CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

2 participants
3067 discussions

by CChorak＠ci.rock-hill.sc.us

----- Forwarded by Chuck Chorak/Rock-Hill on 12/12/00 01:32 PM ----- "Suzette Thieman" <sthieman(a)ci.fort-coll To: Clara.A.Reschovsky(a)census.gov, ins.co.us> ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent by: cc: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrisp Subject: Re: [CTPP] A MESSAGE FOR MPOs!! y.net 12/05/00 05:37 PM 1. Are you interested in participating? Yes, for the Rock Hill-Fort Mill MPO and the remainder of York County SC 2. What kinds of cases would you be interested in? All Cases a. All cases 3. What is the best way to communicate with you on these problems? e-Mail or phone 4. How often would you want to communicate with our coding clerks? As often as necessary b. Once every two weeks 5. Comments? we have been trying to geocode all our business in our mpo for transportation demand modeling. can correct addresses fairly easily. Please contact Clara Reschovsky at clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov or phone at 301-457-2454. Or send a fax to 301-457-2481.

24 years, 8 months

Re: [CTPP] A MESSAGE FOR MPOs!!

by Suzette Thieman

Suzette Thieman Transportation Planner North Front Range MPO 210 E Olive Ft Collins, CO 80524 Phone: 970-416-2257 Fax: 970-221-6239 >>> <Clara.A.Reschovsky(a)census.gov> 12/05 1:29 PM >>> Do you want to help code mysterious and confusing workplace locations from the census long form? One of the key elements of the CTPP is the inclusion of small area workplace data, particularly for flow between home and work. Reliable workplace coding is a difficult process, relying on the quality of the employer name and location responses provided on the census form, and the quality of the reference materials available. The reference materials include the TIGER file with street name and address ranges, and the employer name and address files that were reviewed and improved in the Work-Up process completed in 2000. To geocode workplace locations, the Census Bureau first runs an automated match routine. Next, 500-600 clerks, using all the reference materials available, try to geocode the remaining records. During the final stage, the clerks use other resources such as paper maps and the internet to try and resolve the difficult cases that cannot be matched to the main reference files. For the 1990 Census, MPOs were asked if they would be interested in assisting the Census Bureau with these problem cases, but the process of contacting MPOs for assistance was not implemented. The Census Bureau staff is now getting legal approval to request assistance from the MPOs so that this program can be employed for Census 2000. If we are allowed to pursue this program, we want to know if you would be willing to help, and how much effort you would be able to devote to the task. We would need a quick turn around time of five working days or less on any responses you were provided. This work would occur between February and July of 2001. Please respond by December 19, 2000 to the following questions. 1. Are you interested in participating? Yes a. Yes b. No, skip questions 2-4 2. What kinds of cases would you be interested in? All Cases a. All cases b. Only acronyms and abbreviations c. Only frequently occurring names 3. What is the best way to communicate with you on these problems? e-Mail or phone a. Email b. FAX c. Phone 4. How often would you want to communicate with our coding clerks? As often as necessary a. Once or twice a week b. Once every two weeks c. One time only 5. Comments? Thank You. We have interns that work in our office that would be able to do this type of work. However it does need to fit in with their call schedules. But we all want the best data we can get. Please contact Clara Reschovsky at clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov or phone at 301-457-2454. Or send a fax to 301-457-2481.

24 years, 8 months

[CTPP] A MESSAGE FOR MPOs!!

by Clara.A.Reschovsky＠census.gov

Do you want to help code mysterious and confusing workplace locations from the census long form? One of the key elements of the CTPP is the inclusion of small area workplace data, particularly for flow between home and work. Reliable workplace coding is a difficult process, relying on the quality of the employer name and location responses provided on the census form, and the quality of the reference materials available. The reference materials include the TIGER file with street name and address ranges, and the employer name and address files that were reviewed and improved in the Work-Up process completed in 2000. To geocode workplace locations, the Census Bureau first runs an automated match routine. Next, 500-600 clerks, using all the reference materials available, try to geocode the remaining records. During the final stage, the clerks use other resources such as paper maps and the internet to try and resolve the difficult cases that cannot be matched to the main reference files. For the 1990 Census, MPOs were asked if they would be interested in assisting the Census Bureau with these problem cases, but the process of contacting MPOs for assistance was not implemented. The Census Bureau staff is now getting legal approval to request assistance from the MPOs so that this program can be employed for Census 2000. If we are allowed to pursue this program, we want to know if you would be willing to help, and how much effort you would be able to devote to the task. We would need a quick turn around time of five working days or less on any responses you were provided. This work would occur between February and July of 2001. Please respond by December 19, 2000 to the following questions. 1. Are you interested in participating? a. Yes b. No, skip questions 2-4 2. What kinds of cases would you be interested in? a. All cases b. Only acronyms and abbreviations c. Only frequently occurring names 3. What is the best way to communicate with you on these problems? a. Email b. FAX c. Phone 4. How often would you want to communicate with our coding clerks? a. Once or twice a week b. Once every two weeks c. One time only 5. Comments? Thank You. Please contact Clara Reschovsky at clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov or phone at 301-457-2454. Or send a fax to 301-457-2481.

24 years, 8 months

[CTPP] PUMS update

by ed christopher

I just received this and I posting it for those following the PUMS issue. ====================== Subject: News on 2000 PUMS From: "Steve Ruggles" <ruggles(a)hist.umn.edu> Dear PUMS Users: I am happy to report success in our efforts to preserve needed detail in the 2000 PUMS. Over 1,000 of you voiced your concerns to the Census Bureau by completing the Task Force on the 2000 PUMS survey and over a hundred also directly contacted the Census Bureau Director and Principal Associate Director for Programs. The Census Bureau took our concerns seriously. In a report dated October 19, the Bureau has adopted all the principal recommendations of the Task Force. Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) of 100,000 population will be identified in the 5% sample; in the 1% sample, however, PUMAs will have a minimum threshold of 400,000. As recommended in the Task Force report, subject categories with at least 10,000 persons nationally will be identified in the 5% sample; even greater detail, closely comparable to the 1990 PUMS, will be available in the 1% sample. In both the 5% and the 1% files, individual ages will be preserved through age 90. By taking these steps, the Census Bureau has confirmed its reputation for scientific integrity and resisted the pressure to compromise the PUMS files. While taking measured and responsible steps to ensure respondent confidentiality, the Bureau has also preserved the usefulness of the data for essential scientific and policy research applications. For full details, the complete report is available at http://www.ipums.org/~census2000/. Please note that some of the issues addressed in the memo--particularly regarding the race variables--are not yet finalized and may change in the upcoming weeks. My thanks to Barry Edmonston for a copy of the report, and to the Bureau for giving us permission to post it. Steve Ruggles Chair, Task Force on Census 2000 Steven Ruggles Minnesota Population Center http://www.pop.umn.edu 537 Heller, University of Minnesota 271 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 FAX: (612) 624-7096 PHONE: (612) 624-5818 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

24 years, 9 months

[CTPP] Notes from the American Public Data Users' Meeting

by Elaine Murakami

Below please find the notes that Nandu took at the meeting earlier this week. These topics are important because: 1. The long form in Census 2000 may be the LAST one. Instead of the long form, the Census Bureau is testing a continuous survey (some surveys each month, on an on-going basis), called the American Community Survey (ACS). However, there are still many Congressional concerns about the ACS and the content, sample size, and cost. 2. Although you very likely understand the value of the CTPP tabulations, most of you have never used the Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). Some of the work on TRANSIMS (the microsimulation system) that is aiming to replace (?) the 4-step travel demand modeling system uses PUMS, so it is important to keep this file as useable as possible for transportation applications. We have asked Jim Ryan of FTA to write an article for the next issue of the CTPP Status Report about this process in TRANSIMS. ―--------------------------------- Notes from Nandu Srinivasan on APDU 2000 Annual Meeting Adjusted Counts: The Census Bureau is conducting a coverage evaluation program in 11,000 blocks across the country. In February 2001, the Census Bureau will decide whether an adjustment of counts is needed for the PL-94-171 file. If they decide to adjust, only the population and not the housing units will be adjusted in the 100 percent data releases. This is because the coverage evaluation program only counts people, not housing units. However, by the time SF3 comes along, the Census Bureau will adjust the household counts too. PUMS for 2000 Louisa Miller of the Census Bureau, Population Division gave a talk on PUMS 2000. Louisa said that the scheme she presented is not final, but a final proposal will soon be made. We should respond to her soon if we need any changes to this scheme. I asked for a copy of a research document the Census Bureau will be soon putting out on the disclosure issue. After the May 22, 2000 PUMS Meeting, and the Letter-Writing campaign, Louisa reported that there was an overwhelming preference for the following option on PUMS. 1. The five percent State-Level File; and a 2. One percent National Characteristics File. PUMAs will be delineated through input gathered from the State Data Centers (SDCs). State PUMAs will contain at least 100,000 people. PUMAs would be constituted completely within State boundaries. Super PUMAs of 400,000 people would be defined for the National Characteristics file, and these will fall strictly within State Boundaries. Records in the National file will include a State PUMA variable. Content: Census Bureau (CB) is planning a minimum population threshold of 10,000 people (nationwide) for identification of groups within most categorical variables. The CB will use weighted counts to determine the number of people nationwide, and not number of individual long form responses. For example, if Asian Indians were determined to be more than 10,000 nationwide, then "Asian Indian" will be identified as a separate ancestry group in every PUMA. CB is considering post-processing for state files: i.e. they will first select all the records to report in PUMS, examine the characteristics in the data, and then decide: a. What variables will be collapsed/categorized? b. How will the variables be collapsed/categorized? This comment evoked response from Joe Salvo who said that such a process can result in delay of the final product. Current Census Bureau Proposal for Specific Variables: The dollar amounts for income types, utility costs, mortgage costs, rent, condominium fees, hazard insurance costs, and mobile home fees will be rounded as follows: Money $1-$7 =$5 $8-$999= nearest $10 $1000-$49,999= nearest $100 $50,000 or more= nearest $1000 Age Single year categories for 0-89 with topcoding of 90 and above. Year of entry Year of entry for foreign born (in both national and state files): Bottom coded, corresponding to topcoding for age detail. They did not say what the bottom code would be, but I assume they will use the 10,000 limit. Country of Origin Louisa did not mention this variable specifically, but she said that Census Bureau will use the 10,000 people nationwide rule for including specific countries (she illustrated by saying that if there were 10,000 Lithuanians nationwide, then "Lithuanian" would be used as a category). Race and Hispanic Origin: CB will go by a pre-defined list of 63 categories for the national file. For the state file, the additional criteria of 10,000 people nationwide will be used. Household Size: The CB proposal is to omit geographic detail of State PUMA from records of households with 10 or more persons. Only the State name will be on the record. This statement evoked the most concern from almost everyone. To prevent individual disclosure, attendees preferred that the geographic detail of State PUMA be retained, but the age of the respondent be rounded. Joe Salvo said such households are usually concentrated in New York, and the state PUMA identifier is very important. One difference between 2000 and 1990 Census is that in 1990 every household that had 10 or more people was flagged and revisited to ascertain if they were group quarters or not. In 2000, the Census Bureau used its Master Address File (MAF) to designate which households were group quarters and which were not. Since the CB did not perform field checks to verify households with 10 or more people, the assignment could be wrong. Some of these are probably group quarters. Travel Time: Travel time will be treated as a continuous variable with standard topcoding, but no other collapsing or rounding. Louisa did not know the details, but I said USDOT asked for 1 minute increments up to the top code which was 90 minutes using 1990 data. Departure Time: They showed the following scheme: 2400-0259: 30 minute intervals. 0300-0459: 10 minute intervals. 0500-1059: 5 minute intervals. 1100-2359: 10 minute intervals. Several attendees felt (Patty Becker talked at length on this) that the real disclosure issue was the PL-94-171 file since there will be 63 categories at the block level. Some felt that the Census Bureau has to exercise more control on the "aggregate cells" in tabulations at a lower level of geography rather than cutting down on PUMS. American Community Survey (ACS) Census Bureau Views Cost Issues Charles (Chip) Alexander presented ACS in the Wednesday morning session. He said the Census Bureau is working out the cost of the ACS. Chip asserted that CB cost projections show that ACS cost will range somewhere near decennial costs based on what it cost them for the 31 sites in 1990. However, he did not provide any supporting materials to substantiate this projection. Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) and Viability of ACS Chip Alexander also mentioned that there will be a continuous LUCA program implemented by the geography division, and that item response in ACS was just as good as the long form for 1990. Incidentally, Ken Prewitt repeatedly stressed this point at both the SDC and the APDU meetings, claiming that item response effectively proves the viability of ACS. However, Chip Walker (staff from Rep. Dan Miller's, (R.-F.L.) Census sub-committee) said that ACS is in its "test" stage. Chip Alexander also briefly touched on the residence issues of ACS. He said that the ACS uses the "current residence" rule implying people are counted where they are found. View from the Hill Chip Walker said in the "View from the Hill" session that Rep. Dan Miller is opposed to having a long form in 2010. The issues Congress wants to thrash out with ACS are primarily those of privacy, and the "mandatory to answer" issue. Both the Congressional personnel that addressed the "View from the Hill" (Tuesday afternoon) session repeatedly pointed out that the transportation questions elicit the maximum concern from the public. Republican Side: Chip said that all the questions will need to be revisited to determine legal requirements for including specific questions in the ACS. He also said they will work with Kathy Wallman's OMB interagency committee to review the wording of the questions, so that they do not "appear to violate privacy". Chip, however, said in the end (to me) that the transportation questions (especially the "Time of Departure" question) elicited some negative response from only from the rural and non-metro areas. People in metro areas did not complain as much. Democratic Side: David McMillen (staff of Rep. Henry Waxman, (D.-C.A.)) said the Congress wants to know the history and genesis of each question in the Census. He said the Census is primarily a political tool, and that it is therefore obvious that it is a politically contentious issue. He said, any question other than the constitutional requirements need to be justified as to: a. Why are they asked? b. Why should they be asked in ACS and not elsewhere? Eg: Why are they asking transportation questions? David continued to talk on how the executive and legislative wings fight over "who has the real power" in the US, and talked at length on history. Census Advisory Board View Joe Salvo talked about the importance of evaluating the ACS data. He stressed that since ACS is adjusted to "current population estimates" of the Census Bureau, the numbers in ACS are only as good as the population numbers. Secondly, the ACS sample is taken from the Master Address File. So, several people can be left out of the sample. Even in the decennial LUCA process, several jurisdictions did not participate. This can adversely affect the uniformity and quality of the data. The other big issue with the ACS (per Joe Salvo) is that only 1 in three of the non-respondents will be followed up. This issue coupled with undercount issues makes the estimates a bit uneven. He said that he was only going to talk about ACS data at a tract level since going below that is "scary". Charles Alexander said that the "confidence intervals" for ACS were larger than the long form. If the long form's estimates are in the range of 10 + 2 percent, the ACS ranges are somewhere at 10 + 2.6 percent. Joe said he had examined the data for Rockville county in NY and the response rates varied between an abysmal 25% to 80% in just the 40 tracts where the survey was conducted. In the end Joe asked the question, "Can the ACS produce good small area estimates?" Notwithstanding all the problems, he felt that five year aggregates produce good tract level data. However, ACS is still in the experimental stage. Joe emphasized that local demographers in the 31 sites need to examine ACS data for their areas using their local knowledge. Local User's Views: Thabet Zakaria of DVRPC pointed out that he cannot use ACS estimates for three reasons. 1. ACS sample size was not enough every year. 2. Local politicians consider anything but the decennial census to be a unauthentic, and will not use those numbers to base "any decision" relating to money and spending. 3. From his 20 year experience in using Census Data, he feels that the decennial Census data are relevant and useable data for at least 10 years. He said all his work depended on the long form, and the ACS is not going to make things easy for him. Charles Alexander replied that confidence intervals in ACS are not that bad, and that things do change rapidly in some areas. For example, in places like Clark County, Nevada, significant population and demographic changes have occurred in the past decade both at lower levels of geography, and at a county level. The ACS is designed to measure such changes, along with measuring everything else that the decennial long form does.

