ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

Census 2000 Initiative News Alert

by ed christopher

Date:Wed, 3 Oct 2001 From:Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> Census Bureau Facing Second Decision on Whether to Recommend Use of Adjusted Numbers Plus: Census Monitoring Board Disbands; Census Funding Update; Report on Counting Americans Living Abroad; and more. The Census Bureau continued its evaluations of Census 2000 and the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) program as it moves closer to a self-imposed mid-October deadline for recommending whether adjusted census data should be used for purposes other than redistricting, such as the allocation of federal grants and federal survey controls. The A.C.E. program included a quality-check, 'post enumeration' survey of 314,000 households, designed to assess the number of people missed and double-counted in the census. In a letter last month to Democratic congressional overseers, Acting Census Bureau Director William Barron said that a decision to adjust the census data must be "made on solid technical grounds" and meet "pre-specified criteria" for gauging the relatively accuracy of the raw and A.C.E.-adjusted numbers. The Census Bureau still hopes to finish its evaluation of census accuracy by October 15. If it cannot meet that deadline, it would then complete its analysis by the fall of 2002, a schedule Mr. Barron said paralleled the timetable for deciding whether to adjust the 1990 census for the purpose of distributing federal funds and setting benchmarks for federal surveys. The bureau does not plan to release adjusted numbers publicly until that decision is made. Last March, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans agreed with a bureau recommendation not to release statistically adjusted census numbers, citing discrepancies between the A.C.E.'s measurement of the population, the raw census counts, and an independent benchmark of the national population derived from "demographic analysis." Bureau experts said they did not have enough time to evaluate the differences between the three measures. The Secretary was required by law to transmit block-level population counts to the states for redrawing political district boundaries, by March 31, 2001. The bureau also raised questions about technical aspects of the adjustment process. At the time, the agency said it would continue to evaluate the results of the census and the A.C.E. program, to determine if the adjusted numbers were more accurate for uses such as doling out roughly $200 billion in federal funds annually to states and localities. The bureau subsequently described its research agenda in an August 7th memorandum. In his September 21 letter, Mr. Barron also said he was "troubled" that some legislators use the term "corrected data" to refer to statistically adjusted numbers, a description he called "misleading and inappropriate." The term might suggest, Mr. Barron wrote, "that one data set is error free, rather than improved (the latter being the best that the [adjustment methodology] could ever be used to achieve)." The director acknowledged that the bureau itself had used the term "corrected" in the past to describe the adjusted numbers. Mr. Barron emphasized that the adjustment process was designed to assess "net error" for different population subgroups, not "gross error" in the census. "Net error" refers to the difference between the number of people missed (undercount, or omissions) and the number counted twice (overcount, or duplications). "Gross error" combines various kinds of mistakes in the census, including people missed or counted twice, people counted in the wrong place, and fictitious people. The bureau looks at the net error for population subgroups in deciding whether a statistical adjustment would improve the accuracy of the census, the director said. Nationally, the bureau reported a net undercount of 3.3 million people based on the A.C.E. survey. The quality-check survey also revealed that 3.1 million people were counted twice or made up ("gross erroneous enumerations"), a measure that allowed the bureau to estimate the number of people missed in the census at 6.4 million people ("gross omissions"), for a minimum of 9.5 million miscounts. Legal update: Several lawsuits challenging the Commerce Secretary's decision not to release statistically adjusted census data to the states for redistricting purposes continue to wind their way through the federal courts. In Oregon, the U.S. District Court will hear arguments on October 18 in a case filed by two state legislators last June, seeking release of the adjusted population numbers under the Freedom of Information Act. Los Angeles and other counties and cities are pursuing their appeal of a district court judge's dismissal of their lawsuit challenging the legality of Secretary Evans' decision to release only unadjusted census data. In April, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess ruled that the Secretary based his decision on sufficient evidence that the raw census numbers were the most accurate available, thereby meeting the objectives of the Census Act (title 13, United States Code). Los Angeles asked the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the dismissal of its claim, and filed its opening brief last month. The Commerce Department (represented by the U.S. Department of Justice) has until October 10 to submit its response. A hearing date has not been set. Census Monitoring