The
Is
Summary:
The Third Annual State Data Conference brought together data
users, collectors and providers to share the latest developments in Connecticut
and to discuss the needs of our data community.
The broad objective of this conference series is to create an ongoing
symposium for those involved in different stages of data generation, archiving,
distribution, and use so they can exchange information on current data
availability, the challenges they face, their particular needs, and their
expectations (or hopes) for future developments. This third in a series of conferences continued
the conversation begun at the first two.
Participants in the one-day meeting came from various sectors, including
government agencies, academic scholars, private enterprise and non-profit
organizations.
The organizing theme of this third conference focused on the
question of whether Connecticut was falling behind in its efforts to develop
and provide data to data users. Ten
presenters explored various facets of this question in three sessions. The first session put the 2000 Census in
context, looking at who we are and how we’ve changed. The second session examined three ongoing
initiatives to build access to Connecticut data. Finally, the last session explored the many
benefits of digital spatial mapping. The
following summarizes the challenges, current initiatives and future directions
for Connecticut's data system.
The conference theme “are we falling behind?” likely
articulated a fear common among data providers and data users everywhere. There will probably
always be concerns about the appropriate provision of information to a
community of data users. Part of the
reason is that, as with any other scarce commodity, the provision of data
involves opportunity costs. Since we
have to give up other goods and services to produce data, we will (quite
rationally) never produce the full quantity or quality of data we are
technically capable of producing. What’s
more, this calculus is complicated by information’s often unpredictable value,
a characteristic that makes it easy to underestimate information’s true
worth. After a busy news day, for
example, a newspaper may be worth far more than its price to the reader. After a slow news day it may be worth far
less. Thus, for long stretches of time
some information may seem worthless, and then it may suddenly assume limitless
value at a critical moment. Still
another reason for the perceived dearth of quality data is that information
often takes on the characteristics of a public good—once produced, it becomes
difficult to limit data access to paying users only. That reduces the incentive of providers to
offer it in sufficient quantity or quality.
Because of these challenges to the efficient operation of markets for
data, data collection and dissemination is often organized through quasi-public
and government agencies, as in the case of the U.S. Census.
Putting the 2000 Census in Perspective
In his talk “Shadowing the U.S. Census,” Wayne Villemez addressed many of these challenges to the task of providing quality data. By its own admission, the U.S. Bureau of the Census says that it undercounted the population of Connecticut in 1990 by more than 21,000, costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars in federal assistance tied to population counts. Undercounting errors were worse among the young than the old—children were undercounted at a rate of 1.7% while adults were undercounted at a rate of 0.3%—and worse among minorities than whites—blacks and Hispanics were undercounted at rates exceeding 5%, while whites, on average, were not undercounted at all. To many, such errors were unjustifiable.
In the 2000
Census the stakes were higher. Any
potential undercount not only threatened millions of dollars in funding, it
also endangered one of the state’s Congressional seats. Accordingly, the Connecticut Office of Policy
and Management commissioned the University of Connecticut’s Center for
Population Research (CPR) to conduct a “shadow” Census survey to check the
accuracy of the official Census count and to document any significant
undercount should the Census figures be challenged in court. CPR, headed by Professor Villemez,
used four separate methodologies to test the Census count: a statewide sample
survey, an age cohort comparison, a focused population count, and a hidden
population study. The results of the
four surveys dovetailed to the same conclusion: there likely was an undercount
in Census 2000 but the size of the shortfall was too small to call into
question the Census’ official figures.
The counts of some of the state’s smaller areas were, however, somewhat
suspicious. The CPR studies, in short,
affirmed the value of the Census count.
The Bureau of the Census, with all its resource constraints, does a
pretty good job at delivering an accurate count of the population.
Of the four
CPR studies, one in particular offers some revealing insights. The focused population count concentrated on
four especially difficult to count Census block groups in the state—three
low-income, minority areas in Hartford, and one “college catchment”
area near the University of Connecticut.
CPR invested substantial resources in the effort, exploiting its
connection to a popular University basketball team, using 16 times the number
of enumerators as Census had available, taking the time for as many as 8
call-backs, and employing enumerators who matched the population counted and
who spoke the language (one even grew up right in the neighborhood). The result: convincing evidence that Census
likely undercounted these hard-to-count city populations by about 2.9%. By comparison, Census itself estimates the
total undercount for all of Hartford County at about 1.0%. The discrepancy is not unexpected. Vastly superior resources would be expected
to produce a superior count. What is
perhaps surprising is just how good the Census count is, given the resources it
has at its disposal.
Robert Cromley, Director of the University of Connecticut Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis, took a close look at just what that 2000 Census count revealed about
The state
also showed signs of aging. Connecticut
lost population in younger population cohorts, but gained population in older
cohorts. Between the censuses, the
population of 15 to 24 year-olds dropped 12.8%, while that of 25 to 34 year
olds plummeted 22.6%. The biggest gain,
a 36.8% jump, occurred among those 85 or older.
