ctpp-news May 2001

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

20 participants
26 discussions

by Elaine Murakami

You can find directions on using the PL-94-171, Census 2000 re-districting file on the TRB Census Subcommittee webpage at: www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/products/pl2gis.html Nandu Srinivasan who works as a contractor for FHWA prepared these notes for ArcView users because that is his software background/experience. FHWA is unable to provide direct technical assistance to individuals on using specific software packages. Elaine Murakami FHWA Metropolitan Planning

24 years, 9 months

Census software

by James Worthley

Can anyone recommend an easy-to-use software program for purchase for walk-in public to be able to generate specific information (more specific than the census website) from the raw census data? How can I be added to this list-serve? Thank you, James J. Worthley Stanislaus Council of Governments

24 years, 9 months

Demographic Profile release schedule

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News 1) The tentative release schedule for the one-page "Demographic Profile" reports are posted on the Census Bureau's web site at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/demoprofile.html A couple of dozen states and the US totals will be released this week (5/14-5/18). The Bureau will be trying to get all of these DP-1 files out by the end of May. The one-page "DP-1" will include 96 selected "short-form" variables for the US, States, Counties, Places and (eventually) census tracts. This is the first detailed glimpse at population by age and sex, number of households & families, group quarters population, housing unit characteristics (vacancy status, owner/renter tenure), and detailed hispanic/latino and asian characteristics. Technical documentation is available at the above URL. The DP-1 will also be available through American FactFinder. 2) A very nice Census 2000 Brief "The Hispanic Population" was released by the Bureau last week. You'll need acrobat reader and a color printer for this 8-page report. URL is: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html Enjoy Chuck Purvis, MTC *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (office) (510) 464-7848 (fax) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

24 years, 9 months

Eric Randall's CTPP Data Loader

by Rob CASE

Do you use Eric Randall's CTPP Data Loader? I used it successfully in years past, but am having trouble with it now. If you have used it and would be willing to help me, please contact me. Robert B. Case, PE Principal Transportation Engineer Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 723 Woodlake Dr., Chesapeake, Va. 23320 voice:757-420-8300; fax:757-523-4881 rcase(a)hrpdc.org

24 years, 9 months

Re: [CTPP] PUMA Qustion

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

Thanks Patty. Attached is MS Word list of ONLY the SDC leads. I got this from Census Bureau a while ago, but someone can correct me if anything is wrong. I checked the addresses with the SDC website at the CB (http://www.census.gov/sdc/www). There is ONLY ONE lead per state, and their name, address, fax, phone, and e-mail numbers are included in this list. Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan >>> pbecker(a)umich.edu 05/09/01 12:33PM >>> >Every state has one and only one lead agency for the SDC. I'm pretty sure >you can find out who that is by looking on the census bureau's web >site. That's who should be responsible for, or at least coordinating, >PUMA definition. The lead agency is usually either in the state >government or in a major public university. Patty Becker ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu

24 years, 9 months

PUMA Qustion

by ed christopher

I just got what I believe is a good PUMA question that also affects many others. Especially those in Bi and Tri-State areas. I have reposted it to the list serve in hopes that our friends who monitor the list in the Census Bureau's Geography Division may be help with a response. --------snip---------------- Subject: Re: [CTPP] PUMS Boundary Criteria Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:27:38 -0400 From: Glen Ahlert <gahlert(a)swfrpc.org> To: ed christopher <berwyned(a)mcs.com> In states with multiple SDCs, how do we find out which one (ones?) will be defining PUMAs? Florida has 3 SDCs. One told me it would not be defining PUMAs, another sounds like it might be considering doing it, and I have yet to hear from the third. Glen Ahlert Staff Director Lee County MPO

24 years, 9 months

Census 2000 Initiative News Alert (long post)

