Dataset

This dataset was created by Mohamed Y Abdelaziz

Released under Database: Open Database, Contents: Database Contents

Contents

The United States is a country located in North America. It is made up of 50 states and the capital district of Washington. The US federal republic has its capital in Washington D.C., which means this dataset can be used to study demographics, geography, and population density for different cities across the United States. This information can help researchers, policymakers and businesses understand how people live and work within different geographical areas in the USA

This dataset comes from simplemaps.com, check out the dataset at https://simplemaps.com/data/us-cities

Thumbnail from https://www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/3798082-red-square-map-of-united-states-of-america-with-long-shadow

This dataset lists cities which consists of above 15,000 inhabitants. Each city is associated with its country and sub-country to reduce the number of ambiguities. Subcountry can be the name of a state (eg in the United Kingdom or the United States of America) or the major administrative section (eg "region" in "France").

This dataset provides detailed information about the population of all the 300 US Cities for the years 2024 and 2020. It includes the annual population change, population density, and the area of all the US cities.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of State Line City by gender across 18 age groups. It lists the male and female population in each age group along with the gender ratio for State Line City. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of State Line City by gender and age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group for both Men and Women in State Line City. Additionally, it can be used to see how the gender ratio changes from birth to senior most age group and male to female ratio across each age group for State Line City.

Key observations

Largest age group (population): Male # 55-59 years (17) | Female # 60-64 years (9). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis.

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the State Line City population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the State Line City is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the State Line City is shown in the following column.
• Gender Ratio: Also known as the sex ratio, this column displays the number of males per 100 females in State Line City for each age group.

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for State Line City Population by Gender. You can refer the same here

The Counties dataset was updated on October 31, 2023 from the United States Census Bureau (USCB) and is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). This resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. 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 boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are mostly as of January 1, 2023, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). A data dictionary, or other source of attribute information, is accessible at https://doi.org/10.21949/1529015

The 2015 cartographic boundary shapefiles 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 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.

This database contains data on permits for residential construction issued by nearly 20,000 jurisdictions collected in the Census Bureau's Building Permits Survey. You can create output tables at the State, County, CBSA or permit-issuing jurisdiction level. Monthly data are available from January 1997 through the most recent reporting month for about 9,000 jurisdictions that respond to the monthly survey. The remaining jurisdictions report annual data only. Thus, annual figures will not necessarily match the monthly totals. Final monthly data for any given calendar year is published in May of the following year. For that same calendar year, any data that is published prior to the final publication date is labeled as Preliminary in this application. Preliminary data issued in the current year is subject to subsequent monthly revision throughout it's given calendar year. Both preliminary and final monthly data may also include imputed values, created by the Census Bureau when actual jurisdictional permit activity is unavailable. Since County, State, and CBSA data are derived from aggregations of jurisdictional data, their totals may reflect a mix of both reported and imputed values, and thus are not identified as imputed values in their respective output tables. Annual data are available from 1980 through the most recent reporting year, and may also contain imputed values. Data files include HUD's original Access 2000 databases as well as .csv extracts of the internal tables of the databases.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 552 cities in the New Jersey by Puerto Rican population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each city 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 Puerto Rican Population: This column displays the rank of city in the New Jersey by their Puerto Rican population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• City: The City for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Puerto Rican Population: The Puerto Rican population of the city is shown in this column.
• % of Total City Population: This shows what percentage of the total city population identifies as Puerto Rican. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total New Jersey Puerto Rican Population: This tells us how much of the entire New Jersey Puerto Rican population lives in that city. 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/.

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. A consolidated city is a unit of local government for which the functions of an incorporated place and its county or minor civil division (MCD) have merged. This action results in both the primary incorporated place and the county or MCD continuing to exist as legal entities, even though the county or MCD performs few or no governmental functions and has few or no elected officials. Where this occurs, and where one or more other incorporated places in the county or MCD continue to function as separate governments, even though they have been included in the consolidated government, the primary incorporated place is referred to as a consolidated city. The Census Bureau classifies the separately incorporated places within the consolidated city as place entities and creates a separate place (balance) record for the portion of the consolidated city not within any other place. The boundaries of the consolidated cities are those as of January 1, 2021, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

A dataset listing Florida cities by population for 2024.

A dataset listing Washington cities by population for 2024.

The 2020 cartographic boundary shapefiles 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. A consolidated city is a unit of local government for which the functions of an incorporated place and its county or minor civil division (MCD) have merged. This action results in both the primary incorporated place and the county or MCD continuing to exist as legal entities, even though the county or MCD performs few or no governmental functions and has few or no elected officials. Where this occurs, and where one or more other incorporated places in the county or MCD continue to function as separate governments, even though they have been included in the consolidated government, the primary incorporated place is referred to as a consolidated city. The Census Bureau classifies the separately incorporated places within the consolidated city as place entities and creates a separate place (balance) record for the portion of the consolidated city not within any other place. The generalized boundaries of the consolidated cities in this file are based on those as of January 1, 2020, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS).

In 2023, Washington, D.C. had the highest population density in the United States, with 11,130.69 people per square mile. As a whole, there were about 94.83 residents per square mile in the U.S., and Alaska was the state with the lowest population density, with 1.29 residents per square mile. The problem of population density Simply put, population density is the population of a country divided by the area of the country. While this can be an interesting measure of how many people live in a country and how large the country is, it does not account for the degree of urbanization, or the share of people who live in urban centers. For example, Russia is the largest country in the world and has a comparatively low population, so its population density is very low. However, much of the country is uninhabited, so cities in Russia are much more densely populated than the rest of the country. Urbanization in the United States While the United States is not very densely populated compared to other countries, its population density has increased significantly over the past few decades. The degree of urbanization has also increased, and well over half of the population lives in urban centers.

