HHS responsibly shares “open by default” data with the public to democratize access to information, demystify the Department, and increase transparency through data sharing. HHS Open Data is non-sensitive data, meaning thousands of health and human services datasets are publicly available to fuel new business models, enable emerging technologies like AI, accelerate scientific discoveries, and inspire American innovation. This top-1000 HHS Open Data websites and resources page, dynamically generated from the Digital Analytics Program (DAP) provided by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), is driven by near-real-time user demand. GSA’s DAP helps federal agencies and the public see how visitors find, access, and use government websites, data, and services online. The below list filters DAP for only resources from HHS and includes all HHS Divisions. You may filter by individual HHS Divisions and columns.

This dataset details federal funding sources for each applicable agency reporting to the NTD in the 2022, 2023, and 2024 report years. Federal funding sources are financial assistance obtained from the Federal Government to assist with the costs of providing transit services.

NTD Data Tables organize and summarize data from the National Transit Database in a manner that is more useful for quick reference and summary analysis. This dataset is based on the 2022 - 2024 Revenue Sources database files.

In years 2015-2021, you can find this data in the "Funding Sources" data table on NTD Program website, at https://transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data.

If you have any other questions about this table, please contact the NTD Help Desk at NTDHelp@dot.gov.

FQHC Location Data

Detailed Address Data on Federally Qualified Health Centers in the US

By US Department of Health and Human Services [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides comprehensive address-level information on Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in the United States. FQHCs are community-driven and consumer run organizations that serve populations with limited access to health care, including those who are low-income, uninsured, have a limited grasp of English, migrating and seasonal farm workers, individuals experiencing homelessness, and those living in public housing. In addition to detailed location addressing data such as postal code and city name for each center in the scope of this dataset; users can find optional information about an individual center such as its operator description or the type of population it serves, along with rich backroom management data which includes grant number, grantee name and uniform resource locator (URL). Get familiarized with this essential dataset to help provide quality medical care access to under served communities across the US

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset is an address-level dataset on the locations of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). This dataset includes information on the FQHCs such as name, address, contact information, operating hours per week and grant number. It can be used to locate FQHCs in a particular area and to gain insights into the services they provide.

In order to use this data set, it is important to understand what attributes are included. These are broken down into categories including basic site information (name, telephone number etc.), service description (what population is served etc.), region info (HHS region code etc.) and supplemental info including records for operator and grantee organization.

Once you have identified what fields you are interested in, you can then use this data set for further analysis such as counting how many FQHCs exist within a certain area or determining which states have higher numbers of FQHCs than others. You can also filter by features such as services offered or population served to gain further insights into a particular segment of the FQHC market.

It should also be noted that there may be discrepancies between different sources regarding different fields due to variations in data collection methods; however this dataset is sourced from reliable government datasets making it more accurate than other options. Additionally it contains multiple years of data which provides invaluable insight over time trends that would otherwise not be available through other sources

Research Ideas

• Monitoring health outcomes in a given region and comparing changes over time in terms of FQHC locations, services available, and populations served.
• Analyzing the regional distribution of FQHCs and determining whether there are underserved areas based on population density and access to healthcare services.
• Creating a geographic information system (GIS) map to visualize the FQHC locations across the United States, highlighting rural or underserved areas in need of additional support for healthcare access

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

Unknown License - Please check the dataset description for more information.

Columns

File: SITE_HCC_FCT_DET.csv | Column name | Description | |:-----------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Site Name | Name of the FQHC. (String) | | UDS Number | Unique identifier assigned by the US Department of Human Services for each FQHC. (Integer) | | Site Telephone Number | Telephone number of the FQHC. (String) | | Site Facsimile Telephone Number | Facsimile telephone number of the FQHC. (String) | | **Administrati...

This list includes major sources of data collected by the U.S. government and available for research on small business. It includes business data from private, nonprofit, university, international, and other sources.