24 years, 9 months

[CTPP] Pass The Word

by ed christopher

This past May, the TRB Subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation Planning submitted a TCRP (transit cooperative research program) proposal. The proposal called for the development of training materials to assist transit system planners to obtain and use census and other federal statistical data sources. This past July, a group of transit experts met to review over 125 TCRP proposals and our project, "Census Data for Transit Systems Planning", survived the cut and is alive and kicking (along with 33 other project proposals). The next step is for the 33 projects to go before the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee when it meets on October 26-27, 2000. From there, based on past practice, less than 10 of the problem statements are likely to be selected and will then be issued as Requests for Proposals so work can begin. Between now and October 22, the TOPS committee is looking for comments on the 33 projects. Needless to say the TRB Subcommittee thinks ours is a good project deserving of positive comments. Recognizing that the CTPP (and other Census data--PUMS, ACS) are relatively new to the transit community, albeit important, it is vital for our MPO and state friends to let their transit contacts know about this project and the TOPS comment period. Information about this open comment period can be found at http://www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/tcrp/problems.nsf Our specific project is number 32 under category H, Policy and Planning http://www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/tcrp/problems.nsf/field+H

24 years, 10 months

[CTPP] NPTS 2000 update

by Nancy Mcguckin

The funding for the national NPTS is still not resolved-- we are awaiting Congressional action on the DOT appropriations. This may not be resolved until sometime in the latter half of October. Each add-on area pays for the samples collected in their own locale, so they are self-supporting. Therefore, the program is going ahead as planned, but the start date would be delayed a month or two. We are very pleased to have serious interest in the add-on component from three states and eight MPOs totaling about 60,000 households. It's not too late to become an add-on! We are trying to post updates on the TMIP listserve and the CTTP listserve, but the status of the national funding hasn't changed. When the dam breaks we expect a quick resolution. Hope this is helpful,

