West Virginia and Kansas had the lowest cost of living across all U.S. states, with composite costs being half of those found in Hawaii. This was according to a composite index that compares prices for various goods and services on a state-by-state basis. In West Virginia, the cost of living index amounted to **** — well below the national benchmark of 100. Virginia— which had an index value of ***** — was only slightly above that benchmark. Expensive places to live included Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California. Housing costs in the U.S. Housing is usually the highest expense in a household’s budget. In 2023, the average house sold for approximately ******* U.S. dollars, but house prices in the Northeast and West regions were significantly higher. Conversely, the South had some of the least expensive housing. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the median price of the typical single-family home was less than ******* U.S. dollars. That makes living expenses in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much pricier. What other expenses affect the cost of living? Utility costs such as electricity, natural gas, water, and internet also influence the cost of living. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut, the average monthly utility cost exceeded *** U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

Quality of life is a measure of comfort, health, and happiness by a person or a group of people. Quality of life is determined by both material factors, such as income and housing, and broader considerations like health, education, and freedom. Each year, US & World News releases its “Best States to Live in” report, which ranks states on the quality of life each state provides its residents. In order to determine rankings, U.S. News & World Report considers a wide range of factors, including healthcare, education, economy, infrastructure, opportunity, fiscal stability, crime and corrections, and the natural environment. More information on these categories and what is measured in each can be found below:

Healthcare includes access, quality, and affordability of healthcare, as well as health measurements, such as obesity rates and rates of smoking. Education measures how well public schools perform in terms of testing and graduation rates, as well as tuition costs associated with higher education and college debt load. Economy looks at GDP growth, migration to the state, and new business. Infrastructure includes transportation availability, road quality, communications, and internet access. Opportunity includes poverty rates, cost of living, housing costs and gender and racial equality. Fiscal Stability considers the health of the government's finances, including how well the state balances its budget. Crime and Corrections ranks a state’s public safety and measures prison systems and their populations. Natural Environment looks at the quality of air and water and exposure to pollution.

This table contains data on the living wage and the percent of families with incomes below the living wage for California, its counties, regions and cities/towns. Living wage is the wage needed to cover basic family expenses (basic needs budget) plus all relevant taxes; it does not include publicly provided income or housing assistance. The percent of families below the living wage was calculated using data from the Living Wage Calculator and the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. The living wage is the wage or annual income that covers the cost of the bare necessities of life for a worker and his/her family. These necessities include housing, transportation, food, childcare, health care, and payment of taxes. Low income populations and non-white race/ethnic have disproportionately lower wages, poorer housing, and higher levels of food insecurity. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

In 2023, the real median household income in the state of Alabama was 60,660 U.S. dollars. The state with the highest median household income was Massachusetts, which was 106,500 U.S. dollars in 2023. The average median household income in the United States was at 80,610 U.S. dollars.

Quality of Life by State 2024

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F1937611%2F82267b1a15f8669ec2a072972bebccb5%2Fquality-of-life-by-us-state.png?generation=1717697280376438&alt=media" alt="">

This dataset provides insights into the quality of life across different states in the United States for the year 2024. Quality of life, encompassing aspects like comfort, health, and happiness, is evaluated through various metrics including affordability, economy, education, and safety. Dive into this dataset to understand how different states fare in terms of overall quality of life and its individual components.

Columns Description

• State: The name of the U.S. state.
• QualityOfLifeTotalScore: The total score representing the overall quality of life for the respective state. This score is calculated based on various quality of life metrics.
• QualityOfLifeQualityOfLife: The score representing the quality of life aspect for the respective state. This aspect may include subjective factors related to happiness, satisfaction, and overall well-being. Higher scores may indicate a higher level of subjective well-being, happiness, or overall satisfaction among residents. Lower scores could suggest lower levels of subjective well-being.
• QualityOfLifeAffordability: The score representing the affordability aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect evaluates factors such as cost of living, housing affordability, and income levels. Higher scores typically indicate greater affordability of housing, cost of living, and basic necessities. Lower scores may suggest that these essentials are less accessible or more expensive for residents.
• QualityOfLifeEconomy: The score representing the economic aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect assesses factors such as employment opportunities, economic growth, and income distribution. Higher scores may reflect a stronger economy with more job opportunities, higher incomes, and lower levels of poverty. Lower scores might indicate economic challenges such as unemployment or income inequality.
• QualityOfLifeEducationAndHealth: The score representing the education and health aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect considers factors such as access to quality education, healthcare facilities, and overall public health indicators. Higher scores generally signify better access to quality education, healthcare services, and overall public health. Lower scores may indicate deficiencies in these areas, such as limited access to healthcare or lower educational attainment levels.
• QualityOfLifeSafety: The score representing the safety aspect of the quality of life for the respective state. This aspect evaluates factors such as crime rates, public safety measures, and community well-being initiatives. Higher scores suggest lower crime rates, better community safety, and a higher sense of security among residents. Lower scores may indicate higher crime rates or concerns about safety.

These descriptions provide an overview of what each column represents and the specific aspects of quality of life they assess for each U.S. state.

About the dataset

This dataset uses information from the DWP benefit system to provide estimates of children living in poverty for wards in London. In order to be counted in this dataset, a family must have claimed Child Benefit and at least one other household benefit (Universal Credit, tax credits or Housing Benefit) during the year. The numbers are calibrated to the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) dataset used to provide the government's headline poverty statistics. The definition of relative low income is living in a household with equivalised* income before housing costs (BHC) below 60% of contemporary national median income. The income measure includes contributions from earnings, state support and pensions.

Further detail on the estimates of dependent children living in relative low income, including alternative geographical breakdowns and additional variables, such as age of children, family type and work status are available from DWP's statistical tabulation tool Stat-Xplore. Minor adjustments to the data have been applied to guard against the identification of individual claimants.

This dataset replaced the DWP children in out-of-work benefit households and HMRC children in low income families local measure releases.

This dataset includes estimates for all wards in London of numbers of dependent children living in relative low income families for each financial year from 2014/15 to the latest available (2022/23). The figures for the latest year are provisional and are subject to minor revision when the next dataset is released by DWP.

Headlines

Number of children

The number of dependent children living in relative low income across London, rose from below 310,000 in the financial year ending 2015 to over 420,000 in the financial year ending 2020, but has decreased since then to below 350,000, which is well below the number for financial year ending 2018. While many wards in London have followed a similar pattern, the numbers of children in low income families in some wards have fallen more sharply, while the numbers in other wards have continued to grow.

Proportion of children in each London ward

Ward population sizes vary across London, the age profile of that population also varies and both the size and make-up of the population can change over time, so in order to make more meaningful comparisons between wards or over time, DWP have also published rates, though see note below regarding caution when using these figures.

A dependent child is anyone aged under 16; or aged 16 to 19 in full-time non-advanced education or in unwaged government training. Ward level estimates for the total number of dependent children are not available, so percentages cannot be derived. Ward level estimates for the percentage of children under 16 living in low income families are usually published by DWP but, in its latest release, ward-level population estimates were not available at the time, so no rates were published. To derive the rates in this dataset, the GLA has used the ONS's latest ward-level population estimates (official statistics in development). Percentages for 2021/22 are calculated using the 2021 mid year estimates, while percentages for 2022/23 are calculated using the 2022 mid year estimates. As these are official statistics in development, rates therefore need to be treated with some caution.

Notes

*equivalised income is adjusted for household size and composition in order to compare living standards between households of different types.

The housing affordability measure illustrates the relationship between income and housing costs. A household that spends 30% or more of its collective monthly income to cover housing costs is considered to be “housing cost-burden[ed].”[1] Those spending between 30% and 49.9% of their monthly income are categorized as “moderately housing cost-burden[ed],” while those spending more than 50% are categorized as “severely housing cost-burden[ed].”[2]

How much a household spends on housing costs affects the household’s overall financial situation. More money spent on housing leaves less in the household budget for other needs, such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care, as well as for incidental purchases and saving for the future.

The estimated housing costs as a percentage of household income are categorized by tenure: all households, those that own their housing unit, and those that rent their housing unit.

