From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
House Panel Considers Proposal to Count Americans Overseas;
Wisconsin Lawmakers Advocate New Rules for Counting Military
Families and Prisoners
The House Subcommittee on the Census held a hearing on June 9 to
review proposals to count all Americans living overseas in the
census and to change the way members of the armed forces stationed
in the U.S. and certain prisoners are counted. The panel heard
testimony from two Members of Congress, Census Bureau Director
Kenneth Prewitt, and several organizations advocating a count of
Americans abroad.
Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) said in his opening remarks
that "all of these proposals address legitimate concerns." Rep.
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the panel's senior Democrat, said that while
Congress should consider these issues, it should do so "in a more
systematic fashion and in a time frame that allowed for proper
consideration of these ideas." Speaking generally about the three
proposals, Dr. Prewitt said: "We need to make sure that any policy
changes are consistent with the original intent of the census to
determine the 'whole number of persons in each state' for purposes
of apportionment." He said lack of sufficient time to "introduce
complex new procedures to the design" was the largest barrier to
implementing any of the new proposals at this stage of census
preparations.
Counting Americans living overseas: Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), who
chairs the Committee on International Relations, testified that
failure to count private American citizens living overseas in the
census is discriminatory. He noted that the Census Bureau plans to
count members of the armed forces, civilian employees of federal
agencies, and all of their dependents stationed abroad during the
census, for congressional apportionment purposes, as it did in
1990. (Apportionment refers to dividing up the 435 seats in the
U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states based on the state
population totals compiled from the census.) The congressman said
the census should include overseas Americans because of their role
in promoting U.S. national interests around the world.
Rep. Gilman has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 129 (H. Con.
Res. 129), expressing the "sense of the Congress" that the Census
Bureau should include all overseas Americans in the 2000 census.
The resolution does not specify whether private American citizens
living abroad should be counted only for congressional apportionment
or for other purposes such as redistricting and allocating program
funds. The Bureau only needs to calculate the total population of
each state as the basis for apportionment, while the data used for
drawing political district boundaries (redistricting) requires
placing people and households in specific census blocks. Federal
programs require census data at various levels of geography to
distribute funds according to a formula or to determine program
eligibility. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) is the sponsor of a
companion resolution, S. Con. Res. 38.
Chairman Miller, who is a cosponsor of the Gilman resolution,
observed that Americans living and working overseas "play a key role
in advancing our national interests around the world." The chairman
said Americans overseas should be included in the census, although
we may have to lower our standards of accuracy to do so. Rep.
Miller said he supports counting this population in 2000, but that
the Census Bureau must prepare to do so in 2010 if it cannot be
ready to conduct such a count next year.
Director Prewitt suggested in his testimony that Congress commission
in-depth studies to explore the highly complex issues involved in
counting private American citizens living overseas. He noted that
previous attempts to count Americans living overseas have produced
data of unusable quality and that the Constitution does not speak to
counting the non-resident population. After meeting with advocates
of counting this population, the Bureau concluded, "it cannot
credibly enumerate the population of American citizens living
abroad," Dr. Prewitt said.
The director cited concerns about accuracy, since the Bureau does
not have reliable estimates of the overseas population to check the
progress of the count, as it does in the United States using the
master address list and independent population estimates. The
Bureau was also concerned that the voluntary nature of an overseas
count might tempt some states to mount publicity campaigns in order
to boost their populations for apportionment purposes. Dr. Prewitt
said the Bureau would need substantial additional funds for an
overseas count, as well as considerable lead times to design and
print questionnaires and to coordinate the census effort with the
State Department. He did not estimate how much a count of overseas
Americans would cost.
Dr. Prewitt distinguished the inclusion of military and federal
civilian personnel stationed overseas by noting that this population
is counted using administrative records maintained by the Defense
Department and other agencies. The Bureau plans to count overseas
military and government personnel at the home of record noted in
their personnel file, which usually refers to the place where a
person lived when he or she joined the military or federal service.
The Bureau followed this policy in 1990, after the House of
Representatives passed a bill directing the Bureau to count overseas
military personnel at their home of record for apportionment
purposes. The House had soundly defeated a proposal in 1988 to
count military personnel stationed abroad in the state where they
last resided for at least six months before shipping overseas.
