Comprehensive demographic dataset for Old Colorado City, Colorado Springs, CO, US including population statistics, household income, housing units, education levels, employment data, and transportation with year-over-year changes.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for Town Center Drive cross streets in Colorado Springs, CO.

The dataset provided here was collected as a part of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) project, where the City of Colorado Springs (Colorado, USA) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) collaborated to collect object-level trajectory data from road users using multiple types of infrastructure sensors deployed at different traffic intersections. The data was collected in 2024 across multiple days at various intersections in and around the City of Colorado Springs. The goal of the data collection exercises was to learn various attributes about infrastructure sensors and to build a repository of high resolution object-level data that can be used for research and development (such as for developing multi-sensor data fusion algorithms).Data presented here was collected from sensors either installed either on the traffic poles or hoisted on top of NREL’s Infrastructure Perception and Control (IPC) mobile trailer. The state-of-the-art IPC trailer can deploy the latest generation of perception sensors at traffic intersections and capture real-time road user data. Sensors used for data collection include Econolite’s EVO RADAR units, Ouster’s OS1 LIDAR units and Axis Camera units. The raw data received from individual sensors is processed at the edge compute device located inside the IPC mobile Lab, and the resulting object-level data is then stored and processed offline. Each data folder contains all the data collected on the day. We have transformed (rotation then translation) the raw detections to ensure the data from all sensors is represented in the same cartesian coordinate system. The object list attributes impacted from the transformation are PositionX, PositionY, SpeedX, SpeedY and HeadingDeg. The rest of the data attribute remains untouched. Users should note that we do not claim that this transformation is perfect and there may be some misalignment among the different sensors.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of City Rescue Mission of Colorado Springs

Using data from five Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP) sites, this study examined the extent to which domestic violence offenders exhibit a specialized proclivity toward violence and the extent to which attack severity escalates, de-escalates, or stays about the same over time. The specialization question was examined using official arrest records from the Charlotte, North Carolina, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Omaha, Nebraska sites. Escalation was examined using victim interview data from the Charlotte, Milwaukee, Omaha, and Miami-Dada, Florida sites. This collection consists of 18 SAS setup files used to recode the variables from the original datasets, organized in five groups, by city of each data collection site. This collection does not contain the original data files, themselves.

This dataset provides information about the number of properties, residents, and average property values for Old Colorado City Highway cross streets in Big Spring, TX.

With 56 Million Businesses in the United States of America, Techsalerator has access to the highest B2B count of Data/ Business Data in the country.

Thanks to our unique tools and large data specialist team, we are able to select the ideal targeted dataset based on the unique elements such as sales volume of a company, the company's location, no. of employees etc...

Whether you are looking for an entire fill install, access to our API's or if you are just looking for a one-time targeted purchase, get in touch with our company and we will fulfill your international data need.

We cover all states and cities in the country : Example covered.

All states :

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho IllinoisIndiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri MontanaNebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon PennsylvaniaRhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

