We provide datasets that that estimate the racial distributions associated with first, middle, and last names in the United States. The datasets cover five racial categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Other. The provided data are computed from the voter files of six Southern states -- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina -- that collect race and ethnicity data upon registration. We include seven voter files per state, sourced between 2018 and 2021 from L2, Inc. Together, these states have approximately 36MM individuals who provide self-reported race and ethnicity. The last name datasets includes 338K surnames, while the middle name dictionaries contains 126K middle names and the first name datasets includes 136K first names. For each type of name, we provide a dataset of P(race | name) probabilities and P(name | race) probabilities. We include only names that appear at least 25 times across the 42 (= 7 voter files * 6 states) voter files in our dataset. These data are closely related to the the dataset: "Name Dictionaries for "wru" R Package", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/7TRYAC. These are the probabilities used in the latest iteration of the "WRU" package (Khanna et al., 2022) to make probabilistic predictions about the race of individuals, given their names and geolocations.

Use this application to view the pattern of concentrations of people by race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Data are provided at the U.S. Census block group level, one of the smallest Census geographies, to provide a detailed picture of these patterns. The data is sourced from the U.S Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File. Definitions: Definitions of the Census Bureau’s categories are provided below. This interactive map shows patterns for all categories except American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. The total population countywide for these two categories is small (1,582 and 263 respectively). The Census Bureau uses the following race categories:Population by RaceWhite – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.Some Other Race - this category is chosen by people who do not identify with any of the categories listed above. People can identify with more than one race. These people are included in the Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino PopulationThe Hispanic/Latino population is an ethnic group. Hispanic/Latino people may be of any race.Other layers provided in this tool included the Loudoun County Census block groups, towns and Dulles airport, and the Loudoun County 2021 aerial imagery.

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 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 dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau across all standard and custom geographies at statewide summary level where applicable. For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the ACS 2017-2021 Data Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics. Find naming convention prefixes/suffixes, geography definitions and user notes below.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)sSignificance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computedSuffixes:_e21Estimate from 2017-21 ACS_m21Margin of Error from 2017-21 ACS_e102006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_m10Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_e10_21Change, 2010-21 (holding constant at 2020 geography)GeographiesAAA = Area Agency on Aging (12 geographic units formed from counties providing statewide coverage)ARC21 = Atlanta Regional Commission modeling area (21 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ARWDB7 = Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board (7 counties merged to a single geographic unit)BeltLine (buffer)BeltLine Study (subareas)Census Tract (statewide)CFGA23 = Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta (23 counties merged to a single geographic unit)City (statewide)City of Atlanta Council Districts (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit STV (3 NPUs merged to a single geographic unit within City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas E02E06 (2 NSAs merged to single geographic unit within City of Atlanta)County (statewide)Georgia House (statewide)Georgia Senate (statewide)MetroWater15 = Atlanta Metropolitan Water District (15 counties merged to a single geographic unit)Regional Commissions (statewide)SPARCC = Strong, Prosperous And Resilient Communities ChallengeState of Georgia (single geographic unit)Superdistrict (ARC region)US Congress (statewide)UWGA13 = United Way of Greater Atlanta (13 counties merged to a single geographic unit)WFF = Westside Future Fund (subarea of City of Atlanta)ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (statewide)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 2017-2021). 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: 2017-2021Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the data manifest: https://garc.maps.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/34b9adfdcc294788ba9c70bf433bd4c1/data

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

race_high_completion Dataset

  Dataset Information

Original Hugging Face Dataset: race Subset: high Evaluation Split: test Training Split: train Task Type: multiple_choice_completion Processing Function: process_race_completion

  Processing Function

The following function was used to process the dataset from its original source: def process_race_completion(example: Dict) -> Tuple[str, List[str], int]: """Process RACE dataset example.""" context =… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/DatologyAI/race_high_completion.

Dataset contains ethnic group census usually resident population counts from the 2013, 2018, and 2023 Censuses, as well as the percentage change in the ethnic group population count between the 2013 and 2018 Censuses, and between the 2018 and 2023 Censuses. Data is available by territorial authority and Auckland local board.

