About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 93 counties in the Tennessee by Black or African American population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each counties over the past five years.

Content

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

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Black Population: This column displays the rank of counties in the Tennessee by their Black or African American population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• counties: The counties for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Black Population: The Black population of the counties is shown in this column.
• % of Total counties Population: This shows what percentage of the total counties population identifies as Black. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Tennessee Black Population: This tells us how much of the entire Tennessee Black population lives in that counties. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 112 counties in the Virginia by Black or African American population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each counties over the past five years.

Content

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

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Black Population: This column displays the rank of counties in the Virginia by their Black or African American population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• counties: The counties for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Black Population: The Black population of the counties is shown in this column.
• % of Total counties Population: This shows what percentage of the total counties population identifies as Black. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Virginia Black Population: This tells us how much of the entire Virginia Black population lives in that counties. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

This Religion and State-Minorities (RASM) dataset is supplemental to the Religion and State Round 2 (RAS2) dataset. It codes the RAS religious discrimination variable using the minority as the unit of analysis (RAS2 uses a country as the unit of analysis and, is a general measure of all discrimination in the country). RASM codes religious discrimination by governments against all 566 minorities in 175 countries which make a minimum population cut off. Any religious minority which is at least 0.25 percent of the population or has a population of at least 500,000 (in countries with populations of 200 million or more) are included. The dataset also includes all Christian minorities in Muslim countries and all Muslim minorities in Christian countries for a total of 597 minorities. The data cover 1990 to 2008 with yearly codings.

These religious discrimination variables are designed to examine restrictions the government places on the practice of religion by minority religious groups. It is important to clarify two points. First, these variables focus on restrictions on minority religions. Restrictions that apply to all religions are not coded in this set of variables. This is because the act of restricting or regulating the religious practices of minorities is qualitatively different from restricting or regulating all religions. Second, this set of variables focuses only on restrictions of the practice of religion itself or on religious institutions and does not include other types of restrictions on religious minorities. The reasoning behind this is that there is much more likely to be a religious motivation for restrictions on the practice of religion than there is for political, economic, or cultural restrictions on a religious minority. These secular types of restrictions, while potentially motivated by religion, also can be due to other reasons. That political, economic, and cultural restrictions are often placed on ethnic minorities who share the same religion and the majority group in their state is proof of this.

This set of variables is essentially a list of specific types of religious restrictions which a government may place on some or all minority religions. These variables are identical to those included in the RAS2 dataset, save that one is not included because it focuses on foreign missionaries and this set of variables focuses on minorities living in the country. Each of the items in this category is coded on the following scale:

0. The activity is not restricted or the government does not engage in this practice.
1. The activity is restricted slightly or sporadically or the government engages in a mild form of this practice or a severe form sporadically.
2. The activity is significantly restricted or the government engages in this activity often and on a large scale.

A composite version combining the variables to create a measure of religious discrimination against minority religions which ranges from 0 to 48 also is included.

ARDA Note: This file was revised on October 6, 2017. At the PIs request, we removed the variable reporting on the minority's percentage of a country's population after finding inconsistencies with the reported values. For detailed data on religious demographics, see the "/data-archive?fid=RCSREG2" Target="_blank">Religious Characteristics of States Dataset Project.

This dataset contains information about the demographics of all US cities and census-designated places with a population greater or equal to 65,000. This data comes from the US Census Bureau's 2015 American Community Survey. This product uses the Census Bureau Data API but is not endorsed or certified by the Census Bureau.

Created for the 2023-2025 State of Black Los Angeles County (SBLA) interactive report. Countywide Statistical Areas (CSA) are current as of October 2023.

Fields ending in _yr1 were calculated for the original 2021-2022 SBLA report, while fields ending in _yr2 or without a year suffix were calculated for the 2023-2025 version. Eviction Filings per 100 (eviction_filings_per100) and Life Expectancy (life_expectancy) did not have updated data and are the same data shown in the Year 1 report.

Population and demographic data are from US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, aggregated up from census tract or block group to CSA. Year 1 data are from 2020, year 2 data are from 2022.

Poverty Data (200% FPL) are from LA County ISD-eGIS Demographics. Year 1 data are from 2021, Year 2 are from 2022.

