Backyard Prisoners

Oct 062010

Backyard Prisoners

A Quirky Problem

The Census Bureau counts prisoners in their prisons.

This paper discusses the environmental justice issues relating to incarceration in the United States. More specifically, it is about the surprising effect a Census Bureau “data-gathering quirk,”^[1]has had on the American criminal justice system. Simply put, the Census Bureau counts prisoners in their prisons, and not in their homes.

Power and money is shifted from one community to another.

All

“While there is debate about the amount of state and federal funding that follows strictly population-based formulas, it is clear that there is a financial benefit to prison-hosting communities. While prisoners do not generally receive any benefit from the funding that goes to the community just beyond the barbed wire fences, prisoners add to the population rolls, and therefore the hosting community receives population-based funding from state and federal governments for their name, but not for their benefit. For example, Crest Hill, Illinois earns $270,000 from such population-based assistance. In Pontiac, Illinois, the City Administrator claims that the town gains $120,000 annually as a result of prisoners being counted in Pontiac by the Census Bureau. In Johnson County, Illinois, the town’s budget nearly doubles to $3.4 million as a result of $1.5 million per year in population-based funding received due to the census including Johnson County’s 2,955 prisoners as residents of Johnson County. ” ^[2]

�

All census-based representation and funding rightfully belonging to the prisoners, go to the people who live near the prisons, and to the representatives they elect. Consequently, “the prisoners’ ‘share’ of federal funds pegged to population counts go to the hometowns of their keepers.”^[3] The money involved can be substantial. Some prison towns end up receiving millions of dollars^[4] of extra funding for everything from education,^[5] to anti-poverty programs,^[6] and environmental protection,^[7] due to their prison populations.

Shift is usually from urban/minority communities to rural/white

Minority communities lose the most. “While nobody is exactly sure how big the prisoner-related census windfalls for rural communities will be, one thing is certain: The big losers will be urban communities of color. Half of all US prisoners are African American and one-sixth are Latino. The vast majority are from places like East New York and South Central Los Angeles. As a result, these neighborhoods — which have already sustained years of economic and social crises and lo ss — stand to lose both more money and power throughout the decade.”^[8]

�

EJ issues for minorities

Much of the transferred funding is meant for environmental protection, including important non-population based environmental funds, such as the CIRCLA “Superfund,” which are distributed by elected representatives. While minority communities are overrepresented in proximity to environmental burdens,^[9] they are less likely to be included on the Superfund list,^[10] less likely to have hazardous environmental conditions cleaned,^[11] and less likely to have any environmental laws enforced.^[12] Cleanup sites progress more quickly through the listing process if they are located in a community perceived to have more power, and more access to resources.^[13]

The Effect on Criminal Justice

The rule makes prisoners valuable.

The environmental justice concerns go well beyond environmental law. As significant as these effects are, they are superficial compared to the effect on the justice system. The quirk makes prisoners valuable. “A hot commodity that everyone wants to claim.” ^[14]

“That’s because the Census Bureau counts prisoners as residents of the towns they are incarcerated in, instead of the neighborhoods they lived in before being locked up. The result: Every calculation that uses Census data–from federal funding formulas to drawing state legislative districts–gives more money and representation to communities with prisons than they would get if reckoning were based solely on their non-incarcerated populations. That makes prisoners a hot commodity that everyone wants to claim. ” ^[15]

When New York Democrats proposed a plan to ignore the Census Bureau quirk and “count prisoners as residents of their last known address rather than counting them where they are held,” ^[16] The New York Times predicted an “especially fierce” ^[17] fight over this “coveted constituency.”^[18] The demand for prisoners is so great, municipalities with empty prison-beds “beg” for more prisoners,^[19] and those without empty prison-beds beg for more prisons.^[20] “Given that prisoners are a source of increasing political and economic power, it is not surprising that the leaders of these downstate communities have gone from saying ‘not in my backyard,’ to ‘yes, in my backyard.’ “^[21]

People admit the non-crime –fighting desire for prisoners

Community leaders often candidly admit they want prisoners not to fight crime, but to take financial and political advantage of them. “Some officials do not even pretend the method is rational; they’re simply pleased to see their communities benefit from it. ‘From a selfish point of view, hey, whatever works,’ Henry Rausch, a mayor in upstate New York, told the Boston Globe three years ago. Rausch’s town, Coxsackie, counts a third of its residents in local prisons. ‘I’m not about to set out and change it if it helps us,’ Rausch added.”^[22] Mayor Andy Hutchens of Ina, Illinois, said a prison is like a “permanent windfall,” allowing a town of 450 to get the tax money of 2,700 people, while “those people in that prison can’t vote me out of office.’ ” ^[23] Rhode Island, State Representative Peter Palumbo has said: “All these years the prison has caused me grief with my constituents. Now maybe it will help with redistricting.”^[24]

Some elected officials literally depend on their prison population to stay in office.

“A startling analysis by Peter Wagner of the Prison Policy Initiative found seven upstate New York Senate districts meeting the population requirements only because inmates were included in the count.” ^[25]

�

“By counting inmates at prison instead of at home, the bureau allows unscrupulous legislatures to create phantom districts that sometimes contain more inmates than actual constituents. Politicians from these bogus districts can be elected with shockingly small numbers of votes. Once in office, they reward friends, punish enemies, and generally wield as much power as legislators from legitimate districts with many more real constituents.” The Census: Phantom Constituents – The Board Blog – NYTimes.com, New York Times, http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/the-census-phantom-constituents/ (last visited Feb. 8, 2010).

The demand for prisoners in action

[examples here – like hardin]

�

Why people do such crazy things

They ain’t thinking straight. People acting under the influence appear irrational

The rule creates a feedback mechanism

IE, they use their power to increase the prison population to increase their power…

What others have said about feedback/cycle/etc

“Counting urban prisoners as rural residents creates the potential for a self-perpetuating cycle of prison expansion immune to democratic restraint. The very communities most supportive of and dependant on prisons find their political clout growing, and the communities most likely to support alternatives to incarceration find their citizens being shipped upstate while their political clout dwindles. Rural communities without prisons may also suffer, as the prison-effect in the legislature grows to overwhelm the supporters of agriculture with prison razor wire.” ^[26]

Exponential growth is possible if politicians are human…

�

Politicians use power to increase prison population

What others have said about this betrayal

“As a result of the Census Bureau’s enumeration policy, more than twenty counties in the United States have more than 20% of their residents behind bars. In these twenty counties in particular, and to a lesser extent in the hundreds of counties nationwide with significant prison populations, legislators are all too happy to claim the extra power and money their prison populations command, though not necessarily all too eager to represent the interests of those who buoy their political fortunes.” ^[27]

�

“In New York, legislators whose districts are dependent on including prison populations nevertheless make little pretense of providing actual representation to the prisoners in their districts. Indeed, the evidence indicates that representatives of such districts do not merely ignore their incarcerated constituents, but advocate policies inimical to their interests” ^[28]

�

“Indeed, the evidence indicates that representatives of such districts do not merely ignore their incarcerated constituents, but advocate policies inimical to their interests.”^[29] Moreover, most prisoners in the U.S. cannot vote,^[30] and “because the prisoners cannot vote, but are counted as constituents, they are not represented, and they are totally exploited.” ^[31] Their own representatives “consistently legislate against”^[32] them, because their continued careers depend on keeping their prisons full.^[33]

Their own statements

�

Prisoners don’t feel like constituents to them

In fact, the representatives in question often come right out and say so. “Do I consider them my constituents?” asked Anamosa City Councilman Danny R. Young, about the 1,300 prisoners that comprise 96% of his constituency. “They don’t vote, so, I guess, not really.” ^[34] Some of them may be admitting more than they mean to. New York State Senator Dale Volker says he would rather place his electoral fate in the local cows than in the local prisoners, because the cows “would be more likely to vote for me.” ^[35] One wonders why he thinks the 11,000 prisoners in the six maximum, medium and minimum security prisons in his district all have some reason to dislike him .^[36] New York State Senator Elizabeth Little, who represents a district with so many prisons it has been nicknamed “Little Siberia,”^[37] claims she views the prisoners in her district as constituents,^[38] has argued in the past the prisoner-counting rule is in the prisoners own best interests. “It was the influences at home that got them into trouble in the first place,” she said, “so maybe they’d be better off someplace else,”^[39] as if her representation somehow prevents or delays their return home.

Studies have shown the representatives in question feel they owe no duty towards their prisoners.^[40]

They appear to be irrational regarding prison

They write laws

Today, their efforts produce sex registry and civil confinement laws, while blocking drug-law reform

They fight reform

Their records appear consistent with the theory. But maybe they believe what they believe. Are they deliberately putting people in prison to take their money and power? Is it unconscious? Or is it a coincidence?

General statements about prisoner-dependent politicians

�

Three specific examples from new York

Little defending prisoner-counting rule

Defense of prisoner-counting rule

“‘Actually, it was the influences at home that got them into trouble in the first place, so maybe they’d be better off someplace else,’ she said in a phone interview.” ^[41]

�

“‘The fact that there are 12 facilities in my Senate district is because no one wanted them. And yes, we took them. And we developed an economy around them. But that’s not, you know, the fault of this area,’ Little says.” ^[42]

�

“Queensbury Republican Sen. Elizabeth Little, who has represented the district since 2002, supports the current Census Bureau guidelines. ‘How do we know these people are going to go back to their hometowns once — or if — they are released?,’ Little said. ‘Are they serving life sentences? Do they still have family in their hometowns?’” ^[43]

�

Little defending unnecessary prisons

“Sen. Betty Little said closing Gabriels in her Adirondack district would be “truly harmful” to the area, costing jobs at a “transitional” facility without fences where inmates learn to do work programs and earn GEDs” ^[44]

�

“These days, Camp Gabriels operates at about half capacity, just under 190 inmates. But Little argues that too many inmates are being crowded into prisons downstate. ‘I will be the first to admit that if there are no inmates, you don’t have any prisons for them. But that’s not really the case of what’s happening here. They are double bunking still — and have over 6,000 double bunks right now,’ she says,” ^[45] although “State officials say housing two inmates in a single cell is a widely accepted practice.”^[46]

�

Check out what they say defending prisoner rule:

[THIS SHOULD BE MOVED] “In Ina, Illinois, Mayor Andy Hutchens has claimed that as state and federal tax revenues are figured per capita, a prison population which places no strains on city services is a permanent windfall. (81) ‘It really figures out this way,’ Hutchens said, ‘[t]his little town of 450 people is getting the tax money of a town of 2,700 … [a]nd those people in that prison can’t vote me out of office.’” ^[47]

�

Queensbury Republican Sen. Elizabeth Little, who has represented the district since 2002, supports the current Census Bureau guidelines. ^[48]

“‘Actually, it was the influences at home that got them into trouble in the first place, so maybe they’d be better off someplace else,’ she said in a phone interview. “^[49]

�

Reasons for keeping residence rule contradict reasons for keeping prisons open

�

More study would help prove/disprove coincidence, but the evidence to follow seems to make it unnecessary – overkill in terms of evidence. But it should be looked at properly.

Their statements indicate unconscious bias is clouding their thinking.

The explanations they provide show evidence of a lack of thinking. They admit to it like they do not realize there is something wrong. They contradict themselves. They say things that are untrue or meaningless. They act irrationally. This suggests unconscious self deception due to bias. If you believe the scientists or the founding fathers, this behavior should be inevitable. It would have been happening all along, and all over.

Policy changes have been increasing the prison population for 100 years

Today’s civil confinement and sex offender laws are yesterday’s … go through the list.

Many people blame the increase on the war on drugs. The war on drugs certainly did increase the prison population, just as suggested. But public policies have been increasing the prison population since long before the war on drugs started.

�

“1880 was the culmination of a marked trend during the previous fifty years toward increased use of incarceration. Extensive prison construction, organization of police forces, and increased formalization of criminal legislation and litigation processes also occurred during these decades.” ^[51]

�

The growth in incarceration rates continued until 1910…the early 1920s brought a general easing of punitiveness, in this nation and abroad, in contrast to the increased severity to follow in the late 1920s and 1930s.’

�

The 1933 census, following the onset of the Depression, detailed record levels of incarceration across the country, and these rates continued to rise until 1940. World War II brought a large decrease in the number of civilian prisoners, and the state and federal reports for the years between 1940 and 1946 recorded large declines. Yet the census reports note that these declining rates were more than offset by increases in the number of persons incarcerated in military prisons. ^[52]

�

“Characterizing the trends in imprisonment in the United States, Barnes and Teeters wrote, in 1959: ‘in 1931, 76 per cent of all the inmates of federal and state prisons had been incarcerated for committing acts that had not been crimes 15 years earlier.” The authors noted that, since 1900, 500,000 new state laws had been enacted in the United States, and they characterized this country as an “over criminalized society,” with the recently enacted “victimless crimes” contributing significantly to the high rates of incarceration.

