Context

The State of Ohio COVID-19 Dashboard displays the most recent preliminary data reported to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) about cases, hospitalizations and deaths in Ohio by selected demographics and county of residence. Data for cases and hospitalizations is reported to ODH via the Ohio Disease Reporting System (ODRS), and verified mortality data is reported via the Electronic Death Registration System (EDRS).

Content

Data definitions are published by Ohio.

Acknowledgements

All data is pulled from the state of Ohio COVID-19 Dashboards. Additional documentation can be found there.

Inspiration

Your data will be in front of the world's largest data science community. What questions do you want to see answered?

Reporting of new Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, data have been gathered through a robust process with the following steps:

• A CDC data team reviews and validates the information obtained from jurisdictions’ state and local websites via an overnight data review process.
• If more than one official county data source exists, CDC uses a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source, and takes the highest case and death counts respectively, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• CDC compiles these data and posts the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data is aggregated to obtain state and territory specific totals.

Methodology Changes Several differences exist between the current, weekly-updated dataset and the archived version:

• Source: The current Weekly-Updated Version is based on county-level aggregate count data, while the Archived Version is based on State-level aggregate count data.
• Confirmed/Probable Cases/Death breakdown:  While the probable cases and deaths are included in the total case and total death counts in both versions (if applicable), they were reported separately from the confirmed cases and deaths by jurisdiction in the Archived Version.  In the current Weekly-Updated Version, the counts by jurisdiction are not reported by confirmed or probable status (See Confirmed and Probable Counts section for more detail).
• Time Series Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version contains weekly time series data (i.e., one record per week per jurisdiction), while the Archived Version contains daily time series data (i.e., one record per day per jurisdiction).
• Update Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version is updated weekly, while the Archived Version was updated twice daily up to October 20, 2022.

Confirmed and Probable Counts In this dataset, counts by jurisdiction are not displayed by confirmed or probable status. Instead, confirmed and probable cases and deaths are included in the Total Cases and Total Deaths columns, when available. Not all jurisdictions report probable cases and deaths to CDC.* Confirmed and probable case definition criteria are described here:

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (ymaws.com).

Deaths CDC reports death data on other sections of the website: CDC COVID Data Tracker: Home, CDC COVID Data Tracker: Cases, Deaths, and Testing, and NCHS Provisional Death Counts. Information presented on the COVID Data Tracker pages is based on the same source (total case counts) as the present dataset; however, NCHS Death Counts are based on death certificates that use information reported by physicians, medical examiners, or coroners in the cause-of-death section of each certificate. Data from each of these pages are considered provisional (not complete and pending verification) and are therefore subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.

Number of Jurisdictions Reporting There are currently 60 public health jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands as well as three independent countries in compacts of free association with the United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. New York State’s reported case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they separately report nationally notifiable conditions to CDC.

CDC COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths, available by state and by county. These and other data on COVID-19 are available from multiple public locations, such as:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/surveillance-data-analytics.html

Additional COVID-19 public use datasets, include line-level (patient-level) data, are available at: https://data.cdc.gov/browse?tags=covid-19.

Archived Data Notes:

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases and deaths among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case and death counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases and deaths. 

November 17, 2022: Two new columns, weekly historic cases and weekly historic deaths, were added to this dataset on November 17, 2022. These columns reflect case and death counts that were reported that week but were historical in nature and not reflective of the current burden within the jurisdiction. These historical cases and deaths are not included in the new weekly case and new weekly death columns; however, they are reflected in the cumulative totals provided for each jurisdiction. These data are used to account for artificial increases in case and death totals due to batched reporting of historical data.

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the data released on December 1, 2022.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case and death data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case and death metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties (Livingston and Washtenaw) were higher than expected in the January 19, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases being reported this week, aggregate case and death counts in Charlotte County and Sarasota County, Florida, will appear higher than expected in the January 26, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on January 26, 2023.

February 2, 2023: As of the data collection deadline, CDC observed an abnormally large increase in aggregate COVID-19 cases and deaths reported for Washington State. In response, totals for new cases and new deaths released on February 2, 2023, have been displayed as zero at the state level until the issue is addressed with state officials. CDC is working with state officials to address the issue.

February 2, 2023: Due to a decrease reported in cumulative case counts by Wyoming, case rates will be reported as 0 in the February 2, 2023, weekly release. CDC is working with state officials to verify the data submitted.