The 2023-2025 report includes several new indicators that are calculated as the percent of countywide population by race that resides in a geographic area of interest. Population for these indicators is estimated based on intersection with census block group centroids. These indicators are:

Indicator

Fields

Source

Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA) for Primary Care

hpsa_primary_pct hpsa_primary_black_pct

LA County DPH https://data.lacounty.gov/datasets/lacounty::health-professional-shortage-area-primary-care/about

Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA) for Mental Health

hpsa_mental_pct hpsa_mental_black_pct

LA County DPH https://data.lacounty.gov/datasets/lacounty::health-professional-shortage-area-mental-health/about

Concentrated Disadvantage

cd_pct cd_black_pct

LA County ISD-Enterprise GIS https://egis-lacounty.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/lacounty::concentrated-disadvantage-index-2022/explore

Firearm Dealers

firearm_dl_count (count of dealers in CSA) firearm_dl_per10000 (rate of dealers per 10,000)

LA County DPH Office of Violence Prevention (OVP)

High and Very High Park Need Areas

parks_need_pct parks_need_black_pct

LA County Parks Needs Assessment Plus (PNA+) https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/media/index.html?appid=3d0ef36720b447dcade1ab87a2cc80b9

High Quality Transit Areas

hqta_pct hqta_black_pct

SCAG https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=43e6fef395d041c09deaeb369a513ca1

High Walkability Areas

walk_total_pct walk_black_pct

EPA Walkability Index https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping#walkability

High Poverty and High Segregation Areas

highpovseg_total_pct highpovseg_black_pct

CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp

LA County Arts Investments

arts_dollars (total $$ for CSA) arts_dollars_percap (investment dollars per capita)

LA County Department of Arts and Culture https://lacountyartsdata.org/#maps

Strong Start (areas with at least 9 Strong Start indicators)

strongstart_total_pct strongstart_black_pct

CA Strong Start Index https://strongstartindex.org/map

For more information about the purpose of this data, please contact CEO-ARDI.

For more information about the configuration of this data, please contact ISD-Enterprise GIS.

We provide datasets that that estimate the racial distributions associated with first, middle, and last names in the United States. The datasets cover five racial categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Other. The provided data are computed from the voter files of six Southern states -- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina -- that collect race and ethnicity data upon registration. We include seven voter files per state, sourced between 2018 and 2021 from L2, Inc. Together, these states have approximately 36MM individuals who provide self-reported race and ethnicity. The last name datasets includes 338K surnames, while the middle name dictionaries contains 126K middle names and the first name datasets includes 136K first names. For each type of name, we provide a dataset of P(race | name) probabilities and P(name | race) probabilities. We include only names that appear at least 25 times across the 42 (= 7 voter files * 6 states) voter files in our dataset. These data are closely related to the the dataset: "Name Dictionaries for "wru" R Package", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/7TRYAC. These are the probabilities used in the latest iteration of the "WRU" package (Khanna et al., 2022) to make probabilistic predictions about the race of individuals, given their names and geolocations.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 70 cities in the Bergen County, NJ by Multi-Racial Black or African American population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

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

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Multi-Racial Black Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Bergen County, NJ by their Multi-Racial Black or African American population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Multi-Racial Black Population: The Multi-Racial Black population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Multi-Racial Black. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Bergen County Multi-Racial Black Population: This tells us how much of the entire Bergen County, NJ Multi-Racial Black population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

Data SourcesAmerican Community Survey (ACS):Conducted by: U.S. Census BureauDescription: The ACS is an ongoing survey that provides detailed demographic and socio-economic data on the population and housing characteristics of the United States.Content: The survey collects information on various topics such as income, education, employment, health insurance coverage, and housing costs and conditions.Frequency: The ACS offers more frequent and up-to-date information compared to the decennial census, with annual estimates produced based on a rolling sample of households.Purpose: ACS data is essential for policymakers, researchers, and communities to make informed decisions and address the evolving needs of the population.CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI):Created by: ATSDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Services Program (GRASP)Utilized by: CDCDescription: The SVI is designed to identify and map communities that are most likely to need support before, during, and after hazardous events.Content: SVI ranks U.S. Census tracts based on 15 social factors, including unemployment, minority status, and disability, and groups them into four related themes. Each tract receives rankings for each Census variable and for each theme, as well as an overall ranking, indicating its relative vulnerability.Purpose: SVI data provides insights into the social vulnerability of communities at both the tract and zip code levels, helping public health officials and emergency response planners allocate resources effectively.Utilization and IntegrationBy integrating data from both the ACS and the SVI, this dataset enables an in-depth analysis and understanding of various socio-economic and demographic indicators at the census tract level. This integrated data is valuable for research, policymaking, and community planning purposes, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of social and economic dynamics across different geographical areas in the United States.ApplicationsTargeted Interventions: Facilitates the development of targeted interventions to address the needs of vulnerable populations within specific zip codes.Resource Allocation: Assists emergency response planners in allocating resources more effectively based on community vulnerability at the zip code level.Research: Provides a rich dataset for academic and applied research in socio-economic and demographic studies at a granular zip code level.Community Planning: Supports the planning and development of community programs and initiatives aimed at improving living conditions and reducing vulnerabilities within specific zip code areas.Note: Due to limitations in the data environment, variable names may be truncated. Refer to the provided table for a clear understanding of the variables. CSV Variable NameShapefile Variable NameDescriptionStateNameStateNameName of the stateStateFipsStateFipsState-level FIPS codeState nameStateNameName of the stateCountyNameCountyNameName of the countyCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeState abbreviationStateFipsState abbreviationCountyFipsCountyFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCensusFipsCensusFipsCounty-level FIPS codeCounty nameCountyNameName of the countyAREA_SQMIAREA_SQMITract area in square milesE_TOTPOPE_TOTPOPPopulation estimates, 2013-2017 ACSEP_POVEP_POVPercentage of persons below poverty estimateEP_UNEMPEP_UNEMPUnemployment Rate estimateEP_HBURDEP_HBURDHousing cost burdened occupied housing units with annual income less than $75,000EP_UNINSUREP_UNINSURUninsured in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_PCIEP_PCIPer capita income estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_DISABLEP_DISABLPercentage of civilian noninstitutionalized population with a disability estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_SNGPNTEP_SNGPNTPercentage of single parent households with children under 18 estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_MINRTYEP_MINRTYPercentage minority (all persons except white, non-Hispanic) estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_LIMENGEP_LIMENGPercentage of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" estimate, 2013-2017 ACSEP_MUNITEP_MUNITPercentage of housing in structures with 10 or more units estimateEP_MOBILEEP_MOBILEPercentage of mobile homes estimateEP_CROWDEP_CROWDPercentage of occupied housing units with more people than rooms estimateEP_NOVEHEP_NOVEHPercentage of households with no vehicle available estimateEP_GROUPQEP_GROUPQPercentage of persons in group quarters estimate, 2014-2018 ACSBelow_5_yrBelow_5_yrUnder 5 years: Percentage of Total populationBelow_18_yrBelow_18_yrUnder 18 years: Percentage of Total population18-39_yr18_39_yr18-39 years: Percentage of Total population40-64_yr40_64_yr40-64 years: Percentage of Total populationAbove_65_yrAbove_65_yrAbove 65 years: Percentage of Total populationPop_malePop_malePercentage of total population malePop_femalePop_femalePercentage of total population femaleWhitewhitePercentage population of white aloneBlackblackPercentage population of black or African American aloneAmerican_indianamerican_iPercentage population of American Indian and Alaska native aloneAsianasianPercentage population of Asian aloneHawaiian_pacific_islanderhawaiian_pPercentage population of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander aloneSome_othersome_otherPercentage population of some other race aloneMedian_tot_householdsmedian_totMedian household income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) by household size – total householdsLess_than_high_schoolLess_than_Percentage of Educational attainment for the population less than 9th grades and 9th to 12th grade, no diploma estimateHigh_schoolHigh_schooPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of High school graduate (includes equivalency)Some_collegeSome_collePercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Some college, no degreeAssociates_degreeAssociatesPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of associate degreeBachelor’s_degreeBachelor_sPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Bachelor’s degreeMaster’s_degreeMaster_s_dPercentage of Educational attainment for the population of Graduate or professional degreecomp_devicescomp_devicPercentage of Household having one or more types of computing devicesInternetInternetPercentage of Household with an Internet subscriptionBroadbandBroadbandPercentage of Household having Broadband of any typeSatelite_internetSatelite_iPercentage of Household having Satellite Internet serviceNo_internetNo_internePercentage of Household having No Internet accessNo_computerNo_computePercentage of Household having No computerThis table provides a mapping between the CSV variable names and the shapefile variable names, along with a brief description of each variable.

The State Tax Revolt Data Set is a time-series, cross sectional data collection assembled from publicly available sources. It includes data on tax and expenditure limitation policies and selected covariates, observed annually for the 50 United States over the period of 1960-1992. Data were collected for variables both during the fiscal year and at the end of the fiscal year. Data collected at the end of the fiscal year include: (1) long-term and short-term debt of state and local governments, and (2) the total cash held by the state and its local governments. Data collected during the fiscal year include: (1) the total intergovernmental revenue from the federal government to the state and its local governments, (2) the total direct general revenue of the state and its local governments, (3) the total tax revenue of the state and its local governments, (4) total property tax revenue of the state and its local governments, (5) the total direct general expenditure of the state and its local governments, (6) the total direct general expenditure of the state and its local governments on "public welfare", (7) the total number of homeowners' associations in the state. Additional data were collected on: (1) the percentage of randomly sampled adults who said that the local property tax was "the worst tax--that is, the least fair", (2) the percentage of households in the state that were owner-occupied, the percentage of the state's population that the Census classified as "urban", (3) the estimated total personal income in the state, (4) the population of the state, (5) the estimated percentage of the state's population that was not White, (6) the estimated percentage of the state's population that was Black, (7) the total state and local spending on education during the fiscal year and, (8) the estimated number of union members as a percentage of the state's labor force.

The RRING Work Package 3 (WP3) objective was to clarify how Research Funding Organisations (RFOs) and Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) operated within region-specific research and innovation environments. It explored how they navigated the governance and regulatory frameworks for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), as well as offering their perspectives on the entities responsible for RRI-related policy and action in their locales.

This data set covers the global survey research part, which was designed to contextualise how RPOs and RFOs interacted within the research environment and with non-academic stakeholders. Countries were grouped according to the UNESCO regions of the world and key results per region are listed below. For a detailed analysis and further findings of the work completed under WP3 of the RRING project, please refer to the full deliverable document "State of the Art of RRI in the Five UNESCO World Regions" [link to be inserted].

European and North American States

• ‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of ensuring ethical principles were applied in R&I (92%), followed by diverse perspectives (88%), and gender equality (79%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (71%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards engaging with diverse perspectives (63%), and the least towards inclusion of ethnic minorities (24%).
• ‘Anticipative and reflective’: Respondents widely agreed (82%) with the importance of ensuring R&I work does not cause concerns for society, but only 37% confirmed they had taken practical steps to ensure this.
• ‘Open and transparent’: Vast majorities of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (94%), with 65% also confirming they take practical steps to do this. An equally high number agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (94%), and 68% confirmed this through their reported actions. This indicated the smallest value-action gap of all RRI measures for respondents from European and North American countries. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was lower (83%), as was the practical action aspect for this measure (45%).
• ‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Most respondents agreed (89%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 62% confirmed that they take practical steps towards this aim.

Latin American and Caribbean States

• ‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of gender equality in R&I (86%), followed by ensuring ethical principles are applied (85%), and diverse perspectives incorporated (83%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (77%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards ensuring ethical principles guide their work (50%), and the least towards including ethnic minorities (25%), but the smallest value action gap was found for gender equality.
• ‘Anticipative and reflective’: Respondents agreed (79%) that it is important to ensure R&I work does not cause concerns for society, but only 29% confirmed they had taken practical steps to ensure this.
• ‘Open and transparent’: The majority of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (89%), with 45% indicating they had taken practical action. A majority also agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (88%), and 44% backed this up with practical action. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was slightly lower (81%), as was the practical action aspect for this measure (35%).
• ‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Most respondents agreed (84%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 49% confirmed that they take practical steps towards this aim.

