The Planning Database

1. The Planning Database Population Division J. Gregory Robinson and Antonio Bruce Decennial Management Division Erin Love and Guinevere Mills October 8, 2008

2. Outline • Overview and Background • Development of Planning Database • Use of PDB in Census 2000 • The enhanced PDB for the 2010 Census

3. Overview and Background • The Planning Database (PDB) can be used to systematically identify areas that are “hard-to-enumerate” based on a “hard-to-count” (HTC) score. • The PDB assembles a range of housing, demographic, and socioeconomic variables that are correlated with nonresponse and coverage.

4. Overview and Background • The first PDB contained data from the 1990 Census for all census tracts within the country. • After Census 2000, the PDB was updated with Census 2000 data

5. Development of PDB • What are the factors that influence differential patterns of response and coverage? • Our targeting methodology was formulated as follows: • Identify barriers to enumeration • Identify variables that can quantify the barriers • Develop algorithms to rank all areas on a hard-to-count continuum.

6. Barriers to Enumeration • Factors related to Housing Characteristics: • Type of housing, tenure (e.g., renters) • Irregular housing units (e.g., converted garage) • Non-city style address/non-traditional address • Factors related to Social and Demographic Characteristics: • Complex households (e.g., extended families) • Communication/language barriers • Mobility • Lack of cooperation/distrust

7. Variables Used in the Census 2000 PDB“Housing Characteristics” • Housing Occupancy • Owner/Renter Occupied • Crowded (more than one person/room) • Housing units without telephone service • Householder moved into unit 1999 or 2000 • Vacant housing units • Units in Structure • Multi-units (2 or more in structure)

8. Variables Used in the Census 2000 PDB“Social and Economic Characteristics” • Households • Not Husband/Wife households • Educational Attainment (Pop. 25 years and over) • Not high school graduate (no diploma) • Poverty Status • Persons below poverty level • Household Income • Receiving public assistance income • Employment Status (Pop. 16 years and over) • Unemployed • Language • Linguistically isolated households

9. Variables Used in the Census 2000 PDB“Demographic, Other Characteristics” • Census 2000 Population • Race categories • Ethnicity • Hispanic, Non-Hispanic White alone • In Group Quarters • Institutional, Noninstitutional • Broad Age Groups • Ages 0 to 17, Ages 65 or older • Geographic • State, county, tract identifiers

10. Limitations • The PDB data are based on the last decennial census (e.g., 2000) and can become “out-of-date.” • The validity of the PDB framework to identify HTC areas depends on the assumptions that the appropriate causal variables have been included. • Standard errors and confidence intervals are not provided, so the results are qualitative and descriptive.

11. Uses of the Planning Database in Census 2000: Three Examples • Systematically profile areas on a hard-to-count continuum • Analyze mail response rate patterns with Hard-to-Count Scores 3. Identify areas with concentrations of linguistically-isolated households

12. Systematic Basis to Profile Areas on “Hard-to-Count” Continuum • Defined tracts with HTC scores in three broad categories: • HTC scores 60 or more • HTC scores 30 to 59 • HTC scores less than 30 • Identify the demographic makeup of these tracts

13. Distribution of Tracts in HTC Categories and Associated Attributes by Race/Origin: Census 2000 Selected “HTC” Variables (Percent) Race/Origin and Number Mail Return Renter Crowded Person Linguistic HTC Category of Tracts Rates Occ. Occ. Below Isolated Units Units Poverty Lang. HH Hispanic 4,150 68.6 53.5 16.4 25.3 22.7 60+ 3,031 66.1 62.8 18.8 29.6 25.5 30-59 985 74.1 32.3 11.5 15.4 15.7 <30 134 78.5 19.3 4.3 8.1 9.5 Non-Hisp White 21,188 81.4 21.1 0.4 7.7 0.9 60+ 184 69.8 60.1 1.5 28.8 4.5 30-59 2,869 75.4 33.1 0.7 17.1 1.1 <30 18,135 82.4 18.9 0.3 6.2 0.8 Note: For Hispanics, the universe includes tracts where the group represents 50% or more of the total tract population. For Non-Hispanic Whites, tracts are included when the group represents 90% or more of the total tract population.

14. Comparison of Mail Return Rates and Hard-To-Count (HTC) Scores • All tracts in the country were assigned into 10 mutually exclusive strata based on Hard-to-Count Score deciles. • The deciles range from very low return rates in areas with concentration of HTC attributes to very high return rates in areas with an absence of HTC characteristics. • We assume that the demographic, socioeconomic, and housing makeup of an entire stratum in 2000 is essentially the same as in 1990.

15. Relationship Between HTC Scores and Mail Return Rates: 1990 and 2000

16. Targeted Areas with Concentration of Linguistically-Isolated Households • The focus is on tracts where 15 percent of the households were linguistically- isolated (LI). The PDB can systematically identify clusters of LI households by type of language. • Use the HTC scores in the PDB to determine if the LI households are clustered in areas that exhibit characteristics associated with barriers to enumeration. • In 2000, over 80 percent of the LI households were located in 6 states (California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida, and New Jersey). About three-quarters of LI tracts had hard-to-count scores of 60 or more.

17. Integrated Uses of PDB in 2010 • Same targeting applications as in 2000, with more integration into census activities. Examples: • Tract Action Plans for every Local Census Office • Use of PDB and HTC Scores in 2010 Integrated Communications Program

18. Integrated Uses of PDB in 2010 • For the 2010 census, the Census Bureau is targeting hard-to-enumerate areas in advance of the census, so that outreach tools and special enumeration methods can be used (such as local partners to promote the census, paired enumeration and use of cultural facilitators).

19. Dress Rehearsal Version • The Dress Rehearsal version of the PDB covered the Stockton, CA (San Joaquin County) site and the nine counties in North Carolina (including Fayetteville). • This PDB contained more information than the current Census 2000 PDB and had mapping capability. • Access was granted to Census employees at headquarters and the Regional Offices. • The primary purpose was to get feedback for the 2010 enhanced version.

20. The 2010 Enhanced Planning Database • Contains data at the national level, covering all 50 states, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. • Provides specific population and housing data at the block group (sample data) and block level (100% data) to greatly enhance census targeting and planning activities.

21. The 2010 Enhanced Planning Database • Data from the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) will be included. • The ACS data will include geography for Places (over 65,000) and Congressional Districts as primary reporting levels. • Attempts were made to gather the same data variables from ACS as were gathered from Census 2000, to allow for comparison.

22. The 2010 Enhanced Planning Database • Availability in the Regional Offices and Regional Census Centers took place in the summer of 2008, with Local Census Offices to follow. • Accesses a single sign-on web interface, the SAS Information Delivery Portal, that provides a standardized dashboard home page. • Enables the user to organize personal portal pages containing only the needed information.

23. The 2010 Enhanced Planning Database • Provides pre-defined reports and graphs as well as having the capability to provide user-defined products. • Reports can be exported to Excel where users can add them to other data sources for analysis. • Includes powerful geospatial mapping capabilities in which maps and reports are drillable depending on the level of detail available in the requested data. (Available for both ACS and Census 2000 data.)

24. 2010 PDB Log In Screen

25. PDB Home Page

26. Ad Hoc Report: Drilled down to the county level

27. Geographic Map: Corresponding to the Ad Hoc Report

28. The 2010 Enhanced Planning Database • Planning is in progress to create a public version. It will contain similar features to the internal version, but will not report data down to the block level (for disclosure avoidance purposes). • Development of the public version is set to begin in early FY2009.