ctpp-news

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

2560 discussions

census 2000 News Alert

by ed christopher

From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> Sampling Controversy Resurfaces in Congress As Census Director Stands By Plan to Adjust Counts Plus: New Jersey Assembly Approves Anti-Sampling Bill; Legislation Introduced for Count of Overseas Americans; and more. The controversy over the use of statistical sampling to adjust the initial census counts reemerged at a congressional hearing last month, as the Census Bureau began its quality check survey to measure undercounts and overcounts in Census 2000. At a hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Census on May 19, Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt described the agency's plans for the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation survey (A.C.E.) of 314,000 housing units nationwide. Telephone interviews with households in the A.C.E. sample that had returned a completed census form by mail began in late April. By May 19, the Bureau had completed 60,000 interviews by phone, more than its projected 10 percent completion rate for that point in the process. Census takers will start in-person interviews with A.C.E. households on June 19 in areas where census takers have finished all non-response follow-up visits. Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) reiterated his long-standing opposition to the Census Bureau's plan to produce adjusted population numbers based on the A.C.E. results for purposes other than congressional apportionment. "[T]here is no guarantee that this plan is even viable," the chairman said. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in January 1999 that federal law prohibits sampling to compile the state population totals used to allocate the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states. However, the Census Bureau plans to transmit adjusted census figures to the states early next year for use in the redistricting process. A provision of the Bureau's fiscal year 1998 funding bill also requires the agency to make available census counts down to the block level that are not adjusted based on the quality-check survey. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the panel's senior Democratic member, said the 2000 census "may well be the best, fairest and most accurate census ever," not only because of operational successes so far but because "it incorporates modern scientific methods into its design." The 1990 census, she noted, had a 10 percent error rate, including who are missed, counted twice, or counted in the wrong location. "The closer the Census Bureau has gotten to developing a way to fix those errors, the harder the opponents of a modern census have worked to stop them," Rep. Maloney said, referring to the disproportionate undercount of racial minorities and the poor in urban and rural communities. Rep. Miller said Republicans question the constitutionality, legality, and feasibility of a census plan that incorporates sampling and statistical estimation techniques. He called the decision to issue two sets of census counts "a political move, clearly against the best interest of the Nation" by the Clinton/Gore Administration. Pointing to last year's Supreme Court decision, he cautioned that supporters of the plan "have yet to win a court case." "Census estimation," the chairman said, "is not a system that lends itself to trust and integrity." Rep. Miller described statistical estimation as existing "only in a virtual world," where people are added to or subtracted from the counts without verification. This means, he said, that some people who have filled out and returned a census form "will be counted as less than a whole person." Rep. Miller also criticized an element of the Bureau's statistical methodology that he said assumes people of the same race or ethnicity "act alike and have the same tendencies," by assigning them to one of nearly 450 demographic groupings (called 'post-strata') for the purpose of measuring the under- and overcount. The chairman asked the director for "assurances... that [the adjusted] numbers will be fully scrutinized by the Bureau and the scientific community, at large, prior to their release for public use." Countering the chairman's criticism of the sampling methodology, Dr. Prewitt said the A.C.E. survey was no more difficult than other large Census 2000 operations. He called the census "an estimation of the truth" and said its accuracy should be measured by how close the results are to the nation's true population. The director noted that census data are "unstable" for very small areas (such as census blocks) regardless of whether the figures are adjusted using statistical methods or not. Adjusted census numbers are "unquestionably" more accurate at the block level, Dr. Prewitt said in response to a question from Rep. Miller, than numbers produced from direct counting methods alone. He also defended the use of demographic 'post-strata' to estimate under- and overcounts, saying the groupings were based on scientific knowledge about people with similar probabilities of being missed or double-counted in the census. A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences (the Panel to Review the 2000 Census, chaired by former Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Janet L. Norwood) is independently reviewing the A.C.E. statistical methods and operations. Dr. Prewitt emphasized that while the Bureau has decided to conduct the A.C.E. according to a technically sound design, it cannot determine in advance whether the direct count or the statistically adjusted numbers are more accurate. "If the Census Bureau does not have confidence in the A.C.E. results, we will not use it," the director told subcommittee members. The Census Bureau director, not the Secretary of Commerce, he said, should make the adjustment decision. The director also vigorously challenged the assertion that statistical estimation could invite tampering with the numbers to achieve partisan advantage. He said the Census Bureau is "not competent" to design and implement an estimation plan that produces a partisan outcome. "Where is the evidence?" he asked, that the Bureau has a partisan agenda. Dr. Prewitt said it is "inconceivable" that the Census Bureau would know how statistical adjustments would affect the drawing of political district lines by 50 state legislatures. Other legislative news: Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced legislation to provide funds for the Census Bureau to begin planning a census of American citizens living abroad in 2003. H.R. 4568 would authorize $5 million for planning a Census of Americans Abroad. Rep. Maloney introduced a bill (H.R. 3649) last year to require an interim count of Americans overseas in 2003 and planning to include this population in the 2010 census. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) sponsored a similar bill (S. 1715) in 1999, which was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Census 2000 will include active members of the U.S. armed forces, civilian government employees, and their dependents, who are stationed or living overseas on Census Day (April 1, 2000), in the state population totals transmitted to the President for the purpose of congressional apportionment. These personnel and their family members are counted at their 'home of record,' the state in which they lived at the start of the their military or federal service. In a letter to Reps. Harold Rogers (R-KY) and Jose Serrano (D-NY), chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and The Judiciary, Rep. Maloney said the estimated three to six million American citizens living abroad "make enormous contributions to our economy" and "vote, pay taxes, and enjoy the same constitutional protections" as other Americans. She urged the subcommittee to include funds for planning an interim count in the Census Bureau's fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill. Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) introduced a bill last month (H.R. 4458) that would limit the questions asked in future censuses to those included on the Census 2000 short form. The measure was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform. Update on Census 2000 operations: The Census Bureau announced last week that it has counted, either by mail or through a personal visit, about 92 percent of the nation's 118 million housing units. Director Ken Prewitt said gathering information from the remaining eight percent of American households posed the greatest challenge for the approximately 450,000 census enumerators working to complete 'nonresponse follow-up' operations by July 7. State legislative activities update: The New Jersey State Assembly yesterday approved a bill to require the use of unadjusted census numbers for redistricting purposes. The measure passed the Republican-controlled chamber on a party line vote of 42-34. On May 22, the State Government Committee approved A. 1682, sponsored by Assemblyman Michael Carroll (R), by a 3 - 2 vote along party lines. Assembly Speaker Jack Collins (R) initially scheduled a vote on the measure for May 25, but agreed to postpone action temporarily after Minority Leader Joseph Dorio Jr. (D) said legislators and the public needed more time to consider the bill's consequences. Last week, however, the Speaker announced that the Assembly would take up the bill on June 5. The State Senate has not yet considered the measure. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. For copies of previous News Alerts and other information, use our web site 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 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

