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.

The Distributional Financial Accounts (DFAs) provide a quarterly measure of the distribution of U.S. household wealth since 1989, based on a comprehensive integration of disaggregated household-level wealth data with official aggregate wealth measures. The data set contains the level and share of each balance sheet item on the Financial Accounts' household wealth table (Table B.101.h), for various sub-populations in the United States. In our core data set, aggregate household wealth is allocated to each of four percentile groups of wealth: the top 1 percent, the next 9 percent (i.e., 90th to 99th percentile), the next 40 percent (50th to 90th percentile), and the bottom half (below the 50th percentile). Additionally, the data set contains the level and share of aggregate household wealth by income, age, generation, education, and race. The quarterly frequency makes the data useful for studying the business cycle dynamics of wealth concentration--which are typically difficult to observe in lower-frequency data because peaks and troughs often fall between times of measurement. These data will be updated about 10 or 11 weeks after the end of each quarter, making them a timely measure of the distribution of wealth.

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

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median income data over a decade or more for males and females categorized by Total, Full-Time Year-Round (FT), and Part-Time (PT) employment in Mill Creek. It showcases annual income, providing insights into gender-specific income distributions and the disparities between full-time and part-time work. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based pay disparity trends and explore the variations in income for male and female individuals.

Key observations: Insights from 2023

Based on our analysis ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates, we present the following observations: - All workers, aged 15 years and older: In Mill Creek, the median income for all workers aged 15 years and older, regardless of work hours, was $28,542 for males and $28,226 for females.

Based on these incomes, we observe a gender gap percentage of approximately 1%, indicating a significant disparity between the median incomes of males and females in Mill Creek. Women, regardless of work hours, still earn 99 cents to each dollar earned by men, highlighting an ongoing gender-based wage gap.

- Full-time workers, aged 15 years and older: In Mill Creek, among full-time, year-round workers aged 15 years and older, males earned a median income of $57,500, while females earned $39,750, leading to a 31% gender pay gap among full-time workers. This illustrates that women earn 69 cents for each dollar earned by men in full-time roles. This level of income gap emphasizes the urgency to address and rectify this ongoing disparity, where women, despite working full-time, face a more significant wage discrepancy compared to men in the same employment roles.

Remarkably, across all roles, including non-full-time employment, women displayed a lower gender pay gap percentage. This indicates that Mill Creek offers better opportunities for women in non-full-time positions.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. All incomes have been adjusting for inflation and are presented in 2023-inflation-adjusted dollars.

Gender classifications include:

• Male
• Female

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column presents the data year. Expected values are 2010 to 2023
• Male Total Income: Annual median income, for males regardless of work hours
• Male FT Income: Annual median income, for males working full time, year-round
• Male PT Income: Annual median income, for males working part time
• Female Total Income: Annual median income, for females regardless of work hours
• Female FT Income: Annual median income, for females working full time, year-round
• Female PT Income: Annual median income, for females working part time

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 Mill Creek median household income by race. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Federal Way, WA, 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 18,486, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 249,533. This indicates that the top earners earn 13 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 399,623, which is 160.15% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 2161.76% 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 Federal Way median household income. You can refer the same here

How sensitive to business cycles are the earnings of top earners? And, how does the business cycle sensitivity of top earners vary by industry? We use a confidential dataset on earnings histories of US males from the Social Security Administration. On average, individuals in the top 1 percent of the earnings distribution are slightly more cyclical than the population average. But there are large differences across sectors; top earners in Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) and Construction face substantial business cycle volatility, whereas those in Services (who make up 40 percent of individuals in the top 1 percent) have earnings that are less cyclical than the average worker.

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

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median income data over a decade or more for males and females categorized by Total, Full-Time Year-Round (FT), and Part-Time (PT) employment in Pierce. It showcases annual income, providing insights into gender-specific income distributions and the disparities between full-time and part-time work. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based pay disparity trends and explore the variations in income for male and female individuals.

Key observations: Insights from 2023

Based on our analysis ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates, we present the following observations: - All workers, aged 15 years and older: In Pierce, the median income for all workers aged 15 years and older, regardless of work hours, was $34,135 for males and $33,875 for females.

Based on these incomes, we observe a gender gap percentage of approximately 1%, indicating a significant disparity between the median incomes of males and females in Pierce. Women, regardless of work hours, still earn 99 cents to each dollar earned by men, highlighting an ongoing gender-based wage gap.

