Graph and download economic data for All Employees: Government: Federal Government in Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) (SMU11479009091000001SA) from Jan 1990 to Apr 2025 about DC, Washington, MD, WV, VA, federal, government, employment, and USA.

The DC Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS) was conducted in 1991, and included special analyses of homeless and transient populations and of women delivering live births in the DC hospitals. DC*MADS was undertaken to assess the full extent of the drug problem in one metropolitan area. The study was comprised of 16 separate studies that focused on different sub-groups, many of which are typically not included or are underrepresented in household surveys. The Homeless and Transient Population study examines the prevalence of illicit drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among members of the homeless and transient population aged 12 and older in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Statistical Area (DC MSA). The sample frame included respondents from shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, major cluster encampments, and literally homeless people. Data from the questionnaires include history of homelessness, living arrangements and population movement, tobacco, drug, and alcohol use, consequences of use, treatment history, illegal behavior and arrest, emergency room treatment and hospital stays, physical and mental health, pregnancy, insurance, employment and finances, and demographics. Drug specific data include age at first use, route of administration, needle use, withdrawal symptoms, polysubstance use, and perceived risk.

Please cite the corresponding article if this dataset is used to support additional findings:Leon-Moreta, A. "Ballot Measures for Open Space Conservation: Economic and Institutional Processes in Cities." Urban Affairs Review (2019): 1-34. doi:10.1177/1078087419884732.The data described here were used in the analysis and findings reported in the article, Leon-Moreta, A. "Ballot Measures for Open Space Conservation: Economic and Institutional Processes in Cities." Urban Affairs Review (2019): 1-34. doi:10.1177/1078087419884732. A STATA (V. 13) do-file for calculating variables is also included. Please cite the corresponding article if this dataset is used to support additional findings.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1078087419884732Cited Datasets:The dataset described here cites data from the following sources:Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002–2012. Consumer Price Index. https://www.bls.gov (accessed March 27, 2018).Berry, William, Evan Ringquist, Richard Fording, and Russell Hanson. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.” American Journal of Political Science 42(1): 327-348.Census Bureau. 1987–2012. Census of Governments. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Census Bureau. 2000. Census of Population and Housing. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Census Bureau. 2005–2014. American Community Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Census Bureau. 1988–2011. Boundary and Annexation Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.International City/County Management Association. 1996–2011. Municipal Form of Government Surveys. Washington, DC: ICMA.National Center for Charitable Statistics. 2000–2010. IRS Business Master File. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.National Historical Geographic Information System. 2001–2011. National Land Cover Database. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Trust for Public Land. 2018. LandVote®. Landvote.org (accessed March 27, 2018).Trust for Public Land. 2000, 2005, 2010. National Conservation Easement Database.National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.Woods & Poole. 2000 through 2010. MSA Profile. Washington, DC: Woods & Poole.

This poll, conducted October 27-31, 2006, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way President George W. Bush was handling the presidency and issues such as foreign policy and the economy. Information was collected on how well members of the United States Congress were doing their jobs, whether the country was moving in the right direction, and the condition of the national economy. Those polled were asked how much attention they had paid to the 2006 election campaigns for Congress, the likelihood that they would vote and for whom, why they supported their candidates, their level of enthusiasm, which issues were most important in their vote, and whether their clergyman had endorsed a particular political candidate or party. Opinions were solicited on whether respondents had favorable opinions of United States Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, United States House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic party, and the Republican party. Views were sought on the effect that the controlling party in Congress might have on issues such as taxes, the minimum wage, and the threat of terrorism. A series of questions asked whether the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, whether United States troops should be removed from Iraq, which political party was likely to bring troops back from Iraq more quickly, and whether the next Congress should hold hearings to investigate the Bush Administration's handling of the war in Iraq. Additional topics included corrupt politics in Washington, DC, environmental protection, illegal immigration, North Korea's development of weapons, and whether gay couples should be allowed to marry or form civil unions. Demographic information includes voter registration status and participation history, political party affiliation, political philosophy, marital status, sex, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, education level, age, household income, race, whether respondents had any children under the age of 18, household union membership, military service, length of time living at current residence, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

