Nandu is right.
Employed persons is anybody who is a civilian with a job.
Workers are anybody with a job who was at the job during the reference week
(not sick or on vacation.) Our workers also includes military workers at
domestic bases who were at work during the reference week.
|---------+------------------------------->
| | "Srinivasan, Nanda" |
| | <Nanda.Srinivasan@fh|
| | wa.dot.gov> |
| | Sent by: |
| | owner-ctpp-news@chri|
| | spy.net |
| | |
| | |
| | 03/06/2003 12:32 PM |
| | |
|---------+------------------------------->
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: "hubsmtp.gwhub.\"vputta(a)incog.org\"" <IMCEAGWISE-hubsmtp+2Egwhub+2E+22vputta+40incog+2Eorg+22(a)fhwa.dot.gov>, |
| <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net> |
| cc: |
| Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Viplav,
Here's an attempt to answer your question. Phil Salopek or anyone else can
correct me if I am wrong.
There are two reasons I can think of for the differences you have noted:
1. Total employed vs total workers. and
2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA
1. Total employed vs total workers.
I hope the numbers you have given me are the totals for WORKERS from SF 3
and the county-county worker flow files. If you picked employment status,
then you could be off.
The data on employment status are derived from questions 21 and 25 of the
"long form."
"Employed" is defined as all persons 16 years or older who were:
a. at work.
b.with a job but not at work.
The CB considers the terms "employed" and "civilian employed" as exactly
the same.
People who volunteered to work (without pay), and people who worked for the
armed forces are excluded from "Employed."
"Workers", as used in Journey-to-work and CTPP, on the other hand, refers
to:
a.All those people 16 years or over who were AT WORK in the reference week.
b.All people employed in the Armed Forces.
2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA
I hope you are comparing the number of workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA with the
SF 3 results.
If you totaled the commuter flow INTO Tulsa, you may have a difference
between that and the total workers LIVING in Tulsa. If you are comparing
County-County worker flows with SF3, please total the workers residing in
Tulsa from the county-county worker flow table, and then compare the number
to a table from SF3 that contains WORKERS (Eg: mode to work including
worked at home).
The numbers should be pretty close.
CB corrected some errors in worker flows for some areas, but Tulsa is not
one of those, per Phil.
Thank you!
Nanda Srinivasan
-----Original Message-----
From: vputta(a)incog.org
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:51 AM
To: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release?
Thanks Nanda for the link.
I just have one question though:
The data is for Commuting to work employees in each county. Total
employees who reported as commuters to work does not equal the total
number employed in respective counties. Is this because of estimates
resulting from sampling?
Just to illustrate: for Tulsa County in Oklahoma, in 2000 -
Total Employed in 2000 : 275,856
Commuting to Work
(age 16 and over) : 271,055*
*Employees who 'worked at home' are included in commuting to work for
each county (271,055 is broken down by means of transportation to work
that includes worked at home)
Missing is about 4,801 (1.7%) - is this because of long-form sampling?
Similar numbers are missing from other counties in our MSA.
Thanks.
Viplav Putta
INCOG
-----Original Message-----
From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov]
Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release?
(http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html)
Nanda Srinivasan
The Census 2000 County-To-County Worker Flow Files are now available on the
Census web site. You can use the link below, or from the Census home page (
www.census.gov) click on "J" in the Subjects A to Z index, then on Journey
to Work and Place of Work Data, and then on the link to the Census 2000
County-to-County Worker Flow Files. Note that there is also a link from
this page to the 1990 Census County-to-County Worker Flow Files.
URL: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html
Compliments of Nanda Srinivasan, there is also a procedure available for
creating county-to-county flow maps from these data at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/flow.htm
--Phil Salopek
Viplav,
Here's an attempt to answer your question. Phil Salopek or anyone else can correct me if I am wrong.
There are two reasons I can think of for the differences you have noted:
1. Total employed vs total workers. and
2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA
1. Total employed vs total workers.
I hope the numbers you have given me are the totals for WORKERS from SF 3 and the county-county worker flow files. If you picked employment status, then you could be off.
The data on employment status are derived from questions 21 and 25 of the "long form."
"Employed" is defined as all persons 16 years or older who were:
a. at work.
b.with a job but not at work.
The CB considers the terms "employed" and "civilian employed" as exactly the same.
People who volunteered to work (without pay), and people who worked for the armed forces are excluded from "Employed."
"Workers", as used in Journey-to-work and CTPP, on the other hand, refers to:
a.All those people 16 years or over who were AT WORK in the reference week.
b.All people employed in the Armed Forces.