�

“Appeals to citizens as actual or potential victims of crime and reports of an ill-advised leniency toward offenders are two devices used today to gather support for state and federal legislation and correctional policies that would mandate increased use of incarceration.”^[53]

�

“In summary, despite fluctuations in the rate of confinement since 1910, the United States has demonstrated a willingness to rely more and more upon incarceration. International comparisons indicate that the United States incarcerates more persons than does any other industrialized nation on which information is available.”^[54]

�

If the political and economic value of backyard prisoners is responsible for the 150 year growth in the prison population, it should be apparent in the history of criminal law; there should be a 150 year string of laws providing new reasons for putting people in jail and keeping them there. And that is, in fact, the case. “1880 was the culmination of a marked trend during the previous fifty years toward increased use of incarceration. Extensive prison construction, organization of police forces, and increased formalization of criminal legislation and litigation processes also occurred during these decades.”^[55] Seventy-six per cent of all prisoners in jail in 1931 had been convicted of crimes that did not exist 15 years earlier.^[56] Commentators blamed the increase on the recently enacted “victimless crimes” of an “over criminalized society.” Note how similar this is to contemporary criticism.^[57] Then came the proliferation of mandatory minimum penalty statutes,^[58] starting with the Boggs Act and “little Boggs Acts” of the 50s.^[59]

The policies come in waves; an idea will pop up somewhere, and then catch on, spreading across the country like some kind of fad.

the “Boggs Acts,” named after Rep. Hale Boggs (D-La.) who championed the passage of stiff five- and ten-year federal mandatory sentences for drug offenders in 1951. Five years later, the sentences were increased and the federal Boggs Acts became so popular that they were mimicked by “Little Boggs Acts” in the states, some specifying prison terms as long as 10to-40 years.

People brag about how tough their laws are:

“The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act will give California the strictest sex offender laws we have ever had and ensure our state has the toughest penalties for the worst crimes,’ said Governor Schwarzenegger” ^[60]

�

” In announcing a deal with legislative leaders on Thursday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, suggested that New York’s proposed civil commitment law would “become a national model” and go well beyond confining the most violent predators to also include mental health treatment and intensive supervised release for offenders. “No one has a bill like this, nobody,” said State Senator Dale M. Volker, a Republican from western New York and a leading proponent in the Legislature of civil confinement.” ^[61]

�

“Apart from the balanced General Fund budget, this special session will be remembered primarily for the passage of two pieces of landmark legislation. One gives Alabamians the strongest private property protections in America, and the other gives our state some of the toughest laws in the country against sexual predators…
It is unprecedented in its scope and severity, as it rightfully needs to be. From now on, sexual offenders whose victims are children will serve a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison for their first offense. They will be ineligible for parole, probation, split sentences or time off for “good behavior” in prison that gives them an early release. Not only does our new child protection law increase prison sentences so these monsters are put away for a long time, it also significantly improves the ability of law enforcement and the public to track their whereabouts once they complete their sentences. They will be subject to no less than 10 years of electronic monitoring. They will be required to possess either a driver’s license or identification card that carries a special mark identifying them as sex offenders. Those who commit sex offenses against children under age 12 are prohibited from working or loitering at or near schools, parks or other areas where children gather.”^[62].

With the 70′s came the Rockefeller drug laws,^[63] and “truth in sentencing” laws,^[64] . The 80′s brought a series of increasingly harsh statutes creating and increasing mandatory minimums,^[65] decreasing rights to parole and probation,^[66] and creating never before seen penalties for possession of drugs.^[67] The same period introduced the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: “Under the guidelines, punishment became not only more certain but also more severe. The proportion of probation sentences declined, use of restrictive alternatives such as home confinement increased, and the rate of imprisonment for longer lengths of time climbed dramatically compared to the preguidelines era. While mandatory minimum penalties had some direct and indirect effects on these trends, careful analysis of sentencing trends for different types of crimes demonstrates that the sentencing guidelines themselves made a substantial and independent contribution .” ^[68]

The 90′s brought the proliferation of “three strikes” habitual-offender laws,^[69] requiring life imprisonment for a third felony conviction, with no possibility of parole for at least, most commonly, twenty-five years.^[70] By 2004, twenty-six states and the federal government had laws that satisfy the general criteria for designation as “three strikes” laws.^[71]

In 1979, Margarat Cahalahn described appeals to citizens “as victims,” and warnings of the dangers of “ill-advised leniency” as “devices used to gather support for policies that would mandate increased use of incarceration.”^[72]

Today we have the sex offender registry and civil confinement laws

�

it is widely believed that the pronounced increase in prison population of the last few decades is the result of new government policies, such as sentencing guidelines,^[73] anti-drug laws,^[74] and “three-strikes and you’re out” laws.^[75]

The Prison Population

The American prison population: bigger than everyone else’s, nobody knows why, a national shame, some wonder if we are good or not, due to misery and death resulting from prison population

“Only now are we starting to come to terms with the number of people we put behind bars and the drain it creates on our financial and human resources.”^[76](2005)

^[77]

�

Prison population is too big

“To gauge how extreme this scale of confinement is, suffice it to note that it is about 40 per cent higher than South Africa’s at the height of the armed struggle against apartheid and six to twelve times the rate of the countries of the European Union, even though the latter have also seen their imprisonment rate rise rapidly over the past two decades.” Want page 5

�

Bigger than everyone else’s

So big, people are needlessly dying

Prison population is too black

Prison population is a mystery

Racial disparity is a mystery

“Discrimination by sentencing judges cannot explain the growing gap between African-American and other offenders observed during the guidelines era. [From The United States Sentencing Commission; November 2004 (The full study is available in PDF Format at: www.ussc.gov/15_year/15year.htm ]

�

In spite of interest in this, there are no known explanations

What others have said about the unknown cause of prison growth

“In short, American jails and prisons are overflowing with convicts who would not have been thrown behind bars 30 years ago and who, moreover, would not be rotting there if the public were better informed about the realities of the country’s penal policy. 12 What changed during the intervening decades, then, is not the frequency and character of criminal activity but the attitude of the society and the responses of the authorities toward street delinquency and its principal source, urban poverty concentrated in the big cities” – by Loic Wacquant /possibly from book balled “The New Punitiveness” at 15

�

Crime & population already rejected, but wouldn’t explain it anyway

It isn’t crime

“The connection between incarceration and crime rates appears as elusive at the end of the 90s it has been in previous decades. There is little correlation between states with skyrocketing incarceration rates and the recent crime declines witnessed across the country.” From “The Punishing Decade,” by Justice Policy Institute, May, 2000, page 4

�

“All historical and comparative studies concur to demonstrate that the level of incarceration of a given society bears no relation to its crime rate: it is at bottom an expression of cultural and political choices (Christie, 1998)” from “The great penal leap backward: Incarceration in America from Nixon to Clinton,” by Loic Wacquant /possibly from book balled “The New Punitiveness” at 21

�

“the dramatic increase in the use of prison almost entirely to changes in policy, and not crime rates. That is, policymakers at all levels of government have enacted laws and procedures designed to send more people to prison and to keep them in prison for longer periods of time. For the period 1980-1996, for example, a time when the inmate population tripled, 88% of this rise was a result of changes in sentencing policy, and just 12% due to changes in crime.^[78]

�

It isn’t the growing population

Is it policy?

Lessons of the “Get Tough” Movement in the United States

Some blame societal attitudes

�

None of these things explain why the growth was exponential

They say the growth was exponential

“Starting in 1973, American penal evolution abruptly reversed course and the population behind bars underwent exponential growth , on a scale without precedent in the history of democratic societies.” Wacant page 5

�

The say exponential growth requires feedback mechanism

Some even say the prison growth requires feedback mechanism

“There are two reasons that, despite the complexity and difficulty of the analysis, the whole system of politics, crime, ethnic conflict, economic deprivation, family disruption, and imprisonment need to be studied together. The first is that the positive feedbacks in the system as a whole are the most reasonable explanation for spiraling imprisonment rates. Standard “rationalist” crime-control theories predict that crime and punishment would come into a steadystate equilibrium, while standard “deprivation causes crime” theories predict crime cycles associated with economic cycles, but neither can account for exponential growth in imprisonment as violent crime rates stabilized or declined. Tracking the Causes and Consequences of Racial Disparities in Imprisonment Pamela E. Oliver Marino A. Bruce A proposal to the National Science Foundation, August 2001 at 12

�

“However, if imprisonment reduces crime and imprisonment is a response to crime, then the two should come into equilibrium at some steady state: exponential growth in imprisonment against modestly falling crime rates is not consistent with the theory.” Tracking the Causes and Consequences of Racial Disparities in Imprisonment Pamela E. Oliver Marino A. Bruce A proposal to the National Science Foundation, August 2001 at 4

�

“The U.S. prison population is increasing exponentially. When there is an exponential increase in the value of a variable in a system, systems thinking tells us there must be a reinforcing feedback process behind it.” http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/prisons.shtml “Addiction to Prisons”

�

A Statement of The Theory and the reasons to expect it

The theory: Rule 20 allows government to take power from people by putting them in prison. Politicians use their power to increase the prison population. This feedback mechanism leads to exponential growth in prison population, as well as exponential growth in political power of the politicians taking advantage of Rule 20.

Prisoner-dependent representatives hype the need for more incarceration

Although there are representatives who benefit from a smaller prison population, but the effect is much smaller for them. Result is ever-present bias towards more incarceration.

Furthermore, those that change the laws to put more people in prison, don’t want to put their own children in prison, so their efforts are stronger when they impact “other people.” Laws focused against minorities are more likely anyway because minorities are not in power, so the laws criminalizing their behavior, etc, get passed.

The laws eventually change, and the prison population eventually grows, as does the power wielded by the prisoner-dependent politicians. There is also more of them as new prisons are built in new towns. Consequently, it becomes easier and easier to put people in prison. IE, the rate of increase increases.

Already stated reasons to believe it:

Lack of any other explanation

Exponential growth requires feedback mechanism

International disparity

“Amongst many criminologists and penologists, there is a concern that, in matters of penal policy, where the USA leads, other English-speaking nations follow The ‘great American carceral boom’, as Wacquant (2o05) has called it, certainly has been dramatic: an exponential growth that has seen the prison population rise from 176 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1971 to 714 inmates per 100,0o0 inhabitants today, a figure that bears comparisons: “To gauge how extreme this scale of confinement is, suffice it to say that it is about 40 per cent higher than South Africa’s at the height of the armed struggle against apartheid and six to twelve times the rate of the countries of the European Union, even though the tatter have also seen their imprisonment rate rise rapidly over the past two decades. During the period 1985-1995, the United States amassed nearly one million more inmates at a pace of an additional 1,631 bodies per week. equivalent to incorporating the confined population of France every six months” (Wacquant 2005: 5). Whilst these trends are exceptional in the western world – indeed, Garland (2001: 1) has described them as a ‘pathological phenomenon’ – it could be argued that they are once again merely a more excessive version of what is occurring in England and Wales where the same period has seen the prison population almost double from 40.000 since 1971. And, given the endemic overcrowding problems already mentioned, it seems hopelessly naive to believe that criminal justice systems can do anything more ambitious than managing a seemingly permanent prison population – far less maintain any pretence of transforming criminal subjects as their nineteenth-century counterparts attempted to do (Caplow and Simon 1999). But what do we know about the flesh-and-blood individuals behind the statistics? As many of the readings in this collection have shown, there have been significant trends in recent years, including increases in the numbers of people with serious mental health problems being sent to prison, increases in the proportion of women and individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds and increases in the remand population. what is clear is that in all advanced..” From Prison readings By Yvonne Jewkes, Helen Johnston, [page285- 286

Racial disparity

This points to the second reason for the astonishing rise of incarceration among black Americans, independent from rates of offending: the preferential enforcement of those laws most likely to lead to the arrest and prosecution of poor African Americans. True, discrimination in sentencing remains a reality at the final stage of the criminal justice process: controlling for prior record, seriousness of offence, and for indirect effects of race, blacks are more likely to receive a sanction of penal confinement than whites (Crutfield et al ., 1994). But such discrimination clearly has not increased since the mid-1970s and so it cannot account for the spectacular worsening of 'racial disproportionality' in prison admissions in the recent period. The latter suggests that a new relationship has been established between imprisonment and the caste division that underlies the structure of US society since the uprisings that shook the ghetto. - by Loic Wacquant /possibly from book balled "The New Punitiveness" at 20

�

"the functional coupling of the penal apparatus and the black ghetto fits with the onset of a 'new penology' whose objective is neither to prevent crime nor to reintegrate offenders into society once they have served their sentences, but merely to isolate groups perceived as dangerous and to neutralize their most disruptive members through the stochastic management of the risks they are believed to pose (Simon and Feeley, 1995)" by Loic Wacquant /possibly from book balled "The New Punitiveness" at 21

"The black–white gap has deepened rapidly in the course of the last two decades, to the point where the incarceration rate of African Americans is nearly eight times that of their compatriots of European stock. This sudden and accelerating 'darkening' of the carceral population is directly connected to the onset of the 'War on Drugs' launched with fanfare by Ronald Reagan and amplified by his successors (Tonry, 1995). This policy has served as cover for a veritable police and penal guerrilla on sellers of narcotics and other street operators and, by extension, for the punitive containment of the residents of the dispossessed black urban neighborhoods in which they congregate. Following the economic decay and collapse of public institutions in the inner city, ghetto dwellers have been suspected of deviating from national cultural norms and accused of adopting those 'antisocial behaviours' alleged by the pseudo-scientific" by Loic Wacquant /possibly from book balled "The New Punitiveness" at 20

�

Drug laws seem aimed at minorities

Far from hunting down the scourge wherever it strikes, starting with prosperous white suburbs and university campuses, the federal anti-drug campaign has concentrated squarely on the declining dark ghetto. As a result, the arrest rate of blacks for narcotics violation has shot up tenfold in ten years to peak at 1,800 per 100,000 by 1989, while the same rate for whites fluctuated between 220 and 250 per 100,000 (although the incidence of drug consumption is nearly identical in the two communities).

�

"Despite the decline in crime, imprisonment grew exponentially. The index crime rate, principally larceny/theft, rose modestly during the recession of the early 1990s (Boggess and Bound 1997), and then index crime declined in the 1990s, while imprisonment continued to grow. After 1980, the rise in imprisonment was fueled increasingly by drug offenses, which are not part of the crime index. The proportion of drug offenders in US prisons rose from 5.7% in 1979 to 21.5% in 1991 (Sampson and Lauritsen 1997) and there was a sharp increase in black, but not white, drug arrests 1986-1991 (Tonry 1997)." From Tracking the Causes and Consequences of Racial Disparities in Imprisonment Pamela E. Oliver Marino A. Bruce A proposal to the National Science Foundation, August 2001 page 3

�

Although there is little evidence that blacks are more likely to use drugs than whites, they are six times more likely to be imprisoned on drug-related charges. Of those, most have no history of violence or drug dealing, and were arrested mainly for possession of drugs.^[79]

�

Some say Racial disparity in criminal punishment was knowing and intentional

The National Press Club in Washington, DC took on the aspect of a chemistry lab for a short while Tuesday afternoon as scientists and researchers sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project gave a startling demonstration of false positive drug test results obtained using some of the most widely used field testing kits employed by law enforcement to detect the presence of marijuana and other drugs. The testing done at the press conference replicated that done earlier by the researchers, who found that a surprisingly large number of common substances generated false positive results for the presence of drugs “While testing the specificity of the KN Reagent test kits with 42 non-marijuana substances, I observed that 70% of these tests rendered a false positive,” said Dr. Omar Bagasra, director of the Center for Biotechnology, who conducted the experiments. “”That’s just outrageous,” exclaimed Eidinger. That research came as part of new report, False Positives Equal False Justice, by forensics expert John Kelly in collaboration with former FBI chief scientist and narcotics officer Dr. Frederick Whitehurst. In the report, the pair uncovered “a drug testing regime of fraudulent forensics used by police, prosecutors, and judges which abrogates every American’s constitutional rights,” as Kelly wrote in the executive summary. “Law enforcement officials, forensic drug analysts, and prosecutors knowingly employ the flawed Duquenois-Levine and KN Reagent tests as well as mere conclusory police reports to wrongfully prosecute and convict millions of individuals for anti-marijuana law violations,” Kelly wrote. “These wrongful prosecutions and convictions violate Supreme Court rulings which prohibit the use of inaccurate, nonspecific tests and/or conclusory reports because they do not prove the presence of marijuana in a seized substance. In other words, millions of people have been, and continue to be, prosecuted and convicted of marijuana charges without proof that they possessed marijuana.” Both Kelly and MPP executive director Rob Kampia used the report’s findings to call for a moratorium on the use of field drug testing kits. “It is imperative that law enforcement agencies take notice and voluntarily end the use of these flawed drug tests. The essential need of protecting the innocent must outweigh the convenience of a field drug test that only gives accurate information some of the time,” wrote Kelly.

�

“Upon a painstaking examination of the relations between racial division, crime, and punishment in America, legal scholar Michael Tonry asserts that the architects of the War on Drugs were fully cognizant of what they were doing: ‘They knew that drug use was falling among the vast majority of the population. They knew that drug use was not declining among the disadvantaged members of the urban underclass. They knew that the War on Drugs would be fought mainly in the minority areas of American cities and that those arrested and imprisoned would disproportionately be young blacks and Hispanics.’ (Tonry 1995: 104)” by Loic Wacquant /possibly from book balled “The New Punitiveness” at 21

�

The implications

Most of the people in prison now should not be there

Seems to say government has deliberately been putting people in prison for their own selfish benefit.

More likely, it has been unconscious.

Bias is inevitable without scientific controls.

The result of subjective bias distorting the judgment of our representatives facing huge incentives and no scientific blinding. This behavior is inevitable, and this inevitability explains the inevitability of corruption of power believed by our founding fathers.

Inevitability implies ubiquity

Should be all over

And it is all over the census. Identifying characteristic is irrationality and a lack of thinking.

Part Two – Nobody Escapes the Census

The Census is so powerful, its manipulation can be seen in every branch of government, at every level. It started long ago. Today, the census is a hoax. A 15 billion dollar attempt to count people as badly as possible. It is marked by signs of a lack of thinking.

CB’s use of prisoner-counting rule is irrational

CB Claims the purpose is to distribute representation accurately

As the Census Bureau explains, “The fundamental reason for conducting the decennial census of the United States is to apportion the members of the House of Representatives among the 50 states” ^[80]

The standard for proper apportionment of representation, according to the Supreme Court in Wesberry v. Sanders, is “that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.’” ^[81]

“Following Wesberry, this quote has become the guiding principal in congressional apportionment cases. As cases in this line have been more fully fleshed out, it has become clear that the Supreme Court, and any court hearing such a case, will apply a strict test to determine whether or not the state has proposed a plan that is legitimately ‘as nearly as practicable.’ ” ^[82]

In Karcher v. Daggett, the Supreme Court prohibited the New Jersey legislature from implementing a reapportionment plan in which the average district differed from the ideal district size by just .1384%, or about 726 people. However, the legislature had rejected other plans before it with even smaller average deviations from the ideal. (145) More relevant to the issue at hand, however, was the Court’s statement that the “Census data count represents the ‘best population data available,’ it is the only basis for good-faith attempts to achieve population equality.” (146) In making this statement, the Court cited Kirkpatrick v. Preisler. (147) In Kirkpatrick, the Court held that Missouri’s redistricting plan did not satisfy the “as nearly as practicable” standard because the 25,000-plus population difference between the largest and smallest districts was avoidable. (148) Missouri attempted to justify deviations by saying that the population differences between districts were the result of a legislative attempt to factor in projected population shifts. (149) The Court stated that “where substantial population shifts … can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy, States that are redistricting may properly consider them…. Findings as to population trends must be thoroughly documented and applied throughout the state in a systematic, and not ad hoc, manner.”^[83]

�

The prisoner rule takes representation from prisoner and gives it to his worst enemies

“Lurking below the surface of felon disenfranchisement analysis lays a nascent discourse on the effect of mass incarceration on the complicated world of state and federal legislative apportionment. Specifically, a small but growing number of journalists, legal and academic scholars, and politicians have started to take note of the profound effect of the U.S. Census Bureau’s ‘usual residence rule’–the method by which the Census Bureau determines where to count people–and its application to those behind bars. A November 2004 New York Times editorial, for example, called for a change in the way prisoners are counted by the U.S. Census Bureau, noting that in the past year at least three major reports have made the same recommendation. Each of these reports outlines just how significantly the application of this 200-year-old method of population enumeration, the ‘usual residence rule,’ affects the distribution of representative power. ” ^[84]

�

“The Census Bureau’s ‘usual residence rule’ does not properly compute local populations when millions of people incarcerated in state and federal penitentiaries are fed into the enumeration machine as though they were a part of a community to which they simply do not belong. The costs are great–prison communities like Perry and Brown Counties receive greater political representation and financial assistance at the cost of those communities which tend to export prisoners–counties like Cook County. ” ^[85]

�

Prisoner disenfranchisement laws screw this up by themselves, but without the census rule, the one person would still be able to decide who gets his one vote – presumably his home community.

Instead, the prisoner counting rule gives the vote to people who value prisoners, politicians who depend on prisoners.

It is illogical and over-broad.

“Given that the census is conducted relatively infrequently and increasing numbers of prisoners are incarcerated for extremely short periods of time, it becomes increasingly illogical to qualify those prisoners as residents of their prison community.” ^[86]

�

The vast majority of released inmates return to their home county after incarceration. (129) Indeed, in Illinois the state provides exiting prisoners with a bus ticket to their intended residence within the state. (130) The vast majority of the time, the intended destination is where they came from, their home community. (131) Fifty-three percent of Illinois prisoners released in 2001 returned to the City of Chicago; 62% returned to Cook County. (132) Of the prisoners who were released to Cook County, 66% had served less than one year in prison. (133) An additional 15% had served between one and two years. (134) It is in Cook County where they will use the services that population-based funding provides and where they will use their political representatives, yet it is downstate communities which draw additional representation and funding from the prisoners’ presence on Census Day.^[87]

�

“In the 2000 census, one in fifty U.S. counties where Census Bureau data shows an expanding population–a mark of a healthy economy–was actually shrinking when prisoners were removed from the equation. (115) Thus, a government or aid agency looking to spot potential economic distress before it ravages a community would get a completely misleading picture of the well-being of these counties. (116) We can see this phenomenon when we look at Perry County, Illinois, where Census Bureau data shows that the population grew by 1,682 people, while a prisoner-adjusted picture shows that the true members of the Perry County community, its free population, actually shrunk by 492 people from 1990 to 2000. (117) Perry County is one of seven such counties in Illinois and fifty-six nationwide. (118)” ^[88]

�

CB is either irrational, or not trying to count people accurately as per constitution.

It is undeniable that the prisoners do not get represented. They are denied representation and, possibly, the right of free association – if there is such a thing, just by the action of the rule itself. If you factor the resulting incarceration, it’s everything from lack of due process to wrongful imprisonment. If you factor in the inevitable death and misery, it’s a crime against humanity. Yet CB insists on it. CB probably has no idea about the incarceration, but how can it deny the lack of representation? Insistence on doing something illogical and irrational is a sign that somebody was not thinking. How can CB possibly believe counting at jail or detention centers is accurate? Does CB really believe the rule did not deny representation How can CB possibly believe counting at jail or detention centers is accurate?

Signs of bad-faith by CB

CB’s weird resistance and stupid reasons

Despite frequent recommendations from their own advisors, and from everybody else, including blunt critics, the CB refuses to change the rule, and has never been able to explain why. All reasons given have been either nonsensical, deceptive, or both, but always defensive.

“THE CENSUS Bureau has stubbornly rebuffed critics who argue that the nation’s prison inmates should be counted at their homes instead of where they are serving time.” ^[89]

�

Article: Prisoner transfers reduce census count State will fight policy that doesn’t count inmates housed out of state – The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel | HighBeam Research – FREE trial

From a 1998 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

A spokesman for Gov. Tommy G. Thompson says the state will fight a U.S. Census Bureau policy that counts prisoners housed in other states as residents of those states. ….^[90]

�

In 2005, New York Times said:

Congress, which has just caught on to this, recently gave the Census Bureau 90 days to file a report on the feasibility of counting inmates at their homes of record rather than in prison. At the same time, a committee overseen by the National Academy of Sciences has been studying the residency issue and is expected to make its final report this spring. But why does the bureau need another study to decide whether it wants to uphold the one-person-one-vote principle? The bureau should get to work immediately on procedures that would allow it to count inmates where they actually live – and get those procedures locked in place by the 2010 census. ^[91]

In 2006, the Panel on Residence Rules recommended:

Recommendation 7.2: A research and testing program, including experimentation as part of the 2010 census, should be initiated by the Census Bureau to evaluate the feasibility and cost of assigning incarcerated and institutionalized individuals, who have another address, to the other location.^[92]

�

The Panel on Residence rules also said, in 2006:

�

We strongly support a system in which all group quarters and nonhousehold residents are approached and enumerated in the same manner as the general household population, to the greatest extent practicable. Accordingly, Recommendation 6.2 applies to all census respondents: the panel recommends that “any residence elsewhere” (ARE) address information be collected for all group quarters and nonhousehold residents, just as we advocate its collection in the main household census form. ^[93]

�

The List of CB’s Reasons.

Some are comical

Many are deceitful

�

The usual shit.

“Adjustment is a Pandora’s box, filled with unintended consequences, legal uncertainty, and inaccuracy. I would like for a moment to explore some of the unintended or unanticipated social costs of adjusting the census. Think about the people who took the time to fill out their census form and mail it in, or those who responded to the enumerators that went door to door. These people did what former director Hewitt stressed time and again was their civic duty. Under the sampling plan. you can do your civic duty, live up to your civic and community obligation, and still be counted as less than a whole person.” http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_house_hearings&docid=f:75289.pdf page 10 of 63

Some deception

“Second, the Census Bureau would have to design a new form for collecting sufficient information to allocate a prisoner to another address in another state. And we would have to devise new procedures to assure proper distribution of long form questionnaires to a sample of prisoners.” http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_house_hearings&docid=f:60341.pdf

�

“‘We concluded that, because the usual-residence concept was founded in law, we would not have the authority to depart from it on an ad hoc basis,’ wrote Carol M. Van Horn, chief of the decennial management division at the bureau, in a March memorandum. ” ^[94]

�

“Counting prisoners where they sleep “is consistent with current Census Bureau practice,” the panel said, adding, “We do not rule out a principle being added to our suggested listing to count prisoners at a location other than a prison; however, the information necessary for such a decision does not now exist.”" ^[95]

�

“According to Karen Mills, a Census Bureau analyst, there are no plans to change the prisoner residence rule. Inmates are counted, she pointed out, just like residents of nursing homes, college dormitories, long-term hospitals, and domestic military bases. Besides, she says, ‘it would be a logistical nightmare for the Census Bureau to have to contact all of the state and federal prisons in all 50 states and find out where [their prisoners] were going to go after they got out, or where they were sentenced, or where their own home is. They may not even have a home.’” ^[96]

�

At issue is the Census Bureau’s residency rules, which, bureau officials said, would require another act of Congress to change. The bureau defines a person’s “usual residence” as the place where they sleep most nights. Jefferson Taylor, the bureau’s associate director for communications, said it would be difficult to determine home addresses for many inmates, especially those on death row or serving life sentences. “If we did this, it is very likely we would have to conduct interviews with 2 million prisoners,” Taylor said. “They are not going to let us go in and conduct interviews with Charles Manson.” ^[97]

Tabulating Prisoners

Opinions about Tabulating Prisoners

�

The report shows either short shrift in a work product, or a shocking lack of creativity and vision, said Michael Waldman, aid Michael Waldman, Executive Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. The Census Bureau capably solves complicated data collection problems everyday, yet throws in the towel before even entering the ring on the accurate counting of millions of people.^[99].

�

Criminal justice experts say, however, that this presents an incomplete and misleadingly negative picture. There are several ways to identify home addresses and use them at census time, said Kirsten D. Levingston, Director of the Criminal Justice Program at New York Universitys Brennan Center for Justice. The Bureaus report does not evaluate the feasibility or cost of those other options, and completely fails to address the importance of accuracy in this area.^[100].

�

No real answer given.

The basic reason is: the info is hard to get due to:

Difficulty

Expense

Time

Safety

Resistance of correctional facilities

All addresses would have to be verified

All prisoners would have to be interviewed

Claims of difficulty to everybody, not just congress. All contradicted by Census 2000 reality

What is motivating the CB?

The obvious solution is for the census bureau to begin counting inmates at their homes instead of from their prison cells. But the bureau has so far failed to do this, despite increasing pressure from advocates, community groups and politicians… Why, then, does the census bureau count inmates as “residents” of their prisons? Force of habit, maybe. But it is way past time to bring the practice to an end.”.^[101].

�

The CB did get the information in 2000.

“The census questionnaire used to gather data from people in group quarters facilities is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the questionnaire mailed to the general household population. ” Prisoners received a short or long version of the “Individual Census Report (ICR)” form. “A particular feature of note in the ICR is that it asks for information on a “usual home elsewhere” (“What is the address of the place where you live or stay MOST OF THE TIME?”), even if the respondent lived in a group quarters type for which the Census Bureau did not allow “usual home elsewhere” information to be used” Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place: Residence Rules in the Decennial Census (2006)

Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) at 68-69

CB did not follow the rules in 2000

Geocoded them…

The Census Bureau’s failure to analyze the UHE data it collected on group quarters forms in 2000, particularly having progressed through the geocoding of reported addresses, looms large as a lost opportunity^[102]. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11727&page=238 .

�

kept group quarters out of error-checking…bullshit reasons…

�

Because of poor results in the 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey Program, a deliberate decision was made to exclude group quarters residents from the 2000 A.C.E. Program (see Section 5-D.1 for the basis of this decision). As a consequence, there was no way to assess omissions of group quarters residents or the full extent of erroneous enumerations for this populationhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10959&page=153 [This means it is impossible to check the group quarter population for errors because group quarter residents are so much more transitory than others]

�

“The A.C.E. universe excluded people living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters; the PES universe included most noninstitutional group quarters. The Census Bureau decided to limit the A.C.E. to the household population because of its experience in the 1990 PES in which rates of unresolved match status were much higher for group quarters residents than for household members in the PES because of much higher rates of short-term mobility for people in group quarters (e.g., college students taking and returning from spring break, shelter residents moving from one shelter to another, migrant worker dormitory residents moving from one farm to another). However, this decision necessitated an unrealistic assumption of perfect coverage of the group quarters population.” The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity, http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10907&page=171#p20009a949970171001

�

Inexplicable Group Quarter errors

For reasons that are not clear, the design and implementation of enumeration procedures for group quarters residents experienced numerous problems (see Jonas, 2002, 2003b): There was no definition of a group quarters as distinct from a large household of unrelated individuals…A number of group quarters, including long-established prisons and college dormitories, were assigned incorrect geographic codes. For example, a prison would be geocoded to a neighboring town or county…Such errors account for a large fraction of the population counts that local jurisdictions challenged in the Census Bureau’s Count Question Resolution Program http:// books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10907&page=152

…There was no system, such as a preprinted group quarters identification code, for tracking individual questionnaires from group quarters residents…discrepancies and errors crept into the processing as a result. The lack of a good tracking system also impeded evaluation. …A small but undetermined number of group quarters questionnaires were never returned to a local census office and never included in the census. Also, some questionnaires were assigned to a different group quarters after receipt by a local office.

In May 2000 the National Processing Center at Jeffersonville, Indiana—which was solely responsible for capturing the information on group questionnaires—reported that many questionnaires were not properly associated with a “control sheet” and therefore did not have a group quarters identification number on them. A team of census headquarters staff reviewed an estimated 700,000 group quarters questionnaires to resolve this problem (no official records were kept of this special operation). http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10907&page=153

�

For unknown reasons, a number of group quarters —including very long-established prisons and college dormitories—were given inaccurate geographic location codes These inexplicable errors led to sizable local shifts in population, as group quarters facilities were inadvertently assigned to neighboring cities and counties. These group quarters discrepancies account for a large fraction of the population counts that local jurisdictions challenged in the Census Bureau’s Count Question Resolution Program. Though the Count Question Resolution Program could result in the Census Bureau issuing an errata statement and a certificate of revised population, a condition of the program was that the revised counts could not be used for apportionment or redistricting

Huge group quarters “errors”

Dozens of cities and towns contend the Census Bureau counted people in prisons and college dormitories at wrong addresses — sometimes miles away — shortchanging the communities of government dollars doled out on the basis of population. About 85 communities across the country have challenged their 2000 census counts, claiming discrepancies over group quarters housing — buildings such as prisons and nursing homes that house large populations. Most demographers say government head-counters indeed tallied the right number of people at these locations, but placed them at the wrong address. Warren Brown, a Cornell University demographer, said problems related to group quarters appear to be much worse this year. He cited one case in Dutchess County, N.Y., involving Green Haven Correctional Facility. The facility is located in the town of Beekman; but 2000 census records placed the prison population 27 miles to the north in Milan. “That site appears to be just woods or a field,” said Brown, who works with the state’s data center. “A county planner has visited and examined aerial photos … (the incorrect site) is in the middle of nowhere.” The census incorrectly stated that about 1,000 inmates housed at a Marquette, Mich., prison were being held at another facility 10 miles away, said Ken Darga, the Michigan state demographer. Because Michigan state tax revenue-sharing formulas depend on population counts, the mistake could cost the city about $120,000 a year if it’s not fixed, City Manager Gerald Peterson said Thursday.“If there’s one group of people you better know where they are, it is prisoners,” Peterson said. Many of the complaints coming into the bureau’s “Count Question Resolution Program” are simpler in nature, said program head Robert Rinaldi. For example, a dormitory that sits on one side of a street that serves as a boundary between two towns may have been mistakenly counted on the opposite side. Another 115 challenges have been fielded from communities based on other claims, such as residential neighborhoods or boundary line disputes, the bureau said. So far, about 70 complaints have been resolved. Though corrections also were made following the 1990 count, a comparable figure was not available. Municipalities have until 2003 to challenge their census counts. Rinaldi said bureau officials are studying the problem now, but will not be able to pinpoint causes until after all challenges are filed. The bureau also is looking at another 600 potential discrepancies in the census as part of an internal review. But Rinaldi noted that the size of group quarters populations — the Green Haven prison, for instance, houses about 2,200 inmates — make inconsistencies more easily recognizable to city officials. ^[103]

�

Ask the few dozen people who live in a rural section of the Town of Fredonia, and they would all agree — the place hasn’t grown a whole lot in the past decade. So it came as a bit of a shock to discover that according to the recently released census, there’s a population of 886 in the far northeastern part of the northern Ozaukee County town. What the census says is just not possible, Town Chairman Richard Mueller said. “Maybe there were over 100 people here years ago when everybody had six or seven kids, but not now,” Mueller said. And while an overcount might be a good thing in some cases — more government aid could flow in, for one — town officials say they’d prefer accuracy. And then there is the larger question: Where do those 800 or so people actually belong? The Census Bureau, for now, has no idea

Are they errors or are they motive?

“The problematic manner in which group quarters data were collected in 2000 raises the question of whether the effort is given the right allocation of resources in the Bureau’s census plans.”^[104]

�

Group quarters data have accounted for most of the corrections issued by the census bureau in the past year. The original census tables will not be corrected. Statisticians using the census data will have to look at a new table called “errata” to make sure their counts are up to date. “[105]

�

“demographers say that in St. Cloud and elsewhere around the country the U.S. Census Bureau has managed to misplace people who live in all kinds of ‘group living quarters’ including prisons, college dorms, nursing homes and other group living quarters” ^[106]

�

The bureau is promising those officials that it will make the necessary recalculations to be sure areas don’t lose federal funding. But experts say that won’t necessarily solve other potential problems: Redistricting of political offices is underway all over the country, based on what look like faulty numbers. ^[107]

�

“. As the program proceeded, it became clear that a number of group quarters—including long-established prisons and college dormitories—had been coded to the wrong town or county.” Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091896&page=151 (last visited Feb. 6, 2010).

