2020 Census tract polygons covering Milwaukee County, Wisconsin for use with tract-level American Community Survey data and 2020 U.S. Census data. Other census related boundaries:Milwaukee County Zip Code Tabulation AreasMilwaukee County Census TractMilwaukee County Census BlockMilwaukee County Census Block GroupsCensus boundaries are intended to be used with census data that can be found here: American Community Survey . ESRI Living Atlas also provides curated layers with census data that can be found here: ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World.

Descriptive statistics of Milwaukee County census tracts by intersection of housing tenure and poverty level (n = 215).

Adjusted linear regression estimating association of socioeconomic disadvantage and racial ethnic composition on mean childhood blood lead level among Milwaukee County census tracts (n = 168).

The Urban Institute established the Reentry Mapping Network (RMN), a group of jurisdictions applying a data-driven, spatial approach to prisoner reentry. The purpose of the study was to examine three National Institute of Justice-funded RMN sites: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Washington, DC, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina. As members of the Reentry Mapping Network, the three sites collected local data related to incarceration, reentry, and community well-being. The Nonprofit Center of Milwaukee's Neighborhood Data Center was the lead Reentry Mapping Network partner in Milwaukee. Data on a total of 168 census tracts in Milwaukee (Part 1) during the calendar year 2003 were obtained from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. NeighborhoodInfo DC was the lead reentry mapping network partner in Washington, DC. Data on a total of 7,286 ex-offenders in Washington, DC (Part 2) during the calendar year 2004 were obtained from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) for the District of Columbia. The Winston-Salem Reentry Mapping Network project was managed by the Center for Community Safety (CCS), a public service and research center of Winston-Salem State University. Data on a total of 2,896 ex-offenders in Forsyth County (Part 3) during the calendar year 2003 were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC), the Forsyth County Sheriff's Department (Forsyth County Detention Center [FCDC]), and the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP). The Milwaukee, Wisconsin Data (Part 1) contain a total of 95 variables including race, ethnicity, gender, marital status, education, job status, dependents, general risk assessment, alcohol risk, drug risk, need for alcohol treatment, and need for drug treatment. Also included are four geographic variables. The Washington, DC Data (Part 2) contain a total of 13 variables including supervision type, whether supervision began in calendar year 2004, date supervision period began, date supervision period ended, sex, marital status, ethnicity, age, education, unemployment status, state, and Census tract. The Winston-Salem, North Carolina Data (Part 3) contain a total of 14 variables including race, sex, primary offense, admittance date, date pardoned, street, city, state, status, jurisdiction, and age at admission.

The spatial arrangement of urban vegetation depends on urban morphology and socio-economic settings. Urban vegetation changes over time because of human management. Urban trees are removed due to hazard prevention or aesthetic preferences. Previous research attributed tree loss to decreases in canopy cover. However, this provides little information about location and structural characteristics of trees lost, as well as environmental and social factors affecting tree loss dynamics. This is particularly relevant in residential landscapes where access to residential parcels for field surveys is limited. We tested whether multi-temporal airborne LiDAR and multi-spectral imagery collected at a 5-year interval can be used to investigate urban tree loss dynamics across residential landscapes in Denver, CO and Milwaukee, WI, covering 400,705 residential parcels in 444 census tracts. Position and stem height of trees lost were extracted from canopy height models calculated as the difference between final (year 5) and initial (year 0) vegetation height derived from LiDAR. Multivariate regression models were used to predict number and height of tree stems lost in residential parcels in each census tract based on urban morphological and socio-economic variables. A total of 28,427 stems were lost from residential parcels in Denver and Milwaukee over 5 years. Overall, 7% of residential parcels lost one stem, averaging 90.87 stems per km2. Average stem height was 10.16 m, though trees lost in Denver were taller compared to Milwaukee. The number of stems lost was higher in neighborhoods with higher canopy cover and developed before the 1970s. However, socio-economic characteristics had little effect on tree loss dynamics. The study provides a robust method for measuring urban tree loss dynamics within and across entire cities, and represents a first step towards high resolution assessments of the three-dimensional change of urban vegetation at large spatial scales. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Ossola, A., and M. Hopton. Measuring urban tree loss dynamics across residential landscapes. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT. Elsevier BV, AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, 612: 940-949, (2018).

