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

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

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

This dataset contains a selection of 27 indicators of public health significance by Chicago community area, with the most updated information available. The indicators are rates, percents, or other measures related to natality, mortality, infectious disease, lead poisoning, and economic status. See the full description at https://data.cityofchicago.org/api/assets/2107948F-357D-4ED7-ACC2-2E9266BBFFA2.

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

Note: This dataset is historical only and there are not corresponding datasets for more recent time periods. For that more-recent information, please visit the Chicago Health Atlas at https://chicagohealthatlas.org. This dataset contains the cumulative number of deaths, average number of deaths annually, average annual crude and adjusted death rates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and average annual years of potential life lost per 100,000 residents aged 75 and younger due to selected causes of death, by Chicago community area, for the years 2006 – 2010. A ranking for each measure is also provided, with the highest value indicated with a ranking of 1. See the full description at: https://data.cityofchicago.org/api/views/6vw3-8p6f/files/CqPqfHSv8UUAoXCBjn4_tLqcQHhb36Ih4-meM-4zNzs?download=true&filename=P:\EPI\OEPHI\MATERIALS\REFERENCES\MORTALITY\Dataset_Description_06_10_PORTAL_ONLY.pdf

Public Health Indicators in Chicago

Natality, Mortality, Infectious Disease, Lead Poisoning and Economic Status

By City of Chicago [source]

About this dataset

This public health dataset contains a comprehensive selection of indicators related to natality, mortality, infectious disease, lead poisoning, and economic status from Chicago community areas. It is an invaluable resource for those interested in understanding the current state of public health within each area in order to identify any deficiencies or areas of improvement needed.

The data includes 27 indicators such as birth and death rates, prenatal care beginning in first trimester percentages, preterm birth rates, breast cancer incidences per hundred thousand female population, all-sites cancer rates per hundred thousand population and more. For each indicator provided it details the geographical region so that analyses can be made regarding trends on a local level. Furthermore this dataset allows various stakeholders to measure performance along these indicators or even compare different community areas side-by-side.

This dataset provides a valuable tool for those striving toward better public health outcomes for the citizens of Chicago's communities by allowing greater insight into trends specific to geographic regions that could potentially lead to further research and implementation practices based on empirical evidence gathered from this comprehensive yet digestible selection of indicators

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

In order to use this dataset effectively to assess the public health of a given area or areas in the city: - Understand which data is available: The list of data included in this dataset can be found above. It is important to know all that are included as well as their definitions so that accurate conclusions can be made when utilizing the data for research or analysis. - Identify areas of interest: Once you are familiar with what type of data is present it can help to identify which community areas you would like to study more closely or compare with one another. - Choose your variables: Once you have identified your areas it will be helpful to decide which variables are most relevant for your studies and research specific questions regarding these variables based on what you are trying to learn from this data set.
- Analyze the Data : Once your variables have been selected and clarified take right into analyzing the corresponding values across different community areas using statistical tests such as t-tests or correlations etc.. This will help answer questions like “Are there significant differences between two outputs?” allowing you to compare how different Chicago Community Areas stack up against each other with regards to public health statistics tracked by this dataset!

Research Ideas

• Creating interactive maps that show data on public health indicators by Chicago community area to allow users to explore the data more easily.
• Designing a machine learning model to predict future variations in public health indicators by Chicago community area such as birth rate, preterm births, and childhood lead poisoning levels.
• Developing an app that enables users to search for public health information in their own community areas and compare with other areas within the city or across different cities in the US

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

See the dataset description for more information.

Columns

File: public-health-statistics-selected-public-health-indicators-by-chicago-community-area-1.csv | Column name | Description | |:-----------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Community Area | Unique identifier for each community area in Chicago. (Integer) | | Community Area Name | Name of the community area in Chicago. (String) | | Birth Rate | Number of live births per 1,000 population. (Float) | | General Fertility Rate | Number of live births per 1,000 women aged 15-44. (Float) ...

