Annual Resident Population Estimates by Age Group, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018 // Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division // The contents of this file are released on a rolling basis from December through June. // Note: 'In combination' means in combination with one or more other races. The sum of the five race-in-combination groups adds to more than the total population because individuals may report more than one race. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. Responses of 'Some Other Race' from the 2010 Census are modified. This results in differences between the population for specific race categories shown for the 2010 Census population in this file versus those in the original 2010 Census data. For more information, see https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/modified-race-summary-file-method/mrsf2010.pdf. // The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. // For detailed information about the methods used to create the population estimates, see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology.html. // Each year, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program (PEP) utilizes current data on births, deaths, and migration to calculate population change since the most recent decennial census, and produces a time series of estimates of population. The annual time series of estimates begins with the most recent decennial census data and extends to the vintage year. The vintage year (e.g., V2017) refers to the final year of the time series. The reference date for all estimates is July 1, unless otherwise specified. With each new issue of estimates, the Census Bureau revises estimates for years back to the last census. As each vintage of estimates includes all years since the most recent decennial census, the latest vintage of data available supersedes all previously produced estimates for those dates. The Population Estimates Program provides additional information including historical and intercensal estimates, evaluation estimates, demographic analysis, and research papers on its website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html.

Abstract

The 1998 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (GDHS) is the latest in a series of national-level population and health surveys conducted in Ghana and it is part of the worldwide MEASURE DHS+ Project, designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

The primary objective of the 1998 GDHS is to provide current and reliable data on fertility and family planning behaviour, child mortality, children’s nutritional status, and the utilisation of maternal and child health services in Ghana. Additional data on knowledge of HIV/AIDS are also provided. This information is essential for informed policy decisions, planning and monitoring and evaluation of programmes at both the national and local government levels.

The long-term objectives of the survey include strengthening the technical capacity of the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) to plan, conduct, process, and analyse the results of complex national sample surveys. Moreover, the 1998 GDHS provides comparable data for long-term trend analyses within Ghana, since it is the third in a series of demographic and health surveys implemented by the same organisation, using similar data collection procedures. The GDHS also contributes to the ever-growing international database on demographic and health-related variables.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The major focus of the 1998 GDHS was to provide updated estimates of important population and health indicators including fertility and mortality rates for the country as a whole and for urban and rural areas separately. In addition, the sample was designed to provide estimates of key variables for the ten regions in the country.

The list of Enumeration Areas (EAs) with population and household information from the 1984 Population Census was used as the sampling frame for the survey. The 1998 GDHS is based on a two-stage stratified nationally representative sample of households. At the first stage of sampling, 400 EAs were selected using systematic sampling with probability proportional to size (PPS-Method). The selected EAs comprised 138 in the urban areas and 262 in the rural areas. A complete household listing operation was then carried out in all the selected EAs to provide a sampling frame for the second stage selection of households. At the second stage of sampling, a systematic sample of 15 households per EA was selected in all regions, except in the Northern, Upper West and Upper East Regions. In order to obtain adequate numbers of households to provide reliable estimates of key demographic and health variables in these three regions, the number of households in each selected EA in the Northern, Upper West and Upper East regions was increased to 20. The sample was weighted to adjust for over sampling in the three northern regions (Northern, Upper East and Upper West), in relation to the other regions. Sample weights were used to compensate for the unequal probability of selection between geographically defined strata.

The survey was designed to obtain completed interviews of 4,500 women age 15-49. In addition, all males age 15-59 in every third selected household were interviewed, to obtain a target of 1,500 men. In order to take cognisance of non-response, a total of 6,375 households nation-wide were selected.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Three types of questionnaires were used in the GDHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire, and the Men’s Questionnaire. These questionnaires were based on model survey instruments developed for the international MEASURE DHS+ programme and were designed to provide information needed by health and family planning programme managers and policy makers. The questionnaires were adapted to the situation in Ghana and a number of questions pertaining to on-going health and family planning programmes were added. These questionnaires were developed in English and translated into five major local languages (Akan, Ga, Ewe, Hausa, and Dagbani).

The Household Questionnaire was used to enumerate all usual members and visitors in a selected household and to collect information on the socio-economic status of the household. The first part of the Household Questionnaire collected information on the relationship to the household head, residence, sex, age, marital status, and education of each usual resident or visitor. This information was used to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. For this purpose, all women age 15-49, and all men age 15-59 in every third household, whether usual residents of a selected household or visitors who slept in a selected household the night before the interview, were deemed eligible and interviewed. The Household Questionnaire also provides basic demographic data for Ghanaian households. The second part of the Household Questionnaire contained questions on the dwelling unit, such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water and the type of toilet facilities, and on the ownership of a variety of consumer goods.

The Women’s Questionnaire was used to collect information on the following topics: respondent’s background characteristics, reproductive history, contraceptive knowledge and use, antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, infant feeding practices, child immunisation and health, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, husband’s background characteristics, women’s work, knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STDs, as well as anthropometric measurements of children and mothers.

The Men’s Questionnaire collected information on respondent’s background characteristics, reproduction, contraceptive knowledge and use, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, as well as knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STDs.

Response rate

A total of 6,375 households were selected for the GDHS sample. Of these, 6,055 were occupied. Interviews were completed for 6,003 households, which represent 99 percent of the occupied households. A total of 4,970 eligible women from these households and 1,596 eligible men from every third household were identified for the individual interviews. Interviews were successfully completed for 4,843 women or 97 percent and 1,546 men or 97 percent. The principal reason for nonresponse among individual women and men was the failure of interviewers to find them at home despite repeated callbacks.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of shortfalls made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 1998 GDHS to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 1998 GDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 1998 GDHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 1998 GDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module. This module uses the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar years - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months

Note: See detailed tables in APPENDIX C of the survey report.