Throughout the period of analysis, the percentage of housing cost-burdened renter households in Champaign County was higher than the percentage of housing cost-burdened homeowner households in Champaign County. All three categories saw year-to-year fluctuations between 2005 and 2023, and none of the three show a consistent trend. However, all three categories were estimated to have a lower percentage of housing cost-burdened households in 2023 than in 2005.

Data on estimated housing costs as a percentage of monthly income was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

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

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

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Housing Tenure.

[1] Schwarz, M. and E. Watson. (2008). Who can afford to live in a home?: A look at data from the 2006 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau.

[2] Ibid.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; 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 B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (22 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (30 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).;U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; 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 B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status).Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2020, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population

This dataset represents a water shortage vulnerability analysis performed by DWR using modified PLSS sections pulled from the Well Completion Report PLSS Section Summaries. The attribute table includes water shortage vulnerability indicators and scores from an analysis done by CA Department of Water Resources, joined to modified PLSS sections. Several relevant summary statistics from the Well Completion Reports are included in this table as well. This data is from the 2024 analysis.

Water Code Division 6 Part 2.55 Section 8 Chapter 10 (Assembly Bill 1668) effectively requires California Department of Water Resources (DWR), in consultation with other agencies and an advisory group, to identify small water suppliers and “rural communities” that are at risk of drought and water shortage. Following legislation passed in 2021 and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, the Water Code Division 6, Section 10609.50 through 10609.80 (Senate Bill 552 of 2021) effectively requires the California Department of Water Resources to update the scoring and tool periodically in partnership with the State Water Board and other state agencies. This document describes the indicators, datasets, and methods used to construct this deliverable.  This is a statewide effort to systematically and holistically consider water shortage vulnerability statewide of rural communities, focusing on domestic wells and state small water systems serving between 4 and 14 connections. The indicators and scoring methodology will be revised as better data become available and stake-holders evaluate the performance of the indicators, datasets used, and aggregation and ranking method used to aggregate and rank vulnerability scores. Additionally, the scoring system should be adaptive, meaning that our understanding of what contributes to risk and vulnerability of drought and water shortage may evolve. This understanding may especially be informed by experiences gained while navigating responses to future droughts.”

A spatial analysis was performed on the 2020 Census Block Groups, modified PLSS sections, and small water system service areas using a variety of input datasets related to drought vulnerability and water shortage risk and vulnerability. These indicator values were subsequently rescaled and summed for a final vulnerability score for the sections and small water system service areas. The 2020 Census Block Groups were joined with ACS data to represent the social vulnerability of communities, which is relevant to drought risk tolerance and resources. These three feature datasets contain the units of analysis (modified PLSS sections, block groups, small water systems service areas) with the model indicators for vulnerability in the attribute table. Model indicators are calculated for each unit of analysis according to the Vulnerability Scoring documents provided by Julia Ekstrom (Division of Regional Assistance).

All three feature classes are DWR analysis zones that are based off existing GIS datasets. The spatial data for the sections feature class is extracted from the Well Completion Reports PLSS sections to be aligned with the work and analysis that SGMA is doing. These are not true PLSS sections, but a version of the projected section lines in areas where there are gaps in PLSS. The spatial data for the Census block group feature class is downloaded from the Census. ACS (American Communities Survey) data is joined by block group, and statistics calculated by DWR have been added to the attribute table. The spatial data for the small water systems feature class was extracted from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SABL dataset, using a definition query to filter for active water systems with 3000 connections or less. None of these datasets are intended to be the authoritative datasets for representing PLSS sections, Census block groups, or water service areas. The spatial data of these feature classes is used as units of analysis for the spatial analysis performed by DWR.

These datasets are intended to be authoritative datasets of the scoring tools required from DWR according to Senate Bill 552. Please refer to the Drought and Water Shortage Vulnerability Scoring: California's Domestic Wells and State Smalls Systems documentation for more information on indicators and scoring. These estimated indicator scores may sometimes be calculated in several different ways, or may have been calculated from data that has since be updated. Counts of domestic wells may be calculated in different ways. In order to align with DWR SGMO's (State Groundwater Management Office) California Groundwater Live dashboards, domestic wells were calculated using the same query. This includes all domestic wells in the Well Completion Reports dataset that are completed after 12/31/1976, and have a 'RecordType' of 'WellCompletion/New/Production or Monitoring/NA'.

