anyone along the CTPP listserve get a copy of one these very special
forms. It is my understanding that you would know the difference since
it also asks for your SSN. If anyone knows more information about this
experiemnet please pass the information along.--thanks
(when responding make sure to hit respond all and respond to the list
and not just just the author.)
March 27, 2000
Dear Member of Congress:
As you know, Census 2000 questionnaires have arrived at households
throughout the country. Approximately 135,000 of these questionnaires
will not be the standard Census forms, but will be part of the Census
2000 Testing and Experimentation Program. The results from this program
will help guide post-2000 planning and testing for the 2010 Census, and
provide useful information for the American Community Survey, as well as
other census surveys and operations.
Of these 135,000 questionnaires, approximately 93,000 are short forms
and 42,000 are long forms. These forms are actual decennial
questionnaires that contain design and content variation reflecting the
design of those experiments included in this program. The appearance of
these experimental forms in most cases is similar to the standard Census
The schedule for these experimental forms is concurrent with standard
Census 2000 activities. Data capture and processing of experimental
forms also is concurrent with the Census schedule, although experimental
forms will be processed at one location, the National Processing Center
in Jeffersonville, Indiana. An operator assistance program, similar to
the Census 2000 Telephone Questionnaire Assistance, will also be in
place to answer respondent questions on completing these forms.
We bring this to your attention to answer any inquiries you may receive
from your constituents on this matter. Please call Congressional
Affairs at 301-457-2123 if you have any questions.
Robin J. Bachman
Chief, Congressional Affairs
submission from [Vicki.L.Lewis(a)ccmail.census.gov]
No change between 1990 and 2000, however, the sampling rate in rural areas is higher than non-rural areas as much as 1:2 ratio compared to
the 1:6. So your chances of getting a long form if your "rural house" is truly in a "rural area " as defined by the Census Bureau was much
higher. Lucky you!
> Subject: Re: [CTPP] Long form blues
> Has there been a change in the long-form sampling rate?
> I have two residences (an inner-city condo, and a rural house), and managed to
> get the long form at BOTH. Fortunately, I'm told I should only fill out one...
> /Steve Colman
I guess I'll share my two cents.... Positve media attention overall.
Since we have the 2nd worse congestion (see TTI report) we're more than happy to show that it takes
about the same time to get around as it did ten years ago. We're more than proud to let
Uncle Sam know we have a boatload of new millionaire's. As to where you usually work...
well that is a bit of a problem...
generally on Monday you start out at Microsoft, Tuesday you resign, Wednesday you start your own firm, Thursday, your so rich you don't
know what to do and on Friday you retire.
Attached FYI are responses I've been getting off the list to my
"long form" question. I'll just respond to the second one and say that I'm
sure that the folks at the Census Bureau are quite aware of how well the
citizenry responds to surveys, and that they are also under alot of pressure
from various interest groups -- including transportation planners -- to
provide what has been succinctly described as "mo' data."
> recieved the long form at my house and it is a bugger to fill out. Will
> probably take 3 or 4 days to complete. Real difficult stuff.
> I received the long form in 1990 and this year. The 2000 long form is
> more detailed and much longer than the 1990 form. I can understand why
> people may refuse to complete it. This year's from goes way beyond
> journey-to-work data and asks for information, such as annual utility
> that many people do not track. It will take more than a couple of hours
> research for me to provide accurate answers. The Census Bureau must have
> forgotten that the average American head of household is not a bureaucrat.
> there is a report on the subject. As I recall the decline in response
> was slight and not the basis for concern about non-response from
> It is strange that CTPP people would be complaining about the long form.
> That whole program is dependent on it.
> All census data is confidential for 72 years. Then it is released for
> historical research. In WWII the military asked the Census Bureau for the
> location of Japanese. They were denied access. I have participated in
> LUCA (Local Update Census Addresses). I have had to sign numerous
> confidentiality agreements in order to receive the data files. These
> contain nothing but addresses, no names or any other data. Yet it took an
> act of congress to allow the Bureau to make these lists available to local
> governments for review. I am expected to destroy all files and maps when
> the review is finished.