The ethnic groups are:

• European
• Māori
• Pacific peoples
• Asian
• Middle Eastern/Latin American/African
• Other ethnicity.

Map shows percentage change in the census usually resident population count for ethnic groups between the 2018 and 2023 Censuses.

Download lookup file from Stats NZ ArcGIS Online or embedded attachment in Stats NZ geographic data service. Download data table (excluding the geometry column for CSV files) using the instructions in the Koordinates help guide.

​

Footnotes

Geographical boundaries

Statistical standard for geographic areas 2023 (updated December 2023) has information about geographic boundaries as of 1 January 2023. Address data from 2013 and 2018 Censuses was updated to be consistent with the 2023 areas. Due to the changes in area boundaries and coding methodologies, 2013 and 2018 counts published in 2023 may be slightly different to those published in 2013 or 2018.

​

Subnational census usually resident population

The census usually resident population count of an area (subnational count) is a count of all people who usually live in that area and were present in New Zealand on census night. It excludes visitors from overseas, visitors from elsewhere in New Zealand, and residents temporarily overseas on census night. For example, a person who usually lives in Christchurch city and is visiting Wellington city on census night will be included in the census usually resident population count of Christchurch city.

​

Caution using time series

Time series data should be interpreted with care due to changes in census methodology and differences in response rates between censuses. The 2023 and 2018 Censuses used a combined census methodology (using census responses and administrative data), while the 2013 Census used a full-field enumeration methodology (with no use of administrative data).

​

About the 2023 Census dataset

For information on the 2023 dataset see Using a combined census model for the 2023 Census. We combined data from the census forms with administrative data to create the 2023 Census dataset, which meets Stats NZ's quality criteria for population structure information. We added real data about real people to the dataset where we were confident the people who hadn’t completed a census form (which is known as admin enumeration) will be counted. We also used data from the 2018 and 2013 Censuses, administrative data sources, and statistical imputation methods to fill in some missing characteristics of people and dwellings.

​

Data quality

The quality of data in the 2023 Census is assessed using the quality rating scale and the quality assurance framework to determine whether data is fit for purpose and suitable for release. Data quality assurance in the 2023 Census has more information.

​

Quality rating of a variable

The quality rating of a variable provides an overall evaluation of data quality for that variable, usually at the highest levels of classification. The quality ratings shown are for the 2023 Census unless stated. There is variability in the quality of data at smaller geographies. Data quality may also vary between censuses, for subpopulations, or when cross tabulated with other variables or at lower levels of the classification. Data quality ratings for 2023 Census variables has more information on quality ratings by variable.

​

Ethnicity concept quality rating

Ethnicity is rated as high quality.

Ethnicity – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information, for example, definitions and data quality.

​

Using data for good

Stats NZ expects that, when working with census data, it is done so with a positive purpose, as outlined in the Māori Data Governance Model (Data Iwi Leaders Group, 2023). This model states that "data should support transformative outcomes and should uplift and strengthen our relationships with each other and with our environments. The avoidance of harm is the minimum expectation for data use. Māori data should also contribute to iwi and hapū tino rangatiratanga”.

​

Confidentiality

The 2023 Census confidentiality rules have been applied to 2013, 2018, and 2023 data. These rules protect the confidentiality of individuals, families, households, dwellings, and undertakings in 2023 Census data. Counts are calculated using fixed random rounding to base 3 (FRR3) and suppression of ‘sensitive’ counts less than six, where tables report multiple geographic variables and/or small populations. Individual figures may not always sum to stated totals. Applying confidentiality rules to 2023 Census data and summary of changes since 2018 and 2013 Censuses has more information about 2023 Census confidentiality rules.

​

Symbol

-998 Not applicable

​

Percentages

To calculate percentages, divide the figure for the category of interest by the figure for ‘Total stated’ where this applies.