This special topic poll, fielded January 27-31, 2005, was undertaken to assess public opinion on traffic congestion in the Washington, DC, area. Respondents who commuted in the greater Washington, DC, area were asked about traffic conditions in the region, their primary means of transportation to and from work, the length of their commute, what they liked and disliked most about their commute, and whether they had ever relocated or adjusted their work schedule to improve their commute. Those polled rated the different types of public transportation available in the area, how often they used the Metrorail subway system, and why they did not ride it more often. Views were sought on proposals to expand the Metrorail system and build new highways in the area, sources of funding for transportation projects, and whether measures such as high occupancy vehicle lanes, adjustable tolls, and building new roads were effective in easing traffic congestion. Respondents were also asked about the type of vehicle they drove, how often they traveled by car, how much time they spent driving, and how often driving invoked feelings such as independence, relaxation, and anger. A series of questions asked respondents how often they and others were guilty of behaviors such as speeding or road rage, and whether they engaged in activities such as eating or reading while driving. Additional topics addressed the use of automatic cameras at traffic lights and stop signs and whether existing traffic laws were too tough on teenage drivers. Demographic variables included sex, age, race, household income, education level, and political party affiliation.

Context

This dataset expands on my earlier New York City Census Data dataset. It includes data from the entire country instead of just New York City. The expanded data will allow for much more interesting analyses and will also be much more useful at supporting other data sets.

Content

The data here are taken from the DP03 and DP05 tables of the 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. The full datasets and much more can be found at the American Factfinder website. Currently, I include two data files:

1. acs2015_census_tract_data.csv: Data for each census tract in the US, including DC and Puerto Rico.
2. acs2015_county_data.csv: Data for each county or county equivalent in the US, including DC and Puerto Rico.

The two files have the same structure, with just a small difference in the name of the id column. Counties are political subdivisions, and the boundaries of some have been set for centuries. Census tracts, however, are defined by the census bureau and will have a much more consistent size. A typical census tract has around 5000 or so residents.

The Census Bureau updates the estimates approximately every year. At least some of the 2016 data is already available, so I will likely update this in the near future.

Acknowledgements

The data here were collected by the US Census Bureau. As a product of the US federal government, this is not subject to copyright within the US.

Inspiration

There are many questions that we could try to answer with the data here. Can we predict things such as the state (classification) or household income (regression)? What kinds of clusters can we find in the data? What other datasets can be improved by the addition of census data?

The Twenty-third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections; since this came into effect in 1964, the nation's capital has voted for the Democratic Party's nominee in every election, making this the longest ongoing streak in U.S. presidential elections. The record for the longest ever streak in the history of U.S. presidential elections belongs to Vermont (Republican) and Georgia (Democrat), who each voted for the same party's candidate in 27 consecutive elections between 1852 and 1960. The south and west prove loyal There are nine states, mostly across the West and Midwest, that have voted for the Republican candidate in all U.S. presidential elections since Richard Nixon's first victory in 1968. A number of other Republican streaks began in the south with Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in 1980, after briefly turning Democrat for Georgia's Jimmy Carter in 1976; historically the south had been a Democratic stronghold for more than a century, however the Republican Party's "Southern strategy" in the 1960s established them as the dominant party in the region during the civil rights era. Along with the District of Columbia, the only state not won by Reagan in 1984 was Minnesota, as Walter Mondale carried his home state by a very narrow margin. Minnesota's streak is the second-longest for the Democratic Party, while most of the other ongoing Democratic streaks began in either 1988 or 1992.

Recent swing states In the 2016 election, there were six states (with 99 electoral votes combined) that had been won by Barack Obama in 2012, but turned red in 2016. In the 2020 election, Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, managed to win back three of these states, as well as ending a six election Republican streak in Georgia and a five election streak in Arizona. In contrast, Donald Trump failed to flip any further Democratic strongholds, but repeated his victories in Florida, Iowa and Ohio. Going into this election, pollsters had predicted that the races in both Texas and Florida would be tight, with a combined total of 67 electoral votes, however the incumbent president won the popular votes in these states with margins of roughly six and 3.5 percent respectively.