Description and PurposeThese data include the individual responses for the City of Tempe Annual Community Survey conducted by ETC Institute. These data help determine priorities for the community as part of the City's on-going strategic planning process. Averaged Community Survey results are used as indicators for several city performance measures. The summary data for each performance measure is provided as an open dataset for that measure (separate from this dataset). The performance measures with indicators from the survey include the following (as of 2022):1. Safe and Secure Communities1.04 Fire Services Satisfaction1.06 Crime Reporting1.07 Police Services Satisfaction1.09 Victim of Crime1.10 Worry About Being a Victim1.11 Feeling Safe in City Facilities1.23 Feeling of Safety in Parks2. Strong Community Connections2.02 Customer Service Satisfaction2.04 City Website Satisfaction2.05 Online Services Satisfaction Rate2.15 Feeling Invited to Participate in City Decisions2.21 Satisfaction with Availability of City Information3. Quality of Life3.16 City Recreation, Arts, and Cultural Centers3.17 Community Services Programs3.19 Value of Special Events3.23 Right of Way Landscape Maintenance3.36 Quality of City Services4. Sustainable Growth & DevelopmentNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community Survey5. Financial Stability & VitalityNo Performance Measures in this category presently relate directly to the Community SurveyMethodsThe survey is mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Tempe. Follow up emails and texts are also sent to encourage participation. A link to the survey is provided with each communication. To prevent people who do not live in Tempe or who were not selected as part of the random sample from completing the survey, everyone who completed the survey was required to provide their address. These addresses were then matched to those used for the random representative sample. If the respondent’s address did not match, the response was not used. To better understand how services are being delivered across the city, individual results were mapped to determine overall distribution across the city. Additionally, demographic data were used to monitor the distribution of responses to ensure the responding population of each survey is representative of city population. Processing and LimitationsThe location data in this dataset is generalized to the block level to protect privacy. This means that only the first two digits of an address are used to map the location. When they data are shared with the city only the latitude/longitude of the block level address points are provided. This results in points that overlap. In order to better visualize the data, overlapping points were randomly dispersed to remove overlap. The result of these two adjustments ensure that they are not related to a specific address, but are still close enough to allow insights about service delivery in different areas of the city. This data is the weighted data provided by the ETC Institute, which is used in the final published PDF report.The 2022 Annual Community Survey report is available on data.tempe.gov. The individual survey questions as well as the definition of the response scale (for example, 1 means “very dissatisfied” and 5 means “very satisfied”) are provided in the data dictionary.Additional InformationSource: Community Attitude SurveyContact (author): Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail (author): wydale_holmes@tempe.govContact (maintainer): Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail (maintainer): wydale_holmes@tempe.govData Source Type: Excel tablePreparation Method: Data received from vendor after report is completedPublish Frequency: AnnualPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

The Bureau of the Census has released Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent data. The file includes the following population items: sex, age, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship, and household and family characteristics. Housing items include occupancy status and tenure (whether the unit is owner or renter occupied). SF1 does not include information on incomes, poverty status, overcrowded housing or age of housing. These topics will be covered in Summary File 3. Data are available for states, counties, county subdivisions, places, census tracts, block groups, and, where applicable, American Indian and Alaskan Native Areas and Hawaiian Home Lands. The SF1 data are available on the Bureau's web site and may be retrieved from American FactFinder as tables, lists, or maps. Users may also download a set of compressed ASCII files for each state via the Bureau's FTP server. There are over 8000 data items available for each geographic area. The full listing of these data items is available here as a downloadable compressed data base file named TABLES.ZIP. The uncompressed is in FoxPro data base file (dbf) format and may be imported to ACCESS, EXCEL, and other software formats. While all of this information is useful, the Office of Community Planning and Development has downloaded selected information for all states and areas and is making this information available on the CPD web pages. The tables and data items selected are those items used in the CDBG and HOME allocation formulas plus topics most pertinent to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), the Consolidated Plan, and similar overall economic and community development plans. The information is contained in five compressed (zipped) dbf tables for each state. When uncompressed the tables are ready for use with FoxPro and they can be imported into ACCESS, EXCEL, and other spreadsheet, GIS and database software. The data are at the block group summary level. The first two characters of the file name are the state abbreviation. The next two letters are BG for block group. Each record is labeled with the code and name of the city and county in which it is located so that the data can be summarized to higher-level geography. The last part of the file name describes the contents . The GEO file contains standard Census Bureau geographic identifiers for each block group, such as the metropolitan area code and congressional district code. The only data included in this table is total population and total housing units. POP1 and POP2 contain selected population variables and selected housing items are in the HU file. The MA05 table data is only for use by State CDBG grantees for the reporting of the racial composition of beneficiaries of Area Benefit activities. The complete package for a state consists of the dictionary file named TABLES, and the five data files for the state. The logical record number (LOGRECNO) links the records across tables.

Abstract

The 1996 Uzbekistan Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) is a nationally representative survey of 4,415 women age 15-49. Fieldwork was conducted from June to October 1996. The UDHS was sponsored by the Ministry of Health (MOH), and was funded by the United States Agency for International Development. The Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology implemented the survey with technical assistance from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) program.

The 1996 UDHS was the first national-level population and health survey in Uzbekistan. It was implemented by the Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Ministry of Health of Uzbekistan. The 1996 UDHS was funded by the United States Agency for International development (USAID) and technical assistance was provided by Macro International Inc. (Calverton, Maryland USA) through its contract with USAID.

OBJECTIVES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE SURVEY

The purpose of the 1996 Uzbekistan Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) was to provide an information base to the Ministry of Health for the planning of policies and programs regarding the health of women and their children. The UDHS collected data on women's reproductive histories, knowledge and use of contraception, breastfeeding practices, and the nutrition, vaccination coverage, and episodes of illness among children under the age of three. The survey also included, for all women of reproductive age and for children under the age of three, the measurement of the hemoglobin level in the blood to assess the prevalence of anemia and measurements of height and weight to assess nutritional status.

A secondary objective of the survey was to enhance the capabilities of institutions in Uzbekistan to collect, process and analyze population and health data so as to facilitate the implementation of future surveys of this type.

MAIN RESULTS

• Fertility Rates. Survey results indicate a total fertility rate (TFR) for all of Uzbekistan of 3.3 children per woman. Fertility levels differ for different population groups. The TFR for women living in urbml areas (2.7 children per woman) is substantially lower than for women living in rural areas (3.7). The TFR for Uzbeki women (3.5 children per woman) is higher than for women of other ethnicities (2.5). Among the regions of Uzbekistan, the TFR is lowest in Tashkent City (2.3 children per woman).
• Family Planning. Knowledge. Knowledge of contraceptive methods is high among women in Uzbekistan. Knowledge of at least one method is 89 percent. High levels of knowledge are the norm for women of all ages, all regions of the country, all educational levels, and all ethnicities. However, knowledge of sterilization was low; only 27 percent of women reported knowing of this method.
• Fertility Preferences. A majority of women in Uzbekistan (51 percent) indicated that they desire no more children. Among women age 30 and above, the proportion that want no more children increases to 75 percent. Thus, many women come to the preference to stop childbearing at relatively young ages when they have 20 or more potential years of childbearing ahead of them. For some of these women, the most appropriate method of contraception may be a long-acting method such as female sterilization, However, there is a deficiency of both knowledge and use of this method in Uzbekistan. In the interest of providing couples with a broad choice of safe and effective methods, information about this method and access to it should be made available so that informed choices about its suitability can be made by individual women and couples.
• Induced Aboration : Abortion Rates. From the UDHS data, the total abortion rate (TAR)--the number of abortions a woman will have in her lifetime based on the currently prevailing abortion rates--was calculated. For Uzbekistan, the TAR for the period from mid-1993 to mid-1996 is 0.7 abortions per woman. As expected, the TAR for Uzbekistan is substantially lower than recent estimates of the TAR for other areas of the former Soviet Union such as Kazakstan (1.8), Romania (3.4 abortions per woman), and Yekaterinburg and Perm in Russia (2.3 and 2.8, respectively).
• Infant mortality : In the UDHS, infant mortality data were collected based on the international definition of a live birth which, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, is a birth that breathes or shows any sign of life (United Nations, 1992).
• Mortality Rates. For the five-year period before the survey (i.e., approximately mid- 1992 to mid- 1996), infant mortality in Uzbekistan is estimated at 49 infant deaths per 1,000 births. The estimates of neonatal and postneonatal mortality are 23 and 26 per 1,000.
• Maternal and child health : Uzbekistan has a well-developed health system with an extensive infrastructure of facilities that provide maternal care services. This system includes special delivery hospitals, the obstetrics and gynecology departments of general hospitals, women's consulting centers, and doctor's assistant/midwife posts (FAPs). There is an extensive network of FAPs throughout rural areas.
• Nutrition : Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is almost universal in Uzbekistan; 96 percent of children born in the three years preceding the survey are breastfed. Overall, 19 percent of children are breastfed within an hour of delivery and 40 percent within 24 hours of delivery. The median duration of breastfeeding is lengthy (17 months). However, durations of exclusive breastfeeding, as recommended by WHO, are short (0.4 months).
• Prevalence of anemia : Testing of women and children for anemia was one of the major efforts of the 1996 UDHS. Anemia has been considered a major public health problem in Uzbekistan for decades. Nevertheless, this was the first anemia study in Uzbekistan done on a national basis. The study involved hemoglobin (Hb) testing for anemia using the Hemocue system. Women. Sixty percent of the women in Uzbekistan suffer from some degree of anemia. The great majority of these women have either mild (45 percent) or moderate anemia (14 percent). One percent have severe anemia.

Geographic coverage

National Seven raions were excluded from the survey because they were considered too remote and sparsely inhabited.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

The population covered by the 1996 UDHS is defined as the universe of all women age 15-49 in Uzbekistan

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The UDHS employed a probability sample of women age 15 to 49, representative of 98.7 percent of the country. Seven raions were excluded from the survey because they were considered too remote and sparsely inhabited. These raions are: Kungradskiyi, Muyinakskiyi, and Takhtakupyrskiyi in Karakalpakstan; Uchkudukskiyi, Tamdynskiyi, and Kanimekhskiyi in Navoiiskaya; and Romitanskiyi in Bukharskaya. The remainder of the country was divided into five survey regions. Tashkent City constituted a survey region by itself, while the remaining four survey regions consisted of groups of contiguous oblasts. The five survey regions were defined as follows: Region 1: Karakalpakstan and Khoresmskaya. Region 2: Navoiyiskaya, Bukharskaya, Kashkadarinskaya, and Surkhandarinskaya. Region 3: Samarkandskaya, Dzhizakskaya, Syrdarinskaya, and Tashkentskaya. Region 4: Namanganskaya, Ferganskaya, and Andizhanskaya. Region 5: Tashkent City.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UDHS SAMPLE

The sample for the UDHS was selected in three stages. In the rural areas, the primary sampling units (PSUs) corresponded to the raions which were selected with probabilities proportional to size, the size being the 1994 population. At the second stage, one village was selected in each selected raion. A complete listing of the households residing in each selected village was carried out. The lists of households obtained were used as the frame for third-stage sampling, which is the selection of the households to be visited by the UDHS interviewing teams during the main survey fieldwork. In each selected household, women between the ages of 15 and 49 were identified and interviewed.

