U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–127 PDF 2014

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU: ADDRESSING DATA 

COLLECTION VULNERABILITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, 

US POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Serial No. 113–146 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Chairman 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 18, 2014 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Erik Paulsen, a Member of Congress, from the state of Minnesota 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

The Hon. John H. Thompson, Director, U.S. Census Bureau 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

The Hon. Todd Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

APPENDIX 

The Hon. Elijah Cummings, Member of Congress from the State of Maryland, 

Opening Statement .............................................................................................. 44 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. Congress Joint 

Economic Committee Staff Report ...................................................................... 49 

(1) 

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU: ADDRESSING DATA 

COLLECTION VULNERABILITIES 

Thursday, September 18, 2014, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE AND THE CENSUS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Farenthold, Lynch, and Clay. 

Also Present: Representative Paulsen. 

Staff Present: Alexa Armstrong, Majority Legislative Assistant; 

John Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Jessica L. Donlon, 

Majority Senior Counsel; Jeffrey Post, Majority Senior Professional 

Staff Member; Jonathan J. Skladany, Majority Deputy General 

Counsel; Sarah Vance, Majority Assistant Clerk; Jaron Bourke, Minority Administrative Director; Marianna Boyd, Minority Counsel; 

Aryele Bradford, Minority Press Secretary; Juan McCullum, Minority Clerk; and Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of Legislation. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, 

U.S. Postal Service and Census will come to order. 

I would like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight Committee mission statement. That is how we start out all of our meetings. 

We exist to secure two fundamental principles: first, Americans 

have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them 

is well spent and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective 

Government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable to taxpayers, 

because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their 

Government. We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen 

watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring 

genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of 

the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

At this point I will recognize myself for an opening statement. 

In addition to its namesake activity, the Census Bureau conducts 

a number of monthly surveys for the Federal Government. Perhaps 

the most important among them is the Consumer Population Survey used to calculate the national unemployment rate, one of our 

most important economic indicators. The collection of this data is 

2 

critical to both Main Street and Wall Street, and ensuring its timeliness and accuracy is the responsibility of the Census Bureau. 

Unfortunately, in November of last year, we heard allegations 

that senior officials in the Bureau’s Philadelphia Regional Office 

were instructing field workers to falsify survey responses. After 

hearing these allegations, the Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee and the Joint Economic Committee launched a joint investigation. Our investigation found that data falsification did 

occur, but, fortunately, there was no evidence that this falsification 

was pervasive or systemic. 

I want to be clear on this. The committee found no evidence that 

the falsification was on an order of magnitude close enough to affect the national unemployment rate numbers. Nor, thank goodness, was there any evidence of a systemic plot in support of some 

grand political scheme. 

However, we did find substantial problems in the Bureau’s data 

collection and review process, problems that unfortunately create a 

very real incentive for managers to overlook or even possibly encourage data falsification by field staff. The Bureau needs to take 

swift corrective action and measures to address these 

vulnerabilities. 

Data integrity is mission-critical to the Bureau, the Government, 

and America as a whole. Even the appearance of impropriety or inappropriate activities or lingering questions about the trustworthiness of Census Bureau data is unacceptable. As the Nation’s, 

if not the world’s, preeminent statistical agency, the Census Bureau’s methods must be above reproach. 

The committee staff report released earlier today, in partnership 

with the Joint Economic Committee’s majority staff, identified a 

number of flaws and provided recommendations that would address 

these concerns. Chief among the findings was the data review process does little to discourage data falsification. Namely, supervisors 

who assign work are also responsible for reviewing data quality, 

and they are paid on the basis of completion, speed, and response 

rate of the surveys that are worked on. This creates unacceptable 

incentive for unscrupulous managers to ask field staff to falsify 

data with the promise a manager will cover for the falsification. If 

successful, this scheme would improve alleged response rates and 

allow workers to complete surveys faster, though with little basis 

in reality. 

Under the current system, the people responsible for maximizing 

response rates are the same folks responsible for maintaining data 

quality. They are expected to do a job with two conflicting objectives. That is not good policy and not good management. Obviously, 

most Census workers and managers are doing the right thing; they 

are fulfilling their commitment to data quality. But we cannot expect every one of them to do the right thing when policies and procedures incentivize doing something else, or at least turning a 

blind eye to it. 

Quality control needs to be outside the chain of command. As our 

friends of the Inspector General’s Office pointed out in their report, 

the Bureau does things differently for the Decennial Census. They 

have a separate unit responsible for quality control. That is logical. 

3 

That is good policy and that is good management. It makes sense 

and that should be the policy for all surveys. 

Census Bureau practices also bring into question just how committee the Bureau is to committing data falsification. Its employee 

training barely makes mention of it. They still rely on carbon 

paper-based forms to track suspected falsification. I hadn’t seen 

one of these for a while. Apparently they still exist. They also have 

some issues with disparate computer operating systems that don’t 

interchange data well. The Census Bureau needs to send a very 

clear message that it is serious about the quality of its data and 

the integrity of the census. 

