Employment Rate in the United States decreased to 59.60 percent in July from 59.70 percent in June of 2025. This dataset provides - United States Employment Rate- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.20 percent in July from 4.10 percent in June 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.

Small business transactions and revenue data aggregated from several credit card processors, collected by Womply and compiled by Opportunity Insights. Transactions and revenue are reported based on the ZIP code where the business is located. Data provided for CT (FIPS code 9), MA (25), NJ (34), NY (36), and RI (44). Data notes from Opportunity Insights: Seasonally adjusted change since January 2020. Data is indexed in 2019 and 2020 as the change relative to the January index period. We then seasonally adjust by dividing year-over-year, which represents the difference between the change since January observed in 2020 compared to the change since January observed since 2019. We account for differences in the dates of federal holidays between 2019 and 2020 by shifting the 2019 reference data to align the holidays before performing the year-over-year division. Small businesses are defined as those with annual revenue below the Small Business Administration’s thresholds. Thresholds vary by 6 digit NAICS code ranging from a maximum number of employees between 100 to 1500 to be considered a small business depending on the industry. County-level and metro-level data and breakdowns by High/Middle/Low income ZIP codes have been temporarily removed since the August 21st 2020 update due to revisions in the structure of the raw data we receive. We hope to add them back to the OI Economic Tracker soon. More detailed documentation on Opportunity Insights data can be found here: https://github.com/OpportunityInsights/EconomicTracker/blob/main/docs/oi_tracker_data_documentation.pdf

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.

The Better Jobs Index is a tool for comparative analysis of labor markets in Latin America. This index evaluates the state of employment in the region through two dimensions: quantity and quality, each comprising two indicators. The quantity dimension measures how many people wish to work (labor force participation) and how many are actually employed (employment rate). The quality dimension assesses how much of the work generated is registered in social security systems (formality) and how many workers earn wages sufficient to lift them above the poverty line (sufficient wages). Through the Better Jobs Index, the Inter-American Development Bank aims to provide countries with a new instrument to more effectively monitor employment conditions, facilitate cross-country comparisons, and promote policies that lead to more favorable employment conditions.

Context

Discovering how mobile the massage therapy business is and pulled other information from the web on all 50 states gathered from the first 5 pages of yellowpages.com, apartments.com, indeed.com and some cities that were the 10 top populated cities in each state to pull these business and job listings, with functions created to calculated the advertised hourly or annual salary in all listings per city then sum up per state. R was used entirely for this project. https://github.com/JanJanJan2018/LMT-State-Licensing-Database has most of the documents and scripts that were used. Many jobs and businesses available. Most businesses are from July 27, 2020 and the jobs are from August 12,2020. The median income is from data.census.gov for 2018 data. Chiropractors, massage therapists or LMTs for licensed ...., physical therapists, nurses, medical doctors, auto body repair technician, personal trainer, cashier, warehouse, tutor, nanny, housecleaner, clerical, data analyst, data scientist, remote, etc for jobs, and businesses include yellow page listings for jails, colleges, coffee shops, convalescent homes, wellness centers, massage spas, tanning shops, chiropractic businesses, collision repair shops, etc. The yellow pages listings take all day for the script to grab, so it isn't used as frequently, the apartment listings are quick and done as often as the indeed scrapes. The apartment prices are the average of the minimum range, maximum range, and average of the two per city of the 10 most populated cities in each state last pulled August 12, 2020.

Content

see above

Acknowledgements

available internet data from indeed, yellowpages, apartments .com and census data from data.gov

Inspiration

Dumbing down the quality of work people think they are too expensive for so I can get a job. Make the higher ups work that much less valuable, while exploring concepts and staying educated and up to date and relevant.

This data set shows the number of employed persons by occupation for all states in Malaysia for year 1982 until 2021. The statistics is derived from Labour Force Survey (LFS) which is conducted every month using household approach from 1982-2020. Employed persons are those between the working age of 15-64 years old who at any time during the reference week of LFS had worked at least one hour for pay, profit or family gain (as an employer, employee, own-account worker or unpaid family worker). Occupation is classified according to the following classification: (i) Year 1982-2000, Dictionary of Occupational Classification, Malaysia 1980 based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-68). (ii) Year 2001-2010, Malaysia Standard Classification of Occupations (MASCO) 1998 based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-88). (iii) Starting 2011, Malaysia Standard Classification of Occupations (MASCO) 2008 based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08). For a person having more than one job, only the job at which he worked for the longest number of hours during the reference week is treated as his principal occupation. Should the number of hours worked for each job is the same, then the job with the highest income is the principal occupation. In cases where the number of hours worked and the income earned from each job are the same, the job at which he was working for the longest period of time is considered as the principal occupation. W.P. Labuan is gazzeted as a Federal Territory in 1984 while W.P. Putrajaya is gazzeted as a Federal Territory in 2001. The statistics for W.P. Putrajaya for 2001-2010 is treated as part of Selangor. Statistics for W.P. Putrajaya is available separately since 2011 onwards. LFS was not conducted during the years 1991 and 1994. Value for year 2011-2014 were updated based on the population estimates of the respective years.

Job Offers in the United States decreased to 7437 Thousand in June from 7712 Thousand in May of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Job Openings - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

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

This dataset contains the salaries of Data Science Professionals for year 2020 and 2021.

About Dataset :

work_year : The year during which the salary was paid. There are two types of work year values: 2020 Year with a definitive amount from the past 2021e Year with an estimated amount (e.g. current year)

experience_level : The experience level in the job during the year with the following possible values: EN Entry-level / Junior MI Mid-level / Intermediate SE Senior-level / Expert EX Executive-level / Director

employment_type : The type of employement for the role: PT Part-time FT Full-time CT Contract FL Freelance

job_title : The role worked in during the year. salary The total gross salary amount paid.

salary_currency : The currency of the salary paid as an ISO 4217 currency code.

salaryinusd : The salary in USD (FX rate divided by avg. USD rate for the respective year via fxdata.foorilla.com).

employee_residence : Employee's primary country of residence in during the work year as an ISO 3166 country code.

remote_ratio : The overall amount of work done remotely, possible values are as follows: 0 No remote work (less than 20%) 50 Partially remote 100 Fully remote (more than 80%)

company_location : The country of the employer's main office or contracting branch as an ISO 3166 country code.

company_size : The average number of people that worked for the company during the year: S less than 50 employees (small) M 50 to 250 employees (medium) L more than 250 employees (large)

Dataset Source - ai-jobs.net Salaries

The Research and Development Survey (RANDS) is a platform designed for conducting survey question evaluation and statistical research. RANDS is an ongoing series of surveys from probability-sampled commercial survey panels used for methodological research at the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). RANDS estimates are generated using an experimental approach that differs from the survey design approaches generally used by NCHS, including possible biases from different response patterns and sampling frames as well as increased variability from lower sample sizes. Use of the RANDS platform allows NCHS to produce more timely data than would be possible using traditional data collection methods. RANDS is not designed to replace NCHS’ higher quality, core data collections. Below are experimental estimates of loss of work due to illness with coronavirus for three rounds of RANDS during COVID-19. Data collection for the three rounds of RANDS during COVID-19 occurred between June 9, 2020 and July 6, 2020, August 3, 2020 and August 20, 2020, and May 17, 2021 and June 30, 2021. Information needed to interpret these estimates can be found in the Technical Notes. RANDS during COVID-19 included a question about the inability to work due to being sick or having a family member sick with COVID-19. The National Health Interview Survey, conducted by NCHS, is the source for high-quality data to monitor work-loss days and work limitations in the United States. For example, in 2018, 42.7% of adults aged 18 and over missed at least 1 day of work in the previous year due to illness or injury and 9.3% of adults aged 18 to 69 were limited in their ability to work or unable to work due to physical, mental, or emotional problems. The experimental estimates on this page are derived from RANDS during COVID-19 and show the percentage of U.S. adults who did not work for pay at a job or business, at any point, in the previous week because either they or someone in their family was sick with COVID-19. Technical Notes: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/rands/work.htm#limitations

The UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST, 2020 dataset is a compilation of offenses reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States. Due to the vast number of categories of crime committed in the United States, the FBI has limited the type of crimes included in this compilation to those crimes which people are most likely to report to police and those crimes which occur frequently enough to be analyzed across time. Crimes included are criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Much information about these crimes is provided in this dataset. The number of times an offense has been reported, the number of reported offenses that have been cleared by arrests, and the number of cleared offenses which involved offenders under the age of 18 are the major items of information collected.

