The United States has an average elevation of roughly 2,500 feet (763m) above sea level, however there is a stark contrast in elevations across the country. Highest states Colorado is the highest state in the United States, with an average elevation of 6,800 feet (2,074m) above sea level. The 10 states with the highest average elevation are all in the western region of the country, as this is, by far, the most mountainous region in the country. The largest mountain ranges in the contiguous western states are the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada, and Cascade Range, while the Appalachian Mountains is the longest range in the east - however, the highest point in the U.S. is Denali (Mount McKinley), found in Alaska. Lowest states At just 60 feet above sea level, Delaware is the state with the lowest elevation. Delaware is the second smallest state, behind Rhode Island, and is located on the east coast. Larger states with relatively low elevations are found in the southern region of the country - both Florida and Louisiana have an average elevation of just 100 feet (31m) above sea level, and large sections of these states are extremely vulnerable to flooding and rising sea levels, as well as intermittent tropical storms.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 51 states in the United States by American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each states over the past five years.

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Native American Population: This column displays the rank of states in the United States by their American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• states: The states for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Native American Population: The Native American population of the states is shown in this column.
• % of Total states Population: This shows what percentage of the total states population identifies as Native American. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total U.S. Native American Population: This tells us how much of the entire United States Native American population lives in that states. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

In 2021, about 13.43 million households were counted in the federal state of California, the most out of any state. Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania rounded out the top five states with the most number of households in that year.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 51 states in the United States by Non-Hispanic White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each states over the past five years.

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

As of April 2025, it was found that Florida and New York were the two most visited states by adults in the United States, having been visited by ** and ** percent of respondents, respectively. In contrast, only ** percent of respondents said they had visited Alaska, making it the least-visited state. What is the most visited national park in the U.S.? With approximately **** million recreational visits in 2023, the Blue Ridge Parkway was the most visited National Park Service park in the United States. The park extends *** miles through Virginia and North Carolina, connecting the Shenandoah National Park to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Meanwhile, the number of recreational visitors to Yellowstone National Park in 2023 was *** million, up from the previous year’s total of **** million. How many domestic leisure trips do Americans take? The number of domestic leisure trips in the U.S. amounted to **** billion in 2022. As estimated, domestic leisure travels in the U.S. dropped to *** billion in 2020. This was due to travel restrictions related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It is forecast that the number of leisure trips will recover gradually during the following years, reaching * billion by 2026. The number of business trips, by comparison, is forecast to reach *** million that same year.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 51 states in the United States by Some Other Race (SOR) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each states over the past five years.

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

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.

California was the leading U.S. state in terms of the overall number of milk cows, with a total of over 1.7 million milk cows as of July 2025. The total number of milk cows on farms in the United States shows that California holds a significant share of the total number of milk cows in the country. Unsurprisingly, California is also the leading milk-producing state in the United States. Dairy industry in the U.S. According to the USDA, milk from U.S. farms is 90 percent water, with milk fat and skim solids comprising the remaining 10 percent. Cow milk is a component of several dietary staples, such as cheese, butter, and yogurt. Dairy is a very important industry in the United States, with this sector alone creating significant employment throughout the United States. The overall income of dairy farms in the U.S. amounted to about 51.3 billion U.S. dollars. Holstein is the most popular breed of dairy cow farmed in the United States. Holstein have the highest milk production per cow in comparison to any other breed. Where is the U.S. positioned in the global dairy market? Topped only by the EU-27, the United States ranks as the second-largest cow milk producer in the world, followed by India, Russia, and China. The United States also features among the top ten global milk exporters. The outlook for the future of the industry is also good, with milk production in the United States projected to steadily increase over the next years.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 51 states in the United States by Multi-Racial Asian population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each states over the past five years.

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

Complete dataset of average residential and commercial electricity rates in cents per kWh for all 50 states and D.C. as of December 2025.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 51 states in the United States by Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each states over the past five years.

