Hello:
Question and a comment.
Question:
Will the Census Bureau produce a "Demographic Profile #1" this spring, for all places in the US? In spring 2001 (April/May/June, 2001), the Census Bureau produced a one-page profile based on Census 2000 short form data, kind of like highlights from the SF1 (not all of the details of SF1, data reported for places, counties, etc., not tracts, block groups or blocks.) This was an "intermediate" product between the release of the PL 94-171 files (February, March 2001) and the SF-1 files (summer 2001).
Comment:
One NEW table from the PL 94-171 is a housing units table (total, occupied, vacant units). This is great! This will allow city planners a very early opportunity to assess the quality of the short form data for their community.
take care,
Chuck Purvis
Hayward, California
I am looking for guidance on how to combine median income values for several census tracts into a single value and associated margin of error. I recall seeing something about this topic in an ACS document but cannot locate the information at this time. Any help would be appreciated.
Cliff Cook
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Cook
Planning Information Manager
Cambridge Community Development Dept.
344 Broadway
Cambridge, MA. 02139
617/349-4656 FAX 617/349-4669 TTY 617/349-4621
email => ccook(a)cambridgema.gov
web site => <http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/>
The Madison Area Transportation Planning Board, the MPO for the Madison, WI Area, is seeking a transportation planner/modeler. The general responsibilities are listed below:
Transportation Planner/Modeler: Responsible professional urban and regional transportation planning work supporting the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Madison area. The position is responsible for the operation and maintenance of a regional travel demand forecast model for generating traffic and transit use forecasts; preparing socioeconomic data forecasts and assembling and analyzing data for transportation planning and modeling purposes; providing assistance with the preparation of multi-modal transportation plans, reports and studies; providing assistance with the annual update to the Transportation Improvement Program; and assistance in providing staff support to the MPO policy board and MPO advisory committees. Work is performed under general supervision.
The following is a link to the job announcement on the City of Madison Human Resources' website. The City staffs the MPO. Please direct any questions to City HR.
http://www.cityofmadison.com/employment/employmentListingDetails.cfm?Id=588
Bill Schaefer, Transportation Planning Manager
Madison Area Transportation Planning Board - An MPO
121 S. Pinckney St., #400
Madison, WI 53703
PH: (608) 266-9115
FAX: (608) 261-9967
Email: wschaefer(a)cityofmadison.com
www.MadisonAreaMPO.org
Thanks to everybody who offered tips yesterday. I'm glad I'm not the only
one who is confused by FactFinder2. Let me share a few things I learned
today as I prepared for my state's data release:
1. The Census Bureau is glad to help. The CTPP list serve put me in
touch with somebody at the Bureau who did the kindness of offering help with
factfinder2. Use the following numbers: Census training: 301-763-4308, or,
if they're busy/overwhelmed with calls, you can call their call center at
800-923-8282. Apparently even the call center staff have the capability to
walk you through factfinder2.
2. With Census Bureau help, I have done some cursory work in
FactFinder2, and can bring down basic data, but not yet refined data. My
summary opinion, after a half day of fiddling with it, as that with proper
training FF2 is probably a marvelous tool, far superior to FF1. It allows
you to create nice summary PDFs, and the download into Excel is smoother
with less clutter. It will soon have the capability for downloading into
other software types, and you can still go with the old standbys like .csv
files.
3. The dark side, however, is that it can turn into a "hall of
mirrors" pretty fast, as you dig for detailed data. I know where I'm going
for a while, then suddenly something doesn't make sense, and I'm surrounded
by apparitions that look real but are actually impenetrable reflecting
walls.
4. A knowledgeable person candidly told me that he / she suspects the
reason the SDC's haven't given much help so far is that they aren't yet
fully confident with FF2 themselves, so they're not rushing to offer
training in it.
5. The FTP process is also pretty daunting. My thanks to Mara
Kaminowitz, who recommended downloading the FTP for one of the states that
is already out, and practicing on it. I'm still struggling with Virginia, my
chosen sample state; it's been a slog but I think I'm beginning to make
sense of it. If you do the FTP download, don't forget to also download the
related PDFs with instructions and background information.
Again, thanks everybody for your help. As a data user, I find it comforting
to know I'm not alone in these troubles!
Jonathan Lupton
Metroplan
Little Rock, Arkansas
Is anybody else having trouble using FactFinder2?
My state, Arkansas, is due for Census 2010 figures this week. I have tried
to familiarize myself with FactFinder2, but cannot get much out of it.
The actual product DOES NOT work the way the tutorial says it should.
My agency will fall back on FTP downloading as our only source if necessary,
of course. I hope we don't have to switch to FTP for everything!
Our state data center had no help, nor any plans for training seminars,
etc., when I called about this matter.