February 16, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Utah’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on February 16, 2023. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected and should be interpreted with caution.

February 16, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence change, Maine’s

Much of the analysis of juvenile justice reform to date has focused on assessing particular programs and their impacts on subgroups of cases at a particular point in time. While this is instructive as to the effects of those initiatives, it is essential to evaluate the impact of policy across multiple levels and with multiple stakeholders in mind. Ohio has implemented a series of initiatives in its juvenile justice system designed to reduce reliance on state custody of youth in favor of local alternatives. In doing so, they have focused on multiple segments of the population of justice involved-youths throughout the state. The main vehicle for these shifts has been the state's Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM) legislation and a series of initiatives that have followed from its inception. Other steps were followed and programming modifications were made during the study period as well. This research project focused on these initiatives as a case study of juvenile justice reform initiatives in order to provide insights about the impact of those recent reforms across multiple dimensions that were viewed as relevant to the discussion of juvenile justice reform. The data set analyzed at the individual level included the records of more than 5,000 youths sampled from cases processed from 2008 to 2015. First, presumed reductions in the number of youth committed to state residential correctional facilities in favor of community-based alternatives were analyzed. The relative effectiveness of residential facilities and community-based alternatives in terms of youth recidivism were then assessed with a subsample of 2,855 case records from randomly-selected counties. A third research objective focused on county-level trends and variation. Specifically, the longitudinal trends in key juvenile justice inputs and official juvenile crime rates across Ohio's 88 counties were formally modeled using data from public reports, data collection with counties, and official juvenile arrest data archived by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Elements of the previous analyses (especially comparative recidivism rates) and cost data collected from existing sources and public reports were used in a preliminary fashion to quantify the potential return on investment that accrued from Ohio's investment in these juvenile justice initiatives. This deposit contains two datasets: Individual Level Data and County Level Data. The Individual Level Data contains the following demographic data: age at admission, sex, and race (White, Black, Asian, Native American, and other).

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

This dataset includes the following from The Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk's online docket search: - Case information - Case jurisdiction information - Docket item metadata - Decision item metadata - Party information - Party attorney information

No updates should be expected, though they may be done on an ad hoc basis. Ongoing collection and availability through DataOhio (https://data.ohio.gov) has been pursued.

Interested parties: Please contact the court and DataOhio and encourage them to make the court's publicly-available data available for bulk download and analysis.

DISCLAIMER: This dataset and related collection efforts have not been sponsored by The Supreme Court of Ohio. However, the data has been collected in accordance with guidance from a court employee on December 10, 2020.

About this dataset

Context

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

Key observations

• Of the 7 household sizes (1 person to 7-or-more person households) reported by the census bureau, all of the household sizes were found in Ohio County. Across the different household sizes in Ohio County the mean income is $100,936, and the standard deviation is $79,186. The coefficient of variation (CV) is 78.45%. This high CV indicates high relative variability, suggesting that the incomes vary significantly across different sizes of households. Please note that the U.S. Census Bureau uses $250,001 as a JAM value to report incomes of $250,000 or more. In the case of Ohio County, there were 1 household sizes where the JAM values were used. Thus, the numbers for the mean and standard deviation may not be entirely accurate and have a higher possibility of errors. However, to obtain an approximate estimate, we have used a value of $250,001 as the income for calculations, as reported in the datasets by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• In the most recent year, 2021, The smallest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income was 1-person households, with an income of $29,351. It then further increased to $270,229 for 7-person households, the largest household size for which the bureau reported a median household income.

https://i.neilsberg.com/ch/ohio-county-wv-median-household-income-by-household-size.jpeg" alt="Ohio County, WV median household income, by household size (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars)">

Content

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

Household Sizes:

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

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Ohio County median household income. You can refer the same here

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

Weekly COVID-19 Community Levels (CCLs) have been replaced with levels of COVID-19 hospital admission rates (low, medium, or high) which demonstrate >99% concordance by county during February 2022–March 2023. For more information on the latest COVID-19 status levels in your area and hospital admission rates, visit United States COVID-19 Hospitalizations, Deaths, and Emergency Visits by Geographic Area.

This archived public use dataset contains historical case and percent positivity data updated weekly for all available counties and jurisdictions. Each week, the dataset was refreshed to capture any historical updates. Please note, percent positivity data may be incomplete for the most recent time period.

