CTPP

ctpp@listserv.transportation.org

3041 discussions

[CTPP] Census 2000 News Alert

by ed c

Supreme Court Sets Date for Oral Arguments At Hearing, Rep. Miller Says Sampling OK for Federal Aid, Not Apportionment; Rep. Maloney Presses Critics for Undercount Remedies Stakeholders Renew Call for Full Funding or Veto; Senate Schedules Prewitt Nomination Hearing The United States Supreme Court announced today that it would hear oral arguments in the case of U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce, on November 30. A special three-judge federal district court ruled in the case last month that the Census Act barred the use of sampling and statistical methods to derive the census counts used for congressional apportionment. Congress provided for a speedy review of census challenges and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Both sides in the case had asked the high court to review the case quickly. At a hearing on Wednesday, the chairman of the House census subcommittee called on the Census Bureau to abandon a census plan that includes sampling to produce population counts for congressional apportionment but suggested that scientific methods could be used to produce data for distributing federal aid. Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL) also said it would be "unwise" to delay a final decision on the use of sampling until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality and legality of the methods. He said it is time "to put the 'issue' of sampling to bed." Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who supports the Bureau's census plan, challenged the chairman "to propose a credible alternative" that will reduce the undercount. The subcommittee's senior Democrat chided panel Republicans for suggesting counting options, such as administrative records, without exposing the methods to a thorough review. She also accused sampling critics of having a "political agenda," citing a fundraising letter for a court challenge against sampling that included a Republican National Committee memo about the potential loss of Republican legislative seats if the Bureau's plan goes forward. Reps. Miller and Maloney made their remarks at a hearing yesterday to review the Census Bureau's effort to prepare for a census without sampling methods. Under Secretary of Commerce Robert Shapiro told the subcommittee that any lapse in funding for census preparations would put the entire census "at grave risk" by delaying completion of address lists, questionnaire printing, and opening of local offices. Mr. Shapiro noted that failure to reach agreement on the Bureau's 1999 funding bill by October 1 (the start of the fiscal year) could lead to a temporary funding measure that only allows spending at current levels (known as a Continuing Resolution). Without a steady increase in funds leading up to the actual census, the Bureau would be forced to lay off 22,000 address list employees immediately, he said. Mr. Shapiro also warned that the $476 million allocated by the House for 2000 census work through March 31, 1999 would only last through January, resulting in delays of all census preparations. Mr. Shapiro promised to present a full plan for a traditional census in November but cautioned that the Administration is likely to request additional funds in 1999 if it is required to proceed with that plan. Chairman Miller pledged to help ensure that the Census Bureau would be exempt from spending caps in a temporary funding measure and that it would receive sufficient funds to continue preparations on schedule through March 31. Acting Census Bureau Director James Holmes noted in his testimony that most of the Bureau's pre-census work and funds were devoted to activities that were needed for a census with or without sampling methods. He said the Bureau had created 20 teams to explore options for a nonsampling census, including the use of administrative records, staffing needs for door-to-door visits to all unresponsive households, and targeting replacement forms to historically low-response communities. Stakeholders Call for Full Funding: At a Washington press conference on Tuesday, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights released a letter to Congress from Americans for a Fair and Accurate Census, calling for full, uninterrupted funding for 2000 census preparations. The coalition of religious and civil rights groups, children's and women's advocates, scientific associations, and local government officials said it would ask the President to veto any spending measure that limits funding to six months. Leaders of the National Council of La Raza, the Council of Great City Schools, and the Children's Defense Fund also spoke at the press event. The latter organization released a new analysis of how the undercount of children in 1990 affected education in 195 cities and counties across the country. According to the post-census survey conducted by the Census Bureau in 1990, 52 percent of those missed in the census were children. At yesterday's congressional hearing, Chairman Miller admonished the stakeholder groups for "blindly supporting an Administration on the brink of ruin" and not working with Congress to improve the census count without using sampling. The chairman, extending a self-described "olive branch," said he hoped stakeholders would help devise other ways to reach hard-to-count communities. Congressional hearings: The House Subcommittee on the Census will hold another hearing to review the proposed use of sampling in the 2000 census, focusing on the Integrated Coverage Measurement program. The hearing is scheduled for September 17, at 10:00 a.m., in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building. Census Bureau Director news: The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired by Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), will hold a hearing on the nomination of Dr. Kenneth Prewitt to be director of the Census Bureau. President Clinton nominated Dr. Prewitt, who heads the Social Science Research Council in New York City, in June. The hearing is scheduled for September 17, at 10:00 a.m. in 342 Dirksen Senate Office Building. Census 2000 Initiative Web Site: The Census 2000 Initiative is pleased to announce that its web site is up and running. The site includes current and past News Alerts, fact sheets on key census policy issues, links to web sites for census stakeholder organizations, and a calendar of official census-related meetings and hearings. We hope you will visit our new site at <http://www.census2000.org>. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 484-2270 or, by e-mail at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to Keri Monihan at <kmonihan(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8728. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

26 years, 10 months

[CTPP] 2000 Census NEWS ALERT

by ed c

September 3, 1998 Justice Department Will Appeal Census Ruling To Supreme Court Congress Presses Administration for "Nonsampling" Census Plan On August 25, the Justice Department notified a federal court that it would appeal the court's order barring the Census Bureau from using sampling or statistical methods to produce the population counts used for congressional apportionment to the U.S. Supreme Court. This year's Commerce funding bill (Public Law 105-119) set up a direct appeal to the high court in lawsuits challenging the constitutionality and legality of sampling and called for an expedited review by the court. A special three-judge panel of the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on August 24 that the Census Act (title 13, United States Code) prohibits the use of sampling to count the population for purposes of apportionment. Other federal courts, in cases dating back to the 1980 and 1990 censuses, reached the opposite conclusion. During the 1990 census, the Justice Department concluded that the Census Act and the Constitution permitted the use of sampling methods to improve a good-faith direct counting effort, although it noted the difficulty in interpreting seemingly conflicting provisions of the law. Then-Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher decided against a statistical correction of the undercount on other grounds. The court in the current case did not address the constitutional question (and therefore did not find that the Constitution requires a physical headcount of the population, as the plaintiffs argued). The district court opinion in the case of U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al. is available on the internet at www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ <http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/>. Congressional hearing: The House Subcommittee on the Census will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 9, to review the status of census preparations. Secretary of Commerce William Daley and Acting Census Bureau Director James Holmes have been invited to testify. The discussion is likely to focus on plans for conducting a census without sampling and statistical methods in light of the district court ruling. The hearing will begin at 1:00 p.m. in room 2203 Rayburn House Office Building. Appropriations update: Before leaving town for its August break, the Senate appointed members who will serve on a conference committee that must iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of the Commerce funding bill for fiscal year 1999. The conferees, all members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, are: Republicans: Judd Gregg (NH), Ted Stevens (AK), Pete V. Domenici (NM), Mitch McConnell (KY), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO), Thad Cochran (MS). Democrats: Ernest Hollings (SC), Daniel Inouye (HI), Dale Bumpers (AR), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Robert Byrd (WV). The House will appoint its conferees when it reconvenes after Labor Day. Census Monitoring Board activities: The Board has scheduled a meeting for September 18 in Washington, DC (Exact location and time to be announced). The Board has moved into its new offices at Census Bureau headquarters in Suitland, MD. The presidentially-appointed Board members (led by co-chair Tony Coelho) and their staff can be reached at 301/457-9900. The members appointed by the congressional Republican leadership (led by co-chair Kenneth Blackwell) and their staff can be reached at 301/457-5080. Media Watch: Increasingly, press accounts of the controversy over census methods have described the population subgroups most likely to be missed as people "who tend to vote Democratic." Editorials both supporting and opposing the use of scientific methods in the 2000 census, as well as many news articles, have relied on this description to explain why the disagreement has been largely along partisan lines. It's important to remember that the census doesn't count voters, and people who are counted in the census don't necessarily vote. About half of those not counted in 1990 were children and immigrants who can't vote. Others who the census is likely to miss are alienated from or mistrustful of government, and are therefore less likely to vote, as well. So the next time you read in your local paper about the census counting voters, consider dashing off a letter to the editor to set the record straight! Stakeholder activities: The 2000 Census Advisory Committee will hold its quarterly meeting on September 24 and 25 at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Washington, D.C. The meeting is open to the public. Census Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's): From time to time the Census 2000 Initiative will address frequently asked questions about census policy issues and operations. Question: Under its 2000 census plan, what will the Census Bureau do if more than 90 percent of households in a given census tract mail back their census forms? Answer: Every census form that is returned by mail will be counted, even if the mail-back rate exceeds 90 percent in a census tract. Here's how it will work: All (100%) known households will get a census form in the mail. A certain percentage will mail back the form. Next, census takers will visit enough of the unresponsive households to ensure direct contact (mail, telephone, and personal visits) with at least 90 percent in every tract. For example, if the mail-back rate in tract "A" is 60 percent, census takers will visit three of every four unresponsive households. Finally, the Bureau will estimate characteristics for the remaining 10 percent based on the characteristics of the other unresponsive homes in tract "A" (60% + 30% + 10% = 100%). For all census tracts with mail-back rates of 85 percent or above, census takers will visit one of every three unresponsive households. In 1990, there were no census tracts with mail-back rates over 90 percent. Nevertheless, in 2000, no census forms will be discarded, no matter how high the mail-back rate in a census tract. Consider a hypothetical census tract where 94 percent of the households send back their forms. All of those questionnaires will be counted. Then census takers will visit one in three of the remaining six percent (or two percent of the total number of households in the tract). The final four percent will be estimated based on information gathered from the nonresponsive households that were visited in person (94% mail response + 2% visited + 4% estimated = 100%). Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 484-2270 or, by e-mail at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to Keri Monihan at <kmonihan(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8728. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

