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