Entries from January 2010
by Terri Ann Lowenthal
Members of Congress love to point out that the U.S. Constitution gives them authority over the nation’s decennial census. Makes some sense, since the sole constitutional purpose for the population count is to reapportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states.
Why, oh why, then, do so few of our venerable lawmakers display information about the upcoming 2010 census on their jazzy (mostly) web site home pages?
There are 11 members of the House Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives. Only a third have posted the 2010 census logo and message on their web sites. Most of the Democratic members haven’t, nor have half of the Republicans. To be fair, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), also chair of the Republican Census Task Force, lists the census under his “Issues Spotlight.” The issue summary assures us that the task force is working to ensure that the Census Bureau doesn’t use “sampling” in the enumeration and that all 2010 census partners are “ethical, legal and trustworthy.” Hmmm, definitely wouldn’t want to be at a census pep rally with civically-minded scumbags.
Speaking of census partners, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee (of which the census panel is a part) has put a 2010 census message on his home page. The Ranking Republican member? No census promotion, but we know we are in good hands because listed first under Hot Topics is ACORN.
Meanwhile, some helpful representatives are promoting really important census causes, such as a bill to ensure no one convicted of DUI can hold a 2010 census job. Whew, at least we know former Rep. Vito Fossella won’t be knocking on the doors of his former Staten Island constituents. (Okay, that wasn’t very nice. But I am starting to get steamed.)
And what about those Senators, who don’t have to worry about that tedious post-census redistricting process but who surely care about the $460 billion a year in census-driven federal program allocations? With about three times the number of staffers as their lowly House colleagues, you’d think they could at least manage to post the cheerful “It’s In Your Hands” graphic and possibly offer a few FAQs. But on the subcommittee of jurisdiction, only Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) handed in his homework. (Memo to full committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman: Yes, we do care about an accurate count in Connecticut.)
People, this is embarrassing. Lawmakers are quick to complain about census planning, operations, and results. They’re understandably worried about reaching historically hard-to-count neighborhoods, and they’ve let the Census Bureau know it. But doing everything they can to help ensure a fair and accurate count, even in their own districts? Not so much.
The Census Bureau has made it easy for legislators to promote the importance of the census to their constituents; there’s even a special page – Fast Facts for Congress – just for them on the bureau’s web site. Post the colorful Ten Questions, 10 Minutes! fact sheet on your own site and give yourself a gold star. Otherwise … as my grandfather would have said … quit yer bellyachin’!
Categories: Census Outreach Efforts · Congressional Oversight
Tagged: 2010 Decennial, Terri Ann Lowenthal, Outreach, census, Census & Politics, Congress, Congressional Oversight, Constitution
by Terri Ann Lowenthal
Ask Americans to name an objective and independent consumer advocate, and chances are the Better Business Bureau would be high on the list.
So when a “warning” from the Better Business Bureau (BBB) about how to avoid census scammers started circulating on the Internet, many educated and otherwise savvy people bought the message and passed it along. Several well-meaning friends sent the missive to me, asking in an innocent effort to be helpful (and maybe to impress their census-crazed friend), “Is there anything we should add before sending to our e-mail list?”
My answer: TRASH IT, before this doctored message hoodwinks more unsuspecting readers! Yes, folks, the right wing has misappropriated the BBB’s name to spread falsehoods about census participation that might scare people away from the count or encourage a lack of cooperation with census takers.
Oh sure, the e-mail includes just enough truths to lend it an air of legitimacy for the average person, such as not giving out social security numbers and bank account information to people claiming to be with the Census Bureau. But the red flags are everywhere … except most Americans don’t know enough about the census to spot the glaring errors.
Aside from misusing the BBB’s name (hello, FBI Cyber Investigations Unit?), the message is outdated and factually incorrect: It confuses the 140,000 handheld device-carrying address listers of last spring with the million enumerators expected to knock on doors armed only with paper and pencil in May 2010. Oops!
And then there’s the tell-tale reference to that bain of Republican’s census existence, ACORN. Be alert, the faux BBB staffer says, because no one from this former census partner organization should be asking you for census information. Uh, okay, we’ll keep our eyes open.
More alarming, though, the e-mail assures Americans (in CAPITAL letters!) that they need only offer up the number of people in their household. (Is it legal for Rep. Michele Bachmann to moonlight as an anti-census consultant?) I may be sensitive, but this sounds like an invitation to violate federal law. No wonder the real authors prefer to remain anonymous.
The message ends as so many e-mail scams do, with a friendly nudge to “share the information with family and friends.” And apparently lots of people want to be helpful, judging by how far the e-mail has spread.
Here’s my suggestion: If you receive this sham e-mail, write a letter to your local newspaper, warning others of the scam and setting the record straight. I frankly don’t care if the 6th district of Minnesota is undercounted (you get what you vote for!), but I do care about the rest of the state and historically hard-to-count communities around the country.
For more information about the phony e-mail and a statement from the real Better Business Bureau, visit http://www.bbb.org/us/article/phony-bbb-e-mail-spreads-fiction-about-2010-census;-get-the-facts-14542.
