximum sentence for each incarceration category, and total police reports of forcible rape in the month. Interviews were also conducted in each site with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and this information is presented in Part 13. These interviewees were asked to rate the importance of various types of evidence in sexual assault cases and to respond to a series of six hypothetical cases in which evidence of the victim's past sexual history was at issue. Respondents were also presented with a hypothetical case for which some factors were varied to create 12 different scenarios, and they were asked to make a set of judgments about each. Interview data also include respondent's title, sex, race, age, number of years in office, and whether the respondent was in office before and/or after the reform.

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 study had four key goals. The first goal was to identify how many women in the United States and in college settings have ever been raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime and within the past year. The next goal was to identify key case characteristics of drug-facilitated and forcible rapes. The third goal was to examine factors that affect the willingness of women to report rape to law enforcement or seek help from their support network. The last goal was to make comparisons between the different types of rape. Part 1 (General Population) data consisted of a national telephone household sample of 3,001 United States women, whereas Part 2 (College Population) data consisted of 2,000 college women selected from a reasonably representative national list of women attending four year colleges and universities. Both data parts contain the same 399 variables. Interviews were completed between January 23 and June 26, 2006. Respondents were asked questions regarding risk perception, fear of violence, and accommodation behavior. The women were also asked their opinions and attitudes about reporting rape to the authorities and disclosing rape to family members, peers, or other individuals. This includes questions about barriers to reporting and experiences that women have had being the recipient of a disclosure from a friend, relative, or other individual. The respondents were asked a series of questions about rape, including different types of forcible, drug- or alcohol-facilitated, and incapacitated rape. For women who endorsed one or more rape experiences, a wide range of rape characteristics were assessed including characteristics around the nature of the event, perpetrator-victim relationship, occurrence of injury, involvement of drugs or alcohol, receipt of medical care, and whether the rape was reported to the authorities. The respondents were also asked a series of questions regarding substance use, including prescription and illegal drugs and alcohol. Additionally, a series of questions related to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression were asked. Finally, the women were asked to provide basic demographic information such as age, race, ethnicity, and income.

The purpose of this study was to use data from the National Crime Survey (NCS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to explore whether the likelihood of police notification by rape victims had increased between 1973-2000. To avoid the ambiguities that could arise in analyses across the two survey periods, the researchers analyzed the NCS (1973-1991) and NCVS data (1992-2000) separately. They focused on incidents that involved a female victim and one or more male offenders. The sample for 1973-1991 included 1,609 rapes and the corresponding sample for 1992-2000 contained 636 rapes. In their analyses, the researchers controlled for changes in forms of interviewing used in the NCS and NCVS. Logistic regression was used to estimate effects on the measures of police notification. The analyses incorporated the currently best available methods of accounting for design effects in the NCS and NCVS. Police notification served as the dependent variable in the study and was measured in two ways. First, the analysis included a polytomous dependent variable that contrasted victim reported incidents and third-party reported incidents, respectively, with nonreported incidents. Second, a binary dependent variable, police notified, also was included. The primary independent variables in the analysis were the year of occurrence of the incident reported by the victim and the relationship between the victim and the offender. The regression models estimated included several control variables, including measures of respondents' socioeconomic status, as well as other victim, offender, and incident characteristics that may be related both to the nature of rape and to the likelihood that victims notify the police.

This dataset was compiled by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) at the request of the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet. This data contains the population of youth ages 13-26 in each county, the total population of each county, and the number and rate of index crimes reported, with domestic violence offenses and rates reported separately for every year between 2006 and 2015.

For the purpose of this analysis the crime data was gathered from the Illinois State Police Annual report Crime in Illinois. This publication is produced by the Illinois State Police every year using the UCR data that is submitted to them by individual jurisdictions throughout the state. The accuracy of this data presented is dependent on the local jurisdictions reporting their index crime and domestic violence offenses to ISP, so it can be included in the annual report.

Therefore, if there is large decrease in number of index crimes reported in the dataset it is likely that one or more jurisdictions did not report data for that year to ISP. If there is a large increase from year to year within a county it is likely that a jurisdiction within the county, who previously had not reported crime data, did report crime data for that year. If there is no reported crime in a certain year that means no jurisdictions, or a small jurisdiction with no crime from that county reported data to the Illinois State Police. The annual Crime in Illinois reports can be found on the ISP website www.isp.state.il.us.

A direct link to that annual reports is: http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/ucrhome.cfm#anlrpts.

