Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/7924/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/7924/terms
This collection consists of modified records from CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1960 PUBLIC USE SAMPLE [UNITED STATES]: ONE-IN-ONE HUNDRED SAMPE (ICPSR 7756). The original records consisted of 120-character household records and 120-character person records, whereas the new modified records are rectangular (each person record is combined with the corresponding household record) with a length of 188, after the deletion of some items. Additional information was added to the data records including typical educational requirement for current occupation, occupational prestige score, and group identification code. This version differs from the original public-use sample in the following ways: ages of persons 15-74 are included, 10 percent of the Black population from each file is included, and Mexican Americans (identified by a Spanish surname) from outside Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas are not included. This dataset uses the 1970 equivalent occupational codes. The Census Bureau originally used two separate codes for the 1970 and 1960 files, but these have been modified and are now identical.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
DEC. 22, 2022 – After a historically low rate of change between 2020 and 2021, the U.S. resident population increased by 0.4%, or 1,256,003, to 333,287,557 in 2022, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2022 national and state population estimates and components of change released today.
Net international migration — the number of people moving in and out of the country — added 1,010,923 people between 2021 and 2022 and was the primary driver of growth. This represents 168.8% growth over 2021 totals of 376,029 – an indication that migration patterns are returning to pre-pandemic levels. Positive natural change (births minus deaths) increased the population by 245,080.
“There was a sizeable uptick in population growth last year compared to the prior year’s historically low increase,” said Kristie Wilder, a demographer in the Population Division at the Census Bureau. “A rebound in net international migration, coupled with the largest year-over-year increase in total births since 2007, is behind this increase.”
Regional Patterns The South, the most populous region with a resident population of 128,716,192, was the fastest-growing and the largest-gaining region last year, increasing by 1.1%, or 1,370,163. Positive net domestic migration (867,935) and net international migration (414,740) were the components with the largest contributions to this growth, adding a combined 1,282,675 residents.
The West was the only other region to experience growth in 2022, having gained 153,601 residents — an annual increase of 0.2% for a total resident population of 78,743,364 — despite losing 233,150 residents via net domestic migration (the difference between residents moving in and out of an area). Natural increase (154,405) largely accounted for the growth in the West.
The Northeast, with a population of 57,040,406, and the Midwest, with a population of 68,787,595, lost 218,851 (-0.4%) and 48,910 (-0.1%) residents, respectively. The declines in these regions were due to negative net domestic migration.
Changes in State Population Increasing by 470,708 people since July 2021, Texas was the largest-gaining state in the nation, reaching a total population of 30,029,572. By crossing the 30-million-population threshold this past year, Texas joins California as the only states with a resident population above 30 million. Growth in Texas last year was fueled by gains from all three components: net domestic migration (230,961), net international migration (118,614), and natural increase (118,159).
Florida was the fastest-growing state in 2022, with an annual population increase of 1.9%, resulting in a total resident population of 22,244,823.
“While Florida has often been among the largest-gaining states,” Wilder noted, “this was the first time since 1957 that Florida has been the state with the largest percent increase in population.”
It was also the second largest-gaining state behind Texas, with an increase of 416,754 residents. Net migration was the largest contributing component of change to Florida’s growth, adding 444,484 residents. New York had the largest annual numeric and percent population decline, decreasing by 180,341 (-0.9%). Net domestic migration (-299,557) was the largest contributing component to the state’s population decline.
Eighteen states experienced a population decline in 2022, compared to 15 and DC the prior year. California, with a population of 39,029,342, and Illinois, with a population of 12,582,032, also had six-figure decreases in resident population. Both states’ declining populations were largely due to net domestic outmigration, totaling 343,230 and 141,656, respectively.
Puerto Rico Population Changes In 2022, Puerto Rico’s population was 3,221,789. This reflects a decrease of 1.3%, or 40,904 people, between 2021 and 2022.
Puerto Rico’s population decline resulted from negative net international migration (-26,447) and negative natural change (-14,457), where deaths outnumber births.
**###Components of Change for States**
In 2022, 24 states experienced negative natural change, or natural decrease. Florida had the highest natural decrease at -40,216, followed by Pennsylvania (-23,021) and Ohio (-19,543). In 2021, 25 states had natural decrease.
Of the 26 states and the District of Columbia where births outnumbered deaths, Texas (118,159), California (106,155) and New York (35,611) had the highest natural increase.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw positive net international migration with California (125,715), Florida (125,629) and Texas (118,614) having the largest gains.
The biggest gains from net domestic migration last year were in Florida (318,855), Texas (230,961) and North Carolina (99,796), while the biggest losses were in California (-343,230), New York (-299,557) and Illinois...
Facebook
Twitterhttps://search.gesis.org/research_data/datasearch-httpwww-da-ra-deoaip--oaioai-da-ra-de442398https://search.gesis.org/research_data/datasearch-httpwww-da-ra-deoaip--oaioai-da-ra-de442398
Abstract (en): This data collection contains extracts of the original DUALabs Special Fifth Count ED/BG Summary Tapes. They are comprised of limited demographic and socioeconomic variables for 27 states in the continental United States. Data are provided at the county, minor civil division, enumeration district, and block group levels for total population and Spanish heritage population for the following states: Minnesota, Nevada, Wyoming, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Missouri, Washington, Iowa, Louisiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Oregon, Texas, New Mexico, and California. Demographic variables provide information on race, age, sex, country and place of origin, income, and family status and size. The data were obtained by ICPSR from the National Chicano Research Network, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.. A total of 27 states in the continental United States. 2011-08-18 SAS, SPSS, and Stata setups have been added to this data collection.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 28 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 28 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.
Facebook
TwitterCC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
AbstractWildflowers seeds are routinely spread along highways and thoroughfares throughout North America as part of federal beautification policy, but the genetic effect of the introduction of these cultivated populations on wild populations of the same species is unknown. Interbreeding may occur between these seeded and wild populations, resulting in several possible outcomes. Here we sample 187 individuals in 12 matched pairs of neighboring wild and seeded populations of the Texas bluebonnet (Lupinus texensis), a species popular in commercially available wildflower seed mixes used by both the Texas Department of Transportation and the public. We use genotyping by sequencing to identify 11,741 genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms, as well as a smaller number of SNPs from the chloroplast genome, to analyze population structure and genetic diversity within and between the populations. We find a striking lack of population structure both between wild and seeded populations and amongst wild populations. STRUCTURE analyses indicate that all populations are apparently panmictic. This pattern may be explained by extensive swamping of wild populations by seeded germplasm and increased dispersal of semi-domesticated seed across this species’ core native range by humans. We discuss the possible negative and positive ramifications of homogenization on the evolutionary future of this popular wildflower species. Usage notesSupplementary tables and figuresSupplementary material for "Homogenization of populations in the wildflower Texas bluebonnet (Lupinus texensis)."Bluebonnet_supmat_rev.pdfMain parameters for STRUCTURE run K=1 to K=5mainparamsSTRUCTURE input filedDoccat.FinalSNP.structureUnfiltered SNPsTotalRawSNPs.vcf.gzFiltered SNPsdDoccat.FinalSNP.vcfDe novo reference assemblyreference.fasta.gzData files for chloroplast haplotype analysischloroplast.zipCode repositoryGithub repository storing bash, dDocent, R, and other scripts used in this paper.
Facebook
TwitterCongressional districts of the 99th Congress are matched to census geographic areas in this file. The areas used are those from the 1980 census. Each record contains geographic data, a congressional district code, and the total 1980 population count. Ten states were redistricted for the 99th Congress: California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington. The data for the other 40 states and the District of Columbia are identical to that for the 98th Congress. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)
Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08404.v1. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version as they may make this dataset available in multiple data formats in the future.
Facebook
TwitterThis dataset comprises the third follow-up of the baseline Hispanic EPESE, HISPANIC ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR THE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1993-1994: ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS, and provides information on 1,682 of the original respondents. The Hispanic EPESE collected data on a representative sample of community-dwelling Mexican-American elderly, aged 65 years and older, residing in the five southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The primary purpose of the series was to provide estimates of the prevalence of key physical health conditions, mental health conditions, and functional impairments in older Mexican Americans and to compare these estimates with those for other populations. The Hispanic EPESE attempted to determine whether certain risk factors for mortality and morbidity operate differently in Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic White Americans, African Americans, and other major ethnic groups. The public-use data cover background characteristics (age, sex, type of Hispanic race, income, education, marital status, number of children, employment, and religion), height, weight, social and physical functioning, chronic conditions, related health problems, health habits, self-reported use of dental, hospital, and nursing home services, and depression. The follow-ups provide a cross-sectional examination of the predictors of mortality, changes in health outcomes, and institutionalization and other changes in living arrangements, as well as changes in life situations and quality of life issues. The vital status of respondents from baseline to this round of the survey may be determined using the Vital Status file (Part 2). This file contains interview dates from the baseline as well as vital status at Wave IV (respondent survived, date of death if deceased, proxy-assisted, proxy-reported cause of death, proxy-true). The first follow-up of the baseline data (Hispanic EPESE Wave II, 1995-1996 [ICPSR 3385]) followed 2,438 of the original 3,050 respondents, and the second follow-up (Hispanic EPESE Wave III, 1998-1999 [ICPSR 4102]) followed 1,980 of these respondents. Hispanic EPESE, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2851), was modeled after the design of ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1981-1993: EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, IOWA AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, IOWA, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, AND NORTH CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA and ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1996-1997: PIEDMONT HEALTH SURVEY OF THE ELDERLY, FOURTH IN-PERSON SURVEY DURHAM, WARREN, VANCE, GRANVILLE, AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA.
