New York City to dispute census numbers

[UrbScotty]

Source: CNN

City officials will formally challenge the Census Bureau's data for New York City, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg said understated the number of residents in Brooklyn and Queens and overstated the number of vacant housing units in the city.

Although New York was named the most populous city in the country with 8,175,133 residents, its meager 2.1% increase since 2000's census count left many elected officials skeptical that every New Yorker was accounted for.

The Census Bureau reported that Brooklyn's population increased by just 1.6% and Queens grew by just 0.1%, gaining only 1,300 people since 2000.

"That can't be possible," Bloomberg said at a news conference in Queens Sunday, where he announced his intent to dispute the results.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42295762/ns/travel-news/

[Skink]

1. A recount.

If only Al Gore had done this.

[UrbScotty]

7. They still wouldn't have called him the winner.

[and-justice-for-all]

2. Well, if it was not filled out and sent in...

it can not be counted.

[CreekDog]

3. then it's not a full count, it's a full count of those who filled out forms

and *that* kind of count is not our population, nor is it a census of our population.

what you describe is Republican census counting.

[former9thward]

4. Republicans weren't counting the census in NYC

In NYC just like every other area, people were recruited from their general neighborhoods to count the census. NYC is overwhelmingly Democratic and so were the census workers there. If you did not fill out your form a census worker was sent out to your address --repeatedly- to get the form filled out. If the person would not respond then neighbors or other people were used to determine who lived at the address.

[CreekDog]

6. that's not what i said, which is pretty obvious

what i said was that the kind of count that the poster i was responding to wanted was a Republican "count" because it doesn't count everybody, only everybody who gets counted.

a proper census of everybody in the nation wouldn't be just those who respond by filling out a form.

[former9thward]

8. I understand that would not be a proper count.

I was just trying to point out that is not how the census was done. There is a misconception among many that only those people who turned in forms were counted. That is not how it was done. There were many many follow ups for those who did not turn in the forms.

[WatsonT]

12. If 100% response rates are required for a legitimate census

then we have never had one anywhere in the country at any time.

[CreekDog]

13. yes the census is not an measure of population if it only includes people who respond

:hi:

[Kevin Cloyd]

5. Even when a census worker

can not gain access to a house during the NRFU (Non Response Follow Up) recount there can still be a count for the dwelling from a land lord, neighbor or other party that has knowledge of the building and its residents.

This happens every census with the big cities always saying they are undercounted...which the census bureau corrects for statistically.

It's all about money and House seats.

Here's a link that works;
http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/mar/27/city-plans-challenge-census-estimate/

[laconicsax]

10. That depends on knowledgeable proxies.

It's extremely difficult to find knowledgeable proxies in urban areas. If an EQ was marked "occupied" but didn't have names or at least a population count, the computer system would reject it.

[laconicsax]

9. As someone who worked the 2010 census, I can vouch for Bloomberg's criticism.

The majority of the US population lives in urban and suburban areas, but the training for field enumerators is based on a rural populace. There's no material, no guidelines, or even procedures on what to do in urban settings if you run into problems.

In the operation that follows up on non-returned surveys, enumerators were trained to find a proxy for a residence they couldn't contact. The training materials (and policies) was based assumed that anyone you asked would know the population count, names, ages, relationships, and if anyone was visiting on April 1st. That may be fine in a small rural community, but when you get into a city, you're just not going to get that much information from a neighbor.

Hell, I thought my extremely private next-door neighbors were being more quiet than usual for a few months before I learned that they had actually moved out.

There were a couple apartment complexes that were majority immigrant in the area I had during that operation and not only were the English-speaking residents not knowledgeable, but the apartment managers typically refused to give out information (if you could get a hold of them at all). I'm sure my enumerators under-counted the number of residents, but there was no procedure in place to handle difficult situations other than to mark a unit "vacant."

The Census Bureau just doesn't know how to count urban areas.

[kickysnana]

11. +1 Excellent insights. Thanks. n/t

[EFerrari]

14. I was a census taker in Silicon Valley one year

a long time ago and the bigger and poorer an apartment complex, the more reluctant people were to give me information about themselves or about anyone else, even when I explained that we needed good numbers to get federal funds for infrastructure. They tended to think it was a trick.

[laconicsax]

17. People overwhelmingly distrust government agents showing up at the door and asking questions.

It's very difficult to reassure people that their personal information is only used for statistical purposes.

Of course, the training materials assume that all you need to do is say "your personal information is protected by law" and a reluctant respondent will invite you in and tell you their entire life story while baking you cookies.

[Ohio Joe]

18. That is not completely correct

I was a Crew Leader for the 2010 census, doing Natick and Wellesley, MA. We (the crew leaders) were trained and trained our enumerators that the minimum information to turn in an EQ was a household count. Any other information we could get was great but the count was the only requirement.

Also, any units you could not get a count for should not have been marked vacant. If the resident refused to give any information, it should have been marked as a RE (refusal). If no contact and no proxy could be found (after three tries), it should have as NC (No Contact). There was a follow up operation to NRFU (I forget the name, I did not participate) that ran down refusals, no contacts and also spot checked valid EQ's from NRFU.

[laconicsax]

20. The main follow-up was VDC (vacant delete check).

I don't remember the name of the other half that followed up on the REs and NCs from NRFU (come to think of it I think it was NRFU-RI) but I turned down a crew leader position for it because it was just an extension of NRFU using the same procedures and policies to try another three times. The office staff couldn't do anything with a refusal or no-contact after that operation was over.

[Keith Bee]

15. Lemme guess:

Brooklyn and Queens are Bloomberg strongholds. (Hey, I don't blame him: After the Thompson scare, I'd be doing the same thing.)

[Renew Deal]

16. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

[The Nexus]

19. Then there are the right wingers who refuse....

Just to shrink representation just because it's a progressive stronghold. That in turn is really scary IMHO.