This month’s post will be brief, but helpful for anyone who wants to learn Stata. I wrote a short tutorial called First Steps with Stata for an introductory social science data course I visited earlier this month. It’s intended for folks who have never used a statistical package or a command-driven interface, and represents initial steps prior to doing any statistical analysis:
Loading and viewing Stata dta files
Describing and summarizing data
Modifying and recoding data
Batch processing with Do files / scripts
Importing data from other formats
I chose the data that I used in my examples to illustrate the difference between census microdata and summary data, using sample data from the Current Population Survey to illustrate the former, and a table from the American Community Survey to represent the latter.
I’m not a statistician by training; I know the basics but rely on Python, databases, Excel, or GIS packages instead of stats packages. I learned a bit of Stata on my own in order to maintain some datasets I’m responsible for hosting, but to prepare more comprehensively to write this tutorial I relied on Using Stata for Quantitative Analysis, which I highly recommend. There’s also an excellent collection of Stata learning modules created by UCLA’s Advance Research Computing Center. Stata’s official user documentation is second to none for clearly introducing and explaining the individual commands and syntax.
In my years working in higher ed, the social science and public policy faculty I’ve met have all sworn by Stata over the alternatives. A study of citations in the health sciences, where stats packages used for the research were referenced in the texts, illustrates that SPSS is employed most often, but that Stata and R have increased in importance / usage over the last twenty years, while SAS has declined. I’ve had some students tell me that Stata commands remind them of R. In searching through the numerous shallow reviews and comparisons on the web, I found this post from a data science company that compares R, Python, SPSS, SAS, and Stata to be comprehensive and even-handed in summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of each. In short, I thought Stata was fairly intuitive, and the ability to batch script commands in Do files and to capture all input / output in logs makes it particularity appealing for creating reproducible research. It’s also more affordable than the other proprietary stats packages and runs on all operating systems.
Example – print the first five records of the active dataset to the screen for specific variables:
list statefip age sex race cinethp in f/5
| statefip age sex race cinethp |
1. | alabama 76 female white yes |
2. | alabama 68 female black yes |
3. | alabama 24 male black no |
4. | alabama 56 female black no |
5. | alabama 80 female white yes |
The CPS is a monthly stratified sample survey of 60k households. It includes a wide array of statistics, some captured routinely each month, others at various intervals (such as voter registration and participation, captured every November in even-numbered years). The same households are interviewed over a four-month period, then rotated out for four months, then rotated back in for a final four months. Given its consistency, breadth, high response rate and accuracy (interviews are conducted in-person and over the phone), researchers use the CPS microdata (individual responses to surveys that have been de-identified) to study demographic and socio-economic trends among and between different population groups. It captures many of the same variables as the American Community Survey, but includes a fair number that are not.
I think the CPS is used less often by geographers, as the sample size is too small to produce reliable estimates below the state or metropolitan area levels. I find that students and researchers who are only familiar with working with summary data often don’t use it; generating your own estimates from microdata records can be time consuming.
The IPUMS project provides an online analyzer that lets you generate summary estimates from the CPS without having to handle the individual sample records. I’ve used it in undergraduate courses where students want to generate extracts of data at the regional or state level, and who are interested in variables not collected in the ACS, such as generational households for immigrants. The online analyzer doesn’t include the full CPS, but only the data that’s collected in March as part of the core CPS series, and the Annual Social & Economic Supplement (ASEC). It includes data from 1962 to the present.
To access any of the IPUMS tools, you must register and create an account, but it’s free and non-commercial. They provide an ample amount of documentation; I’ll give you the highlights for generating a basic geographic-based extract in this post.
Creating a Basic Geographic Summary Table
Once you launch the tool, the first thing you need to do is select some variables. You can use the drill-down folder menus at the bottom left, but I find it’s easier to hit the Codebook button and peruse the alphabetical list. Let’s say we want to generate state-level estimates for nativity for a recent year. If we go into the codebook and look-up nativity, we see it captures foreign birthplace or parentage. Also in the list is a variable called statefip, which are the two-digit codes that uniquely identify every state.