- Full-time workers, aged 15 years and older: In Pierce, among full-time, year-round workers aged 15 years and older, males earned a median income of $55,250, while females earned $43,875, leading to a 21% gender pay gap among full-time workers. This illustrates that women earn 79 cents for each dollar earned by men in full-time roles. This analysis indicates a widening gender pay gap, showing a substantial income disparity where women, despite working full-time, face a more significant wage discrepancy compared to men in the same roles.

Remarkably, across all roles, including non-full-time employment, women displayed a lower gender pay gap percentage. This indicates that Pierce offers better opportunities for women in non-full-time positions.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. All incomes have been adjusting for inflation and are presented in 2023-inflation-adjusted dollars.

Gender classifications include:

• Male
• Female

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column presents the data year. Expected values are 2010 to 2023
• Male Total Income: Annual median income, for males regardless of work hours
• Male FT Income: Annual median income, for males working full time, year-round
• Male PT Income: Annual median income, for males working part time
• Female Total Income: Annual median income, for females regardless of work hours
• Female FT Income: Annual median income, for females working full time, year-round
• Female PT Income: Annual median income, for females working part time

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 Pierce median household income by race. You can refer the same here

The Kingshill aquifer resides under St. Croix, an Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Island of St. Croix is mountainous in the northwestern and eastern regions of the island and the central and southwest regions contain rolling hills and plains. The Kingshill aquifer underlies the plains of St. Croix. The aquifer is composed primarily of limestone and marl and has a maximum saturated thickness of 200 feet. The aquifer doesn't produce large quantities of water and much of the groundwater is suboptimal for human consumption, but it is the primary source of water in the Virgin Islands (HA 730-N). This product provides source data for the U.S. Virgin Islands, Island of St. Croix, Kingshill aquifer framework including: Georeferenced image: 1. i_56KNGSHL_bot.tif: Digitized figure of altitude contour lines representing the bottom of the Kingshill aquifer. This figure also includes the Kingshill aquifer extent. The original figure was from the Groundwater Atlas (HA 730-N) figure 114. Extent shapefiles: 1. p_56KNGSHL.shp: Polygon shapefile containing the areal extent of the Kingshill aquifer (HA 730-N). The original figure was from the Groundwater Atlas (HA 730-N) figure 114. Contour line shapefile: 1. c_56KNGSHL_bot.shp: Contour line dataset containing altitude values, in feet reference to National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29), across the bottom of the Kingshill aquifer. These data were sourced from HA 730-N and were used to create the ra_56KNGSHL_bot.tif raster dataset. Altitude raster files: 1. ra_56KNGSHL_top.tif: Altitude raster dataset of the top of the Kingshill aquifer. Top of aquifer was assumed to be equal with land surface, but it should be noted that HA 730-N indicates about 25 percent of aquifer is overlain with a blanket of alluvium, alluvial fan, debris flow, and slope wash deposits as much as 80 feet thick. This raster was created using the Digital Elevation model (DEM) dataset (NED, 100-meter) and the altitude values are in meters reference to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). 2. ra_56KNGSHL_bot.tif: Altitude raster dataset of the bottom of the Kingshill aquifer. This raster was interpolated from the c_56KNGSHL_bot.shp file and the altitude values are in meters reference to NAVD88. Depth raster files: 1. rd_56KNGSHL_top.tif: Depth raster dataset of the top of the Kingshill aquifer. The depth values are in meters below land surface (NED, 100-meter). All values in this raster are “0” because it was assumed the top of the aquifer was equal with land surface, but it should be noted that HA 730-N indicates about 25 percent of aquifer is overlain with a blanket of alluvium, alluvial fan, debris flow, and slope wash deposits as much as 80 feet thick. 2. rd_56KNGSHL_bot.tif: Depth raster dataset of the bottom of the Kingshill aquifer. The depth values are in meters below land surface (NED, 100-meter).

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median income data over a decade or more for males and females categorized by Total, Full-Time Year-Round (FT), and Part-Time (PT) employment in Orchard Park. It showcases annual income, providing insights into gender-specific income distributions and the disparities between full-time and part-time work. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based pay disparity trends and explore the variations in income for male and female individuals.

