Vol. 2 - No. 40
Aug. 25, 1998
On Tuesday afternoon, Aug. 24, Secretary of Commerce William
M. Daley issued a statement in response to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia's order enjoining the
Census Bureau from using "any form of statistical sampling"
in Census 2000. The Secretary's statement follows:
"We are obviously disappointed with today's ruling on the
Census. What is at stake here is the ability of the Census
Bureau to use the most modern scientific methods to ensure
an accurate and fair census. We will ask the Solicitor
General to appeal the ruling and we expect the Supreme Court
to reverse it. Meantime, the Census Bureau will proceed with
its two-track planning process, preparing for both a census
using an element of statistical sampling, and a census that
would not use those methods.
"In the cases arising out of the 1980 and 1990 census,
courts have held that the use of statistical sampling
methods in the decennial is both constitutional and lawful.
In 1991, Congress passed and President Bush signed
legislation directing the National Academy of Sciences to
determine a more accurate method for counting the
population, including the possible use of statistical
sampling. We concur with the findings of the Academy and
other experts that a census using statistical sampling will
produce much more accurate results, and at far less cost,
than a census not using these methods."
For further information concerning this bulletin, contact
Mary Hanley (202-482-4883) or Karen Cowles (202-482-1523) at
the Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Commerce Department.
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:42:23 -0400
From: census2000 <census2000(a)ccmc.org>
BREAKING NEWS ALERT
Federal Court Finds Law Bars Census Sampling Methods
Commerce Department Will Appeal to Supreme Court;
Three-Judge District Court Panel Avoids Constitutional
A federal district court panel ruled unanimously today that
a census statute bars the use of sampling methods to produce
the population counts used to reapportion seats in
Congress. The opinion, written by Judge Royce Lamberth, was
issued in the case of U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S.
Department of Commerce, filed at the direction of Speaker
Newt Gingrich (R-GA) to stop the Census Bureau from using
scientific methods in the 2000 census. The special
three-judge panel heard the case on June 11. Judge Lamberth
was joined by Judges Douglas Ginsburg and Ricardo Urbina in
his opinion. A copy of the 31-page decision is available on
the internet at <http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov>.
The court found that the plaintiffs had legal "standing" to
bring their lawsuit, which the Justice Department,
representing the Commerce Department and Census Bureau, had
disputed. The court wrote that Congress intended to
prohibit the use of sampling methods to conduct the
population count when it amended the Census Act (title 13,
United States Code) in 1974. One provision of that statute
(section 195) requires the Secretary of Commerce to use
sampling techniques whenever possible to collect census and
other survey data, except for purposes of apportionment.
Another provision of the law (section 141) requiring a
census every ten years allows the Secretary to conduct the
count using any methods, including sampling. Several
federal district and appellate courts have considered those
apparently conflicting provisions in cases dating back to
the 1980 census and have found that the law does not bar
sampling to supplement a "good faith" direct counting
In a joint statement, Congressional Census Caucus Co-Chairs
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) said
that they expected the Supreme Court to decide the issue
ultimately. Former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO),
who chaired the census subcommittee when the contested
provisions of the law were enacted, said that the court's
opinion "directly contradicted the intent of Congress" in
amending the Census Act. Harvard Law professor Laurence
Tribe called the ruling a "temporary blow" and said the
history of the statute "[doesn't] provide any basis" for the
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform,
released a statement that opened with the following quote:
"Americans for Tax Reform welcomes the court's rejection of
this blatantly illegal scheme to advance the agenda of the
forces of big government." The court did not rule on whether
the Constitution also prevented the use of sampling and
statistical methods in the census, saying that it did not
need to reach that question since it believed Congress had
barred the methods by law. In the major lawsuit challenging
the accuracy of the 1990 census, the Supreme Court found
that Article I, section 2, of the Constitution gives
Congress "virtually unlimited discretion" in how to conduct
A second lawsuit challenging the constitutionality and
legality of sampling, Glavin v. Clinton, was heard by a
three-judge district court panel in Roanoke, Virginia on
August 7. Matthew Glavin, head of the Atlanta-based
Southeastern Legal Foundation, and Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA)
filed suit on February 12 to stop the Census Bureau from
carrying out its 2000 census plan.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert
may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 484-2270 or,
by e-mail at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. Please direct all
requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in
address/phone/fax/e-mail, to <census2000(a)ccmc.org> or
202/326-8728. Please feel free to circulate this
information to colleagues and other interested individuals.
In reply to Ed Christopher's question about the NAICS changes-
Here in Denver, we are looking forward to these changes. The old SIC codes are no longer reflecting the character of the economy, at least in our setting. With the service sector becoming such a dominant part of the economy, the new system will break services into several major groups.
We are hopeful that this will be useful for transportation modeling as well. the new system will provide n opportunity to group industires together that have similar travel patterns. Again, changes in the way business functions are making the SIC groupings less releevant to transportation modeling.
Hope that encourages you to review the changes.
Director, Development Services
Denver Regional Council of Governments.
> Chuck thanks for the heads-up. Anyone on the list care to comment on
> this NAICS thing? Is it a good thing? Working in an agency that gets its
> employment data given to it by another agency I really do not have a good
> read on this. I am sure there are others equally unaware of what NAICS
> means to them.
> ed christopher
> director of information services
> chicago area transportation study
> Chuck Purvis (MTC) wrote:
> > Dear CTPP Listserv recipients:
> > I'm forwarding this message that a colleague received from the state
> > data center listserv.
> > Chuck Purvis, MTC
> > ***************************************************************
> > The Census 2000 will be using 2 new classification systems. NAICS or
> > North American Industry Classification System will be used for
> > classifying employment by industry. SOC or Standard Occupational
> > Classification will be used to classify occupations.
> > I encourage you to become familiar with the SOC revisions and to
> > submit comments. Thanks.
> > Patricia Roberts
> > paroberts(a)mt.gov
> > 406.444.4393
> > ------------------clipped-------------------------
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Dear CTPP Listserv recipients:
I'm forwarding this message that a colleague received from the state
data center listserv.
Chuck Purvis, MTC
The Census 2000 will be using 2 new classification systems. NAICS or
North American Industry Classification System will be used for
classifying employment by industry. SOC or Standard Occupational
Classification will be used to classify occupations.
I encourage you to become familiar with the SOC revisions and to
submit comments. Thanks.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is seeking public comment
on the Standard Occupational Classification Revision Policy
Committee's (SOCRPC) final recommendations for revising the 1980
Standard Occupational Classification's (SOC) occupational units and
aggregate groups presented in this notice. The SOCRPC has developed
a new occupational classification system that will cover all jobs in
the national economy, including occupations in the public, private,
and military sectors.
All Federal agencies that collect occupational data will use the new
system; similarly, all State and local government agencies are
strongly encouraged to use this national system to promote a common
language for categorizing occupations in the world of work. The new
SOC system will be used by the Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES) program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for gathering
occupational information. It will also replace the Bureau of the
Census' 1990 occupational classification system and will be used for
the 2000 Census. In addition, the new SOC will serve as the framework
for information being gathered through the Department of Labor's
Occupational Information Network (O*NET), which is in the process of
replacing the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).
Request For Comments: OMB welcomes comments with respect to any topic
related to occupational classification, but is specifically
interested in comments concerning:
(1) the hierarchical structure of the new SOC presented in Appendix A
below, especially the minor group, broad occupation, and detailed
occupation organization within the structure, and the numbering
system used, and
(2) the establishment of ongoing review and update procedures and a
time frame for future revision as outlined in the "Next Steps in
Process" recommendations near the end of the Supplementary
Information section below. It is anticipated that the next major
review and revision of the SOC will begin in 2005 in preparation for
use in the 2010 Decennial Census.