In the urban areas, the PSUs were the cities and towns themselves. In the second stage, one health block was selected from each town except in self-representing cities (large cities that were selected with certainty), where more than one health block was selected. The selected health blocks were segmented prior to the household listing operation which provided the household lists for the third-stage selection of households.

SAMPLE ALLOCATION

The regions, stratified by urban and rural areas, were the sampling strata. There were thus nine strata with Tashkent City constituting an entire stratum. A proportional allocation of the target number of 4,000 women to the 9 strata would yield the sample distribution.

The proportional allocation would result in a completely self-weighting sample but would not allow for reliable estimates for at least two of the five survey regions, namely Region 1 and Tashkent City. Results of other demographic and health surveys show that a minimum sample of 1,000 women is required in order to obtain estimates of fertility and childhood mortality rates at an acceptable level of sampling errors. Given that the total sample size for the UDHS could not he increased so as to achieve the required level of sampling errors, it was decided that the sample would be divided equally among the five regions, and within each region, it would be distributed proportionally to the urban and the rural areas. With this type of allocation, demographic rates (fertility and mortality) could not be produced for regions separately.

The number of sample points (or clusters) to be selected for each stratum was calculated by dividing the

Annual Resident Population Estimates by Age Group, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin; for the United States, States, Counties; and for Puerto Rico and its Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 // Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division // The contents of this file are released on a rolling basis from December through June. // Note: 'In combination' means in combination with one or more other races. The sum of the five race-in-combination groups adds to more than the total population because individuals may report more than one race. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race. Hispanics may be of any race. Responses of 'Some Other Race' from the 2010 Census are modified. This results in differences between the population for specific race categories shown for the 2010 Census population in this file versus those in the original 2010 Census data. The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. // Current data on births, deaths, and migration are used to calculate population change since the 2010 Census. An annual time series of estimates is produced, beginning with the census and extending to the vintage year. The vintage year (e.g., Vintage 2019) refers to the final year of the time series. The reference date for all estimates is July 1, unless otherwise specified. With each new issue of estimates, the entire estimates series is revised. Additional information, including historical and intercensal estimates, evaluation estimates, demographic analysis, research papers, and methodology is available on website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html.

Abstract

The 2017-18 Albania Demographic and Health Survey (2017-18 ADHS) is a nationwide survey with a nationally representative sample of approximately 17,160 households. All women age 15-49 who are usual residents of the selected households or who slept in the households the night before the survey were eligible for the survey. Women 50-59 years old were interviewed with an abbreviated questionnaire that only covered background characteristics and questions related to noncommunicable diseases.

The primary objective of the 2017-2018 ADHS was to provide estimates of basic sociodemographic and health indicators for the country as a whole and the twelve prefectures. Specifically, the survey collected information on basic characteristics of the respondents, fertility, family planning, nutrition, maternal and child health, knowledge of HIV behaviors, health-related lifestyle, and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The information collected in the ADHS will assist policymakers and program managers in evaluating and designing programs and in developing strategies for improving the health of the country’s population.

The sample for the 2017-18 ADHS was designed to produce representative results for the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas separately, and for each of the twelve prefectures known as Berat, Diber, Durres, Elbasan, Fier, Gjirokaster, Korce, Kukes, Lezhe, Shkoder, Tirana, and Vlore.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15-59

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), children age 0-4 years, women age 15-49 years and men age 15-59 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The ADHS surveys were done on a nationally representative sample that was representative at the prefecture level as well by rural and urban areas. A total of 715 enumeration areas (EAs) were selected as sample clusters, with probability proportional to each prefecture's population size. The sample design called for 24 households to be randomly selected in every sampling cluster, regardless of its size, but some of the EAs contained fewer than 24 households. In these EAs, all households were included in the survey. The EAs are considered the sample's primary sampling unit (PSU). The team of interviewers updated and listed the households in the selected EAs. Upon arriving in the selected clusters, interviewers spent the first day of fieldwork carrying out an exhaustive enumeration of households, recording the name of each head of household and the location of the dwelling. The listing was done with tablet PCs, using a digital listing application. When interviewers completed their respective sections of the EA, they transferred their files into the supervisor's tablet PC, where the information was automatically compiled into a single file in which all households in the EA were entered. The software and field procedures were designed to ensure there were no duplications or omissions during the household listing process. The supervisor used the software in his tablet to randomly select 24 households for the survey from the complete list of households.

All women age 15-49 who were usual residents of the selected households or who slept in the households the night before the survey were eligible for individual interviews with the full Woman's Questionnaire. Women age 50-59 were also interviewed, but with an abbreviated questionnaire that left out all questions related to reproductive health and mother and child health. A 50% subsample was selected for the survey of men. Every man age 15-59 who was a usual resident of or had slept in the household the night before the survey was eligible for an individual interview in these households.

For further details on sample design, see Appendix A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Four questionnaires were used in the ADHS, one for the household and others for women age 15-49, for women age 50-59, and for men age 15-59. In addition to these four questionnaires, a form was used to record the vaccination information for children born in the 5 years preceding the survey whose mothers had been successfully interviewed.

Cleaning operations

Supervisors sent the accumulated fieldwork data to INSTAT’s central office via internet every day, unless for some reason the teams did not have access to the internet at the time. The data received from the various teams were combined into a single file, which was used to produce quality control tables, known as field check tables. These tables reveal systematic errors in the data such as omission of potential respondents, age displacement, inaccurate recording of date of birth and age at death, inaccurate measurement of height and weight, and other key indicators of data quality. These tables were reviewed and evaluated by ADHS senior staff, which in turn provided feedback and advice to the teams in the field.