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

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

The leading causes of death among Black residents in the United States in 2023 included diseases of the heart, cancer, unintentional injuries, and stroke. The leading causes of death for African Americans generally reflect the leading causes of death for the entire United States population. However, a major exception is that death from assault or homicide is the seventh leading cause of death among African Americans but is not among the ten leading causes for the general population. Homicide among African Americans The homicide rate among African Americans has been higher than that of other races and ethnicities for many years. In 2023, around 9,284 Black people were murdered in the United States, compared to 7,289 white people. A majority of these homicides are committed with firearms, which are easily accessible in the United States. In 2023, around 13,350 Black people died by firearms. Cancer disparities There are also major disparities in access to health care and the impact of various diseases. For example, the incidence rate of cancer among African American males is the greatest among all ethnicities and races. Furthermore, although the incidence rate of cancer is lower among African American women than it is among white women, cancer death rates are still higher among African American women.

NOTE: This dataset has been retired and marked as historical-only.

Weekly rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among people living in Chicago by vaccination status and age.

Rates for fully vaccinated and unvaccinated begin the week ending April 3, 2021 when COVID-19 vaccines became widely available in Chicago. Rates for boosted begin the week ending October 23, 2021 after booster shots were recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for adults 65+ years old and adults in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings who received Pfizer or Moderna for their primary series or anyone who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Chicago residency is based on home address, as reported in the Illinois Comprehensive Automated Immunization Registry Exchange (I-CARE) and Illinois National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (I-NEDSS).

Outcomes: • Cases: People with a positive molecular (PCR) or antigen COVID-19 test result from an FDA-authorized COVID-19 test that was reported into I-NEDSS. A person can become re-infected with SARS-CoV-2 over time and so may be counted more than once in this dataset. Cases are counted by week the test specimen was collected. • Hospitalizations: COVID-19 cases who are hospitalized due to a documented COVID-19 related illness or who are admitted for any reason within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Hospitalizations are counted by week of hospital admission. • Deaths: COVID-19 cases who died from COVID-19-related health complications as determined by vital records or a public health investigation. Deaths are counted by week of death.

Vaccination status: • Fully vaccinated: Completion of primary series of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine at least 14 days prior to a positive test (with no other positive tests in the previous 45 days). • Boosted: Fully vaccinated with an additional or booster dose of any FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine received at least 14 days prior to a positive test (with no other positive tests in the previous 45 days). • Unvaccinated: No evidence of having received a dose of an FDA-authorized or approved vaccine prior to a positive test.

CLARIFYING NOTE: Those who started but did not complete all recommended doses of an FDA-authorized or approved vaccine prior to a positive test (i.e., partially vaccinated) are excluded from this dataset.

Incidence rates for fully vaccinated but not boosted people (Vaccinated columns) are calculated as total fully vaccinated but not boosted with outcome divided by cumulative fully vaccinated but not boosted at the end of each week. Incidence rates for boosted (Boosted columns) are calculated as total boosted with outcome divided by cumulative boosted at the end of each week. Incidence rates for unvaccinated (Unvaccinated columns) are calculated as total unvaccinated with outcome divided by total population minus cumulative boosted, fully, and partially vaccinated at the end of each week. All rates are multiplied by 100,000.

Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) are calculated by dividing the weekly incidence rates among unvaccinated people by those among fully vaccinated but not boosted and boosted people.

Overall age-adjusted incidence rates and IRRs are standardized using the 2000 U.S. Census standard population.

Population totals are from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year estimates for 2019.

All data are provisional and subject to change. Information is updated as additional details are received and it is, in fact, very common for recent dates to be incomplete and to be updated as time goes on. This dataset reflects data known to CDPH at the time when the dataset is updated each week.

Numbers in this dataset may differ from other public sources due to when data are reported and how City of Chicago boundaries are defined.

For all datasets related to COVID-19, see https://data.cityofchic

Introduction This report presents projections of population from 2015 to 2025 by age and sex for Illinois, Chicago and Illinois counties produced for the Certificate of Need (CON) Program. As actual future population trends are unknown, the projected numbers should not be considered a precise prediction of the future population; rather, these projections, calculated under a specific set of assumptions, indicate the levels of population that would result if our assumptions about each population component (births, deaths and net migration) hold true. The assumptions used in this report, and the details presented below, generally assume a continuation of current trends. Methodology These projections were produced using a demographic cohort-component projection model. In this model, each component of population change – birth, death and net migration – is projected separately for each five-year birth cohort and sex. The cohort – component method employs the following basic demographic balancing equation: P1 = P0 + B – D + NM Where: P1 = Population at the end of the period; P0 = Population at the beginning of the period; B = Resident births during the period; D = Resident deaths during the period; and NM = Net migration (Inmigration – Outmigration) during the period. The model roughly works as follows: for every five-year projection period, the base population, disaggregated by five-year age groups and sex, is “survived” to the next five-year period by applying the appropriate survival rates for each age and sex group; next, net migrants by age and sex are added to the survived population. The population under 5 years of age is generated by applying age specific birth rates to the survived females in childbearing age (15 to 49 years). Base Population These projections began with the July 1, 2010 population estimates by age and sex produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. The most recent census population of April 1, 2010 was the base for July 1, 2010 population estimates. Special Populations In 19 counties, the college dormitory population or adult inmates in correctional facilities accounted for 5 percent or more of the total population of the county; these counties were considered as special counties. There were six college dorm counties (Champaign, Coles, DeKalb, Jackson, McDonough and McLean) and 13 correctional facilities counties (Bond, Brown, Crawford, Fayette, Fulton, Jefferson, Johnson, Lawrence, Lee, Logan, Montgomery, Perry and Randolph) that qualified as special counties. When projecting the population, these special populations were first subtracted from the base populations for each special county; then they were added back to the projected population to produce the total population projections by age and sex. The base special population by age and sex from the 2010 population census was used for this purpose with the assumption that this population will remain the same throughout each projection period. Mortality Future deaths were projected by applying age and sex specific survival rates to each age and sex specific base population. The assumptions on survival rates were developed on the basis of trends of mortality rates in the individual life tables constructed for each level of geography for 1989-1991, 1999-2001 and 2009-2011. The application of five-year survival rates provides a projection of the number of persons from the initial population expected to be alive in five years. Resident deaths data by age and sex from 1989 to 2011 were provided by the Illinois Center for Health Statistics (ICHS), Illinois Department of Public Health. Fertility Total fertility rates (TFRs) were first computed for each county. For most counties, the projected 2015 TFRs were computed as the average of the 2000 and 2010 TFRs. 2010 or 2015 rates were retained for 2020 projections, depending on the birth trend of each county. The age-specific birth rates (ASBR) were next computed for each county by multiplying the 2010 ASBR by each projected TFR. Total births were then projected for each county by applying age-specific birth rates to the projected female population of reproductive ages (15 to 49 years). The total births were broken down by sex, using an assumed sex-ratio at birth. These births were survived five years applying assumed survival ratios to get the projected population for the age group 0-4. For the special counties, special populations by age and sex were taken out before computing age-specific birth rates. The resident birth data used to compute age-specific birth rates for 1989-1991, 1999-2001 and 2009-2011 came from ICHS. Births to females younger than 15 years of age were added to those of the 15-19 age group and births to women older than 49 years of age were added to the 45-49 age group. Net Migration Migration is the major component of population change in Illinois, Chicago and Illinois counties. The state is experiencing a significant loss of population through internal (domestic migration within the U.S.) net migration. Unlike data on births and deaths, migration data based on administrative records are not available on a regular basis. Most data on migration are collected through surveys or indirectly from administrative records (IRS individual tax returns). For this report, net migration trends have been reviewed using data from different sources and methods (such as residual method) from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Illinois Department of Public Health, individual exemptions data from the Internal Revenue Service, and survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau. On the basis of knowledge gained through this review and of levels of net migration from different sources, assumptions have been made that Illinois will have annual net migrants of -40, 000, -35,000 and -30,000 during 2010-2015, 2015-2020 and 2020-2025, respectively. These figures have been distributed among the counties, using age and sex distribution of net migrants during 1995-2000. The 2000 population census was the last decennial census, which included the question “Where did you live five years ago?” The age and sex distribution of the net migrants was derived, using answers to this question. The net migration for Chicago has been derived independently, using census survival method for 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 under the assumption that the annual net migration for Chicago will be -40,000, -30,000 and -25,000 for 2010-2015, 2015-2020 and 2020-2025, respectively. The age and sex distribution from the 2000-2010 net migration was used to distribute the net migrants for the projection periods. Conclusion These projections were prepared for use by the Certificate of Need (CON) Program; they are produced using evidence-based techniques, reasonable assumptions and the best available input data. However, as assumptions of future demographic trends may contain errors, the resulting projections are unlikely to be free of errors. In general, projections of small areas are less reliable than those for larger areas, and the farther in the future projections are made, the less reliable they may become. When possible, these projections should be regularly reviewed and updated, using more recent birth, death and migration data.

