In 2023, the number of missing person files in the United States equaled 563,389 cases, an increase from 2021 which had the lowest number of missing person files in the U.S. since 1990.

In 2022, there were 313,017 cases filed by the NCIC where the race of the reported missing was White. In the same year, 18,928 people were missing whose race was unknown.

What is the NCIC?

The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a digital database that stores crime data for the United States, so criminal justice agencies can access it. As a part of the FBI, it helps criminal justice professionals find criminals, missing people, stolen property, and terrorists. The NCIC database is broken down into 21 files. Seven files belong to stolen property and items, and 14 belong to persons, including the National Sex Offender Register, Missing Person, and Identify Theft. It works alongside federal, tribal, state, and local agencies. The NCIC’s goal is to maintain a centralized information system between local branches and offices, so information is easily accessible nationwide.

Missing people in the United States

A person is considered missing when they have disappeared and their location is unknown. A person who is considered missing might have left voluntarily, but that is not always the case. The number of the NCIC unidentified person files in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, and in 2022, there were slightly more NCIC missing person files for males as compared to females. Fortunately, the number of NCIC missing person files has been mostly decreasing since 1998.

Comprehensive dataset of 68 Missing persons organizations in United States as of July, 2025. Includes verified contact information (email, phone), geocoded addresses, customer ratings, reviews, business categories, and operational details. Perfect for market research, lead generation, competitive analysis, and business intelligence. Download a complimentary sample to evaluate data quality and completeness.

Messages sent with information about emergency events and important City services

While the fear of being kidnapped may persist for one’s entire life, in 2022 the number of missing persons under the age of 21 was much higher than those 21 and over, with 206,371 females under 21 reported missing, and 64,956 females over the age of 21 reported missing.

Why people go missing

There are many reasons why people go missing; some are kidnapped, some purposefully go missing - in order to escape abuse, for example - and some, usually children, are runaways. What persists in the imagination when thinking of missing persons, however, are kidnapping victims, usually due to extensive media coverage of child kidnappings by the media.

Demographics of missing persons

While the number of missing persons in the United States fluctuates, in 2021, this number was at its lowest since 1990. Additionally, while it has been observed that there is more media coverage in the United States of white missing persons, almost half of the missing persons cases in 2022 were of minorities.

Comprehensive dataset of 1 Missing persons organizations in New Jersey, United States as of July, 2025. Includes verified contact information (email, phone), geocoded addresses, customer ratings, reviews, business categories, and operational details. Perfect for market research, lead generation, competitive analysis, and business intelligence. Download a complimentary sample to evaluate data quality and completeness.

Number of homicide victims, by Indigenous identity (total, by Indigenous identity; Indigenous identity; First Nations (North American Indian); Métis; Inuk (Inuit); Indigenous person, Indigenous group unknown; non-Indigenous identity; unknown Indigenous identity) and missing person status (total, by missing person status; missing; not missing; missing person status unknown), Canada, 2015 to 2023.

The Mississippi Repository for Missing and Unidentified Persons (MS Repository) was developed in January 2022 to help identify, resolve, and archive Mississippi’s missing and unidentified persons cases. The MS Repository, housed at Mississippi State University, serves as a statewide missing and unidentified persons clearinghouse database. The MS Repository is under the purview of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology (including the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures) and the MSU Police Department (MSUPD). In collaboration with law enforcement agencies throughout the state, the goals of the MS Repository are to:1. Provide a centralized location for data on missing and unidentified persons from Mississippi2. Increase missing persons public access for all Mississippians3. Visualize socioeconomic and medicolegal disparities affecting missing persons through geospatial analysis4. Partner with neighboring states to facilitate data sharing of missing and unidentified persons information.The lack of comprehensive missing and unidentified persons repository data at the state and national levels continues to hinder identifying missing and unidentified people. The MS Repository is the only secure, formalized, searchable Mississippi data repository for unidentified and missing persons information. It includes missing and unidentified persons information from the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUS), law enforcement missing persons reports on social media, cases from non-profit missing persons advocacy groups, and reports from families with missing loved ones. Like NamUS, the MS Repository provides demographic information about the missing individual and case circumstances, including last seen date and location. Each profile has a built-in capacity for holding copies of medical records and DNA records results (including family reference samples). All profiles (current and resolved) are stored electronically and available in perpetuity, regardless of case status. In addition to the database, there is a searchable clearinghouse website accessible to the public (missinginms.msstate.edu).