MGD: Music Genre Dataset

Over recent years, the world has seen a dramatic change in the way people consume music, moving from physical records to streaming services. Since 2017, such services have become the main source of revenue within the global recorded music market.
Therefore, this dataset is built by using data from Spotify. It provides a weekly chart of the 200 most streamed songs for each country and territory it is present, as well as an aggregated global chart.

Considering that countries behave differently when it comes to musical tastes, we use chart data from global and regional markets from January 2017 to December 2019, considering eight of the top 10 music markets according to IFPI: United States (1st), Japan (2nd), United Kingdom (3rd), Germany (4th), France (5th), Canada (8th), Australia (9th), and Brazil (10th).

We also provide information about the hit songs and artists present in the charts, such as all collaborating artists within a song (since the charts only provide the main ones) and their respective genres, which is the core of this work. MGD also provides data about musical collaboration, as we build collaboration networks based on artist partnerships in hit songs. Therefore, this dataset contains:

• Genre Networks: Success-based genre collaboration networks
• Genre Mapping: Genre mapping from Spotify genres to super-genres
• Artist Networks: Success-based artist collaboration networks
• Artists: Some artist data
• Hit Songs: Hit Song data and features
• Charts: Enhanced data from Spotify Weekly Top 200 Charts

This dataset was originally built for a conference paper at ISMIR 2020. If you make use of the dataset, please also cite the following paper:

Gabriel P. Oliveira, Mariana O. Silva, Danilo B. Seufitelli, Anisio Lacerda, and Mirella M. Moro. Detecting Collaboration Profiles in Success-based Music Genre Networks. In Proceedings of the 21st International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2020), 2020.

@inproceedings{ismir/OliveiraSSLM20,
 title = {Detecting Collaboration Profiles in Success-based Music Genre Networks},
 author = {Gabriel P. Oliveira and 
      Mariana O. Silva and 
      Danilo B. Seufitelli and 
      Anisio Lacerda and
      Mirella M. Moro},
 booktitle = {21st International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference}
 pages = {726--732},
 year = {2020}
}

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 the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, 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.

The O*NET Database contains hundreds of standardized and occupation-specific descriptors on almost 1,000 occupations covering the entire U.S. economy. The database, which is available to the public at no cost, is continually updated by a multi-method data collection program. Sources of data include: job incumbents, occupational experts, occupational analysts, employer job postings, and customer/professional association input.

Data content areas include:

• Worker Characteristics (e.g., Abilities, Interests, Work Styles)
• Worker Requirements (e.g., Education, Knowledge, Skills)
• Experience Requirements (e.g., On-the-Job Training, Work Experience)
• Occupational Requirements (e.g., Detailed Work Activities, Work Context)
• Occupation-Specific Information (e.g., Job Titles, Tasks, Technology Skills)

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release provides the descriptions of the only U.S. sites—including mineral regions, mineral occurrences, and mine features—that have reported production and (or) resources of gallium (Ga). The sites in this data release have contained resource and (or) past production of more than 16 metric tons Ga metal, which was the approximate average annual consumption of Ga in the U.S. from 2016 through 2020. This dataset contains the Round Top deposit in Texas and the Apex deposit in Utah. Gallium occurs in many different minerals and rocks where substitution takes place with elements of similar size, such as zinc, or similar charge, such as aluminum. Therefore, Ga is primarily recovered as a byproduct of processing aluminum or zinc ores (Foley and others, 2017). Some U.S. zinc deposits contain up to 50 parts per million Ga, but Ga is not currently recovered from U.S. mineral deposits. Gallium is necessary for strategic, consumer, and commercial applications. Gallium is used in thin-film photovoltaics, and is important as an application for clean energy technologies. In 2020, the U.S. was 100 percent net import reliant on Ga from countries such as China, United Kingdom, Germany, and others (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). The entries and descriptions in the database were derived from published papers, reports, data, and internet documents representing a variety of sources, including geologic and exploration studies described in State, Federal, and industry reports. Resources extracted from older sources might not be compliant with current rules and guidelines in minerals industry standards such as National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101). The presence of a Ga mineral deposit in this database is not meant to imply that the deposit is currently economic. Rather, these deposits were included to capture the characteristics of the largest Ga deposits in the United States. Inclusion of material in the database is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The authors welcome additional published information in order to continually update and refine this dataset. Foley, N.K., Jaskula, B.W., Kimball, B.E., and Schulte, R.F., 2017, Gallium, chap. H of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C., eds., Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. H1–H35, https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802H. U.S. Geological Survey, 2021, Mineral commodity summaries 2021: U.S. Geological Survey, 200 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021.

