ctpp-news March 2002

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

10 participants
11 discussions

Census 2000 Initiative News Alert

by ed christopher

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:45:05 -0500 From: "Census2000" <census2000(a)ccmc.org> Kincannon Confirmed As New Census Director; Annual Funding Process Starts In Congress; Plus: New House Panel To Oversee Census; New GAO Report; and more. The U.S. Senate last week confirmed Mr. C. Louis Kincannon to be director of the Census Bureau. The unanimous vote on March 13 came two weeks after the Committee on Governmental Affairs held a hearing to consider the nomination. Mr. Kincannon was the agencys deputy director from 1982 to 1992, and twice served as acting director during that time. He has also held senior positions at the Office of Management and Budget and Commerce Department. Most recently, Mr. Kincannon was the first chief statistician for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, France, a position he held until June 2000. President Bush nominated Mr. Kincannon to head the Census Bureau last November. At the February 28th confirmation hearing, committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Ranking Minority Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) warmly welcomed Mr. Kincannon and indicated their general support for his nomination. Sen. George Allen (R-VA), from Mr. Kincannons home state, and Rep. Tom Sawyer (D-OH), former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Census and Population, introduced the nominee to the panel. The nominee told panel members he hoped to build on the success of Census 2000 through implementation of the American Community Survey (ACS), improvements in geographic tools, and cooperation with stakeholders. Mr. Kincannon also highlighted the importance of recruiting and retaining qualified staff. In response to a question from Chairman Lieberman about using statistical methods to address the census undercount, Mr. Kincannon said adjustment techniques are feasible and sound for larger areas (such as states and, possibly, large counties and cities), but not for the level of detail used in redistricting. Whether statistically adjusted numbers are sufficiently accurate, he said, depends on the purpose for which they would be used. Senator Thompson, noting that he had received constituent complaints, asked how the Census Bureau would justify the American Community Survey. Mr. Kincannon replied that the agency must highlight the benefit of more timely data to local governments, and keep Congress and the media informed about the surveys progress. Earlier this month, William G. Barron, the bureaus acting director since January 2001, said he would retire this summer after a 34-year civil service career. He has accepted a one-year appointment to teach at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Mr. Barron became deputy director of the Census Bureau in May 1999, after helping to oversee planning for Census 2000 as deputy under secretary of commerce for economic affairs. Mr. Barron also was deputy commissioner of the Bureau for Labor Statistics for 15 years. FY03 Appropriations Process Begins: House and Senate appropriators have begun the annual process of considering federal agency funding for the next fiscal year, which begins October 1. In his budget request for fiscal year 2003 (FY03), President Bush requested $737 million for the Census Bureau, an increase of $223 million over current year funding. The request includes $291 million to reengineer the census process for 2010. Roughly $124 million of that amount is for nationwide implementation of the American Community Survey in 2003. In its first full year, the survey would not cover group quarters, such as college dormitories, military barracks, prisons, and nursing homes. In addition, FY03 includes only nine months of follow-up visits to unresponsive households (January September 2003), making it likely that the future full-year cost for the ACS would be higher. The Census Bureau hopes to eliminate the traditional long form from the 2010 census and replace it with updated annual data from the ACS. Current year funding for the ACS is $56 million, which covers 31 test sites and continuation of the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey (C2SS), a national sample of 750,000 housing units. Cost estimates submitted to Congress last year pegged first-year (FY03) funding at $131 million. In testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies on February 27, and again before the counterpart Senate Appropriations subcommittee on March 13, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans said the proposed budget increase primarily would support reengineering and reducing costs of the decennial census, and improving timeliness and coverage of economic statistics (as well as peak-year activities for the 2002 Economic Censuses). It is very difficult to make wise policy decisions that affect millions of lives if you dont have timely, accurate information, Secretary Evans told lawmakers. The census reform initiative also includes modernizing the Master Address File and digital geographic database (called the TIGER system), and early planning, development, and testing of a short form-only 2010 census. Funding for the decennial census and the ACS is part of the Periodic Censuses and Programs ("Periodics") account, one of two primary funding categories for the Census Bureau. The Periodics account covers activities that support census operations, such as mapping and address list development, as well as other mandated censuses of business establishments and local governments. The total FY03 request for the Periodics account is $522.4 million. The second main funding category, Salaries and Expenses (S & E), covers ongoing surveys (such as the Current Population Survey) to collect important demographic, economic, and social data. The President proposed $215.2 million for the S & E account. New House Census Oversight panel: Oversight responsibility for the census and other Census Bureau programs has shifted to a new House of Representatives panel, after the former Subcommittee on the Census closed its doors last December. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL) chairs the newly renamed Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization, of the Committee on Government Reform; Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) is the panels ranking Democratic member. Former census subcommittee chairman, Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL), was named vice chairman. New General Accounting Office report: The U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative and audit arm of Congress, issued a new report last month on the strengths and weaknesses of Census 2000 field follow-up activities, the single most costly census operation. Members of the Census Bureaus House and Senate oversight committees requested the evaluation, entitled 2000 Census: Best Practices and Lessons Learned for More Cost-Effective Nonresponse Follow-up (Report No. GAO-02-196). GAO reports are available through the agencys web site at www.gao.gov or by calling 202-512-6000 (TDD/202-512-2537). 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 terriann2k(a)aol.com. For copies of previous News Alerts and other information, use our web site 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 Census2000(a)ccmc.org or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals. -- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Specialist Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)