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Pacific Islander Population: This column displays the rank of states in the United States by their Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• states: The states for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Pacific Islander Population: The Pacific Islander population of the states is shown in this column.
• % of Total states Population: This shows what percentage of the total states population identifies as Pacific Islander. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total U.S. Pacific Islander Population: This tells us how much of the entire United States Pacific Islander population lives in that states. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

Annual Population Estimates, Estimated Components of Resident Population Change, and Rates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, States, and Puerto Rico // Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division // Note: Total population change includes a residual. This residual represents the change in population that cannot be attributed to any specific demographic component. See Population Estimates Terms and Definitions at http://www.census.gov/popest/about/terms.html. // Net international migration (except for Puerto Rico) includes the international migration of both native and foreign-born populations. Specifically, it includes: (a) the net international migration of the foreign born, (b) the net migration between the United States and Puerto Rico, (c) the net migration of natives to and from the United States, and (d) the net movement of the Armed Forces population between the United States and overseas. Net international migration for Puerto Rico includes the migration of native and foreign-born populations between the United States and Puerto Rico. // The estimates are based on the 2010 Census and reflect changes to the April 1, 2010 population due to the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. See Geographic Terms and Definitions at http://www.census.gov/popest/about/geo/terms.html for a list of the states that are included in each region and division. // For detailed information about the methods used to create the population estimates, see http://www.census.gov/popest/methodology/index.html. // Each year, the Census Bureaus Population Estimates Program (PEP) utilizes current data on births, deaths, and migration to calculate population change since the most recent decennial census, and produces a time series of estimates of population. The annual time series of estimates begins with the most recent decennial census data and extends to the vintage year. The vintage year (e.g., V2014) refers to the final year of the time series. The reference date for all estimates is July 1, unless otherwise specified. With each new issue of estimates, the Census Bureau revises estimates for years back to the last census. As each vintage of estimates includes all years since the most recent decennial census, the latest vintage of data available supersedes all previously produced estimates for those dates. The Population Estimates Program provides additional information including historical and intercensal estimates, evaluation estimates, demographic analysis, and research papers on its website: http://www.census.gov/popest/index.html.

The 2022 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The records in this file allow users to map the parts of the 118th Congressional Districts that overlap a particular county. Congressional districts are the 435 areas from which people are elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. After the apportionment of congressional seats among the states based on census population counts, each state is responsible for establishing congressional districts for the purpose of electing representatives. Each congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in a state as practicable. The 118th Congress is seated from January 2023 through December 2024. In Connecticut, Illinois, and New Hampshire, the Redistricting Data Program (RDP) participant did not define the CDs to cover all of the state or state equivalent area. In these areas with no CDs defined, the code "ZZ" has been assigned, which is treated as a single CD for purposes of data presentation. The cartographic boundary files for the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) each contain a single record for the non-voting delegate district in these areas. The generalzied boundaries of all other congressional districts are based on information provided to the Census Bureau by the states by August 31, 2022. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The generalized boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are based on those as of January 1, 2022, primarily as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest of the domestic nutrition assistance programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), providing millions of Americans with the means to purchase food for a nutritious diet. During fiscal year (FY) 2020, SNAP served an average of 39.9 million people monthly and paid out $74.2 billion in benefits, which includes the cost of emergency allotments to supplement SNAP benefits due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. In response to legislative adjustments to program rules and changes in economic and demographic trends, the characteristics of SNAP participants and households and the size of the SNAP caseload change over time. To quantify these changes or estimate the effect of adjustments to program rules on the current SNAP caseload, FNS relies on data from the SNAP Quality Control (QC) database. This database is an edited version of the raw data file of monthly case reviews conducted by State SNAP agencies to assess the accuracy of eligibility determinations and benefit calculations for each State’s SNAP caseload. The COVID-19 public health emergency resulted in an incomplete FY 2020 sample in the raw data file. FNS granted States temporary waivers on conducting QC reviews starting in March 2020. Very few States collected QC data from March 2020 through May 2020. Most States opted to conduct QC reviews from June 2020 through September 2020, although FNS was unable to provide its usual level of oversight of the sampling procedures. Furthermore, monthly State samples for this time period were often smaller than usual. This dataset includes separate SNAP QC files for FY 2020. The first covers the “pre-pandemic” period of October 2019 through February 2020. The second covers the “waiver” period of June 2020 through September 2020 for the 47 States and territories that provided sufficient data for at least one of those months. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Fiscal Year 2020 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control Database (Period 2). File Name: qc_pub_fy2020_per2.csvResource Description: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest of the domestic nutrition assistance programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), providing millions of Americans with the means to purchase food for a nutritious diet. During fiscal year (FY) 2020, SNAP served an average of 39.9 million people monthly and paid out $74.2 billion in benefits, which includes the cost of emergency allotments to supplement SNAP benefits due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. In response to legislative adjustments to program rules and changes in economic and demographic trends, the characteristics of SNAP participants and households and the size of the SNAP caseload change over time. To quantify these changes or estimate the effect of adjustments to program rules on the current SNAP caseload, FNS relies on data from the SNAP Quality Control (QC) database. This database is an edited version of the raw data file of monthly case reviews conducted by State SNAP agencies to assess the accuracy of eligibility determinations and benefit calculations for each State’s SNAP caseload.

