Final Participation Rates Released for First Phase of Census

The Census Bureau has released the final Census 2010 participation rates from the mail-out mail-back operation, the first phase of the data collection. On Saturday, Census takers will begin the next phase, non-response follow-up, which includes visiting those addresses that did not respond to the Census forms.

To view more about the final participation rates, visit this posting on the Census coordination blog.

Chris Ramser

National Survey of Household and Small Business Hazardous Waste Collections

Small businesses that generate hazardous waste can be classified as Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) if they produce less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous materials. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows collection of these materials through Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection programs, as many of the materials are similar or identical to materials already being collected from households. However, the EPA defers to the states on the regulation of this activity, and some states do not allow collection of CESQG material through HHW programs. To gain more information on this issue, the Lone Star Chapter of the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association (NAHMMA) conducted a survey of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection programs nationwide. The purpose of the survey was to determine how many states allow the collection of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) waste through HHW programs, and to assess the pros and cons of CESQG collection via HHW programs.

(Click image for larger map)

The survey results show that 31 of 50 states, or 62% of states, do allow collection of CESQG through HHW programs. In states allowing such activities, primary reasons given for doing so were to provide a cost-effective disposal option to small businesses, to protect the environment through prevention of illegal dumping, and to mitigate the costs of providing HHW collection to citizens. The primary drawbacks to CESQG collection through HHW programs were a reluctance to accept and handle payments, need for increased capacity and training, and potential for increased liability. Because CESQG collection is not mandatory even in states where it is allowed, the majority, if not all potential drawbacks are avoided by allowing each HHW facility to elect not to collect CESQG materials if they did not wish to do so. The North American Hazardous Materials Management Association (NAHMMA) has recognized that significant environmental, financial and programmatic benefits can be realized by collecting CESQG waste through HHW programs. NAHMMA recommends that states not currently allowing these activities consider reviewing their current policies and regulatory structure. NAHMMA members are available to speak to the benefits and to provide examples of successful collection program options.

Pros of CESQG Collection Via HHW Programs

• Cost-effective disposal option for small businesses
• Protection of the environment
• Prevention of illegal dumping
• Reduces the cost burden of HHW disposal
• Existing resources used to handle greater volume
• Ability to assist with school laboratory cleanouts

Cons of CESQG Collection Via HHW Programs

• Need for increased capacity
• Inability/lack of desire to handle financial transactions
• Need for more training
• Potential for increased liability

To read the complete report which has been endorsed by the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association and the Environmental Quality Company, Click here.

Updated Census 2010 Participation Rate Data

For updated Census 2010 participation rates taken from March 30th for Capital Area cities, counties, and all cities over 50,000 in Texas, see this posting from the Census Coordination Blog.

Chris Ramser

So how good are Population Projections?

If you are using population projections that are publicly available, chances are you’re using the Texas State Data Center (TXSDC) as your resource. They’ve got several projection scenarios available and other planning organizations like the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization utilized a modified version of two of their scenarios for the 2035 transportation plan.

How do the estimates compare to the projections? Well, the Census Bureau released population estimates yesterday for counties and if you compare those numbers to the projection made by TXSDC using the Scenario 3.0, then that projection was off only 2.1%.

So what does that mean, are we growing 2.1% faster than we were from 2000-2007?

Maybe, but the Census Bureau and the TXSDC use slightly different methodologies that could attribute for some of the difference. But, still 2.1% is pretty good, I think.

Here’s a look at this data for CAPCOG counties:

(click image for larger)

Hays, Caldwell, and Williamson are pretty much dead on. The rural areas seem not as accurate, but I think that might be due more to the methodological differences.

So what will we look like in 10 years based on those projections. Population for the region would be 2.37 million, which is over 550K more than current population estimates.

(Click image for larger)


Of course all this assumes the population estimates are accurate. I guess we’ll have to wait until the Census 2010 data is released in April 2011 to see how we really measure up.

Chris Ramser

Tracking Census 2010 Participation Rates while the Census is being conducted

Yes that's right, it is being done! Check out this posting from our Census coordination blog.

Here's a few highlights from that post.

The current national participation rate stands at 16% as of March 23rd. Here's what the rate looks like for Capital Area counties versus the Census 2000 rate.

And here are the Top 10 cities in the Capital Area region.

For all cities in the region, see this spreadsheet. We'll probably look at this again in the next coming weeks.

Data from the Census Bureau's Take 10 Map, http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/

Chris Ramser

Reducing Illegal Dumping- Are Signs Effective?

Many communities struggle with the challenge of illegal dumping and the best way to address the issue. Within the CAPCOG region, there is a Regional Environmental Task Force (RETF) which is a multi-jurisdictional law enforcement effort formed to address the problems associated with illegal dumping and other environmental crimes.

The Chair of this Task Force, Sidney Parker of Travis County, has been gathering some data over the last couple of years regarding the effectiveness of No Dumping Signs. With limited funding and manpower, No Dumping Signs can be a low cost way to address this challenge – but are the signs effective?

According to Sidney’s data, the answer is yes, but only if the signs are used appropriately.

First of all, the most effective signs have the following characteristics:

- Made of metal
- Large size
- In English and Spanish
- Are placed strategically

Here are the signs that the CAPCOG region is now using:



An important note about the placement – Sidney has found that placing a sign ONLY at the problem dump site is not effective. Most likely, the dumper has already made their decision by this point, so the sign does not serve as a deterrent. On the other hand, if signs are placed at entry points along the way to the dump site - as well as at the dump site - the signs are much more effective.

Sidney’s theory is that this placement adds more psychological value to the signs – potential dumpers see the message over and over, not only when they are going to dump, but regularly along their normal driving routes.

Do the signs actually reduce instances of illegal dumping?

Here is a chart that shows, as an example, five dump sites tracked over a year and a half. For these five sites, dumping was reduced by 100 instances or 68%.

(Click image for larger version)


What does this mean regarding costs for a County?

One sign costs about $276 when the cost of the sign and the labor to install is included (this cost includes about $26 for the sign and post and about $250 in labor which includes employee’s time, travel, and insurance). It is estimated to cost about $500 for the County to clean up one illegal dumping instance. So if we look at these same five sites as an example, the County saved about $53,000 over the year and half by installing the No Dumping signs.

(Click image for larger version)


It is impossible to quantify exactly how much of this reduction can be attributed to the signs alone as opposed to other contributing factors, but we do know that sites with signs do see a decrease in dumping.

Of course, signs alone will not solve the problem of illegal dumping. But, if done right, they can be a low cost way to have an effect on a problem that plagues many communities.

Ashley Fisher

Is Austin Underserved in Health Care...or is the Region?

We received an interesting follow-up question to our last post: what happens if you look at just Travis County?

The CAPCOG region consists of the following counties: Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee, Llano, Travis, and Williamson. It's about 1.8 million people, with Travis County accounting for about 56% of the total population. As we mentioned in the last post, there are approximately 314 health care practitioner and support jobs per 10,000 people in the CAPCOG region, compared to 399 for the US. Texas comes in at 365.

Narrow it down to just Travis County and you get a different story. There are approximately 404 health care practitioner and support jobs per 10,000 people in Travis County--five more jobs than the US at 399. So maybe the more appropriate title would have been: Is Austin Underserved in Health Care...or is the Region?

Here's the Travis County versus US jobs per 10,000 ratio for all the occupation categories we have data for under health care practitioner and support jobs. Similar to how we presented the data in the last post, the number next to the occupation title is jobs per 10,000 people in Travis County and the number in parentheses is the US value. Data again is from EMSI. Calculations--and thus any errors--are ours.

Labor markets are regional so I'd hesitate to read too much into this Travis County versus Rest of Region without careful study. People can live and work in different counties and sorting out all the nuances of labor markets is messy business. But somebody should take this on.

Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants 37.24 (49.99)
Registered nurses 74.79 (85.03)
Home health aides 27.96 (33.06)
Licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses 20.33 (24.30)
Healthcare practitioners and technical workers, all other 0.59 (1.94)
Dentists, general 2.30 (3.19)
Medical transcriptionists 2.35 (3.17)
Psychiatric technicians 0.89 (1.69)
Physical therapist assistants 1.30 (2.07)
Medical and clinical laboratory technicians 4.32 (5.05)
Opticians, dispensing 1.69 (2.36)
Occupational therapist assistants 0.42 (0.90)
Physician assistants 2.08 (2.53)
Healthcare support workers, all other 6.13 (6.52)
Recreational therapists 0.41 (0.77)
Cardiovascular technologists and technicians 1.35 (1.65)
Dietetic technicians 0.55 (0.86)
Occupational health and safety specialists 1.54 (1.78)
Medical equipment preparers 1.61 (1.84)
Psychiatric aides 4.67 (4.87)
Dental hygienists 5.66 (5.81)
Prosthodontists 0.39 (0.46)
Oral and maxillofacial surgeons 0.53 (0.59)
Audiologists 0.65 (0.69)
Radiation therapists 0.57 (0.54)
Chiropractors 2.13 (2.09)
Dentists, all other specialists 0.63 (0.58)
Nuclear medicine technologists 0.83 (0.78)
Healthcare technologists and technicians, all other 2.84 (2.79)
Orthodontists 0.67 (0.59)
Pharmacy aides 2.16 (2.06)
Occupational therapist aides 0.52 (0.32)
Orthotists and prosthetists 0.77 (0.56)
Radiologic technologists and technicians 7.16 (6.89)
Optometrists 1.96 (1.68)
Physical therapist aides 1.84 (1.52)
Emergency medical technicians and paramedics 7.15 (6.78)
Athletic trainers 1.01 (0.58)
Occupational health and safety technicians 0.95 (0.43)
Respiratory therapy technicians 1.22 (0.57)
Diagnostic medical sonographers 2.40 (1.67)
Medical and clinical laboratory technologists 6.27 (5.54)
Dietitians and nutritionists 3.23 (2.44)
Podiatrists 2.19 (1.30)
Veterinary assistants and laboratory animal caretakers 3.55 (2.66)
Health diagnosing and treating practitioners, all other 3.83 (2.88)
Speech-language pathologists 5.89 (4.82)
Therapists, all other 3.38 (2.28)
Occupational therapists 4.84 (3.61)
Massage therapists 4.83 (3.53)
Pharmacists 10.14 (8.82)
Dental assistants 11.20 (9.77)
Surgical technologists 4.56 (2.97)
Veterinarians 4.20 (2.38)
Physical therapists 8.73 (6.79)
Medical records and health information technicians 7.56 (5.60)
Respiratory therapists 5.39 (3.40)
Veterinary technologists and technicians 5.43 (2.56)
Physicians and surgeons 33.85 (28.98)
Pharmacy technicians 16.53 (10.77)
Medical assistants 23.71 (16.27)

Brian Kelsey