> The long form may be a pain, but it provides much valuable information.
> This may be the last census with a long form. If so, it is the end of
> detailed data for small geography.
> Our local weekly newspaper - with big circulation - is
> pushing the invasion of privacy button with respect to
> filling out the long form. Particularly on the income
> questions. I received the long form and have to admit
> that they have a point. I'll bet that 2000 returns will hit
> an all time low response rate.
> My understanding was that in 1990 the long-form response rate was not that
> different from the short-form rate. I've had an earfull too. I'm sure
> some of response results from an increased sensativity to privacy issues
> over the past decade. My only response has been to gently encourage
> people to fill out what they can.
Did anyone ever figure out from the '90 Census the difference in
non-response rates between short-form and long-form households? I'm getting
an earful from friends and relatives right now who got the long form. I'm
starting to understand better the rationale for getting away from the long
form toward the ACS (if in fact this was part of the rationale).
Dear CTPP-News people:
Some friends and I had a dinner party yesterday, and 3 of 5 received
the Census 2000 long form. Of course, I didn't get one, so I have
"long form envy". Luckily for our region the press is picking up good
stories about "long form envy" instead of the libertarian cr*p about
invasion of privacy. And, yes, my friends had concerns about the
level of research (in hours?!) needed to provide accurate answers
about utility costs....
In Ron Tweedie's example, it may prove useful if the Census Bureau in
coordination with the State Data Center could provide the local
newspaper editor the reasons and rationale for collecting this long
form data. If congestion and poverty are issues in your metropolitan
area, then household income is an absolutely critical data need. And
I do believe there are Census Bureau documents citing the chapter and
verse of the US Code where each census data item is required. (It's
somewhere on the Bureau's WWW site.)
My concern right now is the interpretation by census respondents to
the term "last week" (as used in our journey-to-work questions.) We
have traditionally (incorrectly?) assumed that the term "last week"
refers to the "census reference week" or the last week of March in
1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Well, the Census Bureau mailed forms to
all (or most) americans the week of March 13-17. So, is "last week"
to be interpreted as the week before they received the form (March
6-10); the week before they fill out the form (either March 13-17, or
this week -- March 20-24, or next week -- March 27-31)!!!! The answer
is, probably yes, to all of the above. Yikes!
People are (and should be?) mailing in their long forms *RIGHT NOW*
and this "last week" ambiguity will be interesting. My thinking is
that people will substitute an "unusual last week" with a "usual last
week" if they want to provide "relevant" data to the Census Bureau.
In my own situation, I was in Phoenix last week on vacation. This
week I'm at home in Oakland. If I had a census long form, my
inclination would be to delay answering the census until *next* week,
when my "last week" commute pattern is more typical of my regular and
usual commute pattern. My friend showed me her long form packet, and
there were no apparent instructions to clarify what is "last week" or
even *WHEN AM I SUPPOSED TO MAIL THIS BACK?*
Given this ambiguity in terms of what is "last week," my
recommendation to the USDOT, Census Bureau, State DOTs and MPOs is to
start compilations of events of interest that may influence
journey-to-work patterns in *all* of March 2000:
1. Weather conditions (daily clippings from the newspapers, and
should report on natural events including quakes, floods,
snowstorms, precipitation levels, sunny days, etc.);
2. Labor conditions (transit union strikes or slowdowns; other major
3. Gas Prices (we're now at $1.90 per gallon in the Bay Area, and
rising! Also, surveys of other transportation costs such as tolls,
fares, parking costs would be ideal to conduct this month and next.);
4. Road and Transit Network Status (important if new or expanded
facilities are opened in early 2000).
That's about it. Anybody else have ideas on things we should be
monitoring for understanding "last week"?
Chuck Purvis, MTC
Our local weekly newspaper - with big circulation - is
pushing the invasion of privacy button with respect to
filling out the long form. Particularly on the income
questions. I received the long form and have to admit
that they have a point. I'll bet that 2000 returns will hit
an all time low response rate.