25 years, 9 months

Attention: TAZ Verification Participants

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

The last batch of TAZ verification materials have been mailed to agencies in the states listed below. If you are a participating agency in one of the states listed below and DO NOT receive your materials by June 12, 2000, please call Nanda Srinivasan at (202) 366-5021. (Email: ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov). 1. Louisiana 2. Texas 3. Oklahoma The deadline for submittals to the Census Bureau for counties in these states is July 14, 2000. By June 12, all participating agencies should have TAZ Verification materials for all the counties they submitted TAZ files in Fall 99. If you are missing TIGER/Line for any county, please let me know by calling 202-366-5021 or by replying to this e-mail. Thank You! Nanda Srinivasan

25 years, 9 months

Attention: TAZ Verification Participants

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

In the last e-mail posted to the listserv, the date of receipt should be June 10. If agencies in the following states do not receive their materials by June 10, 2000 please call Nanda Srinivasan at (202) 366-5021. (E:Mail ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov) 1. Arkansas 2. Florida 3. Indiana 4. Iowa 5. Kansas 6. Maryland 7. Mississippi 8. Nebraska 9. Nevada 10. New Jersey 11. North Dakota 12. Pennsylvania 13. South Dakota 14. Washington 15. Wisconsin The deadline for submittals to the Census Bureau for these states is July 10, 2000. Agencies in Texas, Oklahoma, and Lousiana will receive their files by May 31, 2000. Thank You! Nanda Srinivasan