This archived public use dataset contains weekly community transmission levels data for all available counties and jurisdictions since October 20, 2022. The dataset was appended to contain the most recent week's data as originally posted on COVID Data Tracker. Historical corrections are not made to these data if new case or testing information become available. A separate archived file is made available here (: Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission Historical Changes) if historically updated data are desired.

Related data CDC provides the public with two active versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this dataset with the levels as originally posted (Weekly Originally Posted dataset), updated weekly with the most recent week’s data since October 20, 2022, and a historical dataset with the county-level transmission data from January 22, 2020 (Weekly Historical Changes dataset).

Methods for calculating county level of community transmission indicator The County Level of Community Transmission indicator uses two metrics: (1) total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 persons in the last 7 days and (2) percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the last 7 days. For each of these metrics, CDC classifies transmission values as low, moderate, substantial, or high (below and here). If the values for each of these two metrics differ (e.g., one indicates moderate and the other low), then the higher of the two should be used for decision-making.

CDC core metrics of and thresholds for community transmission levels of SARS-CoV-2 Total New Case Rate Metric: "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is calculated by adding the number of new cases in the county (or other administrative level) in the last 7 days divided by the population in the county (or other administrative level) and multiplying by 100,000. "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is considered to have a transmission level of Low (0-9.99); Moderate (10.00-49.99); Substantial (50.00-99.99); and High (greater than or equal to 100.00).

Test Percent Positivity Metric: "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is calculated by dividing the number of positive tests in the county (or other administrative level) during the last 7 days by the total number of tests conducted over the last 7 days. "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is considered to have a transmission level of Low (less than 5.00); Moderate (5.00-7.99); Substantial (8.00-9.99); and High (greater than or equal to 10.00).

If the two metrics suggest different transmission levels, the higher level is selected.

The reported transmission categories include:

Low Transmission Threshold: Counties with fewer than 10 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, and a NAAT percent test positivity in the past 7 days below 5%;

Moderate Transmission Threshold: Counties with 10-49 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days or a NAAT test percent positivity in the past 7 days of 5.0-7.99%;

Substantial Transmission Threshold: Counties with 50-99 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days or a NAAT test percent positivity in the past 7 days of 8.0-9.99%;

High Transmission Threshold: Counties with 100 or more total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days or a NAAT test percent positivity in the past 7 days of 10.0% or greater.

Blank: total new cases in the past 7 days are not reported (county data known to be unavailable) and the percentage of positive NAATs tests during the past 7 days (blank) are not reported.

The data in this dataset are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.

This dataset is created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access.

Archived data CDC has archived two prior versions of these datasets. Both versions contain the same 7 data elements reflecting community transmission levels for all available counties and jurisdictions; however, the datasets were updated daily. The archived datasets can be found here:

Archived Originally Posted dataset

Archived Historical Changes dataset

Archived Data Notes:

October 20, 2022: Due to the Mississippi case data dashboard not being updated this week, case rates for all Mississippi counties are reported as 0 in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on October 20, 2022. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Mississippi counties being underestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

October 20, 2022: Due to a data reporting error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania is lower than expected in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on October 20, 2022. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level for Philadelphia County being underestimated; therefore, it should be interpreted with caution.

October 28, 2022: Due to a data processing error, case rates for Kentucky appear higher than expected in the weekly release on October 28, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Kentucky counties may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Missouri counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Alabama counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases. 

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for all Mississippi counties are reported as 0 in the COVID-19 Community Transmission data released on November 10, 2022. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Mississippi counties being underestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution. 

November 10, 2022: In the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 10, 2022, multiple municipalities in Puerto Rico are reporting higher than expected increases in case counts. CDC is working with territory officials to verify the data submitted. 

November 25, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change for the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are calculated based on 13 days' worth of case counts in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 25, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for all Ohio counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 25, 2022: Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, CDC did not receive updated case data from the following jurisdictions: Rhode Island and Mississippi. As a result, case rates for all counties within these jurisdictions are reported as 0 in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level Data

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Ohio population by race and ethnicity. The dataset can be utilized to understand the racial distribution of Ohio.