The COVID-19 public health emergency resulted in an incomplete FY 2020 sample in the raw data file. FNS granted States temporary waivers on conducting QC reviews starting in March 2020. Very few States collected QC data from March 2020 through May 2020. Most States opted to conduct QC reviews from June 2020 through September 2020, although FNS was unable to provide its usual level of oversight of the sampling procedures. Furthermore, monthly State samples for this time period were often smaller than usual.

There are separate SNAP QC databases for FY 2020. The first covers the “pre-pandemic” period of October 2019 through February 2020. The second covers the “waiver” period of June 2020 through September 2020 for the 47 States and territories that provided sufficient data for at least one of those months.Resource Title: Fiscal Year 2020 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control Database (Period 1). File Name: qc_pub_fy2020_per1.csvResource Description: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest of the domestic nutrition assistance programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), providing millions of Americans with the means to purchase food for a nutritious diet. During fiscal year (FY) 2020, SNAP served an average of 39.9 million people monthly and paid out $74.2 billion in benefits, which includes the cost of emergency allotments to supplement SNAP benefits due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. In response to legislative adjustments to program rules and changes in economic and demographic trends, the characteristics of SNAP participants and households and the size of the SNAP caseload change over time. To quantify these changes or estimate the effect of adjustments to program rules on the current SNAP caseload, FNS relies on data from the SNAP Quality Control (QC) database. This database is an edited version of the raw data file of monthly case reviews conducted by State SNAP agencies to assess the accuracy of eligibility determinations and benefit calculations for each State’s SNAP caseload.

The COVID-19 public health emergency resulted in an incomplete FY 2020 sample in the raw data file. FNS granted States temporary waivers on conducting QC reviews starting in March 2020. Very few States collected QC data from March 2020 through May 2020. Most States opted to conduct QC reviews from June 2020 through September 2020, although FNS was unable to provide its usual level of oversight of the sampling procedures. Furthermore, monthly State samples for this time period were often smaller than usual.

