This dataset contains Race/Ethinicty codes. It is used to enter in patient demographics information.

This dataset includes race/ethnicity of newly Medi-Cal eligible individuals who identified their race/ethnicity as Hispanic, White, Other Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Korean, Alaskan Native or American Indian, Japanese, Cambodian, Samoan, Laotian, Hawaiian, Guamanian, Amerasian, or Other, by reporting period. The race/ethnicity data is from the Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) and includes eligible individuals without prior Medi-Cal Eligibility. This dataset is part of the public reporting requirements set forth in California Welfare and Institutions Code 14102.5.

This Zenodo entry details the methodology for extracting and reconciling ethnicity data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), incorporating both General Practitioner (GP) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) sources. The approach aims to resolve discrepancies between these sources and provide a standardized single ethnicity value per patient, categorized into 6 and 12 levels according to NHS coding guidelines.

Materials and Methods:

Ethnicity data from the CPRD are recorded in multiple formats. This study harmonizes these data to achieve consistent ethnicity classification across patient records, following a hierarchal reconciliation protocol prioritizing hospital data over GP records.

Ethnicity Levels: Ethnicity data are processed to conform to two levels of granularity:

1. Six high-level categories: White, Black, Asian, Mixed, Other, Unknown
2. Twelve detailed categories: Bangladeshi, Black African, Black Caribbean, Black Other, Chinese, Indian, Mixed, Other Asian, Other, Pakistani, Unknown, White

Source Data Mapping:

• CPRD Medcodes: Directly mapped to 490 SNOMED codes
• SNOMED to NHS Codes: SNOMED codes are linked to 26 NHS ethnicity codes
• NHS to HES Codes: These NHS codes further map into 12 HES hospital ethnicities, which then consolidate into the 6 broad categories mentioned above

Algorithm (AIM-CISC):

• Hospital Data Priority: Ethnicity records from hospital sources override those from GP records unless the hospital data is classified as "Unknown", null, or empty.
• Conflict Resolution Within GP Data:
  • The frequency of recorded ethnicities determines the selection. The most frequently recorded ethnicity prevails.
  • If frequencies are tied, the most recent record is used.
  • In cases where records are equally recent, the first alphabetically listed ethnicity is selected.

Unique Patient Identifiers: Each patient is represented once in hospital data, ensuring a single source of truth for hospital-based ethnicities. This simplifies reconciliation with GP data when discrepancies arise.

Source Documentation and References:

• Reference for Code Lists: Digital ethnicity data in population-wide electronic health records in England: a description of completeness, coverage, and granularity of diversity (Pineda-Moncusí et al., 2022): https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.11.22282217
• GitHub Repository for Code Lists: https://github.com/BHFDSC/CCU037_01/blob/main/england/phenotypes/snomed_meaning_and_map_to_primary_code.csv
• NHS Ethnicity Codes Documentation: https://www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/attributes/ethnic_category_code_2001.html open_in_new

Notes on mapping:

Instances were noted where multiple Medcodes map back to a single SNOMED code, highlighting the importance of careful data cross-referencing. For example, two different Medcodes represent the New Zealand European ethnicity, which both map back to the identical SNOMED code.

TIGER, TIGER/Line, and Census TIGER are registered trademarks of the Bureau of the Census. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER data base. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on January 1, 2000 legal boundaries. A complete set of Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files includes all counties and statistically equivalent entities in the United States and Puerto Rico. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files will not include files for the Island Areas. The Census TIGER data base represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files do NOT contain the ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) and the address ranges are of approximately the same vintage as those appearing in the 1999 TIGER/Line files. That is, the Census Bureau is producing the Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files in advance of the computer processing that will ensure that the address ranges in the TIGER/Line files agree with the final Master Address File (MAF) used for tabulating Census 2000. The files contain information distributed over a series of record types for the spatial objects of a county. There are 17 record types, including the basic data record, the shape coordinate points, and geographic codes that can be used with appropriate software to prepare maps. Other geographic information contained in the files includes attributes such as feature identifiers/census feature class codes (CFCC) used to differentiate feature types, address ranges and ZIP Codes, codes for legal and statistical entities, latitude/longitude coordinates of linear and point features, landmark point features, area landmarks, key geographic features, and area boundaries. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line data dictionary contains a complete list of all the fields in the 17 record types.

TIGER, TIGER/Line, and Census TIGER are registered trademarks of the Bureau of the Census. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER data base. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on January 1, 2000 legal boundaries. A complete set of Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files includes all counties and statistically equivalent entities in the United States and Puerto Rico. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files will not include files for the Island Areas. The Census TIGER data base represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files do NOT contain the ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) and the address ranges are of approximately the same vintage as those appearing in the 1999 TIGER/Line files. That is, the Census Bureau is producing the Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files in advance of the computer processing that will ensure that the address ranges in the TIGER/Line files agree with the final Master Address File (MAF) used for tabulating Census 2000. The files contain information distributed over a series of record types for the spatial objects of a county. There are 17 record types, including the basic data record, the shape coordinate points, and geographic codes that can be used with appropriate software to prepare maps. Other geographic information contained in the files includes attributes such as feature identifiers/census feature class codes (CFCC) used to differentiate feature types, address ranges and ZIP Codes, codes for legal and statistical entities, latitude/longitude coordinates of linear and point features, landmark point features, area landmarks, key geographic features, and area boundaries. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line data dictionary contains a complete list of all the fields in the 17 record types.

This layer shows the population broken down by race and Hispanic origin. Data is from US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right (in ArcGIS Online). A ‘Null’ entry in the estimate indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small (per the U.S. Census).Vintage: 2018-2022ACS Table(s): B03002 (Not all lines of this ACS table are available in this feature layer.)Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Data Preparation: Data table was downloaded and joined with Zip Code boundaries in the City of Tempe.Date of Census update: December 15, 2023National Figures: data.census.gov

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Group of the Atlanta Regional Commission, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2013-2017, to show population by race/ethnicity and change data by Neighborhood Statistical Areas in the Atlanta region. The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2013-2017). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website. Naming conventions: Prefixes:NoneCountpPercentrRatemMedianaMean (average)tAggregate (total)chChange in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pchPercent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chpChange in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)Suffixes:NoneChange over two periods_eEstimate from most recent ACS_mMargin of Error from most recent ACS_00Decennial 2000 Attributes: SumLevelSummary level of geographic unit (e.g., County, Tract, NSA, NPU, DSNI, SuperDistrict, etc)GEOIDCensus tract Federal Information Processing Series (FIPS) code NAMEName of geographic unitPlanning_RegionPlanning region designation for ARC purposesAcresTotal area within the tract (in acres)SqMiTotal area within the tract (in square miles)CountyCounty identifier (combination of Federal Information Processing Series (FIPS) codes for state and county)CountyNameCounty NameTotPop_e# Total population, 2017TotPop_m# Total population, 2017 (MOE)Hisp_e# Hispanic or Latino (of any race), 2017Hisp_m# Hispanic or Latino (of any race), 2017 (MOE)pHisp_e% Hispanic or Latino (of any race), 2017pHisp_m% Hispanic or Latino (of any race), 2017 (MOE)Not_Hisp_e# Not Hispanic or Latino, 2017Not_Hisp_m# Not Hispanic or Latino, 2017 (MOE)pNot_Hisp_e% Not Hispanic or Latino, 2017pNot_Hisp_m% Not Hispanic or Latino, 2017 (MOE)NHWhite_e# Not Hispanic, White alone, 2017NHWhite_m# Not Hispanic, White alone, 2017 (MOE)pNHWhite_e% Not Hispanic, White alone, 2017pNHWhite_m% Not Hispanic, White alone, 2017 (MOE)NHBlack_e# Not Hispanic, Black or African American alone, 2017NHBlack_m# Not Hispanic, Black or African American alone, 2017 (MOE)pNHBlack_e% Not Hispanic, Black or African American alone, 2017pNHBlack_m% Not Hispanic, Black or African American alone, 2017 (MOE)NH_AmInd_e# Not Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, 2017NH_AmInd_m# Not Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, 2017 (MOE)pNH_AmInd_e% Not Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, 2017pNH_AmInd_m% Not Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native alone, 2017 (MOE)NH_Asian_e# Not Hispanic, Asian alone, 2017NH_Asian_m# Not Hispanic, Asian alone, 2017 (MOE)pNH_Asian_e% Not Hispanic, Asian alone, 2017pNH_Asian_m% Not Hispanic, Asian alone, 2017 (MOE)NH_PacIsl_e# Not Hispanic, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, 2017NH_PacIsl_m# Not Hispanic, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, 2017 (MOE)pNH_PacIsl_e% Not Hispanic, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, 2017pNH_PacIsl_m% Not Hispanic, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, 2017 (MOE)NH_OthRace_e# Not Hispanic, some other race alone, 2017NH_OthRace_m# Not Hispanic, some other race alone, 2017 (MOE)pNH_OthRace_e% Not Hispanic, some other race alone, 2017pNH_OthRace_m% Not Hispanic, some other race alone, 2017 (MOE)NH_TwoRace_e# Not Hispanic, two or more races, 2017NH_TwoRace_m# Not Hispanic, two or more races, 2017 (MOE)pNH_TwoRace_e% Not Hispanic, two or more races, 2017pNH_TwoRace_m% Not Hispanic, two or more races, 2017 (MOE)NH_AsianPI_e# Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, 2017NH_AsianPI_m# Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, 2017 (MOE)pNH_AsianPI_e% Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, 2017pNH_AsianPI_m% Non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, 2017 (MOE)NH_Other_e# Non-Hispanic other (Native American, other one race, two or more races), 2017NH_Other_m# Non-Hispanic other (Native American, other one race, two or more races), 2017 (MOE)pNH_Other_e% Non-Hispanic other (Native American, other one race, two or more races), 2017pNH_Other_m% Non-Hispanic other (Native American, other one race, two or more races), 2017 (MOE)last_edited_dateLast date the feature was edited by ARC Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2013-2017 For additional information, please visit the Census ACS website.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

This layer was developed by the Research & Analytics Division of the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent.

The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2014-2018). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available.

For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.

For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.

Naming conventions:

Prefixes:

None

Count

p

Percent

r

Rate

m

Median

a

Mean (average)

t

Aggregate (total)

ch

Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)

pch

Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)

chp

Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)

s

Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% Confidence Interval, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed

Suffixes:

_e18

Estimate from 2014-18 ACS

_m18

Margin of Error from 2014-18 ACS

_00_v18

Decennial 2000 in 2018 geography boundary

_00_18

Change, 2000-18

_e10_v18

Estimate from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_m10_v18

Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS in 2018 geography boundary

_e10_18

Change, 2010-18

TIGER, TIGER/Line, and Census TIGER are registered trademarks of the Bureau of the Census. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the Census TIGER data base. The geographic coverage for a single TIGER/Line file is a county or statistical equivalent entity, with the coverage area based on January 1, 2000 legal boundaries. A complete set of Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files includes all counties and statistically equivalent entities in the United States and Puerto Rico. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files will not include files for the Island Areas. The Census TIGER data base represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts. However, each county-based TIGER/Line file is designed to stand alone as an independent data set or the files can be combined to cover the whole Nation. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files consist of line segments representing physical features and governmental and statistical boundaries. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files do NOT contain the ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) and the address ranges are of approximately the same vintage as those appearing in the 1999 TIGER/Line files. That is, the Census Bureau is producing the Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line files in advance of the computer processing that will ensure that the address ranges in the TIGER/Line files agree with the final Master Address File (MAF) used for tabulating Census 2000. The files contain information distributed over a series of record types for the spatial objects of a county. There are 17 record types, including the basic data record, the shape coordinate points, and geographic codes that can be used with appropriate software to prepare maps. Other geographic information contained in the files includes attributes such as feature identifiers/census feature class codes (CFCC) used to differentiate feature types, address ranges and ZIP Codes, codes for legal and statistical entities, latitude/longitude coordinates of linear and point features, landmark point features, area landmarks, key geographic features, and area boundaries. The Redistricting Census 2000 TIGER/Line data dictionary contains a complete list of all the fields in the 17 record types.

