For more than three decades UCSUR has documented the status of older adults in the County along multiple life domains. Every decade we issue a comprehensive report on aging in Allegheny County and this report represents our most recent effort. It documents important shifts in the demographic profile of the population in the last three decades, characterizes the current status of the elderly in multiple life domains, and looks ahead to the future of aging in the County. This report is unique in that we examine not only those aged 65 and older, but also the next generation old persons, the Baby Boomers. Collaborators on this project include the Allegheny County Area Agency on Aging, the United Way of Allegheny County, and the Aging Institute of UPMC Senior Services and the University of Pittsburgh. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive analysis of aging in Allegheny County. To this end, we integrate survey data collected from a representative sample of older county residents with secondary data available from Federal, State, and County agencies to characterize older individuals on multiple dimensions, including demographic change and population projections, income, work and retirement, neighborhoods and housing, health, senior service use, transportation, volunteering, happiness and life satisfaction, among others. Since baby boomers represent the future of aging in the County we include data for those aged 55-64 as well as those aged 65 and older.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 16 cities in the Box Elder County, UT by Non-Hispanic Some Other Race (SOR) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

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

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Non-Hispanic Other Race Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Box Elder County, UT by their Non-Hispanic Some Other Race (SOR) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Non-Hispanic Other Race Population: The Non-Hispanic Other Race population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Non-Hispanic Other Race. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Box Elder County Non-Hispanic Other Race Population: This tells us how much of the entire Box Elder County, UT Non-Hispanic Other Race population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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/.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 16 cities in the Box Elder County, UT by Non-Hispanic White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

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

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Non-Hispanic White Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Box Elder County, UT by their Non-Hispanic White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Non-Hispanic White Population: The Non-Hispanic White population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Non-Hispanic White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Box Elder County Non-Hispanic White Population: This tells us how much of the entire Box Elder County, UT Non-Hispanic White population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

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 estimated median age gives an idea of the age distribution of the population in a given area. A greater median age would suggest that the area of interest has a relatively large number of older residents, while a lower median age suggests that the area has a relatively large number of younger residents.

Champaign County’s estimated median age has risen for over a decade, but has always stayed between 28 and 31. Year-to-year changes from 2017 to 2019 were statistically significant, but not from 2019 to 2023. The Champaign County estimated median age has been consistently younger than the estimated median ages of the United States and State of Illinois. Champaign County’s figure is likely impacted to some degree by the large student population associated with the University of Illinois.

The estimated median age does not provide a significant amount of detail, and it does not provide any information on why the estimated median age is what it is. However, when placed in the context of other pieces of data and other indicators, it is a valuable starting point in understanding county demographics.

Estimated median age data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Median Age by Sex.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (6 October 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (13 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (7 April 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (7 April 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

About this dataset

Context

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

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Box Elder County was 62,684, a 1.89% increase year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Box Elder County population was 61,523, an increase of 3.08% compared to a population of 59,685 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Box Elder County increased by 19,812. In this period, the peak population was 62,684 in the year 2023. The numbers suggest that the population has not reached its peak yet and is showing a trend of further growth. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

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

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Box Elder County Population by Year. You can refer the same here

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. Face refers to the areal (polygon) topological primitives that make up MTDB. A face is bounded by one or more edges; its boundary includes only the edges that separate it from other faces, not any interior edges contained within the area of the face. The Topological Faces Shapefile contains the attributes of each topological primitive face. Each face has a unique topological face identifier (TFID) value. Each face in the shapefile includes the key geographic area codes for all geographic areas for which the Census Bureau tabulates data for both the 2020 Census and the annual estimates and surveys. The geometries of each of these geographic areas can then be built by dissolving the face geometries on the appropriate key geographic area codes in the Topological Faces Shapefile.

This dataset includes WIC households enrolled during state fiscal year (SFY) 2024 located in counties and municipalities with populations greater than 1,000 inhabitants. The total value of benefits redeemed by each household is aggregated for SFY 2024. Population values may be blank if a household does not fall within a municipality with a population greater than 1,000 inhabitants per United States Census Bureau data. Municipality names may be blank if a household does not fall within a municipal boundary or a census-designated place. County fields may be blank if the household does not fall within a municipal boundary as defined by the United States Census Bureau.

