The aggregated municipal government finance database (Aggregated MUNIFI) provides a selection of indicators on expenditure, revenue, and debt for the entire municipal government sector in OECD and EU countries. It is complemented by disaggregated data, that is data for each municipality in a given country, which can be downloaded directly from the links below.

The time coverage ranges from 2010 to 2022 (based on data availability). This database has been produced in the context of the OECD/EU joint project Strengthening analytical frameworks and data on subnational government finance and public employment with the goal of collecting, standardising, and disseminating high-quality comparable data for local government finance and employment.

This data provides information to assess the capacities and decision-making power of municipalities and regions, whose role is essential in developing place-based policy. It also allows for within and cross-country comparisons, which sheds light on the disparities between subnational governments in terms of fulfilling their mandates and their ability to raise own-source revenue. You will find more information on subnational government responsibilities in the World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment.

DUIA includes data on the socio-economic development and amenities of 86 cities from a total of 32 countries. DUIA is based on freely and easily available data sources and built on integration protocols and codes in R scripts, making both the construction of the database as a whole and specific statistical analyses fully transparent and replicable. DUIA is constructed in three steps. First, we draw upon remote sensing derived data from the Atlas of Urban Expansion to define city boundaries as accurately and consistently as possible across the different countries. Second, we draw upon survey data stored in IPUMS (Integrated Public Use Microdata Series) to include extensive, harmonized, and disaggregated data. Third, as we especially seek to contribute to comparative research outside the West, we developed tailor-made solutions to include Indian and Chinese cities for which data were not available in IPUMS.

Motivation

This dataset was created to pilot techniques for creating synthetic data from datasets containing sensitive and protected information in the local government context. Synthetic data generation replaces actual data with representative data generated from statistical models; this preserves the key data properties that allow insights to be drawn from the data while protecting the privacy of the people included in the data. We invite you to read the Understanding Synthetic Data white paper for a concise introduction to synthetic data.

This effort was a collaboration of the Urban Institute, Allegheny County’s Department of Human Services (DHS) and CountyStat, and the University of Pittsburgh’s Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center.

Collection

The source data for this project consisted of 1) month-by-month records of services included in Allegheny County's data warehouse and 2) demographic data about the individuals who received the services. As the County’s data warehouse combines this service and client data, this data is referred to as “Integrated Services data”. Read more about the data warehouse and the kinds of services it includes here.

Preprocessing

Synthetic data are typically generated from probability distributions or models identified as being representative of the confidential data. For this dataset, a model of the Integrated Services data was used to generate multiple versions of the synthetic dataset. These different candidate datasets were evaluated to select for publication the dataset version that best balances utility and privacy. For high-level information about this evaluation, see the Synthetic Data User Guide.

For more information about the creation of the synthetic version of this data, see the technical brief for this project, which discusses the technical decision making and modeling process in more detail.

Recommended Uses

This disaggregated synthetic data allows for many analyses that are not possible with aggregate data (summary statistics). Broadly, this synthetic version of this data could be analyzed to better understand the usage of human services by people in Allegheny County, including the interplay in the usage of multiple services and demographic information about clients.

Known Limitations/Biases

Some amount of deviation from the original data is inherent to the synthetic data generation process. Specific examples of limitations (including undercounts and overcounts for the usage of different services) are given in the Synthetic Data User Guide and the technical report describing this dataset's creation.

Feedback

Please reach out to this dataset's data steward (listed below) to let us know how you are using this data and if you found it to be helpful. Please also provide any feedback on how to make this dataset more applicable to your work, any suggestions of future synthetic datasets, or any additional information that would make this more useful. Also, please copy wprdc@pitt.edu on any such feedback (as the WPRDC always loves to hear about how people use the data that they publish and how the data could be improved).

Further Documentation and Resources

1) A high-level overview of synthetic data generation as a method for protecting privacy can be found in the Understanding Synthetic Data white paper.
2) The Synthetic Data User Guide provides high-level information to help users understand the motivation, evaluation process, and limitations of the synthetic version of Allegheny County DHS's Human Services data published here.
3) Generating a Fully Synthetic Human Services Dataset: A Technical Report on Synthesis and Evaluation Methodologies describes the full technical methodology used for generating the synthetic data, evaluating the various options, and selecting the final candidate for publication.
4) The WPRDC also hosts the Allegheny County Human Services Community Profiles dataset, which provides annual updates on human-services usage, aggregated by neighborhood/municipality. That data can be explored using the County's Human Services Community Profile web site.

The Registered Apprenticeship data displayed in this resource is derived from several different sources with differing abilities to provide disaggregated data. The 25 federally-administered states and 16 federally-recognized State Apprenticeship Agencies (SAAs) use the Employment and Training Administration's Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Database System (RAPIDS) to provide individual apprentice and sponsor data. This subset of data is referred to as RAPIDS data and can be disaggregated to provide additional specificity. The federal subset of that data (25 states plus national programs) is known as the Federal Workload. The remaining federally recognized SAAs and the U.S. Military Apprenticeship Program (USMAP) provide limited aggregate data on a quarterly basis that is then combined with RAPIDS data to provide a national data set on high-level metrics (apprentices and programs) but cannot generally be broken out in greater detail beyond the data provided here.

The Distributional Financial Accounts (DFAs) provide a quarterly measure of the distribution of U.S. household wealth since 1989, based on a comprehensive integration of disaggregated household-level wealth data with official aggregate wealth measures. The data set contains the level and share of each balance sheet item on the Financial Accounts' household wealth table (Table B.101.h), for various sub-populations in the United States. In our core data set, aggregate household wealth is allocated to each of four percentile groups of wealth: the top 1 percent, the next 9 percent (i.e., 90th to 99th percentile), the next 40 percent (50th to 90th percentile), and the bottom half (below the 50th percentile). Additionally, the data set contains the level and share of aggregate household wealth by income, age, generation, education, and race. The quarterly frequency makes the data useful for studying the business cycle dynamics of wealth concentration--which are typically difficult to observe in lower-frequency data because peaks and troughs often fall between times of measurement. These data will be updated about 10 or 11 weeks after the end of each quarter, making them a timely measure of the distribution of wealth.

Abstract of associated article: We explore the effect of cross-sectional aggregation of data on estimation and test of asymmetric retail fuel price responses to wholesale price shocks. The analysis is performed on data collected daily from individual fuel stations in the Spanish metropolitan areas of Madrid and Barcelona. While the standard OLS estimator is applied to an error correction model in the case of the aggregated time series, we use the mean group approaches developed by Pesaran and Smith (1995) and Pesaran (2006) to estimate the short- and long-run micro-relations under heterogeneity. We found remarkable differences between the results of estimations using aggregated and disaggregated data, which are highly robust to both datasets considered. Our findings could help to explain many of the results in the literature on this research topic. On the one hand, they suggest that the typical estimation with aggregated data clearly tends to overestimate the persistence of shocks. On the other hand, we show that aggregation may generate a loss of efficiency in econometric estimates that is sufficiently large to hide the existence of the “rockets and feathers” phenomenon.

The analysis of census data aggregated by administrative units introduces a statistical bias known as the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP). Previous researches have mostly assessed the effect of MAUP on upscaling models. The present study contributes to clarify the effects of MAUP on the downscaling methodologies, highlighting how a priori choices of scales and shapes could influence the results. We aggregated chicken and duck fine-resolution census in Thailand, using three administrative census levels in regular and irregular shapes. We then disaggregated the data within the Gridded Livestock of the World analytical framework, sampling predictors in two different ways. A sensitivity analysis on Pearson’s r correlation statistics and RMSE was carried out to understand how size and shapes of the response variables affect the goodness-of-fit and downscaling performances. We showed that scale, rather than shapes and sampling methods, affected downscaling precision, suggesting that training the model using the finest administrative level available is preferable. Moreover, datasets showing non-homogeneous distribution but instead spatial clustering seemed less affected by MAUP, yielding higher Pearson’s r values and lower RMSE compared to a more spatially homogenous dataset. Implementing aggregation sensitivity analysis in spatial studies could help to interpret complex results and disseminate robust products.

