This table presents income shares, thresholds, tax shares, and total counts of individual Canadian tax filers, with a focus on high income individuals (95% income threshold, 99% threshold, etc.). Income thresholds are based on national threshold values, regardless of selected geography; for example, the number of Nova Scotians in the top 1% will be calculated as the number of taxfiling Nova Scotians whose total income exceeded the 99% national income threshold. Different definitions of income are available in the table namely market, total, and after-tax income, both with and without capital gains.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Round Top 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 Round Top 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 2022, the population of Round Top was 91, a 1.11% increase year-by-year from 2021. Previously, in 2021, Round Top population was 90, an increase of 2.27% compared to a population of 88 in 2020. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2022, population of Round Top increased by 1. In this period, the peak population was 102 in the year 2009. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. 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 2022

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2022)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Round Top is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Round Top 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 Round Top Population by Year. You can refer the same here

This poverty rate data shows what percentage of the measured population* falls below the poverty line. Poverty is closely related to income: different “poverty thresholds” are in place for different sizes and types of household. A family or individual is considered to be below the poverty line if that family or individual’s income falls below their relevant poverty threshold. For more information on how poverty is measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (the source for this indicator’s data), visit the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty webpage.

The poverty rate is an important piece of information when evaluating an area’s economic health and well-being. The poverty rate can also be illustrative when considered in the contexts of other indicators and categories. As a piece of data, it is too important and too useful to omit from any indicator set.

The poverty rate for all individuals in the measured population in Champaign County has hovered around roughly 20% since 2005. However, it reached its lowest rate in 2021 at 14.9%, and its second lowest rate in 2023 at 16.3%. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) data shows fluctuations between years, given their margins of error, none of the differences between consecutive years’ estimates are statistically significant, making it impossible to identify a trend.

Poverty rate 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 Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Age.

*According to the U.S. Census Bureau document “How Poverty is Calculated in the ACS," poverty status is calculated for everyone but those in the following groups: “people living in institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes), people in military barracks, people in college dormitories, living situations without conventional housing, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old."

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (25 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; 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 S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Florence, SC, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 10,346, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 208,770. This indicates that the top earners earn 20 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 368,659, which is 176.59% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 3563.30% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

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

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

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 Florence median household income. You can refer the same here

[1] The Progress by Population Group analysis is a component of the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) Final Review. The analysis included subsets of the 1,111 measurable HP2020 objectives that have data available for any of six broad population characteristics: sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, disability status, and geographic location. Progress toward meeting HP2020 targets is presented for up to 24 population groups within these characteristics, based on objective data aggregated across HP2020 topic areas. The Progress by Population Group data are also available at the individual objective level in the downloadable data set. [2] The final value was generally based on data available on the HP2020 website as of January 2020. For objectives that are continuing into HP2030, more recent data will be included on the HP2030 website as it becomes available: https://health.gov/healthypeople. [3] For more information on the HP2020 methodology for measuring progress toward target attainment and the elimination of health disparities, see: Healthy People Statistical Notes, no 27; available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt27.pdf. [4] Status for objectives included in the HP2020 Progress by Population Group analysis was determined using the baseline, final, and target value. The progress status categories used in HP2020 were: a. Target met or exceeded—One of the following applies: (i) At baseline, the target was not met or exceeded, and the most recent value was equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was equal to or greater than 100%); (ii) The baseline and most recent values were equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was not assessed). b. Improved—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved 10% or more of the targeted change. c. Little or no detectable change—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was not statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved less than 10% of the targeted change; (iii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was not statistically significant; (iv) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved less than 10% relative to the baseline; (v) No change was observed between the baseline and the final data point. d. Got worse—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved 10% or more relative to the baseline. NOTE: Measurable objectives had baseline data. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, Healthy People 2020 Progress by Population Group database.

Unemployment Rate in the United States decreased to 4.10 percent in June from 4.20 percent in May of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Broad Top township Hispanic or Latino population. It includes the distribution of the Hispanic or Latino population, of Broad Top township, by their ancestries, as identified by the Census Bureau. The dataset can be utilized to understand the origin of the Hispanic or Latino population of Broad Top township.

Key observations

Among the Hispanic population in Broad Top township, regardless of the race, the largest group is of Mexican origin, with a population of 1 (100% of the total Hispanic population).

