To: CTPP listserv
This message about Census 2000 data on DVD is from the Bureau's
"Monthly Product Announcement" e-mail newsletter. Subscribe at:
http://www.census.gov/mp/www/subscribe.html#SUB
It may be useful to request a DVD drive when it's time to upgrade
your computer....
This may be an idea for distributing the CTPP 2000, since in the last
go-around (in 1990) the CTPP/urban element comprised about 33 CDs;
and the CTPP/statewide element was another 12 CDs!! (How many DVDs
are the equivalent of 45 CDs?)
Chuck Purvis, MTC
>From the Monthly Product Announcement (October 2000, released
12/12/00).
"DVD
The Census Bureau will release some of its TIGER/LINE and Census 2000
geographic and data products on DVD. This will save customers money
in the purchase of Census Bureau products; however, it will require
computers equipped with a DVD reader."
************
Chuck, Here is some information regarding DVD's that I received from our computer folks.
1) Will a DVD drive read an "old-fashioned" CD-ROM? If not, will we need a DVD/CD drive?
Yes, a DVD can read a CD-ROM. You can get a CD-RW+DVD Player for $249.
2) What are we looking at in terms of cost for DVD writers?
You can get a DVD Copier for around $7,000 (they used to cost $15,000 last year). Or you can get a DVD-Writer for around $6,000.
3) What options do we have for DVD writers? I have heard mention of high compression and low compression writers but haven't been able to get a handle on what that means.
Compression is any method of reducing the amount of space needed to record or transmit information. In DVDs, video is compressed using a process called variable bit rate encoding, which allots a changing number of bits to enhance resolution in a given scene. Scenes with lots of light or little action require less hits than dark scenes or those with lots of action.
For DVD Writers, there are five recordable versions of DVD-ROM: DVD-R for General, DVD-R for Authoring, DVD-RAM, DVD-RW, and DVD+RW. All can read DVD-ROM discs, but each uses a different type of disc for recording. DVD-R can record data once (sequentially only), while DVD-RAM, DVD-RW, and DVD+RW can be rewritten thousands of times.
4) What is the cost of blank DVD's?
It depends on the brand and capacity. A Panasonic 5.2GB is about $30. A Panasonic 2.6GB is about $19.
If you want further information, here's a pretty good site: http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
Javier Minjares
Information Services
----- Forwarded by Chuck Chorak/Rock-Hill on 12/12/00 01:32 PM -----
"Suzette Thieman"
<sthieman(a)ci.fort-coll To: Clara.A.Reschovsky(a)census.gov,
ins.co.us> ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Sent by: cc:
owner-ctpp-news@chrisp Subject: Re: [CTPP] A MESSAGE FOR MPOs!!
y.net
12/05/00 05:37 PM
1. Are you interested in participating? Yes, for the Rock Hill-Fort Mill
MPO and the remainder of York County SC
2. What kinds of cases would you be interested in? All Cases
a. All cases
3. What is the best way to communicate with you on these problems?
e-Mail or phone
4. How often would you want to communicate with our coding clerks? As
often as necessary
b. Once every two weeks
5. Comments? we have been trying to geocode all our business in our mpo
for transportation demand modeling. can correct addresses fairly easily.
Please contact Clara Reschovsky at clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov or phone
at
301-457-2454. Or send a fax to 301-457-2481.
Suzette Thieman
Transportation Planner
North Front Range MPO
210 E Olive
Ft Collins, CO 80524
Phone: 970-416-2257
Fax: 970-221-6239
>>> <Clara.A.Reschovsky(a)census.gov> 12/05 1:29 PM >>>
Do you want to help code mysterious and confusing workplace locations from the
census long form?
One of the key elements of the CTPP is the inclusion of small area workplace
data, particularly for flow between home and work. Reliable workplace coding is
a difficult process, relying on the quality of the employer name and location
responses provided on the census form, and the quality of the reference
materials available. The reference materials include the TIGER file with street
name and address ranges, and the employer name and address files that were
reviewed and improved in the Work-Up process completed in 2000.
To geocode workplace locations, the Census Bureau first runs an automated match
routine. Next, 500-600 clerks, using all the reference materials available, try
to geocode the remaining records. During the final stage, the clerks use other
resources such as paper maps and the internet to try and resolve the difficult
cases that cannot be matched to the main reference files.
For the 1990 Census, MPOs were asked if they would be interested in assisting
the Census Bureau with these problem cases, but the process of contacting MPOs
for assistance was not implemented. The Census Bureau staff is now getting
legal approval to request assistance from the MPOs so that this program can be
employed for Census 2000.
If we are allowed to pursue this program, we want to know if you would be
willing to help, and how much effort you would be able to devote to the task.
We would need a quick turn around time of five working days or less on any
responses you were provided. This work would occur between February and July of
2001.
Please respond by December 19, 2000 to the following questions.
1. Are you interested in participating? Yes
a. Yes
b. No, skip questions 2-4
2. What kinds of cases would you be interested in? All Cases
a. All cases
b. Only acronyms and abbreviations
c. Only frequently occurring names
3. What is the best way to communicate with you on these problems? e-Mail or phone
a. Email
b. FAX
c. Phone
4. How often would you want to communicate with our coding clerks? As often as necessary
a. Once or twice a week
b. Once every two weeks
c. One time only
5. Comments? Thank You.
We have interns that work in our office that would be able to do this type of work. However it does need to fit in with their call schedules. But we all want the best data we can get.
Please contact Clara Reschovsky at clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov or phone at
301-457-2454. Or send a fax to 301-457-2481.
Do you want to help code mysterious and confusing workplace locations from the
census long form?
One of the key elements of the CTPP is the inclusion of small area workplace
data, particularly for flow between home and work. Reliable workplace coding is
a difficult process, relying on the quality of the employer name and location
responses provided on the census form, and the quality of the reference
materials available. The reference materials include the TIGER file with street
name and address ranges, and the employer name and address files that were
reviewed and improved in the Work-Up process completed in 2000.
To geocode workplace locations, the Census Bureau first runs an automated match
routine. Next, 500-600 clerks, using all the reference materials available, try
to geocode the remaining records. During the final stage, the clerks use other
resources such as paper maps and the internet to try and resolve the difficult
cases that cannot be matched to the main reference files.
For the 1990 Census, MPOs were asked if they would be interested in assisting
the Census Bureau with these problem cases, but the process of contacting MPOs
for assistance was not implemented. The Census Bureau staff is now getting
legal approval to request assistance from the MPOs so that this program can be
employed for Census 2000.
If we are allowed to pursue this program, we want to know if you would be
willing to help, and how much effort you would be able to devote to the task.
We would need a quick turn around time of five working days or less on any
responses you were provided. This work would occur between February and July of
2001.
Please respond by December 19, 2000 to the following questions.
1. Are you interested in participating?
a. Yes
b. No, skip questions 2-4
2. What kinds of cases would you be interested in?
a. All cases
b. Only acronyms and abbreviations
c. Only frequently occurring names
3. What is the best way to communicate with you on these problems?
a. Email
b. FAX
c. Phone
4. How often would you want to communicate with our coding clerks?
a. Once or twice a week
b. Once every two weeks
c. One time only
5. Comments? Thank You.
Please contact Clara Reschovsky at clara.a.reschovsky(a)census.gov or phone at
301-457-2454. Or send a fax to 301-457-2481.
I just received this and I posting it for those following the PUMS
issue.
======================
Subject: News on 2000 PUMS
From: "Steve Ruggles" <ruggles(a)hist.umn.edu>
Dear PUMS Users:
I am happy to report success in our efforts to preserve needed detail in
the 2000 PUMS. Over 1,000 of you voiced your concerns to the Census
Bureau by completing the Task Force on the 2000 PUMS survey and over a
hundred also directly contacted the Census Bureau Director and Principal
Associate Director for Programs.
The Census Bureau took our concerns seriously. In a report dated October
19, the Bureau has adopted all the principal recommendations of the Task
Force. Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) of 100,000 population will be
identified in the 5% sample; in the 1% sample, however, PUMAs will have
a minimum threshold of 400,000. As recommended in the Task Force report,
subject categories with at least 10,000 persons nationally will be
identified in the 5% sample; even greater detail, closely comparable to
the 1990 PUMS, will
be available in the 1% sample. In both the 5% and the 1% files,
individual ages will be preserved through age 90.
By taking these steps, the Census Bureau has confirmed its reputation
for scientific integrity and resisted the pressure to compromise the
PUMS files. While taking measured and responsible steps to ensure
respondent confidentiality, the Bureau has also preserved the usefulness
of the data for essential scientific and policy research applications.
For full details, the complete report is available at
http://www.ipums.org/~census2000/. Please note that some of the issues
addressed in the memo--particularly regarding the race variables--are
not yet finalized and may change in the upcoming weeks. My thanks to
Barry Edmonston for a copy of the report, and to the Bureau for giving
us permission to post it.
Steve Ruggles
Chair, Task Force on Census 2000
Steven Ruggles
Minnesota Population Center
http://www.pop.umn.edu
537 Heller, University of Minnesota
271 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
FAX: (612) 624-7096
PHONE: (612) 624-5818
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Below please find the notes that Nandu took at the meeting earlier this week. These topics are important because:
1. The long form in Census 2000 may be the LAST one. Instead of the long form, the Census Bureau is testing a continuous survey (some surveys each month, on an on-going basis), called the American Community Survey (ACS). However, there are still many Congressional concerns about the ACS and the content, sample size, and cost.
2. Although you very likely understand the value of the CTPP tabulations, most of you have never used the Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). Some of the work on TRANSIMS (the microsimulation system) that is aiming to replace (?) the 4-step travel demand modeling system uses PUMS, so it is important to keep this file as useable as possible for transportation applications. We have asked Jim Ryan of FTA to write an article for the next issue of the CTPP Status Report about this process in TRANSIMS.
―---------------------------------
Notes from Nandu Srinivasan on APDU 2000 Annual Meeting
Adjusted Counts:
The Census Bureau is conducting a coverage evaluation program in 11,000 blocks across the country. In February 2001, the Census Bureau will decide whether an adjustment of counts is needed for the PL-94-171 file. If they decide to adjust, only the population and not the housing units will be adjusted in the 100 percent data releases. This is because the coverage evaluation program only counts people, not housing units. However, by the time SF3 comes along, the Census Bureau will adjust the household counts too.
PUMS for 2000
Louisa Miller of the Census Bureau, Population Division gave a talk on PUMS 2000. Louisa said that the scheme she presented is not final, but a final proposal will soon be made. We should respond to her soon if we need any changes to this scheme. I asked for a copy of a research document the Census Bureau will be soon putting out on the disclosure issue.
After the May 22, 2000 PUMS Meeting, and the Letter-Writing campaign, Louisa reported that there was an overwhelming preference for the following option on PUMS.
1. The five percent State-Level File; and a
2. One percent National Characteristics File.
PUMAs will be delineated through input gathered from the State Data Centers (SDCs). State PUMAs will contain at least 100,000 people. PUMAs would be constituted completely within State boundaries.
Super PUMAs of 400,000 people would be defined for the National Characteristics file, and these will fall strictly within State Boundaries. Records in the National file will include a State PUMA variable.
Content:
Census Bureau (CB) is planning a minimum population threshold of 10,000 people (nationwide) for identification of groups within most categorical variables. The CB will use weighted counts to determine the number of people nationwide, and not number of individual long form responses. For example, if Asian Indians were determined to be more than 10,000 nationwide, then "Asian Indian" will be identified as a separate ancestry group in every PUMA.
CB is considering post-processing for state files: i.e. they will first select all the records to report in PUMS, examine the characteristics in the data, and then decide:
a. What variables will be collapsed/categorized?
b. How will the variables be collapsed/categorized?
This comment evoked response from Joe Salvo who said that such a process can result in delay of the final product.
