Federal statistical agencies are funded and supervised by elected and appointed politicians. What counts as politial interference is not self-evident. This article offers a working definition of interference, emphasizing the importance of an agency offering its best judgment regarding accurate measurement of a given phenomenon, its ability to apply state-of-the-art science in that measurement, and its protection from preclearance of the resulting statistical product. Interference is indicated by efforts to shape statistical products to achieve political advantage. Statistical adjustment to correct the differential undercount in the decennial census is used to illustrate political interference.
Anderson, Margo J.1988. The American census: A social history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
Anderson, Margo, Beth Osborne Daponte, Stephen E. Fienberg, Joseph B. Kadane, Bruce D. Spencer, and Duane L. Steffey.2000. Sampling based adjustment of the 2000 census-A balanced perspective. Jurimetrics40:341-56.
3.
Anderson, Margo J., and Stephen E. Fienberg .1999. Who counts? The politics of census-taking in contemporary America. New York, NY : Russell Sage Foundation.
4.
Anderson, Margo, and Stephen E. Fienberg .2000. History, myth making and statistics: A short story about the reapportionment of Congress and the 1990 census. PS: Political Science and Politics33 (4): 783-92.
5.
Brown, Lawrence D., Morris L. Eaton, David A. Freedman, Stephen P. Klein, Richard A. Olshen, Kenneth W. Wachter, Martin T. Wells, and Donald Ylvisaker .1999. Statistical controversies in Census 2000. Jurimetrics39:347-75.
6.
Bryant, Barbara Everitt, and William Dunn.1995. Moving money and power: The politics of census taking. New York, NY: New Strategist Publications.
7.
Choldin, Harvey M.1994. Looking for the last percent: The controversy over census undercounts. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8.
Holden, Constance. 3 April 2009. New Census Director: Scientists Say They Can Count on Him. Available from http://news.sciencemag.org (accessed 11 June 2010).
9.
Lappen, Alyssa A. 13 February 2009. Obama’s Census-ational Power Grab . Available from frontpagemag.com (accessed 11 June 2010).
10.
Department of Commerce v.United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S.316 (January 25, 1999).
11.
Mosbacher, Robert A.1991. Decision of the secretary of commerce on whether a statistical adjustment of the 1990 Census of Population and Housing should be made for coverage deficiencies resulting in an overcount or undercount of the population . Federal Register56 (140, July 22): 33583.
12.
National Research Council.2004. The 2000 census: Counting under adversity, eds. Constance F. Citro, Daniel L. Cork, and Janet L. Norwood, Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
13.
National Research Council.2005. Principles and practices for a federal statistical agency, eds. Margaret E. Martin, Miron L. Straf, and Constance F. Citro, 3rd ed. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14.
Prewitt, Kenneth.2003. Politics and science in census taking. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, and Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. (Reprinted in The American People: Census 2000, ed. R. Farley and J. Haaga, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2005.)
15.
U.S. Department of Commerce.2001. Federal Register66 (37): 11231-33.
16.
U.S. Departmentof Transportation. 2000. Federal Register65 (195): 59713-16.
