Census vs. 2009 ACS

[jimrtex]

These are a comparison of the 2009 ACS vs. 2010 census.  Error is the ratio of the census population to the 2009 estimate.  If greater than 100%, either the district grew or the 2009 estimate was low.  If less than 100%, then the district lost population or the 2009 estimate was high.  Rel Share is the population of the district relative to the statewide average.  Reapp is the population of the district relative to the statewide average district after reapportionment.


District              2009 ACS  2010 Cen   Error   Rel Share  Reapp
Louisiana 6            710,140   727,498   102.4%   112.3%    96.3%
Louisiana 1            685,069   686,961   100.3%   106.1%    90.9%
Louisiana 7            664,678   676,785   101.8%   104.5%    89.6%
Louisiana 4            652,178   667,109   102.3%   103.0%    88.3%
Louisiana 5            637,573   644,296   101.1%    99.5%    85.3%
Louisiana 3            630,948   637,371   101.0%    98.4%    84.4%
Louisiana 2            511,490   493,352    96.5%    76.2%    65.3%

Mississippi 1          778,350   788,095   101.3%   106.2%         
Mississippi 3          764,040   756,924    99.1%   102.0%         
Mississippi 4          739,798   754,015   101.9%   101.6%         
Mississippi 2          669,808   668,263    99.8%    90.1%         

[minionofmidas]

So they overestimated the bounceback in New Orleans... or underestimated the original depopulation.

Incidentally, I've spent the whole morning reducing the Louisiana ftp file to where it isn't total information overload anymore.

[jimrtex]

So they overestimated the bounceback in New Orleans... or underestimated the original depopulation.

Incidentally, I've spent the whole morning reducing the Louisiana ftp file to where it isn't total information overload anymore.

How did you do that?  I couldn't even get the file to load.

[minionofmidas]

So they overestimated the bounceback in New Orleans... or underestimated the original depopulation.

Incidentally, I've spent the whole morning reducing the Louisiana ftp file to where it isn't total information overload anymore.

How did you do that?  I couldn't even get the file to load.

Did trying to unzip sort of semi-freeze your computer (unrelated stuff working, if a little on the slow side)? In that case, the answer is simply patience. Bags of it. Oh yeah, I downloaded it first and opened it offline after.
One issue I have is that Open Office has a limit on the number of lines in a document... 65kodd... which is not nearly the end of the document. It goes through the state by CD first, then by legislative district, then by county (or parish in the case of Louisiana)... and the by-county hierarchy goes all the way down to block level (I think) while the earlier ones only go to Tract. Not that I cared even about Tracts. Yeah, anyways that 65k lines is reached, like, a third or a quarter down the by county part. Doing the same thing with Mississippi right now.

[jimrtex]

So they overestimated the bounceback in New Orleans... or underestimated the original depopulation.

Incidentally, I've spent the whole morning reducing the Louisiana ftp file to where it isn't total information overload anymore.

How did you do that?  I couldn't even get the file to load.

Did trying to unzip sort of semi-freeze your computer (unrelated stuff working, if a little on the slow side)? In that case, the answer is simply patience. Bags of it. Oh yeah, I downloaded it first and opened it offline after.
One issue I have is that Open Office has a limit on the number of lines in a document... 65kodd... which is not nearly the end of the document. It goes through the state by CD first, then by legislative district, then by county (or parish in the case of Louisiana)... and the by-county hierarchy goes all the way down to block level (I think) while the earlier ones only go to Tract. Not that I cared even about Tracts. Yeah, anyways that 65k lines is reached, like, a third or a quarter down the by county part. Doing the same thing with Mississippi right now.

I didn't have any problem with the unzipping, but I could only get to 15% when trying to open it as a text file.

I eventually got CD, parish, and block group data using the new version of American Fact Finder.  I'll see if I can repeat the task again on another state.  It has some idiosyncrasies.   It apparently thinks that Louisiana is an abbreviation for "La", so not only do you get all the parishes in Louisiana, you get La Paz, AZ and La Plata, CO.

[jimrtex]

Texas added.  The error in the fastest growing may simply be due to estimates being for 2009 and there was more growth following the ACS (the ACS is the sum of monthly surveys, so it may be considered to be roughly coincident with July 1.  There does appear to be something wrong with the ACS in Dallas, with the census coming in much lower in TX-3, TX-30, and TX-32.


District              2009 ACS  2010 Cen   Error   Rel Share  Reapp
Louisiana 6            710,140   727,498   102.4%   112.3%    96.3%
Louisiana 1            685,069   686,961   100.3%   106.1%    90.9%
Louisiana 7            664,678   676,785   101.8%   104.5%    89.6%
Louisiana 4            652,178   667,109   102.3%   103.0%    88.3%
Louisiana 5            637,573   644,296   101.1%    99.5%    85.3%
Louisiana 3            630,948   637,371   101.0%    98.4%    84.4%
Louisiana 2            511,490   493,352    96.5%    76.2%    65.3%

Mississippi 1          778,350   788,095   101.3%   106.2%         
Mississippi 3          764,040   756,924    99.1%   102.0%         
Mississippi 4          739,798   754,015   101.9%   101.6%         
Mississippi 2          669,808   668,263    99.8%    90.1%         

Texas 10               943,301   981,367   104.0%   124.9%   140.5%
Texas 26               907,036   915,137   100.9%   116.5%   131.0%
Texas 22               895,488   910,877   101.7%   115.9%   130.4%
Texas 31               857,673   902,101   105.2%   114.8%   129.2%
Texas 21               837,900   856,954   102.3%   109.1%   122.7%
Texas 28               817,105   851,824   104.2%   108.4%   122.0%
Texas 23               804,574   847,651   105.4%   107.9%   121.4%
Texas 4                818,462   846,142   103.4%   107.7%   121.1%
Texas 3                872,895   842,449    96.5%   107.2%   120.6%
Texas 8                808,773   833,770   103.1%   106.1%   119.4%
Texas 12               820,289   831,100   101.3%   105.8%   119.0%
Texas 25               810,390   814,381   100.5%   103.6%   116.6%
Texas 6                805,442   809,095   100.5%   103.0%   115.8%
Texas 24               791,663   792,319   100.1%   100.8%   113.4%
Texas 15               768,767   787,124   102.4%   100.2%   112.7%
Texas 2                749,676   782,375   104.4%    99.6%   112.0%
Texas 7                786,667   780,611    99.2%    99.3%   111.8%
Texas 14               760,299   779,704   102.6%    99.2%   111.6%
Texas 17               749,966   760,042   101.3%    96.7%   108.8%
Texas 16               713,169   757,427   106.2%    96.4%   108.4%
Texas 27               714,243   741,993   103.9%    94.4%   106.2%
Texas 9                738,166   733,796    99.4%    93.4%   105.1%
Texas 5                723,374   725,642   100.3%    92.3%   103.9%
Texas 1                710,414   723,464   101.8%    92.1%   103.6%
Texas 18               740,571   720,991    97.4%    91.8%   103.2%
Texas 20               700,692   711,705   101.6%    90.6%   101.9%
Texas 11               693,432   710,682   102.5%    90.4%   101.7%
Texas 30               752,686   706,469    93.9%    89.9%   101.1%
Texas 19               679,701   698,137   102.7%    88.8%    99.9%
Texas 29               675,095   677,032   100.3%    86.2%    96.9%
Texas 13               657,065   672,781   102.4%    85.6%    96.3%
Texas 32               677,328   640,419    94.6%    81.5%    91.7%