Board sunsets: The U.S. Census Monitoring Board, created by Congress in late 1997 to oversee planning for and implementation of Census 2000, closed its doors on September 30, when its statutory authority expired. The bipartisan board was comprised of four members appointed by President Bill Clinton with advice from Democratic leaders in Congress (called the Presidential members), and four members appointed by Republican congressional leaders (called the Congressional members). The panel had co-chairs (one Republican and one Democrat) and two executive directors, maintained separate offices at Census Bureau headquarters, and sometimes issued separate reports to Congress. The Presidential and Congressional members issued separate final reports that include recommendations for future census methods and operations. The Presidential members offered 18 recommendations that "will serve as a useful roadmap for 2010," co-chair Gilbert Casellas said in a written statement. Suggestions include: set a fixed term of office for the Census Bureau director, who currently serves at the pleasure of the President; retain a national advertising campaign, local and community-based partnerships, and a quality-check, 'post enumeration survey' in the 2010 census; reach a consensus on methods earlier in the decade; examine the effect of the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program on accuracy; and use 'gross' rather than 'net' error as the primary yardstick of census accuracy. Mr. Casellas noted that despite operational successes in Census 2000, "the differential undercount, while reduced, remains," referring to the historically disproportionate undercount of racial minorities. "The undercount not only hampers Congress in its ability to direct federal funds to place where they are needed, but it also denies to taxpayers the right to have their money come back to their communities in the form of Federal program funds. ...[T]he use of statistically adjusted numbers would have made a difference in people's lives," the co-chairman said. In the their report, the Presidential members also summarized the briefings, hearings, and studies they conducted during the Board's tenure. The Congressional members issued a Summary Report to Congress on September 1, and also prepared a separate analysis of the Census 2000 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation process (not yet printed). The summary identifies several elements of Census 2000 that the Congressional appointees said contributed to a successful census, including the partnership and advertising programs; using competitive and variable pay rates to attract and retain qualified workers; pre-census local government review of address lists (the LUCA program); and allowing regional directors to adapt census procedures to local conditions. The report also concludes that while the census "can be more accurate and more inclusive," statistical adjustment would not "completely eliminate" the differential and net undercounts. The bureau instead should "focus on methods that will work to reduce the actual undercount in the census and to actually help empower the hardest-to-count neighborhoods." The Congressional members offered six recommendations for improving future censuses, including mailing Spanish-language questionnaires to selected neighborhoods, eliminating the long form, and reinstating a "Post Census Local Review" similar to a 1990 operation that allowed local officials to examine their preliminary housing unit counts before the numbers were finalized. Describing their analysis of the A.C.E. process, Congressional Member Co-Chair A. Mark Neuman said, "[C]ontrary to popular belief, people missed in the Census don't get put back in the neighborhoods where they really live. Severely undercounted neighborhoods ...will remain severely undercounted. Statistical adjustment doesn't fix that." The final report of the Presidential members is available through their Web site at www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov>. The Congressional members' final reports are posted on their Web site at www.cmbc.gov <http://www.cmbc.gov>. [Note: Both Internet sites will be accessible for some period of time.] Appropriations (funding) update: The U.S. Senate approved its version of the Commerce Department's fiscal year 2002 spending bill (S. 1215), which includes funds for the Census Bureau, on September 13, sending the bill to a conference committee that will iron out differences with the House-passed version (H.R. 2500). The Senate Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations bill allocates $517.1 million for Census Bureau activities. While the total amount is $26.3 million below the Bush Administration's budget request, appropriators assumed that a $27 million carry-over in the bureau's accounts from prior years would cover the difference. The Senate-passed bill includes $26.2 million - roughly $1 million below the request -- for continued development and testing of the American Community Survey (ACS) at 31 sites around the country. Funding for the Periodic Censuses and Programs account (one of two broad Census Bureau accounts) also covers continued dissemination of Census 2000 data products and Census 2000 evaluations, as well as 2010 census planning activities. The Census 2000 Supplementary Survey (C2SS), a demonstration of the ACS on a national scale, is part of the bureau's 2010 census strategic planning effort. The following senators, all members of the Appropriations Committee, were appointed to the conference committee: Sens. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Herbert Kohl (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), and Thad Cochran (R-MS). The House of Representatives, which approved its Commerce appropriations bill in July, appointed the following appropriations committee members as conferees: Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Harold Rogers (R-KY), Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Charles Taylor (R-NC), Ralph Regula (R-OH), Tom Latham (R-IA), Dan Miller (R-FL), David Vitter (R-LA), C.W. Young (R-FL), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Robert Cramer Jr. (D-AL), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), and David Obey (D-WI). Fiscal year 2002 started on October 1st. Last week, Congress passed and the President signed a so-called Continuing Resolution, which continues funding for all federal agencies and programs at fiscal year 2001 levels through October 16, giving lawmakers more time to enact new spending bills. Counting Americans abroad in the census: As directed last year by congressional appropriators, the Census Bureau has submitted a report to Congress on the feasibility of counting private American citizens living abroad in the decennial census. In Census 2000, members of the armed forces and civilian government personnel stationed outside of the U.S. during the census were included in the state population totals used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the 50 states. Private citizens living in foreign countries have never been counted in the census. In its report, the Census Bureau examined policy, conceptual, and methodological issues associated with such a count. It said "prompt resolution" of key policy issues, such as whether a count of Americans abroad would be used for informational purposes only or for congressional apportionment and redistricting and the allocation of federal funds, was a "precondition" for undertaking research into the methods for an overseas enumeration. Collecting data for political and funding purposes, the bureau said, would "present very formidable challenges." Other key policy questions cited in the report include the implications of voluntary response from Americans abroad, which the bureau said is inevitable, in light of the census' mandatory nature, and determining a "usual residence" for people not living in the U.S., the standard used in counting stateside residents. The report also raises questions about who would be included in an overseas count (i.e. people born in the U.S.; citizens who intend to return to the U.S.; those with proof of citizenship); how to assign Americans abroad to a 'home state' and possibly a specific address; and whether to conduct the count using "self-enumeration," administrative records, or both. To address overarching policy, as well as technical, concerns, the bureau said it would hold a conference in November 2001 to hear the views of Congress and other external stakeholders. If it decides to include private American citizens living abroad in the 2010 census, the bureau would assess proposed methods as part of scheduled census tests in 2004 and 2006 and the2008 dress rehearsal. Congressional update: The House Subcommittee on the Census, established in 1998 as part of the Committee on Government Reform to authorize and oversee Census Bureau activities, will be eliminated at the end of 2001. House Republican leaders announced the move earlier this year as a cost-saving measure. Subcommittee Staff Director Chip Walker told participants at the September quarterly meeting of the Council of Professional Associations in Federal Statistics (COPAFS) that the panel's responsibilities would be transferred to the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization. That subcommittee's current chairman, Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL), is giving up his congressional seat this month to spend more time with his family. Government Reform Committee member Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL) is expected to take over as chairman of the Civil Service panel, Mr. Walker reported. Prior to a major House committee reorganization in 1995, the former Subcommittee on Census and Population was part of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The current census subcommittee chairman, Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL), announced that he would retire at the end of the 107th Congress in 2002. Condolences: It is with great sadness that the Census 2000 Initiative shares with census stakeholders the following information from Acting Census Bureau Director Barron, concerning the loss of two Census Bureau employees from the New York Regional Office during the September 11 terrorist attacks. Marion Britton, Assistant Regional Director, and Waleska Martinez, Automation Specialist, were both on United Flight 93 that crashed near Pittsburgh, traveling on official business. We extend our deepest sympathy to their families and to their Census Bureau colleagues. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to Terri Ann Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at <mailto:terriann2k@aol.com>. For copies of previous News Alerts and other information, use our web site www.census2000.org <http://www.census2000.org>. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census 2000 Initiative at <mailto:Census2000@ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

