As of February 2025, El Salvador had the highest prisoner rate worldwide, with over 1,600 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population. Cuba, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, and the United States, rounded out the top five countries with the highest rate of incarceration. Homicides in El Salvador Interestingly, El Salvador, which long had the highest global homicide rates, has dropped out of the top 20 after a high number of gang members have been incarcerated. A high number of the countries with the highest homicide rate are located in Latin America. Prisoners in the United StatesThe United States is home to the largest number of prisoners worldwide. More than 1.8 million people were incarcerated in the U.S. at the beginning of 2025. In China, the estimated prison population totaled 1.69 million people that year. Other nations had far fewer prisoners. The largest share of the U.S. prisoners in federal correctional facilities were of African-American origin. As of 2020, there were 345,500 black, non-Hispanic prisoners, compared to 327,300 white, non-Hispanic inmates. The U.S. states with the largest number of prisoners in 2022 were Texas, California, and Florida. Over 160,000 prisoners in state facilities were sentenced for rape or sexual assault, which was the most common cause of imprisonment. The second most common was murder, followed by aggravated or simple assault.

At the beginning of 2025, the United States had the highest number of incarcerated individuals worldwide, with around 1.8 million people in prison. China followed with around 100,000 fewer prisoners. Brazil followed in third. The incarceration problem in the U.S. The United States has an incredibly high number of incarcerated individuals. Therefore, the incarceration problem has become a widely contested issue, because it impacts disadvantaged people and minorities the most. Additionally, the prison system has become capitalized by outside corporations that fund prisons, but there is still a high cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, there has been an increase in the amount of private prisons that have been created. For-profit prison companies have come under scrutiny because of their lack of satisfactory staff and widespread lobbying. Violent offenses are the most common type of offense among prisoners in the U.S. Incarceration rates worldwide El Salvador had the highest rate of incarceration worldwide, at 1,659 prisoners per 100,000 residents as of February 2025. Cuba followed in second with 794 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. The incarceration rate is a better measure to use when comparing countries than the total prison populations, which will naturally have the most populous countries topping the list.

With approximately *** million prisoners, China had by far the biggest prison population across the Asia-Pacific region in 2022. In contrast, less than ************ people were incarcerated in Brunei and Timor-Leste, respectively. Prison populations and total populationsThe varying size of prison populations throughout Asia-Pacific can be attributed to the size of the general populations across the region's countries and territories. With a population of over *** billion, China is the most populous country in the world. Despite the disparity in population size, Bhutan, which had one of the smallest prison populations in APAC in 2022, had a higher serious assault rate than other Asia-Pacific counties. Crime ratesApart from the general population size, there are other factors which can be taken into consideration, such as a diversity in justice systems. Therefore, a comparison of crime throughout the region can be challenging. Although China had a higher prison population, it had a lower intentional homicide rate compared to other Asia-Pacific countries and territories. New Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong have the lowest corruption index scores in the region, whereas countries including Bangladesh, Cambodia, and North Korea have recorded the highest scores.

In 2023 Turkey had the highest incarceration rate among European countries, at 408 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, followed by Georgia, which had an incarceration of 256. The country with the lowest incarceration rate in this year was Liechtenstein, which had 15 people in prison for every 100,000 inhabitants. Germany had one of the lowest rates of 69 when compared with other major European countries such as France and England & Wales, which had rates of 106 and 136 respectively. The Russian Federation has in previous years been the country with the highest incarceration rate in the Council of Europe's data, however, as the country was removed as a member of the council in 2022 due to their invasion of Ukraine, data for Russia is no longer available.

Overview

The Marshall Project, the nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, has partnered with The Associated Press to compile data on the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons across the country. The Associated Press is sharing this data as the most comprehensive current national source of COVID-19 outbreaks in state and federal prisons.

Lawyers, criminal justice reform advocates and families of the incarcerated have worried about what was happening in prisons across the nation as coronavirus began to take hold in the communities outside. Data collected by The Marshall Project and AP shows that hundreds of thousands of prisoners, workers, correctional officers and staff have caught the illness as prisons became the center of some of the country’s largest outbreaks. And thousands of people — most of them incarcerated — have died.

