On October 20, 2022, CDC began retrieving aggregate case and death data from jurisdictional and state partners weekly instead of daily. This dataset contains archived historical community transmission and related data elements by county. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset has not been updated since October 20, 2022. An archived dataset containing weekly historical community transmission data by county can also be found here: Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission Historical Changes | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov).

Related data CDC has been providing the public with two versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this historical dataset with the daily county-level transmission data from January 22, 2020, and a dataset with the daily values as originally posted on the COVID Data Tracker. Similar to this dataset, the original dataset with daily data as posted is archived on 10/20/2022. It will continue to be publicly available but will no longer be updated. A new dataset containing community transmission data by county as originally posted is now published weekly and can be found at: Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission as Originally Posted | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov).

This public use dataset has 7 data elements reflecting historical data for community transmission levels for all available counties and jurisdictions. It contains historical data for the county level of community transmission and includes updated data submitted by states and jurisdictions. Each day, the dataset was updated to include the most recent days’ data and incorporate any historical changes made by jurisdictions. This dataset includes data since January 22, 2020. Transmission level is set to low, moderate, substantial, or high using the calculation rules below.

Methods for calculating county level of community transmission indicator The County Level of Community Transmission indicator uses two metrics: (1) total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 persons in the last 7 days and (2) percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the last 7 days. For each of these metrics, CDC classifies transmission values as low, moderate, substantial, or high (below and here). If the values for each of these two metrics differ (e.g., one indicates moderate and the other low), then the higher of the two should be used for decision-making.

CDC core metrics of and thresholds for community transmission levels of SARS-CoV-2

Total New Case Rate Metric: "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is calculated by adding the number of new cases in the county (or other administrative level) in the last 7 days divided by the population in the county (or other administrative level) and multiplying by 100,000. "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is considered to have transmission level of Low (0-9.99); Moderate (10.00-49.99); Substantial (50.00-99.99); and High (greater than or equal to 100.00).

Test Percent Positivity Metric: "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is calculated by dividing the number of positive tests in the county (or other administrative level) during the last 7 days by the total number of tests resulted over the last 7 days. "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is considered to have transmission level of Low (less than 5.00); Moderate (5.00-7.99); Substa

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

This archived public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties.

The COVID-19 community levels were developed using a combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. The COVID-19 community level was determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge.

Using these data, the COVID-19 community level was classified as low, medium, or high.

COVID-19 Community Levels were used to help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

For the most accurate and up-to-date data for any county or state, visit the relevant health department website. COVID Data Tracker may display data that differ from state and local websites. This can be due to differences in how data were collected, how metrics were calculated, or the timing of web updates.

Archived Data Notes:

This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022.

March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released.

March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate.

March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset.

March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases.

March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average).

March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior.

April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

April 21, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for counties in Nebraska for the week of April 21, 2022 have 3 counties identified in the high category and 37 in the medium category. CDC has been working with state officials to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

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

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

Spatial analysis and statistical summaries of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) provide land managers and decision makers with a general assessment of management intent for biodiversity protection, natural resource management, and recreation access across the nation. The PAD-US 3.0 Combined Fee, Designation, Easement feature class in the full geodatabase inventory (with Military Lands and Tribal Areas from the Proclamation and Other Planning Boundaries feature class) was modified to prioritize overlapping designations, avoiding massive overestimation in protected area statistics, and simplified by the following PAD-US attributes to support user needs for raster analysis data: Manager Type, Manager Name, Designation Type, GAP Status Code, Public Access, and State Name. The rasterization process (see processing steps below) prioritized overlapping designations previously identified (GAP_Prity field) in the Vector Analysis File (e.g. Wilderness within a National Forest) based upon their relative biodiversity conservation (e.g. GAP Status Code 1 over 2). The 30-meter Image (IMG) grid Raster Analysis Files area extents were defined by the Census state boundary file used to clip the Vector Analysis File, the data source for rasterization ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysis_State_Clip_CENSUS2020" feature class from ("PADUS3_0VectorAnalysisFileOtherExtents_Clip_Census.gdb"). Alaska (AK) and Hawaii (HI) raster data are separated from the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) to facilitate analyses at manageable scales. Note, the PAD-US inventory is now considered functionally complete with the vast majority of land protection types (with a legal protection mechanism) represented in some manner, while work continues to maintain updates, improve data quality, and integrate new data as it becomes available (see inventory completeness estimates at: http://www.protectedlands.net/data-stewards/ ). In addition, protection status represents a point-in-time and changes in status between versions of PAD-US may be attributed to improving the completeness and accuracy of the spatial data more than actual management actions or new acquisitions. USGS provides no legal warranty for the use of this data. While PAD-US is the official aggregation of protected areas ( https://www.fgdc.gov/ngda-reports/NGDA_Datasets.html ), agencies are the best source of their lands data.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of United States by gender across 18 age groups. It lists the male and female population in each age group along with the gender ratio for United States. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of United States by gender and age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group for both Men and Women in United States. 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 United States.