On October 20, 2022, CDC began retrieving aggregate case and death data from jurisdictional and state partners weekly instead of daily. This dataset contains archived historical community transmission and related data elements by county. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset has not been updated since October 20, 2022. An archived dataset containing weekly historical community transmission data by county can also be found here: Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission Historical Changes | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov).

Related data CDC has been providing the public with two versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this historical dataset with the daily county-level transmission data from January 22, 2020, and a dataset with the daily values as originally posted on the COVID Data Tracker. Similar to this dataset, the original dataset with daily data as posted is archived on 10/20/2022. It will continue to be publicly available but will no longer be updated. A new dataset containing community transmission data by county as originally posted is now published weekly and can be found at: Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission as Originally Posted | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov).

This public use dataset has 7 data elements reflecting historical data for community transmission levels for all available counties and jurisdictions. It contains historical data for the county level of community transmission and includes updated data submitted by states and jurisdictions. Each day, the dataset was updated to include the most recent days’ data and incorporate any historical changes made by jurisdictions. This dataset includes data since January 22, 2020. Transmission level is set to low, moderate, substantial, or high using the calculation rules below.

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 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 resulted over the last 7 days. "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is considered to have 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. If one metric is missing, the other metric is used for the indicator.

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.

Data Suppression To prevent the release of data that could be used to identify people, data cells are suppressed for low frequency. When the case counts used to calculate the total new case rate metric ("cases_per_100K_7_day_count_change") is greater than zero and less than 10, this metric is set to "suppressed" to protect individual privacy. If the case count is 0, the total new case rate metric is still displayed.

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 datasets are created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access.

Duplicate Records Issue A bug was found on 12/28/2021 that caused many records in the dataset to be duplicated. This issue was resolved on 01/06/2022.

This dataset was downloaded from the United States Census Bureau and is accurate as of January 1, 2017. The original dataset was provided in a Geographic Coordinate System (GCS_North_American_1983), coordinate system identifier 4269 Codespace EPSG version 6.12(3.0.1).https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.phpThese files were specifically created to support small-scale thematic mapping. To improve the appearance of shapes at small scales, areas are represented with fewer vertices than detailed TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Cartographic boundary files take up less disk space than their ungeneralized counterparts. Cartographic boundary files take less time to render on screen than TIGER/Line Shapefiles. You can join this file with table data downloaded from American FactFinder by using the AFFGEOID field in the cartographic boundary file. If detailed boundaries are required, please use the TIGER/Line Shapefiles instead of the generalized cartographic boundary files.

Arsenic concentrations from 20,450 domestic wells in the U.S. were used to develop a logistic regression model of the probability of having arsenic > 10 µg/L (“high arsenic”), which is presented at the county, state, and national scales. Variables representing geologic sources, geochemical, hydrologic, and physical features were among the significant predictors of high arsenic. For U.S. Census blocks, the mean probability of arsenic > 10 µg/L was multiplied by the population using domestic wells to estimate the potential high-arsenic domestic-well population. Approximately 44.1 M people in the U.S. use water from domestic wells. The population in the conterminous U.S. using water from domestic wells with predicted arsenic concentration > 10 µg/L is 2.1 M people (95% CI is 1.5 to 2.9 M). Although areas of the U.S. were underrepresented with arsenic data, predictive variables available in national datasets were used to estimate high arsenic in unsampled areas. Linking predictive modeling to private well use information nationally, despite the uncertainty, is beneficial for broad screening of the population at risk from elevated arsenic in drinking water from private wells. This dataset represents modeled probabilities of arsenic > 10 micrograms per liter in domestic wells in the U.S.

This dataset contains model-based county-level estimates for the PLACES 2021 release. PLACES is the expansion of the original 500 Cities Project and covers the entire United States—50 states and the District of Columbia (DC)—at county, place, census tract, and ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) levels. It represents a first-of-its kind effort to release information uniformly on this large scale for local areas at 4 geographic levels. Estimates were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. PLACES was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. The dataset includes estimates for 29 measures: 4 chronic disease-related health risk behaviors, 13 health outcomes, 3 health status, and 9 on using preventive services. These estimates can be used to identify emerging health problems and to help develop and carry out effective, targeted public health prevention activities. Because the small area model cannot detect effects due to local interventions, users are cautioned against using these estimates for program or policy evaluations. Data sources used to generate these model-based estimates include Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2019 or 2018 data, Census Bureau 2019 or 2018 county population estimate data, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2015–2019 or 2014–2018 estimates. The 2021 release uses 2019 BRFSS data for 22 measures and 2018 BRFSS data for 7 measures (all teeth lost, dental visits, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, core preventive services among older adults, and sleeping less than 7 hours a night). Seven measures are based on the 2018 BRFSS because the relevant questions are only asked every other year in the BRFSS. More information about the methodology can be found at www.cdc.gov/places.