Response rate

A total of 16,955 households were selected for the sample, of which 16,634 were occupied. Of the occupied households, 15,823 were successfully interviewed, which represents a response rate of 95%. In the interviewed households, 11,680 women age 15-49 were identified for individual interviews. Interviews were completed for 10,860 of these women, yielding a response rate of 93%. In the same households, 4,289 women age 50-59 were identified, of which 4,140 were successfully interviewed, yielding a 97% response rate. In the 50% subsample of households selected for the male survey, 7,103 eligible men age 15-59 were identified, of which 6,142 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 87%.

Response rates were higher in rural than in urban areas, which is a pattern commonly found in household surveys because in urban areas more people work and carry out activities outside the home.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2017-18 Albania Demographic and Health Survey (ADHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2017-18 ADHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

Sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95% of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2017-18 ADHS sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed in SAS, using programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearization method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

A more detailed description of estimates of sampling errors are presented in Appendix B of the survey final report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar years - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months

See details of the data quality tables in Appendix C of the survey final report.

Clinical and demographic data of participants (data presented as mean ± SD).

This is a hybrid gridded dataset of demographic data for the world, given as 5-year population bands at a 0.25 degree grid resolution.

This dataset combines the NASA SEDAC Gridded Population of the World version 4 (GPWv4) with the ISIMIP Histsoc gridded population data and the United Nations World Population Program (WPP) demographic modelling data. Demographic fractions are given for the time period covered by the UN WPP model (1950-2050) while demographic totals are given for the time period covered by the combination of GPWv4 and Histsoc (1950-2020). More detailed can be found on the page of the original version (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3768003).

This release increases the resolution to 0.25˚ and is explicitly designed to match with the grid definition of the ERA5 climate reanalysis dataset. For pre-2000 population data, the ISIMIP Histsoc data was upscaled from it's native 0.5˚ resolution.

1 computer laser optical disc ; 4 3/4 in.

Selected block-level data from Summary tape file 1B, including total population, age, race, and Hispanic origin, number of housing units, tenure, room density, mean contract rent, mean value, and mean number of rooms in housing units.

Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity, Total Housing Units, and Voting Age Population. This service is updated annually with American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data. Contact: District of Columbia, Office of Planning. Email: planning@dc.gov. Geography: Census Tracts. Current Vintage: 2019-2023. ACS Table(s): DP05. Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey. Date of API call: January 2, 2025. National Figures: data.census.gov. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data. Data Note from the Census: Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. Data Processing Notes: This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page. Data processed using R statistical package and ArcGIS Desktop. Margin of Error was not included in this layer but is available from the Census Bureau. Contact the Office of Planning for more information about obtaining Margin of Error values.

analyze the current population survey (cps) annual social and economic supplement (asec) with r the annual march cps-asec has been supplying the statistics for the census bureau's report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage since 1948. wow. the us census bureau and the bureau of labor statistics ( bls) tag-team on this one. until the american community survey (acs) hit the scene in the early aughts (2000s), the current population survey had the largest sample size of all the annual general demographic data sets outside of the decennial census - about two hundred thousand respondents. this provides enough sample to conduct state- and a few large metro area-level analyses. your sample size will vanish if you start investigating subgroups b y state - consider pooling multiple years. county-level is a no-no. despite the american community survey's larger size, the cps-asec contains many more variables related to employment, sources of income, and insurance - and can be trended back to harry truman's presidency. aside from questions specifically asked about an annual experience (like income), many of the questions in this march data set should be t reated as point-in-time statistics. cps-asec generalizes to the united states non-institutional, non-active duty military population. the national bureau of economic research (nber) provides sas, spss, and stata importation scripts to create a rectangular file (rectangular data means only person-level records; household- and family-level information gets attached to each person). to import these files into r, the parse.SAScii function uses nber's sas code to determine how to import the fixed-width file, then RSQLite to put everything into a schnazzy database. you can try reading through the nber march 2012 sas importation code yourself, but it's a bit of a proc freak show. this new github repository contains three scripts: 2005-2012 asec - download all microdata.R down load the fixed-width file containing household, family, and person records import by separating this file into three tables, then merge 'em together at the person-level download the fixed-width file containing the person-level replicate weights merge the rectangular person-level file with the replicate weights, then store it in a sql database create a new variable - one - in the data table 2012 asec - analysis examples.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' progr am create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights perform a boatload of analysis examples replicate census estimates - 2011.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' program create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights match the sas output shown in the png file below 2011 asec replicate weight sas output.png statistic and standard error generated from the replicate-weighted example sas script contained in this census-provided person replicate weights usage instructions document. click here to view these three scripts for more detail about the current population survey - annual social and economic supplement (cps-asec), visit: the census bureau's current population survey page the bureau of labor statistics' current population survey page the current population survey's wikipedia article notes: interviews are conducted in march about experiences during the previous year. the file labeled 2012 includes information (income, work experience, health insurance) pertaining to 2011. when you use the current populat ion survey to talk about america, subract a year from the data file name. as of the 2010 file (the interview focusing on america during 2009), the cps-asec contains exciting new medical out-of-pocket spending variables most useful for supplemental (medical spending-adjusted) poverty research. confidential to sas, spss, stata, sudaan users: why are you still rubbing two sticks together after we've invented the butane lighter? time to transition to r. :D

Data on enterprise births, deaths, active enterprises and survival rates across boroughs.

Data includes:

1. the most recent annual figures for enterprise births and deaths
2. a time series of the number of births and deaths of entrprises together with a percentage of births and deaths to active enterprises in a given year
3. a time series of the number of active enterprises.
4. survival rates of enterprises for up to 5 years after birth

Notes and definitions:

• The starting point for business demography is the concept of a population of active businesses in a reference year (t). These are defined as businesses that had either turnover or employment at any time during the reference period.
• A birth is identified as a business that was present in year t, but did not exist in year t-1 or t-2. Births are identified by making comparison of annual active population files and identifying those present in the latest file, but not the two previous ones.
• A death is defined as a business that was on the active file in year t, but was no longer present in the active file in t+1 and t+2. In order to provide an early estimate of deaths, an adjustment has been made to the 2007 and 2008 deaths to allow for reactivations. These figures are provisional and subject to revision.