Key observations: Insights from 2023

Based on our analysis ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates, we present the following observations: - All workers, aged 15 years and older: In Orchard Park, the median income for all workers aged 15 years and older, regardless of work hours, was $59,167 for males and $58,414 for females.

Based on these incomes, we observe a gender gap percentage of approximately 1%, indicating a significant disparity between the median incomes of males and females in Orchard Park. Women, regardless of work hours, still earn 99 cents to each dollar earned by men, highlighting an ongoing gender-based wage gap.

- Full-time workers, aged 15 years and older: In Orchard Park, among full-time, year-round workers aged 15 years and older, males earned a median income of $93,750, while females earned $77,344, leading to a 17% gender pay gap among full-time workers. This illustrates that women earn 83 cents for each dollar earned by men in full-time roles. This analysis indicates a widening gender pay gap, showing a substantial income disparity where women, despite working full-time, face a more significant wage discrepancy compared to men in the same roles.

Remarkably, across all roles, including non-full-time employment, women displayed a lower gender pay gap percentage. This indicates that Orchard Park offers better opportunities for women in non-full-time positions.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. All incomes have been adjusting for inflation and are presented in 2023-inflation-adjusted dollars.

Gender classifications include:

• Male
• Female

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column presents the data year. Expected values are 2010 to 2023
• Male Total Income: Annual median income, for males regardless of work hours
• Male FT Income: Annual median income, for males working full time, year-round
• Male PT Income: Annual median income, for males working part time
• Female Total Income: Annual median income, for females regardless of work hours
• Female FT Income: Annual median income, for females working full time, year-round
• Female PT Income: Annual median income, for females working part time

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 Orchard Park median household income by race. 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).

This dataset and map service provides information on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) low to moderate income areas. The term Low to Moderate Income, often referred to as low-mod, has a specific programmatic context within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Over a 1, 2, or 3-year period, as selected by the grantee, not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. HUD uses special tabulations of Census data to determine areas where at least 51% of households have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). This dataset and map service contains the following layer.

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release provides the descriptions of the only U.S. sites—including mineral regions, mineral occurrences, and mine features—that have reported production and (or) resources of tantalum (Ta). The sites in this data release have contained resource and (or) past production of more than 900 metric tons Ta metal, which was the approximate average annual consumption of Ta in the U.S. from 2016 through 2020. This dataset contains the Bokan Mountain deposit in Alaska and the Round Top deposit in Texas. Tantalum primarily occurs in the mineral tantalite, which may be found in carbonatites, alkaline granite-syenite complexes, and lithium-cesium-tantalum (LCT) pegmatites. The largest Ta deposits can be found in Australia, where the Greenbushes and Wodgina Mines have been producing Ta from pegmatites since the late 1880s. The Greenbushes is an LCT pegmatite deposit that contains more than 135 million metric tons of ore with an average grade of 0.022 percent Ta2O5. The Wodgina LCT pegmatite deposit contains more than 85 million metric tons of ore at a grade of 0.032 percent Ta2O5 (Schulz and others, 2017). In comparison, the largest Ta deposit in the U.S. is the Round Top deposit in Texas, which has reported resources of more than 480 million metric tons with an average grade of 67.2 grams per metric ton Ta2O5 (Hulse and others, 2019). There are no current U.S. producers of Ta. Tantalum is necessary for strategic, consumer, and commercial applications. Tantalum is highly conductive to heat and electricity and known for its resistance to acidic corrosion, thereby making this metal an ideal component for electronic capacitors, telecommunications, data storage, and implantable medical devices. In 2020, the U.S. was 100 percent net import reliant on Ta from countries such as China, Germany, Australia, and others. Tantalum is imported to the U.S. as ore and concentrate, metal and powder, as well as waste and scrap (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). The entries and descriptions in the database were derived from published papers, reports, data, and internet documents representing a variety of sources, including geologic and exploration studies described in State, Federal, and industry reports. Resources extracted from older sources might not be compliant with current rules and guidelines in minerals industry standards such as National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101). The presence of a Ta mineral deposit in this database is not meant to imply that the deposit is currently economic. Rather, these deposits were included to capture the characteristics of the largest Ta deposits in the United States. Inclusion of material in the database is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The authors welcome additional published information in order to continually update and refine this dataset. Hulse, D.E., Malhotra, D., Matthews, T., and Emanuel, C., 2019, NI 43-101 preliminary economic assessment Round Top project, Sierra Blanca, Texas, prepared for USA Rare Earth LLC and Texas Mineral Resources Corp. [Filing Date July 1, 2019]: Gustavson Associates, LLC, 218 p., accessed October 17, 2019, at http://usarareearth.com/. Schulz, K.J., Piatak, N.M., and Papp, J.F., 2017, Niobium and tantalum, chap. M of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C., eds., Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. M1–M34, https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802M. U.S. Geological Survey, 2021, Mineral commodity summaries 2021: U.S. Geological Survey, 200 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021.