The subcommittee heard testimony from the Census 2000 Coalition, as
well as from representatives of several organizations belonging to
the Coalition. Executive Director David Hamod described the
Coalition as "an ad hoc, bipartisan group dedicated to including all
Americans living and working overseas in next year's census" and
said it is comprised of "all major organizations representing U.S.
citizens and U.S. companies overseas." The individual organizations
testifying at the hearing were the Association of Americans Resident
Overseas (AARO); American Chambers of Commerce abroad and
Republicans Abroad (one witness, who also identified himself as an
officer of the American Business Council of Gulf Countries,
represented both of these organizations); Democrats Abroad; and
American Citizens Abroad. All of these groups noted that the
Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 gave Americans living
overseas the right to vote in federal elections in the state and
congressional district in which they last resided.
Mr. Hamod of the Census 2000 Coalition listed four reasons to
include Americans abroad in the 2000 census: promoting U.S.
competitiveness, ensuring political representation for all
Americans, treating private citizens overseas in the same manner as
military and government employees, and ensuring an accurate census.
The Coalition did not specify whether it believes private citizens
abroad should be counted only for congressional apportionment or for
other purposes as well.
Mr. Hamod said the Bureau's concerns about an overseas census "are
simply red herrings" that are "a pretext to discriminate against
Americans abroad." He suggested the Bureau distribute a form
prepared by the Coalition through the Bureau's web site, U.S.
embassies and consulates, and organizations representing Americans
abroad. (Dr. Prewitt, however, chided the group for distributing a
draft questionnaire that appeared to be a Census Bureau document.)
Responses could be verified, Mr. Hamod said, using passport
numbers. Mr. Hamod concluded by saying "it is high time to overhaul
an obsolete policy that treats U.S. citizens overseas as nobodies
rather than as the valuable national asset they are."
Rep. Maloney said "she was sympathetic to the desires of overseas
Americans to be counted" but that Congress must address several key
questions first. The congresswoman said a count of all overseas
Americans would be of "questionable" accuracy because it must rely
only on voluntary participation without any procedures to follow-up
with people who don't send in a form, as enumerators usually do in
the census. She also said Congress must clarify where (for example,
last residence, legal residence, or voting residence) and for what
purposes these Americans should be included. Rep. Maloney announced
that she would introduce legislation to require a census of
Americans living overseas in 2003, to give Congress sufficient time
to consider whether to include this population in the 2010 count.
Subcommittee member Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) questioned whether an
overseas count would be reliable, given the wide ranging estimates
of how many Americans live and work abroad.
Changing residency rules for counting prisoners and military
personnel in the U.S.: At its June 9 hearing, the census
subcommittee also discussed proposals to change the way certain
prisoners and members of the armed forces stationed in the U.S. are
counted in the census.
Rep. Mark Green (R-WI) is sponsor of a bill (H.R. 1632) to require
that state prisoners be counted as residents of the state that pays
more than half of the cost of incarcerating them. The change in
counting policy is necessary, Rep. Green testified, to accommodate
the growing "practice of states leasing prison space in other
states." The congressman argued that because many federal programs
rely on census data, "the originating state will lose federal funds
to the states which are housing out-of-state prisoners temporarily."
Rep. Green noted that about 3,700 Wisconsin prisoners currently are
incarcerated in other states and said that number is expected to
grow to 10,000 by 2001. He said Wisconsin maintains a database of
its prisoners housed in other states that could be used to count
these inmates in their home state.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), a member of the census subcommittee, urged
support for his bill (H.R. 2067) to count active duty military
personnel in the United States at their home of record instead of
where they are stationed on Census Day. The congressman said his
proposal did not represent a radical change from current Bureau
policy and that the Bureau has already changed its standard of usual
residence by counting military personnel stationed overseas in their
home of record state.
According to the Census Bureau's residency rules, which determine
where people are counted in the census, prisoners are counted at the
facility where they are incarcerated. Active duty members of the
armed forces are counted at the military installation or the
homeport of the ship to which they are assigned. "Usual residence
for census purposes," Director Prewitt testified, "is the place
where the person lives and sleeps most of the time." Making an
exception for certain prisoners and military personnel, he said,
might open a Pandora's box for other exceptions, such as where
college students or people receiving out-of-state medical treatment
are counted. During the 1990 census, Washington, D.C. challenged
the Bureau's practice of counting its inmates who are housed at a
prison in Lorton, Virginia, as residents of Virginia. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the
Bureau's policy in that case (District of Columbia v. U.S.
