Don't Politicize the Census Bureau - ctpp-news

14 Feb 2009

FYI--This was passed along to me this morning and it is certainly an 
important topic.  Besides, its not everyday you can get up and find so 
much news about the Census Bureau "above the fold" in your newspaper.
   _____

From: wendell cox [mailto:demographia@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 7:13 PM
To: #DemoGoogle
Subject: Don't Politicize the Census Bureau

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00587-dont-politicize-census-bureau

DON'T POLITICIZE THE CENSUS BUREAU
by Wendell Cox 02/13/2009

The recent decision by the Obama Administration to place the Census 
under the control of the White House represents a danger - not only to 
the integrity of the process but to the underlying assumptions that 
drive policy in a representative democracy. It is something that smacks 
of the worst anti-scientific views of the far right, or the casual 
political manipulation of the facts one expects in places like Russia or 
Iran.

Let me be clear: I love the Bureau of the Census. I have been an avid
consumer of its data since the second grade. I used to wait with 
anticipation for the decennial results - the 10 year population counts 
for states, counties and cities. Anyone who has spent any time on the 
Demographia websites knows the respect with which I treat Census data.

The United States established one of the first regular censuses and it 
has been conducted every 10 years since 1790. The United Kingdom 
followed in 1801 and France in 1807, though both nations suspended their 
counts during World War II.

Over the past couple of decades, the Bureau of the Census has made 
annual estimates widely available, so it was no longer necessary to wait 
for the 10 year results. This was an important step in the right 
direction for people interested in demographics. But, there was a more 
basic purpose than amusing people who make their living with numbers. As 
federal programs that allocate money to local jurisdictions based upon 
their population have become more widespread, interim annual census 
estimates became a necessity.

Before the interim estimates, all sorts of "cheerleading" estimates were 
published, like the more than 1,000,000 population estimate I discovered 
for Washington, DC in the 1950s (the city never exceeded 800,000 by 
much). The great thing about the Bureau of the Census was that you could 
trust the numbers.

Trust and accuracy were precisely what the framers had in mind when they 
wrote the regular decennial Census enumeration (count) into the US 
Constitution. The principal purpose, of course, was to apportion seats 
in the House of Representatives. A genuine democracy depends on ensuring 
all are represented equally and thus depends upon the integrity of its 
census.

Recently, however, the process has become ever more politicized. The 
Bureau of the Census has allowed counties, cities and other local 
jurisdictions to challenge their annual census estimates. The incentive, 
of course, is that if the challenge results in a higher population 
estimate (and it can be expected that no jurisdiction challenges an 
estimate it feels is too high), more federal money is the reward.

I became aware of the problem in watching the recently developing annual 
challenge ritual by the nearby city of St. Louis, which has lost more of 
its population than any city since the Romans sacked Carthage. No large 
local jurisdiction in the world, not even New Orleans, has lost as much 
of its population as St. Louis, which has experienced a 60 percent 
decline since 1950.

So not surprisingly, the city of St. Louis has become a frequent 
challenger.  St. Louis has successfully challenged the Bureau of the 
Census estimate of its population five of the seven years from 2001 to 
2007 (the most recent estimate). The total of additions from census 
challenges adds up to 43,000 people. This is a not insubstantial 12.4 
percent relative to the approximately 348,000 2000 Census count for the 
city.

I began to wonder what the success rate was in census challenges. I 
asked the appropriate Bureau of the Census officials for a list of 
rejected challenges. The quick and polite response was "We do not have a 
list of the rejected challenges." This seemed a strange answer, since 
the Bureau of the Census website 
<http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/challenges.html>
lists all of the successful challenges. Moreover, my internet search for 
news stories about rejections of census challenge rejections yielded 
nothing.

I performed an analysis of the successful challenges posted on the 
internet.  Approximately 200 general purpose local jurisdictions have 
filed challenges.  Nearly 40,000 have not.

Many of the upheld challenges are in large urban cores, such as 236,000 
in the city of New York and more than 100,000 in Atlanta's core Fulton 
County.  Among the larger jurisdictions, Fulton County added the largest 
to its 2000 population by challenges, at 13.5 percent.

However, the challenges are by no means limited to urban cores. Salt 
Lake City suburbs West Valley City, West Jordan and Sandy challenged 
their counts, but not core city Salt Lake City. Nearby Provo, no urban 
jungle, had the largest addition to its population of any jurisdiction 
over 100,000 population, at 15.2 percent. The Bureau of the Census 
missed about 2,000 residents between Skokie and Hoffman Estates, 
headquarters of Sears Roebuck, but not a one in nearby Chicago, which 
has 25 times as many people as the two suburban jurisdictions combined.

Overall, 47 jurisdictions with more than 100,000 population in 2000 have 
successfully challenged census estimates, many in more than one year. 
The total population addition from these challenges is 1.24 million, 
though there may be some duplication in city and county numbers. 
Overall, the census challenges have added a total of nearly 1,600,000 
people, which is likely, with duplications, to exceed the population of 
two Congressional districts. All of the challenging jurisdictions 
combined had a population of less than 35 million in 2000, or less than 
15 percent of the population.

All of this raises questions. Beyond the questions about rejected 
challenges, if there have been any, are fundamental questions about 
Bureau of the Census methods. How can it be that the Census misses by so 
many people? Why did it presumably miss 15 percent of the population in 
Provo, 3 percent in New York City and 30 percent in Bazine City, Kansas, 
while apparently being so accurate in the remaining 85 percent of the 
nation that no one was missed?

Why was the Bureau of the Census estimate so erroneous in New York, 
Boston and San Francisco, yet so accurate in Los Angeles, Philadelphia 
and Phoenix, where there were no errors?

Then there is the more fundamental question - have there been any 
rejections?

It is possible that everything is on the "up and up" with respect to the 
Bureau of the Census challenge program. On the other hand, there appears 
to be plenty of potential for mischief, as some jurisdictions have 
become experts at challenging and the Bureau may find rejections 
difficult, given the pressure that could be received from members of 
Congress.

But politicization of the Census is a terrible risk. That's why the 
Obama administration's decision to move authority for the Census to the 
White House from the Department of Commerce is so concerning. It is hard 
to imagine a function of government so crucial to the genuine working of 
democracy becoming subject to the whims of people like White House chief 
of staff, Rahm Emmanuel - or down the road to a similarly partisan 
figure in the other party, like a Karl Rove.

The good news is that a bill introduced by New York Democratic 
Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney would assure the census's integrity. 
Last year, she introduced the "Restoring the Integrity of American 
Statistics Act of 2008," with co-sponsors Henry Gonzales of Texas, Henry 
Waxman of California and William Clay of Missouri. Congresswoman 
Maloney's bill would remove the Bureau of the Census from the Department 
of Commerce and establish it as an independent federal agency, insulated 
from the political process. According to the Congresswoman:

This action will be a clear signal to Americans that the agency they 
depend upon for unbiased monthly economic data as well as the important 
decennial portrait of our nation is independent, fair, and protected 
from interference.

The bill
http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=…

  has been endorsed by all seven living former directors of the Bureau 
of the Census, appointed by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, 
Clinton and both Bushes.

This is the direction we need to go. The Administration has made much of 
its commitment to science and open inquiry. Preserving the sanctity of 
the census process would seem to confirm that commitment. In contrast, 
putting it under the control of White House political operatives 
represents a brazen act of political gamesmanship and a shameful turn in 
the wrong direction. It is to be hoped that the rising political 
firestorm and the 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123447333424979131.html?mod=djemalertN%20EWS 
recent withdrawal of Senator Judd Gregg from consideration for the post 
of Commerce Secretary might lead to a policy reversal.

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et 
Metiers, Paris. He was born in Los Angeles and was appointed to three 
terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom

-- 
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)

FHWA RC-TST-PLN
19900 Governors Dr
Olympia Fields, IL 60461