The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Volume 9 Numbers 2-3

As the 2000 census nears, Congress continues to debate the merits of statistical sampling and the addition of a "multiracial" category. Adequate funding for the census also remains a key concern.

Congress is required by the U.S. Constitution to produce, every ten years, an "actual enumeration" of the "whole number of persons within each state." Census data are then used to apportion congressional seats and electoral college votes to each state, to carry out congressional, state, and local redistricting, and to monitor and enforce compliance with civil rights statutes, including affirmative action plans, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and employment, housing, lending, and ed ucation anti-discrimination laws. Census results are also used to allocate billions of dollars in federal funds. With so much at stake, ensuring as accurate a census as possible is a major priority for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and othe r civil rights organizations.

According to the Census Bureau, the 1990 census failed to count an estimated 4.7 million people (1.8% of the population), and double-counted an estimated 6 million people, marking the first time since 1940 that a census was less accurate than the prece ding one. Despite being the most expensive effort in history, this injustice occurred because the traditional census methods were unable to manage the increased mobility and looser family structure of contemporary Americans.

In addition, the undercount of racial and ethnic minorities, referred to as the differential undercount, reached its highest level ever in 1990. Due to such factors as lower door-to-door response rates in low income areas, illiteracy, difficulty with English, and suspicion or misunderstanding of the census, Hispanics were undercounted by 5%, African-Americans by 4.4%, and Native Americans on reservations by 12.2% -- each rate significantly higher than the 0.7% undercount of non-Hispanic whites, accord ing to the Census Bureau.

This "differential undercount" of minorities raises serious concerns for the civil rights community. Uncounted people of color are slighted in the apportionment of congressional representatives, the distribution of federal dollars, and the r edrawing of congressional, state, and local districts. In addition, the disproportionately high undercount of people of color skews the best source of data available for tracking and combating discrimination in employment, education, lending, voting, and housing. For example, a higher undercount in urban areas directly leads to lower representation in the House of Representatives where apportionment is based on census figures.

In hearings held in the 104th Congress, census experts agreed that the effort to count each and every American had reached its limits. One panel member from the National Research Council stated that at the current size of the U.S. population, "it is fruitless to continue trying to count every last person with traditional census methods of physical enumeration." According to American Demographics, "the cost of enumeration goes up exponentially as the count approaches 100 percent. " Two expert panels from the National Research Council affirmed that the only way to fix the undercount while controlling the cost of the census is to augment current enumeration efforts with statistical sampling. Charles L. Schultze, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, said, "It's one of the few cases where you can both save money and get higher quality."

Opponents of sampling, generally from the GOP, claim that any census method short of actual enumeration is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Justice Department under the Carter, Bush, and Clinton Administrations has defended the constitutionality of sampling, while census takers have used such statistical techniques in hard-to-reach areas since 1940.

In the 105th Congress, GOP leaders attached a rider prohibiting sampling in the census to a supplemental disaster relief bill for flood victims. Both sides attempted to use public demand for disaster relief to win the rider standoff, each party accusi ng the other of delaying aid over a political issue. Public opinion blamed the GOP for the holdup, leading to contention within the party and its eventual concession. The relief bill signed by President Clinton required only that the Commerce Department report to Congress on its planned methodology.

That report, issued by the Census Bureau in July of 1997, details the necessity of sampling for an accurate and cost-effective count, explaining that the factors underlying 1990's failings have worsened. In the absence of sampling, the report estimat es a 1.9% national error rate in Census 2000. Sampling would reduce that error to 0.1%. Speaking directly to Republican concerns, the report details the precedent for and constitutionality of statistical methods in census taking. The report further not es that contrary to GOP claims, sampling is less open to political manipulation than traditional methods.

Noting that minorities and the poor -- those most overlooked by straight enumeration -- traditionally vote Democratic, proponents of sampling suggest that Republican opposition may likely rest on political concerns. Republican National Committee Chair man Jim Nicholson has estimated that correcting the undercount through sampling could result in as many as 25 lost House seats for the GOP, although there is no evidence to substantiate this claim.

Many Republicans believe their party's policy against sampling is "dead wrong," arguing that southern and western states stand to gain the most from sampling and that Republicans have fared well in these states. Nevertheless, the likelihood that Republican leaders will change course and support statistical sampling is small. As Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT) noted, "My party is determined not to have sampling...This report (the July Census Bureau Report) helps the cause, but I 'm not sure members of my party are going to be listening."

The debate continues, focusing presently on the 1998 Commerce, Justice, and State spending bill, through which the Census Bureau is funded.

On July 10, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, chaired by Representative Harold Rogers (R-KY), allocated $381 million to the Census Bureau for FY'98. The amount, $27 million above the Bureau's request , comes with substantial strings attached. Only $100 million can presently be spent, with the remaining $281 million frozen until Congress passes legislation on census techniques. Furthermore, none of the allocated money can be spent on sampling. If passed, the few development and trial-run programs which the Bureau could still fund would not include sampling, diminishing its chances of being integrated into the actual census.

The Senate appropriations subcommittee, chaired by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), allocated $354.8 million, the precise amount requested by the Bureau. The Senate subcommittee included no funding restrictions comparable to those of the House bill choosing instead to include a prohibition against making "irreversible" plans for sampling. According to the Senate version, the Census Bureau must produce a quarterly progress report, beginning November 30, to assuage subcommittee fears concerning &quo t;the ability of the [Census Bureau] to implement Census 2000."

The "Multiracial" Category

On July 8, a Federal task force expressly rejected the introduction of a "multiracial" category in the 2000 census, recommending instead that citizens be allowed to check multiple racial categories. The panel also suggested that "Hispan ic" should remain an ethnicity and not a race.

Previous MONITORs traced the efforts of Susan Graham, president of Project RACE, to promote the "multiracial" and "multiethnic" designations. Graham argued that the racial and ethnic categories used in the census were oversimplifi ed, forcing the growing number of citizens of mixed origin to choose between elements of their heritage. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of children born to interracial couples rose from 500,000 to 2 million.

While civil rights advocates recognized the validity of Graham's complaint, they opposed her plan, noting that the new categories were ill-defined and confusing to most respondents. A majority of Americans could legitimately describe themselves as mul tiracial. This ambiguous category would group together persons from any combination of backgrounds, undermining the vital use of census demographics to detect and remedy discrimination.

After a three-year study, the President's task force rejected the "multiracial" and "multiethnic" categories. The panel concluded that such classifications would only "add to racial tensions and further fragmentation of our po pulation." Sally Katzen, director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the budget office, described the "strong sentiment that some groups were necessary, but proliferation of groups was not particularly healthy at this time.& quot; Instead, the task force recommended that census respondents be allowed to check multiple racial categories. The plan received unanimous support from the thirty federal agencies composing the panel, including the Census Bureau, the Department of Ju stice, and the National Center for Health Statistics.

Following a 60-day period of public comment, the Office of Management and Budget will decide if the proposal becomes policy. Sources from the OMB suggest it is likely to adopt the unanimously recommended plan in time for the Census Bureau's pra ctice runs.

The issue of present concern is the integration of multiple racial designations into the enforcement of anti-discrimination efforts, such as approving congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act and setting affirmative action goals. Eric Rodri guez, a National Council of La Raza policy analyst, said, "It really depends on how they collect and use the information. That tells you whether policy will be affected or data will be obscured." Harvard sociologist Mary C. Waters stated, &quo t;[i]f you let people answer more than one racial group, there are lots of ways you can process that ... That's going to be the political decision in this."