Posts in Category: Data Visualizations

U.S. Immigration – States where immigrants obtain legal permanent residence status in Fiscal 2012

Credit: This made was made using Google Fusion Tables
The raw data came from the Department of Homeland Security
Here is a link to the XLS file I downloaded: Table
The color scheme came from ColorBrewer by Cynthia Brewer and Mark Harrower at The Pennsylvania State University
This map was made for a Coursera class, Maps and the Geospatial Revolution, with Dr. Anthony C. Robinson at Penn State.
Thanks also to Patricia Carbajales from Stanford’s Geospatial Center for creating the KML files that allowed me to draw shapes around each shape.

The tools used are listed above in the credit section (DHS data, Fusion Tables, ColorBrewer, etc.)

The story

I began this project for the final assignment in Prof. Robinson’s class so I haven’t had a chance to go out and report on the findings. But the initial clues the data shows us can hint at a couple of story ideas:

California, Texas, Florida and New York are the states with the largest number of legal permanent residents who obtain their status in those status. It’s a convoluted way of saying, I’m pretty sure those states are the ones that get the most immigrants who end up with permanent residency, and they probably stay there too. Unsurprising. But Virginia, Illinois, Georgia and Minnesota are in the next group second to those top four. Why? Good education programs? Growing economies? Places traditionally with larger immigrant populations?

California, by far, attracts the largest number of immigrants. A pleasant place to live with nice weather and friendly people. A lively tech economy with a lot of jobs for programmers and people in the STEM fields. Large state where land is plenty and houses aren’t as difficult to find as, for example, New York. Send me any other story ideas you think are probable. 

I also wish I had the ability to draw flows from the states to the respective countries where the immigrants were coming from but I ended up frustrated enough with trying to upload HTML to WordPress that I’m leaving the map in this form where it’s at least working.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Elections 2012 — Data visualizations (Part 2) charting the money behind the measures

Peninsula Press

This is the last of a two-part Peninsula Press series featuring data visualizations that map the money behind California’s statewide ballot measures. Yesterday’s installment analyzed campaign contributions by geography. Today, the interactive graphics (see below) look at when donors contributed in 2011-12 and at the occupations of the top 15 donors to each of the measures.

The visualizations are based on data from the California Secretary of State, tracking financial contributions to committees that support or oppose a given measure on the Nov. 6 ballot. The information included filing dates and occupations; to track the timing, it was joined with a calendar.

Below are directions for how to navigate the two charts, as well as summaries of the ballot measures.

How to use the chart above:

  • Represented here is the amount of money contributed month-by-month, and quarterly, to committees that support or oppose each of the 11 ballot measures. Consult the color legend on the right sidebar.
  • Toggle from one measure to another by clicking the button next to each name on the right sidebar.
  • Hover your mouse over a bar to find more information.

How to use the chart above:

  • Represented here are the occupations of the top 15 donors to each measure.
  • Toggle from one measure to another by clicking the button next to each name on the right sidebar.
  • Some donors did not disclose their occupations (listed as not specified).

Data analysis and visualizations by Anna Li, who also wrote the text.

Special thanks to Gauthier Vasseur for database and data visualization expertise.

The ballot measures are:

Proposition 30 (Education and Safety Fund) would temporarily increase sales tax and personal income tax for upper-income taxpayers to fund state programs.
Proposition 31 (State Budget) would authorize and fund local government services, prevent the state Legislature from passing certain bills, grant the governor more power to cut state spending during fiscal emergencies, and create a two-year budget cycle.
Proposition 32 (Political Contributions by Payroll Deductions) would ban unions and certain corporations from making direct donations to political candidates and ballot campaigns. It would also prohibit government contractors from funding elected officials who give them contracts, and ban the use of payroll deductions for political purposes. Super PACs would be exempt.
Proposition 33 (Auto Insurance) would allow insurance companies to determine rates based on a driver’s auto insurance history, unless past lapses are under 90 days or are a result of military service or unemployment.
Proposition 34 (Death Penalty) would overturn the death penalty in California and allocate $100 million to be paid to local law enforcement agencies over the next four years.
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking) would increase penalties for human trafficking, expand the definition of human trafficking to include the distribution of child pornography, grant local law enforcement officials the power to monitor the Internet activities of sex offenders, and ban the use of a victim’s sexual history as court evidence.
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes) would amend the three strikes law so that life sentences are only imposed if the most recent crime committed is serious or violent, with a few exceptions.
Proposition 37 (Genetically Engineered Food Labeling) would require labelling of foods prepared with genetically modified plant and animal materials (see bill for exemptions) and prohibit such foods from being labelled “natural.”
Proposition 38 (Early Education Tax) would raise personal income taxes to fund education, child care and state debt payments.
Proposition 39 (Business Tax for Energy Projects) would ask multistate businesses to determine their taxes based on their sales in California and dedicate $550 million per year (for five years) to fund alternative energy proposals
(Proposition 40) (Redistricting Referendum) would keep State Senate districts in accordance with the plans of the Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Hear more about this project and how it developed on the Peninsula Report radio podcast.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Data Fest 2013: Money in the Valley

The top 15 donors by employer visualized in a network map

Project submitted for the 2013 Bicoastal Data Fest at Stanford University and Columbia University investigating the flow of money.
For more information about my work, check the Data Fest’s project website.
My team project won the “Best in Insight” award for the project that tells the best story.

Donors who are Microsoft Employees

BiCoastalDatafest23Credit to http://www.bdatafest.computationalreporting.com/home

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Elections 2012 — Data visualizations tracking the money behind California ballot measures

Peninsula Press

This is the first of a two-part Peninsula Press series featuring data visualizations that map the money behind California’s statewide ballot measures. UPDATE: Click here to view Part 2 of series.

This is the first of a two-part Peninsula Press series featuring data visualizations that map the money behind California’s statewide ballot measures. UPDATE: Click here to view Part 2 of series. The interactive graphics (see below) are based on data from the California Secretary of State, showing financial contributions to committees that support or oppose a given measure on the Nov. 6 ballot. The information came from donor names and addresses; it was joined with a complete list of U.S. zip codes to allow for a geographical look at where the contributors are based. Below are directions for how to navigate the two graphics, as well as summaries of the ballot measures.

How to navigate the map above:

  • The color of a state corresponds with the amount of money that donors from there have contributed in support of or opposition to California ballot measures. Consult the color legend on the right sidebar.
  • Toggle between the 11 ballot measures by clicking the button next to each name on the right sidebar.
  • To zoom in and out, hover your mouse over the top left corner of the visualization. A zoom menu will appear. Click + to zoom in. Click – to zoom out. Click the square with the + and then draw a square on the map to zoom in on a specific area.
  • Hover your mouse over a state to find more information.
  • To move the map, click and hold your mouse button, then drag the map in the direction you want to see.

How to navigate the map above:

  • The size of the dots corresponds to the size of donations.
  • Toggle between the 11 ballot measures by clicking the button next to each name on the right sidebar.
  • To zoom in and out, hover your mouse over the top left corner of the visualization. A zoom menu will appear. Click + to zoom in. Click – to zoom out. Click the square with the + and then draw a square on the map to zoom in on a specific area.
  • Hover your mouse over a state to find more information.
  • To move the map, click and hold your mouse button, then drag the map in the direction you want to see.

Hear more about this project and how it developed on the Peninsula Report radio podcast.

Data analysis and visualizations by Anna Li and text by Riva Gold. Special thanks to Gauthier Vasseur for database and data visualization expertise.

The ballot measures are:

Proposition 30 (Education and Safety Fund) would temporarily increase sales tax and personal income tax for upper-income taxpayers to fund state programs.
Proposition 31 (State Budget) would authorize and fund local government services, prevent the state Legislature from passing certain bills, grant the governor more power to cut state spending during fiscal emergencies, and create a two-year budget cycle.
Proposition 32 (Political Contributions by Payroll Deductions) would ban unions and certain corporations from making direct donations to political candidates and ballot campaigns. It would also prohibit government contractors from funding elected officials who give them contracts, and ban the use of payroll deductions for political purposes. Super PACs would be exempt.
Proposition 33 (Auto Insurance) would allow insurance companies to determine rates based on a driver’s auto insurance history, unless past lapses are under 90 days or are a result of military service or unemployment.
Proposition 34 (Death Penalty) would overturn the death penalty in California and allocate $100 million to be paid to local law enforcement agencies over the next four years.
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking) would increase penalties for human trafficking, expand the definition of human trafficking to include the distribution of child pornography, grant local law enforcement officials the power to monitor the Internet activities of sex offenders, and ban the use of a victim’s sexual history as court evidence.
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes) would amend the three strikes law so that life sentences are only imposed if the most recent crime committed is serious or violent, with a few exceptions.
Proposition 37 (Genetically Engineered Food Labeling) would require labelling of foods prepared with genetically modified plant and animal materials (see bill for exemptions) and prohibit such foods from being labelled “natural.”
Proposition 38 (Early Education Tax) would raise personal income taxes to fund education, child care and state debt payments.
Proposition 39 (Business Tax for Energy Projects) would ask multistate businesses to determine their taxes based on their sales in California and dedicate $550 million per year (for five years) to fund alternative energy proposals
(Proposition 40) (Redistricting Referendum) would keep State Senate districts in accordance with the plans of the Citizens Redistricting Commission.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather