Southland Leaders Fear Impact of Census Decision

Not again, Southern California leaders groaned Friday as they absorbed the Census Bureau’s recommendation against adjusting its 2000 head count upward to factor in more than 3 million overlooked Americans.

As it did in the 1990s, the region may lose billions of dollars in federal funds if Congress and the Bush administration accept the recommendation and extend it beyond the realm of election redistricting.

Many demographics experts urged patience, saying that the bureau’s memo, released Thursday, was preliminary and that federal funding formulas allow for significant flexibility.

But Los Angeles officials said the decision’s effect would be devastating for the city and the surrounding area.

“The census is so critical because it secures federal dollars for basic services,” said City Councilman Mike Feuer, who heads the council’s budget committee. “I know that sounds generic, but we’re talking about programs that impact the quality of life--like meals for senior citizens, school lunches and whether kids have after-school programs.”

If the original numbers stand, Southern California--and Los Angeles County, in particular--will unquestionably rank high among the communities undercounted by the census.

The bureau conducts special field surveys to estimate how many people the general tally misses or records twice. Factoring in both, the Census Bureau has put the net national undercount for 2000 at 3.3 million, or 1.2%, down from 4 million, or 1.6%, in 1990.

More affluent, older whites are most likely to be double-counted; Latinos, African Americans and illegal immigrants--all with heavy concentrations in the Southland--are among those most likely to be overlooked.

“We’re stuck in an awful spot,” said Dowell Myers, director of the California Demographic Futures Project at USC. “The deficit is concentrated here, but spread thinly nationwide. The bureau is certain that L.A. was undercounted, but the people in Iowa are screaming, ‘You can’t be sure.’ ”

In 1990, Los Angeles was shorted by about 3.8%, or more than 153,000 residents. The 2000 undercount is unlikely to be that large, but the city could lose more than $325 million in federal funds over 10 years if it were, officials say.

Of course, translating undercounts into lost state and federal dollars remains more guesswork than science, experts acknowledge.

A study conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the U.S. Census Monitoring Board concluded that Los Angeles County would receive about $1.8 billion less in federal funds from 2002 to 2012 if the original count stood. Riverside and San Bernardino counties would lose out on more than $200 million apiece.

But the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report projected a larger undercount than the Census Bureau expects and does not factor in rules changes that Congress may yet write for how federal program funds are distributed, said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a census consultant and expert on federal statistical issues.

Generally speaking, areas underestimated most dramatically lose up to 2% of what they would have received if adjusted figures were used, but the margin’s significance is hard to pin down, said Eugene Ericksen, a Temple University professor who specializes in estimating the undercount.

“A lot of people exaggerate [the effect], but sometimes that last 1% to 2% becomes critical,” he said.

The Census Bureau recommended adjusting the 1990 census, but was blocked from doing so after a tense political battle that pitted state against state and even led to intrastate bickering between big cities and more rural and suburban areas.

In its report Thursday, the bureau said time constraints had prevented it from making an airtight case defending the adjusted numbers’ superior accuracy, but many demographers expect the agency to try again within the next year or two.

“This is probably the final word for redistricting, but not for much else,” said Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Urban Institute who specializes in immigration issues.

That may be too late for this time, however.

“The lesson learned in 1990 was that, once one set of numbers has the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, it becomes very difficult to change them for other purposes,” Lowenthal said. “They are seen too much through the lens of winners or losers.”

Los Angeles officials remain determined to prevent the city from ending as losers.

They filed a lawsuit two weeks ago asking a federal judge to prevent the Bush administration’s Commerce Department director from administering the data. The suit wrongly assumed that the Census Bureau would recommend the adjusted numbers and the administration would override it.

City Atty. James K. Hahn said Los Angeles would withdraw that motion, but other officials indicated the city would soon file--and fight--anew.

“We will have to see how far we can go with respect to the legal battle,” Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas said. “It seems unavoidable, and that’s regrettable. . . . The whole reason for an accurate count is to maximize city services--to senior citizens, to children and everyone in between.”