From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Sampling Controversy Resurfaces in Congress As Census Director Stands By
Plan to Adjust Counts
Plus: New Jersey Assembly Approves Anti-Sampling Bill;
Legislation Introduced for Count of Overseas Americans; and more.
The controversy over the use of statistical sampling to adjust the
initial census counts reemerged at a congressional hearing last month,
as the Census Bureau began its quality check survey to measure
undercounts and overcounts in Census 2000.
At a hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Census on May 19, Census
Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt described the agency's plans for the
Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation survey (A.C.E.) of 314,000 housing
units nationwide. Telephone interviews with households in the A.C.E.
sample that had returned a completed census form by mail began in late
April. By May 19, the Bureau had completed 60,000 interviews by phone,
more than its projected 10 percent completion rate for that point in the
process. Census takers will start in-person interviews with A.C.E.
households on June 19 in areas where census takers have finished all
non-response follow-up visits.
Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) reiterated his long-standing
opposition to the Census Bureau's plan to produce adjusted population
numbers based on the A.C.E. results for purposes other than
congressional apportionment. "[T]here is no guarantee that this plan is
even viable," the chairman said. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in
January 1999 that federal law prohibits sampling to compile the state
population totals used to allocate the 435 seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives among the 50 states. However, the Census Bureau plans
to transmit adjusted census figures to the states early next year for
use in the redistricting process. A provision of the Bureau's fiscal
year 1998 funding bill also requires the agency to make available census
counts down to the block level that are not adjusted based on the
quality-check survey.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the panel's senior Democratic member, said
the 2000 census "may well be the best, fairest and most accurate census
ever," not only because of operational successes so far but because "it
incorporates modern scientific methods into its design." The 1990
census, she noted, had a 10 percent error rate, including who are
missed, counted twice, or counted in the wrong location. "The closer
the Census Bureau has gotten to developing a way to fix those errors,
the harder the opponents of a modern census have worked to stop them,"
Rep. Maloney said, referring to the disproportionate undercount of
racial minorities and the poor in urban and rural communities.
Rep. Miller said Republicans question the constitutionality, legality,
and feasibility of a census plan that incorporates sampling and
statistical estimation techniques. He called the decision to issue two
sets of census counts "a political move, clearly against the best
interest of the Nation" by the Clinton/Gore Administration. Pointing to
last year's Supreme Court decision, he cautioned that supporters of the
plan "have yet to win a court case." "Census estimation," the chairman
said, "is not a system that lends itself to trust and integrity."
Rep. Miller described statistical estimation as existing "only in a
virtual world," where people are added to or subtracted from the counts
without verification. This means, he said, that some people who have
filled out and returned a census form "will be counted as less than a
whole person." Rep. Miller also criticized an element of the Bureau's
statistical methodology that he said assumes people of the same race or
ethnicity "act alike and have the same tendencies," by assigning them to
one of nearly 450 demographic groupings (called 'post-strata') for the
purpose of measuring the under- and overcount. The chairman asked the
director for "assurances... that [the adjusted] numbers will be fully
scrutinized by the Bureau and the scientific community, at large, prior
to their release for public use."
Countering the chairman's criticism of the sampling methodology, Dr.
Prewitt said the A.C.E. survey was no more difficult than other large
Census 2000 operations. He called the census "an estimation of the
truth" and said its accuracy should be measured by how close the results
are to the nation's true population. The director noted that census
data are "unstable" for very small areas (such as census blocks)
regardless of whether the figures are adjusted using statistical methods
or not. Adjusted census numbers are "unquestionably" more accurate at
the block level, Dr. Prewitt said in response to a question from Rep.
Miller, than numbers produced from direct counting methods alone. He
also defended the use of demographic 'post-strata' to estimate under-
and overcounts, saying the groupings were based on scientific knowledge
about people with similar probabilities of being missed or
double-counted in the census. A panel of experts convened by the
National Academy of Sciences (the Panel to Review the 2000 Census,
chaired by former Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Janet L.
Norwood) is independently reviewing the A.C.E. statistical methods and
operations.
Dr. Prewitt emphasized that while the Bureau has decided to conduct the
A.C.E. according to a technically sound design, it cannot determine in
advance whether the direct count or the statistically adjusted numbers
are more accurate. "If the Census Bureau does not have confidence in
the A.C.E. results, we will not use it," the director told subcommittee
members. The Census Bureau director, not the Secretary of Commerce, he
said, should make the adjustment decision.
