Mr. Purvis-
EJ populations include disabled, elderly, minority, Hispanic and low income; and in Columbus we’ve added 0-car households as an extra for our analysis. The disabled population is most definitely an EJ population.
Nancy
Nancy Reger, AICP
Deputy Director, Transportation
Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission
111 Liberty St, Ste 100
Columbus OH 43215
Phone: (614) 233-4154
Email: nreger@morpc.org
From: ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Charles Purvis
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 11:04 AM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] RE: disability status
Michael, and others:
I'm not at all certain that this is true: my recall of "environmental justice" is that it relates to "low income" and "minority" populations, and NOT to other groups such as the "disabled" or "seniors" or "children"..... I think we need clarification from Ed or Elaine on this particular issue.
Nonetheless, the elderly and disabled communities within your regions and states will be particularly interested in data from the ACS related to changes in disability questions.
My recommendation would be to carefully document the changes in the disability questions over the lifespan of the decennial census, and the American Community Survey. Then, to analyze the "one-year" ACS data for your region/state using the "2007" vintage ACS disability questions; compared to the "2008-to-current" vintage ACS disability questions, knowing that the questions (and responses) have changed between 2007 and 2008. Depend as much as possible on Census Bureau published research on the Disability questions, be it from Census Bureau working papers or professional papers at the Population Association of America, ASA, etc. Exactly "why" did the Census Bureau change the questions, etc.
It will be impossible to say anything about "changes" in the number of disabled persons, even between 2007 and 2008, due to questionnaire changes. It's just best to be upfront with your clientele to show how the ACS questions have changed, and how they impact the responses.
And, it would also be useful to use the PUMS to understand the overlap between minority, low income, elderly and disabled. The tricky element is how to define "low income" (100% or 200% of poverty level, other methods?).
Just some thoughts.
Chuck Purvis
retired :)
San Francisco Bay Area
***************************
On Apr 4, 2011, at 4:11 AM, Michael Moan wrote:
Is this indeed true?
Michael C. Moan, Principal Planner
Office of Statewide Planning
Division of Planning
Department of Administration
One Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02908
4012221236>>> Planning Department <PlanningDepartment@countyofberks.com> 4/1/2011 12:10 PM >>>
I don’t know of any useful solutions; however, I just hope that the kind Environmental Justice folks at FHWA and FTA are aware of this situation when we they hammer our Benefits and Burdens Analysis documents during the 4-year MPO Certification Review.
Michael D. Golembiewski
Transportation Modeler