This dataset identifies race by zip code tabulation areas within the United States. This dataset resulted from the American Community Survey (ACS) conducted from 2010 through 2014. The races included are White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and other.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Evidence for Equality National Survey (EVENS) is a national survey that documents the experiences and attitudes of ethnic and religious minorities in Britain. EVENS was developed by the Centre on the Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) in response to the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 and is the largest and most comprehensive survey of the lives of ethnic and religious minorities in Britain for more than 25 years. EVENS used pioneering, robust survey methods to collect data in 2021 from 14,200 participants of whom 9,700 identify as from an ethnic or religious minority. The EVENS main dataset, which is available from the UK Data Service under SN 9116, covers a large number of topics including racism and discrimination, education, employment, housing and community, health, ethnic and religious identity, and social and political participation.

The EVENS Teaching Dataset provides a selection of variables in an accessible form to support the use of EVENS in teaching across a range of subjects and levels of study. The dataset includes demographic data and variables to support the analysis of:

• racism and belonging
• health and well-being during COVID-19
• political attitudes and trust.

Racism, belonging, impact of COVID-19, health, well-being, financial position, political attitudes and trust.

This layer shows population broken down by race and Hispanic origin. Data is from US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right (in ArcGIS Online). A ‘Null’ entry in the estimate indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small (per the U.S. Census).Vintage: 2016-2020ACS Table(s): B03002 (Not all lines of this ACS table are available in this feature layer.)Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Data Preparation: Data table downloaded and joined with Zip Code boundaries in the City of Tempe.Date of Census update: March 17, 2022National Figures: data.census.gov

This project is the first census of all local councillors in all four constitutive nations of the UK, conducted in 2018 and 2019. The local level, so important to our democracy, is too often ignored, and political representation is predominantly studied at the national level. The particular importance of local level to ethnic representation cannot be overstated as it is often the first step in politics and political careers for many minority politicians, and a first line of contact for minority individuals and communities in need of help. This project seeks to fill this research gap and to put local representation at the heart of studying how ethnic minorities are politically represented in Britain. Our research design was developed to study the experiences of ethnic minority local councillors from visibly racialised backgrounds of both genders, to further our understandings of the mechanisms that underpin representational inequalities. We collected the ethnicity, gender and political party of every local councillor in the UK by referring to council websites. We sought to sample our interviewees to reflect a range of non-white backgrounds and political experience as well as gender balance. Interviewees were asked about how they became involved in local politics, their views on the extent of demand for greater diversity in local government and their experiences of running for selection and election for local government as well as serving as a local councillor. The collection consists of interview transcripts with 95 ethnic minority local councillors, candidates and activists, or white British councillors in local government leadership positions.

Understandings of ethnic inequalities in the UK have developed substantially as a result of the work of The Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE). CoDE has successfully carried out an innovative programme of research, pursued challenging scientific objectives, and worked closely with a range of non-academic partners to impact on policy debates and development.

In a rapidly evolving political and policy context, we propose a further, ambitious programme of work that takes us in new directions with a distinct focus. We will move beyond nuanced description to understanding processes and causes of ethnic inequalities, and build directly on our established experience in interdisciplinary and mixed methods working. In addition, we will use a co-production approach, working with a range of partners, including key public institutions such as the BBC, universities, political parties, ethnic minority NGOs, activists, and individuals, in order to frame and carry out our research in ways that will maximise our societal impact and lead to meaningful change. Our overarching objectives are to: -Understand how ethnic inequalities develop in a range of interconnected domains -Examine how these processes relate to and are shaped by other social categories, such as gender, class, religion and generation -Understand how ethnic inequalities take shape, and are embedded, in institutional spaces and practices -Work closely with policy and practice partners to meaningfully address enduring ethnic inequalities -Pursue methodological developments with interdisciplinary mixed methods and co-production at their core -Achieve ongoing high quality international academic impact

Through a research plan divided into four work packages, we will examine ethnic inequalities in (1) higher education, (2) cultural production and consumption, (3) politics, representation and political parties and (4) pursue policy and institutional impact with our work in these areas. Alongside this, we are also conducting a programme of work on severe mental illness. These work packages will be organised around our ambition to understand, explain and impact on ethnic inequalities through a focus on institutional production of and responses to ethnic inequalities.

