2010 Census Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA) Program

2010 Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs)
for the 2010 Census and the
American Community Survey
State Data Center
Steering Committee Meeting
Suitland, MD
June 16, 2011

Overview
•
•
•
•
•

Comments on 2010 PUMA Proposed Criteria
Research Supporting Final Criteria
New features: PUMA names
PUMA and PUMS Products
Publication of 2010 PUMA Final Criteria and
Guidelines
• Overview of PUMA Delineation and MTPS
• Training
• Schedule

2

2010 PUMA Proposed Criteria
*
•
•
*
*
•
*

Standard PUMAs (one level only, 5% sample)
State-based
POW PUMAs and MIG PUMAs (county-based)
Minimum population threshold of 100,000 throughout decade
Counties and census tracts as building blocks
Contiguity
Avoid splitting the more substantially populated areas of
American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands
(AIR/ORTL)

An asterisk

indicates there is a change to the 2000 criteria

3

2010 PUMA Guidelines
•

Wherever possible, each PUMA should comprise an area
that is either entirely inside or entirely outside a current
Core Based Statistical Area.

•

Use 2010 place definitions, 2000 urban/rural definitions,
as well as local knowledge to inform PUMA delineation.

•

PUMAs may be named by local participants.

•

The number of PUMAs should be maximized, so PUMAs
should not contain more than 200,000 people, unless
the PUMA is defined for an area that is or will likely be
experiencing population decline.

NEW

4

Comments on 2010 PUMA Criteria
Eliminating incorporated places and MCDs as a building block entity

•

Four (4) responses opposed to this criteria from a major public policy research
organization, as well as the states of California and Michigan representing state
and local government agencies and a regional organization.
 Majority of cities keep their boundaries consistent.
 Data aggregated by incorporated places are more meaningful than data
aggregated by large groups of census tracts.
 MCDs are very important to local data users.
 Census tracts do not correspond to MCD boundaries.

•

One (1) response in support of this criteria from a California University.


PUMAs in Los Angeles are based on places that contain enclaves and
exclaves. Eliminate these anomalies in favor of geographically
contiguous areas.

5

Census Bureau Response: Criteria
Incorporated Places
1) Majority of cities keep their boundaries consistent.

Census Bureau found that a majority of cities had boundary
changes in the last decade.
 Incorporated places of 100,000 or more residents comprise 17% of all
PUMAs.
 A majority (60%) of the place–based PUMAs (60%) have had
annexations/deannexations over the past 10 years (see Ann Arbor example).
 Changes in PUMA building block geography represent a disclosure risk for
PUMAs publication (i.e., creates sliver geography with low populations);
This is particularly significant where decennial PUMA boundaries do not
coincide with the current Place of Work (POW) PUMA boundaries (POW
PUMAs are updated in practice to reflect current incorporated place
boundaries).
 Census tracts provide relatively stable boundaries and may be aggregated
to approximate the extent of other types of geographic entities.

6

Census Bureau Response: Criteria
Incorporated Places (continued)
2) Data aggregated by incorporated places are more meaningful than
data aggregated by large groups of census tracts.
To improve the utility and meaningfulness of the PUMA and
PUMS/estimate data the Census Bureau has added the following
provisions in support of counties and census tracts as the primary
PUMA building blocks:
 Participants will have the ability to name PUMAs
 PUMA equivalency files will be provided to relate PUMA with underlying
counties, county subdivisions, places, and tracts.
 PUMS data are subject to “noise” (i.e., small amounts of variation) and
data swapping, therefore the PUMS data are less susceptible to the
small differences between a census tract boundary and an incorporate
place or MCD boundary. These differences are unlikely to have a
significant impact on the spatial quality of the PUMS data.

7

Census Bureau Response: Criteria
Incorporated Places (continued)
3) PUMAs in Los Angeles County are based on places that
contain enclaves and exclaves. California respondent is in
favor of geographically contiguous areas.
Census Bureau found several examples of noncontiguous placebased PUMAs in California and in Michigan that present a
disclosure risk from sliver geography and areas of low population
(enclaves and exclaves).
 PUMA 03200 in Ann Arbor, Michigan (see next slide)
 PUMA 03301 and 03302 in Fresno, California (see next slide)

8

Examples of PUMAs with Boundary Changes and
Non-contiguous Enclave and Exclaves

9

Michigan PUMA 03200 is comprised
of Ann Arbor incorporated place. It
includes 4 exclaves and 86 enclaves.
Ann Arbor reported 194 annexations in
the last decade (2000-2010).

California PUMAs 03302 & 03301 make
up Fresno incorporated place. Close-ups
reveal unincorporated enclaves from
PUMA 03402 with low population totals
within Fresno city limits. PUMA 03402
has 24 noncontiguous parts.

9

Census Bureau Response: Criteria
Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs)
1) MCDs are very important to local data users.
Census Bureau received opposing comments for only one state (Michigan).


There are 20 states in which MCDs serve as general-purpose local governments.
Presumably all other MCD states are satisfied with the proposed change to eliminate
MCDs as building blocks for 2010 PUMAs.

2) Census tracts do not correspond to MCD boundaries.
Census Bureau found that a majority of PUMAs in the state of Michigan were built with
Legal-General Purpose MCDs, tracts, and/or Counties.



Most (90%) of the PUMAs in Michigan have a strong correlation with census tract and/or
county boundaries.
Tracts and county boundaries can be used to approximate the MCDs.

3) Sliver geography can be created when PUMAs and MCD boundaries are not coincident.
Census Bureau maintains that county and census tract boundaries are more stable.


Not all boundaries in an area are coincident, therefore there will always be sliver
geography. MCD boundaries can change over time.