25 years, 9 months

Attention: TAZ Verification Participants

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

TAZ verification materials have been mailed to agencies in the states listed below. If you are a particpating agency in one of the states listed below and DO NOT receive your materials by May 10, 2000, please call Nanda Srinivasan at (202) 366-5021 (Email: ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov). 1. Arkansas 2. Florida 3. Indiana 4. Iowa 5. Kansas 6. Maryland 7. Mississippi 8. Nebraska 9. Nevada 10. New Jersey 11. North Dakota 12. Pennsylvania 13. South Dakota 14. Washington 15. Wisconsin The deadline for submittals to the Census Bureau for these states is July 10, 2000. Agencies in Texas, Oklahoma, and Lousiana will receive their files by May 31, 2000. Thank You! Nanda Srinivasan

25 years, 9 months

(Fwd) URGENT! PUMS 2000

by Chuck Purvis (MTC)

This is of relevance to the transportation planning community. I understand USDOT staff are working on a response, but I would recommend that others (MPO, State DOTs, Researchers) help out on this one as you see fit. Chuck Purvis, MTC ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:28:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Census 2000 <census2000(a)atlas.socsci.umn.edu> To: survey-list(a)hist.umn.edu Subject: URGENT! PUMS 2000 Dear PUMS Survey respondent: Thank you for filling out our survey on the 2000 PUMS. Your help is needed again. We reported the results of the survey to the Census Bureau at a May 22 meeting in Washington, and I am optimistic that we made real headway in persuading Bureau staff that detailed subject categories are essential to users. The plan to suppress detail, however, is in some ways more extreme than we thought at the time we wrote the survey. For example, no specific countries of birth would be provided under the Bureau's proposal. Instead, we would only be able to identify continents of birth. The full report, including the details of the current Census Bureau plan, is posted at http://www.ipums.org/~census2000. As described in the report, we have proposed that the Bureau consider a more moderate approach to reduce the risk of disclosure. We believe that the proposed changes would severely compromise the social science and public policy infrastructure of the United States without materially reducing the risk to respondent confidentiality. No final decisions have been made, however, and the Bureau is actively seeking input from users. I feel confident that if we make our concerns known, the Bureau will moderate these cuts. Therefore I urge you to write to Kenneth Prewitt and Paula Schneider, the key executive staff at Census (addresses below). Your letter could go into detail about the kind of research these changes would preclude, but even a brief letter or email expressing your concern would be extremely valuable. We will send a powerful message about the value of the PUMS to user community if everyone who responded to the survey also sends a letter. Kenneth Prewitt, Director Bureau of the Census Federal Office Bldg. 3, Room 2049 4700 Silver Hill Road Suitland, Maryland 20233 kenneth.prewitt(a)ccmail.census.gov Paula J. Schneider Principal Associate Director for Programs Bureau of the Census Federal Office Bldg. 3, Room 2037 4700 Silver Hill Road Suitland, Maryland 20233 paula.a.schneider(a)ccmail.census.gov We would also appreciate it if you would send us a copy of your letter. Task Force on the 2000 PUMS Minnesota Population Center 537 Heller Hall 271 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 census2000(a)hist.umn.edu FAX: (612) 624-7096 I know this is a busy time of year for many of you, but speed is of the essence: key decisions may be made at any time. If we do not respond, we will have no right to complain later. Thank you for your help, and please feel free to forward this message to any individual or list you think might be interested. Yours, Steven Ruggles ruggles(a)hist.umn.edu Chair, ICPSR Census 2000 Advisory Committee Principal Investigator, IPUMS Project