Content

The dataset will have the following datasets when applicable

Please note that in case when either of Hispanic or Non-Hispanic population doesnt exist, the respective dataset will not be available (as there will not be a population subset applicable for the same)

• Ohio, IL Population Breakdown by Race
• Ohio, IL Non-Hispanic Population Breakdown by Race
• Ohio, IL Hispanic or Latino Population Distribution by Their Ancestries

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national filewith no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independentdata set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Linear Water Features includes single-line drainage water features and artificial path features that run through double-line drainage features such as rivers and streams, and serve as a linear representation of these features. The artificial path features may correspond to those in the USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). However, in many cases the features do not match NHD equivalent feature and will not carry the NHD metadata codes. These features have a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) beginning with an "H" to indicate the super class of Hydrographic Features.

Note: Due to the RMS change for CPS, this data set stops on 6/2/2024. For records beginning on 6/3/2024, please see the dataset at this link: https://data.cincinnati-oh.gov/safety/Reported-Crime-STARS-Category-Offenses-/7aqy-xrv9/about_data

Data Description: This data represents reported Crime Incidents in the City of Cincinnati. Incidents are the records, of reported crimes, collated by an agency for management. Incidents are typically housed in a Records Management System (RMS) that stores agency-wide data about law enforcement operations. This does not include police calls for service, arrest information, final case determination, or any other incident outcome data.

Data Creation: The Cincinnati Police Department's (CPD) records crime incidents in the City through Records Management System (RMS) that stores agency-wide data about law enforcement operations.

Data Created By: The source of this data is the Cincinnati Police Department.

Refresh Frequency: This data is updated daily.

CincyInsights: The City of Cincinnati maintains an interactive dashboard portal, CincyInsights in addition to our Open Data in an effort to increase access and usage of city data. This data set has an associated dashboard available here: https://insights.cincinnati-oh.gov/stories/s/8eaa-xrvz

Data Dictionary: A data dictionary providing definitions of columns and attributes is available as an attachment to this dataset.

Processing: The City of Cincinnati is committed to providing the most granular and accurate data possible. In that pursuit the Office of Performance and Data Analytics facilitates standard processing to most raw data prior to publication. Processing includes but is not limited: address verification, geocoding, decoding attributes, and addition of administrative areas (i.e. Census, neighborhoods, police districts, etc.).

Data Usage: For directions on downloading and using open data please visit our How-to Guide: https://data.cincinnati-oh.gov/dataset/Open-Data-How-To-Guide/gdr9-g3ad

Disclaimer: In compliance with privacy laws, all Public Safety datasets are anonymized and appropriately redacted prior to publication on the City of Cincinnati’s Open Data Portal. This means that for all public safety datasets: (1) the last two digits of all addresses have been replaced with “XX,” and in cases where there is a single digit street address, the entire address number is replaced with "X"; and (2) Latitude and Longitude have been randomly skewed to represent values within the same block area (but not the exact location) of the incident.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national filewith no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independentdata set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Linear Water Features includes single-line drainage water features and artificial path features that run through double-line drainage features such as rivers and streams, and serve as a linear representation of these features. The artificial path features may correspond to those in the USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). However, in many cases the features do not match NHD equivalent feature and will not carry the NHD metadata codes. These features have a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) beginning with an "H" to indicate the super class of Hydrographic Features.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Linear Water Features includes single-line drainage water features and artificial path features that run through double-line drainage features such as rivers and streams, and serve as a linear representation of these features. The artificial path features may correspond to those in the USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). However, in many cases the features do not match NHD equivalent feature and will not carry the NHD metadata codes. These features have a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) beginning with an "H" to indicate the super class of Hydrographic Features.

AbstractThis dataset comprises detailed records of motor vehicle crashes occurring in Ohio, USA, from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2023. Collected by law enforcement agencies using standardized OH-1 crash reporting forms and centralized by the Ohio Department of Public Safety, the dataset captures detailed information on 1,679,019 crashes involving 2,656,086 vehicles and 3,577,822 occupants. Structured across three levels—crash, vehicle, and occupant—the dataset includes attributes such as crash timing and location, environmental and road conditions, vehicle specifications, operational factors, occupant demographics, injury severity, safety equipment usage, and behavioral indicators like alcohol or drug involvement. Severity information is documented at both the crash and individual occupant levels, covering outcomes ranging from no injury to fatal incidents. The dataset features a total of 119 systematically named variables at the crash, vehicle, and occupant levels. A complete list of features, along with categorical value mappings, is provided in the accompanying documentation.Description of the data and file structureThis dataset contains comprehensive records of motor vehicle crashes reported across the state of Ohio, USA, from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2023. The data were collected by law enforcement agencies using standardized crash reporting forms (OH-1) and centralized through the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s data systems.It captures detailed, structured information related to crash events, vehicles involved, and individuals affected. Each data sample corresponds to an occupant of a vehicle. There are unique identifiers for each crash and involved vehicle. Hence, the dataset is organized into three primary levels:Crash-Level Data: Includes unique identifiers for each of the 1,679,019 reported crashes, along with temporal details (date, time), location attributes, environmental conditions (e.g., weather, light, road surface), and overall crash characteristics (e.g., number of units involved, severity classification, work zone presence). The identifier for the crash is the feature “DocumentNumber”.Vehicle-Level Data: Comprises identifiers for each of the 2,656,086 vehicles (units) involved in a crash. Attributes include vehicle type, make, model, year of manufacture, vehicle defects, and operational details such as posted speed, traffic control devices, and pre-crash actions. Interacting vehicle types and hazardous material indicators are also documented. Vehicle-Level features are identified by the prefix ”Units.” in the feature name.Occupant-Level Data: Contains 3,577,822 records detailing individuals involved in crashes. This includes demographic information (age, gender), seating position, person injury severity, use of safety equipment (e.g., seat belts, airbags, helmets), and behavioral factors such as alcohol or drug involvement, distraction status, and test results where applicable. Occupant-Level features are identified by the prefix “Units.People.” in the feature name.The severity of the accident is also documented. The “CrashSeverity” feature document the severity of the crash in the following levels: Fatal (15021), Suspected Serious Injury (83764), Suspected Minor Injury (483026), Possible Injury (461019), and No Apparent Injury (2440823). Similarly, also individual people injury levels are recorded in the feature “Units.People.Injury”. The file "summary_2023_new.pdf" is a summary file that contains data analysis of the dataset (statistics and plots).There are 119 unique features in the data, and their complete list of name and type is reported below. Their categorical levels in case of integer-encoding is found in the file “mapping.yaml”.Access informationOther publicly accessible locations of the data:The full dataset submitted to figshare is not available elsewhere in its complete and curated form. However, data covering the most recent five years, including the current year, are publicly accessible through the following sources:Ohio Department of Public Safety Crash Retrieval Portal: https://ohtrafficdata.dps.ohio.gov/crashretrievalOhio Statistics and Analytics for Traffic Safety (OSTATS): https://statepatrol.ohio.gov/dashboards-statistics/ostats-dashboardsThese public portals provide access to selected crash data but do not include the full historical dataset or the cleaned, integrated, and reformatted version provided through this submission.Data was derived from the following sources:Ohio Department of Public SafetyHuman subjects dataThis dataset was derived entirely from publicly available traffic crash reports collected and disseminated by the Ohio Department of Public Safety through the Ohio Statistics and Analytics for Traffic Safety (OSTATS) platform.To ensure compliance with ethical standards for data sharing, this dataset contains no direct identifiers (e.g., names, addresses, license plate numbers, or VINs linked to individuals). All personal identifiers have been removed or were not included in the public dataset. Furthermore, the dataset contains no more than three indirect identifiers per record. These indirect identifiers (e.g., crash year, crash county, and age group) were selected based on their relevance to the study while minimizing re-identification risk.Where possible, continuous variables were converted to categories (e.g., age groups instead of exact age), and geographic detail was limited to broader regional indicators rather than precise location data. Data cleaning and aggregation procedures were conducted to further reduce identifiability while retaining the analytic value of the dataset for modeling injury risk across system domains.As described in the associated manuscript, all analyses were conducted on this de-identified dataset, and no additional linkage to identifiable information was performed. As such, this dataset does not require IRB oversight or data use agreements and is suitable for open-access publication under CC-BY licence.No direct interaction or intervention with human participants occurred during the creation of this dataset, and no personally identifiable information (PII) is included.Given the publicly available nature of the source data and the absence of PII, explicit participant consent was not required. However, by relying exclusively on open-access government data and following de-identification protocols aligned with the Common Rule (45 CFR 46), this dataset meets ethical standards for public data sharing.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Linear Water Features includes single-line drainage water features and artificial path features that run through double-line drainage features such as rivers and streams, and serve as a linear representation of these features. The artificial path features may correspond to those in the USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). However, in many cases the features do not match NHD equivalent feature and will not carry the NHD metadata codes. These features have a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) beginning with an "H" to indicate the super class of Hydrographic Features.

