Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
BBER Estimates Show Growing Gap With 2000 Census

BBER Estimates Show Growing Gap With 2000 Census

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6 |Likes:
Published by MissKristelle

More info:

Published by: MissKristelle on Mar 21, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2009

pdf

text

original

 
August 2007Vol. 28, No. 7
NEW MEXICO BUSINESS
BBER Population Estimates for New Mexico, 2001-2006Origins of a Growing Gap with Census Bureau Estimates
CURRENT ECONOMIC REPORT 
(continued on page 2)1 http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/cmb/cmbp/reports/080601.pricewaterhouse/ state_nm.asp.htm.2 http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2005_st_co_meth.pdf.3 http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2006_su_meth.html.
Ninth Annual New Mexico Data Users Conference November 8, 2007 See page 8 for details 
Estimate Source2000200120022003200420052006
CB HU1,819,0461,855,7171,878,2501,903,1791,931,1951,955,2631,981,409CB AR1,819,0461,832,7831,855,3531,877,5981,900,6201,925,9851,954,599BBER HU1,819,0461,852,7401,876,2871,899,8461,929,7131,968,3522,010,570CB HU - CB AR*22,93422,89725,58130,57529,27826,810% Difference*1.3%1.2%1.4%1.6%1.5%1.4%BBER HU - CB AR*19,95720,93422,24829,09342,36755,971% Difference*1.1%1.1%1.2%1.5%2.2%2.9%BBER HU - CB HU*-2,977-1,963-3,333-1,48213,08929,161% Difference*-0.16%-0.11%-0.18%-0.08%0.68%1.49%
Source: UNM, Bureau of Business and Economic Research and U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Population Estimates Division.
Table 1. A Comparison of Census Bureau Hypothetical Housing Unit Based Estimates to ActualCensus Bureau and BBER-PEP Population Estimates: 2001-2006
CB = Census Bureau. HU = Housing Unit. AR = Administrative Records. % Difference reflects the comparison directly above that row.
In 2000, the Census Bureau undercounted the New Mexicopopulation by over 1.94%.
1
This undercount ultimately cost the stateover $11 million in Federal funding during each subsequent year. Thishistorical undercounting of the New Mexico population appears tohave continued into the intercensal period as well in the form of annualpopulation estimates produced by the Census Bureau’s PopulationEstimates Program (CB-PEP). With an awareness of this inadequacy,in 2004 the State of New Mexico, through the legislative process,provided recurring funding to the Census Dissemination andDemographic Analysis Project at the University of New Mexico. Thegoals of this project include addressing this undercounting/ underestimation of the state’s population through the production ofalternative population estimates for all 33 counties and the state,geodatabase development, continued sharing of data with the CensusBureau through participation in the Federal/State Cooperative Programfor Population Estimates (FSCPE), and lobbying of the Census Bureauto accept the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER)alternative estimates as “official”. With this funding, the PopulationEstimates Program at BBER (BBER-PEP) was expanded with aninitial focus upon the collation of statewide geodatabases on buildingpermits, births, deaths, and other forms of demographic input data.Estimates produced using these data sets with a housing unit-basedmethod are substantially higher than those produced by CB-PEP.Over the 2001 to 2006 period this gap has grown substantially,culminating in a nearly 3.0 % difference in 2006—a total of 55,971persons.As of 2007, these data have been collated and processed for usein population estimation. Initial suspicions that the Census Bureauwas underestimating the state population appear to be largelyconfirmed; however, a clear comparison of the methodologies usedby CB-PEP and BBER-PEP has not been discussed in light of theproblem of undercounts. In the February 2007 issue of
New Mexico Business 
the overall BBER-PEP methodology for producingpopulation estimates was detailed. In this article, a comparison ofthe two sets of estimates for the 2001 to 2006 period is presented,along with a discussion that compares the two methodologies andexplores how differences in methodology might lead tounderestimation by the CB-PEP.At county and state levels, CB-PEP bases its estimates uponadministrative data in the form of birth and death records, IRS taxreturns, and Medicare program enrollments.
2
The method used isknown as the “cohort-component” model, which estimates historicalrates of birth, death, in-migration, and out-migration based on theserecords and then uses them to estimate the population at a givenpoint in time. These estimates are revised in light of actual data asthey become available, at a lag of approximately two years. Theestimates are also manually controlled to a national total based on along-standing cohort-component model. Curiously, at smaller levelsof geography such as cities, the CB-PEP uses a differentmethodology—one involving a standard application of the housingunit method.
3
This scale-based difference in the methodology usedappears to reflect CB-PEP’s sensitivity to the advantages of trackingpopulation using housing unit data; however, these sub-countyestimates are then manually adjusted to the cohort-component basedcounty totals, indicating their preference for the current county/statemethodology. The adjustment is made for the sake of consistencybecause the unadjusted housing unit-based estimates are typicallysubstantially higher than those produced by the cohort-componentmodel. The Census Bureau’s preference for the cohort-component
 
2 New Mexico Business / August 2007 
NM Population Estimates...
(cont. from page 1)(continued on page 6)
200120022003200420052006
New Mexico1,819,0461,852,7401,876,2871,899,8461,929,7131,968,3522,010,570Bernalillo556,678571,440581,118590,153600,439614,508628,188Catron3,5433,5893,5953,5953,6433,7123,824Chaves61,38261,34361,14661,08561,72262,20363,166Cibola25,59525,86526,14026,49828,27828,50628,683Colfax14,18914,30414,32614,35114,35114,37514,540Curry45,04445,26745,39545,60945,67046,28946,666De Baca2,2402,2582,2552,2632,2742,2562,271Dona Ana174,682177,981180,162182,497185,872192,474198,625Eddy51,65851,72851,81351,87751,90952,16752,449Grant31,00231,19131,23231,30031,33731,51131,733Guadalupe4,6804,7224,7304,7304,7254,7434,821Harding810809811805790778814Hidalgo5,9325,9195,9135,9035,9185,9665,960Lea55,51155,58755,64455,78356,65757,00658,175Lincoln19,41119,78319,87120,33320,90421,89822,523Los Alamos18,34318,52418,55118,88819,19019,86419,906Luna25,01625,42525,55425,76626,35026,39427,844McKinley74,79875,63876,24776,79277,12578,01379,781Mora5,1805,2115,2335,2485,3805,4405,472Otero62,29862,59862,60962,64363,19063,99466,027Quay10,15510,22010,21710,17410,10910,10610,208Rio Arriba41,19041,65241,76941,91142,11843,02443,530Roosevelt18,01818,25218,07618,29318,42918,77118,858Sandoval89,90892,99096,16199,231102,862106,165111,493San Juan113,801116,075119,690122,019124,808126,008127,618San Miguel30,12630,33730,49730,56130,60630,71930,817Santa Fe129,292132,462134,645137,358139,760143,306147,409Sierra13,27013,58513,63813,65213,64713,65713,726Socorro18,07818,27618,32118,36218,38918,51318,656Taos29,97930,38230,87031,30131,55631,93132,127Torrance16,91117,30717,36217,47117,69218,28218,302Union4,1744,1794,1754,2404,2104,3154,470Valencia66,15267,83868,52369,15269,80471,45971,888
Source: UNM, Bureau of Business and Economic Research; Census 2000 data fromU.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
CountyCensus2000Table 2. Bureau of Business and Economic Research Population EstimatesJuly 1, 2001 to July 1, 2006BBER Estimates as of July 1…
method may explain the large gap between their estimates and thoseproduced by BBER-PEP, but it also raises questions about the validityof their method for estimating the New Mexico population.Table 1 (on page 1) presents an alternative set of estimates basedon a conservative housing unit-based procedure and the CensusBureau’s own published data on New Mexico housing stock. It focusesupon state-level differences, but the reader should be aware that county-by-county differences are also present between CB-PEP and BBER-PEP estimates (see Table 2 above, which presents the recently-released 2006 BBER-PEP county and state estimates for July 1,2006). The first row of estimates in Table 1 represent a hypotheticalhousing unit-based estimate using 2000-2006 housing stock estimatesfrom CB-PEP and Census 2000 values for housing occupancy rates(OR) and persons-per-household (PPH). This method is conservativebecause it holds the OR and PPH values constant, but CB-PEPdoes exactly that when producing the sub-county estimates. Thesecond row presents the current CB-PEP state population estimatesproduced using the administrative records approach and the third rowpresents the BBER-PEP 2001-2006 state population estimates basedon its own estimates of the New Mexico housing stock and Census2000 values for OR and PPH. The remaining rows contrast each ofthe estimates in terms of absolute and percent differences. Figure 1on page 7
 
reviews the results graphically. It is clear that the CB-PEPestimates would be substantially higher if they were using a housingunit-based approach. Their estimates would be quite similar acrossthe 2001 to 2006 period to those produced by BBER-PEP (again,the only difference between the estimates is the housing-unit stock)and substantially higher than the current estimates (CB-AR in thetable).The results of this thought-experiment suggest that the CB-PEPestimates might be improved by considering the housing unit-basedmethod for producing county and state estimates. CB-PEP, however,might defend the use of the administrative records approach basedupon the insensitivity of the housing unit approach indicated here tointercensal changes in OR and PPH. The method is insensitive,again, because 2000 values of OR and PPH are held constant.
 
New Mexico Business / August 2007
Visit the Bureau's web site at
http://www.unm.edu/~bber
. E-mail us at
dbinfo@unm.edu
.
New Mexico Business Current Economic Report 
is published monthly except for the March/April issue.Subscription prices are $25.00 annually. Single copies are $3.00 each, except for the March/April issue which is $6.00.
U.S. ECONOMIC INDICATORS
% Chg.PreviousYear Mo./Qtr.Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100)Mo./Qtr.DataAgo DataAll Urban Consumers
All itemsJun 07208.42.7207.9Food and BeveragesJun 07202.94.0202.2HousingJun 07210.63.4208.9ApparelJun 07117.2-1.4121.5TransportationJun 07189.10.9190.0Medical CareJun 07349.54.0349.1Other Goods and ServicesJun 07333.43.7332.8
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
All ItemsJun 07203.92.7203.7Gross domestic product
1
($Bil. constant)2Q 07$11,507.91.8$11,412.6Prime interest rate
2
(% per annum)Jun 078.25-8.25Mortgage interest rate
3
(% per annum)Jun 076.54-6.223 month treasury bill
4
(% per annum)Jun 074.63-4.77Industrial production
5
(2002=100)Jun 07113.41.3112.8Manufacturers new orders
5
($Bil.)Jun 07$419.5-0.7$416.9
Note: Selected data items subject to revision.1 2000 dollars at seasonally adjusted annual rates.2 Closing rate for month.3 Effective rate (in the primary market) on conventional mortgages reflecting fees and chargesas well as contract rate and assumed, on the average, repayment at end of 10 years.4 Rate on new issues within period; bank discount basis.5 Monthly data seasonally adjusted.Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer price index data; U.S. Council of Economic Advisors,
Economic Indicators 
, all other data.
CurrentCurrent% Chg.PreviousCurrent% Chg.PreviousCurrentMo./Qtr.YearMo./Qtr.Mo./Qtr.YearMo./Qtr.Mo./Qtr.DataAgoDataDataAgoData
Employment
p
(000)Jun 07911.31.5908.7146,9581.2145,864Unemployment rate
p
(%)Jun 073.8-3.64.7-4.3Nonagricultural employment (000)Jun 07850.71.6849.1139,1611.5138,655Personal income
1
($Mil.)1Q 07$60,0315.7$59,184$11,315,5435.8$11,071,307Housing units permittedSingleJun 071,045-13.193396,083-31.0105,295MultiJun 0733-23.323135,825-20.339,145
p Preliminary.1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted at annual rates.Note: Selected data items subject to revision.Sources: New Mexico Dept. of Workforce Solutions and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment and unemployment data;U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, income data; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus and individual permit-issuing agencies, construction data.
New MexicoUnited States

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->