Dataset for content analysis published in "Hornikx, J., Meurs, F. van, Janssen, A., & Heuvel, J. van den (2020). How brands highlight country of origin in magazine advertising: A content analysis. Journal of Global Marketing, 33 (1), 34-45."*Abstract (taken from publication)Aichner (2014) proposes a classification of ways in which brands communicate their country of origin (COO). The current, exploratory study is the first to empirically investigate the frequency with which brands employ such COO markers in magazine advertisements. An analysis of about 750 ads from the British, Dutch, and Spanish editions of Cosmopolitan showed that the prototypical ‘made in’ marker was rarely used, and that ‘COO embedded in company name’ and ‘use of COO language’ were most frequently employed. In all, 36% of the total number of ads contained at least one COO marker, underlining the importance of the COO construct.*Methodology (taken from publication)SampleThe use of COO markers in advertising was examined in print advertisements from three different countries to increase the robustness of the findings. Given the exploratory nature of this study, two practical selection criteria guided our country choice: the three countries included both smaller and larger countries in Europe, and they represented languages that the team was familiar with in order to reliably code the advertisements on the relevant variables. The three European countries selected were the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The dataset for the UK was discarded for testing H1 about the use of English as a foreign language, as will be explained in more detail in the coding procedure.The magazine Cosmopolitan was chosen as the source of advertisements. The choice for one specific magazine title reduces the generalizability of the findings (i.e., limited to the corresponding products and target consumers), but this magazine was chosen intentionally because an informal analysis suggested that it carried advertising for a large number of product categories that are considered ethnic products, such as cosmetics, watches, and shoes (Usunier & Cestre, 2007). This suggestion was corroborated in the main analysis: the majority of the ads in the corpus referred to a product that Usunier and Cestre (2007) classify as ethnic products. Table 2 provides a description of the product categories and brands referred to in the advertisements. Ethnic products have a prototypical COO in the minds of consumers (e.g., cosmetics – France), which makes it likely that the COOs are highlighted through the use of COO markers.Cosmopolitan is an international magazine that has different local editions in the three countries. The magazine, which is targeted at younger women (18–35 years old), reaches more than three million young women per month through its online, social and print platforms in the Netherlands (Hearst Netherlands, 2016), has about 517,000 readers per month in Spain (PrNoticias, 2016) and about 1.18 million readers per month in the UK (Hearst Magazine U.K., 2016).The sample consisted of all advertisements from all monthly issues that appeared in 2016 in the three countries. This whole-year cluster was selected so as to prevent potential seasonal influences (Neuendorf, 2002). In total, the corpus consisted of 745 advertisements, of which 111 were from the Dutch, 367 from the British and 267 from the Spanish Cosmopolitan. Two categories of ads were excluded in the selection process: (1) advertisements for subscription to Cosmopolitan itself, and (2) advertisements that were identical to ads that had appeared in another issue in one of the three countries. As a result, each advertisement was unique.Coding procedureFor all advertisements, four variables were coded: product type, presence of types of COO markers, COO referred to, and the use of English as a COO marker. In the first place, product type was assessed by the two coders. Coders classified each product to one of the 32 product types. In order to assess the reliability of the codings, ten per cent of the ads were independently coded by a second coder. The interrater reliability of the variable product category was good (κ = .97, p < .000, 97.33% agreement between both coders). Table 2 lists the most frequent product types; the label ‘other’ covers 17 types of product, including charity, education, and furniture.In the second place, it was recorded whether one or more of the COO markers occurred in a given ad. In the third place, if a marker was identified, it was assessed to which COO the markers referred. Table 1 lists the nine possible COO markers defined by Aichner (2014) and the COOs referred to, with examples taken from the current content analysis. The interrater reliability for the type of COO marker was very good (κ = .80, p < .000, 96.30% agreement between the coders), and the interrater reliability for COO referred to was excellent (κ = 1.00, p < .000).After the independent assessments of the two coders, the coders decided on the best coding for all cases for which they made a different initial choice. On the basis of these resulting codings, the fourth and final variable was assessed: the English language as a COO marker. Only if an ad contained the English language and at least one other type of COO marker referring to an English-speaking country, was the English language coded as a true COO marker. An example is a Dutch ad using the English language and featuring a British model. If, as in most cases, an ad contained the English language but no other marker was found that referred to an English-speaking country, the English language was not considered to be a COO marker but a marker of globalness (e.g., ‘Because sometimes, a girl’s gotta walk’ in an ad for Skechers in the Spanish corpus). This procedure to disentangle the English language as a true COO marker and a marker of globalness was only followed in the Dutch and Spanish sample. In the UK sample, the English language was not considered to be either a COO marker or a marker of globalness since English is the first language of the UK. Similarly, neither the Dutch language in the Dutch sample nor the Spanish language in the Spanish sample were considered COO markers since these languages are both countries’ first language.Statistical treatmentFor all research questions and the hypothesis, descriptive statistics were generated presenting frequencies and percentages of the categories that were compared. The first analysis (RQ1) concerned the frequency with which the different types of COO marker were used in the sample from the three different countries. For each COO marker, it was determined whether or not it occurred in each of the ads in the sample. In order to statistically test whether some types of COO marker occur more frequently than others (RQ2a), a within-subject ANOVA was conducted with Type of COO marker as independent variable, with nine levels representing the nine different COO markers classified by Aichner (2014). For RQ2b, RQ2c, and H1, frequencies were compared for the occurrence of the different categories within one variable under investigation. For RQ2c, for instance, the variable was the number of COO markers referred to in an ad; the different categories were ‘no marker’, ‘two markers’, ‘three markers’, and ‘four markers’. Non-parametric 2 tests were conducted for the research questions and the hypothesis to test for potentially significant differences between the occurrence of the categories.

