In our review of ACS PUMS, we have found what we think is a workplace
coding problem and concerned that the coding error will be carried forward
into the CTPP. The Census workplace coding problem was identified
comparing change in employment estimates between 2000 and 2010 from BEA and
BLS compared to Place of Work (POW) coding in Census long form/ACS over the
same 10 year period.
2000 Census to 2010 ACS
It is important to understand that Baltimore City is an Independent City
and is NOT included in Baltimore County. Baltimore City is a
We are wondering if other metropolitan areas are finding results using the
ACS workplace coding that are divergent from other employment sources.
We are wondering if our problem is mostly due to the city and county having
the same name, or if there is some other issue.
Detail results from the Baltimore MPO trend analysis follows.
The Baltimore MSA in 2010 contained 2.7 million persons within six
political subdivisions (five counties [Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll,
Harford, and Howard] and one independent city [Baltimore City]). All six
political subdivisions have a 2010 population in excess of 100,000,
allowing for designation of Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) within each
political subdivision for the Baltimore MSA. Our concern in POW coding
relates to Baltimore County and the independent City of Baltimore.
(Baltimore City is NOT an incorporated City within Baltimore County.
Residents of Baltimore City are NOT residents of Baltimore County. The
independent City of Baltimore’s political status is equivalent to a county.)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) nonfarm annual estimates for employment
within Baltimore City was reported to have decreased 13.8% (408.4 to 352.0
thousand jobs) between 2000 and 2010.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) table CA25N was used to estimate
employment within the Baltimore region’s six political subdivisions. BEA
reported a -13.4% reduction in Baltimore City employment between 2000 and
2010. Job growth between 2000 and 2010 was estimated at 13.3% for
An analysis of the 2000 decennial Census long form and 2010 ACS POW coding
report contradicting trends compared to those reported in the BEA and BLS
estimates. Census 2000 to 2010 POW trend seems reasonable compared to the
BEA trend for Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford and Howard Counties.
Baltimore County POW coding results in a 3.9% growth in Census reported
primary job locations and Baltimore City Census POW coding results in a
2.2% growth in reported primary job locations. Our concern is that during
the review of addresses that do not geocode automatically Baltimore City is
receiving Baltimore County reported primary POW locations.
We are hoping other urban area analysis of Census POW coding can help focus
further analysis. We feel there is an allocation/gecoding issue but are
unsure if the error is related to Baltimore City’s status as an independent
city or confusion in having a county and city with the same name.
Looking forward to hearing from others on analysis of POW coding.
Charles M. Baber
Principal Transportation Planner
Baltimore Metropolitan Council
Offices @ McHenry Row
1500 Whetstone Way, Suite 300
Baltimore MD 21230
410-732-0500 Ext. 1056
This message may contain legally privileged and confidential information
that is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you
are not an intended recipient, taking any action based on the contents of
this message is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify the sender
if you have received this message in error.