Content

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

Origin for Hispanic or Latino population include:

• Mexican
• Puerto Rican
• Cuban
• Other Hispanic or Latino

Variables / Data Columns

• Origin: This column displays the origin for Hispanic or Latino population for the Broad Top township
• Population: The population of the specific origin for Hispanic or Latino population in the Broad Top township is shown in this column.
• % of Total Hispanic Population: This column displays the percentage distribution of each Hispanic origin as a proportion of Broad Top township total Hispanic or Latino population. 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 Broad Top township Population by Race & Ethnicity. You can refer the same here

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of asthma (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to asthma (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with asthma was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with asthma was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with asthma, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have asthmaB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have asthmaAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have asthma, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from asthma, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with asthma within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of asthma, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of asthma.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

This dataset includes the data used to develop Maps 8 and 9 for the Connect SoCal 2024 Equity Analysis Technical Report, adopted on April 4, 2024. The dataset includes two fields with information about gentrification during two time periods (2000-2010 and 2010-2019) in the SCAG region based on ACS data. In this dataset, gentrification is defined as: (1) tract median household income in the bottom 40 percent of the countywide income distribution at the beginning of the period, (2) increase in college-educated people (as the percentage of population aged 25 years and older at the beginning of the period) in the top 25 percent of the countywide distribution, (3) no less than 100 people aged 25 years at the beginning of the period, and (4) over 50 percent of the tract land area within a census defined urbanized area. The dataset also includes a field with information about areas with a high number of eviction filings between 2010 and 2018 in the SCAG region with data from the Eviction Lab. In this dataset, "high eviction filings" is defined as an average annual eviction filing rate over three. This dataset was prepared to share more information from the maps in Connect SoCal 2024 Equity Analysis Technical Report. For more details on the methodology, please see the methodology section(s) of the Equity Analysis Technical Report: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-equity-analysis-final-040424.pdf?1712261887 For more details about SCAG's models, or to request model data, please see SCAG's website: https://scag.ca.gov/data-services-requests.

Abstract

The World Bank and UNHCR in collaboration with the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics and the University of California, Berkeley are conducting the Kenya COVID-19 Rapid Response Phone Survey to track the socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the recovery from it as well as other shocks to provide timely data to inform a targeted response. This dataset contains information from eight waves of the COVID-19 RRPS, which is part of a panel survey that targets refugee household and started in May 2020. The same households were interviewed every two months for five survey rounds, in the first year of data collection, and every four months thereafter, with interviews conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) techniques. The sample aims to be representative of the refugee and stateless population in Kenya. It comprises five strata: Kakuma refugee camp, Kalobeyei settlement, Dadaab refugee camp, urban refugees, and Shona stateless. Waves 1-7 of this survey include information on household background, service access, employment, food security, income loss, transfers, health, and COVID-19 knowledge. Wave 8 focused on how households were exposed to shocks, in particular adverse weather shocks and the increase in the price of food and fuel, but also included parts of the previous modules on household background, service access, employment, food security, income loss, and subjective wellbeing. The data is uploaded in three files. The first is the hh file, which contains household level information. The 'hhid', uniquely identifies all household. The second is the adult level file, which contains data at the level of adult household members. Each adult in a household is uniquely identified by the 'adult_id'. The third file is the child level file, available only for waves 3-7, which contains information for every child in the household. Each child in a household is uniquely identified by the 'child_id'. The duration of data collection and sample size for each completed wave was: Wave 1: May 14 to July 7, 2020; 1,328 refugee households Wave 2: July 16 to September 18, 2020; 1,699 refugee households Wave 3: September 28 to December 2, 2020; 1,487 refugee households Wave 4: January 15 to March 25, 2021; 1,376 refugee households Wave 5: March 29 to June 13, 2021; 1,562 refugee households Wave 6: July 14 to November 3, 2021; 1,407 refugee households Wave 7: November 15, 2021, to March 31, 2022; 1,281 refugee households Wave 8: May 31 to July 8, 2022: 1,355 refugee households The same questionnaire is also administered to nationals in Kenya, with the data available in the WB microdata library: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3774

