DOCSLIB.ORG

Observing Census Enumeration of Non-English Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Evaluation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Observing Census Enumeration of Non-English Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Evaluation Report This document was prepared by and for Census Bureau staff to aid in future research and planning, but the Census Bureau is making the document publicly available in order to share the information with as wide an audience as possible. Questions about the document should be directed to Kevin Deardorff at (301) 763-6033 or [email protected] December 12, 2012 2010 CENSUS PLANNING MEMORANDA SERIES No. 249 MEMORANDUM FOR The Distribution List From: Burton Reist [signed] Acting Chief, Decennial Management Division Subject: Observing Census Enumeration of Non-English Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Evaluation Report Attached is the Observing Census Enumeration of Non-English Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Evaluation Report. The Quality Process for the 2010 Census Evaluations, Experiments, and Assessments was applied to the methodology development, specifications, software development, analysis, and documentation of the analysis and results, as necessary. If you have questions about this report, please contact Yuling Pan at (301) 763-4950 or Stephen Lubkemann at (301) 763-8601. Attachment 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments December 6, 2012 Observing Census Enumeration of Non- English Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Evaluation Report U.S. Census Bureau standards and quality process procedures were applied throughout the creation of this report Yuling Pan and Stephen Lubkemann Center for Survey Measurement This page intentionally left blank. ii Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... vi 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 2 2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Theoretical approach ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Research questions ........................................................................................................................ 7 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Study design .................................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Selection of languages .................................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Research teams ............................................................................................................................ 10 3.4 Research sites .............................................................................................................................. 12 3.5 Steps and focus of the observation .............................................................................................. 12 3.6 Description of fieldwork ............................................................................................................. 16 3.7 Analysis methods ........................................................................................................................ 18 4 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 19 4.1 Navigating multiple layers of Census Bureau organization: Timing effects .............................. 20 4.2 Interaction effects ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.3 Locating limited English proficient respondents ........................................................................ 21 4.4 Limited number of cases observed: Non-representativeness ...................................................... 22 4.5 Comparison and evidence ........................................................................................................... 22 5 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 23 5.1 Negotiating and maintaining access to respondents .................................................................... 23 5.2 Forms of non-equivalency: Conceptual and meta-communicative ............................................. 52 5.3 The use and effectiveness of in-language materials in NRFU interviews .................................. 70 5.4 On-the-fly translation and use of interpreters ............................................................................. 76 5.5 Non-English speaking respondents’ perception of and reactions to the 2010 Census ................ 82 6 RELATED EVALUATIONS, EXPERIMENTS, AND/OR ASSESSMENTS .................................. 90 7 KEY LESSONS LEARNED, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 91 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 105 9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 105 10 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 115 iii 10.1 Appendix A: Observation protocol guide ................................................................................. 115 10.2 Appendix B: Enumerator debriefing questions ......................................................................... 119 10.3 Appendix C: Respondent debriefing questions ......................................................................... 121 10.4 Appendix D: The 2010 Census NRFU Questionnaire ............................................................. 124 10.5 Appendix E: The 2010 Census NRFU Information Sheet ........................................................ 127 iv List of Tables Table 1. Language teams and research sites ............................................................................................... 12 Table 2. Number of interviews observed and enumerators accompanied in field work ............................. 17 Table 3. Enumerators’ Conversational Strategies to Obtain Interview (English Households) ................... 