Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Counting Muslims


A nasty dispute recently broke out about the number of Muslims in the United States. One study (available online in pdf format) claims six to seven million. Funded by four Muslim organization and directed by Ishan Bagby of Shaw University, it counted Muslims by contacting mosques and using various assumptions. The American Religious Identification Survey conducted by Barry Kosmin and Egon Mayer through the City University of New York Graduate Center found at most three million Muslims using a telephone survey. About one-quarter of all Muslims make New York State their home, according to Kosmin and Mayer Kosmin is one of the leading students of religious demography, and is co-author of "One Nation Under God," based upon a similar study done 10 years ago. The American Jewish Committee commissioned Tom Smith to assess the available estimates and make one of his own. His independent estimate largely agrees with that of the CUNY Graduate Center team.

Who is right? Why is it so difficult to count the number of Muslims? First, the Census Bureau is actually prohibited from counting Muslims. Islam is a religion rather than an ethnicity or a national origin, and the bureau is barred from asking about religion. Muslims and supporters of civil liberties might be especially thankful for this at this particular moment in American history. In a notorious chapter of their history, the Census Bureau assisted the US government in rounding up the Japanese-Americans at the beginning of World War II by using the agency's very detailed block-by-block tabulations. At a recent conference, a Bureau official said that they had received over 150 requests from other governmental bodies for information about Arabs (which are considered an ancestry) and immigrants from Muslim countries.

Since Muslims, whatever their number, are a small part of the United States population they are hard to count. They are also hard to define. Considering just adults, what does one need to do to be counted as a Muslim? Go to a mosque? Pray several times per day? Observe Ramadan? Have made a pilgrimage to Mecca? Eat Halal foods? Those trying to count Jews face similar problems. One definition of Jewish, for instance, is "Feeling you should go to High Holiday services." By such a definition apparently, it is enough to either go to the services or to feel guilty about not going.

When Bagby released his study in April, many reporters noted that if his figures were right then Muslims outnumbered Jews in the United States. This relatively unimportant fact in April that might add to Muslim bragging rights over Jews took on added significance with the September 11th attack. The American Jewish Committee commissioned Smith, and Egon Mayer is head of CUNY's Center for Jewish Studies, so some suspicion has greeted the release of their reports.

However, when one compares Bagby's methods and assumptions with those of Smith and Kosmin, it is plain that Bagby's is severely and fatally flawed. He enumerates all American mosques (1209 he says) and then interviews mosque representatives from a sample of 631. His response rate is a respectable two-thirds. But plainly big well-organized mosques with a well-staffed office would be much more likely to respond than smaller less well-funded mosques with part-time office staffs. He finds that on the average more than 1,600 people are involved with each Mosque, and then multiples that figure by all 1209 Mosques, claiming that about 2 million are involved. He then asserts that two thirds of Muslims are missing from the mosques, so he multiplies by three and announces that there are between six and seven Muslims in the United States.

Kosmin and Mayer by contrast base their estimate on the 219 Muslims contacted, while they were phoning about 50,000 people. Weighting their estimate appropriately they find 1.1 million Muslim adults, which is double what they found in 1991. Including children this would make the Muslim population about 1.5 million. Since there is sampling error they admit that the total could be as much as three million. Smith by ransacking available data comes up with an estimate of 1.4 million, 1.9 million including children. Looking at standard errors, his upper bound is very similar to that of Kosmin and Mayer. An analysis that my associates and I did for the New York Times of immigrants or children of immigrants from Muslim countries comes up with similar numbers. (It is true, of course that some immigrants from Muslim countries are not Muslim, and other Muslim immigrants come from non-Muslim counties. Other Muslims are native born.)

It seems that Bagby, along with many "ethnic group researchers" is willing to bend every effort to increase the count of his group . Kosmin and Smith, both renowned and careful social scientists, do as much as possible to base their counts on established methods. But even they give the benefit of the doubt to their highest possible count.

No matter how many Muslim there are, all researchers agree that the Muslim community, as with the Arab community (discussed here in September) are doing quite well in America. They are highly educated, many are quite prosperous, and they occupy a wide variety jobs. But it is also the case that they are Americanizing. As one of my students, an American citizen and the son of the Bangladeshi Islamic religious leader, told me: "My brothers and I are very observant, but my nieces and nephews seem much more American. I don't know if they will all continue to be Muslim." So like other groups, being successful in the United States may increase the group's influence and prosperity, while ultimately diminishing its size.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.

The Arab Americans In Our Midst


Osama Bin Laden, the man whom many believe is behind the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, is from Saudi Arabia. Many of the 19 hijackers who participated hailed from Arab countries. There also have been reports of celebrations in some Arab and Moslem quarters, not just on the West Bank but also in Arab sections of the United States.

All of this has prompted an outburst of incidents against Arabs, Muslims, Middle Easterners and even South Asians in the United States, some of them in New York. The president of the Moslem Students Association at Queens College (where I teach) was targeted for attack and bursts into tears in class when discussing the bombing.

Both Mayor Rudy Giuliani and President George Bush have been scrupulous in asking the American public to avoid scapegoating innocent Arab and Muslim Americans. But there is some evidence that their calls are not working. In one poll, 34 percent of teenagers say they view Arab-Americans as potential terrorists.

What do we really know about the Arab-American community? Arab Americans seem to be following the pattern of other very successful immigrant groups to the United States. They are balancing their attachment to their new home country with their attachment to the Arab world. As with many immigrant groups some are torn between traditional and customary roles and the opportunities available in the United States. In short, they are becoming American.

According to the Census Supplementary Survey, about 1.2 million residents of the United States say they are of Arab ancestry, up from 870,000 in 1990, an increase of about 40 percent. The largest number of these are Lebanese, at 419,000, with a further breakdown as follows: Egyptian (124,000), Iraqi (41,000), Jordanian (65,000), Moroccan (45,000), Palestinian (64,000), Syrian (137,000), Arab/Arabic (262,000), and Other Arab (93,000). It should be noted that, as with any ethnic groups, the ethnic advocates such as the Arab American Institute and others put the real numbers several times greater than the official numbers.

In 2000, 77,000 Arabs lived in New Jersey and 124,000 in New York State.

Arab Americans seem to be quite successful. A poll done in 1999-2000 found that over one-third of households had incomes in excess of $75,000. Large proportions are employed in managerial and professional jobs. Many are educated.

To get "inside" the Arab American group, Jen'nan Ghazal Read of Rice University carried out a study presented at a recent sociology conference of the attitudes of Arab American women. For Christian and Muslim Arabs alike, Islamic values have shaped many Arab cultural values. The family remains the foundation of the Islamic community, Islamic law (sharia) influences what is considered proper interaction between men and women. Men expect women to be modest, and to content themselves with bearing and rearing the children. Few Arab American women accept these limitations. Many now work outside the home, have married non-Arabs, and support goals of the women's movement. The Arab American women seem to be "Coming to America" in Ghazal Read's words, as they balance their new life in America with their ties to Arab place and culture.

Though a tiny handful of Arab terrorists caused incalculable damage to New York City and the United States, the Arab Americans in our midst are hardworking, largely successful immigrants to the United States, balancing their Arab with their American identity.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981. Since 1993 he has done demographic analyses and consulted for the New York Times. He has provided expert testimony in districting and redistricting, housing discrimination, and numerous other civil rights cases in the metropolitan area and elsewhere. The opinions expressed in Topics are his alone.

A White City Council


(August '01) For all the talk of the spectacular diversity in the hundreds of citizen-candidates this year, the truth is that there will be little change in the complexion of city government. White New Yorkers will dominate the "new" City Council, just as they dominated the old.

In the current City Council, 28 members are white. The results of this year's elections will show one or two Asians replacing white incumbents -- the first Asian-Americans to win city-wide elective office. A Latino may replace an African-American. But, when all the levers are pulled, the City Council will still probably have about 26 white members, or more than 50 percent.

How can this be so in a city that is now only 35 percent white?

If represented in proportion to their numbers in the population, there would be 18 council members who are white (there are 28), 14 who are Latino (there are currently nine), 13 who are African-American (there are currently 14), and five who are Asian (there are currently none).

Of course, Council members run in specific districts, not in the city as a whole. But looking at the majority ethnic groups district by district, there would be even fewer Council members who are white, if voters chose exclusively by the race of the candidate. (African Americans would have 11 seats, Latinos 11, Asians none). In the 12 districts where no single group has a majority, two districts have over 40 percent Asian, six have over 40 percent white, and two other districts have white residents slightly outnumbering Latinos.

In two districts where Latinos outnumber whites, District 7 in Manhattan and District 26 in Queens, a white could win anyway.

