Data Catalog

USAFacts is collecting temporal data on confirmed cases of COVID-19 and deaths at the county level from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state- and local-level public health agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website can be used to search for facilities in your community to assess their compliance with environmental regulations. You can use ECHO to search for facilities, investigate pollution sources, search for EPA enforcement cases, examine and create enforcement-related maps, and analyze trends in compliance and enforcement data.

The Pediatric Participant Use Data File (PUF) is a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant data file containing cases submitted to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric® (ACS NSQIP Pediatric®). The PUF contains patient-level, aggregate data and does not identify hospitals, health care providers, or patients. The ACS NSQIP Pediatric collects data on approximately 120 variables, including preoperative risk factors, intraoperative variables, and 30-day postoperative mortality and morbidity outcomes for patients undergoing major surgical procedures in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. The intended purpose of this file is to provide researchers at participating sites with a data resource they can use to investigate and advance the quality of care delivered to the surgical patient through the analysis of cases captured by ACS NSQIP Pediatric. Additional procedure-specific PUFs are available for appendectomy, spinal fusion, and cerebrospinal fluid shunt.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether adult sexual assault cases in a Midwestern community were more likely to be investigated and prosecuted after the implementation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program, and to identify the 'critical ingredients' that contributed to that increase. The data are divided into six parts: Part 1, Study 1: Case Records Quantitative Data; Part 2, Study 2: Case Characteristics Quantitative Data; Part 3, Study 3: Police and Prosecutors Interview Qualitative Data; Part 4, Study 4: Police Reports Quantitative Data; Part 5, Study 5: Survivor Interview Qualitative Data; Part 6, Study 6: Forensic Nurse Interview Qualitative Data.

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. They 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. They have used these data to power their maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and they are 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. They will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

This study evaluated advocacy services offered to battered women in Detroit, Michigan, and examined other aspects of coordinated community responses to domestic violence by focusing on women named as victims in police reports. Advocacy was defined as those services provided to support victims during the legal process or to enhance their safety. For the Preliminary Complaint Reports Data (Part 1), a random sample of preliminary complaint reports (PCRs), completed by police officers after they responded to domestic violence calls, were gathered, resulting in a sample of 1,057 incidents and victims. For Victim Advocacy Contact Data (Part 2), researchers obtained data from advocates' files about the services they provided to the 1,057 victims. For Case Disposition Data (Part 3), researchers conducted a computer search to determine the outcomes of the cases. They looked up each perpetrator from the list of 1,057 incidents, and determined whether there was a warrant for the focal incident, whether it turned into a prosecution, and the outcome. The Initial Victim Interview (Part 4) and Follow-Up Victim Interview Data (Part 5) were conducted from April 1998 to July 1999. During the same period that researchers were completing the second interviews, they also interviewed 23 women (Victim Comparison Group Interview Data, Part 6) from the list of 1,057 whom they had been unable to reach during the first interviews. They compared these 23 women to the 63 who had second interviews to determine if there were any differences in use of services, or views toward or participation in prosecution. Variables in Part 1 focus on whether alcohol and abuse were involved, previous incidents, the suspect's psychological aggressions and physical assaults, if a weapon was used, if the victim was hurt, if property was damaged, if the victim sought medical attention, and the severity of physical abuse or injury. Variables in Part 2 provide information on the role of the advocate, methods of contact, types of referrals made, and services provided. Variables in Part 3 include the type of charge, outcome of resolved case, why the case was dismissed, if applicable, and if the suspect was sentenced to probation, costs, confinement, no contact with the victim, a batterer program, or community service. [...]

This data collection documents all cases of military intervention across international boundaries by regular armed forces of independent states in the regions of Europe, the Americas (and Caribbean), Asia and the Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East/North Africa. Military interventions are defined operationally in this collection as the movement of regular troops or forces (airborne, seaborne, shelling, etc.) of one country into the territory or territorial waters of another country, or forceful military action by troops already stationed by one country inside another, in the context of some political issue or dispute. The study seeks to identify politically important actions which interpose a state directly into the conflict patterns occurring in another state, and which conceivably involve a breach of the sovereignty of the target state (albeit by invitation in some cases). The collection identifies intervener and target countries and specifies the starting and ending dates of the intervention. A series of potential interests in or motives for intervention are presented, including effects on the target's domestic disputes, foreign or domestic policies, and efforts to protect social factions in the target, to attack rebels in sanctuaries across borders ("hot pursuit"), to protect or enhance economic/resource interests, to protect military or diplomatic facilities, to save lives, or to affect regional power balances and strategic relations. Information is provided on the direction of the intervention, i.e., to support or oppose the target government, to support or oppose opposition groups in the target, or to support or oppose third-party governments or opposition groups. Other variables show the degree of prior intervention, the alliance or treaty relationship between intervener and target, prior colonial status, prior intervention, and measures of intervener and target power size. A series of intensity measures, such as battle-related casualties, is also included. For each type of incursion, by land, sea, or air, an ordinal scale of involvement is presented, ranging from minor engagement such as evacuation, to patrols, acts of intimidation, and actual firing, shelling, or bombing. Finally, contiguity information is provided to indicate both whether intervener and target are geographically contiguous, and whether the intervention was launched from contiguous territory.