Please refer to the Well Completion Reports metadata for more information. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.4, dated September 14, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees — either expressed or implied— as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data.

DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to GIS@water.ca.gov.

The County Health Rankings, a collaboration between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, measure the health of nearly all counties in the nation and rank them within states. This feature layer contains 2022 County Health Rankings data for nation, state, and county levels. The Rankings are compiled using county-level measures from a variety of national and state data sources. Some example measures are:adult smokingphysical inactivityflu vaccinationschild povertydriving alone to workTo see a full list of variables, as well as their definitions and descriptions, explore the Fields information by clicking the Data tab here in the Item Details. These measures are standardized and combined using scientifically-informed weights."By ranking the health of nearly every county in the nation, County Health Rankings & Roadmaps (CHR&R) illustrates how where we live affects how well and how long we live. CHR&R also shows what each of us can do to create healthier places to live, learn, work, and play – for everyone."Counties are ranked within their state on both health outcomes and health factors. Counties with a lower (better) health outcomes ranking than health factors ranking may see the health of their county decline in the future, as factors today can result in outcomes later. Conversely, counties with a lower (better) factors ranking than outcomes ranking may see the health of their county improve in the future.Some new variables in the 2022 Rankings data compared to previous versions:COVID-19 age-adjusted mortalitySchool segregationSchool funding adequacyGender pay gapChildcare cost burdenChildcare centersLiving wage (while the Living wage measure was introduced to the CHRR dataset in 2022 from the Living Wage Calculator, it is not available in the Living Atlas dataset and user’s interested in the most up to date living wage data can look that up on the Living Wage Calculator website).Data Processing Notes:Data downloaded April 2022Slight modifications made to the source data are as follows:The string " raw value" was removed from field labels/aliases so that auto-generated legends and pop-ups would only have the measure's name, not "(measure's name) raw value" and strings such as "(%)", "rate", or "per 100,000" were added depending on the type of measure.Percentage and Prevalence fields were multiplied by 100 to make them easier to work with in the map.Ratios were set to null if negative to make them easier to work with in the map.For demographic variables, the word "numerator" was removed and the word "population" was added where appropriate.Fields dropped from analytic data file: yearall fields ending in "_cihigh" and "_cilow"and any variables that are not listed in the sources and years documentation.Analytic data file was then merged with state-specific ranking files so that all county rankings and subrankings are included in this layer.2010 US boundaries were used as the data contain 2010 US census geographies, for a total of 3,142 counties.

Note: Reporting of new COVID-19 Case Surveillance data will be discontinued July 1, 2024, to align with the process of removing SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19 cases) from the list of nationally notifiable diseases. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, the dataset will no longer be updated.

Authorizations to collect certain public health data expired at the end of the U.S. public health emergency declaration on May 11, 2023. The following jurisdictions discontinued COVID-19 case notifications to CDC: Iowa (11/8/21), Kansas (5/12/23), Kentucky (1/1/24), Louisiana (10/31/23), New Hampshire (5/23/23), and Oklahoma (5/2/23). Please note that these jurisdictions will not routinely send new case data after the dates indicated. As of 7/13/23, case notifications from Oregon will only include pediatric cases resulting in death.

This case surveillance public use dataset has 12 elements for all COVID-19 cases shared with CDC and includes demographics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors, and no geographic data.

CDC has three COVID-19 case surveillance datasets:

• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data with Geography: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical data (including symptoms), demographics, and county and state of residence. (19 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data and demographics, with no geographic data. (12 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Restricted Access Detailed Data: Restricted access, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data, demographics, and state and county of residence. Access requires a registration process and a data use agreement. (33 data elements)

• Data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.
• Data are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.
• Some data cells are suppressed to protect individual privacy.
• The datasets will include all cases with the earliest date available in each record (date received by CDC or date related to illness/specimen collection) at least 14 days prior to the creation of the current datasets. This 14-day lag allows case reporting to be stabilized and ensures that time-dependent outcome data are accurately captured.
• Datasets are updated monthly.
• Datasets are created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access and include protections designed to protect individual privacy.
• For more information about data collection and reporting, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/about-us-cases-deaths.html.
• For more information about the COVID-19 case surveillance data, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html
  

