The graph displays the top 15 states by an estimated number of homeless people in the United States for the year 2025. The x-axis represents U.S. states, while the y-axis shows the number of homeless individuals in each state. California has the highest homeless population with 187,084 individuals, followed by New York with 158,019, while Hawaii places last in this dataset with 11,637. This bar graph highlights significant differences across states, with some states like California and New York showing notably higher counts compared to others, indicating regional disparities in homelessness levels across the country.

This database contains the data reported in the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR). It represents a point-In-time count (PIT) of homeless individuals, as well as a housing inventory count (HIC) conducted annually. The data represent the most comprehensive national-level assessment of homelessness in America, including PIT and HIC estimates of homelessness, as well as estimates of chronically homeless persons, homeless veterans, and homeless children and youth. These data can be trended over time and correlated with other metrics of housing availability and affordability, in order to better understand the particular type of housing resources that may be needed from a social determinants of health perspective. HUD captures these data annually through the Continuum of Care (CoC) program. CoC-level reporting data have been crosswalked to county levels for purposes of analysis of this dataset. For more information about these data, please see here .

In 2023, there were about ******* homeless people estimated to be living in the United States, the highest number of homeless people recorded within the provided time period. In comparison, the second-highest number of homeless people living in the U.S. within this time period was in 2007, at *******. How is homelessness calculated? Calculating homelessness is complicated for several different reasons. For one, it is challenging to determine how many people are homeless as there is no direct definition for homelessness. Additionally, it is difficult to try and find every single homeless person that exists. Sometimes they cannot be reached, leaving people unaccounted for. In the United States, the Department of Housing and Urban Development calculates the homeless population by counting the number of people on the streets and the number of people in homeless shelters on one night each year. According to this count, Los Angeles City and New York City are the cities with the most homeless people in the United States. Homelessness in the United States Between 2022 and 2023, New Hampshire saw the highest increase in the number of homeless people. However, California was the state with the highest number of homeless people, followed by New York and Florida. The vast amount of homelessness in California is a result of multiple factors, one of them being the extreme high cost of living, as well as opposition to mandatory mental health counseling and drug addiction. However, the District of Columbia had the highest estimated rate of homelessness per 10,000 people in 2023. This was followed by New York, Vermont, and Oregon.

Each year, homeless coalitions across the country conduct a Point in Time Count (PIT) during the same 24-hour period in January to estimate the number of persons experiencing homelessness living in their region. The PIT count includes those living in emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, and those living unsheltered on the street. The PIT count does not include homeless families and youth who are doubled up with family or friends, or those at imminent risk of becoming homeless. The numbers are a “snapshot” on a single day rather than a definitive count. Despite these limitations, the count helps communities plan for programs and services, identifies gaps in the homeless system, and provides demographic information about populations who experience homelessness.

This dataset includes key measures that have been counted during each PIT since 2019. This dataset will be updated annually.

The most recent rate of homelessness is calculated using ACS population estimates from the previous year, unless otherwise noted.

Data Source: HUD's Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) Point-in-Time (PIT) Estimates by State and American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates

Why this MattersSafe, adequate, and stable housing is a human right and essential for the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities.People who experience homelessness also struggle to maintain access to healthcare, employment, education, healthy relationships, and other basic necessities in life, according to the DC Interagency Council on Homelessness Strategic Plan.BIPOC populations are disproportionately affected by homelessness due to housing discrimination, mass incarceration, and other policies that have limited socioeconomic opportunities for Black, Latino, and other people of color.

The District's Response Strategic investments in proven strategies for driving down homelessness, including the Career Mobility Action Plan (Career MAP) program, operation of non-congregate housing, and expansion of the District’s shelter capacity.Homelessness prevention programs for at-risk individuals and families, such as emergency rental assistance, targeted affordable housing, and permanent supporting housing.Programs and services to enhance resident’s economic and employment security and ensure access to affordable housing.