How can white candidates get elected while being in the minority? The simple is answer: Because whites pull others into a coalition. At the same time, the groups of color do not necessarily coalesce. Ferrer based his mayoral campaign on an alliance of African Americans and Latinos. This has yet to pay off.

Two districts in Queens, expected to result in change are instructive. In District 20 John Liu, the front-runner, lost to Julia Harrison last time. She is the Council member from Flushing famous for saying about Asians: "They have come here to colonize us." She is term limited. Liu reached out to many of the white residents of the district. He received the endorsement of the Queens organization, as well as many unions. He has raised the most money of any council candidate in the city, who is receiving matching funds. To try to win he has gone well beyond his own Asian groups.

In District 21, which is 67 percent Latino, Hiram Monseratte appears to be the front- runner. If successful, he will replace Helen Marshall, an African American, who is term limited and running for Borough President. Some of Monseratte's opponents say that since he is a Puerto Rican, he cannot adequately represent the district that has a large numbers of Latino immigrants. Monseratte, like Liu, has been focusing his appeal on district issues. He has garnered union and other support, and his coalition goes beyond being Latino or Puerto Rican.

Demography may not be political destiny, but it certainly helps shape it. In districts with large majorities of specific groups, those members usually win. Where there are significant numbers of several groups, the ability to form coalitions beyond race and ethnicity becomes important. This gives whites advantages beyond their numbers. Whites are often part of the existing power structure. It is easier for them to bring in members of new groups, than it is for members of the new groups to align with one another and oust the whites. The new City Council may look much like the old. Yet, the coalitions upon which it will be based include many of the newest New Yorkers. It will be up to the new council to serve their needs.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.

Counting Gay New York


The U.S. Census reported last month that New York City has at least 25,906 gay households, a threefold increase since 1990. This would translate into about 52,000 gay New Yorkers, or just under one percent of the population that is 18 years of age or older.

This could of course be accurate - if you did not count any of the gay people in Chelsea, Park Slope or Greenwich Village.

How could the United States Census be so off the mark?

It would not be the first time that gay people were underestimated - or, to put it more accurately, were inaccurately accounted for. There was no real effort even to estimate the population of gay people in the country until pioneering research Alfred Kinsey declared in the 1940's that gay men comprised ten percent of all adult males. But Kinsey's data were not very valid, since they were based on interviews with a sample that was not scientifically random. Those who were interviewed had volunteered.

During the senior George Bush's administration, a major study of sexuality was to be launched, so that a reliable estimate could be made of various sexual practices to help understand the potential spread of AIDS. The Bush administration killed the study, but a consortium of private foundations funded a smaller version carried out by researchers at the University of Chicago. Combined with other data sources it still provides the best estimate of the size of the gay population, even though it was completed in 1994. (It resulted in the book The Social Organization of Sexuality by Edward Laumann, John Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels.)

For the United States as a whole the numbers were 2.6 percent for men and 1.1 percent for women. For small cities and towns and rural areas the percent was smaller. But about 9.2 percent of men and 2.6 percent of women (aged 18 to 59) living in the central cities of the 12 largest metropolitan areas reported that they identify as homosexual. (And a larger percentage reported engaging in sexual activity with members of the same gender, but did not identify themselves as gay).

Applying these numbers to New York City, one would expect that at least six percent of New York City adults are gay, or about 360,000. This number is quite consistent with exit poll results, which ask sexual orientation. In truth, since so many gay people are drawn to New York City, the number is likely to be at least 500,000 - or about ten times greater than what the Census reported.

In 1990, the Census added a new category "unmarried partner" to get at the large numbers of people, mostly heterosexual couples, who were living together in a relationship but were not married. Since the gender of the partners could be recorded, for the first time there was a way to make a count of what were likely to be gay couples. The 2000 Census refined the question a little about the "relationship to the head of the household." Of course, not all gay people are living with partners, and not all people who live together are in a romantic relationship, and not everybody could understand the nuances of the question. But at least now gay New Yorkers officially - albeit rather indirectly -- exist.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.

Politics And The Undercount


New York City has more people living here than ever before. The census found eight million New Yorkers. But there were many it missed -- probably 136,000.

We know this thanks to the science of statistics. There are now statistical ways of making up for the flaws in the physical collection of data - for the failure, in other words, of the United States Bureau of the Census to make an accurate count of each and every New Yorker.