Overview

The COVID-19 case surveillance database includes individual-level data reported to U.S. states and autonomous reporting entities, including New York City and the District of Columbia (D.C.), as well as U.S. territories and affiliates. On April 5, 2020, COVID-19 was added to the Nationally Notifiable Condition List and classified as “immediately notifiable, urgent (within 24 hours)” by a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) Interim Position Statement (Interim-20-ID-01). CSTE updated the position statement on August 5, 2020, to clarify the interpretation of antigen detection tests and serologic test results within the case classification (Interim-20-ID-02). The statement also recommended that all states and territories enact laws to make COVID-19 reportable in their jurisdiction, and that jurisdictions conducting surveillance should submit case notifications to CDC. COVID-19 case surveillance data are collected by jurisdictions and reported voluntarily to CDC.

For more information: NNDSS Supports the COVID-19 Response | CDC.

The deidentified data in the “COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data” include demographic characteristics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, clinical data, laboratory diagnostic test results, and presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors. All data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.

COVID-19 Case Reports

COVID-19 case reports have been routinely submitted using nationally standardized case reporting forms. On April 5, 2020, CSTE released an Interim Position Statement with national surveillance case definitions for COVID-19 included. Current versions of these case definitions are available here: https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-definitions/coronavirus-disease-2019-2021/.

All cases reported on or after were requested to be shared by public health departments to CDC using the standardized case definitions for laboratory-confirmed or probable cases. On May 5, 2020, the standardized case reporting form was revised. Case reporting using this new form is ongoing among U.S. states and territories.

Data are Considered Provisional

• The COVID-19 case surveillance data are dynamic; case reports can be modified at any time by the jurisdictions sharing COVID-19 data with CDC. CDC may update prior cases shared with CDC based on any updated information from jurisdictions. For instance, as new information is gathered about previously reported cases, health departments provide updated data to CDC. As more information and data become available, analyses might find changes in surveillance data and trends during a previously reported time window. Data may also be shared late with CDC due to the volume of COVID-19 cases.
• Annual finalized data: To create the final NNDSS data used in the annual tables, CDC works carefully with the reporting jurisdictions to reconcile the data received during the year until each state or territorial epidemiologist confirms that the data from their area are correct.
• Access Addressing Gaps in Public Health Reporting of Race and Ethnicity for COVID-19, a report from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to better understand the challenges in completing race and ethnicity data for COVID-19 and recommendations for improvement.

Data Limitations

To learn more about the limitations in using case surveillance data, visit FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Data Quality Assurance Procedures

CDC’s Case Surveillance Section routinely performs data quality assurance procedures (i.e., ongoing corrections and logic checks to address data errors). To date, the following data cleaning steps have been implemented:

• Questions that have been left unanswered (blank) on the case report form are reclassified to a Missing value, if applicable to the question. For example, in the question “Was the individual hospitalized?” where the possible answer choices include “Yes,” “No,” or “Unknown,” the blank value is recoded to Missing because the case report form did not include a response to the question.
• Logic checks are performed for date data. If an illogical date has been provided, CDC reviews the data with the reporting jurisdiction. For example, if a symptom onset date in the future is reported to CDC, this value is set to null until the reporting jurisdiction updates the date appropriately.
• Additional data quality processing to recode free text data is ongoing. Data on symptoms, race and ethnicity, and healthcare worker status have been prioritized.

Data Suppression

To prevent release of data that could be used to identify people, data cells are suppressed for low frequency (<5) records and indirect identifiers (e.g., date of first positive specimen). Suppression includes rare combinations of demographic characteristics (sex, age group, race/ethnicity). Suppressed values are re-coded to the NA answer option; records with data suppression are never removed.

For questions, please contact Ask SRRG (eocevent394@cdc.gov).

Additional COVID-19 Data

COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths by state and by county. These

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status). Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2021, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population.

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status). Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2022, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population.

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status).Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2020, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status).Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2019, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population.

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status).Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2020, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status). Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2020, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population.

The American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) contains a sample of responses to the ACS. The ACS PUMS dataset includes variables for nearly every question on the survey, as well as many new variables that were derived after the fact from multiple survey responses (such as poverty status).Each record in the file represents a single person, or, in the household-level dataset, a single housing unit. In the person-level file, individuals are organized into households, making possible the study of people within the contexts of their families and other household members. Individuals living in Group Quarters, such as nursing facilities or college facilities, are also included on the person file. ACS PUMS data are available at the nation, state, and Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) levels. PUMAs are special non-overlapping areas that partition each state into contiguous geographic units containing roughly 100,000 people each. ACS PUMS files for an individual year, such as 2020, contain data on approximately one percent of the United States population

Changelog:

Update September 20, 2021: Data and overview updated to reflect data used in the September 15 story Over Half of States Have Rolled Back Public Health Powers in Pandemic. It includes 303 state or local public health leaders who resigned, retired or were fired between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021. Previous versions of this dataset reflected data used in the Dec. 2020 and April 2021 stories.

Overview

Across the U.S., state and local public health officials have found themselves at the center of a political storm as they combat the worst pandemic in a century. Amid a fractured federal response, the usually invisible army of workers charged with preventing the spread of infectious disease has become a public punching bag.

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, at least 303 state or local public health leaders in 41 states have resigned, retired or been fired since April 1, 2020, according to an ongoing investigation by The Associated Press and KHN.

According to experts, that is the largest exodus of public health leaders in American history.

Many left due to political blowback or pandemic pressure, as they became the target of groups that have coalesced around a common goal — fighting and even threatening officials over mask orders and well-established public health activities like quarantines and contact tracing. Some left to take higher profile positions, or due to health concerns. Others were fired for poor performance. Dozens retired. An untold number of lower level staffers have also left.

The result is a further erosion of the nation’s already fragile public health infrastructure, which KHN and the AP documented beginning in 2020 in the Underfunded and Under Threat project.

Findings

The AP and KHN found that:

• One in five Americans live in a community that has lost its local public health department leader during the pandemic
• Top public health officials in 28 states have left state-level departments ## Using this data To filter for data specific to your state, use this query

To get total numbers of exits by state, broken down by state and local departments, use this query

Methodology

KHN and AP counted how many state and local public health leaders have left their jobs between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021.

The government tasks public health workers with improving the health of the general population, through their work to encourage healthy living and prevent infectious disease. To that end, public health officials do everything from inspecting water and food safety to testing the nation’s babies for metabolic diseases and contact tracing cases of syphilis.

Many parts of the country have a health officer and a health director/administrator by statute. The analysis counted both of those positions if they existed. For state-level departments, the count tracks people in the top and second-highest-ranking job.

The analysis includes exits of top department officials regardless of reason, because no matter the reason, each left a vacancy at the top of a health agency during the pandemic. Reasons for departures include political pressure, health concerns and poor performance. Others left to take higher profile positions or to retire. Some departments had multiple top officials exit over the course of the pandemic; each is included in the analysis.

Reporters compiled the exit list by reaching out to public health associations and experts in every state and interviewing hundreds of public health employees. They also received information from the National Association of City and County Health Officials, and combed news reports and records.

Public health departments can be found at multiple levels of government. Each state has a department that handles these tasks, but most states also have local departments that either operate under local or state control. The population served by each local health department is calculated using the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 Population Estimates based on each department’s jurisdiction.

KHN and the AP have worked since the spring on a series of stories documenting the funding, staffing and problems around public health. A previous data distribution detailed a decade's worth of cuts to state and local spending and staffing on public health. That data can be found here.

Attribution

Findings and the data should be cited as: "According to a KHN and Associated Press report."

Is Data Missing?

If you know of a public health official in your state or area who has left that position between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021 and isn't currently in our dataset, please contact authors Anna Maria Barry-Jester annab@kff.org, Hannah Recht hrecht@kff.org, Michelle Smith mrsmith@ap.org and Lauren Weber laurenw@kff.org.

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).