About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Advance population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Advance across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Advance was 505, a 0.40% increase year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Advance population was 503, a decline of 0.59% compared to a population of 506 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Advance decreased by 54. In this period, the peak population was 598 in the year 2009. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Advance is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Advance population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

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/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Advance Population by Year. You can refer the same here

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

Dr. Kevin Bronson provides this unique nitrogen and water management in cotton agricultural research dataset for compute, including notation of field events and operations, an intermediate analysis mega-table of correlated and calculated parameters, and laboratory analysis results generated during the experimentation, plus high resolution plot level intermediate data analysis tables of SAS process output, as well as the complete raw sensor recorded logger outputs. This data was collected during the beginning time period of our USDA Maricopa terrestrial proximal high-throughput plant phenotyping tri-metric method generation, where a 5Hz crop canopy height, temperature and spectral signature are recorded coincident to indicate a plant health status. In this early development period, our Proximal Sensing Cart Mark1 (PSCM1) platform supplants people carrying the CropCircle (CC) sensors, and with an improved view mechanical performance result. See included README file for operational details and further description of the measured data signals. Summary: Active optical proximal cotton canopy sensing spatial data and including additional related metrics such as thermal are presented. Agronomic nitrogen and irrigation management related field operations are listed. Unique research experimentation intermediate analysis table is made available, along with raw data. The raw data recordings, and annotated table outputs with calculated VIs are made available. Plot polygon coordinate designations allow a re-intersection spatial analysis. Data was collected in the 2013 season at Maricopa Agricultural Center, Arizona, USA. High throughput proximal plant phenotyping via electronic sampling and data processing method approach is exampled. Acquired data using USDA Maricopa first mobile platforms, such as the Proximal Sensing Cart Mark 1, where the first dual sliding arm configuration was deployed and platform clearance raised successfully as design improvements. SAS and GIS compute processing output tables, including Excel formatted examples are presented, where intermediate data tabulation and analysis is available. The weekly proximal sensing data collected include canopy reflectance at six wavelengths, ultrasonic distance sensing of canopy height, and infrared thermometry. Lint and seed yields, first open boll biomass, and nitrogen uptake were also determined. Soil profile nitrate to 1.8 m depth was determined in 30-cm increments, before planting and after harvest. Nitrous oxide emissions were determined 20 or more weeks in the season with 1-L vented chambers (samples taken at 0, 12, and 24 minutes). Nitrous oxide was determined by gas chromatography (electron detection detector).

Abstract

The main objective of the HEIS survey is to obtain detailed data on household expenditure and income, linked to various demographic and socio-economic variables, to enable computation of poverty indices and determine the characteristics of the poor and prepare poverty maps. Therefore, to achieve these goals, the sample had to be representative on the sub-district level. The raw survey data provided by the Statistical Office was cleaned and harmonized by the Economic Research Forum, in the context of a major research project to develop and expand knowledge on equity and inequality in the Arab region. The main focus of the project is to measure the magnitude and direction of change in inequality and to understand the complex contributing social, political and economic forces influencing its levels. However, the measurement and analysis of the magnitude and direction of change in this inequality cannot be consistently carried out without harmonized and comparable micro-level data on income and expenditures. Therefore, one important component of this research project is securing and harmonizing household surveys from as many countries in the region as possible, adhering to international statistics on household living standards distribution. Once the dataset has been compiled, the Economic Research Forum makes it available, subject to confidentiality agreements, to all researchers and institutions concerned with data collection and issues of inequality.

Data collected through the survey helped in achieving the following objectives: 1. Provide data weights that reflect the relative importance of consumer expenditure items used in the preparation of the consumer price index 2. Study the consumer expenditure pattern prevailing in the society and the impact of demographic and socio-economic variables on those patterns 3. Calculate the average annual income of the household and the individual, and assess the relationship between income and different economic and social factors, such as profession and educational level of the head of the household and other indicators 4. Study the distribution of individuals and households by income and expenditure categories and analyze the factors associated with it 5. Provide the necessary data for the national accounts related to overall consumption and income of the household sector 6. Provide the necessary income data to serve in calculating poverty indices and identifying the poor characteristics as well as drawing poverty maps 7. Provide the data necessary for the formulation, follow-up and evaluation of economic and social development programs, including those addressed to eradicate poverty

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Household Expenditure and Income survey sample for 2010, was designed to serve the basic objectives of the survey through providing a relatively large sample in each sub-district to enable drawing a poverty map in Jordan. The General Census of Population and Housing in 2004 provided a detailed framework for housing and households for different administrative levels in the country. Jordan is administratively divided into 12 governorates, each governorate is composed of a number of districts, each district (Liwa) includes one or more sub-district (Qada). In each sub-district, there are a number of communities (cities and villages). Each community was divided into a number of blocks. Where in each block, the number of houses ranged between 60 and 100 houses. Nomads, persons living in collective dwellings such as hotels, hospitals and prison were excluded from the survey framework.