Comprehensive dataset of 1 Missing persons organizations in Hawaii, United States as of July, 2025. Includes verified contact information (email, phone), geocoded addresses, customer ratings, reviews, business categories, and operational details. Perfect for market research, lead generation, competitive analysis, and business intelligence. Download a complimentary sample to evaluate data quality and completeness.

Comprehensive dataset of 6 Missing persons organizations in Pennsylvania, United States as of July, 2025. Includes verified contact information (email, phone), geocoded addresses, customer ratings, reviews, business categories, and operational details. Perfect for market research, lead generation, competitive analysis, and business intelligence. Download a complimentary sample to evaluate data quality and completeness.

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve. The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj. The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 . The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 . The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed. COVID-19 cases and associated deaths that have been reported among Connecticut residents, broken down by race and ethnicity. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the COVID-19 update. The following data show the number of COVID-19 cases and associated deaths per 100,000 population by race and ethnicity. Crude rates represent the total cases or deaths per 100,000 people. Age-adjusted rates consider the age of the person at diagnosis or death when estimating the rate and use a standardized population to provide a fair comparison between population groups with different age distributions. Age-adjustment is important in Connecticut as the median age of among the non-Hispanic white population is 47 years, whereas it is 34 years among non-Hispanic blacks, and 29 years among Hispanics. Because most non-Hispanic white residents who died were over 75 years of age, the age-adjusted rates are lower than the unadjusted rates. In contrast, Hispanic residents who died tend to be younger than 75 years of age which results in higher age-adjusted rates. The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used. Rates are standardized to the 2000 US Millions Standard population (data available here: https://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/). Standardization was done using 19 age groups (0, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, ..., 80-84, 85 years and older). More information about direct standardization for age adjustment is available here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt06rv.pdf Categories are mutually exclusive. The category “multiracial” includes people who answered ‘yes’ to more than one race category. Counts may not add up to total case counts as data on race and ethnicity may be missing. Age adjusted rates calculated only for groups with more than 20 deaths. Abbreviation: NH=Non-Hispanic. Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical

Analysis of ‘Missing Migrants Dataset’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/jmataya/missingmigrants on 14 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

About the Missing Migrants Data

This data is sourced from the International Organization for Migration. The data is part of a specific project called the Missing Migrants Project which tracks deaths of migrants, including refugees , who have gone missing along mixed migration routes worldwide. The research behind this project began with the October 2013 tragedies, when at least 368 individuals died in two shipwrecks near the Italian island of Lampedusa. Since then, Missing Migrants Project has developed into an important hub and advocacy source of information that media, researchers, and the general public access for the latest information.

Where is the data from?

Missing Migrants Project data are compiled from a variety of sources. Sources vary depending on the region and broadly include data from national authorities, such as Coast Guards and Medical Examiners; media reports; NGOs; and interviews with survivors of shipwrecks. In the Mediterranean region, data are relayed from relevant national authorities to IOM field missions, who then share it with the Missing Migrants Project team. Data are also obtained by IOM and other organizations that receive survivors at landing points in Italy and Greece. In other cases, media reports are used. IOM and UNHCR also regularly coordinate on such data to ensure consistency. Data on the U.S./Mexico border are compiled based on data from U.S. county medical examiners and sheriff’s offices, as well as media reports for deaths occurring on the Mexico side of the border. Estimates within Mexico and Central America are based primarily on media and year-end government reports. Data on the Bay of Bengal are drawn from reports by UNHCR and NGOs. In the Horn of Africa, data are obtained from media and NGOs. Data for other regions is drawn from a combination of sources, including media and grassroots organizations. In all regions, Missing Migrants Projectdata represents minimum estimates and are potentially lower than in actuality.

