2012-2016 Language - no local geographies

It's not mentioned in the tech doc either: www2.census.gov/.../2016_SummaryFile_Tech_Doc.pdf

The State Data Center and Census Information Center networks received a note about on Nov. 30. I've copied it at the end of this message. This was the only source I saw; the link to the language note doesn't mention anything about geographic restrictions in the five-year data. (It's also in the table note in American Factfinder, but of course you can't get to a table that's not available for your selected geographies!)

If it helps, language data are still available for PUMAs, which in some cases can be aggregated to yield Table B16001 for counties or cities. This is still a big gap, though, since we in the Twin Cities have lost almost all local-level data on three of our six most commonly spoken language groups other than English (African languages collectively, Hmong, and Russian).

I'm really hoping the Census Bureau can figure out a less heavy-handed approach to disclosure avoidance for next year's 2013-2017 release. Does anyone know if that's a possibility?


Here's the note to SDCs/CICs:

Next week the 2016 ACS 5-year data will be released. With this release, table B16001 will no longer be available at the tract level. This is due to new Disclosure Review Board restrictions applied to B16001 only. These have been applied out of concern for respondent privacy protection. All of the other language tables will still be available at the tract level, but do not give as high a level of detail for as many specific languages.


Table note:

Additional geographical restrictions have been applied to Table B16001 - LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER for the 5-year data estimates. These restrictions are in place to protect data privacy for the speakers of smaller languages. Geographic areas published for the 5-year B16001 table include: Nation (010), States (040), Metropolitan Statistical Area-Metropolitan Divisions (314), Combined Statistical Areas (330), Congressional Districts (500), and Public Use Microdata Sample Areas (PUMAs) (795). For more information on these geographical delineations, see www.census.gov/.../geographic-reference-files.html. County and tract-level data are no longer available for table B16001; for specific language data for these smaller geographies, please use table C16001. Additional languages are also available in the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), at the State and Public Use Microdata Sample Area (PUMA) levels of geography.
Here is an example of a B16001 table at tract level (in Iselin, NJ). Notice the break-out of South Asian languages:

factfinder.census.gov/.../1400000US34023001409

Here is a link to the technical documentation PDF:

www2.census.gov/.../2016_Language_User_Note.pdf

The State Data Center and Census Information Center networks received a note about on Nov. 30. I've copied it at the end of this message. This was the only source I saw; the link to the language note doesn't mention anything about geographic restrictions in the five-year data. (It's also in the table note in American Factfinder, but of course you can't get to a table that's not available for your selected geographies!)

If it helps, language data are still available for PUMAs, which in some cases can be aggregated to yield Table B16001 for counties or cities. This is still a big gap, though, since we in the Twin Cities have lost almost all local-level data on three of our six most commonly spoken language groups other than English (African languages collectively, Hmong, and Russian).

I'm really hoping the Census Bureau can figure out a less heavy-handed approach to disclosure avoidance for next year's 2013-2017 release. Does anyone know if that's a possibility?


Here's the note to SDCs/CICs:

Next week the 2016 ACS 5-year data will be released. With this release, table B16001 will no longer be available at the tract level. This is due to new Disclosure Review Board restrictions applied to B16001 only. These have been applied out of concern for respondent privacy protection. All of the other language tables will still be available at the tract level, but do not give as high a level of detail for as many specific languages.


Table note:

Additional geographical restrictions have been applied to Table B16001 - LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER for the 5-year data estimates. These restrictions are in place to protect data privacy for the speakers of smaller languages. Geographic areas published for the 5-year B16001 table include: Nation (010), States (040), Metropolitan Statistical Area-Metropolitan Divisions (314), Combined Statistical Areas (330), Congressional Districts (500), and Public Use Microdata Sample Areas (PUMAs) (795). For more information on these geographical delineations, see www.census.gov/.../geographic-reference-files.html. County and tract-level data are no longer available for table B16001; for specific language data for these smaller geographies, please use table C16001. Additional languages are also available in the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), at the State and Public Use Microdata Sample Area (PUMA) levels of geography.
Here is an example of a B16001 table at tract level (in Iselin, NJ). Notice the break-out of South Asian languages:

factfinder.census.gov/.../1400000US34023001409

Here is a link to the technical documentation PDF:

www2.census.gov/.../2016_Language_User_Note.pdf

That's a terrible way to communicate a fairly major change! Like most of you (probably), I get dozens of emails a day.

Note that the SDC email says B16001 will no longer be available at the tract level, but the table note says "County and tract-level data are no longer available for table B16001." 

Can we please have all such changes posted to the "Table and geography changes" page?

I sent the original note above to my SDC group in NY state to let them know what was about to happen. Sorry that I didn't word everything exactly correctly. It was simply posted to a listserv, and then I guess sent to other SDC's. I only found out because a colleague here in Northern NJ said he had found out about the language suppression with this release. I do outreach here in the greater NYC area, and this loss of data is not good for many who need it in this area. We have a large South Asian community in NJ, and the loss of the language variations is problematic.