A few cities : New York City NY Los Angeles CA Chicago IL Houston TX Phoenix AZ Philadelphia PA San Antonio TX San Diego CA Dallas TX Austin TX San Jose CA Fort Worth TX Jacksonville FL Columbus OH Charlotte NC Indianapolis IN San Francisco CA Seattle WA Denver CO Washington DC Boston MA El Paso TX Nashville TN Oklahoma City OK Las Vegas NV Detroit MI Portland OR Memphis TN Louisville KY Milwaukee WI Baltimore MD Albuquerque NM Tucson AZ Mesa AZ Fresno CA Sacramento CA Atlanta GA Kansas City MO Colorado Springs CO Raleigh NC Omaha NE Miami FL Long Beach CA Virginia Beach VA Oakland CA Minneapolis MN Tampa FL Tulsa OK Arlington TX Wichita KS Bakersfield CA Aurora CO New Orleans LA Cleveland OH Anaheim CA Henderson NV Honolulu HI Riverside CA Santa Ana CA Corpus Christi TX Lexington KY San Juan PR Stockton CA St. Paul MN Cincinnati OH Greensboro NC Pittsburgh PA Irvine CA St. Louis MO Lincoln NE Orlando FL Durham NC Plano TX Anchorage AK Newark NJ Chula Vista CA Fort Wayne IN Chandler AZ Toledo OH St. Petersburg FL Reno NV Laredo TX Scottsdale AZ North Las Vegas NV Lubbock TX Madison WI Gilbert AZ Jersey City NJ Glendale AZ Buffalo NY Winston-Salem NC Chesapeake VA Fremont CA Norfolk VA Irving TX Garland TX Paradise NV Arlington VA Richmond VA Hialeah FL Boise ID Spokane WA Frisco TX Moreno Valley CA Tacoma WA Fontana CA Modesto CA Baton Rouge LA Port St. Lucie FL San Bernardino CA McKinney TX Fayetteville NC Santa Clarita CA Des Moines IA Oxnard CA Birmingham AL Spring Valley NV Huntsville AL Rochester NY Cape Coral FL Tempe AZ Grand Rapids MI Yonkers NY Overland Park KS Salt Lake City UT Amarillo TX Augusta GA Columbus GA Tallahassee FL Montgomery AL Huntington Beach CA Akron OH Little Rock AR Glendale CA Grand Prairie TX Aurora IL Sunrise Manor NV Ontario CA Sioux Falls SD Knoxville TN Vancouver WA Mobile AL Worcester MA Chattanooga TN Brownsville TX Peoria AZ Fort Lauderdale FL Shreveport LA Newport News VA Providence RI Elk Grove CA Rancho Cucamonga CA Salem OR Pembroke Pines FL Santa Rosa CA Eugene OR Oceanside CA Cary NC Fort Collins CO Corona CA Enterprise NV Garden Grove CA Springfield MO Clarksville TN Bayamon PR Lakewood CO Alexandria VA Hayward CA Murfreesboro TN Killeen TX Hollywood FL Lancaster CA Salinas CA Jackson MS Midland TX Macon County GA Kansas City KS Palmdale CA Sunnyvale CA Springfield MA Escondido CA Pomona CA Bellevue WA Surprise AZ Naperville IL Pasadena TX Denton TX Roseville CA Joliet IL Thornton CO McAllen TX Paterson NJ Rockford IL Carrollton TX Bridgeport CT Miramar FL Round Rock TX Metairie LA Olathe KS Waco TX

FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System (FBI NIBRS) crime data for Glenwood Springs Police Department (City) in Colorado, including incidents, statistics, demographics, and detailed incident information.

FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System (FBI NIBRS) crime data for Pagosa Springs Police Department (City) in Colorado, including incidents, statistics, demographics, and detailed incident information.

This dataset contains polygon features of water bodies in the City of Norfolk.Data collected and compiled by Analytical Surveys, Inc. of Colorado Springs, Colorado and maintained as needed by the City of Norfolk.Any and all data sets are for graphical representations only and should not be used for legal purposes. Any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification, or construction of improvement to real property or for flood plain determination.

Created and managed by the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) at the State of Colorado, this data shows all the local municipalities within the state. Attribution includes information regarding the municipality name, description, order number, etc.For more information on municipalities in the State of Colorado, visit the DOLA website here.

