Income and Urban vs. Rural Population Dataset

Overview

This dataset provides insights into the population distribution and income levels across counties in the United States, with a classification of counties as either "Urban" or "Rural." The data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2023 American Community Survey (ACS).

Methodology

1. Data Source:

   • API Endpoint: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2023 API
   • Variables:
     • B01003_001E: Total population.
     • B19013_001E: Median household income.

2. Processing:

   • Counties were classified as "Urban" if their population was above the median population; otherwise, they were classified as "Rural."
   • FIPS codes were generated by concatenating State and County FIPS codes.

3. Columns:

   • County: County name.
   • State: State name.
   • FIPS: Combined state and county FIPS code.
   • State FIPS Code: State's Federal Information Processing Standard code.
   • County FIPS Code: County's FIPS code.
   • Total Population: Total population of the county.
   • Median Household Income: Median household income for the county.
   • Urban-Rural: Classification based on population (Urban or Rural).

Usage

This dataset can be used for: - Urban vs. rural demographic and economic analysis. - Income distribution studies. - Data visualization and mapping using FIPS codes.

License

This dataset is provided under the public domain. Proper attribution to the U.S. Census Bureau is appreciated.

This submission includes publicly available data extracted in its original form. Please reference the Related Publication listed here for source and citation information The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has developed a six-level urban-rural classification scheme for U.S. counties and other jurisdictions that are the equivalent of counties in their area. NCHS has updated the scheme based on the 2023 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineation of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas and information about all people living in each of the counties—its population—taken from Census' 2022 postcensal estimates of July 1, 2022. NCHS used these resources to classify U.S. counties and county equivalents into six categories—four metropolitan and two nonmetropolitan. The NCHS scheme allows researchers, policy makers, and others to study American's health in relation to the urbanization level—more urban or more rural—of the place they live. They also can use NCHS data to monitor the health of people living in urban and rural areas. [Quote from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-analysis-tools/urban-rural.html]

Census tracts with 4, 5, 6 and 10 tier classifications. We'll be adding 2020 data when its available from the USDA or the Census.From Asnake Hailu,The schemes shared in the RUCAGuide.pdf are DOH modified layers, prepared merely for epidemiological purposes [I.e., to delineate geography for a comprehensive epidemiologic assessment, describing rural-urban differences in demographics, health outcomes, risk factors, access to services, and the like.] Those are not as such rural/urban designation tools for census block areas, nor for any of the other geography categories. The files with the DOH modified layers are available at https://doh.wa.gov/public-health-healthcare-providers/rural-health/data-maps-and-other-resources under the sub-county level: Zip Code and Census Tract sub-heading.Please note: those files are essentially a decade old. We were anticipating to update our core products that are on our website, if and when the Federal Office of Rural Health and Policy (FORHP) produces a newer version of RUCA codes based on census 2020. The FORHP customarily contracts with a university for that task. We are three years away from 2020, except there is no update posted on the webpage I am familiar to get the original RUCA delineations. Here is a path where I go to check for the newer version: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes/

Note: Updates to this data product are discontinued. Dozens of definitions are currently used by Federal and State agencies, researchers, and policymakers. The ERS Rural Definitions data product allows users to make comparisons among nine representative rural definitions.

Methods of designating the urban periphery range from the use of municipal boundaries to definitions based on counties. Definitions based on municipal boundaries may classify as rural much of what would typically be considered suburban. Definitions that delineate the urban periphery based on counties may include extensive segments of a county that many would consider rural.

We have selected a representative set of nine alternative rural definitions and compare social and economic indicators from the 2000 decennial census across the nine definitions. We chose socioeconomic indicators (population, education, poverty, etc.) that are commonly used to highlight differences between urban and rural areas.This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: Webpage with links to Excel files State-Level Maps For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

The Census Bureau released revised delineations for urban areas on December 29, 2022. The new criteria (contained in this Federal Register Notice) is based primarily on housing unit density measured at the census block level. The minimum qualifying threshold for inclusion as an urban area is an area that contains at least 2,000 housing units or has a population of at least 5,000 persons. It also eliminates the classification of areas as “urban clusters/urbanized areas”. This represents a change from 2010, where urban areas were defined as areas consisting of 50,000 people or more and urban clusters consisted of at least 2,500 people but less than 50,000 people with at least 1,500 people living outside of group quarters. Due to the new population thresholds for urban areas, 36 urban clusters in California are no longer considered urban areas, leaving California with 193 urban areas after the new criteria was implemented.

The State of California experienced an increase of 1,885,884 in the total urban population, or 5.3%. However, the total urban area population as a percentage of the California total population went down from 95% to 94.2%. For more information about the mapped data, download the Excel spreadsheet here.

Please note that some of the 2020 urban areas have different names or additional place names as a result of the inclusion of housing unit counts as secondary naming criteria.

Please note there are four urban areas that cross state boundaries in Arizona and Nevada. For 2010, only the parts within California are displayed on the map; however, the population and housing estimates represent the entirety of the urban areas. For 2020, the population and housing unit estimates pertains to the areas within California only.

Data for this web application was derived from the 2010 and 2020 Censuses (2010 and 2020 Census Blocks, 2020 Urban Areas, and Counties) and the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (2010 -Urban Areas) and can be found at data.census.gov.

For more information about the urban area delineations, visit the Census Bureau's Urban and Rural webpage and FAQ.

To view more data from the State of California Department of Finance, visit the Demographic Research Unit Data Hub.

(File Size - 5 KB). The 2011 rural-urban classification (RUC) of counties in England is based on the 2011 RUC of Output Areas (OA) published in August 2013, and allows users to create a rural/urban view of county level products. The classification was produced by the University of Sheffield and was sponsored by a cross-Government working group comprising Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department of the Communities and Local Government and Office for National Statistics.

This file provides a rural-urban view of 2001 Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA) in England and Wales. The ZIP file contains the Rural Urban Classification in XLSX and CSV format and includes a user guide. The files were originally from the NeSS website. Click on the Download button to download the ZIP file.The classification of rural and urban areas is the outcome of a project co-sponsored by:Office for National Statistics (ONS);Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra);Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Communities and Local Government);Countryside Agency (CA); andNational Assembly for Wales (NAW).The classification was developed in 2004 by a consortium co-ordinated by Prof. John Shepherd from Birkbeck College. The technical work was lead by Peter Bibby of University of Sheffield and the project also involved the University of Glamorgan and Geowise. The rural and urban classification of Output Areas, Super Output Areas (this dataset) and Wards has been provided to enable datasets to be analysed according to the classification. This provides a powerful tool for the development and monitoring of rural and urban policies.Please Note: Super Output Areas do not have all the same codes as the OA level Dataset. For SOAs and Wards the classifications for ‘Villages, Hamlets and Isolated Dwellings’ have been combined.Similar procedures to those used to classify Output Areas apply to the classification to the 7,194 Middle Layer Super Output Areas in the dataset. However the morphological classification differs in the number of categories as very few MSOAs can be classified as predominantly dispersed settlements. MSOAs are categorised into just three domains: urban 10k, town and fringe and villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings, using the key below:2005 Rural and Urban morphology indicator1 - denotes predominantly urban >10k2 - denotes predominantly town and fringe3 - denotes other rural (including village, hamlet and isolated dwellings)2005 Rural and Urban context indicator0 - denotes less sparsely populated areas1 - denotes sparsely populated areas