This dataset is one of the outputs of the Global Spatially-Disaggregated Crop Production Statistics Data (MapSPAM) for 2010, which includes physical area, harvest area, production and yield, for 42 crops, disaggregated at the input-levels (e.g., irrigated/rainfed and high/low-input) on a 10 km grid globally. Crop production values in this dataset are given per ha for each technology aggregated by categories - crops/food/non-food - with no information on individual crops. Unit of measure: Production per ha for each technology: mt/ha This new version of MapSPAM, available to download from the Harvard Dataverse Website, marks the third generation of the SPAM data series, following those of 2000 and 2005. More information on the production systems and selected crops is available in the Global Spatially-Disaggregated Crop Production Statistics Data (MapSPAM) full metadata at https://data.apps.fao.org/map/catalog/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/59f7a5ef-2be4-43ee-9600-a6a9e9ff562a

Abstract

UNIDO maintains a variety of databases comprising statistics of overall industrial growth, detailed data on business structure and statistics on major indicators of industrial performance by country in the historical time series. Among which is the UNIDO Industrial Statistics Database at the 3 & 4-digit levels of ISIC Revision 3 (INDSTAT4- Rev.3).

INDSTAT4 contains highly disaggregated data on the manufacturing sector for the period 1985 onwards. Comparability of data over time and across the countries has been the main priority of developing and updating this database. INDSTAT4 offers a unique possibility of in-depth analysis of the structural transformation of economies over time. The database contains seven principle indicators of industrial statistics. The data are arranged at the 3- and 4-digit levels of the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) Revision 3 pertaining to the manufacturing, which comprises more than 150 manufacturing sectors and sub-sectors. The time series can either be used to compare a certain branch or sector of countries or – if present in the data set – some sectors of one country.

For more information, please visit: http://www.unido.org/resources/statistics/statistical-databases.html

Analysis unit

Sectors

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

This dataset is one of the outputs of the Global Spatially-Disaggregated Crop Production Statistics Data (MapSPAM) for 2010, which includes physical area, harvest area, production and yield, for 42 crops, disaggregated at the input-levels (e.g., irrigated/rainfed and high/low-input) on a 10 km grid globally. Production values in this dataset are given for each technology aggregated by categories - crops/food/non-food - with no information on individual crops. Unit of measure: Production for each technology: mt This new version of MapSPAM, available to download from the Harvard Dataverse Website, marks the third generation of the SPAM data series, following those of 2000 and 2005. More information on the production systems and selected crops is available in the Global Spatially-Disaggregated Crop Production Statistics Data (MapSPAM) full metadata at https://data.apps.fao.org/map/catalog/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/59f7a5ef-2be4-43ee-9600-a6a9e9ff562a

Heat causes protein misfolding and aggregation and in eukaryotic cells triggers aggregation of proteins and RNA into stress granules. We have carried out extensive proteomic studies to quantify heat-triggered aggregation and subsequent disaggregation in budding yeast, identifying >170 endogenous proteins aggregating within minutes of heat shock in multiple subcellular compartments. We demonstrate that these aggregated proteins are not misfolded and destined for degradation. Stable-isotope labeling reveals that even severely aggregated endogenous proteins are disaggregated without degradation during recovery from shock, contrasting with the rapid degradation observed for exogenous thermolabile proteins. Although aggregation likely inactivates many cellular proteins, in the case of a heterotrimeric aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase complex, the aggregated proteins remain active with unaltered fidelity. We propose that most heat-induced aggregation of mature proteins reflects the operation of an adaptive, autoregulatory process of functionally significant aggregate assembly and disassembly that aids cellular adaptation to thermal stress.

The following gender disaggregated training data is organized annually with period from 1 July to 30 June. The data represents military, police and civilian training.

Member States are responsible for delivering the pre-deployment training (PDT) to all units and personnel provided to UN peacekeeping operations. ITS delivers training of trainer’s courses for Member State trainers to build national capacity to deliver training to UN standards. Civilian Pre-Deployment Training (CPT) improves preparedness and effectiveness of civilian peacekeepers. ITS has a dedicated team that delivers CPT at the UN Regional Service Centre in Entebbe, Uganda. Senior Leadership Training targets the highest levels (SRSG, DSRSG, Force Commander or Head of Military Component, Police Commissioner and Director of Mission Support) of field mission leadership to provide them with the knowledge needed to lead and manage field missions.

This dataset is managed by the Integrated Training Service of the UN Department of Peace Operations.

Modern slavery is a term that includes any form of human trafficking, slavery, servitude or forced labour, as set out in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Potential victims of modern slavery in the UK that come to the attention of authorised ‘First Responder’ organisations are referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM).

Adults (aged 18 or above) must consent to being referred to the NRM, whilst children under the age of 18 need not consent to being referred. As specified in section 52 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, public authorities in England and Wales have a statutory duty to notify the Home Office when they come across potential victims of modern slavery ('Duty to Notify' (DtN)). This duty is discharged by either referring a child or consenting adult potential victim into the NRM, or by notifying the Home Office via the DtN process if an adult victim does not consent to enter the NRM.

The Home Office publishes quarterly statistical bulletins and aggregated data breakdowns on the "https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-referral-mechanism-statistics" target="_blank"> National Referral Mechanism webpage on the GOV.UK website regarding the number of potential victims referred each quarter. To allow stakeholders and first responders more flexibility in analysing this data for their own strategic and operational planning, the disaggregated, pseudonymised dataset used to create the aggregated published data is also available from the UK Data Service as 'safeguarded' data. (The UKDS data are available in SPSS, Stata, tab-delimited text and CSV formats.)

Latest edition information

For the 16th edition (May 2025), the data file was amended to include Quarter 1 2025 cases, and the Data Notes documentation file was also updated. Additional variables covering reconsideration requests have been added to the data. Further information on these can be found in the documentation and on the GOV.UK National Referral Mechanism webpage.

This dataset was produced based on the projected 2021 population totals for Communes derived from the 2012 Population and Housing Census, and provided by INS. The projection for all GIS files is the geographic coordinate system WGS84 (World Geodetic System 1984). The zip files contain the following:

NER_population_v1_0_gridded.tifThis geotiff raster, at a spatial resolution of 3 arc-seconds (approximately 100m at the equator),contains estimates of the total population size per grid cell across Niger. NA values representareas that were mapped as unsettled based on gridded building patterns derived from buildingfootprints (Dooley and Tatem, 2020). These data are stored as floating-point numbers rather thanintegers to avoid rounding errors in aggregated population totals for larger areas.NER_population_v1_0_agesex.zipThis zip file contains 40 GeoTIFF rasters representing estimated population counts for specificage and sex groups within grid cells of approximately 100m. We provide 36 rasters for thecommonly reported age-sex groupings of sequential age classes for males and females separately. These are labelled with either an “m” (male) or an “f” (female) followed by the numberof the first year of the age class represented by the data. “f0” and “m0” are population counts ofunder 1-year olds for females and males, respectively. “f1” and “m1” are population counts of 1 to 4 year olds for females and males, respectively. Over 4 years old, the age groups are in five year bins labelled with a “5”, “10”, etc. Eighty year olds and over are represented in the groups“f80” and “m80”. We provide four additional rasters that represent demographic groups often targeted by programmes and interventions. These are “under1” (all females and males under theage of 1), “under5” (all females and males under the age of 5), “under15” (all females and males under the age of 15) and “f15_49” (all females between the ages of 15 and 49, inclusive). These data were produced post-hoc by multiplying the total population counts provided in the NER_population_v1_0_gridded.tif raster and age and sex proportions derived from themicrocensus data for each province. While this data represents population counts, values contain decimals, i.e. fractions of people. This is because both the input population data and age-sex proportions contain decimals. For this reason, it is advised to aggregate the rasters at a coarser scale. For example, if four grid cells next to each other have values of 0.25 this indicates that there is 1 person of that age group somewhere in those four grid cells.Data Citation: Abbott T. J., Chamberlain H., Qader S. H., Lazar A. N., Kuepie, M., Tatem A. J. 2022. Census disaggregated gridded population estimates for Niger (2021), version 1.0. University of Southampton. doi:10.5258/SOTON/WP00733. These data were produced by the WorldPop Research Group at the University of Southampton. This work was part of the GRID3 project with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.

