Investigator(s): Federal Judicial Center The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from 100 court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information. For the appellate and civil data, the unit of analysis is a single case. The unit of analysis for the criminal data is a single defendant.Years Produced: Updated bi-annually with annual data.

Database of Federal programs organized by industry that international business investors may be eligible for.

A XLSX export of summarized data for all DoD and specified civilian agency assets contained within the FRPP, a government-wide database of executive branch agency federal real property assets, that cannot be made public at a detailed level. Data for these records is summarized at the Installation Level.

United States Federal Govt Outlays: MI: Mandatory: Programmed: Social Security data was reported at 1,348.000 USD bn in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 1,212.500 USD bn for 2022. United States Federal Govt Outlays: MI: Mandatory: Programmed: Social Security data is updated yearly, averaging 293.600 USD bn from Sep 1962 (Median) to 2023, with 62 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,348.000 USD bn in 2023 and a record low of 14.000 USD bn in 1962. United States Federal Govt Outlays: MI: Mandatory: Programmed: Social Security 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.

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

Comprehensive database of federal deregulation news from government agencies, think tanks, and news sources

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) database is used by Federal agencies to continuously manage an average of 1,000 advisory committees government-wide. This database is also used by the Congress to perform oversight of related Executive Branch programs and by the public, the media, and others, to stay abreast of important developments resulting from advisory committee activities. Although centrally supported by the General Services Administration's (GSA) Committee Management Secretariat, the database represents a true shared system wherein each participating agency and individual committee manager has responsibility for providing accurate and timely information that may be used to assure that the system's wide array of users has access to data required by FACA.

The dataset catalogs and describes existing online, federally supported databases and tools dealing with various aspects of a potential national Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) invasive species framework. This dataset is supplementary material 2 and 3 to the manuscript, "Envisioning a national invasive species information framework" (Reaser et al., 2020) published as part of a special open source issue dealing with invasive species early detection and rapid response by the journal Biological Invasions, Volume 22, Issue 1, January 2020 (https://link.springer.com/journal/10530/22/1). A user-friendly version of this dataset is also available online as a USGS Library Guide, here: https://libraryguides.usgs.gov/edrrinvasive

United States Federal Government Outlays data was reported at 528.165 USD bn in Mar 2025. This records a decrease from the previous number of 603.441 USD bn for Feb 2025. United States Federal Government Outlays data is updated monthly, averaging 177.991 USD bn from Oct 1980 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 534 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,104.903 USD bn in Jun 2020 and a record low of 45.930 USD bn in Jan 1982. United States Federal Government Outlays 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.F005: Federal Government Receipts and Outlays. For the months of Jan-1793 to Mar-2005, the source has made backdated adjustments on Federal Government Outlays (id:40864101). Thus, On Budget Outlays (id:40864201) and Off Budget Outlays (id:40864301) may not add up to Federal Government Outlays (id:40864101). [COVID-19-IMPACT]

National Address DatabaseThis National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) dataset, shared as a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) feature layer, displays address data in the United States. Per USDOT, "The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and its partners from all levels of government recognize the need for a National Address Database (NAD). Accurate and up-to-date addresses are critical to transportation safety and are a vital part of Next Generation 9-1-1. They are also essential for a broad range of government services, including mail delivery, permitting, and school siting. To meet this need, USDOT partners with address programs from state, local, and tribal governments to compile their authoritative data into the NAD."District of Columbia (DC) Residential AddressesData currency: Current federal service (Address Points from National Address Database)NGDAID: 196 (National Address Database (NAD))For more information: Getting to know the National Address Database (NAD); National Address DatabaseFor feedback, please contact: Esri_US_Federal_Data@esri.com NGDA Data SetThis data set is part of the NGDA Transportation Theme Community. Per the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC), Transportation is defined as the "means and aids for conveying persons and/or goods. The transportation system includes both physical and non-physical components related to all modes of travel that allow the movement of goods and people between locations". For other NGDA Content: Esri Federal Datasets

federal-fdi-incentives federal-incentive-database federal-program-database federal-programs-and-incentives-database

National Levee Database This feature layer, utilizing National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), displays levees within the United States. Per USACE, “The National Levee Database captures all known levees in the United States. It provides users with the ability to search for specific data about levees and serves as a national resource to support awareness and preparedness around flooding. The USACE is responsible for maintaining the National Levee Database and works in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and in close collaboration with other federal, state, and local governments and entities responsible for levees to obtain and share accurate and complete information.” Leveed area in Morrisville, PennsylvaniaData downloaded: 9/22/2025Data source: NLD/PublicNGDAID: 161 (National Levee Database)OGC API Features Link: (National Levee Database - OGC Features) copy this link to embed it in OGC Compliant viewersFor more information, please visit: National Levee DatabaseSupport documentation: NLD Data DictionaryFor feedback please contact: Esri_US_Federal_Data@esri.com NGDA Data Set This data set is part of the NGDA Water - Inland Theme Community. Per the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC), Water - Inland is defined as the “interior hydrologic features and characteristics, including classification, measurements, location, and extent. Includes aquifers, watersheds, wetlands, navigation, water quality, water quantity, and groundwater information.” For other NGDA Content: Esri Federal Datasets

Convert Non-Fed app. to web app (currently Access 2000). The database maintans facility wise data on operational status, equipment type, facility functionality, location, etc.

United States - Sources of Revenue: Directories, Databases, and Other Collections of Information - Subscriptions and Sales for Directory and Mailing List Publishers, All Establishments, Employer Firms was 1854.00000 Mil. of $ in January of 2022, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Sources of Revenue: Directories, Databases, and Other Collections of Information - Subscriptions and Sales for Directory and Mailing List Publishers, All Establishments, Employer Firms reached a record high of 3163.00000 in January of 2013 and a record low of 1653.00000 in January of 2017. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Sources of Revenue: Directories, Databases, and Other Collections of Information - Subscriptions and Sales for Directory and Mailing List Publishers, All Establishments, Employer Firms - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on December of 2025.

The Information Collection Rule (ICR) Federal database includes research data from an 18-month study of disinfection byproducts and microbial contaminants.

Abstract: The Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME) is intended as a general resource for the study of campaign finance and ideology in American politics. The database was developed as part of the project on Ideology in the Political Marketplace, which is an on-going effort to perform a comprehensive ideological mapping of political elites, interest groups, and donors using the common-space CFscore scaling methodology (Bonica 2014). Constructing the database required a large-scale effort to compile, clean, and process data on contribution records, candidate characteristics, and election outcomes from various sources. The resulting database contains over 130 million political contributions made by individuals and organizations to local, state, and federal elections spanning a period from 1979 to 2014. A corresponding database of candidates and committees provides additional information on state and federal elections. The DIME+ data repository on congressional activity extends DIME to cover detailed data on legislative voting, lawmaking, and political rhetoric. (See http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BO7WOW for details.) The DIME data is available for download as a standalone SQLite database. The SQLite database is stored on disk and can be accessed using a SQLite client or queried directly from R using the RSQLite package. SQLite is particularly well-suited for tasks that require searching through the database for specific individuals or contribution records. (Click here to download.) Overview: The database is intended to make data on campaign finance and elections (1) more centralized and accessible, (2) easier to work with, and (3) more versatile in terms of the types of questions that can be addressed. A list of the main value-added features of the database is below: Data processing: Names, addresses, and occupation and employer titles have been cleaned and standardized. Unique identifiers: Entity resolution techniques were used to assign unique identifiers for all individual and institutional donors included in the database. The contributor IDs make it possible to track giving by individuals across election cycles and levels of government. Geocoding: Each record has been geocoded and placed into congressional districts. The geocoding scheme relies on the contributor IDs to assign a complete set of consistent geo-coordinates to donors that report their full address in some records but not in others. This is accomplished by combining information on self-reported address across records. The geocoding scheme further takes into account donors with multiple addresses. Geocoding was performed using the Data Science Toolkit maintained by Pete Warden and hosted at http://www.datasciencetoolkit.org/. Shape files for congressional districts are from Census.gov (http://www.census.gov/rdo/data). Ideological measures: The common-space CFscores allow for direct distance comparisons of the ideal points of a wide range of political actors from state and federal politics spanning a 35 year period. In total, the database includes ideal point estimates for 70,871 candidates and 12,271 political committees as recipients and 14.7 million individuals and 1.7 million organizations as donors. Corresponding data on candidates, committees, and elections: The recipient database includes information on voting records, fundraising statistics, election outcomes, gender, and other candidate characteristics. All candidates are assigned unique identifiers that make it possible to track candidates if they campaign for different offices. The recipient IDs can also be used to match against the database of contribution records. The database also includes entries for PACs, super PACs, party committees, leadership PACs, 527s, state ballot campaigns, and other committees that engage in fundraising activities. Identifying sets of important political actors: Contribution records have been matched onto other publicly available databases of important political actors. Examples include: Fortune 500 directors and CEOs: (Data) (Paper) Federal court judges: (Data) (Paper} State supreme court justices: (Data) (Paper} Executives appointees to federal agencies: (Data) (Paper) Medical professionals: (Data) (Paper)

Every Federal agency that operates or directs one or more Federal laboratories or that conducts research and development is required to prepare and submit an annual report of its technology transfer activities as described in 15 U.S.C. § 3710(f).

THIS RESOURCE IS NO LONGER IN SERVICE. Documented on September 23,2022. Database of human nutrition research and research training activities supported by the federal government. Information regarding trends in nutrition research, specific institutions and investigators involved in this research, or areas of agency emphases can be obtained from database searches or from published summary reports. Data for the system is prepared and submitted by participating agencies, and is updated annually. The database contains several thousand projects for each of fiscal years 1985present. Participating agencies include the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Agency for International Development, the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

United States - Sources of Revenue: Directories, Databases, and Other Collections of Information - Advertising Space for Directory and Mailing List Publishers, All Establishments, Employer Firms was 1781.00000 Mil. of $ in January of 2020, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Sources of Revenue: Directories, Databases, and Other Collections of Information - Advertising Space for Directory and Mailing List Publishers, All Establishments, Employer Firms reached a record high of 9226.00000 in January of 2010 and a record low of 1618.00000 in January of 2019. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Sources of Revenue: Directories, Databases, and Other Collections of Information - Advertising Space for Directory and Mailing List Publishers, All Establishments, Employer Firms - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on November of 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Breakdown of Revenue by Media Type: Directories, Databases, and Other Collections of Information - Online Directories, Databases, and Other Collections of Information for Directory and Mailing List Publishers, All Establishments, Employer Firms (RPCMODEF51114ALLEST) from 2013 to 2020 about postal, collection, internet, printing, employer firms, information, accounting, revenue, establishments, services, and USA.