2010 Census Possibly Not Accurate?

An editorial in the New York Times questions the accuracy of the U.S. census to be conducted next year. With little more than six months before the start of the next count, the Census Bureau still doesn’t have a director. And now the bureau’s budget faces a crucial vote by House appropriators who must resist the temptation to shortchange the agency yet again.

In April, President Obama finally nominated Robert M. Groves, a top sociologist and survey expert, to lead the bureau, and in mid-May the Senate held Mr. Groves’s confirmation hearing. More than three weeks later, Mr. Groves has yet to be confirmed.

The article makes some interesting points but I must add one caveat: the article describes political games being played in Washington. I, too, am concerned about the accuracy of next year's census but one thing I am sure of: if the politicians get involved, the accuracy will be worse than ever! When was the last time a politician worried about the facts?

You can read all about the shenanigans at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/opinion/09tue2.html.

My thanks to Howard M. Faulkner for telling me about this editorial.

Comments

[Jimmy37]

Of course it's not going to be accurate. While statisticians can approximate how many are missing, within a certain confidence range, they can't tell us exactly. Given how politicized Washington is, I don't trust anyone to make up numbers because we all know how easy it is to make statistic say what ever we want. And given the propensity for this administration to count anyone in the US as a citizen, I predict we will have an overcount, rather than an undercount.

[Joy Rich]

Jimmy37, the census is a population count, not a citizen count!

[Meg]

Both your article and Jimmy's comments misrepresent the"shenanigans." First, one or more anonymous Republican senators are holding up the appointment of a survey expert to head the Census Bureau. Second, it is understood that recent past censuses have undercounted the country's population (and thus have been inaccurate.) There will be no statistical sampling in the 2010 census, thus again making it harder to get an accurate count again. I don't know on what basis Jimmy suggests there will be an over count. It hasn't happened.

[Margaret]

The Constitution requires that the count be actual not based on some "sampling." Sampling will give us what the politicians in charge want for results -- our redistricting for representation will be affected by this illegal change. Look forward to more minority representation due to Hispanics, legal and illegal, being factored in via sampling. The rationale for the sampling is that Illegal Aliens are afraid to be counted.

[Zadruga Guy]

The rationale for sampling is that it will produce a more accurate census. And it would, if statisticians were allowed to do the job without outside influence.

People get hung up over the word "actual" without considering why that word was used. I believe that the Founders used that word because they wanted it to be clearly understood that the census was to be as accurately as possible. At that time, the most accurate way to take a census was by trying to count every nose. Now, that is no longer the case. Trying to count every nose results in undercounting amoung those parts of the population that do not want their noses counted. Therefore, sampling should be used to account for the undercount. Doing so is not rocket science. It is something statisticians do every day in other types of surveys that they conduct.

As others have noted, the Constitution requires a census of INHABITANTS, not a census of citizens. Thus, ANYONE in the United States should be counted, including illegal aliens. Is anyone seriously claiming that illegal aliens are not undercounted by present methods.

Sure, sampling will result in a census that will be slightly less useful for genealogists. But the 2010 census will not be that useful in any event, since very few questions will be asked.

[Ellen Healy]

Regardless of your opinions, a wise lecturer once told us not to forget to make a copy of your census forms before you mail them back. Then your children won't have to wait 72 years for the information!

[Robert McClellan]

I have not been counted in the last two censuses, when I contacted the US Census Bureau after the 1990 and 2000 census, I was told it did not matter. So when the announcement of testing for enumerators was posted, I contacted the Census Bureau to schedule an test date appointment, took the test, and missed one question, I was told I would be contacted and because of my management background would be in charge of a district office in SW Texas. In Feb I was contacted and scheduled to train in April 2009 and was called later and told I was no longer needed as they had a mandate to use ACORN to fill all openings. The same ACORN that has been accused and in somecases pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud. This and the history of recent censuses does not give me any confidence in the accuracy of the upcoming census.

[GMF]

I agree with Dick about the shenanigans aspect. Incidentally, both parties are guilty of shenanigans.

I'm a bit weary of all problems being ascribed to having been *inherited*. I wonder how long that will be used to cover any and all problems??

[Joy Rich]

Robert McClellan is mistaken when he says "The same ACORN that has been accused and in some cases pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud."

The organization did NOT plead guilty to voter registration fraud, some of its employees did. The intention of those employees was to earn more money by completing more registrations.

[Meg]

I think Mr. McClellan got some bad information. Organizations such as ACORN are used to help recruit candidates for enumerator positions, but the Census Bureau still does the hiring. Enumerators are hired to work in their own communities as much as possible, and are hired on the basis of test scores, veteran's preference, hours of availability, and language ability where needed.

[Jim McMillen]

2010 Census Possibly Not Accurate? Please tell me when any U.S. census has been accurate.

[Don Michel]

Statistical sampling MIGHT lead to reliable "estimates of the population" if, and only if, it were left to the statisticians! However, our governments of the last few years have demonstrated that everything is now political. And ACORN has not demonstrated that they are any better!