Current Census Bureau Proposal for Specific Variables:
The dollar amounts for income types, utility costs, mortgage costs, rent, condominium fees, hazard insurance costs, and mobile home fees will be rounded as follows:
Money
$1-$7 =$5
$8-$999= nearest $10
$1000-$49,999= nearest $100
$50,000 or more= nearest $1000
Age
Single year categories for 0-89 with topcoding of 90 and above.
Year of entry
Year of entry for foreign born (in both national and state files): Bottom coded, corresponding to topcoding for age detail. They did not say what the bottom code would be, but I assume they will use the 10,000 limit.
Country of Origin
Louisa did not mention this variable specifically, but she said that Census Bureau will use the 10,000 people nationwide rule for including specific countries (she illustrated by saying that if there were 10,000 Lithuanians nationwide, then "Lithuanian" would be used as a category).
Race and Hispanic Origin:
CB will go by a pre-defined list of 63 categories for the national file. For the state file, the additional criteria of 10,000 people nationwide will be used.
Household Size:
The CB proposal is to omit geographic detail of State PUMA from records of households with 10 or more persons. Only the State name will be on the record.
This statement evoked the most concern from almost everyone. To prevent individual disclosure, attendees preferred that the geographic detail of State PUMA be retained, but the age of the respondent be rounded. Joe Salvo said such households are usually concentrated in New York, and the state PUMA identifier is very important.
One difference between 2000 and 1990 Census is that in 1990 every household that had 10 or more people was flagged and revisited to ascertain if they were group quarters or not. In 2000, the Census Bureau used its Master Address File (MAF) to designate which households were group quarters and which were not. Since the CB did not perform field checks to verify households with 10 or more people, the assignment could be wrong. Some of these are probably group quarters.
Travel Time:
Travel time will be treated as a continuous variable with standard topcoding, but no other collapsing or rounding. Louisa did not know the details, but I said USDOT asked for 1 minute increments up to the top code which was 90 minutes using 1990 data.
Departure Time:
They showed the following scheme:
2400-0259: 30 minute intervals.
0300-0459: 10 minute intervals.
0500-1059: 5 minute intervals.
1100-2359: 10 minute intervals.
Several attendees felt (Patty Becker talked at length on this) that the real disclosure issue was the PL-94-171 file since there will be 63 categories at the block level. Some felt that the Census Bureau has to exercise more control on the "aggregate cells" in tabulations at a lower level of geography rather than cutting down on PUMS.
American Community Survey (ACS)
Census Bureau Views
Cost Issues
Charles (Chip) Alexander presented ACS in the Wednesday morning session. He said the Census Bureau is working out the cost of the ACS. Chip asserted that CB cost projections show that ACS cost will range somewhere near decennial costs based on what it cost them for the 31 sites in 1990. However, he did not provide any supporting materials to substantiate this projection.
Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) and Viability of ACS
Chip Alexander also mentioned that there will be a continuous LUCA program implemented by the geography division, and that item response in ACS was just as good as the long form for 1990. Incidentally, Ken Prewitt repeatedly stressed this point at both the SDC and the APDU meetings, claiming that item response effectively proves the viability of ACS. However, Chip Walker (staff from Rep. Dan Miller's, (R.-F.L.) Census sub-committee) said that ACS is in its "test" stage.
Chip Alexander also briefly touched on the residence issues of ACS. He said that the ACS uses the "current residence" rule implying people are counted where they are found.
View from the Hill
Chip Walker said in the "View from the Hill" session that Rep. Dan Miller is opposed to having a long form in 2010. The issues Congress wants to thrash out with ACS are primarily those of privacy, and the "mandatory to answer" issue. Both the Congressional personnel that addressed the "View from the Hill" (Tuesday afternoon) session repeatedly pointed out that the transportation questions elicit the maximum concern from the public.
Republican Side:
Chip said that all the questions will need to be revisited to determine legal requirements for including specific questions in the ACS. He also said they will work with Kathy Wallman's OMB interagency committee to review the wording of the questions, so that they do not "appear to violate privacy". Chip, however, said in the end (to me) that the transportation questions (especially the "Time of Departure" question) elicited some negative response from only from the rural and non-metro areas. People in metro areas did not complain as much.