Any tips, thoughts, reflections from other data users?
Jonathan Lupton
Metroplan
Little Rock Arkansas
Thank you for the replies, but I guess my question was not clear.
I know how to create the MOEs for the aggregated data, but I am wondering how to calculate the MOE when the estimate is derived by taking the difference of the muni totals from the county totals to get the unincorporated piece of the county.
Thanks again,
Louis
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:00 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: ctpp-news Digest, Vol 84, Issue 11
Send ctpp-news mailing list submissions to
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ctpp-news-request(a)chrispy.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
ctpp-news-owner(a)chrispy.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ctpp-news digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: "Backing out" MOE (Liang.Long(a)dot.gov)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 12:42:47 -0500
From: <Liang.Long(a)dot.gov>
Subject: RE: [CTPP] "Backing out" MOE
To: <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>, <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
Cc: Pweinberger(a)aashto.org
Message-ID:
<D8D5EBA50E89CE4C934608AB7EC21CA5E0FB09(a)OSTMAIL03VS4.ad.dot.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative
Hello-
I am working with the five year ACS data, and we are trying to create profiles for the unincorporated portions of the county.
My question(s) is: If I sum up the estimates for all the municipalities in their respective county can I simply take the difference from the county total and call it the unincorporated part? If so, how do you obtain the MOE for this number? Can you "back out" the MOE from the adjusted (square root of the sum)muni MOEs and the county MOE? Or do I have to aggregate block group data for these areas?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Louis Pino| Socioeconomic Analyst | Customer Resource and Support
Direct 303.480.6000 | Fax 303.480.6790
[cid:image001.gif@01CBC3A7.A3224D00]
[cid:image002.jpg@01CBC3A7.A3224D00]<http://solarmap.drcog.org/>
Try out DRCOG's new tool to check solar energy savings potential at http://solarmap.drcog.org<http://solarmap.drcog.org/>
Hi Frank--
Hope the new year is treating you well.
You asked what you're missing: How is the 3-year or 5-year window *not* like a moving average?
Some of the moving parts changing from year to year are the control totals and, as result, the weights (expansion factor) that would be attached to any given household found in the 5 annual sub-samples that comprise the period sample.
The population control totals come an exogenous, completely-outside-the-survey-itself, annual estimation model. And in our region, Mpls-St Paul, CB badly underestimated the top-line population totals during early and mid-decade. I think they realized it (oops), and they've been trying to make up ground ever since.
Also pertaining to control totals, there may be a time-series disruption for small areas with the vintage 2009 data. CB transitioned from having county-level control totals to having sub-county control totals. And that's likely to cause weird time-series breaks for some cities where population was previously under- (or over-)estimated.
... Expect more fun this Fall, when vintage 2010 ACS are re-benchmarked to 2010 Census Enumeration
________________________
Todd Graham
Principal Forecaster
Metropolitan Council
390 Robert Street North
Saint Paul, MN 55101
ph: 651/602-1322
email: todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us
in: www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham
web: www.metrocouncil.org
________________________
________________________________________
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Frank Lenk [FLENK(a)MARC.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:34 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question.
Call me dense, but I don’t see how this problem is any different than working with moving averages. I mean, I do understand that this data is not an average but a period estimate. Still, the issues created by dropping the first year of the period and adding the last year as the data series moves forward in time seems the same to me.
What am I not understanding properly?
Frank
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
www.marc.org<http://www.marc.org>
816.474.4240
flenk(a)marc.org<mailto:flenk@marc.org>
816.701.8237
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Patty Becker
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 3:17 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question.
If you see the point about the problem of comparing overlapping 3 year ACS estimates, it gets even worse with consecutive 5 year numbers, in which 4 of the 5 years are the same data.
Personally, I think there's a strong argument for releasing 5 year data only twice a decade, by definition non-overlapping. We may get to that point in a couple of years.
Patty Becker
At 03:53 PM 2/1/2011, you wrote:
Frank-I totally agree and I would like to see the statisticians get involved and think about this. People are going to compare overlapping periods and we have to get smart about how to deal with this.
As for why some say we should not compare overlapping years the story goes like this. If you have 2006 to 2008 data and 2007 to 2009 data you would have two overlapping years. According to the logic you would in fact only be comparing the first year 2006 to the last year 2009 as the middle two years would cancel themselves out. While this sounds logical on the surface there has to be a way to deal with overlapping 5-year periods or it doesn't make sense to have an ACS.
I am not sure if anyone would out right admit it but is anyone designing performance measures or other regional metrics calling for tracking annual multi-year period estimates at tracts or places?
Frank Lenk wrote:
I would also be interested in a more detailed explanation of why we should not compare overlapping period estimates. From a practical standpoint, people are going to do it anyway, especially the press. What do we need to know - other than the inherent issues of what is a statistically significant vs. insignificant change and the fact that ACS was designed to examine characteristics of the population rather than its level - to be able to correct naïve interpretations of easily calculated tract-level year-to-year differences in the estimates of things like poverty rate, unemployment rate, educational attainment rates, etc.? What is a correct interpretation of these differences?
Frank
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
www.marc.org<http://www.marc.org/> < http://www.marc.org<http://www.marc.org/>>
816.474.4240
flenk(a)marc.org< mailto:flenk@marc.org>
816.701.8237
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Kendra Watkins
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:05 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question.
This is interesting. I recall hearing this guidance in the past. However on the Census website on the ACS page it specifically states; "Generally, you can compare American Community Survey (ACS) 3-year and 5-year estimates with Census 2000 data. There are differences in the universe, question wording, residence rules, reference periods, and the way in which the data are tabulated which can impact comparability."
The qualifier in the second sentence addresses the conflict (different methods, time periods etc) but I can't find anywhere on the ACS pages where the Census recommends we not compare ACS to decennial Census. And when I search by subject the Journey to Work topic states that I can 'Compare' it to the 2000 Census.
It does specifically state not to compare overlapping years on multiyear estimates.
Kendra Watkins
Senior Data Analyst
Mid-Region Council of Governments
809 Copper Ave. NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phone: (505)724-3601
Fax: (505)247-1753
Email: kwatkins(a)mrcog-nm.gov< mailto:tgaudette@mrcog-nm.gov>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Weinberger, Penelope
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 8:41 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: RE: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question.
The CB does not recommend comparing an ACS based data set to a CB Long Form based data set. The 2000 data represent a point in time estimate, the ACS data represent a period estimate. Furthermore, the Census Bureau recommends not comparing period estimates with overlapping years.
Penelope Weinberger
CTPP Program Manager
AASHTO
202-624-3556
http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx
It's just as bad to not make a plan as to blindly follow the one you already have.
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [ mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Seidensticker, Dan
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:18 PM
To: (ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net)
Subject: [CTPP] 2000 and 2006-08 work trip comparison question.
We downloaded the2006-2008 ACS county-to-county worker flow for Dane County, Wisconsin from http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/3yrdas.aspx.
The question we now have...can that data be compared to the county-to-county 2000 CTPP work trips to determine any statistically significant increase/decrease? If so, how would one calculate the margin of error?
Dan Seidensticker
GIS Specialist
Madison Area Transportation Planning Board:
A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
City of Madison Planning Unit
121 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 400
Madison, WI 53703
Voice: 608-266-9119
Fax: 608-261-9967
Email: dseidensticker(a)cityofmadison.com< mailto:dseidensticker@cityofmadison.com>
www.MadisonAreaMPO.org<http://www.madisonareampo.org/> < http://www.madisonareampo.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600
Matteson, IL 60443
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520
APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645
28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428
Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu
The Census Bureau has started to ship the local 2010 Census data. So
far Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia have been shipped.
Next week Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana and Maryland are planned. To see what
states have been shipped and which are next in line go to
http://www.census.gov/rdo/data/2010_census_redistricting_data_pl_94-171_sum…
According to the release program which is tied to redistricting the data
is shipped to the state leadership and after confirmation of receipt
which usually takes 24 hours the CB will issue a news release with five
custom tables of data for the state. At that time, the full set of data
will be available simultaneously via FTP download on the Redistricting
Data Office page http://www.census.gov/rdo/data>.
Then within 24 hours after release, the data will be posted on the CB's
new American FactFinder site at http://factfinder2.census.gov.
The data will include summaries of population totals, as well as data on
race, Hispanic origin and voting age. These data will be presented for
multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts,
voting districts, cities, counties and school districts.
According to Public Law 94-171, the CB must provide redistricting data
to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census.
As a result, the CB is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow
basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April
1, 2011.
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600
Matteson, IL 60443
We downloaded the2006-2008 ACS county-to-county worker flow for Dane County, Wisconsin from http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/3yrdas.aspx.
The question we now have...can that data be compared to the county-to-county 2000 CTPP work trips to determine any statistically significant increase/decrease? If so, how would one calculate the margin of error?
Dan Seidensticker
GIS Specialist
Madison Area Transportation Planning Board:
A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
City of Madison Planning Unit
121 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 400
Madison, WI 53703
Voice: 608-266-9119
Fax: 608-261-9967
Email: dseidensticker(a)cityofmadison.com<mailto:dseidensticker@cityofmadison.com>
www.MadisonAreaMPO.org<http://www.madisonareampo.org/>
