The Consumer Expenditure Estimates dataset was created by SimplyAnalytics using small area estimation techniques. The Consumer Expenditure (CE) Public Use Microdata (PUMD) samples thousands of respondents (referred to as consumer units, or "CUs") across Texas. Each CU is assigned a weight that reflects the relative proportion of all American CUs that they represent. To estimate expenditures at the Census block group and ZCTA5 levels, we use data from the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates as a proxy for how CUs are distributed over small areas, and use this information to derive expenditure estimates for all CE spending categories. Due to limitations on the PUMD sample size, and to account for national-level weighting of all CUs, the estimates are further adjusted to account for regional fluctuations in cost of living.

The housing affordability measure illustrates the relationship between income and housing costs. A household that spends 30% or more of its collective monthly income to cover housing costs is considered to be “housing cost-burden[ed].”[1] Those spending between 30% and 49.9% of their monthly income are categorized as “moderately housing cost-burden[ed],” while those spending more than 50% are categorized as “severely housing cost-burden[ed].”[2]

How much a household spends on housing costs affects the household’s overall financial situation. More money spent on housing leaves less in the household budget for other needs, such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care, as well as for incidental purchases and saving for the future.

The estimated housing costs as a percentage of household income are categorized by tenure: all households, those that own their housing unit, and those that rent their housing unit.

Throughout the period of analysis, the percentage of housing cost-burdened renter households in Champaign County was higher than the percentage of housing cost-burdened homeowner households in Champaign County. All three categories saw year-to-year fluctuations between 2005 and 2023, and none of the three show a consistent trend. However, all three categories were estimated to have a lower percentage of housing cost-burdened households in 2023 than in 2005.

Data on estimated housing costs as a percentage of monthly income was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Housing Tenure.

[1] Schwarz, M. and E. Watson. (2008). Who can afford to live in a home?: A look at data from the 2006 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau.

[2] Ibid.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (22 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (30 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).;U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; 16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR

Commute Time (T3)

FULL MEASURE NAME

Commute time by residential location

LAST UPDATED

January 2023

DESCRIPTION

Commute time refers to the average number of minutes a commuter spends traveling to work on a typical day. The dataset includes metropolitan area, county, city, and census tract tables by place of residence.

DATA SOURCE

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census (1980-2000) - via MTC/ABAG Bay Area Census - http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/transportation.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey - https://data.census.gov/

2006-2021

Form C08136

Form C08536

Form B08301

Form B08301

Form B08301

CONTACT INFORMATION

vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator)

For the decennial Census datasets, breakdown of commute times was unavailable by mode; only overall data could be provided on a historical basis.

For the American Community Survey (ACS) datasets, 1-year rolling average data was used for all metros, region and county geographic levels, while 5-year rolling average data was used for cities and tracts. This is due to the fact that more localized data is not included in the 1-year dataset across all Bay Area cities. Similarly, modal data is not available for every Bay Area city or census tract, even when the 5-year data is used for those localized geographies.

Regional commute times were calculated by summing aggregate county travel times and dividing by the relevant population; similarly, modal commute times were calculated using aggregate times and dividing by the number of communities choosing that mode for the given geography.

Census tract data is not available for tracts with insufficient numbers of residents. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in addition to the primary metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) for the nine other major metropolitan areas.

Splitgraph serves as an HTTP API that lets you run SQL queries directly on this data to power Web applications. For example:

See the Splitgraph documentation for more information.

Analysis of the projects proposed by the seven finalists to USDOT's Smart City Challenge, including challenge addressed, proposed project category, and project description.

The time reported for the speed profiles are between 2:00PM to 8:00PM in increments of 10 minutes.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Commute Time (T4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Commute time by employment location

LAST UPDATED April 2020

DESCRIPTION Commute time refers to the average number of minutes a commuter spends traveling to work on a typical day. The dataset includes metropolitan area, county, city, and census tract tables by place of residence.

DATA SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census (1980-2000) - via MTC/ABAG Bay Area Census http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/transportation.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Table B08536 (2018 only; by place of employment) Table B08601 (2018 only; by place of employment) www.api.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) For the decennial Census datasets, breakdown of commute times was unavailable by mode; only overall data could be provided on a historical basis.

For the American Community Survey datasets, 1-year rolling average data was used for all metros, region, and county geographic levels, while 5-year rolling average data was used for cities and tracts. This is due to the fact that more localized data is not included in the 1-year dataset across all Bay Area cities. Similarly, modal data is not available for every Bay Area city or census tract, even when the 5-year data is used for those localized geographies.

Regional commute times were calculated by summing aggregate county travel times and dividing by the relevant population; similarly, modal commute time were calculated using aggregate times and dividing by the number of communities choosing that mode for the given geography. Census tract data is not available for tracts with insufficient numbers of residents.

The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas.

This data set provides demographic and journey to work characteristics of the Cambridge Resident Workforce by primary mode of their journey to work. Attributes include age, vehicles available, time leaving home, time spent traveling, and annual household income. The data set originates from a special tabulation of the American Community Survey - the 2012 - 2016 version of the Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP). The Cambridge Resident Workforce consist of all persons who both live and work in Cambridge.

