Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:29:51 -0400
From: Keri Monihan <kmonihan(a)ccmc.org>
Controversy Over Census Methods Continues As Appropriators
Consider FY99 Funding
House Census Chairman Questions Qualifications Of Census
Bureau Director Nominee
The House and Senate appropriations panels took their first
steps this week toward crafting bills to fund the Census
Bureau in the fiscal year starting on October 1, 1998. The
Fiscal Year 1999 Commerce, Justice, State, and The Judiciary
Appropriations bill was approved by the Senate's
subcommittee and full appropriations panel while only the
counterpart House subcommittee completed its work before
legislators headed home for the July 4th break.
The Senate committee allocated $848 million for 2000 census
preparations, the amount requested by the President.
Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH) indicated at the
June 23 subcommittee 'mark-up' that the final debate over
the use of sampling methods would be put off until next
year. He also criticized the Census Bureau's report to
Congress earlier this year, which spelled out the Bureau's
plan for taking a census without sampling.
The House subcommittee that funds the Census Bureau, chaired
by Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), allocated $956 million for the
2000 census, which includes $4 million for the Census
Monitoring Board. However, only half of that amount would
be available for the Census Bureau to spend through March
31, 1999. The remaining $476 million cannot be spent until
the President, by March 15, formally requests the funds and
gives a cost estimate for completion of the census.
Congress then has until March 31 to pass legislation
allowing the Bureau to spend the remaining funds. The bill
does not specify what will happen if Congress and the
President fail to agree on releasing the funds by that date.
The subcommittee's senior Democrat, Rep. Alan Mollohan
(D-WV), expressed "dismay" at the bill's provisions. He
argued that it violated last year's agreement between
congressional Republican leaders and the White House to put
pressure on both sides to resolve the sampling issue by
subjecting the entire appropriations bill to another funding
vote in March, 1999. Rep. Mollohan said that the President
would insist on upholding the agreed-upon procedure or push
for a resolution of the sampling controversy this Fall.
-------------
Census Bureau Director update: As expected, on June 23, the
President nominated Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, president of the
Social Science Research Council, to be the next head of the
Census Bureau. The nomination will go before the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired by Senator Fred
Thompson (R-TN). Commerce Secretary William Daley called
Dr. Prewitt "one of this nation's most distinguished social
scientists and experienced executives and he called upon the
Senate to consider the nomination quickly. Dr. Prewitt,
speaking at a press conference announcing his selection,
said it is "unfortunate that Census 2000 has become prey to
partisan disagreements." He pledged to work closely with
Congress to "establish in principle and in fact that the
Census Bureau is a nonpartisan agency obligated by law and
guided by professional traditions to present the most
accurate statistics technically possible, at a reasonable
cost." He did not indicate in his prepared remarks whether
he supported the use of sampling in the census.
In a statement on the House floor that evening, census
oversight Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) questioned Dr.
Prewitt's qualifications for the position. He said that Dr.
Prewitt received the nomination only because he met the
President's "litmus test" of support for sampling, and
suggested that the nominee did not have the management
experience to "lead a huge organization at a time of crisis.
...[h]e ran a think tank, and that is it." Rep. Miller went
on to say: "The Census Bureau needs a General Schwarzkopf,
not a Professor Sherman Klunk, to save the census." In a
separate written statement, the chairman said he hoped that
if Dr. Prewitt is confirmed, he will "demonstrate some
independence from the political handlers in the Clinton
Administration."
Rep. Miller also defended his subcommittee staff director,
Thomas Hofeller, from charges made by some Members of
Congress that Mr. Hofeller had injected racial politics into
the debate over sampling. Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), a member
of the census subcommittee, called a quote by Mr. Hofeller
in a recent column by David Broder (see June 22 News Alert)
"reprehensible" and "race-laden" and he called upon Chairman
Miller to repudiate the statement. Rep. Miller responded
that Mr. Hofeller's quote was taken out of context and that
his staff director had assisted minorities in gaining
political representation through the redistricting process.
-----------------
Census Monitoring Board update: The Census Monitoring Board
will hold its second meeting on July 8. The location and
time for the meeting have not been announced. The Board's
co-chairs have appointed their respective top staffers.
Fred Asbell, executive director for Republican co-chair
Kenneth Blackwell, most recently has worked in the
international telecommunications arena. He served in senior
staff positions at the Department of Labor during the Reagan
Administration and in Congress, and also has held several
senior positions at the Republican National Committee and
the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. Mark
Johnson, appointed by Democratic co-chair Tony Coelho, just
completed a stint as U.S. Deputy Commissioner General at
World Expo '98 in Lisbon, Portugal, where he also directed
the American Pavilion under Commissioner General Coelho. He
has worked in journalism and in Congress, and directed
communications at the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee in the mid-1980s.
--------------------
Legal update: A federal court in Virginia is set to hear
oral arguments in a second case challenging the
constitutionality of sampling in the census. A three-judge
U.S. District Court panel will take up Glavin v. Clinton on
August 7, at 10 a.m., at the federal courthouse in Roanoke,
Virginia (Poff Federal Building, 210 Franklin Rd., S.W.).
The lawsuit was filed in February by Matthew Glavin,
president of the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal
Foundation, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), and other individual
plaintiffs. Several counties have moved to join the
sampling opponents in the case, while other cities, states,
counties and Members of Congress have asked to intervene on
the government's side.
-----------------
Executive Branch activities: William G. Barron, Jr., deputy
commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), has
been named Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic
Affairs, the number-two position in the Department's
Economic and Statistics Administration which oversees the
Census Bureau. Mr. Barron, who spent 30 years as a career
civil servant at BLS, will focus on budget and management
issues affecting the 2000 census.
------------------
The Press Beat: The Detroit Free Press (6/15/98), Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette (6/14/98), and The Buffalo News (6/15/98) have
published editorials in support of the Census Bureau's plan
for the 2000 census. We encourage stakeholders to speak with
journalists in their communities about the importance of an
accurate and cost-effective census.
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>. Please direct all
requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in
address/phone/fax/e-mail, to Keri Monihan at
<kmonihan(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8728. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other
interested individuals.
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:11:04 -0400
From: Keri Monihan <kmonihan(a)ccmc.org>
Following is the text from the most recent Census 2000 News
Alert, if you have any questions, please feel free to call
me at 202/326-8728.
President Set To Nominate Prewitt as Census Bureau Director
Move Comes as Appropriators Begin Consideration Of Census
Bureau Funding for FY '99
President Clinton is reportedly set to formally nominate Dr.
Kenneth Prewitt, president of the New York-based Social
Science Research Council, as head of the Census Bureau.
Prewitt is a highly-regarded social scientist who formerly
headed the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago and
was instrumental in founding the Consortium of Social
Science Associations (COSSA). It does not appear that he
has spoken publicly on any issues surrounding the 2000
census.
The director's position has been vacant since Dr. Martha F.
Riche resigned in late January. Atlanta Regional Director
James Holmes has been serving as Acting Director of the
agency. In an article today in the Capitol Hill newspaper
Roll Call, Rep. Dan Miller, chairman of the House census
oversight panel, is quoted as saying that he feared Dr.
Prewitt "is simply being used by the Clinton White House as
yet another statistical shill for their beleaguered
statistical estimation scheme that has brought the 2000
Census to the brink of disaster." The announcement of Dr.
Prewitt's nomination is likely this week.
Budget Hearings. The House and Senate funding panels are
preparing to take initial action on the Census Bureau's
budget bills before Congress heads home for its July 4th
break at week's end. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice and State, The Judiciary and Related
Agencies will "mark-up" the Fiscal Year 1999 (FY99) funding
measure for programs under its jurisdiction on Tuesday, June
23, at 10 a.m. in room S-146, The Capitol. The House's
counterpart subcommittee has set a tentative mark-up for
June 24 (time and location to be announced). Appropriations
panels rarely release details of their budget numbers before
they meet.
Census commentary: Two nationally syndicated columnists
have weighed in on the controversy over the use of sampling
in the census in recent weeks. George Will's column
appeared in numerous newspapers, including The Washington
Post on June 14 under the headline "Would You Buy A Used
Census From This Prez?" In it, Mr. Will accused President
Clinton of disregarding the Constitution's requirement of
"actually locating actual people" and said that "[t]he
central problem is the political temptations in sampling."
He quotes David Murray, head of research for the Statistical
Assessment Service and a member of the new Census Monitoring
Board, as saying: "The ability to 'create' or 'eliminate'
millions of strategically placed citizens with the stroke of
a pen introduces a potent and disturbing new political
weapon." Dr. Murray is a former anthropology professor.
David Broder's column, entitled "Playing Hardball On The
Census," ran in The Washington Post on June 21. Mr. Broder
suggested that sampling opponents may have an easier time
prohibiting the Bureau from using statistical methods
because of provisions in this year's funding bill that the
President accepted. Mr. Broder called the hearing on the
lawsuit filed by Speaker Newt Gingrich "a near disaster" for
the Administration, noting that the two Republican-appointed
judges on the three-judge district court panel "riddled the
Justice Department attorney with skeptical questions." He
also quoted Thomas Hofeller, staff director of the House
census subcommittee, as saying: "Someone should remind Bill
Daley [the secretary of commerce and overseer of the Census
Bureau] that if he counts people the way he wants to, his
brother [Chicago Mayor Richard Daley] could find himself
trying to run a majority-minority city." Mr. Broder
predicted that the Administration might have to appeal an
adverse decision in the lower court on the constitutional
issue to the Supreme Court.
Stakeholder activities: The 2000 Census Advisory Committee
to the Secretary of Commerce held its quarterly meeting at
the Census Bureau's Suitland, MD, headquarters on June 11
and 12. The committee is drafting a final report to the
Secretary that will be delivered before the panel sunsets at
the end of the year. The Secretary has the authority to
reconstitute the panel and appoint new members.
Census Bureau staff discussed plans to distribute data from
the 2000 census through its new Data Access and
Dissemination System (DADS). The Bureau hopes to rely more
heavily on electronic distribution of information, thereby
reducing the amount of paper products available. However
several Advisory Committee members expressed concern that
the new system would limit access for many data users who
cannot afford to use the Internet on a regular basis.
Congressional staff representing Republican and Democratic
members of the House census oversight subcommittee also
spoke to the committee. Tom Hofeller, the panel's staff
director, disagreed with concerns expressed by some
committee members and outside observers that subcommittee
Chairman Dan Miller (R-FL) and his staff were engaging in
"[Census] Bureau bashing," saying that while they clearly
had a "policy disagreement," he had the "highest respect"
for the Bureau's employees. The American Legion's
representative on the panel said that any suggestions that
census numbers could be manipulated for political purposes
implied that Bureau staff would be involved or at least
condone such an action, a conclusion he believed was wrong
and unfair. The American Legion has not taken a position on
the use of sampling methods but is working with the Bureau
to help promote census participation.
Mr. Hofeller and his staff colleagues have visited both the
Sacramento, CA, and Columbia, SC, census dress rehearsal
sites. Mr. Hofeller described the visits as "very
illuminating" and noted several operational concerns
including a "cookie cutter approach" to paid advertising and
outreach, some failures to recruit enumerators indigenous to
each neighborhood (particularly when language barriers
exist), and the pace and accuracy of address list
development efforts. He also suggested that the Census
Bureau is not as eager to plan for a "non-sampling census,"
although Congress directed preparations for two kinds of
censuses in this year's funding bill.
Important housekeeping notes: Census 2000 Initiative
project consultant TerriAnn Lowenthal will have new
telephone and fax numbers, effective June 25. Please make a
note of the following numbers: (tel) 202/484-2270; (fax)
202/554-9851.
Also, please direct all requests to receive our News Alerts,
as well as any change of address, phone or fax, or e-mail
address, to Keri Monihan at the Communications Consortium
Media Center, at <kmonihan(a)ccmc.org>, or 202/326-8728.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert
may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 434-8756 or,
by e-mail at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. Please direct all
requests to receive News Alerts, and all changes in
address/phone/fax/e-mail, to Keri Monihan at
<kmonihan(a)ccmc.org> or 202/326-8728. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other
interested individuals.
Call for Papers
Personal Travel: The Long and Short of It
June 28-July 1, 1999
Watergate Hotel
Washington, DC
TRB - National Data Task Force
Alan Pisarski, Chair
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) and the American Travel
Survey (ATS), both conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation,
together provide a complete description of personal travel by residents of the
United States.
A conference is now scheduled for June of 1999. This is the first time the
results of both surveys will be presented together in a joint conference. At
this conference, both federally commissioned papers and papers accepted from
this Call will be presented. Papers will be reviewed by a conference steering
committee, chaired by Alan Pisarski.
We are looking for papers using one or both of the personal travel surveys
for:
* economic impacts of transportation, linking the NPTS and the ATS to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, the HUD American
Housing Survey, or other national data
* understanding the link between land use and transportation, such as the
effect of household density and/or the mix of land-use types, on the amount
and type of travel (including non-motorized)
* understanding the interplay of social and demographic characteristics and
travel behavior, including life cycle and household composition, and travel by
special segments of the population such as elderly and low-income.
* issues important to federal policy in transportation, energy, and the
environment, state-wide and metropolitan transportation planning, such as
factors effecting the amount of time spent in travel, mode choice, and trip
length characteristics
* methodological issues in personal travel surveys emphasizing the comparison
and use of data from different surveys
A one-page abstract of the paper topic is due Sept. 8, 1998. Authors will be
notified within 30 days of receipt of the abstracts whether the paper will be
accepted. Papers are due February 15, 1999. To submit abstracts or for
further information, contact:
Nancy McGuckin
Federal Highway Administration
HPM-40
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-0160 phone
(202) 366-7742 fax
Nancy.McGuckin(a)fhwa.dot.gov
OR
Lee Giesbrecht
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
K-20
400 7th St SW
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-0649 phone
202-366-3640 FAX
Lee.Giesbrecht(a)bts.gov
"I am sorry for crossed postings"
Dear Urban Mobility Professional,
As you are aware we have started an electronic magazine: The Urban Mobility
Professional (UMP). The first issue of this magazine discussed the Y2K
problem and has been send to our users at the end of May
(http://www.mobility-net.com/ump/issue1.htm). We have had a lot of positive
reactions from our members and we were very impressed by the interest shown
by our urban mobility professionals.