Categories: Complete Count · Politics & Census 2010
Tagged: 2010 Decennial, Questionnaire, Terri Ann Lowenthal, challenges, Census questions, Complete Count, census, privacy, Census & Politics, Congress, Census Day, undercount, NRFU, Census Operations, mail response, Better Business Bureau
by Terri Ann Lowenthal
In 1987, the new chairman of both the House census oversight subcommittee and the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Mervyn M. Dymally (D-CA), took one look at the draft 1990 census form and asked me, in his lovely lilting Caribbean voice, “Terri Ann, dear, why does the race category for Blacks include the term ‘Negro?’” He was a little incredulous, but after Census Bureau staff patiently explained the research behind the decision to include a term generally viewed as outdated, Chairman Dymally was satisfied and the matter didn’t generate much additional discussion.
In fact, it was another term tested for the race category that drew more ridicule; I recall a well-known Black leader remarking, “Afro American? Afro is a hairstyle, not a race!” Needless to say, that term was not included on the census form; instead, the Census Bureau added African American to “Black or Negro” in 2000.
“Negro” stayed on the form for 2010, despite the passage of many decades since the term was widely accepted and used to describe Black Americans (Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall used the word in his opinions). One reason: More than 56,000 respondents wrote in “Negro” on the 2000 form – almost half of them under age 45 — despite the term appearing alongside “Black” and “African American.” But now, many younger Blacks – who equate “Negro” with historic inequities and social subjugation; who might not even know that their grandparents’ birth certificates bear this racial identification – understandably are asking why.
A writer for TheGrio.com, an African American news site, raised the issue on The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC) on January 6. The public response was swift but as varied as the cultures that make up the Black experience in America. For a sample of reaction, I needed to look no further than my own social circles. My best friend e-mailed immediately and in horror: “Is this true? OMG!!!!” and later said she was inclined to ignore the whole exercise because her identity went beyond Black – her grandfathers were White and Hispanic; a great-grandfather was Portuguese. “Skip the race question,” I implored, “or check off all of the categories, but answer the d*?! census!” But this from our terrific southern Connecticut partnership specialist, who is Black: She patiently explained at a recent Complete Count Committee meeting that her extended family in the South never used the terms “Black” or “African American.” “They don’t relate to those words,” she told me.
Should census questions anticipate changing cultural and social mores on race, ethnicity, and ancestry? Yes … but those preferences are not clear-cut and are continually evolving. It’s also worth remembering, in the shadow of the King holiday, that we collect race data in the decennial census to help ensure compliance with the nation’s civil rights laws. Data that are murky or not easily understood in the context of historical discrimination might not reveal a clear picture for effective monitoring and enforcement.
To some extent, the Census Bureau will always be behind the curve, given that research and testing start before the previous census ends and since questions are finalized several years before each count. And no small matter: Preferred descriptions of identity often don’t fit neatly into a scientifically designed questionnaire. Nevertheless, Census staff must start working closely with all race and ethnic communities now, to understand how each population views itself and to evaluate a wide range of options for measuring the tapestry that is America, without undermining overarching civil rights goals or the statistical integrity of the data.
Conversations about race inevitably generate an endless range of opinions and deeply felt emotions. But translating distaste for terminology into a boycott, when it’s too late to change the form, is not useful. The only helpful driving emotions now should be anger at the historic inequity of a differential undercount in the census, and a passion to overcome it. With enough energy directed toward that goal, we can make real progress in restoring fair political representation and access to public and private resources that improve the quality of life for all communities.
Categories: Census Form
Tagged: 2010 Decennial, census, census & race, Census Bureau, Census questions, challenges, Complete Count, Outreach, Public Opinion, question wording, Questionnaire, Terri Ann Lowenthal, undercount
by Phil Sparks
When the 1990 decennial census rolled around, the Advertising Council of America, representing most of the big New York ad agencies and most of the TV and radio networks, produced so-called Public Service Advertising (PSAs) for hundreds of stations across the country urging the American public to participate in that year’s census. The Ad Council had been doing PSAs for the Census Bureau’s decennial census for 40 years up to that time. The problem was that the PSAs, playing on donated airtime by radio and TV stations, most often aired in the middle of the night or early in the morning when “dead” time was available for stations to insert the PSAs into their schedule. As a result, the ads reached a very small part of the total population and almost none of the traditionally hard-to-count populations across the country.
For the first time in 2000, the Census Bureau spent several hundred million dollars on a paid advertising campaign. The result was a “campaign” that targeted both mainstream white populations as well as hard-to-count African-American, Asian, Hispanic and other audiences. The message was that hundreds of millions of federal dollars each year were disbursed for such vital community services as health care, education, transportation and job training, and that these dollars were also based on decennial census information. The paid advertising campaign was credited with helping spur the decennial mail response rate in 2000, saving many millions of dollars.
Over the past decade, lots has changed in the nation’s media. It has become more diverse, reaching dozens of racial and ethnic groups in-language with sophisticated messages. New media sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc., have become specialized social platforms attracting millions of voices each day. Cable television has actually overtaken network TV, with larger combined audiences in prime-time programming each night. The Census Bureau has noticed!