25 Table 4. Signaling shared social identity .................................................................................................... 36 Table 5. Communicative conventions often deployed by bilingual enumerators in each language group . 46 Table 6. Fears that tended to be raised in particular groups ........................................................................ 90 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was conducted during the 2010 Census to observe Nonresponse Followup interviews with households that speak a language other than English, in areas of the U.S. with heavy concentrations of residents with limited English proficiency. A multilingual research team consisting of seven sub-teams in the seven primary languages (Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese) was commissioned to carry out the research in the 2010 Census. The objectives of this research were to collect extensive qualitative data that could provide an empirical basis for beginning to: (1) identify which linguistic and sociocultural factors appear to affect the enumeration of non-English speaking populations during the Nonresponse Followup interview process; (2) examine the measures that were taken by enumerators to negotiate access to non-English speaking households and to collect the required census data from these households; (3) observe if and how in-language census materials were used in the field; and (4) gain additional insight into how non-English speaking immigrant populations perceived and reacted to the census and its public messaging. Findings from this study will help develop recommendations for the 2020 Census planning process, by identifying issues that should be addressed in order to improve the enumeration process in that subset of the population that has limited, or entirely lacks, English proficiency. Most specifically, the findings in this report may be potentially relevant to further refining the procedures and approaches used to translate census questions; to the re-design of questionnaires and interview protocols for non-English speaking respondents; to developing policies for the use of interpreters in enumeration interviews; and to the development of interviewer training. This report describes and compares the findings from a set of field studies that were designed to collect comparable data in seven distinct communities of language through ethnographically- informed direct observation and qualitative interviews. The primary data in these field studies were collected through the direct observation of 586 Nonresponse Followup interviews conducted among Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese speakers. Following these initial observations, two additional debriefing interviews were conducted: first, with the respondents, and subsequently, with their enumerators. In each
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mapping Russian Census 2002
    CENSUS ATLAS OF RUSSIA: FERTILITY An NCEEER Working Paper by Timothy Heleniak American Geographical Society National Council for Eurasian and East European Research 1828 L Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036 [email protected] http://www.nceeer.org/ TITLE VIII PROGRAM Project Information* Principal Investigator: Timothy Heleniak NCEEER Contract Number: 828-06 Date: August 29, 2014 Copyright Information Individual researchers retain the copyright on their work products derived from research funded through a contract or grant from the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research (NCEEER). However, the NCEEER and the United States Government have the right to duplicate and disseminate, in written and electronic form, reports submitted to NCEEER to fulfill Contract or Grant Agreements either (a) for NCEEER’s own internal use, or (b) for use by the United States Government, and as follows: (1) for further dissemination to domestic, international, and foreign governments, entities and/or individuals to serve official United States Government purposes or (2) for dissemination in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act or other law or policy of the United States Government granting the public access to documents held by the United States Government. Neither NCEEER nor the United States Government nor any recipient of this Report may use it for commercial sale. * The work leading to this report was supported in part by contract or grant funds provided by the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, funds which were made available by the U.S. Department of State under Title VIII (The Soviet-East European Research and Training Act of 1983, as amended).
    [Show full text]
  • The 2002 Russian Census and the Future of the Russian Population
    The 2002 Russian Census and the Future of the Russian Population PONARS Policy Memo 319 Dmitry Gorenburg The CNA Corporation November 2003 Throughout the 1990s, Russian and Western demographers competed over who could produce the gloomiest forecast of Russian population trends for the coming decades. Highly respected demographers argued that the population of the Russian Federation would drop from a high of 148 million in 1992 to 100–105 million by 2025. These forecasts were based on statistics produced by the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation (Goskomstat), which showed that the Russian population was declining steadily due to an increase in the death rate and a simultaneous decrease in the birth rate. The panic began in the early 1990s, when in one year the death rate increased by 20 percent while the birth rate dropped by 15 percent. Overall, from 1991 to 1994 the death rate for men increased from 14.6 per thousand to 21.8 per thousand. (The increase for women was smaller.) As it turned out, most of the increase in the death rate was the result of an increase in deaths due to alcoholism that had been deferred because of the Soviet government’s anti-alcohol campaign in the mid-1980s. As this effect abated in the mid-1990s, life expectancy and the death rate recovered and long-term population estimates were to some extent revised upward. By 1998, the male death rate had dropped to 17.2 per thousand. Nevertheless, forecasts of significant long-term Russian population decline persisted based on Goskomstat data that showed that the country’s population was dropping by about half a million people annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Meskhetian Turks and the Regime of Citizenship in Russia1