The 2006 OSIP digital orthophotography was collected during the months of March and April (leaf-off conditions). The MrSID Images covering each county at 1-foot pixel resolution will be created at a 30:1 compression ratio. At a 30:1 compression ratio, the resulting MrSID file size will average around 2GBs in size (dependent upon county size). MrSID Images will also be created for each buy-up county. These MrSIDs, will be compressed at a 20:1 ratio. In some cases, buy-up counties have requested a higher compression ratio. Hancock and Fairfield Counties have requested countywide ECW image files.

This dataset is updated more frequently and can be visualized on NCWQR's data portal.

If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Laura Johnson or Dr. Nathan Manning.

The National Center for Water Quality Research (NCWQR) is a research laboratory at Heidelberg University in Tiffin, Ohio, USA. Our primary research program is the Heidelberg Tributary Loading Program (HTLP), where we currently monitor water quality at 22 river locations throughout Ohio and Michigan, effectively covering ~half of the land area of Ohio. The goal of the program is to accurately measure the total amounts (loads) of pollutants exported from watersheds by rivers and streams. Thus these data are used to assess different sources (nonpoint vs point), forms, and timing of pollutant export from watersheds. The HTLP officially began with high-frequency monitoring for sediment and nutrients from the Sandusky and Maumee rivers in 1974, and has continually expanded since then.

Each station where samples are collected for water quality is paired with a US Geological Survey gage for quantifying discharge (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/rt). Our stations cover a wide range of watershed areas upstream of the sampling point from 11.0 km2 for the unnamed tributary to Lost Creek to 19,215 km2 for the Muskingum River. These rivers also drain a variety of land uses, though a majority of the stations drain over 50% row-crop agriculture.

At most sampling stations, submersible pumps located on the stream bottom continuously pump water into sampling wells inside heated buildings where automatic samplers collect discrete samples (4 unrefrigerated samples/d at 6-h intervals, 1974–1987; 3 refrigerated samples/d at 8-h intervals, 1988-current). At weekly intervals the samples are returned to the NCWQR laboratories for analysis. When samples either have high turbidity from suspended solids or are collected during high flow conditions, all samples for each day are analyzed. As stream flows and/or turbidity decreases, analysis frequency shifts to one sample per day. At the River Raisin and Muskingum River, a cooperator collects a grab sample from a bridge at or near the USGS station approximately daily and all samples are analyzed. Each sample bottle contains sufficient volume to support analyses of total phosphorus (TP), dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP), suspended solids (SS), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonium-N (NH4), nitrate-N and nitrite-N (NO2+3), chloride, fluoride, and sulfate. Nitrate and nitrite are commonly added together when presented; henceforth we refer to the sum as nitrate.

Upon return to the laboratory, all water samples are analyzed within 72h for the nutrients listed below using standard EPA methods. For dissolved nutrients, samples are filtered through a 0.45 um membrane filter prior to analysis. We currently use a Seal AutoAnalyzer 3 for DRP, silica, NH4, TP, and TKN colorimetry, and a DIONEX Ion Chromatograph with AG18 and AS18 columns for anions. Prior to 2014, we used a Seal TRAACs for all colorimetry.

2017 Ohio EPA Project Study Plan and Quality Assurance Plan

Project Study Plan

Quality Assurance Plan

Data quality control and data screening

The data provided in the River Data files have all been screened by NCWQR staff. The purpose of the screening is to remove outliers that staff deem likely to reflect sampling or analytical errors rather than outliers that reflect the real variability in stream chemistry. Often, in the screening process, the causes of the outlier values can be determined and appropriate corrective actions taken. These may involve correction of sample concentrations or deletion of those data points.

This micro-site contains data for approximately 126,000 water samples collected beginning in 1974. We cannot guarantee that each data point is free from sampling bias/error, analytical errors, or transcription errors. However, since its beginnings, the NCWQR has operated a substantial internal quality control program and has participated in numerous external quality control reviews and sample exchange programs. These programs have consistently demonstrated that data produced by the NCWQR is of high quality.

