Census 2030
The below is a message from a friend of mine, a former statistician at the Census Bureau. I'm happy to put you in touch with her if you'd like more information.
- EPB
In early September, the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce published a Federal Register notice to announce a plan to drastically change how people are counted in the next census (and future data collections); some additional background from the New York Times is here. The purpose of the Federal Register is for government agencies to announce proposed regulations or major changes. The public can submit comments on these proposals.
The proposed changes to the 2030 Census include:
(1) Many residents would no longer be included in the 2030 Census, such as people who have a student or work visa, or people who are undocumented. This matters not just for the apportionment of congressional seats but because government plans and the distribution of money (such as for fire stations or elder services) are based on the count of people. Since 1940, no group of people living in the country has been excluded from the census (Native Americans and enslaved people are the only groups to have previously been excluded in whole or in part from the census enumeration), though "residence criteria" have been used to distinguish whether someone is just visiting the country or living here.
(2) People who are included in the 2030 Census might be enumerated at a location that is different from where they would historically have been counted. Previously, a person has been counted at their "usual residence" (as stipulated in the Census Act of 1790), and while that is simple enough for people with only one place to live, it can be complicated for people with multiple homes or in transition. The proposed new rule for where to count people would be based on where they were for the majority of the first three months of a year. For the last 100 years, it has been where people live and sleep most of the time as considered across the year (so the place where they are most often and thus use the most public resources like roads would be where they are counted in the census). This change would impact certain types of people, such as snowbirds who might split time between Florida and Minnesota, but it is unclear how many people would be counted in a different location because of this change.
(3) There would be a ban on questions asking about race and ethnicity. This is key demographic data that is instrumental to understanding our country, from public health to civil rights. It is used to implement Congressionally-mandated legislation such as the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act and federal programs such as Indian Housing Block Grants. Race and ethnicity data from the census also drive business development plans, store merchandise, and a host of other economic decisions in the country.
(4) There would be an increased use of administrative records in conducting the census. This is partly because the proposal is to use tax records to help define where a person should be counted (although research has shown that is not reliable, nor previously legal to share such data between agencies for this purpose). College students, members of the military, and others might file a tax return for a location that is different from where the census would (historically) have enumerated them. The definition of a usual residence for census purposes can legitimately differ from the location used for tax purposes.
The justification for these changes is rooted in a belief that they will “better prioritize and fulfill the Constitutional mandate” of a complete count for apportionment.
Philosophically, changes of this magnitude to the census should not happen without years of groundwork and research; this proposal undermines scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking. When I started working at the Census Bureau in 2005, I jumped into research happening the entire ten years between the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census on how to make the residence rules more easily understood by respondents; we did a large amount of research and testing to implement rather small changes. The changes being proposed now are untested and do not originate with career statisticians at the Census Bureau. A valid reason to oppose these changes is because they do not align with how federal statistical agencies should conduct their work, including to maintain public trust by conducting objective statistical activities.
Public comments on these proposals are being accepted until November 2. A coalition of data advocates has established a website called Hands Off Our Census that provides a template for submitting a comment to the federal register notice, as well as lots of background and other resources. Additional templates to base a comment on can be found at the Census Roadmap website (they also once had a book club, if you want to read more about census history!).
If you are so inclined, please add a comment in opposition to some or all parts of this proposal, and then share with others who might be interested. Comments do become part of the public record so do not include personal details in your comment.
I would be more than happy to answer any questions you have or direct you to additional online resources.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you for considering this request.
-Sarah
Comments