�

The Census Bureau is refusing so far to reissue corrected sets of population data to the public once the confusion is resolved. “It’s fairly disappointing,” said David Birkholtz, the state’s liaison with the Census Bureau. “It seems like it was a pretty well-done census. Now we want to see if we can fix this so it doesn’t throw the whole thing up in the air.” But a census official in Washington, D.C., Edison Gore, said it “would be difficult and time-consuming and very expensive” to issue a whole new data set. Most censuses have some problems of this type, he said, and so far the bureau doesn’t believe that “anywhere near a sizable percentage” of group living quarters have been misplaced. But newspapers all over the country are reporting problems, enough to make some experts suggest that there may be some nationwide glitch. ^[108]

�

an estimated 56,000 group quarters enumerations were duplicates of other enumerations within the same group quarters. This procedure was not implemented as designed, and the result was that a net of 150,000 people were moved erroneously from the group quarters to the housing unit universe. Of these, 31,000 people were erroneously omitted from the census altogether. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10907&page=154

�

“Dozens of cities and towns are contending the Census Bureau counted people in prisons and college dormitories at wrong addresses, sometimes miles away, and shortchanged the communities of future government dollars given out on the basis of population. At too many turns, it seems, the poor are losing out on their chance to meet basic needs and climb out of poverty. About 85 communities across the country have challenged their 2000 Census counts, claiming discrepancies over group quarters, housing, buildings such as prisons and nursing homes that house large populations. Neither the poor, nor the nation, can afford such a counting method that shortchanges those with the least. ” ^[109]

�

“In an example of the Census’ troubles, about 1,000 inmates housed at a Marquette, Mich., prison were incorrectly placed by the Census into another facility 10 miles away, said Ken Darga, the Michigan state demographer. Because Michigan state tax-revenue-sharing formulas depend on population counts, the mistake could cost the city about $120,000 a year if it’s not fixed, city manager Gerald Peterson told the Associated Press. ” [110]

�

“Warren Brown, a Cornell University demographer, said problems related to group quarters appear to be much worse this year. He referred to a case in Dutchess County involving Green Haven Correctional Facility. The facility is located in the town of Beekman, but 2000 Census records placed the prison population 27 miles to the north, in Milan. That site appears to be just woods or a field, said Brown, who works with the state’s data center. In any event, the miscount represents money that leaves one area for another.” [111]

�

How could 450 residents of Westminster Canterbury disappear? Ten years ago, the 1990 census found the senior-citizen high-rise on Shore Drive bustling with retirees. The census counted 430 residents. But according to the 2000 census, all those people are gone now. The 2000 census map shows a big zero where Westminster Canterbury on Chesapeake Bay should be. That’s news to the complex’s administrators, who say there were 453 residents of Westminster Canterbury on census day 2000. “I know that our staff here assisted residents in filling out the census forms,” said David S. Ricks, Westminster Canterbury’s vice president for development and community relations. City planners think it is just a clerical error. They think the 450 missing seniors were erroneously counted in a different census block, probably nearby along the Chesapeake Bay. But state Del. Harry R. “Bob” Purkey thinks it is part of a larger undercount in his district, especially among the condominiums and high-rises of Shore Drive.`They have grossly underestimated that area,” Purkey said. “I know that for a fact.” City planners aren’t willing to go that far. They recognize the Westminster Canterbury mistake but don’t know if it suggests larger mistakes elsewhere. One thing they do know: They did not expect Virginia Beach to have just 425,000 people in the 2000 census. They expected a number closer to 440,000. The Census Bureau itself had estimated Virginia Beach’s population at 433,000 in 1999, one year before the official census count. The Westminster Canterbury mistake compounds the planners’ doubts. “The fact that the census counted those people in the wrong block doesn’t give you a warm feeling,” said Virginia Beach Planning Director Robert J. Scott. The 2000 census has been plagued by similar mistakes. Across the country, researchers are finding holes in the data, especially in what the Census Bureau calls “Group Quarters” – places such as prisons, college dorms, nursing homes and military quarters. For example, the census lost three dorms at the University of Delaware. In California, the census misplaced patients at a Veterans Administration facility and students in Berkeley college dorms. In Ohio, the census lost two state prisons with about 4,000 inmates. And in Pennsylvania, the census misplaced 843 inmates in a state prison. As a result, one township mistakenly lost part of its population while a nearby borough gained it. “We’ve been seeing it all over the country,” said Larry Robinson of the Virginia state data center in Richmond. In Virginia, however, such errors have been rare. Until recently, only one was reported to the state data center: a dorm that was missed at Longwood College in Farmville. It’s hard to know if the Westminster Canterbury mistake is part of the same trend. Technically, it is not “group quarters.” It is an apartment complex for independent senior citizens, with a small portion devoted to assisted living and a nursing home. A census counter may have wrongly labeled Westminster Canterbury as “group quarters” or placed it in the wrong census block, said Edison Gore, deputy chief of the Census Bureau’s decennial management division. In any event, Gore added, “I wouldn’t say there are systematic problems. We have had a number of calls. There have been a number of press stories.” There is one more hint that the census may be wrong: voter registration. Six voting districts in South Hampton Roads have more registered voters than voting-age adults. Five are in Virginia Beach, one in Suffolk. The worst is Suffolk’s Nansemond River precinct, where there are 2,036 registered voters, but the census found 1,877 adults. For now, no one knows which is wrong, voter registration or the census. “I really don’t have any idea,” said Suffolk Registrar Patsy Parker. State officials think some inactive voters may still be on the rolls, and that could be a factor. Norfolk Registrar Elisa Long thinks some census borders may not match election borders, though census officials insist they are identical. Purkey, the Beach delegate, thinks the census simply missed people. City planners will know more after the next census release this summer. “I think the city’s numbers can change, and they will,” Purkey said. [112]

�

“Across the country, demographers and planners say the Census Bureau appears to have misplaced entire populations of dozens of prisons and college dormitories. They say the bureau inexplicably removed those populations from census tracts or blocks where the facilities had sat for decades, and deposited them somewhere else.” [113]

�

In New York State, for example, 2,192 inmates at Green Haven Correctional Facility, a maximum-security prison in the town of Beekman, landed mysteriously in Milan, a smaller town some 27 miles to the north, said Warren A. Brown, a professor of sociology at Cornell University. …In California, the inmates of Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City turned up outside the city limits, the city manager said. The city discovered the problem, he said, when a quarterly payment it receives from the state plummeted because the 2000 census showed the city’s population had shrunk. …In Minnesota, the inhabitants of the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone turned up down the road ”in a tract that should have almost no one in it,” said Tom Gillaspy, the state demographer. And the tract that houses a state prison in St. Cloud was listed as having no population at all, he said. …”I think this is the tip of the iceberg,” said Robert Scardamalia, chief demographer for the New York Department of Economic Development. ”I think if they did a nationwide analysis, they’d find an unacceptably high number of errors. That’s my speculation.” ….”The supreme irony,” said Professor Brown, ”is the census did a really good job on the hard-to-count population this time around. And they fumbled the ball on the easy-to-count. What could be easier than counting somebody in a prison?” ….Census Bureau officials say any problems are few and relatively insignificant. They note that the bureau did not miss the people; it simply placed some on the wrong side of the street, for example. One official, Preston Jay Waite, said the number of these complaints from communities — 85 so far — was no surprise. ”All I’m saying is I’m not shocked at the level of appeals,” Mr. Waite, the bureau’s associate director for the decennial census, said of the official challenges filed with the bureau concerning prison and other institutional populations. ”If anything, I’m surprised that it’s not higher than it is. But it’s still early.”…. The population in question is the so-called group-quarters population, the 7.778 million people who were living in prisons, dormitories and similar facilities at the time the census was taken. ….When they looked to see what might explain surprise increases or drops, some began to suspect problems in the allocation of group quarters. Lindsay Carille, a junior planner for the Department of Planning and Development in Dutchess County, N.Y., said the official count for one census block in the town of Milan had leaped implausibly to more than 2,000, from zero in 1990. She and others say they believe the Green Haven prison population ended up there.….In Ithaca, N.Y., where Cornell University and Ithaca College have dormitories, the population count for one census block jumped to 5,882, from only 110 in 1990, said Thomas Mank of the Tompkins County Planning Department. The count for another block, he said, dropped to 2 from 1,100. In Crescent City, Calif., David Wells, the city manager, said the city’s quarterly allocation of state revenue shrunk after the 2000 census. ….With the Pelican Bay prison population misplaced, he said, the city’s official population count was down. So the city was supposedly entitled to less state money. It took special state legislation to restore the full sum, he said. ….”A number of federal and state formulas are based on total population,” said Mr. Gillaspy, the Minnesota demographer. ”So when you have 500 or 1,000 people who are misallocated, it’s a fairly substantial issue. For the nation as a whole, it might not be that big of a deal. But for that community, it’s a huge issue.” It is unclear how many such problems exist. Since July 1, when it began accepting challenges under its new ”count question resolution” program, the Census Bureau has received 161 challenges, Mr. Waite said. Eighty-five involve group quarters, and nearly all have yet to be processed. In New York, Mr. Scardamalia, the state demographer there, said there were so many questions about the counts that he and others had begun looking more closely. Randomly examining areas with colleges and prisons, he said, they quickly found several dozen anomalies, including ”what appeared to be some pretty gross errors.” Concerned, he asked the bureau to delay the release of other census data scheduled to be made public, a suggestion the bureau did not follow. He said the bureau should plan to correct and reissue not just the population counts but related data on race, age and the like. Mr. Waite, the Census Bureau official, said the bureau would investigate every challenge. If a population was misplaced, the agency will correct the counts and notify the communities in writing, he said. Those letters, he said, can be shown to other government agencies as proof of the corrected counts. But he said the bureau did not have the resources to change all the other census data attached to those population numbers — the data on age, race, household composition, income and so on. ”The only thing we will send back is that 47 people were added,” he said. ”We will not show them detailed characteristics about those people.” As for how mistakes might have occurred, he said agencies might have given the bureau incorrect addresses — the address of an administrative office, say, rather than that of a particular institution. Or census workers may have failed to go out and verify the address, or may have made clerical errors. ”The unfortunate aspect of it is that it does raise a lot of quality issues,” Mr. Gillaspy said. ”Rightly or wrongly, it’s not a confidence builder. It sort of lowers your confidence in the whole thing. And that’s sad. Because a great deal of effort went into the rest of the census.” [114].

�

“”I think this is the tip of the iceberg,” said Robert Scardamalia, chief demographer for the New York Department of Economic Development. ”I think if they did a nationwide analysis, they’d find an unacceptably high number of errors. That’s my speculation.’” [115]

�

“The population in question is the so-called group-quarters population, the 7.778 million people who were living in prisons, dormitories and similar facilities at the time the census was taken. The bureau counts people in group quarters separately from the rest of the population. ” [116]

Creating Fake Buildings – claims to come from administrative records

“It is difficult to reconcile this match rate for Louisiana to the very low match rates for the individual source files in that test site. Unless there is an error (perhaps in the rates for individual files), this result could be explained only if the administrative records in Louisiana had records for nearly all of the census units and had additional, bad addresses numbering about six times the number of good addresses.”

Preparing For the 2000 Census: Interim Report II, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5886&page=73 (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

�

Errors seem to be happening to minorities

“Other reports attest to the continuing flaws of the Census counting system that leads to undercounts of the poor and ensuing under-representation of their concerns and needs. ” ^[117]

�

“Traditionally, the undercounted reside in democratic leaning districts, and are disproportionately people of color, the poor and children. The Census Bureau has explained that over-counted populations are more often white, college students, dual households or joint custody cases. ^[118]

�

“The Rev. William Rutherford, president of the state branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said that whenever possible the government should use adjusted census numbers, especially when it comes to determining federal aid. He added that minorities, even in New Jersey, were more likely not to be counted than whites. ” ^[119]

�

Cover up?

CB lies to public & Congress about the residence rules

RR’s are kept secret.

CB Fucks its own shit up

Fails to redefine group quarters:

�

From 2004, Panel on Research on Future Census Methods: Recommendation 5.4: The Census Bureau’s techniques for enumerating the population in special places and group quarters must be completely evaluated and redesigned for the 2010 census. This effort must include (but not be limited to): clear definitions of group quarters; improvement of the address listing processes for group quarters, including coordination with the development of the Master Address File^[120]

�

The current definition of residence rules is confusing both to field enumerators and to residents… Clarification of residence rules in the census, and identification of better means of collecting information for later assessment, would aid census data collection. ^[121]

�

Also in 2004, From the Panel to Review the 2000 Census “Problems and deficiencies in the enumeration that undoubtedly contributed to poor data quality included: the lack of well-defined concepts of types of living arrangements to count as group quarters…”National Research Council (2004) urged a top-to-bottom reassessment of the Census Bureau’s handling of group quarters; we endorse and restate here a version of their recommendation. Recommendation 5.4: The Census Bureau’s techniques for enumerating the population in special places and group quarters must be completely evaluated and redesigned for the 2010 census. This effort must include (but not be limited to): clear definitions of group quarters; redesign of questionnaire and data content as appropriate, including a provision for handling data items that might best be provided by group quarters administrators rather than individual residents; and more”^[122]

�

Apparently they had not managed to decide on a definition by 2006, the Panel on Residence Rules said:

When the panel reviewed the definitions, they were still incomplete, with some major categories—among them military and seaborne quarters—yet to be fully developed. The new definitions were not ready for full testing in the 2004 field test, but were expected to be given a full airing in the 2006 census test and the 2008 dress rehearsal.