The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority did not record the data that is expressed in the dataset. ICJIA simply used the ISP reports to compile that yearly crime data into one chart that could be provided to the Illinois Governor’s Children’s Cabinet. This data set has be critically examined to be accurate according to the annual Crime in Illinois Reports. If there are issues with the data set provided please contact the Illinois State Police or the individual jurisdictions within a specific county.

**Index offenses do not include every crime event that occurs. Prior to 2014 there were 8 index crimes reported by the Illinois State Police in their annual reports, Criminal Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Battery/Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson. In 2014 there were two new offenses added to the list of index crimes these were Human Trafficking – Commercial Sex Acts and Human Trafficking – Involuntary Servitude. These are the index crimes that are recorded in the chart provided.

**“Domestic offenses are defined as offenses committed between family or household members. Family or household members include spouses; former spouses; parents; children; foster parents; foster children; legal guardians and their wards; stepchildren; other persons related by blood (aunt, uncle, cousin) or by present or previous marriage (in-laws); persons who share, or formerly shared, a common dwelling; persons who have, or allegedly have, a child in common; persons who share, or allegedly share, a blood relationship through a child; persons who have, or have had, a dating or engagement relationship; and persons with disabilities, their personal care assistants, or care givers outside the context of an employee of a public or private care facility. Every offense that occurs, when a domestic relationship exists between the victim and offender, must be reported (Illinois State Police).”

**“Offenses reported are not limited to domestic battery and violations of orders of protection; offenses most commonly associated with domestic violence (Illinois State Police).”

The crime rate was compiled using the total population, and the index crime. The Index crime whether all crime or Domestic Violence crime was divided by the total population then multiplied by 10,000, hence crime rate per 10,000.

The sources of data are the Illinois Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The source of the description is the Illinois State Police and their Reporting guidelines and forms.

Context

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics.

Today, four annual publications, Crime in the United States, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, and Hate Crime Statistics are produced from data received from over 18,000 city, university/college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. The crime data are submitted either through a state UCR Program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program.

This dataset focuses on the crime rates and law enforcement employment data in the state of California.

Content

Crime and law enforcement employment rates are separated into individual files, focusing on offenses by enforcement agency, college/university campus, county, and city. Categories of crimes reported include violent crime, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle damage, and arson. In the case of rape, data is collected for both revised and legacy definitions. In some cases, a small number of enforcement agencies switched definition collection sometime within the same year.

Acknowledgements

This dataset originates from the FBI UCR project, and the complete dataset for all 2015 crime reports can be found here.

Inspiration

• What are the most common types of crimes in California? Are there certain crimes that are more common in a particular place category, such as a college/university campus, compared to the rest of the state?
• How does the number of law enforcement officers compare to the crime rates of a particular area? Is the ratio similar throughout the state, or do certain campuses, counties, or cities have a differing rate?
• How does the legacy vs. refined definition of rape differ, and how do the rape counts compare? If you pulled the same data from FBI datasets for previous years, can you see a difference in rape rates over time?

This project was designed to isolate the effects that individual crimes have on wage rates and housing prices, as gauged by individuals' and households' decisionmaking preferences changing over time. Additionally, this project sought to compute a dollar value that individuals would bear in their wages and housing costs to reduce the rates of specific crimes. The study used multiple decades of information obtained from counties across the United States to create a panel dataset. This approach was designed to compensate for the problem of collinearity by tracking how housing and occupation choices within particular locations changed over the decade considering all amenities or disamenities, including specific crime rates. Census data were obtained for this project from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) constructed by Ruggles and Sobek (1997). Crime data were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Other data were collected from the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association, County and City Data Book, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency. Independent variables for the Wages Data (Part 1) include years of education, school enrollment, sex, ability to speak English well, race, veteran status, employment status, and occupation and industry. Independent variables for the Housing Data (Part 2) include number of bedrooms, number of other rooms, building age, whether unit was a condominium or detached single-family house, acreage, and whether the unit had a kitchen, plumbing, public sewers, and water service. Both files include the following variables as separating factors: census geographic division, cost-of-living index, percentage unemployed, percentage vacant housing, labor force employed in manufacturing, living near a coastline, living or working in the central city, per capita local taxes, per capita intergovernmental revenue, per capita property taxes, population density, and commute time to work. Lastly, the following variables measured amenities or disamenities: average precipitation, temperature, windspeed, sunshine, humidity, teacher-pupil ratio, number of Superfund sites, total suspended particulate in air, and rates of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, violent crimes, and property crimes.

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

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

FBI link

Important note about rape data

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

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

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

General comments

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

Caution against ranking

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

Methodology

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

Offense estimation

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

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

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

Rape estimation

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

Population estimation

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

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Series, previously called the National Crime Surveys (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. The survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual attack, 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 version of the NCVS, referred to as the collection year, contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year.

