Please forward the following announcement of research grants to anyone who has performed interesting research on urban issues.
Summary: HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research wishes to fund from seven to ten empirical research projects on trends in urban areas, that is, social, economic, demographic, and fiscal change in cities. Research grants of up to $40,000 each would allow HUD to commission a variety of in-depth and high-quality research projects. For example, the release of the Census 2000 long-form data presents an excellent opportunity to inform us on the long-run dynamics of population, housing, income, and transportation in urban areas. Research using other current data sets, such as the County Business Patterns Special Extracts, FBI Crime Statistics, or Building Permits Data found in the State of the Cities Data Systems or concerning other topics such as the fiscal condition of cities, crime, poverty, or economic development would also be encouraged. These research projects would provide HUD with a basic understanding of how cities are changing, what factors are driving change, and the impact of public policy on change.
Available Funds: $300,000 from HUD's FY 2002 research and technology appropriation. HUD anticipates funding seven to ten studies on these topics; studies will be funded through cooperative agreements, up to a maximum of $40,000.
Eligible Applicants: Academic and not-for-profit institutions located in the U.S., State and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes are eligible to apply. For-profit businesses also are eligible; however, they are not allowed to earn a fee.
Application Deadline: May 27, 2003.
Further Information: see FR-4780-N-01 (Wednesday, March 26, 2003) in the Federal Register (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a030326c.html). You may contact: Dr. Alastair McFarlane, Economic Development and Public Finance Division, at the address above, telephone (202) 708-0426, extension 5901, or Mr. Patrick Tewey, Grants Officer, 202-708-1796 extension 4098 (these are not toll-free numbers). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access the above telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Between 1990 and 2000 there are large increases in the population of people with disabilities as related to transportation. The questions asked on the long form changed substantially and the data is presented differently. In 1990, the data was presented as people who have either mobility or self-care disabilities (I suppose you chose one or both). In 2000, I believe the question was formatted to ask if people had disabilities that affected their ability to travel outside the home. The data is presented by type of disability including Sensory, Physical, Mental, Self-Care, Go-Outside-Home, and Employment disabilities.
I am wondering if anyone knows how much of the increase in the number of people reporting "Go-Outside-Home Disabilities" over the 1990 "Mobility Limitations" is due to the way in which the questions were asked and how much is due to increases in this population? The elderly have a higher incidence of disabilities so as the elderly population increases one would expect an increase in the numbers of people with "Mobility" or "Go-Outside-Home" disabilities. Also, the incidence of certain kinds of disabilities has been increasing in new-borns.
In the past I have used formulas to calculate transit demand for the general population or for the population of the elderly and disabled. They are calibrated based on the 1990 definitions. When I use the 2000 numbers, there are some definite problems - the formula for Elderly and Disabled trip demand is higher than the Total trip demand. How might I need to adjust these to account for differences in the definitions? Has anyone worked on adjusting or re-calibrating demand formulas based on the new definitions and actual ridership in communities?
News from the Census Bureau on the 1-percent PUMS file. From their 4/11/03 Products Update listserv e-mail:
I am eagerly awaiting the Census 2000 microdata. What can you tell me
Starting later this month the Census Bureau will begin releasing state
files with 1 percent of the microdata records for households that answered
a long form (the sample questionnaire). Microdata records show the actual
responses made by households -- less any identifying information that
would violate the confidentiality of the respondent's answers. These
files allow users to create their own tabulations.
The files will be available online in ASCII via FTP. Once all states are
released, we will release the full 1-percent microdata on a CD-ROM to be
sold for $50 by the Customer Services Center. The disc will come with
Beyond 20/20 software facilitating the use of the disc.
Later in the year the Census Bureau will release a 5-percent microdata
file, again on a flow basis online in ASCII via FTP. Once all states are
released, we will release both the 1-percent and the 5-percent microdata
files on one DVD to be sold by the Customer Services Center.
For more details on these files and their geographic identifiers, go to <
For more on how to use PUMS in transportation planning, visit the TRB Census Data for Transportation Planning subcommittee page at:
Chuck Purvis MTC
Census Bureau Revises Census 2000 Accuracy Estimates;
Los Angeles Sues For Data On Outdoor Enumeration
Plus: Test Of Voluntary ACS Response Begins;
Appropriations Update; New Congressional Committees Overseeing Census
The Census Bureau has revised its estimates of undercounts and
overcounts in Census 2000, based on further evaluation of the Accuracy
and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey conducted after the initial
census enumeration. The latest findings are dramatically different
from earlier calculations of census accuracy, Bureau officials said.
