ctpp-news October 2005

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

8 participants
9 discussions

Income variable in future CTPP-like products

by Murakami, Elaine

Despite the uncertainty of 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) budgeting and implementation, I am raising this query on future CTPP-like products using ACS. For the CTPP2000, there were 2 FLOW (part 3) tables using income: Table 3-5 Income (8 classes + total) Table 3-7 Income (4 classes +total ) by Means of Transportation (4 classes + total) Both of these tables were subject to the Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board (DRB) requirement of 3 unweighted records, resulting in very high suppression of Origin/Destination pairs at the tract-to-tract (about 70 percent), and TAZ-to-TAZ (often over 80 percent) level. Because the sample size in ACS (even after 5 years of data accumulation) are expected to be perhaps 40-60 percent that of the 2000 decennial census long form sample, it will be even more difficult to reach the threshold of 3 unweighted records for flow tabulation. The CB's DRB has told us that for special tabulations (like the CTPP) "rounding and thresholds are here to stay." Right now, the next level of geography is Place (city or town), which is often too large to be meaningful. We understand that the CB plans to use PUMA as a standard tabulation unit, which could result in a very useful PUMA-to-PUMA flow table for large metropolitan areas, but since PUMAs require 100,000 population, this would be not very useful for smaller metropolitan areas. Here are some alternatives to consider: 1. Using MEDIAN INCOME instead of a distribution. At least one person at the CB thinks that the DRB would be less concerned about this. While this might work for Table 3-5, I don't think it would work for Table 3-7, because there would be a significant probability for one record for a particular mode, e.g. transit, so that the median would be the same as the individual record. 2. Having a SuperTAZ or SuperTract new geographic unit for flow tabulations that include an income variable. How big would a SuperTAZ or SuperTract need to be? I don't know, but my guess is that it would need to be on the order of 4-5 census tracts combined. We know that if we combine only 2 tracts, it will result in approximately 70 percent of suppression, because the unweighted records would be similar in number to the CTPP 2000 tract-to-tract numbers. 3. Omit the income tables from an ACS Flow tabulation, and find another data source. Please let me know what you think, and especially if you have ideas for alternatives. AASHTO SCOP has convened a Census Data Working Group. It is chaired by Jonette Kreideweis of MN DOT. Information about this group was included in the August 2005 CTPP Status Report http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/sr0805.htm. AMPO and APTA have now been included as members. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 (Seattle)