It is my sincere hope that today Director Thompson will be able 

to talk about the ways the Census Bureau is actively taking steps 

to address data integrity and other concerns raised by this subcommittee and the inspector general. 

At this point, I yield to Mr. Lynch, the ranking member. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Actually, before we start, Mr. Lynch, if you 

will indulge me. 

Mr. LYNCH. Sure. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I would like to ask unanimous consent that 

our colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen, be allowed to participate in this hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Lynch? 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to thank you for holding this hearing to examine the Census Bureau’s data collection and quality assurance procedures for the Current Population Survey. 

I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here today to 

discuss the findings and recommendations issued by the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General and the progress 

of the Census Bureau in implementing these recommendations. 

Over the past year, as you have noted, Mr. Chairman, there have 

been a number of allegations made against employees within the 

Census Bureau. A November 2013 New York Post article made several of these allegations publicly. And as the chairman has noted, 

these allegations were thoroughly investigated by the Department 

of Commerce Office of the Inspector General and were found to be 

without merit. I would note that the inspector general, Todd 

Zinser, was appointed by President George W. Bush in December 

of 2007 and is with us here today. 

In particular, after reviewing over 3,000 pages of documents and 

conducting more than 100 interviews of former and current Census 

Bureau employees, the Inspector General’s Office issued its final 

investigative report in May 2014, which was appropriately entitled 

‘‘Unsubstantiated Allegations that the Philadelphia Regional Office 

Manipulated the Unemployment Survey Leading Up to the 2012 

Presidential Election to Cause a Decrease in the National Unemployment Rate.’’ 

This report, ‘‘found no evidence that the management in the 

Philadelphia Regional Office instructed staff to falsify data at any 

time or for any reason.’’ The inspector general also found, ‘‘no evidence of systemic data falsification in the Philadelphia Regional Office.’’ Again, another finding, they found no evidence that the naVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91127.TXT APRIL
4 

tional unemployment rate was manipulated by staff in the Philadelphia Regional Office in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. 

The inspector general’s report further determined that in order 

to manipulate the unemployment rate, ‘‘it would have taken at 

least 78 Census Bureau field representatives working together in 

a coordinated way to report each and every unemployed person included in that sample as employed or not in the labor force during 

September 2012.’’ The report adds that this effort likely would have 

been detected by the Census Bureau’s quality assurance procedures. 

The inspector general also found that the decline in the unemployment rate was consistent with other indicators such as the payroll estimates by Automatic Data Processing and Moody’s Analytics. 

So, in any case, if anyone is keeping score, the New York Post 

allegations were determined by the inspector general to be 100 percent false. 

Moreover, the inspector general has also reviewed the Bureau’s 

data collection and quality assurance procedures, and issued several recommendations to the Bureau to protect against data falsification. I think it is important to recognize that the Bureau 

agrees with these recommendations based on Director Thompson’s 

testimony. The Bureau has already adopted two of the inspector 

general’s recommendations and is currently working to implement 

the other four recommendations, and I look forward to hearing the 

details surrounding each of those recommendations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

I believe Mr. Paulsen has an opening statement as well. You are 

recognized for five minutes, sir. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold. My comments 

come in relation to the Joint Economic Committee’s interest on this 

issue, so I will address the comments to Chairman Issa, Subcommittee Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

Subcommittee Ranking Member Lynch. 

Thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing on behalf for the Joint Economic Committee. The Joint Economic Committee has a vital interest in the accuracy, relevancy, and timeliness of U.S. economic statistics. The Census Bureau produces many 

economic statistics, including monthly statistics on U.S. international trade in goods and services, manufacturing sales and inventory, and construction. The Census Bureau also collects the 

data used to calculate other economic statistics such as the gross 

domestic product by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the unemployment and labor force participation rates by Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 

Congress uses these statistics to make decisions about Federal 

spending and taxes. Both corporate executives and small entrepreneurs use these statistics to decide whether to open a new store, 

build a new factory, or hire more workers. Families uses these statistics to decide where to buy a new house or how to invest their 

retirement funds. 

5 

Since so much of economic decision-making relies on statistics 

produced by the Census Bureau or based on data collected by the 

Census Bureau, allegations that the underlying data may have 

been falsified, and thus the economic statistics based on such data 

may be inaccurate, are deeply troubling and deserve congressional 

scrutiny. That is why the Joint Economic Committee joined with 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to investigate the allegations published in The New York Post on November 18th, 2013, that a Census Bureau employee may have falsified 

responses to the Current Population Survey used to calculate the 

unemployment rate, the labor force participation rates, and other 

employment statistics prior to the 2012 presidential election. 

While this investigation did find serious structural problems and 

systemic deficiencies with the Census Bureau’s data collection processes, especially with respect to the Bureau’s ability to detect data 

falsification, we found no evidence that falsification occurred with 

the intent to manipulate the U.S. economic statistics, nor was falsification sufficiently widespread to question the validity of the statistics generated from the Census Population Survey. 