DATES: To ensure consideration all comments must be in writing and
received on or before October 9, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Correspondence about the adoption and implementation of
the SOC as shown in this Federal Register notice should be sent to:
Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Management and
Budget, 10201 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503,
(202) 395-3093, FAX number: (202) 395-7245.
Inquiries about the definition of particular occupations or requests
for electronic copies of the SOC structure should be made to Laurie
Salmon, Standard Occupational Classification Revision Policy
Committee, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4840, Washington, DC
20212, telephone number: (202) 606-6511, FAX number: (202)
Electronic Availability and Comment: This document is available on
the Internet from the Bureau of Labor Statistics via WWW browser and
To obtain this document via WWW browser, connect to
This WWW page contains previous SOC Federal Register notices and
related documents as well. To obtain this document via E-mail, send
a message to socrevision(a)bls.gov.
Comments may be sent via E-mail to OMB at soc(a)omb.eop.gov (do not
include any capital letters in the address). Comments received at
this address by the date specified above will be included as part of
the official record.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Bugg, 10201 New Executive
Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20503, E-mail address:
pbugg(a)omb.eop.gov, telephone number: (202) 395-3093, FAX number:
To review the full Federal Register notice and specific
classifications/defnitions, go to:
Dear Urban Mobility Professional,
I would like to present you with the August edition of the Urban Mobility
Professional wherein the topic Traffic management will be discussed.
Please take a look at http://www.mobility-net.com/ump/issue3 You will find
Traffic Management articles, press releases, internet links, experts and
If you would like to subscribe yourself to this FREE magazine, please go to
or follow the below instructions:
1. E-magazine including images:
This service is only available if you have one of the following
mail-programs: Netscape 4 / Outlook Express '97/ Eudora 4 etc.). Please send
a message to mailmanager(a)mobility-net.com with the following message in the
body: join ump
2. E-magazine in text format:
Please send a message to mailmanager(a)mobility-net.com with the following
message in the body: join ump-t
! send both messages using plain text (no HTML codes)
Thank you and best regards,
Editor / Information Manager
Urban Mobility Network
P.O. Box 917
6200 AX Maastricht
Tel. ++31 43 3213022
Fax. ++31 43 3211062
Subscribe yourself to our FREE electronic magazine:
Visit our Mobility Forum. Current topic - Traffic Management :
To present your company in our magazine and/or UMN platform: contact Arie
********** C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N
Vol. 2 - No. 39 Aug. 10,
As of Aug. 1, 7,475 cities, counties, and tribal governments
had signed confidentiality agreements with the Census
Bureau, enabling them to take part in the Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program, a new activity in which
local and tribal governments can review and check the
accuracy of Census 2000 address lists.
The Census Bureau's Geography Division also reported that as
of Aug. 1 a total of 10,362 of the 17,311 governmental units
in which house-number and street-name addresses are used for
mail delivery had responded -- the overwhelming majority
positively -- to the Census Bureau's invitation to
participate in the address-list review opportunity.
The Census Bureau's Geography Division said officials in all
of the jurisdictions had signed and returned forms pledging
that they would protect the confidentiality of the address
lists. Signing of the confidentiality agreements was a
prerequisite for the Census Bureau to generate the
corresponding portions of the address lists handed over to
officials in each
of the jurisdictions.
Local officials will match the Census Bureau address list
against their own address lists and inform the Census Bureau
of any corrections or additions. They have three months from
the time they receive the list and the large-scale (36" x
42") map sheets for their jurisdictions to complete their
Local and tribal governments can review the census address
list in different ways. Some choose to do a comprehensive
review, including field checks, but others have indicated
they will employ a less intensive approach and focus on
areas where addresses are more likely to be missed - newly
constructed housing, apartment buildings with irregular or
missing numbering schemes for individual units, areas along
jurisdictional boundaries, etc.
Under a law passed by Congress in 1994, the Census Bureau
was directed to develop a program that would allow local and
tribal governments to provide assistance in verifying the
accuracy of its address list, which will be used in Census
2000 as the framework for conducting the census.