Overall educational attainment measures the highest level of education attained by a given individual: for example, an individual counted in the percentage of the measured population with a master’s or professional degree can be assumed to also have a bachelor’s degree and a high school diploma, but they are not counted in the population percentages for those two categories. Overall educational attainment is the broadest education indicator available, providing information about the measured county population as a whole.

Only members of the population aged 25 and older are included in these educational attainment estimates, sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS).

Champaign County has high educational attainment: over 48 percent of the county's population aged 25 or older has a bachelor's degree or graduate or professional degree as their highest level of education. In comparison, the percentage of the population aged 25 or older in the United States and Illinois with a bachelor's degree in 2023 was 21.8% (+/-0.1) and 22.8% (+/-0.2), respectively. The population aged 25 or older in the U.S. and Illinois with a graduate or professional degree in 2022, respectively, was 14.3% (+/-0.1) and 15.5% (+/-0.2).

Educational attainment data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Over.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (29 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (6 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (4 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (4 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018). U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

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. The Address Ranges Feature Shapefile (ADDRFEAT.dbf) contains the geospatial edge geometry and attributes of all unsuppressed address ranges for a county or county equivalent area. The term "address range" refers to the collection of all possible structure numbers from the first structure number to the last structure number and all numbers of a specified parity in between along an edge side relative to the direction in which the edge is coded. Single-address address ranges have been suppressed to maintain the confidentiality of the addresses they describe. Multiple coincident address range feature edge records are represented in the shapefile if more than one left or right address ranges are associated to the edge. The ADDRFEAT shapefile contains a record for each address range to street name combination. Address range associated to more than one street name are also represented by multiple coincident address range feature edge records. Note that the ADDRFEAT shapefile includes all unsuppressed address ranges compared to the All Lines Shapefile (EDGES.shp) which only includes the most inclusive address range associated with each side of a street edge. The TIGER/Line shapefile contain potential address ranges, not individual addresses. The address ranges in the TIGER/Line Files are potential ranges that include the full range of possible structure numbers even though the actual structures may not exist.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the the household distribution across 16 income brackets among four distinct age groups in Johnson County: Under 25 years, 25-44 years, 45-64 years, and over 65 years. The dataset highlights the variation in household income, offering valuable insights into economic trends and disparities within different age categories, aiding in data analysis and decision-making..

Key observations

• Upon closer examination of the distribution of households among age brackets, it reveals that there are 9,724(15.63%) households where the householder is under 25 years old, 22,216(35.71%) households with a householder aged between 25 and 44 years, 17,751(28.53%) households with a householder aged between 45 and 64 years, and 12,523(20.13%) households where the householder is over 65 years old.
• The age group of 45 to 64 years exhibits the highest median household income, while the largest number of households falls within the 25 to 44 years bracket. This distribution hints at economic disparities within the county of Johnson County, showcasing varying income levels among different age demographics.

Content

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

Income brackets:

• Less than $10,000
• $10,000 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $59,999
• $60,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $100,000 to $124,999
• $125,000 to $149,999
• $150,000 to $199,999
• $200,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Household Income: This column showcases 16 income brackets ranging from Under $10,000 to $200,000+ ( As mentioned above).
• Under 25 years: The count of households led by a head of household under 25 years old with income within a specified income bracket.
• 25 to 44 years: The count of households led by a head of household 25 to 44 years old with income within a specified income bracket.
• 45 to 64 years: The count of households led by a head of household 45 to 64 years old with income within a specified income bracket.
• 65 years and over: The count of households led by a head of household 65 years and over old with income within a specified income bracket.

