PLANS FOR CONDUCTING THE

1990 CENSUS IN ALASKA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

suBCOMMirn

CENSUS AND ?»? '

OF Tri

COMMITT]

POST OFFICE AND Cl

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

AUGUST 19, 1987

Serial No. 100-25

Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1988

For sale by the Superintendent of Document*. Congressional Sales Office

U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington. DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan, Chairman

WILLIAM (BILL! CLAY, Missouri GENE TAYLOR, Missouri

PATRICIA SCHROEDER. Colorado BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York CHARLES PASHAYAN, JR.. California

ROBERT GARCIA, New York FRANK HORTON, New York

MICKEY LELAND. Texas JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana

GUS YATRON, Pennsylvania DON YOUNG, Alaska

MARY ROSE OAKAR. Ohio DAN BURTON, Indiana

GERRY SIKORSKI. Minnesota CONSTANCE A. MORELLA. Maryland

FRANK McCLOSKEY. Indiana

GARY L. ACKERMAN. New York

MERVYN M. DYMALLY, California

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands

TOM DEYULIA, Staff Director

ROBERT E. LOCKHART, General Counsel

PATRICIA F. RISSLER. Deputy Staff Director and Chief Clerk

JOSEPH A. FISHER, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION

MERVYN M. DYMALLY, California, Chairman

ROBERT GARCIA. New York CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Marvland

GERRY SIKORSKI, Minnesota DAN BURTON, Indiana

TERRIANN LOWENTHAL, Subcommittee Staff Director

UI>
Z2~

'KK' CONTENTS

Statements of: Page

Hon. Walter R. Furnace, Alaska State representative 2

Hon. Terry Martin, Alaska State representative 2

John G. Keane, Director, Bureau of the Census 20

Chris Miller, reports and labor market information supervisor, Alaska

Department of Labor 42

Julie Kitka, special assistant to the president, Alaska Federation of Natives 51

Carl Jack, Alaska Native representative, Census Advisory Committee 54

Richard Roland, chairman, Alaska Native Employment Training Coalition 55

Karen Foster, research associate, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska 58

Donald E. Barlow, Anchorage branch president, NAACP 62

Additional material: Articles on census undercount, submitted by Dr. David

A. Swanson, associate professor. Department of Sociology, Pacific Lutheran

University, Tacoma, WA 63

(mi

PLANS FOR CONDUCTING THE 1990 CENSUS IN

ALASKA

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1987

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room F278, Federal Building, 701 C Street, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon.

Mervyn M. Dymally, presiding.

Mr. DYMALLY. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Census and

Population of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee is called

to order. I am not sure if 9 o'clock is too early or too late in terms

of Alaska time. Let's see, it is 10 o'clock in Los Angeles. For myself

and my colleagues, this hour has become a regular starting point

in Washington for the past couple of months.

I would like to welcome our witnesses, the general public, the

members of the subcommittee and staff. I am particularly pleased

this morning that the distinguished chairman from Minnesota,

chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, has joined us

for this hearing.

Today, the subcommittee will hear testimony on plans for conducting the 1990 census in Alaska. Hopefully, these plans will address the unique characteristics of this state which may have accounted for inaccuracies in the Alaska census figures in the past.

Alaska, being a large mass of land with widely scattered communities, presents certain difficulties in assuring that every single

person is counted. In addition, the non-mail enumeration used in

Alaska's rural areas also adds to the difficulty of obtaining an accurate count. Furthermore, special consideration needs to be made

to improve census enumeration in small towns and hunting and

fishing villages.

These issues all yield a common outcome•undercount. It is estimated that the 1980 decennial census undercounted Alaska's statewide population by 3.2 percent. After reviewing reports of a 1981

special census conducted by the state, we discovered that the undercount is greater than the 1980 estimate and not limited to general population figures.

Alaska's population undercount is magnified in a study, which I

intend to insert in today's hearing record, by Ms. Jo Van Patten of

the Alaska Department of Labor, and Dr. David Swanson of the Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington, it is entitled,

(1)
2

"How Accurate Was the 1980 Census for Small Towns: Survey and

Related Data Derived From the Long Form."

According to this study, the town of Wrangell's total population

was undercounted by 1.8 percent, females were undercounted by

4.8 percent, and non-whites were undercounted by 13 percent.

These figures are troubling. In an article by the same authors, they

showed that in Wrangell the 1980 census did not count at least 4

percent of the town's housing stock.

Although the Census Bureau has made commendable strides in

reducing the historical undercount, it troubles us that the problem

continues to rest in minority populations and rural communities.

Without proper adjustment of census procedures and figures, it

stands to reason that minorities and rural areas will continue to

receive inadequate attention in the formulation of policies based on

census data.

I am referring, of course, to the enforcement of the Voting Rights

Act, reapportionment for state and federal congress, redistricting,

and allocation of federal funds for housing, education, transportation, and other major programs. The Census Bureau must determine methods to improve the accuracy of census data. It also must

prepare to adjust the population counts given the likelihood that

an undercount will occur in 1990.

With its jurisdiction over federal statistics, this subcommittee

plays a significant role in planning the direction this country will

follow into the 21st century. It is our hope that our series of oversight hearings in preparation for the 1990 decennial census will

produce new thoughts and ideas to help shape that course.

On behalf of the subcommittee and staff, I again welcome our

witnesses this morning and I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Before I go any further, however, I want to call upon the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. SIKORSKI. I want to commend the chairman for conducting

an exhaustive and very critical series of hearings on the issue of

the undercount, and generally the census as we look towards 1990.

I also want to welcome the witnesses today and thank them for

their efforts and their excellent job in preparing their testimony. I

look forward to hearing what they have to say.

I also thank Congressman Young for welcoming us so nicely and

warmly.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you very much. I want to join Mr. Sikorski

in extending our very deep gratitude to Congressman Young and

his staff for all the work they did in preparing this meeting.

And now we call on our first witness, two witnesses, in fact,

State Representative Furnace and State Representative Terry

Martin.

STATEMENTS OF WALTER R. FURNACE, ALASKA STATE REPRESENTATIVE, AND TERRY MARTIN, ALASKA STATE REPRESENTATIVE

Mr. FURNACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Chairman Dymally

and members of the subcommittee, I am Alaska State Representa-
3

tive Walt Furnace, and my colleague sharing the presentation with

me this morning is Alaska State Representative Terry Martin.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the hearing this

morning, and I have prepared for the committee's consideration a

formal presentation to be read into the record, a separate packet of

information consisting of a collection of information pertaining to

Alaska's effort over time in attempting to establish an equitable reapportionment program for the state. Additionally, we have prepared a series of charts designed to graphically depict the status of

Alaska's reapportionment efforts over the same time.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding we have some seven minutes to make the presentation this morning. With that in mind,

what I would like to do is ask my colleague, Representative Martin,

to go into the charts at this time and review with you briefly the

efforts there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DYMALLY. Take ten.

Mr. MARTIN. What I would also like to do is thank Mr. Marshall

Turner of the Census Bureau, because without Mr. Turner's effort,

what we heard about him in 1983, we know and we are assured it

is not the Census Department's responsibility nor is it your fault

that we are so badly malapportioned in this state; it is because

Alaska's elected officials, especially the governor, did not ask for

the Census Department in 1970 to participate in block balancing,

and only because of a couple legislators. And I have worked with

Mr. Turner to find out how to do it, and now for the first time,

many people here may not know that rural Alaska will be given

block balance census and that is neat. You talk about how big our

state is, but when 85 percent of it has not even been tracked, then

you wonder why we have malapportionment.

Mr. Chairman, what we have here is on a registered voter's evaluation how badly malapportioned the state of Alaska is. So you see,

some representatives over here have less than 5,000, four of them,

have less that 5,000 registered voters, with the other extremes up

in the Matanuska Valley, in the farming area, they have 20,800

registered voters. So you see how bad the situation is. The same in

southeast Alaska, you have one community, Juneau, where they

have about 17,000 registered voters per elected official, and down

here we have 5,000 voters. So it is quite long there.

Some people say, well, you shouldn't use registered voters as

your criteria for evaluation, but from my thinking that we very

much want to in the whole state, it is under the Supreme Court

direction of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and we have not been allowed through many procedures to comply to the orders. People

have tried, the Metlakatla people of southeast Alaska spent a lot of

money and they cannot fight the system, and we felt it was very

inadequate for the U.S. Justice Department to accept their withdrawal of the case. The only reason they withdrew from the case,

they could not afford to fight the system. So in that packet, we give

a detailed explanation of how the system is not working.

Mr. DYMALLY. Representative, you mentioned registered voters,

does the Supreme Court one man-one vote not talk about population?

Mr. MARTIN. NO, sir, not really, except in the sense that the legislation of 1965, the Civil Rights Act, does direct the Census Bureau
to establish tracts to comply to that•called the block balancing

census tract•to allow legislative districts to be drawn as easily as

possible so local boards won't

Mr. DYMALLY. But the Census Bureau tracts are based on population, not registered voters.

Mr. MARTIN. Right, but they should be compatible, because one

person-one vote. People in the rural areas don't have any more

children than the people in the urban areas. In this state, Mr.

Councilman, we cannot do it by the census tracts or district population. The system is so bad there is just nothing to go by, that is

why I am very hopeful with your 1990 block balancing. We, for

once in Alaska, will have no excuse at the Census Department to

show how bad

Mr. DYMALLY. YOU anticipate in 1990 you will be doing it by

census tracts?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. DYMALLY. And you will be doing it by population?

Mr. MARTIN. At the same time, right, this is what we hope for.

Right now, the best we can do now is show you how the balance is

done.

Mr. DYMALLY. Fine.

Mr. MARTIN. Certainly the population is not balanced. The next

chart is the history of reapportionment. So you see, it has been a

sequence of things that in certain areas of the state in 1980, 1982,

and 1986, it just continues to exacerbate itself on the malapportionment because we did not have a proper census in the first place

because the reapportionment board, both under the Republican

and Democrat, can use it as an excuse that we are guessing when

we are taking numbers from one area and put in in the other.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Representative Martin?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. SIKORSKI. I was just going to ask, if you took the actual population figures, would they be as erratic as those?

Mr. MARTIN. The given figures that you have in your books show

a 15.4 percent disparity. Now, that is even with the testimony that

you gave that we don t know, but even if we go by what we did

know, it is 15.4.

Mr. DYMALLY. What criteria did the reapportionment board use

to carve this district?

Mr. MARTIN. In the detailed big book we did 175 pages. I know

you have a sense of humor, and you will probably laugh at a few

sentences that are said there of why we need to protect this area or

why this is so, it is not necessarily always done on the census, but

they use the census as a scapegoat is why. Keeping a sense of

humor, you will see why one area is protected and one area was

undermined or undercounted.

Mr. DYMALLY. I did reapportionment in California in 1971. One

member of the Senate wanted his treasurer in the district, but he

didn't want his mother-in-law in the district.

Mr. MARTIN. We don't have a case like that.

Mr. Chairman, when we get to the Senate district, those numbers in black is one of 1,000, but these numbers in black is one of

5,000. You would think for an area like Alaska, we are the largest

state, but we have 400,000 population in 1980. 400,000, we have the
smallest House of Representatives, 40, so you figure 10,000, it

worked out to be 9,200. It shouldn't be hard at all, the districts, but

we make it fun when you read the books.

So here you have one Senate district with 35,000 registered

voters, here you have a couple Senate districts with 10,000 and

11,000.

Mr. DYMALLY. HOW many members are in your Senate?

Mr. MARTIN. Twenty.

Mr. DYMALLY. And 40 members are in the House?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. So you see, if we keep objective and keep to

the simple fact on one person-one vote, Alaska should have the

easiest problem of all.

Then the final thing in the Supreme Court case right now, we

call it the doughnut district. I know in California you have your

cases, and you have some

Mr. DYMALLY. We call it the snake district.

Mr. MARTIN. We had the ice worm district, and the ice worm was

thrown out so we invented the doughnut district. This is the district with two Senate seats, where the people are really up in arms,

completely circling Anchorage. And we have details in the book explaining what happened and a lot of newspaper articles that show

you that the people are really up in arms.

Mr. DYMALLY. What is the rationale that they gave you for that

one?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, there are all kinds of rationale. Some say•

the socioeconomics is what they traditionally use, so that the

people from north Kenai, which is down about 60 miles, they

happen to receive radio stations, they receive newspapers from Anchorage, and they can get our TV stations. They didn't say anything about socioeconomic-wise. They have all their kids going to

Kenai, they do all the shopping, they go to the church in Kenai. So

that is how they put one part of the Kenai area, put it into the

Anchorage area, and then put those two areas into the Matanuska

Valley area, so they completely circumvent Anchorage and put two

seats

Mr. DYMALLY. I have seen some beautiful districts; this one deserves a prize.

Mr. MARTIN. When you get into more detail in that thick book,

you will see some funny things in there, and comments are more

important from the people.

Both areas, Kenai and Mat-su, were absolutely opposed to it, although they said they would be benefiting and those areas would

not benefit. The Kenai has had a lawsuit in our Supreme Court for

three and a half years and still no word, and I personally don't

have•I have complete faith because I have worked with the people

in the Census Bureau, and the 1990 census may at last help Alaska

get on the right track.

Mr. DYMALLY. What is the Department of Justice's position on

these districts?

Mr. MARTIN. NO one knows. They have had their last hearing,

sir, closing hearings in December of last year, they have had it for

nine months and not a peep out of them.
6

Mr. SIKORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On that, I know there

is a traditional antagonism toward federal government, probably

anywhere in the country, but why not federal court?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, since you brought that up, the people from

Metlakatla, the only Indian reservation that we do have in the

state, did bring up the issue that they were being disenfranchised

from their home community, Ketchikan, and that would have

made an Indian reservation we got from Canada be history. But

they are just south of Ketchikan, just across the bay. They shop,

they do school, they do everything in Ketchikan, and they gerrymandered that village out up into another ice worm district until

their representative is now 500 miles north of them. So they have a

right to gripe.

The irony is, if you want to get into a little bit of history, they

were trying to save a democratic seat by taking those native people

out of Ketchikan, a Republican won by 39 votes. So the irony of it

all is, it just escapes me, but they can, the Justice Department

Mr. SIKORSKI. Anyone has standing on these matters in federal

court. Why spend time in state court when it is going to be bumped

up to federal court anyway when someone doesn't like the final

outcome?

Mr. MARTIN. I think I was told, from my limited knowledge, that

you have to try through your state court in the first place.

Mr. SIKORSKI. I am a product of federal court reapportionment•

both in the state legislature and the congressional district in Minnesota•by a three-judge federal panel, so there was no state suit.

And of course, the lawyer was well-versed in reapportionment law,

and that was it.

Mr. DYMALLY. Can I add New Jersey to that also.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Yes. Most of the cases are

Mr. MARTIN. The Metlakatla people had a lawyer, Mr. Jim Wise,

who talked to me a few times from Portland, he evidently had been

involved in civil rights legislation before. And because of the calls

and because of, we also explained here, the pressure on those

people by government offices, they withdrew the case. I called the

person at the Justice Department and told them this is just a

shame that you won't pursue that case and all because they were

absolutely right. And we would have less disparity in numbers,

that is another irony, is 15.4 percent now, but had they let village

people be as before in Ketchikan, it would be down to 12 percent;

that is another irony. The main thing is we think that whole

system has failed in the state of Alaska, and if all the alternatives

have been tried, what do we have left of democracy? And it is a

clean case, absolutely, those people were disenfranchised from their

own labors since•for a hundred years.

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Furnace, please proceed.

Mr. FURNACE. Mr. Chairman, in the deference of time, we do appreciate you giving us the additional time. Representative Martin

has been actively pursuing reapportionment concern for quite some

time, and that is why I was very pleased to have him join us today

to outline and share with you the historical document he collected.

Mr. DYMALLY. Your document says reapportionment board. Tell

me, what is reapportionment board?
Mr. MARTIN. We have what we call a modern and a model for

reapportionment in the nation. All five of our reapportionments

have gone to the state supreme court and all have been successfully contested and changed. So it is made by the governor appointing

five or six people.

Mr. DYMALLY. Well, you have made a good case for the California

legislature, which has been fighting an initiative to meet the reapportionment under an independent commission. This is a classical

example why we don't want the good citizens involved in reapportionment. It needs to stay in the hands of the legislature because

they have certainly done a better job than they did here in Alaska.

Mr. MARTIN. I think so. If I had my choice now, in reviewing the

history in other states, I would trust the legislature, because this

system, although it sounds good in our constitution, it has absolutely failed to protect the people.

Mr. DYMALLY. Don't be surprised if your arguments turn up in

California.

Mr. MARTIN. I will be glad to give testimony.

Mr. FURNACE. Mr. Chairman, for the record, we do have additional documents of the large document coming.

Mr. DYMALLY. Your written testimony will be made part of the

record.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, one final note, if I may, we would

formally like to ask that we be requested to participate in part two

of the block balancing. I was told that we should do that, because

since we are so behind by 30 years on block balancing, that if we

can request from your committee to see that the Census Bureau requests that we, and we will make sure the governor follows

through the legislature

Mr. DYMALLY. I don't want to put him on the spot, but the Director is here, and I would like him to give you a five-minute meeting.

I am not going to point out to him because I don't want you to

shoot him right now. Have a meeting with Dr. Keane later, to talk

about this whole question of block balancing; not reapportionment,

I don't want him to draw my districts.

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you very much.

Mr. DYMALLY. It was very good testimony and I want to commend you for the preparation you put into this.

Mr. MARTIN. Thanks to his staff and his help.

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Sikorski.

Mr. SIKORSKI. The undercount•and I assume you agree with the

numbers that the chairman just mentioned or think they are

worse•has negative impact on allocations for a host of programs.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, and overcounting. You also see another problem here that we feel that this Census Bureau needs to do, because

in some communities we have what is called double-counting the

counting of local population. We have had a large transit working

force back and forth up on the North Slope. We hope to get an

answer from the Census Bureau as to how they were to accept the

double-counting in one community and undercounting in another.

Neither have anything to do with Anchorage, so we feel safe bringing that problem up.
8

Mr. SIKORSKI. Have you had a chance to look at the proposals by

the Office of Management and Budget in terms of dropping questions from the questionnaire?

Mr. MARTIN. NO, sir. I briefly heard about that in Indianapolis

when I attended the national reapportionment meeting, but I

haven't seen the details.

Mr. DYMALLY. DO you have any suggestions as to how the census

can improve their count in 1990?

Mr. MARTIN. I think the most important thing, sir, is establish

clear and defined block balancing census tracts. This is the first

time it is being done for Alaska; of course, it is done in the urban

areas, but for the whole state.

Mr. FURNACE. One of the recommendations in the report, Mr.

Chairman, is that the count in Alaska should be taken, I believe, in

the months of March, April, May, I believe.

Mr. MARTIN. Oh, yes.

Mr. FURNACE. February, March, April, primarily as an attempt

to miss those seasonal workers. We had documented some 70,000

seasonal workers in the state at one particular time, particularly

later in the year. So the timing of taking the census tracking in

Alaska can be very critical.

Mr. DYMALLY. What would you recommend?

Mr. FURNACE. Again, February, March, and April to have it done

before the seasonal workers.

We would also address the possible problems with counting of

military. It is our understanding that those military personnel,

particularly the ones on base, that are assigned overseas may not

be counted, although they are assigned to the Alaskan bases, and

that is another question that can have a major impact, particularly

on elections.

Mr. DYMALLY. NOW, one of the things you may want to talk to

Dr. Keane about is whether there are any representatives from

Alaska in any one of the four or five advisory committees.

Mr. SIKORSKI. May I ask a question? Representative Furnace, just

on this issue of servicemen and women based here but assigned

overseas, where do they vote? Do they vote here?

Mr. FURNACE. Yes.

Mr. SIKORSKI. DO they vote for your members of congress?

Mr. MARTIN. City, state.

Mr. SIKORSKI. And your state legislature, your state•but they

may not show up in the census count?

Mr. FURNACE. Because they are not physically in the state.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Not physically in the state. But this is their residence.

Mr. FURNACE. Right. But you see, it is our understanding, in the

census count, we stand to be corrected, the census takers will count

those persons who are physically in a particular residence. If that

person is not there physically, the chances are they are not counted.

It is also our understanding that there may be instances where

the commander of a particular facility will simply give a number

as opposed to having perhaps a more detailed count. So those questions, I think, need to be addressed.
9

Mr. DYMALLY. We'll ask Dr. Keane about that. You are suggesting that if someone was stationed and living here and was transferred to Korea, he doesn't get counted?

Mr. FURNACE. That is a possibility. We had a very heated Senate

race this last time, and I believe the military population played a

very important role in settling that race, particularly with the absentee ballots.

Mr. MARTIN. YOU see, they are entitled to all the things as Alaskan citizens. As I understand it, they aren't counted for census purposes. We felt•you know, the Constitution says, "We the people of

the United States", not where you are at. If they are not counted

for a decade, they are not going to be out of the country for ten

years. Most of our servicemen rotate and they have family here.

This was a major point brought up at the Indianapolis meeting for

malapportionment in many of the states. That is what made us

look into the Alaskan situation and how we counted. Most of them

aren't accounted for.

Mr. DYMALLY. Well, I want a copy of your doughnut district. I

want to take it to California. When someone starts beating up on

the legislature about having an independent commission, I want to

mail them a copy of the doughnut district to show how very impartial citizens groups are.

Mr. MARTIN. That is the only color copy I have.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you very much. Can you stick around for

awhile?

Mr. NOBLE. Yes.

[The complete statement of Mr. Furnace and Mr. Martin follows:]
10

PREPARED STATEMENT OF

REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN

AND

REPRESENTATIVE WALT FURNACE

To Chairman Dymally, and members of the Subcommittee on Census

and Population, for the record, I am Alaska State Representative

Walt Furnace and my colleague sharing the presentation with me

this morning is Alaska State Representative Terry Martin.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the hearings this

morning and have prepared for the committee consideration a

formal presentation to be read into the records, a separate

packet of information consisting of a collection of information

pertaining to Alaska efforts over time in attempting to establish

an equitable reapportionment program for the state.

Additionally, we have prepared a series of charts designed to

graphically depict the the status Alaska's reapportionments

efforts over time.
11

Alaska, although a young state•less than 30 years old•has

a traumatic history of reapportionment. All five times the state

has been reapportioned, the plans have been successfully

challenged in the State's Supreme Court and changed. One would

think a state with the smallest population in the Union (400,000

in the 1980 census) and with the smallest House of

Representatives of any state, (40 members) , it would be easy to

divide 40 into the census figure and come up with equal election

districts.

Alaska must be the most ma1-apportioned state in the nation.

Our system of reapportionment, although considered by some

"modern and a model for other states to emulate", has proven to

be a disaster in upholding the U.S. Supreme Court principle of

"one person-one vote". The charts we have before you and in your

packets show the unacceptable disparity by registered voters.

Alaska has a very high rate of registered voters due to our

Permanent Fund Dividend program, which is used to verify

residency. Thus, percentage wise, the disparity of equality

between election districts can be acceptable whether using a

population count or registered voters with the former being

weaker due to out-dated census tracks.

We take this opportunity to thank you, Congressman Dymally,

and members of the Subcommittee for coming to Alaska and seeking

input on future census taking in Alaska and offering suggestions

to enable the Bureau of Census' work to be more useful for our
12

state and its system. I would also give thanks and public

acknowledgment to Mr. Marshall Turner for his personal help to me

in directing our state to formally request participation in phase

one of the "Block Balancing Census Tracking for 1990". Without

his guidance four years ago, I know Alaska would have missed

another decade of drawing meaningful census tracks to establish

new criteria for election district boundaries. This will be the

biggest step yet this state has taken to insure equal

representation for future elections. At this time, we would also

request that the State of Alaska be notified to participate in

Phase 2 of the Block Balancing Census Track . Alaska has never

had block census tracking for our rural regions. Also, updating

the urban areas will insure the most accurate count possible and

provide proper information for the next reapportionment board.

We also request that Alaska be put on an early priority

production schedule to receive the new maps for local review and

comments. This would prevent future criticism of the Census

Bureau and the Bureau being the goat for mal-apportionment.

We request that the Anchorage office for the 1990 census be

opened earlier than was the case in 1980, to provide time to find

qualified people and allow for proper training. This was a

major barrier in the past and it took six months to accomplish

what should have been done in two months. It is preferred that

the actual counting be done in February, March and April. To

conduct the count later in the calendar year would alter a true
13

Alaskan count due to the influx of seasonal workers. It was

estimated in 1984 that Alaska had 77,000 out-of-state workers,

mostly in the seafood, timber, mineral and tourist industries.

ALASKA'S MILITARY PROBLEM

The preamble of the Constitution says "We the people of the

United States". This is important to emphasize because military

people in Alaska living on and off base may not be fully counted

in the census. It is our understanding that the Census Bureau

does not count military personnel who are temporarily out of the

country in the state's census count. This practice

disinfranchises Americans solely because of one occupation, from

the very basic right of being counted as a citizen. In Alaska

this problem is compounded. We feel census blocks should be

established on the military bases. History of Alaska shows

substantial over counting on small bases and under counting on

larger military facilities. Rather than counting military as one

block using numbers provided by base commanders, they should be

treated equally and tracked the same as civilian communities.

An accurate count of those living on base who are Alaskan

residents should be taken because of the high esteem and equal

treatment Alaska afforded these citizens. A much higher

percentage of military personnel in Alaska, when compared to

military establishments in the other 49 states, claim state

residency. This is due to our generous program offered to

80-959 0-88-2
14

military citizens such as participation in the Permanent Fund

Dividend program, military preference in state and local hire, no

state income tax, special mortgage programs for military, hunting

and fishing privileges, etc. When the military are not properly

counted as Alaska citizens, it adversely affects proper

apportionment for election districts.

The problems experienced in other states pertaining to

counting of illegal aliens do not seem to be a factor of over

or under counting in Alaska.

We would request that the U.S. Bureau of Census verify that

each local government is following established standards for

annual reports. As a legislator, our experience has been that

our own agencies responsible for collecting census information

question each others methods of compile data, and that each

agency is subject to come up with completely different results.

For example, double counting in the North Slope Borough is a real

sore spot for other local governments. We need the Bureau to reevaluate acceptable standards so that citizens are not counted

twice, while working in one community and living in another.

Over counting in one community means under counting in another

community. Additionally, Alaska has a large transient work force

and this should be evaluated.
15

New boroughs and extended local government boundaries have

been established since the last census blocking. It is our hope

that state and local officials have cooperated with the Federal

census agencies by providing proper maps of boundaries. We have

other acceptable local or regional guasi-government identities

such as rural education areas, school districts and community

council boundaries that should be considered when establishing

election block balancing census tracks.

In the future, new census block tracks that the U.S. Census

Bureau is doing for Alaska should enable our next state

reapportionment board to draw up precinct and district boundaries

that would encourage single member districts with easy counting

of population blocks. Current census blocks are over 24 years

old and have little resemblance to current population areas.

This encourages reapportionment boards to fudge on true

population counts on their proposed political redistricting. We

want to work with the Census Bureau to insure the spirit of fair

and equitable counting so that redistricting can be done to

enhance equal representation within the state.

Throughout the history of apportionment, the majority of

testimony given to reapportionment board hearings was in support

of single member districts for state and local elections. The

1981 reapportionment board made major strides toward this goal,

but it needs to be completed. The 1983 reapportionment board

constantly expressed a preference for single member districts,

but as previous boards found adequate excuses or rationale why a
16

particular multi member district should not be divided into a

single member district.

We are aware that the whole State of Alaska is under the

Civil Rights Act of 1965. However, it has not benefited the

majority of the citizens when considering fair and/or equal

representation. "WHEN THE WHOLE SYSTEM FAILS TO PROTECT THE

PEOPLE'S RIGHTS•WHAT IS LEFT OF DEMOCRACY".

Our State Supreme Court has recommended and forwarded to the

State Legislature, necessary changes in our Constitution and

Statutes to insure compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court

decision of one person-one vote. The Legislature has virtually

ignored these recommendations.

Legislation has been introduced to have our Constitution

amended to conform with the Civil Rights Act of 1965, but a

majority of Alaska legislators have refused to pass an initiative

to be placed on the ballot for voter approval. In 1984, the exgovernor of Alaska recommended waiting until after the Supreme

Court acted on current cases, some three years later, there has

been no action from the court. "If the system fails and all

alternatives have been tried, stopped or blocked, what do we

have?"
17

In your thick packet of backup information, you will find

newspaper articles, legal documents, graphs and charts

illuminating the mass confusion of the 1984 reapportionment. One

must keep a sense of humor when reading this material that

rationalizes action taken to circumvent the basic right of equal

representation and establishes the unbelievable doughnut

district.

Currently, the 1984 plan is before the State Supreme Court.

The case has been in court for three and half years. It has been

nine months since closing arguments and still no decision.

The 1984 plan was contested by the Metlakatla Indians under

the Civil Rights Act to the U.S. Justice Department. It didn't

take them long to realize how costly it is for a citizen or group

of minorities to defend their voting rights. Obstinately, they

withdrew their case because they did not have the finances to

pursue the case. You must become aware, in Alaska the average

citizen is not protected by our Attorney General's office. It

has become quite clear over the years that the major purpose of

the Department of Law and the appointed Attorney General is to

protect the Governor and his Admministration. In this case it is

widely speculated that considerable pressure was exerted on the

leaders of the Metlakatla Indians to withdraw their complaint

from the office of the Governor as well as the Attorney General's

office. The issues raised by the Metlakatla Indians are still

very valid and many feel that the U.S. Justice Department should
18

have pursued the case knowing how this Indian tribe was being

harassed in addition to their concern of the projected high cost

of litigation to continue their claim.

It seems as though even the U.S. Justice Department

succumbed to the pressures of our Governor's Administration,

legal officials and the office of the Lieutenant Governor. It is

amazing that the Department of Justice did not support the Alaska

Superior Court ruling, that the 1984 plan went too far, rather

than the Governor's personally appointed apportionment board.

From the afore mentioned packet of materials you can

evaluate the tremendous controversy the 1984 plan developed.

Even in defiance of a federal court ruling in Washington, D.C. on

April 28, 1984, that the states cannot require candidates to file

for election under a new redistricting plan until the plan has

been approved by the Justice Department. Much to our dismay, the

Lt. Governor's office (in charge of elections) forced candidates

to file under an unapproved plan. We believe it was very

negligent of the Justice Department to give weak approval for the

1984 plan, especially in light of the tremendous controversy.

The people of Alaska have suffered under two elections of

the 1984 plan and is about to suffer a third. It has not

benefited the public at large to be under the protection of the

1965 Civil Rights Act.
19

The cost to the citizens, both public and private in

contesting the 1984 reapportionment is well above $500,000, with

no end in sight. Many have given up, with hope that the new 1990

census with fair election block boundary tracks may be

established. However, even today, one local government, the

Matanuska-Susitna Borough, has passed a resolution to go directly

to the U.S. Justice Department under the Civil Rights Act to seek

justice in fair representation for the remainder of this decade.

They do not want three more elections under the very bad

apportionment plan of 1984.

In conclusion, we plead to you that Alaska be given special

consideration in establishing a "super" accurate census account

and block boundaries that can be the basis in which future

reapportionment boards will have little excuse in developing malapportioned districts and fulfill the intent of the 1965 Civil

Rights Act.
20

Mr. DYMALLY. Dr. Keane, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. KEANE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE

CENSUS

Mr. KEANE. Thank you. First of all, I would like to identify Leo

Schilling to my left, the director of our Seattle regional office, and

of course it is that office that has the responsibility for enumerating Alaska. Leo and his staff have worked closely with Alaska officials on planning the 1990 census here.

He, myself, and our Census Bureau colleagues wish to commend

you and your committee on holding this hearing on the 1990 census

in Alaska, but also holding it early, holding it now in 1987 rather

than late, when attention might normally expect to be focused; and

finally, holding it here on these premises, because one gets a better

feel by doing that.

I begin with a historical observation. This year marks the 120th

anniversary of the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867. Secretary of State, William Seward, who saw that Alaska would play an

important role in America's future, was the architect of that bargain. And critics who knew nothing about Alaska's potential shortsightedly referred to the purchase as Seward's Folly or Seward's

Icebox, and other terms, too, I understand. We need only look

around in this enviable city of Anchorage to know that history has

proven Seward right and its critics wrong.

In 1980 in this glorious state of Alaska we counted just over

400,000 people, 13 times more than when the first census in Alaska

was taken, in 1880. Now we estimate the population at about

534,000. Since 1980, Alaska has passed Wyoming in population.

As with you, Mr. Chairman, my personal interest in the 1990

census of Alaska brings me here. I shall therefore discuss four

topics of the 1990 census plans here: Planning itself, the procedures, Alaska natives, and local participation in the census, in that

order.

First, planning: Alaska and the Census Bureau have worked

closely together to devise plans for conducting the best census possible in Alaska in 1990.

We have benefited from the knowledge and hard work of several

Alaskans dedicated to a good census: Dr. Jack Kruse of the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research; Dr.

Greg Williams of the Alaska State Data Center; Ms. Rosita Worl of

the governor's office; and Mr. Carl Jack of Anchorage, in the room

behind me, who is a member of our Census Advisory Committee on

the American Indian and Alaska Native population. This advisory

committee, which meets twice yearly, is an important source of

advice on our plans for enumerating Alaska Natives and American

Indians.

In March of this year we sent our proposal for enumerating

Alaska in 1990 to Dr. Kruse, Dr. Williams, Ms. Worl, and Mr. Jack

for review and comments. Now, that's of course three years in advance of the census itself. We also sent the proposal to the nonprofit Alaska Native regional corporations. Mr. Schilling and Mr. Jack

met with the Alaska Federation of Natives to discuss the plan. In

general, the reviewers supported our proposal for enumerating
21

Alaska in 1990. They had suggestions for specific procedures, and

we continue to discuss some of the details with them.

Now I will turn to some of the specifics in our proposed procedures. In my written submission I discussed our proposed procedures regarding timing, data collection procedures, personnel, and

special places. In the interest of time, I will briefly touch on personnel because we had some problems hiring sufficient numbers of

qualified workers in Alaska in 1980.

We are planning a broad-based, open recruitment system to get

the large number of qualified workers we will need at all levels in

1990. One important goal is to have census workers indigenous to

the areas in which they will be working. Even though that makes

our recruitment job more difficult, it is the best approach. For

Alaska, observers strongly recommended that we should place experienced Census Bureau employees in the key managerial positions. We agree and will make every effort to insure that that is

done.

We plan to pay census workers an hourly rate, rather than use a

piece rate, as was the case in 1980. Some observers believe that a

piece-rate system contributed to low wages in Alaska in 1980,

which in turn led to difficulty in attracting and retaining workers.

In Alaska, we plan to adjust the hourly rates to reflect the cost of

living differential for the state in the neighborhood of 25 percent.

In addition, we are considering a number of supplemental payment

plans to encourage workers to complete training, take an assignment, and meet production levels.

The third part of my testimony concerns Alaska natives. We

have introduced a new program for the 1990 census called the

tribal and village liaison program. This program is designed to improve the participation of Alaska Natives and American Indians in

the 1990 census by increasing their awareness of the census and of

its importance. To achieve this and other objectives, we have asked

each tribe, and soon we will be asking each Alaska Native village,

to designate a liaison to serve as the primary contact with the

Census Bureau on the 1990 census. The liaisons will carry out

many important functions that will help to achieve the best census

possible for their village or tribe.

Finally, local participation in the census. To make the census

successful, we are establishing joint efforts between the Census

Bureau and local tribal and village governments and community

organizations. One of these joint efforts is the local review program, which I have described in my written submitted testimony.

Here I will discuss the efforts for promoting the census.

A good promotion campaign is essential to building and maintaining public support for the census. Efforts made at the local and

grass-roots level can make an important difference. We will have

several efforts designed to create local census promotion messages

and projects. I will briefly describe just a few. Perhaps people attending this hearing, and I do mean this, can suggest ways to make

these efforts successful in Alaska; after all, that is why most in this

room are here.

For example, we will ask local religious organizations to encourage their members to participate in the census. We are developing

a school project geared toward making students aware of the histo-
22

ry and importance of the census and how to use census data. That

project is well along. It is an evolutionary one; it is not starting

from scratch. We have done one in the past in 1980 and we have

done 1986 and 1987 versions, so that is coming along very, very

well.

Beyond that, we will ask the highest elected officials in most jurisdictions in Alaska to set up committees of local leaders to generate publicity about the census. These committees can help their localities achieve a complete count. We shall work closely with community organizations, with tribes, and with Alaska Native villages

to build support for the census. These are but some of the efforts

we are planning for localizing publicity. In addition, we are seeking

the advice of state, local, and Alaska Native leaders in Alaska on

other effective ways to promote the census here.

So, Mr. Chairman, this concludes my brief report on the plans

for the 1990 enumeration of Alaska. We appreciate your committee's continued strong interest in the course of the 1990 census. We

especially welcome opportunities such as this to review our plans

at the state and local levels.

I might say, also, that in June, 1985 I spent about a week in

Alaska meeting with a variety of government and other officials

here in Anchorage and in Juneau, including a meeting with the

lieutenant governor, and I am pleased to come back for a return

visit. In fact, I plan to spend the rest of this week going to additional areas in Alaska; tomorrow to Fairbanks, to Fort Yukon, to

Bethel later on, which will mean over the past two years, I will

have spent about three weeks here in five areas of the state and

talked to upwards of 30 to 40 people.

So I hope that shows you, by demonstration beyond words, of my

concern as the director of the Census Bureau for doing a better job

here. This will give me a firsthand understanding of the task

before us here in doing a superior job for the 1990 census.

Thanks for convening this hearing. I know it reflects yours and

my shared interest on this.

[The complete statement of Dr. Keane follows:]
23

DR. JOHN G. KEANE

DIRECTOR. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Mr. Cha1 rm*n, It 1s a pleasure to be here today to discuss plans for

conducting the 1990 census In Alaska.

I will briefly discuss four topics: (1) the process for planning the

census 1n Alaska, (2) the procedures we plan to use to take the census in

Alaska, (3) Issues related to Alaska Natives, and (4) our joint efforts

with local, tribal, and village governments and community organizations.

PLANNING

First, I will discuss the process for planning the 1990 census of Alaska.

The first step In planning for 1990 was to evaluate the experiences 1n

the 1980 census. Census Bureau staff who worked on the Alaska census

submitted observations on the successes and problems 1n the enumeration.

He also benefUted from the excellent report prepared by Dr. John A.

Kruse and Dr. Robert Travis of the University of Alaska's Institute of

Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Office of the Governor

and released in October 1981 , this report was a technical review based on

Interviews with census workers. It detailed many of the problems experienced

In the 1980 census of Alaska and made recommendations for 1990. We also

held numerous discussions with Alaska Native leaders and others involved

In the 1980 census of Alaska. Together, these observations, reports and

discussions (which were in agreement in many particulars) formed a solid

basis for 1990 planning.
24

2

In July 1984, the Assistant Director for the Decennial Census and other

Census Bureau staff participated in a roundtable discussion In Juneau to

discuss plans for the 1990 census. In June 1985, we held local public

Meetings in Juneau and Anchorage. The roundtable and the local public

meetings were another opportunity for Alaskans to review the 1980 census

and to comment on our preliminary plans for 1990.

He also have two additional Important channels for gathering advice on

Issues related to counting Alaska Natives In the 1990 census. The first

Is the Census Advisory Committee on the American Indian and Alaska Native

populations. The committee held Its first meeting 1n the spring of 1986

and will hold Its fourth meeting this October. Mr. Carl T. Jack, an

Alaska Native from Anchorage, 1s a member of the committee. The committee

Is an Important vehicle for discussing 1990 enumeration plans. The

second channel Is our series of 12 regional meetings with American Indians

and Alaska Natives. In June 1985, we conducted a meeting in Anchorage to

discuss general plans and objectives for the census, population and

housing subjects, data products, geographic Issues, and outreach. These

discussions provided important information for 1990 planning. Tribal and

village officials offered suggestions and recommendations about our plans

and informed us about other concerns we should address. Beginning next

year, we plan to conduct a second round of meetings to describe more

definitive plans for enumerating American Indians and Alaska Natives and

to gather momentum for support 1n our 1990 promotion efforts. We have

not yet set the exact dates or locations for the second round of meetings.
25

3

In September, 1986, we held an Internal Census Bureau conference on the

enumeration of Alaska to review all of the Information, suggestions, and

comments coning out of the various Meetings held up to that time. At that

conference, we developed a comprehensive proposal for enumerating Alaska

in 1990. I will describe some features of the proposal • little

later. In March 1987, we sent this proposal to several experts In Alaska

for review, Including Dr. Kruse, Mr. Jack, Dr. Greg Williams of the

Alaska State Data Center, and Ms. Roslta Worl of the Governor's Office.

We also sent copies of the proposal to the nonprofit Alaska Native Regional

Corporations. In June of this year, Mr. Leo Schilling, Director of our

Seattle Regional office, and Mr. Jack net with the Alaska Federation of

Natives to discuss the plan. In general, the reviewers supported the

proposal for enumerating Alaska in 1990. They had suggestions for specific

procedures and we continue to discuss some of the details with them.

We have also worked closely with the State to plan for redistrlctlng data.

One of the two legal requirements for the decennial census Is to provide the

governor and the legislature of each state with snail-area counts of the

population for legislative redistrlctlng. Our staff act with state officials

in Juneau In February of 1985. Alaska is one of 38 states that are

participating In the 1990 Census Redistrlctlng Data Program. We appreciate

the efforts of Dr. Greg Williams and his staff in that regard.

Finally, I will Mention that In addition to these Meetings, there have

been nuaerous contacts and conversations and a close working relationship

, between Regional Director Schilling and his staff and officials in Alaska.
26

4

This close working relationship 1s essential because the enumeration In

Alaska 1n 1990 will be under the direct supervision of our Seattle office.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would observe that we have established a relationship with the state of Alaska with « strong level of Joint participation

between the State and the Census Bureau. Working together we can devise

plans for conducting the best census possible in Alaska 1n 1990.

PROCEDURES

Now, Mr. Chairman I will turn to my second top1c~the procedures we plan

to use 1n the 1990 census. I will discuss our proposed procedures 1n

four areas•timing, data collection methodology, personnel, and special

pi aces.

Timing

First, timing. Historically we have begun the enumeration 1n the remote

areas of Alaska earlier than elsewhere 1n the State or the rest of the

country. For example, 1n the 1960, 1970, and 1980 censuses we began the

enumeration 1n remote northern and western Alaska 1n January and began

the enumeration for the rest of the State and Nation about April 1. The

primary reason for the early enumeration 1n remote areas was to avoid the

spring breakup when travel conditions are poor.

Reviewers of our 1980 census procedures noted that the early enumeration

makes the interpretation of census data difficult and Increases the

probability that population movements between the early and later

enumeration regions would reduce the accuracy of population counts.
27

s

We recognize this problem and are trying to solve ft. He still believe

1t 1s necessary to start the enumeration In remote areas early 1n order

to complete It accurately and In a timely fashion. However, we do plan -

v

to start later than 1n 1980, probably late February or early March. April 1

will be Census Day for the entire State. This should reduce the data

Interpretation problems experienced in 1980.

Data Collection Methodology

Second, data collection methodology. In 1980, we used door-to-door methods

(also called "conventional" or "list/enumerate") for the entire state. For

1990, we propose to use both mall-out/mall-back and door-to-door methods.

We will select enumeration methodologies appropriate to each area of the

State.

For the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas we plan to use mall out/mall back

procedures, which we use to enumerate most of the population 1n the

country. Basically, we use these procedures 1n areas where the density

of population and mall-delivery systems allows us to develop a good mailing

list of addresses before the census. We will compile an address 11st

prior to Census Day, mall questionnaires to each household on the 11st,

and ask householders to mall back the questionnaires to the local district

office. Enumerators will visit those households for which a questionnaire

is not returned. The ma11-out/ma1l-back procedures for the Anchorage and

Fairbanks areas will be the same as those used 1n the other areas of the

country.
28

6

For the rest of the State, we plan to use door-to-door enumeration procedures.

Hall carriers will deliver unaddressed questionnaires to each housing unit

on their routes. We will ask householders to complete the questionnaire and

hold 1t for an enumerator to pick up. The enumerator will compile in address

11st as he/she visits households to pick up or complete a questionnaire. We

may modify procedures, as necessary, to meet the special needs and conditions

of the remote areas.

Personnel

Third, personnel. In 1980, we used a political referral system In Alaska

and elsewhere 1n the Nation. In 1990, we are planning a broad-based,

open recruitment system to get the large number of qualified workers we

will need at all levels. One important goal Is to have census workers

Indigenous to the area In which they will be working. While we have no

plans to use a political referral system, referrals from political officials

will be considered along with candidates from all other sources.

For Alaska, observers strongly recommended that we should place experienced

Census Bureau employees In the district office manager and selected other key

positions. We agree and will make nery effort to ensure that the district

manager and the field operations supervisors will be experienced Census

Bureau employees. We will contact a wide range of possible employment

sources to get candidates for other positions. In Alaska, the State

Teachers Association, Alaska Native villages, and Alaska Native Regional

Corporations will be among those contacted.
29

7

Another Issue of concern to observers of the Alaska enumeration In 1980

was the use of a piece-rate system for certain operations, such as followup. We used a piece-rate system nationwide 1n 1980. Under the piece-rate

system, enumerators were paid a specified amount for completion of a shortform questionnaire, a long-form questionnaire, and so on. The piece rates

were established at a level to encourage enumerators to complete a certain

number of cases per day In order to reach a targeted hourly rate. In

some cases, enumerators had difficulty meeting the target If people were

not at home, there were long distances between housing units, or there

were other factors that made the enumeration difficult. Some observers

believed that the piece-rate system contributed to low wages 1n Alaska,

which led to difficulty In attracting and retaining workers.

For 1990, we will pay census workers an hourly rate, rather than use

piece rates. Of course, 1n Alaska, the hourly rates will be adjusted

to reflect the cost-of-l1v1ng differential for the state. In addition to

the hourly pay, we are considering a number of supplemental payment plans

to encourage workers to complete training, take an assignment, and meet

production levels. We believe that this system of hourly and supplemental

pay will help us to attract and retain workers for the 1990 enumeration 1n

Alaska and nationwide. Our test census results have shown this pay plan

to be >t*r^ successful.

Special Places

Fourth, enumeration of special places. Special places are places that

contain group quarters, such as college dormitories, military barracks,

nursing homes, and the like. Because of Its unique and diversified economy,

80-959 0-88-3
30

8

Alaska contains special places that pose new challenges. In 1980, we

were not particularly well prepared to locate and enumerate persons staying

at such special places as logging camps, floating canneries and freezer

ships, and oil camps (remote energy enclaves, pipeline maintenance stations,

and so on). All of these places are Inhabited by workers who live there

for an extensive time during the work season.

For 1990, we will use national directories obtained from Federal agencies

and national organizations to compile an address list for special

places. Also, we plan to contact the Alaska Loggers Association, the Alaska

Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,

and the major oil companies to obtain additional addresses to supplement

our 11st. He plan to use crew leaders, who are supervisory level personnel.

Instead of enumerators, to enumerate special places in the remote areas.

Persons 1n the logging camps, floating canneries and freezer ships, and

oil camps will be allowed to report a usual residence elsewhere. This

way, they can be credited to the counts for the place they consider to be

their home. If they wish. If they do not report a usual residence elsewhere,

they would be counted where they are at the time of enumeration; those on

floating canneries and freezer ships would be counted at their homeport.

ALASKA NATIVES

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will discuss our plans for enumerating Alaska Natives

1n the 1990 census.

Persons will be Identified as Alaska Natives by their responses to • question

on race. As In 1980, we plan to Include a race question on the questionnaires.
31

9

This question will have among the listed categories "Indian (Amer.),"

"Eskimo," and "Aleut." Persons who report as Indians will be asked to

give the name of their enrolled or principal tribe. We are testing

further refinements of the race question this year. In addition, we plan

to conduct two focus group Interview sessions with Alaska Natives this

fall to determine if the terminology and instructions for the race question

are understood by the participants. The focus group sessions will consist

of about 12-14 participants each. Focus groups can uncover underlying

motivations that cannot be measured with a survey. Participants respond

to situations and Inquiries posed by a trained moderator.

We will provide data for Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts for a variety of

small geographic areas In the State, such as places, census tracts,

census blocks, and so on. In addition, we plan to tabulate data for

Alaska Native village statistical areas and for Alaska Native Regional

Corporations. We delineated boundaries for the nonprofit regional

corporations based on Information the Bureau of Land Management provided

us. We will give the regional corporations the opportunity to review

these boundaries. We have asked the State Data Center, the Bureau of

Indian Affairs, other Federal program agencies, and the regional corporations

to update our 11st of Alaska Native villages to ensure that all permanent

settlements and functioning governments are Included. We also have asked

the regional corporations to delineate the boundaries for the Alaska

Native village statistical areas following specified guidelines.
32

10

We have Introduced a new program for the 1990 census--the village and tribal

liaison program•designed to Improve the participation of American Indians

and Alaska Natives lathe 1990 census by Increasing their awareness of

the importance of the census. To achieve this and other objectives, we

have asked each tribe, and will soon be asking each Alaska Native village,

to designate a liaison to serve as the primary contact with the Census

Bureau on the 1990 census. The liaisons will provide the tribes and

Alaska Native villages with a direct line of communication with the

Census Bureau.

We have suggested that the liaisons be village and tribal members who

live 1n the village or on the reservation they represent; that they be

able to speak the tribal , Eskimo, or Aleut native language, 1f necessary;

and that they be available to serve as liaisons through the 1990 census.

We will provide training and the various materials the liaisons will

need.

The liaisons will carry out many Important functions that will help to

achieve the best census possible for their reservation or village. They

will advise village and tribal officials about the census process and how

the data are collected and used by Federal and state agencies. They will

monitor conditions in the village or on the reservation that may affect

the enumeration, such as the need for census interviewers to speak the

native language; distribute recruitment and promotion materials; and

advise on the most effective media to use In delivering the census message.
33

n

The liaisons will Introduce 1990 census school project materials In

reservation and village schools and organize tribal and village residents

to aid In promoting the census. They nay refer tribal and village members

for census jobs, explore opportunities for questionnaire assistance,

and help resolve problems that might delay the completion of the enumeration.

LOCAL. TRIBAL. AND VILLAGE GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Chairman, the last topic I trill discuss 1s our joint efforts with local,

tribal, and village governments and with community organizations. I will

discuss our efforts 1n two areas•local review of census counts and

promotion of the census.

Local Review

First, local review. Introduced as part of the 1980 census, the Local

Review Program gives officials In approximately 40,000 governmental

Jurisdictions, Including American Indian reservations and Alaska Native

villages, an opportunity to review preliminary census housing counts.

The focus of the program is on housing unit counts because many localities,

tribes, and villages maintain and update some type of record system (such

•s residential utility hook-ups) that Identifies most of their housing unit

Inventory. Officials compare counts from their record systems to the census

housing unit counts for the comparable geographic area to determine 1f there

are any major discrepancies that suggest possible coverage or geographic

•1sallocat1on problems in the census. If the local, tribal, or village

governments Identify and provide documentation of discrepancies, we would

recanvass the areas 1n question.
34

12

One problem we experienced In 1980 was a lack of understanding about how

to prepare for and participate 1n the Local Review Program. We are beginning

our contacts with local, tribal and village officials earlier this time so

they would have more time to prepare for local review. We have asked

local and tribal officials to appoint liaisons to work with the Census

Bureau on the program and we have sent the liaisons detailed Informational

material. Within the next two months, we will be asking each Alaska Native

village government to appoint one Individual who will serve as the local

review liaison and as the liaison for the outreach, recruitment, and

other activities described earlier.

In most states, we have trained census data experts who, 1n turn, will

train officials on how to prepare for and conduct local review; 1n other

states, we will conduct the training ourselves. In Alaska, the State

Data Center has agreed to train the officials between now and the end of

the year. Staff from our Seattle office briefed the State Data Center

participants last month. We appreciate the State's participation 1n this

important program. In the workshops, the trainers will brief the local

officials or their liaisons on the Local Review Program•what It Is, how

1t works, how to prepare for It, and the kinds of documentation needed to

back up claims of discrepant counts. Training for tribal and village

government officials will be conducted separately because of the different

conditions on some American Indian and Alaska Native lands.

*»

t

Another change 1n the program for 1990 1s our plan to provide the local

review counts down to the census block level•the smallest geographic

level. This will apply to the entire country since we will have census
35

13

blocks nationwide. In 1980, we provided counts only at the enumeration

district level, the next larger geographic area that contained several

census blocks. This change will allow local officials to determine more

precisely where there may be discrepancies 1n the counts.

Census Promotion

Second, census promotion. In a free society, public cooperation 1s the

cornerstone of a good census. While answering the census 1s mandatory,

we cannot do our job unless there Is widespread support for the census

and recognition of Its Importance. A good promotion campaign Is essential

to building and maintaining public cooperation. The efforts made at the

local and grassroots level can make an important difference.

In January 1987, we signed a contract with the Advertising Council to

pursue a public service advertising campaign. We will design the

promotional campaign with a basic message In mind: The census 1s Important,

safe, and easy. This will help build awareness and encourage participation

In the census. In addition to the large-scale advertising campaign,

which will be designed primarily for television, radio, and newspapers,

we will establish many other efforts to gain support for the census.

Several of these efforts are designed to create local census promotion

Messages and projects.

For example, local religious organizations will be asked to encourage their

members to participate 1n the census or, 1n some cases, to provide assistance

In filling out their questionnaire. And, we are developing a school project

that will provide each elementary and secondary school In the country
36

14

with a set of reproducible lesson plans for classroom Instruction. These

lesson plans are geared toward making students aware of the history and

importance of the census and how to use census data. The ultimate goal

1s to have students take their knowledge about the census home with them.

In some cases, older students nay be the only ones In a household with

the language skills to complete a questionnaire.

We will ask the highest elected official In every Jurisdiction 1n the

country to set up a committee of local leaders•called a Complete Count

Committee•to generate local publicity about the census. He believe that

this local publicity 1s an essential complement to the other programs and

projects we are Initiating. Local leaders can identify those different

themes or activities that will be effective in their areas.

Through our Census Community Awareness Program, we will work closely with

grassroots, community organizations and Alaska Native villages to build

support for the census. The regional offices will assign community

awareness specialists to work with communities that contain significant

concentrations of population groups that have been historically undercounted

or are otherwise expected to be dlfficult-to-enumerate. The community

awareness specialists will work to build a network of support for the

census among community groups.

In addition to these opportunities for localizing publicity, we are seeking

the advice of Alaska state and local leaders and Alaska Native leaders on

other effective ways to promote the census In Alaska.

We appreciate this Committee's continued strong Interest 1n the course of

the 1990 census. And we especially welcome opportunities such as this to

review our plans at the state and local level.
37

Mr. DYMALLY. Dr. Keane, concerning the busy schedule you have

marked up for yourself, I suspect you will be doing fishing at

night?

Mr. KEANE. Where are they biting?

Mr. DYMALLY. Dr. Keane, given the fact that you now have some

sort of a merit system in hire, is it possible that you could suspend

that formal procedure and go into a more personal and subjective

method of hiring so you can meet some of the problems that you

faced in 1980?

Mr. KEANE. It is possible. We are looking at it, and we will particularly be sensitive to a waiver probably in those areas where we

are really having difficulty getting people. We realize this is not an

even opportunity kind of a situation in terms of the qualified candidates.

Mr. DYMALLY. HOW are you going to prepare the list to enumerate?

Mr. KEANE. Well, we are going to the Alaska Native corporations, we are going to other federal agencies. We are certainly

using our own considerable knowledge and address list in the local

review program for the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks; they

will have a chance to look at our data before the census itself. And

we are also doing a much better job of what is called the vacant/

delete check, which looks at something which is on the vacant/

delete list; that is, we would go to it, to make sure that the unit

should be on the vacant/delete list or that indeed it is not occupied.

Those are some of the

Mr. DYMALLY. Doctor, Representative Martin spent some time

talking about the block enumeration.

What was the term you used?

Mr. MARTIN. Block balancing.

Mr. DYMALLY. Block balancing. Could you address that issue?

Mr. KEANE. I think this is the overall program that the 38th

state signed up, including Alaska. Do you want to

Mr. DYMALLY. Please address that.

Mr. KEANE. My colleague is more knowledgeable on the Alaskan

situation.

Mr. DYMALLY. Please repeat your name for the record.

Mr. SCHILLING. Leo Schilling.

Are you referring, Congressman•or Representative Martin, to

the blocking of the entire state of Alaska?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. SCHILLING. The entire country will be blocked for 1990, and

in 1980

Mr. DYMALLY. Tell me what you mean by that.

Mr. SCHILLING. Breaking down land areas into the smallest polygons with the fixed features, like roads or rivers or power lines, a

permanent fixture that is easily identifiable. And we will simply be

taking the geography of the country and doing accounts by the

smallest land areas that we can split up in that manner.

Mr. DYMALLY. HOW are you going to reduce the block levels from

sections that are not now into blocks?

Mr. SCHILLING. From sections?

Mr. DYMALLY. Yes. How are you going to divide up the blocks?

How are you going to do that in this large mass of federal land?
38

Mr. SCHILLING. I think that you normally do this by the jurisdictional levels. Obviously, county lines will determine block lines,

city limit lines will determine them. When you get into things like

redistricting, one of the purposes of the block boundary suggestion

program, which Representative Martin referred to, was to get state

input into where they feel those lines ought to fall, and then we

will restructure blocks in such a way and put the lines in place to

conform with their wishes.

Mr. DVMALLY. The two representatives talked about an earlier

census because of, I suspect, seasonal workers and temporary workers. Have you ever thought about starting the census here earlier

to give you more time?

Mr. KEANE. Yes, we likely will. We started January 22nd in the

northern and western areas of the state in 1980; we are thinking

about late February, early March. But there are other considerations, we just did not do that arbitrarily. One is the weather

breakup, particularly the ice breakup, which is a problem. The

other is, and I am somewhat envious of it, is people go hunting

around that time and they are not at home, which risks the count

and certainly adds to the effort and the cost involved in enumerating.

So, if we are thinking of starting anywhere, say, from four to six

weeks later, which would put it late February, even early March,

that reduces the time spent considerably and ought to ease the concern too.

Mr. DYMALLY. One last question. They also addressed the question of the absentee soldier who is registered in the state but is

serving overseas.

Mr. KEANE. We are working with the Department of Defense on

that to see what might be done. However, there are technical details, specific rules for enumeration of special groups, and we do

count, rather consistently, people in their usual place of residence.

And of course, colleges have the same gripe with us, in jurisdictions where people are away at school. It just depends on what

kind of higher education you have located within your municipality.

Mr. DYMALLY. On a related subject, the active Americans in

Europe are so well organized they have got delegates to both the

Democratic and Republican conventions. Do you count them, and

where do you put them?

Mr. KEANE. Americans•I don't know the answer to that. I will

supply it for the record.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Don't we have about two and a half, three million

Americans outside the country?

Mr. KEANE. I don't know what the count is, but it would be quite

a few.

Mr. SIKORSKI. HOW do they fit into the census?

Mr. KEANE. They are enumerated at their usual place of residence. If they are out of the country, then that is their usual place

of residence.

Mr. DYMALLY. DO you know how many people we have in France,

Dr. Keane?

Mr. RUTH. Americans overseas

Mr. DYMALLY. Identify yourself for the record.
39

Mr. RUTH. Fred Ruth, Census Bureau. Americans overseas that

are there on a more or less permanent basis, or they have lived

there for a period of time, are not counted as part of the population

of the United States. If they are there on vacation or whatever,

odds are•even if it is around April, we will get them when they

come back. They will fill out their form, send it in, or we will catch

them on a follow-up.

Mr. SIKORSKI. So you have three different levels; the tourists and

the short-termers are going to get counted here, their place of residence; the long-termers, state department personnel, whatever, are

not going to be counted, even though they may maintain their

home here. But what about the people like•Representative

Martin, and Representative Furnace mentioned, who are at Elmendorf and are temporarily assigned to Korea or someplace else?

They don't show up in a housing unit here?

Mr. RUTH. AS Dr. Keane said, we have special rules for enumerating special situations like that, and we are working with the Department of Defense on this issue. Because there are also bases

that•and populations on those bases where you may not want

others to know; I mean, the general populous, how many are there

and what have you, but we will count them.

Mr. DYMALLY. For instance, those workers in the Middle East

who have been there for years and years in friendly countries. I

guess they fall between the cracks and they don't get counted?

Mr. KEANE. They will not get counted, but it is by design. This is

not arbitrary. It may sound from•because the rules are highly specific and technical, whether it is the special nights for the homeless

or military overseas or treatment of ex-patriots, it is all detailed;

we just don't know that detail. Some countries, my counterpart in

Egypt happens to be visiting the Census Bureau this week, they

have just completed their census. Census day was November of

1986 and the count for Egypt is 48 and a half million, but they also

have a count, for the kind you are talking about, of approximately

two and a half million outside of Egypt who are Egyptian. They do

that by going through an administrative record check, specifically

work permits, which apparently is a national requirement for

anyone Egyptian working outside the country, and they use that,

then, to estimate the count.

Mr. DYMALLY. In our case we don't require work permits overseas.

Mr. KEANE. So we don't have the administrative record, which is

indicative of the nation as a whole, particularly compared to

Europe and particularly compared to northern Europe where the

administrative record keeping is a highly mature situation, and

therefore the census is not quite as important there as it is elsewhere.

Mr. DYMALLY. SO we have to have a hearing in Saudi Arabia to

check that out.

Mr. KEANE. We have 30 people in Riyadh. I respectfully suggest

August is not the month. Let's be in Anchorage in August.

Mr. DYMALLY. November?

Mr. KEANE. November is all right.
40

Mr. SIKORSKI. I was going to ask, Mr. Chairman, how many

countries are we currently assisting, or in fact, doing their census?

Mr. KEANE. We have a working relationship currently within the

neighborhood of 30 countries, and that relationship would take the

form all the way from approximately 30 people in Saudi Arabia

where the Census Bureau has the oldest, largest, and by two special assessments, our embassy and the Treasury Department, the

best of the joint commission projects going on. It would cover a protocol with the People's Republic of China, which I signed in July of

1984.

We have people in Nigeria, currently one is resident consultant

to Egypt. And then we are training people from, who just graduated several weeks ago, 72 from the training of 1986-1987, and they

represented 20 some countries. They tend to be now Latin America

and Asia and Africa.

Mr. DYMALLY. And a large contingent from the Middle East, too?

Mr. KEANE. Yes.

Mr. DYMALLY. Dr. Keane, one final account. Independent researchers claim that the undercount in 1980 was about 3.2. Do you

agree with that?

Mr. KEANE. Our post-enumeration program estimate for 1980 is

1.2 to 7.8, so that is quite a large range. But these are not easy to

do. One would want to look at the method that spawns that estimate.

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Sikorski.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Just a question on OMB. Maybe you can answer it

briefly and then supply the fireworks for the record, but OMB has

proposed that we drastically reduce the census. Are you talking

with them about that questionnaire?

Mr. KEANE. Yes. We, several weeks ago, submitted additional

material to OMB and our staffs are in rather regular communication these days, as you might judge on the comments.

Mr. SIKORSKI. They tend to look at the veneer in terms of reducing paperwork, but the whole idea of a census is if you do a uniform extensive supportable census, you will have eliminated a

whole host of paperwork and problems with the administration of a

whole host of programs. And if you don't get the information on

housing, if you don't get the information that they have criticized

as being unnecessary or duplicative, we will be left with big holes

in the administration of our housing programs, our reapportionment, and a whole bunch of other things. I hope you are strong, as

I know your professionalism dictates.

Mr. KEANE. Well, a number of the users themselves have communicated to Congress, certainly to OMB, on their concern: The

Department of Transportation, HUD, the mortgage banking industry, the construction industry, which is a family, really, of support

industries. Take HUD, for instance, the Fair Market Value Rental

Act, that is not•I am not sure precisely the term of that, but

anyway, it is tied directly to some of the questions proposed for

elimination.

So I would say, Congressman Sikorski, that the process is running pretty much its normal path: Something is proposed, there is

a reaction, there are discussions, and resolution.
41

Mr. SIKORSKI. Let me ask you just one final question. How many

people at OMB have ever done a census?

Mr. KEANE. None to my knowledge, but I haven't done a census

of the question either.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Thank you.

Mr. KEANE. There is one individual who was at the Census

Bureau, that I know is over there, is Maria Gonzales.

Mr. DYMALLY. Dr. Keane, let me throw a radical one at you. The

IRS information is confidential, census information is confidential,

you pride yourself in that, but the IRS permits an accountant to

help you prepare your returns, your 1040, et cetera. What would be

a response to having some helpers on the census, a number of

people don't like or know how to fill out the long form? I mean,

would you have some objection if someone were to help them do

that?

Mr. KEANE. YOU mean somebody that is part of our enumeration

team?

Mr. DYMALLY. Yes, or let's say we certify the Catholic agency or

the Red Cross, as the case may be.

Mr. KEANE. I doubt that we would certify anything carte blanche

like an agency, but individuals who are duly sworn in by the

Census Bureau and qualified, we do offer an assistance program, as

I think you are aware of.

Mr. DYMALLY. SO it is possible that from your Bureau we can get

some help for those people who are maybe intimidated by the long

form?

Mr. KEANE. Sure, we encourage that, because we want as complete and as accurate data as possible.

Mr. DYMALLY. But in the case, let's say, of the newly legalized

citizen who still has fear of Hepe Seville. What if the Catholic

Social Agency were to say, we would be prepared to render them

some help. Do you think it is possible that some kind of arrangement could be worked out with the Bureau?

Mr. KEANE. This isn't the arrangement you have in mind, and

we would have to look into that. But there is quite a large program

that I am very directly involved with and coauthor with the ad hoc

committee on Hispanic affairs of the Catholic Church. Briefly, that

group has a program called inquintro, which means to go out into

the barrios, the migrant camps, wherever Hispanics are who are

baptized and not attending church, and try to bring them in. They

have a very established structure and a very comprehensive network to do that.

I took five people before that group in January of this year, and

we are seeking to get, later on in the year, a formal endorsement

from the Catholic church of the 1990 census. And then•and I am

working with Pablo Sedilla to•as coauthors of a written plan to

use that structure to count Hispanics.

So this is just one of the major problems, and we work with other

churches, of course, too.

Mr. DYMALLY. Would they be permitted to help them fill out the

forms?

Mr. KEANE. Who?

Mr. DYMALLY. The volunteers that you are talking about.
42

Mr. KEANE. I would•I don't know, I will have to supply the information.

Mr. DYMALLY. Think about that.

Mr. KEANE. Perhaps Leo can.

Mr. SCHILLING. One of the things we do in the area, we do a mail

census. We set up questionnaire assistance centers; this is part of

our outreach program. Simply what we do is go to organizations

like you have described or an Indian center, a place like that, and

make arrangements with people for them to assist people with the

questionnaire, to provide them with basic training so that they can

do this.

At the time they do it, they advertise to their people that they

will help them with the questionnaire and it is between them and

their people. They cannot be a formal part of the Census Bureaus,

we would have to make them sworn agents. But for them to provide the assistance within their organization, that happens regularlyMr. DYMALLY. I am intimidated by these questionnaires that

these professors send you every week; 30 pages of questions. I

travel with it, I sleep with it, and after six months or so, I get

around to answering it.

Thank you very much, Dr. Keane.

Mr. KEANE. YOU are quite welcome.

Mr. DYMALLY. YOU will be available until the

Mr. KEANE. Yes. I have got a speech this afternoon for about a

half an hour or so.

Mr. DYMALLY. For our representatives Mr. Martin and Mr. Furnace, you can meet in Mr. Young's office. I am sure they will accommodate. Thank you very much.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Thank you.

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS MILLER, REPORTS AND LABOR MARKET

INFORMATION SUPERVISOR, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. DYMALLY. Good morning. Identify yourself for the record.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Chris Miller, I am a supervisor with the Reports and Labor Market Information Unit of

Alaska's Department of Labor's research and analysis section.

I would like to briefly review about ten recommendations that

we have come up with to help.

Mr. DYMALLY. We will put your entire statement into the record.

Mr. MILLER. Right. I have copies of the record too.

Our comments are based on discussions with the U.S. Bureau of

Census up through August 12th and our understandings of their

position up to that point.

First of all, we would like to recommend that the Anchorage

office to use•for conducting the census be opened as early as possible to insure time for the hiring of and properly training of the

census workers for the special conditions that they will be facing.

Secondly, we would like to recommend that training of enumerators be done on site, in their village, if possible. This will allow not

only the enumerators to get some hands-on experience, but also to

allow team leaders to become familiar with the areas.
43

Thirdly, we would like to recommend the inclusion of the vacantdelete checks for all places over 125 residents. It is our understanding that this vacant-delete check was going to be only done on a

sample basis in the smaller areas.

Fourth, we would like to recommend that Alaska Native organizations, the Native Language Center and the Department of Anthropology of the University of Alaska be invited to participate in

the preparation and/or review of the instructional materials that

will be used for training in the 1990 census, to help the enumerators, many of whom may have English as a second language, to understand the training.

Fifth, we wish to recommend that the state of Alaska participate

in the local review for areas that are not included by a borough or

an incorporated government or Alaska Native village. There is a

significant land mass that falls in the crack.

Sixth, we would like to recommend that block level maps be

made available as early as possible for local review.

Seventh, we recommend that the Bureau extend the use of the

1990 census long forms in all remote list areas of Alaska to 50 percent to insure•and insure that it be distributed randomly to those

being enumerated. I think the current proposal if for one in six.

We recommend that the OMB•that OMB approve all the questions suggested by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Mr. DYMALLY. I should tell you here that the Joint Economic

Committee held hearings in the last week of adjournment, and it

was a very hot one, and everybody whom the director mentioned in

his last response was there urging the Census Bureau to keep the

questions.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. We would like to recommend that a

question be added to the 1990 census long form to determine a secondary place of residence.

Mr. DYMALLY. Elaborate on that secondary place of residence.

Mr. MILLER. It has to do with the highly mobile population, the

transient work force, the transient population. An example is, I am

aware that Greg Williams, our demographer, indicated that in Arizona for three months of the year there is a•they call them the

gray birds, I think, about 30,000 people who spend the winter

months in Arizona and move on. But this can also deal with the

work force, that kind of thing.

Mr. DYMALLY. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. Tenth, lastly, we would like to recommend that a

question be added to the 1990 census long form to estimate the discouraged workers for all areas for which the labor force estimates

are prepared.

[The complete statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
44

STATEMENT OF CHRIS KILLER

REPORTS AND LABOR MARKET INFORMATION SUPERVISOR

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Chris Miller. I

an supervisor of the Reports and Labor Market Information unit of the

Alaska Department of Labor's Research and Analysis section.

Our research section includes all of Alaska's federal/state cooperative

statistical programs with both the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. This statement draws upon the knowledge and experience of

both our chief of research and the state demographer.

The comments presented in this testimony are based upon plans and

information presented to us as of August 12, 1987 by the U.S. Census

Bureau though the Decennial Planning Division, the State Data Center

Program and the Seattle Regional Office.

INTRODUCTION

The original purpose of the U.S. Census was for redistricting. The framers

of the constitution recognized the importance of informed decisions in

public policy. As we approach the 21st century, the census has become

essential as a means of seeing that federal, state and local government

services equitably reach those people for which they were intended.

Additionally, it helps many kinds of businesses and industries to

efficiently reach their intended markets. Without a quality census,

substantial public and private resources would not be spent as

effectively.

To have a quality census minimally requires:

1) Accurate enumeration with a minimal undercount of households;

2) Sufficient sample size to provide accurate detail for Alaska's

census areas and small communities; and

3) essential questions must be asked.

Assuring these objectives in Alaska involves the successful organization

of people and proper funding. While no amount of funding can guarantee

that the census will be properly organized and carried out, it cannot

succeed without that funding. Funding decisions have already lead to

short cuts in all areas necessary for a quality census. The 1990 Census

is being undermined before it has even begun. A quality census is not

cheap but a poor census would result in misallocation of resources that

was many times greater.

The Census Bureau estimated the 1980 Census undercount in Alaska to be

3.21. Our own research suggests that the undercount may have been as high

as 3.61. This is compared to an estimated undercount of II for the United

States as a whole. Because of the large size and low population density

of this state the enumeration of Alaska in 1980 was one of the worst in

the nation.
45

In fiscal year 1983 Alaska received approximately $1,000 per person in

federal allocations based upon population estimates either directly from

or based upon the 1980 Census. That relative difference in the undercount

of the decennial census denies Alaska its fair share of federal - v\ i

allocations. Avoiding a large population undercount will similarly be

important in the 1990s.

ACCURATE ENUMERATION

Hou large a census undercount will occur in 1990 will depend on:

1) The staffing and training of enumerators and census managers;

2) The logistics of the enumeration;

3) the quality and accuracy of maps and materials used for enumeration

and;

4) the extensiveness of review of the enumeration for accuracy.

There are potential problems on all accounts that may affect the quality

of enumeration in Alaska.

Staffing & Training The 1990 Census will be conducted out of a district

office in Anchorage. Satellite offices may be temporarily set up in

Fairbanks and Juneau. There will be a hierarchy of district manager,

field operations supervisors, team leaders and enumerators hired and

trained to find and enumerate everyone in the state. To the best of our

current knowledge, this will involve the hiring and training of perhaps a

dozen field operations supervisors, at least 150 team leaders, and over

350 enumerators.

Supervisors and team leaders should be hired far enough in advance for

them to become thoroughly familiar with the areas and people they will be

attempting to enumerate. We understand the Anchorage Regional office is

currently scheduled to open in mid 1989. It should open in early 1989 to

hire professionals with census or survey experience for all managerial and

supervisory positions.

Team leaders need to be experienced at travel in Alaska and thoroughly

knowledgeable of the people and communities where they must coordinate

enumerators. Persons who command respect in their communities need to be

identified and consulted during all aspects of the 1990 enumeration. A

good enumeration will be had only through a close relationship between the

Bureau and local communities.

On site training of enumerators is preferred to centralized, classroom

training. Costs associated with training enumerators who fail to report

to work will be reduced. On site training will also better prepare the

enumerator for the 1990 Census. Classroom training cannot cover the

unique situations encountered in the remote areas of Alaska.
46

Logistics The State recognizes the problems entailed in enumerating the

remote areas of Alaska. The Census Bureau has identified three types of

enumeration areas for the 1990 Census:

1) mail out/mail back;

2) regular list/enumerate; and

3) remote list/enumerate.

As presented by the Bureau, the state has no problems with the proposed

mail out/ mail back and regular list/enumerate areas. There are concerns

about the areas to be included in the remote list/enumerate operations.

In 1980, vacancies were recanvassed to make sure the housing unit was

vacant. These vacant delete checks showed 10Z of vacancies to be occupied.

For 1990, due to budget constraints, only a sample of vacancies are

scheduled to be recanvassed. If there is an unacceptable level of

nonvacancies, then that block group will be recanvassed. This procedure

may increase the census error in Alaska for 1990, because the elimination

of the vacant delete check for remote areas may mean no double checking of

vacant housing for a large part of the state.

Without a vacant delete check of housing units in the remote areas,

quality control is lost. The State realizes the expense of a complete

vacant delete check, but asks that one be conducted in all communities

with over 125 residents.

Maps and Training Materials Maps for enumeration must be accurate and

materials used for enumeration must be understandable. We are concerned

that the census instructions may not be appropriate for use in rural areas

of the state.

Language barriers combined with training and instruction documents written

in "Federal Document" style may well lead to a rejection of the census

process by many persons. It is important that Alaska's linguistic

diversity be considered when enumerating the 1990 Census. We recommend

that Alaska Native organizations, the Native Language Center and

Department of Anthropology of the University of Alaska be invited to

participate in the preparation and/or review of instructional materials

for use with the 1990 Census.

Review It is essential that the census enumeration be thoroughly reviewed

for accuracy. In 1990 the Census Bureau will contact local governments

and provide a local review program for incorporated places. In planning

for local review for the United States as a whole, governments of cities

and counties have been invited to do local review. In Alaska, we do not

have county level governments far much of the state. Unless the State is

invited to participate there will be no local review of the balance of the

state outside incorporated places and organized boroughs.

Two-thirds of the incorporated places in Alaska have expressed interest in

participating in local review. This is testimony to the desire of

communities to check the results of the 1990 Census.
47

As currently planned it appears that local review in Alaska of the 1990

Census will be as inadequate as it was in 1980. Communities will be

expected to have a count of housing units ready for review by census

block, yet it is questionable whether block level maps will be available

to communities in time to prepare the data needed for review. Communities

will have only 10 working days to do the review. As currently stated In

the materials produced by the Bureau for Local Review, a community would

have to have more than 250 housing units in order to have more than one

block possibly checked. Only about 30 communities might qualify for more

than one block to be checked. This severely restricts corrections for

small communities.

The preliminary census mapping work and identification of new communities

for 1990 has been done by the Alaska Department of Labor, Research and

Analysis through its Federal-State Cooperative programs with the U.S.

Census Bureau. We have attempted to review Census Bureau plans at each

step of the preparation to help the Census Bureau reduce the census

undercount in Alaska for 1990.

Currently the opportunity for the representatives of the Federal-State

Cooperative programs nationwide to aid the Bureau through review of the

preliminary census maps is limited. Our experience could be used to spot

check the preliminary maps or counts for possible error as an aid in the

quality control process. The Bureau is missing a substantial opportunity

to add a level of quality control to the 1990 Census by minimizing the

opportunities for its own cooperative programs to review preliminary

information.

SAMPLE SIZE FOR ADMINISTERING THE LONG FORM

Labor force and income data are developed from the use of a long form

distributed to a sample of households. These data are necessary to

benchmark the Current Population Survey, and Local Area Unemployment

Statistics. In 1980 the Bureau distributed the long form to 50Z of the

persons in incorporated places under 2,500. In some small communities in

Alaska the 1980 long form information was significantly biased because the

long forms were not randomly distributed.

In a recent letter to Director Keane, our office expressed concern at the

Bureau's preliminary decision not to do 50Z sampling of small areas in the

1990 Census. Uniformly sampling only one in five, or one in six

households with the long form would reduce the quality of substate

unemployment estimates throughout the next decade. All socioeconomic

characteristics data from the long form would only be useful for the more

populous communities and boroughs of Alaska. Many federal allocations to

counties or communities would not be done as equitably if large sample

errors exist in labor force and other social characteristics for rural

areas.
48

As a snail state, composed of predominantly small communities, this

proposal would adversely affect the quality of information available for

the State of Alaska and severely restrict the usefulness of the census.

The sample data from the decennial census is in most cases the most

important single source of information upon which almost all social,

employment, health and training programs in our state rely for an entire

decade. This is particularly true in the areas of labor force,

occupational, income and education statistics.

This proposal would reduce the quality of the sample data for some 55,400

persons in 150 communities or 9.7Z of the states' population. Further,

115 of those small incorporated communities are Alaska Native Villages.

Our rural communities consider it extremely important that quality sample

information is available in order to document the social and economic

impacts of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

We feel that we need to continue 50Z survey information on not only

incorporated places of less than 2,500, but also for Census Designated

Places. In 1990 such communities will make up more than 9Z of the

population and consist of at least 288 communities, containing over 52,300

persons. Sixty eight of these communities are also currently Alaska

Native Villages as well.

The largest cost of the census in Alaska is getting to and from rural

communities. It would cost very little more to provide, administer and

code long forms as opposed to short forms for rural areas of the state.

Demands continue to grow for more detailed information for use in

government program and business activities. That is why we have devoted

substantial effort to work with the Bureau to improve the census geography

for 1990. We plan to continue to devote substantial effort in training

communities for local review and other efforts to try to improve the count

in 1990.

We recommend that the Bureau extend the use of 1990 Census long forms in

all remote list areas of Alaska to 50Z, and insure that it be distributed

randomly.

QUESTIONS CONTAINED IN 1990 CENSUS

0MB Cuts We are very concerned over the Office of Management and Budget

(0MB) recommendation of July 24, 1987 that close to 40Z of the questions

on the 1990 U.S. Census questionnaire be eliminated. The loss of the

questions suggested by 0MB would eliminate estimates of unemployment,

migration and fertility not only in Alaska but in the nation as a whole.
49

The 1990 Census questionnaire is the product of several years of public

hearings and development which were specifically undertaken to establish

and document the statutory requirements and programmatic need for the

questions. The proposed questions are to determine client populations for

many state, local and federal government social programs important to the

citizens of Alaska. The information is also used by many private Alaskan

businesses for market analysis. The census is the benchmark for the

Current Population Survey used extensively in intercensal years and a wide

range of other surveys.

It is our opinion that the elimination of these questions from the 1990

Census would seriously Jeopardize the efficient operation of both

government and nongovernment organizations in Alaska. We understand that

some of the questions may be saved because of the outpouring of concern

expressed on this matter from across the nation. He are concerned that

0MB did not adequately consider the benefits associated with the questions

before recommending their elimination.

Seasonality of Population The 1990 Census will not gather information on

the seasonality of the U.S. population. This is a particularly important

issue in Alaska, and in other states with mobile populations. Currently

there is no adequate method of estimating seasonal population flows into

or out of any state. This information would improve the monthly

population controls used for statewide labor force estimates from the

Current Population Survey.

Discouraged Workers To be classified as unemployed an individual must

have:

1) not worked in the prior week;

2) not been temporarily absent from a Job they held;

3) searched for work in the previous four weeks; and

4) been able to work.

Often people are not classified as unemployed because they think that they

can not get a job. This category is often referred to as discouraged

workers. They are considered to be out of the labor force.

Each quarter estimates are available for this category for the nation from

the Current Population Survey. In the first quarter of 1987 there were

estimated to be 1,168,000 discouraged workers.

Unfortunately there is no information on discouraged workers for states

and areas. Areas with no Job opportunities may have relatively large

numbers of discouraged workers and subsequently fewer unemployed. The

unemployment rate will not adequately reflect the economic hardship

experienced in the area relative to other areas. Social program funding

would often be more equitably distributed if the number of discouraged

workers were considered.
50

Alaska has approximately 15,000 employers spread over more than one-half

million square miles, and employment is highly seasonal. In rural Alaska

people know that no local employers will be hiring at certain times of the

year. This knowledge inhibits the work search required to be classified

as unemployed. For these reasons it is likely that rural Alaska has a

disproportionate number of discouraged workers. We recommend that a

question be added to the 1990 Census long form to estimate discouraged

workers for all areas for which labor force estimates are published.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Anchorage Office be opened earlier to insure time to

hire and properly train census workers for the special conditions faced in

the enumeration of Alaska.

We recommend on site training of enumerators.

We recommend the inclusion of vacant delete checks for all places with

over 125 residents.

We recommend that Alaska Native organizations, the Native Language Center

and Department of Anthropology of the University of Alaska be invited to

participate in the preparation and/or review of instructional materials

for use with the 1990 Census.

We recommend that the State of Alaska participate in local review for

areas not included by a borough, incorporated government or Alaska native

villages.

We recommend that block level maps be made available earlier for use in

local review.

We recommend that the Bureau extend the use of 1990 Census long forms in

all remote list areas of Alaska to 50Z, and insure that it be distributed

randomly.

We recommend that 0MB approve all questions suggested by the U.S. census

Bureau.

We recommend that a question be added to the 1990 Census long form to

determine secondary place of residence.

We recommend that a question be added to the 1990 Census long form to

estimate discouraged workers for all areas for which labor force estimates

are published.
51

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Miller, I think Mr. Sikorski may have some

questions for you. We have a number of questions we would like to

submit to you in writing so you can have an opportunity to just respond to them in the interest of time. Mr. Sikorski.

Mr. SIKORSKI. I think your recommendations hit the ones I was

concerned with. I think the people from the Census Bureau are

here and from their testimony, there is direct contact, and I hope

you use this occasion and their presence here this week to its fullest. You also heard their testimony, and you believe their modifications thus far are right on track and you don't have any criticism

of the communications process that has been established?

Mr. MILLER. No. As I understand, the communication is good.

Greg Williams, Dr. Williams, is in contact with the Census Bureau

daily.

Mr. SIKORSKI. I hope you use the occasion to drive home your recommendations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DYMALLY. The Census Bureau's estimate of the undercount is

lower than that of the independent researchers. Where do you fit

in, between the two of them?

Mr. MILLER. We estimate that the undercount in Alaska is

around 3.6 percent.

Mr. DYMALLY. So you are the independent count.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. DYMALLY. Your department obviously keeps up with the seasonal and the other unemployed worker and you keep good statistics on that. Does the department plan to work closely with the

Census Bureau on this phenomenon?

Mr. MILLER. That is our wish, yes.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you, very much. We may use some of these

questions for your response. Thank you.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Thank you.

Mr. DYMALLY. Ms. Janie Leask. Am I pronouncing it correctly?

Could you pull up another chair for us, please.

STATEMENT OF JULIE KITKA, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE

PRESIDENT, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES

Ms. KITKA. Good morning, my name is Julie Kitka, and I am

here on behalf of Janie Leask, who is the president of the Alaska

Federation of Natives.

Mr. DYMALLY. Could you spell the last name for the record.

Ms. KITKA. Kitka, K-I-T-K-A. I am the special assistant to the

president, Janie Leask, of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Miss

Leask was called out of town on other business so she asked me to

testify.

The Alaska Federation of Natives is a nonprofit corporation

which provides the political voice and organization for Alaska Natives, particularly in dealing with the United States Government

and the State of Alaska. Formed in 1966, the AFN is governed by a

board of directors of 37 members, representing the 13 Native regional corporations formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the 13 regional nonprofit Native associations which operate human service programs and 12 representatives of the villages
52

of Alaska. AFN was originally formed to lobby and obtain land settlement for Alaska Natives, and that has been our primary focus

for a number of years.

AFN's interest in the 1990 census is very clear: We wish to

insure as full and accurate a count of Alaska's Native peoples as

can possibly be achieved by modern technology and organization.

We realize that any census is likely to have inaccuracies and undercounts; however, we also realize that those populations of American citizens which traditionally are most undercounted in the decennial census tend to be minority groups by race and culture. Because of the way any census is structured, its questionnaire, its outreach mechanisms by mail and in person, it is geared to counting

middle-class mainstream American populations most accurately,

those people who are easy to identify by stable residence, employment, or other social connections. Americans who do not fit that

fgeneral description are at most risk of being undercounted, particuarly people of traditional, non-Western cultures living in remote

areas, as well as highly mobile populations.

In light of this, we strongly urge that the Census Bureau make a

special effort in planning and implementing the 1990 census to

achieve an accurate enumeration of Alaska Native populations in

villages, in rural locations outside village communities, and in

urban areas of Alaska. Often urban area populations are fluid and

less than readily visible. For example, in Anchorage, there is an estimated approximate 15,000 Alaska Natives living in Anchorage,

going back and forth to villages, traveling within the city, and that

is a very highly mobile population. Significant numbers of young

adult Natives move back and forth regularly between rural and

urban residences and different branches of their families. Village

populations fluctuate widely, according to seasons of the year and

different economic opportunities which are available.

One specific recommendation we wish to make is that you not

rely too heavily on written communications, forms, and other paperwork for enumeration of individuals and households. Your accuracy will increase in direct proportion to the effort you put into

face-to-face human contact in the enumeration process. We know

that this is expensive, particularly in the identification and training of paid or volunteer staff or other liaisons in small communities, but failure to establish such a personal relationship in each of

the communities in rural Alaska will undoubtedly result in a corresponding undercount. If you identify the right person or persons in

each village, the reliable individual who knows all the families and

acquainted with everyone that lives in the village, you are basically home free. This will be particularly important in those villages

where English is not the primary language. It will be necessary

that household enumeration be done using translation, and although all Alaska Native languages are now in written form, most

speakers do not read the languages. It remains basically a largely

verbal form of communication and depends upon the people.

AFN supports the inclusion of the Indian supplemental form for

the villages in Alaska. It is our understanding that during the 1980

census the Indian supplemental form was only limited to the Metlakatla Indian Reservation on Annette Island, and our 200 villages,

which are federally recognized and listed on the federal register,
53

were not included in the Indian supplement. We would like to see

that some type of supplemental form be provided for our tribes and

villages in the state, and we don't think that, Metlakatla being the

only one included in that, is a fair representation.

On a number of occasions I have testified before the Senate

Select Committee on Indian Affairs and they have inquired about

specific Indian-related census material, questions, you know, in

talking about higher education, talk about housing or whatever,

and we have not been able to provide as detailed information as

other tribes and reservations in the United States, and we think

that Alaska Natives are basically at a disadvantage in not having

all that supplemental information on that.

In order to assist the Bureau of Census in this effort, the Alaska

Federation of Natives and its member organizations stand ready to

advise or to help make contacts at the village level. Our staff has

been in contact with Mr. Leo Schilling of the Seattle regional office

and has advised him on various steps in getting into villages and

increasing the accuracy of the count. We would be pleased to make

suggestions, a village liaison person, as that is needed.

Finally, AFN would like to reiterate and support the testimony

which is being provided here today by Mr. Lee Gorsuch, director of

the University of Alaska's Institute for Social and Economic Research. Mr. Gorsuch has raised two fundamental concerns about

the techniques used to gather rural data. The first is the proposed

decrease in the proportion of rural households which will be asked

to complete the long form in 1990. And the second issue he is intending to raise is the proposed elimination of basic questions on

employment, housing, migration, and fertility on the long form. We

strongly urge the committee to urge the Census Bureau to include

those vital questions, since the data they gather are critical to the

planning of many programs by federal agencies in the state of

Alaska.

The Alaska Federation of Natives works extensively with Mr.

Gorsuch's agency within the University of Alaska, and several

recent publications that they have pulled together for us have

dealt with the status of Alaska Natives since the passage of the

Alaska Native Land Claims Act; poverty levels among Alaska Natives and such type things in which they use census data and help

us interpret what that means in order for us to kind of get an overview on where Alaska Native people are at throughout the state.

And so, you know, elimination of some of this basic information

will translate in that some of the people that can directly benefit

from these figures in statistics such as Alaska Native people themselves in trying to structure out what type of programs or what

some of the needs of their people need are going to be basically

denied access to that information, and some of the organizations

like the University of Alaska, which specifically try to help us

translate that, are basically going to be saying they are going to

draw a blank because they are not going to have that information

to extrapolate and to make some analysis onto.

Basically, what we are seeking is a real adequate sample of

households. In villages, when you are talking about•that are

under 100 in population or under 250 in population, it is just absolutely essential that you don't do an Indian supplemental form for
54

those communities, that you at least do the long form for each of

the communities, because the villages in Alaska are so different

from one another and they are such small population, we are talking about five major ethnic groups in the state, that it is important

that you get an adequate sampling of our populations.

We would be happy to provide any additional information the

committee might request, including responding to written questions at a later time if you would like.

Mr. DYMALLY. We have a couple of questions, but let's hear the

other witnesses first. We will come back to it.

Would you identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF CARL JACK, ALASKA NATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,

CENSUS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. JACK. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Carl

Jack. I am the Alaska Native representative on the Census Advisory Committee on the American Indians and Alaska Native populations for the 1990 census. This committee has been established to

provide an organized and continuing channel of communication between the American Indians and Alaska Native population and the

Bureau of Census on the problems and opportunities of the 1990

census as they relate to the American Indians and the Alaska

Native population.

The 1990 census is considered to be important, especially for the

American Indians and Alaska Native population because this is the

first time that this group is represented in the advisory committee.

Since my appointment by former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Malcolm Baldridge, we have had four meetings, four regular meetings,

in which a lot of information was dispensed to the committee members. However, my major concern and participation in the committee has been the concern of how the census are to be conducted in

the state of Alaska. Accordingly, I will restrict my comments and

recommendations as to how the census are going to be•census activities are going to be conducted in Alaska.

First, the proposed Alaska plan. In general, I am in agreement

with the contents of the proposal, as it recognizes the uniqueness of

Alaska, due to its size, the culture and language differences among

its residents. However, I would like to stress that as with any proposal, the proposal will be only worth the paper that it is written

on if the proposal is executed with care and with deliberate intents

to what its goals are and to how the goals are to be achieved.

Accordingly, I strongly feel that in incorporating the following

recommendations will enable the Census Bureau, with the help of

the Alaska Natives, to do a better job in the 1990 census. And the

recommendations that I will state are•essentially mirrors the recommendations that are being submitted by the Alaska Federation

of Natives.

First is the inclusion of the supplemental questionnaire of American Indians and Alaska Natives, as it was done in the 1980 census

with the tribes in the Lower 48, and for the Bureau to provide sufficient funds to accomplish the job.

Second, if funds cannot be secured to fund the supplemental

questionnaire, then we would strongly recommend the use of the
55

long forms, with no exception, in each and every one of the villages, especially in the rural areas.

Third, to hire•for the Census Bureau to hire indigenous enumerators and train them sufficiently so that the complete count

can be achieved.

Four, initiate a tribal liaison program as it will be done in the

Lower 48. It is our understanding that only the letter to the tribes

in the Lower 48 was sent out by the Census Bureau and none•not

any of these were sent to the tribes in Alaska.

The fifth is a recommendation for the Census Bureau to work

closely with the regional nonprofit organizations in Alaska in the

administration of the census in4he villages in rural Alaska; mainly

because the regional nonprofit corporations are more geared to the

social needs of the people than the regional profit organizations,

whose primary goals are essentially to make money.

I strongly feel that the Census Bureau with the life cycle budget

of about $2.6 billion can do all of the above. The proposed policy of

the Bureau to cut costs by reducing the use of a long form in the

incorporated cities with population under 2,500 from 50 percent to

17 percent run counter to the congressional mandate to have a

complete count in the United States, of the United States population.

The result of the proposed cost-cutting policy, if adopted, will be

the reduction in the quality of social and economic data for small

communities, the majority of which are Alaska Native villages. The

data will be used to evaluate community needs in federal and state

programs throughout rural America for a decade.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you, very much.

The next witness, identify yourself for the record, please.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD ROLAND, CHAIRMAN, ALASKA NATIVE

EMPLOYMENT TRAINING COALITION

Mr. ROLAND. Yes, good morning. My name is Richard Roland. I

am chairman of the statewide organization called the Alaska

Native Employment Training Coalition; I am primarily here speaking on their behalf. This is a group of 12 grantees throughout the

state that operate job Training Partnership Act programs. I am

also deputy director of the North Pacific Rim, which is one of the

12 nonprofit regional corporations in the state that provides a variety of human services to Native villages and communities throughout the state.

I think Julie and Jack said it all this morning already from our

perspective. We are very concerned about the OMB's initiatives to

remove certain unemployment and labor force data from the

census. We think that this would be extremely detrimental. Many

of the programs that we work with and that we operate depend

almost solely upon this data, not only for allocations but also for

evaluation of the effectiveness of programs.

Using the Job Training Partnership Act as an example, within

the law, the allocation formula for all programs within the country

uses unemployment data almost exclusively. Also within the law is

mandated the development of a performance standard system. I
56

just spent the last week back in Washington, D.C. working with the

Department of Labor technical work group on this performance

standard system; it relies exclusively on data collected from census.

If this data is not available, there will be no way of evaluating the

effectiveness, so these programs will basically need to go back and

start over again.

I think another thing that hinges directly on that is the comparability of data from one census to the next. We need data that is

available longitudinal, over time; that if the data changes, that if

we eliminate it and we go to the short form, we are not going to

have anything comparable. 1990 census data will not compare with

1980 and 1970 in a way that the university, the analysts will be

able to provide information on the usefulness of our programs. And

again, Congress will be looking for for ways to hold program accountability•accountable and to see basically whether the programs are being effective or not.

We strongly urge the continuation of village-by-village enumeration, and I am opposed to any reduction in the level, in the sample

level in Alaska. Again, backing what Julie and Jack have said, we

have considerable diversity. We have small populations scattered

throughout large land areas, and we need that data very much to

be able to do our jobs appropriately.

Staffing levels of the effort. Again, in the Lower 48 tribal liaison

representatives are being identified and hired by census to work on

providing a level of effort at the reservation level that will provide

this kind of data. It is my understanding that that is not in the

plans at this time for Alaska. I would strongly encourage the

Census Bureau to look at that. Looking at our regions, we have the

capability of working directly with them, identifying individuals in

each and every village that are familiar with those communities

and can be certified if necessary and can collect that information. I

think the overall cost of this effort in comparison to the total cost

of collecting the budget is really rather minimal.

Like Jack and Julie, we remain available to work with this committee and with census on a regular basis in helping to develop

plans for that kind of implementation. I might say that I am very

pleased with the efforts of the census this year in attempting to

work with the village corporations and with villages to delineate

the boundaries that will be used in the census. I think there has

been an awful lot of effort put forth to get some one-on-one communication, and I think that we just need to encourage everybody to

continue in that light.

Thank you for your time.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you, very much.

Ms. LOWENTHAL. I just want to indicate, the Census Bureau indicated to me just last week that they are considering increasing the

sample size in the rural areas. Nothing has been finalized, but they

are looking at the sampling method for the long form, and I was

told that they are considering that and it wouldn't affect the

sample in urban areas.

So that is something that both through your testimony here and

maybe by follow-up letter to the Bureau, you may want to pinpoint

your rationale on that and why that is necessary in your particular

area.
57

Mr. DYMALLY. Yes?

Mr. JACK. Mr. Chairman, if I may add, that the recommendations that were submitted today both by Julie•the recommendations have been brought before the advisory committee and has

been endorsed in the last meeting.

Mr. DYMALLY. I understand that this year the Indian supplemental is being cut entirely. You are obviously unhappy about that?

Ms. KITKA. Yes, we are unhappy with that. We also want to

bring forth not only are we unhappy with it, but only one area

within the state of Alaska was included in that in the 1980 census,

and that was a gross inaccuracy in just picking up Metlakatla

Indian Reservation. The federal government has a special trust relationship which is similar to American Indian tribes on all the

reservations, and to just unilaterally cut out all the villages because they are, quote, "not on a reservation", and just pick up the

one isolated reservation in the state, is totally a misrepresentation

as far as what is going on in Alaska.

Mr. SIKORSKI. That is insensitive to the actual demographics of

Alaska. It also is considered an undercount of Native Alaskans,

and also affected the administration, the affairs administration

programs and services that directly affect your people. Would that

be

Ms. KITKA. Yes, I would say that is a fair statement on that. For

example, you know, different comparison between Alaska Natives

and American Indians, if you look at higher education, completed

colleges, right, 7.6 percent of American Indians have completed

four years of colleges; 3.5 percent of Alaska Natives have. If you

had a supplemental question, you could find the different discrepancies, you know, on where we are at as far as American Indians/

Alaska Natives nationwide and redirection of Indian health service

funds, BIA funds, whatever can happen on a fair and equitable

basis. With Alaska not being included in that, we are at a disadvantage.

Mr. DYMALLY. What did the Census Bureau tell you about the

elimination?

Mr. JACK. The only answer that we got was that they would try

to improve the quality of the questions in order to get quality response. Aside from that, we have been told kind of flat out that

they are not going to be funding the supplemental questionnaire,

unless, of course, there is a supplemental appropriation by Congress.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Mr. Chairman. Do you three intend to be meeting

with Dr. Keane while he is here?

I think it is excellent that Dr. Keane was here this morning, and

is meeting at the same time with state representatives. I also think

your testimony is important and though•the Census Bureau has a

representative here, it is important that your testimony be communicated to and discussed personally with Dr. Keane as long as he is

here.

Mr. DYMALLY. If for any reason you miss Dr. Keane, I am sure

the other reps from the Census Bureau will be glad to meet with

you immediately after this meeting.

What is your estimate of the Native Alaskan population?

Ms. KITKA. I would probably say about 63,000.
58

Mr. DYMALLY. What did the Census Bureau give you in 1980?

Ms. KITKA. It was under that.

Mr. JACK. It was pretty close, although it was stated earlier in

one of the testimonies that there was a 13 percent undercount in

the rural areas; whether that is overall undercount, we do not

know. But participating in the advisory committee, I am aware, especially the cities in the Lower 48 or all over the country, that

have filed lawsuits were ruled in favor of the cities. I would not be

surprised at all if there is a strong discrepancy in this 1990 census,

that avenue might be considered.

Mr. DYMALLY. What is your response to the Bureau's plan to

change the date of the census for Alaska?

Mr. JACK. We are in total agreement with that, to start the

census count, especially in the villages, as early as January. I am

originally from Kipnuk, which is primarily an Eskimo village. We

all speak Native, and come April we start seal hunting because we

have to feed the family, and come June, then we go up Kuskokwim

River to catch some fish. So any census activity later than April,

May, June is going to be somewhat futile and you are going to be

faced with, you know, a disaster.

Mr. DYMALLY. HOW far are you from Anchorage here in terms of

miles?

Mr. JACK. I am originally from Kipnuk but I am currently residing in Anchorage.

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Sikorski?

Mr. SIKORSKI. No. Thank you.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you, very much. Your testimony was brief

and to the point. The Census Bureau folks here would be glad to

see you, I am sure.

STATEMENT OF KAREN FOSTER, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF

ALASKA

Mr. DYMALLY. Mr. Gorsuch isn't able to attend today, but he sent

Ms. Karen Foster.

Ms. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

my name is Karen Foster. I am a research associate with the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of AlaskaAnchorage. Like you said, Professor Gorsuch is the director of the

institute. He is out of the state right now, and he asked me to read

his testimony. So with your permission, I will do so. It is going to

be kind of repetitive. I guess it is the victim of being the last.

Mr. DYMALLY. That is fine. Take your time.

Ms. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:

My name is Lee Gorsuch. I am the director of the University of

Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research. I appreciate

the opportunity to share with you two serious concerns I have regarding the proposed plans for conducting the 1990 census. My first

concern is over the proposed decrease in the proportion of rural

households that will be asked to complete a long form in the 1990

census. This proposed variation from the 1980 census could mean

that sample data for a third or more of Alaska's communities will
59

be suppressed in the next decennial census. Such a result would

leave local, state, and federal agencies in an untenable position.

Fifty percent of U.S. households located in rural communities of

under 2,500 persons were surveyed by the Census Bureau during

the 1980 census to provide data not obtained in the 100 percent

census. In comparison, 17 percent of the households located in

urban communities were sampled. I understand that the purpose of

the higher rate of sampling of rural households in the United

States was, in part, to fulfill data requirements for revenue sharing. I also understand that the reduced need for revenue sharing

information in addition to other considerations has caused the

Bureau of the Census to plan to use the smaller sampling rate, 17

percent, in both rural and urban communities in the 1990 census.

If this reduced sample size is applied to Alaska, local, state, and

federal agencies will have insufficient information upon which to

fulfill their missions. One-third of the federally recognized Alaska

Native villages in the state had less than 100 inhabitants in 1980.

The application of normal suppression rules with the 17 percent

sampling rate will mean that no sample data will be reported for

these communities. Ninety-three percent of all Alaska Native villages; that is, 185 out of 200, had populations of under 500 in 1980.

A reduction the sampling rate in these communities will produce

data of unacceptably low reliability. Hence, a 17 percent sampling

rate in rural Alaska will effectively negate the value of reporting

community-level data for the vast majority of places in Alaska.

My second concern pertains to a recent action by the federal

Office of Management and Budget to eliminate basic questions on

employment, housing, migration, and fertility from the 1990 census

long form. These questions are absolutely vital to the objectives of

the census. Other sources of data on these subjects, such as the Bureau's Current Population Survey, are not based on a sample of

sufficient size to provide reliable data for the various regions of

Alaska, much less for most of its places. While all small rural communities in the United States will be similarly affected by the reduced sampling rate and drastically reduced scope of questions, the

impact on Alaska is more severe for the following reasons:

First, 84 percent of all local governments in Alaska are located

in communities of under 500 population. It should be unacceptable

to produce reliable census data for only 16 percent of the state's

local governments.

Second, 185 communities of under 500 population are recognized

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as tribal entities. The welfare of

these entities remains of vital concern to both federal and state

government. The absence of basic demographic data on these

places hampers even the most rudimentary levels of planning for

the provision of services or the allocation of resources.

Third, under the laws and implementing regulations of the

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act as amended in 1978, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Alaska National Interests

Lands Conservation Act, federal agencies contemplating major federal actions in Alaska routinely rely on census data published at a

community level to fulfill their legal obligations. Absent reliable

census data, many of these agencies will be forced to go through

the expensive process of gathering comparable information.
60

Approximately 60 percent of all Alaska lands will ultimately be

under federal ownership. Achieving national goals for the productive use and protection of these lands by such agencies as the U.S.

Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land

Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minerals

Management Service, and the military will require these agencies

to make numerous major decisions in the 1990's. Many of these decisions will affect millions of acres, but only a few communities. As

a result, community-level data will be needed to fulfill legal obligations during the decision-making process.

Fourth, most of Alaska's rural communities are heavily dependent on federal and state programs for basic health care, housing,

and education. Without these programs, many rural residents

would be forced to live in conditions long considered unacceptable

in the United States. The decennial census data is the only source

of data monitoring changes in conditions at the community level.

Living conditions in the state's smallest communities are of particular concern since they are the most difficult to serve effectively.

Unreliable or suppressed data for small communities will greatly

hamper the ability to continue these federal and state programs.

Producing reliable data for small communities throughout the

United States once every ten years should continue to be an important objective. We realize that in most areas of the country the retention of a 50 percent sampling rate may have substantial cost implications for the census. In Alaska, however, the additional cost of

maintaining the higher sampling rate need not be substantial. The

census of rural Alaskans is conducted differently than in the rest

of the country; that is, enumerators still contact every household in

person. The cost difference between administering a short form or

a long form is limited to the additional time required to answer the

long form questions. No additional contacts with the household are

necessary, nor is a switch from mail to personal contact required.

We estimate that the use of a 50 percent sampling rate in rural

Alaska rather than a 17 percent sampling rate would increase the

number of sampled households from 12,000 to 34,000. Assuming

that the additional 22,000 sampled households each required an additional 20 minutes of the enumerator's time to complete the long

form questions and that each enumerator is paid an hourly wage

rate of $10, the impact of the higher sampling rate on the cost of

the enumeration itself would be about $75,000. Associated administrative and data management costs might add another $25,000.

Hence, we estimate that the higher sampling rate would increase

the total cost of the census in Alaska by only 5 percent.

This small increase in cost is a fraction of the expense state and

federal agencies would have to incur to gather comparable data if

the Census Bureau does not increase its sample size. The Bureau,

much to its credit, has gone to considerable length and expense to

improve the Alaska census, partially be conducting the face-to-face

interviews in rural Alaska. The Bureau of the Census continues to

evidence a serious commitment to improving decennial census

counts in Alaska. ISER conducted an independent review of the

1980 census, which is in the attached report that I believe all the

subcommittee members received, and made a number of recommendations for the 1990 census. The Bureau considered these rec-
61

ommendations carefully and the design for the 1990 census is directly responsive to our concerns. It would be most unfortunate

and very counterproductive if the improved enumeration design

were not implemented at the scale necessary to provide reliable

sample data for most communities in Alaska. It would also be disastrous if OMB's deletions to the long form were allowed to stand.

I, therefore, urge the subcommittee to encourage the Bureau of the

Census to use a 50 percent sample of rural Alaska communities in

the conduct of the 1990 census and to insist that the Office of Management and Budget retain long form questions on employment,

migration, fertility, and housing.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the subcommittee.

Mr. DYMAIXY. MS. Foster, before I ask you a question, I want to

ask Mr. Miller a question.

What is the unemployment rate in Alaska, Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. You got me in a mental lapse. It is 11 point something.

Mr. DYMALLY. Okay.

Are you prepared to answer some questions?

Ms. FOSTER. I will try.

Mr. DYMALLY. What is Mr. Gorsuch's view on the adjustment?

There has been a source of continuing discussion with the Bureau

that they should proceed with an adjustment count. Does he have

any views on that?

Ms. FOSTER. I wouldn't know what they are, I am sorry.

Mr. DYMALLY. What are some of the moves do you think we

should take to avoid the undercount that occurred in 1980?

Ms. FOSTER. Well, a lot of that is contained in this report that Dr.

Kruse wrote. It would probably be a good source for that. They suggest a lot of improvements in hiring of enumerators and the training, because I believe a lot of things happened, that training materials were sent in late and they didn't have enough time for training. There was just a lot of logistical problems that went on in 1980

that could be avoided to improve undercounting.

Mr. DYMALLY. Of course the university is prepared to assist in

that effort?

Ms. FOSTER. Yes.

Mr. DYMALLY. We are going to send some questions for Professor

Gorsuch to respond to, and we thank you very much.

Ms. FOSTER. Thank you.

Ms. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, may I clarify one thing for the

record?

Mr. DYMALLY. Yes.

Ms. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Miller, could you clarify what you mean by

discouraged workers. Do you equate that with the old definition of

underemployment?

Mr. MILLER. Those people who are no longer actively seeking

work is a discouraged worker.

Ms. LOWENTHAL. All right.

Mr. DYMALLY. It is obvious the people in Alaska don't talk as

much as the politicians in Alaska. This is a record-breaking committee hearing.

Is there anyone here who would like to address the committee:

Identify yourself for the record.
62

STATEMENT OF DONALD E. BARLOW, ANCHORAGE BRANCH

PRESIDENT, NAACP

Mr. BARLOW. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, I am Don Barlow. I

am the local branch president of the NAACP. I am happy to be in

attendance this morning. I have listened with great concern in that

I too feel that not only as it relates to American Indians and Alaskan Natives, there are concerns relative to undercounting as relates to the black community.

Historically, there is probably greater concern as it relates to the

nation, more so than as it relates to the state of Alaska. However,

there are some basic concerns that I would like to raise at this

point, the prime one being that of what I would term value awareness.

I am not sure that everyone recognizes or perhaps even places a

personal value on the need to participate and to, quote, be counted.

The program that the Bureau of the Census is advocating, wherein

I believe they have felt that the tribal and village liaison program

where they utilize primary contact persons to educate, to inform,

and otherwise involve the population, I think it is a good idea. I see

some benefit to the black community as well if a similar mechanism could be involved.

I am hoping that through an aggressive education program that

value awareness can occur. In the long-range sense, I see there

being a need to, if you will, develop a local contact, and I believe it

is possible, in that the record as already reflected by Dr. Keane,

that there have been efforts expended over the years to establish

liaison with community organizations, et cetera. If that could occur

within the state of Alaska, I am sure our community could be very

much involved and supportive of this current effort.

Mr. DYMALLY. What is your estimate of the black population in

Alaska?

Mr. BARLOW. Well, I have been a resident of Alaska for 26 years

and I have probably heard different figures each year. To the best

of my knowledge, I would say there is probably 15,000 statewide,

the majority of those being within the city of Anchorage where

there may be 10 to 12.

Mr. DYMALLY. What was the census estimate in 1980?

Mr. BARLOW. That figure escapes me at this point. I am sorry I

can't offer that.

Mr. DYMALLY. Is the NAACP going to embark on any community

program to maximize the count?

Mr. BARLOW. It is our intent to utilize a community education

program, wherein we work with local churches, other identified

known black organizations to inform them, to perhaps emphasize

importance of, and hopefully the belief is that through that education effort the appropriate response will occur.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you, very much.

Again, I want to thank the members of the staff, Congressman

Don Young's office, the Census Bureau, witnesses, and our observers for coming today for what I consider to be a very productive

hearing.

Thank you, very much. The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)

[The following information was received for the record:]
63 . o

o «>

i"S5 tt .^^

_"*

°*.

w •i *• o v >. V " 3

*«°5

-

B •» U _e • v> " -a -o C C eo C ea o • m c

00

0\•

•o J= »:

o_

g .2

o,ou

•>2 £*

uy<

•aeg5«

C vi c V 3

O*

ooo >> • X) u -o O T3

=£ <» -z

z

LU<a. Z<>cOGOz<<g><o

£c• ,.. • "

_2 .»-» <•

:<IE

3M

33 «o n -*

a

2»

EiS <o O < 60 c o o ._ c

•s°l C M ii • 8 2

co IS V CO O •** ^

**o

•a •*

\\ •

•a *• '- C _ B

««»

U "1 X .£ " TJ3

§5

•o .H V w VI •* 3 O

•2 S?

"S°

ES

00

ON

ECOx*

• *> 60 9 & i£

SI - £ oU o -E 9 H

t> >>13o

a xicu

•"30

3w

w

B3 <on

o JS .H

»"S

jd .o

**O•8

S•* •=nHu9r:

t . 00 <0 T3

~ •= v>oa •;

SC3

>?3

V) £• w» (0 C «

£

o<o

o2 >>6

ooc-r

"5 £s"

o3 "2

I

-•S£

U L.

c

viec

00UQ3

15

8

8

Ifll O 3 «> 5

u.a t;

3

•IX ••

yDo

£3

15o

ca **

v>•n

w3o

!Ce

•s -5 -S 3 S 3 C e S < O g

**z * O V e ~ B »-"

--

t

-

eo2

3*

c-~

8.8 o B

00

c

o ::S J3 JC I

OkgII

•5
64

•8

«

3

x>

c

5 "

3

«| O

C U

ill c

2 ° o

u

*• •a o

2 P s. 8

«i oo <u H

.5 a *

9

is

o3 12 0

It

« S £

E;.s

o ° S

C -9 u

B « 2

.S «

tt

"> *~ V

o o JC

B M

M

-Hi

l

a

-

•§•«

" XI -

• ,8 C

I** "

O n

•a fc-

«

u H A Tl •*

is g.1

.t: vo •

0 v - bu

X! •£ - tm

Is 2•

u " id O

" a.^- r

c

3

O

S - -a

Jo'

ii 3

o c

c

5« £3 __o C?

1> V w,

• en B

13 -g -a

J= 3 u

• .a s _

8 fe o

u • oo-o

• >. 3 S

S g E *B

V _, cd

•"?«*

x • a a

7 & S« i *•*

c c >, «J

n aj £ u

3

.2 e x:

x. - .5 %

?

J

a b" -•8 8 1

all I

a to « R

H

iSSs^iS^ D D ^ £

* r -c • •»

=3

• U~

_ C

• M

.3

3

Io

X)

1

o

a.

E

1

c

s£

8 - 2 ?

II s

t: 3 u

O SZ

• (J l_ i h

• j- M

o

c

3

DO

C

n

SI

an

c 3

DC

C

V

c

o XI

3 o H

•o o

u c

a M

T3

C

3

U

0

c

c

8.

B JU.5 «

c

I

§»

c 5 u

3 ^ PO !§2IS

3 O M

•oo

°.S •

B5>« •

- s « s

1S1 • O > 3 i

3 ..

O vi

a 5

• o

Q c

u c

• .5 x> V)

•C 3 _

¥ 2 I

1 e x: S v

fa-

=3^

11

(n" o

•o x:

- o

c >

x- 5 *

> u C X!

x: x! u

» ~ - • -5

i 2 o

at 0.00

• s

3-£

> o

-o x:

• 3

00 o

a 2 Z &

p«

£2-5

» | _

o .ts

r? ^* '3

O O. 3

. * 2

2 1

•S fi 2

a IS

•E5« X)s

-o fd

-28 Su °

B

•

c

c

. fi o" c

c

X! u u

B

a g x)

3

> a

Ew X;

_ T3 O tr

Ou V V

73 a c

•S « 2 «>

• P *• Js

x: S u

S ""33

** «

5 «»

" *

« o

1 -

2 8

4J « O «

°-«

- Q 3

V XI

c E o

o «j E5.S

IS

•a

9 S

S o

is B

51

• 00 ° s

.5 I

n B

2 B

li3 o

oo g

j £

eg v

°o

OO

.2 <*

X! •

H

|

~ o

3,8

XI

a!

M B •* **-i 8

c

2

3

3 ki

c

£53

0

"TS «J O 3

• ii s

- « 2

3 £ o

8'5£

2 o. oo

2

w S

B v «

8 5 I

S53«

i]Sl

3 e

B

csl o.

3 C

R ii M

3

a

s c « H X J

^ ts.2

8 c 5

Si's

o XI

aS-s n 5 B K 3 ad u x! •

& « •

x: o Q • w O

•3'- «

w

.S »

o C

w> IC ft ill

8

o «

• m E

fi-a

5 s §

c a o

« K u

o £

8 o

££.S

2 2

« "3

.H o

•a xi

.3 eo

O -S en

•° C I

c"2 ,"

g5.2 = o

C

li o?S x: c c

w

e

I

u 5o

** Q t»

£ » xi

lls

c

il

li

O L. tj X _

cx-sr»

^ « •<« x: o

•" D.

13 u

II1|

n

oo u

O CD

00 c |-

« 8"S fa

*-> *> -a

O *0 ej

eC § 1in

X! ^ « •

CX5 c

o

s =

•S.S

£*

15

£ S o 6

p

Is

3 S «

|2S

°" 3 B

! *J

£: ii •

3 B P

.E u P C So.

2

c

«.2 &

t;

Eay

c .

fl &0 vi

xi C _

.2 o §

u xi oo

o. c c

wB» 1oo SS isi

OJ c c

118

V C M

a; o •! e*-

* -X «^ rt *- v>

>> 45

Cxi S «

O u §-

a 21 s

.S 5

xi 3

«60.5If

(U w)

iff

O • V

>.Ec) "So

<n. C S

en• *rf•

C C

5. 3

xi ^; '5

-83

.2 6?

^ "2 -° a

V C 3

X! 3 O

: ex:

- 3

O

s

x;

.ti "i

I* COi

Q,

•g s

2 o

Q. C

8S
; a «

+ T3 "" V V

m ~ e

GO &-.

IIV VX oO

> «>

a c "

- a c

C «•• 3

3

w Co

.5»if c 2

«o 4) 3

3 0 O

o •<=

« o"co

2.2 °°

OS?-;

ohoo 2 c

M * 2

|2c 8 . c

•O "> o

3 »

- •

w

o B fi .19 as*

x

V

5- ca

sSlfi

00

£.2

ill

s «•

3 . C

> "O

o

^1 • gi l4_ UD. C J3 O O

=

u

*

css-o*^

•» .2 S

2 C 2

c

9

a ** B»S fi

« o. ^,

•g M

.s w B

w

£

~ «i n '

»i c •

• 3

S c **

a o

•2

•a .s

V* -

3 «

o •*

X 00

• PI

00 c

00 3

9 £ -

.59

JC

.2

B 3

e» O

.fi «

X .=

X o

c S h

•S t> <•

fc- a i>

o -g o

'5 a'£.

£ 5

° =

Co *< £

. |<* a

3 c S O £

11 a - -3 St00-0

<• o -S 2 .s

•a ^x.a"2

S3 o V o

•o >>

3 r

o c

o •

9 t; .o 3

M U.

• ' o

- v * ^

** § >>7

•8*5•) v «

a g «

8 « s i

* &• S

te- B§

o oo E

* » c

3 ""' "o. «

3 « o >

* J= | u

aS °- •

"SO "O

m9M g,

:IJS

5 | .5 .5

= 00 2 °

.2 &* c0

8S3S

•a u o sfe« iS-2£S.828£

3 B £ 00 », 00

• X t» 6> x *

o ^> • • •
66

CO

en

</>

to

CO•

IIo ?

-Jw

< I- C -I

UJ Z> o w Qj UJ

u. ec

ml E "

COQ

"a. UJ £ <

rxo

<z

i<oo

>-

cr<2

afee

o?

#1• o I1I0- <

I?

JJo.

51

3

0)

Si•

CO

01

O)

?oIQO

Q.

18§

O)

CM COO

<o in, IN

pi CM r»

5|5

rp»sm CM

co. to CN CO r> co « ri B i>i w «

in in rr- cn r»

in r»

co co

T9 «tJ CN

in r- cn»o co

in in« in co CM cn

r» t- to co co CN S>

is

8

01

co CN

o

CO?§

CN

^ »•• »• to

Q*

*» co rNV cn

8

r^

CO

0) S8 in

CO

CNo

o to CO

Ol

" ""

v

CO •»

f co in in

sen

CN

p*

ao

CN

co8 in

O)

^ CO

?C0 00O CN•

CN CO CO CN CO

co en r» «- com

N

co co cn •-5 in

N ItBO«»

CM in cop cnm

CN in co* co P» CN

CN

rn in

w f» CN <r

r- •<rO CN CN CO

co <£>

n 00 CO ••

*~ CN

CN

CN CN •" CN

5

-*c

••

•B

5 fti I 1 Eo E

TO

c

z£5S iiM3II - I •

f.JI 1 |?

ill | * «. 6 f| I 5?

•a«g

£ II J CO 2 » »

•5 "°?

0 E° 8 =2 i Is 1 o *_

•* en•

F-2

r-"1C

«s t;X

.8f£S

<o 13

•3 <auuu

iiiis v m

ill

•»•&* 3 g e

03 iga

t»o

£511

8"o

Mei

- *2 3-SS S ' 11 s1

to

8u,S> I • c * ' 2 3 _

•£oE

s2

.58

.S•

.5I

hi

EoH

"•'E.C

~aS£

£3 -o cr

•o «-

S

•p v-£

•£aV

wi 1/1

4>3

•bo

a£

vX

3B ft

•»3

3

3x9

« oa c n « R 4> c o C t

O.V1

"IfV)

•O3

=O

« J=

Si
67

til

* «J E

c

& i s **

°£ E

ll2

=2O «>o •

°-s g.

8 "S O

1*2

e ° £

-1

2? B*

° c 2 -5 a *2

« 0 i

o 8

• o _

•3- •

« !!! £ 8

•*- S 2 3

S3 .. «

£2

..A •! fi

•! T3

-; e 9

J3 o «

**-

a OT)

| S.E

"5 3 3

• 3 w» W

u o a

« « o 5-

•g

111

I ' 8

> 9 -

O • O

U

3

S-ST3

"5 *

o «»

a 3

s

5 3 8 s B ci a

81 a i s 8 g .s«

~ * .S

i- • S 5 E -° Q. o eo o <o O

B i- «

»> a

c

-£ ?

So©

o 2

5 '5

2 I o

o >, o

.2 3 2

gsl

2 -a

• •3 2

?a 8

o •:* +-»

E2c

O vi al

2o

o -o **

E > *•-

£°

O R 3

oM c 3

S 5

B a

3 t. 8°,

9 5

c

til

c *•

t. • .

o ^

stfl If*

•2 S

>H S • e

c «

S E

S £

o .3

•a ^5

SO

i-g .2

"So • T3

U C

P == fl 5
68

5 .a S a

•3E_.

°i •

«o S 5

oo 3

2-5-

fig

2S2

Zu

wOO

1*1 -

3 = i

1 1*1 lAjf

£fe -Sid

~ ! s ! o

a.uft< n 3

Q

5i-£.a.2

8^ «

C

L. S ft. o o

CO-SlL a^Js .

J, 11J •'

a - - >-.o

j; a SJ3

c^ <

"O o"g

3 v- ^

l

i$

1

M M S QOSSE

>. ooo! uoo

« ao c o>

i2|g-s«-

0.2S800

, E.i >2 «

-J 5 e fi c

•S

I

f,

.re

x 3 tf"

QBE JfJ-j §

,

M

,j• Q «

H"S •UJoo

§3cli

«»;»)< £•5 *i•<-

1*1 ft

•1*11

8

2§.2<

- u g-co -

Jo.3s o ? 00 o-2 CO

^2^5.2-:

alt *|2

o-a-ai-S PI S < < a J

'•«= 3 5

<5&

•2 «

3-3

tfrfa 0 s 32 «

s

c

- M

1

3

s

jj-, O

-o

c

o e

|J•a in

.a* *i

u° g

c

5 v

c

•5 5 •

-* it:

•t> c

D. O

«< •"

• -a

1 M

o 2

(A

.s -

11

u

8£

c 0

u O

il

8.1 Si. Pii

*" 00

• -a o

• u *

•g ooexo ^ J

» =.S o. B >

3 u (^

illiii

_ 2 c a

.5 ^: o w «^ *

o J: S EO I 3

t: I 8S '

~o E o 1 "9 '

B S -as: 5- c g ^

J? Q 1 « « I 18 HI:

**u ^C II<^*

2' o c rf 1

• I fi tf 91

c « <•* c1 B •- ** 3 '
HOW ACCURATE WAS THE 1980 CENSUS FOR SMALL TOWNS:

SURVEY AND RELATED DATA DERIVED FROM THE "LONG FORM"

In an earlier Issue of Small Town, we discussed the accuracy of the

1980 census for small towns In terms of population, vacancy, and housing

unit counts. These Items, asked of everyone, are part of the census

usually referred to as the "short form." The bulk of Information tabulated from the census Is, however, from the "long form," which Is

collected on a sample basis. A summary of the short and long form Items

Is given in Exhibit 1.

In this paper, we examine the Issue of accuracy for small towns as

It relates to census data products derived from the sample-counts. As

In our earlier article we discuss the accuracy problem In terms of

Alaskan data and further, suggest that our findings are not limited

to small towns In Alaska.

Characteristic Data and Sample Size

Population and housing counts are readily verifiable but characteristic data are more elusive and thereby possibly more damaging when

inaccurate. Income and poverty statistics cannot be checked by simple

counting measures since these data are imputed from a sample; yet the

information collected in a decennial census is used in a multitude of

programs over a ten year period. Low income food distribution programs,

. community service block grants, vocational education and training programs

"How Accurate Was the 1980 Census For Small Towns" pp. 27-30 In Small

Town. Vol. 16, No. 4, 1986.
70

- 2 -

EXHIBIT 1

1980 Census Subject Coverage

100 PERCENT ITEMS

Population

Household relationship

Sex

Race

Age

Marital status

Spanish/Hispanic origin or descent

Housing

Number of units at address

Complete plumbing facilities

Number of rooms

Tenure (whether unit Is owned or rented)

Condominium identification

Value of home (owner-occupied units and

condominiums)

Contract rent (renter-occupied units)

Vacant for rent, for sale, and period

of vacancy

SAMPLE ITEMS

Population

School enrollment

Educational attainment

State or foreign country of birth

Citizenship and year of immigration

Current language and English proficiency

Ancestry

Place of residence five years ago

Activity five years ago

Veteran status and period of service

Presence of disability or handicap

Children ever born

Marital history

Employment status last week

Hours worked last week

Place of work

Travel time to work

Means of transportation to work

Persons in carpool

year last worked

Industry

Occupation

Class of worker

Weeks looking for work in 1979

Amount of Income in 1979 by source

Housing

Type of unit

Stories in building and presence of

elevator

Year built

Tear moved into this house

Acreage and crop sales

Source of water

Sewage disposal

Heating equipment

Fuels used for house heating, water

heating, and cooking

Costs of utilities and fuels

Complete kitchen facilities

Number of bedrooms

Number of bathrooms

Telephone

Air conditioning

Number of automobiles

Number of light trucks and vans

Homeowner shelter costs for morcages,

real estate taxes, and hazard

Insurance
71

- 3 -

are examples. As can be seen from Exhibit 1, population and housing unit

counts are collected from everyone. Characteristic data are not and the

size of the sample "long form" group has varied from one census to another.

In 1960, every fourth household received the long form. In 1970, various

sample sizes were used depending on the characteristic data involved. The

majority of the employment, income, and occupational information came from

a 20Z sample; veteran status, residence 5 years ago, and place of work came

from a 15Z sample while data on Mexican or Spanish origin, disability, and

vocational training came from a 5Z sample. In 1970, however, no characteristic data were published for places with a population under 2500.

In response to pressure from small communities, the Bureau of the

Census made a concerted effort in the 1980 census to gather more reliable

characteristic data for small places. The sampling frame for Incorporated

places under 2500 population was set at one out of every two households.

Thus, in the 1980 decennial Census, the Census Bureau stipulated that

characteristic data would be collected from every other household in

municipalities with a population of under 2500. Actual sample size is

verifiable from the mlcrofich publication of characteristic data for all

incorporated places within a state. In unincorporated places larger than

2500, 1 out of 6 households was Interviewed. Everyone in the sample group

received the same long form so that there was no sampling differential by

subject matter. In Alaska, for example, this meant that for the first

time, detailed Information would be available for the myriad of small

places which cover the state, especially for native villages, which we

focus on later.
72

- 4 -

Sample Problems In Small Alaskan Towns

While the Bureau tried to achieve a 50! sampling frequency for small

towns, this target was not always reached. For example, Wrangell, Alaska

(which was discussed extensively in our earlier article) not only suffered

from an apparent undercount of housing units, but was also one of the cities

where the Census Bureau did not meet its goal of a 501 sample. For Wrangell,

the Bureau of the Census reports a total 1980 population of 2184 persons in

835 housing units. However, only 124 households were interviewed for

characteristic information, a 15% sample. Indications of poor data quality

can be seen in Table 1, which provides a comparison of similar data taken

from both the 100Z count and from the sample. Note here that the sample

responses are "imputed" to obtain total population numbers by sex and race

based on the replies received from those households completing the "long

form" in a census. Theoretically these numbers should match those compiled

from the "short forms" or 100% count. The extent to which these two data

series differ is an indication of the error or possible source of errors

In the characteristic data.

Table 1. Differences in the Number of Persons by Age,

Race, and Sex Using 100% and Sample-Based

Counts, Wrangell, Alaska, 1980

100% Count Sample Difference

Total Persons 2184 2144 -1.8%

Sex

Male

Female

1145

1039

1155

989

+0.9%

-4.8%

Race

White

Others

1737

447

1755

389

+1.0%

-13.0%
73

- 5 -

For Wrangell, the "total" population figure generated from the sample Is

low by 1.8Z, the "total" female figure Is low by 4.8Z and non-whites are

undercounted by 13Z.

In another small Alaskan city, King Cove (population 460), only a

14Z sample was obtained. Racial data were again affected. Minorities were

low by 17.62. If age information is derived from sample information. Ring

Cove will lose most of its teenagers.

Table 2. Differences in the Population by Age and Sex

Using the 100Z and Sample-Based Counts,

Ring Cove, Alaska, 1980

AGE 100Z Count Sample

Male / Female Male / Female

10-13 14 19 13 14

14 3 4 - -

15 7 6 - -

16 5 1 - -

17 4 5 17 -

18 5 4 - -

19 8 5 - -

20 14 6 - -

21 4 4 - -

22-24 9 16 - 14

Insuring a SOZ sampling of housing units does not guarantee a 50Z

sample of persons. Table 3 shows the distribution of incorporated places

within Alaska when sample size by housing units is compared to sample

size by population.

Table 3. Incorporated Places in Alaska With a Population

Under 2500 in 1980 by Actual Sample Size

Percent of Total Percent of the Total

Housing Units in Sample • i"°pulati?" *» Sample

0-29 30-39 40+

0-29

30-39

40+

Total number of places 22 33 77

6 2 0

10 14 1

6 17 76
74

- 6 -

Of the 132 incorporated places In Alaska, only 77 had more than 40%

of the people In their city interviewed. Of the 99 with a 40% or more

sampling of housing units, 23 had less than a 40% sampling of persons.

A case in point is the incorporated city of Port Heiden. With 30 housing

units in the city, the 15 that were in the sample readily constitute a 50%

sample. But only 32 of the 92 inhabitants were interviewed, a 35% population sample. Racial statistics and total population figures are low. In

fact, this skewed sample turned a "native" village into a Caucasian

community.

Table 4. Differences in the Population by Race

Using the 100% and Sample-Based Counts,

Port Heiden, Alaska, 1980

Persons by race 100% count 50% sample

White 31 44

Eskimo 1 0

Aleut 58 31

Other 2 3

Totals 92 78

While King Cove, Wrangell, and Port Heiden are worst case situations for

incorporated places in Alaska, keep in mind that 25% of the Incorporated

Alaskan places under 2500 in population had a sample size of less than 40%.

Alaskan Native Villages

There were 209 places listed as Alaska Native Villages for the 1980

census. Eight of these had zero population while Bethel had a population

over 2500. Thus, 200 places with populations ranging from 1 person to 2207

persons were considered for this study. The title "Alaska Native Village"

(abbreviated ANV) is used to describe villages that qualify for money and

land benefits under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1979.
75

- 7 -

As of 1985 there are atill several villages whose claims are In litigation,

2

several vho did not qualify for benefits and nine villages not listed In

1980 which are considered ANV's. Of the 200 ANV's considered here, 101

were also Incorporated places under state statutes and 70 were designated

as CDF's (Census Designated Places). Data for the remaining villages are

available at the enumeration district level. Metlakatla, a reservation.

Is not considered here. While aggregate data for the state always includes

Metlakatla, tabulations of native populations often do not, which can lead

to confusion when looking at native populations In Alaska.

The criteria for meeting the desired sample size was 50% of the

housing units In a given village. In several instances, with very small

populations, all the occupied units were Included In the sample. These

sample sizes were adjusted to ahow 100Z samples for housing units. The

number of housing units per village ranged from 1 to 306. Tables 5 and

6 display sample size actually obtained by housing units and by population, by type of place. Incorporated, CDF, or neither, and by size of

place.

2

Casewell, Chenega, Chuloonawlck, Council, Chickaloon, Eyak, Montana

Creek and Nome.
76

- 8 -

TABLE 5 SAMPLE SIZE BY TYPE OF PLACE (IN PERCENT)

Type of Number Housing Units Population

Place of Sample Size Sample Size

Places <25% 25-39% 40-50% 50+% <25% 25-39% 40-50% 50+%

CDP 70 22 7 33 8 24 11 20 15

INC 108 2 20 75 11 6 32 52 18

Other 22 2 2 5 3 2 6 3 14

Total 200 26 29 113 32 31 49 75 45

Distribution 13% 14.5% 56.5% 16% 15.5% 24.5% 37.5% 22.5%

27 5% 72 .5% 40% 60%

TABLE 6 SAMPLE BY POPULATION SIZE (IN PERCENT)

Pop. of

Place

Number

of

Places <25%

Housing

Sample

25-39%

Units

Size

40-50% 50+% <25Z

Population

Sample Size

25-39% 40-50% 50+%

0-99 67 14 5 31 17 15 13 17 22

100-199 51 7 6 30 8 7 12 18 14

200-299 32 1 8 20 3 3 9 15 5

300-399 20 2 4 12 2 3 5 8 4

400-499 15 2 1 12 0 2 4 8 1

500+ 15 0 5 9 1 1 6 7 1

Total 200 26 29 114 31 31 49 73 47

There was a wide range of sample sizes. According to the description

of the sample design as published In the printed products from the 1980

census, "in counties, incorporated places, and minor civil divisions estimated to have under 2500 persons (based on pre-census estimates), one half

of all housing units and persons in group quarters were to be included in

the sample." This left CDP'B and other places to be sampled at a one in
77

- 9 -

six rate. Clearly this caused some confusion when applied to the special

category of Alaska Native Villages. Incorporated places were more likely

to have a 1 in 2 sample but 20% of those had a smaller than 40Z sample.

CDP's fared the worst with 41! having less than a 402 sample. Overall,

using housing units as the sample criteria, 72.5% of ANV's were sampled

at a 40Z or higher rate, leaving 27.5% with a less than 40Z sample size.

A one in two sample of housing units did not guarantee a 50% sample

of the population of the village. The number of villages where a 50Z

sample of persons was actually obtained is only 120 out of a possible 200.

While 72.5% of the ANV's showed an acceptable sample size for housing units

only 50Z had an acceptable size by population.

There does not seem to be any decided sampling differential by size

of place for either sample by housing units or by population.

An indication of the accuracy of the characteristic data generated

from the sample is found in looking at age and race data. Age and race

data for each community are available from the 100Z count questions. A

second set of age and race data is generated from the sample questions

and is imputed strictly from the sampled group. The extent to which these

two sets of data agree or disagree is an indication of the accuracy of

the characteristic data. A worst case situation can be seen in Iliamna,

a CDP with a population of 94. A sample of three housing units from 22

yielded the race data set shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Differences in the Number of Persons by Race Using

100Z and Sample-Based Counts, Iliamna, Alaska, 1980

Race 100Z Count Sample

White 56 7

American Indian 19 64

Eskimo 7 30

Aleut 12 4
78

- 10 -

As can be seen according to the sample-based tabulation In Table 7, the

white community has disappeared and been replaced by the native community.

The characteristic data by race are virtually useless.

Using a similar comparison of age data from the two sample frames, both

Illamna and King Cove lose their teenage populations as shown in Table 8.

According to the sample there Is no one in the community ages 16 through 29,

not many pre-schoolers, and no one over age 44. This type of age lumping

is seen frequently In these small communities where an inadequate sample

was taken. As a result, the sample-based count for Illamna shows virtually

no one of high school age.

Table 8. Differences in the Number of Persons by Age Using

100Z and Sample-Based Counts, Illamna and King Cove, Alaska, 1980

Illamna (14Z sample) King Cove (14Z sample)

Age

Under 1 year

1 and 2 years

3 and 4 years

5 years

6 years

7 to 9 years

10 to 13 years

14 years

15 years

16 years

17 years

18 years

19 years

20 years

21 years

22 to 24 years

25 to 29 years

30 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 59 years

60 to 61 years

62 to 64 years

65 to 74 years

75+

X Count Sample 100Z Count Samp

4 • 14 7

3 16 21 22

2 • 22 28

3 • 13 9

1 • 11 21

6 • 19 31

11 29 33 27

2 • 7 •

7 20 13 •

•_ • 6 •

3 • 9 17

1 • 9 •

• • 13 •

1 • 14 •

• • 8 14

4 6 25 15

6 • 47 68

11 15 49 76

20 25 44 21

5 • 55 57

3 • 10 •

• • • •

• • 5 •

1 • 10 3

•. • 3 •
A comparison of age data for King Cove (Inc. pop. 460) from the 100Z count

with data from the 14Z sample of housing units again shows lumping of age

groups and the absence of senior citizens and teenagers.

Table 9 compares the number of persons by age using the 10051 and

sample-based counts for eight villages In Alaska. For Chlonlk Lake and

Circle, a SOZ sample of housing units was taken, but this translated into

a sample of 28Z and 9Z of the population, respectively. The ages tallied

using the sample-based counts are for the most part, Inaccurate.

Discussion and Recommendations

The use of a 50Z sampling frequency In 1980 was a concerted effort

by the Bureau of the Census to collect and provide data for small cities.

When the SOZ sample of housing units covered a 50Z sample of population,

the results for Alaska were tenable. Where the actual field collections

did not meet Bureau specifications, the data resulting from the samplebaaed counts contained a high level of error. As we pointed out in our

earlier article, in many respects small Alaskan towns are different from

those In the lower 48 states. However, we believe that sufficient similarity exists to warrant concern over the 1980 census information derived

from sample-based counts for small towns in the contiguous 48 states.

Thus, if one is using information from 1980 census computer files derived

from the long form, which includes microfiche for Summary Tape File 3a,

one should pay careful attention to the differences between the "total"

figures found in these reports and those found in the reports generated

frnm rnmniirpr flips halted unon 1002 rnnnfs: for examole. Rtiramnrv TADP
>>.-< mm I"• ^ to

•

a.

a i-5

0 O

B o

» M

« o

oH

•a V

c 0) ^H

(8 u a

O

** CO 1 co

o a* *J w

O .-I id

» -H«C •

01 H

60 - & < CO

0) «H to

>s 60 i-l w

-O CO a

H 3

a H rn S-T

C <H o

0 > o

i

U 01

0) >

Pu -rl 0) 0) u .* <H •*-. « to a.

o 3: •J 1

CO

W *3

V 01 <H

•its a

00N

9 0) •H O

** £ 9

C

CO 3

cu o

u o

c

V *T3

M 01

a> co

H co

* 0 tH fl

o\ CO CQ V)

t/j

cu i

H CU M

•2 5= o

r^r*sOvorJejv**>u-ia\M«N»ni^iAO^HfOintN»ocnoocN>a-<^ r^ oo

HCMCMHHn»riHi^NNH^HN^sOn«»>»N (N CM •* »A

HNHH mm iHf-ii-Hf-* cMMNcnsrH H N »n tftin

I r» \D o -tf Ps i »•* <0 m

•Hr-'^oo^NonNHinvo o» -o* ©

r-4 iH rH *C xO

0>\DCOn'OOin<nirirtN |HU1-*mOnNinNHHNN CO -tf tN

^-< rH .H I H N .-• (M H OOiAiTt

«N«N^HI i ^rmH j I liniw^rr^oococoif*)! • ••» •

! ! HH i I I rH I

irvcocM^inrirs.^^cMin^N^ejs-tf^vDnHH I »n I

I •* S I ! I I I ! I ! I I I I - a I I

Nift^inHinNrHNrlHNH I H (H 00 CO M •*

11*1

NimnHNNoonHrisjNNHncoonoirtHHHHH

r-4 I ONiri^NPI I I

i-H CN ,• CN i *o CN -T CN ~H CN rH CN I r-i in m \0 ^ O •• I 1 H '

in a

M p

H fl 4 01 0)

1- >» >» 0)

•U CN **

C 1 1

a rn m

u M cy

>, l- 1- t- V. v- U V- u

>sm <u

Q cQ <o to (0 co

(OtDttlCflCSQQCDCQCO

MriUMMMMril*

t0COtOtQtQQ](QcQ(0i

QjQJCUOJaiOlcUQJtJJt

M M

00 O

oi <n

H I men r-t

•-t o

0) oi oi oi o»s9'c^*a*-a,<roNfH<f*»

>>^oA i I i ii I i T T I

I o>jin»ON(0»OHNinominiflONi/M i

»< •w

in a^-*

#

ao

o&. X

at 0)

r-i r-l

B I

to CO

V) t/J
81

- 13 -

We recommend that all places should be sampled at the same rate with

no differential according to whether a place is a CDP, Incorporated, or

neither. Uniformity of sample size needs to be stressed and the importance of meeting this criteria needs to be emphasized in field offices

for the 1990 census.

A second recommendation relates to the questionnaire itself. At

present, two separate forms are used. Only the long form or sample questionnaire has the additional questions concerning income, education, and

employment. Consideration should be given to using only the long form in

small places. Using only the long form will simplify data collection.

Publicity and instruction on form completion would center on only one

form. There would be less confusion as all persons would be filling out

the same questionnaire. Emphasis should be put on obtaining a 1002

completion rate for the age, race, and sex questions. Imputed characteristic data would then be developed where necessary from these correct

population counts.

Pressure will be on the Census Bureau to keep the costs of the 1990

census at the 1980 dollar level, and sampling frequencies will be especially

vulnerable to budget constraints. Small towns need to keep the 50% sample

frame as a data collection priority for 1990. Further, during the course

of the actual conduct of the census, officials of small cities need to

insure that the proper sample is actually collected in their city so that

the data generated will accurately reflect their community.

Finally, we want to point out that the Bureau of the Census is preparing for the necessity of "adjusting" the 1990 census for estimated

undercounts. This means that funds have already been shifted from efforts
82

- U -

to Improve coverage to efforts to evaluate and adjust the 1990 enumeration.

The bulk of this effort will, of course, be directed toward major metropolitan areas, which, again, poses a threat to the quality of data for

small towns.

Jo Van Patten

Alaska Department of Labor

Juneau, Alaska 99881

David A Swanson, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology

Pacific Lutheran University

Tacoma, Washington 98447

O

80-959 (88)