There are separate SNAP QC databases for FY 2020. The first covers the “pre-pandemic” period of October 2019 through February 2020. The second covers the “waiver” period of June 2020 through September 2020 for the 47 States and territories that provided sufficient data for at least one of those months.Resource Title: Technical Documentation for the Fiscal Year 2020 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control Database and the QC Minimodel. File Name: FY2020TechDoc.pdfResource Description: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest of the domestic nutrition assistance programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), providing millions of Americans with the means to purchase food for a nutritious diet. During fiscal year (FY) 2020, SNAP served an average of 39.9 million people monthly and paid out $74.2 billion in benefits, which includes the cost of emergency allotments to supplement SNAP benefits due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. In response to legislative adjustments to program rules and changes in economic and demographic trends, the characteristics of SNAP participants and households and the size of the SNAP caseload change over time. To quantify these changes or estimate the effect of adjustments to program rules on the current SNAP caseload, FNS relies on data from the SNAP Quality Control (QC) database. This database is an edited version of the raw data file of monthly case reviews conducted by State SNAP agencies to assess the accuracy of eligibility determinations and benefit calculations for each State’s SNAP caseload.

The COVID-19 public health emergency resulted in an incomplete FY 2020 sample in the raw data file. FNS granted States temporary waivers on conducting QC reviews starting in March 2020. Very few States collected QC data from March 2020 through May 2020. Most States opted to conduct QC reviews from June 2020 through September 2020, although FNS was unable to provide its usual level of oversight of the sampling procedures. Furthermore, monthly State samples for this time period were often smaller than usual.

There are separate SNAP QC databases for FY 2020. The first covers the “pre-pandemic” period of October 2019 through February 2020. The second covers the “waiver” period of June 2020 through September 2020 for the 47 States and territories that provided sufficient data for at least one of those months.

This web map depicts all states and territories profiled in the Guide to Law Online: United States. Each location links to a pop-up containing links to establishing documents of each state or territory, as well as the associated Guide to Law Online link.Click on each state or territory to open a pop-up that displays an image or map from the Library's catalog, followed by a link to the respective Guide to Law Online, along with important legislation from each location's history. Most of these links come from the Law Library's Statutes at Large collection. Patrons can also reference the Congressional Research Service's report, Admission of States to the Union: A Historical Reference Guide. Research support for the legislation and image links was provided by Digital Resources Intern Jewel Navia.

To access this data:

This data is available for licensing to anyone interested in understanding risks around hazardous dams. To request access, click REQUEST ACCESS or email Ken Romano at kromano@ap.org.

Update 2/20/20 This data has been updated with the following: * The dams_in_nid_state_reports.csv file has been updated to include a column for owner_name, as it was provided by the states. Nearly 30,000 dam entries did not have an owner_name provided. Owner names may need deduplication, due to alternate name spellings in the data provided. * New findings regarding dams lacking emergency action plans in Southeastern states, in the Findings section.

Overview

The nation’s dams are on average more than a half-century old and, in some cases, weren’t designed to handle the amount of water that could result from the increasingly intense rainstorms of a changing climate. Yet almost no information has been publicly available about the condition of these dams. Since 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has redacted inspectors’ condition assessments from its National Inventory of Dams over security concerns; the Corps makes publicly available only the hazard rating of certain dams, which assesses the potential for loss of human life or economic and environmental damage should a dam fail.

The Associated Press has created an exclusive dataset that fills in those information gaps for a subset of dams across the country. It found at least 1,688 high hazard dams that are in poor or unsatisfactory condition, and in places where failure is likely to kill at least one person.

The AP’s analysis is based on data obtained through dozens of state open-records requests, which allowed the AP to compile a dataset that contains both hazard levels and condition ratings for dams in 45 states and Puerto Rico. Five states – Alabama, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Texas – did not fully comply with the records request for reasons described in the methodology and caveats sections below. (Iowa provided all requested documents but had no dams listed as both high hazard and in poor or unsatisfactory condition).

For the subset of high hazard dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition, the AP is sharing state inspection reports and local emergency action plans that provide additional details about the problems of some particular dams, their potential to inundate nearby areas if they were to catastrophically fail and plans to respond should there be a disaster.

The AP also analyzed the annual budget and staffing levels for dam safety offices in each state using data from an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Additionally, the AP obtained data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and state dam safety offices about $10 million of federal grants that were awarded this fall to 26 states. The grants are the first under the new Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams Grant Program. The money is to go toward risk assessments and engineering designs to repair high hazard dams that have failed to meet safety standards and pose an unacceptable risk to the public.