This table contains data on numbers of submitted asylum requests of unaccompanied foreign minors. The figures are broken down by sex, age and nationality.

If an unaccompanied foreign minor needs protection, then he or she is eligible for an asylum permit. If protection is not necessary, then the unaccompanied foreign minor must return to the country of origin. This is only possible if the unaccompanied foreign minor can be safely housed in the country of origin, for example with relatives or in a shelter. Unaccompanied foreign minors younger than 15 years who cannot return to the country of origin, can under specific conditions obtain a 'no-blame' permit.

Data available from: 2008

Status of the figures: The figures are final, except for the year 2023.

Changes as of April 2024: The figures for 2023 have been added.

When will new figures be published? New figures for 2024 will be available in May 2025.

This is a monthly report on publicly funded community services for people of all ages using data from the Community Services Data Set (CSDS) reported in England for March 2021. It has been developed to help achieve better outcomes and provide data that will be used to commission services in a way that improves health, reduces inequalities, and supports service improvement and clinical quality. This report uses the new version of the dataset, CSDS v1.5. As an uplift from v1.0, the v1.5 dataset collects additional data on a person's care plan details, employment status and social & personal circumstances. These statistics are classified as experimental and should be used with caution. Experimental statistics are new official statistics undergoing evaluation. More information about experimental statistics can be found on the UK Statistics Authority website. Due to the coronavirus illness (COVID-19) disruption, the quality and coverage of some of our statistics has been affected, for example by an increase in non-submissions for some datasets. We are also seeing some different patterns in the submitted data. For example, fewer patients being referred to hospital and more appointments being carried out via phone/telemedicine/email. Therefore, data should be interpreted with care over the COVID-19 period.

This dataset contains aggregate data on violent index victimizations at the quarter level of each year (i.e., January – March, April – June, July – September, October – December), from 2001 to the present (1991 to present for Homicides), with a focus on those related to gun violence. Index crimes are 10 crime types selected by the FBI (codes 1-4) for special focus due to their seriousness and frequency. This dataset includes only those index crimes that involve bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm and are reported to the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Each row is aggregated up to victimization type, age group, sex, race, and whether the victimization was domestic-related. Aggregating at the quarter level provides large enough blocks of incidents to protect anonymity while allowing the end user to observe inter-year and intra-year variation. Any row where there were fewer than three incidents during a given quarter has been deleted to help prevent re-identification of victims. For example, if there were three domestic criminal sexual assaults during January to March 2020, all victims associated with those incidents have been removed from this dataset. Human trafficking victimizations have been aggregated separately due to the extremely small number of victimizations.

