Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.30 percent in August from 4.20 percent in July of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States increased to 62.30 percent in August from 62.20 percent in July of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Labor Force Participation Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Cervical Cancer Risk Factors for Biopsy: This Dataset is Obtained from UCI Repository and kindly acknowledged! This file contains a List of Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer leading to a Biopsy Examination! About 11,000 new cases of invasive cervical cancer are diagnosed each year in the U.S. However, the number of new cervical cancer cases has been declining steadily over the past decades. Although it is the most preventable type of cancer, each year cervical cancer kills about 4,000 women in the U.S. and about 300,000 women worldwide. In the United States, cervical cancer mortality rates plunged by 74% from 1955 - 1992 thanks to increased screening and early detection with the Pap test. AGE Fifty percent of cervical cancer diagnoses occur in women ages 35 - 54, and about 20% occur in women over 65 years of age. The median age of diagnosis is 48 years. About 15% of women develop cervical cancer between the ages of 20 - 30. Cervical cancer is extremely rare in women younger than age 20. However, many young women become infected with multiple types of human papilloma virus, which then can increase their risk of getting cervical cancer in the future. Young women with early abnormal changes who do not have regular examinations are at high risk for localized cancer by the time they are age 40, and for invasive cancer by age 50. SOCIOECONOMIC AND ETHNIC FACTORS Although the rate of cervical cancer has declined among both Caucasian and African-American women over the past decades, it remains much more prevalent in African-Americans -- whose death rates are twice as high as Caucasian women. Hispanic American women have more than twice the risk of invasive cervical cancer as Caucasian women, also due to a lower rate of screening. These differences, however, are almost certainly due to social and economic differences. Numerous studies report that high poverty levels are linked with low screening rates. In addition, lack of health insurance, limited transportation, and language difficulties hinder a poor woman’s access to screening services. HIGH SEXUAL ACTIVITY Human papilloma virus (HPV) is the main risk factor for cervical cancer. In adults, the most important risk factor for HPV is sexual activity with an infected person. Women most at risk for cervical cancer are those with a history of multiple sexual partners, sexual intercourse at age 17 years or younger, or both. A woman who has never been sexually active has a very low risk for developing cervical cancer. Sexual activity with multiple partners increases the likelihood of many other sexually transmitted infections (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis).Studies have found an association between chlamydia and cervical cancer risk, including the possibility that chlamydia may prolong HPV infection. FAMILY HISTORY Women have a higher risk of cervical cancer if they have a first-degree relative (mother, sister) who has had cervical cancer. USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES Studies have reported a strong association between cervical cancer and long-term use of oral contraception (OC). Women who take birth control pills for more than 5 - 10 years appear to have a much higher risk HPV infection (up to four times higher) than those who do not use OCs. (Women taking OCs for fewer than 5 years do not have a significantly higher risk.) The reasons for this risk from OC use are not entirely clear. Women who use OCs may be less likely to use a diaphragm, condoms, or other methods that offer some protection against sexual transmitted diseases, including HPV. Some research also suggests that the hormones in OCs might help the virus enter the genetic material of cervical cells. HAVING MANY CHILDREN Studies indicate that having many children increases the risk for developing cervical cancer, particularly in women infected with HPV. SMOKING Smoking is associated with a higher risk for precancerous changes (dysplasia) in the cervix and for progression to invasive cervical cancer, especially for women infected with HPV. IMMUNOSUPPRESSION Women with weak immune systems, (such as those with HIV / AIDS), are more susceptible to acquiring HPV. Immunocompromised patients are also at higher risk for having cervical precancer develop rapidly into invasive cancer. DIETHYLSTILBESTROL (DES) From 1938 - 1971, diethylstilbestrol (DES), an estrogen-related drug, was widely prescribed to pregnant women to help prevent miscarriages. The daughters of these women face a higher risk for cervical cancer. DES is no longer prsecribed.

Job Quits Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 2 percent in July. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for the United States Job Quits Rate.