�

But the Panel on Residence Rules also said:

�

Though we support the group quarters redefinition effort in the short term, we strongly encourage the Census Bureau to broaden its focus. The lines between what the Bureau has traditionally walled off as “group quarters” as distinct from the “household” population are becoming increasingly blurred, and it is useful for the Bureau to reexamine the very concept of what it means to be a “group quarters.”

�

There is sufficient diversity in what the Census Bureau has treated as the “group quarters” population that the term “group quarters” no longer makes conceptual sense. Its compartmentalization as a separate list and a separate operation—trying to force this entire segment of the population to respond to the census using a single form—is fundamentally flawed.

�

Failed to analyze UHE data after collecting it

�

Doing it again in 2010?

From Panel on Coverage Evaluation and Correlation Bias in the 2010 Census in 2007:

�

According to Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments, in 2008:

It appears that basic census research is not receiving the priority and support needed to best guide census redesign. For example, tests on some topics have been unnecessarily repeated, and previous research has sometimes been ignored in designing newer tests.
^[124]

�

[N]o attempt was made to assess the undercoverage of individuals living in group quarters. (CCM [census coverage measurement program] is also planned to
exclude group quarters, about 2.7 percent of the U.S. population, from coverage measurement in 2010. ^[125]

�

From Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments [2008] : The census coverage measurement program in 2010 will not assess some aspects of the coverage error for individuals living in group quarters…the number of omissions for group quarters residents will not be measured in 2010, nor will the number of group quarters and their residents who are counted in the wrong place.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The Census Bureau should collect sufficient data in 2010 to support the evaluation of potential methods for assessing the omission rate of group quarters residents and the rate of locating group quarters in the wrong census geography. This is a step toward the goal of improving the accuracy of group quarters data.

�

From mytwocensus.com (Run by a team of professional political journalists, MyTwoCensus is the non-partisan watchdog of the 2010 Census!)

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Monday, October 26th, 2009

As the “Group Quarters Validation” phase of the 2010 Census is well underway, we bring you another detailed account from a Census Bureau employee in New York City.. If you are wondering why there have been so many cost overruns at the Census Bureau, check out the following:

.�

The Census headquarters originally estimated our workload to be approximately 37,000 OLQ cases in about 800 blocks. But the number of cases was misleading because sometimes entire multi unit buildings and their units were classified as OLQs. … They estimated about 8,800 unique street addresses in about 800 blocks, implying each block averaged about ten unique OLQs. I’ve only been in New York a few years but in this city I know that there is not a single block with ten churches, homeless shelters, hostels or hotels.

�

During the week when we were preparing questionnaires and field staff were being trained it was becoming clearer that there were only about 1,500 unique OLQs. With over two hundred field employees if each lister conducted a couple of ten minute interviews they would be completed in a matter of days. By the time the office knew what hit them the field operation winded down. It was only the first week.

�

But for those in the office the nightmare was just beginning. In the first few days the twelve office clerks were so inundated with checking in work from the field that we could not keep up and were backlogged for days. Census headquarters overestimated the productivity of quality control clerks who had no field training and had to review every questionnaire using a four page checklist and write every corresponding non-survivor 14 digit bar code manually on a sheet of paper. The initial office review of each questionnaire, manual transcribing of non-survivor labels and final office review of the work was so slow that none of the work could be shipped to the National Processing Center (NPC) in Jeffersonville, Indiana fast enough.

�

When the field work dwindled we did bring in a few listers who were familiar with the procedures and they simplified everything for us. But the office managers (LCOM, AMQA, AMFO and some guy with a German accent) who knew nothing about procedures, sat around, twiddled their thumbs, raised their voices and continuously talked down to us for not processing work fast enough. At first we began processing non survivor labels by placing them on a single non-survivor label page. However since headquarters overestimated the number of OLQs they produced too many 44 page questionnaires and not enough non-survivor label pages. Since each questionnaire and non survivor label page had a unique bar code used for scanning at the NPC we could not photocopy these pages. So when we ran out of single label pages to put labels on, the new nationwide procedure was to slap these labels on the full 44 page questionnaires. So we started mailing full 44 page questionnaires with only two pages filled out back to NPC.

�

The Bureau was not willing to be flexible with their deadline of four weeks. So, of course the New York Region panicked. They started sending people from the Rocky Hill and Hoboken New Jersey offices; even flew in managers from Greensboro, North Carolina to help us and authorized overtime for everyone: clerks, office supervisors and even managers. What didn’t make sense to me was why they sent New Jersey field employees who are paid for their travel time. They have to travel two hours to our office and two hours home so their time working in the office was only four hours, when they could of simply hired some of the hundreds of listers from our county that only received a week’s worth of work.

�

The Census Bureau managers seem to rely on panicking to make brash decisions that will skyrocket their costs. We are told that we are not to work overtime without supervisor approval but they’ll then offer everyone overtime, pay for New Jersey people to commute half a day and fly people from across the country to help us finish the operation. I’m disappointed that no one at the local office, regional or even at headquarters caught this error that could of possibly saved us thousands of dollars. We could of simply hired just fifty listers to work the full four weeks and saved at least $100,000. Instead we trained 228 listers for a week to work just a week.

�

Today was the first day of the fourth week of the operation and we finished the operation last night after two weeks of twelve hour days. While I’m glad to have gotten overtime pay I am a little saddened we are four days ahead of schedule and will all be let go for lack of work. I can’t imagine what the dent in the wallet of the federal government must of been not only in our office but across the country to print all those questionnaires and then have to ship them to NPC with only two pages filled out, not to mention the overtime.

�

During the operation, hearing listers speak about problems in the field were the best stories to pass the time doing repetitive work. We were getting hammered by mistakes made during address canvassing, including the entire high rise apartment building classified as OLQ and missed buildings in areas where they told listers to work quicker during address canvassing or risk losing their jobs. These missing buildings could only be missed if the lister didn’t go out into the field. Listers may have a problem with the outhouse or storage shed listed as an OLQ. But how do you deal with the high rise apartment building where the lister marked every unit an OLQ? Then how do you slap thousands of labels on 44 page questionnaires, fill out the first and last page only and box them to ship to NPC?

�

At the very least Census didn’t train extra people during the operation and now they actually have a quality control system to prevent field employees from falsifying information. I suppose things are going better at this point but I am not even going to voice my concern to them because it will fall upon death ears. They are going to wipe their hands clean and say that we were told it would be about five weeks and we could be released earlier. Certainly the listers in the field didn’t expect to only be working just a few days in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

�

.And another:

During address canvassing we were instructed to find someone who was knowledgeable about where people live or could live. But locating a knowledgeable respondent was easier said than done. There are small tenement buildings in Chinatown and Harlem brownstones; where there are illegal subdivisions. It is very difficult to gain entry or make contact even if you speak the language. There are also a lot of abandoned construction sites where developers tried to take advantage of the real estate boom after September 11th but found themselves out of money in the current recession.

�

When we couldn’t gain access to a building, he encouraged us to try again and gave us additional work to keep us productive. In the end we had all these partially complete assignments where we had one or buildings we either couldn’t get into or make contact with anyone. However the office was less than empathetic to our thoroughness. Assistant Manager of Field Operations, field operations supervisors (FOS) and crew leaders would belittle those who were behind. … We were told that if we couldn’t gain access to a building after two visits we had to accept what was in the HHC as correct. Many of us were tempted to falsify work and accept what was in the HHC as correct.

�

At the beginning of the fourth week, my crew leader and several others were written up for being unproductive because they weren’t working fast enough to complete their assignments. They asked the Field Operations Supervisor to approve the writeups. One of the Field Operations Supervisors refused to sign the writeups and they wrote him up also for being insubordinate.

�

Nonetheless with all the problems most of the listers worked quickly and breezed through their assignments. By the end of the first week we were about 25% done but they decided to train another 100 listers, by the end of the second week we were halfway done and some crews were almost done but they trained another group of listers. Some of these listers were trained and received no field work because there was none. All told we trained over 100 listers who received less days of work than the four and half days worth of training they received.

�

The thing to realize is that this was a poorly planned operation from the very beginning. The Census Bureau will waste money for government contracts on hand held computers that are shoddy and unreliable and training staff for which there is no work. But they will try to cut corners when it comes to their mission of counting each person accurately. In order to try to save money and finish ahead of other regions they used intimidation and the threatening of employees. I’m glad that Field Operations Supervisor stood up to the higher ups because like my crew leader said to me…they’re just of bullies.

When the address canvassing operation finished up it was alleged that some of the crew leaders and field operations supervisors told their listers since there was no regard to quality that they could skip making contact even going as far as not conducting field work and enter the units at home. There is no way that listers who were reassigned work magically gained access to buildings people couldn’t access for weeks unless they accepted what was in the HHC as true. The crew leaders and field supervisors who finished first were rewarded with additional work. Those who finished last were sometimes “written up” as unproductive and the office terminated their employment.

�

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

franklin

�

No APA

“The APA provides for judicial review of ‘final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.’ 5 U.S.C. § 704. At issue in this case is whether the ‘final’ action that appellees have challenged is that of an ‘agency’ such that the federal courts may exercise their powers of review under the APA. We hold that the final action complained of is that of the President, and the President is not an agency within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, there is no final agency action that may be reviewed under the APA standards^[126]

�

“Section 2a does not expressly require the President to use the data in the Secretary’s report, but, rather, the data from the ‘decennial census.’ There is no statute forbidding amendment of the ‘decennial census’ itself after the Secretary submits the report to the President.” O’Connor, Franklin v. Massassachusetts., 505 U.S. 788 (1992)., http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1502.ZO.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

�

Moreover, there is no statute that rules out an instruction by the President to the Secretary to reform the census, even after the data is submitted to him. O’Connor, Franklin v. Massassachusetts., 505 U.S. 788 (1992)., http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1502.ZO.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

�

CB lies to the Supreme Court about residence rules

Court doesn’t seem to mind. Grants exception to APA re: census, for surprising, and stupid, reasons. No Secretary created regulations. No one noticed the failure to do APA shit? Why didn’t Congress ever complain? It’s like the entire government carved out a narrow exception to the constitution, protecting the census from regulation, protecting the ability to abuse it.

Congress took “direction” out of law – constitution not enacted

Compare current law to original census act, and a later one.

Compare current census law to any other current law.

Congress is more concerned with endangered species than with the census.

The Census Bureau does not want to count people correctly

From a 2009 New York Times editorial:

“The obvious solution is for the census bureau to begin counting inmates at their homes instead of from their prison cells. But the bureau has so far failed to do this, despite increasing pressure from advocates, community groups and politicians… Why, then, does the census bureau count inmates as “residents” of their prisons?”.^[127].

�

Census bureau hides information

First study said big undercount:

“A bureau survey following the 2000 tally estimated a net undercount of 3.3 million out of an estimated 281 million people.” ^[128]

�

Then they claimed that was a mistake, and there was no real undercount

�

The U.S. Census Bureau announced Wednesday that it will not release adjusted census numbers because calculations of the undercount dramatically overestimated the percentage of the population ignored in the 2000 count of the nation. At a Washington news conference, acting Census Director William G. Barron Jr. said that fewer than 1 million people had been missed by the census, down from 3 million previously estimated, and that until the department can accurately calculate the undercount, the bureau will not release adjusted census numbers. Census officials have not released statistics estimating the undercount by state or county, but they said the national undercount was less than one-tenth of 1 percent. “It’s virtually zero in statistical terms,” Barron said. [Article date: October 18, 2001]

�

“At a Washington news conference, acting Census Director William G. Barron Jr. said that fewer than 1 million people had been missed by the census, down from 3 million previously estimated”^[129]

�

But they refused to release undercount estimation statistics

�

“The bureau has opposed releasing the adjusted numbers to the 2000 Census for redistricting or post-Census estimates and survey controls. ” [Article date: October 14, 2002] ^[130]

�

“The Census Bureau has refrained from releasing the adjusted census count due to ‘substantial error, in conjunction with remaining uncertainties.’” ^[131]

CB also refuses to share other info

�

Recommendation 8.6: The Census Bureau should explore ways to allow the broader research community to perform analyses using the 2000 Master Trace Sample, subject to confidentiality limitations.^[132]

�

Relevant to the goal of the unified address list and group quarters roster, participants in the 2010 census local geographic partnership program should be allowed to review address listings for group quarters in their jurisdictions, not just the household population listings. ^[133]

�

In addition, the Census Bureau should consider an institutional Local Update of Census Addresses program under which colleges and universities, medical facilities, and other group quarters locations can review the Bureau’s address listings for their facilities.^[134]

�

CB does not keep records

Evaluation: In what geographic locations, and for what types of housing stock, is error in the MAF most prevalent? A major problem and frustration in 2000 was the lack of an audit trail; because the logical flags on the MAF were not time stamped in any way, it was difficult if not impossible to tell how and when various updating operations touched address records. Such an audit trail is essential for effective evaluation. Consideration should also be given to detailed case history (ethnography) of a sample of addresses.^[135]

�

CB Const

“[T]ests on some topics have been unnecessarily repeated, and previous research has sometimes been ignored in designing newer tests.”^[136]
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12080&page=4

The Budget?