They discussed the A.C.E. Revision II estimates the second such
revision to the original A.C.E. estimates of census accuracy at a
March 12th joint meeting of two National Academy of Sciences census
According to A.C.E. Revision II, the 2000 census overcounted the total
household population by 0.5 percent, or 1.3 million people, instead of
producing a net undercount of 1.18 percent (3 million people), which the
Bureau had reported in October 2001. For race and ethnic groups, the
new numbers showed a net overcount of 1.13 percent for non-Hispanic
Whites and a net undercount of 1.84 percent for non-Hispanic Blacks.
There was no statistically significant undercount or overcount for
Hispanics, non-Hispanic Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific
Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives on and off
reservations. However, the revised estimates also showed a net
overcount of children aged 0 9.
The additional review of the A.C.E. survey also revealed at least 5.8
million duplicates in the census enumeration, a much higher number than
the Bureau found in its first analysis in 2001.
Based on the additional review, Census Bureau Director C. Louis
Kincannon reaffirmed the agencys prior decision not to statistically
adjust the census numbers used as a base for intercensal population
estimates. While the new set of A.C.E. estimates represent the most
accurate assessment of Census 2000 coverage to date, Kincannon said in
a written statement, the Bureau still [has] technical concerns about
the limitations of the methodology and the data produced by A.C.E.
Revision II. The director cited efforts to account for correlation
bias, the effects of synthetic estimation on small geographic areas, and
remaining inconsistencies between independent Demographic Analysis
estimates and A.C.E. estimates of the coverage of children in the
census, as primary reasons for the decision to stick with the raw census
counts for all official purposes.
The Census Bureau tried for the first time to correct for correlation
bias, a statistical concept that refers to the likelihood that certain
segments of the population (for example, African American males, aged 18
34) will be missed both in the census enumeration and in the coverage
measurement survey. The adjustment in the A.C.E. Revision II estimates
was made based on comparisons with national Demographic Analysis
estimates, which themselves are produced only for two race categories
Black and non-Black by age and sex. Without the adjustment for
correlation bias, the Bureau reported, the revised accuracy estimates
would have shown a net national overcount of 1.12 percent, instead of
0.49 percent, and a net overcount for non-Hispanic Blacks of 0.53
percent, instead of a net undercount of 1.84 percent. Census Bureau
staff said they were uncertain about the choice of scientific models for
allocating assumptions about correlation bias among the various
groupings (called post strata) that are used to construct adjusted
population numbers. They also expressed concern about their inability
to determine whether correlation bias exists for children, adult women,
and Hispanics. Research has led Bureau experts to assume that
correlation bias is highest for adult Black men.
Annual or biennial population figures are used to allocate funds for a
range of federal programs, including Medicaid, Community Development
Block Grants, Social Services Block Grants, and the Training
Assistance-Dislocated Worker Program. Intercensal estimates are
produced for states, counties, incorporated places, and minor civil
divisions; many of these geographic areas have populations below
10,000. Census evaluators said the Bureau cannot be confident of
improvements in accuracy [of A.C.E. Revision II adjusted numbers] at the
levels of geography for which estimates are produced.
The Bureau will post place-level A.C.E. Revision II estimates on its
web site in the coming weeks. The data will reflect collection places
instead of tabulation places, a distinction that should not affect
comparisons with the official, unadjusted place-level data in most
areas. Late last fall, under court order in a Freedom of Information
Act case, the Census Bureau publicly released block-level
A.C.E.-adjusted numbers that reflected the October 2001 revision to the
initial set of undercount and overcount estimates. Those data were
posted on the Internet by several universities.
In response to questions at the National Academy of Sciences meeting,
senior Census Bureau officials said the tight schedule for issuing block
level counts to the States for redistricting did not leave enough time
to adjust those data based on a post-census survey in the 2010 census.
The Bureau will measure coverage aggressively and use Demographic
Analysis as an independent benchmark in 2010, J. Preston Waite,
Associate Director for Decennial Census, told panel members. Using the
results of a post enumeration survey to statistically adjust the base
for intercensal population estimates was still an open question, Mr.
Waite said. The Bureau must first fix problems related to
duplication, correlation bias, and errors in synthetic estimates. If
those and other concerns are resolved, then the Census Bureau is very
likely to adjust intercensal population estimates, Mr. Waite predicted.
Mr. Kincannons full statement on the revised accuracy estimates can be
found on the Census Bureaus web site at
technical assessment document can be found at
Los Angeles Seeks Detailed Census Data on Homeless Population: The
City of Los Angeles has sued the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Census
Bureaus parent agency) to gain public release of Census 2000 counts
from targeted non-shelter outdoor locations. Last May, the Census
Bureau denied the Citys Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for
separate tabulations of people counted at selected outdoor sites during
the service-based enumeration (SBE) March 27 29, 2000. The City filed
its lawsuit on November 27, 2002, in federal district court; the
Commerce Department filed its response last February. (City of Los
Angeles v. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, Case No. 02-9122 WMB)
In its lawsuit, Los Angeles noted its extensive efforts to ensure an
accurate and reliable count of the homeless population in the City,
including identifying more than 7,600 outdoor locations where homeless
individuals could be found. It is seeking disaggregated numbers for
people counted at outdoor sites, the City said, to help it provide
appropriate outreach and other types of assistance to [the Citys]
homeless population. In its response to the lawsuit, the Commerce
Department countered that the Census Bureau did not produce separate
tabulations, below the county level, of people counted at various
locations during the three-night SBE.