    MESKHETIAN TURKS AND THE REGIME OF CITIZENSHIP IN RUSSIA1 Lisa Koriouchkina Brown University An emerging regime of citizenship in Russia is analyzed with ethnographic data on people’s responses to the census and by examination of the Russian political imagination manifested in public discourse on ethnic others. Such a framework allows presenting citizenship as a dialectical interplay between various state structures and the subjects of the state (its people). Doing so highlights the paradox of Russia as a country of “immigration and emigrants” and offers an agenda for the study of “social citizenship.” (Russia, citizenship, state, Meskhetian Turks, minorities) Shortly after the first results of the census were released, Russian newspapers proudly announced that Russia ranked third after the USA and Germany in the volume of migration, with 11 million people entering the country between 1989 and 2002. Yet, the census data also revealed an overall population decline that newspapers interpreted as “characteristic of population processes of all European countries” (Zorin 2003). Thus, according to this analysis, Russia was once again at par with the rest of the developed world. Its permanent population was decreasing while the number of immigrants increased. When the initial euphoria about the census data had subsided, a more somber analy- sis of these results appeared. Yelizarov (Bazylyuk 2004) pointed out that a decline in fertility and a rise in mortality would eventually lead to a dramatic loss of the working age population—a decline that could only be relieved by labor migration. He also cau- tioned that the extremely high migration flow of the early 1990s, which compensated for upwards of 50 percent of the population increase, had decreased significantly and now counteracts only 5 percent of the population decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Peacetime Demographic Crisis
    the national bureau of asian research nbr project report | may 2010 russia’s peacetime demographic crisis: Dimensions, Causes, Implications By Nicholas Eberstadt ++ The NBR Project Report provides access to current research on special topics conducted by the world’s leading experts in Asian affairs. The views expressed in these reports are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of other NBR research associates or institutions that support NBR. The National Bureau of Asian Research is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution dedicated to informing and strengthening policy. NBR conducts advanced independent research on strategic, political, economic, globalization, health, and energy issues affecting U.S. relations with Asia. Drawing upon an extensive network of the world’s leading specialists and leveraging the latest technology, NBR bridges the academic, business, and policy arenas. The institution disseminates its research through briefings, publications, conferences, Congressional testimony, and email forums, and by collaborating with leading institutions worldwide. NBR also provides exceptional internship opportunities to graduate and undergraduate students for the purpose of attracting and training the next generation of Asia specialists. NBR was started in 1989 with a major grant from the Henry M. Jackson Foundation. Funding for NBR’s research and publications comes from foundations, corporations, individuals, the U.S. government, and from NBR itself. NBR does not conduct proprietary or classified research. The organization undertakes contract work for government and private-sector organizations only when NBR can maintain the right to publish findings from such work. To download issues of the NBR publications, please visit the NBR website http://www.nbr.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Discrimination in Multi-Ethnic Societies: Evidence from Russia
    European Sociological Review, 2020, Vol. 36, No. 1, 104–120 doi: 10.1093/esr/jcz045 Advance Access Publication Date: 8 October 2019 Original Article Ethnic Discrimination in Multi-ethnic Societies: Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/article-abstract/36/1/104/5583786 by University of Exeter user on 02 March 2020 Evidence from Russia Alexey Bessudnov 1,* and Andrey Shcherbak 2 1University of Exeter, Clayden Building, Streatham Rise, Exeter EX4 4PE, UK and 2National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya ul., Moscow 101000, Russia *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Submitted February 2019; revised July 2019; accepted August 2019 Abstract Field experiments have provided ample evidence of ethnic and racial discrimination in the labour market. Less is known about how discrimination varies in multi-ethnic societies, where the ethnic composition of populations is different across locations. Inter-group contact and institutional arrange- ments for ethnic minorities can mitigate the sense of group threat and reduce discrimination. To pro- vide empirical evidence of this, we conduct a field experiment of ethnic discrimination in Russia with a sample of over 9,000 job applications. We compare ethnically homogeneous cities and cities with ethnically mixed populations and privileged institutional status of ethnic minorities. We find strong discrimination against visible minorities in the former but much weaker discrimination in the latter. These findings demonstrate how institutions and historical contexts of inter-group relations can affect ethnic prejudice and discrimination. Introduction applicants from minority groups. Racial and ethnic dis- crimination in the labour market is well documented. The field experiment has now become a standard In this article, we present the results of the first ethnic method for studying racial and ethnic discrimination in discrimination experiment conducted in Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Peoples in the Russian Federation
    INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Johannes Rohr Report 18 IWGIA – 2014 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Copyright: IWGIA Author: Johannes Rohr Editor: Diana Vinding and Kathrin Wessendorf Proofreading: Elaine Bolton Cover design and layout: Jorge Monrás Cover photo: Sakhalin: Indigenous ceremony opposite to oil facilities. Photographer: Wolfgang Blümel Prepress and print: Electronic copy only Hurridocs Cip data Title: IWGIA Report 18: Indigenous Peoples in the Russian Federation Author: Johannes Rohr Editor: Diana Vinding and Kathrin Wessendorf Number of pages: 69 ISBN: 978-87-92786-49-4 Language: English Index: 1. Indigenous peoples – 2. Human rights Geographical area: Russian Federation Date of publication: 2014 INTERNATIONAL WORK GROUP FOR INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Classensgade 11 E, DK 2100 - Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: (45) 35 27 05 00 - Fax: (45) 35 27 05 07 E-mail: [email protected] - Web: www.iwgia.org This report has been prepared and published with the financial support of the Foreign Ministry of Denmark through its Neighbourhood programme. CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 8 1 The indigenous peoples of the north ................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Matters of definition .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Intermarriage in Russia: the Tale of Four Cities
    Post-Soviet Affairs ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpsa20 Ethnic intermarriage in Russia: the tale of four cities Alexey Bessudnov & Christiaan Monden To cite this article: Alexey Bessudnov & Christiaan Monden (2021) Ethnic intermarriage in Russia: the tale of four cities, Post-Soviet Affairs, 37:4, 383-403, DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2021.1957345 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2021.1957345 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 06 Aug 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 98 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpsa20 POST-SOVIET AFFAIRS 2021, VOL. 37, NO. 4, 383–403 https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2021.1957345 Ethnic intermarriage in Russia: the tale of four cities Alexey Bessudnova and Christiaan Mondenb aDepartment of Sociology, Philosophy, and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; bDepartment of Sociology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Across most Western societies, trends towards increased ethnic intermar­ Received 14 October 2020 riage have been observed across the second half of the twentieth century. Accepted 2 July 2021 Whether such trends hold across the multi-ethnic society of Russia is not KEYWORDS known. We analyze Russian census data and describe levels and trends in Ethnic intermarriage; ethnic intermarriage in four highly different Russian cities. We find no homogamy; assimilation; change in ethnic intermarriage in Moscow, but more intermarriage in Russia younger cohorts in the other three cities where the populations are more ethnically heterogeneous.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Guide to Russian and Soviet Censuses
    FINAL REPORT TO NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH TITLE: Final Report Summary: RESEARCH GUIDE TO RUSSIAN AND SOVIET CENSUSES AUTHOR: RALPH S. CLEM, Editor CONTRACTOR: Florida International University PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Ralph S. Clem COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER: 627-2 DATE: April 23, 1984 The work leading to this report was supported in whole or in part from funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research. Research Guide to Russian and Soviet Censuses Executive Summary This Research Report describes a 400 page Research Guide to Russian and Soviet Censuses which is the product of a Council contract with Professor Ralph Clem at Florida Inter- national University. A full text of the Guide will be made available to individuals and offices of the Council's funding agencies upon request. It consists of two parts: (1) Eight papers containing an overview of Russian and Soviet censuses, descriptions of the state-of-the-art on topics for which census data are particularly useful, the associated problems, and the potential for further research; and (2) a detailed list and description of the contents of all major Russian and Soviet censuses since 1897 with an index to the census volumes locating data by subject. The Table of Contents of the Guide is at page iv of this Executive Summary. As is the case for most countries, the published censuses of Russia (1897) and the USSR (1926, 1959, 1970, and 1979) constitute by far the largest and potentially the most useful collection of data on that society. Modern Russian and Soviet enumerations since 1897 cover about one-sixth of the world's land area, and provide considerable information on the age and sex composition, ethnic and language identification, marriage and family structure, migration patterns, urban and rural residence, educational attainment and literacy levels, occupations, and other aspects of the country's population.
    [Show full text]
  • Varying Reception of Migrants in Russian Cities
    A WARY WELCOME: Varying Reception of Migrants in Russian Cities Mary Elizabeth Malinkin WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a living national memo- rial to President Wilson. The Center’s mission is to commemorate the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson by providing a link between the worlds of ideas and policy, while fostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration among a broad spectrum of individuals concerned with policy and scholar- ship in national and international affairs. Supported by public and private funds, the Center is a nonpartisan institution engaged in the study of national and world affairs. It establishes and maintains a neutral forum for free, open, and informed dialogue. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Center pub- lications and programs are those of the authors and speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center staff, fellows, trustees, advisory groups, or any individuals or organizations that provide financial support to the Center. The Center is the publisher of The Wilson Quarterly and home of Woodrow Wilson Center Press, dialogue radio and television. For more information about the Center’s activities and publications, please visit us on the web at www.wilsoncenter.org. Jane Harman, Director, President and CEO Board of Trustees Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chairman of the Board Sander R. Gerber, Vice Chairman Public Board Members: James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress; John Kerry, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Arne Dun- can, Secretary, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethno Demographic Changes in the Caucasus 1860-1960
    DÉLKELET EURÓPA – SOUTH -EAST EUROPE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS QUARTERLY, Vol. 2. No. 6. (Summer 2011/2 nyár) ETHNO DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE CAUCASUS 1860-1960 CSABA HORVÁTH Regarding ethno linguistic composition, the Caucasus region is one of the most complex regions of Eurasia. There are three language families, that can only be found in this region, and are not related to any other language families: South Caucasian, with Georgian as its most well known language, Northwest Caucasian, that includes Circassian and Abkhaz, and Northeast Caucasian with Chechen as its most well known member. Besides these, several members of the Altaic and Indo-European families are also present in the region. From the Altaic family we could mention Turkic languages in the south(Azeri) and in the north (Karachai, Balkar, Kumyk) of the region as well. From the Indo-European family, Armenian forms a branch on its own within it, and two Iranian languages, Kurdish and Ossetian is also present. The region can also be a subject of interest in Huntingtonian terms, since Christian and Muslim ethnic groups are located mutually surrounding each other, as the black and white checks of a chessboard. Most groups of the South Caucasian language family, as well as the Armenians and Ossetians are Christians, while most of the Northwest Caucasian, the Northeast Caucasian and Turkic groups are Muslims, as well as the Kurds. The region can be a subject of special interest due this complexity. It is a question though, whether we can regard it as part of Southeast Europe. If we try to define Southeast Europe as a region formed by common historical and cultural heritage, then it can be viewed as part of Southeast Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Stability in Russia's Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus: Recent Developments
    Stability in Russia’s Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus: Recent Developments Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs December 13, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34613 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Stability in Russia’s Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus Summary Terrorist attacks in Russia’s North Caucasus—a border area between the Black and Caspian Seas that includes the formerly breakaway Chechnya and other ethnic-based regions—appeared to increase substantially in 2007-2009. Moreover, civilian and government casualties reached levels not seen in several years and terrorist attacks again took place outside the North Caucasus. Although the number of terrorist incidents may have leveled off or even declined slightly in 2010 from the high levels of 2009, the rate of civilian and government casualties continued to increase throughout the North Caucasus in 2010 and a rising number of terrorist incidents took place outside of Chechnya. Illustrative of the new range and scope of violence, the Moscow subway system was bombed in March 2010, resulting in over 40 deaths and dozens of injuries. Before the recent rise in terrorism, it seemed that government security forces had been successful in tamping down their range and scope by aggressively carrying out over a thousand sweep operations (“zachistki”) in the North Caucasus. During these operations, security forces surround a village and search the homes of the residents, ostensibly in a bid to apprehend terrorists. Critics of the operations allege that the searches are illegal and that troops frequently engage in pillaging and gratuitous violence and are responsible for kidnapping for ransom and “disappearances” of civilians.
    [Show full text]
  • Ronald Wixman Ethno-Linguistic Data In
    RONALD WIXMAN ETHNO-LINGUISTIC DATA IN SO VIET CENSUSES: SOME PROBLEMS AND METHODOLOGIES* Now that the results of the 1979 Soviet census have been published, schol- ars in virtually all of the social sciences will study the ethnic and linguistic data therein.1 Comparisons and contrasts will be made to similar data already published in the 1926, 1959, and 1970 Soviet censuses, and to a lesser extent the Imperial Russian Census of 1897. Although all of these are excellent sources of data for ethnic groups of the USSR, their use is not unproblematic. As Stanley Leiberson points out, "census data on language are of great value for many socio-linguistic problems when investigators are aware of the diffi- culties and pitfalls in their usage."2 , This problem is especially acute when dealing with the growing reliance on quantitative and statistical methods in the social sciences. As a result of the great number and variety of peoples in the USSR, there are apparent problems confronting the user of these census data. These problems fall into three basic categories: 1) comparability of data; 2) grouping of data for analysis; and 3) bias in interpretation. These factors lead to misinterpretation and outright error. Some of these difficulties in data usage and suggested methodologies are here presented, in hopes that it may lead to improved scholarship in the field of Soviet nationality studies. Voluminous ethnic and linguistic data are presented in all of the Soviet censuses. Unfortunately the level of reporting varies from one census to an- other. The criteria for considering a people as a distinct ethnic group also vary.
    [Show full text]