25 years, 9 months

Workplace Update Deadline Is Next Week

by Phillip.A.Salopek＠ccmail.census.gov

May 24, 2000 This message is intended for all agencies participating in the Workplace Update Program. ATTENTION! Workplace Update File Deadline Is One Week From Today! Files of geocoded and ungeocoded records that have been reviewed by State or local agencies are due one week from today, May 31. We have heard from some agencies that they have not reviewed or looked at any records in the geocoded file(s). If this is the case, you do not have to return the geocoded file(s) to us. We have been looking at the files that have been returned so far, and have found a few problems in some of them. One specific problem concerns the shopping center records. Some agencies have purposely deleted these records, while others have either flagged them as unresolved, or have not attempted to geocode them. We think it is important that the shopping centers, particularly the large ones, be geocoded or map spotted . These records can easily be identified by the '9999999' in the 'numofemps' field on the file. We will continue to check the files that are received between now and the May 31 deadline. However, we can't promise that we will be able to check files received after the deadline. Files received after the deadline, but on or before June 15, will be passed on to our Geography Division for use in 2000 Census place-of-work coding, even if they have not been checked by us. However, we cannot guarantee that files received after June 15 will be used in the coding at all. If you have questions about these dates, please call Clara, Gloria, or Phil at (301) 457-2454. Thank You. --Phil Salopek

25 years, 9 months

(Very Long) Census 2000 News Alert

by Ed Christopher

From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> GAO Cites Census Progress, But House Chairman Angered By Memo Suggesting Bureau Non-Cooperation Plus: Nearly 40 Percent of Household Follow-up Visits Completed; Mail-back Rate Hits 66 Percent; Voting Rights Act Reviews of State Laws Continue In testimony before Congress last week, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) said initial assessments of Census 2000 are "encouraging, with major operations reportedly proceeding on schedule and generally performing as planned." GAO representatives cited the initial 65 percent mail-back rate as "particularly noteworthy," noting that response by mail reduces both costs and the scope of follow-up field activities while improving data quality, even though it "does not guarantee a successful census." The legislative watchdog agency presented its evaluation at a May 10th hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Census. An analysis of Census Bureau data showed that nearly all households (99.89 percent, or 76.77 million) that responded during the first phase of the census returned their form by mail; only 0.09 percent (about 66,000) answered over the Internet, while 0.02 percent (about 17,000) gave their answers over the phone. The GAO also discussed the 12.5 percent gap in mail response between short form and long form households, twice the projected response differential of 6.2 percent. The wider gap, the auditors said, was due primarily to a higher-than-expected short form response rate (66.6% returned v. 62.1% projected) rather than "a meltdown on the long form" (54.1% returned v. 55.9% projected). The GAO's testimony included other analyses based on Census Bureau data, of initial responses to the census during mail out/mail back operations. GAO auditors concluded that mail response rates by Local Census Office (LCO) ranged from 39 to 80 percent; LCOs in inner city and urban areas generally had better-than-expected response rates, while many suburban, small town, and rural LCOs fell short of the Bureau's expectations; and all but 16 of the 511 LCOs had met or exceeded their hiring goals for the start of NRFU. Interested stakeholders can obtain copies of GAO's testimony (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-164) and other GAO reports by visiting the agency's website at <http://www.gao.gov>. Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) continued to express concern about the schedule for completing follow-up visits to unresponsive households, suggesting that enumerators would be forced to gather information from neighbors and landlords to finish their caseloads on time. The GAO said the 10-week period for NRFU is "ambitious," noting that the bureau "needed more time to follow-up on far fewer housing units" in 1980 and 1990, but said the larger temporary workforce in 2000 might help the bureau complete the operation on schedule. They pointed to enumerator productivity and turnover rates as key factors affecting the pace of the follow-up work. The Census Bureau hopes to rely on so-called "proxy data" from indirect sources for six percent or less of unresponsive housing units, according to GAO auditors. Internal Census Bureau memo sparks new controversy: However, a significant portion of the hearing focused not on Census 2000 operations but on an internal Census Bureau memorandum from the Los Angeles regional census office concerning various reporting requirements during the 'nonresponse follow-up' (NRFU) phase of the count. At the start of the hearing, Chairman Miller displayed a copy of an e-mail communication sent by a "mid-level Census Bureau Manager" to lower level managers that he said was brought to his attention late the previous day. The chairman highlighted one paragraph of the short memorandum, which read, "I will try to get the D-333D report to you all on a daily basis. However this report must and cannot be shared with any GAO representative. This a report that must be shared with any one else except the management staff." (Note: Apparent typographical and grammatical errors were contained in the original text.) A D-333D form is used to report the progress of Local Census Offices in collecting information from unresponsive households during NRFU. Rep. Miller said the memorandum is "a very serious matter that cuts to the heart of this census and severely calls into question the Census Bureau's credibility." "I am appalled. ...I take it personally. This Congress takes it personally," he continued. The chairman said he would seek "full accountability" for the memorandum's contents and that he believed a more senior Census Bureau employee had issued the instruction to withhold the progress reports from the GAO. He concluded his statement by questioning whether other bureau documents have been or will be withheld from public scrutiny. "Today, there is reason to be worried," the congressman said. The panel's senior Democratic member, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), said she was not informed about the existence of the memorandum until shortly before the start of the hearing. She suggested that the subcommittee should ask Census Bureau Director Prewitt for an explanation before drawing any conclusions about the meaning of the paragraph cited by the chairman. Later in the hearing, Rep. Maloney read a statement from the director, who also learned about the memorandum's existence earlier that morning. Dr. Prewitt told the subcommittee that his agency does not have a policy directing its employees to withhold information from the GAO, but that lower and mid-level managers are instructed to consult with senior managers before responding to any requests from oversight bodies for information. He noted that GAO staff already have full access to the NRFU workload data contained in the D-333D forms. Under questioning from subcommittee members, the GAO's representative called the e-mail reference to his agency "disturbing," but acknowledged that the Census Bureau has complied with all GAO requests for information and that investigators have access to the figures reported on the D-333Ds. 'Nonresponse follow-up' visits continue at steady pace: Census enumerators have counted 39 percent of the 42.4 million households requiring a follow-up visit, the Census Bureau announced at press briefing on May 16. The 'nonresponse follow-up' work started on April 27 and is scheduled to continue through July 7. The bureau has hired 460,000 census takers to visit households that did not mail back a questionnaire. The completion rate for follow-up visits includes vacant households and addresses found to be nonexistent. As with mail response rates in the first phase of Census 2000, the pace of counting unresponsive households varied by census region, bureau officials said. The Denver and Los Angeles regions posted the highest follow-up completion rates so far, at 50 percent, while only 31 percent of households that enumerators must visit in person have been counted. Dr. Prewitt said the bureau could not yet predict if NRFU would finish on schedule, although the deadline could be met if the current pace of counting previously unresponsive households continues. The director noted that the bureau had not yet