RE: [CTPP] Brainstorming about INCOME variable for the futureCTPP(using ACS records)

To CTPP-News Maillist and Other Census Groupies, Much thanks to all who shared their migpuma concerns. The attached file defines the migpumas and the powpumas in function of the pumas (all 5%). I downloaded it from Blodgett’s Mable database. For instance, for Illinois (17), the pumas 3501-3519 cover the City of Chicago and pumas 3401-3414 cover the remainder of Cook County which we call suburban Cook County. The file shows that powpuma 3500 coincides with the city of Chicago and that migpuma 3490 coincides with Cook County. We at the City defined the pumas but the definitions of the powpumas and migpumas were done by the CB. In 1990, Chicago was a migpuma but in 2000 the CB decided it was no longer. According to Clara, no county remainders were migpumas except Los Angeles city, why not Chicago city? I planned to extract the population sizes off all the migpumas and show that there are many migpumas that are smaller than the City of Chicago thereby showing a lack of equal access to data. According to “Principles and Practices for Federal Statistical Agencies” by Martin, Straf, and Citro, federal statistical agencies have to ensure equal access to data. Are large subcounty cities with concentrations of minority persons getting equal access to data? Thank you, Marie Bousfield, Demographer City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development City Hall, Room 1003 121 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 Tel. (312) 744-6536 Fax. (312) 744-0759 Email mbousfield(a)cityofchicago.org http://www.cityofchicago.org Hello Marie -- Well, you learn something new everyday. I have never heard of a migpuma before! I agree with you that PUMA geography and the PUMS are not just for academic research. We are happy that the CB now includes residence PUMA as a tabulation geography as part of the 2005 ACS standard tabulations. This benefits large cities, like Chicago. Maybe Table B07204 or C07204 "residence 1 year ago: State/County/place level" would be useful to you? Right now, in the ACS PUMS dataset, POW-PUMA is not a "real" PUMA. It is generally limited to County, as the "basic" workplace coding completed at the CB is to County-Place. In order to have a "real" POW-PUMA, the Census Bureau will need to complete extended workplace allocation (imputation) process for responses with ungeocoded workplace addresses. This is because to assign workers to a "real" PUMA, the coding needs to be complete to the census block level. Ungeocoded records continue to be between 20-25 % of workers, similar to the Census 2000. I hope that the extended workplace allocation will be established and part of the NEXT CTPP, so that we can have PUMA-to-PUMA flows where the POW-PUMA is not a county. There has been some informal discussion among the CTPP Technical Working Group about whether a "special" ACS PUMS file with the POW-PUMAs after extended allocation has been completed would be possible, as part of CTPP. We would have to take this to the CB's Disclosure Review Board (as ALL tabulation and products go through the same review) for their consideration. This link is the ACS list of the POW-PUMAs. For example, 04890 includes nearly 100 places and the "remainder" of Los Angeles County; 08100 includes 47 places and the remainder of San Diego County. I don't know how many "real" PUMAs there are in Los Angeles County, but it is probably nearly 100. I didn't look at Chicago, but I'm sure it has a similar scale of loss of geographic detail. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/PUMS/C2SS/CodeList/2005/POWPUMA20 05lookup.htm here is the list for the ACS MIG-PUMAs. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/PUMS/C2SS/CodeList/2005/MIGPUMA20 05lookup.htm We understand that the Census Bureau staff are generally not allowed to post messages to listservs, but I'm sure they will read your message and consider your ideas for ACS PUMS files. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning -----Original Message----- From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of mbousfield(a)cityofchicago.org Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 1:34 PM To: Ed Christopher Cc: ctpp-news maillist Subject: Re: [CTPP] Brainstorming about INCOME variable for the futureCTPP(using ACS records) To CTPP-News Maillist and Other Census Groupies, Comments about Elaine Murakami's email and Ed Christopher's email both dated 5/31/07 with subject: [Brainstorming] about income variable.... Elaine lists four presumed-wanted flows: county to county, place to place, county to place, and place to county. These are insufficient for many subregional analyses when the principal city is part of one or more counties. In these cases, we need city to county remainder data and county remainder to city data. In 1980 and 1990, the City of Chicago was a migpuma This allowed us to do city to county remainder and county remainder to city analyses. For instance, using the PUMS file we analyzed inmigration and outmigration by characteristic between the City of Chicago and its suburbs. In 2000, the City of Chicago was not a migpuma even though many smaller areas were migpumas. The Census Bureau person Ms. Showalter told me that no city of any size was a migpuma unless it coincided with one or more counties such as the City of New York. As a consequence, we were not able to determine in and outmigration between the City of Chicago and the suburbs for the 1995-2000 period. In the future ACS-PUMS are large cities like the City of Chicago identified as migpumas and powpumas? I noticed that the 2004 ACS PUMS has only MIGSTATE (allowing to determine the state of origin of movers.) Can we please restore large cities as migpumas and powpumas and identify the pumas, migpumas, and powpumas on the ACS-PUMS. On their website, the Census Bureau claims that the ACS-PUMS file is used for academic research. But my experience as a city demographer shows that the PUMS files are very important tools in city management. Please help if you are in a position to do so. Thank you, Marie Bousfield, Demographer City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development City Hall, Room 703 121 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 Tel. (312) 744-6536 Fax. (312) 744-0759 Email mbousfield(a)cityofchicago.org http://www.cityofchicago.org _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news