ctpp-news August 1998

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

6 participants
14 discussions

by ed c

Vol. 2 - No. 40 Aug. 25, 1998 On Tuesday afternoon, Aug. 24, Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley issued a statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's order enjoining the Census Bureau from using "any form of statistical sampling" in Census 2000. The Secretary's statement follows: "We are obviously disappointed with today's ruling on the Census. What is at stake here is the ability of the Census Bureau to use the most modern scientific methods to ensure an accurate and fair census. We will ask the Solicitor General to appeal the ruling and we expect the Supreme Court to reverse it. Meantime, the Census Bureau will proceed with its two-track planning process, preparing for both a census using an element of statistical sampling, and a census that would not use those methods. "In the cases arising out of the 1980 and 1990 census, courts have held that the use of statistical sampling methods in the decennial is both constitutional and lawful. In 1991, Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation directing the National Academy of Sciences to determine a more accurate method for counting the population, including the possible use of statistical sampling. We concur with the findings of the Academy and other experts that a census using statistical sampling will produce much more accurate results, and at far less cost, than a census not using these methods." For further information concerning this bulletin, contact Mary Hanley (202-482-4883) or Karen Cowles (202-482-1523) at the Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Commerce Department.

26 years, 3 months

Census 2000 News Alert

by ed c

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:42:23 -0400 From: census2000 <census2000(a)ccmc.org> BREAKING NEWS ALERT Federal Court Finds Law Bars Census Sampling Methods Commerce Department Will Appeal to Supreme Court; Three-Judge District Court Panel Avoids Constitutional Question A federal district court panel ruled unanimously today that a census statute bars the use of sampling methods to produce the population counts used to reapportion seats in Congress. The opinion, written by Judge Royce Lamberth, was issued in the case of U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce, filed at the direction of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) to stop the Census Bureau from using scientific methods in the 2000 census. The special three-judge panel heard the case on June 11. Judge Lamberth was joined by Judges Douglas Ginsburg and Ricardo Urbina in his opinion. A copy of the 31-page decision is available on the internet at <http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov>. The court found that the plaintiffs had legal "standing" to bring their lawsuit, which the Justice Department, representing the Commerce Department and Census Bureau, had disputed. The court wrote that Congress intended to prohibit the use of sampling methods to conduct the population count when it amended the Census Act (title 13, United States Code) in 1974. One provision of that statute (section 195) requires the Secretary of Commerce to use sampling techniques whenever possible to collect census and other survey data, except for purposes of apportionment. Another provision of the law (section 141) requiring a census every ten years allows the Secretary to conduct the count using any methods, including sampling. Several federal district and appellate courts have considered those apparently conflicting provisions in cases dating back to the 1980 census and have found that the law does not bar sampling to supplement a "good faith" direct counting effort. In a joint statement, Congressional Census Caucus Co-Chairs Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) said that they expected the Supreme Court to decide the issue ultimately. Former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), who chaired the census subcommittee when the contested provisions of the law were enacted, said that the court's opinion "directly contradicted the intent of Congress" in amending the Census Act. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe called the ruling a "temporary blow" and said the history of the statute "[doesn't] provide any basis" for the court's interpretation. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, released a statement that opened with the following quote: "Americans for Tax Reform welcomes the court's rejection of this blatantly illegal scheme to advance the agenda of the forces of big government." The court did not rule on whether the Constitution also prevented the use of sampling and statistical methods in the census, saying that it did not need to reach that question since it believed Congress had barred the methods by law. In the major lawsuit challenging the accuracy of the 1990 census, the Supreme Court found that Article I, section 2, of the Constitution gives Congress "virtually unlimited discretion" in how to conduct the census. A second lawsuit challenging the constitutionality and legality of sampling, Glavin v. Clinton, was heard by a three-judge district court panel in Roanoke, Virginia on August 7. Matthew Glavin, head of the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, and Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) filed suit on February 12 to stop the Census Bureau from carrying out its 2000 census plan. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 484-2270 or, by e-mail at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to <census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8728. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