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

Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.30 percent in August from 4.20 percent in July 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.

EPIC Ocean Surface PAR The EPIC observations of the Earth’s surface lit by the Sun made 13 times during the day in spectral bands centered on 443, 551, and 680 nm are used to estimate daily mean photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) at the ice-free ocean surface. PAR is defined as the quantum energy flux from the Sun in the 400-700 nm range. Daily mean PAR is the 24-hour averaged planar flux in that spectral range reaching the surface. It is expressed in E.m-2.d-1 (Einstein per meter squared per day). The factor required to convert E.m-2 d-1 units to mW.cm-2.μm-1 units is equal to 0.838 to an inaccuracy of a few percent regardless of meteorological conditions. The EPIC daily mean PAR product is generated on Plate Carrée (equal-angle) grid with 18.4 km resolution at the equator and on 18.4 km equal-area grid, i.e., the product is compatible with Ocean Biology Processing Group ocean color products.The EPIC PAR algorithm uses a budget approach, in which the solar irradiance reaching the surface is obtained by subtracting from the irradiance arriving at the top of the atmosphere (known) the irradiance reflected to space (estimated from the EPIC Level 1b radiance data), taking into account atmospheric transmission (modeled). Clear and cloudy regions within a pixel do not need to be distinguished, which dismisses the need for often-arbitrary assumptions about cloudiness distribution and is therefore adapted to the relatively large EPIC pixels. A daily mean PAR is estimated on the source grid for each EPIC instantaneous daytime observation, assuming no cloudiness change during the day, and the individual estimates are remapped and weight-averaged using the cosine of the Sun zenith angle. In the computations, wind speed, surface pressure, and water vapor amount are extracted from NECP Reanalysis 2 data, aerosol optical thickness and angstrom coefficient fromMERRA-2 data, and ozone amount from EPIC Level 2 data. Areas contaminated by sun glint are excluded using a threshold on sun glint reflectance calculated using wind data. Ice masking is based on NSIDC near real time ice fraction data. Details about the algorithm are given in Frouinet al., (2018). Figure A1 gives an example of EPIC daily mean PAR product. Date is March 20, 2018(equinox); land is in black and sea ice in white. Values range from a few E.m-2.d-1at high latitudes to about 58 E.m-2.d-1 at equatorial and tropical latitudes, with atmospheric perturbances modulating the surface PAR field especially at middle latitudes. The EPIC ocean surface PAR products are available at the Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC) at NASA Langley Research Center: https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov. 4. Reference Robert Frouin, Jing Tan, Didier Ramon, Bryan Franz, Hiroshi Murakami, 2018: Estimating photosynthetically available radiation at the ocean surface from EPIC/DSCOVR data, Proc. SPIE 10778, Remote Sensing of the Open and Coastal Ocean and Inland Waters, 1077806 (24 October 2018); doi: 10.1117/12.2501675. Changes from version 1 1) Algorithm (consistent with PACE) Updated the calculation of atmospheric reflectance, gaseous transmittance, and atmospheric transmittance using LUTs method so that calculations are accurate at high Sun and view zenith angles; Updated the calculation of surface albedo (based on Jin et al., 2011); Updated the calculation of cloud/surface layer albedo. 2)Ancillary data Changed the sources of the ancillary data including wind speed, surface pressure, and water vapor from NCEP to MERRA2; Added cloud fraction from MERRA2, which is needed for computing direct/diffuse ratio hence surface albedo.

Analysis of ‘Fortune 1000’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/winston56/fortune-500-data-2021 on 13 November 2021.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Context

Every year Fortune, an American Business Magazine, publishes the Fortune 500, which ranks the top 500 corporations by revenue. This dataset includes the entire Fortune 1000, as opposed to just the top 500.

