ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

by ed christopher

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 panels. 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 <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03cs02.html>. The technical assessment document can be found at <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/ExecSumm.pdf>. 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 Bureau data. 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 Presidents signature. 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 member. 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 Republicans Democrats 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 Member) 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 Security Republicans Democrats 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 Member) 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 Republicans Democrats H-309 The Capitol 1016 Longworth H.O.B. Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Frank Wolf (VA) (Chairman) Jose Serrano (NY) (Ranking Minority Member) 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 Republicans Democrats 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 Member) 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.

21 years, 9 months

Workflow reports and dataset (from Missouri Census Data Center)

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP-News 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. John Blodgett OSEDA - Office of Social & Economic Data Analysis U. of Missouri Outreach and Extension 626 Clark Hall - UMC Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 884-2727 blodgettj(a)umsystem.edu URL: http://oseda.missouri.edu/jgb/

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] Release Information

by Brian Lakeman

Thank you for the update Ed. Has there been any word (official or unofficial) as to what is causing the delay in the disemmination of the CTPP data? It would be nice, when explaining the new "target" dates to my boss, to be able to point to a reason for the delay. Thanks. Brian Lakeman Genesee Transportation Council -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:11 AM To: Huntley, Lance; ctpp-news maillist Subject: Re: [CTPP] Release Information sorry--the pages and dates have been updated for the umpty-umpt time. http://www.TRBcensus.com/calendar.html recapping Part 1 residents data is due to start flowing out in mid April. Parts 2 (workplace) and Part 3 (flows) are due to start coming out in the summer (don't have anything more specific but given all the current delays i would figure late, late summer) "Huntley, Lance" wrote: > HI List, > > Are the release dates provided on the CTPP 2000 Status Report web page dated August 8th, 2002 still in effect? The dates indicate that: > CTPP Part 1 - Residence Based Tables: November 2002 to January 2003 > CTPP Parts 2 and 3 - Work End and Worker Flow Tables: Beginning in April 2003 > Are there any updated release dates? > > Thanks, > Lance Huntley

21 years, 9 months

Re: Use of 2000 County-to-County Commuting for MSA additions

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP List-serv I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, other than a news clipping that Ed Christopher provided to me from our DC/Baltimore colleagues (from the Baltimore Sun): http://www.sunspot.net/business/bal-bz.census16mar16,0,933589.story?coll=bal I do know that OMB was searching for local input on defining CMSAs and MSAs, using early versions of the county-to-county Census 2000 commute data. They, OMB, were conducting this local input process via local congessional delegations. We basically got a fourth generation FAX from one of our congresspersons asking us about the funding implications of CMSA/MSA designations. I believe the initial round of input was closed (?) on October 31, 2002. Can some of our federal colleagues enlighten us on the OMB process? Future hearings? Means to express our interest? Reviewing the comments received from our congressional delegation? Chuck Purvis, MTC >>> <rsvejkovsky(a)ci.greenville.nc.us> 03/25/03 05:33AM >>> Now that the county-to-county commuting data is out, does anyone know when the Census Bureau will announce the new MSA list? I read the Dec. 27, 2000, OMB Notice re: the MSA standards and it appears based upon the new county-to-county data, Greene County will be included with Pitt County (the central county) in the Greenville (NC) MSA. First message on this subject from . . . The new regulations for MSA definitions state basically that an outlying county is included if at least 25 percent of the "employed residents" work in the central county or counties (those counties with over 50 percent of the population in the urbanized area). Obviously the county-to-county commuting numbers provide the number of residents working in the central counties. However the "employed residents" is less clear. Is it from the same source (Apples and Apples) and thereby excluding those not at work during the reference week, or is it taken from SF3 (Apples and Oranges) and thus "total" resident employment? We have a county that is 25.03% by the first method and 24.73% by the second. In or out?

21 years, 9 months

Re: Use of 2000 County-to-County Commuting for MSA additions

by rsvejkovsky＠ci.greenville.nc.us

Now that the county-to-county commuting data is out, does anyone know when the Census Bureau will announce the new MSA list? I read the Dec. 27, 2000, OMB Notice re: the MSA standards and it appears based upon the new county-to-county data, Greene County will be included with Pitt County (the central county) in the Greenville (NC) MSA. ----- Forwarded by Ron Svejkovsky/PWD/COGV on 03/25/2003 08:29 AM ----- Steve Wallace <swallace@mapaco To: Chuck Purvis <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov> g.org> cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] Re: Use of 2000 County-to-County owner-ctpp-news@ Commuting for MSA additions chrispy.net 03/21/2003 03:22 PM The new regulations for MSA definitions state basically that an outlying county is included if at least 25 percent of the "employed residents" work in the central county or counties (those counties with over 50 percent of the population in the urbanized area). Obviously the county-to-county commuting numbers provide the number of residents working in the central counties. However the "employed residents" is less clear. Is it from the same source (Apples and Apples) and thereby excluding those not at work during the reference week, or is it taken from SF3 (Apples and Oranges) and thus "total" resident employment? We have a county that is 25.03% by the first method and 24.73% by the second. In or out?