Key observations

Largest age group (population): Male # 30-34 years (11.65 million) | Female # 30-34 years (11.41 million). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 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 United States population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the United States is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the United States 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 United States 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 United States Population by Gender. You can refer the same here

This dataset includes simulated water surface elevations that resemble the Ka-band Interferometer (KaRIn) measurements by the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission. SWOT will provide a global coverage but this simulated subset focuses on the North America continent. The simulated SWOT KaRIN swaths span 128 km in the cross-swath direction with a 20-km nadir gap. The primary product contains the following: 1. Geolocated elevations (latitude, longitude, and height) 2. Classification mask (water/land flags, and water fraction) 3. Surface areas (projected pixel area on the ground) 4. Relevant data needed to compute and aggregate height and area uncertainties. Additional information includes: 1. Meta data (global instrument parameters) 2. Time varying parameters (TVP), which include sensor position, velocity, altitude, and time 3. Noise power estimates 4. Quality flags 5. Interferogram measurements (power and phase) and range and azimuth indices 6. Geophysical and crossover-calibration correction values. These additional fields are provided to improve the utility of the product and to facilitate generation of downstream products. Note that this is a simulated SWOT product and not suited for any scientific exploration.

California Medical Fee-for-Service

Geographic, Legal and Specialty Data for In-State and Out-of-State Providers

By California Health and Human Services [source]

About this dataset

Welcome to the California Health and Human Services Agency's Open Data Portal! Here, you can explore and utilize information from one of the state's most valuable assets: the non-confidential data set of Medi-Cal Fee-for-Service (FFS) program providers.

This dataset provides insight into Medi-Cal FFS enrollment. The information was retrieved from the Provider Master File (PMF), which is maintained by the Provider Enrollment Division (PED). With this dataset, you will gain insights into provider number, legal name, type description, specialty description and other geographical data points such as county code, attention line address parts , landmark coordinate points (longitude/latitude) and more!

The goal with this Open Data Portal initiative is to empower Californians with:

• Increased public access to high quality health & human service data;
• Stemmed creativity & innovation in research;
• The ability to make informed decisions about our health & services providers;
• Transparency in government policy expenditure measures.

Our hope is that you'll use these tools for responsible data analytics exploration on not just Medi-Cal FFS provision but on any related subject matter that interest& benefit your community at large. Good luck & happy researching!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

Research Ideas

• Creating a mobile application or website to help people easily and quickly find their nearest Medi-Cal FFS providers based on location, specialty and provider type.
• Developing analytics tools to help organizations understand the concentrations of providers across the state in order to inform decision making when considering regional expansion and improving service accessibility.
• Developing a tool that visualizes specialty diversity across the state to identify areas with low provider density while helping inform strategies aimed at increasing access to care for communities with high needs populations

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0 - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. - Keep intact - all notices that refer to this license, including copyright notices. - No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. - No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Columns

File: Profile_of_Enrolled_Medi-Cal_Fee-for-Service_FFS_Providers_as_of_May_1_2016.csv | Column name | Description | |:----------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------| | NPI | National Provider Identifier (Number) | | SERVICE LOCATION NUMBER | Unique identifier for the provider's service location (Number) | | LEGAL NAME | Legal name of the provider (Text) | | TYPE DESCRIPTION | Type of provider (Text) | | SPECIALTY DESCRIPTION | Specialty of the provider (Text) | | OUT OF STATE INDICATOR | Indicates if the provider is located out of state (Boolean) | | IN/OUT OF STATE | Indicates if the provider is located in or out of state (Text) | | COUNTY CODE | County code of the provider's service location (Number) | | COUNTY NAME | County name of the provider's service location (Text) | | ADDRESS ATTENTION | Attention line of the provider's address (Text) | | ADDRESS LINE 1 | First l...

