Changes

Quoting Article I of the Constitution, the Utah v. Evans court said, "The final part of the sentence says that the “actual Enumeration” shall take place “in such Manner as” Congress itself “shall by Law direct,” thereby suggesting the breadth of congressional methodological authority, rather than its limitation." The text of the constitution and the courts interpretation of that text both state clearly that the census is the responsibility of Congress. Congress has by law assigned the design of the Census to the Secretary of Commerce.

Quoting Article I of the Constitution, the Utah v. Evans court said, "The final part of the sentence says that the “actual Enumeration” shall take place “in such Manner as” Congress itself “shall by Law direct,” thereby suggesting the breadth of congressional methodological authority, rather than its limitation." The text of the constitution and the courts interpretation of that text both state clearly that the census is the responsibility of Congress. Congress has by law assigned the design of the Census to the Secretary of Commerce.

The White House has made clear that the Secretary of Commerce, will have final authority (and not the White House).<ref> See [http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/04/02/Source_Obama_taps_Groves_census_7239.html AP report April 2, 2009]</ref>

The White House has made clear that the Secretary of Commerce, will have final authority (and not the White House).<ref>See [http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/04/02/Source_Obama_taps_Groves_census_7239.html AP report April 2, 2009]</ref>

The Supreme Court later ruled in 1999 that the use of statistical sampling cannot be used to apportion House seats, but indicated that adjustments could be made to the population count when redrawing congressional boundaries.  

The Supreme Court later ruled in 1999 that the use of statistical sampling cannot be used to apportion House seats, but indicated that adjustments could be made to the population count when redrawing congressional boundaries.  

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has made clear under oath to the Senate that sampling will not be used for apportionment. He stated during his confirmation hearing that there are no plans to use sampling for redistricting, while indicating that sampling could be used to measure census accuracy or collect a wider range of demographic data.<ref> See [http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/04/02/Source_Obama_taps_Groves_census_7239.html AP report April 2, 2009]</ref>

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has made clear under oath to the Senate that sampling will not be used for apportionment. He stated during his confirmation hearing that there are no plans to use sampling for redistricting, while indicating that sampling could be used to measure census accuracy or collect a wider range of demographic data.<ref>See [http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/04/02/Source_Obama_taps_Groves_census_7239.html AP report April 2, 2009]</ref>

==Design Changes New to This Census==

==Design Changes New to This Census==

When he served in the census bureaus from 1990 to 1992, Robert M. Groves favored sampling, rather than Actual Enumeration.  In 1999, Doc v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) ruled that sampling cannot be used in the count used for redistricting the House, but can be used in all other Census reports.   

When he served in the census bureaus from 1990 to 1992, Robert M. Groves favored sampling, rather than Actual Enumeration.  In 1999, Doc v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) ruled that sampling cannot be used in the count used for redistricting the House, but can be used in all other Census reports.   

"Hot deck" imputation is a way to solve the problem that people do not return their census questionnaires. The hot-deck imputation technique replaces blanks with an estimate based on the actual response made by similar people.<ref> See John Stiller and Donald R. Dalzell, "Hot-deck Imputation with SAS Arrays and Macros for Large Surveys," (1997) [http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi23/Stats/p246.pdf online]</ref> The Census has always used imputation--for example, by asking one person to describe everyone else in the building and not actually talking to the other people. The Hot Deck adjustment technique has been explicitly approved by the Supreme Court<ref> Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=536&page=452 online]</ref> even though it can have an effect on the enumeration used to apportion the House. The Supreme Court has ruled it is not sampling, but a way to reduce errors in actual enumerations.

"Hot deck" imputation is a way to solve the problem that people do not return their census questionnaires. The hot-deck imputation technique replaces blanks with an estimate based on the actual response made by similar people.<ref>See John Stiller and Donald R. Dalzell, "Hot-deck Imputation with SAS Arrays and Macros for Large Surveys," (1997) [http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi23/Stats/p246.pdf online]</ref> The Census has always used imputation—for example, by asking one person to describe everyone else in the building and not actually talking to the other people. The Hot Deck adjustment technique has been explicitly approved by the Supreme Court<ref>Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=536&page=452 online]</ref> even though it can have an effect on the enumeration used to apportion the House. The Supreme Court has ruled it is not sampling, but a way to reduce errors in actual enumerations.

==Undercount==

==Undercount==

Statisticians now estimate that the 1990 Census missed about 4.7 million people who should have been counted.  They estimate that the 2000 Census missed 6.4 million people, and double counted 3.1 million others, for a net undercount of 3.3 million. For example, only 64% of the people return the mailed forms, representing 200 million people.  To reach the other 36%--100 million or so-- the Census tries multiple followup visits in person, or asks the neighbors. Even then many people refuse to answer the door. Many people do not want the government knowing there whereabouts, even and ignore Census promises that it will not reveal that information to any other government agency. It will cost $30,000 dollars to reach another 1000 of the missing 36%, or about $3 billion to reach all 100 million of them.

Statisticians now estimate that the 1990 Census missed about 4.7 million people who should have been counted.  They estimate that the 2000 Census missed 6.4 million people, and double counted 3.1 million others, for a net undercount of 3.3 million. For example, only 64% of the people return the mailed forms, representing 200 million people.  To reach the other 36%--100 million or so—the Census tries multiple followup visits in person, or asks the neighbors. Even then many people refuse to answer the door. Many people do not want the government knowing there whereabouts, even and ignore Census promises that it will not reveal that information to any other government agency. It will cost $30,000 dollars to reach another 1000 of the missing 36%, or about $3 billion to reach all 100 million of them.

===Overcount===

===Overcount===

People who moved around are sometimes counted twice, as are some students and prisoners who can be counted at home and at their institutions. Children of divorced parents are often listed by both parents. Some households are so complicated or chaotic that the person filling out the forms is unclear who is living there today.<ref> See Freedman and Wachter (2004) pp. 6-8</ref>

People who moved around are sometimes counted twice, as are some students and prisoners who can be counted at home and at their institutions. Children of divorced parents are often listed by both parents. Some households are so complicated or chaotic that the person filling out the forms is unclear who is living there today.<ref>See Freedman and Wachter (2004) pp. 6-8</ref>

==Further reading==

==Further reading==