26 years, 4 months

[Fwd:Standard Occupational Classifications]

by ed c

Don--i reposted your response to the mailing list. i hope that is ok with. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26 years, 4 months

Re: [Re: [CTPP] Standard Occupational Classifications]

by lmugler.drcog＠usa.net

In reply to Ed Christopher's question about the NAICS changes- Here in Denver, we are looking forward to these changes. The old SIC codes are no longer reflecting the character of the economy, at least in our setting. With the service sector becoming such a dominant part of the economy, the new system will break services into several major groups. We are hopeful that this will be useful for transportation modeling as well. the new system will provide n opportunity to group industires together that have similar travel patterns. Again, changes in the way business functions are making the SIC groupings less releevant to transportation modeling. Hope that encourages you to review the changes. Larry Mugler Director, Development Services Denver Regional Council of Governments. owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net wrote: > Chuck thanks for the heads-up. Anyone on the list care to comment on > this NAICS thing? Is it a good thing? Working in an agency that gets its > employment data given to it by another agency I really do not have a good > read on this. I am sure there are others equally unaware of what NAICS > means to them. > ed christopher > director of information services > chicago area transportation study > > Chuck Purvis (MTC) wrote: > > > Dear CTPP Listserv recipients: > > > > I'm forwarding this message that a colleague received from the state > > data center listserv. > > > > Chuck Purvis, MTC > > > > *************************************************************** > > > > The Census 2000 will be using 2 new classification systems. NAICS or > > North American Industry Classification System will be used for > > classifying employment by industry. SOC or Standard Occupational > > Classification will be used to classify occupations. > > > > I encourage you to become familiar with the SOC revisions and to > > submit comments. Thanks. > > Patricia Roberts > > paroberts(a)mt.gov > > 406.444.4393 > > ------------------clipped------------------------- > > ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

26 years, 4 months

Standard Occupational Classifications

by Chuck Purvis (MTC)

Dear CTPP Listserv recipients: I'm forwarding this message that a colleague received from the state data center listserv. Chuck Purvis, MTC *************************************************************** The Census 2000 will be using 2 new classification systems. NAICS or North American Industry Classification System will be used for classifying employment by industry. SOC or Standard Occupational Classification will be used to classify occupations. I encourage you to become familiar with the SOC revisions and to submit comments. Thanks. Patricia Roberts paroberts(a)mt.gov 406.444.4393 ----------------------------------------------- The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is seeking public comment on the Standard Occupational Classification Revision Policy Committee's (SOCRPC) final recommendations for revising the 1980 Standard Occupational Classification's (SOC) occupational units and aggregate groups presented in this notice. The SOCRPC has developed a new occupational classification system that will cover all jobs in the national economy, including occupations in the public, private, and military sectors. All Federal agencies that collect occupational data will use the new system; similarly, all State and local government agencies are strongly encouraged to use this national system to promote a common language for categorizing occupations in the world of work. The new SOC system will be used by the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for gathering occupational information. It will also replace the Bureau of the Census' 1990 occupational classification system and will be used for the 2000 Census. In addition, the new SOC will serve as the framework for information being gathered through the Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET), which is in the process of replacing the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). Request For Comments: OMB welcomes comments with respect to any topic related to occupational classification, but is specifically interested in comments concerning: (1) the hierarchical structure of the new SOC presented in Appendix A below, especially the minor group, broad occupation, and detailed occupation organization within the structure, and the numbering system used, and (2) the establishment of ongoing review and update procedures and a time frame for future revision as outlined in the "Next Steps in Process" recommendations near the end of the Supplementary Information section below. It is anticipated that the next major review and revision of the SOC will begin in 2005 in preparation for use in the 2010 Decennial Census. DATES: To ensure consideration all comments must be in writing and received on or before October 9, 1998. ADDRESSES: Correspondence about the adoption and implementation of the SOC as shown in this Federal Register notice should be sent to: Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Management and Budget, 10201 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, telephone number: (202) 395-3093, FAX number: (202) 395-7245. Inquiries about the definition of particular occupations or requests for electronic copies of the SOC structure should be made to Laurie Salmon, Standard Occupational Classification Revision Policy Committee, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4840, Washington, DC 20212, telephone number: (202) 606-6511, FAX number: (202) 606-6645. Electronic Availability and Comment: This document is available on the Internet from the Bureau of Labor Statistics via WWW browser and E-mail. To obtain this document via WWW browser, connect to (http://stats.bls.gov/soc/soc_home.htm). This WWW page contains previous SOC Federal Register notices and related documents as well. To obtain this document via E-mail, send a message to socrevision(a)bls.gov. Comments may be sent via E-mail to OMB at soc(a)omb.eop.gov (do not include any capital letters in the address). Comments received at this address by the date specified above will be included as part of the official record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Bugg, 10201 New Executive Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20503, E-mail address: pbugg(a)omb.eop.gov, telephone number: (202) 395-3093, FAX number: (202) 395-7245. To review the full Federal Register notice and specific classifications/defnitions, go to: http://stats.bls.gov/soc/soc_home.htm ***********************************************************

