The U.S. Census reported last month that New York City has at least 25,906 gay households, a threefold increase since 1990. This would translate into about 52,000 gay New Yorkers, or just under one percent of the population that is 18 years of age or older.
This could of course be accurate - if you did not count any of the gay people in Chelsea, Park Slope or Greenwich Village.
How could the United States Census be so off the mark?
It would not be the first time that gay people were underestimated - or, to put it more accurately, were inaccurately accounted for. There was no real effort even to estimate the population of gay people in the country until pioneering research Alfred Kinsey declared in the 1940's that gay men comprised ten percent of all adult males. But Kinsey's data were not very valid, since they were based on interviews with a sample that was not scientifically random. Those who were interviewed had volunteered.
During the senior George Bush's administration, a major study of sexuality was to be launched, so that a reliable estimate could be made of various sexual practices to help understand the potential spread of AIDS. The Bush administration killed the study, but a consortium of private foundations funded a smaller version carried out by researchers at the University of Chicago. Combined with other data sources it still provides the best estimate of the size of the gay population, even though it was completed in 1994. (It resulted in the book The Social Organization of Sexuality by Edward Laumann, John Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels.)
For the United States as a whole the numbers were 2.6 percent for men and 1.1 percent for women. For small cities and towns and rural areas the percent was smaller. But about 9.2 percent of men and 2.6 percent of women (aged 18 to 59) living in the central cities of the 12 largest metropolitan areas reported that they identify as homosexual. (And a larger percentage reported engaging in sexual activity with members of the same gender, but did not identify themselves as gay).
Applying these numbers to New York City, one would expect that at least six percent of New York City adults are gay, or about 360,000. This number is quite consistent with exit poll results, which ask sexual orientation. In truth, since so many gay people are drawn to New York City, the number is likely to be at least 500,000 - or about ten times greater than what the Census reported.
In 1990, the Census added a new category "unmarried partner" to get at the large numbers of people, mostly heterosexual couples, who were living together in a relationship but were not married. Since the gender of the partners could be recorded, for the first time there was a way to make a count of what were likely to be gay couples. The 2000 Census refined the question a little about the "relationship to the head of the household." Of course, not all gay people are living with partners, and not all people who live together are in a romantic relationship, and not everybody could understand the nuances of the question. But at least now gay New Yorkers officially - albeit rather indirectly -- exist.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.
New York City has more people living here than ever before. The census found eight million New Yorkers. But there were many it missed -- probably 136,000.
We know this thanks to the science of statistics. There are now statistical ways of making up for the flaws in the physical collection of data - for the failure, in other words, of the United States Bureau of the Census to make an accurate count of each and every New Yorker.
The science exists to adjust for this undercount. But yet again, politics has gotten in the way of science. The Bush administration has decided to leave those New Yorkers uncounted.
This is nothing new. New York City has been complaining and then litigating about the undercount for about half a century. Its 1980 lawsuit led to the federal government agreeing to monitor the outcome of the census in New York City, and adjust the results if necessary, beginning with the 1990 census.
In 1990, after the census forms had been handed in and calculated, census bureau employees went back to New York and did a meticulous recount of a large selected statistical sample of households. (over 90,000). By comparing the first set of results with the second, it was possible for the census to estimate the undercount of various geographical areas and ethnic groups in the city.
After the 1990 census, the bureau professionals recommended adjustment so the official data more accurately reflected the actual numbers of New Yorkers (and of course others who had been undercounted). But George Mossbacher blocked that recommendation. Mossbacher was the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, the agency that oversees the U.S. Census Bureau. He also happened to be the campaign manager for the presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush.
Afterward, the National Academy of Sciences and others recommended procedures to make the census more accurate. All of these efforts were frustrated by GOP Congressional leaders. Indeed, while the latest census was underway, George W. Bush, suggested that the effort was intrusive, and indicated that he might not fill out the long form if he got one.
The process itself was subject to incessant attack by right wing radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh.
Nevertheless, for the 2000 census, the bureau intensified its efforts to make an accurate count, launching a better-paid advertising campaign than in 1990.
An analysis of the results shows that Census 2000 was probably the most accurate census ever, and missed many fewer African Americans, Hispanics and Native American than in 1990. Yet, for all its efforts, this was at least the third census in a row in which the population of New York City was undercounted. The same statistical sampling that occurred after the 1990 census occurred again, with similar results.
However, on March 1 of this year, an internal committee of professional demographers recommended that the census not be adjusted. On March 6 Commerce Secretary Don Evans agreed with the committee and ordered only unadjusted data to be released. In a fairly astonishing replay of the circumstances surrounding the decision a decade earlier, Evans was George W. Bush's campaign manager, and recently returned from Florida where he had defended Bush's win.
Earlier, he had elbowed aside the professionals, who were supposed to make the adjustment decision. Apparently, he need not have done so.
Census 2000 did show an unexpectedly large count, especially in New York State, Washington, D.C., California, Florida and other areas with large numbers of immigrants.