24 years, 8 months

RE: [CTPP] Census Bureau issues corrections to Proposed Urban Area criteria based on 2000 Census

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

Peter, You can get TIGER/Line shape files from the ESRI website at: http://www.geographynetwork.com/data/tiger2000/ You can get the Census information either from the American Fact Finder (http://factfinder.census.gov/) A procedure to stich the shapefile with the Census 2000 BLOCK level data can be obtained from: http://www.trbcensus.com/products/pl2gis.html Another website with useful links to Census data issues is: www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/ Thank you! Nanda >>> PDonkor(a)mail.dot.state.de.us 09/27/01 05:20PM >>> Folks, Can anybody explain to me whether it is possible to get a shapefile of a county based on 2000 census racial groupings, household by type, population based on sex and age. l work with the Kent County MPO in Delaware and our staff is trying to put together a map of our jurisdiction which basically show the afore-mentioned categories. We are finding it difficult to make a head way. Any suggestion will be very helpful. Secondly, Nanda l am trying to get the guidelines on how to determine UA but the url http://www.mcs.net/~berwyned/census/products/p12gis.html . does not work. Any idea on how to go about this? Thanks peter > -----Original Message----- > From:Nanda Srinivasan [ SMTP:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] > Sent:Friday, July 27, 2001 2:46 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Cc: rshort(a)geo.census.gov > Subject:[CTPP] Census Bureau issues corrections to Proposed Urban > Area criteria based on 2000 Census > > The Census Bureau has released a second notice in the Federal Register on > July 27, 2001 that includes corrections and clarifications to their > original March 28 notice and additional information regarding specific > areas that might be adversely affected by the proposed criteria. The > comment period has been extended to August 27, 2001. > > Attached is the notice in pdf format. > > You can also access an HTML version of this document from the FHWA portal > on Census Geography issues at: > < http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/27jy0137.htm > > < http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cengeo.htm > > > For further questions on the new notice, contact the Census Bureau > Geography Division by phone at (301) 457-1099, e-mail: ua(a)geo.census.gov > < mailto:ua@geo.census.gov >, or by mail to: Geography Division/GAB, U.S. > Census Bureau, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Stop 7400, Washington, DC > 20233-7400. When sending comments by e-mail, please include a telephone > number, street address, and professional/organization affiliation. The > Census Bureau portal for the UA Criteria is > < http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html > > > Thanks > Nanda Srinivasan << File: newfr.pdf >>

24 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] Census Bureau issues corrections to Proposed Urban Are a criteria based on 2000 Census

by Owusu-Donkor, Peter

Folks, Can anybody explain to me whether it is possible to get a shapefile of a county based on 2000 census racial groupings, household by type, population based on sex and age. l work with the Kent County MPO in Delaware and our staff is trying to put together a map of our jurisdiction which basically show the afore-mentioned categories. We are finding it difficult to make a head way. Any suggestion will be very helpful. Secondly, Nanda l am trying to get the guidelines on how to determine UA but the url http://www.mcs.net/~berwyned/census/products/p12gis.html. does not work. Any idea on how to go about this? Thanks peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Nanda Srinivasan [SMTP:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:46 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Cc: rshort(a)geo.census.gov > Subject: [CTPP] Census Bureau issues corrections to Proposed Urban > Area criteria based on 2000 Census > > The Census Bureau has released a second notice in the Federal Register on > July 27, 2001 that includes corrections and clarifications to their > original March 28 notice and additional information regarding specific > areas that might be adversely affected by the proposed criteria. The > comment period has been extended to August 27, 2001. > > Attached is the notice in pdf format. > > You can also access an HTML version of this document from the FHWA portal > on Census Geography issues at: > <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/27jy0137.htm> > <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cengeo.htm> > > For further questions on the new notice, contact the Census Bureau > Geography Division by phone at (301) 457-1099, e-mail: ua(a)geo.census.gov > <mailto:ua@geo.census.gov>, or by mail to: Geography Division/GAB, U.S. > Census Bureau, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Stop 7400, Washington, DC > 20233-7400. When sending comments by e-mail, please include a telephone > number, street address, and professional/organization affiliation. The > Census Bureau portal for the UA Criteria is > <http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html> > > Thanks > Nanda Srinivasan << File: newfr.pdf >>

24 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] RE: UA Inquiries to Census Bureau

by Owusu-Donkor, Peter

What's the difference between your message and the one conveyed by Nanda? Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert LaMacchia [SMTP:rlamacchia@geo.census.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:23 PM > To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net > Subject: [CTPP] RE: UA Inquiries to Census Bureau > > You may have recently received a message from Nanda Srinivasan that > implied > that the Census Bureau was not interested in your comments with the > closing > of the second comment period on the proposed UA criteria. What we asked > Nanda to convey to you was that we are no longer in a position to answer > specific delineation questions or inquiries about specific situations as > we > begin our evaluation of the many comments we received. If you still have > comments on the criteria, we are always open to receiving them; we just > are > not in a postion to respond. > > Bob LaMacchia and Dave Aultman > Geography Division > ua(a)geo.census.gov