This file provides a rural-urban view of 2001 Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOA) in England and Wales. The ZIP file contains the Rural Urban Classification in XLSX and CSV format and includes a user guide. The files were originally from the NeSS website. Click on the Download button to download the ZIP file.The classification of rural and urban areas is the outcome of a project co-sponsored by:Office for National Statistics (ONS);Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra);Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Communities and Local Government);Countryside Agency (CA); andNational Assembly for Wales (NAW).The classification was developed in 2004 by a consortium co-ordinated by Prof. John Shepherd from Birkbeck College. The technical work was lead by Peter Bibby of University of Sheffield and the project also involved the University of Glamorgan and Geowise. The rural and urban classification of Output Areas, Super Output Areas (this dataset) and Wards has been provided to enable datasets to be analysed according to the classification. This provides a powerful tool for the development and monitoring of rural and urban policies.Please Note: Super Output Areas do not have all the same codes as the OA level Dataset. For SOAs and Wards the classifications for ‘Villages, Hamlets and Isolated Dwellings’ have been combined.Similar procedures to those used to classify Output Areas apply to the classification for the 34,378 Lower Layer Super Output Areas in the dataset. However the morphological classification differs in the number of categories as very few LSOAs can be classified as predominantly dispersed settlements. LSOAs are categorised into just three domains: urban 10k, town and fringe and villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings, using the key below:2005 Rural and Urban morphology indicator1 - denotes predominantly urban >10k2 - denotes predominantly town and fringe3 - denotes other rural (including village, hamlet and isolated dwellings)2005 Rural and Urban context indicator0 - denotes less sparsely populated areas1 - denotes sparsely populated areas

This file provides a rural-urban view of 2001 Output Areas (OA) in England and Wales. The ZIP file contains the Rural Urban Classification in XLSX and CSV format and includes a user guide. The files were originally from the NeSS website. Click on the Download button in the top right corner to download the file.The classification of rural and urban areas is the outcome of a project co-sponsored by:Office for National Statistics (ONS);Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra);Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Communities and Local Government);Countryside Agency (CA); andNational Assembly for Wales (NAW).The classification was developed in 2004 by a consortium co-ordinated by Prof. John Shepherd from Birkbeck College. The technical work was lead by Peter Bibby of University of Sheffield and the project also involved the University of Glamorgan and Geowise. The rural and urban classification of Output Areas (this dataset), Super Output Areas and Wards has been provided to enable datasets to be analysed according to the classification. This provides a powerful tool for the development and monitoring of rural and urban policies.Please Note: Output Areas do not have all the same codes as the SOA and Ward level Datasets. For SOAs and Wards the classifications for ‘Villages, Hamlets and Isolated Dwellings’ have been combined.The classification enables each of the 175,434 Output Areas in England and Wales to be classified on the basis of context i.e. whether the surrounding area of a given Output Area is sparsely populated or less sparsely populated. Secondly, the classification enables Output Areas to be distinguished on a morphological basis - as predominantly urban or predominantly town and fringe, predominantly village or predominantly dispersed (which includes Hamlets and Isolated Dwellings). The key for these are shown below. The town and fringe, village, hamlet and isolated dwellings classifications are taken as being rural.2005 Rural and Urban morphology indicator:1 - denotes predominantly urban >10k2 - denotes predominantly town and fringe3 - denotes predominantly village4 - denotes predominantly dispersed (hamlet and isolated dwellings)2005 Rural and Urban context indicator:0 denotes less sparsely populated areas1 denotes sparsely populated areas

This file provides a rural-urban view of 2003 Census Area Statistics (CAS) Wards in England and Wales. The ZIP file contains the Rural Urban Classification in XLSX and CSV format and includes a user guide. The files were originally from the NeSS website. Click on the Download button to download the ZIP file.The classification of rural and urban areas is the outcome of a project co-sponsored by:Office for National Statistics (ONS);Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra);Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Communities and Local Government);Countryside Agency (CA); andNational Assembly for Wales (NAW).The classification was developed in 2004 by a consortium co-ordinated by Prof. John Shepherd from Birkbeck College. The technical work was lead by Peter Bibby of University of Sheffield and the project also involved the University of Glamorgan and Geowise. The rural and urban classification of Output Areas, Super Output Areas and Wards (this dataset) has been provided to enable datasets to be analysed according to the classification. This provides a powerful tool for the development and monitoring of rural and urban policies.Please Note: Wards do not have all the same classification codes as the OA level Dataset. For Wards and SOAs the classifications for ‘Villages, Hamlets and Isolated Dwellings’ has been combined.Similar procedures to those used to classify Output Areas apply to the classification for the 8,850 CAS Wards in England and Wales. However the morphological classification differs in the number of categories as very few wards can be classified as predominantly dispersed settlements. Wards are categorised into just three domains: urban 10k, town and fringe and villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings. See key below:2005 Rural and Urban morphology indicator1 - denotes predominantly urban >10k2 - denotes predominantly town and fringe3 - denotes other rural (including village, hamlet and isolated dwellings)2005 Rural and Urban context indicator0 - denotes less sparsely populated areas1 - denotes sparsely populated areas

