US Census Results And Fallout For 5 States

[FSTargetDrone]

Yahoo/AP:

Census mail results could be trouble for 5 states

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 28, 4:21 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Five states — New York, California, Texas, Arizona and Florida — are perilously close to losing out on congressional seats because of lackluster participation in the U.S. census.

The five were average or below average in mailing back 10-question census forms when compared to other states, trailing by as many as 5 percentage points, according to the final census mail-in tally released Wednesday.

Based on recent population trends, New York, California and Texas had been estimated to fall just above the cutoff for the last House seats when they are redistributed next year. Waiting behind them in hopes of picking up additional seats are Arizona and Florida, which are already expected to gain one seat apiece.

Responses from these states also raise a red flag because of their higher shares of residents who are Latinos. The Census Bureau has said one of its main concerns is whether tensions over immigration will discourage Latinos, and particularly illegal immigrants, from participating in the government count. That issue returned to the forefront after Arizona passed a tough immigration enforcement bill.

Latino residents represent a predominant share of the population growth in New York, California, Texas, Arizona and Florida, making up more than 50 percent of total growth since 2000. As a result, those states could face big losses if there isn't full cooperation when the Census Bureau on Saturday begins knocking on the doors of those who did not respond by mail.

Of the five states on the cusp, the biggest potential losers are California and New York, which could have a net loss of one and two House seats, respectively. Texas may end up gaining just three House seats instead of four.

Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said he was concerned about some skittish Latinos who may refuse to answer their doors, particularly given Arizona's new immigration law.

"I'm incredibly disappointed with the Obama administration in their efforts to promote the census," Vargas said, citing the government's failure to halt immigration raids during the count as it did in 2000. "It may have the impact of shooting people in the foot if Arizona ends up losing out on a House seat."

States such as Minnesota and Oregon are next in line to pick up seats. Minnesota had the nation's second-highest mail response at 80 percent — a clear boost in its effort to avert the loss of a seat, even after Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., made clear her view that the 10-question census was an invasion of privacy.

North Carolina, which snatched a seat from Utah in 2000 when overseas missionaries were excluded from the count, also remains in play to gain a seat.

"It would be a bit ironic if Minnesota ends up a winner," said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, a Virginia-based firm that crunches political numbers. "With the immigration concern, that's going to have an impact. Both New York and California are in the position of losing seats, but they haven't done as much as they could in spending to improve on outreach."

On Wednesday, Census Bureau director Robert Groves attributed the strong mail participation rate of 72 percent to the bureau's advertising and outreach campaign, which helped overcome growing public apathy toward surveys as well as distrust of the government. But he said it remained uncertain how that will translate to "how the American public reacts when we knock on their door."

"The census is not over," said Groves, who noted the non-respondents were disproportionately low-income, lesser-educated or renters. "For those of you who haven't been counted in the 2010 census, this is your moment."

The midterm report comes as the Census Bureau prepares to begin door-to-door canvassing, the most costly and error-prone portion of the count.

In all, more than 600,000 workers will fan neighborhoods at rates of $10 to $25 an hour until mid-July to query people on the 10 census questions on race, gender and family relationships. It's part of a government hiring spree the Commerce Department says could alter the unemployment rate by several tenths of a percentage point in April and May.

At training sessions this week, temporary census workers were instructed on the protocols of conducting interviews, such as how to tabulate answers on race (let people self-identify if they're multiracial, but a label of "American" isn't a sufficient response), where to ask questions (outside, since census workers should not ask to enter a person's home) and carrying proper identification (government badges and a "U.S. Census Bureau" bag).

Census workers also are being told to be respectful if homeowners refuse to cooperate, to keep data confidential and to alert supervisors if there are signs of danger. In the last 12 years, there have been 21 work-related deaths involving census employees, including a dog attack on a 71-year-old worker in 2000.

___

On the Net:

Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov

Final mail-in participation rates: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/

I can very much understand the wariness of certain groups (Latinos) concerning the census, but I filled mine out the week I received it. Unlike the vile Rep. Michele Bachmann, I did not find it an invasion of my privacy. It took me all of 5 minutes to fill out. There was fairly heavy promotion of the Census in my area (suburbs of Philadelphia).

Did anyone here have issues filling it out? Was it promoted in your area in a way you feel was satisfactory? I saw many TV commercials and heard spots on the radio for it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Question: how will this effect the Mid-term election?

If those refusing to fill it out are largely Latinos (who tend to go Democrat) and the biggest losses are in New York and California, is this going to screw the Democrats badly?

[Alyeska]

I never got my fucking census form. Gah.

[General Zod]

I never got my fucking census form. Gah.

They actually sent me a form twice. About a week after I'd filled out and sent off the first one.

Of course, it was pretty easy to fill out. Especially once I realized that there was only about a page and a half of actual questions, and the rest of the pages were just copies for additional people.

[eion]

I never got my fucking census form. Gah.

Time to chill the Chianti then...

Got, filled it out, and returned it, all on the same day. So simple a teabagger could do it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just caught the error in my earlier post. This won't effect the Mid-terms, as according to the article in the OP, seats will be "redistributed next year." Could effect the 2012 election though.

[houser2112]

I felt the 10 questions weren't "invasive" enough. Who your spouse and children are is a matter of public record anyway, is it not? The only thing the Census resolves is where those people are.

I received a letter from the Census Bureau the other day informing me that I will be receiving the American Community Survey (I think that what it was called, don't have it in front of me). Anyone know what kind of questions are going to be on it?

Also, am I the only one annoyed that the Census Bureau wastes money by mailing letters informing people about what they're going to send you in the future? Why not just send the questionaire? Someone who's liable to ignore a mailing from the Census Bureau labeled "IMPORTANT: CENSUS FORM" would also ignore the informing letter, I would think.

[Soontir C'boath]

I felt the 10 questions weren't "invasive" enough. Who your spouse and children are is a matter of public record anyway, is it not? The only thing the Census resolves is where those people are.

Considering the main point of the Census is to find out where and how many people there are, what exactly do you think they also need to know?

I received a letter from the Census Bureau the other day informing me that I will be receiving the American Community Survey (I think that what it was called, don't have it in front of me). Anyone know what kind of questions are going to be on it?

This Census page has a PDF that can answer all your questions.

Also, am I the only one annoyed that the Census Bureau wastes money by mailing letters informing people about what they're going to send you in the future? Why not just send the questionaire? Someone who's liable to ignore a mailing from the Census Bureau labeled "IMPORTANT: CENSUS FORM" would also ignore the informing letter, I would think.

No, it provides money to the USPS.

[Stravo]

I filled mine out the day after I recieved it. I was a little annoyed with the emphasis on race on the form. If you are hispanic as I am not only do I fill out hispanic but I have to idenitfy the particular group I'm from (Cuban) and THEN my race after that.

Some hispanics are deeply offended by this because they see it as a balkanization of the group into these smaller subcategories. It essentially codafies a view that hispanics are not an ethnicity but more of a culture. I happen to agree with this view - afterall you can be any race and still be hispanic if you were raised in a certain area and that smacks more of culture than ethnicity. If a hispanic baby is raised by Irish Catholics you wouldn't (generally) know that they were hispanic but take an African American or Asian baby and raise it Irish Catholic no one is going to say "Wow, you're actually African American and not Irish?"

But the majority of hispanics I have spoken to and read about strongly disagree with this view. They have been raised thinking they are a racial or ethnic group and trying to change that view smacks of the white man trying to change the inevitable shifting demographics and thus power base of the country.

Whether you agree with that or not I don't see why the census needs to zero in on my exact racial, ethnic and cultural makeup. I thought this was the post-racial America.