by ed christopher

From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> Courts Reject Utah, Los Angeles Census Challenges Plus: Congressional Appropriators Review FY02 Budget Request; Monitoring Board Democrats Release Metropolitan Undercount Estimates; and more. Federal courts in Denver and Los Angeles rejected two legal challenges to the results of Census 2000, while the plaintiff in one of those cases, the State of Utah, filed a second lawsuit over the use of statistical methods in the counting process. On April 17, a three-judge federal district court panel (which included one 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge) ruled unanimously against the State of Utah's claim that the Census Bureau should have counted Mormon missionaries serving overseas during the census. State officials said they would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Utah contended that including military and federal government personnel stationed overseas but not other American citizens abroad, in the state population counts used for congressional apportionment, was an "arbitrary" decision that cost it a fourth seat in Congress. North Carolina instead picked up a 13th district based on the count of overseas military and federal personnel. The court, however, said including Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints missionaries serving in foreign countries would give Utah an unfair advantage because they represented only a small portion of all private American citizens living abroad. Utah filed a second lawsuit on April 25, claiming that the Census Bureau's use of a statistical procedure known as 'imputation' cost it a fourth congressional district in violation of the U.S. Constitution's apportionment clause and federal law. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Census Act (Title 13, U.S.C., §195) prohibits the use of sampling methods to derive the state population totals used for congressional apportionment, but it did not rule on the constitutionality of sampling. The 1999 decision forced the Census Bureau to drop its planned integration of a quality-check sample survey and direct counting methods to produce one set of census numbers. Imputation involves the use of statistical models to assign occupants (or vacancy status) to housing units for which census takers cannot gather any information, based on data from nearby households. In announcing the State's intention to file a new claim in Salt Lake City's federal district court, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt said, "You don't use guessing in the census." The Census Bureau has said it used imputation to add 0.2 percent of the population, or about 1.2 million people, to the national total used for apportionment, including about 5,400 people in Utah. A new three-judge panel will hear the case in mid-August; any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Los Angeles, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the City of Los Angeles and other cities, counties, and local elected officials, challenging the decision by Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans to release unadjusted census data for redistricting purposes in March. Los Angeles originally filed suit in February, seeking to overturn Secretary Evans' rescission of a Clinton Administration rule delegating the adjustment decision to the Census Bureau director. After the Secretary concurred with a Census Bureau recommendation to issue unadjusted data, the City amended its complaint, contending the Secretary violated a provision of the Census Act governing the Census Bureau's use of sampling by not releasing the adjusted numbers. (The Census Bureau is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.) Los Angeles also filed a Freedom of Information Act request in January for the block-level adjusted data. In an April 26 decision dismissing the plaintiff's claim, U.S. District Court Judge Gary A. Feess concluded that §195 of Title 13, United States Code (the Census Act) sets forth "no clear statement of congressional intent" regarding a decision to adjust the census counts based on the results of a sample survey. That provision, the judge found, is "internally inconsistent," directing the Secretary to use sampling but also giving him discretion to decide whether such use is "feasible." Los Angeles argued that the statute creates "a presumption of accuracy in the adjusted data ... and that the Secretary must release the adjusted data unless he conclusively proves it inaccurate," Judge Feess wrote. The Commerce Department, the judge said, contended that the Secretary "has the discretion to reject the use of statistically adjusted data where strong evidence exists that its use will not improve the accuracy of the final census figure." Rejecting both readings of §195, Judge Feess said the appropriate legal standard for judging the decision not to adjust "is whether the Secretary's actions are consistent with a permissible construction of the statute." He answered that question in favor of the Secretary, after concluding that "the paramount objective of the Census Act is accuracy in counting population" and that "substantial evidence supports the Census Bureau's recommendation against adjustment." In his opinion, the judge noted the Bureau's concerns about inconsistencies between the independent "demographic analysis" population estimate, the unadjusted census count, and the results of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey, as well as its concern about "synthetic error" and "balancing error" associated with the A.C.E. An attorney with O'Melveny & Myers, the law firm handling the case for Los Angeles, said the plaintiffs were "disappointed" with the decision and that "refusal to correct the differential undercount [of minorities, children, and the poor]... will cost urban areas millions of dollars in lost federal funds." Los Angeles is likely to appeal the ruling. Appropriations update: Congressional appropriators began the process of funding Census Bureau activities in fiscal year 2002 by holding hearings on the Bush Administration's budget request for the Department of Commerce. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans testified last week before panels of both the Senate (on May 1) and House (on May 3) Appropriations Committees. In his written testimony, Secretary Evans outlined the Department's goals and highlighted priorities in the $4.75 billion budget request, which includes $543.4 million for the Census Bureau. Fiscal year 2002 (FY02) begins October 1, 2001. Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary and Related Agencies did not ask any questions related to Census Bureau activities. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) are the panel's chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, as they were in the 106th Congress. Two members of the counterpart House subcommittee raised questions about key Census Bureau programs. (Eight of the panel's 13 members attended at least part of the hearing, which lasted nearly three and a half hours.) Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL), who also chairs the census oversight subcommittee, asked about plans to replace the traditional census 'long form' with the American Community Survey (ACS) in light of concerns about Census 2000 long form content. The Secretary said full implementation of the ACS is "key to the 2010 census" and that testing on a national scale would continue this year. In response to Rep. Miller's question about the potential cost of the 2010 census, Acting Census Bureau Director William Barron "very preliminary" cost estimates put the price tag at $11 - $12 billion. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who continues as the subcommittee's ranking minority member, expressed support for including Puerto Rico in the ACS, a matter the Secretary said he would discuss further with the congressman. The Bronx congressman called himself a "big supporter" of the Census Bureau, saying accurate population and socio-economic data are important to his district. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) is the subcommittee's new chairman, succeeding Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY). Census Monitoring Board update: The Presidential Members of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board have released estimated undercount rates for metropolitan areas in ten large states. Dr. Eugene P. Ericksen of Temple University, who prepared the estimates, said the information would "provide some insight into within-state variations in undercount rates." Dr. Ericksen said his estimates "are close, but not exactly equal, to the numbers that the Census Bureau would calculate," noting that he did not have access to all of the data the Bureau used to evaluate the results of its Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey. He emphasized that his calculations do not represent official Bureau estimates. The Census Bureau has not released the results of its A.C.E. survey below the national level. Dr. Ericksen's findings are available on the Presidential Members' web site at www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov> or by calling 301-457-9900. Last month, the Presidential Members issued a revised set of undercount rates and numbers, also calculated by Dr. Ericksen, for all 50 states and the District of Columbia as part of their semi-annual report to Congress. Dr. Ericksen updated an earlier set of state undercount rates after consulting with senior Census Bureau officials, who had criticized his initial calculations as being "seriously flawed." Release of his initial estimates also led House census subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller to call for the resignation of the Monitoring Board's Presidential Members. The Bureau did not comment on the revised state undercount rates contained in the Monitoring Board's April 11th report. Dr. Ericksen was co-chairman of the Special Advisory Panel on Adjustment that advised the Commerce Secretary following the 1990 census. The Board's Congressional Members will submit their own report to Congress in the near future. Materials issued by the Congressional Members are available at www.cmbc.gov <http://www.cmbc.gov> or by calling 301-457-5080. Congress established the eight-member Census Monitoring Board in late 1997 to monitor Census 2000 activities. Congressional Republican leaders and President Clinton (in consultation with congressional Democratic leaders) each appointed four members to the panel. The Board will sunset at the end of September 2001. Census 2000 resources: The Annie E. Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT project and the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) have published a chronology of key policy and operational issues surrounding Census 2000. The Road to Census 2000: A Chronology of Key Issues chronicles significant decisions and milestones from February 1996 to March 2001 affecting the design, content, methods, and cost of the 2000 count. The Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT project tracks the status of children in the United States to help inform national, state, and local discussions affecting child well-being. PRB is a non-profit, non-advocacy organization that provides information on U.S. and international population trends and their implications. A 'pdf' version of the Census 2000 chronology is available through the KIDS COUNT web site at www.kidscount.org <http://www.kidscount.org> or PRB's Ameristat web site at www.ameristat.org <http://www.ameristat.org>. Census data products update: This month, the Census Bureau is releasing "local demographic profiles" for states, counties, cities, and minor civil divisions. The profiles include basic information from the Census 2000 'short form,' such as age, housing tenure (owner v. renter), household relationship, gender, and race/ethnicity data. The Bureau will release the data on a state-by-state basis throughout May. The demographic profiles will be available in text and PDF format on the Bureau's web site, at www.census.gov <http://www.census.gov>. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to Terri Ann Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at <mailto:terriann2k@aol.com>. For copies of previous News Alerts and other information, use our web site www.census2000.org <http://www.census2000.org>. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census 2000 Initiative at <mailto:Census2000@ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals. -- Ed Christopher Bureau of Transportation Statistics U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590 202-366-0412