In December, as COVID-19 cases spiked across the U.S., the news organizations also shared cumulative rates of infection among prison populations, to better gauge the total effects of the pandemic on prison populations. The analysis found that by mid-December, one in five state and federal prisoners in the United States had tested positive for the coronavirus -- a rate more than four times higher than the general population.

This data, which is updated weekly, is an effort to track how those people have been affected and where the crisis has hit the hardest.

Methodology and Caveats

The data tracks the number of COVID-19 tests administered to people incarcerated in all state and federal prisons, as well as the staff in those facilities. It is collected on a weekly basis by Marshall Project and AP reporters who contact each prison agency directly and verify published figures with officials.

Each week, the reporters ask every prison agency for the total number of coronavirus tests administered to its staff members and prisoners, the cumulative number who tested positive among staff and prisoners, and the numbers of deaths for each group.

The time series data is aggregated to the system level; there is one record for each prison agency on each date of collection. Not all departments could provide data for the exact date requested, and the data indicates the date for the figures.

To estimate the rate of infection among prisoners, we collected population data for each prison system before the pandemic, roughly in mid-March, in April, June, July, August, September and October. Beginning the week of July 28, we updated all prisoner population numbers, reflecting the number of incarcerated adults in state or federal prisons. Prior to that, population figures may have included additional populations, such as prisoners housed in other facilities, which were not captured in our COVID-19 data. In states with unified prison and jail systems, we include both detainees awaiting trial and sentenced prisoners.

To estimate the rate of infection among prison employees, we collected staffing numbers for each system. Where current data was not publicly available, we acquired other numbers through our reporting, including calling agencies or from state budget documents. In six states, we were unable to find recent staffing figures: Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Utah.

To calculate the cumulative COVID-19 impact on prisoner and prison worker populations, we aggregated prisoner and staff COVID case and death data up through Dec. 15. Because population snapshots do not account for movement in and out of prisons since March, and because many systems have significantly slowed the number of new people being sent to prison, it’s difficult to estimate the total number of people who have been held in a state system since March. To be conservative, we calculated our rates of infection using the largest prisoner population snapshots we had during this time period.

As with all COVID-19 data, our understanding of the spread and impact of the virus is limited by the availability of testing. Epidemiology and public health experts say that aside from a few states that have recently begun aggressively testing in prisons, it is likely that there are more cases of COVID-19 circulating undetected in facilities. Sixteen prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, would not release information about how many prisoners they are testing.

Corrections departments in Indiana, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and Wisconsin report coronavirus testing and case data for juvenile facilities; West Virginia reports figures for juvenile facilities and jails. For consistency of comparison with other state prison systems, we removed those facilities from our data that had been included prior to July 28. For these states we have also removed staff data. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s coronavirus data includes testing and cases for those who have been released on parole. We removed these tests and cases for prisoners from the data prior to July 28. The staff cases remain.

About the Data

There are four tables in this data:

• covid_prison_cases.csv contains weekly time series data on tests, infections and deaths in prisons. The first dates in the table are on March 26. Any questions that a prison agency could not or would not answer are left blank.

• prison_populations.csv contains snapshots of the population of people incarcerated in each of these prison systems for whom data on COVID testing and cases are available. This varies by state and may not always be the entire number of people incarcerated in each system. In some states, it may include other populations, such as those on parole or held in state-run jails. This data is primarily for use in calculating rates of testing and infection, and we would not recommend using these numbers to compare the change in how many people are being held in each prison system.

• staff_populations.csv contains a one-time, recent snapshot of the headcount of workers for each prison agency, collected as close to April 15 as possible.

• covid_prison_rates.csv contains the rates of cases and deaths for prisoners. There is one row for every state and federal prison system and an additional row with the National totals.

