In 2023, the FBI reported that there were 9,284 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,289 white murder victims. In comparison, there were 554 murder victims of unknown race and 586 victims of another race. Victims of inequality? In recent years, the role of racial inequality in violent crimes such as robberies, assaults, and homicides has gained public attention. In particular, the issue of police brutality has led to increasing attention following the murder of George Floyd, an African American who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Studies show that the rate of fatal police shootings for Black Americans was more than double the rate reported of other races. Crime reporting National crime data in the United States is based off the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new crime reporting system, which requires law enforcement agencies to self-report their data in detail. Due to the recent implementation of this system, less crime data has been reported, with some states such as Delaware and Pennsylvania declining to report any data to the FBI at all in the last few years, suggesting that the Bureau's data may not fully reflect accurate information on crime in the United States.

In 2023, a total of 5,439 white Americans were arrested for arson in the United States in comparison to 1,876 Americans who were Black or African American.

In 2022, the prevalence of violent crime increased for all races in the United States in comparison to the previous year. In that year, around **** percent of White Americans experienced one or more violent victimizations and approximately **** percent of Black or African American people were the victims of a violent crime.

Number, percentage and rate (per 100,000 population) of homicide victims, by racialized identity group (total, by racialized identity group; racialized identity group; South Asian; Chinese; Black; Filipino; Arab; Latin American; Southeast Asian; West Asian; Korean; Japanese; other racialized identity group; multiple racialized identity; racialized identity, but racialized identity group is unknown; rest of the population; unknown racialized identity group), gender (all genders; male; female; gender unknown) and region (Canada; Atlantic region; Quebec; Ontario; Prairies region; British Columbia; territories), 2019 to 2023.

In 2023, there were ***** victims of anti-Black or African American intimidation hate crimes in the United States. A further *** people were the victims of anti-Black or African American simple assault hate crimes in that year.

The graph illustrates the number of victims of race-based hate crimes in the United States in 2023. The x-axis lists various ethnic groups, while the y-axis represents the corresponding number of victims. The data reveals that Anti-Black hate crimes were the most prevalent, with 3224 victims, followed by Anti-Hispanic and Anti-Asian crimes with 861and 430 victims respectively. Other categories include Anti-Other Race (418), Anti-American Indian (112), Anti-Arab (154), and Anti-Native Pacific (15). The data indicates a significant disparity in the number of victims across different ethnic groups, with Anti-Black hate crimes being the most prominent.

The graph illustrates the number of hate crime incidents against white people in the United States from 1991 to 2023. The x-axis represents the years, spanning from '91 to '23, while the y-axis indicates the annual number of incidents. Over this 33-year period, the number of incidents ranges from a low of 528 in 2011 to a high of 1,480 in 1993. Notable figures include 841 incidents in 1991, a decline to 539 in 2009, and a recent increase to 868 in 2023. The data shows a general downward trend in hate crime incidents from the early 1990s through the mid-2010s, followed by a significant rise in the latter years. This information is presented in a line graph format, effectively highlighting the long-term decrease and recent resurgence in hate crime incidents against white individuals in the United States.

The average for 2016 based on 74 countries was 783 thefts per 100,000 people. The highest value was in Denmark: 3949 thefts per 100,000 people and the lowest value was in Senegal: 1 thefts per 100,000 people. The indicator is available from 2003 to 2016. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

In 2023, there were ***** victims of anti-Black or African American hate crimes in the United States, making it the racially motivated hate crime with the most victims in that year. The second most common racially motivated hate crime, anti-Hispanic or Latino crimes, had ***** victims in that year.

The study was a comprehensive analysis of felonious killings of officers. The purposes of the study were (1) to analyze the nature and circumstances of incidents of felonious police killings and (2) to analyze trends in the numbers and rates of killings across different types of agencies and to explain these differences. For Part 1, Incident-Level Data, an incident-level database was created to capture all incidents involving the death of a police officer from 1983 through 1992. Data on officers and incidents were collected from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data collection as coded by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. In addition to the UCR data, the Police Foundation also coded information from the LEOKA narratives that are not part of the computerized LEOKA database from the FBI. For Part 2, Agency-Level Data, the researchers created an agency-level database to research systematic differences among rates at which law enforcement officers had been feloniously killed from 1977 through 1992. The investigators focused on the 56 largest law enforcement agencies because of the availability of data for explanatory variables. Variables in Part 1 include year of killing, involvement of other officers, if the officer was killed with his/her own weapon, circumstances of the killing, location of fatal wounds, distance between officer and offender, if the victim was wearing body armor, if different officers were killed in the same incident, if the officer was in uniform, actions of the killer and of the officer at entry and final stage, if the killer was visible at first, if the officer thought the killer was a felon suspect, if the officer was shot at entry, and circumstances at anticipation, entry, and final stages. Demographic variables for Part 1 include victim's sex, age, race, type of assignment, rank, years of experience, agency, population group, and if the officer was working a security job. Part 2 contains variables describing the general municipal environment, such as whether the agency is located in the South, level of poverty according to a poverty index, population density, percent of population that was Hispanic or Black, and population aged 15-34 years old. Variables capturing the crime environment include the violent crime rate, property crime rate, and a gun-related crime index. Lastly, variables on the environment of the police agencies include violent and property crime arrests per 1,000 sworn officers, percentage of officers injured in assaults, and number of sworn officers.

This research project examined rural and urban trends in family and intimate partner homicide for the 20-year period from 1980 through 1999. The construct of place served as a backdrop against which changes in trends in family/partner homicide were tracked, and against which various independent measures that purportedly explain variation in the rates were tested. The project merged data from several sources. The offender data file from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) series for 1980 through 1999 was the primary data source. Data for arrests for violent crime, drug, and alcohol-related offenses were obtained from the FBI Report A Arrest File. Population, population density, and race (and racial segregation) data from the decennial U.S. Census for 1980, 1990, and 2000 were also obtained. Data on hospitals, educational attainment, unemployment, and per capita income were obtained from the 2002 Area Resource File (ARF). The total number of proprietors (farm and non-farm) in the United States by state and county for each year were provided by the Regional Economic Profiles data. The project's population and proximity indicator used four categories: metropolitan, nonmetropolitan populations adjacent to a metropolitan area, nonmetropolitan populations not adjacent to a metropolitan area, and rural. Data include homicide rates for 1980 through 1999 for intimate partner homicide, family homicide, all other homicide, and all homicide. Additional variables are included as measures of community socioeconomic distress, such as residential overcrowding, isolation, traditionalist views of women and family, lack of access to health care, and substance abuse. Five-year averages are included for each of the rates and measures listed above.

This study was designed to collect college student victimization data to satisfy four primary objectives: (1) to determine the prevalence and nature of campus crime, (2) to help the campus community more fully assess crime, perceived risk, fear of victimization, and security problems, (3) to aid in the development and evaluation of location-specific and campus-wide security policies and crime prevention measures, and (4) to make a contribution to the theoretical study of campus crime and security. Data for Part 1, Student-Level Data, and Part 2, Incident-Level Data, were collected from a random sample of college students in the United States using a structured telephone interview modeled after the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Using stratified random sampling, over 3,000 college students from 12 schools were interviewed. Researchers collected detailed information about the incident and the victimization, and demographic characteristics of victims and nonvictims, as well as data on self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 3, School Data, the researchers surveyed campus officials at the sampled schools and gathered official data to supplement institution-level crime prevention information obtained from the students. Mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus security or campus police at the 12 sampled schools, addressing various aspects of campus security, crime prevention programs, and crime prevention services available on the campuses. Additionally, mail-back surveys were sent to directors of campus planning, facilities management, or related offices at the same 12 schools to obtain information on the extent and type of planning and design actions taken by the campus for crime prevention. Part 3 also contains data on the characteristics of the 12 schools obtained from PETERSON'S GUIDE TO FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES (1994). Part 4, Census Data, is comprised of 1990 Census data describing the census tracts in which the 12 schools were located and all tracts adjacent to the schools. Demographic variables in Part 1 include year of birth, sex, race, marital status, current enrollment status, employment status, residency status, and parents' education. Victimization variables include whether the student had ever been a victim of theft, burglary, robbery, motor vehicle theft, assault, sexual assault, vandalism, or harassment. Students who had been victimized were also asked the number of times victimization incidents occurred, how often the police were called, and if they knew the perpetrator. All students were asked about measures of self-protection, fear of crime, perceptions of crime on campus, and campus security measures. For Part 2, questions were asked about the location of each incident, whether the offender had a weapon, a description of the offense and the victim's response, injuries incurred, characteristics of the offender, and whether the incident was reported to the police. For Part 3, respondents were asked about how general campus security needs were met, the nature and extent of crime prevention programs and services available at the school (including when the program or service was first implemented), and recent crime prevention activities. Campus planners were asked if specific types of campus security features (e.g., emergency telephone, territorial markers, perimeter barriers, key-card access, surveillance cameras, crime safety audits, design review for safety features, trimming shrubs and underbrush to reduce hiding places, etc.) were present during the 1993-1994 academic year and if yes, how many or how often. Additionally, data were collected on total full-time enrollment, type of institution, percent of undergraduate female students enrolled, percent of African-American students enrolled, acreage, total fraternities, total sororities, crime rate of city/county where the school was located, and the school's Carnegie classification. For Part 4, Census data were compiled on percent unemployed, percent having a high school degree or higher, percent of all persons below the poverty level, and percent of the population that was Black.

Abstract (en): These data provide official index crime rates and social and economic indicators of crime rates at three levels of aggregation (city, state, and metropolitan areas) for four decennial years: 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1980. Information is provided on Uniform Crime Reports murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, and vehicle theft rates per 100,000 population. Social and economic indicators include percent black population, percent divorced males, the mean and median family incomes, families below the poverty line, and percent unemployed for each area. The availability of the data for the crime rates in 1980 determined the geographic locations included in the data collection. Data from earlier years do not exist for all geographic locations for which data were available in 1980. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. 2006-01-18 File CB6151.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. Funding insitution(s): National Science Foundation (SES8217865). The codebook is provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

This table contains data on the rate of violent crime (crimes per 1,000 population) for California, its regions, counties, cities and towns. Crime and population data are from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports. Rates above the city/town level include data from city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Ten percent of all deaths in young California adults aged 15-44 years are related to assault and homicide. In 2010, California law enforcement agencies reported 1,809 murders, 8,331 rapes, and over 95,000 aggravated assaults. African Americans in California are 11 times more likely to die of assault and homicide than Whites. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Thief Lake township by race. It includes the population of Thief Lake township across racial categories (excluding ethnicity) as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Thief Lake township across relevant racial categories.

Key observations

The percent distribution of Thief Lake township population by race (across all racial categories recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau): 93.33% are white and 6.67% are Black or African American.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Racial categories include:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some other race
• Two or more races (multiracial)

Variables / Data Columns

• Race: This column displays the racial categories (excluding ethnicity) for the Thief Lake township
• Population: The population of the racial category (excluding ethnicity) in the Thief Lake township is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each race as a proportion of Thief Lake township total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Thief Lake township Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Non-Hispanic population of Thief Lake township by race. It includes the distribution of the Non-Hispanic population of Thief Lake township across various race categories as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the Non-Hispanic population distribution of Thief Lake township across relevant racial categories.

Key observations

With a zero Hispanic population, Thief Lake township is 100% Non-Hispanic. Among the Non-Hispanic population, the largest racial group is White alone with a population of 28 (93.33% of the total Non-Hispanic population).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Racial categories include:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some other race
• Two or more races (multiracial)

Variables / Data Columns

• Race: This column displays the racial categories (for Non-Hispanic) for the Thief Lake township
• Population: The population of the racial category (for Non-Hispanic) in the Thief Lake township is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each race as a proportion of Thief Lake township total Non-Hispanic population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Thief Lake township Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Thief River Falls by race. It includes the population of Thief River Falls across racial categories (excluding ethnicity) as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Thief River Falls across relevant racial categories.