About this dataset

Context

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

Content

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

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

Variables / Data Columns

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

Good to know

Margin of Error

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

Custom data

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

Inspiration

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

High-quality USA cheque image OCR datasets designed for accurate text extraction and recognition. Perfect for training and testing advanced OCR solutions.

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

Jurisdictional Unit, 2022-05-21. For use with WFDSS, IFTDSS, IRWIN, and InFORM.This is a feature service which provides Identify and Copy Feature capabilities. If fast-drawing at coarse zoom levels is a requirement, consider using the tile (map) service layer located at https://nifc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b2c5daad00742cd9f9b676c09d03d13.OverviewThe Jurisdictional Agencies dataset is developed as a national land management geospatial layer, focused on representing wildland fire jurisdictional responsibility, for interagency wildland fire applications, including WFDSS (Wildland Fire Decision Support System), IFTDSS (Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System), IRWIN (Interagency Reporting of Wildland Fire Information), and InFORM (Interagency Fire Occurrence Reporting Modules). It is intended to provide federal wildland fire jurisdictional boundaries on a national scale. The agency and unit names are an indication of the primary manager name and unit name, respectively, recognizing that:There may be multiple owner names.Jurisdiction may be held jointly by agencies at different levels of government (ie State and Local), especially on private lands, Some owner names may be blocked for security reasons.Some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. Private ownerships are shown in this layer with JurisdictionalUnitIdentifier=null,JurisdictionalUnitAgency=null, JurisdictionalUnitKind=null, and LandownerKind="Private", LandownerCategory="Private". All land inside the US country boundary is covered by a polygon.Jurisdiction for privately owned land varies widely depending on state, county, or local laws and ordinances, fire workload, and other factors, and is not available in a national dataset in most cases.For publicly held lands the agency name is the surface managing agency, such as Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, etc. The unit name refers to the descriptive name of the polygon (i.e. Northern California District, Boise National Forest, etc.).These data are used to automatically populate fields on the WFDSS Incident Information page.This data layer implements the NWCG Jurisdictional Unit Polygon Geospatial Data Layer Standard.Relevant NWCG Definitions and StandardsUnit2. A generic term that represents an organizational entity that only has meaning when it is contextualized by a descriptor, e.g. jurisdictional.Definition Extension: When referring to an organizational entity, a unit refers to the smallest area or lowest level. Higher levels of an organization (region, agency, department, etc) can be derived from a unit based on organization hierarchy.Unit, JurisdictionalThe governmental entity having overall land and resource management responsibility for a specific geographical area as provided by law.Definition Extension: 1) Ultimately responsible for the fire report to account for statistical fire occurrence; 2) Responsible for setting fire management objectives; 3) Jurisdiction cannot be re-assigned by agreement; 4) The nature and extent of the incident determines jurisdiction (for example, Wildfire vs. All Hazard); 5) Responsible for signing a Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander.See also: Unit, Protecting; LandownerUnit IdentifierThis data standard specifies the standard format and rules for Unit Identifier, a code used within the wildland fire community to uniquely identify a particular government organizational unit.Landowner Kind & CategoryThis data standard provides a two-tier classification (kind and category) of landownership. Attribute Fields JurisdictionalAgencyKind Describes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Kind data standard. There are two valid values: Federal, and Other. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalAgencyCategoryDescribes the type of unit Jurisdiction using the NWCG Landowner Category data standard. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State. A value may not be populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitNameThe name of the Jurisdictional Unit. Where an NWCG Unit ID exists for a polygon, this is the name used in the Name field from the NWCG Unit ID database. Where no NWCG Unit ID exists, this is the “Unit Name” or other specific, descriptive unit name field from the source dataset. A value is populated for all polygons.JurisdictionalUnitIDWhere it could be determined, this is the NWCG Standard Unit Identifier (Unit ID). Where it is unknown, the value is ‘Null’. Null Unit IDs can occur because a unit may not have a Unit ID, or because one could not be reliably determined from the source data. Not every land ownership has an NWCG Unit ID. Unit ID assignment rules are available from the Unit ID standard, linked above.LandownerKindThe landowner category value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. There are three valid values: Federal, Private, or Other.LandownerCategoryThe landowner kind value associated with the polygon. May be inferred from jurisdictional agency, or by lack of a jurisdictional agency. A value is populated for all polygons. Valid values include: ANCSA, BIA, BLM, BOR, DOD, DOE, NPS, USFS, USFWS, Foreign, Tribal, City, County, OtherLoc (other local, not in the standard), State, Private.DataSourceThe database from which the polygon originated. Be as specific as possible, identify the geodatabase name and feature class in which the polygon originated.SecondaryDataSourceIf the Data Source is an aggregation from other sources, use this field to specify the source that supplied data to the aggregation. For example, if Data Source is "PAD-US 2.1", then for a USDA Forest Service polygon, the Secondary Data Source would be "USDA FS Automated Lands Program (ALP)". For a BLM polygon in the same dataset, Secondary Source would be "Surface Management Agency (SMA)."SourceUniqueIDIdentifier (GUID or ObjectID) in the data source. Used to trace the polygon back to its authoritative source.MapMethod:Controlled vocabulary to define how the geospatial feature was derived. Map method may help define data quality. MapMethod will be Mixed Method by default for this layer as the data are from mixed sources. Valid Values include: GPS-Driven; GPS-Flight; GPS-Walked; GPS-Walked/Driven; GPS-Unknown Travel Method; Hand Sketch; Digitized-Image; DigitizedTopo; Digitized-Other; Image Interpretation; Infrared Image; Modeled; Mixed Methods; Remote Sensing Derived; Survey/GCDB/Cadastral; Vector; Phone/Tablet; OtherDateCurrentThe last edit, update, of this GIS record. Date should follow the assigned NWCG Date Time data standard, using 24 hour clock, YYYY-MM-DDhh.mm.ssZ, ISO8601 Standard.CommentsAdditional information describing the feature. GeometryIDPrimary key for linking geospatial objects with other database systems. Required for every feature. This field may be renamed for each standard to fit the feature.JurisdictionalUnitID_sansUSNWCG Unit ID with the "US" characters removed from the beginning. Provided for backwards compatibility.JoinMethodAdditional information on how the polygon was matched information in the NWCG Unit ID database.LocalNameLocalName for the polygon provided from PADUS or other source.LegendJurisdictionalAgencyJurisdictional Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.LegendLandownerAgencyLandowner Agency but smaller landholding agencies, or agencies of indeterminate status are grouped for more intuitive use in a map legend or summary table.DataSourceYearYear that the source data for the polygon were acquired.Data InputThis dataset is based on an aggregation of 4 spatial data sources: Protected Areas Database US (PAD-US 2.1), data from Bureau of Indian Affairs regional offices, the BLM Alaska Fire Service/State of Alaska, and Census Block-Group Geometry. NWCG Unit ID and Agency Kind/Category data are tabular and sourced from UnitIDActive.txt, in the WFMI Unit ID application (https://wfmi.nifc.gov/unit_id/Publish.html). Areas of with unknown Landowner Kind/Category and Jurisdictional Agency Kind/Category are assigned LandownerKind and LandownerCategory values of "Private" by use of the non-water polygons from the Census Block-Group geometry.PAD-US 2.1:This dataset is based in large part on the USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States - PAD-US 2.`. PAD-US is a compilation of authoritative protected areas data between agencies and organizations that ultimately results in a comprehensive and accurate inventory of protected areas for the United States to meet a variety of needs (e.g. conservation, recreation, public health, transportation, energy siting, ecological, or watershed assessments and planning). Extensive documentation on PAD-US processes and data sources is available.How these data were aggregated:Boundaries, and their descriptors, available in spatial databases (i.e. shapefiles or geodatabase feature classes) from land management agencies are the desired and primary data sources in PAD-US. If these authoritative sources are unavailable, or the agency recommends another source, data may be incorporated by other aggregators such as non-governmental organizations. Data sources are tracked for each record in the PAD-US geodatabase (see below).BIA and Tribal Data:BIA and Tribal land management data are not available in PAD-US. As such, data were aggregated from BIA regional offices. These data date from 2012 and were substantially updated in 2022. Indian Trust Land affiliated with Tribes, Reservations, or BIA Agencies: These data are not considered the system of record and are not intended to be used as such. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Wildland Fire Management (BWFM) is not the originator of these data. The