This is the proportion of the population aged 16 to 64 who are economically inactive. Economically inactive are people who are neither in employment nor unemployed. This group includes: all those who were looking after a family/home, sick, retired or students; those 'Wanting A Job' - people not in employment who want a job but are not classed as unemployed because they have either not sought work in the last four weeks or are not available to start work; and those 'Not Wanting A Job' - people who are neither in employment nor unemployed and who do not want a job. While the source is a rolling annual survey updated quarterly, a given 12-month period should be compared to the matching 12-month period in previous years to obtain valid comparisons. The data for district and unitary authorities is generally taken not directly from the Annual Population Survey but from associated modelled estimates produced by the Office for National Statistics, which provide greater accuracy.Data is Powered by LG Inform Plus and automatically checked for new data on the 3rd of each month.

The residential vacancy rate is the percentage of residential units that are unoccupied, or vacant, in a given year. The U.S. Census Bureau defines occupied housing units as “owner-occupied” or “renter-occupied.” Vacant housing units are not classified by tenure in this way, as they are not occupied by an owner or renter.

The residential vacancy rate serves as an indicator of the condition of the area’s housing market. Low residential vacancy rates indicate that demand for housing is high compared to the housing supply. However, the aggregate residential vacancy rate is lacking in granularity. For example, the housing market for rental units in the area and the market for buying a unit in the same area may be very different, and the aggregate rate will not show those distinct conditions. Furthermore, the vacancy rate may be high, or low, for a variety of reasons. A high vacancy rate may result from a falling population, but it may also result from a recent construction spree that added many units to the total stock.

The residential vacancy rate in Champaign County appears to have fluctuated between 8% and 14% from 2005 through 2022, reaching a peak near 14% in 2019. In 2023, this rate dropped to about 7%, its lowest value since 2005. However, this rate was calculated using the American Community Survey’s (ACS) estimated number of vacant houses per year, which has year-to-year fluctuations that are largely not statistically significant. Thus, we cannot establish a trend for this data.

The residential vacancy rate data shown here was calculated using the estimated total housing units and estimated vacant housing units 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 Occupancy Status.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25002, 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 B25002, 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 B25002, generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (4 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25002, 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 B25002, 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 B25002, 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 B25002, 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 B25002, 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 B25002; 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 SB25002; 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 B25002; 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 B25002; 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 B25002; 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 B25002; 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 B25002; 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 B25002; 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 B25002; 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 B25002; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

Graph and download economic data for Personal Saving Rate (PSAVERT) from Jan 1959 to Jul 2025 about savings, personal, rate, and USA.

A. SUMMARY This dataset includes San Francisco COVID-19 tests by race/ethnicity and by date. This dataset represents the daily count of tests collected, and the breakdown of test results (positive, negative, or indeterminate). Tests in this dataset include all those collected from persons who listed San Francisco as their home address at the time of testing. It also includes tests that were collected by San Francisco providers for persons who were missing a locating address. This dataset does not include tests for residents listing a locating address outside of San Francisco, even if they were tested in San Francisco.

The data were de-duplicated by individual and date, so if a person gets tested multiple times on different dates, all tests will be included in this dataset (on the day each test was collected). If a person tested multiple times on the same date, only one test is included from that date. When there are multiple tests on the same date, a positive result, if one exists, will always be selected as the record for the person. If a PCR and antigen test are taken on the same day, the PCR test will supersede. If a person tests multiple times on the same day and the results are all the same (e.g. all negative or all positive) then the first test done is selected as the record for the person.

The total number of positive test results is not equal to the total number of COVID-19 cases in San Francisco.

When a person gets tested for COVID-19, they may be asked to report information about themselves. One piece of information that might be requested is a person's race and ethnicity. These data are often incomplete in the laboratory and provider reports of the test results sent to the health department. The data can be missing or incomplete for several possible reasons:

• The person was not asked about their race and ethnicity.
• The person was asked, but refused to answer.
• The person answered, but the testing provider did not include the person's answers in the reports.
• The testing provider reported the person's answers in a format that could not be used by the health department.

For any of these reasons, a person's race/ethnicity will be recorded in the dataset as “Unknown.”

B. NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY The different values for Race/Ethnicity in this dataset are "Asian;" "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" "White;" "Multi-racial;" "Other;" and “Unknown."

The Race/Ethnicity categorization increases data clarity by emulating the methodology used by the U.S. Census in the American Community Survey. Specifically, persons who identify as "Asian," "Black or African American," "American Indian or Alaska Native," "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," "White," "Multi-racial," or "Other" do NOT include any person who identified as Hispanic/Latino at any time in their testing reports that either (1) identified them as SF residents or (2) as someone who tested without a locating address by an SF provider. All persons across all races who identify as Hispanic/Latino are recorded as “"Hispanic or Latino/a, all races." This categorization increases data accuracy by correcting the way “Other” persons were counted. Previously, when a person reported “Other” for Race/Ethnicity, they would be recorded “Unknown.” Under the new categorization, they are counted as “Other” and are distinct from “Unknown.”

If a person records their race/ethnicity as “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other” for their first COVID-19 test, then this data will not change—even if a different race/ethnicity is reported for this person for any future COVID-19 test. There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is if a person’s race/ethnicity value is reported as “Unknown” on their first test and then on a subsequent test they report “Asian;” "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" or "White”, then this subsequent reported race/ethnicity will overwrite the previous recording of “Unknown”. If a person has only ever selected “Unknown” as their race/ethnicity, then it will be recorded as “Unknown.” This change provides more specific and actionable data on who is tested in San Francisco.

The second exception is if a person ever marks “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races” for race/ethnicity then this choice will always overwrite any previous or future response. This is because it is an overarching category that can include any and all other races and is mutually exclusive with the other responses.

A person's race/ethnicity will be recorded as “Multi-racial” if they select two or more values among the following choices: “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other.” If a person selects a combination of two or more race/ethnicity answers that includes “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races” then they will still be recorded as “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races”—not as “Multi-racial.”

C. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED COVID-19 laboratory test data is based on electronic laboratory test reports. Deduplication, quality assurance measures and other data verification processes maximize accuracy of laboratory test information.

D. UPDATE PROCESS Updates automatically at 5:00AM Pacific Time each day. Redundant runs are scheduled at 7:00AM and 9:00AM in case of pipeline failure.

E. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET San Francisco population estimates for race/ethnicity can be found in a view based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset. These population estimates are from the 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).

Due to the high degree of variation in the time needed to complete tests by different labs there is a delay in this reporting. On March 24, 2020 the Health Officer ordered all labs in the City to report complete COVID-19 testing information to the local and state health departments.

In order to track trends over time, a user can analyze this data by sorting or filtering by the "specimen_collection_date" field.

Calculating Percent Positivity: The positivity rate is the percentage of tests that return a positive result for COVID-19 (positive tests divided by the sum of positive and negative tests). Indeterminate results, which could not conclusively determine whether COVID-19 virus was present, are not included in the calculation of percent positive. When there are fewer than 20 positives tests for a given race/ethnicity and time period, the positivity rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.

Calculating Testing Rates: To calculate the testing rate per 10,000 residents, divide the total number of tests collected (positive, negative, and indeterminate results) for the specified race/ethnicity by the total number of residents who identify as that race/ethnicity (according to the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) population estimate), then multiply by 10,000. When there are fewer than 20 total tests for a given race/ethnicity and time period, the testing rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.

Read more about how this data is updated and validated daily: https://sf.gov/information/covid-19-data-questions

F. CHANGE LOG

• 1/12/2024 - This dataset will stop updating as of 1/12/2024
• 6/21/2023 - A small number of additional COVID-19 testing records were released as part of our ongoing data cleaning efforts. An update to the race or ethnicity designation among a subset of testing records was simultaneously released.
• 1/31/2023 - updated “population_estimate” column to reflect the 2020 Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) San Francisco Population estimates.
• 1/31/2023 - renamed column “last_updated_at” to “data_as_of”.
• 3/23/2022 - ‘Native American’ changed to ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ to align with the census.
• 2/10/2022 - race/ethnicity categorization was changed. See section NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY for additional information.
• 4/16/2021 - dataset updated to refresh with a five-day data lag.

Abstract

How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) is a study of how Americans meet their spouses and romantic partners.

