Knowing the racial and ethnic composition of a community is often one of the first steps in understanding, serving, and advocating for various groups. This information can help enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on race and ethnicity. These statistics can also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.This multi-scale map shows the most common race/ethnicity living within an area. Map opens at tract-level in Los Angeles, CA but has national coverage. Zoom out to see counties and states.This map uses these hosted feature layers containing the most recent American Community Survey data. These layers are part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas, and are updated every year when the American Community Survey releases new estimates, so values in the map always reflect the newest data available. The data on race were derived from answers to the question on race that was asked of individuals in the United States. The Census Bureau collects racial data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. The categories represent a social-political construct designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based. Learn more here.

Annual Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin; for the United States, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 // Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division // The contents of this file are released on a rolling basis from December through June. // Note: 'In combination' means in combination with one or more other races. The sum of the five race-in-combination groups adds to more than the total population because individuals may report more than one race. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. Responses of 'Some Other Race' from the 2010 Census are modified. This results in differences between the population for specific race categories shown for the 2010 Census population in this file versus those in the original 2010 Census data. The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. // Current data on births, deaths, and migration are used to calculate population change since the 2010 Census. An annual time series of estimates is produced, beginning with the census and extending to the vintage year. The vintage year (e.g., Vintage 2019) refers to the final year of the time series. The reference date for all estimates is July 1, unless otherwise specified. With each new issue of estimates, the entire estimates series is revised. Additional information, including historical and intercensal estimates, evaluation estimates, demographic analysis, research papers, and methodology is available on website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) primarily measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions included age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covered substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and included questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. The survey included questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health-related disorders. Respondents were also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2014 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention-related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey. For the 2008 survey, adult mental health questions were added to measure symptoms of psychological distress in the worst period of distress that a person experienced in the past 30 days and suicidal ideation. In 2008, a split-sample design also was included to administer separate sets of questions (WHODAS vs. SDS) to assess impairment due to mental health problems. Beginning with the 2009 NSDUH, however, all of the adults in the sample received only the WHODAS questions. Background information includes gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.

This map shows the percentage of people who identify as something other than non-Hispanic white throughout the US according to the most current American Community Survey. The pattern is shown by states, counties, and Census tracts. Zoom or search for anywhere in the US to see a local pattern. Click on an area to learn more. Filter to your area and save a new version of the map to use for your own mapping purposes.The Arcade expression used was: 100 - B03002_calc_pctNHWhiteE, which is simply 100 minus the percent of population who identifies as non-Hispanic white. The data is from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS). The figures in this map update automatically annually when the newest estimates are released by ACS. For more detailed metadata, visit the ArcGIS Living Atlas Layer: ACS Race and Hispanic Origin Variables - Boundaries.The data on race were derived from answers to the question on race that was asked of individuals in the United States. The Census Bureau collects racial data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. The categories represent a social-political construct designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country, and are not anthropologically or scientifically based. Learn more here.Other maps of interest:American Indian or Alaska Native Population in the US (Current ACS)Asian Population in the US (Current ACS)Black or African American Population in the US (Current ACS)Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Population in the US (Current ACS)Hispanic or Latino Population in the US (Current ACS) (some people prefer Latinx)Population who are Some Other Race in the US (Current ACS)Population who are Two or More Races in the US (Current ACS) (some people prefer mixed race or multiracial)White Population in the US (Current ACS)Race in the US by Dot DensityWhat is the most common race/ethnicity?

Relative concentration of the Sierra Nevada region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 775 block groups in the Sierra Nevada RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Sierra Nevada RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

Relative concentration of the Southern California region's Asian American population. The variable ASIANALN records all individuals who select Asian as their SOLE racial identity in response to the Census questionnaire, regardless of their response to the Hispanic ethnicity question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic in the Census questionnaire are potentially associated with the Asian race alone.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as ASIANALN alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 13,312 block groups in the Southern California RRK region that identify as ASIANALN alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of ASIANALN individuals compared to the Southern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then ASIANALN individuals are highly concentrated locally.

