In 2022, South Korea recorded around 29,500 cases of breast cancer, making it one of the most common types of cancer. This represents an increase compared to the previous year. In 1999, there were only about 5,900 recorded cases, meaning that case numbers have more than quadrupled in the past two decades.

COVID-19 rate of death, or the known deaths divided by confirmed cases, was over ten percent in Yemen, the only country that has 1,000 or more cases. This according to a calculation that combines coronavirus stats on both deaths and registered cases for 221 different countries. Note that death rates are not the same as the chance of dying from an infection or the number of deaths based on an at-risk population. By April 26, 2022, the virus had infected over 510.2 million people worldwide, and led to a loss of 6.2 million. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. Note that Statista aims to also provide domestic source material for a more complete picture, and not to just look at one particular source. Examples are these statistics on the confirmed coronavirus cases in Russia or the COVID-19 cases in Italy, both of which are from domestic sources. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

People are right to ask whether these numbers are at all representative or not for several reasons. First, countries worldwide decide differently on who gets tested for the virus, meaning that comparing case numbers or death rates could to some extent be misleading. Germany, for example, started testing relatively early once the country’s first case was confirmed in Bavaria in January 2020, whereas Italy tests for the coronavirus postmortem. Second, not all people go to see (or can see, due to testing capacity) a doctor when they have mild symptoms. Countries like Norway and the Netherlands, for example, recommend people with non-severe symptoms to just stay at home. This means not all cases are known all the time, which could significantly alter the death rate as it is presented here. Third and finally, numbers like this change very frequently depending on how the pandemic spreads or the national healthcare capacity. It is therefore recommended to look at other (freely accessible) content that dives more into specifics, such as the coronavirus testing capacity in India or the number of hospital beds in the UK. Only with additional pieces of information can you get the full picture, something that this statistic in its current state simply cannot provide.

NNDSS - TABLE 1EE. Salmonella Paratyphi infection to Salmonellosis (excluding Salmonella Typhi infection and Salmonella Paratyphi infection) – 2021. In this Table, provisional cases* of notifiable diseases are displayed for United States, U.S. territories, and Non-U.S. residents.

Notice: Due to data processing issues at CDC, data for the following jurisdictions may be incomplete for week 7: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New York City, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

Note: This table contains provisional cases of national notifiable diseases from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). NNDSS data from the 50 states, New York City, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories are collated and published weekly on the NNDSS Data and Statistics web page (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/data-and-statistics.html). Cases reported by state health departments to CDC for weekly publication are provisional because of the time needed to complete case follow-up. Therefore, numbers presented in later weeks may reflect changes made to these counts as additional information becomes available. The national surveillance case definitions used to define a case are available on the NNDSS web site at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/. Information about the weekly provisional data and guides to interpreting data are available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/infectious-tables.html.

Footnotes: U: Unavailable — The reporting jurisdiction was unable to send the data to CDC or CDC was unable to process the data. -: No reported cases — The reporting jurisdiction did not submit any cases to CDC. N: Not reportable — The disease or condition was not reportable by law, statute, or regulation in the reporting jurisdiction. NN: Not nationally notifiable — This condition was not designated as being nationally notifiable. NP: Nationally notifiable but not published. NC: Not calculated — There is insufficient data available to support the calculation of this statistic. Cum: Cumulative year-to-date counts. Max: Maximum — Maximum case count during the previous 52 weeks. * Case counts for reporting years 2020 and 2021 are provisional and subject to change. Cases are assigned to the reporting jurisdiction submitting the case to NNDSS, if the case's country of usual residence is the U.S., a U.S. territory, unknown, or null (i.e. country not reported); otherwise, the case is assigned to the 'Non-U.S. Residents' category. Country of usual residence is currently not reported by all jurisdictions or for all conditions. For further information on interpretation of these data, see https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/Users_guide_WONDER_tables_cleared_final.pdf. †Previous 52 week maximum and cumulative YTD are determined from periods of time when the condition was reportable in the jurisdiction (i.e., may be less than 52 weeks of data or incomplete YTD data). § In previous years, cases were reported as Salmonellosis. Beginning in January 2019, cases began to be reported as Salmonella Paratyphi infection. ¶ In previous years, cases were reported as typhoid fever. Beginning in January 2019, cases began to be reported as Salmonella Typhi infection. ** In previous years, cases were reported as Salmonellosis (excluding paratyphoid fever and typhoid fever). Beginning in January 2019, cases began to be reported as Salmonellosis (excluding Salmonella Typhi infection and Salmonella Paratyphi infection).