PurposeHomeless persons have a high risk for tuberculosis. The prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection and the risk for a progression to active tuberculosis is higher in the homeless than in the general population. The objective was to assess the prevalence and risk factors of tuberculosis/latent tuberculosis infection in a homeless population in Germany.MethodsHomeless individuals (n = 150) were enrolled in a cross-sectional study at three shelters in Münster, Germany (October 2017–July 2018). All participants were screened using an ELISPOT interferon-γ release assay (IGRA). Those participants tested positive/borderline by IGRA provided three sputa for microbiological analysis (line probe assay, microscopy, culture) and underwent a chest X-ray to screen for active pulmonary TB. Risk factors for tuberculosis/latent tuberculosis infection were analysed using a standardized questionnaire.ResultsOf the 142 evaluable IGRA, 21 (15%) were positive and two (1%) were borderline. No participant with a positive/borderline IGRA had an active tuberculosis as assessed by chest X-ray and microbiology. A negative IGRA was associated with a citizenship of a low-incidence country for tuberculosis (according to WHO, p = 0.01), low-incidence country of birth (p

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Life Expectancy (EQ6)

FULL MEASURE NAME Life Expectancy

LAST UPDATED April 2017

DESCRIPTION Life expectancy refers to the average number of years a newborn is expected to live if mortality patterns remain the same. The measure reflects the mortality rate across a population for a point in time.

DATA SOURCE State of California, Department of Health: Death Records (1990-2013) No link

California Department of Finance: Population Estimates Annual Intercensal Population Estimates (1990-2010) Table P-2: County Population by Age (2010-2013) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census ZCTA Population (2000-2010) http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Population Estimates (2013) http://factfinder.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Life expectancy is commonly used as a measure of the health of a population. Life expectancy does not reflect how long any given individual is expected to live; rather, it is an artificial measure that captures an aspect of the mortality rates across a population that can be compared across time and populations. More information about the determinants of life expectancy that may lead to differences in life expectancy between neighborhoods can be found in the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative (BARHII) Health Inequities in the Bay Area report at http://www.barhii.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/barhii_hiba.pdf. Vital Signs measures life expectancy at birth (as opposed to cohort life expectancy). A statistical model was used to estimate life expectancy for Bay Area counties and ZIP Codes based on current life tables which require both age and mortality data. A life table is a table which shows, for each age, the survivorship of a people from a certain population.

Current life tables were created using death records and population estimates by age. The California Department of Public Health provided death records based on the California death certificate information. Records include age at death and residential ZIP Code. Single-year age population estimates at the regional- and county-level comes from the California Department of Finance population estimates and projections for ages 0-100+. Population estimates for ages 100 and over are aggregated to a single age interval. Using this data, death rates in a population within age groups for a given year are computed to form unabridged life tables (as opposed to abridged life tables). To calculate life expectancy, the probability of dying between the jth and (j+1)st birthday is assumed uniform after age 1. Special consideration is taken to account for infant mortality.

For the ZIP Code-level life expectancy calculation, it is assumed that postal ZIP Codes share the same boundaries as ZIP Code Census Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs). More information on the relationship between ZIP Codes and ZCTAs can be found at http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/zctas.html. ZIP Code-level data uses three years of mortality data to make robust estimates due to small sample size. Year 2013 ZIP Code life expectancy estimates reflects death records from 2011 through 2013. 2013 is the last year with available mortality data. Death records for ZIP Codes with zero population (like those associated with P.O. Boxes) were assigned to the nearest ZIP Code with population. ZIP Code population for 2000 estimates comes from the Decennial Census. ZIP Code population for 2013 estimates are from the American Community Survey (5-Year Average). ACS estimates are adjusted using Decennial Census data for more accurate population estimates. An adjustment factor was calculated using the ratio between the 2010 Decennial Census population estimates and the 2012 ACS 5-Year (with middle year 2010) population estimates. This adjustment factor is particularly important for ZCTAs with high homeless population (not living in group quarters) where the ACS may underestimate the ZCTA population and therefore underestimate the life expectancy. The ACS provides ZIP Code population by age in five-year age intervals. Single-year age population estimates were calculated by distributing population within an age interval to single-year ages using the county distribution. Counties were assigned to ZIP Codes based on majority land-area.