The science exists to adjust for this undercount. But yet again, politics has gotten in the way of science. The Bush administration has decided to leave those New Yorkers uncounted.

This is nothing new. New York City has been complaining and then litigating about the undercount for about half a century. Its 1980 lawsuit led to the federal government agreeing to monitor the outcome of the census in New York City, and adjust the results if necessary, beginning with the 1990 census.

In 1990, after the census forms had been handed in and calculated, census bureau employees went back to New York and did a meticulous recount of a large selected statistical sample of households. (over 90,000). By comparing the first set of results with the second, it was possible for the census to estimate the undercount of various geographical areas and ethnic groups in the city.

After the 1990 census, the bureau professionals recommended adjustment so the official data more accurately reflected the actual numbers of New Yorkers (and of course others who had been undercounted). But George Mossbacher blocked that recommendation. Mossbacher was the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the agency that oversees the U.S. Census Bureau. He also happened to be the campaign manager for the presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush.

Afterward, the National Academy of Sciences and others recommended procedures to make the census more accurate. All of these efforts were frustrated by GOP Congressional leaders. Indeed, while the latest census was underway, George W. Bush, suggested that the effort was intrusive, and indicated that he might not fill out the long form if he got one.

The process itself was subject to incessant attack by right wing radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh.

Nevertheless, for the 2000 census, the bureau intensified its efforts to make an accurate count, launching a better-paid advertising campaign than in 1990.

An analysis of the results shows that Census 2000 was probably the most accurate census ever, and missed many fewer African Americans, Hispanics and Native American than in 1990. Yet, for all its efforts, this was at least the third census in a row in which the population of New York City was undercounted. The same statistical sampling that occurred after the 1990 census occurred again, with similar results.

However, on March 1 of this year, an internal committee of professional demographers recommended that the census not be adjusted. On March 6 Commerce Secretary Don Evans agreed with the committee and ordered only unadjusted data to be released. In a fairly astonishing replay of the circumstances surrounding the decision a decade earlier, Evans was George W. Bush's campaign manager, and recently returned from Florida where he had defended Bush's win.

Earlier, he had elbowed aside the professionals, who were supposed to make the adjustment decision. Apparently, he need not have done so.

Census 2000 did show an unexpectedly large count, especially in New York State, Washington, D.C., California, Florida and other areas with large numbers of immigrants.

However, when the bureau employees did their recount of the sample households, they determined that the unexpectedly high number should be even higher. On the other hand, estimates based upon various other demographic methods suggested that they should be lower than the number counted.

This discrepancy stopped the internal committee from recommending adjustment. It also shows why New York City lost again. The Census estimation methods mainly use only new green card recipients to count immigrants. These figures overlook all other foreigners, including those, who are in the US for study, for work, or for long term visits. They also overlook those that enter or stay on in the United States illegally. New York City is one of the major immigrant magnets, so it is in exactly such places where the estimates will be low.

The presidential appointees to the Census Monitoring Board (appointed, that is, by President Clinton), in a report released May 1, cited consultants well-regarded in demographic and statistical circles, and condemned the decision not to adjust. Meanwhile, the Congressional (in other words, Republican) members of the same board praised the Commerce Secretary's decision and called any move for adjustment partisan.

As of now the census bureau refuses to release details of the survey that was to be used to adjust, though they have admitted that many of their other methods for assuring their accuracy were seriously flawed.

So far, only the unadjusted official count has been released, and about 136,000 New Yorkers will go uncounted. This loss translates into fewer legislators representing the city in Albany and Washington, and less federal and state aid. Indeed, when one thinks of the New York City undercount over the decades, the impact is billions of dollars in aid, and an incalculable loss of political power.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone. 

 

False Facts About Census 2000


There were three things that New Yorkers learned about themselves from the first data to come out of the 2000 Census:

  1. New York City, now eight million, grew rapidly during the 1990s.
  2. New York City is now the center of the region's growth
  3. Five percent of all New York City residents claimed to be multi-racial.

None of these are accurate.

1. NEW YORK CITY'S SLOW GROWTH

New York City experienced modest growth. New Yorkers were simply counted better in 2000 than they had been in 1990. The 1990 Census officially recorded New York City's population at 7.3 million; now it is 8.0 million. The difference is 686,000 or 9.4 percent. Growth is only one reason for the higher numbers, and it may not be the most important. Everyone acknowledges that the last census undercounted the city. Officially, the adjustment would have been about 245,000. This time the adjustment would be somewhat lower. However, the adjustment procedure assumes that all households are on the census address list.

A massive effort by the Department of City Planning, under the direction of Joseph Salvo, head of the population division and the city's census liaison, reviewed the census list of households and added about 370,000 household addresses to that list. Some were new construction, but many were auxiliary apartments or other sub-divisions of existing buildings. Many had not been visited in 1990, though they probably existed then. This is the first census where Congress allowed such a review. Indeed, in earlier censuses the bureau strongly resisted similar efforts and blocked them by court challenges for reasons of "confidentiality." If each newly found unit had two people in it (much lower than New York City's average) those extra 740,000 people would more than account for NYC's "growth."

No one will know how many housing units there are in New York City until the census releases figures later this year. However, City Planning Commissioner Joe Rose attributes half of New York City's growth to better counting. NYC probably grew at a more leisurely 4 or 5 percent, putting it in the same league with Chicago and behind Los Angeles.

Still, New York certainly did grow somewhat, thanks to immigration. This contrasts with many other cities in the region: Newark, Buffalo, Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven all lost population.

2. MOST REGIONAL GROWTH IS SUBURBAN SPRAWL

The fastest growth in the New York region is in the far suburbs, such as Putnam County in New York, central New Jersey, and some distant parts of Connecticut. Sprawl and "white flight" are alive and well. The most rapid growth in the New York region occurred in the outer ring of suburbs. While the Census counted 9.4 percent (and, again, many of these were just people who were not counted 10 years ago), Putnam County grew 13.1 percent, Orange County 10.2 percent; Dutchess, Greene, and Saratoga (now an Albany County suburb) all grew rapidly.

Unlike the New York City, none of these increases is based upon suddenly counting massive numbers of uncounted households. Indeed, 10 out of New Jersey's 21 counties grew at least 9.0 percent, and Somerset County grew over 23 percent. About one-third of Connecticut's roughly 175 towns grew faster than nine percent. Sherman, a town in Fairfield led the pack with 36 percent. Most such growth points in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey were quite a distance from New York City and far from local population centers such as Newark and New Haven.

3. TWO THIRDS OF THE NEW YORKERS WHO SAID THEY WERE MEMBERS OF MORE THAN ONE RACE MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED

Only a tiny number of New Yorkers made a valid report that they were two or more races. Almost all New Yorkers report that they are only one race. Many that reported more than one race probably did so in error. In New York City, about 393,000 people (slightly less than five percent) told the census that they were of more than race. But 71 percent of these listed that second race as "other race," which they were not supposed to do. Only about 115,000 people filled in two actual races, or about 1.4 percent of the population. This number reflects what the officials at the census had originally estimated.

These well known myths should make it plain that drawing conclusions from Census 2000 is not as easy as it seems. As Disraeli reportedly said: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." Census 2000 certainly will continue to produce masses of statistics. The issue is how to sort the lies from the damn lies from the statistics.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.

Census Bureau Finds 830,000 "Extra" New Yorkers


The U.S. Census Bureau released the first results from Census 2000 recently, and the numbers are surprising. Between 1990 and 2000 New York State appears to have grown by almost one million people. Yet, at the same time, as a result of these new numbers, the state will lose two congressional seats: The delegation will have 29 members, the smallest number since 1820.

How could New York have gained so many people and still lost political representation?

Throughout the United States, the Census found 6.8 million extra people, putting the U.S population at 281.4 million people. This was an increase of over 13 percent from 1990. For all the increase in numbers in New York (whose population as of April 1, 2000 was found to be officially 18,976,457), the percentage of increase here was actually below the national average. The Census found a greater percentage in other states. There were 1.3 million more people in California and over 700,000 in both Texas and Florida. New York has sunk to third most populous state, after California and Texas.

Still, the numbers that the Census Bureau found in New York were far larger than the estimates the Bureau had made. Comparing its estimate with the population the Census Bureau actually found, New York State has about 830,000 "extra people."

New Yorkers and others will ask: "Who are these 'extra' 830,000? Where do they live? Why were they missing until Census 2000?" The answers to these questions could have effects on the balance of political power in New York State, as well as on the distribution of federal and state funds.

They also raise questions about the accuracy of the Census count, both in 1990 and 2000.