NNDSS - TABLE 1HH. Syphilis, Congenital to Syphilis, Primary and Secondary – 2020. In this Table, provisional cases* of notifiable diseases are displayed for United States, U.S. territories, and Non-U.S. residents.

Note: This table contains provisional cases of national notifiable diseases from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). NNDSS data from the 50 states, New York City, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories are collated and published weekly on the NNDSS Data and Statistics web page (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/data-and-statistics.html). Cases reported by state health departments to CDC for weekly publication are provisional because of the time needed to complete case follow-up. Therefore, numbers presented in later weeks may reflect changes made to these counts as additional information becomes available. The national surveillance case definitions used to define a case are available on the NNDSS web site at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/. Information about the weekly provisional data and guides to interpreting data are available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/infectious-tables.html.

Footnotes: U: Unavailable — The reporting jurisdiction was unable to send the data to CDC or CDC was unable to process the data. -: No reported cases — The reporting jurisdiction did not submit any cases to CDC. N: Not reportable — The disease or condition was not reportable by law, statute, or regulation in the reporting jurisdiction. NN: Not nationally notifiable — This condition was not designated as being nationally notifiable. NP: Nationally notifiable but not published. NC: Not calculated — There is insufficient data available to support the calculation of this statistic. Cum: Cumulative year-to-date counts. Max: Maximum — Maximum case count during the previous 52 weeks. * Case counts for reporting years 2019 and 2020 are provisional and subject to change. Cases are assigned to the reporting jurisdiction submitting the case to NNDSS, if the case's country of usual residence is the U.S., a U.S. territory, unknown, or null (i.e. country not reported); otherwise, the case is assigned to the 'Non-U.S. Residents' category. Country of usual residence is currently not reported by all jurisdictions or for all conditions. For further information on interpretation of these data, see https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/Users_guide_WONDER_tables_cleared_final.pdf. †Previous 52 week maximum and cumulative YTD are determined from periods of time when the condition was reportable in the jurisdiction (i.e., may be less than 52 weeks of data or incomplete YTD data).

Abstract (en): This data collection provides comparable measures of state appellate and trial court caseloads by type of case for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Court caseloads are tabulated according to generic reporting categories developed by the Court Statistics Project Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. These categories describe differences in the unit of count and the point of count when compiling each court's caseload. Major areas of investigation include (1) case filings in state appellate and trial courts, (2) case processing and dispositions in state appellate and trial courts, and (3) appellate opinions. Within each of these areas of state government investigation, cases are separated by main case type, including civil cases, capital punishment cases, other criminal cases, juvenile cases, and administrative agency appeals. 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.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. State appellate and trial court cases in the United States. 2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.2003-08-27 Part 45, Appellate Court Data, 2001, and Part 46, Trial Court Data, 2001, have been added to the data collection, along with corresponding SAS and SPSS data definition statements and PDF codebooks.2002-08-13 Part 43, Appellate Court Data, 2000, and Part 44, Trial Court Data, 2000, have been added to the data collection, along with corresponding SAS and SPSS data definition statements and PDF codebooks.2001-10-31 Part 41, Appellate Court Data, 1999, and Part 42, Trial Court Data, 1999, have been added to the data collection, along with corresponding SAS and SPSS data definition statements and PDF codebooks.2000-03-23 Part 39, Appellate Court Data, 1998, and Part 40, Trial Court Data, 1998, have been added to the data collection, along with corresponding SAS and SPSS data definition statements and PDF codebooks.1999-07-16 Part 37, Appellate Court Data, 1997, and Part 38, Trial Court Data, 1997, have been added to the data collection, along with corresponding SAS and SPSS data definition statements and PDF codebooks. Funding insitution(s): State Justice Institute (SJI-91-N-007-001-1). United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Court Statistics Project Web page is: http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/CSP_Main_Page.html.A user guide containing court codes and variable descriptions for the 1987 data and the codebooks for the 1995-2001 data are provided as Portable Document Format (PDF) files, and the codebooks for the 1988-1992 data are available in both ASCII text and PDF versions.