The Colorado Springs Police Department formed a nontraditional domestic violence unit in 1996 called the Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT). This unit involved a partnership and collaboration with the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, a private, nonprofit victim advocacy organization, and 25 other city and county agencies. DVERT was unique in its focus on the safety of the victim over the arrest and prosecution of the batterer. It was also different from the traditional police model for a special unit because it was a systemic response to domestic violence situations that involved the coordination of criminal justice, social service, and community-based agencies. This study is an 18-month evaluation of the DVERT unit. It was designed to answer the following research and evaluation questions: (1) What were the activities of DVERT staff? (2) Who were the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence? (3) What were the characteristics of domestic violence-related incidents in Colorado Springs and surrounding jurisdictions? (4) What was the nature of the intervention and prevention activities of DVERT? (5) What were the effects of the intervention? (6) What was the nature and extent of the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, victim advocates, and city and county human services agencies? (7) What were the dynamics of the collaboration? and (8) How successful was the collaboration? At the time of this evaluation, the DVERT program focused on three levels of domestic violence situations: Level I included the most lethal situations in which a victim might be in serious danger, Level II included moderately lethal situations in which the victim was not in immediate danger, and Level III included lower lethality situations in which patrol officers engaged in problem-solving. Domestic violence situations came to the attention of DVERT through a variety of mechanisms. Most of the referrals came from the Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. Other referrals came from the Department of Human Services, the Humane Society, other law enforcement agencies, or city service agencies. Once a case was referred to DVERT, all relevant information concerning criminal and prosecution histories, advocacy, restraining orders, and human services documentation was researched by appropriate DVERT member agencies. Referral decisions were made on a weekly basis by a group of six to eight representatives from the partner agencies. From its inception in May 1996 to December 31, 1999, DVERT accepted 421 Level I cases and 541 Level II cases. Cases were closed or deactivated when DVERT staff believed that the client was safe from harm. Parts 1-4 contain data from 285 Level I DVERT cases that were closed between July 1, 1996, and December 31, 1999. Parts 5-8 contain data from 515 Level II cases from 1998 and 1999 only, because data were more complete in those two years. Data were collected from (1) police records of the perpetrator and victim, including calls for service, arrest reports, and criminal histories, (2) DVERT case files, and (3) Center for the Prevention of Domestic Violence files on victims. Coding sheets were developed to capture the information within these administrative documents. Part 1 includes data on whether the incident produced injuries or a risk to children, whether the victim, children, or animals were threatened, whether weapons were used, if there was stalking or sexual abuse, prior criminal history, and whether there was a violation of a restraining order. For Part 2 data were gathered on the date of case acceptance to the DVERT program and deactivation, if the offender was incarcerated, if the victim was in a new relationship or had moved out of the area, if the offender had moved or was in treatment, if the offender had completed a domestic violence class, and if the offender had served a sentence. Parts 3 and 4 contain information on the race, date of birth, gender, employment, and relationship to the victim or offender for the offenders and victims, respectively. Part 5 includes data on the history of emotional, physical, sexual, and child abuse, prior arrests, whether the victim took some type of action against the offender, whether substance abuse was involved, types of injuries that the victim sustained, whether medical care was necessary, whether a weapon was used, restraining order violations, and incidents of harassment, criminal trespassing, telephone threats, or kidnapping. Part 6 variables include whether the case was referred to and accepted in Level I and whether a DVERT advocate made contact on the case. Part 7 contains information on the offenders' race and gender. Part 8 includes data on the victims' date of birth, race, and gender.

This is a comment on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map. Along with providing feedback on that map, it offers a draft alternative that better meets the criteria of the Colorado Constitution. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. The draft alternative map is created using Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) and can be found at https://davesredistricting.org/join/346f297c-71d1-4443-9110-b92e3362b105. I used DRA because it was more user-friendly in that it allows selection by precinct and by city or town, while the tool provided by the commission seems to allow only selection by census block (or larger clusters). The two tools also use slightly different population estimates, but this will be resolved when the 2020 data are released in August. These comments acknowledge that any map created using estimated populations will need to change to account for the actual census data.