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

In 2023, around 2,444 homicide victims in the United States were aged between 20 and 24 years old. A further 2,362 murder victims were between the ages of 30 and 34 years old. Most murder victims in the United States in 2023 were between the ages of 17 and 54 years old.

As of December 31, the U.S. police shot 1,173 people to death in 2024. In 2023, 1,164 people were shot to death by police in the United States. Police treatment Since as early as the 18th century, police brutality has been a significant issue in the United States. Black Americans have been especially marginalized by police officers, as they have faced higher rates of fatal police shootings compared to other ethnicities. Disparities also exist in perceptions of police treatment depending on ethnicity. A majority of Black Americans think that Black and White people do not receive equal police treatment, while more than half of White and Hispanic Americans think the same. Police reform The upsurge in Black Lives Matter protests in response to the killing of Black Americans as a result of police brutality has created a call for police reform. In 2019, it was found that police killings decreased by a quarter in police departments that implemented a policy that requires officers to use all other means before shooting. Since the killing of George Floyd in May 2020, 21 states, including New York and California, have passed bills that focused on police supervision.

As of March 10, 2023, there have been 1.1 million deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States. There have been 101,159 deaths in the state of California, more than any other state in the country – California is also the state with the highest number of COVID-19 cases.

The vaccine rollout in the U.S. Since the start of the pandemic, the world has eagerly awaited the arrival of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine. In the United States, the immunization campaign started in mid-December 2020 following the approval of a vaccine jointly developed by Pfizer and BioNTech. As of March 22, 2023, the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the U.S. had reached roughly 673 million. The states with the highest number of vaccines administered are California, Texas, and New York.

Vaccines achieved due to work of research groups Chinese authorities initially shared the genetic sequence to the novel coronavirus in January 2020, allowing research groups to start studying how it invades human cells. The surface of the virus is covered with spike proteins, which enable it to bind to human cells. Once attached, the virus can enter the cells and start to make people ill. These spikes were of particular interest to vaccine manufacturers because they hold the key to preventing viral entry.

California led the way in gun safety in the United States as of January 2025, with a composite score of 90.5 based on the presence of 50 key gun safety policies. Massachusetts followed, with a score of 86.5, while Illinois rounded out the top three with a score of 85.5. Illinois joins the no-assault weapons club In 2023, Illinois came in seventh place for gun law strength; by 2024, this ranking rose to third, signifying that the state holds some of the strongest gun safety laws nationwide. However, this swift rise up the ranks also suggests that Illinois is still taking action against gun violence, particularly after seven people were killed and dozens were injured in a mass shooting in Chicago during a Fourth of July parade in 2022. In recent years, Illinois has consistently improved state legislation on gun safety and has enacted multiple measures to prevent further harm from firearms, including a statewide ban on assault weapons which was approved in January 2023. The Midwestern state joined eight other states, as well as Washington, D.C., which prohibits military-style weapons. Permissive open carry states dominate the bottom of the class Receiving less than five points each, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Idaho represent the lowest composite score for gun law strength nationwide. Arkansas, Mississippi, and Idaho are among the 25 U.S. states that do not require any permit to carry concealed guns in public, and are permissive open carry states as well. Moreover, these states do not require a permit or a background check to purchase a handgun and also neglect to necessitate any firearm safety training before making the purchase. Such gun safety laws are considered crucial to ensure that firearms are handled properly and do not cause anyone harm. However, it is also important to note that countries with strong safety measures may still experience high rates of gun violence due to illegal gun trafficking. As a result, taking legal action may not fully address all gun-related violence in the area, especially if there remains an illicit way for people to obtain a gun without restriction.