ZIP Codes in the Bay Area vary in population from over 10,000 residents to less than 20 residents. Traditional life expectancy estimation (like the one used for the regional- and county-level Vital Signs estimates) cannot be used because they are highly inaccurate for small populations and may result in over/underestimation of life expectancy. To avoid inaccurate estimates, ZIP Codes with populations of less than 5,000 were aggregated with neighboring ZIP Codes until the merged areas had a population of more than 5,000. ZIP Code 94103, representing Treasure Island, was dropped from the dataset due to its small population and having no bordering ZIP Codes. In this way, the original 305 Bay Area ZIP Codes were reduced to 217 ZIP Code areas for 2013 estimates. Next, a form of Bayesian random-effects analysis was used which established a prior distribution of the probability of death at each age using the regional distribution. This prior is used to shore up the life expectancy calculations where data were sparse.

Context:

I was finishing the Google Analytics Certificate and had to work on a Capstone Project. I decided to create my own case study and work with data related to homeless people, since I think it's a topic we all have to be more aware of. While looking for some datasets I encountered the California State open datasets, and I picked the data related to the Project Roomkey.

"Project Roomkey gives people who are experiencing homelessness and are recovering from COVID-19 or have been exposed to COVID-19 a place to recuperate and properly quarantine outside of a hospital. It also provides a safe place for isolation for people who are experiencing homelessness and at high risk for medical complications should they to become infected." https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/cdss-programs/housing-programs/project-roomkey

Content:

It contains a copy of the original dataset, along with metadata and descriptions of variables. It also contains the data cleaning process and the analysis

Acknowledgements:

I want to thank Mark Hovarth and his work, which I was able to see through the Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/invisiblepeopletv Thanks for your work and for the inspiration!

Inspiration:

I wanted to answer very specific questions with the help of this data

1. What is the county in California with the largest total quantity of rooms unoccupied between April, 2020 and April 2021?

2. What are the counties in California with the lowest ratios of rooms occupied to rooms and trailers_delivered to trailer_requested between April, 2020 and April, 2021?

3. Which has been the most solidary county in California regarding trailers donated between April, 2020 and April, 2021?

4. What is the day in which the most numbers of rooms were occupied in California between April, 2020 and April 2021?

About Dataset

The dataset you provided, titled "Report Card Enrollment 2023-24 School Year," appears to be a comprehensive collection of information regarding student enrollment and demographics within educational institutions for the specified academic year. Here are some observations about the dataset:

1. Granularity: The dataset seems to be quite granular, providing detailed information not only about overall student enrollment but also about various demographic categories such as gender, race/ethnicity, English language learners, students with disabilities, and socioeconomic status.

2. Demographic Diversity: It captures the diversity of the student population by including counts for various racial/ethnic groups, as well as categories such as gender X, indicating a recognition of diverse gender identities.

3. Socioeconomic Indicators: The dataset includes indicators of socioeconomic status such as students in foster care, homeless students, and those from low-income families, which can provide insights into equity and access issues within the educational system.

4. Special Education and Gifted Programs: It tracks the enrollment of students with disabilities and those identified as highly capable, which are important metrics for evaluating the inclusivity and effectiveness of special education and gifted programs.

5. Geographical Context: The dataset includes information about the county, educational service district, and school district, providing a geographical context for the enrollment data.

6. Temporal Aspect: The "DataAsOf" column indicates that the data has a temporal aspect, suggesting that it may be periodically updated to reflect changes in enrollment and demographics throughout the academic year.

**columns : ** SchoolYear: Indicates the academic year for which the data is reported, in this case, it's 2023-24.

OrganizationLevel: Specifies the level of educational organization, which could be school, district, or any other relevant level within the educational system.

County: Refers to the county where the educational organization is located.

ESDName: Stands for Educational Service District Name, which represents the intermediate level of educational administration in some states.

ESDOrganizationID: ID assigned to the Educational Service District.

DistrictCode: Code assigned to the district within the educational system.

DistrictName: Name of the school district.

DistrictOrganizationId: ID assigned to the district organization.

SchoolCode: Code assigned to the school within the district.

SchoolName: Name of the school.

SchoolOrganizationID: ID assigned to the school organization.

CurrentSchoolType: Indicates the current type of the school, such as elementary, middle, or high school.

GradeLevel: Specifies the grade level(s) served by the school.

All Students: Total number of enrolled students in the school.

Female: Number of female students enrolled.

Gender X: Number of students who identify as gender X, indicating a non-binary or non-conforming gender identity.

Male: Number of male students enrolled.

American Indian/ Alaskan Native: Number of students identifying as American Indian or Alaskan Native.

Asian: Number of students identifying as Asian.

Black/ African American: Number of students identifying as Black or African American.

Hispanic/ Latino of any race(s): Number of students identifying as Hispanic or Latino of any race.

Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander: Number of students identifying as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.

Two or More Races: Number of students identifying as belonging to two or more races.

White: Number of students identifying as White.

English Language Learners: Number of students who are learning English as a second language.

Foster Care: Number of students in foster care.

Highly Capable: Number of students identified as highly capable or gifted.

Homeless: Number of students experiencing homelessness.

Low-Income: Number of students from low-income families.

Migrant: Number of students from migrant families.

Military Parent: Number of students with parents serving in the military.

Mobile: Number of students who frequently change residences.

Section 504: Number of students covered under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which provides accommodations for students with disabilities.

Students with Disabilities: Number of students with disabilities.

Non-English Language Learners: Number of students who are not learning English as a second language.

Non-Foster Care: Number of students who are not in foster care.

Non-Highly Capable: Number of students who are not identified as highly capable or gifted.

Non-Homeless: Number of students wh...

Demographic characteristics by level of criminal-legal involvement.

In 2024, approximately 10.6 percent of the population was living below the national poverty line in the United States. This reflected a 0.5 percentage point decrease from the previous year. Most recently, poverty levels in the country peaked in 2010 at just over 15 percent. Poverty in the U.S. States The number of people living in poverty in the U.S. as well as poverty rates, vary greatly from state to state. With their large populations, California and Texas led that charts in terms of the size of their impoverished residents. On the other hand, Louisiana had the highest rates of poverty, standing at 20 percent in 2024. The state with the lowest poverty rate was New Hampshire at 5.9 percent. Vulnerable populations The poverty rate in the United States varies widely across different ethnic groups. American Indians and Alaska Natives are the ethnic group with the highest levels of poverty in 2024, with about 19 percent earning an income below the official threshold. In comparison, only about 7.5 percent of the White (non-Hispanic) and Asian populations were living below the poverty line. Children are one of the most poverty endangered population groups in the U.S. between 1990 and 2024. Child poverty peaked in 1993 with 22.7 percent of children living in poverty. Despite fluctuations, in 2024, poverty among minors reached its lowest level in decades, falling to 14.3 percent.

Abstract

The 2011 Population and Housing Census is the third national Census to be conducted in Namibia after independence. The first was conducted 1991 followed by the 2001 Census. Namibia is therefore one of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa that has participated in the 2010 Round of Censuses and followed the international best practice of conducting decennial Censuses, each of which attempts to count and enumerate every person and household in a country every ten years. Surveys, by contrast, collect data from samples of people and/or households.

Censuses provide reliable and critical data on the socio-economic and demographic status of any country. In Namibia, Census data has provided crucial information for development planning and programme implementation. Specifically, the information has assisted in setting benchmarks, formulating policy and the evaluation and monitoring of national development programmes including NDP4, Vision 2030 and several sector programmes. The information has also been used to update the national sampling frame which is used to select samples for household-based surveys, including labour force surveys, demographic and health surveys, household income and expenditure surveys. In addition, Census information will be used to guide the demarcation of Namibia's administrative boundaries where necessary.

At the international level, Census information has been used extensively in monitoring progress towards Namibia's achievement of international targets, particularly the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The latest and most comprehensive Census was conducted in August 2011. Preparations for the Census started in the 2007/2008 financial year under the auspices of the then Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) which was later transformed into the Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA). The NSA was established under the Statistics Act No. 9 of 2011, with the legal mandate and authority to conduct population Censuses every 10 years. The Census was implemented in three broad phases; pre-enumeration, enumeration and post enumeration.

During the first pre-enumeration phase, activities accomplished including the preparation of a project document, establishing Census management and technical committees, and establishing the Census cartography unit which demarcated the Enumeration Areas (EAs). Other activities included the development of Census instruments and tools, such as the questionnaires, manuals and field control forms.