The staff report makes five important recommendations to assure 

the integrity of data collection. Checks must be put into place to 

prevent any conflict of interest between achieving a high survey response rate and reporting incidences of data falsification. Specifically, clear procedures should be established for staff at any level 

to report potential falsification, and the re-interview process, which 

helps to identify incidences of potential falsification, should be 

independent of the chain of command. While achieving a high response rate is important, it should not trump the integrity of the 

data collected. Implementation of these recommendations would encourage Census employees to report any suspected falsification and 

would help Census managers to detect and correct any fraud. 

Two other recommendations specifically address the accuracy 

and effectiveness of the Bureau’s record-keeping. First, though 

some improvements have been made to case tracking systems, the 

Bureau could do more to ensure that all notes and files associated 

with a case are tracked. Second, the current paper form used for 

reporting suspected falsification must be made electronic and 

tracked such that employees suspected of falsification receive a 

timely and just investigation into the matter. These particular recommendations would serve to increase transparency and accountability within the collection process. 

Then, finally, Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce 

should indeed improve their responsiveness to congressional oversight. The Census Bureau has subsequently taken some steps to 

ensure data quality, but real deficiencies remain. I urge the Census 

Bureau to implement all of them promptly, and I am interested in 

learning of any current or future plans from the Census to improve 

data collection and quality control procedures. America does rely on 

economic statistics produced from Census data. The accuracy of 

these statistics must be beyond reproach. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Paulsen follows:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 1 here 91127.001
7 


Insert offset folio 2 here 91127.002
8 


Insert offset folio 3 here 91127.003
9 


Insert offset folio 4 here 91127.004
10 


Insert offset folio 5 here 91127.005
11 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

Other members will have seven days to submit their opening 

statements for the record. 

We will now recognize our panel. 

The Honorable John Thompson is Director of the United States 

Census Bureau and the Honorable Todd Zinser is Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Welcome, gentlemen. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before 

they testify. Would you all please rise and raise your right hand? 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Let the record reflect both witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. 

Thank you all. You may be seated. 

In order to allow time for discussion and questions, we ask that 

you hold your testimony to as close to five minutes as possible. 

Your entire written statements will be made part of the record. In 

order to abide by the five second rule, you all have timers in front 

of you. The green light means you are good to go; the yellow light 

means about a minute left; the red light means stop as soon as you 

can get to a reasonable place to do so. 

So we will start with you, Mr. Thompson. You are recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN H. THOMPSON 

Mr. THOMPSON. Good afternoon. On behalf of the U.S. Census 

Bureau, thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch, 

and the subcommittee for inviting me today. I appreciate your ongoing support of the Census Bureau and I am pleased to be able 

to tell you about our data collection and data integrity efforts. 

In my 27 years as a civil servant at the Census Bureau and in 

the year since I was appointed Director, I have come to be extremely proud of our agency and its employees. They are dedicated, 

qualified, and mission-focused public servants who provide an invaluable service to the American people. Thanks to them, the Census Bureau is one of the Federal Government’s foremost sources of 

quality statistics, and I am extremely proud to lead it. 

The Census Bureau emphasizes integrity in every one of our data 

collection efforts. This is true of perhaps our best known activity, 

the Decennial Census; it is true of the Economic Census, which we 

conduct every five years; and of the American Community Survey, 

the Nation’s premier source of community and neighborhood level 

data. It is also true of the Current Population Survey, which I will 

discuss today. 

The Current Population Survey, or CPS, is administered by Census Bureau field representatives. The typical field representative 

works part-time and earns about $15 an hour. Their average age 

is 57, and many of them work for the Census Bureau to suppleVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91127.TXT APRIL
12 

ment their retirement or other income. They are members of their 

local communities and they are the face of the Census Bureau to 

every home they visit, and, as such, we hold them to high standards of performance, professionalism, and courtesy. 

Recently, the Department of Commerce’s Office of the Inspector 

General, or OIG, investigated an alleged data falsification in the 

CPS. This matter was immediately referred to the OIG. After 

months of investigation and more than 100 interviews with current 

and former staff, and as you will hear shortly, the OIG concluded 

that these claims were unsubstantiated. They found no evidence 

that the Census Bureau management had instructed field representatives to falsify or manipulate data. 

As part of their review, the OIG also evaluated the procedures 

that we use to detect falsification and made six recommendations 

for improvement. The Census Bureau wholeheartedly agrees that 

these suggestions will further strengthen our data integrity. We 

have already put three of the recommendations into practice and 

are implementing the other three. 

For example, we now immediately suspend work assignments to 

field representatives who are suspected of falsifying data unless 

and until they are cleared by an internal investigation. We have 

implemented the Unified Tracking System, or UTS. It provides a 

view of near real-time cost, progress, and response data, consolidating data from other production systems and over time and 

across surveys. This is a powerful tool for monitoring employee performance and detecting anomalies that may indicate falsification. 