19 years

Re: [CTPP] Release of Census 2000 Data Product on Daytime Population

by Bob Paddock

Ed, MY guess is that you are "on the mark" in this regard. That is the approach that I seem to understand from what has been given below. I received two separate inquiries back in July about the "daytime population of downtown Minneapolis". My response was to question their definition of "daytime population" and indicated that the only information I had available to me was the CTPP "Journey-to-Work" tabulations. I made it clear that this did NOT include other trip purposes to downtown, such as shopping, non-home but work-related trips and the like. I suppose that as long as all regions are treated likewise, you could at least get some comparative measurement of this information. Bob Paddock Transportation Research Metropolitan Council 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55107-1633 651 602-1340 >>> Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.com> 10/20/05 11:28AM >>> This is interesting but I wonder how it would compare or relate to CTPP data. From the posting I am not quite sure what the CB is including as daytime population. Thinking in CTPP terms I would take what I call CTPP Part 2 workers for any given area and add to it some portion of the Part 1 non- workers and then sum them together as my daytime population. Do you think this is what the CB did? Chuck Purvis wrote: > This is a message sent to the State Data Center listserv this morning, > 10/20/05: > > FROM THE DESK OF STANLEY J. ROLARK > CHIEF, CUSTOMER LIAISON OFFICE > > October 20, 2005 > > Subject: Release of Census 2000 Data Product on > Daytime Population > > The Census Bureau will be releasing later today or tomorrow, Census > 2000 > data on the daytime population. The data are being released for all > counties (or co. equivs.) by state in the U.S. There are also subtotal > lines for each state and for the U.S. as a whole. There are data for > the > municipios in Puerto Rico, and a total for Puerto Rico. > > There are data for places (incorp. and CDPs) in the U.S. by state, but > no > place data for Puerto Rico. The universe is places with either 2,500 > workers living in the place or 2,500 workers working in the place. > > There will be three separate Excel files. They will be accessible > through > the Subjects A to Z index, from a link entitled Daytime Population. > > Table 1 is a summary for places by size. All places > 250,000 are > shown, > in three size classes. Places less than 250,000 are shown in six > size > classes, but only the first twenty based on percent increase in > daytime > pop are shown for each size in Table 1. > > Table 2 shows all counties by state in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. > > Table 3 shows places with 2,500 workers living in or working in, by > state, for the U.S. (not PR). > > The data product was developed by the Journey to Work and Migration > Statistics Branch in Population Division. The data were developed by > combining the Census 2000 data on the residence population with the > Census > 2000 sample data on place of work. The estimates of daytime population > to > be released by the Census Bureau only adjust resident populations for > travel into or out of an area for work purposes. No adjustment is made > for > travel to school, shopping, recreation, tourism, health care or for > any > other trip purpose. The data sources required for making these > adjustments > are not available on a consistent, nationwide basis. Furthermore, the > adjustments to resident population reflected in these "daytime" > population > estimates do not take the time of day work trips are made into account. > The > simplifying assumption is made that all workers leave the area in the > morning and return to the area in the evening. > > The release will include data items on the number of workers working in > the > area, the number of workers living in the area, the estimated daytime > population, the number and percent change due to commuting, the number > and > percent of the workers who lived in the area that also worked in the > area, > and the employment-residence ratio (workers working in/workers living > in). > > The data are likely to be released with a press release but with no > press > embargo. While you will be receiving a copy of the press release as > part > of our normal procedures, I did want to provide you with a "heads > up" about > this release as you may receive questions and/or have an interest in > this > release. Census Bureau contact information regarding this release will > be > included at the top of the press release. > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