The second issue of the magazine will discuss information regarding the
EURO. Again I would like to ask you as an Urban Mobility professional if you
are interested to publish your views/information regarding the EURO in the
upcoming issue of The Urban Mobility Professional. Documents received will
be listed in The UMP and/or added to the Urban Mobility Library.
You can send the information/articles by e-mail to
C.Kerckhoffs(a)mobility-net.
I am looking forward to publish your information in our second issue of our
magazine.
Best regards,
Cindy Kerckhoffs
Editor / Information Manager
Urban Mobility Network
P.s. I welcome any requests concerning future issues/topics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe yourself to our FREE electronic magazine:
http://www.mobility-net.com/ump
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998
From: Keri Monihan <kmonihan(a)ccmc.org>
Following is the copy from the most recent Census 2000 News
Alert - If you have any problems with the transmission,
please call me at 202/326-8728.
Federal Court Hears Arguments In Gingrich Lawsuit Against
Census Sampling
A three-judge U.S. District Court panel heard oral arguments
today before a packed courtroom in the case filed by House
Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) challenging the
constitutionality and legality of sampling in the census.
District of Columbia Circuit Court Judge Douglas Ginsburg
was joined by District Court Judges Royce C. Lamberth and
Ricardo Urbina in presiding over U.S. House of
Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce, the first of
two lawsuits asserting that the Constitution and the Census
Act (Title 13, United States Code) prohibit sampling in the
census.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued the case for the
Commerce Department, first suggesting that the House did not
have standing to bring the lawsuit because the current
Congress (105th) would not be harmed by a census taken in
2000 and that the case was not ripe for judicial
consideration because the House could still direct census
methods through legislation. Judge Lamberth appeared
skeptical of those arguments, pointing out that if the
controversy over sampling was not settled soon, the decision
on which methods to use would be irreversible and any
potential harm to the plaintiffs caused by sampling was
therefore inevitable if the Census Bureau proceeded with its
plan. Lawyers for the House argued that Congress and the
Administration had reached an impasse on the question of
whether sampling can be used in the census, making it
necessary for the courts to step in, an argument that Judge
Lamberth appeared to embrace. Plaintiff's lawyers noted
that the Bureau and the General Accounting Office believed
that a decision on the census design should be made very
soon.
Both sides also presented their arguments on the
constitutionality and legality of sampling methods. The
government said that the Constitution contemplates the most
accurate census possible, while the House's lawyers argued
that the term "enumeration" in Article I, section 2, meant
to count one by one, not to estimate. Judges Ginsburg and
Lamberth seemed most concerned with plaintiff's suggestion
that sampling methods are open to political manipulation.
The government noted in response that traditional counting
methods also can be manipulated to achieve a certain
outcome.
Plaintiff's lawyers also argued that the Census Act does not
allow sampling to produce the census counts used to
apportion the House of Representatives. They pointed to
section 195 of the Census Act, which states that except for
purposes of apportionment, the Census Bureau "shall" use
sampling methods whenever possible. The government's
attorney's countered that section 141 of the Act authorizes
the Secretary of Commerce to determine how the census will
be taken, including the use of sampling. They suggested
that when Congress amended both sections in 1976, it
intended to encourage the use of sampling whenever possible
in data collection activities but leave the decision on
whether to use sampling in the decennial census to the
Secretary. The court also heard brief arguments in support
of the government's position from intervening parties: the
City of Los Angeles on behalf of 19 other cities, counties,
and states, and 19 Members of Congress; House Minority
Leader Richard Gephardt and several other Democratic
representatives; a coalition of Asian American and Hispanic
civic organizations; and the California State Legislature.
In a written statement, House census subcommittee Chairman
Dan Miller (R-FL), referring to arguments that the case was
not ready for judicial intervention, said he was troubled
that "the President is using taxpayer money to pay
government lawyers to try to get the case dismissed." Rep.
Miller asked: "Is he [the President] afraid that sampling
will be found unconstitutional?" The lawsuit filed by the
House of Representatives, at the direction of Speaker
Gingrich, as well as the outside law firm hired to argue the
case, are also being paid for with taxpayer funds. The
government argued the merits of the case as well as pursuing
arguments on whether the Constitution permits this type of
case to be heard. Also in a written statement, Citizens for
an Honest Count Coalition, a group of conservative
organizations opposed to sampling, urged the court to rule
quickly "before billions of dollars are wasted on a phony
census."
In an audio press conference yesterday hosted by the Census
2000 Initiative, constitutional scholar and Harvard law
professor Laurence Tribe said that neither the Constitution
nor the law prohibited sampling. Calling the lawsuit one of
"the Emperor has no clothes," Prof. Tribe said that it
wouldn't make sense for the framers of the Constitution to
say the Congress should direct how the census will be taken
and then limit those methods. Article I, section 2, says in
relevant part that "the actual Enumeration shall be made
[every ten years] in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by
Law direct." University of Wisconsin history professor Margo
Anderson, author of "The American Census," said that the
Founding Fathers sought a way to depoliticize the process of
allocating seats in Congress among the states and settled on
a measurement of the population, but that they had not
discussions about the methods for doing so.
The other lawsuit, Glavin v. Clinton, will be heard by a
three-judge panel in the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria) later this summer. In the Census Bureau's
funding bill for this year, Congress directed that the
courts expedite consideration of the cases, with any appeal
going directly to the Supreme Court.
HOUSEKEEPING NOTE: The Census 2000 Initiative Web site is
nearing completion. Please forward any suggestions for
hyper-links you think should be included to: Henry Griggs at
hgriggs(a)ccmc.org.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert
may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 434-8756 or,
by e-mail, at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other
interested individuals.
this report, "2000 Census: Preparations for Dress Rehearsal
Leave Many Unanswered
Questions (Chapter Report, 03/26/98, GAO/GGD-98-74)" has
been out since March but i just got an opportunity to read
it.
http://www.gao.gov/monthly.list/march/mar9810.htm
----------- Sorry for crossed
essages --------------
Dear Urban Mobility Professional,
As you are aware I have been doing research regarding the Y2K problem in
relation to the mobility branch. In the Urban Mobility professional (UMP:
http://www.mobility-net.com/ump/issue1.htm) I already mentioned that so far
little attention has been given to the Y2K problem in relation to Urban
Mobility which means that a lot of companies/organizations are not Year 2000
compliant.
The articles published in the UMP confirm this statement. For example the
article written by Martyn Emery about the study on the infrastructure
robustness of the Greater London Area in the context of the Year 2000
Computing Crisis, in which he concluded that the Greater London Area scored
a 49 out of 100 in their scale for Year 2000 readiness.
It is therefore that I explicitly ask you as being an Urban Mobility
Professional, to subscribe and participate in the Y2K Forum-discussion
(http://www.mobility-net.com/forum/) (NEW: Mailinglist functionality
included) and maybe contradict the fears Mr Martin Bangemann told a news
conference:
A lot of people don't seem to be worrying their pretty heads about it"
(2000-problem), .
(Reuters, February 25, 1998).
I am looking forward to see your reactions.
Cindy Kerckhoffs
The following is the full text of an article on Census 2000 Sampling
from the July 1998 issue of Scientific American.
**************************************************************
http://www.sciam.com:80/1998/0798issue/0798infocus.html
**************************************************************
Statistical Uncertainty
Researchers warn that continued debate over the 2000 census could
doom it to failure
Censuses in the U.S. have always seemed straightforward_it's just a
head count, right?_and have always proved, in practice, to be just
the opposite: logistically complex, politically contentious and
statistically inaccurate. Clerks were still tabulating the results of
the 1880 census eight years later. The 1920 count revealed such a
dramatic shift in population from farms to cities that Congress
refused to honor the results. And a mistake in doling out electoral
college seats based on the 1870 census handed Rutherford B. Hayes the
presidency when Samuel J. Tilden should in fact have been awarded the
most votes.
But after 1940 the accuracy of the census at least improved each
decade, so that only 1.2 percent of the population slipped past the
enumerators in 1980, according to an independent demographic
analysis. That trend toward increasing accuracy reversed in 1990,
however. The Census Bureau paid 25 percent more per home to count
people than it had in 1980, and its hundreds of thousands of workers
made repeated attempts to collect information on every person in every
house_what is called a full enumeration. Nevertheless, the number of
residents left off the rolls for their neighborhood rose to 15
million, while 11 million were counted where they should not have
been. The net undercount of four million amounted to 1.8 percent of
the populace.
Less than 2 percent might be an acceptable margin of error were it
not that some groups of people were missed more than others. A
quality-check survey found that blacks, for example, were
undercounted by 4.4 percent; rural renters, by 5.9 percent. Because
census data are put to so many important uses_from redrawing voting
districts and siting schools to distributing congressional seats and
divvying up some $150 billion in annual federal spending_all agree
that this is a problem.
In response, Congress unanimously passed a bill in 1991 commissioning
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study ways to reduce cost
and error in the census. The expert panel arrived at an unequivocal
conclusion: the only way to reduce the undercount of all racial
groups to acceptable levels at an acceptable cost is to introduce
scientific sampling into the April 1, 2000, census and to give up the
goal of accounting directly for every individual. Other expert groups,
including a special Department of Commerce task force, two other NAS
panels, the General Accounting Office and both statisticians' and
sociologists' professional societies, have since added their strong
endorsement of a census that incorporates random sampling of some
kind.
After some waffling, the Census Bureau finally settled last year on a
plan to use two kinds of surveys. The first will begin after most
people have mailed back the census forms sent to every household.
Simulations predict that perhaps one third of the population will
neglect to fill out a form_more in some census tracts (clusters of
adjacent blocks, housing 2,000 to 7,000 people) than in others, of
course. To calculate the remainder of the population, census workers
will visit enough randomly selected homes to ensure that at least 90
percent of the households in each tract are accounted for directly.
So if only 600 out of 1,000 homes in a given tract fill out forms,
enumerators will knock on the doors of random nonrespondents until
they add another 300 to the tally. The number of denizens in the
remaining 100 houses can then be determined by extrapolation,
explains Howard R. Hogan, who leads the statistical design of the
census.
After the initial count is nearly complete, a second wave of census
takers will fan out across the country to conduct a much smaller
quality-control survey of 750,000 homes. Armed with a more meticulous
(and much more expensive) list of addresses than the census used,
this so-called integrated coverage measurement (ICM) will be used to
gauge how many people in each socioeconomic strata were overcounted
or undercounted in the first stage. The results will be used to
inflate or deflate the counts for each group in order to arrive at
final census figures that are closer to the true population in each
region.
"We endorsed the use of sampling [in the first stage] for two
reasons," reports James Trussell, director of population research at
Princeton University and a member of two NAS panels on the census.
"It saves money, and it at least offers the potential for increased
accuracy, because you could use a smaller, much better trained force
of enumerators." The Census Bureau puts the cost of the recommended,
statistics-based plan at about $4 billion. A traditional full
enumeration, it estimates, would cost up to $800 million more.
The ICM survey is important, says Alan M. Zaslavsky, a statistician
at Harvard Medical School, because it will reduce the lopsided
undercounting of certain minorities. "If we did a traditional
enumeration," he comments, "then we would in effect be saying one
more time that it is okay to undercount blacks by 3 or 4
percent_we've done it in the past, and we'll do it again."
Republican leaders in Congress do not like the answers given by such
experts. Two representatives and their advocates, including House
Speaker Newt Gingrich, filed suits to force the census takers to
attempt to enumerate everyone. Oral arguments in one trial were set
for June; the cases may not be decided until 1999.
The Republicans' main concern, explains Liz Podhoretz, an aide to the
House subcommittee on the census, is "that the ICM is five times
bigger than the [quality-check survey performed] in 1990, and they
plan to do it in half the time with less qualified people. And it
disturbs them that statisticians could delete a person's census data"
to adjust for overcounted socioeconomic groups.
Although the great majority of researchers support the new census
plan, there are several well-respected dissenters. "I think the 2000
design is going to have more error than the 1990 design," says David
A. Freedman of the University of California at Berkeley. The errors
to worry about, he argues, are not the well-understood errors
introduced by sampling but systematic mistakes made in collecting and
processing the data.
As an example, Freedman points out that a computer coding error made
in the quality check during the last census would have erased one
million people from the country and erroneously moved a congressional
seat from Pennsylvania to Arizona had the survey data been used to
correct the census. That mistake was not caught until after the
results were presented to Congress. "Small mistakes can have large
effects on total counts," adds Kenneth W. Wachter, another Berkeley
statistician.
"There are ways to improve the accuracy without sampling," Podhoretz
asserts. "Simplifying the form and offering it in several languages,
as is planned, should help. They should use [presumably more
familiar] postal workers as enumerators. They should use
administrative records, such as welfare rolls."
"That shows appalling ignorance," Trussell retorts. "Our first report
addressed that argument head-on and concluded that you cannot get
there by doing it the old way. You're just wasting a lot of money."
Representative Dan Miller of Florida was planning to introduce a bill
in June that would make it illegal to delete any nonduplicated census
form from the count. Such a restriction would derail the census,
Trussell warns. "The idea behind sampling is not to eliminate anybody
but to arrive at the best estimate of what the actual population is.
Surely the goal is not just to count as many people as possible?"
As the debate drags on, the brinkmanship is making statisticians
nervous. Podhoretz predicts that "some kind of a showdown is likely
next spring." That may be too late. "You don't want to redesign a
census at the last minute," Freedman says.
"I think the two sides should just agree to flip a coin," Trussell
says. "To think next year about what we're going to do is madness."