This dataset includes a " GUNSHOT_INJURY_I " column to indicate whether the victimization involved a shooting, showing either Yes ("Y"), No ("N"), or Unknown ("UKNOWN.") For homicides, injury descriptions are available dating back to 1991, so the "shooting" column will read either "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the homicide was a fatal shooting or not. For non-fatal shootings, data is only available as of 2010. As a result, for any non-fatal shootings that occurred from 2010 to the present, the shooting column will read as “Y.” Non-fatal shooting victims will not be included in this dataset prior to 2010; they will be included in the authorized dataset, but with "UNKNOWN" in the shooting column.

The dataset is refreshed daily, but excludes the most recent complete day to allow CPD time to gather the best available information. Each time the dataset is refreshed, records can change as CPD learns more about each victimization, especially those victimizations that are most recent. The data on the Mayor's Office Violence Reduction Dashboard is updated daily with an approximately 48-hour lag. As cases are passed from the initial reporting officer to the investigating detectives, some recorded data about incidents and victimizations may change once additional information arises. Regularly updated datasets on the City's public portal may change to reflect new or corrected information.

How does this dataset classify victims?

The methodology by which this dataset classifies victims of violent crime differs by victimization type:

Homicide and non-fatal shooting victims: A victimization is considered a homicide victimization or non-fatal shooting victimization depending on its presence in CPD's homicide victims data table or its shooting victims data table. A victimization is considered a homicide only if it is present in CPD's homicide data table, while a victimization is considered a non-fatal shooting only if it is present in CPD's shooting data tables and absent from CPD's homicide data table.

To determine the IUCR code of homicide and non-fatal shooting victimizations, we defer to the incident IUCR code available in CPD's Crimes, 2001-present dataset (available on the City's open data portal). If the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes dataset is inconsistent with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization, we defer to CPD's Victims dataset.

For a criminal homicide, the only sensible IUCR codes are 0110 (first-degree murder) or 0130 (second-degree murder). For a non-fatal shooting, a sensible IUCR code must signify a criminal sexual assault, a robbery, or, most commonly, an aggravated battery. In rare instances, the IUCR code in CPD's Crimes and Victims dataset do not align with the homicide/non-fatal shooting categorization:

1. In instances where a homicide victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code 0110 or 0130, we set the IUCR code to "01XX" to indicate that the victimization was a homicide but we do not know whether it was a first-degree murder (IUCR code = 0110) or a second-degree murder (IUCR code = 0130).
2. When a non-fatal shooting victimization does not correspond to an IUCR code that signifies a criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated battery, we enter “UNK” in the IUCR column, “YES” in the GUNSHOT_I column, and “NON-FATAL” in the PRIMARY column to indicate that the victim was non-fatally shot, but the precise IUCR code is unknown.

Other violent crime victims: For other violent crime types, we refer to the IUCR classification that exists in CPD's victim table, with only one exception:

1. When there is an incident that is associated with no victim with a matching IUCR code, we assume that this is an error. Every crime should have at least 1 victim with a matching IUCR code. In these cases, we change the IUCR code to reflect the incident IUCR code because CPD's incident table is considered to be more reliable than the victim table.

Note: All businesses identified as victims in CPD data have been removed from this dataset.

Note: The definition of “homicide” (shooting or otherwise) does not include justifiable homicide or involuntary manslaughter. This dataset also excludes any cases that CPD considers to be “unfounded” or “noncriminal.”

Note: In some instances, the police department's raw incident-level data and victim-level data that were inputs into this dataset do not align on the type of crime that occurred. In those instances, this dataset attempts to correct mismatches between incident and victim specific crime types. When it is not possible to determine which victims are associated with the most recent crime determination, the dataset will show empty cells in the respective demographic fields (age, sex, race, etc.).

Note: The initial reporting officer usually asks victims to report demographic data. If victims are unable to recall, the reporting officer will use their best judgment. “Unknown” can be reported if it is truly unknown.

The broad scope of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate requires an efficient process for describing and mapping the habitat needs of federally managed species. For example, research indicates surficial sediments affect the distribution and abundance of many groundfish species, yet traditional sampling with grabs and cores is impractical over areas as large as the Bering Sea shelf. Acoustic tools are suitable for large-scale surveying and show great promise as a substitute for direct-sampling methods, but they have not been proven useful for EFH purposes.