At the core of our methodological approach is interdisciplinary and mixed methods working. Our quantitative work will be predominantly secondary data analysis, making the best use of the wide range of resources in the UK (e.g. Understanding Society, Destination of Leavers of Higher Education Survey, British Election Study, ONS Longitudinal Studies). Our qualitative work will be based around ethnographic approaches that are attentive to the ways in which social processes play out differently in different sites and institutions. We are informed especially by the approach of institutional ethnography which prioritises an attention to the lived, everyday experience of inequality, but aims to clarify the wider social relations in which such experiences are embedded and by which they are shaped. Thus institutional ethnographies will be developed which begin with exploring the experience of those directly involved in institutional settings as a route to understanding how structures and practices of institutions shape individuals' experiences and...

Note: For information on data collection, confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, subject definitions, and guidance on using the data, access the 2020 Census Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A) Technical Documentation..The Hispanic origin and race codes were updated in 2020. For more information on the Hispanic origin and race code changes, access Improvements to the 2020 Census Race and Hispanic Origin Question Designs, Data Processing, and Coding Procedures..Data users may observe implausible and improbable data within this product and compared with other 2020 Census data products. For example, it is possible for a detailed group to have a larger count in a tract than in its corresponding county. For more information, access the 2020 Census Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A) Technical Documentation..Aggregating data, such as geographies and sex by age data, diminishes accuracy and increases the likelihood of inconsistent and improbable results. For guidance on creating custom aggregations from Detailed DHC-A data, access the 2020 Census Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A) Technical Documentation..Counts showing an "X" are suppressed for one of two reasons: (1) the count was negative or (2) it is an alone count larger than its equivalent alone or in any combination count. If the suppressed count is an alone count, data users should use the equivalent alone in any combination count, if it is available..This racial or ethnic group has sex by age data available for four age categories. More detailed age data are not available due to minimum population counts. For more information on the minimum population counts and accuracy, access the 2020 Census Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A) Technical Documentation..Washington, D.C. and American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) areas may show data when there should not be any displayed. This is due to postprocessing to ensure counts for statistically equivalent and coterminous geographies are consistent. For more information, access the 2020 Census Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A) Technical Documentation..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A)

Population by Ethnicity by U.S. Postal ZIP Code from the 2020 Decennial Census

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study examines several explanations for the observed racial/ethnic disparities in drug arrests, the consequences of drug arrest on subsequent drug offending and social bonding, and whether these consequences vary by race/ethnicity. The study is a secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97). Distributed here are the codes used for the secondary analysis and the code to compile the datasets. Please refer to the codebook appendix for instructions on how to obtain all the data used in this study.

In order to replicate the results in this study you require Stata 12 or higher versions and the provided data and do files. Download the do file and the data file into one directory, unzip the data file into that same directory, enter your working directory in the do file, and execute the code in Stata. When using the data, please cite: Nils-Christian Bormann, Lars-Erik Cederman & Manuel Vogt (2015). "Language, Religion, and Ethnic Civil War." Online first in Journal of Conflict Resolution. Abstract: Are certain ethnic cleavages more conflict-prone than others? While only few scholars focus on the contents of ethnicity, most of those who do argue that political violence is more likely to occur along religious divisions than linguistic ones. We challenge this claim by analyzing the path from linguistic differences to ethnic civil war along three theoretical steps: (1) the perception of grievances by group members, (2) rebel mobilization, and (3) government accommodation of rebel demands. Our argument is tested with a new data set of ethnic cleavages that records multiple linguistic and religious segments for ethnic groups from 1946 to 2009. Adopting a relational perspective, we assess ethnic differences between potential challengers and the politically dominant group in each country. Our findings indicate that intrastate conflict is more likely within linguistic dyads than among religious ones. Moreover, we find no support for the thesis that Muslim groups are particularly conflict-prone. http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/08/24/0022002715600755.abstract

Replication Code and Data to recreate tables and graphs from "New OMB's race and ethnicity standards will affect how Americans self-identify." (2024-10-04)