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 Johnson County median household income by age. You can refer the same here

This two foot pixel resolution black and white aerial photography was flown on various dates in July 1946 by the United States Geological Survey. They were then scanned by the USGS and georeferenced by Lake County in 2007. This data should NOT be used at a scale larger than 1 inch = 400 feet. Due to the lack of sufficient camera calibration information, errors will increase towards the margin of each underlying photo, although this effect has been minimized by cropping individual photos to make this mosaic. Since these photos were scanned from old film, local distortions (from the media stretching and/or shrinking) may be present as well as fading. Parts of the county were not captured including some areas in Buffalo Grove, Highland Park, and Riverwoods. The date of the flight means that most trees have fully leaf-out canopies, which obscure some ground features. This flight took place during a period of high population growth and land use change. The census population of Lake County was 121,094 in 1940 and 179,097 in 1950, a 48% increase; this photography documents land use in the middle of that decade.

The Climate Resilience Information System (CRIS) provides data and tools for developers of climate services. This layer has projections of VAR in decadal increments from 1950 to 2100 and for three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). The variables included are:Annual number of days with a minimum temperature greater than or equal to 60°F Annual number of days with a minimum temperature greater than or equal to 70°F Annual number of days with a minimum temperature greater than or equal to 75°F Annual number of days with a minimum temperature greater than or equal to 80°F Annual number of days with a minimum temperature greater than or equal to 85°F Annual number of days with a minimum temperature greater than or equal to 90°F This layer uses data from the LOCA2 and STAR-ESDM downscaled climate models for the Contiguous United States. Further processing by the NOAA Technical Support Unit at CICS-NC and Esri are explained below.For each time and SSP, there are minimum, maximum, and mean values for the defined respective geography: counties, tribal areas, HUC-8 watersheds. The process for deriving these summaries is available in Understanding CRIS Data. The combination of time and geography is available for a weighted ensemble of 16 climate projections. More details on the models included in the ensemble and the weighting methodologies can be found in CRIS Data Preparation. Other climate variables are available from the CRIS website’s Data Gallery page or can be accessed in the table below. Additional geographies, including Alaska, Hawai’i and Puerto Rico will be made available in the future.GeographiesThis layer provides projected values for three geographies: county, tribal area, and HUC-8 watersheds.County: based on the U.S. Census TIGER/Line 2022 distribution. Tribal areas: based on the U.S. Census American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Area dataset 2022 distribution. This dataset includes federal- and state-recognized statistical areas.HUC-8 watershed: based on the USGS Washed Boundary Dataset, part of the National Hydrography Database Plus High Resolution. Time RangesProjected climate threshold values (e.g. Days Over 90°F) were calculated for each year from 2005 to 2100. Additionally, values are available for the modeled history runs from 1951 - 2005. The modeled history and future projections have been merged into a single time series and averaged by decade.Climate ScenariosClimate models use future scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations and human activities to project overall change. These different scenarios are called the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Three different SSPs are available here: 2-4.5, 3-7.0, and 5-8.5 (STAR does not have SSP3-7.0). The number before the dash represents a societal behavior scenario. The number after the dash indicates the amount of radiative forcing (watts per meter square) associated with the greenhouse gas concentration scenario in the year 2100 (higher forcing = greater warming). It is unclear which scenario will be the most likely, but SSP 2-4.5 currently aligns with the international targets of the COP-26 agreement. SSP3-7.0 may be the most likely scenario based on current emission trends. SSP5-8.5 acts as a cautionary tale, providing a worst-case scenario if reductions in greenhouse gasses are not undertaken. Data ExportExporting this data into shapefiles, geodatabases, GeoJSON, etc is enabled.

Covid-19 Daily metrics at the county level

As of 6/1/2023, this data set is no longer being updated.

The COVID-19 Data Report is posted on the Open Data Portal every day at 3pm. The report uses data from multiple sources, including external partners; if data from external partners are not received by 3pm, they are not available for inclusion in the report and will not be displayed. Data that are received after 3pm will still be incorporated and published in the next report update.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases (cumulative_cases) includes all cases of COVID-19 that have ever been reported to DPH. The cumulative number of COVID_19 cases in the last 7 days (cases_7days) only includes cases where the specimen collection date is within the past 7 days. While most cases are reported to DPH within 48 hours of specimen collection, there are a small number of cases that routinely are delayed, and will have specimen collection dates that fall outside of the rolling 7 day reporting window. Additionally, reporting entities may submit correction files to contribute historic data during initial onboarding or to address data quality issues; while this is rare, these correction files may cause a large amount of data from outside of the current reporting window to be uploaded in a single day; this would result in the change in cumulative_cases being much larger than the value of cases_7days.