The broad scope of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) mandate requires an efficient process for describing and mapping the habitat needs of federally managed species. For example, research indicates surficial sediments affect the distribution and abundance of many groundfish species, yet traditional sampling with grabs and cores is impractical over areas as large as the Bering Sea shelf. Acoustic tools are suitable for large-scale surveying and show great promise as a substitute for direct-sampling methods, but they have not been proven useful for EFH purposes.

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

The report contains thirteen (13) performance metrics for City's workforce development programs. Each metric can be breakdown by three demographic types (gender, race/ethnicity, and age group) and the program target population (e.g., youth and young adults, NYCHA communities) as well. This report is a key output of an integrated data system that collects, integrates, and generates disaggregated data by Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity (NYC Opportunity). Currently, the report is generated by the integrated database incorporating data from 18 workforce development programs managed by 5 City agencies. There has been no single "workforce development system" in the City of New York. Instead, many discrete public agencies directly manage or fund local partners to deliver a range of different services, sometimes tailored to specific populations. As a result, program data have historically been fragmented as well, making it challenging to develop insights based on a comprehensive picture. To overcome it, NYC Opportunity collects data from 5 City agencies and builds the integrated database, and it begins to build a complete picture of how participants move through the system onto a career pathway. Each row represents a count of unique individuals for a specific performance metric, program target population, a specific demographic group, and a specific period. For example, if the Metric Value is 2000 with Clients Served (Metric Name), NYCHA Communities (Program Target Population), Asian (Subgroup), and 2019 (Period), you can say that "In 2019, 2,000 Asian individuals participated programs targeting NYCHA communities. Please refer to the Workforce Data Portal for further data guidance (https://workforcedata.nyc.gov/en/data-guidance), and interactive visualizations for this report (https://workforcedata.nyc.gov/en/common-metrics).

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 1,173 civilians having been shot, 248 of whom were Black, as of December 2024. In 2023, there were 1,164 fatal police shootings. Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 6.1 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and 2024. Police brutality in the U.S. In recent years, particularly since the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, police brutality has become a hot button issue in the United States. The number of homicides committed by police in the United States is often compared to those in countries such as England, where the number is significantly lower. Black Lives Matter The Black Lives Matter Movement, formed in 2013, has been a vocal part of the movement against police brutality in the U.S. by organizing “die-ins”, marches, and demonstrations in response to the killings of black men and women by police. While Black Lives Matter has become a controversial movement within the U.S., it has brought more attention to the number and frequency of police shootings of civilians.

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

The Census of Agriculture provides a detailed picture every five years of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. Conducted by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, the 2012 Census of Agriculture collected more than six million data items directly from farmers. The Ag Census Web Maps application makes this information available at the county level through a few clicks. The maps and accompanying data help users visualize, download, and analyze Census of Agriculture data in a geospatial context. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Ag Census Web Maps. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Ag_Census_Web_Maps/Overview/index.php/ The interactive map application assembles maps and statistics from the 2012 Census of Agriculture in five broad categories:

Crops and Plants – Data on harvested acreage for major field crops, hay, and other forage crops, as well as acreage data for vegetables, fruits, tree nuts, and berries. Economics – Data on agriculture sales, farm income, government payments from conservation and farm programs, amounts received from loans, a broad range of production expenses, and value of buildings and equipment. Farms – Information on farm size, ownership, and Internet access, as well as data on total land in farms, land use, irrigation, fertilized cropland, and enrollment in crop insurance programs. Livestock and Animals – Statistics on cattle and calves, cows and heifers, milk cows, and other cattle, as well as hogs, sheep, goats, horses, and broilers. Operators – Statistics on hired farm labor, tenure, land rented or leased, primary occupation of farm operator, and demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and residence location.

The Ag Census Web Maps application allows you to:

Select a map to display from a the above five general categories and associated subcategories. Zoom and pan to a specific area; use the inset buttons to center the map on the continental United States; zoom to a specific state; and show the state mask to fade areas surrounding the state. Create and print maps showing the variation in a single data item across the United States (for example, average value of agricultural products sold per farm). Select a county and view and download the county’s data for a general category. Download the U.S. county-level dataset of mapped values for all categories in Microsoft ® Excel format.