21 years, 9 months

Release Information

by Huntley, Lance

HI List, Are the release dates provided on the CTPP 2000 Status Report web page dated August 8th, 2002 still in effect? The dates indicate that: CTPP Part 1 - Residence Based Tables: November 2002 to January 2003 CTPP Parts 2 and 3 - Work End and Worker Flow Tables: Beginning in April 2003 Are there any updated release dates? Thanks, Lance Huntley

21 years, 9 months

FW: multiple job holding rates

by Edwards, Adriel (MHD)

Hello all, This email is response to Chuck's question about the definition on multiple job holding rates. I got the answer straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak! Ryan Helwig of the US BLS called me to answer the question below about the confusing title and footnotes on the tables on multiple job holding rates. Basically, the rate is a percentage of employed residents (as it was footnoted in the old table), and as far as the US BLS is concerned, that is the same thing as total employment (as it was titled in the new table). Therefore, the recent data can be compared with the old data for the purposes of examining trends, and the like. However, he did add one caveat. The recent data is collected monthly and averaged annually. The old data, prior to 1994, was only collected in every May. And some years they simply did not collect this data. To help us around this obstacle, he kindly provided the post-1994 May data along with the pre-1994 May data so we can really compare apples to apples. Hope this helps! Have fun! Adriel Edwards Transportation Planner Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development Massachusetts Highway Department (617) 973 -8062 -----Original Message----- From: Helwig_R [mailto:Helwig_R@BLS.GOV] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:25 PM To: 'Adriel.Edwards(a)MHD.state.ma.us' Subject: FW: multiple job holding rates <<Multiple jobholders May 1970-2002.xls>> Dear Adriel, I have attached the Excel file I mentioned with the multiple jobholding estimates (national) for May of each year. These data can be cited as "Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey." I will be out of the office next week, so if you have any questions, feel free to call our main office line on 202.691.6378 or email cpsinfo(a)bls.gov. Thanks, Ryan Helwig Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Labor Force Statistics Phone: 202.691.6385 Email: helwig_r(a)bls.gov -----Original Message----- From: Edwards, Adriel (MHD) [mailto:Adriel.Edwards@MHD.state.ma.us] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:55 PM To: 'cewinfo(a)bls.gov'; 'cesinfo(a)bls.gov'; 'blsdata_staff(a)bls.gov' Cc: 'cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov' Subject: multiple job holding rates Hello, I am looking at trends in multiple jobholding rates and am trying to confirm the definition. According to the BLS glossary, multiple job holders (not the rate) are the people that have more than one job, with a few exceptions. Makes sense. The footnote in Table 1 in the article at http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/03/art1full.pdf <http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/03/art1full.pdf> has the rate as a percentage of employed persons. Good. But some confusion is arising because the title of Table 1 in article http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/07/rgtrends.pdf <http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/07/rgtrends.pdf> has the rate as a percentage of total employment. My question is this: Is BLS's definition of "total employment" the same as that of "employed residents"? In other words, can we compare the data in the two articles and safely say, for example, that in 1991, the rate was 6.2% and in 2000 it was 5.6%? Thank you kindly and have a nice weekend, Adriel Edwards Transportation Planner Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development Massachusetts Highway Department (617) 973 -8062

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Total Employment and Workers-at-Work