26 years, 4 months

NEW "Traffic Management" issue: UMP

by Cindy Kerckhoffs

Dear Urban Mobility Professional, I would like to present you with the August edition of the Urban Mobility Professional wherein the topic Traffic management will be discussed. Please take a look at http://www.mobility-net.com/ump/issue3 You will find Traffic Management articles, press releases, internet links, experts and much more..... If you would like to subscribe yourself to this FREE magazine, please go to http://www.mobility-net.com/ump or follow the below instructions: 1. E-magazine including images: This service is only available if you have one of the following mail-programs: Netscape 4 / Outlook Express '97/ Eudora 4 etc.). Please send a message to mailmanager(a)mobility-net.com with the following message in the body: join ump 2. E-magazine in text format: Please send a message to mailmanager(a)mobility-net.com with the following message in the body: join ump-t ! send both messages using plain text (no HTML codes) Thank you and best regards, Cindy Kerckhoffs Editor / Information Manager Urban Mobility Network P.O. Box 917 6200 AX Maastricht Tel. ++31 43 3213022 Fax. ++31 43 3211062 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe yourself to our FREE electronic magazine: http://www.mobility-net.com/ump Visit our Mobility Forum. Current topic - Traffic Management : http://www.mobility-net.com/forum ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To present your company in our magazine and/or UMN platform: contact Arie Hartog (a.hartog(a)mobility-net.com)

26 years, 4 months

Census 2000 Bulletin

by ed c

********** C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N ********** Vol. 2 - No. 39 Aug. 10, 1998 As of Aug. 1, 7,475 cities, counties, and tribal governments had signed confidentiality agreements with the Census Bureau, enabling them to take part in the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program, a new activity in which local and tribal governments can review and check the accuracy of Census 2000 address lists. The Census Bureau's Geography Division also reported that as of Aug. 1 a total of 10,362 of the 17,311 governmental units in which house-number and street-name addresses are used for mail delivery had responded -- the overwhelming majority positively -- to the Census Bureau's invitation to participate in the address-list review opportunity. The Census Bureau's Geography Division said officials in all of the jurisdictions had signed and returned forms pledging that they would protect the confidentiality of the address lists. Signing of the confidentiality agreements was a prerequisite for the Census Bureau to generate the corresponding portions of the address lists handed over to officials in each of the jurisdictions. Local officials will match the Census Bureau address list against their own address lists and inform the Census Bureau of any corrections or additions. They have three months from the time they receive the list and the large-scale (36" x 42") map sheets for their jurisdictions to complete their reviews. Local and tribal governments can review the census address list in different ways. Some choose to do a comprehensive review, including field checks, but others have indicated they will employ a less intensive approach and focus on areas where addresses are more likely to be missed - newly constructed housing, apartment buildings with irregular or missing numbering schemes for individual units, areas along jurisdictional boundaries, etc. Under a law passed by Congress in 1994, the Census Bureau was directed to develop a program that would allow local and tribal governments to provide assistance in verifying the accuracy of its address list, which will be used in Census 2000 as the framework for conducting the census. In early 1999, the Census Bureau will offer a similar address-list review opportunity for areas that use other mail-delivery methods. Staff from the Census Bureau's Regional Census Centers have been conducting training sessions for local and tribal participants, and will be available throughout the program to answer questions. A toll-free telephone number (888-688-6948) will direct calls from participants to the appropriate census offices. Participants receiving computer-readable files can receive technical assistance by calling a contractor-operated help desk at a toll-free telephone number (888-879-6656). For further information concerning this bulletin, contact Catherine McCully of the Census Bureau's Geography Division on 301-457-8630 (fax: 301-457-4710; e-mail: luca(a)geo.census.gov).

26 years, 4 months

Remember the ACS?

by ed c

The 1997 American Community Survey Online Data for more than 65,000 areas accessible on the Internet at <http://www.census.gov/cms/www> New areas surveyed include Franklin County, Ohio, Douglas County, Neb., and Fort Bend and Harris counties, Texas. Two years of data are available for Rockland County, N.Y. and Multnomah County and Portland, Ore. The 1997 data appear in both summary and area-profile formats.

26 years, 4 months

8/9 test

by ?

8/9 test

26 years, 4 months

census 2000 bulletin

by ed c

********** C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N ********** Vol. 2 - No. 38 Aug. 6, 1998 Both President Clinton and Commerce Secretary William Daley issued separate statements yesterday (Aug. 5) following the House of Representatives' vote rejecting a move to lift restrictions on the Census Bureau's Fiscal Year 1999 budget. They follow in their entirety: Statement by the President "I am very disappointed that the House failed to adopt an amendment to the FY99 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill that would have removed onerous restrictions on the Census Bureau's plan for the decennial census. By failing to adopt this amendment, the House is undermining the Census Bureau's ability to plan and conduct an accurate decennial census. "To ensure a fair and accurate count, my Administration has supported the 2000 census plan developed by the experts at the Census Bureau that was based upon recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences. It is a plan that will correct the inaccuracies of the 1990 census, which missed millions of Americans and disproportionately undercounted children, minorities, and residents in urban and rural communities. This is the first census of the 21st Century, and we must ensure that the census, the single most important source of information about the American people, is accurate. "Congress must remove these restrictions. It is critically important that the Census Bureau have the funding it needs to implement its 2000 census plan -- a plan that will produce the most accurate census in history using the best, most up-to-date scientific methods." Statement of U.S. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley "The House of Representatives voted today to limit FY 1999 funding for the 2000 Census to the first six months of the coming fiscal year, while holding captive the Census Bureau's remaining decennial census funds until Congress decides how our nation's next count shall be conducted. Such an action represents a veiled attempt to prevent the use of proven scientific statistical methods, endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences and the vast majority of non-partisan statistical experts and professional organizations, to ensure the most accurate census ever conducted. I will urge the President to veto the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill should it come to his desk with this restrictive language. "I was disappointed that the House failed to adopt the amendment offered by Representative Alan Mollohan which would have restored full-year FY 1999 funding for Census 2000, allowing the Bureau to continue its current planning for the decennial census. The Bureau is in the process of conducting critical large-scale operations, such as the creation of the address lists, the contracting for the printing of census forms, the purchasing of advanced data processing equipment, and the hiring of thousands of workers. These and other activities are essential to a successful census. Without the certainty of full-year funding, the Bureau cannot move forward with these operations and the prospects for Census 2000 are greatly undermined. "The Administration remains absolutely committed to conducting the best census in our nation's history, one which accounts for all Americans regardless of race, economic status, or geographic location. To do this requires FY 1999 budget certainty from the Congress and a plan that utilizes the most modern scientific techniques. I call upon the Congress to remedy this problem and fund the Census Bureau with its full-year appropriation. The American people deserve our very best in fulfilling this vital responsibility." For further information about this bulletin, contact either Mary F. Hanley (202-482-4883) or Karen A. Cowles (202-482-1523) of the Commerce Department's Office of Public Affairs.

26 years, 4 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

ctpp-news August 1998