In early 1999, the Census Bureau will offer a similar
address-list review opportunity for areas that use other
mail-delivery methods. Staff from the Census Bureau's
Regional Census Centers have been conducting training
sessions for local and tribal participants, and will be
available throughout the program to answer questions. A
toll-free telephone number (888-688-6948) will direct calls
from participants to the appropriate census offices.
Participants receiving computer-readable files can receive
technical assistance by calling a contractor-operated help
desk at a toll-free telephone number (888-879-6656).
For further information concerning this bulletin, contact
Catherine McCully of the Census Bureau's Geography Division
on 301-457-8630 (fax: 301-457-4710; e-mail:
The 1997 American Community Survey Online
Data for more than 65,000 areas accessible on the Internet
New areas surveyed include Franklin County, Ohio, Douglas
County, Neb., and Fort Bend and Harris counties, Texas. Two
years of data are available for Rockland County, N.Y. and
Multnomah County and Portland, Ore. The 1997 data appear in
both summary and area-profile formats.
********** C E N S U S 2 0 0 0 B U L L E T I N
Vol. 2 - No.
38 Aug. 6,
Both President Clinton and Commerce Secretary William Daley
issued separate statements yesterday (Aug. 5) following the
House of Representatives' vote rejecting a move to lift
restrictions on the Census Bureau's Fiscal Year 1999 budget.
They follow in their entirety:
Statement by the President
"I am very disappointed that the House failed to adopt an
amendment to the FY99 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations
bill that would have removed onerous restrictions on the
Census Bureau's plan for the decennial census. By failing
to adopt this amendment, the House is undermining the Census
Bureau's ability to plan and conduct an accurate decennial
"To ensure a fair and accurate count, my Administration has
supported the 2000 census plan developed by the experts at
the Census Bureau that was based upon recommendations by the
National Academy of Sciences. It is a plan that will correct
the inaccuracies of the 1990 census, which missed millions
of Americans and disproportionately undercounted children,
minorities, and residents in urban and rural communities.
This is the first census of the 21st Century, and we must
ensure that the census, the single most important source of
information about the American people, is accurate.
"Congress must remove these restrictions. It is critically
important that the Census Bureau have the funding it needs
to implement its 2000 census plan -- a plan that will
produce the most accurate census in history using the best,
most up-to-date scientific methods."
Statement of U.S. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley
"The House of Representatives voted today to limit FY 1999
funding for the 2000 Census to the first six months of the
coming fiscal year, while holding captive the Census
Bureau's remaining decennial census funds until Congress
decides how our nation's next count shall be conducted. Such
an action represents a veiled attempt to prevent the use of
proven scientific statistical methods, endorsed by the
National Academy of Sciences and the vast majority of
non-partisan statistical experts and professional
organizations, to ensure the most accurate census ever
conducted. I will urge the President to veto the Commerce,
Justice, State Appropriations bill should it come to his
desk with this restrictive language.
"I was disappointed that the House failed to adopt the
amendment offered by Representative Alan Mollohan which
would have restored full-year FY 1999 funding for Census
2000, allowing the Bureau to continue its current planning
for the decennial census. The Bureau is in the process of
conducting critical large-scale operations, such as the
creation of the address lists, the contracting for the
printing of census forms, the purchasing of advanced data
processing equipment, and the hiring of thousands of
workers. These and other activities are essential to a
successful census. Without the certainty of full-year
funding, the Bureau cannot move forward with these
operations and the prospects for Census 2000 are greatly
"The Administration remains absolutely committed to
conducting the best census in our nation's history, one
which accounts for all Americans regardless of race,
economic status, or geographic location. To do this requires
FY 1999 budget certainty from the Congress and a plan that
utilizes the most modern scientific techniques. I call upon
the Congress to remedy this problem and fund the Census
Bureau with its full-year appropriation. The American people
deserve our very best in fulfilling this vital
For further information about this bulletin, contact either
Mary F. Hanley (202-482-4883) or Karen A. Cowles
(202-482-1523) of the Commerce Department's Office of Public