All other population age cohorts grew as well, except for the group
representing those who are just entering retirement age. The cohort of 65 to 74 year-olds shrank 9.6%.
Much has
been made about the claim that young residents are leaving the state in droves
for jobs elsewhere, and that’s why we’re seeing a big drop in the number of
young people in the state. But for the
most part, Cromley explained, the drop in the number
of young people reflects the natural aging of the population. In general, younger cohorts were simply
smaller than the older cohorts they grew to replace. Thus, there were fewer 25 to 34 year olds in
2000 than in 1990 because the population of 5 to 14 year olds in 1990 was so
relatively small.
Besides
this natural aging process, the only other way for population cohorts to shrink
is through net out-migration, defined as the change in population over the
period, less births plus deaths. Indeed,
Cromley’s statistics show that out-migration
accounted for fully 85% of the decline in population in the oldest population-losing
cohort—the 65 to 74 year-olds. But the
population lost among 15 to 24 year olds as a result of out-migration was a
surprisingly small 14% of the total. And
migration actually added to the total of 25 to 34 year olds in the state over
the period. So there appears to be very
little evidence of a “brain drain” at work in Connecticut.
That’s not
to say that migration patterns haven’t had a differential effect on many
Connecticut towns. By and large, towns
that have lost population both in absolute and percentage terms,
have also experienced a net out-migration of population, often of some
magnitude greater than the net population decline. In Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport, for
example, out-migration far exceeded the population declines, so net births are
clearly masking important demographic shifts.
Areas with growing population totals also tend to be areas with
significant levels of net in-migration, as for example, with the towns along
Route 2. One interesting exception:
Stamford. This town in Fairfield County
combined an increase in population with a net out-migration of residents.
As
enlightening as these statistics may be, the Census Bureau promises to offer an
even richer data set in the not-to-distant future, as explained by Ana
Maria Garcia in her presentation “Charting the Process: The
American Community Survey.” The
Bureau is now completing the development and testing of this new survey
instrument, designed to replace the Census long form. When fully implemented in
fiscal year 2003, the ACS will collect detailed economic, demographic and
housing data traditionally collected on the decennial census long form from 3
million households a year, from every county in the country. These data will provide detailed
characteristics about the nation updated every year, rather than only once
every ten years, making it an invaluable resource for researchers and policy
makers. Full implementation of the ACS
will enable the 2010 Census to collect only short-form information.
To
demonstrate the operational feasibility of collecting long form information at
the same time as, but in a separate process from the decennial census, the
Census Bureau conducted the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. The survey was completed on time, within
budget, and with a response rate of over 96 percent. Data files, tabulated files, and associated
documentation will be available on CD-ROM, as well as on the Census ACS web
site.
Besides
conducting its own demographic surveys, Census also commissions data services
from outside groups and in 1987 it approached the Massachusetts Institute for
Social and Economic Research (MISER) to develop an
origin-of-manufacturing-export data series. MISER is an interdisciplinary research
institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, founded by Stephen
Coelen.
Dr. Coelen discussed this trade data series in
his presentation “Links with the World: Deconstructing
Trade Data,” explaining how the series has changed over time, and what its
measures show for
As
originally developed, the MISER trade data series measured exports by the
origin of the manufacturer (OM). But in
1993, Census complicated the picture by requesting a series that measured trade
by the location of the exporter (EL).
The thought was that, with agricultural products in particular, the
origin of manufacturing series was simply not getting at where the product
originated. Indeed, under the EL series,
Connecticut’s export sector appears 64% larger than it does if measured using
the OM series, so the EL series certainly helps raise the profile of the export
sector. Why, then, bother reporting data
using OM? As Coelen
explains, the OM series identifies where the manufacturing process occurs and
so it captures the biggest share of the product’s value-added and pinpoints
where there are the largest multiplier effects on other parts of the economy.
Another recent development
that complicated the trade data series was Census’s request that the series be
reported using the new North American Classification System (NAICS) and also by
harmonized system commodity coding. The
switch from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to NAICS significantly
rearranged commodity groupings but it didn’t really result in any greater
reporting specificity. Under SIC there
were 34 reportable 2-digit categories and under NAICS there are 33 3-digit
groupings. In fact, the NAICS system
creates its own peculiarities by, for example, putting
A
profusion of high quality data is worthless unless data users can gain access
to the information quickly and efficiently.
A second set of speakers at the conference explored alternative systems
of data delivery.
As
many data users know,
A
website, like ConneCT, is organized by structure of
government and provides links to key agencies but lacks integration or a common
look or feel from one agency site to another.
What’s more, the site provides users with few opportunities to transact
business. The purpose of a portal, by
contrast, is to move residents out of waiting lines at state agencies and put
them “on-line” at the portal. A portal
offers users a single point of access to government information and services that is open 24 hours and is organized according to
the interests and needs of consumers.