Back on the main page for the Analyzer in the tables tab, we provide the following inputs:
Row represents our records or observations. We want a record for every state, so we enter the variable: statefip.
Column represents our attributes or variables. In this example, it’s: nativity.
Selection filter is used to specify that we want to generate estimates from a subset of all the responses. To generate estimates for the most recent year, we enter year as the variable and specify the filter value in parentheses: year(2020). If we didn’t specify a year, the program would use all the responses back to 1962 to generate the estimates.
Weight is the value that’s used to weight the samples to generate the estimates. The supplemental person weight sdawt is what we’ll use, as nativity is measured for individual persons. There is a separate weight for household-level variables.
Under the output option dropdown, we change the Percentaging option from column to row. Row calculates the percentage of the population in each nativity category within the state (row). The column option would provide the percentage of the population in each nativity category between the states. In this example, the row option makes more sense.
For the confidence interval, check the box to display it, as this will help us gauge the precision of the estimate. The default level is 95%; I often change this to 90% as that’s what the American Community Survey uses.
At the bottom of the screen, run the table to see the result.
In the result, the summary of your parameters appears at the top, with the table underneath. At the top of the table, the Cells contain legend lists what appears in each of the cells in order. In this example, the row percent is first, in bold. For the first cell in Alabama: 91.0% of the total population have parents who were both born in the US, the confidence interval is 90.2% to 91.8% (and we’re 90% confident that the true value falls within this range), and the large number at the bottom is the estimated number of cases that fall in this category. Since we filtered our observations for one year, this represents the total population in that category for that year (if we check the totals in the last column against published census data, they are roughly equivalent to the total population of each state).
Glancing through the table, we see that Alabama and Alaska have more cases where both parents are born in the US (91.0% and 85.1%) relative to Arizona (68.7%). Arizona has a higher percentage of cases where both parents are foreign born, or the persons themselves are foreign-born. The color coding indicates the Z value (see bottom of the table for legend), which indicates how far a variable deviates from the mean, with dark red being higher than the expected mean and dark blue being lower than expected. Not surprisingly, states with fewer immigrants have higher than average values for both parents native born (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas) while this value is lower than average for more diverse states (Arizona, California).
To capture the table, you could highlight / copy and paste the screen from the website into a spreadsheet. Or, if you return to the previous tab, at the bottom of the screen before running the table, you can choose the option to export to CSV.
Variations for Creating Detailed Crosstabs
To generate a table to show nativity for all races:
In the control box, type the variable race. The control box will generate separate tables in the results for each category in the control variable. In this case, one nativity table per racial group.
To generate a table for nativity specifically Asians:
Remove race from the control box, and add it in the filter box after the year. In parentheses, enter the race code for Asians; you can find this in the codebook for race: year(2020), race(651).
Now that we’re drilling down to smaller populations, the reliability of the estimates is declining. For example, in Arkansas the estimate for Asians for both parents foreign born is 32.4%, but the value could be as low as 22.2% or as high as 44.5%. The confidence interval for California is much narrower, as the Asian population is much larger there. How can we get a better estimate?
Generate a table for nativity for Asians over a five year period:
Add more years in the year filter, separated by commas. In this version, our confidence intervals are much narrower; notice for Asians for both parents foreign born in Arkansas is now 19.2% with a range of 14.1% to 25.6%. By increasing the sample pool with more years of data, we’ve increased the precision of the estimate at the cost of accepting a broader time period. One big caveat here: the Weighted N represents the total number of estimated cases, but since we are looking at five years of data instead of one it no longer represents a total population value for a single year. If we wanted to get an average annual estimate for this 5-year time period (similar to what the ACS produces), we’d have to divide each of estimates by five for a rough approximation. You can download the table and do these calculations in a spreadsheet or stats program.
