Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
Howard Lutnick
Secretary
Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20230
George M. Cook
Deputy Under Secretary
Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau
U.S. Census Bureau
Suitland, MD 20746
Re: Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions [Docket No. 260903-0005]
Dear Secretary Lutnick and Director Cook,
The Massachusetts Municipal Association writes to share several comments on the Census Bureau’s (Bureau) proposed changes to the Code of Federal Regulations governing the decennial census of population and housing. The MMA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association of cities and towns, representing the 351 municipalities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We appreciate the important work of the Bureau as we know the census is the foundation for distributing not only political representation but also federal resources. Census data is also fundamental to how local governments plan for their community’s services and infrastructure, understand and evaluate population and demographic changes, and participate in hundreds of federal financial assistance programs. Municipal governments of all sizes rely on accurate census data to plan and execute maintenance and investment in infrastructure, housing and community development, public safety and other essential services. An accurate census is critical to ensure communities can make appropriate planning decisions for the next decade.
The proposed rule would add two new parts to Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, establishing new criteria for determining residence and eligibility for the apportionment count and restricting the demographic questions the Bureau may include on the decennial questionnaire. Together, these changes would alter how the Bureau defines who is counted, where they are counted and what is permitted to be asked. These matters directly affect the ability of local governments to plan for and serve their communities, comply with federal and local laws and regulations, and receive the funding they depend on.
Population Count
The proposed rule would limit the population counted toward apportionment to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents for the first time. The MMA strongly opposes this change.
Local governments rely on census data to help manage essential public services. By excluding a substantial portion of the actual resident population, this essential planning data would fail to reflect real-world demand. Roads, transit systems, public safety and emergency services, utilities and housing are utilized by the entire population, not only citizens and lawful permanent residents. Limiting the population count would lead to a significant undercount, leaving local governments with inadequate resources to maintain the infrastructure and emergency services that their entire communities depend on.
This will be felt acutely not only in areas with large immigrant populations, but also in areas with large student populations where international faculty and students are a cornerstone of the local economy and community structure. Massachusetts is home to a high concentration of higher education institutions, drawing tens of thousands of international students and faculty who reside, study, and work in our municipalities year-round. These academic communities rely heavily on local transit networks, housing markets, and municipal services to function. If the Bureau codifies a policy that renders these vital community members statistically invisible, it will inflict severe, disproportionate funding cuts on our college towns and cities, directly undermining the infrastructure that supports Massachusetts’ global leadership in education and innovation.
We request a full population count to ensure that the safety, efficiency, and reliability of public services are not compromised for all residents due to a severe undercount. The MMA urges the Bureau to reject this proposal and maintain the Constitutional standard of a full unrestricted population count.
Legal-status Question
The proposed rule also raises the possibility of adding a legal-status question to the census questionnaire. Similar proposals considered for the 2020 Census were not adopted following concerns that it could reduce participation, particularly among immigrant and mixed-status households. Any decline in response rates would undermine the accuracy of a community’s population count as a whole and could impact the resources available to young children and families specifically. We respectfully urge the Bureau to not include this question on the upcoming Censure questionnaire.
Changes to the Residence Criteria
The Census Bureau is also proposing to define the “census enumeration period” to run from January 3 to April 1 during decennial census years. The MMA strongly opposes this change.
In Massachusetts, many residents spend a few winter months in warmer southern states. Under the proposed change, these residents, who typically spend nine or more months in Massachusetts, would not be counted as Massachusetts residents as they typically have under the current “usual residence” standard. This will lead to a further undercount, particularly in beach communities, which see a temporary drop in population in the coldest winter months. Shifting the enumeration window to deep winter creates an artificial data snapshot that would misrepresent the demographic and economic reality of our Commonwealth. The MMA strongly urges the Census Bureau to retain the traditional “usual residence” standard to ensure that Massachusetts towns are not penalized for predictable seasonal migrations.
Greater Reliance on Administrative Records
The proposed increased reliance on administrative records also raises concerns about the potential undercount of populations. The MMA strongly opposes increasing reliance on these records. Tax, immigration, health and other administrative records can be a valuable tool for population measurement, but an overreliance on them will likely lead to missing residents. Many residents may not be represented in those records, including low-income households, college students, non-filers and children. The MMA requests additional information regarding when these records will be used and how the Bureau will ensure accurate counts for populations with less reliable administrative data.
Removal of Demographic Questions
The proposal would also eliminate race and ethnicity questions, while making most other demographic questions optional. The MMA strongly opposes this proposal. Accurate demographic data is essential to municipal planning and service delivery. Understanding who lives in a community gives local governments the ability to plan for the current population and take into consideration the future population’s needs. The loss or reduction in the quality of this data could affect a municipality’s ability to provide much needed services to residents and accurately plan for the future.
Additionally, local governments must meet legal obligations under the Fair Housing Act, Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, and will be unable to accurately do so without this critical data. Without accurate, neighborhood-level demographics, Massachusetts municipalities will be legally hobbled in demonstrating compliance with these foundational federal mandates. Removing these foundational metrics also eliminates the baseline denominators that local governments and researchers rely on to evaluate public health disparities. Stripping this data from the decennial census will effectively blind our municipalities to the composition of their own communities, leaving local leaders unable to spot societal inequities or target critical health, housing, and social services where they are most urgently needed. The MMA strongly urges the Bureau to revisit this decision.
Conclusion
In total, we respectfully urge the Bureau to withdraw these proposed changes. An undercount of any portion of our population reduces resources available to the entire community — not just the households or individuals who go uncounted. State funding allocations depend on accurate census data, as this informs funding for essential federal programs including Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), transit formula funding, and Title I education funding, and much more. While the Bureau distinguishes between apportionment and funding distribution, changes that discourage participation risk reducing the quality of data used for both purposes. Any changes to residence criteria, data collection methods or demographic questions must not compromise the accuracy of the population counts that Massachusetts communities rely on.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and would welcome the chance to provide additional information or answer any questions the Bureau may have.
Sincerely,
Adam Chapdelaine
MMA Executive Director and CEO