Monday, December 21, 2009
Why the census counts
Granted, few of us relish the thought of filling out a census questionnaire. But consider this: In 2000, more than 1.75 million children under age 10 were never counted at all.
That is significant because the 10-year temperature-taking of America’s population is among the most important information-collection tasks our government undertakes. It informs the way voting districts are drawn and – perhaps more importantly – it is key to the distribution of $400 billion in federal funds.
Which is why a new report by demographer William O’Hare is so disturbing. It challenges the popular belief that under-counts are typically comprised of adults who dodge census-takers for nefarious reasons.
“Unlike adults, who may bear some responsibility for making sure they are counted,” he says, “children are dependent on others to make sure they are included. Yet in 1980, 1990, and 2000, Census Bureau data show children, particularly young children, are one of the groups most likely to be missed.”
All evidence also suggests they are most likely to be poor. African-American went uncounted more often than whites, and young American Indians living on reservations were overlooked most of all.
The reason for this? Children live in “hard-to-count” neighborhoods more often than other demographic groups, O’Hare writes. Also, the census form only has space for complete information on six household members so in those homes with more than six inhabitants, the youngest often go uncounted. Also, people who don’t speak fluent English are more likely to have difficulty with the forms, and trends since 2000 indicate increasing numbers of non-English speakers.
For low-income communities, the under-counts can translate into less funding for schools, clinics and child care centers. Further, uncounted children can upend school enrollment forecasts. One analysis from the 1990 census showed that the number of children missed in New York City (77,000) could have filled 150 average-sized elementary and secondary schools!
“When children are not counted accurately we don’t get a true picture of our nation, and communities don’t get their rightful share of public funds or political power,” O’Hare writes. "Unlike many other groups that may be under-counted in the census, young children have no voice in this process. They are totally dependent on the rest of us to make sure they are counted accurately. Yet they will be the ones to suffer the consequences if their community does not get the resources it deserves for schools, clinics, or child care centers."
That is significant because the 10-year temperature-taking of America’s population is among the most important information-collection tasks our government undertakes. It informs the way voting districts are drawn and – perhaps more importantly – it is key to the distribution of $400 billion in federal funds.
Which is why a new report by demographer William O’Hare is so disturbing. It challenges the popular belief that under-counts are typically comprised of adults who dodge census-takers for nefarious reasons.
“Unlike adults, who may bear some responsibility for making sure they are counted,” he says, “children are dependent on others to make sure they are included. Yet in 1980, 1990, and 2000, Census Bureau data show children, particularly young children, are one of the groups most likely to be missed.”
All evidence also suggests they are most likely to be poor. African-American went uncounted more often than whites, and young American Indians living on reservations were overlooked most of all.
The reason for this? Children live in “hard-to-count” neighborhoods more often than other demographic groups, O’Hare writes. Also, the census form only has space for complete information on six household members so in those homes with more than six inhabitants, the youngest often go uncounted. Also, people who don’t speak fluent English are more likely to have difficulty with the forms, and trends since 2000 indicate increasing numbers of non-English speakers.
For low-income communities, the under-counts can translate into less funding for schools, clinics and child care centers. Further, uncounted children can upend school enrollment forecasts. One analysis from the 1990 census showed that the number of children missed in New York City (77,000) could have filled 150 average-sized elementary and secondary schools!
“When children are not counted accurately we don’t get a true picture of our nation, and communities don’t get their rightful share of public funds or political power,” O’Hare writes. "Unlike many other groups that may be under-counted in the census, young children have no voice in this process. They are totally dependent on the rest of us to make sure they are counted accurately. Yet they will be the ones to suffer the consequences if their community does not get the resources it deserves for schools, clinics, or child care centers."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment