Wisconsin Unified School Boundary - School districts are geographic entities within which state, county, or local officials provide public educational services for the area's residents. The U.S. Census Bureau obtains the boundaries and names for school districts from state officials. The U.S. Census Bureau first provided data for school districts in the 1970 census. For Census 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau tabulated data for three types of school districts: elementary, secondary, and unified. Each school district is assigned a five-digit code that is unique within state. School district codes are assigned by the Department of Education and are not necessarily in alphabetical order by school district name.

The average American family in 2023 consisted of 3.15 persons. Families in the United States According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. As of 2023, the U.S. Census Bureau counted about 84.33 million families in the United States. The average family consisted of 3.15 persons in 2021, down from 3.7 in the 1960s. This is reflected in the decrease of children in family households overall. In 1970, about 56 percent of all family households had children under the age of 18 living in the household. This percentage declined to about 40 percent in 2020. The average size of a family household varies greatly from state to state. The largest average families can be found in Utah, California, and Hawaii, while the smallest families can be found in Wisconsin, Vermont and Maine.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median household incomes for various household sizes in Williams Bay, WI, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in median household income with the size of the family unit, offering valuable insights into economic trends and disparities within different household sizes, aiding in data analysis and decision-making.

Key observations

• Of the 7 household sizes (1 person to 7-or-more person households) reported by the census bureau, all of the household sizes were found in Williams Bay. Across the different household sizes in Williams Bay the mean income is $124,102, and the standard deviation is $81,319. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 65.53%. This high CV indicates high relative variability, suggesting that the incomes vary significantly across different sizes of households. Please note that the U.S. Census Bureau uses $250,001 as a JAM value to report incomes of $250,000 or more. In the case of Williams Bay, there were 1 household sizes where the JAM values were used. Thus, the numbers for the mean and standard deviation may not be entirely accurate and have a higher possibility of errors. However, to obtain an approximate estimate, we have used a value of $250,001 as the income for calculations, as reported in the datasets by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• In the most recent year, 2021, The smallest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income was 1-person households, with an income of $26,542. It then further increased to $45,564 for 7-person households, the largest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/williams-bay-wi-median-household-income-by-household-size.jpeg" alt="Williams Bay, WI median household income, by household size (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

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

Household Sizes:

• 1-person households
• 2-person households
• 3-person households
• 4-person households
• 5-person households
• 6-person households
• 7-or-more-person households

Variables / Data Columns

• Household Size: This column showcases 7 household sizes ranging from 1-person households to 7-or-more-person households (As mentioned above).
• Median Household Income: Median household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific household size.

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 Williams Bay median household income. You can refer the same here

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data Attributes Ward Data Overview: January 2025 municipal wards were collected in January 2025 by LTSB through LTSB's GeoData Collector. 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 2025 wards were estimated by aggregating 2020 US Census PL94-171 population data. LTSB has NOT topologically integrated the data. Election Data Overview: The 2024 Wisconsin election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the *Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) after the 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 2020 historical population limits.Other things of note… We use a static, official ward layer (in this case created in 2025) 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 five 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 one and four 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 2018 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2020: Wards 2020 (Census 2020 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2022: Wards 2022 (Census 2020 totals used for disaggregation)Elections 2024: Wards 2025 (Census 2020 totals used for disaggregation)Blocks -> Centroid geometry and spatially joined with Wards [All Versions]Each Block has an assignment to each of the ward versions outlined above.In the event that a ward exists now in which no block exists due to annexations, a block centroid was created with a population 0, and encoded with the proper Census IDs.Wards [All Versions] disaggregate -> Blocks This yields a block centroid layer that contains all elections from 1990 to 2024.Blocks [with all election data] -> Wards 2025 (then MCD 2025, and County 2025) All election data (including later elections) is aggregated to the Wards 2025 assignment of the blocks.Notes:Population of municipal wards 1991, 2001, 2011, 2020, 2022, and 2025 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 2025.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2025. This is due to boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2025, 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.

About this dataset

Context

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

Key observations

In 2023, the population of White River town was 1,069, a 0.47% increase year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, White River town population was 1,064, a decline of 0.47% compared to a population of 1,069 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of White River town increased by 170. In this period, the peak population was 1,069 in the year 2021. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

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

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

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

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Door County by gender, including both male and female populations. This dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Door County across both sexes and to determine which sex constitutes the majority.

Key observations

There is a slight majority of female population, with 50.58% of total population being female. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis. No further analysis is done on the data reported from the Census Bureau.

Variables / Data Columns

• Gender: This column displays the Gender (Male / Female)
• Population: The population of the gender in the Door County is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each gender as a proportion of Door County total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Door County Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data AttributesWard Data Overview: These municipal wards were created by grouping Census 2010 population collection blocks into municipal wards. This project started with the release of Census 2010 geography and population totals to all 72 Wisconsin counties on March 21, 2011, and were made available via the Legislative Technology Services Bureau (LTSB) GIS website and the WISE-LR web application. The 180 day statutory timeline for local redistricting ended on September 19, 2011. Wisconsin Legislative and Congressional redistricting plans were enacted in 2011 by Wisconsin Act 43 and Act 44. These new districts were created using Census 2010 block geography. Some municipal wards, created before the passing of Act 43 and 44, were required to be split between assembly, senate and congressional district boundaries. 2011 Wisconsin Act 39 allowed communities to divide wards, along census block boundaries, if they were divided by newly enacted boundaries. A number of wards created under Wisconsin Act 39 were named using alpha-numeric labels. An example would be where ward 1 divided by an assembly district would become ward 1A and ward 1B, and in other municipalities the next sequential ward number was used: ward 1 and ward 2. The process of dividing wards under Act 39 ended on April 10, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the United States Eastern District Federal Court ordered Assembly Districts 8 and 9 (both in the City of Milwaukee) be changed to follow the court’s description. On September 19, 2012, LTSB divided the few remaining municipal wards that were split by a 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or 44 district line.Election Data Overview: Election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the Government Accountability Board (GAB)/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. The ward data that is collected after each decennial census is made up of collections of whole and split census blocks. (Note: Split census blocks occur during local redistricting when municipalities include recently annexed property in their ward submissions to the legislature).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 GAB/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 GAB 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 2011) 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 five 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 one and four according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election Results: The 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 GAB/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 spring 2017 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Blocks 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 2017) 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 2016Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2011 (then MCD 2011, and County 2011) All election data (including later elections such as 2016) is aggregated to the Wards 2011 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 municipal and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same. Therefore, data totals within a county should be the same between 2011 wards and 2018 wards.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2018. This is due to (a) boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2018, and (b) annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.

These wards were produced by the Legislative Technology Services Bureau for the 2011 Legislative Redistricting Project. Election data from the current decade is included.Election Data Attribute Field Definitions | Wisconsin Cities, Towns, & Villages Data AttributesWard Data Overview: These municipal wards were created by grouping Census 2010 population collection blocks into municipal wards. This project started with the release of Census 2010 geography and population totals to all 72 Wisconsin counties on March 21, 2011, and were made available via the Legislative Technology Services Bureau (LTSB) GIS website and the WISE-LR web application. The 180 day statutory timeline for local redistricting ended on September 19, 2011. Wisconsin Legislative and Congressional redistricting plans were enacted in 2011 by Wisconsin Act 43 and Act 44. These new districts were created using Census 2010 block geography. Some municipal wards, created before the passing of Act 43 and 44, were required to be split between assembly, senate and congressional district boundaries. 2011 Wisconsin Act 39 allowed communities to divide wards, along census block boundaries, if they were divided by newly enacted boundaries. A number of wards created under Wisconsin Act 39 were named using alpha-numeric labels. An example would be where ward 1 divided by an assembly district would become ward 1A and ward 1B, and in other municipalities the next sequential ward number was used: ward 1 and ward 2. The process of dividing wards under Act 39 ended on April 10, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the United States Eastern District Federal Court ordered Assembly Districts 8 and 9 (both in the City of Milwaukee) be changed to follow the court’s description. On September 19, 2012, LTSB divided the few remaining municipal wards that were split by a 2011 Wisconsin Act 43 or 44 district line.Election Data Overview: Election data that is included in this file was collected by LTSB from the Government Accountability Board (GAB)/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. The ward data that is collected after each decennial census is made up of collections of whole and split census blocks. (Note: Split census blocks occur during local redistricting when municipalities include recently annexed property in their ward submissions to the legislature).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 GAB/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 GAB 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 2011) 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 five 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 one and four according to population percentage. Outline Ward-by-Ward Election Results: The 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 GAB/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 spring 2017 (Census 2010 totals used for disaggregation)Blocks 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 2017) 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 2016Blocks 2011 [with all election data] -> Wards 2011 (then MCD 2011, and County 2011) All election data (including later elections such as 2016) is aggregated to the Wards 2011 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 municipal and ward boundaries vary greatly between versions of the wards, county boundaries have stayed the same. Therefore, data totals within a county should be the same between 2011 wards and 2018 wards.Election data may be different for the same legislative district, for the same election, due to changes in the wards from 2011 and 2018. This is due to (a) boundary corrections in the data from 2011 to 2018, and (b) annexations, where a block may have been reassigned.

Human-nature connection consent form and survey

https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h70rxwdqr

The data set contains the raw and coded data used in the analysis as presented in the published article. The supplementary material contains two documents, the consent form that preceded the survey and the survey questions that were administered online to community and conservation park visitors in Madison, WI, USA as presented in the published article.

Description of the data and file structure

The data set contains the raw and coded data used in the analysis as presented in the published article. The supplementary material contains two documents, the consent form that preceded the survey and the survey questions that were administered online to community and conservation park visitors in Madison, WI, USA as presented in the published article.

The following provides a definition for each column notation. ParkID indicates each park's identification...

About this dataset

Context

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

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Green Bay was 105,744, a 0.36% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Green Bay population was 106,121, a decline of 0.25% compared to a population of 106,387 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Green Bay increased by 2,858. In this period, the peak population was 107,271 in the year 2020. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

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

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

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

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.

This dataset displays the locations of all the public libraries in the state of Wisconsin. The data included is the name of the library, name of the library system, library's address, phone, and lat/lon coordinates. The data came from publiclibraries.com which is a updated directory of all the public libraries throughout the United States.

This file contains COVID-19 death counts, death rates, and percent of total deaths by jurisdiction of residence. The data is grouped by different time periods including 3-month period, weekly, and total (cumulative since January 1, 2020). United States death counts and rates include the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and New York City. New York state estimates exclude New York City. Puerto Rico is included in HHS Region 2 estimates. Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1. Number of deaths reported in this file are the total number of COVID-19 deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and may not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Counts of deaths occurring before or after the reporting period are not included in the file. Data during recent periods are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. Death counts should not be compared across states. Data timeliness varies by state. Some states report deaths on a daily basis, while other states report deaths weekly or monthly. The ten (10) United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regions include the following jurisdictions. Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; Region 2: New Jersey, New York, New York City, Puerto Rico; Region 3: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska; Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming; Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada; Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington. Rates were calculated using the population estimates for 2021, which are estimated as of July 1, 2021 based on the Blended Base produced by the US Census Bureau in lieu of the April 1, 2020 decennial population count. The Blended Base consists of the blend of Vintage 2020 postcensal population estimates, 2020 Demographic Analysis Estimates, and 2020 Census PL 94-171 Redistricting File (see https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2020-2021/methods-statement-v2021.pdf). Rates are based on deaths occurring in the specified week/month and are age-adjusted to the 2000 standard population using the direct method (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-08-508.pdf). These rates differ from annual age-adjusted rates, typically presented in NCHS publications based on a full year of data and annualized weekly/monthly age-adjusted rates which have been adjusted to allow comparison with annual rates. Annualization rates presents deaths per year per 100,000 population that would be expected in a year if the observed period specific (weekly/monthly) rate prevailed for a full year. Sub-national death counts between 1-9 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS data confidentiality standards. Rates based on death counts less than 20 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS standards of reliability as specified in NCHS Data Presentation Standards for Proportions (available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_175.pdf.).

HAZUS is an abbreviation for Hazards United States, and was developed by FEMA. The HAZUS dataset was designed to estimate the potential physical, economic and social losses during hazardous events such as flooding or earthquakes. To measure the social impact of these events, HAZUS includes detailed demographic data for the United States. This dataset pulls out the residential data from the demographic files, at the census block level for the Wisconsin section of the Minneapolis Minnesota Metropolitan Statistic Area (MSA). Data attributes include population group quarters, school enrollment, population commuting at 5 pm, population in hotels, visiting populations, population residing by day or night, and others. Demographics data was recent as of May 2006. Source: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/index.shtm

"Wisconsin(table 3) - Number of SSI recipients in state (by eligibility category, age, and receipt of OASDI benefits) and amount of payments, by county, December 2007 Data not shown to avoid disclosure of information for particular individuals was filled with -1 County data on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are a measure of the local impact of the program. This report is a resource for Social Security Administration (SSA) staff in formulating policy and for local service providers and economic planners. The SSI program is a cash assistance program that provides monthly benefits to low-income aged, blind, or disabled persons in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The states and other jurisdictions have the option of supplementing their residents' SSI payments and may choose to have the additional payments administered by the federal government. When a state chooses federal administration, SSA maintains the payment records and issues the federal payment and the state supplement in one check. The data presented in this document are for federal and federally administered state payments only. State-administered supplementation payments are not included. The tables present SSI data by eligibility category (aged, blind, and disabled) and age. SSI recipients who also receive Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) benefits are shown also in Table 3, which presents data at the county level."

This dataset includes all counties that have been declared presidential disaster areas as a result of the May/June 2008 floods (and severe storms). Only declarations for individual assistance have been made -i.e., none for public assistance.

This data comes from the Survey on Sexual Violence, 2006, an administrative records collection of incidents of inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual violence reported to correctional authorities. This dataset in particular focuses on allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence reported by State or Federal prison authorities by State. Between January 1 and June 30, 2007, BJS completed the third annual national survey of administrative records in adult correctional facilities, covering calendar year 2006. Although the results were limited to incidents reported to correctional officials, the survey provides an understanding of what officials know, based on the number of reported allegations, and the outcomes of follow-up investigations. By comparing results of the 2006 survey with those from 2004 and 2005, BJS is able to assess trends in sexual violence for the first time since the Act was passed. AL, AK, GA, MS, NV, NC, VA, WI: Allegations of abusive sexual contacts could not be counted separately from allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. MT: Includes consensual contact between inmates. SC, WV: Allegations limited to substantiated occurrences only. For more information on this data please go to: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svrca06.htm

This dataset displays the locations of all the Adult Correctional Facilities in the state of Wisconsin as of 3.2008. This includes both female and male institutions.