The U.S. COVID-19 County Policy Database (Preliminary)
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Rita Hamad, Harvard School of Public Health; Mark Pletcher, University of California San Francisco; Thomas Carton, Louisiana Public Health Institute
Version: View help for Version V3
Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
---|---|---|---|
Data | 10/03/2022 05:40:PM | ||
Documentation | 10/03/2022 07:03:PM |
Project Citation:
Hamad, Rita, Pletcher, Mark, and Carton, Thomas . The U.S. COVID-19 County Policy Database (Preliminary). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2024-07-29. https://doi.org/10.3886/E180482V3
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
Please note that an updated version of this data set with additional waves of policy data for a larger set of counties has now been released and is available at ICPSR 39109: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR39109.v1. The description of this preliminary data set follows:
It is increasingly recognized that policies have played a role in both alleviating and exacerbating the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet there has been limited work to systematically evaluate the substantial variation in local COVID-19-related policies in the U.S. The objective of the U.S. COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) Database is to systematically gather, characterize, and assess variation in U.S. county-level COVID-19-related policies. The current data upload represents the first wave of data collection, which includes data on over 20 policies gathered across 171 counties in 7 states during January-March 2021. These include county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains that are likely to affect a variety of health outcomes: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic support, and (3) public health. In ongoing work, we are conducting retrospective longitudinal weekly data collection for the period 2020-2021 from a larger swath of 300+ U.S. counties in all 50 states and Washington D.C. The current database will be updated with new data as it becomes available, in late 2023 or early 2024.
Researchers who use this database for their studies should acknowledge the funders below in all publications.
It is increasingly recognized that policies have played a role in both alleviating and exacerbating the health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet there has been limited work to systematically evaluate the substantial variation in local COVID-19-related policies in the U.S. The objective of the U.S. COVID-19 County Policy (UCCP) Database is to systematically gather, characterize, and assess variation in U.S. county-level COVID-19-related policies. The current data upload represents the first wave of data collection, which includes data on over 20 policies gathered across 171 counties in 7 states during January-March 2021. These include county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains that are likely to affect a variety of health outcomes: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic support, and (3) public health. In ongoing work, we are conducting retrospective longitudinal weekly data collection for the period 2020-2021 from a larger swath of 300+ U.S. counties in all 50 states and Washington D.C. The current database will be updated with new data as it becomes available, in late 2023 or early 2024.
Researchers who use this database for their studies should acknowledge the funders below in all publications.
Funding Sources:
View help for Funding Sources
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (COVID-2020C2-10761);
National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH129968)
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
COVID-19 pandemic;
policy evaluation;
economic support;
health policy;
public health
