Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Choice and Conflict about Census Data Adjusting the American Census Count

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008


Michael L. Cohen
Affiliation:
Statistician, University of Maryland-College Park

Abstract

The census is a social fact, the outcome of a process that involves the interaction of public laws and institutions and citizens' responses to an official inquiry. However, it is not a ‘hard’ fact. Reasons for inevitable defects in the census count are listed in the first section; the second section reports efforts by the US Census Bureau to identify sources of error in census coverage, and make estimates of the size of the errors. The use of census data for policy purposes, such as political representation and allocating funds, makes these defects controversial. Errors may be removed by making adjustments to the initial census count. However, because adjustment reallocates resources between groups, it has become the subject of political conflict. The paper describes the conflict between statistical practices, laws and public policy about census adjustment in the United States, and concludes by considering the extent to which causes in America are likely to be found in other countries.


Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Bailar, Barbara, 1983. ‘Counting or Estimation in a Census – a Difficult Decision’. Toronto:American Statistical Association Meetings,14–18 August.Google Scholar
Bell, William, 1991. ‘Using Information from Demographic Analysis in Post Enumeration Survey Estimation – New Methods and Further Results’, paper presented to the Section on Social Statistics, American Statistical Association,Annual Meetings,Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Burgess, R. D., 1988. ‘Evaluation of Reverse Record Check Estimates of Undercoverage in the Canadian Census of Population’, Survey Methodology, 14, 2, pp. 137156.Google Scholar
Causey, B. D., Cox, L. H. and Ernst, L. R., 1985. ‘Applications of transportation theory to statistical problems’. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80, 903909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, C. Y., Steel, D. G. and Skinner, T. J., 1988. ‘Adjusting the 1986 Australian Census Count for Under-Enumeration’, Survey Methodology, 14, 2, pp. 173189.Google Scholar
Citro, Constance and Cohen, Michael L., eds., 1985. The Bicentennial Census: New Directions for Methodology in iggo, National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Cmnd. 1014, 1990. Government's Expenditure Plans: Department of Social Security. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Coale, Ansley J., 1955. ‘The population of the United States in 1950 classified by age, sex, and color —a revision of census figures’. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50, pp. 1654.Google Scholar
Cohen, Michael L. and Zhang, Xiao Di, 1989. ‘Three Issues Concering Coverage Evaluation in the Census’, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Research Conference of the Census Bureau.U.S. Department of Commerce, 1922 March, Arlington Va.Google Scholar
Cohen, Michael L., 1990. ‘Adjustment and Reapportionment: Evaluating the 1980 Decision’, Journal of Official Statistics, 6, 3, pp. 241250.Google Scholar
Cooper, Richard N., 1989. ‘International Cooperation in Public Health as a Prologue to Macroeconomic Cooperation’. In Cooper, R. N. et al. , Can Nations Agree? Washington DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., 1971. After the Revolution? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dallago, Bruno, 1991. The Irregular Economy. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Das, Gupta P. and Robinson, J. G., 1989. ‘Confidence Intervals for Undercount Estimates Based on Demographic Analysis’. Paper presented to the Census Advisory Committees on Population Statistics and of the American Statistical Association.Joint Advisory Committee Meeting,October 1989,Alexandria, Va.Google Scholar
Ericksen, E. P. and Kadane, J. B., 1985. ‘Estimating the Population in a Census Year: 1980 and Beyond’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80, 98108.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office, 1991. ‘Reported Net Undercount Obscured Magnitude of Error’, GAO/GGD–91113, August.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office, 1991a. ‘1990 Census: Limitations in Methods and Procedures to Include the Homeless’. Washington DC: GAO: GGD-92–1.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office, 1991b. ‘1990 Census Adjustment: Estimating Census Accuracy —A Complex Task’. Washington DC: GAO: GGD-91–42, 03 1991.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office, 1991c. ‘Formula Programs: Adjusted Data Would Redistribute Small Percentage of Funds to States’, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, GAO: GGD-92–12.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office, 1991d. ‘1990 Census: Final Preparations for a Possible Adjustment’, Statement of L. Nye Stevens before the Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate.Google Scholar
Gilford, Leon, 1983. Affidavit Presented to District Court, Southern District of New York, Mario Cuomo, et al., Plaintiff(s), Malcolm Baldridge, et al., Defendants, 80 Civ. 4550 (JES).Google Scholar
Hogan, Howard, 1984. ‘Research Plan on Adjustment for the 1990 Decennial Census’. Unpublished paper. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hogan, Howard and Wolter, Kirk, 1988. ‘Measuring Accuracy in a Post-Enumeration Survey’, Survey Methodology, 14, 99116.Google Scholar
Huang, E. T. and Fuller, W. A., 1978. ‘Non-negative regression estimation for sample survey data’. Pp. 300303 in American Statistical Association 1978 Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section.Washington, DC:American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
Keyfitz, Nathan, 1979. ‘Information and Allocation: Two Uses of the 1980 Census’, American Statistician, 33, 2, 4550.Google ScholarPubMed
Kohl, Senator Herb, 1991. Statement at Hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 06 19, pp. 12.Google Scholar
Martin, Elizabeth, Brownrigg, Leslie and Fay, Robert, 1990. ‘Results of 1988 Ethnographic Studies of Census Coverage and Plans for 1990’. Paper presented to the Census Advisory Committees of Population statistics and of the American Statistical Association at the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting, October 1819, 1990, Alexandria, Va.Google Scholar
