California State Income Limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for acutely low-, extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households for California’s 58 counties (required by Health and Safety Code Section 50093). These income limits apply to State and local affordable housing programs statutorily linked to HUD income limits and differ from income limits applicable to other specific federal, State, or local programs.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Middle Inlet, Wisconsin, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 21,360, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 162,915. This indicates that the top earners earn 8 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 282,509, which is 173.41% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1322.61% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

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 Middle Inlet town median household income. You can refer the same here

United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 46.900 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 46.400 % for 2013. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 46.000 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 46.900 % in 2016 and a record low of 41.200 % in 1979. United States US: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Sands Point, NY, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 62,342, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 1,206,232. This indicates that the top earners earn 19 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 1,779,703, which is 147.54% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 2854.74% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

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

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

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 Sands Point median household income. You can refer the same here

U.S. citizens with a professional degree had the highest median household income in 2023, at 172,100 U.S. dollars. In comparison, those with less than a 9th grade education made significantly less money, at 35,690 U.S. dollars. Household income The median household income in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, but rose to around 70,000 U.S. dollars in 2021. Maryland had the highest median household income in the United States in 2021. Maryland’s high levels of wealth is due to several reasons, and includes the state's proximity to the nation's capital. Household income and ethnicity The median income of white non-Hispanic households in the United States had been on the rise since 1990, but declining since 2019. While income has also been on the rise, the median income of Hispanic households was much lower than those of white, non-Hispanic private households. However, the median income of Black households is even lower than Hispanic households. Income inequality is a problem without an easy solution in the United States, especially since ethnicity is a contributing factor. Systemic racism contributes to the non-White population suffering from income inequality, which causes the opportunity for growth to stagnate.

Abstract

Dataset used in World Bank Policy Research Working Paper #2876, published in World Bank Economic Review, No. 1, 2005, pp. 21-44.

The effects of globalization on income distribution in rich and poor countries are a matter of controversy. While international trade theory in its most abstract formulation implies that increased trade and foreign investment should make income distribution more equal in poor countries and less equal in rich countries, finding these effects has proved elusive. The author presents another attempt to discern the effects of globalization by using data from household budget surveys and looking at the impact of openness and foreign direct investment on relative income shares of low and high deciles. The author finds some evidence that at very low average income levels, it is the rich who benefit from openness. As income levels rise to those of countries such as Chile, Colombia, or Czech Republic, for example, the situation changes, and it is the relative income of the poor and the middle class that rises compared with the rich. It seems that openness makes income distribution worse before making it better-or differently in that the effect of openness on a country's income distribution depends on the country's initial income level.

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

Low income cut-offs (LICOs) before and after tax by community size and family size, in current dollars, annual.

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

Ghana GH: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data was reported at 5.400 % in 2012. This records an increase from the previous number of 5.200 % for 2005. Ghana GH: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 6.200 % from Dec 1987 (Median) to 2012, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 7.000 % in 1988 and a record low of 5.200 % in 2005. Ghana GH: Income Share Held by Lowest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Ghana – Table GH.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Relative concentration of the estimated number of people in the Sierra Nevada region that live in a household defined as "low income." There are multiple ways to define low income. These data apply the most common standard: low income population consists of all members of households that collectively have income less than twice the federal poverty threshold that applies to their household type. Household type refers to the household's resident composition: the number of independent adults plus dependents that can be of any age, from children to elderly. For example, a household with four people ' one working adult parent and three dependent children ' has a different poverty threshold than a household comprised of four unrelated independent adults.

Due to high estimate uncertainty for many block group estimates of the number of people living in low income households, some records cannot be reliably assigned a class and class code comparable to those assigned to race/ethnicity data from the decennial Census.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit to the proportion of all people that live within the 775 block groups in the Sierra Nevada RRK region. See the "Data Units" description below for how these relative concentrations are broken into categories in this "low income" metric.

This dataset contains replication files for "The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940" by Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dream/. A summary of the related publication follows. One of the defining features of the “American Dream” is the ideal that children have a higher standard of living than their parents. We assess whether the U.S. is living up to this ideal by estimating rates of “absolute income mobility” – the fraction of children who earn more than their parents – since 1940. We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size. Absolute mobility fell in all 50 states, although the rate of decline varied, with the largest declines concentrated in states in the industrial Midwest, such as Michigan and Illinois. The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep – from 95% for children born in 1940 to 41% for children born in 1984 – when we compare the sons’ earnings to their fathers’ earnings. Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half-century? There have been two important trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s and 1950s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth. We find that most of the decline in absolute mobility is driven by the more unequal distribution of economic growth rather than the slowdown in aggregate growth rates. When we simulate an economy that restores GDP growth to the levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s but distributes that growth across income groups as it is distributed today, absolute mobility only increases to 62%. In contrast, maintaining GDP at its current level but distributing it more broadly across income groups – at it was distributed for children born in the 1940s – would increase absolute mobility to 80%, thereby reversing more than two-thirds of the decline in absolute mobility. These findings show that higher growth rates alone are insufficient to restore absolute mobility to the levels experienced in mid-century America. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to rates of absolute mobility in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small fraction of high-income households today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Of course, this does not mean that GDP growth does not matter: changing the distribution of growth naturally has smaller effects on absolute mobility when there is very little growth to be distributed. The key point is that increasing absolute mobility substantially would require more broad-based economic growth. We conclude that absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half-century primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution.