Queries

The Associated Press and The Marshall Project have created several queries to help you use this data:

Get your state's prison COVID data: Provides each week's data from just your state and calculates a cases-per-100000-prisoners rate, a deaths-per-100000-prisoners rate, a cases-per-100000-workers rate and a deaths-per-100000-workers rate here

Rank all systems' most recent data by cases per 100,000 prisoners here

Find what percentage of your state's total cases and deaths -- as reported by Johns Hopkins University -- occurred within the prison system here

Attribution

In stories, attribute this data to: “According to an analysis of state prison cases by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, and The Associated Press.”

Contributors

Many reporters and editors at The Marshall Project and The Associated Press contributed to this data, including: Katie Park, Tom Meagher, Weihua Li, Gabe Isman, Cary Aspinwall, Keri Blakinger, Jake Bleiberg, Andrew R. Calderón, Maurice Chammah, Andrew DeMillo, Eli Hager, Jamiles Lartey, Claudia Lauer, Nicole Lewis, Humera Lodhi, Colleen Long, Joseph Neff, Michelle Pitcher, Alysia Santo, Beth Schwartzapfel, Damini Sharma, Colleen Slevin, Christie Thompson, Abbie VanSickle, Adria Watson, Andrew Welsh-Huggins.

Questions

If you have questions about the data, please email The Marshall Project at info+covidtracker@themarshallproject.org or file a Github issue.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

In 2025, there were around *** prisoners per one hundred thousand of the population in Turkmenistan. In contrast, there were about ** prisoners per one hundred thousand of the population in Japan that year.

As of May 2025, Monaco had the largest share of foreign prisoners, with almost 90 percent of its detainees being foreigners. The United Arab Emirates was ranked second, with 87.5 percent of foreign prisoners.

The purpose of the Survey of Jails in Indian Country is an enumeration of all known adult and juvenile facilities -- jails, confinement facilities, detention centers, and other correctional facilities operated by tribal authorities or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Department of the Interior. For the purpose of this collection, Indian country includes reservations, pueblos, rancherias, and other Native American and Alaska Native communities throughout the United States. The survey collects data on the number of adults and juveniles held on the last weekday in June 2023, type of offense, average daily population in June, most crowded day in June, admissions and releases in June, number of inmate deaths and suicide attempts from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, rated capacity on June 30, and jail staffing on June 30, 2023.

Hong Kong had the largest share of female prisoners as of April 2025, with over ** percent of its detainees being women. Macau had the second-highest rate at over ** percent. In the United States, *** percent of inmates were women.

Private Prison Service Market Outlook

The global private prison service market size was valued at approximately USD 8 billion in 2023 and is forecasted to reach USD 12.5 billion by 2032, expanding at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 4.5% during the forecast period. The growth of this market is driven by several factors, including increasing prison populations, government policies favoring privatization, and a focus on cost-efficiency and specialized services provided by private entities.

One of the primary growth factors of the private prison service market is the escalating prison population globally. Over the years, many countries have experienced a steady rise in incarceration rates due to stricter law enforcement policies and an increase in crime rates. This surge has led to overcrowded public prison facilities, prompting governments to seek alternatives to manage the burgeoning inmate numbers. Private prisons have emerged as a viable solution to this issue, providing additional capacity and thus driving market demand.

Another significant factor contributing to the growth of the private prison service market is the cost-efficiency and specialized services offered by private operators. Governments are increasingly outsourcing prison management to private entities to reduce operational costs and improve service quality. Private prisons often employ advanced technologies and management practices that lead to better resource utilization, enhanced security measures, and improved inmate rehabilitation programs. These factors make private prisons an attractive option for governments looking to manage prisons more effectively.

The increasing focus on rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates is also bolstering the private prison service market. Unlike traditional public prisons, many private facilities emphasize rehabilitation and education programs aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Private prison operators often provide comprehensive healthcare, vocational training, and educational programs tailored to the needs of inmates. These initiatives not only help in the personal development of inmates but also contribute to a safer society, which, in turn, drives the demand for private prison services.

From a regional perspective, North America holds the largest share in the global private prison service market, primarily driven by the United States, which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Government policies favoring privatization and the presence of major private prison operators further strengthen the market in this region. However, other regions such as Asia Pacific and Europe are also showing significant potential due to increasing crime rates and shifting governmental policies towards privatization.