Maurice, Arthur J. and Nathan, Richard P., 1982. ‘The census undercount: Effects on federal aid to cities’. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 17, 3, pp. 251284.Google ScholarPubMed
Mulry, Mary H. and Spencer, Bruce D., 1991. ‘Total Error in PES Estimates of Population’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86, 416, pp. 839863 (with discussion).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council, 1978. Counting the People in 1978: An Appraisal of Census Plans. Panel on Decennial Census Plans, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
New Society, 1973. ‘First the Facts’. London: 25, 562, 12 07, p. 66.Google Scholar
New York Times, 1990. ‘How to Finish a Census Count: Just Make It Up’, column by Michael Winerip, October, p. 19.Google Scholar
OECD, 1988. Employment Outlook. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Pike, Alan, 1991. ‘Make Use of Census Data, Councils Told’. Financial Times (London), 30 07.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ricketts, Martin and Shoesmith, Edward, 1990. British Economic Opinion: A Survey of a Thousand Economists. London Institute for Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, 1987. ‘The Political Appraisal of Employment Policies’, Journal of Public Policy, 7, 3, 285306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard, 1991. Between State and Market: Key Indicators of Transition in Eastern Europe. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Studies in Public Policy No. 196.Google Scholar
SiegelJacob, S. Jacob, S., 1975. Coverage of Population in the igyo Census and Some Implications for Public Programs. Current Population Reports, Special Studies P-23, No. 56. Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Spencer, Bruce, 1980. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Data Used to Allocate Funds. Lecture Notes in Statistics 3. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, John W., 1983. Affidavit presented to District Court, Southern District of New York, Mario Cuomo, et al., PlaintifT(s), Malcolm Baldridge, et al., Defendants, 80 Civ. 4550 (JES).Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975. ‘Accuracy of Data for Selected Population Characteristics as Measured by the 1970 CPS/Census Match’. Washington, DC: Report PCHE/11.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988. ‘The Coverage of Population in the 1980 Census’, Report PHC80- E4. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990. ‘U.S. Population by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1980–1988’, Current Population Reports Series, P–25, #1045. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U S Bureau of the Census, 1991. PESDSES.DAT, computer file, 15 April. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
US. Bureau of the Census, 1991a. Advisory Use File No. 3, May 7, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991b. ‘Special Advisory Panel Special Census Tabulations’, Matrix 3a, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991c Advisory Use File No. 2, May 21, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991d. PES Evaluation Project P7, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991e PES Evaluation Project P1: Analysis of Reasonable Imputation Alternatives, 06, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991f. PES Evaluation Project P10, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990. ‘1990 Census Population for the United States is 249,633.692;Google Scholar
Reapportionment Will Shift 19 Seats in the House of Representatives’. Washington, DC: Press ReleaseCB 90232.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991. ‘U.S. Population Up Nearly Two-Thirds in Nearly 40 Years: Nevada, California Lead 40–Year Period Growth’. Washington, DC: Press Release CB 91–07.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991a. ‘Census Bureau Releases Refined 1990 Census Coverage Estimates from Demographic Analysis’, 06 13, Press Release, CB 91221.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991b. ‘Census Bureau Releases Refined 1990 Census Coverage Estimates from Post-Enumeration Survey’, 06 13, Press Release, CB 91222.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991c. ‘Adjustment of the 1990 Census for Overcounts and Undercounts of Population and Housing: Notice of Final Decision’, Federal Register, 56, 140, Monday 07 22.Google Scholar
Valentine, Charles and Valentine, Betty, 1971. ‘Missing Men, A Comparative Methodological Study of Underenumeration and Related Problems’. Unpublished paper. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent, 1986. ‘The Politics of Blame Avoidance’, Journal of Public Policy, 6, 4, 371398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent, 1988. Automatic Government: The Politics of Indexation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Wolter, Kirk, 1986a. ‘A Combined Coverage Error Model for Individuals and Housing Units’, Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wolter, Kirk, 1986b. ‘Capture Recapture Estimation in the Presence of a Known Sex Ratio’, SRD Research Report CENSUS/SRD/RR-86/20, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wolter, K. and Causey, Beverley, 1991. ‘Evaluation of Procedures for Improving Population Estimates for Small Areas’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86, 414, pp. 278284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaslavsky, Alan, 1988. ‘Representing Local Area Adjustments by Reweighting of Households’, Survey Methodology, 14, 2, pp. 266288.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 8 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th November 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-8465588854-mwdqp Total loading time: 0.407 Render date: 2020-11-29T22:17:45.898Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sun Nov 29 2020 21:38:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Choice and Conflict about Census Data Adjusting the American Census Count
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Choice and Conflict about Census Data Adjusting the American Census Count
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Choice and Conflict about Census Data Adjusting the American Census Count
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *