From: Census2000 <Census2000(a)ccmc.org> Commerce Secretary Chooses Unadjusted Census Data After Census Bureau Recommends Against Statistical Correction Expert Panel Cites Lack of Time To Complete Analysis; Confirms Net and Differential Undercounts in Census 2000 Plus: Reaction from Members of Congress and Stakeholders; Los Angeles Pursues Court Challenge to 'No Adjustment' Decision. Relying on advice from a Census Bureau committee established last fall under a federal rule issued by his predecessor, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans last week decided to release unadjusted census population counts to the states for "the purpose and only the purpose of redistricting." The Secretary said in his March 6th announcement that he followed an "open, reasonable and fair" process and "took full account of the views of experts." On March 1, a committee of twelve senior Census Bureau professionals recommended the release of unadjusted census numbers to the states for redistricting purposes. Acting Census Bureau Director William Barron Jr., who as the agency's Deputy Director also serves on the Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (ESCAP), transmitted the recommendation, in which he concurred, and accompanying report to Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans. In accepting the report's findings, the Secretary called the recommendation "correct and prudent." He also praised the Bureau's staff, saying, "You set ambitious goals and you exceeded them." "We have achieved a quality count," Secretary Evans said, calling Census 2000 "the most accurate census ever," with "the lowest undercount [and] the smallest differentials in history by far." Based on the results of its Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) survey, the Census Bureau reported a net national undercount of 1.2 percent, or 3.3 million people. It has not yet reported the total numbers of people missed (omissions) and counted twice or wrongly included (erroneous enumerations), which offset each other to calculate the net national undercount. The net undercount in 1990, measured by a similar though smaller quality-check survey, was 1.6 percent, or 4 million people. The Bureau reported an undercount of 1.2 percent, or 2.8 million people, in the 1980 census, based on its independent demographic estimate of the population. In its recommendation, the ESCAP concluded that "there is considerable evidence to support the use of adjusted data, and that Census 2000 and A.C.E. operations were well designed and conducted." However, the committee said it was "unable to conclude, based on the information available at this time, that the adjusted Census 2000 data are more accurate for redistricting." Further research, the panel said, is "likely" to show that "adjustment based on the A.C.E. would result in improved accuracy," and to confirm that Census 2000 reduced but did not eliminate a net national undercount and a "differential" undercount of minorities, renters, and children. Dr. Barron noted in his memorandum of transmittal that the "primary reason" for the conclusion is the "apparent inconsistency in population growth over the decade as estimated by the A.C.E. and demographic analysis." The committee could not explain the differences, which "raise[s] the possibility of an unidentified error in the A.C.E. estimate or Census 2000," in the time available, he said. The demographic analysis figures are "significantly lower" than the population as measured by the A.C.E. survey, the committee said. A.C.E. is the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation program, which included a quality-check survey of 314,000 households designed to measure under- and overcounts in the census. Demographic analysis is an independent estimate of the nation's population the Bureau produces based primarily on birth, death, immigration, emigration, and Medicare records. The ESCAP described the results of "quality measures" designed to evaluate the relative accuracy of the adjusted and unadjusted numbers. It concluded that while "the adjusted data are more accurate overall," it had concerns that merited further research, including a possibility that the unadjusted data for counties with populations below 100,000 were more accurate. The ESCAP report and recommendation are posted on the Census Bureau's web site at www.census.gov/dmd/www/escapreport.html. Responding to questions from reporters at his March 6 press conference, Secretary Evans said he was not sure whether he would release the statistically adjusted numbers in the future, which might be used as the basis for distributing federal program funds. Acting Director Barron, who joined Mr. Evans in announcing the decision, said the Bureau would have more information in six months from a supplemental census survey fielded last summer as part of the American Community Survey development, to help resolve the discrepancy between the Demographic Analysis and A.C.E. estimates. Reaction from Congress and stakeholder organizations: Members of Congress with oversight responsibility for the census, the Census Monitoring Board, and organizations involved in promoting an accurate census reacted quickly to the ESCAP's findings and the Commerce Secretary's final decision not to release statistically adjusted numbers for redistricting. Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Census, "applaud[ed]" the Secretary's decision to release unadjusted numbers, saying the "scientific hurdle of using sampling to improve the accuracy of the census could not be met." The previous week, Rep. Miller praised the ESCAP for "not [bending] to tremendous political pressure to wrongly adjust the census. The Supreme Court "found sampling illegal," the chairman said, the public "proved you can have a great census using only an actual headcount," and the Census Bureau determined "you can't make a great census any better" with scientific methods. "Game. Set. Match." Chairman Miller concluded. "The American people win." Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), a member (and former senior Democrat) of the census oversight subcommittee, said the ESCAP recommendation meant "millions of Americans had the clock run out on them." She called on the Commerce Secretary to give the Census Bureau more time to complete its evaluation of Census 2000 and to release the adjusted block level data "for others to evaluate and scrutinize." "It is not enough for the Bureau to tell the country they missed millions," the congresswoman said. "They must design methods in the future which will accurately count every American." House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO), House Democratic Caucus Chair Martin Frost (D-TX), and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), senior Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, issued a joint statement urging the Bush Administration "to allow the professionals at the Census Bureau to continue their work without interference." They said "the number of errors in the 2000 census appears to be as high or higher than in 1990," referring to the total number of people missed, counted twice, or otherwise counted incorrectly in the census. Many census stakeholder organizations expressed their disappointment at Secretary Evans' decision and urged him to give the ESCAP more time to determine if an adjusted census based on the A.C.E. results would be more accurate. The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund (NALEO) said in a statement that the unadjusted data "does not reflect the undercount of over three million Americans," including more than a million Latinos. NALEO commended the Census Bureau for "conducting a successful Census 2000" and urged the Commerce Secretary to give the agency "time to offer the national the most reliable data available," noting that many states will not start redrawing political boundaries until later in the year. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) said the civil rights community is "deeply disappointed" by the ESCAP recommendation and called on the Bureau to release the adjusted data "for a full accounting" of the census process. Noting the Census Bureau's ten year effort to address the problem of undercounting, LCCR Executive Director Wade Henderson said, "[T]his is a dark day in the nation's continued pursuit of equal opportunity and social justice for all." Members of the eight-member Census Monitoring Board also reacted to the ESCAP recommendation and subsequent decision by Secretary Evans. Dr. Everett Ehrlich, one of four members appointed by President Clinton, said the Secretary "has chosen to overlook" the expert committee's statement that it ran out of time to complete its evaluation. He pointed to research conducted by Dr. Jeffrey Passel at the request of the Board's Presidential appointees, which explained the discrepancy between the Demographic Analysis estimate, the Census 2000 data, and the A.C.E. results. Dr. Passel's analysis is available through the Presidential Members web site at www.cmbp.gov. Kenneth Blackwell, co-chair of the Monitoring Board for the members appointed by the congressional Republican leadership, called the ESCAP recommendation "the right decision." He pointed to a study of the 1990 adjustment methodology commissioned by the Board's congressional appointees that "reinforced our concerns that statistical adjustment would not accomplish much of what its supporters were promising." Board Member A. ark Neuman credited the Census 2000 advertising campaign, high mail-back rate, and nearly $7 billion appropriation for "a dramatic reduction in the differential undercount." The Congressional Members web site is www.cmbc.gov. Legal challenges surrounding use of scientific sampling continue: Los Angeles City Attorney Jim Hahn pressed forward with the city's challenge to the decision to release unadjusted census numbers for redistricting. The city amended its pending lawsuit against Secretary Evans' revocation and revision last month of a federal rule giving the Census Bureau director final say over whether to release statistically adjusted data. Los Angeles, joined by several other counties, cities, and local officials, filed its original legal challenge on February 21, claiming that the Secretary violated the Administrative Procedures Act by not providing for a 'notice and comment period' before rescinding the original rule, which also would have required the Census Bureau to release statistically corrected census figures even if the agency's director decided against an adjustment. A federal district court judge refused to grant a temporary restraining order against the new Commerce Department rule and scheduled a March 5th hearing to consider Los Angeles' request for a preliminary injunction to stop the rule from taking effect while the court considered the merits of the case. The plaintiffs dropped their request for a preliminary injunction in order to review the ESCAP's report and recommendation against releasing adjusted numbers for redistricting. The amended complaint, filed on March 12, alleges that the Commerce Secretary's decision to issue unadjusted numbers violates a Census Act requirement to use "sampling" methods, "if he considers it feasible," in compiling data for purposes other than congressional apportionment. We believe that the Census Act creates a presumption that corrected census data shall be used for all non-reapportionment purposes if there is a finding by the Commerce Secretary that the use is feasible," Mr. Hahn said in a written statement. Former Secretary William Daley concluded last year that statistical sampling methods were feasible, Mr. Hahn noted, "and nothing that the Commerce Secretary has said since then refutes that finding." Pointing to the Census Bureau's conclusion that it had run out of time to resolve concerns about the A.C.E. estimates, Mr. Hahn said the April 1st deadline for transmitting redistricting data to the states was "merely a procedural matter" not mandated by the Constitution. "[T]here is simply too much at stake to allow an artificial deadline to stand in the way of the most accurate census possible," he concluded. Joining Los Angeles in its renewed legal effort are Los Angeles County; the cities of San Francisco, San Jose, Inglewood, and Santa Clara in California, Stamford (CT), San Antonio (TX), Albuquerque (NM), and Toledo (OH); the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and the Bronx; several Los Angeles City Council members; California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante; the New York City Council and its Speaker, and the Bronx and Manhattan Borough Presidents; and Toledo Mayor Carleton Finkbeiner. Census Bureau starts sending redistricting data to the states: By law, the Census Bureau must release block level population counts to the states within one year of Census Day, which is set by law as April 1. (The issuance of redistricting data is required by title 13, United States Code, section 141(c)). The detailed data includes information on race and Hispanic origin, and the voting age population (18 and over), to facilitate the process of redrawing congressional and state legislative districts in accordance with the Constitution's equal representation clause and the federal Voting Rights Act. The Census Bureau is releasing the block level data to the states this month on a flow basis; data for New Jersey and Virginia were the first to be released last Thursday. The data is available to the public through the Bureau's American FactFinder at www.factfinder.census.gov. The Bureau said the new data delivery system will allow it "to disseminate more data to more users faster than in 1990," when 90 percent of the census results were issued in print form. 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 mailto:terriann2k@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 mailto:Census2000@ccmc.org or 202/326-8700. Please feel free to circulate this information to colleagues and other interested individuals.