Data on size of firms (micro-business, SME, large) for business and employees in London by industry can be found on the ONS website.

More Business Demographics data on the ONS website

Notice: The U.S. Census Bureau is delaying the release of the 2016-2020 ACS 5-year data until March 2022. For more information, please read the Census Bureau statement regarding this matter. -----------------------------------------This layer shows household income ranges for households, families, married couple families, and nonfamily households (as defined by the U.S. Census). Data is from US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates and joined with Tempe census tracts.This layer is symbolized to show median household income. To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right (in ArcGIS Online). Layer includes: <!--· Total households (of various types including households, families, married couple families, and nonfamily households as defined by the U.S. Census) <!--· Household income brackets <!--· Household median income in dollars <!--· Household mean income in dollars An 'N' entry in the estimate indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small (per the U.S. Census). Data is from US Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates. Current Vintage: 2015-2019 ACS Table(s): S1901 (Not all lines of this ACS table are available in this feature layer.) Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of Census update: December 10, 2020 National Figures: data.census.gov

This paper uses data on residential buildings from the nationwide vector database. Attribute information on buildings (location, volume, function, etc.) provides opportunities to estimate the number of residents. The recalculation of the population from the urban units into new spatial units was based on the area-weighted aggregation method. The location of buildings constituted a limiting variable, while the total square meterage (calculated as the area of the buildings and the number of their floors) constituted the binding variable. The introduction of additional binding variables related to the type of building and its location, as well as various methods of determining the square meterage per building type, resulted in the creation of a total of 19 maps of Cracow’s population. The results of the recalculation of population were related to demographic data compiled by the organisation Statistics Poland (GUS) relating to the 1x1 km grid. Comparison of the results with demographic data relating to other reference units allowed the reduction of subjective interpretation and the refining of input data conversion methods. As a result, correct methods for segmenting buildings were identified, useful optimisation criteria were selected, and the accuracy of population maps developed based on the database was calculated. For the input data, based solely on the amount of population in urban units, the calculated value of the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in the 1x1 km grid was 310.8%, and for the root mean square error (RMSE) was 1476 people. In the dasymetric method, directly associating the population with the volume of buildings, the errors fell to 21.9% and 632 people, respectively. Among the remaining 18 variants introducing the segmentation of buildings from the database, the best result was obtained for the variant based on minimizing the RMSE, associating the number of residents to single-family buildings (2.88 people/building) and associating the number of residents to the square footage in multi-family buildings (37.1m2/person) (MAPE=19.2%, RMSE=556 people).

Abstract

The Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) was a nationally representative sample survey conducted from March through June 1988 to collect data on fertility, family planning, and child and maternal health. A total of 9,045 households and 6,775 ever-married women aged 15 to 49 were interviewed. Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) is carried out by the Institute of Population Studies (IPS) of Chulalongkorn University with the financial support from USAID through the Institute for Resource Development (IRD) at Westinghouse. The Institute of Population Studies was responsible for the overall implementation of the survey including sample design, preparation of field work, data collection and processing, and analysis of data. IPS has made available its personnel and office facilities to the project throughout the project duration. It serves as the headquarters for the survey.

The Thai Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) was undertaken for the main purpose of providing data concerning fertility, family planning and maternal and child health to program managers and policy makers to facilitate their evaluation and planning of programs, and to population and health researchers to assist in their efforts to document and analyze the demographic and health situation. It is intended to provide information both on topics for which comparable data is not available from previous nationally representative surveys as well as to update trends with respect to a number of indicators available from previous surveys, in particular the Longitudinal Study of Social Economic and Demographic Change in 1969-73, the Survey of Fertility in Thailand in 1975, the National Survey of Family Planning Practices, Fertility and Mortality in 1979, and the three Contraceptive Prevalence Surveys in 1978/79, 1981 and 1984.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

The population covered by the 1987 THADHS is defined as the universe of all women Ever-married women in the reproductive ages (i.e., women 15-49). This covered women in private households on the basis of a de facto coverage definition. Visitors and usual residents who were in the household the night before the first visit or before any subsequent visit during the few days the interviewing team was in the area were eligible. Excluded were the small number of married women aged under 15 and women not present in private households.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE SIZE AND ALLOCATION

The objective of the survey was to provide reliable estimates for major domains of the country. This consisted of two overlapping sets of reporting domains: (a) Five regions of the country namely Bangkok, north, northeast, central region (excluding Bangkok), and south; (b) Bangkok versus all provincial urban and all rural areas of the country. These requirements could be met by defining six non-overlapping sampling domains (Bangkok, provincial urban, and rural areas of each of the remaining 4 regions), and allocating approximately equal sample sizes to them. On the basis of past experience, available budget and overall reporting requirement, the target sample size was fixed at 7,000 interviews of ever-married women aged 15-49, expected to be found in around 9,000 households. Table A.I shows the actual number of households as well as eligible women selected and interviewed, by sampling domain (see Table i.I for reporting domains).

THE FRAME AND SAMPLE SELECTION

The frame for selecting the sample for urban areas, was provided by the National Statistical Office of Thailand and by the Ministry of the Interior for rural areas. It consisted of information on population size of various levels of administrative and census units, down to blocks in urban areas and villages in rural areas. The frame also included adequate maps and descriptions to identify these units. The extent to which the data were up-to-date as well as the quality of the data varied somewhat in different parts of the frame. Basically, the multi-stage stratified sampling design involved the following procedure. A specified number of sample areas were selected systematically from geographically/administratively ordered lists with probabilities proportional to the best available measure of size (PPS). Within selected areas (blocks or villages) new lists of households were prepared and systematic samples of households were selected. In principle, the sampling interval for the selection of households from lists was determined so as to yield a self weighting sample of households within each domain. However, in the absence of good measures of population size for all areas, these sampling intervals often required adjustments in the interest of controlling the size of the resulting sample. Variations in selection probabilities introduced due to such adjustment, where required, were compensated for by appropriate weighting of sample cases at the tabulation stage.

SAMPLE OUTCOME

The final sample of households was selected from lists prepared in the sample areas. The time interval between household listing and enumeration was generally very short, except to some extent in Bangkok where the listing itself took more time. In principle, the units of listing were the same as the ultimate units of sampling, namely households. However in a small proportion of cases, the former differed from the latter in several respects, identified at the stage of final enumeration: a) Some units listed actually contained more than one household each b) Some units were "blanks", that is, were demolished or not found to contain any eligible households at the time of enumeration. c) Some units were doubtful cases in as much as the household was reported as "not found" by the interviewer, but may in fact have existed.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The DHS core questionnaires (Household, Eligible Women Respondent, and Community) were translated into Thai. A number of modifications were made largely to adapt them for use with an ever- married woman sample and to add a number of questions in areas that are of special interest to the Thai investigators but which were not covered in the standard core. Examples of such modifications included adding marital status and educational attainment to the household schedule, elaboration on questions in the individual questionnaire on educational attainment to take account of changes in the educational system during recent years, elaboration on questions on postnuptial residence, and adaptation of the questionnaire to take into account that only ever-married women are being interviewed rather than all women. More generally, attention was given to the wording of questions in Thai to ensure that the intent of the original English-language version was preserved.

a) Household questionnaire

The household questionnaire was used to list every member of the household who usually lives in the household and as well as visitors who slept in the household the night before the interviewer's visit. Information contained in the household questionnaire are age, sex, marital status, and education for each member (the last two items were asked only to members aged 13 and over). The head of the household or the spouse of the head of the household was the preferred respondent for the household questionnaire. However, if neither was available for interview, any adult member of the household was accepted as the respondent. Information from the household questionnaire was used to identify eligible women for the individual interview. To be eligible, a respondent had to be an ever-married woman aged 15-49 years old who had slept in the household 'the previous night'.

Prior evidence has indicated that when asked about current age, Thais are as likely to report age at next birthday as age at last birthday (the usual demographic definition of age). Since the birth date of each household number was not asked in the household questionnaire, it was not possible to calculate age at last birthday from the birthdate. Therefore a special procedure was followed to ensure that eligible women just under the higher boundary for eligible ages (i.e. 49 years old) were not mistakenly excluded from the eligible woman sample because of an overstated age. Ever-married women whose reported age was between 50-52 years old and who slept in the household the night before birthdate of the woman, it was discovered that these women (or any others being interviewed) were not actually within the eligible age range of 15-49, the interview was terminated and the case disqualified. This attempt recovered 69 eligible women who otherwise would have been missed because their reported age was over 50 years old or over.

b) Individual questionnaire

The questionnaire administered to eligible women was based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire for high contraceptive prevalence countries. The individual questionnaire has 8 sections: - Respondent's background - Reproduction - Contraception - Health and breastfeeding - Marriage - Fertility preference - Husband's background and woman's work - Heights and weights of children and mothers

The questionnaire was modified to suit the Thai context. As noted above, several questions were added to the standard DHS core questionnaire not only to meet the interest of IPS researchers hut also because of their relevance to the current demographic situation in Thailand. The supplemental questions are marked with an asterisk in the individual questionnaire. Questions concerning the following items were added in the individual questionnaire: - Did the respondent ever

These data were developed by the Research & Analytics Group at the Atlanta Regional Commission using data from the U.S. Census Bureau across all standard and custom geographies at statewide summary level where applicable.For a deep dive into the data model including every specific metric, see the ACS 2018-2022 Data Manifest. The manifest details ARC-defined naming conventions, field names/descriptions and topics, summary levels; source tables; notes and so forth for all metrics. Find naming convention prefixes/suffixes, geography definitions and user notes below.Prefixes:NoneCountpPercentrRatemMedianaMean (average)tAggregate (total)chChange in absolute terms (value in t2 - value in t1)pchPercent change ((value in t2 - value in t1) / value in t1)chpChange in percent (percent in t2 - percent in t1)sSignificance flag for change: 1 = statistically significant with a 90% CI, 0 = not statistically significant, blank = cannot be computedSuffixes:_e22Estimate from 2018-22 ACS_m22Margin of Error from 2018-22 ACS_e102006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_m10Margin of Error from 2006-10 ACS, re-estimated to 2020 geography_e10_22Change, 2010-22 (holding constant at 2020 geography)GeographiesAAA = Area Agency on Aging (12 geographic units formed from counties providing statewide coverage)ARC21 = Atlanta Regional Commission modeling area (21 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ARWDB7 = Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board (7 counties merged to a single geographic unit)BeltLineStatistical (buffer)BeltLineStatisticalSub (subareas)Census Tract (statewide)CFGA23 = Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta (23 counties merged to a single geographic unit)City (statewide)City of Atlanta Council Districts (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Unit (City of Atlanta)City of Atlanta Neighborhood Statistical Areas (City of Atlanta)County (statewide)Georgia House (statewide)Georgia Senate (statewide)HSSA = High School Statistical Area (11 county region)MetroWater15 = Atlanta Metropolitan Water District (15 counties merged to a single geographic unit)Regional Commissions (statewide)State of Georgia (single geographic unit)Superdistrict (ARC region)US Congress (statewide)UWGA13 = United Way of Greater Atlanta (13 counties merged to a single geographic unit)ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (statewide)The 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 2018-2022). 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: 2018-2022Data License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0)Link to the data manifest: https://opendata.atlantaregional.com/documents/3b86ee614e614199ba66a3ff1ebfe3b5/about

