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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

Abstract

The Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) Complete Count Data include more than 650 million individual-level and 7.5 million household-level records. The microdata are the result of collaboration between IPUMS and the nation’s two largest genealogical organizations—Ancestry.com and FamilySearch—and provides the largest and richest source of individual level and household data.

Before Manuscript Submission

All manuscripts (and other items you'd like to publish) must be submitted to

phsdatacore@stanford.edu for approval prior to journal submission.

We will check your cell sizes and citations.

For more information about how to cite PHS and PHS datasets, please visit:

https:/phsdocs.developerhub.io/need-help/citing-phs-data-core

Documentation

This dataset was created on 2020-01-10 22:52:11.461 by merging multiple datasets together. The source datasets for this version were:

IPUMS 1930 households: This dataset includes all households from the 1930 US census.

IPUMS 1930 persons: This dataset includes all individuals from the 1930 US census.

IPUMS 1930 Lookup: This dataset includes variable names, variable labels, variable values, and corresponding variable value labels for the IPUMS 1930 datasets.

Section 2

Historic data are scarce and often only exists in aggregate tables. The key advantage of historic US census data is the availability of individual and household level characteristics that researchers can tabulate in ways that benefits their specific research questions. The data contain demographic variables, economic variables, migration variables and family variables. Within households, it is possible to create relational data as all relations between household members are known. For example, having data on the mother and her children in a household enables researchers to calculate the mother’s age at birth. Another advantage of the Complete Count data is the possibility to follow individuals over time using a historical identifier.

In sum: the historic US census data are a unique source for research on social and economic change and can provide population health researchers with information about social and economic determinants.Historic data are scarce and often only exists in aggregate tables. The key advantage of historic US census data is the availability of individual and household level characteristics that researchers can tabulate in ways that benefits their specific research questions. The data contain demographic variables, economic variables, migration variables and family variables. Within households, it is possible to create relational data as all relations between household members are known. For example, having data on the mother and her children in a household enables researchers to calculate the mother’s age at birth. Another advantage of the Complete Count data is the possibility to follow individuals over time using a historical identifier. In sum: the historic US census data are a unique source for research on social and economic change and can provide population health researchers with information about social and economic determinants.

The historic US 1930 census data was collected in April 1930. Enumerators collected data traveling to households and counting the residents who regularly slept at the household. Individuals lacking permanent housing were counted as residents of the place where they were when the data was collected. Household members absent on the day of data collected were either listed to the household with the help of other household members or were scheduled for the last census subdivision.

Notes

• We provide IPUMS household and person data separately so that it is convenient to explore the descriptive statistics on each level. In order to obtain a full dataset, merge the household and person on the variables SERIAL and SERIALP. In order to create a longitudinal dataset, merge datasets on the variable HISTID.

• Households with more than 60 people in the original data were broken up for processing purposes. Every person in the large households are considered to be in their own household. The original large households can be identified using the variable SPLIT, reconstructed using the variable SPLITHID, and the original count is found in the variable SPLITNUM.

• Coded variables derived from string variables are still in progress. These variables include: occupation and industry.

• Missing observations have been allocated and some inconsistencies have been edited for the following variables: SPEAKENG, YRIMMIG, CITIZEN, AGEMARR, AGE, BPL, MBPL, FBPL, LIT, SCHOOL, OWNERSHP, FARM, EMPSTAT, OCC1950, IND1950, MTONGUE, MARST, RACE, SEX, RELATE, CLASSWKR. The flag variables indicating an allocated observation for the associated variables can be included in your extract by clicking the ‘Select data quality flags’ box on the extract summary page.

• Most inconsistent information was not edite

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

This dataset includes COVID-19 self-test result data voluntarily reported by users of tests through the MakeMyTestCount website (makemytestcount.org). All fields are self-reported by the user with the exception of fields derived from the self-reported zip code. This dataset will be updated monthly. If there are any questions, please direct them to the data steward, Jasmine Chaitram zoa6@cdc.gov.

This dataset includes the following self-reported data:
- Date (by week)– date of test shown by week starting date
- Age group (years) – age of individual taking the test, categorized into the following: 2-4, 5-11, 12-15, 16-17, 18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-64, 65-74, 75+
- Race – race of individual taking the test: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White, Multiple or Other, missing - Ethnicity – ethnicity of individual taking the test: Hispanic, Non-Hispanic, missing - Sex – sex of individual taking the test: male, female, missing - Test result – positive, negative, inconclusive

The dataset also includes the following columns to support analyses. These columns are based on the self-reported zip code:
- State abbreviation
- State name
- State FIPS code - FEMA region

Please note that there are limitations with these data, including:

1. Data are not comprehensive of all self-tests performed. Data represent results voluntarily reported by an individual via the MakeMyTestCount website. These data do not include self-test results that were reported to state and local health departments if they were not also reported through the MakeMyTestCount website. The true denominator (known number of tests completed in the US) cannot be ascertained and reflects a small fraction of the number of self-tests used.

2. Data are not verified. The quality of specimen, appropriate execution of self-test, result produced, and person tested are unverified; therefore, reported interpretation of results cannot be confirmed. All results and accompanying demographic information are also self-reported and cannot be verified.

3. Data reports are not complete. Individual submissions vary widely in terms of the data elements collected. Not all data elements are required (only date, age, and zip code), and some results are missing demographic information.

4. Data are not representative. Based on the limited number of self-reported test results, this dataset is not representative of the use of self-testing by demographic, nor is the dataset inclusive of all self-testing completed within each jurisdiction. This dataset represents a small proportion of overall COVID-19 testing conducted and reported volumes are much lower than testing conducted in point of care and laboratory settings.

5. Data represent individual test results, not persons tested. Data in this dataset are not linkable and do not allow for analyses around serial testing. Data also cannot be disaggregated to identify multiple reports by the same individual.

All analyses should be completed with these limitations in mind.

For more information about the challenges and opportunities around self-test data, please refer to the following article: Ritchey MD, Rosenblum HG, Del Guercio K, et al. COVID-19 Self-Test Data: Challenges and Opportunities — United States, October 31, 2021–June 11, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:1005–1010. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7132a1

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