Human needs advocates use Census data such as poverty data to explain why the policies we fight for matter. We also know that Census data is used to allocate funding for a wide variety of programs serving human needs. That’s why we fight hard to improve the Census data and make sure everyone is counted. Now both of those critical uses of Census Bureau data are at risk. 

New Order on Data Releases 

On June 4, 2026, the Commerce Department issued a new order on what techniques the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis can use to protect individual privacy when it releases data. It bars the use of certain privacy protection techniques. As a result some data will be less specific and other data will not be released at all. This order affects what data the Census Bureau can release, how detailed it will be, when data may be released while the Bureau develops its implementation of the policy, and is likely to affect the allocation of funds for a number of programs. 

The order was issued without any opportunity for notice and comment. It became effective immediately. The Census Bureau has not yet released any information on how it will implement the order and what data sets will be affected.  At least one release from the Bureau of Economic Analysis has already been altered to comply with this order.

Public data is a public good, produced with public resources, which has benefits for everyone. This order drastically reduces the availability and accuracy of this public good. This blog is an effort to assess what data will be available on human needs and some of the funding streams at risk. 

Data for Smaller Communities and Smaller Populations at Risk

Here’s what we do know. Data for very large geographies and total populations (perhaps total population data for states) will probably not be significantly affected. But data for smaller geographies (possibly counties and school districts) and for population subgroups (such as young children, the disabled, or particular racial or ethnic groups) likely will be less detailed or even suppressed completely. This is because data may be “coarsened,” which means rounded aggregated (grouped) across geographies, populations or time periods, and/or the use of ranges. When coarsening is insufficient to protect individual privacy, some data will be suppressed completely.

We are particularly concerned about the impact of this order on poverty data. Will we have single year data on poverty below the state level? Will we have single year data on poverty for some of the most vulnerable among us such as young children or the disabled? If data releases are delayed while the Census Bureau develops and implements its approach to this order, what will we know about how changes in policy and economic conditions are affecting people when they happen, when we can still take action to shape it? 

We also know that it will affect the use of non-Census Bureau data too because Census Bureau data provides meaningful context. Often, when advocates measure access to programs, or conditions under which people are living, they use data from other data sources to measure how many people receive the benefit or experience the condition, but use Census data to measure it as a percentage of the relevant population. For example, the share of eligible recipients who are receiving housing subsidies can be assessed as the share of people living in that geography under a particular income level. That frequently comes from the American Community Survey. Here is one example.

Delays May Affect Your Work 

In addition, we anticipate that many data set releases will be delayed while the Bureau makes necessary adjustments. This may include the American Community Survey, which historically has been released every September and includes state and local poverty data as well as many other data of importance for assessing human needs. Many of us have used this data to elevate the breadth and depth of poverty in our country.  Now that opportunity may be delayed for months. We do not know if this order will affect the CPS ASEC, which produces poverty data from a different survey at a national and state level, or the Supplemental Poverty Measure.

Federal and State Funding Allocations May Be Affected 

Federal funding for many programs is allocated based on Census data. Here are some preliminary assessments on which programs may be affected. To be clear, these are merely areas of concern. Until we learn more about how the Census Bureau intends to implement this order, we do not know which programs will be affected and how. When the data is unavailable, the agency that administers the program will need to decide how best to allocate funds in accordance with the statutory provisions. Because communities vary greatly in population size, it seems possible that small communities will see big variations in their funding while large ones will not. If the data has been coarsened or suppressed, the funding will be allocated based on less specific data, and that means the most needy and vulnerable people may not get as much. 

Title I funds for low income schools are calculated using data from the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program which provides single-year estimates of income and poverty for all U.S. states and counties as well as estimates of school-age children in poverty for all 13,000+ school districts. We are particularly concerned about the impact of the order on Title I fund for schools because the SAIPE data used to allocate it looks at a smaller population group (the number of children aged 5-17 living in poverty) in smaller geographies (some Local Education Agencies cover very small geographic units.) 

The allocation of grants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is determined using the state’s share of the national population of children and children living in poverty. This is drawn from the American Community Survey, which means the data may be delayed.  The data will be coarsened but we do not know how much that will affect accuracy.

Eligibility for SNAP benefits is based on income levels and the poverty threshold and are set at the national level, a population size big enough that we don’t anticipate problems with privacy protections. However, SNAP has a provision that exempts able-bodied adults from work requirements in certain areas if the area unemployment rate is high enough. The data for those areas may be distorted or suppressed under this order.  

Census data affects the availability of housing in a number of ways.  HUD uses ACS data to set fair market rents which affect a wide range of housing programs. Because these are local data, we are concerned about whether they will be available and precise. Census data, including population data, population growth, and poverty, is used to determine which communities are eligible to apply for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and other local and federal programs. Depending on the size of the community, this data may be coarsened or suppressed.

The state grants for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are allocated by a formula that includes five year average ACS data on fuel use in low-income households. Depending on the number of low income households in a community this data may be less detailed or suppressed.  

Child care funding is allocated through three funding streams. The matching funds for child care are determined based on the number of children under 13 and the state match requirement is based on the FMAP for the state, which as noted below depends on the state total population. The appropriated child care funds are allocated using the number of children under age 5 in a state and the state per capita income derived in part from total state population estimates, as well as the number of children receiving free and reduced price school meals.  While these are subgroups of total state population, we think it will still be large enough groupings to be able to release without suppressions for large states. It is less clear for small states.

One set of programs that are probably not affected is the single biggest human needs funding stream to states and localities. This includes the five programs that use the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage or FMAP to determine what the federal share of costs is for each program. Those are Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the mandatory funding matching portion of child care, foster care, and adoption assistance. The FMAP is based on a formula that uses total state population to calculate per capita income. Total state population data should not be affected by the order. 

We also understand that some states use Census data to further allocate federal funds, or to allocate state funds. This is an area that has not been thoroughly researched yet, but it poses concerns as well. 

This only touches on a few of the 338 programs (of which 70 serve children) for which Census data help determine how to allocate federal funds. What is clear, however, is that this order has the potential to affect many federal funding streams, and that we do not know when we will learn how the Census Bureau plans to implement it or which funding streams will be affected. Funding streams that allocate federal funds directly to localities or that serve a small population such as young children or the disabled are much more likely to be affected. 

What Happens Now 

Statisticians and advocates are seeking a reversal of this order. If it is not rescinded, they are trying to get the Census Bureau to make a public announcement with specifics about how it will be implemented. The Population Association of America has created an email template you can use to ask Congress to weigh in. We anticipate other advocacy opportunities will arise and we are holding a briefing and open forum on this on July 21 at Noon ET.

We do want to note that there are many other problems with this order. It will affect many areas of our lives, including redistricting, information on our economy, federal, state and local policies, government management, business, advocacy, and research. It undermines statistical integrity. It reduces the tools the Bureau has to produce necessary public data while protecting individual privacy. As a result, it puts the public in a lose-lose situation: it will result in less data, weaker privacy protections, or (most likely) both. It is also unprecedented. Technical decisions have historically been made by statistical experts and the Census Bureau’s Data Stewardship Executive Policy Committee with engagement from external experts and the public.