There are very good reasons to expect many of the "extra 830,000" live in New York City and its environs. The 1980 and 1990 Censuses had both an undercount and an overcount. The undercount missed many in the urban areas, especially those who were poor, immigrant, or lived in unconventional housing arrangements (e.g. female headed, roommate situations, etc.) The Census historically has been very good at counting married couples with children living in a house they own. In fact, some households, especially those which are wealthier, are counted more than once. Sometimes this is because these families have two or more homes.

Because of these problems, in 1990, the Census selected a large sample of households to revisit in person. Extraordinary means were used to get an accurate count in each of these households a few weeks after Census Day. This count was then compared to the Census Day enumeration. From this effort the Bureau was able to estimate the undercount and overcount, and create adjusted totals for each block, tract, city, county and state in the United States based upon various characteristics, such as race, owner or renter, and so forth. This method increased the count in large cities, especially in minority and low-income areas. It also reduced the count in suburbs and other wealthier areas. New York City was undercounted by a total of roughly 250,000 in 1990.

According to a federal government study in 1990, there was a nationwide undercount of 10 million and an overcount of 4.4 million. The efforts to estimate the undercount and overcount were spurred by a court case originally filed in 1980 in New York City. The settlement of the case included plans to do a scientific adjustment in 1990 based upon the special sample. A panel of the National Academy of Sciences endorsed this approach. Nonetheless, the Secretary of Commerce in the first Bush Administration rejected the adjusted numbers, so they were not used for redistricting. This had the effect of taking political power and federal and state funds away from the urban centers and shifting them to the suburbs and less populated areas.

The 2000 Census carried out an even larger survey for similar purposes. It remains to be seen whether the younger Bush's Census Bureau will allow an adjustment.

Before the new numbers were released and most people thought New York State was just maintaining its 18.1 million population, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) and others noted that New York was losing population upstate and gaining population downstate. It is not that the new census numbers mean this analysis was wrong, but rather that the Census Bureau consistently understated the size of upstate and downstate. If most of the "extra 830,000" are in New York City, then the political geography of New York State may change decisively. In 2002, each Congressional District must contain 654,361 people, up from 585,000 in 1990. If most of the extra New Yorkers live downstate, when they are combined with population shifts it is possible that most or all of the loss of Congressional representation will be borne by upstate areas, particularly those not in cities. Furthermore, when the State Senate and Assembly are redistricted, New York City might gain as many as five assembly seats and two senate seats.

Originally such a shift would seem to have required an adjustment to the Census 2000 count. But now it is not obvious how important such an adjustment may turn out to be. The Bureau implemented many methods to improve the coverage and results for the 2000 Census. These included efforts to reach more households and get a higher mail back response rate, as well as many efforts to reach those who did not return the questionnaire by mail. We do not yet know how effective they were. However, since the Census found an extra 6.8 million Americans, roughly 830,000 in New York State, one might expect a much lower undercount in 2000 than 1990. Even without any adjustment, the next redistricting may shift power to cities and urban areas throughout New York State, and many other states. With an adjustment the shift would be even more pronounced. At this point, all involved are waiting for the first detailed results, which will be released by March 31, 2001. Then we will begin to see some of the important consequences of the 2000 Census in dividing up the votes and money.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.

The Census


The United States Census Bureau has been capably and professionally carrying out its assignment to survey the population every ten years since 1790. Indeed the requirement for some form of enumeration is set forth in the Constitution. But what began as a simple head count for purposes of defining Congressional Districts has morphed into what many now regard as a formidable invasion of privacy. Resistance on this score has escalated recently because of well-founded concerns about the abuses connected with the misuse of personal information gathered from Internet web-sites. Moreover, undocumented immigrants and the immigrant communities in general are apprehensive, despite specific and profuse assurances to the contrary, about the possible use of Census returns against them. This is because changes in the immigration laws in 1996 gave the INS swinging new powers, which it has used, to deport undocumented immigrants. And these are two categories that New York is well represented in: foreign-born residents and Internet users.

Averse to answer the Census because of their illegal status, undocumented immigrants' non-responses are greater among Latinos than among blacks. But blacks in New York City, including middle income blacks, seem to have developed a greater degree of mistrust over time. The citywide response rate in black neighborhoods is down by 5% in 2000 to below 40%. And, as far as one can tell from fragmentary evidence, rates are down by more in middle income black neighborhoods than in low income ones. In an article in the New York Times, Sarah Kershaw posits that the most probable reason seems to be a general mistrust engendered by the sharp reaction among middle class blacks to several high-profile police brutality cases in the last few years in New York City.

What can the Census Bureau do about the minority undercount? Not much. The Census can and does overcome the language barrier among non-English speaking immigrant groups by printing in other languages. And they do manage to keep the INS at arm's length. But, ultimately, minority groups and undocumented immigrants must participate of their own accord.

Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.

Census Slackers


From now through early July, a veritable army of temporary workers will be reaching out to the households of those New Yorkers the Census Bureau didn't hear from in the mail. Most will be asked to fill out the so-called short form, which asks about the age and gender of members of the household. But a significant percentage will be called upon to negotiate a much more complex instrument: the 38-page long form which inquires about such matters as income (level and sources), marital relationships among adult household members, extent and character of participation in paid employment, educational attainment, needs for assistance in the tasks of daily living, place of birth and citizenship status and much, much more.

All terribly useful information for those who need to understand and respond to the changing nature of America's myriad social and economic structures. And, unquestionably, the Census Bureau has been capably and professionally carrying out this large-scale survey assignment every ten years since 1790. Indeed the requirement for some form of enumeration is set forth in the Constitution. But what began as a simple head count for purposes of defining Congressional Districts has morphed into what many now regard as a formidable invasion of privacy. (Note: only 16% of all households receive the long form.) Resistance on this score has escalated recently because of well-founded concerns about the abuses connected with the misuse of personal information gathered from Internet web-sites. Moreover, undocumented immigrants and the immigrant communities in general are apprehensive, despite specific and profuse assurances to the contrary, about the possible use of Census returns against them. This is because changes in the immigration laws in 1996 gave the INS swinging new powers, which it has used, to deport undocumented immigrants. And these are two categories that New York is well represented in: foreign-born residents and Internet users.

Anyone home?

As of late April, only 53% of New York City's close to three million households have returned their filled out Census forms. This rate of return is not that much different from that of ten years earlier. By borough, it ranges from a high of 60% in Staten Island to a low of 48% in Brooklyn. Nationally, the rate of return is quite a bit higher at around 65%. After two censuses of lower response rates, there has actually been a slight uptick at the national level -- because of a higher rate of return among Latinos. Thus far at least, response rates in New York City have been markedly lower in black neighborhoods than in Latino ones. Across the country though, the blacks' response rate shows no pattern of decline from the decade earlier census. New York seems to be an anomaly. As might be expected the highest responses inside and outside of the city occur in predominantly white middle income areas; 65% in Brooklyn Heights, 72% in Nassau County.

Averse to answer the Census form because of their illegal status, undocumented immigrants' non-responses are greater among Latinos than among blacks. But blacks in New York City, including middle income blacks, seem to have developed a greater degree a mistrust over time. The citywide response rate in black neighborhoods is down by 5% in 2000 to below 40%. And, as far as one can tell from fragmentary evidence, rates are down by more in middle income black neighborhoods than in low income ones. In a May 16th New York Times article, Sarah Kershaw posits that the most probable reason seems to be a general mistrust engendered by the sharp reaction among middle class blacks to several high-profile police brutality cases in the last few years in New York City.

What can the Census Bureau do about the minority undercount? Not much. The Census can and does overcome the language barrier among non-English speaking immigrant groups by printing in other languages. And they do manage to keep the INS at arm's length. But, ultimately, minority groups and undocumented immigrants must participate of their own accord.

New Vacancy Survey Data


With the economy booming, more of the City's residents are employed are than ever. But there is still the nagging question of how well they are doing. We know that those who are employed in the city's Manhattan-based global economy sector are raking it in. But what about New York's rank and file? The evidence here is far from discouraging. A recently opened window on this subject is provided by the 1999 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey. Sponsored by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the NYCHVS has been conducted every three years since 1965 by the US Census Bureau. The survey's sample size, approximately 18,000 housing units, is large enough by the Census's exacting standards to be representative of the City's population and housing stock. According to the HVS, inflation-adjusted median household income in the city increased by 4% between 1995 and 1998 and by 13% from 1992 to 1998. In fact, New York outperformed the nation on this score for the longer period -- 13% versus 9% -- though it did lag in the more recent timespan -- 4% in the City versus 7% nationally. There was also a significant reduction in the poverty rate among the City's households from 21% in 1995 to 18% in 1998.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years