�

The National Newspaper Publishers Association, which represents about 200 black community newspapers, is angry that the Census Bureau is spending only $2.5 million on ads in black media. “We think they’re about $10 million short,” says Danny Bakewell, chairman of the group. “They’re setting it up for us to have the greatest undercount in the history of America. If this happens, it will devastate our community for the next 10 years at least.” Haya El Nasser, Glitches remain in Census count, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-02-04-censusgripes_N.htm#wn (last updated Feb. 5, 2010).�

�

When they leave government, they start thinking again

Crime Rates show no one is thinking at all

It is hard to tell the difference between a crime and a non-crime

�

The FBI appears to be waging an almost endless battle to insure that reporting police agencies include minor thefts in their offenses known data. Some have expressed the thought this classification should be limited to felony larcenies, but this term is for from uniform among the States. Included in the problem of uniformity in the larceny classification would be the efforts of the FBI to include bicycle thefts. It is admittedly difficult to determine when a bicycle is actually stolen and when it is borrowed by some other child. Also, a substantial portion of larcenies represent thefts of auto accessories and personal property taken from automobiles. It has been found very difficult in some cases to distinguish whether a hubcap or license plate was lost- and reported stolen merely for insurance purposes or was actually stolen. Bicycle thefts, auto accessories, and other thefts from automobiles in 1956 represented over 50 percent of all the larcenies.. Approximately one-seventh of the larcenies represented property under S5 in value. Should the larceny classification be limited to thefts over $100, or would this merely shift the problem to one of obtaining uniformity in the value placed upon property stolen? should the larceny classification be eliminated altogether except possibly for purse snatchings? One possibility would be to eliminate larceny from the Part I offense classification and to change the robbery classification to “robbery and purse snatching.” [FROM AN OLD UCR]

�

conclusion

“Only now are we starting to come to terms with the number of people we put behind bars and the drain it creates on our financial and human resources.”^[137]

Can we change anything?

“Unfortunately, those with disproportionate political power as a result of the Census Bureau’s ‘usual residence rule’ are the ones who will be most vociferous in their desire to maintain present incarceration policy.” ^[138]

�

“THE POLITICAL OBSTACLES to changing the way the Census counts, however, are daunting. Advocates would have to win over a lot of people with a lot of interests at stake–including the president, the U.S. Congress and the state Legislature. Defenders of current practice have tradition on their side–the Census has been counting prisoners the same way since 1790. Some officials do not even pretend the method is rational; they’re simply pleased to see their communities benefit from it. ‘From a selfish point of view, hey, whatever works,’ Henry Rausch, a mayor in upstate New York, told the Boston Globe three years ago. Rausch’s town, Coxsackie, counts a third of its residents in local prisons. ‘I’m not about to set out and change it if it helps us,’ Rausch added. ” ^[139]

�

^[1] Maureen Turner, The Valley Advocate: News – The Prison Town Advantage, http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10645 (last visited Dec. 10, 2009).

^[2] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[3]Tracy Huling, Prisoners of the Census | Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/politics/2000/05/prisoners-census (last visited Feb. 4, 2010).

^[4] The town of Buckeye, Arizona, for example, has been taking in what is expected to come to more than $10 million by 2010, as a result of beating out nearby Gila Bend in a prison-bidding war prior to the 2000 Census. Florence, another town in Arizona, actually paid the Census Bureau thousands of dollars to adjust their population tabulations in the middle of the decade to include recently built prisons, and the prisoners therein, as part of its population. Building a Prison Economy in Rural America, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/building.html (last visited June 23, 2009).

^[5] For instance, one town in Virginia that received an extra $115,000 in grade school and high school federal education funds thanks to its prisoners, though none of the prisoners are eligible to attend the local grade or high schools. Natl: Money, Politics, and the US Census | Partnership for Safety and Justice, http://www.westernprisonproject.org/info/nation/story/825 (last visited June 23, 2009).

^[6] “As rural communities gain inmates, they harvest federal cash. In Coxsackie, New York, prisoners make the community more “competitive” for federal anti-poverty funds distributed on a per capita basis. Because they earn little or no money, prisoners in the town’s two correctional facilities — who made up 27.5 per cent of Coxsackie’s 1990 population — drove down its median income on the census and made it eligible to receive more funding from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.. See Building a Prison Economy in Rural America, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/building.html (last visited July 22, 2009).

^[7] For instance, many environmental laws provide for funding based on population, including the Clean Water Act^[7], the BEACH Act, the National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program, the EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), and more.

^[8] Id.

^[9] Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1913562 (last visited July 22, 2009).

^[10] Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1913562 (last visited July 22, 2009).

^[11] Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1913562 (last visited July 22, 2009).

^[12] Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1913562 (last visited July 22, 2009).

^[13] Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1913562 (last visited July 22, 2009).

^[14] S. “Down for the (re) count: the Census counts prisoners in their cells, not their neighborhoods. Now a move is afoot to change their addresses.(The Big Idea).” City Limits. City Limits Community Information Service, Inc. 2004. HighBeam Research. 4 Feb. 2010 <http://www.highbeam.com>.

^[15] Article from:City Limits Article date:January 1, 2004, Article: Down for the (re) count: the Census counts prisoners in their cells, not their neighborhoods. Now a move is afoot to change their addresses.(The Big Idea) – City Limits | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-111729997.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[16] Inmates’ Stock Is Rising in Albany District Fight JEREMY W. PETERS, Inmates’ Stock Is Rising in Albany District Fight, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/nyregion/29inmates.html?scp=1&sq=inmates%20stock&st=cse (Jan. 28, 2010).

^[17] Inmates’ Stock Is Rising in Albany District Fight JEREMY W. PETERS, Inmates’ Stock Is Rising in Albany District Fight, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/nyregion/29inmates.html?scp=1&sq=inmates%20stock&st=cse (Jan. 28, 2010).

^[18] Id.

^[19] Luther Propst, Sonoran Institute, Hardin Needs Prisoners, Not Political Posturing | Bob Wire | Community Blogs | NewWest.Net, http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/hardin_needs_prisoners_not_political_posturing/C564/L564/ (last visited July 28, 2009).

^[20] Id.

^[21] H. “Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Northwestern University, School of Law. 2005. HighBeam Research. 4 Feb. 2010 <http://www.highbeam.com>.

^[22] S. “Down for the (re) count: the Census counts prisoners in their cells, not their neighborhoods. Now a move is afoot to change their addresses.(The Big Idea).” City Limits. 2004. Retrieved February 04, 2010 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-111729997.html

^[23] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[24] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[25] Phantom Voters, Thanks to the Census, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/opinion/27tues2.html?_r=1 (Dec. 27, 2005).

^[26] Importing Constituents: Prisoners and Political Clout in New York | Prison Policy Initiative, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/importing/importing.html (last visited Jan. 31, 2010).

^[27] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[28] From amici curiae
brief submitted by the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) and the Prison Policy Initiative to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Muntaqim v. Coombe. http://www.nvri.org/about/muntaqim_amicus_brief_020405.pdf

^[29] Muntaqim amici brief – National Voting Rights Institute and | Prison Policy Initiative, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/muntaqim.html (last visited Dec. 26, 2009).

^[30] “Two states, Maine and Vermont, do not deny the franchise to people with criminal convictions. However, the remaining 48 states and the District of Columbia range from denying only incarcerated individuals the right to vote to imposing lifetime disenfranchisement, even if the individual has fully completed his or her sentence and is no longer under the supervision of the criminal justice system.” ACLU of Northern California : Restoring Democracy, http://www.aclunc.org/news/opinions/restoring_democracy.shtml (last visited Jan. 12, 2010).

^[31] See The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog: Before Census, a Debate Over Prisoners Critics Say Current Method of Counting Inmates Distorts Rural, Urban Tallies, http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2009/04/before_census_a.html (last visited Oct. 11, 2009).

^[32] Counting Off Upstate, http://drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=6488 (last visited Jan. 29, 2010).

^[33] Muntaqim amici brief – National Voting Rights Institute and | Prison Policy Initiative, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/muntaqim.html (last visited July 1, 2009).

^[34] SAM ROBERTS, Census Bureau’s Counting of Prisoners Benefits Some Rural Voting Districts, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24census.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=anamosa&st=cse (Oct. 23, 2008).

^[35] Minority Prison Inmates Skew Local Populations as States Redistrict | Prison Policy Initiative, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/news/newhousenews031202.html (last visited Jan. 12, 2010).

^[36] Id.

^[37] As Census Nears, How to Count Inmates Is Debated – washingtonpost.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501403_2.html (last visited Jan. 3, 2010).

^[38]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/nyregion/29inmates.html?scp=1&sq=inmates%20stock&st=cse

^[39] As Census Nears, How to Count Inmates Is Debated – washingtonpost.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501403_2.html (last visited Jan. 3, 2010).

^[40] Muntaqim amici brief – National Voting Rights Institute and | Prison Policy Initiative, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/muntaqim.html (last visited Jan. 12, 2010). citing Taren Stinebrickner-Kaufman, Counting Matters, 11 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & Law at 303.

^[41] As Census Nears, How to Count Inmates Is Debated – washingtonpost.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501403_2.html (last visited Jan. 3, 2010).

^[42] Brian Mann, Prison Closings Trouble Upstate New York : NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87887743 (last visited Jan. 3, 2010)

^[43] Inmate census rule criticized — Page 1 — Times Union – Albany NY, http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=894736&category=STATE (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[44] The Press Republican – Article: Attempt to save Camp Gabriels fails, http://www.pressrepublican.com/breakingnews/local_story_092201439.html (last visited Jan. 3, 2010).

^[45] Brian Mann, Prison Closings Trouble Upstate New York : NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87887743 (last visited Jan. 3, 2010)

^[46] Brian Mann, Prison Closings Trouble Upstate New York : NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87887743 (last visited Jan. 3, 2010).

^[47] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[48]
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=894736&category=STATE#ixzz0e7HOUAtc

^[49] As Census Nears, How to Count Inmates Is Debated – washingtonpost.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501403_2.html (last visited Jan. 3, 2010).

^[50] Brian Mann, Prison Closings Trouble Upstate New York : NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87887743 (last visited Jan. 3, 2010)

^[51] Margaret Cahalan. Trends in Incarceration in the United States since 1880: A Summary of Reported Rates and the Distribution of Offenses. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 25, No. 1, at 11 (1979)

^[52] Margaret Cahalan. Trends in Incarceration in the United States since 1880: A Summary of Reported Rates and the Distribution of Offenses. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 25, No. 1, at 6 (1979)

^[53] Margaret Cahalan. Trends in Incarceration in the United States since 1880: A Summary of Reported Rates and the Distribution of Offenses. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 25, No. 1, at 9 (1979)

^[54] Margaret Cahalan. Trends in Incarceration in the United States since 1880: A Summary of Reported Rates and the Distribution of Offenses. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 25, No. 1, at 21 (1979)

^[55] Margaret Cahalan. Trends in Incarceration in the United States since 1880: A Summary of Reported Rates and the Distribution of Offenses. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 25, No. 1, at 11 (1979)

^[56] Trends in Incarceration in the United States since 1880: A Summary of Reported Rates and the Distribution of Offenses. Margaret Cahalan Crime Delinquency 1979 at 9

^[57] CITE heritage organization thing.

^[58] CITE commission

^[59] In 1951 the Boggs Act created federal mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses, and lead to the passage of “little Boggs acts” in the states, some specifying prison terms as long as 10 to 40 years. Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Famm Gram. Spring 2007, Issue 1, Volume 17, page 1 [can be found at: http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Boggs%20feature.pdf]

^[60] Governor Schwarzenegger Proposes Toughest Sex Offender Laws in the History of the State of California, http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/1565/ (last visited Feb. 8, 2010).

^[61] MONICA DAVEY and ABBY GOODNOUGH, Doubts Rise as States Hold Sex Offenders After Prison, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/04civil.html (Mar. 4, 2007).

