12
Aug 10

Census 2010 Schedule

Census 2010 Logo
Sept 7, 2010 Update: Looks like the 2010 Census is running a bit behind. The QA/QC phase was supposed to be completed on 9/3 but still no indicator that it’s finished.


Below is an up-to-date Census 2010 Schedule. It shows where we are now and when we can expect updated demographic data. I’ll keep updating the schedule below with up-to-date information as it becomes available from the Census Bureau. You can get more information about the Census 2010 on the Census Bureau’s website

Current Census 2010 Schedule

April 2010 – November 2010: Quality Assurance Operations
May 2010 – December 2010: Questionnaire Capture and Processing
December 31, 2010: Population Counts Report to the President by law

Future Key Census 2010 Schedule Dates

March 2011: Census Bureau delivers redistricting data to states
April 2011 to September 2013: Summary files for the 2010 Census data will be released “on a flow basis

Past Census 2010 Schedule Dates

Fall 2008: Census Job Recruiting Begins
Spring 2009: Census employees updated nationwide address list
Fall 2009: Additional Recruitment of Census Takers
March 2010: Census Forms Mailed
April 2010: National Census Day – Day to use as reference for sending completed forms back
April to July 2010: Census takers visit households that did not return a form by mail

Get an email when the 2010 Census Data becomes available.

I hate SPAM–so I won’t send you any. I promise not to sell or rent your email address to other people. I’ll just send you a quick email about the 2010 Census data.


11
Aug 10

American Community Survey vs. Decennial Census: What’s the Difference

This post explains the differences between the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Decennial Census and how those differences will impact your work.

Background: Long Form and Short Form

Remember back to the Census 2000 when some people were complaining about the Census form taking forever to fill out? Well, those people received the Census 2000 Long Form which was sent to about 18 million households and collected detailed demographic, economic and housing data. The rest of the US households received the simple Census 2000 Short Form, which was used to count the population and collect basic demographic data. So for the Census 2000, 2 forms were used: the Long Form and the Short Form.

Fast-forward to the Census 2010. The Census 2010 did not use the Long Form, only the Short Form. Enter the ACS. The American Community Survey (ACS) is an annual demographic survey of the United States. It provides the detailed demographic, economic and housing data that was once supplied by the Decennal Census Long Form.

2000 2010
Count + Basic Data Short Form Census 2010
Detailed Data Long Form ACS 5 year estimates

However, the ACS is only sent to 3 million households each year, a statistically small sample especially when compared to the Census 2000 Long Form which was sent to 18 million households in 1 year. So to produce the detailed demographic data, the ACS combines data from several years to produce multi-year estimates. For example, the ACS combines data collected from 2006 + 2007 + 2008 to get 3-year ACS estimates for geographies with at least 20,000 persons. ACS 5 year estimates, which will be out in December 2010, will provide data for geographies with fewer than 20,000 persons.

Similar Data; Different Methodologies & Format

The ACS and the Decennial Census provide the same types of data data–that is, demographic, economic and housing data for the US. However, the methodology of these 2 tools differs greatly.

ACS Decennial Census
What is It? Continuos demographic survey Count of the population
Data Average characteristics OVER TIME Counts characteristics for a SPECIFIC DATE
How Often Every 1 year (more timely) Every 10 years (less timely)
Households 11 million households over 5 years 18 million households in 1 year
Sampling Error Higher Error (1.75 percent higher than Census 2000*) Lower Error
Accuracy Less Accurate More Accurate

*[Revised: this information (and much of the blog post) is based on the Census Bureau's Brian McKenzie's awesome presentation here]

To sum up the table above, the ACS more timely but less accurate than the Decennial Census, because the data is collected over a series of years (instead of just 1 year), and fewer households are surveyed.

Because the ACS is less accurate, ACS data includes margins or error and is released at 90% confidence limits. Here’s an example of ACS data.

Austin city
Estimate Error Percent Error
Hispanic/Latino 261,672 +/-3,404 35.0 +/-0.4

This means that we can say with 90% confidence that the number of Hispanic persons in Austin is between 258,268 and 265,076 (or 261,672 plus or minus 3,404). We can also say with 90% confidence that the percentage of Hispanic persons in Austin is between 34.6% and 35.4%.

