2011 Census Results By Zip Code
ZIP Codes and ZIP Code Tabulation Areas, or ZCTAs, are not the same concepts. ZIP Codes are linear, as they are a collection of postal delivery routes, while ZCTAs are approximate area representations of U.S. Postal Service (USPS) 5-digit ZIP Code service areas. The Census Bureau creates ZCTAs by using whole blocks to present statistical data from censuses and surveys. ZCTAs are defined by allocating each block that contains addresses to a single ZCTA, usually to the ZCTA that reflects the most frequently occurring ZIP Code for the addresses within that tabulation block. The Census Bureau identifies 5-digit ZCTAs using a five-character numeric code that represents the most frequently occurring USPS ZIP Code within that ZCTA, and this code may contain leading zeros.
2011 census results by zip code
For the 2011 ACS data release, there are tract numbering corrections and minor geographic definition changes to census tracts in Madison, Oneida and Richmond counties, New York. The census tract changes in Madison and Oneida Counties are the result of corrections to the Oneida American Indian Reservation boundary after the 2010 Census tract definitions had been finalized. The change to the census tracts in Richmond County corrects a tract boundary definition error.
The Census Bureau first examined all of the addresses within each census block to define the list of ZIP Codes by block. Next, the most frequently occurring ZIP Code within each block was assigned to the entire census block as a preliminary ZCTA code. After all of the census blocks with addresses were assigned a preliminary ZCTA code, blocks were aggregated by code to create larger areas.
This profile presents information from the 2011 Census of Population for various levels of geography, including provinces and territories, census metropolitan areas, communities, census tracts and health regions. Users can search for an area of interest by typing its 'place name' or by browsing a list, by entering a postal code or a geographic code.
This profile presents information from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) for various levels of geography, including provinces and territories, census metropolitan areas/census agglomerations, census divisions, census subdivisions, census tracts, federal electoral districts and health regions.
The 2011 Census Index contains two index tables (Postcode to Output Area, and Output Area to Higher Area) and higher area look-ups which are for use with the 2011 Census.Microsoft Access database (14.03 Mb)Comma Separated Value (CSV) files (4.82 Mb)File specification (Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) 147 Kb)2011 Census Indexes Content Information for 2011 Census Index
2011 Output Area code, old to new (Excel 4.01 Mb)This file provides a look-up between the archived 2011 Output Area (OA) code (published 15 August 2013) and the new 2011 OA code, along with the Council area code they are assigned to.
Frozen Postcode 2011 to Workplace Zone 2011 (Excel 2.67MB)This file provides a look-up between the 2011 Frozen Postcodes and the new 2011 Workplace Zones for Scotland. Please note there are no names assigned to Workplace Zones.
Output Area 2011 to Urban Rural 2013-14 (Excel 1.33 MB)This file provides a look-up between the 2011 Output Area code and the new Urban Rural Classification 2013-14. The file also contains a code and name look-up for these areas and their relationship to each other.
Output Area 2011 to Data Zones and Intermediate Zones 2011 (Excel 1.21MB)This file provides a look-up between the 2011 Output Area code and the new 2011 Data Zones and Intermediate Zones. The file also contains a code and name lookup for both of these areas and their relationship to each other.
Output Area 2011 to Settlements and Localities 2012 (Excel 1.93MB)This file provides a look-up between the 2011 Output Area code and the new 2012 Settlements and Localities. The file also contains a code and name lookup for both of these areas and their relationship to each other.
Output Area 2011 to Health Board Area 2014 (Excel 2.88 Mb)This file provides a look-up between the 2011 Output Area code and the new 2014 Health Board areas (which came into effect on 1 April 2014). The file also contains a code and name lookup for the new Health Board areas and their relationship to Council areas.