The director also vigorously challenged the assertion that statistical
estimation could invite tampering with the numbers to achieve partisan
advantage. He said the Census Bureau is "not competent" to design and
implement an estimation plan that produces a partisan outcome. "Where
is the evidence?" he asked, that the Bureau has a partisan agenda. Dr.
Prewitt said it is "inconceivable" that the Census Bureau would know how
statistical adjustments would affect the drawing of political district
lines by 50 state legislatures.
Other legislative news: Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced legislation to
provide funds for the Census Bureau to begin planning a census of
American citizens living abroad in 2003. H.R. 4568 would authorize $5
million for planning a Census of Americans Abroad. Rep. Maloney
introduced a bill (H.R. 3649) last year to require an interim count of
Americans overseas in 2003 and planning to include this population in
the 2010 census. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) sponsored a similar
bill (S. 1715) in 1999, which was referred to the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Census 2000 will include active members of the U.S. armed forces,
civilian government employees, and their dependents, who are stationed
or living overseas on Census Day (April 1, 2000), in the state
population totals transmitted to the President for the purpose of
congressional apportionment. These personnel and their family members
are counted at their 'home of record,' the state in which they lived at
the start of the their military or federal service.
In a letter to Reps. Harold Rogers (R-KY) and Jose Serrano (D-NY),
chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and The
Judiciary, Rep. Maloney said the estimated three to six million American
citizens living abroad "make enormous contributions to our economy" and
"vote, pay taxes, and enjoy the same constitutional protections" as
other Americans. She urged the subcommittee to include funds for
planning an interim count in the Census Bureau's fiscal year 2001
appropriations bill.
Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) introduced a bill last month (H.R. 4458) that
would limit the questions asked in future censuses to those included on
the Census 2000 short form. The measure was referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform.
Update on Census 2000 operations: The Census Bureau announced last week
that it has counted, either by mail or through a personal visit, about
92 percent of the nation's 118 million housing units. Director Ken
Prewitt said gathering information from the remaining eight percent of
American households posed the greatest challenge for the approximately
450,000 census enumerators working to complete 'nonresponse follow-up'
operations by July 7.
State legislative activities update: The New Jersey State Assembly
yesterday approved a bill to require the use of unadjusted census
numbers for redistricting purposes. The measure passed the
Republican-controlled chamber on a party line vote of 42-34. On May 22,
the State Government Committee approved A. 1682, sponsored by
Assemblyman Michael Carroll (R), by a 3 - 2 vote along party lines.
Assembly Speaker Jack Collins (R) initially scheduled a vote on the
measure for May 25, but agreed to postpone action temporarily after
Minority Leader Joseph Dorio Jr. (D) said legislators and the public
needed more time to consider the bill's consequences. Last week,
however, the Speaker announced that the Assembly would take up the bill
on June 5. The State Senate has not yet considered the measure.
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. 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.
The last batch of TAZ verification materials have been mailed to agencies in
the states listed below. If you are a participating agency in one of the
states listed below and DO NOT receive your materials by June 12, 2000,
please call Nanda Srinivasan at (202) 366-5021. (Email: ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov).
1. Louisiana
2. Texas
3. Oklahoma
The deadline for submittals to the Census Bureau for counties in these states
is July 14, 2000.
By June 12, all participating agencies should have TAZ Verification materials
for all the counties they submitted TAZ files in Fall 99. If you are missing
TIGER/Line for any county, please let me know by calling 202-366-5021 or by
replying to this e-mail.
Thank You!
Nanda Srinivasan
In the last e-mail posted to the listserv, the date of receipt should be
June 10.
If agencies in the following states do not receive their materials by
June 10, 2000 please call Nanda Srinivasan at (202) 366-5021.
(E:Mail ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov)
1. Arkansas
2. Florida
3. Indiana
4. Iowa
5. Kansas
6. Maryland
7. Mississippi
8. Nebraska
9. Nevada
10. New Jersey
11. North Dakota
12. Pennsylvania
13. South Dakota
14. Washington
15. Wisconsin
The deadline for submittals to the Census Bureau for these states is
July 10, 2000.
