11 May
2000
11 May
'00
7:50 p.m.
To Ed and everyone:
Yes, there is a meeting on May 22. I will be there. The issue is that
some people, unclear just who (I know of one inside the Bureau, none who
count outside) seem to think that there are privacy/confidentiality
concerns with PUMS as it has existed in 1980/90. They are concerned that
someone could be identified.
I encourage you all to sign onto the IPUMS site and respond to the
questionnaire. It's a good one. I'm looking forward myself to the
results; it should shed some light on how and by whom PUMS is actually
used, something about which almost nothing has been compiled to date. I
will be in there fighting for our 100K PUMAS and as little data loss as
possible.
If you have specific questions or thoughts, please feel free to contact me
privately or via this list.
Patty Becker
At 05:20 PM 5/11/00 -0400, Ed Christopher wrote:
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