24 years, 9 months

Thoughts on defining PUMAs

by Elaine Murakami

Nandu Srinivasan, Ed Christopher and I have put together a BASIC flowchart and figures showing a couple of situations you may want to consider when you work with your State Data Center on defining Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) for Census 2000 PUMS. These notes are primarily for large metropolitan areas. The Census Bureau documentation, posted to the TRB Census Subcommittee at: www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/articles/pumaguidelines.pdf, has more detail for working with areas with smaller populations. These notes have not yet been reviewed by the Census Bureau Geography Division, so we hope that we haven't made any major errors! You may have specific issues for your areas, particularly where cities cross county and/or state boundaries, which we have not addressed in these notes. We are hoping that there is active participation by the transportation community in the work to be completed by the State Data Centers. A list of the SDCs can be found at http://www.census.gov/pub/sdc/www/sdctxt.html Elaine Murakami, Federal Highway Administration elaine.murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov

24 years, 9 months

Pondering PUMAs

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News In terms of PUMS, I think the process is fair in terms of using place and census tract boundaries. I've already completed the first pass on Bay Area PUMAs for 2000, and we're a large region with lots of potential changes. (Total Pop = 6,783,760; Possible PUMAs = 63; Probable # of PUMAs = 55). Desktop GIS makes this process *so* much easier than it was 10 years ago!!! It took less than *one day* to do this for my region. MPOs, COGs, State DOTs and USDOT should be interested parties in PUMA definition, given the increasingly important role of public use microdata data in population microsimulation and advanced transportation planning analysis techniques - - TRANSIMS, for example. My feeling is *if* the state data center is unwilling to participate in the PUMA definition program, and that state has a large metropolitan area, then perhaps the state data center should delegate responsibility for the STATE to the large MPO. If the large metro area MPO doesn't have the initiative or desire to define PUMAs for their region (and their state!), then what really can be done? Perhaps the leading academic institution in the state can lead the PUMA process? If, on the other hand, the state data center is unwilling to define PUMAs, and unwilling to let others (academic, MPOs, COGs) do the work, then probably that state data center should be dissolved and find somebody else to do the work. It can and should work as an "open process" within the reasonable rules established by the Census Bureau. In California, I've already traded e-mails with our state data center, and they are eager to work with us on this issue. We've always had a good working relationship with our State Data Center. Our SDC has already scheduled a meeting on 5/14/01 in Los Angeles (I would assume to discuss LA PUMAs, though there is a big Census 2000 workshop at USC on 5/14....) We (State Data Center, MTC, ABAG) will have our "Bay Area PUMA" workshop in early June. Hopefully this is not that big a problem. I want to see all state data centers working smoothly with all regional data centers, affiliate data centers, and non-affiliate data centers, ie, other MPOs, COGs and academic institutions with a "stake" in defining PUMAs and in improving census data. There really is no good excuse not to participate - - for any state! Hopefully the role of the State Data Center is to adjudicate disputes between local area PUMA stakeholders (MPOs, COGs, academics) if a local consensus isn't achieved. PUMAs - - they're fun and easy to develop, and they're IMPORTANT! Chuck Purvis, MTC *********************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 464-7731 (office) (510) 464-7848 (fax) www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/ ***********************************************

24 years, 10 months

RE: [CTPP] PUMS Boundary Criteria

by Frank Lenk

Does this approach make sense in bi-state metro areas like Kansas City? Frank Lenk Director of Research Services Mid-America Regional Council Kansas City, MO -----Original Message----- From: david.r.aultman(a)census.gov [mailto:david.r.aultman@census.gov] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:35 AM To: ed christopher Cc: ctpp-news maillist; owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] PUMS Boundary Criteria My office is in charge of the 2000 PUMA delineation program. We appreciate that Ed Christopher made these documents available to readers of the ctpp-news maillist so that the MPOs are aware of this program. Ed correctly stated that the Census Bureau is only inviting the SDCs to participate, and that interested MPOs should contact their SDC and inquire if their input is desired. We would like to emphasize that the Census Bureau has no plans to work directly with any MPO. All PUMA submissions must come from the SDCs. If a SDC declines to participate, Census Bureau staff will delineate the PUMAs for that state, and do so without soliciting or utilizing any input from sources other than the SDC. ed christopher <berwyned(a)mcs.com To: ctpp-news maillist <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> > cc: Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] PUMS Boundary Criteria owner-ctpp-news@c hrispy.net 05/03/2001 07:48 PM Last week the Census Bureau (CB) sent a letter to the State Data Centers(SDCs) asking them to participate in the delineation of the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)zones. A copy of that letter and the criteria used in defining the zones (know as PUMAs) can be found on the TRB census data subcommittee's web page at http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/ The direct link for the information is http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/articles/pumaguidelines.pdf For those new to the PUMS game an article talking about the importance of PUMS data for transportation planning can be found in the last "status report" at http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/newsltr/sr0401.html#pums Since PUMS data is becoming increasing more useful in the context of transportation planning it is important for MPOs (and state DOTs) to be close to the development of the PUMAs (pums zones) in their areas--especially for the larger MPOs and for state planning. Although the process of delineating the PUMAs is left to the SDCs, MPOs and state DOTs should contact their SDC and let them know that they have an interest in participating or assisting with the process. In 1990 I know there were several MPOs that actually defined the zones in their planning areas. The SDCs can be found at http://www.census.gov/pub/sdc/www/sdctxt.html If you contact your SDC and you find that they are NOT participating in the program please let us know by contacting Nandu Srinivasan at nanda.srinivasan(a)fhwa.dot.gov ed christopher chair, trb subcommittee on census data for transportation planning

24 years, 10 months

2026

2025

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 May 2001