Facebook
TwitterThis file contains COVID-19 death counts, death rates, and percent of total deaths by jurisdiction of residence. The data is grouped by different time periods including 3-month period, weekly, and total (cumulative since January 1, 2020). United States death counts and rates include the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and New York City. New York state estimates exclude New York City. Puerto Rico is included in HHS Region 2 estimates. Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1. Number of deaths reported in this file are the total number of COVID-19 deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and may not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Counts of deaths occurring before or after the reporting period are not included in the file. Data during recent periods are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. Death counts should not be compared across states. Data timeliness varies by state. Some states report deaths on a daily basis, while other states report deaths weekly or monthly. The ten (10) United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regions include the following jurisdictions. Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; Region 2: New Jersey, New York, New York City, Puerto Rico; Region 3: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska; Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming; Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada; Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington. Rates were calculated using the population estimates for 2021, which are estimated as of July 1, 2021 based on the Blended Base produced by the US Census Bureau in lieu of the April 1, 2020 decennial population count. The Blended Base consists of the blend of Vintage 2020 postcensal population estimates, 2020 Demographic Analysis Estimates, and 2020 Census PL 94-171 Redistricting File (see https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2020-2021/methods-statement-v2021.pdf). Rates are based on deaths occurring in the specified week/month and are age-adjusted to the 2000 standard population using the direct method (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-08-508.pdf). These rates differ from annual age-adjusted rates, typically presented in NCHS publications based on a full year of data and annualized weekly/monthly age-adjusted rates which have been adjusted to allow comparison with annual rates. Annualization rates presents deaths per year per 100,000 population that would be expected in a year if the observed period specific (weekly/monthly) rate prevailed for a full year. Sub-national death counts between 1-9 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS data confidentiality standards. Rates based on death counts less than 20 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS standards of reliability as specified in NCHS Data Presentation Standards for Proportions (available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_175.pdf.).
Facebook
TwitterThis data set represents the average population density, in number of people per square kilometer multiplied by 10 for the year 2000, compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment of selected Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). The source data set is the 2000 Population Density by Block Group for the Conterminous United States (Hitt, 2003).
The MRB_E2RF1 catchments are based on a modified version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) RF1_2 and include enhancements to support national and regional-scale surface-water quality modeling (Nolan and others, 2002; Brakebill and others, 2011).
Data were compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment for the conterminous United States covering covering New England and Mid-Atlantic (MRB1), South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee (MRB2), the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy (MRB3), the Missouri (MRB4), the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf (MRB5), the Rio Grande, Colorado, and the Great basin (MRB6), the Pacific Northwest (MRB7) river basins, and California (MRB8).
Not seeing a result you expected?
Learn how you can add new datasets to our index.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/7924/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/7924/terms
This collection consists of modified records from CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1960 PUBLIC USE SAMPLE [UNITED STATES]: ONE-IN-ONE HUNDRED SAMPE (ICPSR 7756). The original records consisted of 120-character household records and 120-character person records, whereas the new modified records are rectangular (each person record is combined with the corresponding household record) with a length of 188, after the deletion of some items. Additional information was added to the data records including typical educational requirement for current occupation, occupational prestige score, and group identification code. This version differs from the original public-use sample in the following ways: ages of persons 15-74 are included, 10 percent of the Black population from each file is included, and Mexican Americans (identified by a Spanish surname) from outside Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas are not included. This dataset uses the 1970 equivalent occupational codes. The Census Bureau originally used two separate codes for the 1970 and 1960 files, but these have been modified and are now identical.