24 years, 10 months

[CTPP] News Alert

by ed christopher

From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> Census Bureau Reports Final Mail-Back Rates; Court Hears Preliminary Arguments in Virginia Redistricting Case Plus: Legislators Propose Fixed Term for Census Director; Congressional and Monitoring Board news; and more. The final mail response rate for Census 2000 was 67 percent, two percent higher than in 1990, Commerce Department and Census Bureau officials reported at a Washington, DC press briefing on September 19. The revised figure reflects an additional three million households that mailed back a form after the April 18 cut-off date - more late forms than in any previous census. The Census Bureau reported a preliminary response rate of 65 percent after the mail-out/mail-back phase of the count ended. Five states - California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Wyoming -increased their response rates by five percent over 1990, meeting the Census Bureau's "'90 Plus 5" challenge to state and local governments. Nearly 9,300 other governmental units also met or exceeded their challenge goal. Thirteen of the nation's 15 largest cities and 14 of the 15 largest counties equaled or beat their 1990 response rates. The difference between the mail-back rates for the short and long census forms was eleven percent. Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt said census takers closed most of that gap during follow-ups visits to unresponsive households. Secretary of Commerce Norman Y. Mineta praised career Census Bureau employees for their "tremendous service" to the country, noting that they work largely out of the public spotlight for most of each decade. He also highlighted the importance of census data as "fundamental to the operation of the economy." Commerce Under Secretary Robert J. Shapiro said the 140,000 Census 2000 'partner' organizations from every sector of society made this count "a model of civic engagement by the government." The Census Bureau has begun its campaign to thank organizations and local governments that participated in the partnership program. Dr. Prewitt called the increase over the 1990 mail-back rate an "historical achievement" because "a decade long trend line in social behavior is hard to change... and reverse." Census 2000 is the first since the all-mail census started in 1970 to improve upon the response of the previous count. The mail response rate dropped from a high of 78 percent in 1970 to 75 percent in 1980 and 65 percent in 1990. The Census Bureau projected a 61 percent response rate for 2000. The director also said the high response rates are not predictive of the count's accuracy. "You can have a quite good census and still not solve the undercount problem," Dr. Prewitt said, noting that the undercount affects two to three percent of the population and is disproportionately high for some population subgroups. He said the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E. survey) would give the best measure of accuracy. The mail response rate represents the percentage of known addresses in the universe of "mail-back" operations from which the Bureau collected a questionnaire or Be Counted form by mail, Internet, or over the telephone. Enumerators later determine that some of those addresses are vacant or nonexistent housing units. The Census Bureau also counts some housing units in rural or remote areas, including many American Indian reservations and Alaska Native villages, by sending enumerators to verify or determine the address and location, and to conduct an interview in person. Housing units counted through these "update/enumerate" or "list/enumerate" procedures are not in the mail-back universe. Next year, the Bureau will release the mail return rate, which represents the percentage of occupied housing units that responded by mail, Internet, or telephone. The return rate is a more precise indication of public participation in the census. Response rates for all governmental units are available on the Census Bureau's web site at <http://rates.census.gov/> Legislation to set a fixed term for Census Bureau director: The chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on the Census have made separate proposals to set a fixed term of office for the Census Bureau director. A bill (H.R. 5257) sponsored by Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) would establish a ten-year fixed term for the director, currently the only political appointee in the agency requiring Senate confirmation. Rep. Miller called the legislation "the first step in removing partisan politics from the census" and said a fixed term appointment would give the director more independence and more protection from partisan influence. The chairman, who has been at odds with the Census Bureau over the use of statistical sampling to correct for under- and overcounts, said in a press release that the Clinton Administration "has politicized the census and damaged the integrity of our national count." A ten-year term, similar to that of the FBI director, would allow a director "to supervise an entire census from planning to implementation," Rep. Miller said. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) is seeking cosponsors for legislation she plans to introduce that would establish a five-year term of office for the director. Rep. Maloney said her bill would "ensure that the Census Bureau continues to provide the most accurate, non-partisan data possible." By starting five-year terms in 2002, the congresswoman said, her proposal would "guarantee continuity during each decennial census." President George Bush's census director, Barbara Everitt Bryant, did not take office until December 1989, only months before the start of a census she did not help plan. Traditionally, Census Bureau directors leave office when the President who appointed them does, if not before. The Bureau's director is the only head of a major statistical agency in the United States who serves at the pleasure of the president, instead of a fixed term that usually carries over from one administration to another. Congressional hearing postponed: The House Subcommittee on the Census has postponed its hearing, originally scheduled for September 26, to review a proposed Commerce Department rule giving the Census Bureau director final say over the decision to release statistically-corrected census numbers next spring. The panel has not announced a new date for the hearing. State legislative activities update: The U.S. Department of Justice told a federal court yesterday it should dismiss or delay consideration of a lawsuit filed last April by the Commonwealth of Virginia, seeking approval for a new state law that prohibits the use of adjusted census numbers for redistricting. The court scheduled the hour-long hearing to consider the Justice Department's argument that it cannot determine if the Virginia law adversely affects the voting rights of racial minorities until detailed census data are released next March. Virginia is one of 16 states covered by section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires Justice Department approval for any changes to election law because of past discrimination in election practices. The state's Attorney General decided to by-pass the "pre-clearance" procedure and sought direct approval for the law in court. Virginia's Deputy Attorney General, Frank Ferguson, urged the judges to allow the case to proceed, saying a delay might prevent the state from redrawing its legislative district boundaries in time for the 2001 election cycle. Virginia's lawsuit contends that using statistically corrected census data for redistricting would violate the Census Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court said (in a January 1999 ruling) prohibits the use of sampling to derive state population totals used to apportion congressional districts among the 50 states. The state also contends the U.S. Constitution bars the use of statistical sampling in tabulating population counts used for apportionment and redistricting. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is considering the case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Reno, et al (Civil Action No. 1:00CV00751). Either party to the lawsuit can appeal the lower court's ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. A group of 15 cities and counties, led by the City of Los Angeles, recently joined the lawsuit in opposition to the Virginia law. Congressional Monitoring Board report due: The eight-member Census Monitoring Board is scheduled to release its next report the first week of October. A primary focus of the report will likely be the panel's visits to dozens of Local Census Offices over the past few months, to observe and evaluate census field operations. The Board, created in late 1997, has four members appointed by the President and four appointed by Republican congressional leaders. It will operate through September 2001. For information on the Board's activities and copies of reports, visit the web site for the Presidential members at www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov> and the Congressional members at www.cmbc.gov <http://www.cmbc.gov>. Final News Alert: This is the final News Alert the Census 2000 Initiative will distribute. The Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC) is grateful to the many organizations and individuals that received our news updates over the past several years, for their deep interest in and strong support of an accurate census that collects a range of critical demographic and socio-economic data. CCMC is exploring the creation of a similar outreach project to keep Census Bureau stakeholders informed about key policy decisions affecting the collection of important socio-economic data in the post-Census 2000 era. We hope to be back in touch with you next year. 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 <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 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

