My Two Census

Formerly the non-partisan watchdog of the 2010 US Census, and currently an opinion blog that covers all things political, media, foreign policy, globalization, and culture…but sometimes returning to its census/demographics roots.

Reading between the lines: The Census Project is in bed with the Annie E. Casey Foundation

Last night, The Wall Street Journal published a blog post by June Kronholz about the likelihood of being counted in the 2010 Census. As the non-partisan watchdog of the 2010 Census, MyTwoCensus must point out that this article is written from a very partisan perspective. Kronholz’s only source of data was information collected by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and released by The Census Project. Kronholz writes, “The [census counting] estimates were developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, using Census Bureau planning databases, and released by the Census Project whose members include policy planners, demographers and citizen-rights advocates.”

If you look at The Census Project’s stakeholder list, it’s clear that all of the stakeholders are liberal advocacy groups, and more importantly, one of the “stakeholders” (which translates to meaning an organization that funds The Census Project) is The Annie E. Casey Foundation, the very organization responsible for providing this data…So here’s our advice when reading articles, even from reputable news sources:

1. Read between the lines.

2. Take any information from “The Census Project” with a large grain of salt, as it’s coming from many partisan sources including ACORN, the NAACP, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and other immigrant advocacy groups.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Reading between the lines: The Census Project is in bed with the Annie E. Casey Foundation”

  1. jim Says:

    Are you suggesting the content of the report is inaccurate? If so, where was bias introduced into the methodology? You’re the expert I turn to in times like these, so hopefully you can help me cut through the BS.

  2. Anonymous CL Says:

    There certainly are risks of people being missed, which is why several additional Quality Control double-checking procedures were added in Census 2010, to try to counteract those risks. Even among people who are working for the Census Bureau this time (and so were not likely to have been among the people who intentionally tried to avoid being counted last time), I met several of them who don’t think their family ever received a Census 2000 form.

  3. Josh Says:

    A post like this severely undermines this blogs claim of non-partisanship

    “..it’s clear that all of the stakeholders are liberal advocacy groups..” – While it is true that some of these might be put into this group, (the most incendiary of which were conveniently mentioned) – to say that all of the stakeholders are liberal advocacy groups is grossly misleading, take another look at the list.

    Furthermore, it is quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that groups that represent historically under-counted populations would be concerned about the extent to which undercounting will occur in the 2010 Census, in the same way that census complete-count programs and partnerships will target these same historically under-counted populations.