10

Comments on 2010 PUMA Guidelines
Make PUMAs coincident with Metropolitan Statistical Area Boundaries, as well
as other place definitions and principal cities
•

One (1) response in support of this guideline from a major public policy research organization.
1)

Define PUMAs that are either entirely inside or entirely outside a metropolitan statistical area
whenever possible.

2)

Place definitions, urban/rural status, and local knowledge should inform PUMA delineation.

3)

Approximate principal city boundaries so that researchers can use PUMA data to study
differences between urban, suburban, and rural populations.

Include other organizations within the state during the 2010 PUMA delineation
process for PUMAs that include Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
•

Three (1) responses in support of this guideline from Missouri, Maryland, and New Mexico.
1)

Local input should be required (rather than “recommended”) by the Census Bureau for these
PUMAs.

2)

Groups such as the Tribal Governments, State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are examples of organizations that can provide
appropriate information and knowledge to develop boundaries for 2010 PUMAs in metropolitan
areas.

11

PUMA NAMES: NEW
• Optional descriptive names provided by SDCs during PUMA
delineation will be added to the Census Bureau’s public products:

PUMS files
Demographic/housing products
Geographic Products, e.g., TIGER/Line Shapefiles
Other map products

12

PUMA and PUMS Products
Currently, 2010 PUMAs will be used in the publication of:
• 2010 Census decennial PUMS files
• ACS 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year PUMS files
• ACS 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimates*

13

http://www.census.gov/geo/puma/puma2010.h
tml

Overview of 2010 PUMA Delineation Plan
• Provide delineation materials to SDC participants (i.e., MAF/TIGER
Partnership Software (MTPS), Partnership Shapefiles, and user
guidelines) - early September 2011
• PUMA MTPS training webinar - mid-September 2011
• PUMA MTPS demonstration during SDC annual meeting - October
2011
• SDCs delineate new 2010 PUMAs using the MTPS and submit updates
to Census Bureau - October - December 2011
• Census Bureau review of PUMA submissions and insertion into the
MAF/TIGER database (MTDB) - Fall 2011 to early Spring 2012
• Creation of geographic products containing PUMAs for use in the
2010 Census PUMS and ACS - Summer 2012

15

2010 PUMA Delineation Materials – MTPS &
Partnership Shapefiles
 The PUMA MTPS is specifically designed software from the Caliper Corporation. The
software provides its users with:
 Specifically designed tools to delineate PUMAs,
 Methods for importing various data layers for reference,
 Criteria checks to perform their PUMA updates quickly and accurately, and
 Tools to export updates into a standardized data format.
 Since the PUMA MTPS contains both PUMA-specific tools and criteria checks, the
SDCs must use the 2010 PUMA MTPS for all PUMA delineation work.
 The PUMA MTPS will only accept and process Census Bureau-provided Partnership
Shapefiles, which consist of both spatial entity and feature extracts from the Census
Bureau’s MAF/TIGER Database (MTDB).

16

2010 PUMA Delineation Materials –
Web Download Page
 The Census Bureau will provide the PUMA MTPS, Partnership Shapefiles, and user
guidelines to all SDC participants via the Web.
 Providing all delineation materials via the Web:
 Eliminates the need for shipping and procuring materials for shipping, both of
which are very costly,
 Is a “green” approach for disseminating materials, and
 Enables the Census Bureau to push out new updates of the materials quickly to
our participants if an issue with the materials ever arises
 A password is required to download the MTPS from the Census Bureau Web page.
Therefore, a Census Bureau representative will contact each SDC participant via the
phone and provide them with a password.

17

2010 PUMA Delineation Materials –
Web Download Page (cont.)
 The Web page will contain links to various Census Bureau programs, and it will
include a link to PUMA materials. Example:

18

2010 PUMA Delineation Materials –
WEB Download Page (cont.)
 When a participant clicks on the PUMA link, the system will take them to the
following screen, in which a participant will have the options of downloading 1) the
MTPS (requires a Census Bureau-provided password), 2) user guidelines, and 3)
spatial data (i.e., Partnership Shapefiles) by state

19

2010 PUMA Delineation Materials –
WEB Download Page (cont.)
 When a participant clicks on a state for data download, they’ll have the option of
either downloading data by county or whole state*

* Due to internal

data constraints… when the data size of a ZIP file reaches 600 – 700 MB, we have to create two or more ZIP files

20

2010 PUMA Delineation - MTPS Training
 The Census Bureau is planning to provide two training sessions to SDC
PUMA participants:
1. WEBINAR – Mid- September
2. Demonstration and MTPS Q & A Session – Annual meeting in October 2011

21

2010 PUMA Delineation – SDC Delineation and Census
Bureau Processing
 The Census Bureau is giving the SDCs three months to review, update, and
submit their new PUMA plans to the Census Bureau (i.e., October –
December 2011)
 The Census Bureau will review and upload SDC-provided PUMA plans from
the MTPS starting in early Fall 2011, and the review will continue until early
Spring 2011.
 Census Bureau staff will thoroughly review all submissions and contact a
SDC if there are any criteria or other delineation-related issues.

22

Discussion Topics
Guidelines for standard PUMA name conventions
•Recommendations for PUMAs that cover a large area
(i.e. rural areas)
•Directional placement
•Standardized usage
•Other concerns?

23

Questions?
April Avnayim - Geographic Standards & Criteria Branch,
Geography Division (301) 763-3056
[email protected]

Dierdre Bevington-Attardi - Geographic Standards & Criteria Branch,
Geography Division (301) 763-9248
[email protected]

Nick Moebius - Geographic Areas Branch,
Geography Division (301)-763-9047
[email protected]

Ryan Short – Geographic Areas Branch,
Geography Division (301)-763-9047
[email protected]

24