The new scorecard tracks progress toward the World Bank Group's vision to create a world free of poverty on a livable planet. The Scorecard includes three types of indicators: - Vision indicators - reflect the new vision for the WBG, showing the WBG’s ambition and providing high-level measures to gauge the direction and pace of progress in tackling global challenges. Vision indicators contain aggregated and disaggregated development context data for all countries in the world, where data is available. The Scorecard reports the latest available global updates for each of these indicators. - Client context indicators - reflect the circumstances in client countries, including multidimensional aspects of poverty, and are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They serve to frame the challenges clients face, and the context in which the WBG operates. Client Context indicators contain aggregated and disaggregated development context data for World Bank client countries, based on country eligibility for financing and where data is available. The Scorecard also reports the latest available update for each of these indicators. - WBG Results indicators monitor WBG progress on some of the most critical global challenges. Results data include: - Active Portfolio Results: Contain achieved and expected results of WBG operations based on its active portfolio as of end of June 2024. Includes aggregated and disaggregated data. - Results achieved since July 1st, 2023: Contain cumulative results achieved between July 1st, 2023 - June 30, 2024 from active and closed projects. Results achieved before July 1st, 2023 are excluded from this calculation. Includes aggregated data for World Bank, IBRD and IDA only. IFC and MIGA do not currently report this data. - Operations Details: Operation-level detail is provided for World Bank projects. However, in alignment with IFC and MIGA Access to Information Policies, project-level data is available in an aggregated format on the WBG Scorecard, provided the minimum threshold to secure individual clients' data is satisfied. This collection includes only a subset of indicators from the source dataset.

Abstract

UNIDO maintains a variety of databases comprising statistics of overall industrial growth, detailed data on business structure and statistics on major indicators of industrial performance by country in the historical time series. Among which is the UNIDO Industrial Demand-Supply Balance Database at the 4-digit level of ISIC (IDSB).

The IDSB contains highly disaggregated data on the manufacturing sector for the period 2005 onwards and includes trade data. The data are derived from output data reported by National Statistical Offices, as presented in the INDSTAT4 database, together with UNIDO estimates for ISIC-based international trade data, by utilizing the United Nations Commodity Trade Database (COMTRADE). The database contains data on output and on trade related items, such as imports, export and apparent consumption. The data are arranged at the 4-digit level of the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) Revision 4 pertaining to the manufacturing sector, which comprises 137 manufacturing categories.

For more information, please visit: http://www.unido.org/resources/statistics/statistical-databases.html

Analysis unit

Sectors

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

We study supply and demand shocks in a disaggregated model with multiple sectors, multiple factors, input-output linkages, downward nominal wage rigidities, credit-constraints, and a zero lower bound. We use the model to understand how the Covid-19 crisis, an omnibus supply and demand shock, affects output, unemployment, and inflation, and leads to the coexistence of tight and slack labor markets. We show that negative sectoral supply shocks are stagflationary, whereas negative demand shocks are deflationary, even though both can cause Keynesian unemployment. Furthermore,complementarities in production amplify Keynesian spillovers from supply shocks but mitigate them for demand shocks. This means that complementarities reduce the effectiveness of aggregate demand stimulus. In a stylized quantitative model of the US, we find supply and demand shocks each explain about half the reduction in real GDP from February to May, 2020. Although there was as much as 6% Keynesian unemployment, this was concentrated incertain markets. Hence, aggregate demand stimulus is one quarter as effective as in a typical recession where all labor markets are slack.

Estimation of the linear quadratic model, the workhorse of the inventory literature, traditionally takes inventories and sales to be first-difference stationary series, and the ratio of the two variables to be stationary. However, these assumptions do not always match the properties of the data for the last two decades in the United States. We propose a model that allows for the non-stationary characteristics of the data, using polynomial cointegration. We show that the closed-form solution has other recent models as special cases. The resulting model performs well on aggregate and disaggregated data.

This dataset is one of the outputs of the Global Spatially-Disaggregated Crop Production Statistics Data (MapSPAM) for 2010, which includes physical area, harvest area, production and yield, for 42 crops, disaggregated at the input-levels (e.g., irrigated/rainfed and high/low-input) on a 10 km grid globally. Harvested area values in this dataset are given for each technology aggregated by categories – crops/food/non-food - with no information on individual crops. Unit of measure: Harvested area for each technology: ha This new version of MapSPAM, available to download from the Harvard Dataverse Website, marks the third generation of the SPAM data series, following those of 2000 and 2005. More information on the production systems and selected crops is available in the Global Spatially-Disaggregated Crop Production Statistics Data (MapSPAM) full metadata at https://data.apps.fao.org/map/catalog/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/59f7a5ef-2be4-43ee-9600-a6a9e9ff562a

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data Attributes Ward Data Overview:July 2020 municipal wards were collected by LTSB through the WISE-Decade system. Current statutes require each county clerk, or board of election commissioners, no later than January 15 and July 15 of each year, to transmit to the LTSB, in an electronic format (approved by LTSB), a report confirming the boundaries of each municipality, ward and supervisory district within the county as of the preceding “snapshot” date of January 1 or July 1 respectively. Population totals for 2011 wards are carried over to the 2018 dataset for existing wards. New wards created since 2011 due to annexations, detachments, and incorporation are allocated population from Census 2010 collection blocks. LTSB has topologically integrated the data, but there may still be errors.Election Data Overview:The 1990-2000 Wisconsin election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the *Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after each general election. A disaggregation process was performed on this election data based on the municipal ward layer that was available at the time of the election. Disaggregation of Election Data:Election data is first disaggregated from reporting units to wards, and then to census blocks. Next, the election data is aggregated back up to wards, municipalities, and counties. The disaggregation of election data to census blocks is done based on total population. Detailed Methodology:Data is disaggregated first from reporting unit (i.e. multiple wards) to the ward level proportionate to the population of that ward. The data then is distributed down to the block level, again based on total population. When data is disaggregated to block or ward, we restrain vote totals not to exceed population 18 numbers, unless absolutely required.This methodology results in the following: Election data totals reported to the WEC at the state, county, municipal and reporting unit level should match the disaggregated election data total at the same levels. Election data totals reported to the WEC at ward level may not match the ward totals in the disaggregated election data file. Some wards may have more election data allocated than voter age population. This will occur if a change to the geography results in more voters than the 2010 historical population limits.Other things of note…We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2020) to disaggregate election data to blocks. Using this ward layer creates some challenges. New wards are created every year due to annexations and incorporations. When these new wards are reported with election data, an issue arises wherein election data is being reported for wards that do not exist in our official ward layer. For example, if Cityville has four wards in the official ward layer, the election data may be reported for five wards, including a new ward from an annexation. There are two different scenarios and courses of action to these issues: When a single new ward is present in the election data but there is no ward geometry present in the official ward layer, the votes attributed to this new ward are distributed to all the other wards in the municipality based on population percentage. Distributing based on population percentage means that the proportion of the population of the municipality will receive that same proportion of votes from the new ward. In the example of Cityville explained above, the fifth ward may have five votes reported, but since there is no corresponding fifth ward in the official layer, these five votes will be assigned to each of the other wards in Cityville according the percentage of population.Another case is when a new ward is reported, but its votes are part of reporting unit. In this case, the votes for the new ward are assigned to the other wards in the reporting unit by population percentage; and not to wards in the municipality as a whole. For example, Cityville’s ward 5 was given as a reporting unit together with wards 1, 4, and 5. In this case, the votes in ward five are assigned to wards 1 and 4 according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election ResultsThe process of collecting election data and disaggregating to municipal wards occurs after a general election, so disaggregation has occurred with different ward layers and different population totals. We have outlined (to the best of our knowledge) what layer and population totals were used to produce these ward-by-ward election results.Election data disaggregates from WEC Reporting Unit -> Ward [Variant year outlined below]Elections 1990 – 2000: Wards 1991 (Census 1990 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2002 – 2010: Wards 2001 (Census 2000 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2012: Wards 2011 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2014 – 2016: Wards 2018 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2018: Wards 2018Blocks 2011 -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined aboveIn the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists (occurred with spring 2020) due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks 2011This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2018Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2020 (then MCD 2020, and County 2020) All election data (including later elections) is aggregated to the Wards 2020 assignment of the blocksNotes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001 and 2011 used for disaggregation were determined by their respective Census.Population and Election data will be contained within a county boundary. This means that even though MCD and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same, so data should total within a county the same between wards 2011 and wards 2020.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2020. This is due to boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2020, and annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.*WEC replaced the previous Government Accountability Board (GAB) in 2016, which replaced the previous State Elections Board in 2008.