>>> "Granato, Sam" <SamG(a)cedar-rapids.org>
03/23/00 04:25pm >>>
Did anyone ever figure out from the '90 Census the
non-response rates between short-form and
long-form households? I'm getting
an earful from friends and relatives right now who got
the long form. I'm
starting to understand better the rationale for getting
away from the long
form toward the ACS (if in fact this was part of the
This notice is for agencies participating in the Workplace Update program.
Two issues have been raised by some of the folks who have already begun
reviewing employer files in the Workplace Update program. We'd like to make
sure everyone takes note of the following:
1) We are NOT asking you to update or review the number of employees shown for
each employer. Those data have been provided for your use and reference only,
for example, to help you prioritize your work. But we don't need to have the
information updated or even verified. So don't spend any time researching or
looking at the number of employees data.
2) For most stores located in named shopping centers, you will find duplicate
records in the file. One record usually contains a street address (sometimes
only partial information) or some other physical location description. The
other record has the name of the shopping center in which the store is located
in the address field. We created this second record from the information in the
shopping center directory to make sure we could link the store to the shopping
center name. You do not need to update both records. You should correct the
record with the street address information, but you should just skip the record
with the shopping center name in the address field. There will also be a record
in the file for the each shopping center. It is important to make sure these
shopping center records are geocoded correctly because we will assign the
shopping center location to store records that have that name in their address
field. So, please make sure the shopping centers are in the file and geocoded
The distribution of the Work-UP CDs did not go as quickly as we had hoped.
However, it looks like the last shipment should go out on Monday, March 27. If
you are participating in the program and have not received your materials by
Friday, March 31, please call us at (301) 457-2454. Thanks.
Marsha Anderson wrote:
> Good morning Ed
> I am very interested in knowing what is happening around the country.
> Advertising here is promoting all the wrong reasons for filling out
> the Census and causing folks to be irate. Talk radio shows here are
> lobbying for people to either not fill out the forms or to only fill in
> the number of persons in the household (based on the letter of the law).
> I think there is going to be a mess with the data received from this area
> and I wonder what is happening elsewhere.
> Marsha Dale Anderson
> (soon to be Bomar)
> STREET SMARTS
> 3400 McClure Bridge Road
> Building D, Suite A
> Duluth, GA 30096
> 770-813-0688 (fax)
> There is life in the Word of God.
> "Know that today is called the present - because with each new day it is a
> gift from God!"
> *************** Message Notice from the Street Smarts E-mail Server
> This email message and any files transmitted with it may contain
> AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. If
> you are not the addressee you may NOT copy or forward the message or any
> file with it. If you received this message in error, or you have not
> received it properly, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY CALLING
> 770-813-0882 or by sending a message to : admin(a)streetsmarts-ga.com
> ****************************** End of Message
> *****-----Original Message-----
> *****From: owner-ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
> *****Behalf Of ed christopher
> *****Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 12:54 PM
> *****To: ctpp-news maillist; edc
> *****Subject: [CTPP] Census2000 Initiative News Alert
> *****From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
> *****Census Monitoring Board Report Analyzes Funding
> *****Consequences of Census Undercount
> *****Plus: OMB Issues New Guidance on Tabulating Race Data;
> *****Congress Continues Oversight of Census Operations;
> *****Virginia Anti-Sampling Bill Headed for Governor's Desk
> *****The Presidential members of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board released
> *****report last week analyzing the potential effect on the distribution
> *****federal funds of an undercount in the 2000 census. The firm of
> *****PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) prepared the report for the
> *****members of the Board.
> *****PwC studied eight federal programs representing over 82 percent of
> *****federal grant programs (with obligations over $500 million in fiscal
> *****year 1998) that rely on census data to determine the allocation of
> *****funds. For these programs, the report concludes that 26 states and
> *****District of Columbia would lose an estimated $9.1 billion in funding
> *****from 2002-2012 due to a projected undercount in Census 2000. 169
> *****metropolitan areas would lose $11.1 billion over the same period,
> *****according to the analysis, with the affected jurisdictions losing an
> *****average of $3,391 for each person not counted in the census. PwC
> *****the projected funding losses are conservative estimates because it
> *****not review all population-based federal programs or any state
> *****that distribute funds to counties and cities based on census data.
