9 Jan
2018
9 Jan
'18
11:01 a.m.
I am trying to compare the size of the workforce in my city, as reported by the 2012-16
ACS, to the size reported by the 2000 CTPP Part 2 Table. While I can do a straightforward
comparison of figures, I'd like to evaluate the difference taking into account the 90%
margin of error.
I can use 2000 Census documentation to determine how to compute MOEs for figures reported
for my community's own population, households and housing stock. However, I am not
sure how to approach this problem for the workforce, since the workforce is based on a
sample from a larger population, perhaps county, state or national. Any suggestions are
appreciated.
Cliff Cook
Clifford Cook
Senior Planning Information Manager
Cambridge Community Development Department
344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139
[cid:image001.png@01CF4355.A65408C0] <https://www.facebook.com/CDDat344>
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <https://twitter.com/cddat344>
[cid:image008.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <http://cddat344.tumblr.com/>
[cid:image010.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <http://instagram.com/cddat344>
www.cambridgema.gov/CDD<http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD.aspx>
ccook@cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook@cambridgema.gov>
M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon
617/349-4656
617/349-4669 FAX
617/349-4621 TTY
11 Jan
11 Jan
3:35 p.m.
Hi Cliff,
A few of us (Ed Christopher, Brian McKenzie and I) had a brief discussion on your question
offline, and here are our thoughts:
The short answer is that there is no single source of guidance on this. There are cases
where people use the resident population because it very often corresponds with and serves
as a proxy for the working population, like the CTPP transportation profiles. When we did
our profiles at state and sub-state geographies CTTP tables we used the resident
populations as well as the state-level design favors. Here is the link to the various
profiles we have done. http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/profiles.aspx
We have also seen guidance that recommends using the state-level or even national-level
design factor using the 2000 Census documentation, because workers can potentially come
from anywhere within the state or cross state boundaries.
To help you with the design factors they are imbedded in the worksheet tool developed by
CUTR which can make your work a lot easier: http://www.nctr.usf.edu/spreadsheet/77802.xls.
They have a report that can be found here along with more documentation.
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/abstracts/abs77802.htm.
Thanks,
JJ
Jingjing (JJ) Zang
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
t +1 301 347 9130 (ext. 53130)
From: ctpp-news [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Cook, Cliff
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:01 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: [CTPP] Computing Standard Error for 2000 CTPP Part 2
I am trying to compare the size of the workforce in my city, as reported by the 2012-16
ACS, to the size reported by the 2000 CTPP Part 2 Table. While I can do a straightforward
comparison of figures, I'd like to evaluate the difference taking into account the 90%
margin of error.
I can use 2000 Census documentation to determine how to compute MOEs for figures reported
for my community's own population, households and housing stock. However, I am not
sure how to approach this problem for the workforce, since the workforce is based on a
sample from a larger population, perhaps county, state or national. Any suggestions are
appreciated.
Cliff Cook
Clifford Cook
Senior Planning Information Manager
Cambridge Community Development Department
344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139
[cid:image001.png@01CF4355.A65408C0] <https://www.facebook.com/CDDat344>
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <https://twitter.com/cddat344>
[cid:image008.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <http://cddat344.tumblr.com/>
[cid:image010.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <http://instagram.com/cddat344>
www.cambridgema.gov/CDD<http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD.aspx>
ccook@cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook@cambridgema.gov>
M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon
617/349-4656
617/349-4669 FAX
617/349-4621 TTY
12 Jan
12 Jan
7:49 a.m.
JJ, Ed and Brian
Thanks for this information. This gives me what I need to answer my question.