Key observations

The percent distribution of Thief River Falls population by race (across all racial categories recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau): 90.58% are white, 1.75% are Black or African American, 0.45% are American Indian and Alaska Native, 0.67% are Asian, 1.90% are some other race and 4.65% are multiracial.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Racial categories include:

• White
• Black or African American
• American Indian and Alaska Native
• Asian
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
• Some other race
• Two or more races (multiracial)

Variables / Data Columns

• Race: This column displays the racial categories (excluding ethnicity) for the Thief River Falls
• Population: The population of the racial category (excluding ethnicity) in the Thief River Falls is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each race as a proportion of Thief River Falls total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Thief River Falls Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

In 2023, 8,842 murderers in the United States were white, while 6,405 were Black. A further 461 murderers were of another race, including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. However, not all law enforcement agencies submitted homicide data to the FBI in 2023, meaning there may be more murder offenders of each race than depicted. While the majority of circumstances behind murders in the U.S. are unknown, narcotics, robberies, and gang killings are most commonly identified.

The purpose of the study was to assess the impact of Latino ethnicity on pretrial release decisions in large urban counties. The study examined two questions: Are Latino defendants less likely to receive pretrial releases than non-Latino defendants? Are Latino defendants in counties where the Latino population is rapidly increasing less likely to receive pretrial releases than Latino defendants in counties where the Latino population is not rapidly increasing? The study utilized the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) Database (see STATE COURT PROCESSING STATISTICS, 1990-2004: FELONY DEFENDANTS IN LARGE URBAN COUNTIES [ICPSR 2038]). The SCPS collects data on felony cases filed in state courts in 40 of the nation's 75 largest counties over selected sample dates in the month of May of every even numbered year, and tracks a representative sample of felony case defendants from arrest through sentencing. Data in the collection include 118,556 cases. Researchers supplemented the SCPS with county-level information from several sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program county-level data series of index crimes reported to the police for the years 1988-2004 (see UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS: COUNTY-LEVEL DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1998 [ICPSR 9335], UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA [UNITED STATES]: COUNTY-LEVEL DETAILED ARREST AND OFFENSE DATA, 1990 [ICPSR 9785], 1992 [ICPSR 6316], 1994 [ICPSR 6669], 1996 [ICPSR 2389], 1998 [ICPSR 2910], 2000 [ICPRS 3451], 2002 [ICPSR 4009], and 2004 [ICPSR 4466]). Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Survey of Jails, Jurisdiction-Level data series for the years 1988-2004 (see ANNUAL SURVEY OF JAILS: JURISDICTION-LEVEL DATA, 1990 [ICPSR 9569], 1992 [ICPSR 6395], 1994 [ICPSR 6538], 1996 [ICPSR 6856], 1998 [ICPSR 2682], 2000 [ICPSR 3882], 2002 [ICPSR 4428], and 2004 [ICPSR 20200]). Bureau of Justice Statistics National Prosecutors Survey/Census data series 1990-2005 (see NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1990 [ICPSR 9579], 1992 [ICPSR 6273], 1994 [ICPSR 6785], 1996 [ICPSR 2433], 2001 census [ICPSR 3418], and 2005 [ICPSR 4600]). United States Census Bureau State and County Quickfacts. National Center for State Courts, State Court Organization reports, 1993 (see NCJ 148346), 1998 (see NCJ 178932), and 2004 (see NCJ 212351). Bureau of Justice Statistics Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties reports, 1992 (see NCJ 148826), 1994 (see NCJ 164616), 1996 (see NCJ 176981), 1998 (see NJC 187232), 2000 (see NCJ 202021), and 2002 (see NJC 210818). The data include defendant level variables such as most serious current offense charge, number of charges, prior felony convictions, prior misdemeanor convictions, prior incarcerations, criminal justice status at arrest, prior failure to appear, age, gender, ethnicity, and race. County level variables include region, crime rate, two year change in crime rate, caseload rate, jail capacity, two year change in jail capacity, judicial selection by election or appointment, prosecutor screens cases, and annual expenditure on prosecutor's office. Racial threat stimuli variables include natural log of the percentage of the county population that is Latino, natural log of the percentage of the county population that is African American, change in the percentage of the county population that is Latino over the last six years and change in the percentage of the county population that is African American over the last six years. Cross-level interaction variables include percentage minority (Latino/African American) population zero percent to 15 percent, percentage minority (Latino/African American) population 16 percent to 30 percent, and percentage minority (Latino/African American) population 31 percent or higher.

