TO: CTPP Listserv:
FR: Chuck Purvis, MTC
RE: ACS commentary on the State Data Center listserv
I just wanted to forward some messages circulating on the State Data Center listserv related to the ACS Federal Register Notice of 1/16/02. NOTE THAT THE CLOSING DATE FOR COMMENTS ON THE FR NOTICE IS MARCH 18!!!
Especially useful and insightful are comments from Bob Scardamalia of the New York State Data Center.
Chuck Purvis, MTC
********Scardamalia's comments: ******************************************************************
Makes one feel like they're trying to hold the locomotive at the station.
I think there's a lot of enthusiasm about ACS and the prospect of more
current economic and demographic data for small areas is sooo tempting. The
reality check is that the benchmark tests with the 2000 Census were scaled
back. We don't have good research results on how good ACS will be at the
tract level or even for small places. It's already been pointed out that
there are significant unanswered issues with the state level data let alone
small area data. This doesn't even begin to look at questions about whether
ACS can deliver data that the user community needs such as Journey to Work
for small areas. We've got to wait for the first 5 year sample to get small
area statistics to evaluate. If they are inadequate, there's no time left
for a backup position.
Even if Congress fully funds ACS, and the handwriting is on the wall for the
2010 long form, there needs to be more detailed research, data, and
discussion out of the Bureau. There is a multitude of Census stakeholders
who are anxious for improved data but who are very concerned about the lack
of evaluation data that's available.
Bob Scardamalia
Empire State Development
State Data Center
Phone: (518) 292-5300
Fax: (518) 292-5806
E-mail: rscardamalia(a)empire.state.ny.us
http:\\www.empire.state.ny.us\data_home.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeff hardcastle [SMTP:jhardcas@UNR.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:12 PM
> To: SDC-L(a)WVNVM.WVNET.EDU
> Subject: Re: Changes in statistical programs
>
> I too have concerns about the sample results so far even at the state
> level.
> Thanks for the reminder on this topic.
>
> Greg Perkins wrote:
>
> > To the Listserv:
> >
> > Does anyone have strong feelings about the two items listed in the
> Federal
> > Register of January 16th regarding requests for response by March 18,
> 2002?
> > One is about eliminating the long form in 2010 because of the start of
> the
> > American Community Survey. The other is about the Census of
> Manufacturing
> > proposed collection methodology change, specifically eliminating
> paperwork
> > for small firms and only getting the big firms to answer the survey.
> >
> > It seems to me that a decision to eliminate the long form may be a bit
> hasty
> > given the fact that it is not in use yet and not studied as to how
> > accurately it will "estimate" data down to the tract level. Is there
> any
> > place on the Census web site that discusses this issue? Has anyone
> compared
> > C2SS 2000 with Census results for places? Maybe I am wrong and that the
> > statistical survey has been studied. However, oftentimes, once surveys
> are
> > done by sample they are subject to being cut back by budget reductions.
> In
> > the most recent edition of Massachusetts Benchmarks ( in the Endnotes
> > comment section) there is a discussion of the cutbacks in sample size
> for
> > the CPS in Massachusetts and how such problems are affecting labor force
> > estimates.
> >
> > As for the manufacturing survey I don't have much of a formed opinion
> but I
> > notice that our most recent private sector manufacturing directory for
> > Massachusetts may also be eliminating the smaller firms because they are
> too
> > difficult to contact and survey. Should this be of some concern?
> >
> > In our Policy Development and Research Department at the Boston
> > Redevelopment Authority (an affiliate of MISER- the Massachusetts
> Institute
> > for Social and Economic Research- our SDC) we have been very concerned
> over
> > the years with the gradual cutback in statistical programs at the
> Federal
> > and State levels because of the need for quality and timely data. I can
> > think of several cutbacks over the last twenty years that have
> eliminated
> > some statistics that were of use to us (the small areas estimates for
> CBDs
> > and other major retail centers in the Census of Retail Trade, the
> monthly
> > estimate of retail sales for major metropolitan areas, the BEA-OBERS
> > projections, and more). I also wonder about the "privatization" of
> other
> > statistics such as the Leading Economic Indicators now done by the
> > Conference Board. When we have to rely on private sector data we have
> to be
> > very concerned with who is producing it, what are their private
> interests,
> > is it academically peer-reviewed, is it "objective" and other questions.
> >
> > If these question spark a little debate either about the specific 2
> items in
> > the Federal register or about the broader issue of statistical quality
> and
> > public funding please respond to me either on the listserve or directly.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Greg Perkins
> > Assistant Director
> > Policy Development and Research Department
> > Boston Redevelopment Authority
> > One City Hall Square
> > Room 962
> > Boston, MA 02201-1007
> >
> > Phone: 617-918-4411
> > Fax: 617-918-4461
> > e-mail: greg.perkins.bra(a)ci.boston.ma.us
>
***********************************************
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/
***********************************************