Initial Census Bureau plans called for the separate release of data on
people living in emergency and transitional shelters. However, the
agency changed course in January 2001 based on concerns about the
quality of the data. The population counted in the SBE, including
people at pre-identified outdoor locations, instead was combined with
Other non-institutional group quarters in standard Census 2000 data
products. The Bureau later issued a special report on the emergency and
transitional shelter enumeration. The October 2001 report, which
included shelter counts for states, metropolitan areas, and large
places, emphasized that the numbers should not be construed as a count
of people without conventional housing and do not provide a count of
the population experiencing homelessness. Some national advocacy
groups, including the National Coalition for the Homeless and National
Alliance to End Homelessness, supported the Bureaus decision not to
release separate data on the homeless, saying efforts to define and
count this population would be inaccurate and misleading. Other local
service agencies said the data would help them address the needs of
people in homeless situations more effectively.
In a recent report to Congress, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
reviewed the Census Bureaus decision not to publish separate data from
components of the Service-Based Enumeration. Its findings and
recommendations are set out in a report entitled, Decennial Census:
Methods for Collecting Data on the Homeless and Others Without
Conventional Housing Need Refinement, available through GAOs web site
at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03227.pdf. While acknowledging the
problematic nature of counting people without conventional housing,
congressional auditors found that the Bureaus failure to clearly and
consistently communicate its plans regarding SBE data products led to
expectation gaps between the agency and local organizations and
governments which helped the Bureau prepare for and implement the census
at shelters, soup kitchens, and outdoor locations. A key cause of the
Bureaus shifting position on reporting the Service-Based Enumeration
data appears to be its lack of clear, documented, and consistently
applied guidelines governing the release of data from the 2000 census,
the GAO concluded. The absence of such guidelines, the GAO wrote,
could undermine public confidence in the accuracy and credibility of
For the 2010 census, the GAO recommended thorough testing and evaluation
of procedures, under census-like conditions, to enumerate people without
conventional housing. It also urged the Bureau to develop clearly
documented, transparent, and consistently applied agency-wide guidelines
for releasing all census data to the public, which could help the
agency be more accountable and consistent in its dealings with data
users and stakeholders.
American Community Survey update: The Census Bureau is evaluating the
effects of voluntary response to the ACS in 31 test sites around the
country. All households in the test site samples are receiving
questionnaires that indicate response is voluntary, instead of mandatory
under the Census Act (title 13, United States Code). (Under preliminary
plans to assess voluntary response, respondents in only half of the test
sites would have been told their participation was voluntary.)
According to the Census Bureau, the ACS voluntary response experiment,
which began in March, will continue for at least three months, and
possibly longer, depending on funding.
Based on lingering concerns over the length and content of the
traditional census long form, Congress pressed the Census Bureau to
determine how voluntary participation would affect costs and data
quality in the ACS. Congress allocated $1 million in the current fiscal
year to carry out the evaluation.
Chip Walker, a key majority aide on census issues for the House
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations, and the Census, said at a recent association meeting that
initial results from the voluntary response test are expected this
month. The evaluation should be completed by August, Mr. Walker said,
giving Congress time to consider the full results before finalizing the
Census Bureaus spending bill for fiscal year 2004. Mr. Walker also
told the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics
quarterly meeting that the census oversight panel tentatively plans to
hold a hearing on the American Community Survey in May.
Appropriations update: The process of setting a federal budget and
funding levels for federal agencies continues in Congress, with the
House and Senate adopting budget resolutions for fiscal year 2004, which
begins on October 1. The annual budget resolution is Congress
blueprint for federal spending and does not become a law or require the
The House-passed budget (House Concurrent Resolution 95) provides $775
billion for discretionary programs, $9 billion above current levels but
below the Presidents budget submission. The Senate version (Senate
Concurrent Resolution 23) provides $791 billion in discretionary
spending, slightly above the Presidents recommendation. The two
chambers are meeting to reconcile differences between their budget
plans, which also include differing proposals for tax cuts that were
part of the Administrations economic stimulus package.