Geographic coverage

National coverage covering rural and urban areas

Analysis unit

Individual and Household

Universe

All persons of concern for UNHCR

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample aims to be representative of the refugee and stateless population in Kenya. It comprises five strata: Kakuma refugee camp, Kalobeyei settlement, Dadaab refugee camp, urban refugees, and Shona stateless, where sampling approaches differ across strata. For refugees in Kakuma and Kalobeyei, as well as for stateless people, recently conducted Socioeconomic Surveys (SES), were used as sampling frames. For the refugee population living in urban areas and the Dadaab camp, no such household survey data existed, and sampling frames were based on UNHCR's registration records (proGres), which include phone numbers. For Kakuma, Kalobeyei, Dadaab and urban refugees, a two-step sampling process was used. First, 1,000 individuals from each stratum were selected from the corresponding sampling frames. Each of these individuals received a text message to confirm that the registered phone was still active. In the second stage, implicitly stratifying by sex and age, the verified phone number lists were used to select the sample. Until wave 7 sampled households that were not reached in earlier waves were also contacted along with households that were interviewed before. In wave 8 only households that had previously participated in the survey were contacted for interview. The “wave” variable represents in which wave the households were interviewed in. For the stateless population, all the participants of the Shona socioeconomic survey (n=400) were included in the RRPS, because of limited sample size. The sampling frames for the refugee and Shona stateless communities are thus representative of households with active phone numbers registered with UNHCR.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Research instrument

The questionnaire included 12 sections Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Household background Section 3: Travel patterns and interactions Section 4: Employment Section 5: Food security Section 6: Income Loss Section 7: Transfers Section 8: Subjective welfare (50% of sample) Section 9: Health Section 10: COVID Knowledge Section 11: Household and Social Relations (50% of sample) Section 12: Conclusion

Cleaning operations

Variable names were kept constant across survey waves. For questions that remained exactly the same across survey waves, data points for all waves can be found under one variable name. For questions where the phrasing changed (even in a minimal way) across waves, variable names were also changed to reflect the change in phrasing. Extended missing values are used to indicate why a value is missing for all variables. The following extended missing values are used in the dataset: · .a for 'Don't know' · .b for 'Refused to respond' · .c for 'Outliers set to missing' · .d for 'Inconsistency set to missing' (used for employment data as explained below) · .e for 'Field Skipped' (where an error in the survey tool caused the question to be missed) · .z for 'Not administered' (as the variable was not relevant to the observation) More detailed data on children was collected between waves 3 and 7, compared to waves 1, 2 and 8. In waves 1 and 2, data on children, e.g. on their learning activities, was collected for all children in a household with one question. Therefore, variables related to children are part of the 'hh' data for waves 1 and 2. Between waves 3 and 7, questions on children in the household were asked for specific children. Some questions covered all children, while others were only administered to one randomly selected child in the household. This approach allows to disaggregate data at the level of the child household members, and the data can be found in the 'child' data set. The household level weights can be used for analysis of the children's data. In wave 8, detailed information on children was dropped, as the questionnaire focused on other topics. The education status of household members, except for the respondent, was imputed for rounds 1 and 2. For rounds 1 and 2, only the education status of the respondent was elicited, while for later rounds the education status for each household member was asked. In order to evaluate outcomes by the household member's education status, information on education was imputed for waves 1 and 2, using the information provided for all household members in waves 3, 4, and 5. This resulted in additional information on the education status for household members in round 1 and 2, which was not yet available for earlier versions of this data. Some questions are not asked repeatedly across waves such that their values were imputed. For some questions, answers are not possible or unlikely to change within two months between survey waves such that households were not asked about them in all waves. The questions on assets owned before March 2020 were only asked to households when they are interviewed for the first time. The questions on the dwelling's wall and floor material as well as the household's connection to the power grid was not asked for all households in wave 2 and 3, where only new households and those who moved were covered by these questions. Questions on the main source of electricity in the households and types of assets owned were not asked in wave 8. The missing values those variables have when they were not asked, are imputed from the answers given in earlier waves. Improved quality insurance algorithms lead to minor revisions to wave 1 to 5 data. Based on additional data checks, the team has made minor refinements to wave 1 to 5 data. The identification of the household members that were the respondent or the household head was refined in the rare cases where it was not possible to interview the same respondent as in previous waves for a given household such that another adult was interviewed. For this reason, for about 2 percent of observations the household head status was assigned to an incorrect household member, which was corrected. For <1 percent of households the respondent did not appear in adult level dataset. For about 1 percent of observations in wave 5 the respondent appeared twice in the adult level dataset. Data from questions on COVID-19 vaccinations from wave 7 was dropped from the dataset. Due to significantly higher self-reported vaccination rates compared to official administrative records, data on vaccinations was deemed unreliable, most likely due to social desirability bias. Consequently, questions on vaccination status and questions using the vaccination data as a validation criterion were dropped from the datasets.

Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States decreased to 62.30 percent in June from 62.40 percent in May of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Labor Force Participation Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

Abstract

Round 1 of the Afrobarometer survey was conducted from July 1999 through June 2001 in 12 African countries, to solicit public opinion on democracy, governance, markets, and national identity. The full 12 country dataset released was pieced together out of different projects, Round 1 of the Afrobarometer survey,the old Southern African Democracy Barometer, and similar surveys done in West and East Africa.

The 7 country dataset is a subset of the Round 1 survey dataset, and consists of a combined dataset for the 7 Southern African countries surveyed with other African countries in Round 1, 1999-2000 (Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe). It is a useful dataset because, in contrast to the full 12 country Round 1 dataset, all countries in this dataset were surveyed with the identical questionnaire

Geographic coverage

Botswana Lesotho Malawi Namibia South Africa Zambia Zimbabwe

Analysis unit

Basic units of analysis that the study investigates include: individuals and groups

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A new sample has to be drawn for each round of Afrobarometer surveys. Whereas the standard sample size for Round 3 surveys will be 1200 cases, a larger sample size will be required in societies that are extremely heterogeneous (such as South Africa and Nigeria), where the sample size will be increased to 2400. Other adaptations may be necessary within some countries to account for the varying quality of the census data or the availability of census maps.

The sample is designed as a representative cross-section of all citizens of voting age in a given country. The goal is to give every adult citizen an equal and known chance of selection for interview. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible. A randomly selected sample of 1200 cases allows inferences to national adult populations with a margin of sampling error of no more than plus or minus 2.5 percent with a confidence level of 95 percent. If the sample size is increased to 2400, the confidence interval shrinks to plus or minus 2 percent.

Sample Universe

The sample universe for Afrobarometer surveys includes all citizens of voting age within the country. In other words, we exclude anyone who is not a citizen and anyone who has not attained this age (usually 18 years) on the day of the survey. Also excluded are areas determined to be either inaccessible or not relevant to the study, such as those experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters, as well as national parks and game reserves. As a matter of practice, we have also excluded people living in institutionalized settings, such as students in dormitories and persons in prisons or nursing homes.

What to do about areas experiencing political unrest? On the one hand we want to include them because they are politically important. On the other hand, we want to avoid stretching out the fieldwork over many months while we wait for the situation to settle down. It was agreed at the 2002 Cape Town Planning Workshop that it is difficult to come up with a general rule that will fit all imaginable circumstances. We will therefore make judgments on a case-by-case basis on whether or not to proceed with fieldwork or to exclude or substitute areas of conflict. National Partners are requested to consult Core Partners on any major delays, exclusions or substitutions of this sort.

Sample Design

The sample design is a clustered, stratified, multi-stage, area probability sample.

To repeat the main sampling principle, the objective of the design is to give every sample element (i.e. adult citizen) an equal and known chance of being chosen for inclusion in the sample. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible.

In a series of stages, geographically defined sampling units of decreasing size are selected. To ensure that the sample is representative, the probability of selection at various stages is adjusted as follows:

The sample is stratified by key social characteristics in the population such as sub-national area (e.g. region/province) and residential locality (urban or rural). The area stratification reduces the likelihood that distinctive ethnic or language groups are left out of the sample. And the urban/rural stratification is a means to make sure that these localities are represented in their correct proportions. Wherever possible, and always in the first stage of sampling, random sampling is conducted with probability proportionate to population size (PPPS). The purpose is to guarantee that larger (i.e., more populated) geographical units have a proportionally greater probability of being chosen into the sample. The sampling design has four stages

A first-stage to stratify and randomly select primary sampling units;

A second-stage to randomly select sampling start-points;

A third stage to randomly choose households;

A final-stage involving the random selection of individual respondents

We shall deal with each of these stages in turn.

STAGE ONE: Selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs)

The primary sampling units (PSU's) are the smallest, well-defined geographic units for which reliable population data are available. In most countries, these will be Census Enumeration Areas (or EAs). Most national census data and maps are broken down to the EA level. In the text that follows we will use the acronyms PSU and EA interchangeably because, when census data are employed, they refer to the same unit.

We strongly recommend that NIs use official national census data as the sampling frame for Afrobarometer surveys. Where recent or reliable census data are not available, NIs are asked to inform the relevant Core Partner before they substitute any other demographic data. Where the census is out of date, NIs should consult a demographer to obtain the best possible estimates of population growth rates. These should be applied to the outdated census data in order to make projections of population figures for the year of the survey. It is important to bear in mind that population growth rates vary by area (region) and (especially) between rural and urban localities. Therefore, any projected census data should include adjustments to take such variations into account.

Indeed, we urge NIs to establish collegial working relationships within professionals in the national census bureau, not only to obtain the most recent census data, projections, and maps, but to gain access to sampling expertise. NIs may even commission a census statistician to draw the sample to Afrobarometer specifications, provided that provision for this service has been made in the survey budget.

Regardless of who draws the sample, the NIs should thoroughly acquaint themselves with the strengths and weaknesses of the available census data and the availability and quality of EA maps. The country and methodology reports should cite the exact census data used, its known shortcomings, if any, and any projections made from the data. At minimum, the NI must know the size of the population and the urban/rural population divide in each region in order to specify how to distribute population and PSU's in the first stage of sampling. National investigators should obtain this written data before they attempt to stratify the sample.

Once this data is obtained, the sample population (either 1200 or 2400) should be stratified, first by area (region/province) and then by residential locality (urban or rural). In each case, the proportion of the sample in each locality in each region should be the same as its proportion in the national population as indicated by the updated census figures.

Having stratified the sample, it is then possible to determine how many PSU's should be selected for the country as a whole, for each region, and for each urban or rural locality.

The total number of PSU's to be selected for the whole country is determined by calculating the maximum degree of clustering of interviews one can accept in any PSU. Because PSUs (which are usually geographically small EAs) tend to be socially homogenous we do not want to select too many people in any one place. Thus, the Afrobarometer has established a standard of no more than 8 interviews per PSU. For a sample size of 1200, the sample must therefore contain 150 PSUs/EAs (1200 divided by 8). For a sample size of 2400, there must be 300 PSUs/EAs.

These PSUs should then be allocated proportionally to the urban and rural localities within each regional stratum of the sample. Let's take a couple of examples from a country with a sample size of 1200. If the urban locality of Region X in this country constitutes 10 percent of the current national population, then the sample for this stratum should be 15 PSUs (calculated as 10 percent of 150 PSUs). If the rural population of Region Y constitutes 4 percent of the current national population, then the sample for this stratum should be 6 PSU's.

The next step is to select particular PSUs/EAs using random methods. Using the above example of the rural localities in Region Y, let us say that you need to pick 6 sample EAs out of a census list that contains a total of 240 rural EAs in Region Y. But which 6? If the EAs created by the national census bureau are of equal or roughly equal population size, then selection is relatively straightforward. Just number all EAs consecutively, then make six selections using a table of random numbers. This procedure, known as simple random sampling (SRS), will

As of April 2024, Bahrain was the country with the highest Instagram audience reach with 95.6 percent. Kazakhstan also had a high Instagram audience penetration rate, with 90.8 percent of the population using the social network. In the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Brunei, the photo-sharing platform was used by more than 85 percent of each country's population.

The Digital Divide Index or DDI ranges in value from 0 to 100, where 100 indicates the highest digital divide. It is composed of two scores, also ranging from 0 to 100: the infrastructure/adoption (INFA) score and the socioeconomic (SE) score.The INFA score groups five variables related to broadband infrastructure and adoption: (1) percentage of total 2020 population without access to fixed broadband of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload as of 2020 based on Ookla Speedtest® open dataset; (2) percent of homes without a computing device (desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc.); (3) percent of homes with no internet access (have no internet subscription, including cellular data plans or dial-up); (4) median maximum advertised download speeds; and (5) median maximum advertised upload speeds.The SE score groups five variables known to impact technology adoption: (1) percent population ages 65 and over; (2) percent population 25 and over with less than high school; (3) individual poverty rate; (4) percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population with a disability: and (5) a brand new digital inequality or internet income ratio measure (IIR). In other words, these variables indirectly measure adoption since they are potential predictors of lagging technology adoption or reinforcing existing inequalities that also affect adoption.These two scores are combined to calculate the overall DDI score. If a particular county or census tract has a higher INFA score versus a SE score, efforts should be made to improve broadband infrastructure. If on the other hand, a particular geography has a higher SE score versus an INFA score, efforts should be made to increase digital literacy and exposure to the technology’s benefits.The DDI measures primarily physical access/adoption and socioeconomic characteristics that may limit motivation, skills, and usage. Due to data limitations it was designed as a descriptive and pragmatic tool and is not intended to be comprehensive. Rather it should help initiate important discussions among community leaders and residents.