Field staff were recruited, trained and deployed during the initial stages of the enumeration phase. The actual enumeration exercise was undertaken over a period of about three weeks from 28 August to 15 September 2011, while 28 August 2011 was marked as the reference period or 'Census Day'.

Great efforts were made to check and ensure that the Census data was of high quality to enhance its credibility and increase its usage. Various quality controls were implemented to ensure relevance, timeliness, accuracy, coherence and proper data interpretation. Other activities undertaken to enhance quality included the demarcation of the country into small enumeration areas to ensure comprehensive coverage; the development of structured Census questionnaires after consultat.The post-enumeration phase started with the sending of completed questionnaires to Head Office and the preparation of summaries for the preliminary report, which was published in April 2012. Processing of the Census data began with manual editing and coding, which focused on the household identification section and un-coded parts of the questionnaire. This was followed by the capturing of data through scanning. Finally, the data were verified and errors corrected where necessary. This took longer than planned due to inadequate technical skills.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Households and persons

Universe

The sampling universe is defined as all households (private and institutions) from 2011 Census dataset.

Kind of data

Census/enumeration data [cen]

Sampling procedure

Sample Design

The stratified random sample was applied on the constituency and urban/rural variables of households list from Namibia 2011 Population and Housing Census for the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) file. The sampling universe is defined as all households (private and institutions) from 2011 Census dataset. Since urban and rural are very important factor in the Namibia situation, it was then decided to take the stratum at the constituency and urban/rural levels. Some constituencies have very lower households in the urban or rural, the office therefore decided for a threshold (low boundary) for sampling within stratum. Based on data analysis, the threshold for stratum of PUMS file is 250 households. Thus, constituency and urban/rural areas with less than 250 households in total were included in the PUMS file. Otherwise, a simple random sampling (SRS) at a 20% sample rate was applied for each stratum. The sampled households include 93,674 housing units and 418,362 people.

Sample Selection

The PUMS sample is selected from households. The PUMS sample of persons in households is selected by keeping all persons in PUMS households. Sample selection process is performed using Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro).

The sample selection program first identifies the 7 census strata with less than 250 households and the households (private and institutions) with more than 50 people. The households in these areas and with this large size are all included in the sample. For the other households, the program randomly generates a number n from 0 to 4. Out of every 5 households, the program selects the nth household to export to the PUMS data file, creating a 20 percent sample of households. Private households and institutions are equally sampled in the PUMS data file.

Note: The 7 census strata with less than 250 households are: Arandis Constituency Rural, Rehoboth East Urban Constituency Rural, Walvis Bay Rural Constituency Rural, Mpungu Constituency Urban, Etayi Constituency Urban, Kalahari Constituency Urban, and Ondobe Constituency Urban.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The following questionnaire instruments were used for the Namibia 2011 Population and and Housing Census:

Form A (Long Form): For conventional households and residential institutions

Form B1 (Short Form): For special population groups such as persons in transit (travellers), police cells, homeless and off-shore populations

Form B2 (Short Form): For hotels/guesthouses

Form B3 (Short Form): For foreign missions/diplomatic corps

Cleaning operations

Data editing took place at a number of stages throughout the processing, including: a) During data collection in the field b) Manual editing and coding in the office c) During data entry (Primary validation/editing) Structure checking and completeness using Structured Query Language (SQL) program d) Secondary editing: i. Imputations of variables ii. Structural checking in Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro) program

Sampling error estimates

Sampling Error The standard errors of survey estimates are needed to evaluate the precision of the survey estimation. The statistical software package such as SPSS or SAS can accurately estimate the mean and variance of estimates from the survey. SPSS or SAS software package makes use of the Taylor series approach in computing the variance.

Data appraisal

Data quality Great efforts were made to check and ensure that the Census data was of high quality to enhance its credibility and increase its usage. Various quality controls were implemented to ensure relevance, timeliness, accuracy, coherence and proper data interpretation. Other activities undertaken to enhance quality included the demarcation of the country into small enumeration areas to ensure comprehensive coverage; the development of structured Census questionnaires after consultation with government ministries, university expertise and international partners; the preparation of detailed supervisors' and enumerators' instruction manuals to guide field staff during enumeration; the undertaking of comprehensive publicity and advocacy programmes to ensure full Government support and cooperation from the general public; the testing of questionnaires and other procedures; the provision of adequate training and undertaking of intensive supervision using four supervisory layers; the editing of questionnaires at field level; establishing proper mechanisms which ensured that all completed questionnaires were properly accounted for; ensuring intensive verification, validating all information and error corrections; and developing capacity in data processing with support from the international community.

