Census 2010 population/demographic data approximated from block groups to LA Neighborhood Councils using Esri software.

The Los Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) continues the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Studies (LAMAS) and the Southern California Social Surveys (SCSS). The Log Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) is part of a continuing annual research project supported by the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Each year a University of California researcher is given an opportunity to be principal investigator and to use a segment of the LACSS for his or her own research. The 1992 principal investigator was Dr. Lawrence Bobo, who was an Associate Professor of Sociology at UCLA. The LACSS 1992 was conducted between February and July 1992. Los Angeles County residents were asked questions concerning ethnic relations, social dominance, social distance, immigration, affirmative action, employment, and government. A split ballot methodology was utilized concerning the topics of immigration and affirmative action. Respondents were randomly selected to answer a series of questions from one of three ballots. In addition, a different series of social distance questions were asked depending on the respondent's ethnicity. Questionnaires were provided in both English and Spanish languages. Demographic information collected includes race, gender, religion, age, education level, occupation, birth place, political party affiliation and ideology, and origin of ancestry.

Content

Ethnicity breakdown for large public housing sites owned by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles. Updated 2015.

Context

This is a dataset hosted by the city of Los Angeles. The organization has an open data platform found here and they update their information according the amount of data that is brought in. Explore Los Angeles's Data using Kaggle and all of the data sources available through the city of Los Angeles organization page!

• Update Frequency: This dataset is updated daily.

Acknowledgements

This dataset is maintained using Socrata's API and Kaggle's API. Socrata has assisted countless organizations with hosting their open data and has been an integral part of the process of bringing more data to the public.

Cover photo by Tyler Nix on Unsplash
Unsplash Images are distributed under a unique Unsplash License.

Historical Dataset of Animo South Los Angeles Charter is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Total Students Trends Over Years (2019-2023),Total Classroom Teachers Trends Over Years (2019-2023),Distribution of Students By Grade Trends,Student-Teacher Ratio Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),American Indian Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2020),Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2021),Diversity Score Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),Free Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),Reading and Language Arts Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2019-2022),Math Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),Overall School Rank Trends Over Years (2019-2023),Graduation Rate Comparison Over Years (2019-2023)

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of South Los Angeles Homeless Tay and Foster Care Collaborative

In 2022, **** percent of people aged 25 or older that were living in Los Angeles held a Bachelor's degree, followed by **** percent of people who graduated high school (or equivalent) and **** percent who attended some college without a degree.

Historical Dataset of Animo South Los Angeles Charter School District is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Comparison of Diversity Score Trends,Total Revenues Trends,Total Expenditure Trends,Average Revenue Per Student Trends,Average Expenditure Per Student Trends,Reading and Language Arts Proficiency Trends,Math Proficiency Trends,Overall School District Rank Trends,American Indian Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2020),Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2023),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2019-2021),Comparison of Students By Grade Trends

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of South Los Angeles Industrial Tract

Most of the United States (U.S.) population live together in a few densely populated areas. While this is a well known fact, visual explanations of this characteristic can be quite striking. These four maps illustrate in different ways where we live, and how we actually inhabit so little of our country's space.Map 1 shows the coastal shoreline counties of the U.S., which are the counties that are directly adjacent to an open ocean, a major estuary, or the Great Lakes. According to 2014 Census data, 39.1 percent of the U.S. population lived in those counties, often within miles of the coast.Map 2 highlights the largest and smallest counties in the U.S. Roughly fifty percent of the U.S. population lives in the country's 144 largest counties, while the roughly other 50 percent lives in 2,998 counties.Map 3 compares America's two largest counties (Los Angeles and Downtown Chicago) with the 14 smallest states.Map 4 compares the population of these two counties with 1,437 of the country's smallest counties. Nearly five percent of America's population lives in the counties covering downtown Los Angeles and downtown Chicago, which is the same proportion as those that live in the country's 1,437 smallest counties.Source: Ana Swanson, Washington Post Wonkblog. September 3, 2015

The Census Designated Places 2020 (CDP 2020) boundary usually is defined by the Census Bureau in cooperation with state, local or tribal officials. The boundaries are updated prior to each decennial census. These boundaries, which usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity boundary, have no legal status, nor do these places have officials elected to serve traditional municipal functions. CDP boundaries may change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. CDPs must be contained within a single state and may not extend into an incorporated place. There are no population size requirements for CDPs. incorporatedCDP data is download from Census Bureau's TIGER 2020 website (https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2020/PLACE/) and extracted for Los Angeles County. This data includes LA County 88 incorporated cities and 54 CDPs.