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued on May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

The surveillance case definition for COVID-19, a nationally notifiable disease, was first described in a position statement from the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which was later revised. However, there is some variation in how jurisdictions implemented these case definitions. More information on how CDC collects COVID-19 case surveillance data can be found at FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were reported from state and local health departments through a robust process with the following steps:

• Aggregate county-level counts were obtained indirectly, via automated overnight web collection, or directly, via a data submission process.
• If more than one official county data source existed, CDC used a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source to retrieve the highest case and death counts, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• A CDC data team reviewed counts for congruency prior to integration and set up alerts to monitor for discrepancies in the data.
• CDC routinely compiled these data and post the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data were aggregated to obtain state- and territory- specific totals.
• Counting of cases and deaths is based on date of report and not on the date of symptom onset. CDC calculates rates in these data by using population estimates provided by the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).
• COVID-19 aggregate case and death data are organized in a time series that includes cumulative number of cases and deaths as reported by a jurisdiction on a given date. New case and death counts are calculated as the week-to-week change in cumulative counts of cases and deaths reported (i.e., newly reported cases and deaths = cumulative number of cases/deaths reported this week minus the cumulative total reported the prior week.

This process was collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provided the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. Throughout data collection, CDC retrospectively updated counts to correct known data quality issues.

Description This archived public use dataset focuses on the cumulative and weekly case and death rates per 100,000 persons within various sociodemographic factors across all states and their counties. All resulting data are expressed as rates calculated as the number of cases or deaths per 100,000 persons in counties meeting various classification criteria using the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).

Each county within jurisdictions is classified into multiple categories for each factor. All rates in this dataset are based on classification of counties by the characteristics of their population, not individual-level factors. This applies to each of the available factors observed in this dataset. Specific factors and their corresponding categories are detailed below.

Population-level factors Each unique population factor is detailed below. Please note that the “Classification” column describes each of the 12 factors in the dataset, including a data dictionary describing what each numeric digit means within each classification. The “Category” column uses numeric digits (2-6, depending on the factor) defined in the “Classification” column.

Metro vs. Non-Metro – “Metro_Rural” Metro vs. Non-Metro classification type is an aggregation of the 6 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban-Rural classifications, where “Metro” counties include Large Central Metro, Large Fringe Metro, Medium Metro, and Small Metro areas and “Non-Metro” counties include Micropolitan and Non-Core (Rural) areas. 1 – Metro, including “Large Central Metro, Large Fringe Metro, Medium Metro, and Small Metro” areas 2 – Non-Metro, including “Micropolitan, and Non-Core” areas

Urban/rural - “NCHS_Class” Urban/rural classification type is based on the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. Levels consist of:

1 Large Central Metro
2 Large Fringe Metro 3 Medium Metro 4 Small Metro 5 Micropolitan 6 Non-Core (Rural)

American Community Survey (ACS) data were used to classify counties based on their age, race/ethnicity, household size, poverty level, and health insurance status distributions. Cut points were generated by using tertiles and categorized as High, Moderate, and Low percentages. The classification “Percent non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander” is only available for “Hawaii” due to low numbers in this category for other available locations. This limitation also applies to other race/ethnicity categories within certain jurisdictions, where 0 counties fall into the certain category. The cut points for each ACS category are further detailed below:

Age 65 - “Age65”

1 Low (0-24.4%) 2 Moderate (>24.4%-28.6%) 3 High (>28.6%)

Non-Hispanic, Asian - “NHAA”

1 Low (<=5.7%) 2 Moderate (>5.7%-17.4%) 3 High (>17.4%)

Non-Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native - “NHIA”

1 Low (<=0.7%) 2 Moderate (>0.7%-30.1%) 3 High (>30.1%)

Non-Hispanic, Black - “NHBA”

1 Low (<=2.5%) 2 Moderate (>2.5%-37%) 3 High (>37%)

Hispanic - “HISP”

1 Low (<=18.3%) 2 Moderate (>18.3%-45.5%) 3 High (>45.5%)

Population in Poverty - “Pov”

1 Low (0-12.3%) 2 Moderate (>12.3%-17.3%) 3 High (>17.3%)

Population Uninsured- “Unins”

1 Low (0-7.1%) 2 Moderate (>7.1%-11.4%) 3 High (>11.4%)

Average Household Size - “HH”

1 Low (1-2.4) 2 Moderate (>2.4-2.6) 3 High (>2.6)

Community Vulnerability Index Value - “CCVI” COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI) scores are from Surgo Ventures, which range from 0 to 1, were generated based on tertiles and categorized as:

1 Low Vulnerability (0.0-0.4) 2 Moderate Vulnerability (0.4-0.6) 3 High Vulnerability (0.6-1.0)

Social Vulnerability Index Value – “SVI" Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) scores (vintage 2020), which also range from 0 to 1, are from CDC/ASTDR’s Geospatial Research, Analysis & Service Program. Cut points for CCVI and SVI scores were generated based on tertiles and categorized as:

1 Low Vulnerability (0-0.333) 2 Moderate Vulnerability (0.334-0.666) 3 High Vulnerability (0.667-1)

This study was undertaken to enable cross-community analysis of gang trends in all areas of the United States. It was also designed to provide a comparative analysis of social, economic, and demographic differences among non-metropolitan jurisdictions in which gangs were reported to have been persistent problems, those in which gangs had been more transitory, and those that reported no gang problems. Data were collected from four separate sources and then merged into a single dataset using the county Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code as the attribute of common identification. The data sources included: (1) local police agency responses to three waves (1996, 1997, and 1998) of the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS), (2) rural-urban classification and county-level measures of primary economic activity from the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, (3) county-level economic and demographic data from the County and City Data Book, 1994, and from USA Counties, 1998, produced by the United States Department of Commerce, and (4) county-level data on access to interstate highways provided by Tom Ricketts and Randy Randolph of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Variables include the FIPS codes for state, county, county subdivision, and sub-county, population in the agency jurisdiction, type of jurisdiction, and whether the county was dependent on farming, mining, manufacturing, or government. Other variables categorizing counties include retirement destination, federal lands, commuting, persistent poverty, and transfer payments. The year gang problems began in that jurisdiction, number of youth groups, number of active gangs, number of active gang members, percent of gang members who migrated, and the number of gangs in 1996, 1997, and 1998 are also available. Rounding out the variables are unemployment rates, median household income, percent of persons in county below poverty level, percent of family households that were one-parent households, percent of housing units in the county that were vacant, had no telephone, or were renter-occupied, resident population of the county in 1990 and 1997, change in unemployment rates, land area of county, percent of persons in the county speaking Spanish at home, and whether an interstate highway intersected the county.

This dataset was created for the Appalachia Ohio GIS Collaborative Hub by taking the 2020 Census TIGER/Line Tract boundaries and ZIP Code boundaries, filtered for Ohio, and joining them to the 2020 USDA Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) Codes tables downloaded from the USDA. RUCA codes are a classification scheme allowing for flexible, census tract and ZIP code delineation of rural and urban areas throughout the United States and its territories. There are two layers in this dataset, census tracts and ZIP codes. By default they are symbolized by the Primary RUCA code. Both layers include Primary and Secondary RUCA codes. The census tract layer additionally includes the Urban Area Cluster associated with a tract, the Urban Core Type, primary and secondary commuting destinations, population, and population density. More detail about attributes can be found in the description for each layer.2020 Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) CodesThe USDA, Economic Research Service’s (ERS) Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes are a classification scheme allowing for flexible, census tract delineation of rural and urban areas throughout the United States and its territories. RUCA codes were designed to address a major limitation associated with county-based classifications; they are often too large to accurately delineate boundaries between rural and urban areas. The more geographically-detailed information provided by RUCA codes can be used to improve rural research and policy—such as addressing concerns that remote, rural communities in large metropolitan counties are not eligible for some rural assistance programs.The RUCA codes consist of two levels. The primary RUCA codes establish urban cores and the census tracts that are the most economically integrated with those cores through commuting. The secondary RUCA codes indicate whether a census tract has a strong secondary connection (through commuting) to an even larger urban core. This two-level structure provides flexibility in combining levels to meet varying definitional needs and preferences. The RUCA codes were created using census tract data and were subsequently adapted to ZIP codes.The tables used for the joins were the USDA 2020 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes, census tracts table and the 2020 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes, ZIP codes table. Both were marked as last updated 7/31/2025, and are available for download from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes. Tables used for join were downloaded 9/25/2025.

The goal is to predict the rate of heart disease (per 100,000 individuals) across the United States at the county-level from other socioeconomic indicators. The data is compiled from a wide range of sources and made publicly available by the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS).

There are 33 variables in this dataset. Each row in the dataset represents a United States county, and the dataset we are working with covers two particular years, denoted a, and b We don't provide a unique identifier for an individual county, just a row_id for each row.

The variables in the dataset have names that of the form category_variable, where category is the high level category of the variable (e.g. econ or health). variable is what the specific column contains.

We're trying to predict the variable heart_disease_mortality_per_100k (a positive integer) for each row of the test data set.

Columns

area — information about the county

area_rucc — Rural-Urban Continuum Codes "form a classification scheme that distinguishes metropolitan counties by the population size of their metro area, and nonmetropolitan counties by degree of urbanization and adjacency to a metro area. The official Office of Management and Budget (OMB) metro and nonmetro categories have been subdivided into three metro and six nonmetro categories. Each county in the U.S. is assigned one of the 9 codes." (USDA Economic Research Service, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/)

area_urban_influence — Urban Influence Codes "form a classification scheme that distinguishes metropolitan counties by population size of their metro area, and nonmetropolitan counties by size of the largest city or town and proximity to metro and micropolitan areas." (USDA Economic Research Service, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/urban-influence-codes/)

econ — economic indicators

econ_economic_typology — County Typology Codes "classify all U.S. counties according to six mutually exclusive categories of economic dependence and six overlapping categories of policy-relevant themes. The economic dependence types include farming, mining, manufacturing, Federal/State government, recreation, and nonspecialized counties. The policy-relevant types include low education, low employment, persistent poverty, persistent child poverty, population loss, and retirement destination." (USDA Economic Research Service, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-typology-codes.aspx)

econ_pct_civilian_labor — Civilian labor force, annual average, as percent of population (Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/lau/)

econ_pct_unemployment — Unemployment, annual average, as percent of population (Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/lau/)

econ_pct_uninsured_adults — Percent of adults without health insurance (Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/lau/) econ_pct_uninsured_children — Percent of children without health insurance (Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/lau/)

health — health indicators

health_pct_adult_obesity — Percent of adults who meet clinical definition of obese (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion)

health_pct_adult_smoking — Percent of adults who smoke (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System)

health_pct_diabetes — Percent of population with diabetes (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation)

health_pct_low_birthweight — Percent of babies born with low birth weight (National Center for Health Statistics)

health_pct_excessive_drinking — Percent of adult population that engages in excessive consumption of alcohol (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, )

health_pct_physical_inacticity — Percent of adult population that is physically inactive (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion)

health_air_pollution_particulate_matter — Fine particulate matter in µg/m³ (CDC WONDER, https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/pm.html)

health_homicides_per_100k — Deaths by homicide per 100,000 population (National Center for Health Statistics)

health_motor_vehicle_crash_deaths_per_100k — Deaths by motor vehicle crash per 100,000 population (National Center for Health Statistics)

health_pop_per_dentist — Population per dentist (HRSA Area Resource File)

health_pop_per_primary_care_physician — Population per Primary Care Physician (HRSA Area Resource File)

demo — demographics information

demo_pct_female — Percent of population that is female (US Census Population Estimates)

demo_pct_below_18_years_of_age — Percent of population that is below 18 years of age (US Census Population Estimates)

demo_pct_aged_65_years_and_older — Percent of population that is aged 65 years or older (US Census Population Estimates)

dem...

