There is talk about improvements at the U.S. Census Bureau. That is an organization that catches most people's attention on a decennial basis. If there is no zero in a year, then there is not much activity census-wise. It amazes me how few understand the census. When those zero years approach, the news is replete with mentions. But why?
The U.S. Constitution requires a census. Go have a look at Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, and you will find the "Enumeration Clause." The point of counting is to distribute the representation in our House of Representatives across the population.
It is a mistake to say it is for "Congress apportionment" because the Senate is also part of "Congress" and those seats are apportioned by geography and without reference to population. That was one of many compromises that the founders included in the original document.
There is periodic consternation as to the how, where, and what of the decennial census. Like so much in the world, there are various perspectives, and everyone is welcome to mine. The Constitution does not specify or define the counting process, which is left to the lawmakers and regulators. But as we ponder in 2025, about halfway to our next census effort, the topic is nonetheless being discussed.
Some pundits have expressed interest in a commentary on U.S.News in March 2024. They take issue with some of the "how" and contend that the Census Bureau is not counting all the "Americans with disabilities." People with limitations or challenges are not uncommon in the world of workers' compensation. Injury, impairment, and disability are all ready points of discussion.
By implication, there is perhaps also a potential that the Bureau is not counting non-Americans with disabilities. The census does not count only citizens and immigrants (those who enter with legal authorization). The Bureau also counts those who have broken the law by entering this country.
Some see that as challenging. Some contend that certain populations are more difficult to locate and count than others. The Bureau has therefore been known to rely on assumptions, predictions, and estimates. The Bureau admits openly that it under- and overcounts. It publishes its own estimates of its failures.
However, the pertinent criticism of the U.S. News authors is founded on the fact that the Census Bureau operates every year, not only on a decennial basis. According to the article, your tax dollars are at work "every year" conducting "the American Community Survey." This is directed at housing, employment, and more. This leads to an "estimate() (of) the number of Americans with disabilities."
In 2020, the population of the United States was 331,464,948 according to the Census Bureau. The critics in the U.S. News article are troubled that the Bureau estimates "just 44 million" "Americans with disabilities." So, the critics are incredulous that only 13.3% of Americans suffer from disabilities. There is seemingly less concern about the other residents (here legally or not).
The crux of their criticism is that the government "primarily focus(es) on functional disability." This is about the "challenges that people face with activities of daily living." The critics complain that this "fail(s) to include people with intellectual and developmental disabilities ... or mental health disabilities ... (and) chronic illnesses." There is the suggestion that these people "may still identify as disabled and face challenges." Some will find that language choice interesting.
Why does this matter? According to the critics, there are an astounding "353 federal programs ... (that)determine eligibility and receive funding ... based on a variety of ACS data." There are 353 federal programs? These critics also describe how county officials have gone "door-to-door, hosted info sessions, and posted on social media channels to spread the word about" getting money from the federal government.
These efforts are, therefore, seemingly, about delivering more to those who "identify as disabled." Thus, the vernacular makes a subtle turn. The criticism begins with a reference to people who have "disability" and evolves to people "disabled" (or so "identifying"). The good folks at Merriam-Webster's say that "disabled" means
"impaired or limited by a physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition: affected by disability."