Agencies in Texas, Oklahoma, and Lousiana will receive their files by May 31,
2000.
Thank You!
Nanda Srinivasan
TAZ verification materials have been mailed to agencies in the states listed
below. If you are a particpating agency in one of the states listed below and
DO NOT receive your materials by May 10, 2000, please call Nanda Srinivasan
at (202) 366-5021 (Email: ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov).
1. Arkansas
2. Florida
3. Indiana
4. Iowa
5. Kansas
6. Maryland
7. Mississippi
8. Nebraska
9. Nevada
10. New Jersey
11. North Dakota
12. Pennsylvania
13. South Dakota
14. Washington
15. Wisconsin
The deadline for submittals to the Census Bureau for these states is
July 10, 2000.
Agencies in Texas, Oklahoma, and Lousiana will receive their files by May 31,
2000.
Thank You!
Nanda Srinivasan
This is of relevance to the transportation planning community. I
understand USDOT staff are working on a response, but I would
recommend that others (MPO, State DOTs, Researchers) help out on this
one as you see fit.
Chuck Purvis, MTC
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:28:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Census 2000 <census2000(a)atlas.socsci.umn.edu>
To: survey-list(a)hist.umn.edu
Subject: URGENT! PUMS 2000
Dear PUMS Survey respondent:
Thank you for filling out our survey on the 2000 PUMS. Your help is
needed again.
We reported the results of the survey to the Census Bureau at a May 22
meeting in Washington, and I am optimistic that we made real headway
in persuading Bureau staff that detailed subject categories are
essential to users. The plan to suppress detail, however, is in some
ways more extreme than we thought at the time we wrote the survey.
For example, no specific countries of birth would be provided under
the Bureau's proposal. Instead, we would only be able to identify
continents of birth.
The full report, including the details of the current Census Bureau
plan, is posted at http://www.ipums.org/~census2000. As described in
the report, we have proposed that the Bureau consider a more moderate
approach to reduce the risk of disclosure.
We believe that the proposed changes would severely compromise the
social science and public policy infrastructure of the United States
without materially reducing the risk to respondent confidentiality.
No final decisions have been made, however, and the Bureau is actively
seeking input from users. I feel confident that if we make our
concerns known, the Bureau will moderate these cuts. Therefore I urge
you to write to Kenneth Prewitt and Paula Schneider, the key executive
staff at Census (addresses below). Your letter could go into detail
about the kind of research these changes would preclude, but even a
brief letter or email expressing your concern would be extremely
valuable. We will send a powerful message about the value of the PUMS
to user community if everyone who responded to the survey also sends a
letter.
Kenneth Prewitt, Director Bureau of the Census
Federal Office Bldg. 3, Room 2049
4700 Silver Hill Road
Suitland, Maryland 20233
kenneth.prewitt(a)ccmail.census.gov
Paula J. Schneider Principal Associate Director for Programs
Bureau of the Census
Federal Office Bldg. 3, Room 2037
4700 Silver Hill Road
Suitland, Maryland 20233
paula.a.schneider(a)ccmail.census.gov
We would also appreciate it if you would send us a copy of your
letter.
Task Force on the 2000 PUMS
Minnesota Population Center
537 Heller Hall
271 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
census2000(a)hist.umn.edu
FAX: (612) 624-7096
I know this is a busy time of year for many of you, but speed is of
the essence: key decisions may be made at any time. If we do not
respond, we will have no right to complain later.
Thank you for your help, and please feel free to forward this message
to any individual or list you think might be interested.
Yours,
Steven Ruggles
ruggles(a)hist.umn.edu
Chair, ICPSR Census 2000 Advisory Committee
Principal Investigator, IPUMS Project
May 24, 2000
This message is intended for all agencies participating in the Workplace Update
Program.
ATTENTION! Workplace Update File Deadline Is One Week From Today!
Files of geocoded and ungeocoded records that have been reviewed by State or
local agencies are due one week from today, May 31. We have heard from some
agencies that they have not reviewed or looked at any records in the geocoded
file(s). If this is the case, you do not have to return the geocoded file(s) to
us.