NNDSS - TABLE 1Z. Pertussis to Poliomyelitis, paralytic - 2020. In this Table, provisional cases* of notifiable diseases are displayed for United States, U.S. territories, and Non-U.S. residents.

Notice: Data from California published in week 29 for years 2019 and 2020 were incomplete when originally published on July 24, 2020. On August 4, 2020, incomplete case counts were replaced with a "U" indicating case counts are not available for specified time period.

Note: This table contains provisional cases of national notifiable diseases from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). NNDSS data from the 50 states, New York City, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories are collated and published weekly on the NNDSS Data and Statistics web page (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/data-and-statistics.html). Cases reported by state health departments to CDC for weekly publication are provisional because of the time needed to complete case follow-up. Therefore, numbers presented in later weeks may reflect changes made to these counts as additional information becomes available. The national surveillance case definitions used to define a case are available on the NNDSS web site at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/. Information about the weekly provisional data and guides to interpreting data are available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/infectious-tables.html.

Footnotes: U: Unavailable — The reporting jurisdiction was unable to send the data to CDC or CDC was unable to process the data. -: No reported cases — The reporting jurisdiction did not submit any cases to CDC. N: Not reportable — The disease or condition was not reportable by law, statute, or regulation in the reporting jurisdiction. NN: Not nationally notifiable — This condition was not designated as being nationally notifiable. NP: Nationally notifiable but not published. NC: Not calculated — There is insufficient data available to support the calculation of this statistic. Cum: Cumulative year-to-date counts. Max: Maximum — Maximum case count during the previous 52 weeks. * Case counts for reporting years 2019 and 2020 are provisional and subject to change. Cases are assigned to the reporting jurisdiction submitting the case to NNDSS, if the case's country of usual residence is the U.S., a U.S. territory, unknown, or null (i.e. country not reported); otherwise, the case is assigned to the 'Non-U.S. Residents' category. Country of usual residence is currently not reported by all jurisdictions or for all conditions. For further information on interpretation of these data, see https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/Users_guide_WONDER_tables_cleared_final.pdf. †Previous 52 week maximum and cumulative YTD are determined from periods of time when the condition was reportable in the jurisdiction (i.e., may be less than 52 weeks of data or incomplete YTD data). § The pertussis case definition was modified by CSTE effective January 1, 2020. Criteria were modified increasing sensitivity for case ascertainment such that case counts may increase.

Definition of rare diseases is based on the rare diseases announced by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (main diagnosis code, Chinese and English disease name), and confirmed cases are registered in the rare disease database.

As of April 16, 2020, there were 632,548 total cases of the COVID-19 disease in the United States, with 611,006 of these cases still under investigation.

The first cases in the United States The COVID-19 disease has been reported in approximately 215 countries and territories worldwide. In the United States, the first cases were detected in travelers to the country; person-to-person spread was subsequently reported among close contacts of returned travelers. Cases of community transmission soon followed, meaning the virus was spreading, but it was not known how or where patients became exposed. Widespread testing programs can help to flatten an infection curve, and the United States is among the countries to have performed the most COVID-19 tests.

What happens to the body once infected? Coronaviruses are typically spread through droplets of saliva when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Patients may start showing signs of a fever or cough, but symptoms can quickly increase in severity: coronaviruses are respiratory diseases that attack the lungs and can cause pneumonia. There is no vaccine to protect against the disease; once under attack, patients may require ventilators to support their breathing and strengthen a weakened immune system.