This dataset is part of the Geographical repository maintained by Opendatasoft. This dataset contains data for counties and equivalent entities in United States of America. 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.Processors and tools are using this data. Enhancements Add ISO 3166-3 codes. Simplify geometries to provide better performance across the services. Add administrative hierarchy.

Point of Interest (POI) is defined as an entity (such as a business) at a ground location (point) which may be (of interest). We provide high-quality POI data that is fresh, consistent, customizable, easy to use and with high-density coverage for all countries of the world.

This is our process flow:

Our machine learning systems continuously crawl for new POI data
Our geoparsing and geocoding calculates their geo locations
Our categorization systems cleanup and standardize the datasets
Our data pipeline API publishes the datasets on our data store

A new POI comes into existence. It could be a bar, a stadium, a museum, a restaurant, a cinema, or store, etc.. In today's interconnected world its information will appear very quickly in social media, pictures, websites, press releases. Soon after that, our systems will pick it up.

POI Data is in constant flux. Every minute worldwide over 200 businesses will move, over 600 new businesses will open their doors and over 400 businesses will cease to exist. And over 94% of all businesses have a public online presence of some kind tracking such changes. When a business changes, their website and social media presence will change too. We'll then extract and merge the new information, thus creating the most accurate and up-to-date business information dataset across the globe.

We offer our customers perpetual data licenses for any dataset representing this ever changing information, downloaded at any given point in time. This makes our company's licensing model unique in the current Data as a Service - DaaS Industry. Our customers don't have to delete our data after the expiration of a certain "Term", regardless of whether the data was purchased as a one time snapshot, or via our data update pipeline.

Customers requiring regularly updated datasets may subscribe to our Annual subscription plans. Our data is continuously being refreshed, therefore subscription plans are recommended for those who need the most up to date data. The main differentiators between us vs the competition are our flexible licensing terms and our data freshness.

Data samples may be downloaded at https://store.poidata.xyz/us

Explore Macgence’s USA Insurance Claim OCR dataset—high-quality annotated images to train and evaluate document automation AI systems.

This dataset is about books. It has 1 row and is filtered where the book is Discover USA : experience the best of the USA. It features 7 columns including author, publication date, language, and book publisher.

Efficiently extract data from USA tax forms with this high-quality OCR dataset. Ideal for automation, AI training, and streamlining tax data processing.

