Census Figures on Westside Fall Below Estimates : Population: Wide discrepancies cause some to question the accuracy of the federal head count.

Some of the U.S. Census Bureau’s early numbers for the Westside fell worrisomely short of population estimates built up by state and county officials over the last decade, raising concerns about the accuracy of the federal count, a UCLA urban planning professor says.

“You have to question whether Census did the job . . . whether we can trust the census,” said Prof. Leo Estrada, one of eight population experts on a panel that will advise the secretary of commerce on the validity of the 10-year nose count.

His concern was echoed last week by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and officials of smaller cities on the Westside that showed a drop in population.

But other authorities in the field said it is more likely that the state and local estimates are flawed, because they have failed to take note of changes in the area’s age and ethnic mix.

“These declines in population we’re seeing in certain Anglo areas are correct,” said David Heer, a USC sociologist and co-author of a recently published book, “A Human Mosaic--An Atlas of Ethnicity of Los Angeles County.”

“What we’re seeing is a decline in household size on the Westside and an increase in other parts of the county where there are large numbers of Hispanics,” Heer said.

With four months left before the Census Bureau must issue its final report to President Bush, preliminary results were released Tuesday to give local governments a chance to point out pockets of population overlooked in the massive counting effort.

“It’s up to the cities to identify those areas that are growing and identify for the Census Bureau where the heck they are so they can go back out in the field and capture them,” said demographer Linda Gage of the state Department of Finance.

Although she said that the census numbers came within 2% of state estimates for California at large, the shortfall was noticeably larger on the Westside.

Most observers had expected a certain decline in growth rates in prosperous suburban areas, where children born at the tail end of the baby boom have grown up and left home, and the high cost of real estate generally means two working parents and fewer children, if any, in single-family homes that once housed bigger families.

Additionally, divorce and widowhood have reduced the number of occupants per household.

Even so, UCLA’s Estrada said: “It surprised us that (the count) was so low, and that’s because there have been signs of Asian immigration into the Westside and some Hispanic suburbanization into the Westside. . . . We expected these cities to be growing in the low single digits.”

Instead, the Census Bureau found, for example, that Santa Monica’s population had dropped nearly 3%, to 85,880. The decline of 2,434 was a stunner, particularly in light of recent estimates by county and state demographers that indicated the city had been growing.

The latest bulletin of the county Regional Planning Department, based on a twice-yearly review of housing records and other data, predicted a population of 95,218 for Santa Monica, while the state’s Finance Department, using a different formula, put the total at 96,891.

“Either we’re not showing as rapid a decline in household size as actually occurred, or the Census Bureau has missed housing units, or there’s a significant difference in vacancy rates,” said George Malone, a county regional planner.

“I certainly don’t think our numbers should be the standard,” said Gage of the Finance Department. “We’re doing an estimate, and they’re out in the field. . . . Obviously, when you query every household in the nation, those are the best data you can get.”

However, she said, state records show more housing units existing in some areas than were identified by the census.

“Perhaps there is reason to think that some were missed,” she said.

While the big discrepancy was in Santa Monica, smaller shortfalls were reported for Beverly Hills and West Hollywood, although the difference in Beverly Hills was so small that senior planner Audrey Arlington found it to be insignificant.

“You can observe that this has been and continues to be a fairly built-up community, and so there is not much place to go in terms of (extra) dwelling units,” she said.

Although some older houses have been revamped and expanded, there is no way to know if more people live in them, she said.

“People in general are more housing-consumptive these days. They need more space per person,” she said.

But in West Hollywood, the federal figures looked low, Associate City Planner John Jakupcak said.

“The city plans to dispute this,” he said. “In the last decade there have been literally hundreds of dwelling units built in West Hollywood, and usually what happens is that they knock down single-family houses or a duplex, so it seems strange to us.”

He said the city asked residents to send in postcards indicating whether they had been counted for the census, and received “maybe 70, 80 cards that said, ‘No, I hadn’t been counted.’ ”

Peggy Curran, Santa Monica’s director of community and economic development, had a similar story, saying that she only got a census form after making repeated calls to complain that her home was overlooked.

“It was only due to our determination that it got in. If it was up to them we’d never have gotten counted,” she said.

Curran said that the Census Bureau’s conclusion that 5% of the housing units in Santa Monica were vacant was clearly incorrect.

Unlike other Westside municipalities, Culver City, whose population was counted as 38,139 in 1980, increased in population since 1980, the census found, but by less than 400 people.

That total was surprising too, Estrada said, because an influx of black and Latino families had been expected to shoot the population much higher. The county’s projection for Culver City was 39,836, while the state’s estimate was 41,197.

Culver City Councilwoman Jozelle Smith agreed. “I’d have expected an increase of 3,000-4,000,” she said. New apartments have been built and some larger families are moving in, she said, although “we’re not really overdeveloping.”

There is more at stake in the debate over the census than bragging rights for population figures on city limit signs. Reapportionment and federal and state funding for local government depend on census data, and the process can become highly political as local officials press for bigger numbers.

“We’re looking at a situation where these numbers are going to be used to determine need, to determine allocation of funding. And the way they look right now is that the more affluent parts of the Westside are going to receive less, unless these numbers change over the next few months,” Estrada said.

In fact, the preliminary census figures are almost certain to increase before the final report goes to President Bush at year’s end, said Larry Bryant, a local spokesman for the Census Bureau.

He said the bureau expects that local governments will find overlooked areas before the Sept. 15 deadline for additional input, and internal reviews by bureau officials are also likely to come up with higher totals.

It may also be that busy double-income families who are rarely home before late in the evening, and who failed to mail in their census form, will eventually be tracked down, he said.

“It’s preliminary to talk about an undercount because the census is still going on,” Bryant said. He said that elected officials from George Washington on have complained that the bureau’s numbers were too conservative.

“At this point, accuracy and completeness are as important as timeliness,” Bryant said. “We want to get it right because we’re going to have to live with these figures for 10 years. There’s a lot at stake--political power and money.”

About 800,000 people live in the Westside neighborhoods of Los Angeles, according to county data, but the report issued this week only covered the city as a whole.

The Census Bureau’s preliminary report counted 3.42 million residents in Los Angeles, a number that closely matched the city’s own projections, but Mayor Bradley said he suspects that the city’s homeless and minority populations were undercounted.

He said the city’s own projection of 3.43 million was based on the flawed conclusions of the 1980 Census, which is believed by city officials to have missed 4.6% of Los Angeles residents--most of them poor people living in the crowded urban core who are most difficult for counters to find.

Bradley questioned the accuracy of the city’s own projections and said that the 1980 undercount “reduces the validity of the numbers generated (by the city) for the Los Angeles region.”

CENSUS TOTALS: WHO IS RIGHT?

Preliminary 1990 Census figures for some cities fall short of the estimates compiled by state and county researchers who regularly monitor indicators, including building and demolition permits, birth and death records, and utility hookups. Here is a comparison of the 1990 Census figures for the Westside’s four incorporated cities with the latest available figures from the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Department:

1980 1990 1989 County City Census Census % change Estimate % change L.A. County 7,477,503 8,719,699 +16.6 8,551,641 +14.4 Beverly Hills 32,367 31,783 -1.8 34,773 +7.4 Culver City 38,139 38,528 +1.0 39,836 +4.4 Santa Monica 88,314 85,880 -2.7 95,218 +7.8 West Hollywood 35,703 35,121 -1.6 39,029 +9.3