Wachter concurs: "We must not let the battle over sampling methods
destroy the whole census." Otherwise April 1, 2000, may make all
involved look like April fools.
--W. Wayt Gibbs in San Francisco
****************************************************************
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 12:29:33 -0400
From: Keri Monihan <kmonihan(a)ccmc.org>
June 8, 1998
NEWS ALERT
Census Monitoring Board Sets Ground Rules, Divides Money, In
Effort To Establish Bipartisan Role
Sampling Opponents Criticize President's Houston Census
Event
The Census Monitoring Board, established in a funding bill
last fall as part of the so-called compromise agreement over
the use of sampling in the census, held its first meeting on
June 3 in a House of Representatives meeting room. All
eight Board members gave brief opening remarks, with some
suggesting that they were skeptical of the Census Bureau's
plan to supplement traditional counting methods with
statistical sampling and others stating that the census
could not be improved without adding new methods.
The Board discussed administrative matters for most of the
session, deciding how to divvy up its annual $4 million
budget, hire staff, and keep track of spending. Board
members agreed to set aside $1 million for joint
professional staff and projects, with the remaining funds
divided equally between the President's appointees and those
appointed by the Republican congressional leadership. They
put off adopting rules for how the joint funds would be
spent but agreed in principle that all members would keep
the Board informed about the substance and purpose of
projects undertaken independently by either side.
The Board also adopted a recommendation by Republican
co-chair Kenneth Blackwell to let the Government Printing
Office (GPO) handle the Board's accounting after agreeing
to a request by Democratic co-chair Tony Coelho that
information about expenditures be subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). (As an agency of the Legislative
Branch, GPO is not subject to FOIA by law. The law creating
the Board had designated the General Services Administration
as the fiscal agent; GSA is subject to FOIA.) Board members
were sworn in as official Census Bureau employees, giving
them access to confidential information collected by the
Bureau.
In his opening remarks, Mr. Blackwell said that he had tried
to meet with Acting Census Bureau Director James Holmes
earlier that day but had been rebuffed. Mr. Blackwell said
the encounter did not bode well for establishing a
cooperative relationship with the Bureau.
Presidentially-appointed Board member Everett Ehrlich
responded that Mr. Holmes had received the meeting request
only two days before and had tried to notify Mr. Blackwell
that he could not be available due to previous commitments.
The Board has set July 8 as the tentative date for its next
meeting. Future meetings will be announced in the Federal
Register and open to the public unless the Board votes to
close the meeting.
Administration activities: President Clinton made his first
extended public comments about the 2000 census on June 2,
visiting the Magnolia Multi-Service Center WIC facility in
Houston, TX, and participating in a roundtable discussion
with local civic, elected and religious leaders. Roundtable
participants discussed the importance of an accurate census
to transportation, housing, health and child care, rural
development, education, and other policies and programs.
Commerce Deputy Secretary Robert Mallett, Rep. Carolyn
Maloney (D-NY), co-chair of the congressional census caucus,
and Rep. Tom Sawyer (D-OH), former chairman of the House
census oversight subcommittee, accompanied the President to
Houston.
The President said he wanted "[to] put a human face on the
census and its consequences" and that "an inaccurate census
distorts our understanding of the needs of our people [and]
diminishes the quality of life not only for them, but for
all the rest of us as well." He said the Census Bureau must
use "the most up-to-date, scientific, cost-effective
methods" to take an accurate census. "This is not a
political issue, this is an American issue," Clinton said,
noting that it was "unfortunate" that some in Congress
oppose the use of sampling to count the population. The
President acknowledged the difficulty in explaining why
sampling can help produce a more accurate count to the
general public.
Rep. Dan Miller (R-FL), chairman of the House Subcommittee
on the Census, and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), head of the
House Republican Conference, both issued written statements
in response to the President's Houston remarks. Rep. Miller
accused the President of "peddling statistical snake-oil."
"We've heard enough of his 'political' science. Where is
the 'empirical' science?" Rep. Miller asked. Rep. Boehner
also charged the President with politicizing the census and
said that sampling "corrupts a basic sense of fairness by
treating people as numbers that can be estimated, rather
than individuals who have a right to be counted."
Race and ethnicity update: The Census Bureau's Advisory
Committees held a joint meeting on June 3 to discuss the
development of guidelines for tabulating multiple responses
to the race question in the 2000 census and other Federal
data collection activities. Census Bureau staff presented
several guideline options, noting that there were 63
possible combinations of reporting responses to the race
question, including the six individual categories
established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Tabulation options include "collapsing" the information into
fewer categories for some combinations; reassigning multiple
responses, either randomly or according to predetermined
"priorities," to the original, individual categories; and
reporting all combinations with each race identified in the
combination, producing totals that exceed 100 percent.
