[CTPP] Census 2000 Initiative News Alert (long post)

From: "Census2000" <census2000(a)ccmc.org> Statistical Adjustment Unlikely in Future, Census Director Says: Plus: Census Advisory Committee Meetings; Supreme Court; Hears Utah Imputation Case; Legal Fights Over Adjusted Data Continue; Appropriations Update; and more Future Use of Statistical Adjustment In Doubt: The debate over census adjustment continued to generate controversy on Capitol Hill, six months after the Census Bureau announced it would not use results from the 2000 census Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey to adjust census data used for non-political purposes, such as allocating federal program funds. Census Bureau Director C. Louis Kincannon said in an interview with The Washington Post (April 17, 2002) that statistical methods developed over the past 20 years to improve the accuracy of the direct count “have not solved the problem, have not [improved] the results of the best census that we can do.” Mr. Kincannon went on to say that the bureau must “look at either a different method or perhaps modified objectives to see what we can do as part of the early planning for 2010.” The Post reported that senior agency officials have concluded that they cannot produce adjusted census numbers, based on a coverage evaluation survey, in time to issue detailed population data to the states for redistricting one year after Census Day (the legal deadline). Last month, a senior Census Bureau statistician told the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on the 2000 Census that the A.C.E. survey was “better operationally” than the 1990 coverage measurement survey, but that it “missed scientifically by a factor of ten.” Dr. Howard Hogan said proper reporting of residence (e.g. where people should be counted) was a significant problem with the 2000 quality check procedure; evaluations found that respondents often report living at the place they are interviewed, which may be different from the residence they reported during the census. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization, applauded the bureau’s decision to focus on improving census accuracy through enhanced traditional counting methods. “For decades now the Census Bureau has spent millions and millions of tax dollars on developing a failed program that has never been used for its intended purpose. Fiscally, operationally and legally, this is the responsible course to take,” Rep. Weldon told the Post. But Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the former senior Democrat on the Subcommittee on the Census during the 2000 count, said that Mr. Kincannon’s statement “may be good politics, but it is lousy science.” She criticized the Bush Administration for “trying to cement plans for the 2010 census without completing the evaluations of the 2000 census.” Since 1980, the Census Bureau has fielded a quality-check survey following the direct count, to measure undercounts (people missed) and overcounts (people counted twice or included erroneously) and to provide a basis for adjusting the numbers. In 1990, then-bureau director Barbara Everitt Bryant recommended using the post enumeration survey (PES) results to adjust the census, after the survey revealed the highest recorded differential undercount of racial minorities. Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher overruled Dr. Bryant, and the 1990 census numbers were not adjusted. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled in a case (Glavin v. Clinton) brought by the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation that federal law barred the use of sampling methods to derive the state population totals used for congressional apportionment. The Census Bureau fielded a 172,000 housing unit A.C.E. survey in Census 2000, in the hopes of improving census data used for non-apportionment purposes. But in March 2001, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans decided not to adjust the counts sent to the states for redistricting, saying the bureau did not have time to fully evaluate inconsistencies between A.C.E. results and an independent ‘demographic analysis’ population estimate. Last October, Acting Bureau Director William Barron said further research fouond three million more duplicates in the census than the A.C.E. survey had detected, making the results unusable for adjustment. The Washington Post article said agency officials believe that a quality-check survey following the door-to-door census count would be used in the future to measure accuracy but not to adjust the numbers. Census Bureau Issues New 2000 Undercount Estimates: The Census Bureau has revised its estimates of net undercount for Census 2000. The new “preliminary revised” figures are based on further analysis of the three million additional duplicates (called “erroneous enumerations”) that the A.C.E. survey did not measure, leading to the bureau’s October 2001 decision not to adjust the census for non-political purposes. The revised estimates were calculated for seven race and Hispanic origin groupings used in the A.C.E. process. (The first revised estimates, issued last fall, included undercount rates only for three groupings. The bureau considers the original A.C.E. undercount rates, released in March 2001, to be “flawed,” and displays them only for “comparison purposes.”) The new analysis shows a net overcount for Whites (which includes Some Other Race) and Asians. The net undercount of Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and of American Indians