Democratic Side:
David McMillen (staff of Rep. Henry Waxman, (D.-C.A.)) said the Congress wants to know the history and genesis of each question in the Census. He said the Census is primarily a political tool, and that it is therefore obvious that it is a politically contentious issue. He said, any question other than the constitutional requirements need to be justified as to:
a. Why are they asked?
b. Why should they be asked in ACS and not elsewhere?
Eg: Why are they asking transportation questions?
David continued to talk on how the executive and legislative wings fight over "who has the real power" in the US, and talked at length on history.
Census Advisory Board View
Joe Salvo talked about the importance of evaluating the ACS data. He stressed that since ACS is adjusted to "current population estimates" of the Census Bureau, the numbers in ACS are only as good as the population numbers. Secondly, the ACS sample is taken from the Master Address File. So, several people can be left out of the sample. Even in the decennial LUCA process, several jurisdictions did not participate. This can adversely affect the uniformity and quality of the data.
The other big issue with the ACS (per Joe Salvo) is that only 1 in three of the non-respondents will be followed up. This issue coupled with undercount issues makes the estimates a bit uneven. He said that he was only going to talk about ACS data at a tract level since going below that is "scary". Charles Alexander said that the "confidence intervals" for ACS were larger than the long form. If the long form's estimates are in the range of 10 + 2 percent, the ACS ranges are somewhere at 10 + 2.6 percent. Joe said he had examined the data for Rockville county in NY and the response rates varied between an abysmal 25% to 80% in just the 40 tracts where the survey was conducted.
In the end Joe asked the question, "Can the ACS produce good small area estimates?" Notwithstanding all the problems, he felt that five year aggregates produce good tract level data. However, ACS is still in the experimental stage. Joe emphasized that local demographers in the 31 sites need to examine ACS data for their areas using their local knowledge.
Local User's Views:
Thabet Zakaria of DVRPC pointed out that he cannot use ACS estimates for three reasons.
1. ACS sample size was not enough every year.
2. Local politicians consider anything but the decennial census to be a unauthentic, and will not use those numbers to base "any decision" relating to money and spending.
3. From his 20 year experience in using Census Data, he feels that the decennial Census data are relevant and useable data for at least 10 years.
He said all his work depended on the long form, and the ACS is not going to make things easy for him. Charles Alexander replied that confidence intervals in ACS are not that bad, and that things do change rapidly in some areas. For example, in places like Clark County, Nevada, significant population and demographic changes have occurred in the past decade both at lower levels of geography, and at a county level. The ACS is designed to measure such changes, along with measuring everything else that the decennial long form does.
This past May, the TRB Subcommittee on Census Data for Transportation
Planning
submitted a TCRP (transit cooperative research program) proposal. The
proposal called for the development of training materials to assist
transit system planners to obtain and use census and other federal
statistical data sources.
This past July, a group of transit experts met to review over 125 TCRP
proposals and our project, "Census Data for Transit Systems Planning",
survived the cut and is alive and kicking (along with 33 other project
proposals). The next step is for the 33 projects to go before the TCRP
Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee when it meets on
October 26-27, 2000. From there, based on past practice, less than 10
of the problem statements are likely to be selected and will then be
issued as Requests for Proposals so work can begin.
Between now and October 22, the TOPS committee is looking for comments
on the 33 projects. Needless to say the TRB Subcommittee thinks ours is
a good project deserving of positive comments. Recognizing that the
CTPP (and other Census data--PUMS, ACS) are relatively new to the
transit community, albeit important, it is vital for our MPO and state
friends to let their transit contacts know about this project and the
TOPS comment period. Information about this open comment period can be
found at http://www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/tcrp/problems.nsf
Our specific project is number 32 under category H, Policy and Planning
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/tcrp/problems.nsf/field+H
The funding for the national NPTS is still not resolved-- we are awaiting Congressional action on the DOT appropriations. This may not be resolved until sometime in the latter half of October.