19 years

RE: [CTPP] Release of Census 2000 Data Product on Daytime Population

by celia.g.boertlein＠census.gov

Bill, Yes, your points are all well-taken. These are estimates based on the Census 2000 question, "At what location did you work LAST WEEK?" and the directions that included the following -- "If you worked at more than one address or location, give the address or location where you worked most LAST WEEK". As the types of nontraditional work schedules prevail, we all will be challenged to estimate what proportion of the workers are affected by these schedules as well as the proportions that are away from their usual place of work because of vacation, temporary layoff, illness, etc. Not easy tasks. -- Celia G. Boertlein Journey-to-Work and Migration Statistics Branch Population Division U.S. Bureau of the Census Washington, DC 20233-8800 phone: (301)763-2454 fax: (301)457-2481 email: Celia.G.Boertlein(a)Census.GOV <William.Banniste r(a)dot.gov> To 10/21/2005 11:14 <celia.g.boertlein(a)census.gov>, AM <edc(a)berwyned.com> cc <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>, <ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net> Subject RE: [CTPP] Release of Census 2000 Data Product on Daytime Population Celia, How would one account for things such as teleworking, flexible work schedules (such as the one prevalent in the Federal government that results in workers having a day off every other week), and other non-traditional work issues in determining the daytime population? As these types of work schedules become more and more prevalent for reducing congestion, personal preferences, etc. it would seem that daytime population estimates would have greater and greater variance. Bill Bannister Assistant Director, Office of Advanced Studies Bureau of Transportation Statistics Research and Innovative Technology Administration U.S. Department of Transportation -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of celia.g.boertlein(a)census.gov Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 4:20 PM To: Ed Christopher Cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Release of Census 2000 Data Product on Daytime Population Ed, The Census Bureau's estimate of daytime population only adjusts for work-related travel, i.e., incommuters to an area and outcommuters from an area. Data necessary to adjust for shopping, school, recreation, tourism, etc. are not available. Non-workers are assumed to stay within the area of their residence. Counts of workers working in counties (or equivalents) are consistent with CTPP counts in Part 2 and the county-to-county worker flow files. Counts of workers working in places in the daytime population file are not fully consistent with those shown in the CTPP, due to the extended allocation process used in the CTPP products. -- Celia G. Boertlein Journey-to-Work and Migration Statistics Branch Population Division U.S. Bureau of the Census Washington, DC 20233-8800 phone: (301)763-2454 fax: (301)457-2481 email: Celia.G.Boertlein(a)Census.GOV Ed Christopher <edc(a)berwyned.co m> To Sent by: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net ctpp-news-bounce cc s(a)chrispy.net Subject Re: [CTPP] Release of Census 2000 10/20/2005 12:28 Data Product on Daytime Population PM This is interesting but I wonder how it would compare or relate to CTPP data. From the posting I am not quite sure what the CB is including as daytime population. Thinking in CTPP terms I would take what I call CTPP Part 2 workers for any given area and add to it some portion of the Part 1 non- workers and then sum them together as my daytime population. Do you think this is what the CB did? Chuck Purvis wrote: > This is a message sent to the State Data Center listserv this morning, > 10/20/05: > > FROM THE DESK OF STANLEY J. ROLARK > CHIEF, CUSTOMER LIAISON OFFICE > > October 20, 2005 > > Subject: Release of Census 2000 Data Product on > Daytime Population > > The Census Bureau will be releasing later today or tomorrow, Census > 2000 > data on the daytime population. The data are being released for all > counties (or co. equivs.) by state in the U.S. There are also subtotal > lines for each state and for the U.S. as a whole. There are data for > the > municipios in Puerto Rico, and a total for Puerto Rico. > > There are data for places (incorp. and CDPs) in the U.S. by state, but > no > place data for Puerto Rico. The universe is places with either 2,500 > workers living in the place or 2,500 workers working in the place. > > There will be three separate Excel files. They will be accessible > through > the Subjects A to Z index, from a link entitled Daytime Population. > > Table 1 is a summary for places by size. All places > 250,000 are > shown, > in three size classes. Places less than 250,000 are shown in six > size > classes, but only the first twenty based on percent increase in > daytime > pop are shown for each size in Table 1. > > Table 2 shows all counties by state in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. > > Table 3 shows places with 2,500 workers living in or working in, by > state, for the U.S. (not PR). > > The data product was developed by the Journey to Work and Migration > Statistics Branch in Population Division. The data were developed by > combining the Census 2000 data on the residence population with the > Census > 2000 sample data on place of work. The estimates of daytime population > to > be released by the Census Bureau only adjust resident populations for > travel into or out of an area for work purposes. No adjustment is made > for > travel to school, shopping, recreation, tourism, health care or for > any > other trip purpose. The data sources required for making these > adjustments > are not available on a consistent, nationwide basis. Furthermore, the > adjustments to resident population reflected in these "daytime" > population > estimates do not take the time of day work trips are made into account. > The > simplifying assumption is made that all workers leave the area in the > morning and return to the area in the evening. > > The release will include data items on the number of workers working in > the > area, the number of workers living in the area, the estimated daytime > population, the number and percent change due to commuting, the number > and > percent of the workers who lived in the area that also worked in the > area, > and the employment-residence ratio (workers working in/workers living > in). > > The data are likely to be released with a press release but with no > press > embargo. While you will be receiving a copy of the press release as > part > of our normal procedures, I did want to provide you with a "heads > up" about > this release as you may receive questions and/or have an interest in > this > release. Census Bureau contact information regarding this release will > be > included at the top of the press release. > > _______________________________________________ > ctpp-news mailing list > ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