22 years, 10 months

RE: [CTPP] Status of UA Delineation

by Robert LaMacchia

Update on the Status of the UA Delineation The Notice of the Final Criteria for the delineation of the Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters based on the Census 2000 results was published today, March 15, 2002 in the Federal Register. You may download the notice from the Census Bureau web site at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html With the delay in the publication of the final criteria, the announcement of the Urbanized Areas based on Census 2000 will now not be published in the Federal Register before mid April, 2002. Bob LaMacchia Geography Division U. S. Census Bureau -----Original Message----- From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net [mailto:owner-ctpp-news@chrispy.net]On Behalf Of Robert LaMacchia Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:17 PM To: Ctpp-News Maillist Subject: [CTPP] Status of UA Delineation We have received a number of questions about the timetable for the publication of the final criteria for the definition of Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. We now expect to publish in the Federal Register the final criteria before mid March, 2002, and have the announcement of the Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters based on these criteria and the Census 2000 population totals by late March, 2002 or early April, 2002. As part of the GIS and Census workshop at GIS-T 2002 in Atlanta, we will be describing the automated process to delineate the UAs and UCs based on the final criteria. Please note that session 6.4 Census 2002 & TIGER Modernization in the preliminary program for GIS-T 2002 has been replaced by another topic, and the only formal discussion of the UA criteria will be at the GIS and Census Workshop Sunday afternoon. The Census Bureau plans to have an exhibit booth at GIS-T, so please stop by if you are not attending the workshop (or even if you do attend the workshop). Bob LaMacchia Geography Division U. S. Census Bureau 301-457-1022

22 years, 10 months

Urbanzied Area Definitions: Census Bureau Notice...

by Nanda Srinivasan

Attached is the Census Bureau's criteria for defining urban and rural territory based on the results of Census 2000. It was published in the Federal Register today (March 15, 2001). Thank you Nanda Srinivasan

22 years, 10 months

When will the 2000 CTPP data become available?

by Frank Lenk

Does anyone know the latest release schedule? Frank Lenk Director of Research Services Mid-America Regional Council

22 years, 10 months

Re: [CTPP] What Geographic Summary Levels will be included in CTPP?

by Javier MINJARES

We would be interested in the ZCTA level and MPO Study Area. Javier Minjares Senior Regional Planner Southern California Association of Governments

22 years, 11 months

What Geographic Summary Levels will be included in CTPP?

