Update on Public Use Microdata Areas and Urban Areas Michael Ratcliffe Geography Division U.S. Census Bureau 1

PUMAs Update: Schedule 2 January 2011: Delineation software requirements sent to Caliper Corporation February 28, 2011: Comment period ends PUMA proposed criteria Spring 2011: Final PUMA delineation criteria and guidelines distributed

PUMAs Update: Schedule (continued) 3 September 2011: Materials sent to SDCs for PUMA delineation September-October 2011: PUMA delineation software training Planning to conduct training by webinar Late December 2011/early January 2012: Return deadline for submissions Fall 2011-Spring 2012: Review of PUMA submissions and insertion into TIGER database Spring-Summer 2012: Creation of geographic products containing PUMAs for use in 2010 Census PUMS and ACS

4 PUMA delineation software requirements Stand-alone software to create both state-based and county-based coverages for PUMAs. Aggregate counties and census tracts into contiguous groups (except where a census tract/county used to build it is noncontiguous). Import census tract equivalency files (CTEFs) to create one final output for the state. Add final check of CTEFs to eliminate overlapping data. Tally 2010 population data for PUMAs as they are created or edited. Tally population data (>2,400 population) for isolated census tracts that cross county boundaries. Add optional descriptive name (<100 characters) for each 2010 PUMA. Implement built-in “checks” or edits to ensure PUMA delineations adhere to requirements and guidelines (ie. contiguity, nesting, uniqueness)

PUMAs Update: Proposed Criteria One level of PUMAs Minimum population: 100,000 Building blocks: counties and census tracts only PUMAs should avoid splitting the more substantially populated areas of American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands Each county part of a PUMA should contain at least 2,400 people. Allow for assignment of names to PUMAs 5

PUMA Criteria and Guidelines What have we heard so far? Support for use of census tracts and counties as the only building blocks, but… Support for use of incorporated places and MCDs in certain states Desire among the transportation community to be included in the delineation process 6

Urban Areas Proposed Criteria Comments Federal Register comment period ended November 22, 2010 Received 179 comment letters from – Regional planning and transit organizations – Municipal and county officials – Members of Congress – State and Federal agencies – Individuals 7

Urban Areas Proposed Criteria Comments 160 letters contained comments on proposed criteria for splitting large agglomerations – Many were concerned about impact on funding if areas were merged Raised questions about development of statistical area concepts and criteria in relation to programs, planning, and policy making – Some commenters felt that we should take programmatic uses into account 8

Urban Areas Proposed Criteria Comments 33 comments relating to exempted, or undevelopable, territory – Concern about overextension of urban areas due to “jumps” across wetlands 23 comments on use of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) to identify impervious surfaces – 18 favored adoption of impervious surface criteria Concerns about reliance on 2001 NLCD; commenters suggested using the 2006 NLCD where available. 9

Urban Areas Proposed Criteria Comments Commenters favored: Use of census tracts as building blocks; Requirement that an urban area contain at least 1,500 people residing outside institutional GQs; Elimination of the central place concept 10

Urban Areas Proposed Criteria Comments Opinion was split regarding the 1.5 or 2.5 mile maximum jump distance: – Those in favor of returning to a 1.5 mile jump distance cited concerns about overbounding if 2.5 mile jump is retained – Support for 2.5 mile distance stressed continuity with Census 2000 urban area criteria; – Also noted that the 2.5 mile jump distance recognized functional ties between noncontiguous areas. 11

Urban Areas Schedule Urban Area Criteria and Delineation: – Final 2010 urban area criteria published in Federal Register: Spring 2011 – Delineation and review of urban area: March-December 2011 – List of Urban Areas released in Federal Register and website: Early 2012 Urban Areas in 2010 Census and ACS Data Products: – 2010 Summary File 1 Urban/Rural Update: October 2012 – 2010 SF2 Urban/Rural Update: October 2013 – 2012 ACS data tabulations will contain updated urban areas 12

Urban Areas: Questions to consider With the ACS presenting data for urban areas every year, the reliance on boundaries defined based on decennial census data may result in underbounding over the decade as urbanization continues. Should the Census Bureau review and update urban areas through the decade? If so, with what frequency? What data should we use to update given the lack of intercensal block-level counts? Is the urban-rural dichotomy still sufficient for analytical needs in your state? Is there a need for other categories, such as suburban, exurban, etc.? How can the Census Bureau improve outreach regarding uses of its urban and rural definitions for determining program funding levels and eligibility for participation? 13

Questions? Comments? Contact information: Michael Ratcliffe Geography Division U.S. Census Bureau