19 years

Release of Census 2000 Data Product on Daytime Population

by Chuck Purvis

This is a message sent to the State Data Center listserv this morning, 10/20/05: FROM THE DESK OF STANLEY J. ROLARK CHIEF, CUSTOMER LIAISON OFFICE October 20, 2005 Subject: Release of Census 2000 Data Product on Daytime Population The Census Bureau will be releasing later today or tomorrow, Census 2000 data on the daytime population. The data are being released for all counties (or co. equivs.) by state in the U.S. There are also subtotal lines for each state and for the U.S. as a whole. There are data for the municipios in Puerto Rico, and a total for Puerto Rico. There are data for places (incorp. and CDPs) in the U.S. by state, but no place data for Puerto Rico. The universe is places with either 2,500 workers living in the place or 2,500 workers working in the place. There will be three separate Excel files. They will be accessible through the Subjects A to Z index, from a link entitled Daytime Population. Table 1 is a summary for places by size. All places > 250,000 are shown, in three size classes. Places less than 250,000 are shown in six size classes, but only the first twenty based on percent increase in daytime pop are shown for each size in Table 1. Table 2 shows all counties by state in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Table 3 shows places with 2,500 workers living in or working in, by state, for the U.S. (not PR). The data product was developed by the Journey to Work and Migration Statistics Branch in Population Division. The data were developed by combining the Census 2000 data on the residence population with the Census 2000 sample data on place of work. The estimates of daytime population to be released by the Census Bureau only adjust resident populations for travel into or out of an area for work purposes. No adjustment is made for travel to school, shopping, recreation, tourism, health care or for any other trip purpose. The data sources required for making these adjustments are not available on a consistent, nationwide basis. Furthermore, the adjustments to resident population reflected in these "daytime" population estimates do not take the time of day work trips are made into account. The simplifying assumption is made that all workers leave the area in the morning and return to the area in the evening. The release will include data items on the number of workers working in the area, the number of workers living in the area, the estimated daytime population, the number and percent change due to commuting, the number and percent of the workers who lived in the area that also worked in the area, and the employment-residence ratio (workers working in/workers living in). The data are likely to be released with a press release but with no press embargo. While you will be receiving a copy of the press release as part of our normal procedures, I did want to provide you with a "heads up" about this release as you may receive questions and/or have an interest in this release. Census Bureau contact information regarding this release will be included at the top of the press release.

19 years

Census News Brief

by Ed Christopher

CENSUS DATA WIDELY USED IN NEW ORLEANS AREA Plus: ACS and Census Long Form Could Be At Risk, Census Bureau Says A wide range of census data was in heavy demand in the days and weeks after Hurricane Katrina ravaged much of New Orleans, a representative of the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center told a gathering of stakeholders at a Washington policy briefing last Friday. Denice Warren, herself an evacuee from New Orleans, participated in a forum sponsored by The Brookings Institution on how proposed funding cuts would affect key Census Bureau programs. The American Community Survey (ACS), key tests for the 2010 census, and several other widely-used economic and demographic surveys could be scaled back or canceled under the Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) funding level approved last month by the U.S. Senate. Ms. Warren said the GNOCDC tracked visits to its web site (www.gnocdc.org), which features data tables and maps on important neighborhood characteristics, including poverty, educational attainment, transportation, employment, housing, and immigration. For the first half of 2005, the web site received roughly 5,000 hits per month. That number jumped to 40,000 in August and 80,000 in September, suggesting that public officials, relief organizations, and the media relied heavily on data (much of it derived directly or indirectly from the Census Bureau) to assess the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and to help plan recovery efforts. The forum also featured remarks by Dr. William OHare, KIDS COUNT Program Coordinator, The Annie E. Casey Foundation; James Eskew, Assistant Director, Cushman & Wakefield Client Solutions, which helps businesses make informed location decisions; and Dr. William Frey, Visiting Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution. Dr. OHare noted that public and private sector data users have invested a great deal of time and money in preparing to use American Community Survey estimates, and that a once-a-decade model for collecting information ignores how quickly modern society is changing. Dr. Frey also warned that collecting detailed socio-economic data once-a-decade fails to recognize the dynamic nature of 21st century America. Mr. Eskew highlighted how census data are the foundation for analyzing and comparing local economies when businesses are looking to build new headquarters, plants, or stores. The four Brookings forum presentations are available at: http://www.brookings.edu/metro/umi/20051014_censusfundingFY2006.htm (scroll down to the bottom of the gray box). Census funding update: With 2006 funding and the future of the American Community Survey still uncertain, The Washington Post reported last Friday that the Census Bureau is floating the idea of a 2010 census with only a short-form population and race count that would provide the data needed for congressional apportionment and redistricting, even if it stops the ACS after this year (The Washington Post, 10/14/05, The Federal Page). The bureau could consider such a scenario if Congress fails to provide enough money to continue the ACS in 2006 and if money is tight, the Post article said. Census Bureau officials told the newspaper, as well as congressional appropriators, that suspending the ACS and planning for a 2000-style census in 2010 would add $1.3 billion to the estimated $11.3 billion lifecycle cost of the next count. Census Bureau Director C. Louis Kincannon told the Post that a FY06 funding level materially below the House mark of $812.2 million would spell trouble for key agency programs and plans, including the ACS, automated data collection in the 2010 census, and the 2006 Census Field Test in Travis County, Texas, and on the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation in South Dakota. The Senate allocated $727.4 million for the Census Bureau, $150 million less than President Bush requested and $17 million below the 2005 funding level. The Washington Post article also quotes a spokeswoman for Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Virginia Davis, as saying: Senator Shelby recognizes the important work being done by the Census Bureau, but he believes that we must balance that with the tight budget constraints that Congress is facing. Sen. Shelby chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science; he did not chair the subcommittee with responsibility for Census Bureau funding in the last Congress. Dan Scandling, a spokesman for Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, told the Post that House members will push to keep [the Census Bureaus budget] at House levels. (Note: The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees with responsibility for funding the Commerce Departments Census Bureau no longer have fully comparable jurisdictions.) Appropriations conferees: The U.S. Senate appointed conferees last month to negotiate a final spending bill that includes the Census Bureau. All members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science are conferees. Please see the March 11, 2005, Census News Brief posted at www.thecensusproject.org for a list of subcommittee members. The House of Representatives has not formally appointed its conferees, but according to tradition, all members of the Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce will likely serve on the conference committee. Please see the February 24 Census News Brief for a list of panel members. Census News Briefs are prepared by Terri Ann Lowenthal, an independent consultant in Washington, DC, with support from The Annie E. Casey Foundation and other organizations. Ms. Lowenthal is also a consultant to The Census Project, sponsored by the Communications Consortium Media Center. All views expressed in the News Briefs are solely those of the author. Please direct questions about the information in this News Brief to Ms. Lowenthal at 202/484-3067 or by e-mail at TerriAnn2K(a)aol.com. Please feel free to circulate this document to other interested individuals and organizations. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461