Thus, functional categories such as “business,” “living,” and “health,”
will serve as “virtual agencies” and guide residents through the steps they
need to take to get what they’re after.
And the site can be personalized to provide weather, traffic information,
e-mail, notices, events and other announcements. Right now, the
Patrick
McGlamery, map librarian at the
The
association, according to McGlamery, has been a
productive one. Visitors now have access
to 25,000 data sets at the UConn site. And
The
Connecticut Economic Resource Center (CERC) is also set to roll out a new
subscription-based state data service called DataFinder. According to CERC’s
Vice President of Research, Jeff Blodgett, who introduced this
new web-based resource in a presentation entitled “A Comprehensive State Data Base,” DataFinder is a sophisticated menu-driven, data
dissemination and mapping tool. Users
begin by selecting a geographic area, which includes customizable geographies
such as drive-time areas, and then with a few clicks of a mouse, can choose
from among a number of data reporting options such as themed maps, survey
reports, comparison reports, rank reports and business lists. DataFinder allows
users to produce cross-comparisons from among a host of demographic, economic,
business, spatial and local government fiscal information. DataFinder also
incorporates several database components that are unique to
The
value of having a rich data depository is often uncertain until a moment of
crisis arises. One such moment occurred
The
City of
DoITT’s GIS Utility serves as the primary
City agent for inter-agency mapping, GIS coordination and data sharing. DoITT itself works to facilitate the widespread use of its
base map, it collects, standardizes, documents and publishes key geographic
data sets of interest to several City agencies and commercial entities and it provides
technical support to small agencies that lack internal GIS capabilities. The GIS Utility, or Supermap,
resides on an IBM mainframe with data stored in the Oracle spatial format.
This
integrated database with its “canned” digitized maps proved invaluable in early
days of the WTC crisis. Pre-attack orthophotos and street maps helped emergency personnel get
their bearings amid the smoke-filled rubble.
Vector maps of roads, subways, bridges, electric, water, telephone and and post-attack photos aided the rescue effort. And as the effort moved from rescue to
recovery, thermal and lidar data became key as did
the modeling and analysis of substructure utility and transportation datasets,
the coordination of efforts with FEMA, and the development of a secure web
access sit for the FDNY. As critical as
the GIS capability was to managing the WTC disaster, the event made plain one undeniable
truth: waiting until the need arises to develop an information capability is to
wait too long.
The City of Boston is also
busy turning out an integrated digital mapping system as Martin
von Wyss, of the Boston Atlas, explained. According to von Wyss,
the City knew it had an information problem when it found itself disseminating
maps that were as many as 30 years old.
So the Boston Redevelopment Authority teamed with the founder of a
digital media technology company, a software programmer and city data providers
to develop the Boston Atlas, BRA's on-line mapping
application. The Boston Atlas uses recent GIS data, including planimetric, land use, and ward and precinct maps, as well
as aerial photos from various city organizations, and is an invaluable resource
for planners, architects, developers, and students. The Atlas allows users to find information
about city addresses, make and print high-quality maps, and download data for
use in GIS and CAD applications.
Despite the successes of the New York Supermap
and the Boston Atlas, Connecticut has failed to take the necessary first step
toward creating a similar “data infrastructure” for the state according to
Deborah Dumin a GIS research specialist at the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. As the New York and Boston examples show, a
Connecticut Supermap could provide the data
infrastructure needed to help manage the state’s physical infrastructure and
serve as an invaluable tool for municipal planning, tracking land use,
emergency response and damage assessment, to name just a few applications. Currently, however, as Dumin
explains, Connecticut remains “data rich” and “information poor.” Many separate towns and state agencies
collect valuable information, but because we lack a common shared base of facts
in the form of a detailed base map of the state, it is very difficult to
coordinate and integrate these disparate projects. Since these separate activities would have
far more value were they linked together through a common base mapping system,
such a map would help the towns and the state better leverage their other
investments.
In 2000,
the Department of Environmental Protection tried to get its digital mapping
initiative off the ground by producing a digital prototype of a base map for
North Branford. Aircraft flying at 6,000
feet took photos of the ground that were scanned at a resolution of
eight-tenths of a foot and viewable at a scale of 1:40, making the map suitable
for municipal planning purposes. But
before the project could expand to other areas of the state, and despite the
Governor’s support for the program, the state legislature pulled the project’s
funding. Some towns are doing aerial
surveys of their own, and DEP continues to work with other mapping formats,
such as airborne lasers and color infrared, oblique and conventional
photography with a plan to eventually make such products available to state
residents on the Internet. But until the
legislature acts to support a digital mapping initiative, it is unlikely
Connecticut will have the same sophisticated data infrastructure that New York
and Boston now benefit from.