This research examines the question of parental choice of secondary schools in Manchester and Stockport. In particular, it will explore the extent to which parents are seeking schools with specific ethnic and class populations ('people like us'). The project investigates the way in which schools are intimately connected to local spaces and the ways in which parents perceive and participate in their local communities. In-depth qualitative interviews with parents, as well as observations in schools, will be analysed to illuminate how people often view local areas as marked by specific race and class characteristics and how this influences their everyday interactions. It will also enable an analysis of how this affects the way they engage with local institutions, such as schools. The research will analyse how and why parents do or do not consider questions of race, ethnicity and class in their evaluations of schools. This links to questions of the extent to which they are engaged producing a sense of ethnic, race or class identity for their children. The research will also throw light on parents' perceptions of local areas and community and how this is influenced by their understanding of its class and ethnic make-up.This research examines the question of parental choice of secondary schools in Manchester and Stockport. In particular, it will explore the extent to which parents are seeking schools with specific ethnic and class populations ('people like us'). The project investigates the way in which schools are intimately connected to local spaces and the ways in which parents perceive and participate in their local communities. In-depth qualitative interviews with parents, as well as observations in schools, will be analysed to illuminate how people often view local areas as marked by specific race and class characteristics and how this influences their everyday interactions. It will also enable an analysis of how this affects the way they engage with local institutions, such as schools. The research will analyse how and why parents do or do not consider questions of race, ethnicity and class in their evaluations of schools. This links to questions of the extent to which they are engaged producing a sense of ethnic, race or class identity for their children. The research will also throw light on parents' perceptions of local areas and community and how this is influenced by their understanding of its class and ethnic make-up.

This survey was designed to investigate whether having psychological connections to particular groups (ex: racial, ethnic, and national origin groups) and perceptions of discrimination lead to alienation from the structure and operation of representative democracy in the United States. The data allow for comparative ethnic analyses of people's views regarding the representative-constituent relationship and of the conditions under which group identifications and perceptions of discrimination matter. The survey includes oversamples of Black, Latino, and Asian respondents. A Spanish version of the survey was available. Demographic information retrieved about respondents include age, race/ethnicity, gender, education (highest degree received), employment status, marital status, religion, household size and income. In addition, ancestry was assessed with the question, "From what countries or parts of the world did your ancestors come?" Respondents also reported United States citizenship status, primary home language, and nationality. Variables focusing on respondent perceived representation in the United States include political ideology and political party affiliation.

This study is part of the American National Election Studies (ANES), a time series collection of national surveys fielded since 1948. The American National Election Studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. The files included in this study are restricted-use due to the race, nationality, immigration, and heritage data contained in them for the year listed in the title.

Relative concentration of the Central California region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) American population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 4,961 block groups in the Central California RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Central California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

Asian Indians were the first South Asians to immigrate to the United States in the late 1800s and are currently the largest ethnic group of South Asians living in the United States. Despite this the literature on perceived ethnic and racial discrimination experiences among this group is relatively understudied. The documented experiences of Asian Indians who either recently immigrated from India or were born and raised in America pose an important question: what are the experiences of perceived discrimination among Asian Indians living in America, particularly among younger populations who are continuing to develop their racial and ethnic identities? The current study utilized phenomenological methodology to explore the experiences of nine Asian Indian American adolescents' (ages 12–17 years). Data were collected via semi-structured interviews to assess participants' experiences of ethnic and racial discrimination and identity development. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes among the participants' responses. Asian Indian adolescents living in the United States report experiencing discrimination at a young age. It is also evident that Asian Indian youth experience significant challenges when developing their sense of ethnic and racial identity while living within the United States. Findings document the racial and ethnic discrimination that Asian Indian adolescents living in the United States may experience from a young age. Importantly, these discrimination experiences are occurring as Asian Indian adolescents are developing their racial and ethnic identities. This study provides insight for future research, which is necessary to fully understand the experiences of Asian Indian adolescents.