19 years

ACS Course by Cynthia Tauber

by ed christopher

Starting, October 28th and running for 4 weeks, Cynthia Taeuber is teaching an online course on "Using the Census's American Community Survey". The course costs $400 and more information can be found at. http://www.statistics.com/content/courses/census/index.html Although I have not taken the course I have used Cynthia's materials and slides in the past and found her presentations on the ACS to be most informative. If anyone signs up and takes the course I would be interested in hearing about it. -- Ed Christopher Resource Center Planning Team Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) 708-283-3501 (F)

19 years

Ron Svejkovsky/PWD/COGV is out of the office.

by rsvejkovsky＠GREENVILLENC.GOV

I will be out of the office starting 09/30/2005 and will not return until 10/04/2005. I will respond to your message when I return. Thanks! *********************************************************************************** This e-mail is for the intended recipient only. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system; access, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited. If you as, intended recipient, have received this e-mail incorrectly, please notify the sender (via e-mail) immediately.

19 years, 1 month

RE: [Bay Area Census] American Community Survey 2004 Data is now available

by Richard Lin

Generally speaking, the ACS estimates use the FSCPE's (Federal-State Cooperation for Populatin EStimates) state and county estimates as controls but not the exact figures. It is more complicate with detailed adjustments without documented explanations. At least it happens to the 2004 ACS estimates to Colorado counties and municipalities. - Richard Lin, Ph.D. Demographer Colorado Division of Local Government (303)866-4989, fax (303)866-2660 richard.lin(a)state.co.us >>> "Chuck Purvis" <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov> 9/2/2005 12:20 PM >>> Jeffrey: [I'm cross-posting my message to the national census-transportation listserv] You raise important points: 1. How does the Census Bureau weight & expand the American Community Survey? Do they weight it to match sub-county "control totals"? 2. How will formula allocation programs (HUD, HHS, DOT) utilize American Community Survey in allocating funds to local jurisdictions? How will formula allocation programs handle the higher standard errors, and confidence intervals, associated with the ACS? Answers: 1. The Census Bureau, to the best of my knowledge, uses counties as the finest geographic level for expanding and weighting ACS data. They do not use sub-county or place-level control totals (e.g., like they did with the weighting of decennial long form data to match decennial short form control totals). The "control totals" the Census Bureau uses are the state-federal cooperative population estimates program, which produces data on TOTAL population by age by sex by race/hispanic status. (How the Bureau adjusts these county-level population estimates to remove the group quarters population, I don't know.) Again, this is all to the best of my knowledge. For example, our State Department of Finance reports the population for Alameda County, in 2004, as 1,497,000. If we assume the same 1.9% of Alameda County's population of group quarters, then this means about 1,469,000 persons-in-households in Alameda County in 2004. The ACS measures 1,427,827 household persons in Alameda County, a difference of 4.7%. Why this difference? The pop estimates that the Bureau is using are perhaps different (?) than the pop estimates that the California DOF released this past May. To state that the weighting and expansion of American Community Survey data is an "issue" is a gross understatement. It's a really, really big issue. 2. In terms of the question "how will allocation formulas be affected by ACS?" This is really a very, very significant issue and honestly, I don't know. For example, the president recently signed the federal transportation reauthorization bill (SAFETEA-LU). There are two formula programs based on the distribution of DISABLED persons (for the "New Freedom Program") and the number of PERSONS BELOW THE 150% POVERTY LEVEL (for the Jobs Access-for-Reverse Commuting - - JARC Program), based on urbanized area population. Right now, the only urbanized area data on disabled population and poverty population is from the decennial census. So, to allocate data NOW, the USDOT would need to rely on Census 2000 data. When data is available from the 2005-2007 ACS (3-year accumulation of data), down to the SMALL URBANIZED AREAS (50,000 to 65,000 population), the USDOT MAY CHOOSE TO USE THE ACS 3-YEAR DATA TO ALLOCATE JARC & New Freedom funds....Hopefully the 3-year ACS data is less jumpy & jittery than the one-year data we've seen over the past four years. (An additional point to make is that the disability data from the decennial census isn't that good. The disability data from the ACS should be a much better indicator of disability levels.) The other example, probably more near and dear to city planner's hearts, is the allocation of community development block grant (CDBG) funds based on census-tract level estimates of poverty (?) population. I think the funding agency will have to at least look at using the five-year accumulation of ACS data, but I'm concerned (as are many others) about the "bright line" rules that regulate whether an area does or doesn't receive CDBG funds. [I am out of my element & comfort zone when talking about CDBG fund allocations. If there's a HUD-Census user forum that discusses these issues, that would be great information to share. Here is a link to a 2002 vintage HUD report on the ACS. I haven't read it yet: http://www.huduser.org/publications/polleg/acs.html I've heard comments from the Census Bureau folks that the ACS data is best for "characteristics, not counts" but the Bureau will need to realize that we data users want it all: both characteristics (shares, rates & proportions) and counts (# of persons below poverty level, # of disabled, # of zero-vehicle households, # of transit commuters, etc.) My strongest recommendation is to "cross-validate" the ACS data with other, local administrative data. The best cross-validation, at a city level, will be to compare the citywide total housing unit estimate from the ACS against the City's own records on total units.... This is a long-winded "I don't know" response. Chuck ************************************************************** Charles L. Purvis, AICP Principal Transportation Planner/Analyst Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 (510) 817-5755 (office) [new, 8/1/05] (510) 817-7848 (fax) [new, 8/1/05] www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ Census WWW: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/ ************************************************************** >>> JPLevin(a)oaklandnet.com 09/01/05 6:21 PM >>> This new ACS data raises a lot of questions for us. It shows our 2004 population as 365,266 with lower/upper bounds of 338,601 and 391,931 Our 2000 population was over 399,000. Even subtracting out the 7,000 or so households in group quarters (who aren't counted in the ACS), this would give us 392,000 in 2000, but only 365,266 in 2004, despite a significant increase in our housing stock and by all indications an increase in population. Department of Finance estimate is 411,319 for 2004 and 412,318. Does anyone else have similar problems? This kind of undercounting can cost cities a LOT of money. _________________________________ Jeffrey P. Levin (jplevin(a)oaklandnet.com) Housing Policy & Programs Coordinator City of Oakland/Community & Economic Development Agency 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510/238-3501 FAX: 510/238-3691 http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/hcd _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news