In addition to the UTS, we maintain detailed keystroke data 

which can also be used to investigate falsification. We generate 

UTS reports that field managers use to monitor the quality of our 

interviewers’ work. We have updated and will continue to update 

our training materials, and we are automating the process for reporting falsification, known as the Form 11–163. 

We have improved how we monitor and limit field representatives’ workloads to avoid circumstances that might encourage 

shortcuts such as data falsification. We are improving our quality 

control process so that data collection re-interviews are now independent from the chain of command, and we are on our way to centralizing these efforts. Finally, we are sending regular reports to all 

of our survey sponsors, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 

the case of the CPS. 

I also want to assure the members of the subcommittee that all 

field representatives receive guidance on reporting improprieties, 

including data falsification. New employees complete a training 

that includes how to report fraud, waste, and abuse to the Office 

of the Inspector General and also receive an administrative manual 

that includes a specific section with specific instructions about reporting fraud, waste, and abuse to the Office of the Inspector General, and this manual also includes the hotline number and a link 

to the Web site. 

At the Census Bureau, we welcome scrutiny and oversight of our 

work. I sincerely appreciate the OIG’s suggestions. They are a 

clear, practical roadmap for improvement and they will help the 

Census Bureau build on its already excellent work. 

13 

Thank you for this opportunity to address you. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 91127.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 91127.007
16 


Insert offset folio 8 here 91127.008
17 


Insert offset folio 9 here 91127.009
18 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. 

Inspector General Zinser, you are up. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TODD ZINSER 

Mr. ZINSER. Thank you, Mr. Farenthold, Ranking Member 

Lynch, Mr. Clay, and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today on vulnerabilities on Census data 

collection and quality assurance processes. 

As you and Director Thompson have noted, one of the many surveys the Census Bureau conducts throughout the year is the 

monthly Current Population Survey, also referred to as CPS. Earlier this year, on May 1st, my office publicly issued a report of investigation concerning allegations that the Census Bureau’s Philadelphia Regional Office engaged in widespread falsification of CPS 

surveys, including the manipulation of the CPS unemployment rate 

in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. My 

written statement summarizes the allegations concerning the 

Philadelphia Regional Office and the results of our investigation, 

observations we made related to Census Bureau falsification policies, and recommendations stemming from our investigation. 

The key allegations we investigated concerning the Philadelphia 

Office included: number one, were Census field representatives instructed by their supervisors to falsify data; two, did members of 

management alter completed surveys to manipulate data; and, 

three, did any alleged data falsification of the CPS in August and 

September of 2012 have a measurable impact on the unemployment rate leading up to the 2012 presidential election. 

We conducted over 100 interviews of current and former Census 

Bureau employees in the Philadelphia Regional Office, Headquarters, and other regional offices. We reviewed training materials, interviewing procedures, quality control processes, and performance assessments. We also conducted extensive analysis of 

Census CPS data and BLS employment statistics data, as well as 

other data relevant to our investigation. 

While our investigation did not substantiate these allegations, we 

did identify several vulnerabilities with respect to the Census Bureau policies and processes and made a series of recommendations. 

We made the following four observations: one, survey supervisors 

do not consistently use the tools available to them for detecting and 

preventing data falsification; two, field representatives suspected of 

falsifying data are sometimes allowed to continue conducting surveys while the matter is under investigation, there is not a consistent practice across offices; three, the regional office quality assurance process creates the potential for a conflict of interest because the same supervisors who manage staff and could direct the 

falsification of survey data are responsible for reporting instances 

when their staff falsifies data; and, four, CPS procedural manuals 

and training materials are outdated, inconsistent, and do not discuss the serious consequences of falsification. 

We made the following six recommendations: one, implement a 

formal policy that prohibits employees suspected of falsification 

from collecting survey data during the investigative process; two, 

update procedural manuals and training materials to inform field 

representatives about the consequences of committing falsification; 

19 

three, implement an independent quality assurance process for all 

survey operations similar to the one used during Decennial Census 

operations; four, ensure that all survey supervisors are properly 

using all available tools to safeguard against falsification of survey 

data; five, implement internal controls to effectively monitor and 

limit field representative workloads in order to reduce the risk of 

falsification; and, six, implement a reporting mechanism for confirmed data falsifications to those organizations that sponsor Census Bureau surveys. 

As noted by Director Thompson, the Census Bureau agreed with 

our findings and is in the process of implementing our recommendations. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Zinser follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 91127.010
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 91127.011
22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 91127.012
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 91127.013
24 


Insert offset folio 14 here 91127.014
25 


Insert offset folio 15 here 91127.015
26 


Insert offset folio 16 here 91127.016
27 


Insert offset folio 17 here 91127.017
28 


Insert offset folio 18 here 91127.018
29 


Insert offset folio 19 here 91127.019
30 


Insert offset folio 20 here 91127.020
31 


Insert offset folio 21 here 91127.021
32 


Insert offset folio 22 here 91127.022
33 


Insert offset folio 23 here 91127.023
34 


Insert offset folio 24 here 91127.024
35 


Insert offset folio 25 here 91127.025
36 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. You mentioned your investigative report. I have it here. I would like to enter it into the 

record. Without objection, so ordered. 

