100% Clean Electricity by 2035 Study (ICPSR 245196)
100 CLT UK Projects (ICPSR 194581)
103rd Congressional District Geographic Entity File, 1990: [United States] (ICPSR 6425)
10(j) Injunctions (ICPSR 226824)
10-year Allegheny hardwood forest type regeneration data (ICPSR 249089)
1903 Cooper River holdings map in Berkeley County, South Carolina (ICPSR 249193)
The 1915 Iowa State Census Project (ICPSR 28501)
1936 control survey map of Berkeley County, South Carolina (ICPSR 249195)
1968-98 Civil Rights Data Collection (ICPSR 219621)
1973 Consolidated Development Directory, HUD (ICPSR 174641)
The 1974-1979-1980 Canadian National Elections and Quebec Referendum Panel Study (ICPSR 8079)
1980 and 1990 Industrial Structure Measures (ICPSR 1225)
1988/1989 Maricopa Household Travel Study (ICPSR 34743)
The 1990-2010 wildland-urban interface of the conterminous United States - geospatial data (2nd Edition) (ICPSR 249514)
The 1990-2020 wildland-urban interface of the conterminous United States - geospatial data (3rd Edition) (ICPSR 249013)
The 1990-2020 wildland-urban interface of the conterminous United States - geospatial data (4th Edition) (ICPSR 248995)
The 1990s Acceleration in Labor Productivity: Causes and Measurement (ICPSR 1335)
1998-2023 Serotype Data for Invasive Pneumococcal Disease Cases by Age Group from Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ICPSR 243434)
19th century Hebrew Press Reuse Network (ICPSR 231662)
2000 Civil Rights Data Collection (ICPSR 219643)
2000 Florida Ballots Project (ICPSR 36207)
In the United States presidential election of November 2000, approximately 180,000 ballots in Florida's 67 counties were uncertified because they failed to register a "valid" vote for president. These ballots included those in which no vote was recorded (undervotes) and those in which people voted for more than one candidate (overvotes). The 2000 Florida Ballots Project examined the undervotes and overvotes. The goal of the project was not to declare a "winner," but rather to carefully examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida. The results of this assessment may help state legislatures, other decision-makers, and developers of ballot systems to work toward more reliable ballot systems in the future.
This collection contains seven separate data sets. The first data set is the "Raw Data File" which contains one record for each ballot examined. In addition to ballot information, each record includes county name, FIPS code, ballot system and other identifying information. The unique identifier for each record is recorded in the variable BALNUM, and can be used to link the data sets. The second data set is the "Aligned Data File." This data set matches the Raw Data File with the exception of the variables associated with the candidates. All chad-level data (including chads that represent a particular candidate) are presented in the raw file. In the aligned data file, only those data that apply to candidate chads are included - data from three coding systems are contained in the same variable for each candidate. The third data set is the "Recode Data File." At random intervals, after coding a group of ballots, the coders were instructed to recode the same ballots as a check on intra-coder reliability (or consistency within a coder). These second codings are contained in the recode data file. The difference between variables in the recode data and file and the aligned data file is variables with the suffix C1, C2, or C3 in the aligned data has R1, R2, and R3, respectively, in the recode data. The fourth data file is the "Comment Data File." The comments data file is a ballot-level file containing all comments made by coders during the coding of ballots. The data file contains one record for each ballot for which at least one of the three coders recorded a comment; 5,407 ballots had at least one coder comment and are contained in this file. The fifth data file is the "Coder Demographic Data File." The Coder Demographic data file contains the results of a questionnaire given to each coder employed by NORC for the Florida Ballots Project. This file contains one record for each coder and includes information such as the sex, marital status, age, income level, ethnicity, and political affiliation of each coder. The ID field contains the identification number of the coder which can be used as a link to the raw and aligned data files. The sixth and seventh data sets are the "Orange County Raw Data File" and "Orange County Aligned Data File." These two data sets are identical to the structures of the raw and aligned data files, respectively. Each file has 417 records. These data files are being made available because the 966 undervotes and 1,383 overvotes reported by Orange County on election day (that ultimately informed the tally of certified totals) could not be segregated by county officials responsible for producing the ballots for NORC review. The NORC coders were initially shown only 640 undervotes and 1,197 overvotes. At the time of initial coding, more than 400 of the ballots rejected by machines on election day simply could not be distinguished from ballots that were accepted and certified on election day.