Shark Tank India Data set.

Shark Tank India - Season 1 to season 4 information, with 80 fields/columns and 630+ records.

All seasons/episodes of 🦈 SHARKTANK INDIA 🇮🇳 were broadcasted on SonyLiv OTT/Sony TV.

Here is the data dictionary for (Indian) Shark Tank season's dataset.

• Season Number - Season number
• Startup Name - Company name or product name
• Episode Number - Episode number within the season
• Pitch Number - Overall pitch number
• Season Start - Season first aired date
• Season End - Season last aired date
• Original Air Date - Episode original/first aired date, on OTT/TV
• Episode Title - Episode title in SonyLiv
• Anchor - Name of the episode presenter/host
• Industry - Industry name or type
• Business Description - Business Description
• Company Website - Company Website URL
• Started in - Year in which startup was started/incorporated
• Number of Presenters - Number of presenters
• Male Presenters - Number of male presenters
• Female Presenters - Number of female presenters
• Transgender Presenters - Number of transgender/LGBTQ presenters
• Couple Presenters - Are presenters wife/husband ? 1-yes, 0-no
• Pitchers Average Age - All pitchers average age, <30 young, 30-50 middle, >50 old
• Pitchers City - Presenter's town/city or place where company head office exists
• Pitchers State - Indian state pitcher hails from or state where company head office exists
• Yearly Revenue - Yearly revenue, in lakhs INR, -1 means negative revenue, 0 means pre-revenue
• Monthly Sales - Total monthly sales, in lakhs
• Gross Margin - Gross margin/profit of company, in percentages
• Net Margin - Net margin/profit of company, in percentages
• EBITDA - Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization
• Cash Burn - In loss in current year; burning/paying money from their pocket (yes/no)
• SKUs - Stock Keeping Units or number of varieties, at the time of pitch
• Has Patents - Pitcher has Patents/Intellectual property (filed/granted), at the time of pitch
• Bootstrapped - Startup is bootstrapped or not (yes/no)
• Part of Match off - Competition between two similar brands, pitched at same time
• Original Ask Amount - Original Ask Amount, in lakhs INR
• Original Offered Equity - Original Offered Equity, in percentages
• Valuation Requested - Valuation Requested, in lakhs INR
• Received Offer - Received offer or not, 1-received, 0-not received
• Accepted Offer - Accepted offer or not, 1-accepted, 0-rejected
• Total Deal Amount - Total Deal Amount, in lakhs INR
• Total Deal Equity - Total Deal Equity, in percentages
• Total Deal Debt - Total Deal debt/loan amount, in lakhs INR
• Debt Interest - Debt interest rate, in percentages
• Deal Valuation - Deal Valuation, in lakhs INR
• Number of sharks in deal - Number of sharks involved in deal
• Deal has conditions - Deal has conditions or not? (yes or no)
• Royalty Percentage - Royalty percentage, if it's royalty deal
• Royalty Recouped Amount - Royalty recouped amount, if it's royalty deal, in lakhs
• Advisory Shares Equity - Deal with Advisory shares or equity, in percentages
• Namita Investment Amount - Namita Investment Amount, in lakhs INR
• Namita Investment Equity - Namita Investment Equity, in percentages
• Namita Debt Amount - Namita Debt Amount, in lakhs INR
• Vineeta Investment Amount - Vineeta Investment Amount, in lakhs INR
• Vineeta Investment Equity - Vineeta Investment Equity, in percentages
• Vineeta Debt Amount - Vineeta Debt Amount, in lakhs INR
• Anupam Investment Amount - Anupam Investment Amount, in lakhs INR
• Anupam Investment Equity - Anupam Investment Equity, in percentages
• Anupam Debt Amount - Anupam Debt Amount, in lakhs INR
• Aman Investment Amount - Aman Investment Amount, in lakhs INR
• Aman Investment Equity - Aman Investment Equity, in percentages
• Aman Debt Amount - Aman Debt Amount, in lakhs INR
• Peyush Investment Amount - Peyush Investment Amount, in lakhs INR
• Peyush Investment Equity - Peyush Investment Equity, in percentages
• Peyush Debt Amount - Peyush Debt Amount, in lakhs INR
• Ritesh Investment Amount - Ritesh Investment Amount, in lakhs INR
• Ritesh Investment Equity - Ritesh Investment Equity, in percentages
• Ritesh Debt Amount - Ritesh Debt Amount, in lakhs INR
• Amit Investment Amount - Amit Investment Amount, in lakhs INR
• Amit Investment Equity - Amit Investment Equity, in percentages
• Amit Debt Amount - Amit Debt Amount, in lakhs INR
• Guest Investment Amount - Guest Investment Amount, in lakhs INR
• Guest Investment Equity - Guest Investment Equity, in percentages
• Guest Debt Amount - Guest Debt Amount, in lakhs INR
• Invested Guest Name - Name of the guest(s) who invested in deal
• All Guest Names - Name of all guests, who are present in episode
• Namita Present - Whether Namita present in episode or not
• Vineeta Present - Whether Vineeta present in episode or not
• Anupam ...