The CDC WONDER Mortality - Underlying Cause of Death online database is a county-level national mortality and population database spanning the years since 1979 -2008. The number of deaths, crude death rates, age-adjusted death rates, standard errors and 95% confidence intervals for death rates can be obtained by place of residence (total U.S., Census region, Census division, state, and county), age group (including infant age groups), race (years 1979-1998: White, Black, and Other; years 1999-2008: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, and White), Hispanic origin (years 1979-1998: not available; years 1999-present: Hispanic or Latino, not Hispanic or Latino, Not Stated), gender, year of death, and underlying cause of death (years 1979-1998: 4-digit ICD-9 code and 72 cause-of-death recode; years 1999-present: 4-digit ICD-10 codes and 113 cause-of-death recode, as well as the Injury Mortality matrix classification for Intent and Mechanism), and urbanization level of residence (2006 NCHS urban-rural classification scheme for counties). The Compressed Mortality data are produced by the National Center for Health Statistics.

This dataset includes county-level COVID-19 cases and fatalities for all 50 U.S. states between January 21, 2020 and January 30th, 2021 as cumulative totals and by epi week. Standardized cases and fatalities are also calculated per 100,000 population. Data also includes county urban-rural designations, social vulnerability index (SoVI) values, community resilience values, unemployment change percentages, and coded county/state level COVID-19 mitigation value assignments. For more information on data manipulations or calculations, please reach out to corresponding author (Sarah L. Jackson - SJ36@email.sc.edu).

DESCRIPTION

Johns Hopkins' county-level COVID-19 case and death data, paired with population and rates per 100,000

SUMMARY Updates April 9, 2020 The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County. April 20, 2020 Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well. April 29, 2020 The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

Overview The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

Filter cases by state here

Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive Embed Code

Caveats This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website. In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules. In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county" This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members. Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates. Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey. The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories --...

The datasets contain the computer code and data required to determine the cost and economic impacts of phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater in Canada and the United States. The datasets supply data to (i) calculate the efficiency and cost of phosphorus recovery from the aqueous phase of digestate and sewage sludge for wastewater resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) as shown in Figure 1; (ii) estimate the average annual per capita phosphorus recovery cost and the household affordability index (HAI) across the second-level territory divisions (census divisions (Canada) and counties (United States)) when excluding and including the offset cost derived from avoiding potential environmental damage caused by phosphorus releases as shown in Figure 2; (iii) supply the distribution of population in urban and rural areas, the treatment level of the WRRFs, and the phosphorus recovery points as a function of the WRRF scale in the studied regions of Canada and the United States as shown in Figure 3; and (iv) describe the distribution of the average phosphorus recovery cost, annual per capita phosphorus recovery costs, and the HAI per studied regions as shown in Figure 4. Data describing the WRRFs’ location and characteristics across the studied regions of Canada and the United States are retrieved from the HydroWASTE database (https://www.hydrosheds.org/products/hydrowaste), including their spatial coordinates, treatment level, treatment design capacity, and population served. The HydroWASTE database reports the WRRF treatment level as primary, secondary, and advanced treatment. Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not define numeric nutrient water quality criteria for secondary wastewater treatment effluents, we consider that only the WRRFs with advanced treatments have specific processes for removing phosphorus from the liquid effluent. To perform the analysis at the second-level divisions, data on total population, distribution of population in urban and rural areas, total income, and average annual income per capita are retrieved at the census division and county level for Canada and the United States, respectively. Data for the year 2020 is considered since it is the most recent information available for both countries. The first-level divisions level corresponds to census divisions of the United States, which provide territorial divisions similar in terms of development, demographic characteristics, and economic activities, being extensively used for collecting and analyzing data throughout the United States. A table of the states included in each United States census division can be found in the Supplementary Information file. The equivalent of the United States census divisions for Canada is the Canadian provinces and territories, although it must be noted that, unlike the case of the United States, their definition is guided by administrative and political considerations instead of statistical criteria.

Content

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

Acknowledgements

John Hopkins University The Associated Press