Asian and Pacific States

• ‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of ensuring ethical principles were applied in R&I (90%), followed by diverse perspectives (89%), and gender equality (86%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (76%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards engaging with diverse perspectives (65%), and the least towards including ethnic minorities (30%).
• ‘Anticipative and reflective’: Respondents widely agreed (78%) with the importance of ensuring R&I work does not cause concerns for society, and 42% confirmed they had taken practical steps to ensure this.
• ‘Open and transparent’: The majority of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (91%), with 58% indicating they take practical steps to do this. A majority also agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (89%), and 64% backed this up with practical action. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was lower (79%), as was the practical action aspect for this measure (40%).
• ‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Most respondents agreed (92%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 69% confirmed that they take practical steps towards this aim. This was the RRI measure with the smallest valueaction gap for respondents from the Asian and Pacific region.

Arab States

• ‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of ensuring ethical principles were applied in R&I (93%), followed by diverse perspectives (81%), and gender equality (85%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (74%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards engaging with diverse perspectives (66%), which equated to one of two equally small value-action gaps for respondents from Arab states, and the least practical steps towards inclusion of ethnic minorities (22%).
• ‘Anticipative and reflective’: A high proportion of respondents (85%) agreed that it is important to ensure R&I work does not cause concerns for society. However, only 38% confirmed they had taken practical steps to ensure this.
• ‘Open and transparent’: The majority of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (89%), with 59% also confirming they take practical steps to do this. A majority also agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (90%), and 66% backed this up with practical action. Ensuring public accessibility of research results was the second of two measures with equally small value-action gaps. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was much lower (78%), which also reflected the practical action aspect for this measure (49%).
• ‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Most respondents agreed (96%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 68% confirmed that they take practical steps to achieve this.

African States

• ‘Diverse and inclusive': Respondents were most attitudinally supportive of the importance of ensuring engagement with diverse perspectives and expertise in R&I (91%), followed by ensuring ethical principles are applied (90%), and gender equality (89%). Including ethnic minorities was the area which garnered the least attitudinal support (74%). Respondents took the most practical steps towards ensuring ethical principles guide their work (57%), and the least towards including ethnic minorities (32%).
• ‘Anticipative and reflective’: The majority of respondents (85%) agreed that it is important to ensure R&I work does not cause concerns for society, with 59% confirming that they take practical steps to ensure this.
• ‘Open and transparent’: A high proportion of respondents agreed on the importance of keeping R&I methods open and transparent (90%), with 54% also confirming they take practical steps to do this. A majority also agreed on the importance of making the results of R&I work accessible to as wide a public as possible (86%), and 56% backed this up with practical action. Attitudinal agreement on the importance of making data freely available to the public was significantly lower (73%), as was the practical action aspect for this measure (38%).
• ‘Responsive and adaptive to change’: Respondents mostly agreed (92%) that it was important to ensure their work addresses societal needs, and 64% confirmed that they take practical steps towards this aim. This was the RRI measure with the smallest valueaction gap for respondents from African states.

Note: Please refer to the "RRING WP3 - Survey Data Documentation" document for detailed instructions on how to use this dataset.

ObjectiveTo examine changes in cause-specific Years of Life Lost (YLL) by age, race, and sex group in the USA from 1990 to 2014.Methods60 million death reports from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) were categorized by age group, sex, race, and cause of death. YLL were calculated using age-specific life expectancies. Age groups were: infants <1, children 1–19, adults 20–64, and older adults 65+.ResultsBlacks have historically experienced more years of life lost than whites or other racial groups in the USA. In the year 1990 the YLL per 100,000 population was 21,103 for blacks, 14,160 for whites, and 7,417 for others. Between 1990 and 2014 overall YLL in the USA improved by 10%, but with marked variations in the rate of change across age, race, and sex groups. Blacks (all ages, both sexes) showed substantial improvement with a 28% reduction in YLL, compared to whites (all ages, both sexes) who showed a 4% reduction. Among blacks, improvements were seen in all age groups: reductions of 43%, 48%, 28%, and 25% among infants, children, adults, and older adults, respectively. Among whites, reductions of 33%, 44%, and 18% were seen in infants, children, and older adults, but there was a 6% increase in YLL among white adults. YLL increased by 18% in white adult females and declined 1% in white adult males. American Indian/Alaska Native women also had worsening in YLL, with an 8% increase. Asian Pacific Islanders consistently had the lowest YLL across all ages. Whites had a higher proportion of YLL due to overdose; blacks had a higher proportion due to homicide at younger ages and to heart disease at older ages.ConclusionsRace-based disparities in YLL in the USA since 1990 have narrowed considerably, largely as a result of improvements among blacks compared to whites. Adult white and American Indian / Alaskan Native females have experienced worsening YLL, while white males have experienced essentially no change. If recent trajectories continue, adult black/white disparities in YLL will continue to narrow.