Description of Draft Alternative

    My process started by

identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. El Paso County is within 0.3% of the optimal population, so it is set as District 5. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain a district, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County. Rather than including the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope, the preliminary commission map extends the Western Slope district to include all of Fremont County (even Canon City, Florence, and Penrose), Clear Creek County, and some of northern Boulder County. The draft alternative District 3 instead adds the San Luis Valley, the Upper Arkansas Valley (Lake and Chaffee Counties, and the western part of Fremont County), Park and Teller Counties, and Custer County. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes the rest of Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley. In the north, this includes all of Weld County, retaining it as an intact political subdivision. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district; it is rounded out by including the easternmost portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. All of Elbert County is in this district; none of Douglas County is. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is a bit too large to form a district, so small areas are shaved off into neighboring districts: DIA (mostly for compactness), Indian Creek, and part of Marston. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. The draft alternative keeps Douglas County intact, as well as the city of Aurora, except for the part that extends into Douglas County. The map prioritizes the county over the city as a political subdivision. Draft alternative District 6, anchored in Douglas County, extends north into Arapahoe County to include suburbs like Centennial, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village. This is not enough population, so the district extends west into southern Jefferson County to include Columbine, Ken Caryl, and Dakota Ridge. The northwestern edge of this district would run along Deer Creek Road, Pleasant Park Road, and Kennedy Gulch Road. Draft alternative District 8, anchored in Aurora, includes the rest of western Arapahoe County and extends north into Adams County to include Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld County), Thornton, and North Washington. In the draft alternative, this district includes a sliver of Northglenn east of Stonehocker Park. While this likely would be resolved when final population totals are released, this division of Northglenn is the most notable division of a city within a single county other than the required division of Denver. Draft alternative District 7 encompasses what is left: The City and County of Broomfield; Westminster, in both Jefferson and Adams Counties; Federal Heights, Sherrelwood, Welby, Twin Lakes, Berkley, and almost all of Northglenn in western Adams County; and Lakewood, Arvada, Golden, Wheat Ridge, Morrison, Indian Hills, Aspen Park, Genesee, and Kittredge in northern Jefferson County. The border with District 2 through the communities in the western portion of Jefferson County would likely be adjusted after final population totals are released.

Comparison of Maps

Precise Population Equality
    The preliminary commission

map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.6% (4,239 persons). Given that the maps are based on population estimates, and that I left it at the precinct and municipality level, this aspect of the preliminary map is premature to pinpoint. Once final population data are released, either map would need to be adjusted. It would be simple to tweak district boundaries to achieve any desired level of equality. That said, such precision is a bit of a fallacy: errors in the census data likely exceed the 0.6% in the draft map, the census data will be a year out of date when received, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†For example, it may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. The major sticking point here is likely to be El Paso County: given how close it seems to be to the optimal district size, will it be worth it to divide the county or one of its neighbors to achieve precision? The same question would be likely to apply among the municipalities in Metro Denver.

Contiguity
    The draft alternative map

meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3.

Voting Rights Act
    The preliminary staff

analysis assumes it would be possible to create a majority-minority district; they are correct, it can be done via a noncompact district running from the west side of Denver up to Commerce City and Brighton and down to parts of northeastern Denver and northern Aurora. Such a district would go against criteria for compactness, political subdivisions, and even other definitions of communities of interest. Staff asserts that the election of Democratic candidates in this area suffices for VRA. Appendix B is opaque regarding the actual non-White or Hispanic population in each district, but I presume that if they had created a majority-minority district they would have said so. In the draft alternative map, District 8 (Aurora, Commerce City, Brighton, and Thornton) has a 39.6% minority population and District 1 (Denver) has a 34.9% minority population. The proposals are similar in meeting this criterion.

Communities of Interest
    Staff presented a long list

of communities of interest. While keeping all of these intact would be ideal, drawing a map requires compromises based on geography and population. Many communities of interest overlap with each other, especially at their edges. This difficulty points to a reason to focus on existing subdivisions (county, city, and town boundaries): those boundaries are stable and overlap with shared public policy concerns. The preliminary commission map chooses to group the San Luis Valley, as far upstream as Del Norte and Creede, with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope/Mountains. To balance the population numbers, the preliminary commission map thus had to reach east in northern and central Colorado. The commission includes Canon City and Florence