The 1964 United States presidential election was contested by incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson of the Democratic Party, and Barry M. Goldwater of the Republican Party. This was the first election to be contested in all fifty states and Washington DC, and it took place on November 3, 1964, less than one year after Johnson ascended to the presidency following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Johnson won the Democratic nomination quite easily, while Goldwater, a self-proclaimed conservative "extremist" defeated Nelson Rockefeller in a symbolic loss for the more moderate wing of the Republican Party. This marked the beginning of transitional period in US politics, where the Republican Party gradually became the de facto party of conservatism by 1980, and the Deep South became the Republican stronghold it is today. This was the only Republican ticket between 1948 and 1976 not to feature Richard Nixon. Campaign The civil rights movement was the prevalent issue in the election, and Johnson's progressive policies and pro-civil rights campaign compared with Goldwater's opposition of the civil rights movement and hardline conservative approach presented voters with two of the most converse candidates in US election history. Although Goldwater had come from behind to win the Republican nomination, he had pushed away many moderate Republicans along the way with his controversial and often harsh rhetoric. The Johnson campaign painted Goldwater as a right-wing extremist, while many prominent Republicans (including former President Eisenhower) refused to endorse Goldwater, with some even campaigning for Johnson. The Johnson campaign also made ads targeting Goldwater's willingness to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, and used parodies of Goldwater's own slogans against him. Throughout the campaign Johnson led in all polls by significant margins, and as election day drew nearer his campaign's focus was on getting people to actually go out and vote, as they feared that many voters would stay at home as they believed their votes were not necessary for a Johnson win. Results President Johnson won re-election with the largest popular vote margin in any election that included all states and Washington DC (as of 2016). Johnson won 61 percent of the popular vote, carrying 44 states (and Washington DC) which returned him over 90 percent of the electoral votes. In contrast, Goldwater won just his home state of Arizona, and five states in the Deep South, further solidifying the South's transition from blue to red. In history, Johnson is remembered as an effective leader who accomplished much in his five years in office, particularly in the civil rights movement, although his escalation of the Vietnam War has been a black mark on his legacy.

Abstract

Education Quality Improvement Programme in Tanzania (EQUIP-T) is a six-year (2014-20) Government of Tanzania programme, funded by the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), which seeks to improve the quality of primary education and to improve pupil learning outcomes, especially for girls. The programme focuses on strengthening professional capacity and performance of teachers, school leadership and management, systems which support district management of education, and community participation in education. Initially, the programme was intended to run for four years, with activities targeted at seven of the most educationally disadvantaged regions in Tanzania. In 2017 the programme was extended for a further two years, and the extension introduced some new sub-components to the seven regions, and introduced a reduced package of interventions to two new regions.

The independent Impact Evaluation (IE) of EQUIP-T is a five-year study funded by DFID. It is designed to: i) generate evidence on the impact of EQUIP-T on primary pupil learning outcomes, including any differential effects for boys and girls; ii) examine perceptions of effectiveness of different EQUIP-T components; iii) provide evidence on the fiscal affordability of scaling up EQUIP-T post-endline; and iv) communicate evidence generated by the impact evaluation to policy-makers and key education stakeholders. The evaluation uses a quasi-experimental approach to quantitative estimation of impact that combines propensity score matching (PSM) with difference-indifferences (DID).

The research priorities for the quantitative endline IE are captured in a comprehensive endline evaluation matrix (see Annex C in the 'EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation. Endline Quantitative Technical Report, Volume I: Results and Discussion' under Reports and policy notes). The matrix sets out evaluation questions linked to the programme theory of change. It asks questions related to the expected results at each stage along the results chain (from the receipt of inputs to delivery of outputs, and contributions to outcomes and impact) under each of the programme's components. The aim is to establish: (i) whether changes have happened as expected; (ii) why they happened or did not happen (i.e. whether key assumptions in the theory of change hold or not); (iii) whether there are any important unanticipated changes; and (iv) what links there are between the components in driving changes.