In 2024, there were 301,623 cases filed by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) where the race of the reported missing person was white. In the same year, 17,097 people whose race was unknown were also reported missing in the United States. What is the NCIC? The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a digital database that stores crime data for the United States, so criminal justice agencies can access it. As a part of the FBI, it helps criminal justice professionals find criminals, missing people, stolen property, and terrorists. The NCIC database is broken down into 21 files. Seven files belong to stolen property and items, and 14 belong to persons, including the National Sex Offender Register, Missing Person, and Identify Theft. It works alongside federal, tribal, state, and local agencies. The NCIC’s goal is to maintain a centralized information system between local branches and offices, so information is easily accessible nationwide. Missing people in the United States A person is considered missing when they have disappeared and their location is unknown. A person who is considered missing might have left voluntarily, but that is not always the case. The number of the NCIC unidentified person files in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, and in 2022, there were slightly more NCIC missing person files for males as compared to females. Fortunately, the number of NCIC missing person files has been mostly decreasing since 1998.

ObjectiveTo examine the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and racial and ethnic disparities in medication adherence for three widely prescribed therapeutic classesMethodsWe linked longitudinal claims data from a large US-based insurance provider (2011–2013) to detailed SES information to identify patients treated with oral antidiabetic (N = 56,720), antihypertensive (N = 156,468) or antihyperlipidemic (N = 144,673) medications. We measured adherence and discontinuation by therapeutic class, and conducted regression analysis to quantify the contributions of different factors in the association between race/ethnicity and medication adherence.ResultsDuring an average follow-up period of 2.5 years, average adherence rates of Blacks and Hispanics were at least 7.5 percentage points lower than those of Whites. Controlling for demographics, health status, out-of-pocket costs, convenience of refilling prescriptions and SES attenuated the association by 30 to 50 percent, nonetheless substantial racial disparities persisted (4.1–5.8 percentage points), particularly for asymptomatic conditions. Separating adherence among existing users from those that discontinued therapies indicates that racial/ethnic disparities in adherence reflect inconsistent pill-taking rather than differential rates of discontinuation.ConclusionsRacial/ethnic disparities in adherence are mitigated, but persist after controlling for detailed socioeconomic measures. Interventions should focus more on improving medication adherence of existing users, particularly in treating asymptomatic conditions.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1208 cities in the Texas by Black or African American population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

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

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Black Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Texas by their Black or African American population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Black Population: The Black population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Black. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Texas Black Population: This tells us how much of the entire Texas Black population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

The IPUMS Contextual Determinants of Health (CDOH) data series provides access to measures of disparities, policies, and counts, by state or county, for historically marginalized populations in the United States including Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latina/o/e/x, and LGBTQ+ persons, and women. The IPUMS CDOH data are made available through ICPSR/DSDR for merging with the National Couples' Health and Time Study (NCHAT), United States, 2020-2021 (ICPSR 38417) by approved restricted data researchers. All other researchers can access the IPUMS CDOH data via the IPUMS CDOH website. Unlike other IPUMS products, the CDOH data are organized into multiple categories related to Race and Ethnicity, Sexual and Gender Minority, Gender, and Politics. The measures were created from a wide variety of data sources (e.g., IPUMS NHGIS, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Movement Advancement Project, and Myers Abortion Facility Database). Measures are currently available for states or counties from approximately 2015 to 2020. The Race and Ethnicity measure in this release is an indicator of income inequity which is measured using the index of concentration at the extremes (ICE). ICE is a measure of social polarization within a particular geographic unit. It shows whether people or households in a geographic unit are concentrated in privileged or deprived extremes. The privileged group in this study is the number of households with a householder identifying as White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, with an income equal to or greater than $100,000. The deprived group in this study is the number of households with a householder identifying as a different race/ethnic group (e.g., Black alone, Asian alone, Hispanic or Latino), with an income equal to or less than $25,000. To work with the IPUMS CDOH data, researchers will need to use the variable MATCH_ID to merge the data in DS1 with NCHAT surveys within the virtual data enclave (VDE).

