France Government Fund: Funding Sources: Medium and Long Term Issues data was reported at 185.000 EUR bn in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 187.000 EUR bn for 2016. France Government Fund: Funding Sources: Medium and Long Term Issues data is updated yearly, averaging 109.700 EUR bn from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2017, with 25 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 187.600 EUR bn in 2010 and a record low of 76.300 EUR bn in 1995. France Government Fund: Funding Sources: Medium and Long Term Issues data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Agence France Tresor. The data is categorized under Global Database’s France – Table FR.F033: Government Borrowing Requirement and Funding Sources: Agence France Tresor.

Here you can find out about what organisations in your area have received Lottery grants and what the money was spent on. This search page allows you to find out what groups and people received Lottery funding in your local authority area, since Lottery funding began and in particular years. You can view details of Lottery grant recipients based on good cause theme by clicking on a section of the chart and by clicking on a point in the graph.

The advanced search feature allows you to search for Lottery grant information using certain criteria which are:

• by good cause area; • by distributing body; • by geographical area; • by local authority; • by parliamentary constituency; • by the name of the grant recipient; • by the name of the project; • by grant date; • by grant amount.

The DCMS Lottery Grants Database only holds information relating to completed grants/grants in progress made by the Lottery distributing bodies, excluding those grants made by the Olympic Lottery Distributor. It does not hold details of applications for Lottery grants.

Bulk download of the data is possible, although it is still split up into a couple of downloads per year. e.g. search for a year's worth of data: http://www.lottery.culture.gov.uk///SearchResults.aspx?Year=2015 and then download it in TSV format using the links at the bottom "Download resources part 1 (txt) part 2 (txt)". If you are scripting the download, you'll need to do supply the search cookie.

The information held on the DCMS Lottery Grants Database is provided by the Lottery distributing bodies.

There is a discussion about this dataset in the DCMS Open Data Strategy 2012 p10-13 https://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/DCMS%20Open%20Data%20Strategy_10.pdf

The Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The survey is an annual census completed by the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs. Actual data are collected for the fiscal year just completed; estimates are obtained for the current fiscal year.

Techsalerator’s Business Funding Data for North America is an extensive and insightful resource designed for businesses, investors, and financial analysts who need a deep understanding of the Asian funding landscape. This dataset meticulously captures and categorizes critical information about the funding activities of companies across the continent, providing valuable insights into the financial health and investment trends within various sectors.

What the Dataset Includes: Funding Rounds: Detailed records of funding rounds for companies in North America, including the size of the round, the date it occurred, and the stages of investment (Seed, Series A, Series B, etc.).

Investment Sources: Information on the sources of investment, such as venture capital firms, private equity investors, angel investors, and corporate investors.

Financial Milestones: Key financial achievements and benchmarks reached by companies, including valuation increases, revenue milestones, and profitability metrics.

Sector-Specific Data: Insights into how different sectors are performing, with data segmented by industry verticals such as technology, healthcare, finance, and consumer goods.

Geographic Breakdown: An overview of funding trends and activities specific to each North America country, allowing users to identify regional patterns and opportunities.

EU Countries Included in the Dataset: Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Canada Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago United States

Benefits of the Dataset: Informed Decision-Making: Investors and analysts can use the data to make well-informed investment decisions by understanding funding trends and financial health across different regions and sectors. Strategic Planning: Businesses can leverage the insights to identify potential investors, benchmark against industry peers, and plan their funding strategies effectively. Market Analysis: The dataset helps in analyzing market dynamics, identifying emerging sectors, and spotting investment opportunities across North America. Techsalerator’s Business Funding Data for North America is a vital tool for anyone involved in the financial and investment sectors, offering a granular view of the funding landscape and enabling more strategic and data-driven decisions.

This description provides a more detailed view of what the dataset offers and highlights the relevance and benefits for various stakeholders.

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) provides grants to support innovative educational reform projects that can serve as national models for the improvement of postsecondary education. This file provides links to award-winning FIPSE-funded projects.

France Government Fund: Funding Sources data was reported at 183.100 EUR bn in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 194.100 EUR bn for 2016. France Government Fund: Funding Sources data is updated yearly, averaging 112.900 EUR bn from Dec 1993 (Median) to 2017, with 25 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 246.400 EUR bn in 2009 and a record low of 70.000 EUR bn in 1993. France Government Fund: Funding Sources data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Agence France Tresor. The data is categorized under Global Database’s France – Table FR.F033: Government Borrowing Requirement and Funding Sources: Agence France Tresor.

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture is committed to serving its stakeholders, Congress, and the public by using new technologies to advance greater openness. To strengthen transparency and promote open government, NIFA is providing easy access to data and metrics on how the agency disseminates funding. NIFA is committed to increasing transparency and making technical advancements to ensure that data is easily accessible. The Data Gateway provides the ability to filter and export data. Recently added features to the Congressional District Map and Data Gateway Search make for an improved user experience when searching and reporting information on NIFA-administered grants and projects! New interactive features in the Congressional District Map allow users to see the total amount of funding by state and further to drill down to the individual awards. Funding information is available for awards made from 2011-2015. Simply click on a state listing on the right of the screen. No need to create your own search if you are looking for NIFA funding by Congressional District. Key enhancements in the Data Gateway Search tool include:

A project-based display of data Embedded help text within tool Drop down lists allowing you to choose the fields you want to search and display Expanded filter lists

The Current Research Information System (CRIS) provides documentation and reporting for ongoing agricultural, food science, human nutrition, and forestry research, education and extension activities for the United States Department of Agriculture; with a focus on the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) grant programs. Projects are conducted or sponsored by USDA research agencies, state agricultural experiment stations, land-grant universities, other cooperating state institutions, and participants in NIFA-administered grant programs, including Small Business Innovation Research and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. The Planning, Accountability, & Reporting Staff office of NIFA is responsible for maintaining CRIS. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: NIFA Reporting Portal. File Name: Web Page, url: https://portal.nifa.usda.gov Main html page for the database

Ready-to-Learn Television supports the development of educational television and digital media targeted at preschool and early elementary school children and their families. This data-focused toolset site contains data visualizations and downloads. Ready-to-Learn TV's general goal is to promote early learning and school readiness, with a particular interest in reaching low-income children. In addition to creating television and other media products, the program supports activities intended to promote national distribution of the programming, effective educational uses of the programming, community-based outreach, and research on educational effectiveness. CFDA Number: 84.295

The Texas Commission on the Arts funds a wide variety of arts and cultural activities across the state. This is a list of all the grants approved by the Commission. These grant activities will occur sometime within fiscal year 2023 (Sept 1, 2022 through August 31, 2023).

United States Assets: Outs: OLA: NCB: Funding Corporations data was reported at 13.471 USD bn in Mar 2018. This records a decrease from the previous number of 19.438 USD bn for Dec 2017. United States Assets: Outs: OLA: NCB: Funding Corporations data is updated quarterly, averaging 0.000 USD bn from Dec 1951 (Median) to Mar 2018, with 266 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 35.884 USD bn in Dec 2008 and a record low of 0.000 USD bn in Sep 1995. United States Assets: Outs: OLA: NCB: Funding Corporations data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal Reserve Board. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.AB051: Funds by Instruments: Flows and Outstanding: Other Loans and Advances.

Stop relying on outdated and inaccurate databases and let Wiza be your source of truth for all deal sourcing and founder / CEO outreach.

Why we're different: The search fund market is dynamic and competitive - Wiza is not a static financial database that gets refreshed on occasion. Every datapoint is sourced and verified the moment that you receive the information. We verify deliverability of every single email ahead of providing the data, and we ensure that each person in your dataset has 100% job title and company accuracy by leveraging Linkedin Data sourced through their live Linkedin profile.

Key Features:

Comprehensive Data Coverage: Stop contacting the same people as everyone else. Wiza's search fund Data is sourced live, not stored in a limited database. When you tell us the type of company or person you would like to contact, we leverage Linkedin Data (the largest, most accurate database in the world) to find everyone who matches your ICP, and then we source the contact data and company data in real-time.

High-Quality, Accurate Data: Wiza ensures accuracy of all datapoints by taking a few key steps that other data providers fail to take: (1) Every email is SMTP verified ahead of delivery, ensuring they will not bounce (2) Every person's Linkedin profile is checked live to ensure we have 100% job title, company, location, etc. accuracy, ahead of providing any data (3) Phone numbers are constantly being verified with AI to ensure accuracy

Linkedin Data: Wiza is able to provide Linkedin Data points, sourced live from each person's Linkedin profile, including Subtitle, Bio, Job Title, Job Description, Skills, Languages, Certifications, Work History, Education, Open to Work, Premium Status, and more!

Personal Data: Wiza has access to industry leading volumes of B2C Contact Data, meaning you can find gmail/yahoo/hotmail email addresses, and mobile phone number data to contact your potential partners.

Research software is increasingly recognized as critical infrastructure in contemporary science. Research software spans a broad spectrum, including source code files, algorithms, scripts, computational workflows, and executables, all created for or during research. Research funders have developed programs, initiatives and policies to bolster research software’s role. However, there has been no empirical study of how research funders prioritize support for research software. This information is needed to clarify where current funder support is concentrated and where strategic gaps may exist. Here, we present data from a survey of research software funders (n=36) from around the world. The survey explored these funders’ priorities, finding a strong emphasis on developing skills, software sustainability, embedding open science, building community and collaboration, advancing research software funding, increasing software visibility and use, innovation and security.

Methods

This research was carried out using a survey combining qualitative and quantitative items. The survey was designed to investigate how research software funders support research software’s sustainability and impact.

The study was reviewed and given an exempt determination by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Institutional Review Board (no. 24374).

Survey design

The survey designed for this study began by collecting profile information, including institutional affiliation and job title. The survey gathered information about respondents’ organization’s initiatives, policies, or programs to support research software. The range of questions yielded too much data for one article. In this article, we focus exclusively on the results generated via an open-ended question asking about the top priorities for the respondents’ organizations’ support for research software: “What are your organization's top priorities related to research software?”. Four open-response text boxes were provided for respondents to indicate and list these priorities.

Sampling

This survey was aimed at international research funders, including governmental and non-governmental (e.g., philanthropic) funders. A list of contacts to invite to participate in this survey was created based on participation in the Research Software Association (ReSA) and responsibility for research software funding known to the authors. This initial list of people was refined, with removals based on individuals having moved to unrelated professional roles or being unavailable long-term, for example, due to personal issues.

The final, refined contact list comprised 71 people. After removing individuals when a member of their organization already provided a complete answer or when the person turned out to no longer be working on a relevant topic or to be otherwise unavailable (total of n=30), 41 people remained. Five of these individuals did not complete the survey, while 36 people (representing 30 research funding organizations) did, yielding a response rate of 87.8%. Fully completed survey responses were not required for individuals to be retained in the sample, resulting in varied sample bases across survey questions.

The sample includes research funders in North and South America, Europe, Oceania and Asia, but over-represents North America and European funder representatives. Some participating funders cover a broad spectrum of disciplines, while others focus on a particular domain such as social science, health, environment, physical sciences or humanities.

The respondents represented research funders supported by governmental (n=26), philanthropic (n=6) and corporate (n=1) resources.

Respondents’ job titles span the following categories: Senior Leadership and Executive, such as a Vice President of Strategy; Program and Project Management, such as Senior Program Manager; Planning and Business Development; Scientific, Technical and IT, such as Scientific Information Lead.

Most respondents 72.7% (n=24) answered ‘Yes’ to the question, “Has your organization established any policies, initiatives or programs aimed at supporting research software?”, while 18.2% (n=6) said ‘No’ and 9.1% (n=3) ‘Unsure’.

Data collection, management and analysis

Data collection took place from December 2023 to May 2024. The mean completion time for the detailed survey was 28 minutes and 13 seconds.

The data were cleaned and prepared for analysis by removing any identifiable respondent details. The data analysis process followed a standard thematic qualitative analysis approach (e.g., Jensen & Laurie, 2016). This involved first identifying themes and organizing the data accordingly. Dimensions of each theme were identified where relevant. Then data extracts were selected from the survey responses associated with each theme and theme dimension.

Additional data: Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders

Data were uploaded in December 2024 to support another paper drawing on the same overall survey data. This one is entitled: 'Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders'. The survey data for this upload were generated using the following survey items.

Data collection comprising information about public sector procurement from Local Authorities in the UK and Clinical Commissioning Groups in England from 2013-15, funding awards made by foundations and charitable funders, and data on recipient organisations, mainly charities and social enterprises. Data were sourced from a large number of local authorities and Clinical Commissioning Groups by downloading the datasets from authority websites. Each of the datasets were then cleaned, including identifying missing or incomplete rows andconverting dates into a standard format. This data collection represents a formidable resource which has the potential to inform analyses of the distribution of funding to third sector organisations in the form of grants from foundations, government and others; to support further analytical work on the effects of such grants on the subsequent financial trajectories of organisations; to underpin investigations of the extent to which third sector organisations are in receipt of contracts from public sector agencies; and to analyse the balance between public and private provision of welfare services.

The aim of this project is to provide comprehensive data on funding flows to third sector organisations in England. We exploit the growing body of data being made available on grant making to voluntary organisations, and on public procurement, to build resources which will allow researchers to improve understanding of the funding mix of third sector organisations. The resources we create will help third sector organisations and policy makers because it will improve their understanding of their environment, particularly funding opportunities and also potential competitors or collaborators. This means they will be able to better support their beneficiaries by, for example, targeting their services or co-operating with similar organisations. The data will meet administrative and research challenges facing the sector by providing a "spine" for the growing number of open data initiatives. This new data infrastructure will add new value to existing UK social science infrastructure, and will be able to be reused by academic and non-academic researchers (such as those working in government). This data will also help the Office for National Statistics as they work to improve coverage of non-profit organisations in the National Accounts (see letters of support). It is consistent with ESRC's strategic priorities such as a "Vibrant and fair society", in that it significantly enhances understanding of the resources of third sector organisations. Building on TSRC/NCVO's existing databases, generated by combining registers of charities and the Companies House register of companies, we have developed novel data sources for the third sector in the following way. 1. we will download local authority and clinical commissioning group (CCG) data for England, usually available from relevant authorities on a monthly basis; 2. match the CCG data to our existing third sector databases using string matching techniques, and make available the results; 3. match the local authority procurement data to the same databases; 4. capture listings of grants made by charitable funders to organisations in England, such as those lists of grant recipients collated by the "360 Giving"; initiative which is encouraging grant makers to open up data about who they fund but we will work with other major funders. Published data already includes several hundred thousand awards made to voluntary organisations. the sheer scale and ambition of this project is unprecedented anywhere in the world. it provides much greater granular data on relationships between public sector agencies and those from whom they are commissioning services than is possible anywhere else. The project represents an excellent example of a partnership between a strong academic research centre, TSRC, and a high-profile national voluntary organisation, NCVO, in which research is designed and developed with the needs of user and academic communities equally in mind.

In 2020, more than 50 percent of hedge fund managers classified as alternative data market leaders used seven or more alternative data sets globally, while only eight percent of the rest of the market used at least seven alternative data sets. This highlights the difference between the level of alternative data experience between the two groups. Using two or more alternative data sets was the most popular approach across both groups with 85 percent of market leaders and 77 percent of the rest of the market doing this.

In 2020, alternative data was mainly used as a research tool to help better improve investment decisions among 69 percent of hedge fund managers, who were classified as alternative data market leaders, and 85 percent of the rest of the respondents using it for this particular purpose. Only 23 percent of the alternative data market leaders and 36 percent of the rest of the market used alternative data to help improve risk management and compliance models.

Graph and download economic data for Money Market Funds; Total Financial Assets, Level (MMMFFAQ027S) from Q4 1945 to Q4 2024 about MMMF, IMA, financial, assets, and USA.

We are releasing data that compares the HHS Provider Relief Fund and the CMS Accelerated and Advance Payments by State and provider as of May 15, 2020. This data is already available on other websites, but this chart brings the information together into one view for comparison. You can find additional information on the Accelerated and Advance Payments at the following links:

Fact Sheet: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/Accelerated-and-Advanced-Payments-Fact-Sheet.pdf;

Zip file on providers in each state: https://www.cms.gov/files/zip/accelerated-payment-provider-details-state.zip

Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments State-by-State information and by Provider Type: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/covid-accelerated-and-advance-payments-state.pdf.

This file was assembled by HHS via CMS, HRSA and reviewed by leadership and compares the HHS Provider Relief Fund and the CMS Accelerated and Advance Payments by State and provider as of December 4, 2020.

HHS Provider Relief Fund President Trump is providing support to healthcare providers fighting the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic through the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, which provide a total of $175 billion for relief funds to hospitals and other healthcare providers on the front lines of the COVID-19 response. This funding supports healthcare-related expenses or lost revenue attributable to COVID-19 and ensures uninsured Americans can get treatment for COVID-19. HHS is distributing this Provider Relief Fund money and these payments do not need to be repaid. The Department allocated $50 billion of the Provider Relief Fund for general distribution to Medicare facilities and providers impacted by COVID-19, based on eligible providers' net reimbursement. It allocated another $22 billion to providers in areas particularly impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak, rural providers, and providers who serve low-income populations and uninsured Americans. HHS will be allocating the remaining funds in the near future.

As part of the Provider Relief Fund distribution, all providers have 45 days to attest that they meet certain criteria to keep the funding they received, including public disclosure. As of May 15, 2020, there has been a total of $34 billion in attested payments. The chart only includes those providers that have attested to the payments by that date. We will continue to update this information and add the additional providers and payments once their attestation is complete.

CMS Accelerated and Advance Payments Program On March 28, 2020, to increase cash flow to providers of services and suppliers impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the Accelerated and Advance Payment Program to a broader group of Medicare Part A providers and Part B suppliers. Beginning on April 26, 2020, CMS stopped accepting new applications for the Advance Payment Program, and CMS began reevaluating all pending and new applications for Accelerated Payments in light of the availability of direct payments made through HHS’s Provider Relief Fund.

Since expanding the AAP program on March 28, 2020, CMS approved over 21,000 applications totaling $59.6 billion in payments to Part A providers, which includes hospitals, through May 18, 2020. For Part B suppliers—including doctors, non-physician practitioners and durable medical equipment suppliers— during the same time period, CMS approved almost 24,000 applications advancing $40.4 billion in payments. The AAP program is not a grant, and providers and suppliers are required to repay the loan.

CMS has published AAP data, as required by the Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act of 2021, on this website: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/covid-medicare-accelerated-and-advance-payments-program-covid-19-public-health-emergency-payment.pdf. Requests for additional data related to the program must be submitted through the CMS FOIA office. For more information on how to submit a FOIA request please visit our website at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/FOIA. The PRF is administered by the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA). For more information on how to submit a request for unpublished program data from HRSA, please visit https://www.hrsa.gov/foia/index.html.

Provider Relief Fund Data - https://data.cdc.gov/Administrative/Provider-Relief-Fund-COVID-19-High-Impact-Payments/b58h-s9zx

United States Assets: Outs: FC: Debt Securities: Corporate & Foreign Bonds data was reported at 81.508 USD bn in Mar 2018. This records an increase from the previous number of 76.067 USD bn for Dec 2017. United States Assets: Outs: FC: Debt Securities: Corporate & Foreign Bonds data is updated quarterly, averaging 0.000 USD bn from Dec 1951 (Median) to Mar 2018, with 266 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 203.757 USD bn in Sep 2008 and a record low of 0.000 USD bn in Dec 1992. United States Assets: Outs: FC: Debt Securities: Corporate & Foreign Bonds data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal Reserve Board. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.AB032: Funds by Sector: Flows and Outstanding: Funding Corporations.

Dataset containing all of the Federal Funding Allocation inputs submitted by reporting transit agencies to the National Transit Database in the 2022 and 2023 report years. This reflects the most recently published data within the Federal Transit Administration's NTD Data website.