Service Type Analysis

The private prison service market is segmented by service type into security, rehabilitation, healthcare, education, and others. The security segment holds the largest market share due to its critical role in maintaining order and safety within prison facilities. Private prison operators invest heavily in advanced security technologies such as surveillance systems, biometric access controls, and perimeter security solutions. These investments ensure a secure environment for both inmates and staff, thereby making security services a pivotal component of the private prison market.

The rehabilitation segment is gaining traction as governments and private operators recognize the importance of reducing recidivism rates. Rehabilitation services include a range of programs such as behavioral therapy, substance abuse treatment, and vocational training designed to help inmates reintegrate into society. With growing awareness about the social and economic benefits of rehabilitation, this segment is expected to see substantial growth in the coming years.

Healthcare services are another critical component of private prison services. Inmates often have complex health needs that require specialized medical care. Private prison operators provide comprehensive healthcare services, including primary care, mental health services, and emergency medical treatment. The healthcare segment is expected to grow significantly due to the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and mental health issues among the incarcerated population.

Educational services are also an essential part of the private prison service market. These services aim to equip inmates with the knowledge and skills needed to secure employment upon release. Educational programs range

Prison incarceration rates are measured by the number of incarcerated individuals in prison per 100,000 population aged 18-69. This Indicator is measured for Alameda County, and the most recently available data is from 2015.

The Latin America and Caribbean nation with the highest prison population rate in 2024 was El Salvador, with ***** prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, the only country to achieve four digits, followed by Cuba with *** prisoners. Guatemala and Haiti Jamaica had the lowest prison population rates, *** and ** per 100,000 inhabitants, respectively.

By 1996 it became apparent that the Los Angeles county jails faced a serious overcrowding problem. Two possible solutions to the problem were to build more jail capacity or to divert a greater number of incoming inmates to community-based, intermediate sanctions. The research team for this study was asked to review a 1996 profile of inmates in the Los Angeles jail system and to determine how many of them might have been good candidates for intermediate sanctions such as electronic monitoring, work release, house arrest, and intensive supervision. The researchers selected a sample of 1,000 pre-adjudicated (or unconvicted) inmates from the total census of inmates in jail custody on January 15, 1996, to study in more detail. Of the 1,000 offenders, the researchers were able to obtain jail and recidivism data for two years for 931 inmates. For each of these offenders, information on their prior criminal history, current offense, and subsequent recidivism behavior was obtained from official records maintained by several county agencies, including pretrial services, sheriff's department, probation, and courts. Demographic variables include date of birth, race, and gender. Prior criminal history variables for each prior adult arrest include type of filing charge, case disposition, type of sentence and sentence length imposed, and total number of prior juvenile petitions sustained. Current offense variables include arrest date, crime type for current arrest, crime charge, type and date of final case disposition, and sentence type and length, if convicted. Strike information collected includes number of strikes and the offense that qualified as a strike. Jail custody variables include the jail entry and exit data for the current offense and the reason for release, if released. Lastly, two-year follow-up variables include the date, type, and disposition of each subsequent arrest between January 15, 1996, and January 15, 1998.

A daily census of the inmates at the Allegheny County Jail (ACJ). Includes gender, race, age at booking, and current age. The records for each month contain a census for every day, therefore many inmates records are repeated each day.

Another representation of this data is the County's jail population management dashboard.

Abstract

The Freedom in the World 1972-2010 dataset, produced by a US based organisation, Freedom House, contains data on political rights and civil liberties for countries. Numerical ratings of between 1 and 7 are allocated to each country or territory, with 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free. The status designation of Free, Partly Free, or Not Free, which is determined by the combination of the political rights and civil liberties ratings, indicates the general state of freedom in a country or territory.