Rao-Scott chi-square statistic and p-values for group comparisons on prevalence of mental disorder.

Prevalence of specific mental disorders by level of criminal-legal involvement.

The index is constructed using socioeconomic and demographic, exposure, health, and housing indicators and is intended to serve as a planning tool for health and climate adaptation. Steps for calculating the index can be found in in the "An Assessment of San Francisco’s Vulnerability to Flooding & Extreme Storms" located at https://sfclimatehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FloodVulnerabilityReport_v5.pdf.pdfData Dictionary: (see attachment here also: https://data.sfgov.org/Health-and-Social-Services/San-Francisco-Flood-Health-Vulnerability/cne3-h93g)

Field Name Data Type Definition Notes (optional)

Census Blockgroup Text San Francisco Census Block Groups

Children Numeric Percentage of residents under 18 years old. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014.

Chidlren_wNULLvalues Numeric Percentage of residents under 18 years old. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014. Because the American Community Survey uses survey estimates, all data is attached to a margin of error. When the coefficient of variation is over .3, the SFDPH considers this data unstable and gives it a NULL value. However, because principal component analysis and the final development of the flood health index could not use NULL values, SFDPH used this unstable data for these limited purposes. For the purpose of transparency, SFDPH has included both datasets with NULL values and without NULL values.

Elderly Numeric Percentage of residents aged 65 and older. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014.

Elderly_wNULLvalues Numeric Percentage of residents aged 65 and older. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014. Because the American Community Survey uses survey estimates, all data is attached to a margin of error. When the coefficient of variation is over .3, the SFDPH considers this data unstable and gives it a NULL value. However, because principal component analysis and the final development of the flood health index could not use NULL values, SFDPH used this unstable data for these limited purposes. For the purpose of transparency, SFDPH has included both datasets with NULL values and without NULL values.

NonWhite Numeric Percentage of residents that do not identify as white (not Hispanic or Latino). American Community Survey 2009 - 2014.

NonWhite_wNULLvalues Numeric Percentage of residents that do not identify as white (not Hispanic or Latino). American Community Survey 2009 - 2014. Because the American Community Survey uses survey estimates, all data is attached to a margin of error. When the coefficient of variation is over .3, the SFDPH considers this data unstable and gives it a NULL value. However, because principal component analysis and the final development of the flood health index could not use NULL values, SFDPH used this unstable data for these limited purposes. For the purpose of transparency, SFDPH has included both datasets with NULL values and without NULL values.

Poverty Numeric Percentage of all individuals below 200% of the poverty level. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014.

Poverty_wNULLvalues Numeric Percentage of all individuals below 200% of the poverty level. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014. Because the American Community Survey uses survey estimates, all data is attached to a margin of error. When the coefficient of variation is over .3, the SFDPH considers this data unstable and gives it a NULL value. However, because principal component analysis and the final development of the flood health index could not use NULL values, SFDPH used this unstable data for these limited purposes. For the purpose of transparency, SFDPH has included both datasets with NULL values and without NULL values.

Education Numeric Percent of individuals over 25 with at least a high school degree. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014.

Education_wNULLvalues Numeric Percent of individuals over 25 with at least a high school degree. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014. Because the American Community Survey uses survey estimates, all data is attached to a margin of error. When the coefficient of variation is over .3, the SFDPH considers this data unstable and gives it a NULL value. However, because principal component analysis and the final development of the flood health index could not use NULL values, SFDPH used this unstable data for these limited purposes. For the purpose of transparency, SFDPH has included both datasets with NULL values and without NULL values.

English Numeric Percentage of households with no one age 14 and over who speaks English only or speaks English "very well". American Community Survey 2009 - 2014.

English_wNULLvalues Numeric Percentage of households with no one age 14 and over who speaks English only or speaks English "very well". American Community Survey 2009 - 2014. Because the American Community Survey uses survey estimates, all data is attached to a margin of error. When the coefficient of variation is over .3, the SFDPH considers this data unstable and gives it a NULL value. However, because principal component analysis and the final development of the flood health index could not use NULL values, SFDPH used this unstable data for these limited purposes. For the purpose of transparency, SFDPH has included both datasets with NULL values and without NULL values.

Elevation Numeric Minimum elevation in feet. United States Geologic Survey 2011.

SeaLevelRise Numeric Percent of land area in the 100-year flood plain with 36-inches of sea level rise. San Francisco Sea Level Rise Committee, AECOM 77inch flood inundation layer, 2014.

Precipitation Numeric Percent of land area with over 6-inches of projected precipitation-related flood inundation during an 100-year storm. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, AECOM, 2015.

Diabetes Numeric Age-adjusted hospitalization rate due to diabetes; adults 18+. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2004-2015.

MentalHealth Numeric Age-adjusted hospitalization rate due to schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2004-2015.

Asthma Numeric Age-adjusted hospitalization rate due to asthma; adults 18+. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2004 - 2015.

Disability Numeric Percentage of total civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014.

Disability_wNULLvalues

Percentage of total civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability. American Community Survey 2009 - 2014. Because the American Community Survey uses survey estimates, all data is attached to a margin of error. When the coefficient of variation is over .3, the SFDPH considers this data unstable and gives it a NULL value. However, because principal component analysis and the final development of the flood health index could not use NULL values, SFDPH used this unstable data for these limited purposes. For the purpose of transparency, SFDPH has included both datasets with NULL values and without NULL values.

HousingQuality Numeric Annual housing violations, per 1000 residents. San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco Department of Building Inspections, San Francisco Fire Department, 2010 - 2012.

Homeless Numeric Homeless population, per 1000 residents. San Francisco Homeless Count 2015.

LivAlone Numeric Households with a householder living alone. American Community Surevey 2009 - 2014.

LivAlone_wNULLvalues Numeric Households with a householder living alone. American Community Surevey 2009 - 2014. Because the American Community Survey uses survey estimates, all data is attached to a margin of error. When the coefficient of variation is over .3, the SFDPH considers this data unstable and gives it a NULL value. However, because principal component analysis and the final development of the flood health index could not use NULL values, SFDPH used this unstable data for these limited purposes. For the purpose of transparency, SFDPH has included both datasets with NULL values and without NULL values.

FloodHealthIndex Numeric Comparative ranking of flood health vulnerability, by block group. The Flood Health Index weights the six socioeconomic and demographic indicators (Children, Elderly, NonWhite, Poverty, Education, English) as 20% of the final score, the three exposure indicators (Sea Level Rise, Precipitation, Elevation) as 40% of the final score, the four health indicators (Diabetes, MentalHealth, Asthma, Disability) as 20% of the final score, and the three housing indicators (HousingQuality, Homeless, LivAlone) as 20% of the final score. For methodology used to develop the final Flood Health Index, please read the San Francisco Flood Vulnerability Assessment Methodology Section.

FloodHealthIndex_Quintiles Numeric Comparative ranking of flood health vulnerability, by block group. The Flood Health Index weights the six socioeconomic and demographic indicators (Children, Elderly, NonWhite, Poverty, Education, English) as 20% of the final score, the three exposure indicators (Sea Level Rise, Precipitation, Elevation) as 40% of the final score, the four health indicators (Diabetes, MentalHealth, Asthma, Disability) as 20% of the final score, and the three housing indicators (HousingQuality, Homeless, LivAlone) as 20% of the final score. For methodology used to develop the final Flood Health Index, please read the San Francisco Flood

A comparison of the race and ethnicity of highly capable students compared to the same demographic groups in the general student population. Comparisons are also included for the Low-Income, English Language Learners, Students with Disabilities, Section 504, Homeless, and Highly Mobile student groups. Data is aggregated by school, district, and state level.

A comparison of the race and ethnicity of highly capable students compared to the same demographic groups in the general student population. Comparisons are also included for the Low-Income, English Language Learners, Students with Disabilities, Section 504, Homeless, and Highly Mobile student groups. Data is aggregated by school, district, and state level.