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
1.San Joaquin, CA 2.Sacramento, CA 3. Napa, CA 4.Yolo, CA 5.Lake, CA 6.Merced, CA 7.Mendocino, CA 8.Humboldt, CA 9.Del Norte, CA 10.Shasta, CA 11.Butte, CA 12.Tuolumne, CA 13.Amador, CA 14.El Dorado, CA 15.Placer, CA 16.Nevada, CA 17.Yuba, CA 18.Sutter, CA 19.San Diego, CA 20.San Luis Obispo, CA 21.Tulare, CA 22.Fresno, CA 23.Monterey, CA 24.Santa Cruz, CA 25.Santa Clara, CA 26.San Mateo, CA 27.San Francisco, CA 28.Los Angeles, CA 29.Alameda, CA 30.Contra Costa, CA 31.Marin, CA 32.Solano, CA 33.Sonoma, CA 34.Stanislaus, CA 35.Plaquemines, LA 36.St. Mary, LA 37.Washington, LA 38.Iberville, LA 39.Lafayette, LA 40.Assumption, LA 41.St. James, LA 42.Rapides, LA 43.De Soto, LA 44.Webster, LA 45.Lincoln, LA 46.East Feliciana, LA 47.St. Tammany, LA 48.Orleans, LA 49.East Baton Rouge, LA 50.West Baton Rouge, LA 51.Caddo, LA 52.Lafourche, LA 53.Livingston, LA 54.St. Charles, LA 55.Ascension, LA 56.Terrebonne, LA 57.Tangipahoa, LA 58.Jefferson, LA 59.St. John The Baptist, LA 60.St. Bernard, LA 61.Ouachita, LA 62.Calcasieu, LA 63.Bossier, LA 64.Hancock, MS 65.Pearl River, MS 66.Harrison, MS 67.Jackson, MS 68.Essex, NJ 69.Union, NJ 70.Morris, NJ 71.Ocean, NJ 72.Passaic, NJ 73.Somerset, NJ 74.Mercer, NJ 75.Middlesex, NJ 76.Hudson, NJ 77.Bergen, NJ 78.Monmouth, NJ 79.New York, NY 80.Kings, NY 81.Queens, NY 82.Orange, NY 83.Rockland, NY 84.Nassau, NY 85.Dutchess, NY 86.Bronx, NY 87.Putnam, NY 88.Ulster, NY 89.Essex, NY 90.Suffolk, NY 91.Richmond, NY 92.Westchester, NY 93.Dallas, TX 94.Tarrant, TX 95.Bell, TX 96.Collin, TX 97.Williamson, TX 98.McLennan, TX 99.Denton, TX 100.Travis, TX 101.Ellis, TX 102.Brazos, TX 103.Kaufman, TX 104.Rockwall, TX 105.Coryell, TX 106.Washington, TX 107.Hunt, TX 108.Burnet, TX 109.Hays, TX 110.Llano, TX 111.Milam, TX 112.Parker, TX 113.Grayson, TX 114.Johnson, TX 115.Harris, TX 116.Grimes, TX 117.Lee, TX 118.Navarro, TX 119.Limestone, TX 120.Robertson, TX 121.Austin, TX 122.Leon, TX 123.Hill, TX 124.Falls, TX 125.Cooke, TX 126.Fannin, TX 127.Henderson, TX 128.Bexar, TX 129.Wise, TX 130.Bastrop, TX 131.Van Zandt, TX 132.Bosque, TX 133.Montgomery, TX 134.Lampasas, TX 135.Hood, TX 136.Freestone, TX 137.San Saba, TX 138.Burleson, TX 139.Blanco, TX 140.Waller, TX 141.Hamilton, TX 142.Fayette, TX 143.Salt Lake, UT 144.Daggett, UT 145.Duchesne, UT 146.Morgan, UT 147.Garfield, UT 148.Millard, UT 149.Wayne, UT 150.Cache, UT 151.Kane, UT 152.Sevier, UT 153.Tooele, UT 154.Washington, UT 155.Box Elder, UT 156.Summit, UT 157.Grand, UT 158.Piute, UT 159.Emery, UT 160.Juab, UT 161.Beaver, UT 162.Sanpete, UT 163.Wasatch, UT 164.Utah, UT 165.San Juan, UT 166.Uintah, UT 167.Carbon, UT 168.Davis, UT 169.Weber, UT 170.Rich, UT 171.Iron, UT
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
1/2021 – 3/2021 (January - March 2021)
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
1/2021 – 3/2021 (January - March 2021)
Universe:
View help for Universe
171 counties in 7 states (see above geographic coverage)
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
administrative records data;
observational data
Collection Notes:
View help for Collection Notes
In January-March 2021, we collected cross-sectional data from government and
media websites for 171 counties in
7 states on 22 county-level COVID-19-related policies within 3 policy domains
that are likely to affect health: (1) containment/closure, (2) economic
support, and (3) public health.
Methodology
Response Rate:
View help for Response Rate
N/A
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
N/A
Data Source:
View help for Data Source
Internet searches
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
other;
record abstracts
Scales:
View help for Scales
N/A
Weights:
View help for Weights
N/A
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Counties
Geographic Unit:
View help for Geographic Unit
Counties
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.