A note on detection limits and zero and negative concentrations

It is routine practice in analytical chemistry to determine method detection limits and/or limits of quantitation, below which analytical results are considered less reliable or unreliable. This is something that we also do as part of our standard procedures. Many laboratories, especially those associated with agencies such as the U.S. EPA, do not report individual values that are less than the detection limit, even if the analytical equipment returns such values. This is in part because as individual measurements they may not be considered valid under litigation.

The measured concentration consists of the true but unknown concentration plus random instrument error, which is usually small compared to the range of expected environmental values. In a sample for which the true concentration is very small, perhaps even essentially zero, it is possible to obtain an analytical result of 0 or even a small negative concentration. Results of this sort are often “censored” and replaced with the statement “

Censoring these low values creates a number of problems for data analysis. How do you take an average? If you leave out these numbers, you get a biased result because you did not toss out any other (higher) values. Even if you replace negative concentrations with 0, a bias ensues, because you’ve chopped off some portion of the lower end of the distribution of random instrument error.

For these reasons, we do not censor our data. Values of -9 and -1 are used as missing value codes, but all other negative and zero concentrations are actual, valid results. Negative concentrations make no physical sense, but they make analytical and statistical sense. Users should be aware of this, and if necessary make their own decisions about how to use these values. Particularly if log transformations are to be used, some decision on the part of the user will be required.

Analyte Detection Limits

https://ncwqr.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/mdl-june-2019-epa-methods.jpg?w=1024

For more information, please visit https://ncwqr.org/

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Linear Water Features includes single-line drainage water features and artificial path features that run through double-line drainage features such as rivers and streams, and serve as a linear representation of these features. The artificial path features may correspond to those in the USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). However, in many cases the features do not match NHD equivalent feature and will not carry the NHD metadata codes. These features have a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) beginning with an 'H 'to indicate the super class of Hydrographic Features.

This layer shows health insurance coverage by type and by age group. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The objective of this study was to determine how homicide investigators use evidence during the course of their investigations. Data on 294 homicide cases (315 victims) that occurred in Cleveland between 2008 and 2011 was collected from investigative reports, forensic analysis reports, prosecutors and homicide investigators, provided by the Cleveland Ohio Police Department, Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office, and Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts. The study collection includes 1 Stata data file (NIJ_Cleveland_Homicides.dta, n=294, 109 variables).

Data Description: This dataset captures all Cincinnati Police Department Calls for Service. The City of Cincinnati's Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system records police incident response activity, which includes all calls for service to emergency operators, 911, alarms, police radio and non-emergency calls. CAD records all dispatch information, which is used by dispatchers, field supervisors, and on-scene officers to determine the priority, severity, and response needs surrounding the incident. Once an officer responds to a call, he/she updates the disposition to reflect findings on-scene. This dataset includes both proactive and reactive police incident data.

Data Creation: This data is created through the City’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system.

Data Created By: The source of this data is the Cincinnati Police Department.

Refresh Frequency: This data is updated daily.

CincyInsights: The City of Cincinnati maintains an interactive dashboard portal, CincyInsights in addition to our Open Data in an effort to increase access and usage of city data. This data set has an associated dashboard available here: https://insights.cincinnati-oh.gov/stories/s/xw7t-5phj

Data Dictionary: A data dictionary providing definitions of columns and attributes is available as an attachment to this dataset.

Processing: The City of Cincinnati is committed to providing the most granular and accurate data possible. In that pursuit the Office of Performance and Data Analytics facilitates standard processing to most raw data prior to publication. Processing includes but is not limited: address verification, geocoding, decoding attributes, and addition of administrative areas (i.e. Census, neighborhoods, police districts, etc.).

Data Usage: For directions on downloading and using open data please visit our How-to Guide: https://data.cincinnati-oh.gov/dataset/Open-Data-How-To-Guide/gdr9-g3ad

Disclaimer: In compliance with privacy laws, all Public Safety datasets are anonymized and appropriately redacted prior to publication on the City of Cincinnati’s Open Data Portal. This means that for all public safety datasets: (1) the last two digits of all addresses have been replaced with “XX,” and in cases where there is a single digit street address, the entire address number is replaced with "X"; and (2) Latitude and Longitude have been randomly skewed to represent values within the same block area (but not the exact location) of the incident.