Thumbnail Image by macrovector_official on Freepik

Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC) derives the cost of living index for each state by averaging the indices of participating cities and metropolitan areas in that state.

In general, the most expensive areas to live were Hawaii, Alaska, the Northeast, and the West Coast. The least expensive areas were the Midwest and Southern states.

Cities across the nation participate in the Council for Community & Economic Research (C2ER) survey on a volunteer basis. Price information in the survey is governed by C2ER collection guidelines which strive for uniformity.

The entries for Ontario, British Columbia, and Remote were added manually for my use case.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 281 cities in the Washington by Hispanic White population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities 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 Hispanic White Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Washington by their Hispanic White population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Hispanic White Population: The Hispanic White population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Hispanic White. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Washington Hispanic White Population: This tells us how much of the entire Washington Hispanic White population lives in that cities. 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 2022, San Francisco had the highest median household income of cities ranking within the top 25 in terms of population, with a median household income in of 136,692 U.S. dollars. In that year, San Jose in California was ranked second, and Seattle, Washington third.

Following a fall after the great recession, median household income in the United States has been increasing in recent years. As of 2022, median household income by state was highest in Maryland, Washington, D.C., Utah, and Massachusetts. It was lowest in Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas. Families with an annual income of 25,000 and 49,999 U.S. dollars made up the largest income bracket in America, with about 25.26 million households.

Data on median household income can be compared to statistics on personal income in the U.S. released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal income rose to around 21.8 trillion U.S. dollars in 2022, the highest value recorded. Personal income is a measure of the total income received by persons from all sources, while median household income is “the amount with divides the income distribution into two equal groups,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Half of the population in question lives above median income and half lives below. Though total personal income has increased in recent years, this wealth is not distributed throughout the population. In practical terms, income of most households has decreased. One additional statistic illustrates this disparity: for the lowest quintile of workers, mean household income has remained more or less steady for the past decade at about 13 to 16 thousand constant U.S. dollars annually. Meanwhile, income for the top five percent of workers has actually risen from about 285,000 U.S. dollars in 1990 to about 499,900 U.S. dollars in 2020.

This is a polygon dataset for county boundaries as well as for city, township and unorganized territory (CTU) boundaries in the Twin Cities 7-county metropolitan area. The linework for this dataset comes from individual counties and is assembled by the Metropolitan Council for the MetroGIS community. This is a MetroGIS Regionally Endorsed dataset https://metrogis.org/.

The County CTU Lookup Table here https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-bdry-counties-and-ctus-lookup
is also included in this dataset and contains various data related to cities, townships, unorganized territories (CTUs) and any divisions created by county boundaries splitting them is also included in the dataset.

This dataset is updated quarterly. This dataset is composed of three shape files and one dbf table.
- Counties.shp = county boundaries
- CTUs.shp = city, township and unorganized territory boundaries
- CountiesAndCTUs.shp = combined county and CTU boundaries
- CountyCTULookupTable.dbf = various data related to CTUs and any divisions created by county boundaries splitting them is also included in the dataset, described here: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-bdry-counties-and-ctus-lookup

NOTES:

- On 3/17/2011 it was discovered that the CTU ID used for the City of Lake St. Croix Beach was incorrect. It was changed from 2394379 to 2395599 to match GNIS.

- On 3/17/2011 it was discovered that the CTU ID used for the City of Lilydale was incorrect. It was changed from 2394457 to 2395708 to match GNIS.

- On 11/9/2010 it was discovered that the CTU ID used for the City of Crystal was incorrect. It was changed from 2393541 to 2393683 to match GNIS.

- Effective April 2008, a change was made in GNIS to match the FIPS place codes to the "civil" feature for each city instead of the "populated place" feature. Both cities and townships are now "civil" features within GNIS. This means that the official GNIS unique ID for every city in Minnesota has changed.

- The five digit CTU codes in this dataset are identical to the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) ''Place'' codes. They are also used by the Census Bureau and many other organizations and are proposed as a MN state data coding standard.

- Cities and townships have also been referred to as ''MCDs'' (a census term), however this term technically refers to the part of each city or township within a single county. Thus, a few cities in the metro area that are split by county boundaries are actually comprised of two different MCDs. This was part of the impetus for a proposed MN state data standard that uses the ''CTU'' terminology for clarity.

- The boundary line data for this dataset comes from each county.

- A variety of civil divisions of the land exist within the United States. In Minnesota, only three types exist - cities, townships and unorganized territories. All three of these exist within the Twin Cities seven county area. The only unorganized territory is Fort Snelling (a large portion of which is occupied by the MSP International Airport).

- Some cities are split between two counties. Only those parts of cities within the 7-county area are included.

- Prior to the 2000 census, the FIPS Place code for the City of Greenwood in Hennepin County was changed from 25928 to 25918. This dataset reflects that change.

This layer presents the locations of major cities within the United States with populations of approximately 10,000 or more, state capitals, and the national capital. Major Cities are locations containing population totals from the 2020 Census. The points represent U.S. Census Places polygons sourced from U.S. Census Bureau 2020 TIGER FGDB (National Sub-State). Attribute fields include 2020 total population from the U.S. Census Public Law 94 data that symbolize the city points using these six classifications: Class Population Range 5 2,500 – 9,999 6 10,000 – 49,999 7 50,000 – 99,999 8 100,000 – 249,999 9 250,000 – 499,999 10 500,000 and over This ready-to-use layer can be used in ArcGIS Pro and in ArcGIS Online and its configurable apps, dashboards, StoryMaps, custom apps, and mobile apps. The data can also be exported for offline workflows. Cite the 'U.S. Census Bureau' when using this data.