|
1980 Censr~s / Cheryl Russell and Bryant Robey
<br />
<br />W , hdogs
<br />
<br />Officials across the nation ~rumble
<br />that they are losing revenue-sharing
<br />money and other benefits from the
<br />federal guvemmenthccause the 1970
<br />census missed people. The Census
<br />Bureau's local review program was
<br />viewed as a chance tt~ do something
<br />about their complaiDrs. Ntnv, the
<br />first phase o( the program has been
<br />cancelled. ·
<br /> The Census Bureau was not able to
<br />prepare the needed maps in time,
<br />and a higher than anticipated per-
<br />centage of addresses obtained from
<br />commercial mailing lists proved to be
<br />uncodab[e to census geography.
<br /> While the 'cancellati~m is a set;
<br />back to the program, the second
<br />part, Which takes place after the ce'n-
<br />sus, is still expected to occur, al-
<br />though data will be available only by
<br />block groups and enumeration dis-
<br />tricts instead of block-by-block.
<br /> New with the 1980 census, the
<br />program gives local officials an op-
<br />portunity to compare census popula-
<br />tion and housing c~mnts with other
<br />.records and to red,lye
<br />ferences befi~re It,cnl census offices
<br />close this si~mmer. Local review is
<br />designed to idcnti6' such large erro~
<br />as apartment complexes overlooked
<br />by the Census Bureau or housing
<br />
<br /> r ~.. _{..~
<br />
<br />units attributed to the wrong census
<br />block.
<br /> "In past censuses, loc~l govern-
<br />meats had no way to go back and
<br />check whether the bureau had made
<br />an error," said Evelyn Mann, New
<br />York City's census coordinator.
<br /> The first crack, pre-census rc~,iew,
<br />was set for areas where the census is
<br />conducted entirely by mail. The
<br />Census Bureau plnnned to provide
<br />local officials with census maps sht~w-
<br />ing Jnnuary 1', 1978 legal boundaries
<br />and figures for the total number of
<br />addresses in each census block, tract,
<br />or enumeration district under the
<br />jurisdiction of that government for
<br />comparison with local records.
<br /> This first phase, of course, was
<br />only tentative, because addresses ar~
<br />not final until Census Day. But re-
<br />view before the census would have
<br />allowed local officials to alert the
<br />Census Bureau to problems tha~ cnn
<br />be resolved while the census is still in
<br />progress.
<br />
<br />The Ten-Day Scramble
<br />
<br />Post-census review, still to take
<br />place, will be based on actual 1980
<br />census data. This summer the Census
<br />Bureau will send local governments
<br />preliminary 1980 population nnd
<br />
<br /> counts, along wittq census
<br />maps. Officials will have onty 10
<br />wt~rking days t0 compare these fig-
<br />utes with their own records nnd re-
<br />pt~rt discrepancies to the Census Bu-
<br />reau. A hunch that som6thing is
<br />wrong is nor enough -- local officials
<br />must have hard evidence that the
<br />census data are incorrect before the
<br />bureau will act.
<br /> Hard evidence means data from
<br />special censuses, building and demt~l-
<br />ition permits, utility connectjtms,
<br />a~rial phtm~graphs, land,use maps,
<br />and official records of group quarters
<br />(nursing homes, dormitories, etc.).
<br />C~nsus Bureau local offices will
<br />check discrepanc'ies-that can be
<br />supported hy local records; some
<br />~reas may even be recanvassed by
<br />enumerators.
<br /> The program, of'course, is volun-
<br />tary. Most t}f the 39,000 local
<br />crnments eligible to participate have
<br />pt,pulati~ms bel,Ym' 2,500. Few are
<br />likely to study the Census Bureau's
<br />Locrd Ret,iow lh'~,~mn %chnical Guide
<br />mailed to them last November, and
<br />many are probably ill-prepared
<br />produce thc kind of evidence that
<br />would lead thc Census Burem~ to re-
<br />canvass an area.
<br /> But the review task in small towns
<br />anti rural areas is relatively simple.
<br />The town clerk may be fiuniliar with
<br />all of the housing units and may even
<br />know most t~f the people by name.
<br />The Census Bureau is not going out
<br />of its way to help these officials, be-
<br />cause small areas have mu~h less of a
<br />problem than large urban areas,
<br />where the review process is much
<br />more complex. Detroit has 12,000
<br />census blocks; New 5[~rk City has
<br />30,000. Most urban areas have plan-
<br />ners wh{~ stay in close touch with the
<br />Census Bureau. They helped create.
<br />the local review prugram; have
<br />known it was coming, nnd are ready
<br />for it. Some areas, however, appear
<br />to be unprepared. They still have
<br />time to get ready for this summer
<br />they begin preparing now.
<br />
<br />How to Do ~cal Review
<br />
<br />Lt~cal governments have different
<br />approaches to reviewing census data
<br />dc~nding on the types t~f adminis-
<br />trative records they keep and the
<br />
<br />44 April 1980
<br />
<br />
<br />
|