Department of Commerce, 789 F. Supp. 1179 (D.D.C. 1992).
Dr. Prewitt said H.R. 1632 does not address several operational
issues, such as whether out-of-state prisoners should be allocated
to a specific location in their home state and whether the proposal
covers federal prisoners, who he said are more likely to be
incarcerated out-of-state. The director said H.R. 2067 would require
a significant change to the procedures for counting stateside
military personnel. Members of the armed forces in the U.S. receive
a census form to complete on their own, as do most other residents
not living in a group facility.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney suggested that the Green and Ryan proposals
were "presumably introduced with the intent of boosting the
population totals for Wisconsin, which may lose a seat after the
2000 reapportionment." Both freshmen Wisconsin lawmakers denied that
their proposals were motivated by projections showing that the state
would lose its 9th congressional district after the 2000 census.
They said their goal is to promote an accurate census.
Ensuring the confidentiality of census responses: Our effort to
provide a thorough summary of proposals to count overseas Americans
and change certain residency rules has resulted in a lengthy News
Alert today. Therefore, we will report on concerns about the
confidentiality of citizenship data collected in the census in a
separate News Alert this week.
Congressional hearing planned: The House Subcommittee on the Census
will hold a field hearing in Racine, Wisconsin, on June 28. The
hearing, which is open to the public, will be held in the City
Council Chamber from 9:15 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Among the invited
witnesses are Governor Tommy Thompson, the mayors of Racine and
Milwaukee, and officials from Racine and Kenosha Counties.
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.
HELP NEEDED
When I received our TIGER files and TAZ-Up program couple week ago, I started calling Election Data Services and Caliper Technical Support and was very disappointed with the state of GIS applications.
We have our TAZs in Caliper's TransCAD GIS format and our zonal configurations are primarily aggregation of 1990 Census Block Groups. I have no problem in converting these TAZ boundaries to ArcView Shape files.
In TransCAD, there is a "TAG' function to populate information from one layer to other layer based on spatial relationship. I understand that ArcView has a "SPATIAL JOIN' function doing similar job. I have tried the "TAG" function in one of our least populated county and the results were very messy assignments of TAZs to the TIGER tgrsscccp files.
Well, there must be some pros out there who can point me to the right direction. I am resisting doing manually when I already have my TAZs described nicely in a reputable GIS package.
I would welcome any suggestions and am willing to try new methods before I will assign summer interns to recreate 1012 zones for the CTPP.
Thanks.
Sweson Yang, AICP
Chief Transportation Planner
City of Indianapolis/Indianapolis MPO
(317) 327-5137 FAX: (317) 327-5103
E-mail: syang(a)IndyGov.org
Incoming query to CTPP:
1. The Size of TAZ : In your TAZ-UP manual(4-6) we have been told that "there
are no minimum size criteria for TAZs for CTPP 2000 . ... however, that census
data may be suppressed to protect confidentiality if a TAZ is too small."
What do you mean "too small"? Could your give us a number (or a range) of
RESIDENTS and WORKERS refers to this definition?
You provided us 1990 historical mean number/range for RESIDENTS and WORKERS
per TAZ. It seems that we have great flexibility to set our own criteria for
defining the size of TAZs for CTPP 2000.
To avoid possible problems caused by this ambiguity, we prefer to have a clear
criteria number or range from you.
Do you have any suggestion for us to dealing with those TAZs that
have mixed land use? Another words, if a TAZ has both RESIDENTS and WORKERS in
it, should we use RESIDENTS or WORKERS to define our TAZs?
-----------------
Response from Elaine Murakami, FHWA
The text on page 4-6 of the TAZ-UP manual is the best we can do. There is NO
strict criteria. What is NOT going to work is for each block to be it's own
TAZ. However, there are cases in large urban downtown areas where a large
building (let's say it has more than 1000 workers, but no residents) is one
block and it makes sense for this block to be its own TAZ.