^[62] State of Alabama – Office of the Governor Bob Riley – Columns, http://www.governorpress.alabama.gov/pr/co-2005-08-01-specialsesssion05.asp (last visited Feb. 8, 2010)

^[63] establishing mandatory 15-year and life sentences for certain drug offenses. From here on, the racial disparity in New York between black and white imprisonment grew – 85% of the overall growth from 1970 to 2000 (an increase of 58,887 prisoners) was black and Latino prisoners. See Importing Constituents (Further Research & Methodology), at www.prisonpolicy.org/importing

^[64] See Wikipedia, Criminal sentencing in the United States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_sentencing_in_the_United_States (as of June 23, 2009, 06:02 GMT).

(“In the mid-1970s, most states and the federal system moved away from indeterminate sentencing toward determinate sentences (also known as “truth in sentencing”). For instance, Michigan’s 650 Lifer Law established mandatory minimum penalty of life without parole for 650 grams of cocaine or heroin and mandatory sentences for lesser amounts of drugs.”)

^[65] CITE commission I think

^[66] Comprehensive Crime Control Act CITE. And see Radical History Review Braz and Gilmore | Joining Forces at 109(“California’s prisons have grown at almost twice the national average. Probably the largest single factor causing that growth has been the state’s proclivity to send parolees back to prison, especially those without new convictions. At a rate of 70 percent, California returns parolees to prison at twice the national rate. Many of the returnees are sent back for technical violations such as missing a meeting with a parole officer. According to the criminologist Michael Jacobsen, “California’s astonishing rate of 70% is more than 2 times Texas’s rate and almost 12 times Florida’s rate.”)

^[67] Despite a decline in drug use between 1978-1986, Fammgram CITE Anti-Drug Abuse Act? Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act? 18 USC s. 924(c) fammgram CITE

^[68] See Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing An Assessment of How Well the Federal Criminal Justice System is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform, United States Sentencing Commission, 2004, page v – vi. Available at http://www.november.org/resources/USSC15YearStudy.html (last visited Feb. 8, 2010).

^[69] “As the consequence of ‘three strikes laws,’ the increase in the duration of incarceration in the [1990's] was most pronounced in the case of life prison sentences, which increased by 83% between 1992 and 2003.” Wikipedia, Incarceration in the United States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States#Duration_of_incarceration (as of July 15, 2009, 04:28 GMT).

^[70] Wikipedia, Three-strikes law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_laws (as of June 11, 2009, 07:32 GMT). The California version mandated a sentence of 25 years to life for any third felony, whether it was a serious or violent crime, or not, as long as the first two convictions were for serious or violent crimes. Today, 20 percent of California prisoners are serving life sentences, almost three times as many as were in 1992. “The majority of individuals convicted of a third-strike offense would not be serving a life sentence in the absence of these laws.” CITE FIX See Laws to imprison people: Policies and Practices that Drive Life Sentences, Ashley Nellis and Ryan S. King, 2009 at 25

^[71] . Wikipedia, Three-strikes law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_laws (as of June 11, 2009, 07:32 GMT).

^[72] Margaret Cahalan. Trends in Incarceration in the United States since 1880: A Summary of Reported Rates and the Distribution of Offenses. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 25, No. 1, at 9 (1979)

^[73] CITE

^[74] CITE

^[75] CITE

^[76] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[77] From “Addiction to Prisons,” by Bob Powell. http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/prisons.shtml

^[78] Lessons of the “Get Tough” Movement in the United States. Presented at International Corrections and Prison Association 6th Annual Conference Beijing, China. Marc Mauer. The Sentencing Project. 2004. Page 2

^[79]
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22741

^[80] Congressional Apportionment, http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/index.html (last visited Feb. 5, 2010).

^[81] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date: September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[82] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[83] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[84] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[85] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[86]Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[87] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[88] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[89] Article from:Oakland Tribune Article date:September 19, 2006, Article: A vote for a smarter census – Oakland Tribune | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7060664.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[90] K. “Prisoner transfers reduce census count State will fight policy that doesn’t count inmates housed out of state.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, WI). 1998. HighBeam Research. 6 Feb. 2010

^[91] Phantom Voters, Thanks to the Census, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/opinion/27tues2.html?_r=1 (Dec. 27, 2005).

^[92]
National Research Council (2006). Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place:
Residence Rules in the Decennial Census. Panel on Residence Rules in the Decennial Census. Daniel L. Cork and Paul R. Voss, eds. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, at 243

^[93]
National Research Council (2006). Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place:
Residence Rules in the Decennial Census. Panel on Residence Rules in the Decennial Census. Daniel L. Cork and Paul R. Voss, eds. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, at 243

^[94] Article from:The Washington Times (Washington, DC) Article date:June 9, 1999, Article: A way to make crime pay: Bill would count prisoners in home-state census tally.(Metropolitan Times)(Top Of The News) – The Washington Times | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56762714.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[95] SAM ROBERTS, Panel Recommends Change in Census Prisoner Count, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/nyregion/15census.html?_r=1 (Sep. 15, 2006).

^[96] Article from:The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) Article date:September 26, 2004, Article: HEAD COUNT THE CENSUS COUNTS PRISONERS AS RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNS WHERE THEY’RE INCARCERATED. ONE CRUSADING LAWYER FROM NORTHAMPTON THINKS THIS LITTLE CLERICAL MATTER IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. – The Boston Globe | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7866256.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[97] Article from:AP Online Article date:January 28, 2006, Article: Census Change Would Hem Prison-Town Assets – AP Online | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-117855296.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[98] Phantom Voters, Thanks to the Census, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/opinion/27tues2.html?_r=1 (Dec. 27, 2005).

^[99] – 02/23/06, Census Bureau Releases Superficial Report | Brennan Center for Justice, http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/census_bureau_releases_superficial_report (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[100] – 02/23/06, Census Bureau Releases Superficial Report | Brennan Center for Justice, http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/census_bureau_releases_superficial_report (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[101] The Census: Phantom Constituents – The Board Blog – NYTimes.com, New York Times, http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/the-census-phantom-constituents/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[102] Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place: Residence Rules in the Decennial Census, http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11727&page=238 (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[103] Article from:Albany Times Union (Albany, NY) Article date:December 21, 2001, Article: MISTAKES CLAIMED IN CENSUS COUNTS.(MAIN) – Albany Times Union (Albany, NY) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157467520.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[104]
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11727&page=233

^[105] ” Article from:Roanoke Times & World News Article date:June 15, 2002, Article: CENSUS BUREAU FINDS MISPLACED PRISON IN WISE COUNTY AGENCY RECENTLY CORRECTED POPULATION COUNTS FOR 9 PLACES IN VA. – Roanoke Times & World News | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-12621024.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[106] Article from:Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) Article date:June 19, 2001, Article: Census finds St. Cloud prison empty; Bureau glitch misplacing some residents of `group living quarters’.(NEWS)(CENSUS 2000) – Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-75643219.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[107] Article from:Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) Article date:June 19, 2001, Article: Census finds St. Cloud prison empty; Bureau glitch misplacing some residents of `group living quarters’.(NEWS)(CENSUS 2000) – Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-75643219.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[108] Article from:Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) Article date:June 19, 2001, Article: Census finds St. Cloud prison empty; Bureau glitch misplacing some residents of `group living quarters’.(NEWS)(CENSUS 2000) – Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-75643219.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[109] Article from:The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) Article date:December 27, 2001, Article: WHO COUNTS? TO BE FAIR WITH FEDERAL FUNDING, CENSUS NUMBERS MUST BE ACCURATE.(Editorial)(Editorial) – The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-81152934.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[110] Article from:The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) Article date:December 27, 2001, Article: WHO COUNTS? TO BE FAIR WITH FEDERAL FUNDING, CENSUS NUMBERS MUST BE ACCURATE.(Editorial)(Editorial) – The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-81152934.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[111] Article from:The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) Article date:December 27, 2001, Article: WHO COUNTS? TO BE FAIR WITH FEDERAL FUNDING, CENSUS NUMBERS MUST BE ACCURATE.(Editorial)(Editorial) – The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-81152934.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[112] Article from:The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA) Article date:June 27, 2001, Article: RESIDENTS VANISHED, ACCORDING TO CENSUS ERROR AT APARTMENTS FOR SENIORS RAISES ACCURACY QUESTIONS.(FRONT) – The Virginian Pilot | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-75974997.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[113] Article from:The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA) Article date:June 27, 2001, Article: RESIDENTS VANISHED, ACCORDING TO CENSUS ERROR AT APARTMENTS FOR SENIORS RAISES ACCURACY QUESTIONS.(FRONT) – The Virginian Pilot | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-75974997.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[114] Census Said to Misplace Many Prisons and Dorms – NYTimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/28/us/census-said-to-misplace-many-prisons-and-dorms.html?pagewanted=2 (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[115] Census Said to Misplace Many Prisons and Dorms – NYTimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/28/us/census-said-to-misplace-many-prisons-and-dorms.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[116] Census Said to Misplace Many Prisons and Dorms – NYTimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/28/us/census-said-to-misplace-many-prisons-and-dorms.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[117] Article from:The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) Article date:December 27, 2001, Article: WHO COUNTS? TO BE FAIR WITH FEDERAL FUNDING, CENSUS NUMBERS MUST BE ACCURATE.(Editorial)(Editorial) – The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-81152934.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010

^[118] ” Article from:Nation’s Cities Weekly Article date:October 14, 2002, Article: 9th Circuit Appeals panel tells Census Bureau: release the numbers.(statistically adjusted census data)(Brief Article) – Nation’s Cities Weekly | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-93136293.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[119] Article from:The Record (Bergen County, NJ) Article date:October 18, 2001, Article: GOVERNMENT WON’T RELEASE ADJUSTED CENSUS NUMBERS – The Record (Bergen County, NJ) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47614744.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[120] National Research Council (2004). Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Panel on Research on Future Census Methods. Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, eds. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press at 245

^[121] National Research Council (2004). Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Panel on Research on Future Census Methods. Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, eds. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press at 153

^[122] National Research Council (2004). The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity. Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Constance F. Citro, Daniel L. Cork, and Janet L. Norwood, eds. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. At 155

^[123] Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place: Residence Rules in the Decennial Census, http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11727&page=238 (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[124] National Research Council. (2008). Experimentation and Evaluation Plans for the 2010
Census: Interim Report. Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments, Lawrence D. Brown, Michael L. Cohen, and Daniel L. Cork, editors. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press at 4

^[125] National Research Council (2007). Research and Plans for Coverage Measurement in the 2010
Census: Interim Assessment. Panel on Coverage Evaluation and Correlation Bias in the 2010 Census, Robert Bell and Michael L. Cohen (Eds.). Committee on National Statistics. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, at 38

^[126] .” O’Connor, Franklin v. Massassachusetts., 505 U.S. 788 (1992)., http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1502.ZO.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[127] The Census: Phantom Constituents – The Board Blog – NYTimes.com, New York Times, http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/the-census-phantom-constituents/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2010)

^[128] Article from:Nation’s Cities Weekly Article date:October 14, 2002, Article: 9th Circuit Appeals panel tells Census Bureau: release the numbers.(statistically adjusted census data)(Brief Article) – Nation’s Cities Weekly | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-93136293.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[129] Article from:The Record (Bergen County, NJ) Article date:October 18, 2001, Article: GOVERNMENT WON’T RELEASE ADJUSTED CENSUS NUMBERS – The Record (Bergen County, NJ) | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-47614744.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[130] Article from:Nation’s Cities Weekly Article date:October 14, 2002, Article: 9th Circuit Appeals panel tells Census Bureau: release the numbers.(statistically adjusted census data)(Brief Article) – Nation’s Cities Weekly | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-93136293.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[131] Article from:Nation’s Cities Weekly Article date:October 14, 2002, Article: 9th Circuit Appeals panel tells Census Bureau: release the numbers.(statistically adjusted census data)(Brief Article) – Nation’s Cities Weekly | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-93136293.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[132]
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10959&page=222

^[133]
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11727&page=252

^[134]
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11727&page=252

^[135]
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11727&page=251

^[136]
National Research Council. (2008). Experimentation and Evaluation Plans for the 2010
Census: Interim Report. Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments, Lawrence D. Brown, Michael L. Cohen, and Daniel L. Cork, editors. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press at 4

^[137] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[138] Article from:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Article date:September 22, 2005, Article: Counted out twice – power, representation & the “usual residence rule” in the enumeration of prisoners: a state-based approach to correcting flawed census data. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143871809.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

^[139] Article from:City Limits Article date:January 1, 2004, Article: Down for the (re) count: the Census counts prisoners in their cells, not their neighborhoods. Now a move is afoot to change their addresses.(The Big Idea) – City Limits | HighBeam Research – FREE trial, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-111729997.html (last visited Jan. 30, 2010).

Michael Neuman

Backyard Prisoners

Leave a Reply Cancel reply