The total number of points awarded to the political rights and civil liberties checklists determines the political rights and civil liberties ratings for each country in the Freedom House dataset. Each point total corresponds to a rating of 1 through 7, with 1 representing the highest and 7 the lowest level of freedom. Each pair of political rights and civil liberties ratings is averaged to determine an overall status of "Free," "Partly Free," or "Not Free." Those whose ratings average 1.0 to 2.5 are considered Free, 3.0 to 5.0 Partly Free, and 5.5 to 7.0 Not Free . The designations of Free, Partly Free, and Not Free each cover a broad third of the available raw points. Therefore, countries and territories within any one category, especially those at either end of the category, can have quite different human rights situations. In order to see the distinctions within each category, a country or territory's political rights and civil liberties ratings should be examined. For example, countries at the lowest end of the Free category (2 in political rights and 3 in civil liberties, or 3 in political rights and 2 in civil liberties) differ from those at the upper end of the Free group (1 for both political rights and civil liberties). Also, a designation of Free does not mean that a country enjoys perfect freedom or lacks serious problems, only that it enjoys comparably more freedom than Partly Free or Not Free (or some other Free) countries.

General Characteristics of Each Political Rights and Civil Liberties Rating: Political Rights Rating of 1 -- Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 for political rights come closest to ensuring the freedoms embodied in the checklist questions, beginning with free and fair elections. Those who are elected rule, there are competitive parties or other political groupings, and the opposition plays an important role and has actual power. Minority groups have reasonable self-government or can participate in the government through informal consensus. Rating of 2 -- Countries and territories rated 2 in political rights are less free than those rated 1. Such factors as political corruption, violence, political discrimination against minorities, and foreign or military influence on politics may be present and weaken the quality of freedom. Ratings of 3, 4, 5 -- The same conditions that undermine freedom in countries and territories with a rating of 2 may also weaken political rights in those with a rating of 3, 4, or 5. Other damaging elements can include civil war, heavy military involvement in politics, lingering royal power, unfair elections, and one-party dominance. However, states and territories in these categories may still enjoy some elements of political rights, including the freedom to organize quasi-political groups, reasonably free referendums, or other significant means of popular influence on government. Rating of 6 -- Countries and territories with political rights rated 6 have systems ruled by military juntas, one-party dictatorships, religious hierarchies, or autocrats. These regimes may allow only a minimal manifestation of political rights, such as some degree of representation or autonomy for minorities. A few states are traditional monarchies that mitigate their relative lack of political rights through the use of consultation with their subjects, tolerance of political discussion, and acceptance of public petitions. Rating of 7 -- For countries and territories with a rating of 7, political rights are absent or virtually nonexistent as a result of the extremely oppressive nature of the regime or severe oppression in combination with civil war. States and territories in this group may also be marked by extreme violence or warlord rule that dominates political power in the absence of an authoritative, functioning central government. Civil Liberties Rating of 1 -- Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 come closest to ensuring the freedoms expressed in the civil liberties checklist, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, education, and religion. They are distinguished by an established and generally equitable system of rule of law. Countries and territories with this rating enjoy free economic activity and tend to strive for equality of opportunity. Rating of 2 -- States and territories with a rating of 2 have deficiencies in a few aspects of civil liberties, but are still relatively free. Ratings of 3, 4, 5 -- Countries and territories that have received a rating of 3, 4, or 5 range from those that are in at least partial compliance with virtually all checklist standards to those with a combination of high or medium scores for some questions and low or very low scores on other questions. The level of oppression increases at each successive rating level, including in the areas of censorship, political terror, and the prevention of free association. There are also many cases in which groups opposed to the state engage in political terror that undermines other freedoms. Therefore, a poor rating for a country is not necessarily a comment on the intentions of the government, but may reflect real restrictions on liberty caused by nongovernmental actors. Rating of 6 -- People in countries and territories with a rating of 6 experience severely restricted rights of expression and association, and there are almost always political prisoners and other manifestations of political terror. These countries may be characterized by a few partial rights, such as some religious and social freedoms, some highly restricted private business activity, and relatively free private discussion. Rating of 7 -- States and territories with a rating of 7 have virtually no freedom. An overwhelming and justified fear of repression characterizes these societies. Countries and territories generally have ratings in political rights and civil liberties that are within two ratings numbers of each other. Without a well-developed civil society, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have an atmosphere supportive of political rights. Consequently, there is no country in the survey with a rating of 6 or 7 for civil liberties and, at the same time, a rating of 1 or 2 for political rights.