24 years, 9 months

RE: UA Inquiries to Census Bureau

by Robert LaMacchia

You may have recently received a message from Nanda Srinivasan that implied that the Census Bureau was not interested in your comments with the closing of the second comment period on the proposed UA criteria. What we asked Nanda to convey to you was that we are no longer in a position to answer specific delineation questions or inquiries about specific situations as we begin our evaluation of the many comments we received. If you still have comments on the criteria, we are always open to receiving them; we just are not in a postion to respond. Bob LaMacchia and Dave Aultman Geography Division ua(a)geo.census.gov

24 years, 9 months

PUMA Definition Process

by Nanda Srinivasan

PUMA Public Use Microdata Areas definitions are to be submitted by State Data Centers to the Census Bureau Geography Division. The original deadline for the PUMA definition process was August 31, 2001. We hope you have been successful in providing your inputs to your State Data Center. We understand that some states are working on their PUMA definitions past the deadline. Please contact your State Data Center to find out the due date for your inputs. To find out the SDC contact for your State, please visit: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/sdcleads.htm Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan

24 years, 10 months

new web site

by ed christopher

The TRB Subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning has a new web location. The web site can be reached at http://www.TRBcensus.com/ (the url is not case sensitive.) also my email address has changed. i can be reached at edc(a)trbcensus.com or edc(a)berwyned.com Ed Christopher Subcommittee Chair

24 years, 10 months

rectified Tiger

by lynn dupont

Dear John, The best I can do is offer names and numbers of people who did ours. The tiger files for our urban parishes were rectified to 9" spatial resolution panchromatic aerials by a contractor: 3001 The Spatial Data Company. Since this is how they make money, I don't know if they will help with advice or not, but worth a phone call (504) 733-3001 Address: 5525 Mounes St. Harahan, LA 70123. Also, the census bureau is using our region as a test area for rectifying all 5 parishes to the 1998 DOQQ CIR aerials. They also have hired a contractor (everyone knows how much fun this isn't.) The census bureau contact is: rfusaro(a)geo.census.gov. Here is a clip from her last message:The status is that the contractors are in the process of extracting the vectors from the imagery. I have no idea when the rectified TIGER/Lines are due in, as the extracted vectors go to a different contractor for TIGER Matching and coordinate replacement. This whole process has been incredibly slow, and quite a learning experience. I will keep you posted as anything new occurs. Randi Fusaro at census may be helpful, since they would like this done for the entire country. That's the best I can for now. If I hear of anything, I'll forward it along. Best of luck, Lynn Dupont Regional Planning Commission Orleans, Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes

24 years, 10 months

Rectified Census 2000

by John Hunt

This e-mail is a request for information/procedures/anything you have on rectifying 2000 Census Geography. >From a previous contract, we will have rectified 1990 Census Geography for 12,797 Sq. Mi. of our region. These, along with all roads, rr, hydro, etc... are being rectified to either 1' or 1-Meter Orthophotography. We tried creating a TOE file between the 1990 Census Geography and the 2000 Census Geography, but many of the blocks, block groups, etc... do not have a direct one-to-one or one-to-many relationship (moved boundaries, etc...) Is anyone out there trying to rectify the 2000 Geography to spatially accurate existing data and do you have suggestions on the quickest, most accurate way to accomplish this. I will post the results. Thanks. John Hunt North Central Texas Council of Governments Manager of Geographic Information Systems Research & Information Services 616 Six Flags Drive Arlington, TX 76011 Work - 817-695-9163 Fax - 817-640-4428 jmhunt(a)dfwinfo.com www.gis.dfwinfo.com

24 years, 10 months

FYI: FAQs on the Census Bureau's proposed Urban Areas and Urban Clusters definition.

by Nanda Srinivasan

FHWA posted some questions and answers on the Census Bureau's proposed proposed Urbanized Area criteria. They can be accessed at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cengeoqa.htm Thank you Nanda Srinivasan

24 years, 10 months

Jump to page:

2026

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