Updated data and visuals can be found here: https://missingmigrants.iom.int/

Who is included in Missing Migrants Project data?

IOM defines a migrant as any person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of

  (1) the person’s legal status; 
  (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary; 
  (3) what the causes for the movement are; or 
  (4) what the length of the stay is.[1]

Missing Migrants Project counts migrants who have died or gone missing at the external borders of states, or in the process of migration towards an international destination. The count excludes deaths that occur in immigration detention facilities, during deportation, or after forced return to a migrant’s homeland, as well as deaths more loosely connected with migrants’ irregular status, such as those resulting from labour exploitation. Migrants who die or go missing after they are established in a new home are also not included in the data, so deaths in refugee camps or housing are excluded. This approach is chosen because deaths that occur at physical borders and while en route represent a more clearly definable category, and inform what migration routes are most dangerous. Data and knowledge of the risks and vulnerabilities faced by migrants in destination countries, including death, should not be neglected, rather tracked as a distinct category.

How complete is the data on dead and missing migrants?

Data on fatalities during the migration process are challenging to collect for a number of reasons, most stemming from the irregular nature of migratory journeys on which deaths tend to occur. For one, deaths often occur in remote areas on routes chosen with the explicit aim of evading detection. Countless bodies are never found, and rarely do these deaths come to the attention of authorities or the media. Furthermore, when deaths occur at sea, frequently not all bodies are recovered - sometimes with hundreds missing from one shipwreck - and the precise number of missing is often unknown. In 2015, over 50 per cent of deaths recorded by the Missing Migrants Project refer to migrants who are presumed dead and whose bodies have not been found, mainly at sea.

Data are also challenging to collect as reporting on deaths is poor, and the data that does exist are highly scattered. Few official sources are collecting data systematically. Many counts of death rely on media as a source. Coverage can be spotty and incomplete. In addition, the involvement of criminal actors in incidents means there may be fear among survivors to report deaths and some deaths may be actively covered-up. The irregular immigration status of many migrants, and at times their families as well, also impedes reporting of missing persons or deaths.

The varying quality and comprehensiveness of data by region in attempting to estimate deaths globally may exaggerate the share of deaths that occur in some regions, while under-representing the share occurring in others.

What can be understood through this data?

The available data can give an indication of changing conditions and trends related to migration routes and the people travelling on them, which can be relevant for policy making and protection plans. Data can be useful to determine the relative risks of irregular migration routes. For example, Missing Migrants Project data show that despite the increase in migrant flows through the eastern Mediterranean in 2015, the central Mediterranean remained the more deadly route. In 2015, nearly two people died out of every 100 travellers (1.85%) crossing the Central route, as opposed to one out of every 1,000 that crossed from Turkey to Greece (0.095%). From the data, we can also get a sense of whether groups like women and children face additional vulnerabilities on migration routes.

However, it is important to note that because of the challenges in data collection for the missing and dead, basic demographic information on the deceased is rarely known. Often migrants in mixed migration flows do not carry appropriate identification. When bodies are found it may not be possible to identify them or to determine basic demographic information. In the data compiled by Missing Migrants Project, sex of the deceased is unknown in over 80% of cases. Region of origin has been determined for the majority of the deceased. Even this information is at times extrapolated based on available information – for instance if all survivors of a shipwreck are of one origin it was assumed those missing also came from the same region.

The Missing Migrants Project dataset includes coordinates for where incidents of death took place, which indicates where the risks to migrants may be highest. However, it should be noted that all coordinates are estimates.

Why collect data on missing and dead migrants?

By counting lives lost during migration, even if the result is only an informed estimate, we at least acknowledge the fact of these deaths. What before was vague and ill-defined is now a quantified tragedy that must be addressed. Politically, the availability of official data is important. The lack of political commitment at national and international levels to record and account for migrant deaths reflects and contributes to a lack of concern more broadly for the safety and well-being of migrants, including asylum-seekers. Further, it drives public apathy, ignorance, and the dehumanization of these groups.

Data are crucial to better understand the profiles of those who are most at risk and to tailor policies to better assist migrants and prevent loss of life. Ultimately, improved data should contribute to efforts to better understand the causes, both direct and indirect, of fatalities and their potential links to broader migration control policies and practices.

Counting and recording the dead can also be an initial step to encourage improved systems of identification of those who die. Identifying the dead is a moral imperative that respects and acknowledges those who have died. This process can also provide a some sense of closure for families who may otherwise be left without ever knowing the fate of missing loved ones.

Identification and tracing of the dead and missing

As mentioned above, the challenge remains to count the numbers of dead and also identify those counted. Globally, the majority of those who die during migration remain unidentified. Even in cases in which a body is found identification rates are low. Families may search for years or a lifetime to find conclusive news of their loved one. In the meantime, they may face psychological, practical, financial, and legal problems.

Ultimately Missing Migrants Project would like to see that every unidentified body, for which it is possible to recover, is adequately “managed”, analysed and tracked to ensure proper documentation, traceability and dignity. Common forensic protocols and standards should be agreed upon, and used within and between States. Furthermore, data relating to the dead and missing should be held in searchable and open databases at local, national and international levels to facilitate identification.

For more in-depth analysis and discussion of the numbers of missing and dead migrants around the world, and the challenges involved in identification and tracing, read our two reports on the issue, Fatal Journeys: Tracking Lives Lost during Migration (2014) and Fatal Journeys Volume 2, Identification and Tracing of Dead and Missing Migrants

Content

The data set records

Note: Reporting of new COVID-19 Case Surveillance data will be discontinued July 1, 2024, to align with the process of removing SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19 cases) from the list of nationally notifiable diseases. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, the dataset will no longer be updated.

Authorizations to collect certain public health data expired at the end of the U.S. public health emergency declaration on May 11, 2023. The following jurisdictions discontinued COVID-19 case notifications to CDC: Iowa (11/8/21), Kansas (5/12/23), Kentucky (1/1/24), Louisiana (10/31/23), New Hampshire (5/23/23), and Oklahoma (5/2/23). Please note that these jurisdictions will not routinely send new case data after the dates indicated. As of 7/13/23, case notifications from Oregon will only include pediatric cases resulting in death.

This case surveillance public use dataset has 19 elements for all COVID-19 cases shared with CDC and includes demographics, geography (county and state of residence), any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, and presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors.

Currently, CDC provides the public with three versions of COVID-19 case surveillance line-listed data: this 19 data element dataset with geography, a 12 data element public use dataset, and a 33 data element restricted access dataset.

The following apply to the public use datasets and the restricted access dataset:

• Data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.
• Data are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.
• Some data are suppressed to protect individual privacy.
• Datasets will include all cases with the earliest date available in each record (date received by CDC or date related to illness/specimen collection) at least 14 days prior to the creation of the current datasets. This 14-day lag allows case reporting to be stabilized and ensure that time-dependent outcome data are accurately captured.
• Datasets are updated monthly.
• Datasets are created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access and include protections designed to protect individual privacy.
• For more information about data collection and reporting, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/about-us-cases-deaths.html.
• For more information about the COVID-19 case surveillance data, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html
  

Overview

The COVID-19 case surveillance database includes individual-level data reported to U.S. states and autonomous reporting entities, including New York City and the District of Columbia (D.C.), as well as U.S. territories and affiliates. On April 5, 2020, COVID-19 was added to the Nationally Notifiable Condition List and classified as “immediately notifiable, urgent (within 24 hours)” by a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) Interim Position Statement (Interim-20-ID-01). CSTE updated the position statement on August 5, 2020, to clarify the interpretation of antigen detection tests and serologic test results within the case classification (Interim-20-ID-02). The statement also recommended that all states and territories enact laws to make COVID-19 reportable in their jurisdiction, and that jurisdictions conducting surveillance should submit case notifications to CDC. COVID-19 case surveillance data are collected by jurisdictions and reported voluntarily to CDC.

For more information: NNDSS Supports the COVID-19 Response | CDC.