Once the budget plan is finalized, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees will divvy up discretionary funds among the thirteen regular
appropriations accounts. The Census Bureau is funded under the
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary account and will compete for
money with those federal departments and other Commerce Department
agencies. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans testified last month before
the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees responsible for that
account. He told lawmakers that Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) programs help foster economic growth, one of the
departments five strategic goals. The Secretary noted that the
proposed Census Bureau budget included increased funds to fill gaps in
the collection of demographic and economic statistics, to process data
from the 2002 Economic Census, and to continue planning for the 2010
census. Additional funds requested for BEA, he said, would help speed
up release of key economic statistics and improve the quality and
timeliness of the data.
Congressional Committees in the 108th Congress: The House and Senate
have reorganized their committees and subcommittees for the 108th
Congress, with several new faces emerging on panels that fund and
oversee the census.
In the House, Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY)
continue to hold the top slots on the appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, which funds census activities.
The Committee on Government Reform, the Census Bureaus authorizing
panel, completely reorganized its subcommittees under a new chairman,
Rep. Thomas M. Davis, III (R-VA); Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) continues as
the committees senior Democrat. The newly formed Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, and the
Census is headed by a sophomore legislator, Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL);
Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D-MO), who served on a previous census
oversight panel, returns as the new subcommittees ranking minority
With Republicans resuming majority status in the Senate, Sen. Judd Gregg
(R-NH) is again chairman of the appropriations Commerce subcommittee,
while Ernest Fritz Hollings (D-SC) holds the ranking minority
position. The Committee on Governmental Affairs has assigned
responsibility for census oversight to a newly formed Subcommittee on
Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security. Sen.
Peter Fitzgerald R-IL), a new member of the full committee, chairs the
panel; Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) is the senior Democrat. The chairmen
and ranking minority members of full committees usually serve as ex
officio members of all of that panels subcommittees of which they are
not regular members.
House Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations, and the Census
B349A Rayburn H.O.B. B350A Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Adam Putnam (FL) (Chairman) Wm. Lacy Clay (MO) (Ranking Minority
Candice Miller (MI) Diane Watson (CA)
Doug Ose (CA) Stephen Lynch (MA)
Tim Murphy (PA) Henry Waxman (CA) (ex officio)
Michael Turner (OH)
Tom Davis (VA) (ex officio)
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International
SH-446 Hart S.O.B. SH-439 Hart S.O.B.
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
Peter Fitzgerald (IL) (Chairman) Daniel Akaka (HI) (Ranking Minority
Ted Stevens (AK) Carl Levin (MI)
George Voinovich (OH) Thomas Carper (DE)
Arlen Specter (PA) Mark Dayton (MN)
Robert Bennett (UT) Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
John Sununu (NH) Mark Pryor (AR)
Richard Shelby (AL) Joseph Lieberman (CT) (ex officio)
Susan Collins (ME) (ex officio)
House Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary
H-309 The Capitol 1016 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Frank Wolf (VA) (Chairman) Jose Serrano (NY) (Ranking Minority
Harold Rogers (KY) Alan Mollohan (WV)
Jim Kolbe (AZ) Robert Cramer, Jr. (AL)
Charles Taylor (NC) Patrick Kennedy (RI)
Ralph Regula (OH) Martin Sabo (MN)
David Vitter (LA) David Obey (WI) (ex officio)
John Sweeney (NY)
Mark Kirk (IL)
C.W. Bill Young (FL) (ex officio)
Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary
S-146A The Capitol SH-123 Hart S.O.B.
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
Judd Gregg (NH) (Chairman) Ernest Hollings (SC) (Ranking Minority
Ted Stevens (AK)* Daniel Inouye (HI)
Pete Domenici (NM) Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Mitch McConnell (KY) Patrick Leahy (VT)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) Herbert Kohl (WI)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO) Patty Murray (WA)
Sam Brownback (KS) Robert C. Byrd (WV) (ex officio)
*Full committee chairman.
Census News Briefs are prepared by Terri Ann Lowenthal, an independent
consultant in Washington, DC. Please direct questions about the
information in this News Brief to Ms. Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or by
e-mail at terriann2k(a)aol.com. Thank you to the Communications Consortium
Media Center for posting the News Briefs on the Census 2000 Initiative
web site, at www.census2000.org. Please feel free to circulate this
information to colleagues and other interested individuals.
FR: Chuck Purvis, MTC
Forwarded message from the State Data Center listserv:
The Missouri Census Data Center has created a series of reports based on the recently released county to county workflow files. Access the menu at http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/data/workflow/reports/ .
There are 4 reports per state based on R/W sort and html/pdf format. Flows representing at least 1/2% of total trips originating or terminating in a county are shown.
The data used in the reports can be accessed via http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/pub/data//workflow/Datasets.html - the usflows2 dataset.
Click on Details to see more info or click on the Name to be dropped into Uexplore/xtract with the set selected.
OSEDA - Office of Social & Economic Data Analysis
U. of Missouri Outreach and Extension
626 Clark Hall - UMC
Columbia, MO 65211