[Gil Hamilton]

Particularly since "White" is all I needed to put down on my form without having to specify if I was an Irish descended white person, a Russian descended white person, an Italian descended white person, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If you have to specify that your are Cuban rather than Puerto Rican rather Mexican, it strikes me that a complete form would have me specify what flavor of cracker I am as well.

[Anguirus]

Whether you agree with that or not I don't see why the census needs to zero in on my exact racial, ethnic and cultural makeup. I thought this was the post-racial America.

We want to be post-racial, but we are not there yet. Unfortunately, this means that information on where people of different races live is pretty important to trying to MAKE America post-racial. I'm pretty sure that sociologists would be extremely upset if the US Census, an important tool, didn't have information on race.

I don't know why exactly Hispanics are split up like that, but if I had to guess it would be to be able to assess stuff like differential immigration from Mexico vs. other countries, etc.

Anyway, Texas can't blame me. I think my roommate tossed out my first form, but I got the second one and sent that sucker in.

[houser2112]

Considering the main point of the Census is to find out where and how many people there are, what exactly do you think they also need to know?

For the most part, I think the ACS should be given to everyone. If we're going through the time and trouble of figuring out how many people we have and where they are, including knocking on their door (I would imagine labor costs are the most significant costs to taking the Census), we should take the time to make it worth the expense.

This Census page has a PDF that can answer all your questions.

Bummer. I was looking forward to doing this:
[X] Atheist

No, it provides money to the USPS.

And wastes paper. And someone had to take the time to design it. And someone has to support the machine that stuffs the envelope. And...

[Ziggy Stardust]

Some hispanics are deeply offended by this because they see it as a balkanization of the group into these smaller subcategories.

That's interesting. One friend of mine who is from Peru, originally, actually liked that he was able to specify the "subcagetory" (if you will). He says that he is always offended on forms when he has to simplify things into just "Hispanic." He complains that Americans think that everyone south of the Rio Grande is exactly the same, ethnically.

[Guardsman Bass]

I agree that it's a little weird for the Census to get into the specificity of where your ancestry comes from if you're hispanic, but not if you're white (which itself is a broad category), black, asian, or the like.

They have been raised thinking they are a racial or ethnic group and trying to change that view smacks of the white man trying to change the inevitable shifting demographics and thus power base of the country.

The "racial" aspect of it always struck me as strange (although I can see where they might get the "ethnic" aspect). The hispanic population is a mix largely between European caucasians and the indigenous population (although there is also a bit of african blood in there from slaves brought over centuries ago to parts of the former Spanish empire), which is why you get a range from hispanics who look virtually identical to any "white" person of northern European descent, to people who look indistinguishable from native Americans, to everything in between. It's like if "mulattoes" (mixed white-black ancestry) were labeled a distinct racial group, or some other mix.

[ClownPrinceofCrime]

Also, am I the only one annoyed that the Census Bureau wastes money by mailing letters informing people about what they're going to send you in the future? Why not just send the questionaire? Someone who's liable to ignore a mailing from the Census Bureau labeled "IMPORTANT: CENSUS FORM" would also ignore the informing letter, I would think.

Well if what I've learned in my Research Methods course is true, sending out reminders of a questionnaire before sending out the actual questionnaire does help to increase participation rates.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

God dammit! Why does NY keep losing seats. I know we've had population growth in the last couple of years, but every time the census rolls around we are either the same or we lose them. Wtf it's not that hard to fill out.

[Alferd Packer]

New York in particular, and the Northeast in general, is saturated. There's very little land left to build on that hasn't been protected by a federal or state authority (never buy new construction in New Jersey; odds are good that those fancy condos are built on a former industrial site or landfill), so aside from filling in the edges or building vertically, there's no place for new people to go.

But, in the South and the Southwest, there's plenty of room for new people. What's better, you can have your one-acre lot and massive frontage for a fraction of the cost of the same in the Northeast. Thanks to air conditioning, the inhospitable summer climate is no longer a barrier, or rather, no longer the barrier it once was.

Accordingly, the South and the Southwest are going to grow more rapidly than the Northeast, because that's where there's room to expand. And since there are only 435 seats to go around, it follows that the stagnating Northeast is going to lose out every single census.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

New York in particular, and the Northeast in general, is saturated. There's very little land left to build on that hasn't been protected by a federal or state authority (never buy new construction in New Jersey; odds are good that those fancy condos are built on a former industrial site or landfill), so aside from filling in the edges or building vertically, there's no place for new people to go.

But, in the South and the Southwest, there's plenty of room for new people. What's better, you can have your one-acre lot and massive frontage for a fraction of the cost of the same in the Northeast. Thanks to air conditioning, the inhospitable summer climate is no longer a barrier, or rather, no longer the barrier it once was.

Accordingly, the South and the Southwest are going to grow more rapidly than the Northeast, because that's where there's room to expand. And since there are only 435 seats to go around, it follows that the stagnating Northeast is going to lose out every single census.

I can't really speak for any other states but I know there is TONs of cheap land in north of the city. Many people forget that there is a whole 90% of a state north of NYC. While the adirondack park is up there (and it's huge largest ferderal or state park in CONUS. It's the size of vermont literally) there's still tons of land that's available there's just little to no business up there. "Stagnation" really isn't a term. NY and FL have almost the same population and unemployment. It's just that FL is growing faster than we are mainly because of their tourism and the fact that people want to live there for the sake of living and there and not just because of jobs (tourism is the largest industry). Personally I don't think it's sustainable in the long term. Outside of tourism and real estate (both of which are really fickle industries) the economy of FL just can't support the number of people it's got.

Along with you mentioning the "room to grow" bit people spend a SHIT ton more on housing in FL too (49% of income 2009 Census Bureau).

[Omega18]

Question: how will this effect the Mid-term election?

If those refusing to fill it out are largely Latinos (who tend to go Democrat) and the biggest losses are in New York and California, is this going to screw the Democrats badly?

Besides the initial point you were confused about, there are other key details you're missing.

New York was always going to lose at least a seat, the question was always how many. To be blunt, the California claim in the news was always strange, and it looks even stranger based on Today's census data you can check here:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/ (Just refrain from putting in a location and it will eventually upload an interactive map of the various states.)

California now has a 71% census return rate, which is just one percent behind the national average of 72%. That makes me think California may actually be on track right now to gain a seat, and is certainly right on the border. Arizona's low rate makes it increasingly likely it won't gain the Congressional seat it expected to gain. While the question of whether it would likely have been a Democrat or Republican one would take some research for me to give a good answer, this is good news for the 2012 Presidential election since Arizona is so likely to go Republican. By contrast, Minnesota and especially Oregon will likely go Democrat in the next election. In the case of Oregon, its also likely that any seat gained will be won by a Democrat. In the case of Texas, the situation is about Texas potentially picking up fewer seats than previously expected.

Basically given the previously expected trends, the current census trends are not so bad. One point to note is it absolutely depends on where the latino undercount is occurring. If its in a safe Republican state where the latinos are mostly illegal immigrants who can't vote in a rural area that is safely Republican, the undercount actually could be a good thing for Democrats in that situation. (And interestingly you could argue that politically latinos in that area are actually best served by not responding to the census.)

If anything the overall trends versus what was expected for the census are fairly good so far for Democrats. For instance in Colorado, the suburban and urban areas including Denver have relatively high census return rates, while the rural plains areas which tend to be the most strongly Republican areas of the state have rather poor census return rates. Particularly if Democrats keep control of the State Legislature and Governorship, this means for 2012, Democrats can gerrymander things so more of those Republican heavy plains areas go into the safely Republican district which includes Colorado Springs, with that population effectively replaced by more Democrat leaning urban type areas. This could actually make several Colorado Congressional seats more safely Democrat.

[Stark]

I filled mine out the day after I recieved it. I was a little annoyed with the emphasis on race on the form. If you are hispanic as I am not only do I fill out hispanic but I have to idenitfy the particular group I'm from (Cuban) and THEN my race after that.

Some hispanics are deeply offended by this because they see it as a balkanization of the group into these smaller subcategories. It essentially codafies a view that hispanics are not an ethnicity but more of a culture. I happen to agree with this view - afterall you can be any race and still be hispanic if you were raised in a certain area and that smacks more of culture than ethnicity. If a hispanic baby is raised by Irish Catholics you wouldn't (generally) know that they were hispanic but take an African American or Asian baby and raise it Irish Catholic no one is going to say "Wow, you're actually African American and not Irish?"

But the majority of hispanics I have spoken to and read about strongly disagree with this view. They have been raised thinking they are a racial or ethnic group and trying to change that view smacks of the white man trying to change the inevitable shifting demographics and thus power base of the country.

Whether you agree with that or not I don't see why the census needs to zero in on my exact racial, ethnic and cultural makeup. I thought this was the post-racial America.

What's the point of making someone say they're Cuban, AND Latino?

[The Romulan Republic]

Thanks Omega18, that's good to know. Especially about Colorado. I spent most of my childhood in Colorado, and though I'm currently living in Canada, registered as a Colorado voter. And I would be very disappointed to see my state fall under Republican control.

[eion]

The Census is all about self-identification (outside of the number of persons in a particular house). If you wish to call yourself a member of the Plutonian race than you are welcome to do so, If you are the whitest of white guys, but you self-identify as a negro, then mark "negro" on your Census. If my live-in partner and I consider ourselves married even if we don't (or can't) get a marriage certificate we can still call ourselves married on the Census if that is how we view ourselves.

There should be as many options on the Census as possible.

[Broomstick]

I felt the 10 questions weren't "invasive" enough. Who your spouse and children are is a matter of public record anyway, is it not? The only thing the Census resolves is where those people are.

Just as the census bureau does not release information to other agencies, it does not collect information from other agencies. Therefore, the only way the census knows the relationship of people under the same roof is by asking what those relationships are.

The MAIN purpose of the census is to count how many people there are in the US on a particular date, and where, for apportioning districts for proportional representation via elected officials. That's the MAIN purpose. We census workerbees are instructed that if we can't get any other information at least try to determine how many people are under the room on "census day".

Everything else is gravy, added by Congress, for one purpose or another. This is nothing sinister - information on school age children, for example, can be a factor in funding for school districts. This is generally considered a social good.

I received a letter from the Census Bureau the other day informing me that I will be receiving the American Community Survey (I think that what it was called, don't have it in front of me). Anyone know what kind of questions are going to be on it?

That used to be known at the "long form" - lots more questions. I haven't seen it myself, I deal strictly with the short form at work, but that information is on line.

Also, am I the only one annoyed that the Census Bureau wastes money by mailing letters informing people about what they're going to send you in the future? Why not just send the questionaire? Someone who's liable to ignore a mailing from the Census Bureau labeled "IMPORTANT: CENSUS FORM" would also ignore the informing letter, I would think.

Studies have shown that sending the mailings in advance of the form increases the rate of people responding and mailing the form back. The cost of 3-4 mailings is far cheaper than sending someone such as myself to your house (average cost for that is $56 - that's average. Some of the scenarios we covered in training would be quite time consuming and cost much more than that)

I filled mine out the day after I recieved it. I was a little annoyed with the emphasis on race on the form. If you are hispanic as I am not only do I fill out hispanic but I have to idenitfy the particular group I'm from (Cuban) and THEN my race after that.

Trust me - it's not just the hispanics that have their panties in a bunch over the race question. The crap I've heard about the word "negro" being on the form.... You just can't make every body happy, and some days you make no one happy. What to put on this form was decided years ago, enough years ago I suspect there has been enough social change to make some of it a problem.

Whether you agree with that or not I don't see why the census needs to zero in on my exact racial, ethnic and cultural makeup. I thought this was the post-racial America.

Social services make use of this information for providing services to the public. It's not just for the hispanics - information on other groups can affect what materials a city or other governmental unit provides in multiple languages, and which languages are offered. If a county knows that there's been an uptick in, say, Polish and Hmong in their region that might affect courts hiring translators and hiring polylingual social workers. So there is some use in asking these questions.

No one is going to come after you if you decline to answer those questions. I have had a number of people refuse to answer them. No big deal. We just note that the person didn't want to answer the question and move on.

Particularly since "White" is all I needed to put down on my form without having to specify if I was an Irish descended white person, a Russian descended white person, an Italian descended white person, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If you have to specify that your are Cuban rather than Puerto Rican rather Mexican, it strikes me that a complete form would have me specify what flavor of cracker I am as well.

Some white folks DO insist on being more specific than "white". That's OK, too.

The original 1790 census had only two choices for race: "white" and "black". People insisting on their own terms for who/what they are is why we current have a multiplicity of choices. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years the question will be either dropped or streamlined.

Considering the main point of the Census is to find out where and how many people there are, what exactly do you think they also need to know?

For the most part, I think the ACS should be given to everyone. If we're going through the time and trouble of figuring out how many people we have and where they are, including knocking on their door (I would imagine labor costs are the most significant costs to taking the Census), we should take the time to make it worth the expense.

You have NO clue how fucking expensive doing just the short form is. Or how difficult it can be just to have people answer 5 or 6 questions, much less the long form.

Yeah, labor costs are huge, but it's not just people knocking on doors, it's everyone else behind the scenes compiling the information and feeding it into computers. Also, the folks who run the computers that print out the assignments and maps for people like me, then assemble this into "books", make sure I have all the supplies I need to do my job, and everything else that goes into the operation. The door to door people are only the tip of the iceberg.

No, it provides money to the USPS.

And wastes paper. And someone had to take the time to design it. And someone has to support the machine that stuffs the envelope. And...

And provides employment to a little over a million Americans... during an ass kicker of a recession, no less.

What's the point of making someone say they're Cuban, AND Latino?

US law actually does treat some hispanic groups differently than others. For example, all Puerto Ricans have US citizenship by birth. Cubans who reach US territory get automatic asylum, others don't. Mexicans are the largest undocumented group, but if we get a sudden influs of people from, say, Belize that might be of interest, if not concern.

The Census is all about self-identification (outside of the number of persons in a particular house). If you wish to call yourself a member of the Plutonian race than you are welcome to do so, If you are the whitest of white guys, but you self-identify as a negro, then mark "negro" on your Census. If my live-in partner and I consider ourselves married even if we don't (or can't) get a marriage certificate we can still call ourselves married on the Census if that is how we view ourselves.

This is true. In training we were remind that, in fact, it is now legal in some parts of the US for people of the same gender to marry so two adults of the same gender who declare themselves married might in fact be married and we are not to argue, dispute, or in any way indicate any opinion of our own about the matter, just note the information down as given.

If someone wishes to identify their race as Martian we are to confirm that is the answer they wish to give and mark it down. Census takers are not permitted an opinion while on duty - we just take the information and record it, nothing more, nothing less. What it all means is someone else's problem.

[Liberty]

I felt the 10 questions weren't "invasive" enough. Who your spouse and children are is a matter of public record anyway, is it not? The only thing the Census resolves is where those people are.

Considering the main point of the Census is to find out where and how many people there are, what exactly do you think they also need to know?

I also was disappointed; I wish the census would ask for your religion. Why? Well, as a historian of American religion, I know firsthand how useful it would be to be able to look every ten years and see how many Americans were of what religion, denomination, etc, all the way back over two hundred years. While I understand why the census doesn't ask for religion (fears of discrimination, I believe), I still think it's a shame.

[General Mung Beans]

I agree that it's a little weird for the Census to get into the specificity of where your ancestry comes from if you're hispanic, but not if you're white (which itself is a broad category), black, asian, or the like.

They do ask if you're Asian (ie Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.).