The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, one mPINC indicator for each of the Ten Steps was selected; these indicators are consistent with the Ten Steps, but might not encompass all aspects of each step. Second, although the mPINC survey was sent to the person identified as the most knowledgeable about the facility's policies and practices and facilities were encouraged to get input from key staff members as needed, responses might not accurately reflect actual practices. Third, the racial composition of the patients served at each facility is not collected in the mPINC survey. However, because most U.S. residents are admitted to hospitals close to where they live and most hospital service areas have only one local hospital, the data in this report for zip code areas are likely reasonable estimates for the racial composition of hospital patients, assuming overall hospital admission patterns (7) apply to births. Finally, only facilities with zip code level race data were included in this analysis. Excluded facilities might have had different percentages of blacks and maternity care practices. However, only 3% of facilities were excluded, which is not likely to have affected results.
This release contains summary results - 2011 Census estimates of usual residents broken down by sex and an estimate of the number of households with one or more usual residents - for unit postcodes in England and Wales. In addition to this, a separate table detailing the postcode/OA splits is provided.
The main population base for outputs from the 2011 Census is the usual resident population as at census day 27 March 2011. Although the population base for enumeration included non-UK short-term residents, this population is analysed separately and is not included in the main outputs from the 2011 Census. All outputs, unless specified, are produced using only usual residents of the UK.
For 2011 Census purposes, a usual resident of the UK is anyone who, on census day, was in the UK and had stayed or intended to stay in the UK for a period of 12 months or more, or had a permanent UK address and was outside the UK and intended to be outside the UK for less than 12 months.
Household spaces are identified separately in census results as those with at least one usual resident, and those that do not have any usual residents. A household space with no usual residents may still be used by short-term residents, visitors who were present on census night, or a combination of short-term residents and visitors.
A similar Output Area building block policy was also used to produce results from the 2001 Census. To maintain as much consistency and comparability with 2001 Census results, and with other national statistics, the 2001 Output Area boundaries have been preserved wherever possible for 2011.
Output Area use the nine character codes introduced from January 2011. 25th September 2013 - Correction An error was identified in the formatting for postcode E3 2UG in file "Postcode_Estimates_Table_ 1_A_F.csv" first published 28 June 2013. The initial file incorrectly contained two entries for postcode E3 2UG - E3 2UG (single space between E3 and 2UG) and E3 2UG (double space between E3 and 2UG). T The counts for these two entries, when combined provide the correct counts for this postcode.This error has now been corrected, the counts combined and the format E3 2UG (double space between E3 and 2UG) used for the new entry as this is the standard format. ONS apologises for any inconvenience caused.
For these reasons, the use of area-based SES indicators obtained from address data linked to geocoded census information is sometimes used as an alternative to self-report indicators (Bonito et al. 2012). Area-based SES indicators are convenient, as patient home addresses are routinely collected and updated by health care systems for administrative and clinical purposes. Geocode linkage can often be accomplished expeditiously and at low cost (Krieger et al. 2002a, 2003b), and census data are in the public domain. Previous studies have examined the use of area-based SES measures in monitoring disparities as part of public health surveillance (Krieger et al. 2002a, 2003a,b, 2005). Despite this, there is little evidence identifying which area-based SES indicators may be best for monitoring inequalities within other health care delivery systems. Unanswered questions include the following: How well do area-based indicators correlate with self-report indicators such as educational attainment? Which geographic level is optimal? From which domain of SES, such as income, education, or occupation (Braveman et al. 2005), should an indicator be chosen? Do single-item indicators perform as well as multidimensional indices?
These limitations are balanced by several strengths. Previous studies addressing the use of area-based SES indicators for monitoring disparities have used data from public health surveillance efforts, and while important, they may not translate to the health care delivery setting with different sources of data and different outcomes. In addition, the comparison of ZIP code-based indicators to ones defined using census geography (BG and CT) has practical implications for primary care networks. The ability to assign SES indicators to a high proportion of patients using ZIP codes, and have them perform similarly to BG- or CT-level SES indicators, increases the feasibility of monitoring SES inequalities within health care systems. Being able to construct indicators without having to use specific geocoding software significantly reduces the expense and complexity of indicator construction. Additionally, while we have focused on using area-based SES indicators for disparity surveillance, they may still be useful for research studies within practice-based research networks. For systems where researchers have access to educational attainment, or other patient-reported SES indicators, the addition of area-based SES indicators can allow for the use of multilevel frameworks when seeking to disentangle compositional and contextual effects of SES (Subramanian et al. 2009).