2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA
I hope you are comparing the number of workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA with the SF 3 results.
If you totaled the commuter flow INTO Tulsa, you may have a difference between that and the total workers LIVING in Tulsa. If you are comparing County-County worker flows with SF3, please total the workers residing in Tulsa from the county-county worker flow table, and then compare the number to a table from SF3 that contains WORKERS (Eg: mode to work including worked at home).
The numbers should be pretty close.
CB corrected some errors in worker flows for some areas, but Tulsa is not one of those, per Phil.
Thank you!
Nanda Srinivasan
-----Original Message-----
From: vputta(a)incog.org
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:51 AM
To: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release?
Thanks Nanda for the link.
I just have one question though:
The data is for Commuting to work employees in each county. Total
employees who reported as commuters to work does not equal the total
number employed in respective counties. Is this because of estimates
resulting from sampling?
Just to illustrate: for Tulsa County in Oklahoma, in 2000 -
Total Employed in 2000 : 275,856
Commuting to Work
(age 16 and over) : 271,055*
*Employees who 'worked at home' are included in commuting to work for
each county (271,055 is broken down by means of transportation to work
that includes worked at home)
Missing is about 4,801 (1.7%) - is this because of long-form sampling?
Similar numbers are missing from other counties in our MSA.
Thanks.
Viplav Putta
INCOG
-----Original Message-----
From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov]
Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release?
(http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html)
Nanda Srinivasan
Thanks Nanda for the link.
I just have one question though:
The data is for Commuting to work employees in each county. Total
employees who reported as commuters to work does not equal the total
number employed in respective counties. Is this because of estimates
resulting from sampling?
Just to illustrate: for Tulsa County in Oklahoma, in 2000 -
Total Employed in 2000 : 275,856
Commuting to Work
(age 16 and over) : 271,055*
*Employees who 'worked at home' are included in commuting to work for
each county (271,055 is broken down by means of transportation to work
that includes worked at home)
Missing is about 4,801 (1.7%) - is this because of long-form sampling?
Similar numbers are missing from other counties in our MSA.
Thanks.
Viplav Putta
INCOG
-----Original Message-----
From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov]
Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release?
(http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html)
Nanda Srinivasan
Welcome to the world of data embargo! The press are usually issued the
information early so they have time to research and write their stories.
Unfortunately, those of us who are supposedly "in the know" haven't gotten
the embargoed information. As such, they call us for information and we
end-up getting it from the press! I've been in this position for the last
15 years, so I've "been there, done that".
Any Bureau folks like to clarify?
Michael D. Golembiewski
Transportation Modeler
BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BERKS COUNTY SERVICES CENTER
633 COURT STREET FL 14
READING PA 19601-4309
ph: 610-478-6300
fax: 610-478-6316
My understanding is that the Census Bureau recognized State Data Center's
can grant access to embargoed data to their affiliates once those affiliates
have completed paperwork certifying that they understand and will comply
with Census Bureau embargo policy. I have been able to access the
County-to-County workflow data and was given a username and password to the
embargo site through the Massachusetts State Data Center of which our
organization is an affiliate. This may be handled differently by different
states. There is a list of State Data Center websites under the network tab
of the following website: www.sdcbidc.iupui.edu. This was also true with
the embargo period for Census Summary File 3 releases in Fall 2002.
Paul
Paul N. Foster
Senior Planner, Regional Information Center Manager
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
26 Central Street
West Springfield, MA 01089
413.781.6045
pfoster(a)pvpc.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Reinauer [SMTP:treinauer@edd.uct.usm.maine.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; MGolembiewski(a)mail.countyofberks.com
> Subject: Re: [CTPP] new data release?
>
> I'd like to know why this embargo idea makes any sense. I also wind up
> trying to answer questions from the media prior to having any information,
> and then spend the next few weeks answering questions from various
> organizations in order to clarify articles or statements in articles that
> are not statistically correct or accurate. Would it make too much sense
> to
> release the data to the official "data centers" first, so that we can have
> a
> chance to look at the data prior to the media spin?
>
> Tom Reinauer, Transportation Director
> Southern Maine RPC & KACTS MPO
> 21 Bradeen St. Suite 304
> Springvale, ME 04083
> 207-324-2952
> treinauer(a)server.eddmaine.org
> www.smrpc.org
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <MGolembiewski(a)mail.countyofberks.com>
> To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [CTPP] new data release?
>
>
> >
> > Welcome to the world of data embargo! The press are usually issued the
> > information early so they have time to research and write their stories.