and Alaska Natives, is substantial. The undercount rates for African Americans and Hispanics are unchanged from October. In a April 4, 2002, memorandum, Census Bureau staff described the latest calculations as a “candidate explanation for the discrepancies between the A.C.E. estimates and demographic analysis.” The additional research also shows the persistence of a differential undercount between Whites and minority groups, the staff said. Last summer, the bureau reported that Whites accounted for 82 percent of the duplicates the A.C.E. would have eliminated (had there been an adjustment); the explanation of the revised estimates does not include the race and ethnic distribution of the additional three million duplicates. Census Advisory Committees To Meet: The Census Bureau’s race, ethnic, and decennial census advisory committees will meet next week at the agency’s Suitland, Maryland headquarters. The committees will receive briefings on Census 2000 data dissemination, the American Community Survey, and the status of 2010 census planning, including content determination, reaching linguistically isolated households, enumerating American Indian reservations, counting overseas Americans, response options, and other important operational issues. All proceedings are open to the public. The five Race and Ethnic Advisory Committees will meet jointly from April 29 – May 1. The committees represent the African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander populations. The meeting runs from 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 9:00 a.m. – 5:45 p.m. on April 30, and 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on May 1. The committees will hold separate, concurrent sessions during the afternoon of April 29 and the morning of May 1. The Decennial Census Advisory Committee will meet on May 2 from 8:45 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., and on May 3 from 8:45 a.m. – 1:45 p.m. Census Bureau headquarters is located at 4700 Silver Hill Road in Suitland, MD. The meetings will take place in Federal Office Building #3, Francis Amasa Walker Conference Center. Legal update: On March 18, the U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal district court in Los Angeles to reconsider its ruling in favor of Democratic lawmakers who sued under an obscure 1928 statute (dubbed “the seven-Member rule) for access to the A.C.E.-adjusted Census 2000 numbers. In papers asking the court to reverse its earlier decision, the USDOJ said the issue is a political dispute between the legislative and executive branches over access to information that did not belong in the courts. Sixteen members of the House Committee on Government Reform, led by senior Democrat Henry Waxman (D-CA), took the Commerce Department (the Census Bureau’s parent agency) to court last spring, after the department refused to release the adjusted data. In January, Judge Lourdes Baird ruled in favor of the congressional plaintiffs, writing that, “the plain language (of the statute) mandates that the secretary release the adjusted data.” Late last month, the judge denied the Justice Department’s request to vacate the original order; the government is now considering an appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 27, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Utah, et al. v. Donald Evans, Secretary of Commerce, et al. U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson defended the Census Bureau’s use of imputation, and distinguished it from statistical adjustment based on a post-census survey. The provision of law under which the Court prohibited adjustment refers only to “sampling” methods. The Court is expected to issue a decision before its current term ends in early July. Appropriations update: The U.S. House and Senate have completed their overall budget blueprints for fiscal year 2003 (FY03), clearing the way for appropriators to recommend specific spending levels for federal agencies and programs. While non-binding, the budget resolutions set spending priorities for the 13 regular appropriations accounts. The Census Bureau is funded through the Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. House and Senate members did not meet to iron out differences between their respective bills. The House budget resolution recommends $759 billion in new discretionary spending, with slightly less than half set aside for non-defense related programs. The Senate’s version allocates $795 billion in new discretionary spending. (Discretionary spending refers to non-mandatory federal programs; examples of mandatory federal payments are social security and federal/military retirement benefits.) Last November, a diverse group of census stakeholders, under the auspices of the Census 2000 Initiative, wrote to senior congressional Democrats and Republicans on committees that oversee and fund Census Bureau activities, expressing support for continued development and adequate funding of the American Community Survey. The stakeholders also encouraged prompt resolution of several design and operational concerns, including effective outreach and promotion, content determination, and adequate sample size. The letter is posted on the Initiative’s web site at www.census2000.org. 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>om>. 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. -- Ed Christopher Metropolitan Activities Midwest Resource Center Federal Highway Administration 19900 Governors Drive Olympia Fields, Illinois 60461 708-283-3534 (V) 708-283-3501 (F)