The NYPD manual extracts this data once per quarter and prior to posting, it is analysed by the Office of Management Analysis and Planning. Data.gov is able to include these non-federal data sources in the catalogue by cooperating with them. Pardon the crude expression, but when you search on the Data.gov catalogue, results from both government and non-federal sources will appear.

United States agricultural researchers have many options for making their data available online. This dataset aggregates the primary sources of ag-related data and determines where researchers are likely to deposit their agricultural data. These data serve as both a current landscape analysis and also as a baseline for future studies of ag research data. Purpose As sources of agricultural data become more numerous and disparate, and collaboration and open data become more expected if not required, this research provides a landscape inventory of online sources of open agricultural data. An inventory of current agricultural data sharing options will help assess how the Ag Data Commons, a platform for USDA-funded data cataloging and publication, can best support data-intensive and multi-disciplinary research. It will also help agricultural librarians assist their researchers in data management and publication. The goals of this study were to establish where agricultural researchers in the United States-- land grant and USDA researchers, primarily ARS, NRCS, USFS and other agencies -- currently publish their data, including general research data repositories, domain-specific databases, and the top journals compare how much data is in institutional vs. domain-specific vs. federal platforms determine which repositories are recommended by top journals that require or recommend the publication of supporting data ascertain where researchers not affiliated with funding or initiatives possessing a designated open data repository can publish data Approach The National Agricultural Library team focused on Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and United States Forest Service (USFS) style research data, rather than ag economics, statistics, and social sciences data. To find domain-specific, general, institutional, and federal agency repositories and databases that are open to US research submissions and have some amount of ag data, resources including re3data, libguides, and ARS lists were analysed. Primarily environmental or public health databases were not included, but places where ag grantees would publish data were considered. Search methods We first compiled a list of known domain specific USDA / ARS datasets / databases that are represented in the Ag Data Commons, including ARS Image Gallery, ARS Nutrition Databases (sub-components), SoyBase, PeanutBase, National Fungus Collection, i5K Workspace @ NAL, and GRIN. We then searched using search engines such as Bing and Google for non-USDA / federal ag databases, using Boolean variations of “agricultural data” /“ag data” / “scientific data” + NOT + USDA (to filter out the federal / USDA results). Most of these results were domain specific, though some contained a mix of data subjects. We then used search engines such as Bing and Google to find top agricultural university repositories using variations of “agriculture”, “ag data” and “university” to find schools with agriculture programs. Using that list of universities, we searched each university web site to see if their institution had a repository for their unique, independent research data if not apparent in the initial web browser search. We found both ag specific university repositories and general university repositories that housed a portion of agricultural data. Ag specific university repositories are included in the list of domain-specific repositories. Results included Columbia University – International Research Institute for Climate and Society, UC Davis – Cover Crops Database, etc. If a general university repository existed, we determined whether that repository could filter to include only data results after our chosen ag search terms were applied. General university databases that contain ag data included Colorado State University Digital Collections, University of Michigan ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research), and University of Minnesota DRUM (Digital Repository of the University of Minnesota). We then split out NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) repositories. Next we searched the internet for open general data repositories using a variety of search engines, and repositories containing a mix of data, journals, books, and other types of records were tested to determine whether that repository could filter for data results after search terms were applied. General subject data repositories include Figshare, Open Science Framework, PANGEA, Protein Data Bank, and Zenodo. Finally, we compared scholarly journal suggestions for data repositories against our list to fill in any missing repositories that might contain agricultural data. Extensive lists of journals were compiled, in which USDA published in 2012 and 2016, combining search results in ARIS, Scopus, and the Forest Service's TreeSearch, plus the USDA web sites Economic Research Service (ERS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Rural Development (RD), and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The top 50 journals' author instructions were consulted to see if they (a) ask or require submitters to provide supplemental data, or (b) require submitters to submit data to open repositories. Data are provided for Journals based on a 2012 and 2016 study of where USDA employees publish their research studies, ranked by number of articles, including 2015/2016 Impact Factor, Author guidelines, Supplemental Data?, Supplemental Data reviewed?, Open Data (Supplemental or in Repository) Required? and Recommended data repositories, as provided in the online author guidelines for each the top 50 journals. Evaluation We ran a series of searches on all resulting general subject databases with the designated search terms. From the results, we noted the total number of datasets in the repository, type of resource searched (datasets, data, images, components, etc.), percentage of the total database that each term comprised, any dataset with a search term that comprised at least 1% and 5% of the total collection, and any search term that returned greater than 100 and greater than 500 results. We compared domain-specific databases and repositories based on parent organization, type of institution, and whether data submissions were dependent on conditions such as funding or affiliation of some kind. Results A summary of the major findings from our data review: Over half of the top 50 ag-related journals from our profile require or encourage open data for their published authors. There are few general repositories that are both large AND contain a significant portion of ag data in their collection. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), ICPSR, and ORNL DAAC were among those that had over 500 datasets returned with at least one ag search term and had that result comprise at least 5% of the total collection. Not even one quarter of the domain-specific repositories and datasets reviewed allow open submission by any researcher regardless of funding or affiliation. See included README file for descriptions of each individual data file in this dataset. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Journals. File Name: Journals.csvResource Title: Journals - Recommended repositories. File Name: Repos_from_journals.csvResource Title: TDWG presentation. File Name: TDWG_Presentation.pptxResource Title: Domain Specific ag data sources. File Name: domain_specific_ag_databases.csvResource Title: Data Dictionary for Ag Data Repository Inventory. File Name: Ag_Data_Repo_DD.csvResource Title: General repositories containing ag data. File Name: general_repos_1.csvResource Title: README and file inventory. File Name: README_InventoryPublicDBandREepAgData.txt