19 years, 1 month

Census News Brief

by Ed Christopher

October 2, 2005 CENSUS FUNDING UPDATE and more Congress took steps last week to keep the federal government running in the new fiscal year that began October 1, after failing to enact all but two of the twelve regular appropriations bills by the end of fiscal year 2005 (FY05) on September 30. The Continuing Resolution (House Joint Resolution 68) funds federal agencies through November 18, 2005 (or until a separate appropriations bill is enacted, if sooner), indicating that Congress intends to stay in session well past its original adjournment target of early October. The terms of the Continuing Resolution are not favorable for the Census Bureau in the short run. The measure temporarily funds agencies at the lower of three levels: the House-passed level, the Senate-passed level (if applicable), or the fiscal year 2005 level. Last month, the U.S. Senate allocated $727.4 million for the Census Bureau in fiscal year 2006 (FY06), an amount $17 million below the FY05 level and $80 million below the amount approved by the House of Representatives in June. The President requested $877.4 million for the agency in FY06. Data processing contract awarded: Implementation of a $500 million contract for the 2010 census data processing system, awarded last week to Lockheed Martin Corporation, could be delayed if Congress fails to appropriate more money for the Census Bureau than the amount approved by the Senate last month. Lockheed Martin coordinating a team that includes IBM, Computer Sciences Corporation, Pearson Government Solutions, and several other companies will be responsible for all systems, facilities, and staffing to process census responses reported on paper questionnaires, by telephone, and via the Internet. The six-year contract for the Decennial Response Integration System (DRIS) includes developing an Internet response option for the census, which was offered but not widely used in 2000. However, the Census Bureau warned in June that the FY06 funding level adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee (and subsequently by the full Senate) could delay the award of the DRIS contract. The bureaus impact statement, issued June 29, says that delaying the award would postpone[e] critical efforts to ensure we can effectively integrate data capture of respondent data from multiple sources in the 2010 Census and increas[e] the likelihood that this will not be successful in 2010. The decision to award the contract before negotiators have met to decide on a final funding level could indicate that the Census Bureau is confident it will receive a much higher budget than the Senate approved; alternatively, the bureau could delay implementation of the contract if appropriators fail to allocate sufficient funds. New report explains ACS: A new report from the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau (PRB) offers a useful description of the Census Bureaus American Community Survey (ACS), with a focus on important differences between ACS and census long form methods and data. Authors Mark Mather, Kerri Rivers, and Linda Jacobsen compare data collection in the two surveys for several key socio-economic characteristics, including income and poverty, immigration and language, housing and commuting, and marriage and family relationships. The American Community Survey is available through the PRBs web site at www.prb.org (see top center of home page). New Census Advisory Committee to meet: The newly-created 2010 Census Advisory Committee will hold its first meeting on October 27-28 at Census Bureau headquarters in Suitland, MD. The committee replaced the Decennial Census Advisory Committee, which was disbanded last winter. The advisory committee will meet on Thursday, October 27, from 8:30 AM 5:15 PM, and on Friday, October 28, from 8:45 11:45 AM. Topics of discussion include updates from congressional staff; status of planning for the 2010 census, including communications plans; Master Address File and TIGER digital mapping system improvement; American Community Survey field work, including in Gulf Coast areas; and Census Bureau research related to questionnaire content and coverage improvement. The meeting will take place in the Francis Amasa Walker Conference Center at the Census Bureau (Building #3). It is open to the public. In the September 16th Census News Brief, I inadvertently neglected to include the National Conference of State Legislatures on the list of committee members. (My apologies to my good friend, Tim Storey, who has ably represented NCSL on the census advisory committee for many years!) Census News Briefs are prepared by Terri Ann Lowenthal, an independent consultant in Washington, DC, with support from The Annie E. Casey Foundation and other organizations. Ms. Lowenthal is also a consultant to The Census Project, sponsored by the Communications Consortium Media Center. All views expressed in the News Briefs are solely those of the author. Please direct questions about the information in this News Brief to Ms. Lowenthal at 202/484-3067 or by e-mail at TerriAnn2K(a)aol.com. Please feel free to circulate this document to other interested individuals and organizations. -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 19900 Governors Dr Olympia Fields, IL 60461

19 years, 1 month

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 October 2005