COVID-19 Case Reports COVID-19 case reports are routinely submitted to CDC by public health jurisdictions using nationally standardized case reporting forms. On April 5, 2020, CSTE released an Interim Position Statement with national surveillance case definitions for COVID-19. Current versions of these case definitions are available at: https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-definitions/coronavirus-disease-2019-2021/. All cases reported on or after were requested to be shared by public health departments to CDC using the standardized case definitions for lab-confirmed or probable cases. On May 5, 2020, the standardized case reporting form was revised. States and territories continue to use this form.

Data are Considered Provisional

• The COVID-19 case surveillance data are dynamic; case reports can be modified at any time by the jurisdictions sharing COVID-19 data with CDC. CDC may update prior cases shared with CDC based on any updated information from jurisdictions. For instance, as new information is gathered about previously reported cases, health departments provide updated data to CDC. As more information and data become available, analyses might find changes in surveillance data and trends during a previously reported time window. Data may also be shared late with CDC due to the volume of COVID-19 cases.
• Annual finalized data: To create the final NNDSS data used in the annual tables, CDC works carefully with the reporting jurisdictions to reconcile the data received during the year until each state or territorial epidemiologist confirms that the data from their area are correct.

Access Addressing Gaps in Public Health Reporting of Race and Ethnicity for COVID-19, a report from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to better understand the challenges in completing race and ethnicity data for COVID-19 and recommendations for improvement.

Data Limitations

To learn more about the limitations in using case surveillance data, visit FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Data Quality Assurance Procedures

CDC’s Case Surveillance Section routinely performs data quality assurance procedures (i.e., ongoing corrections and logic checks to address data errors). To date, the following data cleaning steps have been implemented:

• Questions that have been left unanswered (blank) on the case report form are reclassified to a Missing value, if applicable to the question. For example, in the question "Was the individual hospitalized?" where the possible answer choices include "Yes," "No," or "Unknown," the blank value is recoded to "Missing" because the case report form did not include a response to the question.
• Logic checks are performed for date data. If an illogical date has been provided, CDC reviews the data with the reporting jurisdiction. For example, if a symptom onset date in the future is reported to CDC, this value is set to null until the reporting jurisdiction updates the date appropriately.
• Additional data quality processing to recode free text data is ongoing. Data on symptoms, race, ethnicity, and healthcare worker status have been prioritized.

Data Suppression

To prevent release of data that could be used to identify people, data cells are suppressed for low frequency (<11 COVID-19 case records with a given values). Suppression includes low frequency combinations of case month, geographic characteristics (county and state of residence), and demographic characteristics (sex, age group, race, and ethnicity). Suppressed values are re-coded to the NA answer option; records with data suppression are never removed.

Additional COVID-19 Data

COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths by state and by county. These and other COVID-19 data are available from multiple public locations: COVID Data Tracker; United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State; COVID-19 Vaccination Reporting Data Systems; and COVID-19 Death Data and Resources.

Notes:

March 1, 2022: The "COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data with Geography" will be updated on a monthly basis.

April 7, 2022: An adjustment was made to CDC’s cleaning algorithm for COVID-19 line level case notification data. An assumption in CDC's algorithm led to misclassifying deaths that were not COVID-19 related. The algorithm has since been revised, and this dataset update reflects corrected individual level information about death status for all cases collected to date.

June 25, 2024: An adjustment

Analysis of ‘COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Race/Ethnicity’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/3fdc6593-c708-4a6a-8073-5ca862caa279 on 27 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

COVID-19 cases and associated deaths that have been reported among Connecticut residents, broken down by race and ethnicity. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the COVID-19 update.

The following data show the number of COVID-19 cases and associated deaths per 100,000 population by race and ethnicity. Crude rates represent the total cases or deaths per 100,000 people. Age-adjusted rates consider the age of the person at diagnosis or death when estimating the rate and use a standardized population to provide a fair comparison between population groups with different age distributions. Age-adjustment is important in Connecticut as the median age of among the non-Hispanic white population is 47 years, whereas it is 34 years among non-Hispanic blacks, and 29 years among Hispanics. Because most non-Hispanic white residents who died were over 75 years of age, the age-adjusted rates are lower than the unadjusted rates. In contrast, Hispanic residents who died tend to be younger than 75 years of age which results in higher age-adjusted rates.

The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used.

Rates are standardized to the 2000 US Millions Standard population (data available here: https://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/). Standardization was done using 19 age groups (0, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, ..., 80-84, 85 years and older). More information about direct standardization for age adjustment is available here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt06rv.pdf

Categories are mutually exclusive. The category “multiracial” includes people who answered ‘yes’ to more than one race category. Counts may not add up to total case counts as data on race and ethnicity may be missing. Age adjusted rates calculated only for groups with more than 20 deaths. Abbreviation: NH=Non-Hispanic.

Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 COVID-19 deaths in this report are defined as those for which the death certificate has an ICD-10 code of U07.1 as either a primary (underlying) or a contributing cause of death. More infor

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

This dataset contains descriptions of unidentified remains whose cases have been processed by the Medical Examiner’s Office.

Call 312-666-0500 to speak to Deputy Chief Investigator, Earl Briggs, about matching one of these unidentified bodies to the identity of a missing person. Descriptions of cases can also be found at NAMUS.gov

Please note that images posted in this section may be graphic in nature and may not be appropriate for all users.

Context

Introduction: The dataset used for this experiment is real and authentic. The dataset is acquired from UCI machine learning repository website [13]. The title of the dataset is ‘Crime and Communities’. It is prepared using real data from socio-economic data from 1990 US Census, law enforcement data from the 1990 US LEMAS survey, and crimedata from the 1995 FBI UCR [13]. This dataset contains a total number of 147 attributes and 2216 instances.

The per capita crimes variables were calculated using population values included in the 1995 FBI data (which differ from the 1990 Census values).

Content

The variables included in the dataset involve the community, such as the percent of the population considered urban, and the median family income, and involving law enforcement, such as per capita number of police officers, and percent of officers assigned to drug units. The crime attributes (N=18) that could be predicted are the 8 crimes considered 'Index Crimes' by the FBI)(Murders, Rape, Robbery, .... ), per capita (actually per 100,000 population) versions of each, and Per Capita Violent Crimes and Per Capita Nonviolent Crimes)

predictive variables : 125 non-predictive variables : 4 potential goal/response variables : 18

Acknowledgements

http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Communities%20and%20Crime%20Unnormalized

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census Of Population And Housing 1990 United States: Summary Tape File 1a & 3a (Computer Files),

U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of The Census Producer, Washington, DC and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Ann Arbor, Michigan. (1992)

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Law Enforcement Management And Administrative Statistics (Computer File) U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of The Census Producer, Washington, DC and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Ann Arbor, Michigan. (1992)

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States (Computer File) (1995)

Inspiration

Your data will be in front of the world's largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?

Data available in the dataset may not act as a complete source of information for identifying factors that contribute to more violent and non-violent crimes as many relevant factors may still be missing.

However, I would like to try and answer the following questions answered.

1. Analyze if number of vacant and occupied houses and the period of time the houses were vacant had contributed to any significant change in violent and non-violent crime rates in communities

