CENSUS NUMBERS WILL AFFECT CALIFORNIA FUNDS; GETTING FAIR SHARE OF FEDERAL MONEY TAKES BURDEN OFF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Byline: Dianne Feinstein, Henry Waxman and Lucille Roybal-Allard 

EVERY 10 years, the United States faces a nearly impossible challenge - accurately counting every man, woman and child from Maine to California. For most of us, this routine is little more than an afterthought. After spending just a few minutes completing the survey, many Americans forget the census for another decade.

But the importance of the census is much greater than most people realize. Census numbers determine how billions of dollars in federal funds are allocated, as well as the number of elected representatives each state sends to Congress. As a result, census-taking has become very complicated and, unfortunately, a contentious political issue.

According to a recent study by the nonpartisan U.S. General Accounting Office, the 1990 census undercounted the United States population by about 4 million people, including 835,000 people living in California. Most of the Californians missed were minorities: 47 percent of the net undercount in California was Hispanic; 22 percent was African-American; and 8 percent was Asian. Nearly half of the missing were children.

Since most federal programs apportion funding to state and local governments based on census numbers, GAO estimated that the undercount cost California over $2.2 billion in federal funds during the 1990s - more than any other state.

The GAO report estimates that in fiscal year 1998 alone, California lost $198 million in federal funds for Medicaid, $9.4 million for foster care, $3.2 million for Social Security, $1.9 million for child care and development, and $1.1 million for vocational training. Millions more federal dollars were lost for adoption assistance, prevention and treatment of substance abuse, highway planning and construction, and rehabilitation services.

In fact, each Californian missed in the 1990 census cost the state more than $2,500 in federal funds over this decade.

When people are missed in the census, they do not disappear. The state and local communities still must provide services to all individuals - even those who are not counted. Without a fair share of federal funds, an unfair burden falls on the state and local governments to pay for these services, which means higher local taxes. Meanwhile, other states receive a much larger share of federal funds than they are actually entitled to.

Since the failed 1990 population count, the Census Bureau has worked with experts from across the country to design a more accurate census for 2000. The National Academy of Sciences, in three separate reports, concluded that the key to improving accuracy in the census is the use of sound statistical methods to count those missed during the conventional ``head count.'' This involves detailed ``statistical sampling'' to determine the characteristics of those who are missed by the head count.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the use of these statistical methods for most purposes - such as the distribution of federal funds and the drawing of congressional districts within a state - although it held that a 1976 law did not allow the use of sampling for ``apportionment'' of congressional seats among the states.

The Census Bureau is trying to implement these expert recommendations. It plans to use statistical methods to produce a more accurate count for the allocation of federal funds, congressional redistricting and other allowable uses, but not for apportionment. This plan ensures that the census will be constitutional and that states such as California, with a higher percentage of undercounted residents, will be treated fairly.

Unfortunately, some Republican political strategists are convinced that Republicans will have diminished power if minorities are counted accurately. As a result, Republican leaders in Congress have introduced legislation to impose burdensome requirements on the Census Bureau that will effectively prevent the agency from producing more accurate numbers.

This shouldn't be a political issue. That is why we recently asked our Republican colleagues to join every Democratic member of California's congressional delegation in a letter to Gov. Gray Davis, requesting that he work to ensure that California receives its fair share of federal funds in the next decade. Unfortunately, California Republicans refused to join in our call for the use of accuracy-enhancing statistical methods, even though they know that inaccuracies in the 1990 census cost California over $2 billion in federal funds.

We hope Republican members of our congressional delegation will reconsider their position. Unless the Census Bureau is allowed to carry out its plan to produce a more accurate count than that which was produced 10 years ago, California will again lose billions of dollars in federal assistance and Californians will again have to subsidize federal programs with state and local tax dollars.

An accurate census count isn't just about knowing how many people live in the United States; it's about making sure that the federal government provides our communities with the resources we need.