You can also add control variables to a crosstab. For example, if you added sex as a control variable, you would generate separate female and male tables for the nativity by state for the Asian population over a given time period,
Example of a Profile Table
If we wanted to generate a profile for a given place as opposed to a comparison table, we can swap the variables we have in the rows and columns. For example, to see nativity for all Hispanic subgroups within California for a single year:
In this case, you could opt to calculate percentages by column instead of row, if you wanted to see percent totals across groups for the categories. You could show both in the same chart, but I find it’s difficult to read. In this last example, note the large confidence intervals and thus lower precision for smaller Hispanic groups in California (Cuban, Dominican) versus larger groups (Mexican, Salvadoran).
In short – this is handy tool if you want to generate some quick estimates and crosstabs from the CPS without having to download and weight microdata records yourself. You can create geographic data for regions, divisions, states, and metro areas. Just be mindful of confidence intervals as you drill down to smaller subgroups; you can aggregate by year, geography, or category / group to get better precision. What I’ve demonstrated is the tip of the iceberg; read the documentation and experiment with creating charts, statistical summaries, and more.
In this post, I’ll demonstrate how to access and download multiple decades of annual population data for US states, counties, and metropolitan areas in a single table. Last semester, I was helping a student in a GIS course find data on tuberculosis cases by state and metro area that stretched back several decades. In order to make meaningful comparisons, we needed to calculate rates, which meant finding an annual time series for total population. Using data directly from the Census Bureau is tough going, as they don’t focus on time series and you’d have to stitch together several decades of population estimates. Metropolitan areas add more complexity, as they are modified at least a few times each decade.
In searching for alternatives, I landed at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). As part of their charge is studying the economy over time, they gather data from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and others to build time series, and they update them as geography and industrial classification schemes change. They publish national, state, metropolitan area, and county-level GDP, employment, income, wage, and population tables that span multiple decades. Their economic profile table for metros and counties covers 1969 to present, while the state profile table goes back to 1958. Metropolitan areas are aggregates of counties. As metro boundaries change, the BEA normalizes the data, adjusting the series by taking older county-level data and molding it to fit the most recent metro definitions.
Finding the population data was a bit tricky, as it is embedded as one variable in the Economic Profile table (identified as CAINC30) that includes multiple indicators. Here’s the path to get it:
From the options on the next page, choose Regional from the National, Industry, International or Regional data options. There’s also a link to a video that illustrates how to use the BEA interactive data tool.
From the Regional Data page, click “Begin using the data” (but note you can alternatively “Begin mapping the data” to make some basic web maps too, like the one in the header of this post).
On the next page are categories, and under each category are data tables for specific series. In this case, Personal Income and Employment by County and Metropolitan Area was what I wanted, and under that the Economic Profile CAINC30 table (states appear under a different heading, but there’s a comparable Economic Profile table for them, SAINC30).
On the multi-screen table builder, you choose a type of geography (county or different metro area options), and on the next tab you can choose individual places, hold down CTRL and select several, or grab them all with the option at the top of the dropdown. Likewise for the Statistic, choose Population (persons), or grab a selection, or take all the stats. Under the Unit of Measure dropdown, Levels gives you the actual statistic, but you can also choose percent change, index values, and more. On the next tab, choose your years.
On the final page, if your selection is small enough you can preview the result and then download. In this case it’s too large, so you’re prompted to grab an Excel or CSV file to download.
And there you have it! One table with 50+ years of annual population data, using current metro boundaries. The footnotes at the bottom of the file indicate that the latest years of population data are based on the most recent vintage estimates from the Census Bureau’s population estimates. Once the final intercensal estimates for the 2010s are released, the data for that decade will be replaced a final time, and the estimates from the 2020s will be updated annually as each new vintage is released until we pass the 2030 census. Their documentation is pretty thorough.
The Interactive Data table approach allows you to assemble your series step by step. If you wanted to skip all the clicking you can grab everything in one download (all years for all places for all stats in a given table). Of course, that means some filtering and cleaning post-download to isolate what you need. There’s also an API, and several other data series and access options to explore. The steps for creating the map that appears at the top of this post were similar to the steps for building the table.
I have written a new report that’s just been released: US Census Data: Concepts and Applications for Supporting Research, was published as the May / June 2022 issue of the American Library Association’s Library and Technology Reports. It’s available for purchase digitally or in hard copy from the ALA from now through next year. It will also be available via EBSCOhost as full text, sometime this month. One year from now, the online version will transition to become a free and open publication available via the tech report archives.
The report was designed to be a concise primer (about 30 pages) for librarians who want to be knowledgeable with assisting researchers and students with finding, accessing, and using public summary census data, or who want to apply it to their own work as administrators or LIS researchers. But I also wrote it in such a way that it’s relevant for anyone who is interested in learning more about the census. In some respects it’s a good distillation of my “greatest hits”, drawing on work from my book, technical census-related blog posts, and earlier research that used census data to study the distribution of public libraries in the United States.
Roles of the Census: in American society, the open data landscape, and library settings
Census Concepts: geography, subject categories, tables and universes
Datasets: decennial census, American Community Survey, Population Estimates, Business Establishments
Accessing Data: data.census.gov, API with python, reports and data summaries
GIS, historical research, and microdata: covers these topics plus the Current Population Survey
The Census in Library Applications: overview of the LIS literature on site selection analysis and studying library access and user populations
I’m pleased with how it turned out, and in particular I hope that it will be used by MLIS students in data services and government information courses.
Although… I must express my displeasure with the ALA. The editorial team for the Library Technology Reports was solid. But once I finished the final reviews of the copy edits, I was put on the spot to write a short article for the American Libraries magazine, primarily to promote the report. This was not part of the contract, and I was given little direction and a month at a busy time of the school year to turn it around. I submitted a draft and never heard about it again – until I saw it in the magazine last week. They cut and revised it to focus on a narrow aspect of the census that was not the original premise, and they introduced errors to boot! As a writer I have never had an experience where I haven’t been given the opportunity to review revisions. It’s thoroughly unprofessional, and makes it difficult to defend the traditional editorial process as somehow being more accurate or thorough compared to the web posting and tweeting masses. They were apologetic, and are posting corrections. I was reluctant to contribute to the magazine to begin with, as I have a low opinion of it and think it’s deteriorated in recent years, but that’s a topic for a different discussion.
Stepping off the soapbox… I’ll be attending the ALA annual conference in DC later this month, to participate on a panel that will discuss the 2020 census, and to reconnect with some old colleagues. So if you want to talk about the census, you can buy me some coffee (or beer) and check out the report.
A final research and publication related note – the map that appears at the top of my post on the distribution of US public libraries from several years back has also made it into print. It appears on page 173 of The Argument Toolbox by K.J. Peters, published by Broadview Press. It was selected as an example of using visuals for communicating research findings, making compelling arguments in academic writing, and citing underlying sources to establish credibility. I’m browsing through the complimentary copy I received and it looks excellent. If you’re an academic librarian or a writing center professional and are looking for core research method guides, I would recommend checking it out.
Last week, the Census Bureau released the latest 5-year estimates for the American Community Survey for 2016-2020. This latest dataset uses the new 2020 census geography, which means if you’re focused on using the latest data, you can finally move away from the 2010-based geography which had been used for the ACS from 2010 to 2019 (with some caveats: 2020 ZCTAs won’t be utilized until the 2021 ACS, and 2020 PUMAs until 2022). As always, mappers have a choice between the TIGER Line files that depict the precise boundaries, or the generalized cartographic boundary files with smoothed lines and large sections of coastal water bodies removed to depict land areas. The 2016-2020 ACS data is available via data.census.gov and the ACS API.