A two stage stratified cluster sampling technique was used. In the first stage, a cluster sample proportional to the size was uniformly selected, where the number of households in each cluster was considered the weight of the cluster. At the second stage, a sample of 8 households was selected from each cluster, in addition to another 4 households selected as a backup for the basic sample, using a systematic sampling technique. Those 4 households were sampled to be used during the first visit to the block in case the visit to the original household selected is not possible for any reason. For the purposes of this survey, each sub-district was considered a separate stratum to ensure the possibility of producing results on the sub-district level. In this respect, the survey framework adopted that provided by the General Census of Population and Housing Census in dividing the sample strata. To estimate the sample size, the coefficient of variation and the design effect of the expenditure variable provided in the Household Expenditure and Income Survey for the year 2008 was calculated for each sub-district. These results were used to estimate the sample size on the sub-district level so that the coefficient of variation for the expenditure variable in each sub-district is less than 10%, at a minimum, of the number of clusters in the same sub-district (6 clusters). This is to ensure adequate presentation of clusters in different administrative areas to enable drawing an indicative poverty map.

It should be noted that in addition to the standard non response rate assumed, higher rates were expected in areas where poor households are concentrated in major cities. Therefore, those were taken into consideration during the sampling design phase, and a higher number of households were selected from those areas, aiming at well covering all regions where poverty spreads.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

• General form
• Expenditure on food commodities form
• Expenditure on non-food commodities form

Cleaning operations

Raw Data: - Organizing forms/questionnaires: A compatible archive system was used to classify the forms according to different rounds throughout the year. A registry was prepared to indicate different stages of the process of data checking, coding and entry till forms were back to the archive system. - Data office checking: This phase was achieved concurrently with the data collection phase in the field where questionnaires completed in the field were immediately sent to data office checking phase. - Data coding: A team was trained to work on the data coding phase, which in this survey is only limited to education specialization, profession and economic activity. In this respect, international classifications were used, while for the rest of the questions, coding was predefined during the design phase. - Data entry/validation: A team consisting of system analysts, programmers and data entry personnel were working on the data at this stage. System analysts and programmers started by identifying the survey framework and questionnaire fields to help build computerized data entry forms. A set of validation rules were added to the entry form to ensure accuracy of data entered. A team was then trained to complete the data entry process. Forms prepared for data entry were provided by the archive department to ensure forms are correctly extracted and put back in the archive system. A data validation process was run on the data to ensure the data entered is free of errors. - Results tabulation and dissemination: After the completion of all data processing operations, ORACLE was used to tabulate the survey final results. Those results were further checked using similar outputs from SPSS to ensure that tabulations produced were correct. A check was also run on each table to guarantee consistency of figures presented, together with required editing for tables' titles and report formatting.

Harmonized Data: - The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used to clean and harmonize the datasets. - The harmonization process started with cleaning all raw data files received from the Statistical Office. - Cleaned data files were then merged to produce one data file on the individual level containing all variables subject to harmonization. - A country-specific program was generated for each dataset to generate/compute/recode/rename/format/label harmonized variables. - A post-harmonization cleaning process was run on the data. - Harmonized data was saved on the household as well as the individual level, in SPSS and converted to STATA format.