by Elaine Murakami

Chuck Purvis asked the question last week. Here is a list of our current plan. WE WANT YOUR INPUT on the additional geographic levels. Some are only possible for RESIDENCE-based tables. Whether you want them or not, please provide us with your feedback! Maybe since the GIS capabilities and experience are so much better now than 10 years ago, no one needs to have these levels included in the file, since you and your staff can aggregate them from TAZ or Block groups directly. You can reply either to me directly (elaine.murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov) or you can post to the listserv (ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net) Here are the basic levels, but not the detailed information. State State-County State-County-MCD (in selected states) State-County-Place (2,500+) State-Place (2,500+) State-County-Combined Zone -- Combined zones are limited to combinations of tracts or TAZs. They will be defined by the State DOTs (if they choose to do so) and are intended to assist Statewide travel demand models, where the small TAZs of an MPO are too detailed for Statewide applications. State-County-Tract * Tracts will be included, even in areas with TAZs. State-County-Tract-Block Group* State-County-TAZ * *The smallest unit of tabulated geography can be TAZ, Block Group, or Tract Possible levels (if there is any interest) For the 3 geographic levels listed below, we would like to know if there is any interest in having these included for RESIDENCE tables. Because of workplace geocoding difficulties, we cannot use these geographic levels for WORKPLACE or FLOW tabulations. 1. ZCTA (ZipCode Tabulation Area) This is an approximation of a Zipcode boundary. 2. PUMA (Public Use Microdata Area) These are areas with a minimum of 100,000 population based on tract or place boundaries. 3. Urbanized Area (areas with more than 50,000 population with the required density level) For the 2 geographic levels listed below, it is likely that the Census Bureau could include these for RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. 1. CTPP Region: This will be defined by each MPO. It will be one or more whole counties submitted by the MPO as constituting their CTPP region. Totals for the sum of the counties included in the CTPP Region will be a separate summary level for the RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. The FLOW tabulation will include the smallest unit of geography for each county. All counties are not required to have the same unit, e.g. 3 counties may use TAZ, and 1 county may use tracts. TAZs can be used only if they have been defined in the TAZ-UP process. 2. MPO Study Area: This is a list of TAZs (by county) or tracts (by county) to be submitted by an MPO for which RESIDENCE AND WORKPLACE tables can be prepared. Totals for the sum of these TAZs (or tracts) will be a separate summary level for the RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. This special geography is provided as a convenience. An MPO planning area might not include whole counties, but we required TAZs to be defined across an entire county. By adding this summary level, a total that does not extend to county boundaries can be easily found on the CTPP file.

22 years, 11 months

RE: [CTPP] What Geographic Summary Levels will be included in CTP P?

by Jack Pascoli

Elaine, West Virginia as a whole participated in the TAZUP program and the whole state is covered. If all of the available data can be tabulated by TAZ it would be very helpful to us. Jack Pascoli -----Original Message----- From: Elaine Murakami [mailto:Elaine.Murakami@igate.fhwa.dot.gov] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:16 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: [CTPP] What Geographic Summary Levels will be included in CTPP? Chuck Purvis asked the question last week. Here is a list of our current plan. WE WANT YOUR INPUT on the additional geographic levels. Some are only possible for RESIDENCE-based tables. Whether you want them or not, please provide us with your feedback! Maybe since the GIS capabilities and experience are so much better now than 10 years ago, no one needs to have these levels included in the file, since you and your staff can aggregate them from TAZ or Block groups directly. You can reply either to me directly (elaine.murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov) or you can post to the listserv (ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net) Here are the basic levels, but not the detailed information. State State-County State-County-MCD (in selected states) State-County-Place (2,500+) State-Place (2,500+) State-County-Combined Zone -- Combined zones are limited to combinations of tracts or TAZs. They will be defined by the State DOTs (if they choose to do so) and are intended to assist Statewide travel demand models, where the small TAZs of an MPO are too detailed for Statewide applications. State-County-Tract * Tracts will be included, even in areas with TAZs. State-County-Tract-Block Group* State-County-TAZ * *The smallest unit of tabulated geography can be TAZ, Block Group, or Tract Possible levels (if there is any interest) For the 3 geographic levels listed below, we would like to know if there is any interest in having these included for RESIDENCE tables. Because of workplace geocoding difficulties, we cannot use these geographic levels for WORKPLACE or FLOW tabulations. 1. ZCTA (ZipCode Tabulation Area) This is an approximation of a Zipcode boundary. 2. PUMA (Public Use Microdata Area) These are areas with a minimum of 100,000 population based on tract or place boundaries. 3. Urbanized Area (areas with more than 50,000 population with the required density level) For the 2 geographic levels listed below, it is likely that the Census Bureau could include these for RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. 1. CTPP Region: This will be defined by each MPO. It will be one or more whole counties submitted by the MPO as constituting their CTPP region. Totals for the sum of the counties included in the CTPP Region will be a separate summary level for the RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. The FLOW tabulation will include the smallest unit of geography for each county. All counties are not required to have the same unit, e.g. 3 counties may use TAZ, and 1 county may use tracts. TAZs can be used only if they have been defined in the TAZ-UP process. 2. MPO Study Area: This is a list of TAZs (by county) or tracts (by county) to be submitted by an MPO for which RESIDENCE AND WORKPLACE tables can be prepared. Totals for the sum of these TAZs (or tracts) will be a separate summary level for the RESIDENCE and WORKPLACE tables. This special geography is provided as a convenience. An MPO planning area might not include whole counties, but we required TAZs to be defined across an entire county. By adding this summary level, a total that does not extend to county boundaries can be easily found on the CTPP file.

22 years, 11 months

response to JAN1602 FR notice on ACS

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News; Bay Area Census Listserv I've posted on our agency's web site our response to the January 16, 2002 Federal Register notice regarding the Census Bureau's plans to replace the 2010 Long Form with the American Community Survey. This is provided for information purposes for those working on their own responses to the FR notice, and others interested in ACS issues. The link is: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/datamart/census/MTCACSResponse.htm Or, visit the MTC home page at: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ and follow the navigation bar links to the MTC DataMart, then the Census Page. Responses to this FR notice are due March 18th, and I understand that e-mail submittals to the Department of Commerce are encouraged. (See the 1/16/02 FR notice for e-mail information.) cheers, Chuck Purvis (On vacation March 11-18, and I will be computer-free... ;-) *********************************************** 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/ ***********************************************

22 years, 11 months

ACS and Decennial Census

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News RE: ACS and Decennial Census I'm forwarding this extensive message from John Blodgett of the Missouri State Data Center (forwarded from the State Data Center listserv.) Chuck Purvis, MTC ***** John Blodgett's e-mail: *************************************************************************** Let me just throw in a few other issues that noone has mentioned yet in this discussion regarding the ACS as a replacement for the decennial long form. These are issues that are built into the ACS design, and have nothing to do with any possible problems with implementation or subtle differences in the way questions are asked, etc. (In the software development world, this would like a distinction between a "bug" and a "feature". These are features of ACS that we will probably all have to learn to live with.) They mostly have to do with the universes being measured by the 2 surveys (decennial vs ACS), and with the joys of moving averages. The universes of these 2 surveys are not really the same. The differences that bother me have to do with the time dimension. The census looks at the population on a single day, April 1 of the census year. ACS looks at the population for all months of the year, and in the case of smaller geographic areas, will be based on a "moving average" or persons living there over a period of 2 or more years. For geographic areas such as states, metro areas, large cities and counties, this will probably not be such a big difference. But for smaller areas, and especially for small areas with "seasonal" populations, there will be major differences. 1. For example: A (real) census tract here in Boone County, Mo (Columbia) has about 3000 people living there according to sf1. They all live in group quarters -- dormitories. That is what was counted on April 1, 2000. But ACS would not count such persons on a single day. They would instead be using data based on 60 months of surveys over 5 years. A good guess is that at least 20% of these students would be living somewhere else during the summer months, or during the various academic break periods occurring throughout the year. The ACS is going to count people at their resdidence on some day in Jan, July or August -- whenever they are conducting the survey. If 20% of the students, on average, are not there on any given day of the year then we have a builtin mismatch. We will simply not have sample characteristics of the 3000 people counted in the census from the ACS. This is not a mistake, it's a "feature" of the ACS. Just like the new race detail is a "feature" of the 2k census and makes it impossible to compare race data from early censuses. Live with it. (Not only do we not have sample characteristics of the population, we no longer can talk about "the" population of this census tract. We have the census count of 4-1-2000, but we also have a moving-average estimate from ACS. This applies not just to the census tract, but also to the county and city. There will be significant differences in these numbers for college towns and resort areas.) 