Adult criminal courts, charges and cases by offence, age and sex of accused and type of decision, Canada, provinces, territories, ten jurisdictions and eight jurisdictions, five years of data.

DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve. The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj. The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 . The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 . The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed. COVID-19 cases, tests, and associated deaths from COVID-19 that have been reported among Connecticut residents. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the daily COVID-19 update. The case rate per 100,000 includes probable and confirmed cases. Probable and confirmed are defined using the CSTE case definition, which is available online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/2020ps/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID-19.pdf The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used. Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 CO

The case-cohort study design combines the advantages of a cohort study with the efficiency of a nested case-control study. However, unlike more standard observational study designs, there are currently no guidelines for reporting results from case-cohort studies. Our aim was to review recent practice in reporting these studies, and develop recommendations for the future. By searching papers published in 24 major medical and epidemiological journals between January 2010 and March 2013 using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Knowledge, we identified 32 papers reporting case-cohort studies. The median subcohort sampling fraction was 4.1% (interquartile range 3.7% to 9.1%). The papers varied in their approaches to describing the numbers of individuals in the original cohort and the subcohort, presenting descriptive data, and in the level of detail provided about the statistical methods used, so it was not always possible to be sure that appropriate analyses had been conducted. Based on the findings of our review, we make recommendations about reporting of the study design, subcohort definition, numbers of participants, descriptive information and statistical methods, which could be used alongside existing STROBE guidelines for reporting observational studies.

As a national public health surveillance resource, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a key component in ensuring the safety of vaccines. Numerous methods have been used to conduct safety studies with the VAERS database. These efforts focus on the downstream statistical analysis of the vaccine and adverse event associations. In this article, we primarily focus on processing the raw data in VAERS before the analysis step, which is also an important part of the signal detection process. Due to the semiannual update in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) coding system, adverse event terms that describe the same symptom might change in VAERS; therefore, we identify these terms and combine them to increase the signal detection power. We also consider the uncertainty of the vaccine and adverse event pairs that arise from reports with multiple vaccines. Finally, we discuss four commonly used statistics in assessing the vaccine and adverse event associations, and propose to use the statistics that are robust to the reporting bias in VAERS and adjust for potential confounders of the vaccine and adverse event association to increase signal detection accuracy.

In 2019, there were 4,005 recorded cases of scrub typhus in South Korea. This represents a decrease compared to the previous years, where case numbers were more than twice as high. Scrub typhus is transmitted by mites, and is classified as a Group III infectious disease in South Korea, meaning that is must be reported to health authorities upon diagnosis. Group III infectious diseases are subject to ongoing monitoring, as there is the potential for sporadic outbreaks.

At the beginning of 2024, Peru had 1,183 ongoing corruption cases. By the end of the first semester, this number fell to 929, meaning that the number of cases solved was higher than the number of new cases, allowing the South American country to lower the total number of ongoing corruption cases.

Abstract

The Project for Statistics on Living standards and Development was a coutrywide World Bank Living Standards Measurement Survey. It covered approximately 9000 households, drawn from a representative sample of South African households. The fieldwork was undertaken during the nine months leading up to the country's first democratic elections at the end of April 1994. The purpose of the survey was to collect statistical information about the conditions under which South Africans live in order to provide policymakers with the data necessary for planning strategies. This data would aid the implementation of goals such as those outlined in the Government of National Unity's Reconstruction and Development Programme.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals
• Community

Universe

All Household members.

Individuals in hospitals, old age homes, hotels and hostels of educational institutions were not included in the sample. Migrant labour hostels were included. In addition to those that turned up in the selected ESDs, a sample of three hostels was chosen from a national list provided by the Human Sciences Research Council and within each of these hostels a representative sample was drawn on a similar basis as described above for the households in ESDs.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample size is 9,000 households

The sample design adopted for the study was a two-stage self-weightingdesign in which the first stage units were Census Enumerator Subdistricts (ESDs, or their equivalent) and the second stage were households.

The advantage of using such a design is that it provides a representative sample that need not be based on accurate census population distribution.in the case of South Africa, the sample will automatically include many poor people, without the need to go beyond this and oversample the poor. Proportionate sampling as in such a self-weighting sample design offers the simplest possible data files for further analysis, as weights do not have to be added. However, in the end this advantage could not be retained and weights had to be added.

The sampling frame was drawn up on the basis of small, clearly demarcated area units, each with a population estimate. The nature of the self-weighting procedure adopted ensured that this population estimate was not important for determining the final sample, however. For most of the country, census ESDs were used. Where some ESDs comprised relatively large populations as for instance in some black townships such as Soweto, aerial photographs were used to divide the areas into blocks of approximately equal population size. In other instances, particularly in some of the former homelands, the area units were not ESDs but villages or village groups.

In the sample design chosen, the area stage units (generally ESDs) were selected with probability proportional to size, based on the census population. Systematic sampling was used throughout that is, sampling at fixed interval in a list of ESDs, starting at a randomly selected starting point. Given that sampling was self-weighting, the impact of stratification was expected to be modest. The main objective was to ensure that the racial and geographic breakdown approximated the national population distribution. This was done by listing the area stage units (ESDs) by statistical region and then within the statistical region by urban or rural. Within these sub-statistical regions, the ESDs were then listed in order of percentage African. The sampling interval for the selection of the ESDs was obtained by dividing the 1991 census population of 38,120,853 by the 300 clusters to be selected. This yielded 105,800. Starting at a randomly selected point, every 105,800th person down the cluster list was selected. This ensured both geographic and racial diversity (ESDs were ordered by statistical sub-region and proportion of the population African). In three or four instances, the ESD chosen was judged inaccessible and replaced with a similar one.

In the second sampling stage the unit of analysis was the household. In each selected ESD a listing or enumeration of households was carried out by means of a field operation. From the households listed in an ESD a sample of households was selected by systematic sampling. Even though the ultimate enumeration unit was the household, in most cases "stands" were used as enumeration units. However, when a stand was chosen as the enumeration unit all households on that stand had to be interviewed.

Census population data, however, was available only for 1991. An assumption on population growth was thus made to obtain an approximation of the population size for 1993, the year of the survey. The sampling interval at the level of the household was determined in the following way: Based on the decision to have a take of 125 individuals on average per cluster (i.e. assuming 5 members per household to give an average cluster size of 25 households), the interval of households to be selected was determined as the census population divided by 118.1, i.e. allowing for population growth since the census. It was subsequently discovered that population growth was slightly over-estimated but this had little effect on the findings of the survey.

Individuals in hospitals, old age homes, hotels and hostels of educational institutions were not included in the sample. Migrant labour hostels were included. In addition to those that turned up in the selected ESDs, a sample of three hostels was chosen from a national list provided by the Human Sciences Research Council and within each of these hostels a representative sample was drawn on a similar basis as described abovefor the households in ESDs.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The main instrument used in the survey was a comprehensive household questionnaire. This questionnaire covered a wide range of topics but was not intended to provide exhaustive coverage of any single subject. In other words, it was an integrated questionnaire aimed at capturing different aspects of living standards. The topics covered included demography, household services, household expenditure, educational status and expenditure, remittances and marital maintenance, land access and use, employment and income, health status and expenditure and anthropometry (children under the age of six were weighed and their heights measured). This questionnaire was available to households in two languages, namely English and Afrikaans. In addition, interviewers had in their possession a translation in the dominant African language/s of the region.

In addition to the detailed household questionnaire referred to above, a community questionnaire was administered in each cluster of the sample. The purpose of this questionnaire was to elicit information on the facilities available to the community in each cluster. Questions related primarily to the provision of education, health and recreational facilities. Furthermore there was a detailed section for the prices of a range of commodities from two retail sources in or near the cluster: a formal source such as a supermarket and a less formal one such as the "corner cafe" or a "spaza". The purpose of this latter section was to obtain a measure of regional price variation both by region and by retail source. These prices were obtained by the interviewer. For the questions relating to the provision of facilities, respondents were "prominent" members of the community such as school principals, priests and chiefs.

