ACS commentary from the State Data Center listserv - ctpp-news

1 Mar 2002

TO: CTPP Listserv:
FR: Chuck Purvis, MTC
RE: ACS commentary on the State Data Center listserv

I just wanted to forward some messages circulating on the State Data Center listserv
related to the ACS Federal Register Notice of 1/16/02. NOTE THAT THE CLOSING DATE FOR
COMMENTS ON THE FR NOTICE IS MARCH 18!!!

Especially useful and insightful are comments from Bob Scardamalia of the New York State
Data Center.

Chuck Purvis, MTC

********Scardamalia's comments:
******************************************************************
Makes one feel like they're trying to hold the locomotive at the station.

I think there's a lot of enthusiasm about ACS and the prospect of more
current economic and demographic data for small areas is sooo tempting. The
reality check is that the benchmark tests with the 2000 Census were scaled
back. We don't have good research results on how good ACS will be at the
tract level or even for small places. It's already been pointed out that
there are significant unanswered issues with the state level data let alone
small area data. This doesn't even begin to look at questions about whether
ACS can deliver data that the user community needs such as Journey to Work
for small areas. We've got to wait for the first 5 year sample to get small
area statistics to evaluate. If they are inadequate, there's no time left
for a backup position.

Even if Congress fully funds ACS, and the handwriting is on the wall for the
2010 long form, there needs to be more detailed research, data, and
discussion out of the Bureau. There is a multitude of Census stakeholders
who are anxious for improved data but who are very concerned about the lack
of evaluation data that's available.

Bob Scardamalia
Empire State Development
State Data Center
Phone: (518) 292-5300
Fax: (518) 292-5806
E-mail: rscardamalia(a)empire.state.ny.us
http:\\www.empire.state.ny.us\data_home.html

...
  -----Original Message-----
 From: jeff hardcastle [SMTP:jhardcas@UNR.EDU]
 Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:12 PM
 To:   SDC-L(a)WVNVM.WVNET.EDU
 Subject:      Re: Changes in statistical programs

 I too have concerns about the sample results so far even at the state
 level.
 Thanks for the reminder on this topic.

 Greg Perkins wrote:

  To the Listserv:

 Does anyone have strong feelings about the two items listed in the  Federal
  Register of January 16th regarding requests for
response by March 18,  2002?
  One is about eliminating the long form in 2010
because of the start of  the
  American Community Survey.  The other is about
the Census of  Manufacturing
  proposed collection methodology change,
specifically eliminating  paperwork
  for small firms and only getting the big firms to
answer the survey.

 It seems to me that a decision to eliminate the long form may be a bit  hasty
  given the fact that it is not in use yet and not
studied as to how
 accurately it will "estimate" data down to the tract level.  Is there 
any
  place on the Census web site that discusses this
issue?  Has anyone  compared
  C2SS 2000 with Census results for places? Maybe I
am wrong and that the
 statistical survey has been studied.  However,  oftentimes, once surveys  are
  done by sample they are subject to being cut back
by budget reductions.  In
  the most recent edition of Massachusetts
Benchmarks ( in the Endnotes
 comment section) there is a discussion of the cutbacks in sample size  for
  the CPS in Massachusetts and how such problems
are affecting labor force
 estimates.

 As for the manufacturing survey I don't have much of a formed opinion  but I
  notice that our most recent private sector
manufacturing directory for
 Massachusetts may also be eliminating the smaller firms because they are  too
  difficult to contact and survey.  Should this be
of some concern?

 In our Policy Development and Research Department at the Boston
 Redevelopment Authority (an affiliate of MISER- the Massachusetts  Institute
  for Social and Economic Research- our SDC) we
have been very concerned  over
  the years with the gradual cutback in statistical
programs at the  Federal
  and State levels because of the need for quality
and timely data.  I can
 think of several cutbacks over the last twenty years that have  eliminated
  some statistics that were of use to us (the small
areas estimates for  CBDs
  and other major retail centers in the Census of
Retail Trade, the  monthly
  estimate of retail sales for major metropolitan
areas, the BEA-OBERS
 projections, and more).  I also wonder about the "privatization" of 
other
  statistics such as the Leading Economic
Indicators now done by the
 Conference Board.  When we have to rely on private sector data we have  to be
  very concerned with who is producing it, what are
their private  interests,
  is it academically peer-reviewed, is it
"objective" and other questions.

 If these question spark a little debate either about the specific 2  items in
  the Federal register or about the broader issue
of statistical quality  and
  public funding please respond to me either on the
listserve or directly.

 Thanks!

 Greg Perkins
 Assistant Director
 Policy Development and Research Department
 Boston Redevelopment Authority
 One City Hall Square
 Room 962
 Boston, MA  02201-1007

 Phone:  617-918-4411
 Fax:    617-918-4461
 e-mail: greg.perkins.bra(a)ci.boston.ma.us 

***********************************************
Charles L. Purvis, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
(510) 464-7731 (office)
(510) 464-7848 (fax)
www: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
Census WWW: http://census.mtc.ca.gov/
***********************************************