This report can be found at: http://www.cig.doc.gov/ 

OIGPublications/14-0073.pdf 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It is good to actually be holding a hearing in 

this committee where we find out the situation isn’t as bad as we 

initially thought. Unfortunately, in some of our other hearings it 

turns out the situation is worse than we initially thought. So this 

is actually a happy occasion for me to be chairing this subcommittee hearing where, yes, there are problems, but it is not as 

bad as we thought. 

Mr. Thompson, I would like to start with you for a second. I 

think a lot of the issues that we saw in the VA and I think we see 

in some areas of the Government is what the culture is within the 

organization. You all testified that you do have training materials 

early on for your new recruits to talk about the issues with data 

falsification and how to report it. Typically, how long is a new hire 

trained? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman, I will have to get back to you on 

that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. My concern is, is the data falsification five 

minutes in a two-day training or is it something that is pervasive 

throughout the training? That is what I am trying to get at. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, so we have revised our training to emphasize data integrity. In fact, we are implementing a form that each 

interviewer will sign, and they will re-sign it every year, that explains to them the importance of data integrity and the dangers in 

falsifying data. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And what are the consequences to an employee 

caught falsifying data? 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is a fireable offense. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. That is good to hear. 

Now, you talk about your UTS system, your Unified Tracking 

System. It is my understanding that that tracks who assigns what 

and who completes what cases. But there are actually three other 

systems, the Blaze File, which is the actual survey response, and 

the Trace File, which is a time-stamped keystroke log. These are 

three separate systems, right? How do they talk to each other, or 

do they? 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is one of the next steps in our process, is 

to put together a method for making these systems talk to each 

other. However, I have to say that we are continually revising the 

way in which we analyze the data from our Unified Tracking System to provide more and more useful information to our field managers. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. It is also my understanding that regional offices are responsible for both data collection and quality 

control, and they often have conflicting objectives. Most Census Bureau employees are evaluated, at least in part, on survey response 

rates. The Census Bureau can minimize a potential for conflict of 

interest by separating the interview from the regional chain of 

command, thus allowing quality control to function independently. 

It is my understanding that you all have started, in July, a pilot 

37 

program where there is a re-interview process that comes out of 

your Jeffersonville connect center, rather than the regional offices. 

Do you think this initiative has ben successful so far? Can you give 

us an idea how it is working? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Certainly. We have already moved two of our regional offices to the Jeffersonville facility where a totally independent staff will do the telephone interviewing. And by July, I am 

sorry, by April 15, by April, this coming April, we will have moved 

all the regional offices to our Jeffersonville facility. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And have you run into any problems or is it 

working out pretty well? 

Mr. THOMPSON. It has been working very well. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. Great. One of the committee’s witnesses 

reports that they have faced retaliation after she cooperated with 

the committee’s investigation. Can we have your commitment that 

you will work with our staff to ensure that Bureau employees are 

not retaliated for whistleblowing and cooperating with Congress? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Certainly, Congressman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. We had a hearing the other day in 

the full committee on the difficulties that some whistleblowers face, 

and this committee is almost unanimous in believing that whistleblowers need the highest level of protection, that they are our partners in being watchdogs. 

With that, I will go on and let Mr. Lynch have his questions, and 

I am going to check to make sure we have gotten everything I need 

to get covered as well. We will go to Mr. Lynch now. 

Mr. LYNCH. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 

go back. This was basically the headline just prior to the election, 

where it says the Census faked the 2012 election jobs report, the 

implication being that Census employees falsified the records, and 

their goal was to manipulate the unemployment numbers so that 

President Obama would get re-elected. That was basically the conspiracy that they alleged. So I want to just drill down on that a 

little bit. I think that is very unfortunate and gives freedom of the 

press a bad name. 

Mr. Zinser, let’s just go back over your report a little bit. I just 

want to straighten the record out. So after reviewing over 3,000 

pages of documents and conducting more than 100 interviews of 

former and current Census Bureau employees, your office found, 

and this is a quote from your report, ‘‘no evidence that management in the Philadelphia Regional Office instructed staff to falsify 

data at any time for any reason.‘‘ Is that correct? 

Mr. ZINSER. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. And can you explain to me briefly what led 

you to this conclusion? 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, we asked employees about two main allegations: we asked them whether they were ever instructed to falsify 

data, and none of the employees that we interviewed said that they 

had been so instructed. 

Mr. LYNCH. Now, most of the employees, are they newly hired 

since President Obama took office, or have they been there a while? 

Mr. ZINSER. I don’t know the exact answer to that, but they were 

a cross-section of employees picked at random throughout the region. 

38 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

Mr. ZINSER. And there was no other selective factor there in 

terms of how long they had been on staff. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay, good enough. 

Mr. ZINSER. The other issue that we asked them is whether they 

had any concerns about their completed surveys being altered by 

their supervisors, and none indicated that they had such concerns. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. And then you checked with the managers to 

see if there was any changes implemented by them? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. There were three managers who were essentially subjects of the investigation. We did interview each of 

them; they cooperated with our investigation. They denied any efforts to instruct employees to change surveys. They denied that 

they had ever changed or altered surveys themselves. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. You also indicated in your report, contrary to 

The New York Post allegations, that there was no evidence that 

any of this data was used to manipulate the unemployment rate 

leading up to the election. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. We went into the investigation understanding that theoretically it could be possible to manipulate the 

unemployment rate. 

Mr. LYNCH. Let’s talk about that a little bit. What would have 

to happen in order for that number to change? I understand it is 

broad-based data and the indicia of unemployment is sort of a 

blended number. What would be required for manipulation to actually happen? 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, actually, the Census Bureau did an analysis 

and then our staff evaluated that, and basically the average workload of a CPS field representative or field representative that 

works on the CPS, the average workload is 30 cases. So if the unemployment rate is 8.1 or 8 percent, that means, of those 30 cases, 

2.4 of those cases you are going to find somebody who is unemployed, 2.4 out of the 30. So in order to change the unemployment 

rate by just .1 percent, it would take 26 field representatives 

changing all of their unemployed cases to employed. And then in 

order to get a .3 percent decline in the unemployment rate, you 

would multiply the 26 times 3 and you would come up with 78 field 

representatives. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. And that is what we had there, right? At that 

time all the indicators were the same, right? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, they were all consistent. I won’t say they were 

the same, but they were all consistent that there was a drop in unemployment. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes. There was a drop from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. All right. I see my time has expired and I will 

yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

I have a couple more questions I will do, then we will go back 

to Mr. Clay when he gets back. 

Mr. Thompson, is there any computer management or electronic 

falsification screening? For example, in the Consumer Population 

39 

Survey, households are in for four months, out for eight, and back 

in for another four. Does any screening occur automatically to identify inconsistencies over the period of the households in the survey? 

Do you want to talk about any other automated data integrity systems you have in place? 

Mr. THOMPSON. The systematic processes that we use right now 

are preparing reports from our Unified Tracking System that are 

designed to identify anomalies that we can look at. We are working 

aggressively to put together more of a data analytics team that will 

then allow for really a more systematic way of doing this. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. 

Mr. Zinser, we have heard testimony in other hearings about inspectors general having problems getting their job done and being 

blocked. Your testimony tended to indicate that you had pretty 

good cooperation. Did you run into any roadblocks in your investigation or feel like there were folks not cooperating with your investigation? 

Mr. ZINSER. No, sir, we didn’t have problems with cooperation. 

Early on, and I think the staff report kind of points out that the 

General Counsel’s Office of the department did get involved in the 

investigation and we did make sure that our investigation was 

completely independent of anything that office was doing with respect to the committee’s oversight. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Thompson, we didn’t have quite as good 

of an experience, or at least the committee staff reported to me 

that despite the Census Bureau having its own legislative affairs 

staff and lawyers that ordinarily handle the Bureau’s engagements 

with Congress and this committee, in this case the Commerce Department stepped in and assigned its own staff to manage the congressional investigation. Their posture toward the committee’s investigation, according to committee staff, was confrontational from 

the onset. The pace of the committee’s investigation was slowed because Commerce Department officials slow-rolled document productions and interfered with witness interviews. 

Did you or your predecessor request the Department of Commerce to manage the response to the committee’s investigation? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman, we always work closely with our 

colleagues at the Department of Commerce. In fact, our attorneys 

administratively do report to the Office of General counsel to ensure consistency. So we basically followed the procedures that were 

in place for responding to the subcommittee. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So you are saying it is standard practice for 

the Department of Commerce staff to take over management of 

these types of inquiries? Was it a takeover or was it just cooperation? 

Mr. THOMPSON. It was cooperation, it wasn’t a takeover. We have 

a very good relationship with the Department of Commerce. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And did the Department of Commerce tell you 

why they jumped in on this one more than they had in the past, 

at least in dealing with us? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I didn’t have conversations with them about anything like that. 

40 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And the Department didn’t express 

any concerns with your legislative affairs folks and them handling 

it, did they? 

Mr. THOMPSON. No. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Well, I was just kind of curious why 

they jumped in on this one. 

All right, I see Mr. Clay is available now. We will give him his 

first round of questions and then give Mr. Lynch his second, if he 

has some more. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Director Thompson and Mr. Zinser for being 

here today. 

However, Mr. Chairman, I am just kind of bewildered on how 

and why we are at this point. As the ranking member stated earlier, I guess this inquiry started from a November 18, 2013 New 

York Post article, and it seems to me, it appears as if quality control may be needed at The New York Post. Clearly, the information 

contained in the article was not reliable, and I see that some of the 

history of how we got to this point was in response to that Post article. 

On November the 19th, 2013, Chairman Issa, you, Mr. Chairman, and Kevin Brady sent a letter to Director Thompson seeking 

documents related to possible employee data falsification in the 

CPS, and in response to that request the Bureau has produced over 

4800 pages of documents and the committee has conducted six 

transcribed interviews with current and former Census Bureau employees. 

I did hear you say earlier in this hearing that this is good news, 

so I am just curious as to how we got to this point off of an unreliable New York Post article. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. CLAY. I yield. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. As I did point out, we found that the problem 

was not nearly as bad as The New York Post suggested, but I think 

we are having this hearing to ensure that some of the reforms from 

the inspector general’s report and the result of this investigation 

are going to be implemented. It is our duty to conduct rigorous 

oversight, and, as I said at the onset, I am glad that it didn’t turn 

out to be as bad as we all thought it did. It is actually pleasurable 

for me to have a good news hearing, and I do think, for the most 

part, this is a good news hearing. 

Mr. CLAY. And that is a good thing, because I think the people 

at the Census Bureau work awfully hard to get it right, to supply 

this Government and the American people with the data necessary 

to make good decisions. 

Over the past year we have heard a number of allegations 

against the Census Bureau as it relates to a potential data falsification scandal in the Philadelphia Regional Office. However, 

let’s set the record straight. There was no scandal here. The IG 

conducted what I think we would all agree was a very thorough investigation and the allegations were found to be without merit. 

And after reviewing over 3,000 pages of documents and conducting 

more than 100 interviews of former and current Census Bureau 

employees, the IG found no evidence that management in the 

41 

Philadelphia Regional Office instructed staff to falsify data at any 

time, for any reason. 

Is that correct, Mr. Zinser? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. CLAY. And can you please explain what led you to that conclusion? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. We followed our investigative plan, and that 

included interviewing current and former employees, it included 

interviewing the managers who the complainants had pointed to as 

instructing them to do this. The managers actually submitted to 

polygraph examinations, as well. We also looked at the actual computer files with respect to an analysis of whether any changes had 

been made to any of the files, and we did not find any evidence of 

any alteration of the survey results. 

Mr. CLAY. And in your investigation did you find any evidence 

that management changed survey responses or covered up falsification? 

Mr. ZINSER. No, sir, we didn’t. As I mentioned, we did go into the 

computer systems and looked at the trace files, which are actually 

audit trails, to see the activity of the supervisors, and we did not 

find any occasions where results had been altered. 

Mr. CLAY. I thank you for your response. 

I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Clay. 

Mr. Lynch? 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is unfortunate, as my friend from Missouri has pointed out, 

that a news report would lead us to this point, but separate and 

apart, I think, as the chairman has noted, this is a good news hearing, and I think it was important to lay this all out because there 

has been a steady drumbeat of criticism for Government employees 

and agencies. Government employees, in the last several years, 

have endured furloughs; they had a three-year pay freeze; the pension contributions for all these Federal employees have been increased, so they are paying more for their pensions and getting less 

at the end of it. But it is very important to make sure that people 

understand that these reports were baseless. So the good reputation of the Census employees involved in these cases were sullied 

because of the allegations made. 

We have done a thorough investigation, congressionally and 

through our inspectors general, and the claims against these employees were completely baseless. So I apologize to those Census 

employees that had to endure this and I would just caution that 

sometimes the environment in which Federal employees have to 

work is hostile to their morale and also to the performance of their 

duties. 

So I guess my confidence in the employees of the Census is reaffirmed. I think they have performed exceedingly well their responsibilities, even during the time of these allegations. They have 

done a good job. Our inspectors general have done a commendable 

job, as well, to be thorough in their analysis, and I think that the 

recommendations are the best thing to come out of this, other than 

absolving the Census Bureau of any blame here. I think the recommendations are sound, I think it will end up allowing us to realVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:41 Nov 12, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\91127.TXT APRIL
42 

ly have greater confidence than we had before and eliminate any 

possibility that there might be manipulation in the future. 

So I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your indulgence and thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And thank you, Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. Clay, did you have any more questions? 

Mr. CLAY. I do not, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. 

While I agree almost completely with Mr. Lynch, I do want to 

point out that this investigation was not a waste of time; we got 

some good results from it. We learned that there are some potential 

problems that need to be addressed in training, in implementing 

management issues. I think we made a good step by having a completely different division doing the call-backs for data security. We 

are well on the way to improving our computer system, so I certainly don’t think it is a waste of time. 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, briefly. I neglected to offer the opening statement of Mr. Issa, our full committee ranking member, and 

I would like to offer that for the record. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Absolutely. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The ranking member. 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Cummings, right. What did I say? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LYNCH. I wish he was the ranking member. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Wishful thinking on your side, I guess. 

We are happy to have Mr. Cummings as the ranking member. 