Cleaning operations

All the questionnaires were checked when received. Where information was incomplete or appeared contradictory, the questionnaire was sent back to the relevant survey organization. As soon as the data was available, it was captured using local development platform ADE. This was completed in February 1994. Following this, a series of exploratory programs were written to highlight inconsistencies and outlier. For example, all person level files were linked together to ensure that the same person code reported in different sections of the questionnaire corresponded to the same person. The error reports from these programs were compared to the questionnaires and the necessary alterations made. This was a lengthy process, as several files were checked more than once, and completed at the beginning of August 1994. In some cases questionnaires would contain missing values, or comments that the respondent did not know, or refused to answer a question.

These responses are coded in the data files with the following values: VALUE MEANING -1 : The data was not available on the questionnaire or form -2 : The field is not applicable -3 : Respondent refused to answer -4 : Respondent did not know answer to question

Data appraisal

The data collected in clusters 217 and 218 should be viewed as highly unreliable and therefore removed from the data set. The data currently available on the web site has been revised to remove the data from these clusters. Researchers who have downloaded the data in the past should revise their data sets. For information on the data in those clusters, contact SALDRU http://www.saldru.uct.ac.za/.

Abstract

Introduction

The Annual Survey of Industries (ASI) is the principal source of industrial statistics in India. It provides statistical information to assess changes in the growth, composition and structure of organised manufacturing sector comprising activities related to manufacturing processes, repair services, gas and water supply and cold storage. The Survey is conducted annually under the statutory provisions of the Collection of Statistics Act 1953, and the Rules framed there-under in 1959, except in the State of Jammu & Kashmir where it is conducted under the State Collection of Statistics Act, 1961 and the rules framed there-under in 1964.

Geographic coverage

The ASI extends to the entire country except the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Sikkim and Union Territory of Lakshadweep. It covers all factories registered under Sections 2m(i) and 2m(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 i.e. those factories employing 10 or more workers using power; and those employing 20 or more workers without using power. The survey also covers bidi and cigar manufacturing establishments registered under the Bidi & Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 with coverage as above. All electricity undertakings engaged in generation, transmission and distribution of electricity registered with the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) were covered under ASI irrespective of their employment size. Certain servicing units and activities like water supply, cold storage, repairing of motor vehicles and other consumer durables like watches etc. are covered under the Survey. Though servicing industries like motion picture production, personal services like laundry services, job dyeing, etc. are covered under the Survey but data are not tabulated, as these industries do not fall under the scope of industrial sector defined by the United Nations.

Analysis unit

The primary unit of enumeration in the survey is a factory in the case of manufacturing industries, a workshop in the case of repair services, an undertaking or a licensee in the case of electricity, gas & water supply undertakings and an establishment in the case of bidi & cigar industries. The owner of two or more establishments located in the same State and pertaining to the same industry group and belonging to same scheme (census or sample) is, however, permitted to furnish a single consolidated return. Such consolidated returns are common feature in the case of bidi and cigar establishments, electricity and certain public sector undertakings.

Merging of unit level data As per existing policy to merge unit level data at ultimate digit level of NIC'08 (i.e., 5 digit) for the purpose of dissemination, the data have been merged for industries having less than three units within State, District and NIC-08 (5 Digit) with the adjoining industries within district and then to adjoining districts within a state. There may be some NIC-08 (5 Digit) ending with '9' that do not figure in the book of NIC '08. These may be treated as 'Others' under the corresponding 4-digit group. To suppress the identity of factories data fields corresponding to PSL number, Industry code as per Frame (4-digit level of NIC-09) and RO/SRO code have been filled with '9' in each record.

It may please be noted that, tables generated from the merged data may not tally with the published results for few industries, since the merging for published data has been done at aggregate-level to minimise the loss of information.