• The study is a nationally representative study of American adults.
• 4,002 adults responded to the survey, 3,009 of those had a spouse or main
  romantic partner.
• The study oversamples self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults
• Follow-up surveys were implemented one and two years after the main survey, to study couple dissolution rates. Version 3.0 of the dataset includes two follow- up surveys, waves 2 and 3.
• Waves 4 and 5 are provided as separate data files that can be linked back to the main file via variable caseid_new.

The study will provide answers to the following research questions:

1. Do traditional couples and nontraditional couples meet in the same way? What kinds of couples are more likely to have met online?
2. Have the most recent marriage cohorts (especially the traditional heterosexual same-race married couples) met in the same way their parents and grandparents did?
3. Does meeting online lead to greater or less couple stability?
4. How do the couple dissolution rates of nontraditional couples compare to the couple dissolution rates of more traditional same-race heterosexual couples?
5. How does the availability of civil union, domestic partnership or same-sex marriage rights affect couple stability for same-sex couples? This study will provide the first nationally representative data on the couple dissolution rates of same-sex couples.

Methodology

Universe:

The universe for the HCMST survey is English literate adults in the U.S.

**Unit of Analysis: **

Individual

**Type of data collection: **

Survey Data

**Time of data collection: **

Wave I, the main survey, was fielded between February 21 and April 2, 2009. Wave 2 was fielded March 12, 2010 to June 8, 2010. Wave 3 was fielded March 22, 2011 to August 29, 2011. Wave 4 was fielded between March and November of 2013. Wave 5 was fielded between November, 2014 and March, 2015. Dates for the background demographic surveys are described in the User's Guide, under documentation below.

Geographic coverage:

United States of America

Smallest geographic unit:

US region

**Sample description: **

The survey was carried out by survey firm Knowledge Networks (now called GfK). The survey respondents were recruited from an ongoing panel. Panelists are recruited via random digit dial phone survey. Survey questions were mostly answered online; some follow-up surveys were conducted by phone. Panelists who did not have internet access at home were given an internet access device (WebTV). For further information about how the Knowledge Networks hybrid phone-internet survey compares to other survey methodology, see attached documentation.

The dataset contains variables that are derived from several sources. There are variables from the Main Survey Instrument, there are variables generated from the investigators which were created after the Main Survey, and there are demographic background variables from Knowledge Networks which pre-date the Main Survey. Dates for main survey and for the prior background surveys are included in the dataset for each respondent. The source for each variable is identified in the codebook, and in notes appended within the dataset itself (notes may only be available for the Stata version of the dataset).

Respondents who had no spouse or main romantic partner were dropped from the Main Survey. Unpartnered respondents remain in the dataset, and demographic background variables are available for them.

**Sample response rate: **

Response to the main survey in 2009 from subjects, all of whom were already in the Knowledge Networks panel, was 71%. If we include the the prior initial Random Digit Dialing phone contact and agreement to join the Knowledge Networks panel (participation rate 32.6%), and the respondents’ completion of the initial demographic survey (56.8% completion), the composite overall response rate is a much lower .326*.568*.71= 13%. For further information on the calculation of response rates, and relevant citations, see the Note on Response Rates in the documentation. Response rates for the subsequent waves of the HCMST survey are simpler, using the denominator of people who completed wave 1 and who were eligible for follow-up. Response to wave 2 was 84.5%. Response rate to wave 3 was 72.9%. Response rate to wave 4 was 60.0%. Response rate to wave 5 was 46%. Response to wave 6 was 91.3%. Wave 6 was Internet only, so people who had left the GfK KnowledgePanel were not contacted.

**Weights: **

See "Notes on the Weights" in the Documentation section.

Usage

When you use the data, you agree to the following conditions:

1. I will not use the data to identify individuals.
2. I will not charge a fee for the data if I distribute it to others.
3. I will inform the contact person abo

The population share with mobile internet access in North America was forecast to increase between 2024 and 2029 by in total 2.9 percentage points. This overall increase does not happen continuously, notably not in 2028 and 2029. The mobile internet penetration is estimated to amount to 84.21 percent in 2029. Notably, the population share with mobile internet access of was continuously increasing over the past years.The penetration rate refers to the share of the total population having access to the internet via a mobile broadband connection.The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in up to 150 countries and regions worldwide. All indicators are sourced from international and national statistical offices, trade associations and the trade press and they are processed to generate comparable data sets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).Find more key insights for the population share with mobile internet access in countries like Caribbean and Europe.