We have been looking at the files that have been returned so far, and have found
a few problems in some of them. One specific problem concerns the shopping
center records. Some agencies have purposely deleted these records, while
others have either flagged them as unresolved, or have not attempted to geocode
them. We think it is important that the shopping centers, particularly the
large ones, be geocoded or map spotted . These records can easily be identified
by the '9999999' in the 'numofemps' field on the file.
We will continue to check the files that are received between now and the May 31
deadline. However, we can't promise that we will be able to check files
received after the deadline. Files received after the deadline, but on or
before June 15, will be passed on to our Geography Division for use in 2000
Census place-of-work coding, even if they have not been checked by us. However,
we cannot guarantee that files received after June 15 will be used in the coding
at all. If you have questions about these dates, please call Clara, Gloria, or
Phil at (301) 457-2454. Thank You.
--Phil Salopek
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
GAO Cites Census Progress, But House Chairman Angered By Memo Suggesting
Bureau Non-Cooperation
Plus: Nearly 40 Percent of Household Follow-up Visits Completed;
Mail-back Rate Hits 66 Percent;
Voting Rights Act Reviews of State Laws Continue
In testimony before Congress last week, the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) said initial assessments of Census 2000 are "encouraging,
with major operations reportedly proceeding on schedule and generally
performing as planned." GAO representatives cited the initial 65
percent mail-back rate as "particularly noteworthy," noting that
response by mail reduces both costs and the scope of follow-up field
activities while improving data quality, even though it "does not
guarantee a successful census." The legislative watchdog agency
presented its evaluation at a May 10th hearing of the House Subcommittee
on the Census.
An analysis of Census Bureau data showed that nearly all households
(99.89 percent, or 76.77 million) that responded during the first phase
of the census returned their form by mail; only 0.09 percent (about
66,000) answered over the Internet, while 0.02 percent (about 17,000)
gave their answers over the phone. The GAO also discussed the 12.5
percent gap in mail response between short form and long form
households, twice the projected response differential of 6.2 percent.
The wider gap, the auditors said, was due primarily to a
higher-than-expected short form response rate (66.6% returned v. 62.1%
projected) rather than "a meltdown on the long form" (54.1% returned v.
55.9% projected).
The GAO's testimony included other analyses based on Census Bureau data,
of initial responses to the census during mail out/mail back
operations. GAO auditors concluded that mail response rates by Local
Census Office (LCO) ranged from 39 to 80 percent; LCOs in inner city and
urban areas generally had better-than-expected response rates, while
many suburban, small town, and rural LCOs fell short of the Bureau's
expectations; and all but 16 of the 511 LCOs had met or exceeded their
hiring goals for the start of NRFU. Interested stakeholders can obtain
copies of GAO's testimony (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-164) and other GAO reports
by visiting the agency's website at <http://www.gao.gov>.
Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) continued to express concern
about the schedule for completing follow-up visits to unresponsive
households, suggesting that enumerators would be forced to gather
information from neighbors and landlords to finish their caseloads on
time. The GAO said the 10-week period for NRFU is "ambitious," noting
that the bureau "needed more time to follow-up on far fewer housing
units" in 1980 and 1990, but said the larger temporary workforce in 2000
might help the bureau complete the operation on schedule. They pointed
to enumerator productivity and turnover rates as key factors affecting
the pace of the follow-up work. The Census Bureau hopes to rely on
so-called "proxy data" from indirect sources for six percent or less of
unresponsive housing units, according to GAO auditors.
Internal Census Bureau memo sparks new controversy: However, a
significant portion of the hearing focused not on Census 2000 operations
but on an internal Census Bureau memorandum from the Los Angeles
regional census office concerning various reporting requirements during
the 'nonresponse follow-up' (NRFU) phase of the count. At the start of
the hearing, Chairman Miller displayed a copy of an e-mail communication
sent by a "mid-level Census Bureau Manager" to lower level managers that
he said was brought to his attention late the previous day. The
chairman highlighted one paragraph of the short memorandum, which read,
"I will try to get the D-333D report to you all on a daily basis.
However this report must and cannot be shared with any GAO
representative. This a report that must be shared with any one else
except the management staff." (Note: Apparent typographical and
grammatical errors were contained in the original text.) A D-333D form
is used to report the progress of Local Census Offices in collecting
information from unresponsive households during NRFU.
