Each year, the Census Bureau gathers data from federal agencies, state and local governments to develop a detailed understanding of national population change. Estimates for cities are derived from these higher level estimates through adjustments based on analysis of local data, primarily new construction activity as recorded in the register of municipal building permits. Census intercepts this critical information from cities via monthly Residential Construction surveys designed to measure new construction. However, the success of this data as a source for calculating population estimates is limited because of the survey’s design (it was actually designed to track privately-funded new construction activity to measure GDP); municipal prioritization resulting from miscommunication between Census and cities and/or a lack of understanding of the impact of the survey on population estimates; and inadequate management of municipal building permit data. Combined, these issues related to the purpose, scope and effective capture of local inputs through the Census Bureau’s Residential Construction survey force the Census to make its own interpretations of non-standard permit data, inevitably resulting in conservative assumptions when inconsistencies and errors arise in the dataset.

In 2001, in recognition of the impact of possible data discrepancies in its annual local population estimates, the Census Bureau established a process allowing local governments to challenge its population estimate. This program is called the Census Challenge.

Since 2001, 188 challenge efforts by local governments have been recognized by the Census Bureau resulting in population adjustments of more than one million people back to the contesting jurisdictions. Though the many positives resulting from a successful challenge easily justify local investment of time and effort to pull the relevant supporting statistics together, relatively few governments have formally taken action.

PARTNERSHP WITH THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Social Compact, in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau, is leading a national effort to ensure cities across the country are counted accurately. Social Compact is developing a program to work with 50 cities to implement a range of initiatives including technical assistance, workshops, training materials, and other community outreach tools, which will result in a set of more standardized data collection and management practices for local governments. Such efforts will lead to more accurate Census Bureau estimates and foster effective working relationships between cities and the U.S. Census Bureau. The program is designed to:

• Raise Awareness - Many cities are not aware of how important their own data is when Census creates its estimates. Mayoral leadership in the importance of local data will help city management reprioritize participation in the permit surveys.
• Improve Data Utilization - Building Permit surveys capture new residential construction yet often miss population moving into rehabilitated and converted properties. Cities must have the capacity to capture this information to assure improved estimates in the future.
• Connect to the Census - Creating a high-level Census liaison within a city administration would assure that Census can communicate its needs effectively and cities will have a stronger relationship with the Bureau.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ANNUAL POPULATION ESTIMATES

• Over 170 federal programs incorporate census population estimates into formulas that determine the range and level of funding available for cities.
• Retailers, financial institutions and other private sector investors each year rely on census population estimates to inform their investment decisions across cities.
• Census population estimates contribute, directly or indirectly, significantly to the perception of a city, signaling economic prosperity and opportunity or forecasting stagnation and decline.

In cases where census estimates are inaccurate, as the Oakland example suggests, cities may not receive their fair share of funding; are overlooked by investors; and are misrepresented as “dying” or “declining,” undermining efforts to stimulate growth. Sadly, Oakland’s story is repeated in major cities across the United States.