How Does All of this Impact You?

  1. ACS demographic data is less reliable than Decennial Census data. It’s going to be more important than ever use ACS data as a starting point only and to support the data fieldwork, interviews, and data from other sources.
  2. Doing basic calculations with ACS data is going to require an elementary understanding of statistics. For example, calculating percentage change between Census 2000 data and ACS estimates will require basic statistics, because the numbers are not comparable (they are apples to oranges).

If you’re interested, let me know in the comments if a blog post on how to accurately calculate comparisons using Decennial Census data and ACS estimates would be helpful. Or you can check out the Census’ guidance on the topic.  Any questions about the differences between ACS and Decennial Census data? Are there still points of confusion?

Right now, you can get ACS data for your projects in seconds with the Free Poverty Report beta. When the ACS 5 year estimates come out in December, this data will be part of the Cubit system.


04
Aug 10

Free Poverty Statistics Report with Federal Poverty Guidelines 2010

Poverty breaks the bank.

Poverty breaks the bank.

Yesterday, the DHHS published Federal Poverty Guidelines for 2010. And the poverty guidelines were released in time to be included in Cubit’s new Poverty Statistics Report beta. Check out a sample Poverty Statistics Report.

Right now, the Poverty Statistics Report beta has the 2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines, American Community Survey 2006-2008 estimates for Texas (the rest of the nation is coming), Census 2000 data down to the block group level and SNAP or food stamps data. Best of all, you can pull all of this data for your projects in seconds.

The Poverty Data Statistics Report will be free as long as it’s in beta. It’s not finished yet. We need your feedback. We’re hoping that you’ll tell us what other types of data you need for your projects. Do you need Medicaid counts, median home values or school district data? Leave me a comment or  send me an email here.

How do I get free Poverty Statistics Reports for my projects?

First, you need a free Cubit account. Log in to your existing account, or sign up if you don’t have an account yet. Sign up takes 30 seconds. Then, draw your project area on a Google map interface. Save your drawing and click on the Poverty Statistics Report button. And ta-da! Instant, cut-and-paste ready poverty data for your project.


02
Aug 10

Federal Poverty Guidelines for the Remainder of 2010

Bottom Line

The 2010 federal poverty guidelines are exactly the same as the 2009 federal poverty guidelines.

The Messy Details

After a long delay, the US Department of Health & Human Services will be publishing the 2010 federal poverty guidelines on August 3, 2010 in the Federal Register [Revision: here's a link to the Federal Register publication.]

Recent legislation delayed the publication of revised 2010 poverty guidelines (see this post about when HHS poverty guidelines have historically been released). The reason for the delay was that for the first time since the poverty guidelines were issued in 1965, the annual average Consumer Price Index actually decreased from the previous year.  Therefore, if the 2009 guidelines weren’t frozen, the HHS would have had to issue 2010 poverty guidelines that were lower than the 2009 poverty guidelines according to the procedure for updating poverty guidelines.

However, legislation to further delay the publication of the 2010 poverty guidelines did not pass. So, the procedure for updating poverty guidelines was changed, and the 2010 federal poverty guidelines are now exactly the same as the 2009 federal poverty guidelines.

Helpful Resources

Official Federal Poverty Guidelines for the Remainder of 2010

2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines for

48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia

Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for
each additional person.
2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines for
Alaska

Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $13,530
2 18,210
3 22,890
4 27,570
5 32,250
6 36,930
7 41,610
8 46,290
For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,680 for
each additional person.
2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines for
Hawaii

Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $12,460
2 16,760
3 21,060
4 25,360
5 29,660
6 33,960
7 38,260
8 42,560
For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,300 for
each additional person.

HHS webpage about 2010 federal poverty guidelines

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/10poverty.shtml

Federal Register Announcement

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=A5n2w9/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve

Get Poverty Statistics for Your Area in Seconds – Learn More

Poverty Statistics Report Image


29
Jul 10

FHWA DOT Survey Says Web 2.0 & Social Media Increase Efficiency

A recent FHWA study reports that Web 2.0 apps actually increase efficiency.