This dataset contains information on antibody testing for COVID-19: the number of people who received a test, the number of people with positive results, the percentage of people tested who tested positive, and the rate of testing per 100,000 people, stratified by modified ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) of residence. Modified ZCTA reflects the first non-missing address within NYC for each person reported with an antibody test result. This unit of geography is similar to ZIP codes but combines census blocks with smaller populations to allow more stable estimates of population size for rate calculation. It can be challenging to map data that are reported by ZIP Code. A ZIP Code doesn’t refer to an area, but rather a collection of points that make up a mail delivery route. Furthermore, there are some buildings that have their own ZIP Code, and some non-residential areas with ZIP Codes. To deal with the challenges of ZIP Codes, the Health Department uses ZCTAs which solidify ZIP codes into units of area. Often, data reported by ZIP code are actually mapped by ZCTA. The ZCTA geography was developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. These data can also be accessed here: https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/totals/antibody-by-modzcta.csv Exposure to COVID-19 can be detected by measuring antibodies to the disease in a person’s blood, which can indicate that a person may have had an immune response to the virus. Antibodies are proteins produced by the body’s immune system that can be found in the blood. People can test positive for antibodies after they have been exposed, sometimes when they no longer test positive for the virus itself. It is important to note that the science around COVID-19 antibody tests is evolving rapidly and there is still much uncertainty about what individual antibody test results mean for a single person and what population-level antibody test results mean for understanding the epidemiology of COVID-19 at a population level. These data only provide information on people tested. People receiving an antibody test do not reflect all people in New York City; therefore, these data may not reflect antibody prevalence among all New Yorkers. Increasing instances of screening programs further impact the generalizability of these data, as screening programs influence who and how many people are tested over time. Examples of screening programs in NYC include: employers screening their workers (e.g., hospitals), and long-term care facilities screening their residents. In addition, there may be potential biases toward people receiving an antibody test who have a positive result because people who were previously ill are preferentially seeking testing, in addition to the testing of persons with higher exposure (e.g., health care workers, first responders) Rates were calculated using interpolated intercensal population estimates updated in 2019. These rates differ from previously reported rates based on the 2000 Census or previous versions of population estimates. The Health Department produced these population estimates based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and NYC Department of City Planning. Antibody tests are categorized based on the date of specimen collection and are aggregated by full weeks starting each Sunday and ending on Saturday. For example, a person whose blood was collected for antibody testing on Wednesday, May 6 would be categorized as tested during the week ending May 9. A person tested twice in one week would only be counted once in that week. This dataset includes testing data beginning April 5, 2020. Data are updated daily, and the dataset preserves historical records and source data changes, so each extract date reflects the current copy of the data as of that date. For example, an extract date of 11/04/2020 and extract date of 11/03/2020 will both contain all records as they were as of that extract date. Without filtering or grouping by extract date, an analysis wi

[doc] formats - tsv - 1

This dataset contains one tsv file at the root:

data.tsv

kind sound dog woof cat meow pokemon pika human hello

The YAML section of the README does not contain anything related to loading the data (only the size category metadata):

size_categories:

- n<1K

The delimiter is automatically set to "\t" (tabulation) because of the .tsv extension of the data file.

NaNDA contains some datasets that measure neighborhood context at the ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) level. They are intended for use with survey or other individual-level data containing ZIP codes. Because ZIP codes do not exactly match ZIP code tabulation areas, a crosswalk is required to use ZIP-code-level geocoded datasets with ZCTA-level datasets from NaNDA. A ZIP-code-to-ZCTA crosswalk is available on the UDS Mapper website at https://www.udsmapper.org/zcta-crosswalk.cfm.The sample SAS and Stata code provided here merges the UDS Mapper crosswalk with NaNDA datasets.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

Dr. Kevin Bronson provides a second year of nitrogen and water management in wheat agricultural research dataset for compute. Ten irrigation treatments from a linear sprinkler were combined with nitrogen treatments. This dataset includes notation of field events and operations, an intermediate analysis mega-table of correlated and calculated parameters, including laboratory analysis results generated during the experimentation, plus high resolution plot level intermediate data tables of SAS process output, as well as the complete raw data sensor records and logger outputs. This proximal terrestrial high-throughput plant phenotyping data examples our early tri-metric field method, where a geo-referenced 5Hz crop canopy height, temperature and spectral signature are recorded coincident to indicate a plant health status. In this development period, our Proximal Sensing Cart Mark1 (PSCM1) platform suspends a single cluster of sensors on a dual sliding vertical placement armature. See included README file for operational details and further description of the measured data signals. Summary: Active optical proximal wheat canopy sensing spatial data and including additional related metrics such as thermal are presented. Agronomic nitrogen and irrigation management related field operations are listed. Unique research experimentation intermediate analysis table is made available, along with raw data. The raw data recordings, and annotated table outputs with calculated VIs are made available. Plot polygon coordinate designations allow a re-intersection spatial analysis. Data was collected in the 2014 season at Maricopa Agricultural Center, Arizona, USA. High throughput proximal plant phenotyping via electronic sampling and data processing method approach is exampled. Acquired data using USDA Maricopa first mobile platforms, such as the Proximal Sensing Cart Mark 1, where the first cluster sensor bracket design and rickshaw inspired operator's handle were successfully employed. SAS and GIS compute processing output tables, including Excel formatted examples are presented, where intermediate data tabulation and analysis is available. The weekly proximal sensing data collected include canopy reflectance at six wavelengths, ultrasonic distance sensing of canopy height, and infrared thermometry. Ten levels gradient irrigation application from linear move sprinkler system were applied. Soil physical texture and fertility chemistry results are available. Durum wheat data includes in-season biomass and plant N content, final total biomass, grain yield, grain nitrogen, and yellow berry assessment.