The main IE research areas are: -Impact of EQUIP-T on standard 3 pupil learning in Kiswahili and mathematics. -Impact of EQUIP-T on teacher absence from school and from classrooms. -Impact of EQUIP-T on selected aspects of school leadership and management.

The IE uses a mixed methods approach that includes: -A quantitative survey of 100 government primary schools in 17 programme treatment districts and 100 schools in 8 control districts in 2014, 2016 and 2018 covering: *Standard three pupils and their parents/caregivers; *Teachers who teach standards 1-3 Kiswahili; *Teachers who teach standards 1-3 mathematics; *Schools; *Head teachers; and *Standard two lesson observations in Kiswahili and mathematics.

-Qualitative fieldwork in a few treatment schools that overlap with a sub-set of the quantitative survey schools, in 2014, 2016 and 2019, consisting of key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with head teachers, teachers, pupils, parents, school committee (SC) members, PTP members, region, district and ward education officials and EQUIP-T programme staff.

The endline data available in the World Bank Microdata Catalog are from the EQUIP-T IE quantitative endline survey conducted in 2018. The endline qualitative research will take place in mid-2019 with results available in early 2020.

Geographic coverage

The survey is representative of 17 EQUIP-T programme treatment districts. The survey is NOT representative of the 8 control districts. For more details see the section on Representativeness in 'EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation. Final Baseline Technical Report, Volume I: Results and Discussion' and 'EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation. Final Baseline Technical Report, Volume II: Methods and Technical Annexes' under Reports and policy notes.

The 17 treatment districts are:

-Dodoma Region: Bahi DC, Chamwino DC, Kongwa DC, Mpwapwa DC -Kigoma Region: Kakonko DC, Kibondo DC -Shinyanga Region: Kishapu DC, Shinyanga DC -Simiyu Region: Bariadi DC, Bariadi TC, Itilima DC, Maswa DC, Meatu DC -Tabora Region: Igunga DC, Nzega DC, Sikonge DC, Uyui DC

The 8 control districts are:

-Arusha Region: Ngorongoro DC -Mwanza Region: Misungwi DC -Pwani Region: Rufiji DC
-Rukwa Region: Nkasi DC -Ruvuma Region: Tunduru DC -Singida Region: Ikungi DC, Singida DC -Tanga Region: Kilindi DC

Analysis unit

• School
• Teacher
• Pupil
• Lesson (not sampled)
• EQUIP-T training session

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Because the EQUIP-T regions and districts were purposively selected (see 'EQUIP-Tanzania Impact Evaluation. Final Baseline Technical Report, Volume I: Results and Discussion' under Reports and policy notes), the IE sampling strategy used propensity score matching (PSM) to: (i) match eligible control districts to the pre-selected and eligible EQUIP-T districts (see below), and (ii) match schools from the control districts to a sample of randomly selected treatment schools in the treatment districts. The same schools are surveyed for each round of the IE (panel of schools) and a cross section of standard 3 pupils and Standard 1-3 teachers will be interviewed at each round of the survey (no pupil panel or teacher panel).

Identifying districts eligible for matching

Eligible control and treatment districts were those not participating in any other education programme or project that may confound the measurement of EQUIP-T impact. To generate the list of eligible control and treatment districts, all districts that are contaminated because of other education programmes or projects or may be affected by programme spill-over were excluded as follows:

-All districts located in Lindi and Mara regions as these are part of the EQUIP-T programme but implementation started later in these two regions (the IE does not cover these two regions); -Districts that will receive partial EQUIP-T programme treatment or will be subject to potential EQUIP-T programme spillovers; -Districts that are receiving other education programmes/projects that aim to influence the same outcomes as the EQUIP-T programme and would confound measurement of EQUIP-T impact; -Districts that were part of pre-test 1 (two districts); and -Districts that were part of pre-test 2 (one district).

Sampling frame

To be able to select an appropriate sample of pupils and teachers within schools and districts, the sampling frame consisted of information at three levels:

-District; -School; and -Within school.