Universe

The survey cover factories registered under the Factory Act 1948. Establishments under the control of the Defence Ministry,oil storage and distribution units, restaurants and cafes and technical training institutions not producing anything for sale or exchange were kept outside the coverage of the ASI. The geographical coverage of the Annual Survey of Industries, 2008-2009 has been extended to the entire country except the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Sikkim and Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

Kind of data

Census and Sample survey data [cen/ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sampling Procedure

The sampling design followed in ASI 2008-09 is a stratified circular systematic one. All the factories in the updated frame (universe) are divided into two sectors, viz., Census and Sample.

Census Sector: Census Sector is defined as follows:

a) All industrial units belonging to the six less industrially developed states/ UT's viz. Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim and Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
b) For the rest of the twenty-six states/ UT's., (i) units having 100 or more workers, and (ii) all factories covered under Joint Returns. c) After excluding the Census Sector units as defined above, all units belonging to the strata (State by 4-digit of NIC-04) having less than or equal to 4 units are also considered as Census Sector units.

Remaining units, excluding those of Census Sector, called the sample sector, are arranged in order of their number of workers and samples are then drawn circular systematically considering sampling fraction of 20% within each stratum (State X Sector X 4-digit NIC) for all the states. An even number of units with a minimum of 4 are selected and evenly distributed in two sub-samples. The sectors considered here are Biri, Manufacturing and Electricity.

Sampling deviation

There was no deviation from sample design in ASI 2008-09.

Mode of data collection

Statutory return submitted by factories as well as Face to face

Research instrument

Annual Survey of Industries Questionnaire (in External Resources) is divided into different blocks:

BLOCK A.IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS BLOCK B. PARTICULARS OF THE FACTORY (TO BE FILLED BY OWNER OF THE FACTORY) BLOCK C: FIXED ASSETS BLOCK D: WORKING CAPITAL & LOANS BLOCK E : EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR COST BLOCK F : OTHER EXPENSES BLOCK G : OTHER INCOMES BLOCK H: INPUT ITEMS (indigenous items consumed) BLOCK I: INPUT ITEMS – directly imported items only (consumed) BLOCK J: PRODUCTS AND BY-PRODUCTS (manufactured by the unit)

Cleaning operations

Pre-data entry scrutiny was carried out on the schedules for inter and intra block consistency checks. Such editing was mostly manual, although some editing was automatic. But, for major inconsistencies, the schedules were referred back to NSSO (FOD) for clarifications/modifications.

A list of validation checks carried out on data files is given in External Resources "Validation checks, ASI 2008-09". Code list, State code list, Tabulation program and ASICC code are also may be refered in the External Resources which are used for editing and data processing as well..

Response rate

No. of units to be surveyed No. of units responded No. of units non-responded Response rate (in %)

  58300             52376                  5924             89.84

Sampling error estimates

Relative Standard Error (RSE) is calculated in terms of worker, wages to worker and GVA using the formula (Pl ease refer to Estimation Procedure document in external resources). Programs developed in Visual Foxpro are used to compute the RSE of estimates.

Data appraisal

To check for consistency and reliability of data the same are compared with the NIC-2digit level growth rate at all India Index of Production (IIP) and the growth rates obtained from the National Accounts Statistics at current and constant prices for the registered manufacturing sector.

In 2023, murder and manslaughter charges had the highest crime clearance rate in the United States, with 57.8 percent of all cases being cleared by arrest or so-called exceptional means. Motor vehicle theft cases had the lowest crime clearance rate, at 8.2 percent. What is crime clearance? Within the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal cases can be cleared (or closed) one of two ways. The first is through arrest, which means that at least one person has either been arrested, charged with an offense, or turned over to the court for prosecution. The second way a case can be closed is through what is called exceptional means, where law enforcement must have either identified the offender, gathered enough evidence to arrest, charge, and prosecute someone, identified the offender’s exact location, or come up against a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that keeps them from arresting and prosecuting the offender. Crime in the United States Despite what many people may believe, crime in the United States has been on the decline. Particularly in regard to violent crime, the violent crime rate has almost halved since 1990, meaning that the U.S. is safer than it was almost 30 years ago. However, due to the FBI's recent transition to a new crime reporting system in which law enforcement agencies voluntarily report crime data, it is possible that figures do not accurately reflect the total amount of crime in the country.