There may be special situations where a TAZ has less than 400 workers or 400
residents, but we would use 400 as a target MINIMUM. Preferably, the minimum
should be closer to 600, since we are planning for the CTPP tabulations to
have 2-way and 3-way cross tabulations, and if there are too many cells in the
cross-tab, we will run into a greater likelihood that data could be
suppressed.
Areas with mixed land use, I would still use 400 as the minimum for either
workers or residents, that is, having 200 residents and 200 workers is still
going to cause a problem.
Incoming query to CTPP:
1. The Size of TAZ : In your TAZ-UP manual(4-6) we have been told that "there
are no minimum size criteria for TAZs for CTPP 2000 . ... however, that census
data may be suppressed to protect confidentiality if a TAZ is too small."
What do you mean "too small"? Could your give us a number (or a range) of
RESIDENTS and WORKERS refers to this definition?
You provided us 1990 historical mean number/range for RESIDENTS and WORKERS
per TAZ. It seems that we have great flexibility to set our own criteria for
defining the size of TAZs for CTPP 2000.
To avoid possible problems caused by this ambiguity, we prefer to have a clear
criteria number or range from you.
Do you have any suggestion for us to dealing with those TAZs that
have mixed land use? Another words, if a TAZ has both RESIDENTS and WORKERS in
it, should we use RESIDENTS or WORKERS to define our TAZs?
-----------------
Response from Elaine Murakami, FHWA
-------incoming query---------
We have updated the TAZ for our MPO area using Arc/Info and Tiger92 lines.
They don't exactly overlay the Tiger98 lines. Would ya'll mind if we just
sent you those polygons in Arc export format and skipped the TAZ-UP software
process?
----------RESPONSE------
Sorry. You MUST use TIGER/Line 98. CTPP is a CENSUS program, and we are
limited to using what the Census Bureau tells us. If you read the reference
section (pages 7-8), it tells you the "equivalency file" that the Census
Bureau needs--it requires the CENID and POLYID from TIGER/Line 98.
You can use ArcInfo, and bring in TIGER/Line 98, and write a lovely AML to do
the work for you. If you do this, please let others on the CTPP listserve
know. Maybe someone else can benefit ! You DO NOT HAVE TO USE TAZ-UP!!!!
Hello to all subscribers of ctpp-news.
My name is Nanda Srinivasan. I am trying to learn about the 2000 census
effort, particularly in relation to the Census Transportation Planning data.
I have a Masters in Transportation planning with two years of experience in
GIS issues.
I look forward to contributing to the on-going discussions regarding the
2000 CTPP.
Thank You
Nanda Srinivasan
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Senate Funders Not Ready to Allocate Extra Money for Census
The Senate Appropriations Committee has declined to grant
the Administration's request for an additional $1.723
billion to implement its revised Census 2000 plan. At a
committee meeting yesterday, the panel allocated only $2.789
billion for census operations in fiscal year 2000 (FY2000),
which begins on October 1, instead of the $4.512 billion the
Administration now says it needs to conduct the decennial
count. In a report explaining the funding measure, the
committee said the 2000 census is still "at risk of
failure."
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who chairs the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, and the
Judiciary, said he would schedule hearings to review the
request for more census funds. The counterpart House
subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), has not
announced its plans for considering the FY2000 funding
bill. In his government-wide budget submitted to Congress
last February, the President requested $2.789 billion for
the census in FY2000. The original request was developed
before a January Supreme Court ruling forced the Census
Bureau to drop one proposed use of statistical sampling, in
order to compile state population totals for congressional
apportionment without sampling methods.
The President sent a revised Census 2000 budget to Congress
earlier this week, asking for $4.512 billion to conduct the
census next year. The Census Bureau said much of the extra
money is needed to pay for the added cost of visiting all
households that do not mail back a census form. The Bureau
estimates it will need 860,000 temporary workers during peak
census operations. The follow-up operation is expected to
take about 10 weeks, four more than originally planned.
