Empowered by Tyler Technologies
Refine Results

The population density of El Paso, TX was 2,666 in 2018. The population density of San Antonio, TX was 3,225 in 2018.

Population Density

Population Density is computed by dividing the total population by Land Area Per Square Mile.

Above charts are based on data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey | ODN Dataset | API - Notes:

1. ODN datasets and APIs are subject to change and may differ in format from the original source data in order to provide a user-friendly experience on this site.

2. To build your own apps using this data, see the ODN Dataset and API links.

3. If you use this derived data in an app, we ask that you provide a link somewhere in your applications to the Open Data Network with a citation that states: "Data for this application was provided by the Open Data Network" where "Open Data Network" links to http://opendatanetwork.com. Where an application has a region specific module, we ask that you add an additional line that states: "Data about REGIONX was provided by the Open Data Network." where REGIONX is an HREF with a name for a geographical region like "Seattle, WA" and the link points to this page URL, e.g. http://opendatanetwork.com/region/1600000US5363000/Seattle_WA

Geographic and Population Datasets Involving El Paso, TX or San Antonio, TX

  • API

    CPI 1.1 Texas Child Population (ages 0-17) by County 2014-2023

    data.texas.gov | Last Updated 2024-01-30T20:42:33.000Z

    As recommended by the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to ensure consistency across all HHSC agencies, in 2012 DFPS adopted the HHSC methodology on how to categorize race and ethnicity. As a result, data broken down by race and ethnicity in 2012 and after is not directly comparable to race and ethnicity data in 2011 and before. The population totals may not match previously printed DFPS Data Books. Past population estimates are adjusted based on the U.S. Census data as it becomes available. This is important to keep the data in line with current best practices, but may cause some past counts, such as Abuse/Neglect Victims per 1,000 Texas Children, to be recalculated. Population Data Source - Population Estimates and Projections Program, Texas State Data Center, Office of the State Demographer and the Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Current population estimates and projections data as of December 2020. Visit dfps.texas.gov for information on all DFPS programs.

  • API

    Incident_Reporting

    data.texas.gov | Last Updated 2024-05-01T11:45:41.000Z

    As outlined in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department General Administrative Policy (GAP) Manual reference GAP.07.03, incidents must be properly documented and reported. Critical incidents, serious incidents, and suspected mistreatment of youth must be reported immediately to the Office of Inspector General – Incident Reporting Center (IRC).

  • API

    CPI 3.5 Workers Responsible For Intake Or Investigation By Office Location County FY2014-FY2023

    data.texas.gov | Last Updated 2024-01-30T18:56:30.000Z

    This chart includes statewide intake staff, investigation staff, Alternative Response staff with caseworker job classifications along with CPI Screeners and CPI Special Investigators. SWI Intake Workers are located in Austin (Travis County), El Paso and Texarkana (Bowie County). This dashboard addressed a prior reporting requirement from the Texas Family Code. Visit dfps.texas.gov for information on CPS Abuse/Neglect Investigations and all DFPS programs.

  • API

    HE.C.2 Peer Cities Table V3

    datahub.austintexas.gov | Last Updated 2024-05-24T16:51:14.000Z

    PARD’s Long Range Plan for Land, Facilities and Programs, Our Parks, Our Future (adopted November 2019) compared Austin’s park system to five peer cities: Atlanta, GA, Dallas, TX, Portland, OR, San Antonio, TX, and San Diego, CA. The peer cities were selected based on characteristics such as population, size, density, and governance type. Portland and San Diego were selected as aspirational cities known for their park systems. Note that the table below presents each scoring area’s 1 to 100 index, where 100 is the highest possible score.