Estimating the Population in a Census Year 1980 and beyond

• Published in: Journal of the American Statistical Association 1985-03, Vol.80 (389), p.98-109
• Main Authors: Ericksen, Eugene P., Kadane, Joseph B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analytical estimating; Censuses; Demographic analysis; Demography; Estimate reliability; Estimation methods; Exact sciences and technology; Hispanics; Income estimates; Mathematics; Population estimates; Probability and statistics; Sampling theory, sample surveys; Sciences and techniques of general use; Statistics; Theory and Methods; United States government publications
• ISSN: 0162-1459; 1537-274X
• DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1985.10477140

The wisdom of adjusting U.S. decennial census counts and the theory and methods that might be used for that purpose have been matters of hot dispute in certain recent court cases involving expert testimony from numerous leading statisticians and demographers. This article by Ericksen and Kadane and the ensuing comments address the theoretical and practical issues from both sides of the controversy. In order to provide a context for the reader, I am including the following brief history, as it has been explained to me. Between the 1970 and the 1980 decennial censuses, a demand for greater accuracy of census counts arose because of the increased uses of census numbers in fund-allocation formulas for states and other political jurisdictions. The undercount became a particular target of concern, because estimates provided by the Bureau of the Census show that it is more concentrated among blacks than whites, among men than women, and among the young rather than the old. A lawsuit was filed on Census Day, 1980, by the city of Detroit asking for the 1980 census to be adjusted for the undercount. This action was soon followed by other lawsuits with a total of 52 filed, 36 of which asked for adjustment. Two of the adjustment cases have gone to trial-the city of Detroit and the state and city of New York. The other adjustment cases have been resolved or combined into a multidistrict litigation that is still in the pretrial phase. In the Detroit case, the district court ruled in favor of Detroit. When the government appealed, the case was not settled on the merits of adjustment, but was decided on a legal point-that Detroit did not have a standing to bring the case to court. During this case, several statisticians testified for each side. They were Philip Hauser, Robert Hill, and Karl Taeuber for the plaintiffs and Vincent Barabba, George Hall, Jacob Siegel, Barbara Bailar, Robert Fay, and Nathan Keyfitz for the defense. The New York case also went to trial in 1980; it was decided in favor of New York but was remanded for a new trial by the appellate court because of procedures used in the trial. The case went to trial again in January 1984 and has not yet been decided. This article by Ericksen and Kadane was an exhibit in that trial. The methodology was put forward by Ericksen and Kadane as feasible methodology to use for adjusting the 1980 census. Statisticians who testified for New York were Eugene Ericksen, Samuel Preston, John Tukey, Franklin Fisher, Joseph Kad