This dataset comprises EEG recordings from 10 volunteers who participated in two auditory oddball paradigm experiments. In the first experiment, subjects engaged in a passive listening task. The second experiment required active feedback from subjects via a keyboard, with their reaction times recorded. Each subject also underwent resting-state experiments with both eyes open and closed. Additionally, subjects completed a health information questionnaire, which is included with the data.

The EEG recordings were conducted using the Unicorn Hybrid Black device, capturing data from 8 EEG channels, as well as accelerometer and gyroscope readings from the headset. The recorded signals have a 24-bit resolution and a sampling rate of 250 Hz. Electrodes were positioned according to the international 10-20 system at the following sites: Fz, C3, Cz, C4, Pz, PO7, Oz, and PO8. All recordings were made under dry electrode conditions.

The experiments were designed and recorded using the NeuroPype™ Suite. The Unicorn LSL Interface was used for streaming headset data, while event markers were captured with the NeuroPype™ Experiment Recorder. Subsequent data processing was performed using the Python MNE library. The resulting data files are available in CSV format.

The given dataset is multipurpose and can be used to study phenomena ranging from simple resting-state analysis to Auditory Evoked Potentials (AEPs), as well as correlating EEG signals with reaction times and subjects' questionnaire responses. A detailed explanation of the experiments can be found below.

Experiments took place in the Muskhelishvili Institute of Computational Mathematics (MICM). 10 participants were recruited (7 males, 3 females) aged 25 to 79 years. All participants were required to read and sign the consent document before conducting the experiment and providing their health information. To ensure privacy, each participant was assigned a unique subject ID (1 to 10). Participants completed two 20-minute recording sessions, each consisting of two AEP experiments. Subjects could have a break for as long as they wanted between the sessions. Resting-state responses were recorded either before or after the sessions. During the experiments, participants were instructed to sit comfortably, remain still, focus on a cross on the screen, and avoid any voluntary movements.

In experiment 1, subjects listened to 200 auditory stimuli train of 1000 Hz (standard) and 2000 Hz (oddball) pure tones, with an inter-stimulus time of 1.3 seconds. Both presented tones had a 100 ms duration. Standard tones were presented 80% of the time, while oddball tones appeared 20% of the time. The order of presented stimuli was pseudo-randomly generated, while also adhering to the rule that two oddball stimuli could not be played together. 200 trials were presented in 5 blocks, each consisting of 40 trials. Subjects could rest between the trial blocks. Also, they had to report the number of times they heard the oddball tone during that block, which was to ensure they were engaged in the task.

In experiment 2, subjects again listened to 200 auditory stimuli with the same frequencies, proportions, and resting times as in experiment 1. The inter-stimulus time was 1.2 seconds. This time, subjects were instructed to give immediate feedback on a keyboard when they heard the stimulus (down arrow for standard, up arrow for oddball) while also trying to remain accurate. The responses of subjects and their reaction times were recorded along with the EEG data.

Resting-state experiments were conducted in two conditions, eyes open and eyes closed. Both of these conditions were recorded for 2 minutes. Subjects were instructed to remain as still as possible, maintain a relaxed state during the recordings, and avoid any specific thoughts or mental tasks during this period.

Each CSV file recording has 19 columns. Each column corresponds to an output channel acquired from the Unicorn Hybrid Black EEG device. There are different types of channels in the raw recording files: 1 time channel, 8 EEG channels, 3 accelerometer channels, 3 gyroscope channels, 1 counter channel, 1 validation channel, and 1 event channel.

Specifically, all the 19 channels are: Time, EEG_Fz, EEG_C3, EEG_Cz, EEG_C4, EEG_Pz, EEG_PO7, EEG_Oz, EEG_PO8, Accelerometer_X, Accelerometer_Y, Accelerometer_Z, Gyroscope_X, Gyroscope_Y, Gyroscope_Z, Battery_Level, Counter, Validation, Event.

1. Time column indicates a number of seconds passed since the start of the session.
2. EEG_* columns indicate voltage values (in microvolts) for 8 EEG channels specified in the Unicord Hybrid Black EEG device manual. For each EEG channel an electrode position is indicated (e.g. Cz) according to the international 10-20 system.
3. Accelerometer_* columns indicate acceleration (±8 g) of the Unicorn Hybrid Black EEG device in X/Y/Z directions.
4. Gyroscope_* columns indicate the angular rotation (±1000 °/s) of Unicorn Hybrid Black EEG device in X/Y/Z directions.
5. Battery_Level column value ranges from 0 to 100 and indicates the remaining battery level.
6. Counter column tracks the sample order in which the values were received from Unicorn Hybrid Black to the host PC.
7. Validation column is a validation indicator for the samples received from the Unicorn Hybrid Black device.
8. Event column indicates if any event was registered during the recording. Event descriptions for different experiment types can be found below.

More information about channels can be found in Unicorn Hybrid Black User Manual.

Note: The data was streamed using the Unicorn LSL interface, which by itself outputs 17 raw channels (except "Time" and "Events" channels). Given channels were captured and exported into CSV files. Event markers were streamed (also using LSL protocol) by NeuroPype™ Experiment Recorder (ER) software. Both of these streams were exported in XDF file format and then automatically synced using the PyXDF library. As a result, the "Time" and "Events" columns were added to the CSV files.

There are multiple event markers that accompany the data in the "Event" column. Each event represents a point in time where something notable has happened, for example when a stimulus was presented, or a keyboard response was received. Event markers may also contain metadata such as the system status or any errors that happened during the recording. Key event markers for each experiment are as follows:

AEP:

• trial-begin
• oddball or target
• trial-end

AEP_Feedback:

• trial-begin
• oddball or target
• response-received-arrow_down or response-received-arrow_up
• response-was-correct or response-was-incorrect
• rt-*ms (reaction time in milliseconds, e.g., rt-200ms)
• trial-end

Resting_Open:

• resting-state-eyes-open-begin
• resting-state-eyes-open-end

Resting_Closed:

• resting-state-eyes-closed-begin
• resting-state-eyes-closed-end

Raw data contains unsegmented, unfiltered, and unprocessed data in CSV format. Each folder in "Raw_Data" that corresponds to one of the four experiment types will contain recordings from each subject.

Recording files inside these folders are named as such: {Subject ID}_{Experiment Type}_{Session ID}.csv. For example, a resting state recording (with eyes open) from the first subject during the second session will have the name: 1_resting-open_2.csv.

Subjects are numbered from 1 through 10 and possible experiment types are aep/aep-feedback/resting-open/resting-closed. Session IDs are either 1 or 2 for "aep/aep-feedback" experiments, while all resting state experiments have a single session.

Note: Some recordings will have an additional '_UNFINISHED' suffix at the end, which means that the recording was interrupted during that session (for example, due to the EEG device battery getting too low). All '_UNFINISHED' recordings were re-run from start to finish, which means there are at least two full sessions for 'aep/aep-feedback' experiments. However, epochs from unfinished recordings do not have any defects and can be freely used in the subsequent steps of processing.

The filtered data has the same CSV file format as the raw data. Only EEG channels are modified, other columns remain the same.

Filtering of the EEG channels was done using the 0.5-60 Hz bandpass filter and 50 Hz notch filter. Both filters were designed with the MNE library as one-pass, zero-phase, non-causal filters using the windowed time-domain (firwin) method with a Hamming window.

The raw data for each subject were segmented using the event markers, where all the data that was not involved in the trials (e.g. resting sections) were removed. For the

Graph and download economic data for Unemployment Rate - 16-19 Yrs., Black or African American (LNS14000018) from Jan 1972 to Aug 2025 about 16 to 19 years, African-American, household survey, unemployment, rate, and USA.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 354 cities in the North Dakota by Black or African American population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

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

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Black Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the North Dakota by their Black or African American population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Black Population: The Black population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Black. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total North Dakota Black Population: This tells us how much of the entire North Dakota Black population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

Vintage 2024 Population projections by race and age group for North Carolina counties. Includes population by race (American Indian/Alaska Native), Asian and Pacific Islander (Asian), Black, White, Other (includes persons identified as two or more races). In some counties not all race groups will be reported separately. For population of less than 250 for any race group, the population by age will be reported within the other category and the "group n" for the other category show a number larger than 1 indicating that the other category includes population from other race groups that are separately reported for other counties. For this reason, users should take care in aggregating race group population across counties.