Abstract (en): These data provide official index crime rates and social and economic indicators of crime rates at three levels of aggregation (city, state, and metropolitan areas) for four decennial years: 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980. Information is provided on Uniform Crime Reports murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, and vehicle theft rates per 100,000 population. Social and economic indicators include percent black population, percent divorced males, the mean and median family incomes, families below the poverty line, and percent unemployed for each area. The availability of the data for the crime rates in 1980 determined the geographic locations included in the data collection. Data from earlier years do not exist for all geographic locations for which data were available in 1980. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. 2006-01-18 File CB6151.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. Funding insitution(s): National Science Foundation (SES8217865). The codebook is provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

This table contains data on the rate of violent crime (crimes per 1,000 population) for California, its regions, counties, cities and towns. Crime and population data are from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports. Rates above the city/town level include data from city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Ten percent of all deaths in young California adults aged 15-44 years are related to assault and homicide. In 2010, California law enforcement agencies reported 1,809 murders, 8,331 rapes, and over 95,000 aggravated assaults. African Americans in California are 11 times more likely to die of assault and homicide than Whites. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

This project undertook the systematic collection of first-generation data concerning the nature, extent, and seriousness of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the United States. The project was organized around the following research objectives: (1) identification of the nature, extent, and underlying causes of CSE and the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) occurring in the United States, (2) identification of those subgroups of children that were at the greatest risk of being sexually exploited, (3) identification of subgroups of adult perpetrators of sex crimes against children, and (4) identification of the modes of operation and other methods used by organized criminal units to recruit children into sexually exploitative activities. The study involved surveying senior staff members of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government organizations (GOs) in the United States known to be dealing with persons involved in the transnational trafficking of children for sexual purposes. Part 1 consists of survey data from nongovernment organizations. These were local child and family agencies serving runaway and homeless youth. Part 2 consists of survey data from government organizations. These organizations were divided into local, state, and federal agencies. Local organizations included municipal law enforcement, county law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, and corrections. State organizations included state child welfare directors, prosecutors, and public defenders. Federal organizations included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Public Defenders, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Attorneys, United States Customs, and the United States Postal Service. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 include the organization's city, state, and ZIP code, the type of services provided or type of law enforcement agency, how the agency was funded, the scope of the agency's service area, how much emphasis was placed on CSEC as a policy issue or a service issue, conditions that might influence the number of CSEC cases, how staff were trained to deal with CSEC cases, how victims were identified, the number of children that experienced child abuse, sexual abuse, pornography, or other exploitation in 1999 and 2000 by age and gender, methods of recruitment, family history of victims, gang involvement, and substance abuse history of victims.

The SGBV & Dynamics of Conflict dataset is comprised of SGBV reports for seven conflict-affected country cases, allowing the study to meet the following criteria: 1) representation of the five different types of conflict; 2) cases in the top 20 for conflict deaths/attacks during the 2010–2020 period and, 3) inclusion of cases from different global regions (Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East).Using the codebook on this page, SGBV reports are analysed across three years in each of the following countries: Central African Republic (one-sided [rebel-led] violence), Colombia (state-based violence), Myanmar (one-sided [state-led] violence), Nigeria (terrorism), Philippines (one-sided violence [terrorism]), South Sudan (fragile), and Syria (non-state-based and state-based violence).Data is collected from the content of open-source reports, both official (government and inter-governmental) and unofficial (non-governmental and media) following guidance of the Office of the ICC Prosecutor (2014: 22) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR 2014a) on the sources of information that may be taken into account and designated as official (government and international organization reports) versus unofficial (media and civil society or non-government organization reports) when building a profile of SGBV reports.A report is coded when at least one listed SGBV crime is mentioned. Two sources were used to collect reports: the UN document reference site UNHCR RefWorld; and Factiva, a DowJones news aggregator site. We specifically code a report in RefWorld when any of the words ‘rape raping raped rapes gender sexual’ were mentioned and in Factiva with the code work ‘sex crimes’.

These data provide information on the number of arrests reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program each year by police agencies in the United States. These arrest reports provide data on 43 offenses including violent crime, drug use, gambling, and larceny. The data received by ICPSR were structured as a hierarchical file containing (per reporting police agency) an agency header record, 1 to 12 monthly header records, and 1 to 43 detail offense records containing the counts of arrests by age, sex, and race for a particular offense. ICPSR restructured the original data to a rectangular format.

