Can anyone recommend an easy-to-use software program for purchase for walk-in public to be able to generate specific information (more specific than the census website) from the raw census data?
How can I be added to this list-serve?
Thank you,
James J. Worthley
Stanislaus Council of Governments
TO: CTPP-News
1) The tentative release schedule for the one-page "Demographic Profile" reports are posted on the Census Bureau's web site at:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/demoprofile.html
A couple of dozen states and the US totals will be released this week (5/14-5/18). The Bureau will be trying to get all of these DP-1 files out by the end of May.
The one-page "DP-1" will include 96 selected "short-form" variables for the US, States, Counties, Places and (eventually) census tracts. This is the first detailed glimpse at population by age and sex, number of households & families, group quarters population, housing unit characteristics (vacancy status, owner/renter tenure), and detailed hispanic/latino and asian characteristics.
Technical documentation is available at the above URL. The DP-1 will also be available through American FactFinder.
2) A very nice Census 2000 Brief "The Hispanic Population" was released by the Bureau last week. You'll need acrobat reader and a color printer for this 8-page report. URL is:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html
Enjoy
Chuck Purvis, MTC
***********************************************
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/
***********************************************
Do you use Eric Randall's CTPP Data Loader?
I used it successfully in years past, but am having trouble with it now.
If you have used it and would be willing to help me, please contact me.
Robert B. Case, PE
Principal Transportation Engineer
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
723 Woodlake Dr., Chesapeake, Va. 23320
voice:757-420-8300; fax:757-523-4881
rcase(a)hrpdc.org
Thanks Patty.
Attached is MS Word list of ONLY the SDC leads. I got this from Census
Bureau a while ago, but someone can correct me if anything is wrong. I
checked the addresses with the SDC website at the CB
(http://www.census.gov/sdc/www).
There is ONLY ONE lead per state, and their name, address, fax, phone, and
e-mail numbers are included in this list.
Thank you!
Nanda Srinivasan
>>> pbecker(a)umich.edu 05/09/01 12:33PM >>>
>Every state has one and only one lead agency for the SDC. I'm pretty sure
>you can find out who that is by looking on the census bureau's web
>site. That's who should be responsible for, or at least coordinating,
>PUMA definition. The lead agency is usually either in the state
>government or in a major public university.
Patty Becker
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520
APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645
28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428
Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu
I just got what I believe is a good PUMA question that also affects many
others. Especially those in Bi and Tri-State areas. I have reposted it
to the list serve in hopes that our friends who monitor the list in the
Census Bureau's Geography Division may be help with a response.
--------snip----------------
Subject: Re: [CTPP] PUMS Boundary Criteria
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:27:38 -0400
From: Glen Ahlert <gahlert(a)swfrpc.org>
To: ed christopher <berwyned(a)mcs.com>
In states with multiple SDCs, how do we find out which one (ones?) will
be defining PUMAs? Florida has 3 SDCs. One told me it would not be
defining PUMAs, another sounds like it might be considering doing it,
and I have yet to hear from the third.
Glen Ahlert
Staff Director
Lee County MPO
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Courts Reject Utah, Los Angeles Census Challenges
Plus: Congressional Appropriators Review FY02 Budget Request; Monitoring
Board Democrats Release Metropolitan Undercount Estimates; and more.
Federal courts in Denver and Los Angeles rejected two legal challenges
to the results of Census 2000, while the plaintiff in one of those
cases, the State of Utah, filed a second lawsuit over the use of
statistical methods in the counting process.
On April 17, a three-judge federal district court panel (which included
one 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge) ruled unanimously against
the State of Utah's claim that the Census Bureau should have counted
Mormon missionaries serving overseas during the census. State officials
said they would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Utah contended that including military and federal government personnel
stationed overseas but not other American citizens abroad, in the state
population counts used for congressional apportionment, was an
"arbitrary" decision that cost it a fourth seat in Congress. North
Carolina instead picked up a 13th district based on the count of
overseas military and federal personnel. The court, however, said
including Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints missionaries
serving in foreign countries would give Utah an unfair advantage because
they represented only a small portion of all private American citizens
living abroad.
Utah filed a second lawsuit on April 25, claiming that the Census
Bureau's use of a statistical procedure known as 'imputation' cost it a
fourth congressional district in violation of the U.S. Constitution's
apportionment clause and federal law. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that a provision of the Census Act (Title 13, U.S.C., §195)
prohibits the use of sampling methods to derive the state population
totals used for congressional apportionment, but it did not rule on the
constitutionality of sampling. The 1999 decision forced the Census
Bureau to drop its planned integration of a quality-check sample survey
and direct counting methods to produce one set of census numbers.
Imputation involves the use of statistical models to assign occupants
(or vacancy status) to housing units for which census takers cannot
gather any information, based on data from nearby households.
In announcing the State's intention to file a new claim in Salt Lake
City's federal district court, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt said, "You
don't use guessing in the census." The Census Bureau has said it used
imputation to add 0.2 percent of the population, or about 1.2 million
people, to the national total used for apportionment, including about
5,400 people in Utah. A new three-judge panel will hear the case in
mid-August; any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Los Angeles, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the City of
Los Angeles and other cities, counties, and local elected officials,
challenging the decision by Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans to
release unadjusted census data for redistricting purposes in March. Los
Angeles originally filed suit in February, seeking to overturn Secretary
Evans' rescission of a Clinton Administration rule delegating the
adjustment decision to the Census Bureau director. After the Secretary
concurred with a Census Bureau recommendation to issue unadjusted data,
the City amended its complaint, contending the Secretary violated a
provision of the Census Act governing the Census Bureau's use of
sampling by not releasing the adjusted numbers. (The Census Bureau is
an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.) Los Angeles also filed a
Freedom of Information Act request in January for the block-level
adjusted data.
In an April 26 decision dismissing the plaintiff's claim, U.S. District
Court Judge Gary A. Feess concluded that §195 of Title 13, United States
Code (the Census Act) sets forth "no clear statement of congressional
intent" regarding a decision to adjust the census counts based on the
results of a sample survey. That provision, the judge found, is
"internally inconsistent," directing the Secretary to use sampling but
also giving him discretion to decide whether such use is "feasible."
Los Angeles argued that the statute creates "a presumption of accuracy
in the adjusted data ... and that the Secretary must release the
adjusted data unless he conclusively proves it inaccurate," Judge Feess
wrote. The Commerce Department, the judge said, contended that the
Secretary "has the discretion to reject the use of statistically
adjusted data where strong evidence exists that its use will not improve
the accuracy of the final census figure."
Rejecting both readings of §195, Judge Feess said the appropriate legal
standard for judging the decision not to adjust "is whether the
Secretary's actions are consistent with a permissible construction of
the statute." He answered that question in favor of the Secretary,
after concluding that "the paramount objective of the Census Act is
accuracy in counting population" and that "substantial evidence supports
the Census Bureau's recommendation against adjustment." In his opinion,
the judge noted the Bureau's concerns about inconsistencies between the
independent "demographic analysis" population estimate, the unadjusted
census count, and the results of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation
(A.C.E.) survey, as well as its concern about "synthetic error" and
"balancing error" associated with the A.C.E.
An attorney with O'Melveny & Myers, the law firm handling the case for
Los Angeles, said the plaintiffs were "disappointed" with the decision
and that "refusal to correct the differential undercount [of minorities,
children, and the poor]... will cost urban areas millions of dollars in
lost federal funds." Los Angeles is likely to appeal the ruling.
Appropriations update: Congressional appropriators began the process of
funding Census Bureau activities in fiscal year 2002 by holding hearings
on the Bush Administration's budget request for the Department of
Commerce. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans testified last week before
panels of both the Senate (on May 1) and House (on May 3) Appropriations
Committees. In his written testimony, Secretary Evans outlined the
Department's goals and highlighted priorities in the $4.75 billion
budget request, which includes $543.4 million for the Census Bureau.
Fiscal year 2002 (FY02) begins October 1, 2001.
Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, The
Judiciary and Related Agencies did not ask any questions related to
Census Bureau activities. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Sen. Ernest F.