This collection contains a cumulative datafile for The Los Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) comprised of participants from years 1992 and 1994-1998. The LACSS continues the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Studies (LAMAS) and the Southern California Social Surveys (SCSS). The Los Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) is part of a continuing annual research project supported by the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Each year a University of California researcher is given an opportunity to be principal investigator and to use a segment of the LACSS for his or her own research. Data for this collection represents the LACSS conducted between February 1992 and June 1998. No data was included for the year 1993. Each year, Los Angeles County residents were asked questions concerning ethnic relations, social dominance, social distance, immigration, affirmative action, employment, and government. A split ballot methodology was utilized concerning the topics of immigration and affirmative action. Respondents were randomly selected to answer a series of questions from one of three ballots. In addition, a different series of social distance questions were asked depending on the respondent's ethnicity. Demographic information collected includes race, gender, religion, age, education level, occupation, birth place, political party affiliation and ideology, and origin of ancestry.

20 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2020.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents-up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020 the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents.

Where these future residents will live and work is unclear. For most of the 20th Century, two-thirds of Californians have lived south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains-in that part of the state commonly referred to as Southern California. Yet most of coastal Southern California is already highly urbanized, and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. More recently, slow-growth policies in Northern California and declining developable land supplies in Southern California are squeezing ever more of the state's population growth into the San Joaquin Valley.

How future Californians will occupy the landscape is also unclear. Over the last fifty years, the state's population has grown increasingly urban. Today, nearly 95 percent of Californians live in metropolitan areas, mostly at densities less than ten persons per acre. Recent growth patterns have strongly favored locations near freeways, most of which where built in the 1950s and 1960s. With few new freeways on the planning horizon, how will California's future growth organize itself in space? By national standards, California's large urban areas are already reasonably dense, and economic theory suggests that densities should increase further as California's urban regions continue to grow. In practice, densities have been rising in some urban counties, but falling in others.

These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will California have enough land of the appropriate types and in the right locations to accommodate its projected population growth? Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit, or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat? How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms, and residents, and where will that water be stored? Where should future highway, transit, and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically, and in terms of changes in California's quality of life?

Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation, and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural, and bioregional planning.

Consider two scenarios for the year 2100. In the first, California's population would grow to 80 million persons and would occupy the landscape at an average density of eight persons per acre, the current statewide urban average. Under this scenario, and assuming that 10% percent of California's future population growth would occur through infill-that is, on existing urban land-California's expanding urban population would consume an additional 5.06 million acres of currently undeveloped land. As an alternative, assume the share of infill development were increased to 30%, and that new population were accommodated at a density of about 12 persons per acre-which is the current average density of the City of Los Angeles. Under this second scenario, California's urban population would consume an additional 2.6 million acres of currently undeveloped land. While both scenarios accommodate the same amount of population growth and generate large increments of additional urban development-indeed, some might say even the second scenario allows far too much growth and development-the second scenario is far kinder to California's unique natural landscape.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends. The next section, titled Approach, outlines the methodology and data used to develop the various projections. The following section, Baseline Scenario, reviews the projections themselves. A final section, entitled Baseline Impacts, quantitatively assesses the impacts of the baseline projections on wetland, hillside, farmland and habitat loss.

This dataset tracks annual hispanic student percentage from 1992 to 2022 for Ulysses S. Grant Senior High School vs. California and Los Angeles Unified School District

The map illustrates the 2019 Areawide Source emissions for the AB 617 South Los Angeles (LA) community. Emissions in tons per year are based on the latest CARB State Implementation Plan emission inventory with a base year of 2017, and are projected to 2019 using the most up-to-date growth and control factors at the regional scale. Areawide source emissions for each source categories are distributed to more specific locations using the latest spatial surrogates resulting in high-resolution 1x1km emission grids for the community. Examples of spatial surrogates include population, housing, employment, land cover type etc.

The map illustrates the 2019 emissions by major sources: stationary, areawide, and mobile (on-road and off-road) in the AB 617 South Los Angeles (LA) community.Emissions in tons per year are based on the latest CARB State Implementation Plan emission inventory with a base year of 2017 (CEPAM 2019SIP v1.01) and are projected to 2019 using the most up-to-date growth and control factors at the regional scale. Stationary point emission data is based on the 2018 reported data within the California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting System (CEIDARS) where Air Districts report annual emissions for facilities. Source emissions are distributed to more specific locations using the latest spatial surrogates resulting in high-resolution 1x1km emission grids for the community. Examples of spatial surrogates include population, housing, employment, land cover type, etc.

This dataset tracks annual math proficiency from 2012 to 2023 for Ulysses S. Grant Senior High School vs. California and Los Angeles Unified School District

This dataset tracks annual diversity score from 1992 to 2022 for Ulysses S. Grant Senior High School vs. California and Los Angeles Unified School District

Map illustrates 2019 emissions for areawide sources in the AB 617 South Los Angeles Community. Emissions presented are in tons per year and based on the latest CARB State Implementation Plan emission inventory and are projected to 2019 using the most up-to-date growth and control factors at the regional scale. Areawide source emissions are distributed to more specific locations using the latest spatial surrogates resulting in high-resolution 1x1km emission grids for the community. Examples of spatial surrogates include population, housing, employment, land cover type, etc.

This dataset tracks annual white student percentage from 1992 to 2022 for Ulysses S. Grant Senior High School vs. California and Los Angeles Unified School District