For more information on Journey to Work data in Cambridge, please see the report Moving Forward: 2020 - https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/FactsandMaps/profiles/demo_moving_forward_2020.pdf

There are few centralized information systems on the evolution and composition of public investment expenditure in Latin America, a critical aspect for monitoring and evaluating investment priorities. The Database of Public Investment Expenditure in Latin America (BDD-GIPAL), available for 16 countries in the region, provides cross-classifications of expenditures (economic, institutional, and functional) for the period 2000-2016. Analysis of BDD-GIPAL helps answer three key questions: How much is invested? Who invests? And in what is it invested? Public investment in the region increased from 2.8% to 3.9% of GDP (2002-2006 vs. 2012-2016); however, this growth was driven by only five countries. Some countries in the region have delegated greater responsibility for public investment spending to subnational governments. In four countries, subnational governments account for over 50% of total public investment expenditure. Nearly 50% of public investment spending in the region has been directed toward transportation infrastructure and housing and community services. In the current context of fiscal constraints across the region, BDD-GIPAL serves as a valuable resource for policymakers and society at large to analyze the prioritization and quality of public investment expenditure.

This data set provides demographic and journey to work characteristics of the Cambridge Labor Force by primary mode of their journey to work. Attributes include age, presence of children, racial and ethnic minority status, vehicles available, time leaving home, time spent traveling, and annual household income. The data set originates from a special tabulation of the American Community Survey - the 2012 - 2016 version of the Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP). The Cambridge Labor Force consist of all persons who live in Cambridge who work or are actively seeking employment.

For more information on Journey to Work data in Cambridge, please see the report Moving Forward: 2020 - https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/FactsandMaps/profiles/demo_moving_forward_2020.pdf

The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) program provides a continuous and comprehensive flow of data on the buying habits of American consumers, including data on their expenditures, income, and consumer unit (families and single consumers) characteristics. These data are used widely in economic research and analysis, and in support of revisions of the Consumer Price Index.

The CE program is comprised of two separate components (each with its own survey questionnaire and independent sample), the Diary Survey and the quarterly Interview Survey (ICPSR 36237). This data collection contains the Diary Survey component, which was designed to obtain data on frequently purchased smaller items, including food, housing, apparel and services, transportation, entertainment, and out-of-pocket health care costs. Each consumer unit (CU) recorded its expenditures in a diary for two consecutive 1-week periods. Although the diary was designed to collect information on expenditures that could not be easily recalled over time, respondents were asked to report all expenses (except overnight travel) that the CU incurred during the survey week.

The 2013 Diary Survey release contains five sets of data files (FMLD, MEMD, EXPD, DTBD, DTID), and one processing file (DSTUB). The FMLD, MEMD, EXPD, DTBD, and DTID files are organized by the quarter of the calendar year in which the data were collected. There are four quarterly datasets for each of these files.

The FMLD files contain CU characteristics, income, and summary level expenditures; the MEMD files contain member characteristics and income data; the EXPD files contain detailed weekly expenditures at the Universal Classification Code (UCC) level; the DTBD files contain the CU's reported annual income values or the mean of the five imputed income values in the multiple imputation method; and the DTID files contain the five imputed income values. Please note that the summary level expenditure and income information on the FMLD files permit the data user to link consumer spending, by general expenditure category, and household characteristics and demographics on one set of files.

The DSTUB file provides the aggregation scheme used in the published consumer expenditure tables. The DSTUB file is further explained in Section III.F.6. 'Processing Files' of the Diary Survey Users' Guide. A second documentation guide, the 'Users' Guide to Income Imputation,' includes information on how to appropriately use the imputed income data.

Demographic and family characteristics data include age, sex, race, marital status, and CU relationships for each CU member. Income information was also collected, such as wage, salary, unemployment compensation, child support, and alimony, as well as information on the employment of each CU member age 14 and over.

The unpublished integrated CE data tables produced by the BLS are available to download through NADAC (click on 'Other' in the Dataset(s) section). The tables show average and percentile expenditures for detailed items, as well as the standard error and coefficient of variation (CV) for each spending estimate. The BLS unpublished integrated CE data tables are provided as an easy-to-use tool for obtaining spending estimates. However, users are cautioned to read the BLS explanatory letter accompanying the tables. The letter explains that estimates of average expenditures on detailed spending items (such as leisure and art-related categories) may be unreliable due to so few reports of expenditures for those items.

This table contains data on the percent of households paying more than 30% (or 50%) of monthly household income towards housing costs for California, its regions, counties, cities/towns, and census tracts. Data is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Consolidated Planning Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS). The table is part of a series of indicators in the [Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity] Affordable, quality housing is central to health, conferring protection from the environment and supporting family life. Housing costs—typically the largest, single expense in a family's budget—also impact decisions that affect health. As housing consumes larger proportions of household income, families have less income for nutrition, health care, transportation, education, etc. Severe cost burdens may induce poverty—which is associated with developmental and behavioral problems in children and accelerated cognitive and physical decline in adults. Low-income families and minority communities are disproportionately affected by the lack of affordable, quality housing. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Attachments.