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Upper Marlboro population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Upper Marlboro. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Upper Marlboro by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Upper Marlboro.

Key observations

The largest age group in Upper Marlboro, MD was for the group of age 30 to 34 years years with a population of 114 (15.02%), according to the ACS 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in Upper Marlboro, MD was the 80 to 84 years years with a population of 1 (0.13%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group in consideration
• Population: The population for the specific age group in the Upper Marlboro is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of Upper Marlboro total population. 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 Upper Marlboro Population by Age. You can refer the same here

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of cancer (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to cancer (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with cancer was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with cancer was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with cancer, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have cancer, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from cancer, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with cancer within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of cancer, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of cancer.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.MSOA boundaries: © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021.Population data: Mid-2019 (June 30) Population Estimates for Middle Layer Super Output Areas in England and Wales. © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown Copyright 2020.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital; © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. © Crown Copyright 2020.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

As of April 2024, Facebook had an addressable ad audience reach 131.1 percent in Libya, followed by the United Arab Emirates with 120.5 percent and Mongolia with 116 percent. Additionally, the Philippines and Qatar had addressable ad audiences of 114.5 percent and 111.7 percent.

[Source Data]The Digital Divide Index or DDI ranges in value from 0 to 100, where 100 indicates the highest digital divide. It is composed of two scores, also ranging from 0 to 100: the infrastructure/adoption (INFA) score and the socioeconomic (SE) score.The INFA score groups five variables related to broadband infrastructure and adoption: (1) percentage of total 2020 population without access to fixed broadband of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload as of 2020 based on Ookla Speedtest® open dataset; (2) percent of homes without a computing device (desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc.); (3) percent of homes with no internet access (have no internet subscription, including cellular data plans or dial-up); (4) median maximum advertised download speeds; and (5) median maximum advertised upload speeds.The SE score groups five variables known to impact technology adoption: (1) percent population ages 65 and over; (2) percent population 25 and over with less than high school; (3) individual poverty rate; (4) percent of noninstitutionalized civilian population with a disability: and (5) a brand new digital inequality or internet income ratio measure (IIR). In other words, these variables indirectly measure adoption since they are potential predictors of lagging technology adoption or reinforcing existing inequalities that also affect adoption.These two scores are combined to calculate the overall DDI score. If a particular county or census tract has a higher INFA score versus a SE score, efforts should be made to improve broadband infrastructure. If on the other hand, a particular geography has a higher SE score versus an INFA score, efforts should be made to increase digital literacy and exposure to the technology’s benefits.The DDI measures primarily physical access/adoption and socioeconomic characteristics that may limit motivation, skills, and usage. Due to data limitations it was designed as a descriptive and pragmatic tool and is not intended to be comprehensive. Rather it should help initiate important discussions among community leaders and residents.