2. How has unemployment changed crime rate(violent and non-violent) in the communities?

3. Were people from a particular age group more vulnerable to crime?

4. Does ethnicity play a role in crime rate?

5. Has education played a role in bringing down the crime rate?

This dataset contains information on antibody testing for COVID-19: the number of people who received a test, the number of people with positive results, the percentage of people tested who tested positive, and the rate of testing per 100,000 people, stratified by modified ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) of residence. Modified ZCTA reflects the first non-missing address within NYC for each person reported with an antibody test result. This unit of geography is similar to ZIP codes but combines census blocks with smaller populations to allow more stable estimates of population size for rate calculation. It can be challenging to map data that are reported by ZIP Code. A ZIP Code doesn’t refer to an area, but rather a collection of points that make up a mail delivery route. Furthermore, there are some buildings that have their own ZIP Code, and some non-residential areas with ZIP Codes. To deal with the challenges of ZIP Codes, the Health Department uses ZCTAs which solidify ZIP codes into units of area. Often, data reported by ZIP code are actually mapped by ZCTA. The ZCTA geography was developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. These data can also be accessed here: https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/totals/antibody-by-modzcta.csv Exposure to COVID-19 can be detected by measuring antibodies to the disease in a person’s blood, which can indicate that a person may have had an immune response to the virus. Antibodies are proteins produced by the body’s immune system that can be found in the blood. People can test positive for antibodies after they have been exposed, sometimes when they no longer test positive for the virus itself. It is important to note that the science around COVID-19 antibody tests is evolving rapidly and there is still much uncertainty about what individual antibody test results mean for a single person and what population-level antibody test results mean for understanding the epidemiology of COVID-19 at a population level.
These data only provide information on people tested. People receiving an antibody test do not reflect all people in New York City; therefore, these data may not reflect antibody prevalence among all New Yorkers. Increasing instances of screening programs further impact the generalizability of these data, as screening programs influence who and how many people are tested over time. Examples of screening programs in NYC include: employers screening their workers (e.g., hospitals), and long-term care facilities screening their residents.

In addition, there may be potential biases toward people receiving an antibody test who have a positive result because people who were previously ill are preferentially seeking testing, in addition to the testing of persons with higher exposure (e.g., health care workers, first responders)

Rates were calculated using interpolated intercensal population estimates updated in 2019. These rates differ from previously reported rates based on the 2000 Census or previous versions of population estimates. The Health Department produced these population estimates based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and NYC Department of City Planning.

Antibody tests are categorized based on the date of specimen collection and are aggregated by full weeks starting each Sunday and ending on Saturday. For example, a person whose blood was collected for antibody testing on Wednesday, May 6 would be categorized as tested during the week ending May 9. A person tested twice in one week would only be counted once in that week. This dataset includes testing data beginning April 5, 2020.

Data are updated daily, and the dataset preserves historical records and source data changes, so each extract date reflects the current copy of the data as of that date. For example, an extract date of 11/04/2020 and extract date of 11/03/2020 will both contain all records as they were as of that extract date. Without filtering or grouping by extract date, an analysis will almost certainly be miscalculating or counting the same values multiple times. To analyze the most current data, only use the latest extract date. Antibody tests that are missing dates are not included in the dataset; as dates are identified, these events are added. Lags between occurrence and report of cases and tests can be assessed by comparing counts and rates across multiple data extract dates.
For further details, visit: • https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page • https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data • https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Health/Modified-Zip-Code-Tabulation-Areas-MODZCTA-/pri4-ifjk

The average for 2017 based on 65 countries was 1.8 kidnappings per 100,000 people. The highest value was in Belgium: 10.3 kidnappings per 100,000 people and the lowest value was in Bermuda: 0 kidnappings per 100,000 people. The indicator is available from 2003 to 2017. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Human Trafficking Statistics: Human trafficking remains a pervasive global issue, with millions of individuals subjected to exploitation and abuse each year. According to recent statistics, an estimated 25 million people worldwide are victims of human trafficking, with the majority being women and children. This lucrative criminal industry generates profits of over $150 billion annually, making it one of the most profitable illegal trades globally. As market research analysts, it's imperative to understand the scale and impact of human trafficking to develop effective strategies for prevention and intervention. Efforts to combat human trafficking have intensified in recent years, driven by increased awareness and advocacy. However, despite these efforts, the problem persists, with trafficking networks adapting to evade law enforcement and exploit vulnerabilities in communities. Through comprehensive data analysis and research, we can uncover trends, identify high-risk areas, and develop targeted interventions to disrupt trafficking networks and support survivors. In this context, understanding human trafficking statistics is crucial for informing policy decisions, resource allocation, and collaborative efforts to combat this grave violation of human rights. Editor’s Choice Every year, approximately 4.5 billion people become victims of forced sex trafficking. Two out of three immigrants become victims of human trafficking, regardless of their international travel method. There are 5.4 victims of modern slavery for every 1000 people worldwide. An estimated 40.3 million individuals are trapped in modern-day slavery, with 24.9 million in forced labor and 15.4 million in forced marriage. Around 16.55 million reported human trafficking cases have occurred in the Asia Pacific region. Out of 40 million human trafficking victims worldwide, 25% are children. The highest proportion of forced labor trafficking cases occurs in domestic work, accounting for 30%. The illicit earnings from human trafficking amount to approximately USD 150 billion annually. The sex trafficking industry globally exceeds the size of the worldwide cocaine market. Only 0.4% of survivors of human trafficking cases are detected. Currently, there are 49.6 million people in modern slavery worldwide, with 35% being children. Sex trafficking is the most common type of trafficking in the U.S. In 2022, there were 88 million child sexual abuse material (CSAM) files reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) tip line. Child sex trafficking has been reported in all 50 U.S. states. Human trafficking is a USD 150 billion industry globally. It ranks as the second most profitable illegal industry in the United States. 25 million people worldwide are denied their fundamental right to freedom. 30% of global human trafficking victims are children. Women constitute 49% of all victims of global trafficking. In 2019, 62% of victims in the US were identified as sex trafficking victims. In the same year, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grantees reported that 68% of clients served were victims of labor trafficking. Human traffickers in the US face a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison. In France, 74% of exploited victims in 2018 were victims of sex trafficking. You May Also Like To Read Domestic Violence Statistics Sexual Assault Statistics Crime Statistics FBI Crime Statistics Referral Marketing Statistics Prison Statistics GDPR Statistics Piracy Statistics Notable Ransomware Statistics DDoS Statistics Divorce Statistics