These datasets contain measures of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics by U.S. census tract for the years 1990-2022 and ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA) for the years 2008-2022. Example measures include population density; population distribution by race, ethnicity, age, and income; income inequality by race and ethnicity; and proportion of population living below the poverty level, receiving public assistance, and female-headed or single parent families with kids. The datasets also contain a set of theoretically derived measures capturing neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and affluence, as well as a neighborhood index of Hispanic, foreign born, and limited English.

This dataset was developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the Infrastructure Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics.Naming conventions:Prefixes: None Countp Percentr Ratem Mediana Mean (average)t Aggregate (total)ch Change in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pch Percent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chp Change in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)s Significance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computed Suffixes: _e19 Estimate from 2014-19 ACS_m19 Margin of Error from 2014-19 ACS_00_v19 Decennial 2000, re-estimated to 2019 geography_00_19 Change, 2000-19_e10_v19 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_m10_v19 Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2019 geography_e10_19 Change, 2010-19The user should note that American Community Survey data represent estimates derived from a surveyed sample of the population, which creates some level of uncertainty, as opposed to an exact measure of the entire population (the full census count is only conducted once every 10 years and does not cover as many detailed characteristics of the population). Therefore, any measure reported by ACS should not be taken as an exact number – this is why a corresponding margin of error (MOE) is also given for ACS measures. The size of the MOE relative to its corresponding estimate value provides an indication of confidence in the accuracy of each estimate. Each MOE is expressed in the same units as its corresponding measure; for example, if the estimate value is expressed as a number, then its MOE will also be a number; if the estimate value is expressed as a percent, then its MOE will also be a percent. The user should also note that for relatively small geographic areas, such as census tracts shown here, ACS only releases combined 5-year estimates, meaning these estimates represent rolling averages of survey results that were collected over a 5-year span (in this case 2015-2019). Therefore, these data do not represent any one specific point in time or even one specific year. For geographic areas with larger populations, 3-year and 1-year estimates are also available. For further explanation of ACS estimates and margin of error, visit Census ACS website.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Atlanta Regional CommissionDate: 2015-2019Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the manifest: https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/3d489c725bb24f52a987b302147c46ee/data

A. SUMMARY Medical provider confirmed COVID-19 cases and confirmed COVID-19 related deaths in San Francisco, CA aggregated by several different geographic areas and normalized by 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates for population data to calculate rate per 10,000 residents. On September 12, 2021, a new case definition of COVID-19 was introduced that includes criteria for enumerating new infections after previous probable or confirmed infections (also known as reinfections). A reinfection is defined as a confirmed positive PCR lab test more than 90 days after a positive PCR or antigen test. The first reinfection case was identified on December 7, 2021. Cases and deaths are both mapped to the residence of the individual, not to where they were infected or died. For example, if one was infected in San Francisco at work but lives in the East Bay, those are not counted as SF Cases or if one dies in Zuckerberg San Francisco General but is from another county, that is also not counted in this dataset. Dataset is cumulative and covers cases going back to 3/2/2020 when testing began. Geographic areas summarized are: 1. Analysis Neighborhoods 2. Census Tracts 3. Census Zip Code Tabulation Areas B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED Addresses from medical data are geocoded by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH). Those addresses are spatially joined to the geographic areas. Counts are generated based on the number of address points that match each geographic area. The 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) population estimates provided by the Census are used to create a rate which is equal to ([count] / [acs_population]) * 10000) representing the number of cases per 10,000 residents. C. UPDATE PROCESS Geographic analysis is scripted by SFDPH staff and synced to this dataset daily at 7:30 Pacific Time. D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET San Francisco population estimates for geographic regions can be found in a view based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset. These population estimates are from the 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). Privacy rules in effect To protect privacy, certain rules are in effect: 1. Case counts greater than 0 and less than 10 are dropped - these will be null (blank) values 2. Death counts greater than 0 and less than 10 are dropped - these will be null (blank) values 3. Cases and deaths dropped altogether for areas where acs_population < 1000 Rate suppression in effect where counts lower than 20 Rates are not calculated unless the case count is greater than or equal to 20. Rates are generally unstable at small numbers, so we avoid calculating them directly. We advise you to apply the same approach as this is best practice in epidemiology. A note on Census ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) ZIP Code Tabulation Areas are special boundaries created by the U.S. Census based on ZIP Codes developed by the USPS. They are not, however, the same thing. ZCTAs are areal representations of routes. Read how the Census develops ZCTAs on their website. Row included for Citywide case counts, incidence rate, and deaths A single row is included that has the Citywide case counts and incidence rate. This can be used for comparisons. Citywide will capture all cases regardless of address quality. While some cases cannot be mapped to sub-areas like Census Tracts, ongo