This release is over 3 months late (compared to normal), and there was some speculation as to whether it would be released at all. The pandemic (chief among several other disruptive events) hampered 2020 decennial census and ACS operations. The 1-year 2020 ACS numbers were released over 2 months later than usual, in late November 2021, and were labeled as an experimental release. Instead of the usual 1,500 plus tables in 40 subject areas for all geographic areas with over 65,000 people, only 54 tables were released for the 50 states plus DC. This release is only available from the experimental tables page and is not being published via data.census.gov.
What happened? The details were published in a working paper, but in summary fewer addresses were sampled and the normal mail out and follow-up procedures were disrupted (pg 8). The overall sample size fell from 3.5 to 2.9 million addresses due to reduced mailing between April and June 2020 (pg 18), and total interviews fell from 2 million to 1.4 million with most of the reductions occurring in spring and summer (pg 18). The overall housing unit response rate for 2020 was 71%, down from 86% in 2019 and 92% in 2018 (pg 20). The response rate for the group quarters population fell from 91% in 2019 to 47% in 2020 (pg 21). Responses were differential, varying by time period (with the lowest rates during the peak pandemic months) and geography. Of the 818 counties that meet the 65k threshold, response rates in some were below 50% (pg 21). The data contained a large degree of non-response bias, where people who did respond to the survey had significantly different social, economic and housing characteristics from those who didn’t. As a consequence of all of this, margins of error for the data increased by 20 to 30% over normal (pg 18).
Thus, 2020 will represent a hole in the ACS estimates series. The Bureau made adjustments to weighting mechanisms to produce the experimental 1-year estimates, but is generally advising policy makers and researchers who normally use this series to choose alternatives: either the 1-year 2019 ACS, or the 5-year 2016-2020 ACS. The Bureau was able to make adjustments to produce satisfactory 5-year estimates to reduce non-response bias, and the 5-year pool of samples is balanced somewhat by having at least 4 years of good data.
The Population Estimates Program has also released its latest series of vintage 2021 estimates for counties and metropolitan areas. This dataset gives us a pretty sharp view of how the pandemic affected the nation’s population. Approximately 73% of all counties experienced natural decrease in 2021 (between July 1st 2020 and 2021), where the number of deaths outnumbered births. In contrast, 56% of counties had natural decrease in 2020 and 46% in 2019. Declining birth rates and increasing death rates are long term trends, but COVID-19 magnified them, given the large number of excess deaths on one hand and families postponing child birth due to the virus on the other hand. Net foreign migration continued its years-long decline, but net domestic migration increased in a number of places, reflecting pandemic moves. Medium to small counties benefited most, as did large counties in the Sunbelt and Mountain West. The biggest losers in overall population were counties in California (Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Alameda), Cook County (Chicago), and the counties that constitute the boroughs of NYC.
In late summer and early fall I was hammering out the draft for an ALA Tech Report on using census data for research (slated for release early 2022). The earliest 2020 census figures have been released and there are several issues surrounding this, so I’ll provide a summary of what’s happening here. Throughout this post I link to Census Bureau data sources, news bulletins, and summaries of trends, as well as analysis on population trends from Bill Frey at Brookings and reporting from Hansi Lo Wang and his colleagues at NPR.
Count Result and Reapportionment Numbers
The re-apportionment results were released back in April 2020, which provided the population totals for the US and each of the states that are used to reallocate seats in Congress. This data is typically released at the end of December of the census year, but the COVID-19 pandemic and political interference in census operations disrupted the count and pushed all the deadlines back.
Despite these disruptions, the good news is that the self-response rate, which is the percentage of households who submit the form on their own without any prompting from the Census Bureau, was 67%, which is on par with the 2010 census. This was the first decennial census where the form could be submitted online, and of the self-responders 80% chose to submit via the internet as opposed to paper or telephone. Ultimately, the Bureau said it reached over 99% of all addresses in its master address file through self-response and non-response follow-ups.