This data collection contains county-level counts of arrests and offenses for Part I offenses (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson) and counts of arrests for Part II offenses (forgery, fraud, embezzlement, vandalism, weapons violations, sex offenses, drug and alcohol abuse violations, gambling, vagrancy, curfew violations, and runaways).

Introduction and Background. Minorities are less likely to report rapes. The Post Coital DNA Recovery (PCDR) study (2009-14) subjects were white (93%) where expanded collection times were not generalizable to minority populations. Evidence reports health and medical differences between races necessitating duplication of previous research in minority populations. Aims. (1) What is the time period in which it is possible to collect post-coital DNA in minority women using Y-STR laboratory methods? and (2) when compared to the former study sample of minority and non-minority, what are the physiological conditions, factors, or activities in minority couples that influence post-coital DNA recovery? Design. The design includes mixed methods duplication perfected in the first study, embracing descriptive and inferential techniques. Qualitative research used semi-structured interviews. Aim 1 analysis used PCDR-M data only. Aim 2 combined data from both PCDR and PCDR-M studies. Combined, DNA recovery, a binary outcome accounting for repeated methods in population regression analysis, used Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods. Fidelity. The strict criteria for adherence included considerable outreach and support of study personnel. PCDR and PCDR-M data combined and compared the two samples, which had specific homogeneity, including same inclusion and elimination criteria in both studies; fidelity to the validated protocol; laboratory method and interpretation for inclusion; duplicate statistical analysis; and interpretation of data. Any variation in key variables met elimination criteria. Assumptions and Limitations. Assumptions included (1) motivation is altruistic; (2) motivation is incentives and coercion for some; (3) negotiating coitus is difficult and stressful; and (4) similar fidelity and dropout rates. The limitations included (1) a lack of representation for the diverse experiences of rape victims; (2) sample size; (3) self-selection bias; (4) protocol adherence; and (4) advances in laboratory science and DNA kits. Demographics. Demographic variables included gender, race, and age. Major categories in the dataset included participants' reproductive history, data on female participants' reproductive organs, and childhood abuse.

description: The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) collects crime reports from more than 500 New York State police and sheriffs departments. DCJS compiles these reports as New York s official crime statistics and submits them to the FBI under the National Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. UCR uses standard offense definitions to count crime in localities across America regardless of variations in crime laws from state to state. In New York State, law enforcement agencies use the UCR system to report their monthly crime totals to DCJS. The UCR reporting system collects information on seven crimes classified as Index offenses which are most commonly used to gauge overall crime volume. These include the violent crimes of murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; and the property crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Firearm counts are derived from taking the number of violent crimes which involve a firearm. Population data are provided every year by the FBI, based on US Census information. Police agencies may experience reporting problems that preclude accurate or complete reporting. The counts represent only crimes reported to the police but not total crimes that occurred.; abstract: The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) collects crime reports from more than 500 New York State police and sheriffs departments. DCJS compiles these reports as New York s official crime statistics and submits them to the FBI under the National Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. UCR uses standard offense definitions to count crime in localities across America regardless of variations in crime laws from state to state. In New York State, law enforcement agencies use the UCR system to report their monthly crime totals to DCJS. The UCR reporting system collects information on seven crimes classified as Index offenses which are most commonly used to gauge overall crime volume. These include the violent crimes of murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; and the property crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Firearm counts are derived from taking the number of violent crimes which involve a firearm. Population data are provided every year by the FBI, based on US Census information. Police agencies may experience reporting problems that preclude accurate or complete reporting. The counts represent only crimes reported to the police but not total crimes that occurred.

This data collection provides a series of measures relating to public safety for all SMSAs in the United States at two time periods. Variables include: municipal employment (e.g. number of municipal employees, number of police employees, police payrolls, municipal employees per 10,000 inhabitants), municipal revenue (total debt, property taxes, utility revenues, income taxes), nonmunicipal employment (retail services, mining services, construction services, finance services), crime rates (murder, robbery, auto theft, rape), labor force and unemployment, property value, and other miscellaneous topics.

This data collection provides an overview of how probation cases are processed in 32 urban and suburban jurisdictions in the United States and gauges the extent to which variations in probation patterns exist between jurisdictions. Data were collected on offenders who were sentenced in 1986 and who committed one or more of the following types of offenses: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, drug trafficking, and other felony crimes. Probation history questionnaires were completed during the last half of 1989. Information is available on number of conviction charges, race, age, sex, marital status, educational level, and ethnicity of the probationer. In addition, data on drug and alcohol use and treatment, sentencing, restitution, and offenses are provided.

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