Starting on January 17 the Bureau will roll out one of the largest paid advertising campaigns in the nation’s history in support of Census 2010. Compared to the initial paid advertising effort in 2000, this year’s decennial census advertising campaign is light-years ahead. The ads have been produced in 28 different languages, compared to a handful in 2000. Almost half of the overall advertising budget will be devoted to local media outlets, as opposed to a heavy emphasis a decade ago on national advertising. New media will be a central part of the campaign, with the www.census2010.gov Web site expected to draw tens of millions of visits. The site will be promoted in the advertising. The Web site itself will answer questions about how to complete a census form and what the census data are used for. The Web site will have information in 58 languages. Finally, and most importantly, a majority of the advertising dollars spent by the Bureau will be targeted to the hard-to-count communities of color — in their languages.
For example, there will be eight different versions of advertising targeted to Asians, with various Asian groups appearing in each ad. Even culturally sensitive “scenes” will be changed in each spot. In one ad targeted to Filipinos, the rice maker will be recognized by that audience. But, in the same ad targeted to Koreans a different rice maker is used, in addition to a Korean spokesperson.
Some ads for different racial and ethnic groups will focus on particular issues picked up in the Bureau’s extensive survey research done in late 2008 (see my blog of Sept. 22, 2009). The Hispanic-targeted ads will stress the confidentiality of the census forms and data, while some of the Asian-targeted ads will trumpet that proud community members are participating in Census 2010.
Census advertising will also move and change with the various phases of the decennial this year. Supporting first the mail-back effort and then the door-to-door program. Hard-to-count areas from the previous census will be especially targeted in the initial phases of the ad effort. Then, because of extensive real-time data collection information, the Bureau will be able to increase advertising in areas where the response rate is low as the decennial proceeds.
Lastly, the Bureau is not forgetting a tried and true PSA effort. Spots featuring 100 key public figures, celebrities and sports figures will be part of the PSA campaign to garner free advertising on behalf of the census.
Overall, the Census 2010 advertising campaign represents a quantum leap over the effort a decade ago.
Categories: Census Outreach Efforts
Tagged: 2010 Decennial, Advertising, CBAMS, census, Census & Media, Census Bureau, Census Day, Census Operations, Complete Count, mail response, Outreach, Phil Sparks, polling
by Terri Ann Lowenthal
I am an invisible man. I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe … I am a man of substance … and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.
-Ralph Ellison, The Invisible Man (prologue), 1947.
It’s a census year again. This month, the push begins in earnest to invade America’s consciousness (and conscience): It’s easy, it’s important, it’s safe.
Say what you will about the power of media-seeking policy blackmail, census numbers drive – directly or indirectly – so much influence and access to public and private resources that we might add to the snappy 2010 mantra, “You only count if you’re counted.” (Rev. Miguel Rivera, are you listening?)
George Washington’s lament about a census undercount in the newly formed Union aside, scientific measurements of census accuracy date back to 1940, when an independent benchmark of the U.S. population called Demographic Analysis (DA) showed that many Black Americans were indeed invisible when it came to census numbers and the significant benefits, including political representation, which flowed from them. According to DA, the 1940 census missed 8.4 percent of Blacks compared to 5.0 percent of all other residents. (Demographic Analysis produces estimates for the Black and non-Black populations; Hispanic is considered an ethnicity, not a race, under federal standards for collecting data on race and ethnicity.)
More-detailed evaluations of census coverage starting in 1980 confirmed that the so-called differential undercount extended to other people of color. Disproportionate numbers of Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives also were invisible.
Efforts to chip away at the differential undercount were frustratingly ineffective. When 1990 census evaluations showed the largest recorded undercount gap, the Census Bureau made some fundamental changes in its approach to the decennial enumeration, pulling back the blinds that had shrouded much of the counting process in a “trust us, we know best” mentality. A partnership program, paid media campaign and new advisory committees helped lessen the gap in accuracy between the counts of non-Hispanic Whites and all other race and Hispanic origin groups.
Hoping to build on that success, the 2010 census promotional campaign is 2000 on steroids. The Census Bureau and national and grassroots stakeholders are pounding the airwaves and pavement in the quest for an accurate and fair census. But accuracy is an elusive (and illusive) concept: Were there really 281,421,906 million people in the country on April 1, 2000 – not, say, …905 or …907? A more realistic – and, I think, more important — goal is fairness: Does the census reflect the true composition of the population with reasonable accuracy? So far, the answer has been “no;” despite improvement in 2000, the differential undercount persisted.
Simplified, Ralph Ellison – Black and one of America’s premier 20th century writers – was saying, “I’m here but not here.” Let’s try harder to make sure that, when the Census Bureau unveils its portrait of America next year, everyone who’s here is there.
# # #
Categories: Census Outreach Efforts · Complete Count
Tagged: 2010 Decennial, Advertising, census, Census Bureau, Census Day, challenges, Complete Count, Latinos & the Census, Outreach, Partnerships, Terri Ann Lowenthal, undercount