The apportionment results showed that the population of the US grew from approximately 309 million in 2010 to 331 million in 2020, a growth rate of 7.35%. This is the lowest rate of population growth since the 1940 census that followed the Great Depression. Three states lost population (West Virginia, Mississippi, and Illinois), which is the highest number since the 1980 census. The US territory of Puerto Rico lost almost twelve percent of its population. Population growth continues to be stronger in the West and South relative to the Northeast and Midwest, and the fastest growing states are in the Mountain West.
Public Redistricting Data
The first detailed population statistics were released as part of the redistricting data file, PL 94-171. Data in this series is published down to the block level, the smallest geography available, so that states can redraw congressional and other voting districts based on population change. Normally released at the end of March, this data was released in August 2021. This is a small package that contains the following six tables:
P1. Race (includes total population count)
P2. Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race
P3. Race for the Population 18 Years and Over
P4. Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race for the Population 18 Years and Over
P5. Group Quarters Population by Major Group Quarters Type
H1. Occupancy Status (includes total housing units)
The redistricting files illustrate the increasing diversity of the United States. The number of people identifying as two or more races has grown from 2.9% of the total population in 2010 to 10.2% in 2020. Hispanics and Latinos continue to be the fastest growing population group, followed by Asians. The White population actually shrank for the first time in the nation’s history, but as NPR reporter Hansi-Lo Wang and his colleagues illustrate this interpretation depends on how one measures race; as race alone (people of a single race) or persons of any race (who selected white and another race), and whether or not Hispanic-whites are included with non-Hispanic whites (as Hispanic / Latino is not a race, but is counted separately as an ethnicity, and most Hispanics identify their race as White or Other). The Census Bureau has also provided summaries using the different definitions. Other findings: the nation is becoming progressively older, and urban areas outpaced rural ones in population growth. Half of the counties in the US lost population between 2010 and 2020, mostly in rural areas.
2020 Demographic and Housing Characteristics and the ACS
There still isn’t a published timeline for the release of the full results in the Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC – known as Summary File 1 in previous censuses, I’m not sure if the DHC moniker is replacing the SF1 title or not). There are hints that this file is going to be much smaller in terms of the number of tables, and more limited in geographic detail compared to the 2010 census. Over the past few years there’s been a lot of discussion about the new differential privacy mechanisms, which will be used to inject noise into the data. The Census Bureau deemed this necessary for protecting people’s privacy, as increased computing power and access to third party datasets have made it possible to reverse engineer the summary census data to generate information on individuals.
What has not been as widely discussed is that many tables will simply not be published, or will only be summarized down to the county-level, also for the purpose of protecting privacy. The Census Bureau has invited the public to provide feedback on the new products and has published a spreadsheet crosswalking products from 2010 and 2020. IPUMS also released a preliminary list of tables that could be cut or reduced in specificity (derived from the crosswalk), which I’m republishing at the bottom of this post. This is still preliminary, but if all these changes are made it would drastically reduce the scope and specificity of the decennial census.
And then… there is the 2020 American Community Survey. Due to COVID-19 the response rates to the ACS were one-third lower than normal. As such, the sample is not large or reliable enough to publish the 1-year estimate data, which is typically released in September. Instead, the Census will publish a smaller series of experimental tables for a more limited range of geographies at the end of November 2021. There is still no news regarding what will happen with the 5-year estimate series that is typically released in December.
Needless to say, there’s no shortage of uncertainty regarding census data in 2020.
Tables in 2010 Summary File 1 that Would Have Less Geographic Detail in 2020(Proposed)
Proposed 2020 Lowest Level of Geography
2010 Lowest Level of Geography
Hispanic or Latino Origin of Householder by Race of Householder
Household Size by Household Type by Presence of Own Children
Household Type by Age of Householder
Households by Presence of People 60 Years and Over by Household Type
Households by Presence of People 60 Years and Over, Household Size, and Household Type
Households by Presence of People 75 Years and Over, Household Size, and Household Type
Household Type by Household Size
Household Type by Household Size by Race of Householder
Relationship by Age for the Population Under 18 Years
Household Type by Relationship for the Population 65 Years and Over
Household Type by Relationship for the Population 65 Years and Over by Race
Family Type by Presence and Age of Own Children
Family Type by Presence and Age of Own Children by Race of Householder
Age of Grandchildren Under 18 Years Living with A Grandparent Householder
Household Type by Relationship by Race
Average Household Size by Age
To be determined
Household Type for the Population in Households
To be determined
Household Type by Relationship for the Population Under 18 Years
To be determined
Population in Families by Age
To be determined
Average Family Size by Age
To be determined
Family Type and Age for Own Children Under 18 Years
To be determined
Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
To be determined
Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
To be determined
Sex by Age for the Population in Households
Sex by Age for the Population in Households by Race
Presence of Multigenerational Households
Presence of Multigenerational Households by Race of Householder
Coupled Households by Type
Nonfamily Households by Sex of Householder by Living Alone by Age of Householder
Group Quarters Population by Sex by Age by Group Quarters Type
Tables in 2010 Summary File 1 That Would Be Eliminated in 2020(Proposed)
Population in Households by Age by Race of Householder
Average Household Size by Age by Race of Householder
Households by Age of Householder by Household Type by Presence of Related Children
Households by Presence of Nonrelatives
Household Type by Relationship for the Population Under 18 Years by Race
Household Type for the Population Under 18 Years in Households (Excluding Householders, Spouses, and Unmarried Partners)
Families by Race of Householder*
Population in Families by Age by Race of Householder
Average Family Size by Age by Race of Householder
Family Type by Presence and Age of Related Children
Family Type by Presence and Age of Related Children by Race of Householder
Group Quarters Population by Major Group Quarters Type*
Allocation of Population Items
Allocation of Race
Allocation of Hispanic or Latino Origin
Allocation of Sex
Allocation of Age
Allocation of Relationship
Allocation of Population Items for the Population in Group Quarters
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone with One Tribe Reported for Selected Tribes
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone with One or More Tribes Reported for Selected Tribes
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone or in Combination with One or More Other Races and with One or More Tribes Reported for Selected Tribes
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone or in Combination with One or More Other Races
Asian Alone with One Asian Category for Selected Groups
Asian Alone with One or More Asian Categories for Selected Groups
Asian Alone or in Combination with One or More Other Races, and with One or More Asian Categories for Selected Groups
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone with One Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Category for Selected Groups
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone with One or More Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Categories for Selected Groups
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone or in Combination with One or More Races, and with One or More Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Categories for Selected Groups
Hispanic or Latino by Specific Origin
Sex by Single Year of Age by Race
Household Type by Number of Children Under 18 (Excluding Householders, Spouses, and Unmarried Partners)
Presence of Unmarried Partner of Householder by Household Type for the Population Under 18 Years in Households (Excluding Householders, Spouses, and Unmarried Partners)
Nonrelatives by Household Type
Nonrelatives by Household Type by Race
Group Quarters Population by Major Group Quarters Type by Race
Group Quarters Population by Sex by Major Group Quarters Type for the Population 18 Years and Over by Race
Total Races Tallied for Householders
Hispanic or Latino Origin of Householders by Total Races Tallied
Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure by Race of Householder
Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units by Tenure by Race of Householder
Occupied Housing Units Substituted
Allocation of Vacancy Status
Allocation of Tenure
Tenure by Presence and Age of Related Children
* Counts for these tables are available in other proposed DHC tables. For example, the count of families is available in the Household Type table, which will be available at the block level in the 2020 DHC.
You must be logged in to post a comment.