encountered problems with insufficient staffing and employee turnover, two difficulties that plagued the follow-up counting operation in 1990. In an earlier statement, he praised the "dedication and achievements of census workers ...for the continued good progress of Census 2000." As part of quality control efforts, census enumerators also are visiting households that mailed back a questionnaire without sufficient information (i.e. forms listing only occupant names or the number of residents) or with conflicting information (i.e. forms containing information for fewer people than the reported number of residents), as well as households reporting six or more residents or a high number of unrelated occupants. Dr. Prewitt said two to three percent of all households were likely to encounter census workers more than once because of various quality control operations, including the 300,000 household Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation survey. Only days earlier, at a May 12 meeting of the Committee on National Statistics (National Academy of Sciences), Census Bureau Deputy Director William Barron, Jr. announced that census takers had successfully counted 30 percent of the unresponsive households. "[T]he census continues to be running very well and all operations are meeting or exceeding our expectations," the deputy director said. The GAO reported to Congress on May 10 that 17.4 percent of the field follow-up had been completed by May 8. Rep. Carolyn Maloney called the progress of the follow-up visits an "amazing accomplishment," and added that the "good news ...ironically is disappointing some in Congress." Final mail response rate revised: Check-in of late census questionnaires has boosted the Census 2000 mail response rate to 66 percent, the Census Bureau reported last week. The revised figure exceeds the 1990 mail-back rate of 65 percent, marking the first time since the Census Bureau started distributing census forms primarily by mail in 1970 that the mail response rate has not declined from the previous decennial count. Seventeen percent of states and localities met or exceeded their 'Plus 5' goal of increasing their mail response by at least five percent over their 1990 rate. A revised mail response rate is not unusual; in 1990, the initial 63 percent response rate crept up to 65 percent as the Census Bureau accounted for all questionnaires returned by mail. The 2000 mail response rate represents the percent of all households in the 'mail back' universe that returned a questionnaire by mail or provided their answers by telephone or over the Internet. It does not include 'Be Counted' forms, which do not bear a unique geographic code tying the response to a specific address, or remote households that were counted by enumerators during 'list/enumerate' or 'update/enumerate' operations. Congressional hearings: The House Subcommittee on the Census will hold a hearing on May 19 on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) phase of Census 2000. Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt will discuss the program, which is designed to measure the accuracy of the population counts derived from the mail out/mail back and nonresponse follow-up operations and to correct undercounts and overcounts using statistical methods. Preliminary activities for the ACE program begin this month, with interviews of the 300,000 households in the quality-check survey starting June 19. The hearing will start at 9:30 a.m. in room 2247 Rayburn House Office Building. (Note: This hearing originally was scheduled for May 18.) Stakeholder activities: The United States Conference of City Human Services Officials (USCCHSO), an affiliate of the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), held a press conference on May 9 to highlight the involvement of city leaders in the Census 2000 promotional campaign, How America Knows What America Needs. USCCHSO President Willa Lister said, "Human service officials have direct contact with traditionally undercounted populations and can explain the importance of an accurate census count and emphasize the confidentiality of census data." Ann Azari, a past chairwoman of the Commerce Secretary's 2000 Census Advisory Committee, joined Ms. Lister in explaining the "Because You Count" phase of the promotional effort. Ms. Azari, herself a former mayor of Fort Collins, CO, said the goal and focus of the campaign is "civic engagement." Laverne Collins, an 18-year veteran of the Census Bureau, said she wanted to convey four key messages: (1) Census 2000 is not over; (2) people should cooperate with enumerators when they visit unresponsive households; (3) all census responses are confidential; and (4) it is important to answer all questions on the census forms. State legislative activities update: The New Jersey state legislature is considering a bill (A. 1682) that would bar the use of statistically corrected census numbers for redistricting. The Assembly's State Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on May 22 to review the proposal. Virginia officials have asked a federal court to approve its new law prohibiting the use of census data compiled in part through sampling and statistical methods for congressional and state redistricting. The case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Reno et al. (Case No. 1:00CV00751), will be heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in accordance with section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (as amended). Under the statute, either party can appeal the lower court decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which must issue a ruling in the case (known as 'mandatory jurisdiction'). The state filed the suit on April 10, 2000. In Alaska, also one of 16 states covered by the Voting Rights Act section 5 'pre-clearance' requirements, Attorney General James L. Baldwin responded on May 4 to a U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) request for additional information in support of two bills enacted last year that (in relevant part) prohibit the use of statistically-corrected census numbers for redistricting purposes. The state submitted House Joint Resolution No. 44 and Senate Bill No. 99 to the USDOJ for approval on September 21, 1999; the USDOJ Civil Rights Division's Voting Section requested more information on November 18, 1999, "to determine that the proposed procedures do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group." The Justice Department has 60 days to approve or disapprove the bills, which went into law without the signature of Governor Tony Knowles (D). Correction: In the May 8th News Alert, we inadvertently included the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) as a participant in an April 25 press conference on the importance of census long form data. Housing Assistance Council (HAC) Executive Director Moises Loza participated in the event, along with Betty Weiss, Executive Director of the National Neighborhood Coalition, and Ricardo Villalobos, Census Project director for the Center for Community Change. We apologize for the error. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at terriann2k(a)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 Census2000(a)ccmc.org or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

25 years, 9 months

Re: {CTPP} Work-UP Users

by Gloria.A.Swieczkowski＠ccmail.census.gov

Notice for all agencies participating in the Workplace Update program! ANOTHER NEW VERSION OF THE WORK-UP SOFTWARE IN NOW AVAILABLE. This version contains added functionality to allow you to move multiple points from one location to another within the same county. With this new release of the software you can move a number of employers as a group, instead of having to move each one individually. If you would like to be able to take advantage of this new function, continue reading below. The new version of the program, still named wup.avx, is available by direct link to: http://members.tripod.com/~TRBstate/ctpp/wupavx.zip. There is also a link to this site from the TRB Subcommittee website, www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/workup. The file has been zipped, so after you download the program you need to unzip it and copy it into the two locations where your wup.avx file is located. These locations are usually the \Esri\AV_gis30\Arcview\Ext32 and \workup\bin directories. (The first location is the working copy; the latter is a backup.) These directories are normally on the C drive, but if your installation is different you'll have to find where the wup.avx files are and copy the new version to those directories. Here is a brief discussion of how the new function works. Moving Multiple Employers at One Time A number of Work-UP users have indicated to us that they would like to be able to move multiple employers from one location to another in the same county in one operation. The developer has added this functionality so that there is now a way to move a group of employers. Moving a group of Points in Work-UP: 1. Use the Select Feature (lasso) tool or the Query Builder button to select a group of employers you want to move. 2. Click the "M" button. This new button is located at the far right end of the button bar, the top bar of icons in Work-UP. 3. You will be prompted as in other Work-UP procedures to choose between the geocoded and the ungeocoded files and you will also be notified how many records you have selected. 4. Finally a window will come up asking for the address to which you want the points moved. This address will NOT be put on the records being moved, it is only to find the location to which you want them moved. If the address you enter is not one that can be geocoded, you will be prompted to locate the spot on the map as in other Work-UP procedures. Hint: It seems to be helpful to first figure out where you want to move the employers to, before you go through the procedure of actually selecting them.

25 years, 9 months

Heads-up on PUMS

by Ed Christopher

I am hearing that there are some discussions underway at Census concerning the 2000 PUMS. Below is an email that Elaine Murakami (fhwa) snagged concerning a meeting on the issue. Elaine is trying to get to the bottom of it but I thought it was important to get the issue before us. We will let you know more as we find out. If anyone on the list can shed any information on this or the direction of PUMs please let us know. (don't forget to make sure to "reply all" if you want to reply to the list.) -------------------insert------------ Date: 05/09/2000 05:20 pm (Tuesday) From: ruggles(a)hist.umn.edu To: hubsmtp.gwhub("ipums-users(a)ipums.umn.edu") Subject: URGENT! Census 2000 PUMS ** High Priority ** Dear IPUMS users: The Census Bureau is considering significant reductions in the level of subject and geographic detail for the 2000 PUMS files in order to enhance confidentiality. As the Principal Investigator of the IPUMS project and chair of the ICPSR Census 2000 Committee, I have been asked to attend a meeting at the Bureau later this month to report how these changes might affect users. No final decisions have yet been taken, but various measures are under discussion. Although I do not have the specifics of any proposals, I have heard that they include such steps as grouping ages for persons 65 or older, providing only broad occupational groupings, reducing the available detail on race, ancestry, and income, and reducing geographic detail. I would like to get your feedback on these issues before I meet with the Bureau so I can fairly represent the concerns of IPUMS users. I would therefore appreciate it if you could complete the brief survey at http://www.ipums.umn.edu/~ipums/survey.html. I need the results as soon as possible. The survey will remain open until May 16th, but it will help greatly if you could complete the survey today or tomorrow. A high response rate will strengthen the credibility of the results. I appreciate your help on this, especially given the very short notice. If you know of people who have used the IPUMS but who are not registered to use the data extraction system, I would appreciate it if you would forward this message to them. If you do not want to receive email from IPUMS and would like us to remove you from our list of registered users, please email ipums(a)hist.umn.edu and ask to be removed, and accept my apologies for clogging your inbox. Yours, Steven Ruggles Minnesota Population Center 537 Heller, University of Minnesota 271 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 FAX: (612) 624-7096 PHONE: (612) 624-5818

25 years, 9 months

Attention: TAZ-UP participants.

by Srinivasan, Nanda <FHWA>

TAZ verification materials have been mailed to agencies in the states listed below. If you are a particpating agency in one of the states listed below and DO NOT receive your materials by May 16, 2000, please call Nanda Srinivasan at (202) 366-5021 (Email: ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov). 1. Alaska 2. Arizona 3. California 4. Colarado 5. Idaho 6. Illinois 7. Missouri 8. New Mexico 9. New York 10. Oregon 11. Utah 12. Wyoming The deadline for submittals to the Census Bureau for these states is June 15, 2000. Agencies in all other states (not included in this mailing or the previous one) will receive the materials within a week. Thank You! Nanda Srinivasan

25 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