Findings

The AP’s analysis found: * Update 2/20/20: As storms, floods, and dam breaches have hit Mississippi in recent weeks, emergency action plans have been important in denoting whom to contact, who and what has been in danger, and how to handle a dam emergency. An Associated Press analysis of data received in summer 2018 from state and federal agencies found that 111 of the 375 high hazard dams in Mississippi were missing emergency action plans – nearly 30 percent. Some other Southern states had even more dams lacking emergency plans. In North Carolina, 578 of the 1,277 of high hazard dams, nearly half of them, had no emergency plan. In Georgia, 259 of the 623 were missing emergency plans. In fact, in at least seven Southeastern states, at least 20 percent of the high hazard dams were missing emergency plans as of summer 2018. * There are at least 1,688 high hazard dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition in 44 states and Puerto Rico. These potentially dangerous dams account for about 19% of the more than 8,800 high hazard dams for which the AP obtained condition ratings. Iowa listed no high hazard dams as poor or unsatisfactory. * More than half of the dams in the AP’s list of high hazard facilities in poor or unsatisfactory condition are privately owned, which can create challenges for state regulatory agencies seeking to enforce needed repairs or improvements. * About half of the dams in the AP’s list of high hazard facilities in poor or unsatisfactory condition are used primarily for recreation, though that may not have been the purpose for which the dams originally were built. Nearly one-fifth of the dams are used primarily for flood control. * Georgia had 198 high hazard dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition, the highest number among all states for which the AP obtained data. North Carolina was second with 168 such dams, followed by Pennsylvania with 145, Mississippi with 132, Ohio with 124 and South Carolina with 109. * As of summer 2018, more than a quarter of the high hazard dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition had inspection reports that were more than 1.5 years out of date, and about 35% didn’t have emergency action plans documenting procedures in case of the dam’s failure. Note that some of those dams could have undergone inspections or adopted emergency plans since then. * Budget and staffing levels for state dam safety offices declined following the Great Recession and have generally risen since then. California, which has the nation’s largest dam safety program, boosted its budget from around $13 million in 2017 to $20 million this past year and increased its full-time staff positions from 63 to 77 following the failure of the Oroville dam spillway in 2017. * Thirteen states and Puerto Rico were spending less on dam safety programs in their 2019 fiscal years than they did in 2011, and 11 states had fewer full-time positions in their programs as of last year. Alabama is the only state with no dam safety program. * States often have small dam safety staffs to oversee large numbers of dams. Indiana is representative of many states, with a $500,000 budget and six full-time staff positions for a dam safety office that regulates 840 dams.

Localization ideas

The AP’s database of dam inspection records collected from state agencies can be filtered to find the high hazard dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition in your state.

That data also provides key details that can be used for further reporting about the facilities, including their names, exact locations, identification numbers, the year they were built and the dates of their most recent inspections and emergency action plans. For many of these dams, the AP also has provided documents detailing their most recent inspection reports and emergency plans. The datasets on state dam safety program budgets and personnel also can be used to examine how a state’s regulatory oversight has changed over time.

Use the entire dams dataset to map all the dams in your state, find out what share of dams in your state are high hazard and in poor or unsatisfactory condition, and to do further analysis on ownership and purpose.

Some questions to ask:

Are there nearby dams in poor condition that could cause widespread damage if they failed? * Emergency action plans include potential inundation zones if a high hazard dam were to fail. For example, one community potentially in harm’s way is Norwood, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb of nearly 30,000 people. The high hazard dam on nearby Willett Pond is rated in poor condition, primarily because its spillway is capable of handling only about 13% of the water flow from a serious flood, according to a recent inspection report. More than 1,300 properties with structures lie within the dam’s potential inundation zone, including several shopping centers, at least two elementary schools, more than 70 roads and two railroads.