Advisory Committee participants raised several issues for
further consideration and research, including maintaining
the comparability of data over time, identification of
households (as opposed to individuals) by race, and
protecting confidentiality at the smaller geographic levels,
particularly when demographic or economic characteristics
are tabulated by race. An example of the latter problem
would be reporting the number of households identified as
Black/Asian/White with incomes under $25,000 for a group of
census blocks; the incidence of these combined
characteristics may be too small to protect the privacy of
respondents.
Only 15 racial categories will be reported for this year's
Census Dress Rehearsal while the Bureau and a Federal
interagency task force continue their research. OMB expects
to publish final tabulation guidelines by next winter.
Legal update: A three-judge panel of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments
in the case of U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S.
Department of Commerce on Thursday, June 11, beginning at
10:00 a.m. The Federal courthouse is located at 3rd Street
and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Los Angeles City Attorney
James Hahn and several other parties that have joined the
lawsuit in support of the Census Bureau's 2000 census plan
will hold a press conference at 9:30 a.m. on the steps of
the courthouse to discuss the key issues in the case, which
centers around the constitutionality of using sampling in
the census.
Census preparations: The Census Bureau has chosen its sites
for the data capture centers, where millions of
questionnaires will be processed during the 2000 census.
The sites are Baltimore County, MD; Pamona, CA; and Phoenix,
CA. Census forms will also be processed at the Bureau's
permanent data capture facility in Jeffersonville, IN. The
facilities will be built and operated by TRW, which was
awarded the contract earlier this year. TRW also will
recruit and train temporary workers to staff the facilities.
Stakeholder activities: The 2000 Census Advisory Committee
to the Secretary of Commerce will hold its quarterly meeting
on June 11 - 12, at the Francis Amasa Walker Conference
Center, Bureau of the Census, 4700 Silver Hill Road,
Suitland, MD, beginning at 8:45 a.m. each day.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert
may be directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 434-8756 or,
by e-mail, at <terriann2k(a)aol.com>. Please feel free to
circulate this information to colleagues and other
interested individuals.
Subject: Census 2000 News Alert
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:50:50 -0400
From: Keri Monihan <kmonihan(a)ccmc.org>
Following is the copy from the most recent Census 2000 News
Alert. If you have any problems, please call me at
202/326-8728.
June 1, 1998
NEWS ALERT
D.C. Court Lets Los Angeles, Other Cities Join Census
Lawsuit
Census Monitoring Board Set To Meet
A federal court has ruled that the City of Los Angeles, 19
other states, cities, and counties, and 19 Members of
Congress may officially join the lawsuit brought by House
Speaker Newt Gingrich to prevent the use of sampling in the
2000 census. Los Angeles had sought to intervene in U.S.
House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of Commerce in
support of the Census Bureau's 2000 census plan. As
"intervenor-defendants," Los Angeles and the other
stakeholder parties argue that the
Constitution contemplates an accurate census, not a
particular method for achieving the population count. Oral
arguments before a special three-judge panel of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia will be heard on
June 11, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Census Monitoring Board update: The Census Monitoring
Board, established in the Census Bureau's current year
funding bill, will hold its first meeting on Wednesday, June
3, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2203 Rayburn House Office
Building. The meeting is open to the public.
Funding update: House appropriators are ready to start
drafting the 13 funding bills that will keep Federal
agencies running in Fiscal Year 1999 (FY99), which begins on
October 1. Before heading home for the Memorial Day break,
the Committee on Appropriations divided up $532.8 billion in
discretionary funds that will be available for Federal
programs next year. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, and The Judiciary and Related Agencies, which covers
the Census Bureau, received $32.34 billion, almost $200
million more than its counterpart Senate panel but still
$1.04 billion less than the Administration requested. The
Senate subcommittee will divide $32.16 billion among the
diverse programs in the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State and several other independent agencies, as well as
the Federal judiciary. The Administration requested $848
million for 2000 census activities in FY99.
Administration activities: President Clinton will shine a
spotlight on the importance of an accurate census when he
visits Houston, Texas, tomorrow. The President will
participate in a roundtable discussion on key census issues
with local political and civic leaders.
Important administrative note: Census 2000 Initiative
project consultant TerriAnn Lowenthal has a new e-mail
address, effective immediately. You may now direct
questions to TerriAnn at <terriann2K(a)aol.com>. Also,
effective June 26, TerriAnn can be reached at a new work
number, 202/484-2270. We'll remind you of this change as
the date approaches.
Questions about the information contained in this News Alert
may be
directed to TerriAnn Lowenthal at (202) 434-8756 or, by
e-mail, at
<terriann2K(a)aol.com>. Please feel free to circulate this
information to
colleagues and other interested individuals.