Inflation Rate in the United States remained unchanged at 2.70 percent in July. This dataset provides - United States Inflation Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

This data package includes the underlying data files to replicate the data, tables, and charts presented in Why Trump’s tariff proposals would harm working Americans, PIIE Policy Brief 24-1.

If you use the data, please cite as: Clausing, Kimberly, and Mary E. Lovely. 2024. Why Trump’s tariff proposals would harm working Americans. PIIE Policy Brief 24-1. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

PURPOSE (possible uses)

Non-professional investors often try to find an interesting stock among those in an index (such as the Standard and Poor's 500, Nasdaq, etc.). They need only one company, the best, and they don't want to fail (perform poorly). So, the metric to optimize is accuracy, described as:

Accuracy = True Positives / (True Positives + False Positives)

And the predictive model can be a binary classifier.

The data covers the price and volume of shares of 31 NASDAQ companies in the year 2022.

Context

Every data set I found to predict a stock price (investing) aims to find the price for the next day, and only for that stock. But in practical terms, people like to find the best stocks to buy from an index and wait a few days hoping to get an increase in the price of this investment.

Content

Rows are grouped by companies and their age (newest to oldest) on a common date. The first column is the company. The following are the age, market, date (separated by year, month, day, hour, minute), share volume, various traditional prices of that share (close, open, high...), some price and volume statistics and target. The target is mainly defined as 1 when the closing price increases by at least 5% in 5 days (open market days). The target is 0 in any other case.

Complex features and target were made by executing: https://www.kaggle.com/code/luisandresgarcia/202307

Thanks

Many thanks to everyone who participates in scientific papers and Kaggle notebooks related to financial investment.

The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since late January, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

Non Farm Payrolls in the United States increased by 22 thousand in August of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Non Farm Payrolls - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Initial Jobless Claims in the United States increased to 237 thousand in the week ending August 30 of 2025 from 229 thousand in the previous week. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Initial Jobless Claims - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The benchmark interest rate in the United States was last recorded at 4.50 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Fed Funds Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 2 percent in the second quarter of 2025 over the same quarter of the previous year. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States GDP Annual Growth Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Overview

The Marshall Project, the nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, has partnered with The Associated Press to compile data on the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons across the country. The Associated Press is sharing this data as the most comprehensive current national source of COVID-19 outbreaks in state and federal prisons.

Lawyers, criminal justice reform advocates and families of the incarcerated have worried about what was happening in prisons across the nation as coronavirus began to take hold in the communities outside. Data collected by The Marshall Project and AP shows that hundreds of thousands of prisoners, workers, correctional officers and staff have caught the illness as prisons became the center of some of the country’s largest outbreaks. And thousands of people — most of them incarcerated — have died.

In December, as COVID-19 cases spiked across the U.S., the news organizations also shared cumulative rates of infection among prison populations, to better gauge the total effects of the pandemic on prison populations. The analysis found that by mid-December, one in five state and federal prisoners in the United States had tested positive for the coronavirus -- a rate more than four times higher than the general population.

This data, which is updated weekly, is an effort to track how those people have been affected and where the crisis has hit the hardest.

Methodology and Caveats

The data tracks the number of COVID-19 tests administered to people incarcerated in all state and federal prisons, as well as the staff in those facilities. It is collected on a weekly basis by Marshall Project and AP reporters who contact each prison agency directly and verify published figures with officials.

Each week, the reporters ask every prison agency for the total number of coronavirus tests administered to its staff members and prisoners, the cumulative number who tested positive among staff and prisoners, and the numbers of deaths for each group.

The time series data is aggregated to the system level; there is one record for each prison agency on each date of collection. Not all departments could provide data for the exact date requested, and the data indicates the date for the figures.

