A Century of Census Tracts: Health & the Body Politic (1906–2006)
- 273 Downloads
In 2006, the U.S. celebrates the 100th birthday of the census tract. These geographic units, born out of concerns for urban well-being, were first proposed in 1906 to provide a “convenient and scientific city map system” for the City of New York. They were employed for the first time in the U.S. census in 1910 in eight cities, via a joint effort involving the U.S. Census Bureau and state and local health departments. Initially termed “sanitary areas” because of their relevance to planning for public health and health services, census tracts are now widely used by all sectors of government and by myriad disciplines in the health, social, and geographic sciences for research as well as policy development, implementation, and evaluation. In this article, I describe the census tract's underappreciated origins, give examples of its current use in analyzing and addressing social disparities in health and health care, and discuss its continued significance and implications for population health and the public data required for informed democratic governance.
KeywordsCensus tract Geocoding Geography GIS Health disparities Policy Public health surveillance Socioeconomic Urban health
Thanks to Pamela D. Waterman for generating the Year 2000 New York City census tract map. Preparation of this manuscript was not supported by any grant.
- 1.Laidlaw W. Federation districts and a suggestion for a convenient and scientific city map system. Federation. 1906;IV:1–6.Google Scholar
- 2.Watkins RJ, Swift A Jr, Green HW, Eckler AR. Golden Anniversary of Census Tracts, 1956. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association; 1956.Google Scholar
- 4.Green HW. Tuberculosis and Economic Strata. Cleveland's Five-City Area, 1928–1931. Cleveland, Ohio: Anti-Tuberculosis League; 1932.Google Scholar
- 6.Green HW. Infant Mortality and Economic Status, Cleveland Five-City Area. Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland Health Council; 1939.Google Scholar
- 7.Nathan WB. Health Conditions in North Harlem 1923–1927. New York: National Tuberculosis Association; 1932.Google Scholar
- 8.Sheps C, Watkins JH. Mortality in the socio-economic districts of New Haven. Yale J Biol Med. 1947–1948;20:51–80.Google Scholar
- 9.Terris M. Relation of economic status to tuberculosis mortality by age and sex. Am J Public Health. 1948;38:1061–1070.Google Scholar
- 11.Shevky E, Bell W. Social Area Analysis: Theory, Illustrative Application, and Computational Procedures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1955.Google Scholar
- 13.U.S. Census Bureau. Census Bureau Geography. Available at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/index.html. Accessed September 19, 2005.
- 14.Department of Housing and Urban Development. Qualified Census Tracts and Difficult Development Areas. Available at: http://www.huduser.org/datasets/qct/qct99home.html. Accessed September 19, 2005.
- 15.Health Resources and Services Administration. Health Professional Shortage Areas. Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/shortage/. Accessed September 19, 2005.
- 16.U.S. Bureau of the Census. Poverty areas. Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/statbriefs/povarea.html. Accessed September 19, 2005.
- 20.Rehkopf DH, Haughton L, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Subramanian SV, Krieger N. Monitoring socioeconomic disparities in death: comparing individual-level education and area-based socioeconomic measures. Am J Public Health. [in press].Google Scholar
- 21.Subramanian SV, Chen JT, Rehkopf DR, Waterman PD, Krieger N. Comparing individual and area-based socioeconomic measures for the surveillance of health disparities: a multilevel analysis of Massachusetts (U.S.) births, 1988–1992. Am J Epidemiol. [in press].Google Scholar
- 22.Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV, Carson R. Geocoding and monitoring of U.S. socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter?: The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:471–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV, Carson R. Choosing area based socioeconomic measures to monitor social inequalities in low birth weight and childhood lead poisoning: The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project (U.S.). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57:186–199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Krieger N, Waterman PD, Chen JT, Soobader MJ, Subramanian S. Monitoring socioeconomic inequalities in sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis, and violence: geocoding and choice of area-based socioeconomic measures—The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project (U.S.). Public Health Rep. 2003;118:240–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Singh GK, Miller BA, Hankey BF, Edwards BK. Area Socioeconomic Variations in U.S. Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Stage, Treatment, and Survival, 1975–1999. NCI Cancer Surveillance Monograph Series, Number 4. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2003. NIH Pub. No. 03-5417.Google Scholar
- 31.U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. Data release dates. Available at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/SBasics/DataDiss/RelDates.htm. Accessed September 19, 2005.
- 33.Subramanian SV, Jones K, Duncan C. Multilevel methods for public health research. In: Kawachi I, Berkman L, eds. Neighborhoods and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003:65–111.Google Scholar
- 36.Friedman DJ, Hunter EL, Parrish RG. Shaping a Vision of Health Statistics for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services Data Council, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, and National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, 2002. Available at: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/hsvision/. Accessed September 19, 2005.