The Los Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) continues the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Studies (LAMAS) and the Southern California Social Surveys (SCSS). The Log Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) is part of a continuing annual research project supported by the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Each year a University of California researcher is given an opportunity to be principal investigator and to use a segment of the LACSS for his or her own research. The 1992 principal investigator was Dr. Lawrence Bobo, who was an Associate Professor of Sociology at UCLA. The LACSS 1992 was conducted between February and July 1992. Los Angeles County residents were asked questions concerning ethnic relations, social dominance, social distance, immigration, affirmative action, employment, and government. A split ballot methodology was utilized concerning the topics of immigration and affirmative action. Respondents were randomly selected to answer a series of questions from one of three ballots. In addition, a different series of social distance questions were asked depending on the respondent's ethnicity. Questionnaires were provided in both English and Spanish languages. Demographic information collected includes race, gender, religion, age, education level, occupation, birth place, political party affiliation and ideology, and origin of ancestry.

This survey of minority groups was part of a larger project to investigate the patterns, predictors, and consequences of midlife development in the areas of physical health, psychological well-being, and social responsibility. Conducted in Chicago and New York City, the survey was designed to assess the well-being of middle-aged, urban, ethnic minority adults living in both hyper-segregated neighborhoods and in areas with lower concentrations of minorities. Respondents' views were sought on issues relevant to quality of life, including health, childhood and family background, religion, race and ethnicity, personal beliefs, work experiences, marital and close relationships, financial situation, children, community involvement, and neighborhood characteristics. Questions on health explored the respondents' physical and emotional well-being, past and future attitudes toward health, physical limitations, energy level and appetite, amount of time spent worrying about health, and physical reactions to those worries. Questions about childhood and family background elicited information on family structure, the role of the parents with regard to child rearing, parental education, employment status, and supervisory responsibilities at work, the family financial situation including experiences with the welfare system, relationships with siblings, and whether as a child the respondent slept in the same bed as a parent or adult relative. Questions on religion covered religious preference, whether it is good to explore different religious teachings, and the role of religion in daily decision-making. Questions about race and ethnicity investigated respondents' backgrounds and experiences as minorities, including whether respondents preferred to be with people of the same racial group, how important they thought it was to marry within one's racial or ethnic group, citizenship, reasons for moving to the United States and the challenges faced since their arrival, their native language, how they would rate the work ethic of certain ethnic groups, their views on race relations, and their experiences with discrimination. Questions on personal beliefs probed for respondents' satisfaction with life and confidence in their opinions. Respondents were asked whether they had control over changing their life or their personality, and what age they viewed as the ideal age. They also rated people in their late 20s in the areas of physical health, contribution to the welfare and well-being of others, marriage and close relationships, relationships with their children, work situation, and financial situation. Questions on work experiences covered respondents' employment status, employment history, future employment goals, number of hours worked weekly, number of nights away from home due to work, exposure to the risk of accident or injury, relationships with coworkers and supervisors, work-related stress, and experience with discrimination in the workplace. A series of questions was posed on marriage and close relationships, including marital status, quality and length of relationships, whether the respondent had control over his or her relationships, and spouse/partner's education, physical and mental health, employment status, and work schedule. Questions on finance explored respondents' financial situation, financial planning, household income, retirement plans, insurance coverage, and whether the household had enough money. Questions on children included the number of children in the household, quality of respondents' relationships with their children, prospects for their children's future, child care coverage, and whether respondents had changed their work schedules to accommodate a child's illness. Additional topics focused on children's identification with their culture, their relationships with friends of different backgrounds, and their experiences with racism. Community involvement was another area of investigation, with items on respondents' role in child-rearing, participation on a jury, voting behavior, involvement in charitable organizations, volunteer experiences, whether they made monetary or clothing donations, and experiences living in an institutional setting or being homeless. Respondents were also queried about their neighborhoods, with items on neighborhood problems including racism, vandalism, crime, drugs, poor schools, teenag

Release Date: 2021-01-28.The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and has approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied (Approval ID: CBDRB-FY20-424)...Release Schedule:.Data in this file come from estimates of business ownership by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status from the 2019 Annual Business Survey (ABS) collection. Data are also obtained from administrative records, the 2017 Economic Census, and other economic surveys...Note: The collection year is the year in which the data are collected. A reference year is the year that is referenced in the questions on the survey and in which the statistics are tabulated. For example, the 2019 ABS collection year produces statistics for the 2018 reference year. The "Year" column in the table is the reference year...For more information about ABS planned data product releases, see Tentative ABS Schedule...Key Table Information:.This is the only table in the ABS series to provide information on select economic and demographic characteristics of business owners (CBO) for U.S. employer firms that reported the sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status for up to four persons owning the largest percentage(s) of the business. The data include estimates for owners of U.S. respondent firms with paid employees operating during the reference year with receipts of $1,000 or more, which are classified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), Sectors 11 through 99, except for NAICS 111, 112, 482, 491, 521, 525, 813, 814, and 92 which are not covered. Owners of employer firms with more than one domestic establishment are counted in each geographic area and industry in which the firm operates, but only once in the U.S. and state totals for all sectors. Firms are asked to report their employees as of the March 12 pay period...Data Items and Other Identifying Records:.Data include estimates on:.Number of owners of respondent employer firms. Percent of number of owners of respondent employer firms (%)...These data are aggregated at the owner level for up to four persons owning the largest percentages of the business by the following demographic classifications:.All owners of respondent firms. Sex. Female. Male. . . Ethnicity. Hispanic. Non-Hispanic. . . Race. White. Black or African American. American Indian and Alaska Native. Asian. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Minority (Firms classified as any race and ethnicity combination other than non-Hispanic and White). Nonminority (Firms classified as non-Hispanic and White). . . Veteran Status (defined as having served in any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces). Veteran. Nonveteran. . . ...Data Notes:.. Data are tabulated at the owner level.. Respondents are informed that Hispanic origins are not races and are instructed to answer both the Hispanic origin and race questions.. An owner can be tabulated in more than one racial group. This can result because:. The sole owner was reported to be of more than one race.. The majority owner was reported to be of more than one race.. A majority combination of owners was reported to be of more than one race.. . An owner cannot be tabulated with two mutually exclusive demographic classifications (e.g. both as a veteran and a nonveteran.). CBO data are not designed to produce estimates for all U.S. business owners as information was only collected for up to four owners per firm. Researchers analyzing data to create their own estimates are responsible for the validity of those estimates and should cite the Census Bureau as the source of the original data only....Owner Characteristics:.The ABS asked for information for up to four persons owning the largest percentage(s) of the business. Respondent firms include all firms that responded to the characteristics tabulated in this dataset and that reported sex, ethnicity, race, or veteran status for at least one business owner so that the classification of owners of respondent firms by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status could be determined. Furthermore, the ABS was designed to include select questions about owner characteristics from multiple reference periods and to incorporate new content each survey year based on topics of relevance. Percentages are for owners of respondent firms only and are not recalculated when the dataset is resorted. Percentages are always based on total reporting (defined above) within a sex, ethnicity, race, veteran status, and/or industry group for the characteristics tabulated in this dataset...To see the specific survey questions for which estimates are provided in this table, visit the following:... Owner Characteristics collected on the 2019 Annual Business Survey...Industry and Geography Cover...

These datasets provide a breakdown of ethnic group by age and sex, ethnic group by age and ethnic group by sex

Information from Census 2021 on the sex and age characteristics of ethnic groups and how this has changed since 2011 in England and Wales.

Since 1991, the census for England and Wales has included a question about ethnic group.

In 2021, the ethnic group question had two stages. Firstly, a person identified through one of the following five high-level ethnic groups:

• "Asian, Asian British, Asian Welsh"

• "Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African"

• "Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups"

• "White"

• "Other ethnic group"

Secondly, a person identifies through 1 of the 19 available response options, which include categories with write-in response options.

Annual Resident Population Estimates by Age Group, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin; for the United States, States, Counties; and for Puerto Rico and its Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 // Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division // The contents of this file are released on a rolling basis from December through June. // Note: 'In combination' means in combination with one or more other races. The sum of the five race-in-combination groups adds to more than the total population because individuals may report more than one race. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. Responses of 'Some Other Race' from the 2010 Census are modified. This results in differences between the population for specific race categories shown for the 2010 Census population in this file versus those in the original 2010 Census data. The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. // Current data on births, deaths, and migration are used to calculate population change since the 2010 Census. An annual time series of estimates is produced, beginning with the census and extending to the vintage year. The vintage year (e.g., Vintage 2019) refers to the final year of the time series. The reference date for all estimates is July 1, unless otherwise specified. With each new issue of estimates, the entire estimates series is revised. Additional information, including historical and intercensal estimates, evaluation estimates, demographic analysis, research papers, and methodology is available on website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html.

SEAMS integrates a large number of global and regional mass surveys, such as the World Values Surveys and the Afrobarometer. It serves two purposes: - First, it provides standardized information for major public opinion concepts, for instance on (dis-)satisfaction with government institutions, vote intentions, perceptions of belonging to a discriminated group, and ethnic self-identification. - Second, it provides systematic information on survey respondents’ ethnicity, region of residence, language, religion, and phenotype, which is linked to existing datasets, including EPR and CPSD. Thereby, it enables researchers to study how time-varying country- or group-level variables (such as democratization, GDP growth, and ethnic power-sharing) affect public opinion and vice versa. The current version integrates information from 98 unique survey waves, which together cover 2’071’315 respondents nested in 1372 country years and 148 countries. Future releases will add more variables (e.g., on left-right orientation and willingness to protest), surveys, and information on the heterogeneous question items underlying SEAMS’ standardized variables. What is new in this version (1.1): - added standardized variables on vote intentions, ethnic party vote, and ethnic self-identification - updated codebook with description of underlying survey items of these new variables

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Sacramento by gender, including both male and female populations. This dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Sacramento across both sexes and to determine which sex constitutes the majority.

Key observations

There is a slight majority of female population, with 50.61% of total population being female. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates.

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis. No further analysis is done on the data reported from the Census Bureau.

Variables / Data Columns

• Gender: This column displays the Gender (Male / Female)
• Population: The population of the gender in the Sacramento is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each gender as a proportion of Sacramento 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 Sacramento Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

Background: Ancestry is often viewed as a more objective and less objectionable population descriptor than race or ethnicity. Perhaps reflecting this, usage of the term “ancestry” is rapidly growing in genetics research, with ancestry groups referenced in many situations. The appropriate usage of population descriptors in genetics research is an ongoing source of debate. Sound normative guidance should rest on an empirical understanding of current usage; in the case of ancestry, questions about how researchers use the concept, and what they mean by it, remain unanswered.Methods: Systematic literature analysis of 205 articles at least tangentially related to human health from diverse disciplines that use the concept of ancestry, and semi-structured interviews with 44 lead authors of some of those articles.Results: Ancestry is relied on to structure research questions and key methodological approaches. Yet researchers struggle to define it, and/or offer diverse definitions. For some ancestry is a genetic concept, but for many—including geneticists—ancestry is only tangentially related to genetics. For some interviewees, ancestry is explicitly equated to ethnicity; for others it is explicitly distanced from it. Ancestry is operationalized using multiple data types (including genetic variation and self-reported identities), though for a large fraction of articles (26%) it is impossible to tell which data types were used. Across the literature and interviews there is no consistent understanding of how ancestry relates to genetic concepts (including genetic ancestry and population structure), nor how these genetic concepts relate to each other. Beyond this conceptual confusion, practices related to summarizing patterns of genetic variation often rest on uninterrogated conventions. Continental labels are by far the most common type of label applied to ancestry groups. We observed many instances of slippage between reference to ancestry groups and racial groups.Conclusion: Ancestry is in practice a highly ambiguous concept, and far from an objective counterpart to race or ethnicity. It is not uniquely a “biological” construct, and it does not represent a “safe haven” for researchers seeking to avoid evoking race or ethnicity in their work. Distinguishing genetic ancestry from ancestry more broadly will be a necessary part of providing conceptual clarity.

Relative concentration of the Northern California region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Northern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.