Content

Source ID: FL313066220.Q

For more information about the Flow of Funds tables, see: https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/fof/Default.aspx

For a detailed description, including how this series is constructed, see: https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/fof/SeriesAnalyzer.aspx?s=FL313066220&t=

Context

This is a dataset from the Federal Reserve hosted by the Federal Reserve Economic Database (FRED). FRED has a data platform found here and they update their information according to the frequency that the data updates. Explore the Federal Reserve using Kaggle and all of the data sources available through the Federal Reserve organization page!

• Update Frequency: This dataset is updated daily.

• Observation Start: 1945-10-01

• Observation End : 2019-04-01

Acknowledgements

This dataset is maintained using FRED's API and Kaggle's API.

Cover photo by Michael on Unsplash
Unsplash Images are distributed under a unique Unsplash License.

The official source of spending data for the U.S. Government. Data is sourced from the DATA Act Broker (which draws from a number of federal systems as well as data directly submitted by agencies) on a nightly basis and presented to the public for display and download. Significant effort has gone into 'unlocking' the data through intuitive displays, charts, and deep-dive analyses. The major data categories are account data, award data, and subaward data. Award data is linked to subaward data, and account data is linked to award data. In the case of award and subaward data, contextual information about location, recipients, place of performance, etc. are provided.

Building a comprehensive data inventory as required by section 6.3 of the Directive on Open Government: “Establishing and maintaining comprehensive inventories of data and information resources of business value held by the department to determine their eligibility and priority, and to plan for their effective release.” Creating a data inventory is among the first steps in identifying federal data that is eligible for release. Departmental data inventories has been published on the Open Government portal, Open.Canada.ca, so that Canadians can see what federal data is collected and have the opportunity to indicate what data is of most interest to them, helping departments to prioritize data releases based on both external demand and internal capacity. The objective of the inventory is to provide a landscape of all federal data. While it is recognized that not all data is eligible for release due to the nature of the content, departments are responsible for identifying and including all datasets of business values as part of the inventory exercise with the exception of datasets whose title contains information that should not be released to be released to the public due to security or privacy concerns. These titles have been excluded from the inventory. Departments were provided with an open data inventory template with standardized elements to populate, and upload in the metadata catalogue, the Open Government Registry. These elements are described in the data dictionary file. Departments are responsible for maintaining up-to-date data inventories that reflect significant additions to their data holdings. For purposes of this open data inventory exercise, a dataset is defined as: “An organized collection of data used to carry out the business of a department or agency, that can be understood alone or in conjunction with other datasets”. Please note that the Open Data Inventory is no longer being maintained by Government of Canada organizations and is therefore not being updated. However, we will continue to provide access to the dataset for review and analysis.

Federal Open Space is a polygon feature-based layer that includes land owned in either easement or fee simple interest by the federal government. This layer is based on information that was collected and mapped at various scales and at different levels of accuracy. Types of property in this layer include open space and recreational land open to the public. Examples include National Park Service land, Army Corps of Engineers land, etc.

This ownership dataset utilizes a methodology that results in a federal ownership extent that matches the Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA) footprint from CAL FIRE's State Responsibility Areas for Fire Protection (SRA) data. FRA lands are snapped to county parcel data, thus federal ownership areas will also be snapped. Since SRA Fees were first implemented in 2011, CAL FIRE has devoted significant resources to improve the quality of SRA data. This includes comparing SRA data to data from other federal, state, and local agencies, an annual comparison to county assessor roll files, and a formal SRA review process that includes input from CAL FIRE Units. As a result, FRA lands provide a solid basis as the footprint for federal lands in California (except in the southeastern desert area). The methodology for federal lands involves: 1) snapping federal data sources to parcels; 2) clipping to the FRA footprint; 3) overlaying the federal data sources and using a hierarchy when sources overlap to resolve coding issues (BIA, UFW, NPS, USF, BLM, DOD, ACE, BOR); 4) utilizing an automated process to merge “unknown” FRA slivers with appropriate adjacent ownerships;5) a manual review of FRA areas not assigned a federal agency by this process. Non-Federal ownership information was obtained from the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), was clipped to the non-FRA area, and an automated process was used to fill in some sliver-gaps that occurred between the federal and non-federal data. Southeastern Desert Area: CAL FIRE does not devote the same level of resources for maintaining SRA data in this region of the state, since we have no fire protection responsibility. This includes almost all of Imperial County, and the desert portions of Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. In these areas, we used federal protection areas from the current version of the Direct Protection Areas (DPA) dataset. Due to the fact that there were draw-issues with the previous version of ownership, this version does NOT fill in the areas that are not assigned to one of the owner groups (it does not cover all lands in the state). Also unlike previous versions of the dataset, this version only defines ownership down to the agency level - it does not contain more specific property information (for example, which National Forest). The option for a more detailed future release remains, however, and due to the use of automated tools, could always be created without much additional effort.This dataset includes a representation to symbolize based on the Own_Group field using the standard color scheme utilized on DPA maps.For more details about data inputs, see the Lineage section of the metadata. For detailed notes on previous versions, see the Supplemental Information section of the metadata.This ownership dataset is derived from CAL FIRE's SRA dataset, and GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database. CAL FIRE tracks lands owned by federal agencies as part of our efforts to maintain fire protection responsibility boundaries, captured as part of our State Responsiblity Areas (SRA) dataset. This effort draws on data provided by various federal agencies including USDA Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Inidan Affairs. Since SRA lands are matched to county parcel data where appropriate, often federal land boundaries are also adjusted to match parcels, and may not always exactly match the source federal data. Federal lands from the SRA dataset are combined with ownership data for non-federal lands from CPAD, in order to capture lands owned by various state and local agencies, special districts, and conservation organizations. Data from CPAD are imported directly and not adjusted to match parcels or other features. However, CPAD features may be trimmed if they overlap federal lands from the SRA dataset. Areas without an ownership feature are ASSUMED to be private (but not included in the dataset as such). This service represents the latest release of the dataset by FRAP, and is updated twice a year when new versions are released.

The Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) is normally a triennial cross-sectional survey of U.S. families. The survey data include information on families' balance sheets, pensions, income, and demographic characteristics.

United States Federal Govt Outlays: Natural Resources & Environment data was reported at 3.389 USD bn in Oct 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 3.296 USD bn for Sep 2018. United States Federal Govt Outlays: Natural Resources & Environment data is updated monthly, averaging 2.420 USD bn from Apr 1992 (Median) to Oct 2018, with 319 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 9.424 USD bn in Sep 2010 and a record low of 1.071 USD bn in May 1993. United States Federal Govt Outlays: Natural Resources & Environment data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Bureau of the Fiscal Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.F001: Federal Government Receipts & Outlays.

Graph and download economic data for Federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments: Economic affairs: Other economic affairs: Natural resources (G170631A027NBEA) from 1959 to 2024 about grants, economic affairs, natural resources, state & local, federal, government, GDP, and USA.

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme ( https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-cadastre/ ). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all open space public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, permanent and long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g. 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of U.S. public land and other protected areas, compiling “best available” data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The PAD-US geodatabase maps and describes areas using thirty-six attributes and five separate feature classes representing the U.S. protected areas network: Fee (ownership parcels), Designation, Easement, Marine, Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries. An additional Combined feature class includes the full PAD-US inventory to support data management, queries, web mapping services, and analyses. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the Combined layer allows users to extract data types as needed. A Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) facilitates the extraction of authoritative federal data provided or recommended by managing agencies from the Combined PAD-US inventory. This PAD-US Version 3.0 dataset includes a variety of updates from the previous Version 2.1 dataset (USGS, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT ), achieving goals to: 1) Annually update and improve spatial data representing the federal estate for PAD-US applications; 2) Update state and local lands data as state data-steward and PAD-US Team resources allow; and 3) Automate data translation efforts to increase PAD-US update efficiency. The following list summarizes the integration of "best available" spatial data to ensure public lands and other protected areas from all jurisdictions are represented in the PAD-US (other data were transferred from PAD-US 2.1). Federal updates - The USGS remains committed to updating federal fee owned lands data and major designation changes in annual PAD-US updates, where authoritative data provided directly by managing agencies are available or alternative data sources are recommended. The following is a list of updates or revisions associated with the federal estate: 1) Major update of the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, and management designations where available), including authoritative data from 8 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The federal theme in PAD-US is developed in close collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Lands Working Group (FLWG, https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/ ). 2) Improved the representation (boundaries and attributes) of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, in collaboration with agency data-stewards, in response to feedback from the PAD-US Team and stakeholders. 3) Added a Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) to the PAD-US 3.0 geodatabase to facilitate the extraction (by Data Provider, Dataset Name, and/or Aggregator Source) of authoritative data provided directly (or recommended) by federal managing agencies from the full PAD-US inventory. A summary of the number of records (Frequency) and calculated GIS Acres (vs Documented Acres) associated with features provided by each Aggregator Source is included; however, the number of records may vary from source data as the "State Name" standard is applied to national files. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the table and geodatabase describe the data type to highlight overlapping features in the full inventory (e.g. Designation features often overlap Fee features) and to assist users in building queries for applications as needed. 4) Scripted the translation of the Department of Defense, Census Bureau, and Natural Resource Conservation Service source data into the PAD-US format to increase update efficiency. 5) Revised conservation measures (GAP Status Code, IUCN Category) to more accurately represent protected and conserved areas. For example, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Waterfowl Production Area Wetland Easements changed from GAP Status Code 2 to 4 as spatial data currently represents the complete parcel (about 10.54 million acres primarily in North Dakota and South Dakota). Only aliquot parts of these parcels are documented under wetland easement (1.64 million acres). These acreages are provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are referenced in the PAD-US geodatabase Easement feature class 'Comments' field. State updates - The USGS is committed to building capacity in the state data-steward network and the PAD-US Team to increase the frequency of state land updates, as resources allow. The USGS supported efforts to significantly increase state inventory completeness with the integration of local parks data in the PAD-US 2.1, and developed a state-to-PAD-US data translation script during PAD-US 3.0 development to pilot in future updates. Additional efforts are in progress to support the technical and organizational strategies needed to increase the frequency of state updates. The PAD-US 3.0 included major updates to the following three states: 1) California - added or updated state, regional, local, and nonprofit lands data from the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), managed by GreenInfo Network, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review coordinated by the data-steward with state managing agencies. Developed a data translation Python script (see Process Step 2 Source Data Documentation) in collaboration with the data-steward to increase the accuracy and efficiency of future PAD-US updates from CPAD. 2) Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data (and removed legacy data) from the Virginia Conservation Lands Database, provided by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Natural Heritage Program, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review by the data-steward. 3) West Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data provided by the West Virginia University, GIS Technical Center. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/gapanalysis/PAD-US/. For more information about data aggregation please review the PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-manual . A version history of PAD-US updates is summarized below (See https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-history for more information): 1) First posted - April 2009 (Version 1.0 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 2) Revised - May 2010 (Version 1.1 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 3) Revised - April 2011 (Version 1.2 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 4) Revised - November 2012 (Version 1.3) https://doi.org/10.5066/F79Z92XD 5) Revised - May 2016 (Version 1.4) https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ 6) Revised - September 2018 (Version 2.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE 7) Revised - September 2020 (Version 2.1) https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT 8) Revised - January 2022 (Version 3.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B Comparing protected area trends between PAD-US versions is not recommended without consultation with USGS as many changes reflect improvements to agency and organization GIS systems, or conservation and recreation measure classification, rather than actual changes in protected area acquisition on the ground.

Content

Data for the Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae) are included in the Federal government sector until the completion of Sallie Mae's privatization in 2004:Q4 and in the Finance company sector thereafter.

For further information, please refer to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System's G.19 release, online at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g19/.

Context

This is a dataset from the Federal Reserve hosted by the Federal Reserve Economic Database (FRED). FRED has a data platform found here and they update their information according to the frequency that the data updates. Explore the Federal Reserve using Kaggle and all of the data sources available through the Federal Reserve organization page!

• Update Frequency: This dataset is updated daily.

• Observation Start: 1977-01-01

• Observation End : 2019-10-01

Acknowledgements

This dataset is maintained using FRED's API and Kaggle's API.

Cover photo by Jamie Street on Unsplash
Unsplash Images are distributed under a unique Unsplash License.

Brazil Public Sector: Year to Date: Federal Government: Sources data was reported at 127,173.376 BRL mn in Apr 2019. This records an increase from the previous number of 100,600.578 BRL mn for Mar 2019. Brazil Public Sector: Year to Date: Federal Government: Sources data is updated monthly, averaging 35,416.425 BRL mn from Jan 2001 (Median) to Apr 2019, with 220 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 544,184.235 BRL mn in Dec 2015 and a record low of -19,640.400 BRL mn in Jan 2019. Brazil Public Sector: Year to Date: Federal Government: Sources data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Central Bank of Brazil. The data is categorized under Brazil Premium Database’s Government and Public Finance – Table BR.FA023: Public Sector: Uses and Sources: Federal Government: Year to Date.

Explore historical federal tax revenue data from 1934 to 2018, detailing receipts in millions of dollars and as a percentage of the total. This dataset covers individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts, excise taxes, and other sources. Explore the evolving landscape of federal revenue over the decades and analyze trends in taxation patterns. Data sourced from the Tax Foundation, offering insights into the fiscal history of the United States.

United States Federal Govt Outlays: Physical Resources data was reported at 360.716 USD bn in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 214.164 USD bn for 2022. United States Federal Govt Outlays: Physical Resources data is updated yearly, averaging 55.968 USD bn from Sep 1940 (Median) to 2023, with 84 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 849.105 USD bn in 2020 and a record low of 0.836 USD bn in 1946. United States Federal Govt Outlays: Physical Resources data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Office of Management and Budget. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.F006: Federal Government Receipts and Outlays: Annual.

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme ( https://ngda-cadastre-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/ ). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all open space public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, permanent and long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g., 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of U.S. public land and other protected areas, compiling “best available” data provided by managing agencies and organizations. PAD-US provides a full inventory geodatabase, spatial analysis, statistics, data downloads, web services, poster maps, and data submissions included in efforts to track global progress toward biodiversity protection. PAD-US integrates spatial data to ensure public lands and other protected areas from all jurisdictions are represented. PAD-US version 4.0 includes new and updated data from the following data providers. All other data were transferred from previous versions of PAD-US. Federal updates - The USGS remains committed to updating federal fee owned lands data and major designation changes in regular PAD-US updates, where authoritative data provided directly by managing agencies are available or alternative data sources are recommended. Revisions associated with the federal estate in this version include updates to the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, management designations, and proclamation boundaries), with authoritative data from 7 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The federal theme in PAD-US is developed in close collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Lands Working Group (FLWG, https://ngda-gov-units-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/pages/federal-lands-workgroup/ ). This includes improved the representation of boundaries and attributes for the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, in collaboration with agency data-stewards, in response to feedback from the PAD-US Team and stakeholders. Additionally, National Cemetery boundaries were added using geospatial boundary data provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and NASA boundaries were added using data contained in the USGS National Boundary Dataset (NBD). State Updates - USGS is committed to building capacity in the state data steward network and the PAD-US Team to increase the frequency of state land and NGO partner updates, as resources allow. State Lands Workgroup ( https://ngda-gov-units-geoplatform.hub.arcgis.com/pages/state-lands-workgroup ) is focused on improving protected land inventories in PAD-US, increase update efficiency, and facilitate local review. PAD-US 4.0 included updates and additions from the following seventeen states and territories: California (state, local, and nonprofit fee); Colorado (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); Georgia (state and local fee); Kentucky (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); Maine (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); Montana (state, local, and nonprofit fee); Nebraska (state fee); New Jersey (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); New York (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); North Carolina (state, local, and nonprofit fee); Pennsylvania (state, local, and nonprofit fee and easement); Puerto Rico (territory fee); Tennessee (land trust fee); Texas (state, local, and nonprofit fee); Virginia (state, local, and nonprofit fee); West Virginia (state, local, and nonprofit fee); and Wisconsin (state fee data). Additionally, the following datasets were incorporated from NGO data partners: Trust for Public Land (TPL) Parkserve (new fee and easement data); The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Lands (fee owned by TNC); TNC Northeast Secured Areas; Ducks Unlimited (land trust fee); and the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED). All state and NGO easement submissions are provided to NCED. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/science/protected-areas . For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/science/protected-areas . For more information about data aggregation please review the PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/pad-us-data-manual . A version history of PAD-US updates is summarized below (See https://www.usgs.gov/programs/gap-analysis-project/pad-us-data-history/ for more information): 1) First posted - April 2009 (Version 1.0 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 2) Revised - May 2010 (Version 1.1 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 3) Revised - April 2011 (Version 1.2 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 4) Revised - November 2012 (Version 1.3) https://doi.org/10.5066/F79Z92XD 5) Revised - May 2016 (Version 1.4) https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ 6) Revised - September 2018 (Version 2.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE 7) Revised - September 2020 (Version 2.1) https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT 8) Revised - January 2022 (Version 3.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B 9) Revised - April 2024 (Version 4.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P96WBCHS Comparing protected area trends between PAD-US versions is not recommended without consultation with USGS as many changes reflect improvements to agency and organization GIS systems, or conservation and recreation measure classification, rather than actual changes in protected area acquisition on the ground.