> > Unfortunately, those of us who are supposedly "in the know" haven't
> gotten
> > the embargoed information. As such, they call us for information and we
> > end-up getting it from the press! I've been in this position for the
> last
> > 15 years, so I've "been there, done that".
> >
> > Any Bureau folks like to clarify?
> >
> > Michael D. Golembiewski
> > Transportation Modeler
> >
> > BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
> > BERKS COUNTY SERVICES CENTER
> > 633 COURT STREET FL 14
> > READING PA 19601-4309
> > ph: 610-478-6300
> > fax: 610-478-6316
> >
> >
As a 15-year veteran of the State Data Center Affiliate program here in
Pensylvania, I have some experience with these issues. Embargoed data
were, at one time, issued to the media and State Data Centers for their
respective uses prior to the general 'public' releases. It was up to the
State Data Centers to then issue the data to their affiliates.
Here in Pennsylvania, we (SDC Affiliates) used to have access to all
embargoed information. Unfortunately, throughout the nation and prior to
Census 2000, some states and many affiliates routinely broke the embargoes.
The Census Bureau has never had a sense of humor about this and,
subsequently, revoked embargo rights to many state agencies and non-press
people. This has resulted in the situation many of us are facing this
afternoon. Since Census 2000, State Data Centers have been given rights to
embargoed data, but it is up to individual Data Centers as to whether they
will release the data to their affiliate agencies. I know that, in New
Jersey, those affiliates have access; here in PA, we do not.
If you're not familiar with the State Data Center program in your state,
the Census Bureau website has information and links.
Any Bureau comments?
Michael D. Golembiewski
Transportation Modeler
BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BERKS COUNTY SERVICES CENTER
633 COURT STREET FL 14
READING PA 19601-4309
ph: 610-478-6300
fax: 610-478-6316
As I had responded to a fellow county planner in Berks County, PA, I believe
it is your relationship with your State Data Center and their relationship
with the Census Bureau that is affecting your access to Census data.
After signing an agreement with the State not to release the data during the
embargo period, our county received the NJ County to County Data from our
State Data Center on Monday. Not all the data, but at least the information
we need to respond to questions from the press.
Why embargo the information? To give those in office time to analyze the
information in order to be able to respond to any questions. The same
questions of course, that are asked of demographers and planners working for
government. It also gives the Senators and Congressmen and women a chance
to look at the data before anyone else.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Paddock [mailto:bob.paddock@METC.STATE.MN.US]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 12:37 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Embargo or Not to Embargo
I have to laugh at the spate of comments concerning the embargo of
census information. It is nice to see that I'm not alone in the world,
and that others are experiencing the same thing. Each time this has
happened, the office atmosphere around here is like viewing the hen
house after the foxes have gone on a rampage. Politial feathers
everywhere from those to want to know and those who are trying to
support them!
It is embarassing to have to respond in an exceedingly short time to
members of the Press as well as one's own bosses clamoring for a
response. I agree strongly that we in the planning realm, who are
suppose to be tracking this sort of thing and helping to define policies
for a region, have to wait in line while the newsfolk grab the data and
run with it. I would love to see some strong and worthwhile response to
this issue by those who put it in effect. Any takers?
Bob Paddock
Transportation Research
Metrpolitan Council of the Twin Cities
I have to laugh at the spate of comments concerning the embargo of
census information. It is nice to see that I'm not alone in the world,
and that others are experiencing the same thing. Each time this has
happened, the office atmosphere around here is like viewing the hen
house after the foxes have gone on a rampage. Politial feathers
everywhere from those to want to know and those who are trying to
support them!
It is embarassing to have to respond in an exceedingly short time to
members of the Press as well as one's own bosses clamoring for a
response. I agree strongly that we in the planning realm, who are
suppose to be tracking this sort of thing and helping to define policies
for a region, have to wait in line while the newsfolk grab the data and
run with it. I would love to see some strong and worthwhile response to
this issue by those who put it in effect. Any takers?
Bob Paddock
Transportation Research
Metrpolitan Council of the Twin Cities
Thank you! But what is the rationale for this policy?
>>> <MGolembiewski(a)mail.countyofberks.com> 03/05/03 11:24AM >>>
'Embargoed' data means that it is released to a select group at a
certain
date/time, but is specifically not allowed to be distributed or
published
until a later specified date/time.
Michael D. Golembiewski
Transportation Modeler
BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BERKS COUNTY SERVICES CENTER
633 COURT STREET FL 14
READING PA 19601-4309
ph: 610-478-6300
fax: 610-478-6316