> *****Gilbert Cassellas, Presidential Co-chair of the Census
> *****Monitoring Board,
> *****said, "This study confirms that a 2000 undercount would result in
> *****federal funds being sent to places where the need is not the
> *****Board member Lorraine Green said at a press conference: "It is in the
> *****economic self-interest of every American ... to participate in the
> *****census." The other Presidential appointees on the Board are former
> *****Commerce Under Secretary Everett Ehrlich and California Lieutenant
> *****Governor Cruz Bustamante. Dr. Peter Merrill, director of
> *****PwC's National
> *****Economic Consulting Group, oversaw preparation of the report.
> *****PwC estimates that the net national undercount rate for Census
> *****2000 will
> *****be 1.75 percent of the population, or nearly 5 million people, a
> *****that it called "conservative." The net undercount in 1990 was 1.59
> *****percent. To estimate the potential misallocation of funds
> *****following the
> *****2000 census, PwC applied the undercount rate for states, counties,
> *****cities for the 1990 census to the latest Census Bureau population
> *****projections for 2000. (The methodology is described more fully in
> *****report.) The Bureau measured the 1990 undercount using a 'post
> *****enumeration survey' conducted in the summer of 1990. PwC also
> *****current funding formulas for the programs studied, and funding levels
> *****cited in the Clinton Administration's fiscal year 2000 Current
> *****The Census Monitoring Board was created in late 1997 pursuant to a
> *****provision of the Census Bureau's funding bill for fiscal year
> *****1998. The
> *****Board has eight members: four appointed by President Clinton, two
> *****appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives (then
> *****Rep. Newt
> *****Gingrich), and two appointed by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
> *****(R-MS). The Board will operate through September 2001.
> *****The PwC report, "Effect of Census 2000 Undercount on Federal Funding
> *****States and Local Areas, 2002-2012," is available through the
> *****Presidential Board members' Web site, www.cmbp.gov
> *****<http://www.cmbp.gov>, and the PricewaterhouseCoopers Web site,
> *****www.pwcglobal.com <http://www.pwcglobal.com>. The Congressional
> *****members, led by Co-chair Kenneth Blackwe ll, maintain their
> *****own Web site
> *****at www.cmbc.gov <http://www.cmbc.gov>.
> *****OMB issues guidance on tabulating race data: The Office of Management
> *****and Budget (OMB) issued further guidance on tabulating race data
> *****its revised standards to federal agencies charged with monitoring and
> *****enforcing civil rights laws. In a March 9th memo to agency heads,
> *****Director Jacob Lew noted that the Census Bureau would publish the
> *****range of 63 possible single and multiple race responses from Census
> *****2000. He said OMB must ensure the "ability to monitor compliance
> *****laws that offer protections for those who historically have
> *****discrimination [as well as] minimize reporting burden for
> *****such as schools and businesses that report aggregate data on race to
> *****federal agencies."
> *****OMB modified the policy for collecting data on race and ethnicity in
> *****October 1997; the new policy allows people to select more than one
> *****when they answer the census or fill out forms for employers or
> *****The five single race categories are American Indian or Alaska Native,
> *****Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
> *****Islander, and White. Hispanic is considered an ethnicity under the
> *****policy, and Hispanics may select one or more of the race options in
> *****Census 2000 in addition to identifying themselves in a separate
> *****"Hispanic origin" question.
> *****For the purpose of reporting data to federal agencies, the OMB
> *****guidelines call for aggregating the information by the five single
> *****categories; four double race combinations projected to be chosen most
> *****frequently; other multiple race combinations that comprise
> *****more than one
> *****percent of the population in the relevant jurisdiction (as
> *****determined by
> *****the responsible agency); and a balance category for all other
> *****For civil rights monitoring and enforcement, federal agencies will
> *****allocate multiple race responses in several ways: combinations of one
> *****minority race and White are allocated to the minority race;
> *****that include two or more minority races are allocated to the race
> *****is cited as the basis for discrimination, in the case of an
> *****complaint of discrimination. In cases that require an assessment of
> *****disparate impact or discriminatory patterns (such as the employment
> *****record of a particular company), the enforcement agency will review
> *****patterns based on alternative allocations to each of the
> *****minority groups
> *****Interested stakeholders may contact OMB's Office of Information and
> *****Regulatory Affairs/Statistical Policy Office, at 202/395-3093, or
> *****the Federal Statistics Briefing Rooms, at www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr
> *****<http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr>, for further information.