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Miami-Dade County, FL, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 13,106, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 282,078. This indicates that the top earners earn 22 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 555,008, which is 196.76% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 4234.76% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

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 Miami-Dade County median household income. You can refer the same here

Abstract

The principal objective of the Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) is to provide current and reliable data on fertility and family planning behavior, child mortality, children’s nutritional status, the utilization of maternal and child health services, and knowledge of HIV/AIDS. This information is essential for informed policy decisions, planning, monitoring, and evaluation of programs on health in general and reproductive health in particular at both the national and regional levels. A long-term objective of the survey is to strengthen the technical capacity of the Central Statistical Authority to plan, conduct, process, and analyze data from complex national population and health surveys. Moreover, the 2000 Ethiopia DHS is the first survey of its kind in the country to provide national and regional estimates on population and health that are comparable to data collected in similar surveys in other developing countries. As part of the worldwide DHS project, the Ethiopia DHS data add to the vast and growing international database on demographic and health variables. The Ethiopia DHS collected demographic and health information from a nationally representative sample of women and men in the reproductive age groups 15-49 and 15-59, respectively.

The Ethiopia DHS was carried out under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and was implemented by the Central Statistical Authority. ORC Macro provided technical assistance through its MEASURE DHS+ project. The survey was principally funded by the Essential Services for Health in Ethiopia (ESHE) project through a bilateral agreement between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Funding was also provided by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The Ethiopia DHS used the sampling frame provided by the list of census enumeration areas (EAs) with population and household information from the 1994 Population and Housing Census. A proportional sample allocation was discarded because this procedure yielded a distribution in which 80 percent of the sample came from three regions, 16 percent from four regions and 4 percent from five regions. To avoid such an uneven sample allocation among regions, it was decided that the sample should be allocated by region in proportion to the square root of the region's population size. Additional adjustments were made to ensure that the sample size for each region included at least 700 households, in order to yield estimates with reasonable statistical precision.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The Ethiopia DHS used three questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire, and the Men’s Questionnaire, which were based on model survey instruments developed for the international MEASURE DHS+ project. The questionnaires were specifically geared toward obtaining the kind of information needed by health and family planning program managers and policymakers. The model questionnaires were then adapted to local conditions and a number of additional questions specific to on-going health and family planning programs in Ethiopia were added. These questionnaires were developed in the English language and translated into the five principal languages in use in the country: Amarigna, Oromigna, Tigrigna, Somaligna, and Afarigna. They were then independently translated back to English and appropriate changes were made in the translation of questions in which the back-translated version did not compare well with the original English version. A pretest of all three questionnaires was conducted in the five local languages in November 1999.

All usual members in a selected household and visitors who stayed there the previous night were enumerated using the Household Questionnaire. Specifically, the Household Questionnaire obtained information on the relationship to the head of the household, residence, sex, age, marital status, parental survivorship, and education of each usual resident or visitor. This information was used to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. Women age 15-49 in all selected households and all men age 15-59 in every fifth selected household, whether usual residents or visitors, were deemed eligible, and were interviewed. The Household Questionnaire also obtained information on some basic socioeconomic indicators such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water, the type of toilet facilities, and the ownership of a variety of durable items. Information was also obtained on the use of impregnated bednets, and the salt used in each household was tested for its iodine content. All eligible women and all children born since Meskerem 1987 in the Ethiopian Calendar, which roughly corresponds to September 1994 in the Gregorian Calendar, were weighed and measured.

The Women’s Questionnaire collected information on female respondent’s background characteristics, reproductive history, contraceptive knowledge and use, antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, infant feeding practices, child immunization and health, marriage, fertility preferences, and attitudes about family planning, husband’s background characteristics and women’s work, knowledge of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

The Men’s Questionnaire collected information on the male respondent’s background characteristics, reproduction, contraceptive knowledge and use, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, and knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STIs.

Response rate

A total of 14,642 households were selected for the Ethiopia DHS, of which 14,167 were found to be occupied. Household interviews were completed for 99 percent of the occupied households. A total of 15,716 eligible women from these households and 2,771 eligible men from every fifth household were identified for the individual interviews. The response rate for eligible women is slightly higher than for eligible men (98 percent compared with 94 percent, respectively). Interviews were successfully completed for 15,367 women and 2,607 men.

There is no difference by urban-rural residence in the overall response rate for eligible women; however, rural men are slightly more likely than urban men to have completed an interview (94 percent and 92 percent, respectively). The overall response rate among women by region is relatively high and ranges from 93 percent in the Affar Region to 99 percent in the Oromiya Region. The response rate among men ranges from 83 percent in the Affar Region to 98 percent in the Tigray and Benishangul-Gumuz regions.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table A.1.1 and Table A.1.2 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the Ethiopia DHS to minimise this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the Ethiopia DHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the Ethiopia DHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the Ethiopia DHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module (SAMPERR). This module used the Taylor linearisation method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age

In 2023, the median age of the population of the United States was 39.2 years. While this may seem quite young, the median age in 1960 was even younger, at 29.5 years. The aging population in the United States means that society is going to have to find a way to adapt to the larger numbers of older people. Everything from Social Security to employment to the age of retirement will have to change if the population is expected to age more while having fewer children. The world is getting older It’s not only the United States that is facing this particular demographic dilemma. In 1950, the global median age was 23.6 years. This number is projected to increase to 41.9 years by the year 2100. This means that not only the U.S., but the rest of the world will also have to find ways to adapt to the aging population.