To estimate the rate of infection among prisoners, we collected population data for each prison system before the pandemic, roughly in mid-March, in April, June, July, August, September and October. Beginning the week of July 28, we updated all prisoner population numbers, reflecting the number of incarcerated adults in state or federal prisons. Prior to that, population figures may have included additional populations, such as prisoners housed in other facilities, which were not captured in our COVID-19 data. In states with unified prison and jail systems, we include both detainees awaiting trial and sentenced prisoners.

To estimate the rate of infection among prison employees, we collected staffing numbers for each system. Where current data was not publicly available, we acquired other numbers through our reporting, including calling agencies or from state budget documents. In six states, we were unable to find recent staffing figures: Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Utah.

To calculate the cumulative COVID-19 impact on prisoner and prison worker populations, we aggregated prisoner and staff COVID case and death data up through Dec. 15. Because population snapshots do not account for movement in and out of prisons since March, and because many systems have significantly slowed the number of new people being sent to prison, it’s difficult to estimate the total number of people who have been held in a state system since March. To be conservative, we calculated our rates of infection using the largest prisoner population snapshots we had during this time period.

As with all COVID-19 data, our understanding of the spread and impact of the virus is limited by the availability of testing. Epidemiology and public health experts say that aside from a few states that have recently begun aggressively testing in prisons, it is likely that there are more cases of COVID-19 circulating undetected in facilities. Sixteen prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, would not release information about how many prisoners they are testing.

Corrections departments in Indiana, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and Wisconsin report coronavirus testing and case data for juvenile facilities; West Virginia reports figures for juvenile facilities and jails. For consistency of comparison with other state prison systems, we removed those facilities from our data that had been included prior to July 28. For these states we have also removed staff data. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s coronavirus data includes testing and cases for those who have been released on parole. We removed these tests and cases for prisoners from the data prior to July 28. The staff cases remain.

About the Data

There are four tables in this data:

• covid_prison_cases.csv contains weekly time series data on tests, infections and deaths in prisons. The first dates in the table are on March 26. Any questions that a prison agency could not or would not answer are left blank.

• prison_populations.csv contains snapshots of the population of people incarcerated in each of these prison systems for whom data on COVID testing and cases are available. This varies by state and may not always be the entire number of people incarcerated in each system. In some states, it may include other populations, such as those on parole or held in state-run jails. This data is primarily for use in calculating rates of testing and infection, and we would not recommend using these numbers to compare the change in how many people are being held in each prison system.

• staff_populations.csv contains a one-time, recent snapshot of the headcount of workers for each prison agency, collected as close to April 15 as possible.

• covid_prison_rates.csv contains the rates of cases and deaths for prisoners. There is one row for every state and federal prison system and an additional row with the National totals.

Queries

The Associated Press and The Marshall Project have created several queries to help you use this data:

Get your state's prison COVID data: Provides each week's data from just your state and calculates a cases-per-100000-prisoners rate, a deaths-per-100000-prisoners rate, a cases-per-100000-workers rate and a deaths-per-100000-workers rate here

Rank all systems' most recent data by cases per 100,000 prisoners here

Find what percentage of your state's total cases and deaths -- as reported by Johns Hopkins University -- occurred within the prison system here

Attribution

In stories, attribute this data to: “According to an analysis of state prison cases by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, and The Associated Press.”

Contributors

Many reporters and editors at The Marshall Project and The Associated Press contributed to this data, including: Katie Park, Tom Meagher, Weihua Li, Gabe Isman, Cary Aspinwall, Keri Blakinger, Jake Bleiberg, Andrew R. Calderón, Maurice Chammah, Andrew DeMillo, Eli Hager, Jamiles Lartey, Claudia Lauer, Nicole Lewis, Humera Lodhi, Colleen Long, Joseph Neff, Michelle Pitcher, Alysia Santo, Beth Schwartzapfel, Damini Sharma, Colleen Slevin, Christie Thompson, Abbie VanSickle, Adria Watson, Andrew Welsh-Huggins.

Questions

If you have questions about the data, please email The Marshall Project at info+covidtracker@themarshallproject.org or file a Github issue.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Retail Sales in the United States increased 0.50 percent in July of 2025 over the previous month. This dataset provides - U.S. December Retail Sales Increased More Than Forecast - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.