> *****Congressional oversight continues: Census Bureau Director Kenneth
> *****Prewitt vigorously defended his agency against charges by a House
> *****subcommittee chairman that Congress, the General Accounting Office
> *****(GAO), and other external watchdogs are denied timely access to
> *****information about census operations and local census facilities. At
> *****March 8th hearing of the Subcommittee on the Census, Dr. Prewitt drew
> *****distinction between "proper oversight" and "managing the
> *****census," noting
> *****that the GAO had recently requested "a terabyte" of
> *****information equal to
> *****50 million telephone books.
> *****Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) said the Census Bureau "has
> *****built unnecessary barriers" to gathering information that "will
> *****respect for the census." He said Bureau guidelines for
> *****visits to local
> *****census offices by congressional staff, Census Monitoring Board
> *****representatives, and other official observers, "border on arrogant."
> *****Dr. Prewitt replied that the guidelines apply only to field office
> *****visits that involve operational staff, and that they help the Bureau
> *****accommodate requests on a systematic basis. The director pointed to
> *****recent letter from Census Monitoring Board Republican Co-chair
> *****Blackwell, outlining plans for his staff to visit 31 local census
> *****offices in March. He said the Bureau has responded to every request
> *****from its overseers.
> *****Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the panel's senior Democrat, said she
> *****wanted to "focus on the good news." "[T]he 2000 census operations
> *****on schedule and as of today there are no major problems," she said in
> *****her opening remarks. In response to the chairman's concerns about
> *****access to Census Bureau information, Rep. Maloney cautioned against
> *****"over zealous oversight," saying the director was being criticized
> *****an inability to answer a large number of requests, not for his
> *****implementation of the census.
> *****Rep. Miller also raised several operational concerns, such as the
> *****apparent confusion in some English-speaking households over why the
> *****advance notification mailing included a return envelope. Dr. Prewitt
> *****acknowledged that the failure to explain the second envelope to those
> *****not requesting a foreign language form was an "error in judgment,"
> *****noted that only a few hundred households out of 115 million
> *****had complained. The director told panel members that while there are
> *****"numerous and constant issues that present problems" during the
> *****"we have not yet hit a problem that puts the census at risk."
> *****The Census Subcommittee will hold its next hearing to review the
> *****of census operations on Tuesday, March 14, at 2:00 p.m. in room 2203
> *****Rayburn House Office Building. Representatives of the U.S. General
> *****Accounting Office will testify.
> *****State legislative activities update: The Virginia State Senate
> *****approved a bill last week prohibiting the use of statistically
> *****census data for redrawing congressional and General Assembly district
> *****boundaries. The House of Delegates passed the same bill in February.
> *****The measure awaits a signature or veto by Governor James S. Gilmore
> *****(R), who has previously voiced opposition to using sampling methods
> *****the census.
> *****Virginia is one of 16 states subject to section 5 of the 1965 Voting
> *****Rights Act, which requires approval from the U.S. Department of
> *****or a federal district court for any change to state election laws.
> *****States covered by section 5 must show that the change does not
> *****the right to vote of racial, ethnic, or language minorities, before
> *****new law can take effect.
> *****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. For copies of previous News Alerts and other
> *****information, use our web site www.census2000.org
> *****<http://www.census2000.org>. Please direct all requests to
> *****receive News
> *****Alerts, and all changes in address/phone/fax/e-mail, to the Census
> *****Initiative at Census2000(a)ccmc.org or 202/326-8700. Please feel free
> *****circulate this information to colleagues and other interested