The sampling frame data at the district and school levels was compiled from the following sources: the 2002 and 2012 Tanzania Population Censuses, Education Management Information System (EMIS) data from the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MoEVT) and the Prime Minister's Office for Regional and Local Government (PMO-RALG), and the UWEZO 2011 student learning assessment survey. For within school level sampling, the frames were constructed upon arrival at the selected schools and was used to sample pupils and teachers on the day of the school visit.

Sampling stages

Stage 1: Selection of control districts

Because the treatment districts were known, the first step was to find sufficiently similar control districts that could serve as the counterfactual. PSM was used to match eligible control districts to the pre-selected, eligible treatment districts using the following matching variables: Population density, proportion of male headed households, household size, number of children per household, proportion of households that speak an ethnic language at home, and district level averages for household assets, infrastructure, education spending, parental education, school remoteness, pupil learning levels and pupil drop out.

Stage 2: Selection of treatment schools

In the second stage, schools in the treatment districts were selected using stratified systematic random sampling. The schools were selected using a probability proportional to size approach, where the measure of school size was the standard two enrolment of pupils. This means that schools with more pupils had a higher probability of being selected into the sample. To obtain a representative sample of programme treatment schools, the sample was implicitly stratified along four dimensions:

-District; -PSLE scores for Kiswahili; -PSLE scores for mathematics; and -Total number of teachers per school.

Stage 3: Selection of control schools

As in stage one, a non-random PSM approach was used to match eligible control schools to the sample of treatment schools. The matching variables were similar to the ones used as stratification criteria: Standard two enrolment, PSLE scores for Kiswahili and mathematics, and the total number of teachers per

The 1992 US presidential election was contested by incumbent President George H. W. Bush of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party's Bill Clinton, and independent candidate Ross Perot. Bush won his party's re-nomination easily, however the the nature of his opponents (which included David Duke; Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan) pushed him to take a more conservative approach throughout the remainder of his campaign, alienating many moderates in the process. Due to the Bush's popularity following the US' success in the Gulf War, many prominent Democrats decided not to run against him in the 1992 election, which meant that most of the candidates were relatively unknown. There was no clear frontrunner by the time of the first primary elections, but Clinton, despite widespread accusations of an extramarital affair, eventually secured the required number of delegates as the other candidates dropped out. Campaign The weakened economy and federal budget deficit led to some dissatisfaction with Bush's administration, and independent billionaire Ross Perot capitalized on the economic concerns of the public by launching his own campaign. In spring 1992, Perot was leading in the polls, with Bush in second place. Shortly after the race began, Perot dropped out as he feared that his involvement would prevent any of the candidates from securing a majority of electoral votes. Clinton, with Al Gore as his running mate, campaigned all over the country, promising to repair the wealth gap that had appeared under the Reagan and Bush administrations. Bush proceeded to repeat the accusations of infidelity against Clinton, as well as highlighting how Clinton dodged the Vietnam War draft. The economic decline, however, meant that Bush's ratings continued to fall, and neither his foreign policy successes nor the end of the Cold War could rescue his numbers. As Clinton moved ahead, Perot re-entered the race, and while his numbers were initially low, his performance in the three-way televised debates saw his ratings increase at Clinton's expense. In the final days of the election, Bush and Perot again began to attack Clinton personally, accusing him of adultery, draft dodging and using drugs (which led to Clinton's famous claim that he had once pretended to smoke marijuana, but did not inhale). Results Clinton emerged victorious from the election, winning in 32 states (plus DC) and taking over two thirds of the electoral vote. In spite of his victory, this was the lowest share of the popular vote by a winning candidate since 1912 (which was also a three-way race). Ross Perot's impact was unprecedented, and because of his involvement, only Clinton's home state of Arkansas and Washington DC actually gave the majority of their votes to one candidate (Bush and Perot were both from Texas). Although Perot failed to win any electoral college votes, he won the largest share of the popular vote by any third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt's tally in 1912. George H. W. Bush was the last president to have been voted out of office after just one term. His son, George W. Bush, would go on to succeed Clinton, with his victory in the 2000 US presidential election.