However, when the bureau employees did their recount of the sample households, they determined that the unexpectedly high number should be even higher. On the other hand, estimates based upon various other demographic methods suggested that they should be lower than the number counted.
This discrepancy stopped the internal committee from recommending adjustment. It also shows why New York City lost again. The Census estimation methods mainly use only new green card recipients to count immigrants. These figures overlook all other foreigners, including those, who are in the US for study, for work, or for long term visits. They also overlook those that enter or stay on in the United States illegally. New York City is one of the major immigrant magnets, so it is in exactly such places where the estimates will be low.
The presidential appointees to the Census Monitoring Board (appointed, that is, by President Clinton), in a report released May 1, cited consultants well-regarded in demographic and statistical circles, and condemned the decision not to adjust. Meanwhile, the Congressional (in other words, Republican) members of the same board praised the Commerce Secretary's decision and called any move for adjustment partisan.
As of now the census bureau refuses to release details of the survey that was to be used to adjust, though they have admitted that many of their other methods for assuring their accuracy were seriously flawed.
So far, only the unadjusted official count has been released, and about 136,000 New Yorkers will go uncounted. This loss translates into fewer legislators representing the city in Albany and Washington, and less federal and state aid. Indeed, when one thinks of the New York City undercount over the decades, the impact is billions of dollars in aid, and an incalculable loss of political power.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â
There were three things that New Yorkers learned about themselves from the first data to come out of the 2000 Census:
None of these are accurate.
1. NEW YORK CITY'S SLOW GROWTH
New York City experienced modest growth. New Yorkers were simply counted better in 2000 than they had been in 1990. The 1990 Census officially recorded New York City's population at 7.3 million; now it is 8.0 million. The difference is 686,000 or 9.4 percent. Growth is only one reason for the higher numbers, and it may not be the most important. Everyone acknowledges that the last census undercounted the city. Officially, the adjustment would have been about 245,000. This time the adjustment would be somewhat lower. However, the adjustment procedure assumes that all households are on the census address list.
A massive effort by the Department of City Planning, under the direction of Joseph Salvo, head of the population division and the city's census liaison, reviewed the census list of households and added about 370,000 household addresses to that list. Some were new construction, but many were auxiliary apartments or other sub-divisions of existing buildings. Many had not been visited in 1990, though they probably existed then. This is the first census where Congress allowed such a review. Indeed, in earlier censuses the bureau strongly resisted similar efforts and blocked them by court challenges for reasons of "confidentiality." If each newly found unit had two people in it (much lower than New York City's average) those extra 740,000 people would more than account for NYC's "growth."
No one will know how many housing units there are in New York City until the census releases figures later this year. However, City Planning Commissioner Joe Rose attributes half of New York City's growth to better counting. NYC probably grew at a more leisurely 4 or 5 percent, putting it in the same league with Chicago and behind Los Angeles.
Still, New York certainly did grow somewhat, thanks to immigration. This contrasts with many other cities in the region: Newark, Buffalo, Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven all lost population.
2. MOST REGIONAL GROWTH IS SUBURBAN SPRAWL
The fastest growth in the New York region is in the far suburbs, such as Putnam County in New York, central New Jersey, and some distant parts of Connecticut. Sprawl and "white flight" are alive and well. The most rapid growth in the New York region occurred in the outer ring of suburbs. While the Census counted 9.4 percent (and, again, many of these were just people who were not counted 10 years ago), Putnam County grew 13.1 percent, Orange County 10.2 percent; Dutchess, Greene, and Saratoga (now an Albany County suburb) all grew rapidly.
Unlike the New York City, none of these increases is based upon suddenly counting massive numbers of uncounted households. Indeed, 10 out of New Jersey's 21 counties grew at least 9.0 percent, and Somerset County grew over 23 percent. About one-third of Connecticut's roughly 175 towns grew faster than nine percent. Sherman, a town in Fairfield led the pack with 36 percent. Most such growth points in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey were quite a distance from New York City and far from local population centers such as Newark and New Haven.
3. TWO THIRDS OF THE NEW YORKERS WHO SAID THEY WERE MEMBERS OF MORE THAN ONE RACE MAY HAVE BEEN CONFUSED
Only a tiny number of New Yorkers made a valid report that they were two or more races. Almost all New Yorkers report that they are only one race. Many that reported more than one race probably did so in error. In New York City, about 393,000 people (slightly less than five percent) told the census that they were of more than race. But 71 percent of these listed that second race as "other race," which they were not supposed to do. Only about 115,000 people filled in two actual races, or about 1.4 percent of the population. This number reflects what the officials at the census had originally estimated.
These well known myths should make it plain that drawing conclusions from Census 2000 is not as easy as it seems. As Disraeli reportedly said: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." Census 2000 certainly will continue to produce masses of statistics. The issue is how to sort the lies from the damn lies from the statistics.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and provides expert testimony on a range of cases, including housing discrimination. The opinions expressed are his alone.