Relative concentration of the estimated number of people in the Northern California region that live in a household defined as "low income." There are multiple ways to define low income. These data apply the most common standard: low income population consists of all members of households that collectively have income less than twice the federal poverty threshold that applies to their household type. Household type refers to the household's resident composition: the number of independent adults plus dependents that can be of any age, from children to elderly. For example, a household with four people ' one working adult parent and three dependent children ' has a different poverty threshold than a household comprised of four unrelated independent adults.

Due to high estimate uncertainty for many block group estimates of the number of people living in low income households, some records cannot be reliably assigned a class and class code comparable to those assigned to race/ethnicity data from the decennial Census.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region. See the "Data Units" description below for how these relative concentrations are broken into categories in this "low income" metric.

Relative concentration of the estimated number of people in the Central California region that live in a household defined as "low income." There are multiple ways to define low income. These data apply the most common standard: low income population consists of all members of households that collectively have income less than twice the federal poverty threshold that applies to their household type. Household type refers to the household's resident composition: the number of independent adults plus dependents that can be of any age, from children to elderly. For example, a household with four people ' one working adult parent and three dependent children ' has a different poverty threshold than a household comprised of four unrelated independent adults.

Due to high estimate uncertainty for many block group estimates of the number of people living in low income households, some records cannot be reliably assigned a class and class code comparable to those assigned to race/ethnicity data from the decennial Census.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit to the proportion of all people that live within the 4,961 block groups in the Central California RRK region. See the "Data Units" description below for how these relative concentrations are broken into categories in this "low income" metric.

Relative concentration of the estimated number of people in the Southern California region that live in a household defined as "low income." There are multiple ways to define low income. These data apply the most common standard: low income population consists of all members of households that collectively have income less than twice the federal poverty threshold that applies to their household type. Household type refers to the household's resident composition: the number of independent adults plus dependents that can be of any age, from children to elderly. For example, a household with four people ' one working adult parent and three dependent children ' has a different poverty threshold than a household comprised of four unrelated independent adults.

Due to high estimate uncertainty for many block group estimates of the number of people living in low income households, some records cannot be reliably assigned a class and class code comparable to those assigned to race/ethnicity data from the decennial Census.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit to the proportion of all people that live within the 13,312 block groups in the Southern California RRK region. See the "Data Units" description below for how these relative concentrations are broken into categories in this "low income" metric.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

India Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 9.800 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 10.000 % for 2020. India Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 6.200 % from Dec 1977 (Median) to 2021, with 14 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 10.300 % in 2019 and a record low of 5.100 % in 2004. India Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s India – Table IN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Korea Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data was reported at 2.673 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 2.543 % for 2015. Korea Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data is updated yearly, averaging 1.896 % from Dec 1961 (Median) to 2016, with 56 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 5.491 % in 1985 and a record low of 0.012 % in 1972. Korea Imports: Low- and Middle-Income Economies: % of Total Goods Imports: Latin America & The Caribbean data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Korea – Table KR.World Bank: Imports. Merchandise imports from low- and middle-income economies in Latin America and the Caribbean are the sum of merchandise imports by the reporting economy from low- and middle-income economies in the Latin America and the Caribbean region according to the World Bank classification of economies. Data are expressed as a percentage of total merchandise imports by the economy. Data are computed only if at least half of the economies in the partner country group had non-missing data.; ; World Bank staff estimates based data from International Monetary Fund's Direction of Trade database.; Weighted average;

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryNote: This layer is symbolized to display the percentile distribution of the Limited Resources Sub-Index. However, it includes all data for each indicator and sub-index within the citywide census tracts TEPI.What is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

This dataset provides data about classes by subject in Massachusetts public schools and districts since 2011. It includes the number of classes in a given subject, the average class size, and demographic indicators of students taking those classes.

This data allows for analyzing trends in class size distribution across different subjects and student subgroups. It can support research on educational equity, resource allocation within schools, and potential disparities in learning environments.

Economically Disadvantaged was used 2015-2021. Low Income was used prior to 2015, and a different version of Low Income has been used since 2022. Please see the DESE Researcher's Guide for more information.

This dataset contains the same data that is also published on our DESE Profiles site: Class Size by Race/Ethnicity Class Size by Gender and Selected Population