A. SUMMARY This dataset includes San Francisco COVID-19 tests by race/ethnicity and by date. This dataset represents the daily count of tests collected, and the breakdown of test results (positive, negative, or indeterminate). Tests in this dataset include all those collected from persons who listed San Francisco as their home address at the time of testing. It also includes tests that were collected by San Francisco providers for persons who were missing a locating address. This dataset does not include tests for residents listing a locating address outside of San Francisco, even if they were tested in San Francisco. The data were de-duplicated by individual and date, so if a person gets tested multiple times on different dates, all tests will be included in this dataset (on the day each test was collected). If a person tested multiple times on the same date, only one test is included from that date. When there are multiple tests on the same date, a positive result, if one exists, will always be selected as the record for the person. If a PCR and antigen test are taken on the same day, the PCR test will supersede. If a person tests multiple times on the same day and the results are all the same (e.g. all negative or all positive) then the first test done is selected as the record for the person. The total number of positive test results is not equal to the total number of COVID-19 cases in San Francisco. When a person gets tested for COVID-19, they may be asked to report information about themselves. One piece of information that might be requested is a person's race and ethnicity. These data are often incomplete in the laboratory and provider reports of the test results sent to the health department. The data can be missing or incomplete for several possible reasons: • The person was not asked about their race and ethnicity. • The person was asked, but refused to answer. • The person answered, but the testing provider did not include the person's answers in the reports. • The testing provider reported the person's answers in a format that could not be used by the health department. For any of these reasons, a person's race/ethnicity will be recorded in the dataset as “Unknown.” B. NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY The different values for Race/Ethnicity in this dataset are "Asian;" "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" "White;" "Multi-racial;" "Other;" and “Unknown." The Race/Ethnicity categorization increases data clarity by emulating the methodology used by the U.S. Census in the American Community Survey. Specifically, persons who identify as "Asian," "Black or African American," "American Indian or Alaska Native," "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," "White," "Multi-racial," or "Other" do NOT include any person who identified as Hispanic/Latino at any time in their testing reports that either (1) identified them as SF residents or (2) as someone who tested without a locating address by an SF provider. All persons across all races who identify as Hispanic/Latino are recorded as “"Hispanic or Latino/a, all races." This categorization increases data accuracy by correcting the way “Other” persons were counted. Previously, when a person reported “Other” for Race/Ethnicity, they would be recorded “Unknown.” Under the new categorization, they are counted as “Other” and are distinct from “Unknown.” If a person records their race/ethnicity as “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other” for their first COVID-19 test, then this data will not change—even if a different race/ethnicity is reported for this person for any future COVID-19 test. There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is if a person’s race/ethnicity value i