“Web 2.0” applications are online sites and applications that are user-driven, and emphasize collaboration and interaction like wikis, social media, podcasts and blogs.  When Cubit has spoken with planners and engineers in the past about Web 2.0 applications, we heard things like “we have to hire extra staff  to do social media” or fears of an inevitable deluge of negative comments in online forums.  However, research is showing that as many as 81% of state DOTs are using Twitter to reach the public. And a recent study by the Federal Highway Administration aims to dispel doubts by shedding some light on how 2.0 applications are being used by state DOTs to meet their objectives—and how the benefits outweigh the costs.

The FHWA analyzed the use of 2.0 tools by 7 DOTs, focusing on the use of 2.0 tools for four distinct functions: information provision, planning and administration, social networking, and analysis/evaluation.  They found that providing information directly to the public was the most common use for 2.0 applications, particularly through blogs and social media sites.

TxDOT workers planting trees, from the agency's Facebook page

TxDOT workers planting trees, from the agency's Facebook page

Sound surprising?  The DOTs in this study report that 2.0 tools offer several benefits.  These tools are allowing them to:

  • Reach more people and new audiences — RIDOT produced a podcast series, complete with a Spanish version, detailing their unprecedented Iway project. (As a result, they have reached a younger audience.)
  • Communicate more directly and customize information to a target audience –Mississippi uses six route-specific Twitter sites to disseminate its Hurricane Evacuation Guide in different regions in the state
  • Engage the public in new ways — TxDOT is using Twiter, Facebook, YouTube and podcasts to inform the public and address concerns
  • Provide in-depth information to stakeholders — NCDOT maintains a variety of 2.0 applications to disseminate info to media and the public, including public meeting videos
  • Make their agency more accessible by giving them a recognizable “face” — MassDOT posts videos of their Secretary of Transportation’s speeches on YouTube
  • Invent creative solutions using a collaborative approach — MassDOT used Twitter during a developers’ conference on data management, to provide real-time information to those who could not attend
  • Communicate more easily within the agency, with the public, and with other agencies — MoDOT turned its Engineering Policy Guide into a wiki, allowing multiple users to easily review and track changes made to the document
Rhode Island DOT's Iway podcasts

Rhode Island DOT's Iway podcasts

Surprisingly, negative comments from the public in online forums have proven not to be a problem (Rhode Island and Texas, for two, report very positive experiences).  And far from straining staff and resources, the study suggests that agencies can simply re-purpose existing materials (such as press releases and maps) that they would already need to produce in an environmental assessment.

Of course, with any new technology there are challenges.  FHWA finds that agencies may in fact need extra staff or technical and fiscal resources, though they claim that the resulting long-term efficiencies are worth the investment.  Extra staff time is often required up-front, with at least some continued effort to keep information current or respond to public comments.  Also, the nature of social media means that agencies have less control over how information is presented (users can more easily make quotes and comments in other venues).  And as mentioned above, there is still a lack of adequate performance measures to assess the value of these tools, particularly qualitative data.  But this study is a good start.

FHWA makes the following recommendations for agencies considering using 2.0 tools:

  • Have a plan for how 2.0 initiatives will support the agency’s core business mission
  • Consider the full range of 2.0 tools—and consider existing tools rather than creating your own
  • Use 2.0 tools to complement (not replace) traditional media
  • Develop policies and guidelines for how people should access and use 2.0 applications—such as mashup map sites that drivers may want to use while on the road.
  • Take critical comments as constructive comments
  • Review the effectiveness of the applications
Fun with traffic lights on MoDOT's Facebook page

Traffic lights are fun again, on MoDOT's Facebook page

FHWA believes that the use of 2.0 tools “will continue and increase in the future,” and anticipates their use for a wider range of objectives, from real-time project updates to live-streaming public meetings and even virtual meetings with online chat features.  How might these technologies change how we shape the built environment?  Do you have any interesting examples of agencies or companies that are using Web 2.0 tools? Leave me a comment below!