Rep. Miller said the memorandum is "a very serious matter that cuts to
the heart of this census and severely calls into question the Census
Bureau's credibility." "I am appalled. ...I take it personally. This
Congress takes it personally," he continued. The chairman said he would
seek "full accountability" for the memorandum's contents and that he
believed a more senior Census Bureau employee had issued the instruction
to withhold the progress reports from the GAO. He concluded his
statement by questioning whether other bureau documents have been or
will be withheld from public scrutiny. "Today, there is reason to be
worried," the congressman said.
The panel's senior Democratic member, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), said
she was not informed about the existence of the memorandum until shortly
before the start of the hearing. She suggested that the subcommittee
should ask Census Bureau Director Prewitt for an explanation before
drawing any conclusions about the meaning of the paragraph cited by the
chairman. Later in the hearing, Rep. Maloney read a statement from the
director, who also learned about the memorandum's existence earlier that
morning. Dr. Prewitt told the subcommittee that his agency does not
have a policy directing its employees to withhold information from the
GAO, but that lower and mid-level managers are instructed to consult
with senior managers before responding to any requests from oversight
bodies for information. He noted that GAO staff already have full
access to the NRFU workload data contained in the D-333D forms.
Under questioning from subcommittee members, the GAO's representative
called the e-mail reference to his agency "disturbing," but acknowledged
that the Census Bureau has complied with all GAO requests for
information and that investigators have access to the figures reported
on the D-333Ds.
'Nonresponse follow-up' visits continue at steady pace: Census
enumerators have counted 39 percent of the 42.4 million households
requiring a follow-up visit, the Census Bureau announced at press
briefing on May 16. The 'nonresponse follow-up' work started on April
27 and is scheduled to continue through July 7. The bureau has hired
460,000 census takers to visit households that did not mail back a
questionnaire. The completion rate for follow-up visits includes vacant
households and addresses found to be nonexistent.
As with mail response rates in the first phase of Census 2000, the pace
of counting unresponsive households varied by census region, bureau
officials said. The Denver and Los Angeles regions posted the highest
follow-up completion rates so far, at 50 percent, while only 31 percent
of households that enumerators must visit in person have been counted.
Dr. Prewitt said the bureau could not yet predict if NRFU would finish
on schedule, although the deadline could be met if the current pace of
counting previously unresponsive households continues. The director
noted that the bureau had not yet encountered problems with insufficient
staffing and employee turnover, two difficulties that plagued the
follow-up counting operation in 1990. In an earlier statement, he
praised the "dedication and achievements of census workers ...for the
continued good progress of Census 2000."
As part of quality control efforts, census enumerators also are visiting
households that mailed back a questionnaire without sufficient
information (i.e. forms listing only occupant names or the number of
residents) or with conflicting information (i.e. forms containing
information for fewer people than the reported number of residents), as
well as households reporting six or more residents or a high number of
unrelated occupants. Dr. Prewitt said two to three percent of all
households were likely to encounter census workers more than once
because of various quality control operations, including the 300,000
household Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation survey.
Only days earlier, at a May 12 meeting of the Committee on National
Statistics (National Academy of Sciences), Census Bureau Deputy Director
William Barron, Jr. announced that census takers had successfully
counted 30 percent of the unresponsive households. "[T]he census
continues to be running very well and all operations are meeting or
exceeding our expectations," the deputy director said. The GAO reported
to Congress on May 10 that 17.4 percent of the field follow-up had been
completed by May 8. Rep. Carolyn Maloney called the progress of the
follow-up visits an "amazing accomplishment," and added that the "good
news ...ironically is disappointing some in Congress."
Final mail response rate revised: Check-in of late census questionnaires
has boosted the Census 2000 mail response rate to 66 percent, the Census
Bureau reported last week. The revised figure exceeds the 1990
mail-back rate of 65 percent, marking the first time since the Census
Bureau started distributing census forms primarily by mail in 1970 that
the mail response rate has not declined from the previous decennial
count. Seventeen percent of states and localities met or exceeded their
'Plus 5' goal of increasing their mail response by at least five percent
over their 1990 rate.
A revised mail response rate is not unusual; in 1990, the initial 63
percent response rate crept up to 65 percent as the Census Bureau
accounted for all questionnaires returned by mail. The 2000 mail
response rate represents the percent of all households in the 'mail
back' universe that returned a questionnaire by mail or provided their
answers by telephone or over the Internet. It does not include 'Be
Counted' forms, which do not bear a unique geographic code tying the
response to a specific address, or remote households that were counted
by enumerators during 'list/enumerate' or 'update/enumerate' operations.