2. The "moving average" feature of the ACS is not a bad way to go as long as the area being described is relatively stable over the period of the averaging. The data will only be really bad for the areas where it would be most interesting. The Bureau has indicated they will probably do some kind of over-sampling in areas perceived as undergoing rapid change, but for now that's a pig in a polk. Another aspect of the moving average problem is that of "moving geography". How do we get characteristics for those jurisdictions that operate in "Continuous Annexation" mode? When I get my data in 2008 for the city of Ashland, MO based on data collected in 2003-2007 is it all going to be for the then-current (2008) city boundaries? So then when I get another set in 2009, will they have to once again "move the chains" so that I can get fresh data for the previous year for the current year boundaries? (Complicated, isn't it? We have data over time, for a geographic entity that is changing over time. Really tough to pin things down. And fairly impossible to do any kind of analysis that may involve trends for the city based on their incorporated limits over time. Very messy. Even if it could be done, could it be explained?) This problem also pertains to ZIP/ZCTA areas and school districts. Not that we can expect those to be published. 3. I am concerned about the possible proliferation of alternative versions of sample data. The ACS folks have announced their plan to publish data for areas based on their population size. Areas of 65,000+ get new data each year based on a single year of ACS survey results, while areas somewhat smaller will get data based on a 2 or 3 or 4-year moving average. A question arises as to what the "best" numbers are for an area (and also as to whether we'll be given a choice). What if my county of 70,000 gets data published in 2008 based on households sampled in 2007. But I want to look at the characteristics of single hispanic mothers in the county, and this sub-population is small enough that the single-year estimates are garbage. So can I also get a 5-year moving average for the county that will have smaller std errors, but which could be misleading if there was a dramatic shift in the subpopulation being studied over the period? Since the Bureau will, by then, be publishing data down to the BG level, I guess I could do my own custom aggregation of the bg data even if I could not get it directly & easily from the Bureau. That's a little extra work, but some people will not see it as a big deal (others definitely will.) What really bothers me about this is the "flexibility factor" -- I think I see that there will be many ways to answer the same question. Right now, if someone asks me what the poverty rate is for a county I can tell them we don't really know except for the numbers collected at the last census, or you can take your chances with the SAIPE estimates. But in the era of ACS data I can tell them we only have estimates for some counties so far, and for those we have several versions we can get, based on the number of years of data we use to do the estimate. And then the user says, "use the numbers that yield the highest value (or lowest) value" so I can use those in my grant application". Uh oh. (paragraph #s are just for ease of reference.) John Blodgett OSEDA - Office of Social & Economic Data Analysis U. of Missouri Outreach and Extension 626 Clark Hall - UMC Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882-2727 blodgettj(a)umsystem.edu <mailto:blodgettj@umsystem.edu>

22 years, 11 months

Status of UA Delineation

by Robert LaMacchia

We have received a number of questions about the timetable for the publication of the final criteria for the definition of Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters. We now expect to publish in the Federal Register the final criteria before mid March, 2002, and have the announcement of the Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters based on these criteria and the Census 2000 population totals by late March, 2002 or early April, 2002. As part of the GIS and Census workshop at GIS-T 2002 in Atlanta, we will be describing the automated process to delineate the UAs and UCs based on the final criteria. Please note that session 6.4 Census 2002 & TIGER Modernization in the preliminary program for GIS-T 2002 has been replaced by another topic, and the only formal discussion of the UA criteria will be at the GIS and Census Workshop Sunday afternoon. The Census Bureau plans to have an exhibit booth at GIS-T, so please stop by if you are not attending the workshop (or even if you do attend the workshop). Bob LaMacchia Geography Division U. S. Census Bureau 301-457-1022

22 years, 11 months

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 March 2002