Cliff Cook
Clifford Cook
Senior Planning Information Manager
Cambridge Community Development Department
344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139
[cid:image001.png@01CF4355.A65408C0] <https://www.facebook.com/CDDat344>
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <https://twitter.com/cddat344>
[cid:image008.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <http://cddat344.tumblr.com/>
[cid:image010.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720] <http://instagram.com/cddat344>
www.cambridgema.gov/CDD<http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD.aspx>
ccook@cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook@cambridgema.gov>
M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon
617/349-4656
617/349-4669 FAX
617/349-4621 TTY
From: ctpp-news [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Jingjing Zang
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 4:36 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] Computing Standard Error for 2000 CTPP Part 2
Hi Cliff,
A few of us (Ed Christopher, Brian McKenzie and I) had a brief discussion on your question
offline, and here are our thoughts:
The short answer is that there is no single source of guidance on this. There are cases
where people use the resident population because it very often corresponds with and serves
as a proxy for the working population, like the CTPP transportation profiles. When we did
our profiles at state and sub-state geographies CTTP tables we used the resident
populations as well as the state-level design favors. Here is the link to the various
profiles we have done.
http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/profiles.aspx<https://na01.safelink…
We have also seen guidance that recommends using the state-level or even national-level
design factor using the 2000 Census documentation, because workers can potentially come
from anywhere within the state or cross state boundaries.
To help you with the design factors they are imbedded in the worksheet tool developed by
CUTR which can make your work a lot easier:
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/spreadsheet/77802.xls<https://na01.safelinks.pro…amp;reserved=0>.
They have a report that can be found here along with more documentation.
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/abstracts/abs77802.htm<https://na01.safelinks.pr…amp;reserved=0>.
Thanks,
JJ
Jingjing (JJ) Zang
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
t +1 301 347 9130 (ext. 53130)
From: ctpp-news [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Cook, Cliff
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:01 PM
To: ctpp-news@chrispy.net<mailto:ctpp-news@chrispy.net>
Subject: [CTPP] Computing Standard Error for 2000 CTPP Part 2
I am trying to compare the size of the workforce in my city, as reported by the 2012-16
ACS, to the size reported by the 2000 CTPP Part 2 Table. While I can do a straightforward
comparison of figures, I'd like to evaluate the difference taking into account the 90%
margin of error.
I can use 2000 Census documentation to determine how to compute MOEs for figures reported
for my community's own population, households and housing stock. However, I am not
sure how to approach this problem for the workforce, since the workforce is based on a
sample from a larger population, perhaps county, state or national. Any suggestions are
appreciated.
Cliff Cook
Clifford Cook
Senior Planning Information Manager
Cambridge Community Development Department
344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. 02139
[cid:image001.png@01CF4355.A65408C0]
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FCDDat344&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7Cd4fef89054e34ec8acbe08d5593b4f2e%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C636513033629273524&sdata=fWaZPcZLIcJLmUfvt5YefLTSrVlhKiglDeWNHWJf%2B10%3D&reserved=0>
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720]
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fcddat344&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7Cd4fef89054e34ec8acbe08d5593b4f2e%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C636513033629273524&sdata=Wjgu7P9KokTWjZ14WCa%2Bw6G9r90sr7CaBEi9h4Aif3U%3D&reserved=0>
[cid:image008.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720]
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcddat344.tumblr.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7Cd4fef89054e34ec8acbe08d5593b4f2e%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C636513033629273524&sdata=YWF0DLhceB15YgyrCGQC%2FKtHULrwr%2FROSPRqYKQ%2Fl5o%3D&reserved=0>
[cid:image010.jpg@01CF4357.3478C720]
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finstagram.com%2Fcddat344&data=02%7C01%7Cccook%40cambridgema.gov%7Cd4fef89054e34ec8acbe08d5593b4f2e%7Cc06a8be784794d73b35193bc9ba8295c%7C0%7C0%7C636513033629273524&sdata=TQOEeXgxBoidswNpCzJeS0cBj9cbWSE97CfGfdUUPtc%3D&reserved=0>
www.cambridgema.gov/CDD<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?u…
ccook@cambridgema.gov<mailto:ccook@cambridgema.gov>
M: 8:30-8:00 T-Th: 8:30-5:00 F: 8:30-Noon
617/349-4656
617/349-4669 FAX
617/349-4621 TTY
2538
days inactive
2541
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Cook, Cliff -
Jingjing Zang