These wards were produced by the Legislative Technology Services Bureau for the 2011 Legislative Redistricting Project. Election data from the current decade is included.Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data AttributesWard Data Overview: These municipal wards were created by grouping Census 2010 population collection blocks into municipal wards. This project started with the release of Census 2010 geography and population totals to all 72 Wisconsin counties on March 21, 2011, and were made available via the Legislative Technology Services Bureau (LTSB) GIS website and the WISE-LR web application. The 180 day statutory timeline for local redistricting ended on September 19, 2011. Wisconsin Legislative and Congressional redistricting plans were enacted in 2011 by Wisconsin Act 43 and Act 44. These new districts were created using Census 2010 block geography. Some municipal wards, created before the passing of Act 43 and 44, were required to be split between assembly, senate and congressional district boundaries. 2011 Wisconsin Act 39 allowed communities to divide wards, along census block boundaries, if they were divided by newly enacted boundaries. A number of wards created under Wisconsin Act 39 were named using alpha-numeric labels. An example would be where ward 1 divided by an assembly district would become ward 1A and ward 1B, and in other municipalities the next sequential ward number was used: ward 1 and ward 2. The process of dividing wards under Act 39 ended on April 10, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the United States Eastern District Federal Court ordered Assembly Districts 8 and 9 (both in the City of Milwaukee) be changed to follow the court’s description. On September 19, 2012, LTSB divided the few remaining municipal wards that were split by a 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or 44 district line.Election Data Overview: Election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the Government Accountability Board (GAB)/Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after each general election. A disaggregation process was performed on this election data based on the municipal ward layer that was available at the time of the election. The ward data that is collected after each decennial census is made up of collections of whole and split census blocks. (Note: Split census blocks occur during local redistricting when municipalities include recently annexed property in their ward submissions to the legislature).Disaggregation of Election Data: Election data is first disaggregated from reporting units to wards, and then to census blocks. Next, the election data is aggregated back up to wards, municipalities, and counties. The disaggregation of election data to census blocks is done based on total population. Detailed Methodology:Data is disaggregated first from reporting unit (i.e. multiple wards) to the ward level proportionate to the population of that ward.The data then is distributed down to the block level, again based on total population.When data is disaggregated to block or ward, we restrain vote totals not to exceed population 18 numbers, unless absolutely required.This methodology results in the following: Election data totals reported to the GAB/WEC at the state, county, municipal and reporting unit level should match the disaggregated election data total at the same levels. Election data totals reported to the GAB at ward level may not match the ward totals in the disaggregated election data file.Some wards may have more election data allocated than voter age population. This will occur if a change to the geography results in more voters than the 2010 historical population limits.Other things of note… We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2011) to disaggregate election data to blocks. Using this ward layer creates some challenges. New wards are created every year due to annexations and incorporations. When these new wards are reported with election data, an issue arises wherein election data is being reported for wards that do not exist in our official ward layer. For example, if "Cityville" has four wards in the official ward layer, the election data may be reported for five wards, including a new ward from an annexation. There are two different scenarios and courses of action to these issues: When a single new ward is present in the election data but there is no ward geometry present in the official ward layer, the votes attributed to this new ward are distributed to all the other wards in the municipality based on population percentage. Distributing based on population percentage means that the proportion of the population of the municipality will receive that same proportion of votes from the new ward. In the example of Cityville explained above, the fifth ward may have five votes reported, but since there is no corresponding fifth ward in the official layer, these five votes will be assigned to each of the other wards in Cityville according the percentage of population.Another case is when a new ward is reported, but its votes are part of reporting unit. In this case, the votes for the new ward are assigned to the other wards in the reporting unit by population percentage; and not to wards in the municipality as a whole. For example, Cityville’s ward five was given as a reporting unit together with wards 1, 4, and 5. In this case, the votes in ward five are assigned to wards one and four according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election Results: The process of collecting election data and disaggregating to municipal wards occurs after a general election, so disaggregation has occurred with different ward layers and different population totals. We have outlined (to the best of our knowledge) what layer and population totals were used to produce these ward-by-ward election results.Election data disaggregates from GAB/WEC Reporting Unit -> Ward [Variant year outlined below]Elections 1990 – 2000: Wards 1991 (Census 1990 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2002 – 2010: Wards 2001 (Census 2000 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2012: Wards 2011 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2014 – 2016: Wards spring 2017 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Blocks 2011 -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined aboveIn the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists (Occurred with spring 2017) due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks 2011This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2016Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2011 (then MCD 2011, and County 2011) All election data (including later elections such as 2016) is aggregated to the Wards 2011 assignment of the blocksNotes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001 and 2011 used for disaggregation were determined by their respective Census.Population and Election data will be contained within a county boundary. This means that even though municipal and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same. Therefore, data totals within a county should be the same between 2011 wards and 2018 wards.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2018. This is due to (a) boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2018, and (b) annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.