Are there high hazard dams for which there are concerns about whether the structure could withstand a natural disaster? * One example of this is in Alaska, which has five high hazard dams in poor or unsatisfactory condition. Several inspections raised concerns about seismic activity. Inspection reports for the Lower and Upper Wrangell dams note that neither dam “is found to be stable during a seismic event.”

Are there dams with outdated or missing emergency action plans? * One example of this is in New Mexico, where many dams had no emergency action plans as of summer 2018. Many dams there also were rated poor because authorities had no design plans for them. In addition, inspection reports for the majority of the dams mentioned that the dams did not meet standards for a probable maximum precipitation event.

How have state officials responded to previous concerns about the safety of dams? * Following widespread dam failures during intense rainstorms in 2015-2016, South Carolina tripled the personnel in its dam safety program and increased its budget from about $260,000 annually to about $1 million. By contrast, Missouri took no action after a mountaintop reservoir failed in 2005, injuring a park superintendent’s family in the resulting flash flood. Though the governor proposed to significantly expand the number of dams subject to state inspections, the legislation failed to pass.

Interactive

The AP is making an interactive map made in partnership with ESRI for this dataset available early to aid in reporting.

The interactive displays the 1,688 dams in the dataset that are high hazard and in poor or unsatisfactory condition. Coloring is determined by how overdue its last inspection, as of July 2018, is from its expected inspection frequency. By clicking on individual dams, more detailed information from the AP dataset

More than 39 million people and 14.2 million households span more than 163,000 square miles of Californian’s urban, suburban and rural communities. California has the fifth largest economy in the world and is the most populous state in the nation, with nation-leading diversity in race, ethnicity, language and socioeconomic conditions. These characteristics make California amazingly unique amongst all 50 states, but also present significant challenges to counting every person and every household, no matter the census year. A complete and accurate count of a state’s population in a decennial census is essential. The results of the 2020 Census will inform decisions about allocating hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding to communities across the country for hospitals, fire departments, school lunch programs and other critical programs and services. The data collected by the United States Census Bureau (referred hereafter as U.S. Census Bureau) also determines the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and will be used to redraw State Assembly and Senate boundaries. California launched a comprehensive Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (referred to hereafter as the Campaign) to support an accurate and complete count of Californians in the 2020 Census. Due to the state’s unique diversity and with insights from past censuses, the Campaign placed special emphasis on the hardest-tocount Californians and those least likely to participate in the census. The California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (referred to hereafter as the Census Office) coordinated the State’s operations to complement work done nationally by the U.S. Census Bureau to reach those households most likely to be missed because of barriers, operational or motivational, preventing people from filling out the census. The Campaign, which began in 2017, included key phases, titled Educate, Motivate and Activate. Each of these phases were designed to make sure all Californians knew about the census, how to respond, their information was safe and their participation would help their communities for the next 10 years.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 50 states in the United States by Kazakh population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each state over the past five years.

Content

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

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

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.

The gross domestic product (GDP) of California was about 4.1 trillion U.S. dollars in 2024, meaning that it contributed the most out of any state to the country’s GDP in that year. In contrast, Vermont had the lowest GDP in the United States, with 45.71 billion U.S. dollars. What is GDP? Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the total monetary value of all goods and services produced by an economy within a certain time period. GDP is used by economists to determine the economic health of an area, as well as to determine the size of the economy. GDP can be determined for countries, states and provinces, and metropolitan areas. While GDP is a good measure of the absolute size of a country's economy and economic activity, it does account for many other factors, making it a poor indicator for measuring the cost or standard of living in a country, or for making cross-country comparisons. GDP of the United States The United States has the largest gross domestic product in the world as of 2023, with China, Japan, Germany, and India rounding out the top five. The GDP of the United States has almost quadrupled since 1990, when it was about 5.9 trillion U.S. dollars, to about 25.46 trillion U.S. dollars in 2022.