Analysis unit

The units of analysis in the survey arel countries

Kind of data

Observation data/ratings [obs]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

The South American nation with the highest prison population rate in 2024 was Uruguay, with 449 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, followed by Brazil, with 389 prisoners. The country in South America with the lowest prison population rate was Ecuador, with 179 per 100,000 persons.

The 1922 Prison System Enquiry Committee Report said that: 'In order to judge our Prison system rightly it is necessary to know what kind of people become prisoners... How many go to prison? For what length of sentence?' These questions persist, and are especially relevant for today's prison crisis. This project will assess nearly 100 years of historical data to explore, for the first time, how prison numbers were largely dictated by the repeat incarceration of recidivist's offenders with short sentences. It questions how the prison authorities attempted to manage increasing numbers of offenders by using early release schemes (licenses) in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (licenses have only recently become available, generous access granted by The National Archives). This project will explore whether short sentences contributed to repeat offending, and whether early release schemes accelerated or inhibited recidivism. It investigates the financial costs of imprisonment to the country (and the human costs to those imprisoned) and does this over a significant period of time (allowing an examination of how repeated incarcerations affected the whole of an offender's criminal career). It concludes by asking what lessons can be learnt for today's debates about sentencing offenders and managing the prison population? Data was derived from the following sources: PCOM 3 (1853-1887, 1902-08, 1912-42) – these files contained 45,000 licenses and also the registers of license holders. They listed the prisoner’s name, sentence, where/when convicted, dates and conditions of the current license; previous convictions, age, previous occupation, when and from where the prisoner was released; and most had photographs of the prisoner. The National Archives granted us access to these records pre public release (they are now available on Find-My-Past and Ancestry). Criminal Registers 1853-1892 (contained offenders tried for indictable crimes, whether they were found guilty, details of the offence, and sentence imposed). Where possible we traced these offences in the Quarter Sessions Calendars in order to trace the antecedent criminal history. From these main sources, we were then able to trace prisoners released on license using a wide variety of other extant sources. These sources provided us with a considerable amount of additional information on offenders who were released on license: Census returns from 1841-1911 censuses (which gave details of the residence, family status, and occupation, of each person we will be searching for). Online Birth, Marriage and Death indices (which detailed if and when our offender was married, and had children; and, of course, when they died). Military records (mainly referring to World War One; these included service records - which in turn included disciplinary breaches - medal indices and pensions details. Metropolitan Police records including Habitual Criminal Registers (MEPO 6) which contain details of criminals as defined by sections 5-8 of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871. From the sources above we constructed approximately 650 life grids. These were divided into an early (1853-55 n=62), middle (1871-73 n=201), and late (1885-1887 n=184) tranche, for 356 men and 288 women. Each life-grid charted offending/life histories for each offender. Studies funded by Leverhulme Trust (F/00130/H)) and ESRC (RES-062-23-0416) used life grids and `whole-life’ research methods and the method is now well-tested. The life-grid data was then entered into excel and SPSS in order to produce quantifiable data on - the progress of their criminal careers, their periods of incarceration, their employment careers, life events such as marriage, death of parents, and other significant life events. We had over two hundred thousand fields of data at the conclusion of our data collection/analysis. By analysing each of the life grids we were able to see the relationships and connections between life events and offending post-imprisonment (both short and long periods of custody, whilst on licence, and after license had expired.

This dataset tracks annual two or more races student percentage from 2013 to 2020 for Lee County Jail vs. Florida and Lee School District

This dataset tracks annual two or more races student percentage from 2017 to 2018 for Hernando County Jail vs. Florida and Hernando School District

Historical Dataset of Hernando County Jail is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Total Students Trends Over Years (2012-2023),Distribution of Students By Grade Trends,Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2012-2022),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2012-2023),White Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2012-2023),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2017-2018),Diversity Score Comparison Over Years (2012-2023),Free Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (2014-2023),Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (2014-2023),Graduation Rate Comparison Over Years (2012-2020)