So, without objection, this will be entered into the record. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I would like to thank our witnesses for taking 

time to be with us and for your hard work for the hardworking 

American taxpayers. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(43) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 91127.026
45 


Insert offset folio 27 here 91127.027
46 


Insert offset folio 28 here 91127.028
47 


Insert offset folio 29 here 91127.029
48 


Insert offset folio 30 here 91127.030
49 


Insert offset folio 31 here 91127.031
50 


Insert offset folio 32 here 91127.032
51 


Insert offset folio 33 here 91127.033
52 


Insert offset folio 34 here 91127.034
53 


Insert offset folio 35 here 91127.035
54 


Insert offset folio 36 here 91127.036
55 


Insert offset folio 37 here 91127.037
56 


Insert offset folio 38 here 91127.038
57 


Insert offset folio 39 here 91127.039
58 


Insert offset folio 40 here 91127.040
59 


Insert offset folio 41 here 91127.041
60 


Insert offset folio 42 here 91127.042
61 


Insert offset folio 43 here 91127.043
62 


Insert offset folio 44 here 91127.044
63 


Insert offset folio 45 here 91127.045
64 


Insert offset folio 46 here 91127.046
65 


Insert offset folio 47 here 91127.047
66 


Insert offset folio 48 here 91127.048
67 


Insert offset folio 49 here 91127.049
68 


Insert offset folio 50 here 91127.050
69 


Insert offset folio 51 here 91127.051
70 


Insert offset folio 52 here 91127.052
71 


Insert offset folio 53 here 91127.053
72 


Insert offset folio 54 here 91127.054
73 


Insert offset folio 55 here 91127.055
74 


Insert offset folio 56 here 91127.056
75 


Insert offset folio 57 here 91127.057
76 


Insert offset folio 58 here 91127.058
77 


Insert offset folio 59 here 91127.059
78 


Insert offset folio 60 here 91127.060
79 


Insert offset folio 61 here 91127.061
80 


Insert offset folio 62 here 91127.062
81 


Insert offset folio 63 here 91127.063
82 


Insert offset folio 64 here 91127.064
83 


Insert offset folio 65 here 91127.065
84 


Insert offset folio 66 here 91127.066
85 


Insert offset folio 67 here 91127.067
86 


Insert offset folio 68 here 91127.068
87 


Insert offset folio 69 here 91127.069
88 


Insert offset folio 70 here 91127.070
89 


Insert offset folio 71 here 91127.071
90 


Insert offset folio 72 here 91127.072
91 


Insert offset folio 73 here 91127.073
92 


Insert offset folio 74 here 91127.074
93 


Insert offset folio 75 here 91127.075
94 


Insert offset folio 76 here 91127.076
95 


Insert offset folio 77 here 91127.077
96 


Insert offset folio 78 here 91127.078
97 


Insert offset folio 79 here 91127.079
98 


Insert offset folio 80 here 91127.080
99 


Insert offset folio 81 here 91127.081
100 


Insert offset folio 82 here 91127.082
101 


Insert offset folio 83 here 91127.083
102 


Insert offset folio 84 here 91127.084
103 


Insert offset folio 85 here 91127.085
104 


Insert offset folio 86 here 91127.086
105 


Insert offset folio 87 here 91127.087
106 


Insert offset folio 88 here 91127.088
107 


Insert offset folio 89 here 91127.089
108 


Insert offset folio 90 here 91127.090
109 


Insert offset folio 91 here 91127.091
110 


Insert offset folio 92 here 91127.092
111 


Insert offset folio 93 here 91127.093
112 


Insert offset folio 94 here 91127.094
113 


Insert offset folio 95 here 91127.095
114 


Insert offset folio 96 here 91127.096
115 


Insert offset folio 97 here 91127.097
116 


Insert offset folio 98 here 91127.098
117 


Insert offset folio 99 here 91127.099
118 


Insert offset folio 100 here 91127.100
119 


Insert offset folio 101 here 91127.101
120 


Insert offset folio 102 here 91127.102
121 


Insert offset folio 103 here 91127.103
122 


Insert offset folio 104 here 91127.104
123 


Insert offset folio 105 here 91127.105
124 


Insert offset folio 106 here 91127.106
125 


Insert offset folio 107 here 91127.107
126 


Insert offset folio 108 here 91127.108
127 


Insert offset folio 109 here 91127.109
128 


Insert offset folio 110 here 91127.110
129 


Insert offset folio 111 here 91127.111
130 


Insert offset folio 112 here 91127.112
131 


Insert offset folio 113 here 91127.113
132 


Insert offset folio 114 here 91127.114
133 


Insert offset folio 115 here 91127.115
134 


Insert offset folio 116 here 91127.116
135 


Insert offset folio 117 here 91127.117
136 


Insert offset folio 118 here 91127.118
137 


Insert offset folio 119 here 91127.119
138 


Insert offset folio 120 here 91127.120
139 


Insert offset folio 121 here 91127.121
140 


Insert offset folio 122 here 91127.122
141 


Insert offset folio 123 here 91127.123
142 


Insert offset folio 124 here 91127.124
143 


Insert offset folio 125 here 91127.125
144 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 126 here 91127.126