JOBS PROXIMITY INDEXSummaryThe jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. Specifically, a gravity model is used, where the accessibility (Ai) of a given residential block- group is a summary description of the distance to all job locations, with the distance from any single job location positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location. More formally, the model has the following specification: Where i indexes a given residential block-group, and j indexes all n block groups within a CBSA. Distance, d, is measured as “as the crow flies” between block-groups i and j, with distances less than 1 mile set equal to 1. E represents the number of jobs in block-group j, and L is the number of workers in block-group j. The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) has missing jobs data in all of Puerto Rico and a concentration of missing records in Massachusetts. InterpretationValues are percentile ranked with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Data Source: ACS 2017 - 2021 5 year summary data. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, 2017. Related AFFH-T Local Government, PHA and State Tables/Maps: Table 12; Map 8. To learn more about the Jobs Proximity Index visit: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh ; https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Date of Coverage: 2017 - 2021 ACSDate Updated: 10/2023

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release provides the descriptions of 11 U.S. sites that include mineral regions, mines, and mineral occurrences that contain enrichments of niobium (Nb). To be included in this data release, a site must have a contained resource and (or) past production of Nb metal greater than 10,000 metric tons, which was the approximate consumption of Nb in the U.S. in 2019 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). Sites in this dataset occur in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas. Niobium primarily occurs in oxide minerals of the pyrochlore group, which are most commonly found in carbonatites and alkaline granite-syenite complexes. Globally, the largest Nb deposits occur in Brazil and Canada. In Brazil, the Barreiro carbonatite complex hosts the Araxá deposit that contains more than 460 million metric tons of ore with an average grade of 2.48 percent Nb2O5 (Schulz and others, 2017). The world’s leading producer of Nb outside of Brazil is the Niobec Mine in Quebec, Canada. The Niobec deposit occurs in the Saint-Honoré carbonatite complex, where pyrochlore is the main niobium-bearing mineral; the ore body contains more than 400 million metric tons with an average grade of 0.42 percent Nb2O5 (Schulz and others, 2017). In comparison, the largest known Nb deposit in the U.S. is the Iron Hill deposit in Colorado, which has been prospected for titanium, Nb, rare earth elements and thorium. There are no current U.S. producers of Nb, but the Elk Creek project in Nebraska is in the furthest stage of development. If Elk Creek comes online, it will be the first recorded producer of Nb in the U.S. since the 1950s. Niobium is necessary for strategic, consumer, and commercial applications. The primary use for Nb is for the production of high strength steel alloys used in pipelines, transportation infrastructure, and structural applications (Schulz and others, 2017). As of 2019, the U.S. maintains a history of being 100 percent net import reliant on Nb from countries, such as Brazil and Canada. Niobium is imported to the U.S. as Nb minerals, oxides, and ferroniobium (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). The entries and descriptions in the database were derived from published papers, reports, data, and internet documents representing a variety of sources, including geologic and exploration studies described in State, Federal, and industry reports. Resources extracted from older sources might not be compliant with current rules and guidelines in minerals industry standards, such as National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101). The inclusion of a Nb mineral deposit in this database is not meant to imply that the deposit is currently economic. Rather, these deposits were included to capture the characteristics of the largest Nb deposits in the United States. Inclusion of material in the database is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The authors welcome additional published information in order to continually update and refine this dataset. Schulz, K.J., Piatak, N.M., and Papp, J.F., 2017, Niobium and tantalum, chap. M of Schulz, K.J., DeYoung, J.H., Jr., Seal, R.R., II, and Bradley, D.C., eds., Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802, p. M1–M34, https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802M. U.S. Geological Survey, 2020, Mineral commodity summaries 2020: U.S. Geological Survey, 200 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2020.

RESPOND project produced a high level of empirical material in 11 countries (Sweden, the UK, Germany, Italy, Poland, Austria, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon) where the research is conducted between the period 2017-2020. The country teams gathered macro (policies), meso (implementation/stakeholders) and micro (individuals/asylum seekers and refuges) level data related to the thematic fields formulated in four work packages: borders, protection regimes, reception, and integration. An important contribution of this research has been its micro/individual focus which enabled the research teams to capture and understand the migration experiences of asylum seekers and refugees and their responses to the policies and obstacles that they have encountered.

Country teams conducted in total 539 interviews with refugees and asylum seekers, and more than 210 interviews with stakeholders (state and non-state actors) working in the field of migration. Additionally, the project has conducted a survey study in Sweden and Turkey (n=700 in each country), covering similar topics.

This dataset is only about the micro part of the Respond research, and reflects data derived out of 539 interviews conducted with asylum seekers and refugees in 11 countries and here presented in a quantitative form. The whole dataset is structured along the work package topics: Border, Protection, Reception and Integration.

This dataset is prepared as part of Work Package D5.6 (Dataset on Integration) the Horizon 2020 RESPOND project as a joint effort of the below listed project partners.

• • Uppsala University (dataset entries from Sweden)
• • Göttingen University (dataset entries from Germany)
• • Glasgow Caledonian University (dataset entries from the UK and Hungary)
• • Istanbul Bilgi University (dataset entries from Turkey)
• • University of Cambridge (dataset entries from the UK, Sweden and Germany)
• • Swedish Research Institute Istanbul (dataset entries from Turkey)
• • University of Florence (dataset entries from Italy)
• • Özyegin University (dataset entries from Turkey)
• • University of Aegean (dataset entries from Greece)
• • University of Warsaw (dataset entries from Poland)
• • Hammurabi Human Rights Organization (dataset entries from Iraq)
• • Lebanon Support (dataset entries from Lebanon)
• • Austrian Academy of Sciences (dataset entries from Austria)

The USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the nation's inventory of protected areas, including public land and voluntarily provided private protected areas, identified as an A-16 National Geospatial Data Asset in the Cadastre Theme ( https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-cadastre/ ). The PAD-US is an ongoing project with several published versions of a spatial database including areas dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity, and other natural (including extraction), recreational, or cultural uses, managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. The database was originally designed to support biodiversity assessments; however, its scope expanded in recent years to include all open space public and nonprofit lands and waters. Most are public lands owned in fee (the owner of the property has full and irrevocable ownership of the land); however, permanent and long-term easements, leases, agreements, Congressional (e.g. 'Wilderness Area'), Executive (e.g. 'National Monument'), and administrative designations (e.g. 'Area of Critical Environmental Concern') documented in agency management plans are also included. The PAD-US strives to be a complete inventory of U.S. public land and other protected areas, compiling “best available” data provided by managing agencies and organizations. The PAD-US geodatabase maps and describes areas using thirty-six attributes and five separate feature classes representing the U.S. protected areas network: Fee (ownership parcels), Designation, Easement, Marine, Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries. An additional Combined feature class includes the full PAD-US inventory to support data management, queries, web mapping services, and analyses. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the Combined layer allows users to extract data types as needed. A Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) facilitates the extraction of authoritative federal data provided or recommended by managing agencies from the Combined PAD-US inventory. This PAD-US Version 3.0 dataset includes a variety of updates from the previous Version 2.1 dataset (USGS, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT ), achieving goals to: 1) Annually update and improve spatial data representing the federal estate for PAD-US applications; 2) Update state and local lands data as state data-steward and PAD-US Team resources allow; and 3) Automate data translation efforts to increase PAD-US update efficiency. The following list summarizes the integration of "best available" spatial data to ensure public lands and other protected areas from all jurisdictions are represented in the PAD-US (other data were transferred from PAD-US 2.1). Federal updates - The USGS remains committed to updating federal fee owned lands data and major designation changes in annual PAD-US updates, where authoritative data provided directly by managing agencies are available or alternative data sources are recommended. The following is a list of updates or revisions associated with the federal estate: 1) Major update of the Federal estate (fee ownership parcels, easement interest, and management designations where available), including authoritative data from 8 agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The federal theme in PAD-US is developed in close collaboration with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Federal Lands Working Group (FLWG, https://communities.geoplatform.gov/ngda-govunits/federal-lands-workgroup/ ). 2) Improved the representation (boundaries and attributes) of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands, in collaboration with agency data-stewards, in response to feedback from the PAD-US Team and stakeholders. 3) Added a Federal Data Reference file geodatabase lookup table (PADUS3_0Combined_Federal_Data_References) to the PAD-US 3.0 geodatabase to facilitate the extraction (by Data Provider, Dataset Name, and/or Aggregator Source) of authoritative data provided directly (or recommended) by federal managing agencies from the full PAD-US inventory. A summary of the number of records (Frequency) and calculated GIS Acres (vs Documented Acres) associated with features provided by each Aggregator Source is included; however, the number of records may vary from source data as the "State Name" standard is applied to national files. The Feature Class (FeatClass) field in the table and geodatabase describe the data type to highlight overlapping features in the full inventory (e.g. Designation features often overlap Fee features) and to assist users in building queries for applications as needed. 4) Scripted the translation of the Department of Defense, Census Bureau, and Natural Resource Conservation Service source data into the PAD-US format to increase update efficiency. 5) Revised conservation measures (GAP Status Code, IUCN Category) to more accurately represent protected and conserved areas. For example, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Waterfowl Production Area Wetland Easements changed from GAP Status Code 2 to 4 as spatial data currently represents the complete parcel (about 10.54 million acres primarily in North Dakota and South Dakota). Only aliquot parts of these parcels are documented under wetland easement (1.64 million acres). These acreages are provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are referenced in the PAD-US geodatabase Easement feature class 'Comments' field. State updates - The USGS is committed to building capacity in the state data-steward network and the PAD-US Team to increase the frequency of state land updates, as resources allow. The USGS supported efforts to significantly increase state inventory completeness with the integration of local parks data in the PAD-US 2.1, and developed a state-to-PAD-US data translation script during PAD-US 3.0 development to pilot in future updates. Additional efforts are in progress to support the technical and organizational strategies needed to increase the frequency of state updates. The PAD-US 3.0 included major updates to the following three states: 1) California - added or updated state, regional, local, and nonprofit lands data from the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), managed by GreenInfo Network, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review coordinated by the data-steward with state managing agencies. Developed a data translation Python script (see Process Step 2 Source Data Documentation) in collaboration with the data-steward to increase the accuracy and efficiency of future PAD-US updates from CPAD. 2) Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data (and removed legacy data) from the Virginia Conservation Lands Database, provided by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Natural Heritage Program, and integrated conservation and recreation measure changes following review by the data-steward. 3) West Virginia - added or updated state, local, and nonprofit protected areas data provided by the West Virginia University, GIS Technical Center. For more information regarding the PAD-US dataset please visit, https://www.usgs.gov/gapanalysis/PAD-US/. For more information about data aggregation please review the PAD-US Data Manual available at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-manual . A version history of PAD-US updates is summarized below (See https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/pad-us-data-history for more information): 1) First posted - April 2009 (Version 1.0 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 2) Revised - May 2010 (Version 1.1 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 3) Revised - April 2011 (Version 1.2 - available from the PAD-US: Team pad-us@usgs.gov). 4) Revised - November 2012 (Version 1.3) https://doi.org/10.5066/F79Z92XD 5) Revised - May 2016 (Version 1.4) https://doi.org/10.5066/F7G73BSZ 6) Revised - September 2018 (Version 2.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE 7) Revised - September 2020 (Version 2.1) https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT 8) Revised - January 2022 (Version 3.0) https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B Comparing protected area trends between PAD-US versions is not recommended without consultation with USGS as many changes reflect improvements to agency and organization GIS systems, or conservation and recreation measure classification, rather than actual changes in protected area acquisition on the ground.