24 years, 10 months

[CTPP] Census 2000 News Alert (very long)

by ed christopher

From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> Early Fall Update: Commerce Weighs Comments On Proposed Adjustment Decision Rule; House Members Spar Over Census Investigation; Virginia Redistricting Case Attracts More Litigants Plus: Funding Bills Top Congressional Agenda; Census Operational Update; Upcoming Stakeholder Events The U.S. Commerce Department is reviewing comments from members of Congress, former Census Bureau directors, data users, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders on a proposed rule to give the Census Bureau director final say over the decision to release statistically-corrected census numbers next spring. Former Secretary of Commerce William Daley announced the proposed rule in June; the 45-day comment period ended in early August. The department is expected to issue a final rule this fall. The Census 2000 Initiative's August 10th News Alert summarized comments in favor of the proposed rule submitted by four former Census Bureau directors, as well as advocacy groups such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and nearly 200 statisticians, demographers, and other census experts. Since then, the Census Bureau has posted additional comments on its web site, both supporting and opposing the proposal. Among those favoring the delegation of decision-making authority are the American Sociological Association and the Consortium of Social Science Associations, as well as 27 Democratic members of the California congressional delegation. Among those submitting comments critical of the proposed delegation are Michigan Governor John Engler and the Southeastern Legal Foundation. House Census Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) and several Republican colleagues, who co-signed a letter criticizing the rule, said Congress has vested decision-making authority exclusively in the Secretary of Commerce. The proposed rule creates a steering committee of senior Census Bureau career professionals to evaluate the results of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey (designed to measure under- and overcounts in the direct enumeration) and statistical estimation process (adjusting the census counts based on the A.C.E. results). The committee would issue a report to the director, recommending whether data based solely on the direct enumeration or corrected based on statistical methods are more accurate. The director's decision on whether to release statistically corrected data would be final and shielded from review or reversal by the Secretary of Commerce. By law, the Census Bureau must release population totals for each state by December 31, to be used as the basis for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states. The Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that a provision of the Census Act bars the use of sampling methods to derive the population counts used for congressional apportionment. (The Court issued its opinion in a lawsuit filed by SLF Executive Director Matthew Glavin.) The Court did not rule out the use of sampling to produce census data used for other purposes, such as drawing political district boundaries and allocating federal program funds to states and municipalities. The Bureau must transmit more detailed population counts, including race and voting age information, to the states by April 1, 2001. Comments submitted as part of the rule-making process are posted on the Census Bureau's web site, at www.census.gov/dmd/www/Feascom.htm <http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/Feascom.htm>. Congressional oversight update: Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on the Census, accused congressional Republicans of impeding the census with requests for investigations, which she said were part of an effort "to stop the professionals at the Census Bureau from using modern statistical methods" to eliminate the undercount of racial minorities. At a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday, the congresswoman said allegations of fraud and rushed operations were "a thinly veiled attempt to cast a cloud on the census" and that nearly 100 letters of inquiry to the Census Bureau this year, from the subcommittee's chairman, were intended "to slow down and disrupt the process" and "prevent an accurate count." Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Carrie Meek (D-FL) joined Rep. Maloney in seeking signatures on a letter to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), calling for an end to "senseless investigations" of the Bureau's activities and Census 2000 operations. Responding on behalf of Speaker Hastert to the draft letter, subcommittee Chairman Miller wrote, "It would be irresponsible to write the Bureau a 6.5 billion dollar check to conduct the census and turn our backs, as you would do." He called his panel's oversight of the Census Bureau "fully warranted" and said the scope of the census required "more oversight, not less." The congressman pointed to several requests Rep. Maloney and Rep. Meek had made for investigations of reported operational problems. Rep. Maloney told reporters she had sought "isolated" reviews, compared to a "barrage" of requests by the subcommittee's Republican members. The letter being circulated by Reps. Maloney, Johnson, and Meek referenced three investigations related to Census 2000. In July, Rep. Miller asked the Census Bureau to review counting operations in 15 Local Census Offices, which he said may have used "improper or fraudulent procedures" in order to finish their follow-up visit caseloads early. Later that month, the chairman asked the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to review e-mails and other communications among Census Bureau employees pertaining to requests for information from the GAO, Congress, and other oversight bodies. Rep. Maloney urged the GAO to limit the scope of its review, calling the proposed request an "unprecedented invasion of privacy." Last month, Chairman Miller asked three federal agencies to investigate the Census Bureau's involvement in a symposium on "challenges facing the African American community," held in Los Angeles days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. In a letter to the Justice Department's Office of Special Counsel, the Commerce Department's Inspector General, and the U.S. General Accounting Office, Rep. Miller said "taxpayer resources," including the Census 2000 logo and staff time, might have been used for "partisan political activities." He requested "full disclosure of all those who planned, authorized, or participated in the event," materials distributed, costs, and "financial donations." The August 12th symposium, held at the University of Southern California, was organized by Tavis Smiley, a Black Entertainment Television talk show host and commentator on the nationally syndicated, daily radio talk show, "The Tom Joyner Morning Show." Materials announcing the public event said the forum was "ideally timed to the eve of the Democratic National Convention" and "has the potential to ignite the voter participation, coalition-building, and grass roots activism [needed] to effect change." The materials listed several sponsors, including "Census 2000," Microsoft, AT&T, and US Airways. The Democratic National Convention Committee included the symposium on a list of events taking place in the vicinity of the convention, which began on August 14, but was not a sponsor of the symposium and was not represented at the event. During subsequent radio broadcasts, Mr. Smiley, who signed a partnership agreement with the Census Bureau, and Mr. Joyner said three regional Census Bureau employees distributed outreach materials from an exhibit booth at the symposium. In a written statement, Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt said Census 2000 'partners' are authorized to use the Census 2000 logo and may ask partnership specialists to hand out promotional materials at their events. State legislative activities update: Led by the City of Los Angeles, a group of 15 cities and counties has joined a lawsuit over the use of adjusted census data for legislative redistricting, filed by the State of Virginia last April against the U.S. Department of Justice. Virginia enacted a law last spring, barring the use of statistically corrected census data for drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The state is one of 16 with a history of racial discrimination in the electoral process, required by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to obtain approval from the Justice Department for any changes in election law. Virginia's Attorney General asked the federal district court for the District of Columbia to declare the new law valid, in light of the 1999 Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the use of adjusted census numbers for congressional apportionment. The Justice Department subsequently asked the three-judge court to put off hearing the case, saying it would be premature to assess the effect on minority voting rights of using unadjusted census numbers for redistricting until the data are released next spring. A hearing on that issue is set for September 21. The municipalities filed a motion in July to join the lawsuit as 'intervenor-defendants,' saying that Virginia's request for a ruling that the use of statistically adjusted census data for redistricting violates the U.S. Constitution and the Census Act "goes beyond the parochial interests" of the state. They said Virginia's new law, which cannot take effect without approval from the Justice Department or a federal court, "def[ies] logic" because it requires the use of data the Census Bureau believes is less accurate than data corrected on the basis of sampling methods. State Attorney General Mark Earley opposed the localities' request to intervene. Joining Los Angeles as intervenor-defendants in the lawsuit are the cities of Richmond, VA; San Francisco; Inglewood, CA; Houston; Denver; Oakland, CA; Stamford, CT; Dearborn, MI; and San Antonio, TX; and the counties of Los Angeles; San Francisco; Dade, FL; Santa Clara, CA; San Bernadino, CA; and Alameda, CA. The case is Commonwealth of Virginia v. Reno, et al (Civil Action No. 1:00CV00751). Commerce/Census appropriations update: Funding bills for the fiscal year beginning October 1st top the agenda for legislators returning to Washington this week from their summer recess. The Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations bill, which includes funding for Census 2000, cleared the House on June 26 and is awaiting further action by the Senate. The Senate appropriations committee passed its version of the measure on July 18 (the Senate language was approved as a substitute to the House bill, leaving only one numbered bill, H.R. 4690, for consideration). The House and Senate measures both allocate about $390 million, roughly the amount the Administration requested, for the Census Bureau to complete Census 2000 operations and begin tabulating and disseminating the data. The House provided about $50 million less than requested for non-decennial census statistical programs, while Senate appropriators shaved about $25 million from non-decennial activities. Current year funding for all government agencies runs out on September 30. Census operations update: The Census Bureau has completed its field work and begun the enormous task of tabulating the data collected in Census 2000, Director Prewitt said at a press briefing yesterday in Washington, DC. Ten of the 520 local census offices shut down last week, with another 160 set to close within a few weeks. All local offices will be closed by mid-October. In order to meet legal deadlines, the Census Bureau is tabulating the state population totals for apportionment, which include members of the armed forces and federal civilian personnel stationed overseas, and the more detailed block-level counts that it transmits to the states next spring for redistricting. The Bureau will tabulate and disseminate other data collected in the census on the nation's population, housing, social, and economic characteristics, for various levels of geography, on a flow basis over the next few years. Stakeholder activities: The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College (Annandale-on-Hudson, New York) will host a conference on "Multiraciality: How Will the New Census Data Be Used?" on September 22-23. Participants will discuss the new federal standards for collecting racial data, which allow respondents to select more than one race for the first time, and the implications for statistics, civil and voting rights law, and projecting racial composition in the future. Joel Perlmann, Senior Scholar at the Institute, and Mary Waters, Professor of Sociology at Harvard, organized the event. The program and registration information are available on the Internet at www.levy.org <http://www.levy.org> or by calling 845/758-7700. The Commerce Department's Decennial Census Advisory Committee will meet September 21-22, at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center Hotel, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA. An agenda will be available shortly; the meeting, which runs from 9:00 am - 5:00 pm on September 21 and 9:00 am - 12:00 noon on September 22, is open to the public. 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 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 Census2000(a)ccmc.org or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