Content

The Fortune 1000 dataset is from the Fortune website, collected by the processes outlined in this notebook. It contains U.S. company data for the year 2021. The dataset is 1000 rows and 18 columns.

Features

• Company - values are the name of the company
• Rank - The 2021 rank established by Fortune (1-1000)
• Rank Change - The change in the rank from 2020 to 2021. There is only a rank change listed if the company is currently in the top 500 and was previously in the top 500.
• Revenue - Revenue of each company in millions. This is the criteria used to rank each company.
• Profit - Profit of each company in millions.
• Num. of Employees - The number of employees each company employs.
• Sector - The sector of the market the company operates in.
• City - The city where the company's headquarters is located.
• State - The state where the company's headquarters is located
• Newcomer - Indicates whether or not the company is new to the top Fortune 500 ("yes" or "no"). No value will be listed for companies outside of the top 500.
• CEO Founder - Indicates whether the CEO of the company is also the founder ("yes" or "no").
• CEO Woman - Indicates whether the CEO of the company is a woman ("yes" or "no").
• Profitable - Indicates whether the company is profitable or not ("yes" or "no").
• Prev. Rank - The 2020 rank of the company, as established by Fortune. There will only be previous rank data for the top 500 companies.
• CEO - The name of the CEO of the company
• Website - The url of the company website
• Ticker - The stock ticker symbol of public companies. Some rows will have empty values because the company is a private corporation.
• Market Cap - The market cap (or value) of the company in millions. Some rows will have empty values because the company is private. Market valuations were determined on January 20, 2021.

Inspiration

This dataset is made to explore the top corporations in the U.S. Answer questions such as: What percentage of companies have women ceo's? How many companies are newcomers? What percentage of companies have ceos who were also founders? What role does profitability play in ranking?

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

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

This archived public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties.

The COVID-19 community levels were developed using a combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. The COVID-19 community level was determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge.

Using these data, the COVID-19 community level was classified as low, medium, or high.

COVID-19 Community Levels were used to help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

For the most accurate and up-to-date data for any county or state, visit the relevant health department website. COVID Data Tracker may display data that differ from state and local websites. This can be due to differences in how data were collected, how metrics were calculated, or the timing of web updates.

Archived Data Notes:

This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022.

March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released.

March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate.

March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset.

March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases.

March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average).

March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior.

April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

April 21, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for counties in Nebraska for the week of April 21, 2022 have 3 counties identified in the high category and 37 in the medium category. CDC has been working with state officials to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

1. Data Source

This dataset is a synthetic version inspired by the original Credit Risk dataset on Kaggle and enriched with additional variables based on Financial Risk for Loan Approval data. SMOTENC was used to simulate new data points to enlarge the instances. The dataset is structured for both categorical and continuous features.

2. Metadata

The dataset contains 45,000 records and 14 variables, each described below:

Column	Description	Type
person_age	Age of the person	Float
person_gender	Gender of the person	Categorical
person_education	Highest education level	Categorical
person_income	Annual income	Float
person_emp_exp	Years of employment experience	Integer
person_home_ownership	Home ownership status (e.g., rent, own, mortgage)	Categorical
loan_amnt	Loan amount requested	Float
loan_intent	Purpose of the loan	Categorical
loan_int_rate	Loan interest rate	Float
loan_percent_income	Loan amount as a percentage of annual income	Float
cb_person_cred_hist_length	Length of credit history in years	Float
credit_score	Credit score of the person	Integer
previous_loan_defaults_on_file	Indicator of previous loan defaults	Categorical
loan_status (target variable)	Loan approval status: 1 = approved; 0 = rejected	Integer

3. Data Usage

The dataset can be used for multiple purposes:

• Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA): Analyze key features, distribution patterns, and relationships to understand credit risk factors.
• Classification: Build predictive models to classify the loan_status variable (approved/not approved) for potential applicants.
• Regression: Develop regression models to predict the credit_score variable based on individual and loan-related attributes.

Mind the data issue from the original data, such as the instance > 100-year-old as age.

This dataset provides a rich basis for understanding financial risk factors and simulating predictive modeling processes for loan approval and credit scoring.

Feel free to leave comments on the discussion. I'd appreciate your upvote if you find my dataset useful! 😀

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.