Source:

Creator: Michael Redmond (redmond '@' lasalle.edu); Computer Science; La Salle University; Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA -- culled from 1990 US Census, 1995 US FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1990 US Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics Survey, available from ICPSR at U of Michigan. -- Donor: Michael Redmond (redmond '@' lasalle.edu); Computer Science; La Salle University; Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA -- Date: July 2009

Data Set Information:

Many variables are included so that algorithms that select or learn weights for attributes could be tested. However, clearly unrelated attributes were not included; attributes were picked if there was any plausible connection to crime (N=122), plus the attribute to be predicted (Per Capita Violent Crimes). 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 per capita violent crimes variable was calculated using population and the sum of crime variables considered violent crimes in the United States: murder, rape, robbery, and assault. There was apparently some controversy in some states concerning the counting of rapes. These resulted in missing values for rape, which resulted in incorrect values for per capita violent crime. These cities are not included in the dataset. Many of these omitted communities were from the midwestern USA.

Data is described below based on original values. All numeric data was normalized into the decimal range 0.00-1.00 using an Unsupervised, equal-interval binning method. Attributes retain their distribution and skew (hence for example the population attribute has a mean value of 0.06 because most communities are small). E.g. An attribute described as 'mean people per household' is actually the normalized (0-1) version of that value.

The normalization preserves rough ratios of values WITHIN an attribute (e.g. double the value for double the population within the available precision - except for extreme values (all values more than 3 SD above the mean are normalized to 1.00; all values more than 3 SD below the mean are normalized to 0.00)).

However, the normalization does not preserve relationships between values BETWEEN attributes (e.g. it would not be meaningful to compare the value for whitePerCap with the value for blackPerCap for a community)

A limitation was that the LEMAS survey was of the police departments with at least 100 officers, plus a random sample of smaller departments. For our purposes, communities not found in both census and crime datasets were omitted. Many communities are missing LEMAS data.

Attribute Information:

'(125 predictive, 4 non-predictive, 18 potential goal) ', ' communityname: Community name - not predictive - for information only (string) ', ' state: US state (by 2 letter postal abbreviation)(nominal) ', ' countyCode: numeric code for county - not predictive, and many missing values (numeric) ', ' communityCode: numeric code for community - not predictive and many missing values (numeric) ', ' fold: fold number for non-random 10 fold cross validation, potentially useful for debugging, paired tests - not predictive (numeric - integer) ', ' population: population for community: (numeric - expected to be integer) ', ' householdsize: mean people per household (numeric - decimal) ', ' racepctblack: percentage of population that is african american (numeric - decimal) ', ' racePctWhite: percentage of population that is caucasian (numeric - decimal) ', ' racePctAsian: percentage of population that is of asian heritage (numeric - decimal) ', ' racePctHisp: percentage of population that is of hispanic heritage (numeric - decimal) ', ' agePct12t21: percentage of population that is 12-21 in age (numeric - decimal) ', ' agePct12t29: percentage of population that is 12-29 in age (numeric - decimal) ', ' agePct16t24: percentage of population that is 16-24 in age (numeric - decimal) ', ' agePct65up: percentage of population that is 65 and over in age (numeric - decimal) ', ' numbUrban: number of people living in areas classified as urban (numeric - expected to be integer) ', ' pctUrban: percentage of people living in areas classified as urban (numeric - decimal) ', ' medIncome: median household income (numeric - may be integer) ', ' pctWWage: percentage of households with wage or salary income in 1989 (numeric - decimal) ', ' pctWFarmSelf: percentage of households with farm or self employment income in 1989 (numeric - decimal) ', ' pctWInvInc: percentage of households with investment / rent income in 1989 (numeric - decimal) ', ' pctWSocSec: percentage of households with social security income in 1989 (numeric - decimal) ', ' pctWPubAsst: pe...