26 years, 11 months

[CTPP] C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N

by ed c

Vol. 2 - No. 40 Aug. 25, 1998 On Tuesday afternoon, Aug. 24, Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley issued a statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's order enjoining the Census Bureau from using "any form of statistical sampling" in Census 2000. The Secretary's statement follows: "We are obviously disappointed with today's ruling on the Census. What is at stake here is the ability of the Census Bureau to use the most modern scientific methods to ensure an accurate and fair census. We will ask the Solicitor General to appeal the ruling and we expect the Supreme Court to reverse it. Meantime, the Census Bureau will proceed with its two-track planning process, preparing for both a census using an element of statistical sampling, and a census that would not use those methods. "In the cases arising out of the 1980 and 1990 census, courts have held that the use of statistical sampling methods in the decennial is both constitutional and lawful. In 1991, Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation directing the National Academy of Sciences to determine a more accurate method for counting the population, including the possible use of statistical sampling. We concur with the findings of the Academy and other experts that a census using statistical sampling will produce much more accurate results, and at far less cost, than a census not using these methods." For further information concerning this bulletin, contact Mary Hanley (202-482-4883) or Karen Cowles (202-482-1523) at the Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Commerce Department.

26 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Census 2000 News Alert

by ed c

Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:42:23 -0400 From: census2000 <census2000(a)ccmc.org> BREAKING NEWS ALERT Federal Court Finds Law Bars Census Sampling Methods Commerce Department Will Appeal to Supreme Court; Three-Judge District Court Panel Avoids Constitutional Question A federal district court panel ruled unanimously today that a census statute bars the use of sampling methods to produce the population counts used to reapportion seats in Congress. The opinion, written by Judge Royce Lamberth, was issued in the case of U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce, filed at the direction of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) to stop the Census Bureau from using scientific methods in the 2000 census. The special three-judge panel heard the case on June 11. Judge Lamberth was joined by Judges Douglas Ginsburg and Ricardo Urbina in his opinion. A copy of the 31-page decision is available on the internet at <http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov>. The court found that the plaintiffs had legal "standing" to bring their lawsuit, which the Justice Department, representing the Commerce Department and Census Bureau, had disputed. The court wrote that Congress intended to prohibit the use of sampling methods to conduct the population count when it amended the Census Act (title 13, United States Code) in 1974. One provision of that statute (section 195) requires the Secretary of Commerce to use sampling techniques whenever possible to collect census and other survey data, except for purposes of apportionment. Another provision of the law (section 141) requiring a census every ten years allows the Secretary to conduct the count using any methods, including sampling. Several federal district and appellate courts have considered those apparently conflicting provisions in cases dating back to the 1980 census and have found that the law does not bar sampling to supplement a "good faith" direct counting effort. In a joint statement, Congressional Census Caucus Co-Chairs Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) said that they expected the Supreme Court to decide the issue ultimately. Former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), who chaired the census subcommittee when the contested provisions of the law were enacted, said that the court's opinion "directly contradicted the intent of Congress" in amending the Census Act. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe called the ruling a "temporary blow" and said the history of the statute "[doesn't] provide any basis" for the court's interpretation. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, released a statement that opened with the following quote: "Americans for Tax Reform welcomes the court's rejection of this blatantly illegal scheme to advance the agenda of the forces of big government." The court did not rule on whether the Constitution also prevented the use of sampling and statistical methods in the census, saying that it did not need to reach that question since it believed Congress had barred the methods by law. In the major lawsuit challenging the accuracy of the 1990 census, the Supreme Court found that Article I, section 2, of the Constitution gives Congress "virtually unlimited discretion" in how to conduct the census. A second lawsuit challenging the constitutionality and legality of sampling, Glavin v. Clinton, was heard by a three-judge district court panel in Roanoke, Virginia on August 7. Matthew Glavin, head of the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, and Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) filed suit on February 12 to stop the Census Bureau from carrying out its 2000 census plan. Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 484-2270 or, by e-mail at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. Please direct all requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to <census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8728. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.

26 years, 11 months

[CTPP] [Fwd:Standard Occupational Classifications]

by ed c

Don--i reposted your response to the mailing list. i hope that is ok with. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26 years, 11 months

Re: [Re: [CTPP] Standard Occupational Classifications]

by lmugler.drcog＠usa.net

In reply to Ed Christopher's question about the NAICS changes- Here in Denver, we are looking forward to these changes. The old SIC codes are no longer reflecting the character of the economy, at least in our setting. With the service sector becoming such a dominant part of the economy, the new system will break services into several major groups. We are hopeful that this will be useful for transportation modeling as well. the new system will provide n opportunity to group industires together that have similar travel patterns. Again, changes in the way business functions are making the SIC groupings less releevant to transportation modeling. Hope that encourages you to review the changes. Larry Mugler Director, Development Services Denver Regional Council of Governments. owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net wrote: > Chuck thanks for the heads-up. Anyone on the list care to comment on > this NAICS thing? Is it a good thing? Working in an agency that gets its > employment data given to it by another agency I really do not have a good > read on this. I am sure there are others equally unaware of what NAICS > means to them. > ed christopher > director of information services > chicago area transportation study > > Chuck Purvis (MTC) wrote: > > > Dear CTPP Listserv recipients: > > > > I'm forwarding this message that a colleague received from the state > > data center listserv. > > > > Chuck Purvis, MTC > > > > *************************************************************** > > > > The Census 2000 will be using 2 new classification systems. NAICS or > > North American Industry Classification System will be used for > > classifying employment by industry. SOC or Standard Occupational > > Classification will be used to classify occupations. > > > > I encourage you to become familiar with the SOC revisions and to > > submit comments. Thanks. > > Patricia Roberts > > paroberts(a)mt.gov > > 406.444.4393 > > ------------------clipped------------------------- > > ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

26 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Standard Occupational Classifications

by Chuck Purvis

Dear CTPP Listserv recipients: I'm forwarding this message that a colleague received from the state data center listserv. Chuck Purvis, MTC *************************************************************** The Census 2000 will be using 2 new classification systems. NAICS or North American Industry Classification System will be used for classifying employment by industry. SOC or Standard Occupational Classification will be used to classify occupations. I encourage you to become familiar with the SOC revisions and to submit comments. Thanks. Patricia Roberts paroberts(a)mt.gov 406.444.4393 ----------------------------------------------- The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is seeking public comment on the Standard Occupational Classification Revision Policy Committee's (SOCRPC) final recommendations for revising the 1980 Standard Occupational Classification's (SOC) occupational units and aggregate groups presented in this notice. The SOCRPC has developed a new occupational classification system that will cover all jobs in the national economy, including occupations in the public, private, and military sectors. All Federal agencies that collect occupational data will use the new system; similarly, all State and local government agencies are strongly encouraged to use this national system to promote a common language for categorizing occupations in the world of work. The new SOC system will be used by the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for gathering occupational information. It will also replace the Bureau of the Census' 1990 occupational classification system and will be used for the 2000 Census. In addition, the new SOC will serve as the framework for information being gathered through the Department of Labor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET), which is in the process of replacing the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). Request For Comments: OMB welcomes comments with respect to any topic related to occupational classification, but is specifically interested in comments concerning: (1) the hierarchical structure of the new SOC presented in Appendix A below, especially the minor group, broad occupation, and detailed occupation organization within the structure, and the numbering system used, and (2) the establishment of ongoing review and update procedures and a time frame for future revision as outlined in the "Next Steps in Process" recommendations near the end of the Supplementary Information section below. It is anticipated that the next major review and revision of the SOC will begin in 2005 in preparation for use in the 2010 Decennial Census. DATES: To ensure consideration all comments must be in writing and received on or before October 9, 1998. ADDRESSES: Correspondence about the adoption and implementation of the SOC as shown in this Federal Register notice should be sent to: Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Management and Budget, 10201 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, telephone number: (202) 395-3093, FAX number: (202) 395-7245. Inquiries about the definition of particular occupations or requests for electronic copies of the SOC structure should be made to Laurie Salmon, Standard Occupational Classification Revision Policy Committee, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4840, Washington, DC 20212, telephone number: (202) 606-6511, FAX number: (202) 606-6645. Electronic Availability and Comment: This document is available on the Internet from the Bureau of Labor Statistics via WWW browser and E-mail. To obtain this document via WWW browser, connect to (http://stats.bls.gov/soc/soc_home.htm). This WWW page contains previous SOC Federal Register notices and related documents as well. To obtain this document via E-mail, send a message to socrevision(a)bls.gov. Comments may be sent via E-mail to OMB at soc(a)omb.eop.gov (do not include any capital letters in the address). Comments received at this address by the date specified above will be included as part of the official record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Bugg, 10201 New Executive Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20503, E-mail address: pbugg(a)omb.eop.gov, telephone number: (202) 395-3093, FAX number: (202) 395-7245. To review the full Federal Register notice and specific classifications/defnitions, go to: http://stats.bls.gov/soc/soc_home.htm ***********************************************************