In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee also
"directed" the Census Bureau to count all American citizens
living overseas in the 2000 census. However, House Census
Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) said at a June 9
hearing of his panel that the Census Bureau should find a
way to include overseas Americans in the census starting in
2010. In addition to reviewing a proposal to count
Americans living abroad, the House subcommittee discussed
proposals to change the way military personnel stationed in
the U.S. and certain prisoners are counted. The Census 2000
Initiative will provide a more complete summary of the June
9 hearing next week.
Special News Alert update: We have updated the Special News
Alert on census jobs distributed on June 8, to reflect
recent changes to the Census Bureau's operational plan. The
updated version is posted on the home page of our Web site
at <http://www.census2000.org>.
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, visit ourWeb 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.
From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org>
Administration Spells Out Need for Extra Census Funds
As Senate Appropriators Meet to Consider Fiscal Year 2000 Request
President Clinton has sent to Congress specific proposals to revise his
original fiscal year 2000 (FY2000) budget request for the 2000 census
and several other federal programs. In a written statement, the
President said the Census Bureau needs $1.723 billion more than his
original request of $2.78 billion next year to count the population
without relying on statistical sampling. The President cited a January
Supreme Court ruling that federal law bars such methods for purposes of
congressional apportionment. The extra money brings the total FY2000
budget request for Census 2000 to $4.5 billion. The Senate
appropriations committee is scheduled to consider the funding bill
today.
The bulk of the extra $1.7 billion is needed for non-response follow-up,
when census enumerators visit households that don't mail back their
census forms. In order to comply with the Supreme Court decision,
enumerators must visit all 45 million households the Bureau estimates
will not mail back a questionnaire. The increased field workload will
cost an extra $1.45 billion. This amount includes money to hire more
temporary workers and extend their training; a recheck of an estimated
7.6 million housing units reported as vacant, as well interviews to
gather information missing from returned questionnaires; enhanced
procedures for counting people who have no usual residence at soup
kitchens and shelters; and a pre-census quality check of rural areas
without city-style addresses.
The additional funds also will cover more supplies, materials,
telephones, and other infrastructure needs to support a larger workforce
(+$234 million); keeping the four data processing centers open longer to
accommodate the expanded field operation (+$102 million); additional
advertising and promotion, including more materials for schools,
nonprofit groups, and local governments (+$88 million); and several
other new efforts to improve address lists and data collection. The
Bureau says it will save $214 million by reducing the size of the
post-census quality check survey (called the Accuracy and Coverage
Evaluation program) from 750,000 households under its original plan to
300,000 households.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), co-chair of the Congressional Census Caucus
and the senior Democrat on the House census oversight panel, said the
President's revised Census 2000 budget request represented a "true
lose-lose proposition." Taxpayers must pay more, she said, "for a less
accurate count."
Coincidentally, the President also asked for additional FY2000 funds for
several other programs covered under the same budget account that covers
the Census Bureau. The $2.5 billion worth of changes in the
Administration's total FY2000 budget request includes an extra $264
million for improved security at U.S. embassies overseas and $230 for
the Immigration and Naturalization Service's detention and deportation
program. The State Department and the Justice Department (which houses
the INS) must compete for funds against other activities covered under
the Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. The Census Bureau is an agency of the Commerce
Department. The President proposed to pay for the $2.5 billion he
requested by accelerating a 1997 tax change affecting individuals with
annual incomes over $150,000 and by slowing federal payments to the
states for "welfare to work" programs.
Census Monitoring Board news: The Presidential appointees of the Census
Monitoring Board sent an interim report to Congress yesterday "that
documents significant bipartisan support throughout the country for the
Census Bureau's plan" to correct undercounts and overcounts using
statistical sampling methods, according to a press release announcing
the report. The three members who issued the document (there is one
vacancy on the panel's Presidential side) compiled letters from state
and local officials in support of the Bureau's plan to conduct a
300,000-household post-enumeration survey to account for people missed
in the direct count. The report will be available on the Presidential
members' Web site www.cmbp.gov <http://www.cmbp.gov> in the near future.
Meanwhile, Kenneth Blackwell, the Board's Republican co-chair, said he
would not step down from the Board despite his appointment as chairman
of Steve Forbes's campaign for the presidency. In a June 3 letter,
House Census Subcommittee Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) asked Mr. Blackwell
to resign, saying he was concerned about "the appearance of
incompatibility of the two roles." Calling Mr. Blackwell "a rising
star in our party," Rep. Miller accused Democrats of "politiciz[ing] the
census at every opportunity." He distinguished Mr. Blackwell's new
campaign position from the appointment of the Board's former Democratic
co-chair, Tony Coelho, as general chairman of Vice President Albert
Gore's presidential campaign, since Mr. Coelho would be "running the
[Gore campaign's] day-to-day operations." Mr. Coelho resigned from the
Board last month. Rep. Miller said that his call for Mr. Blackwell's
resignation "has more to do with politics than reality" because
"Democrats will use [Mr. Blackwell's campaign position] as a political
weapon to distract the public from the real problems with the 2000
census."
In his reply of June 3, Mr. Blackwell said he "left politics at the
door" in carrying out his Monitoring Board duties, and noted that the
Board had issued a joint report to Congress last April. "[I]t would be
counter-productive for me to abandon the process," Mr. Blackwell wrote.
"I am uniquely positioned to address the principal problem that exists
in the 2000 Census - counting real people where they actually live."
Not satisfied with Mr. Blackwell's decision to remain on the Board, Rep.
Carolyn Maloney wrote to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) this week, urging them to seek
the co-chairman's resignation. Senator Lott appointed two of the
Monitoring Board's eight members; Rep. Hastert's predecessor, former
Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), also named two members. The President
appointed four members and must now fill the vacancy left by Mr.
Coelho's resignation.
Upcoming news: The House Subcommittee on the Census held a hearing
yesterday to review several proposals affecting the way prisoners,
members of the armed forces, and Americans living overseas are counted
in the census. Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) advocated a "sense of the
Congress" resolution in support of counting all Americans living
overseas. The Census Bureau plans to count members of the armed forces,
federal civilian employees, and their dependents stationed overseas at
their "home of record," as it did in 1990, for purposes of congressional
apportionment only. Subcommittee member Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) urged the
Bureau to count military personnel stationed in the U.S. at their "home
of record" (the place where the service member enlisted), as well, at
least for apportionment purposes. The Bureau counts military personnel
at the place where they usually live and sleep at the time of the census
(called "usual place of residence"), a long-standing policy that
determines where all persons are counted.
Rep. Mark Green (R-WI) urged the subcommittee to consider his bill (H.R.
1632) to require that inmates serving their time in an out-of-state
facility be counted as residents of the state that pays more than half
the cost of their incarceration. The Census 2000 Initiative will
provide a more complete summary of the proceedings next week. The
Initiative also will report on a Justice Department memorandum
concerning the effect of a provision in the 1996 immigration reform law
on the confidentiality of citizenship or immigration data collected in
the census. Prepared at the request of the Commerce Department's
general counsel, the analysis concludes that a provision of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not
override section 9(a) of the Census Act (title 13, United States Code),
which protects individual census responses from all other government
agencies, the courts, and private individuals.
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.
We now have two new documents online. The first is a PowerPoint
presentation with embedded speaker notes. It discusses the status of
CTPP 2000 planning efforts with a focus on the TAZ-UP process. The
presentation was put together as a means of training folks interested in
the CTPP and TAZ-UP process. It is a good overview for both technical
staff and managers responsible for CTPP activities. It can be reached
through the TRB Census Subcommittee's webpage or downloaded directly at
http://members.xoom.com/berwyned/ctpp/ctpp0699.ppt (note: it is just
under 0.5 megabytes.)
Kudos to Elaine Murakami (FHWA) and Clara Reschovsky (Census) for the
content and Kevin Cross (BTS) for the production as well as the CTPP
Planning Group for its review efforts.
The second document is the technical manual for the TAZ-UP software and
process. It can also be found on the TAZ-UP software CD-ROM. The
document is in PDF format and was prepared by Election Data Services,
the consultant who designed the TAZ-UP software. The document can be
found through the TRB Census Subcommittee s web site or downloaded
directly from http://members.xoom.com/berwyned/ctpp/tazupdoc.pdf (note:
it is 6.5 megabytes.)
Both document are under the Subcommittees web site at
http://www.mcs.com/~berwyned/census/
under the "Committee Notes and Articles" button. If you have any
problems downloading these let me know.
ed christopher
berwyned(a)mcs.com
202-366-0412