What We Eat in America (WWEIA) is the dietary intake interview component of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). WWEIA is conducted as a partnership between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Two days of 24-hour dietary recall data are collected through an initial in-person interview, and a second interview conducted over the telephone within three to 10 days. Participants are given three-dimensional models (measuring cups and spoons, a ruler, and two household spoons) and/or USDA's Food Model Booklet (containing drawings of various sizes of glasses, mugs, bowls, mounds, circles, and other measures) to estimate food amounts. WWEIA data are collected using USDA's dietary data collection instrument, the Automated Multiple-Pass Method (AMPM). The AMPM is a fully computerized method for collecting 24-hour dietary recalls either in-person or by telephone. For each 2-year data release cycle, the following dietary intake data files are available: Individual Foods File - Contains one record per food for each survey participant. Foods are identified by USDA food codes. Each record contains information about when and where the food was consumed, whether the food was eaten in combination with other foods, amount eaten, and amounts of nutrients provided by the food. Total Nutrient Intakes File - Contains one record per day for each survey participant. Each record contains daily totals of food energy and nutrient intakes, daily intake of water, intake day of week, total number foods reported, and whether intake was usual, much more than usual or much less than usual. The Day 1 file also includes salt use in cooking and at the table; whether on a diet to lose weight or for other health-related reason and type of diet; and frequency of fish and shellfish consumption (examinees one year or older, Day 1 file only). DHHS is responsible for the sample design and data collection, and USDA is responsible for the survey’s dietary data collection methodology, maintenance of the databases used to code and process the data, and data review and processing. USDA also funds the collection and processing of Day 2 dietary intake data, which are used to develop variance estimates and calculate usual nutrient intakes. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: What We Eat In America (WWEIA) main web page. File Name: Web Page, url: https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/beltsville-md-bhnrc/beltsville-human-nutrition-research-center/food-surveys-research-group/docs/wweianhanes-overview/ Contains data tables, research articles, documentation data sets and more information about the WWEIA program. (Link updated 05/13/2020)

Our United States zip code Database offers comprehensive postal code data for spatial analysis, including postal and administrative areas. This dataset contains accurate and up-to-date information on all administrative divisions, cities, and zip codes, making it an invaluable resource for various applications such as address capture and validation, map and visualization, reporting and business intelligence (BI), master data management, logistics and supply chain management, and sales and marketing. Our location data packages are available in various formats, including CSV, optimized for seamless integration with popular systems like Esri ArcGIS, Snowflake, QGIS, and more. Product features include fully and accurately geocoded data, multi-language support with address names in local and foreign languages, comprehensive city definitions, and the option to combine map data with UNLOCODE and IATA codes, time zones, and daylight saving times. Companies choose our location databases for their enterprise-grade service, reduction in integration time and cost by 30%, and weekly updates to ensure the highest quality.

This Location Data & Foot traffic dataset available for all countries include enriched raw mobility data and visitation at POIs to answer questions such as:

-How often do people visit a location? (daily, monthly, absolute, and averages). -What type of places do they visit ? (parks, schools, hospitals, etc) -Which social characteristics do people have in a certain POI? - Breakdown by type: residents, workers, visitors. -What's their mobility like enduring night hours & day hours?
-What's the frequency of the visits partition by day of the week and hour of the day?

Extra insights -Visitors´ relative income Level. -Visitors´ preferences as derived by their visits to shopping, parks, sports facilities, churches, among others.

Overview & Key Concepts Each record corresponds to a ping from a mobile device, at a particular moment in time and at a particular latitude and longitude. We procure this data from reliable technology partners, which obtain it through partnerships with location-aware apps. All the process is compliant with applicable privacy laws.

We clean and process these massive datasets with a number of complex, computer-intensive calculations to make them easier to use in different data science and machine learning applications, especially those related to understanding customer behavior.

Featured attributes of the data Device speed: based on the distance between each observation and the previous one, we estimate the speed at which the device is moving. This is particularly useful to differentiate between vehicles, pedestrians, and stationery observations.

Night base of the device: we calculate the approximated location of where the device spends the night, which is usually their home neighborhood.

Day base of the device: we calculate the most common daylight location during weekdays, which is usually their work location.

Income level: we use the night neighborhood of the device, and intersect it with available socioeconomic data, to infer the device’s income level. Depending on the country, and the availability of good census data, this figure ranges from a relative wealth index to a currency-calculated income.

POI visited: we intersect each observation with a number of POI databases, to estimate check-ins to different locations. POI databases can vary significantly, in scope and depth, between countries.

Category of visited POI: for each observation that can be attributable to a POI, we also include a standardized location category (park, hospital, among others). Coverage: Worldwide.

Delivery schemas We can deliver the data in three different formats:

Full dataset: one record per mobile ping. These datasets are very large, and should only be consumed by experienced teams with large computing budgets.

Visitation stream: one record per attributable visit. This dataset is considerably smaller than the full one but retains most of the more valuable elements in the dataset. This helps understand who visited a specific POI, characterize and understand the consumer's behavior.

Audience profiles: one record per mobile device in a given period of time (usually monthly). All the visitation stream is aggregated by category. This is the most condensed version of the dataset and is very useful to quickly understand the types of consumers in a particular area and to create cohorts of users.

THIS DATASET WAS LAST UPDATED AT 8:11 PM EASTERN ON JULY 30

OVERVIEW

2019 had the most mass killings since at least the 1970s, according to the Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings Database.

In all, there were 45 mass killings, defined as when four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator. Of those, 33 were mass shootings . This summer was especially violent, with three high-profile public mass shootings occurring in the span of just four weeks, leaving 38 killed and 66 injured.

A total of 229 people died in mass killings in 2019.

The AP's analysis found that more than 50% of the incidents were family annihilations, which is similar to prior years. Although they are far less common, the 9 public mass shootings during the year were the most deadly type of mass murder, resulting in 73 people's deaths, not including the assailants.

One-third of the offenders died at the scene of the killing or soon after, half from suicides.

About this Dataset

The Associated Press/USA TODAY/Northeastern University Mass Killings database tracks all U.S. homicides since 2006 involving four or more people killed (not including the offender) over a short period of time (24 hours) regardless of weapon, location, victim-offender relationship or motive. The database includes information on these and other characteristics concerning the incidents, offenders, and victims.

The AP/USA TODAY/Northeastern database represents the most complete tracking of mass murders by the above definition currently available. Other efforts, such as the Gun Violence Archive or Everytown for Gun Safety may include events that do not meet our criteria, but a review of these sites and others indicates that this database contains every event that matches the definition, including some not tracked by other organizations.

This data will be updated periodically and can be used as an ongoing resource to help cover these events.

Using this Dataset

To get basic counts of incidents of mass killings and mass shootings by year nationwide, use these queries:

Mass killings by year

Mass shootings by year

To get these counts just for your state:

Filter killings by state

Definition of "mass murder"

Mass murder is defined as the intentional killing of four or more victims by any means within a 24-hour period, excluding the deaths of unborn children and the offender(s). The standard of four or more dead was initially set by the FBI.

This definition does not exclude cases based on method (e.g., shootings only), type or motivation (e.g., public only), victim-offender relationship (e.g., strangers only), or number of locations (e.g., one). The time frame of 24 hours was chosen to eliminate conflation with spree killers, who kill multiple victims in quick succession in different locations or incidents, and to satisfy the traditional requirement of occurring in a “single incident.”

Offenders who commit mass murder during a spree (before or after committing additional homicides) are included in the database, and all victims within seven days of the mass murder are included in the victim count. Negligent homicides related to driving under the influence or accidental fires are excluded due to the lack of offender intent. Only incidents occurring within the 50 states and Washington D.C. are considered.

Methodology

Project researchers first identified potential incidents using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide incidents in the SHR were flagged as potential mass murder cases if four or more victims were reported on the same record, and the type of death was murder or non-negligent manslaughter.

Cases were subsequently verified utilizing media accounts, court documents, academic journal articles, books, and local law enforcement records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Each data point was corroborated by multiple sources, which were compiled into a single document to assess the quality of information.

In case(s) of contradiction among sources, official law enforcement or court records were used, when available, followed by the most recent media or academic source.

Case information was subsequently compared with every other known mass murder database to ensure reliability and validity. Incidents listed in the SHR that could not be independently verified were excluded from the database.

Project researchers also conducted extensive searches for incidents not reported in the SHR during the time period, utilizing internet search engines, Lexis-Nexis, and Newspapers.com. Search terms include: [number] dead, [number] killed, [number] slain, [number] murdered, [number] homicide, mass murder, mass shooting, massacre, rampage, family killing, familicide, and arson murder. Offender, victim, and location names were also directly searched when available.

This project started at USA TODAY in 2012.

Contacts

Contact AP Data Editor Justin Myers with questions, suggestions or comments about this dataset at jmyers@ap.org. The Northeastern University researcher working with AP and USA TODAY is Professor James Alan Fox, who can be reached at j.fox@northeastern.edu or 617-416-4400.