Congressional hearings: The House Subcommittee on the Census will hold a
hearing on May 19 on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) phase of
Census 2000. Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt will discuss the
program, which is designed to measure the accuracy of the population
counts derived from the mail out/mail back and nonresponse follow-up
operations and to correct undercounts and overcounts using statistical
methods. Preliminary activities for the ACE program begin this month,
with interviews of the 300,000 households in the quality-check survey
starting June 19. The hearing will start at 9:30 a.m. in room 2247
Rayburn House Office Building. (Note: This hearing originally was
scheduled for May 18.)
Stakeholder activities: The United States Conference of City Human
Services Officials (USCCHSO), an affiliate of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors (USCM), held a press conference on May 9 to highlight the
involvement of city leaders in the Census 2000 promotional campaign, How
America Knows What America Needs. USCCHSO President Willa Lister said,
"Human service officials have direct contact with traditionally
undercounted populations and can explain the importance of an accurate
census count and emphasize the confidentiality of census data." Ann
Azari, a past chairwoman of the Commerce Secretary's 2000 Census
Advisory Committee, joined Ms. Lister in explaining the "Because You
Count" phase of the promotional effort. Ms. Azari, herself a former
mayor of Fort Collins, CO, said the goal and focus of the campaign is
"civic engagement." Laverne Collins, an 18-year veteran of the Census
Bureau, said she wanted to convey four key messages: (1) Census 2000 is
not over; (2) people should cooperate with enumerators when they visit
unresponsive households; (3) all census responses are confidential; and
(4) it is important to answer all questions on the census forms.
State legislative activities update: The New Jersey state legislature is
considering a bill (A. 1682) that would bar the use of statistically
corrected census numbers for redistricting. The Assembly's State
Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on May 22 to review the proposal.
Virginia officials have asked a federal court to approve its new law
prohibiting the use of census data compiled in part through sampling and
statistical methods for congressional and state redistricting. The
case, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Reno et al. (Case No. 1:00CV00751),
will be heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, in accordance with section 5 of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act (as amended). Under the statute, either party can appeal the
lower court decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which must
issue a ruling in the case (known as 'mandatory jurisdiction'). The
state filed the suit on April 10, 2000.
In Alaska, also one of 16 states covered by the Voting Rights Act
section 5 'pre-clearance' requirements, Attorney General James L.
Baldwin responded on May 4 to a U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ)
request for additional information in support of two bills enacted last
year that (in relevant part) prohibit the use of statistically-corrected
census numbers for redistricting purposes. The state submitted House
Joint Resolution No. 44 and Senate Bill No. 99 to the USDOJ for approval
on September 21, 1999; the USDOJ Civil Rights Division's Voting Section
requested more information on November 18, 1999, "to determine that the
proposed procedures do not have the purpose and will not have the effect
of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group." The Justice Department has 60
days to approve or disapprove the bills, which went into law without the
signature of Governor Tony Knowles (D).
Correction: In the May 8th News Alert, we inadvertently included the
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) as a participant in an
April 25 press conference on the importance of census long form data.
Housing Assistance Council (HAC) Executive Director Moises Loza
participated in the event, along with Betty Weiss, Executive Director of
the National Neighborhood Coalition, and Ricardo Villalobos, Census
Project director for the Center for Community Change. We apologize for
the error. 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 2000
Initiative at Census2000(a)ccmc.org or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other interested
individuals.
Notice for all agencies participating in the Workplace Update program!
ANOTHER NEW VERSION OF THE WORK-UP SOFTWARE IN NOW AVAILABLE.
This version contains added functionality to allow you to move multiple
points from one location to another within the same county. With this new
release of the software you can move a number of employers as a group,
instead of having to move each one individually. If you would like to be
able to take advantage of this new function, continue reading below.
The new version of the program, still named wup.avx, is available by direct
link to: http://members.tripod.com/~TRBstate/ctpp/wupavx.zip. There is also
a link to this site from the TRB Subcommittee website,
www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/workup.
The file has been zipped, so after you download the program you need to unzip
it and copy it into the two locations where your wup.avx file is located.