24 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Urgent: Proposal for reporting travel time and departure time in PUMS 2000.

by Nanda Srinivasan

In the July CTPP Status Report (http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/newsltr/sr0700.html), we mentioned the Census Bureau proposal for PUMS 2000 to round travel time to work to five minute intervals, and round departure time to work to 15 minute intervals. Dr. Ashish Sen, Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Mary E. Peters, Chair, AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning sent a letter to the Census Bureau expressing our concerns. Since then, the Census Bureau assigned Phil Salopek to work with the Department of Transportation and AASHTO to address our concerns. The following are the suggestions of the CTPP Working Group for reporting Travel time and Departure time in PUMS 2000. We would like your comments on our proposal. Please write to Nanda Srinivasan at ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov (phone: 202-366-5021) by September 1, 2000. Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan Proposal for PUMS: To protect individual confidentiality, the Census Bureau is generally using two approaches to reduce the chance of disclosure. For variables that are considered to form a continuous distribution, top coding is being used. At the national level, the top category must contain at least: a) 0.5% of the total US population (about 1.4 million persons), or b) 3% of the subpopulation or universe of the variable. The smaller result of a) and b) may be used. For variables that are categorical in nature, the Census Bureau is requiring that there be at least 10,000 persons (nationwide) in any specified category or grouping of values. There is no restriction on how the categories are formed, as long as they each contain enough people. If a category that has been specified beforehand turns out to have too few cases in it, the category will be combined with another one. Travel time: Travel time is a continuous variable. We would like Travel time to be reported in individual minutes between 1 and 89 minutes, and 90 and over as a top code. Explanation: According to the 1990 census 1.7 million people took 90+ minutes to get to work (but only about 850,000 took 91+ minutes). For criterion b) we would use 3% of the number of workers not working at home (111,664,249), or 3.3 million people. Since the result of criterion a) is smaller, for 2000 PUMS we could expect to get individual minutes of travel time from 1 to 89 minutes, with the top category being 90+ minutes. Departure time: We believe that time leaving home to go to work (departure time) should be treated as a categorical variable. We recommend the following scheme: 1. Midnight to 3 a.m. - 30 minute intevals. 2. 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. - 10 minute intervals. 3. 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. - 5 minute intervals. 4. 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. - 10 minute intervals. 5. 7 p.m. to midnight - 15 minute intervals. The attached adobe acrobat (.pdf) file provides the proposed specification of categories.

24 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

CTPP