by Chuck Purvis

1. Census 2000, summary file #3, Table P51 provides data on workers by class of worker, including the self-employed and unpaid family. This shows that 10.1 percent of U.S. workers are self-employed or unpaid family; 11.6 percent in California; and 10.6 percent in the Bay Area. Interestingly our self-employed share ranges upwards to 23.2 percent of the employed labor force in Marin County (home of George Lucas and other self-employed clones). So, counties with high self-employed shares are probably either agrarian economies or entrepeneurial economies. 2. The more I research, the less I find out I really know. There are several sources of data on employment, including the BLS, BEA and Census. One very good source of information is the book "Socioeconomic Data for Understanding Your Regional Economy" by Cortright and Reamer. It is available on their EDA-supported web site at: www.econdata.net Check it out. 3. Imputation (or allocation, using the Census Bureau's terminology) will definitely be an error issue for place-of-work or other partial responses, though if the census respondent said "no" to all of the employment-related questions, then it's fairly certain that the Bureau couldn't change those answers (whether the answers are correct or not.) I don't know what happens if a person reported their place-of-work and means of transportation but didn't report other employment-related questions (industry, occupation) (probably those values are imputed/allocated). Definitely we will be seeing these "allocation flags" in PUMS as well as other census data products.... And we shouldn't forget sampling error (decennial census long form is still only a 1-in-6 survey); as well as non-standard errors (persons not telling the truth! egads!) Chuck >>> Patty Becker <pbecker(a)umich.edu> 03/18/03 11:03AM >>> Why would the census be missing the folks who--I agree--are missed in ES202? The self-employed, public workers, etc. should still be covered just fine in the census--as well as anyone else. Re non-response: you'd e surprised what they can impute! Patty Becker At 09:18 AM 03/18/2003 -0500, you wrote: >The gap between the employment out there and what gets reported in the >Census is a lot higher when you factor in jobs not covered by the ES202 >system, both wage/salary and "self-employed" proprietors. (The 6% upward >adjustment ABAG reports to you seems low, BEA figures would indicate about >a 20% adjustment needed.) Non-response could be the biggest factor - I >imagine the Census Bureau would have a hard time "imputing" number of >workers if a household ignores all the work-related questions on the long >form. >

21 years, 9 months

CTPP_news@chrispynet318030.wpd

by Margaret Shaw

CTPP_news(a)chrispynet318030.wpd

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Total Employment and Workers-at-Work

by David Abrams

A very good summary from Mr. Purvis, I would like to add one thing. The class of worker allows for only one response. If a worker has both a wage job and a self-employed job, he has to choose. I usually interpret the self-employed data from the Class of worker as an estimate of the people whose primary job is self-employment. The class of worker question probably misses the self-employment jobs that are occasional or part-time. However, when the PUMS data comes out, the field under source of income for self-employment could be used to estimate the part-time or occasional self-employment. Dave Abrams Mid-Region Council of Governments of New Mexico -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:32 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Total Employment and Workers-at-Work 1. Census 2000, summary file #3, Table P51 provides data on workers by class of worker, including the self-employed and unpaid family. This shows that 10.1 percent of U.S. workers are self-employed or unpaid family; 11.6 percent in California; and 10.6 percent in the Bay Area. Interestingly our self-employed share ranges upwards to 23.2 percent of the employed labor force in Marin County (home of George Lucas and other self-employed clones). So, counties with high self-employed shares are probably either agrarian economies or entrepeneurial economies. 2. The more I research, the less I find out I really know. There are several sources of data on employment, including the BLS, BEA and Census. One very good source of information is the book "Socioeconomic Data for Understanding Your Regional Economy" by Cortright and Reamer. It is available on their EDA-supported web site at: www.econdata.net Check it out. 3. Imputation (or allocation, using the Census Bureau's terminology) will definitely be an error issue for place-of-work or other partial responses, though if the census respondent said "no" to all of the employment-related questions, then it's fairly certain that the Bureau couldn't change those answers (whether the answers are correct or not.) I don't know what happens if a person reported their place-of-work and means of transportation but didn't report other employment-related questions (industry, occupation) (probably those values are imputed/allocated). Definitely we will be seeing these "allocation flags" in PUMS as well as other census data products.... And we shouldn't forget sampling error (decennial census long form is still only a 1-in-6 survey); as well as non-standard errors (persons not telling the truth! egads!) Chuck >>> Patty Becker <pbecker(a)umich.edu> 03/18/03 11:03AM >>> Why would the census be missing the folks who--I agree--are missed in ES202? The self-employed, public workers, etc. should still be covered just fine in the census--as well as anyone else. Re non-response: you'd e surprised what they can impute! Patty Becker At 09:18 AM 03/18/2003 -0500, you wrote: >The gap between the employment out there and what gets reported in the >Census is a lot higher when you factor in jobs not covered by the ES202 >system, both wage/salary and "self-employed" proprietors. (The 6% upward >adjustment ABAG reports to you seems low, BEA figures would indicate about >a 20% adjustment needed.) Non-response could be the biggest factor - I >imagine the Census Bureau would have a hard time "imputing" number of >workers if a household ignores all the work-related questions on the long >form. >

21 years, 9 months

Jump to page:

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