2000 Sacramento Area Household Travel Survey (ICPSR 34777)
2000 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (ICPSR 238161)
- Foreign nationals who came to the United States during a fiscal year. This includes lawful permanent residents, temporary visitors (nonimmigrants), refugees and asylees, and naturalizations.
- Immigration enforcement actions, including alien apprehensions, removals, and returns.
2001 Chilean Social Mobility Survey (ICPSR 35299)
The 2001 Recession: How Was It Different and What Developments May Have Caused It? (ICPSR 1292)
2001 Residential Financial Survey (ICPSR 218541)
2002-2018 Pooled National Survey on Drug Use and Health (ICPSR 248657)
2002 Champaign-Urbana-Savoy Travel Survey (ICPSR 35263)
2002 State Legislative Survey (ICPSR 20960)
2003 National Immunization Survey (ICPSR 101387)
2004 Civil Rights Data Collection (ICPSR 219642)
2006 Civil Rights Data Collection (ICPSR 219641)
2006 Ventenata dubia distribution in the Blue Mountains Ecoregion of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho - probability (ICPSR 249232)
2008 Abortion Patient Survey (ICPSR 152081)
2009-10 Civil Rights Data Collection (ICPSR 219603)
2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey: Commuting Flows (ICPSR 100616)
2009 Federal Stimulus Package Certification Study (ICPSR 100021)
2009 National Survey of Reproductive and Contraceptive Knowledge (ICPSR 164142)
2010 Census Demonstration Data Products (ICPSR 115227)
2010 Census Production Settings Demographic and Housing Characteristics (DHC) Demonstration Noisy Measurement File (ICPSR 38865)
The 2010 Census Production Settings Demographic and Housing Characteristics Demonstration Noisy Measurement File (2023-04-03) is an intermediate output of the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) TopDown Algorithm (TDA) (as described in Abowd, J. et al [2022], and implemented in DAS 2020 Redistricting Production Code). The NMF was produced using the official "production settings," the final set of algorithmic parameters and privacy-loss budget allocations, that were used to produce the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File and the 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics File. The NMF consists of the full set of privacy-protected statistical queries (counts of individuals or housing units with particular combinations of characteristics) of confidential 2010 Census data relating to the 2010 Demonstration Data Products Suite - Redistricting and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File - Production Settings (2023-04-03). These statistical queries, called "noisy measurements" were produced under the zero-Concentrated Differential Privacy framework (Bun, M. and Steinke, T [2016]; see also Dwork C. and Roth, A. [2014]) implemented via the discrete Gaussian mechanism (Cannone C., et al., [2023]), which added positive or negative integer-valued noise to each of the resulting counts. The noisy measurements are an intermediate stage of the TDA prior to the post-processing the TDA then performs to ensure internal and hierarchical consistency within the resulting tables. The Census Bureau has released these 2010 Census demonstration data to enable data users to evaluate the expected impact of disclosure avoidance variability on 2020 Census data. The 2010 Census Production Settings Demographic and Housing Characteristics (DHC) Demonstration Noisy Measurement File (2023-04-03) has been cleared for public dissemination by the Census Bureau Disclosure Review Board (CBDRB-FY22-DSEP-004).
The 2010 Census Production Settings Demographic and Housing Characteristics Demonstration Noisy Measurement File (2023-04-03) includes zero-Concentrated Differentially Private (zCDP) (Bun, M. and Steinke, T [2016]) noisy measurements, implemented via the discrete Gaussian mechanism. These are estimated counts of individuals and housing units included in the 2010 Census Edited File (CEF), which includes confidential data initially collected in the 2010 Census of Population and Housing. The noisy measurements included in this file were subsequently post-processed by the TopDown Algorithm (TDA) to produce the 2010 Census Production Settings Privacy-Protected Microdata File - Redistricting (P.L. 94-171) and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (2023-04-03) (Demonstration Data Products Suite/2023-04-03/). As these 2010 Census demonstration data are intended to support study of the design and expected impacts of the 2020 Disclosure Avoidance System, the 2010 CEF records were pre-processed before application of the zCDP framework. This pre-processing converted the 2010 CEF records into the input-file format, response codes, and tabulation categories used for the 2020 Census, which differ in substantive ways from the format, response codes, and tabulation categories originally used for the 2010 Census.
The NMF provides estimates of counts of persons in the CEF by various characteristics and combinations of characteristics including their reported race and ethnicity, whether they were of voting age, whether they resided in a housing unit or one of 7 group quarters types, and their census block of residence after the addition of discrete Gaussian noise (with the scale parameter determined by the privacy-loss budget allocation for that particular query under zCDP). Noisy measurements of the counts of occupied and vacant housing units by census block are also included. Lastly, data on constraints--information into which no noise was infused by the Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) and used by the TDA to post-process the noisy measurements into the 2010 Census Production Settings Privacy-Protected Microdata File - Redistricting (P.L. 94-171) and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (2023-04-03) --are provided.
These data are available for download (i.e. not restricted access). Due to their size, they must be downloaded through the link on this metadata page and not through the standard ICPSR download. The link will take you to the Globus site where these data are housed. A README file is located in the Globus repository. Please refer to that for pertinent information. The Globus holding site requires users to create an account to access these data. Accounts can be created through existing institutional access and by personal access. Please see the Globus "How to get Started" page for more information.
2010 Census Production Settings Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Demonstration Noisy Measurement File (ICPSR 38777)
2010 Survey of U.S. Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinics (ICPSR 163961)
2010 United States Census Tract Community Type Classification and Neighborhood Social and Economic Environment Score for 2000 and 2010, from the Diabetes Location, Environmental Attributes, and Disparities (LEAD) Network (ICPSR 38645)
The 2010 wildland-urban interface of the conterminous United States - geospatial data (1st Edition) (ICPSR 249632)
2011-12 Civil Rights Data Collection (ICPSR 219563)
2012-2024 China digital infrastructure and urban digital tourism data (ICPSR 242483)
2012 Chicago Council Survey on American Public Opinion and Foreign Policy (ICPSR 36230)
The Chicago Surveys are part of a long-running series of public opinion surveys conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs every two years. This study is the 2012 Chicago Council Survey, designed to investigate the opinions and attitudes of the general public on matters related to foreign policy, and to define the parameters of public opinion within which decision-makers must operate.
The 2012 Chicago Council Survey focuses on respondents' opinions of the United States' leadership role in the world and the challenges the country faces domestically and internationally.
The survey covers the following international topics: relations with other countries, role in foreign affairs, possible threats to vital interests in the next ten years, foreign policy goals, benefits or drawbacks of globalization, situations that might justify the use of United States troops in other parts of the world, the number and location of United States military bases overseas, respondent feelings toward people of other countries, opinions on the influence of other countries in the world and how much influence those countries should have, United States participation in potential treaties, the United States' role in the United Nations and NATO, which side the United States should take in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what measures should be taken to deal with Iran's nuclear program, the military effort in Afghanistan, opinions on efforts to combat terrorism, and the rise of China as a global power.
Domestic issues include economic prospects for American children when they become adults, funding for government programs, the fairness of the current distribution of income in the United States, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and United States dependence on foreign energy sources.
Demographic and other background information include age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, left-right political self-placement, political affiliation, employment status, highest level of education, and religious preference. Also included are household size and composition, whether the respondent is head of household, household income, housing type, ownership status of living quarters, household Internet access, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status, and region and state of residence.