Hollings (D-SC) are the panel's chairman and ranking minority member,
respectively, as they were in the 106th Congress.
Two members of the counterpart House subcommittee raised questions about
key Census Bureau programs. (Eight of the panel's 13 members attended
at least part of the hearing, which lasted nearly three and a half
hours.) Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL), who also chairs the census oversight
subcommittee, asked about plans to replace the traditional census 'long
form' with the American Community Survey (ACS) in light of concerns
about Census 2000 long form content. The Secretary said full
implementation of the ACS is "key to the 2010 census" and that testing
on a national scale would continue this year. In response to Rep.
Miller's question about the potential cost of the 2010 census, Acting
Census Bureau Director William Barron "very preliminary" cost estimates
put the price tag at $11 - $12 billion. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who
continues as the subcommittee's ranking minority member, expressed
support for including Puerto Rico in the ACS, a matter the Secretary
said he would discuss further with the congressman. The Bronx
congressman called himself a "big supporter" of the Census Bureau,
saying accurate population and socio-economic data are important to his
district. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) is the subcommittee's new chairman,
succeeding Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY).
Census Monitoring Board update: The Presidential Members of the U.S.
Census Monitoring Board have released estimated undercount rates for
metropolitan areas in ten large states. Dr. Eugene P. Ericksen of
Temple University, who prepared the estimates, said the information
would "provide some insight into within-state variations in undercount
rates." Dr. Ericksen said his estimates "are close, but not exactly
equal, to the numbers that the Census Bureau would calculate," noting
that he did not have access to all of the data the Bureau used to
evaluate the results of its Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.)
survey. He emphasized that his calculations do not represent official
Bureau estimates. The Census Bureau has not released the results of its
A.C.E. survey below the national level. Dr. Ericksen's findings are
available on the Presidential Members' web site at www.cmbp.gov
<http://www.cmbp.gov> or by calling 301-457-9900.
Last month, the Presidential Members issued a revised set of undercount
rates and numbers, also calculated by Dr. Ericksen, for all 50 states
and the District of Columbia as part of their semi-annual report to
Congress. Dr. Ericksen updated an earlier set of state undercount rates
after consulting with senior Census Bureau officials, who had criticized
his initial calculations as being "seriously flawed." Release of his
initial estimates also led House census subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller
to call for the resignation of the Monitoring Board's Presidential
Members. The Bureau did not comment on the revised state undercount
rates contained in the Monitoring Board's April 11th report. Dr.
Ericksen was co-chairman of the Special Advisory Panel on Adjustment
that advised the Commerce Secretary following the 1990 census.
The Board's Congressional Members will submit their own report to
Congress in the near future. Materials issued by the Congressional
Members are available at www.cmbc.gov <http://www.cmbc.gov> or by
calling 301-457-5080. Congress established the eight-member Census
Monitoring Board in late 1997 to monitor Census 2000 activities.
Congressional Republican leaders and President Clinton (in consultation
with congressional Democratic leaders) each appointed four members to
the panel. The Board will sunset at the end of September 2001.
Census 2000 resources: The Annie E. Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT
project and the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) have published a
chronology of key policy and operational issues surrounding Census
2000. The Road to Census 2000: A Chronology of Key Issues chronicles
significant decisions and milestones from February 1996 to March 2001
affecting the design, content, methods, and cost of the 2000 count.
The Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT project tracks the status of children
in the United States to help inform national, state, and local
discussions affecting child well-being. PRB is a non-profit,
non-advocacy organization that provides information on U.S. and
international population trends and their implications. A 'pdf' version
of the Census 2000 chronology is available through the KIDS COUNT web
site at www.kidscount.org <http://www.kidscount.org> or PRB's Ameristat
web site at www.ameristat.org <http://www.ameristat.org>.
Census data products update: This month, the Census Bureau is releasing
"local demographic profiles" for states, counties, cities, and minor
civil divisions. The profiles include basic information from the Census
2000 'short form,' such as age, housing tenure (owner v. renter),
household relationship, gender, and race/ethnicity data. The Bureau
will release the data on a state-by-state basis throughout May. The
demographic profiles will be available in text and PDF format on the
Bureau's web site, at www.census.gov <http://www.census.gov>.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be
directed to Terri Ann Lowenthal at 202/484-2270 or, by e-mail at
<mailto:terriann2k(a)aol.com>. For copies of previous News Alerts and
other information, use our web site www.census2000.org
<http://www.census2000.org>. Please direct all requests to receive News
Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census 2000
Initiative at <mailto:Census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel
free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested
individuals.
--
Ed Christopher
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street SW
Washington DC 20590
202-366-0412
Nandu Srinivasan, Ed Christopher and I have put together a BASIC flowchart and figures showing a couple of situations you may want to consider when you work with your State Data Center on defining Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) for Census 2000 PUMS. These notes are primarily for large metropolitan areas. The Census Bureau documentation, posted to the TRB Census Subcommittee at: www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/articles/pumaguidelines.pdf, has more detail for working with areas with smaller populations.
These notes have not yet been reviewed by the Census Bureau Geography Division, so we hope that we haven't made any major errors!
You may have specific issues for your areas, particularly where cities cross county and/or state boundaries, which we have not addressed in these notes.
We are hoping that there is active participation by the transportation community in the work to be completed by the State Data Centers. A list of the SDCs can be found at
http://www.census.gov/pub/sdc/www/sdctxt.html
Elaine Murakami, Federal Highway Administration
elaine.murakami(a)fhwa.dot.gov
TO: CTPP-News
In terms of PUMS, I think the process is fair in terms of using place and census tract boundaries. I've already completed the first pass on Bay Area PUMAs for 2000, and we're a large region with lots of potential changes. (Total Pop = 6,783,760; Possible PUMAs = 63; Probable # of PUMAs = 55). Desktop GIS makes this process *so* much easier than it was 10 years ago!!! It took less than *one day* to do this for my region.
MPOs, COGs, State DOTs and USDOT should be interested parties in PUMA definition, given the increasingly important role of public use microdata data in population microsimulation and advanced transportation planning analysis techniques - - TRANSIMS, for example.
My feeling is *if* the state data center is unwilling to participate in the PUMA definition program, and that state has a large metropolitan area, then perhaps the state data center should delegate responsibility for the STATE to the large MPO. If the large metro area MPO doesn't have the initiative or desire to define PUMAs for their region (and their state!), then what really can be done? Perhaps the leading academic institution in the state can lead the PUMA process? If, on the other hand, the state data center is unwilling to define PUMAs, and unwilling to let others (academic, MPOs, COGs) do the work, then probably that state data center should be dissolved and find somebody else to do the work. It can and should work as an "open process" within the reasonable rules established by the Census Bureau.
In California, I've already traded e-mails with our state data center, and they are eager to work with us on this issue. We've always had a good working relationship with our State Data Center. Our SDC has already scheduled a meeting on 5/14/01 in Los Angeles (I would assume to discuss LA PUMAs, though there is a big Census 2000 workshop at USC on 5/14....) We (State Data Center, MTC, ABAG) will have our "Bay Area PUMA" workshop in early June.
Hopefully this is not that big a problem. I want to see all state data centers working smoothly with all regional data centers, affiliate data centers, and non-affiliate data centers, ie, other MPOs, COGs and academic institutions with a "stake" in defining PUMAs and in improving census data. There really is no good excuse not to participate - - for any state! Hopefully the role of the State Data Center is to adjudicate disputes between local area PUMA stakeholders (MPOs, COGs, academics) if a local consensus isn't achieved.
PUMAs - - they're fun and easy to develop, and they're IMPORTANT!
Chuck Purvis, MTC
***********************************************
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/
***********************************************
Does this approach make sense in bi-state metro areas like Kansas City?
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
Kansas City, MO
-----Original Message-----
From: david.r.aultman(a)census.gov [mailto:david.r.aultman(a)census.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:35 AM
To: ed christopher
Cc: ctpp-news maillist; owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] PUMS Boundary Criteria
My office is in charge of the 2000 PUMA delineation program. We appreciate
that Ed Christopher made these documents available to readers of the
ctpp-news maillist so that the MPOs are aware of this program. Ed
correctly stated that the Census Bureau is only inviting the SDCs to
participate, and that interested MPOs should contact their SDC and inquire
if their input is desired.
We would like to emphasize that the Census Bureau has no plans to work
directly with any MPO. All PUMA submissions must come from the SDCs. If a
SDC declines to participate, Census Bureau staff will delineate the PUMAs
for that state, and do so without soliciting or utilizing any input from
sources other than the SDC.
ed christopher
<berwyned(a)mcs.com To: ctpp-news maillist
<ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] PUMS
Boundary Criteria
owner-ctpp-news(a)c
hrispy.net
05/03/2001 07:48
PM
Last week the Census Bureau (CB) sent a letter to the State Data
Centers(SDCs) asking them to participate in the delineation of the
Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)zones. A copy of that letter and
the criteria used in defining the zones (know as PUMAs) can be found
on the TRB census data subcommittee's web page at
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/
The direct link for the information is
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/articles/pumaguidelines.pdf
For those new to the PUMS game an article talking about the
importance of PUMS data for transportation planning can be found in
the last "status report" at
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/newsltr/sr0401.html#pums
Since PUMS data is becoming increasing more useful in the context of
transportation planning it is important for MPOs (and state DOTs) to
be close to the development of the PUMAs (pums zones) in their
areas--especially for the larger MPOs and for state planning.
Although the process of delineating the PUMAs is left to the SDCs,
MPOs and state DOTs should contact their SDC and let them know that
they have an interest in participating or assisting with the
process. In 1990 I know there were several MPOs that actually
defined the zones in their planning areas. The SDCs can be found at
http://www.census.gov/pub/sdc/www/sdctxt.html
If you contact your SDC and you find that they are NOT participating
in the program please let us know by contacting Nandu Srinivasan at
nanda.srinivasan(a)fhwa.dot.gov
ed christopher
chair, trb subcommittee on census data for transportation planning
My office is in charge of the 2000 PUMA delineation program. We appreciate
that Ed Christopher made these documents available to readers of the
ctpp-news maillist so that the MPOs are aware of this program. Ed
correctly stated that the Census Bureau is only inviting the SDCs to
participate, and that interested MPOs should contact their SDC and inquire
if their input is desired.
We would like to emphasize that the Census Bureau has no plans to work
directly with any MPO. All PUMA submissions must come from the SDCs. If a
SDC declines to participate, Census Bureau staff will delineate the PUMAs
for that state, and do so without soliciting or utilizing any input from
sources other than the SDC.
ed christopher
<berwyned(a)mcs.com To: ctpp-news maillist <ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net>
> cc:
Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] PUMS Boundary Criteria
owner-ctpp-news(a)c
hrispy.net
05/03/2001 07:48
PM
Last week the Census Bureau (CB) sent a letter to the State Data
Centers(SDCs) asking them to participate in the delineation of the
Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)zones. A copy of that letter and
the criteria used in defining the zones (know as PUMAs) can be found
on the TRB census data subcommittee's web page at
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/
The direct link for the information is
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/articles/pumaguidelines.pdf
For those new to the PUMS game an article talking about the
importance of PUMS data for transportation planning can be found in
the last "status report" at
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/newsltr/sr0401.html#pums
Since PUMS data is becoming increasing more useful in the context of
transportation planning it is important for MPOs (and state DOTs) to
be close to the development of the PUMAs (pums zones) in their
areas--especially for the larger MPOs and for state planning.
Although the process of delineating the PUMAs is left to the SDCs,
MPOs and state DOTs should contact their SDC and let them know that
they have an interest in participating or assisting with the
process. In 1990 I know there were several MPOs that actually
defined the zones in their planning areas. The SDCs can be found at
http://www.census.gov/pub/sdc/www/sdctxt.html
If you contact your SDC and you find that they are NOT participating
in the program please let us know by contacting Nandu Srinivasan at
nanda.srinivasan(a)fhwa.dot.gov
ed christopher
chair, trb subcommittee on census data for transportation planning