Each add-on area pays for the samples collected in their own locale, so they are self-supporting. Therefore, the program is going ahead as planned, but the start date would be delayed a month or two.
We are very pleased to have serious interest in the add-on component from three states and eight MPOs totaling about 60,000 households. It's not too late to become an add-on!
We are trying to post updates on the TMIP listserve and the CTTP listserve, but the status of the national funding hasn't changed. When the dam breaks we expect a quick resolution.
Hope this is helpful,
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Census Bureau Reports Final Mail-Back Rates;
Court Hears Preliminary Arguments in Virginia Redistricting Case
Plus: Legislators Propose Fixed Term for Census Director;
Congressional and Monitoring Board news; and more.
The final mail response rate for Census 2000 was 67 percent, two percent
higher than in 1990, Commerce Department and Census Bureau officials
reported at a Washington, DC press briefing on September 19. The
revised figure reflects an additional three million households that
mailed back a form after the April 18 cut-off date - more late forms
than in any previous census. The Census Bureau reported a preliminary
response rate of 65 percent after the mail-out/mail-back phase of the
count ended.
Five states - California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Rhode Island, and
Wyoming -increased their response rates by five percent over 1990,
meeting the Census Bureau's "'90 Plus 5" challenge to state and local
governments. Nearly 9,300 other governmental units also met or exceeded
their challenge goal. Thirteen of the nation's 15 largest cities and 14
of the 15 largest counties equaled or beat their 1990 response rates.
The difference between the mail-back rates for the short and long census
forms was eleven percent. Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt said
census takers closed most of that gap during follow-ups visits to
unresponsive households.
Secretary of Commerce Norman Y. Mineta praised career Census Bureau
employees for their "tremendous service" to the country, noting that
they work largely out of the public spotlight for most of each decade.
He also highlighted the importance of census data as "fundamental to the
operation of the economy." Commerce Under Secretary Robert J. Shapiro
said the 140,000 Census 2000 'partner' organizations from every sector
of society made this count "a model of civic engagement by the
government." The Census Bureau has begun its campaign to thank
organizations and local governments that participated in the partnership
program.
Dr. Prewitt called the increase over the 1990 mail-back rate an
"historical achievement" because "a decade long trend line in social
behavior is hard to change... and reverse." Census 2000 is the first
since the all-mail census started in 1970 to improve upon the response
of the previous count. The mail response rate dropped from a high of 78
percent in 1970 to 75 percent in 1980 and 65 percent in 1990. The
Census Bureau projected a 61 percent response rate for 2000.
The director also said the high response rates are not predictive of the
count's accuracy. "You can have a quite good census and still not solve
the undercount problem," Dr. Prewitt said, noting that the undercount
affects two to three percent of the population and is disproportionately
high for some population subgroups. He said the Accuracy and Coverage
Evaluation (A.C.E. survey) would give the best measure of accuracy.
The mail response rate represents the percentage of known addresses in
the universe of "mail-back" operations from which the Bureau collected a
questionnaire or Be Counted form by mail, Internet, or over the
telephone. Enumerators later determine that some of those addresses are
vacant or nonexistent housing units. The Census Bureau also counts some
housing units in rural or remote areas, including many American Indian
reservations and Alaska Native villages, by sending enumerators to
verify or determine the address and location, and to conduct an
interview in person. Housing units counted through these
"update/enumerate" or "list/enumerate" procedures are not in the
mail-back universe. Next year, the Bureau will release the mail return
rate, which represents the percentage of occupied housing units that
responded by mail, Internet, or telephone. The return rate is a more
precise indication of public participation in the census.
Response rates for all governmental units are available on the Census
Bureau's web site at <http://rates.census.gov/>
Legislation to set a fixed term for Census Bureau director: The chairman
and ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on the Census have made
separate proposals to set a fixed term of office for the Census Bureau
director. A bill (H.R. 5257) sponsored by Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL)
would establish a ten-year fixed term for the director, currently the
only political appointee in the agency requiring Senate confirmation.