On June 4, 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance requiring the reporting of positive and negative test results for SARS-CoV-2; this guidance expired with the end of the federal PHE on 5/11/2023, and negative SARS-CoV-2 results were removed from the List of Reportable Laboratory Findings. DPH will no longer be reporting metrics that were dependent on the collection of negative test results, specifically total tests performed or percent positivity. Positive antigen and PCR/NAAT results will continue to be reportable.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Displacement Risk (EQ3)

FULL MEASURE NAME Share of lower-income households living in tracts at risk of displacement

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Displacement risk refers to the share of lower-income households living in neighborhoods that have been losing lower-income residents over time, thus earning the designation “at risk”. While “at risk” households may not necessarily be displaced in the short-term or long-term, neighborhoods identified as being “at risk” signify pressure as reflected by the decline in lower-income households (who are presumed to relocate to other more affordable communities). The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, county and census tract tables.

DATA SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census 1980-1990 Form STF3 https://nhgis.org

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census 2000 Form SF3a https://nhgis.org

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census 1980-2010 Longitudinal Tract Database http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 2010-2015 Form S1901 5-year rolling average http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 2010-2017 Form B19013 5-year rolling average http://factfinder2.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Aligning with the approach used for Plan Bay Area 2040, displacement risk is calculated by comparing the analysis year with the most recent year prior to identify census tracts that are losing lower-income households. Historical data is pulled from U.S. Census datasets and aligned with today’s census tract boundaries using crosswalk tables provided by LTDB. Tract data, as well as regional income data, are calculated using 5-year rolling averages for consistency – given that tract data is only available on a 5-year basis. Using household tables by income level, the number of households in each tract falling below the median are summed, which involves summing all brackets below the regional median and then summing a fractional share of the bracket that includes the regional median (assuming a simple linear distribution within that bracket).

Once all tracts in a given county or metro area are synced to today’s boundaries, the analysis identifies census tracts of greater than 500 lower-income people (in the prior year) to filter out low-population areas. For those tracts, any net loss between the prior year and the analysis year results in that tract being flagged as being at risk of displacement, and all lower-income households in that tract are flagged. To calculate the share of households at risk, the number of lower-income households living in flagged tracts are summed and divided by the total number of lower-income households living in the larger geography (county or metro). Minor deviations on a year-to-year basis should be taken in context, given that data on the tract level often fluctuates and has a significant margin of error; changes on the county and regional level are more appropriate to consider on an annual basis instead.

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. The Address Ranges Feature Shapefile (ADDRFEAT.dbf) contains the geospatial edge geometry and attributes of all unsuppressed address ranges for a county or county equivalent area. The term "address range" refers to the collection of all possible structure numbers from the first structure number to the last structure number and all numbers of a specified parity in between along an edge side relative to the direction in which the edge is coded. Single-address address ranges have been suppressed to maintain the confidentiality of the addresses they describe. Multiple coincident address range feature edge records are represented in the shapefile if more than one left or right address ranges are associated to the edge. The ADDRFEAT shapefile contains a record for each address range to street name combination. Address range associated to more than one street name are also represented by multiple coincident address range feature edge records. Note that the ADDRFEAT shapefile includes all unsuppressed address ranges compared to the All Lines Shapefile (EDGES.shp) which only includes the most inclusive address range associated with each side of a street edge. The TIGER/Line shapefile contain potential address ranges, not individual addresses. The address ranges in the TIGER/Line Files are potential ranges that include the full range of possible structure numbers even though the actual structures may not exist.

This dataset contains model-based county-level estimates in GIS-friendly format. PLACES covers the entire United States—50 states and the District of Columbia—at county, place, census tract, and ZIP Code Tabulation Area levels. It provides information uniformly on this large scale for local areas at four geographic levels. Estimates were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. Project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. Data sources used to generate these model-based estimates are Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2021 or 2020 data, Census Bureau 2021 or 2020 county population estimates, and American Community Survey (ACS) 2017–2021 or 2016–2020 estimates. The 2023 release uses 2021 BRFSS data for 29 measures and 2020 BRFSS data for 7 measures (all teeth lost, dental visits, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, core preventive services among older adults, and sleeping less than 7 hours) that the survey collects data on every other year. These data can be joined with the census 2020 county boundary file in a GIS system to produce maps for 36 measures at the county level. An ArcGIS Online feature service is also available for users to make maps online or to add data to desktop GIS software. https://cdcarcgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=2c3deb0c05a748b391ea8c9cf9903588