26 years, 11 months

[CTPP] NEW "Traffic Management" issue: UMP

by Cindy Kerckhoffs

Dear Urban Mobility Professional, I would like to present you with the August edition of the Urban Mobility Professional wherein the topic Traffic management will be discussed. Please take a look at http://www.mobility-net.com/ump/issue3 You will find Traffic Management articles, press releases, internet links, experts and much more..... If you would like to subscribe yourself to this FREE magazine, please go to http://www.mobility-net.com/ump or follow the below instructions: 1. E-magazine including images: This service is only available if you have one of the following mail-programs: Netscape 4 / Outlook Express '97/ Eudora 4 etc.). Please send a message to mailmanager(a)mobility-net.com with the following message in the body: join ump 2. E-magazine in text format: Please send a message to mailmanager(a)mobility-net.com with the following message in the body: join ump-t ! send both messages using plain text (no HTML codes) Thank you and best regards, Cindy Kerckhoffs Editor / Information Manager Urban Mobility Network P.O. Box 917 6200 AX Maastricht Tel. ++31 43 3213022 Fax. ++31 43 3211062 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe yourself to our FREE electronic magazine: http://www.mobility-net.com/ump Visit our Mobility Forum. Current topic - Traffic Management : http://www.mobility-net.com/forum ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To present your company in our magazine and/or UMN platform: contact Arie Hartog (a.hartog(a)mobility-net.com)

26 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Census 2000 Bulletin

by ed c

********** C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N ********** Vol. 2 - No. 39 Aug. 10, 1998 As of Aug. 1, 7,475 cities, counties, and tribal governments had signed confidentiality agreements with the Census Bureau, enabling them to take part in the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program, a new activity in which local and tribal governments can review and check the accuracy of Census 2000 address lists. The Census Bureau's Geography Division also reported that as of Aug. 1 a total of 10,362 of the 17,311 governmental units in which house-number and street-name addresses are used for mail delivery had responded -- the overwhelming majority positively -- to the Census Bureau's invitation to participate in the address-list review opportunity. The Census Bureau's Geography Division said officials in all of the jurisdictions had signed and returned forms pledging that they would protect the confidentiality of the address lists. Signing of the confidentiality agreements was a prerequisite for the Census Bureau to generate the corresponding portions of the address lists handed over to officials in each of the jurisdictions. Local officials will match the Census Bureau address list against their own address lists and inform the Census Bureau of any corrections or additions. They have three months from the time they receive the list and the large-scale (36" x 42") map sheets for their jurisdictions to complete their reviews. Local and tribal governments can review the census address list in different ways. Some choose to do a comprehensive review, including field checks, but others have indicated they will employ a less intensive approach and focus on areas where addresses are more likely to be missed - newly constructed housing, apartment buildings with irregular or missing numbering schemes for individual units, areas along jurisdictional boundaries, etc. Under a law passed by Congress in 1994, the Census Bureau was directed to develop a program that would allow local and tribal governments to provide assistance in verifying the accuracy of its address list, which will be used in Census 2000 as the framework for conducting the census. In early 1999, the Census Bureau will offer a similar address-list review opportunity for areas that use other mail-delivery methods. Staff from the Census Bureau's Regional Census Centers have been conducting training sessions for local and tribal participants, and will be available throughout the program to answer questions. A toll-free telephone number (888-688-6948) will direct calls from participants to the appropriate census offices. Participants receiving computer-readable files can receive technical assistance by calling a contractor-operated help desk at a toll-free telephone number (888-879-6656). For further information concerning this bulletin, contact Catherine McCully of the Census Bureau's Geography Division on 301-457-8630 (fax: 301-457-4710; e-mail: luca(a)geo.census.gov).

26 years, 11 months

[CTPP] Remember the ACS?

by ed c

The 1997 American Community Survey Online Data for more than 65,000 areas accessible on the Internet at <http://www.census.gov/cms/www> New areas surveyed include Franklin County, Ohio, Douglas County, Neb., and Fort Bend and Harris counties, Texas. Two years of data are available for Rockland County, N.Y. and Multnomah County and Portland, Ore. The 1997 data appear in both summary and area-profile formats.

26 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