These locations are usually the \Esri\AV_gis30\Arcview\Ext32 and \workup\bin
directories. (The first location is the working copy; the latter is a
backup.) These directories are normally on the C drive, but if your
installation is different you'll have to find where the wup.avx files are and
copy the new version to those directories.
Here is a brief discussion of how the new function works.
Moving Multiple Employers at One Time
A number of Work-UP users have indicated to us that they would like to be
able to move multiple employers from one location to another in the same
county in one operation. The developer has added this functionality so that
there is now a way to move a group of employers.
Moving a group of Points in Work-UP:
1. Use the Select Feature (lasso) tool or the Query Builder button to
select a group of employers you want to move.
2. Click the "M" button. This new button is located at the far right end of
the button bar, the top bar of icons in Work-UP.
3. You will be prompted as in other Work-UP procedures to choose between the
geocoded and the ungeocoded files and you will also be notified how many
records you have selected.
4. Finally a window will come up asking for the address to which you want
the points moved. This address will NOT be put on the records being moved,
it is only to find the location to which you want them moved. If the address
you enter is not one that can be geocoded, you will be prompted to locate the
spot on the map as in other Work-UP procedures.
Hint: It seems to be helpful to first figure out where you want to move the
employers to, before you go through the procedure of actually selecting them.
I am hearing that there are some discussions underway at Census
concerning the 2000 PUMS. Below is an email that Elaine Murakami (fhwa)
snagged concerning a meeting on the issue. Elaine is trying to get to
the bottom of it but I thought it was important to get the issue before
us. We will let you know more as we find out. If anyone on the list can
shed any information on this or the direction of PUMs please let us
know.
(don't forget to make sure to "reply all" if you want to reply to the
list.)
-------------------insert------------
Date: 05/09/2000 05:20 pm (Tuesday)
From: ruggles(a)hist.umn.edu
To: hubsmtp.gwhub("ipums-users(a)ipums.umn.edu")
Subject: URGENT! Census 2000 PUMS
** High Priority **
Dear IPUMS users:
The Census Bureau is considering significant reductions in the level of
subject and geographic detail for the 2000 PUMS files in order to
enhance confidentiality. As the Principal Investigator of the IPUMS
project and chair of the ICPSR Census 2000 Committee, I have been asked
to attend a meeting at the Bureau later this month to report how these
changes might affect users. No final decisions have yet been taken, but
various measures are under discussion. Although I do not have the
specifics of any proposals, I have heard that they include such steps as
grouping ages for persons 65 or older, providing only broad occupational
groupings, reducing the available detail on race, ancestry, and income,
and reducing geographic detail.
I would like to get your feedback on these issues before I meet with the
Bureau so I can fairly represent the concerns of IPUMS users. I would
therefore appreciate it if you could complete the brief survey at
http://www.ipums.umn.edu/~ipums/survey.html. I need the results as soon
as possible. The survey will remain open until May 16th, but it will
help greatly if you could complete the survey today or tomorrow. A high
response rate will strengthen the credibility of the results. I
appreciate your help on this, especially given the very short notice.
If you know of people who have used the IPUMS but who are not registered
to use the data extraction system, I would appreciate it if you would
forward this message to them.
If you do not want to receive email from IPUMS and would like us to
remove you from our list of registered users, please email
ipums(a)hist.umn.edu and ask to be removed, and accept my apologies for
clogging your inbox.
Yours,
Steven Ruggles
Minnesota Population Center
537 Heller, University of Minnesota
271 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
FAX: (612) 624-7096
PHONE: (612) 624-5818
TAZ verification materials have been mailed to agencies in the states
listed below. If you are a particpating agency in one of the states listed
below and DO NOT receive your materials by May 16, 2000, please call
Nanda Srinivasan at (202) 366-5021 (Email: ctpp(a)fhwa.dot.gov).
1. Alaska
2. Arizona
3. California
4. Colarado
5. Idaho
6. Illinois
7. Missouri
8. New Mexico
9. New York
10. Oregon
11. Utah
12. Wyoming
The deadline for submittals to the Census Bureau for these states is
June 15, 2000.
Agencies in all other states (not included in this mailing or the previous
one) will receive the materials within a week.
Thank You!
Nanda Srinivasan