Rep. Miller called the legislation "the first step in removing partisan
politics from the census" and said a fixed term appointment would give
the director more independence and more protection from partisan
influence. The chairman, who has been at odds with the Census Bureau
over the use of statistical sampling to correct for under- and
overcounts, said in a press release that the Clinton Administration "has
politicized the census and damaged the integrity of our national
count." A ten-year term, similar to that of the FBI director, would
allow a director "to supervise an entire census from planning to
implementation," Rep. Miller said.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) is seeking cosponsors for legislation she
plans to introduce that would establish a five-year term of office for
the director. Rep. Maloney said her bill would "ensure that the Census
Bureau continues to provide the most accurate, non-partisan data
possible." By starting five-year terms in 2002, the congresswoman said,
her proposal would "guarantee continuity during each decennial census."
President George Bush's census director, Barbara Everitt Bryant, did not
take office until December 1989, only months before the start of a
census she did not help plan.
Traditionally, Census Bureau directors leave office when the President
who appointed them does, if not before. The Bureau's director is the
only head of a major statistical agency in the United States who serves
at the pleasure of the president, instead of a fixed term that usually
carries over from one administration to another.
Congressional hearing postponed: The House Subcommittee on the Census
has postponed its hearing, originally scheduled for September 26, to
review a proposed Commerce Department rule giving the Census Bureau
director final say over the decision to release statistically-corrected
census numbers next spring. The panel has not announced a new date for
the hearing.
State legislative activities update: The U.S. Department of Justice told
a federal court yesterday it should dismiss or delay consideration of a
lawsuit filed last April by the Commonwealth of Virginia, seeking
approval for a new state law that prohibits the use of adjusted census
numbers for redistricting. The court scheduled the hour-long hearing to
consider the Justice Department's argument that it cannot determine if
the Virginia law adversely affects the voting rights of racial
minorities until detailed census data are released next March. Virginia
is one of 16 states covered by section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
which requires Justice Department approval for any changes to election
law because of past discrimination in election practices. The state's
Attorney General decided to by-pass the "pre-clearance" procedure and
sought direct approval for the law in court.
Virginia's Deputy Attorney General, Frank Ferguson, urged the judges to
allow the case to proceed, saying a delay might prevent the state from
redrawing its legislative district boundaries in time for the 2001
election cycle. Virginia's lawsuit contends that using statistically
corrected census data for redistricting would violate the Census Act,
which the U.S. Supreme Court said (in a January 1999 ruling) prohibits
the use of sampling to derive state population totals used to apportion
congressional districts among the 50 states. The state also contends
the U.S. Constitution bars the use of statistical sampling in tabulating
population counts used for apportionment and redistricting.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia is considering the case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Reno, et
al (Civil Action No. 1:00CV00751). Either party to the lawsuit can
appeal the lower court's ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. A
group of 15 cities and counties, led by the City of Los Angeles,
recently joined the lawsuit in opposition to the Virginia law.
Congressional Monitoring Board report due: The eight-member Census
Monitoring Board is scheduled to release its next report the first week
of October. A primary focus of the report will likely be the panel's
visits to dozens of Local Census Offices over the past few months, to
observe and evaluate census field operations.
The Board, created in late 1997, has four members appointed by the
President and four appointed by Republican congressional leaders. It
will operate through September 2001. For information on the Board's
activities and copies of reports, visit the web site for the
Presidential members at www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov> and the
Congressional members at www.cmbc.gov <http://www.cmbc.gov>.
Final News Alert: This is the final News Alert the Census 2000
Initiative will distribute. The Communications Consortium Media Center
(CCMC) is grateful to the many organizations and individuals that
received our news updates over the past several years, for their deep
interest in and strong support of an accurate census that collects a
range of critical demographic and socio-economic data. CCMC is
exploring the creation of a similar outreach project to keep Census
Bureau stakeholders informed about key policy decisions affecting the
collection of important socio-economic data in the post-Census 2000
era. We hope to be back in touch with you next year.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert may be
directed to Terri Ann 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 2000
Initiative at <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other interested
individuals.
