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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–326 PDF 2001

THE CENSUS BUREAU’S PROPOSED AMERICAN

COMMUNITY SURVEY [ACS]

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 13, 2001

Serial No. 107–9

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

——— ———

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BOB BARR, Georgia

——— ———

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

JANE COBB, Staff Director

ERIN YEATMAN, Professional Staff Member

DAN WRAY, Clerk

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 13, 2001 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Barron, William, Acting Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census, accompanied by Dr. Nancy Gordon, U.S. Bureau of the Census ........................ 7

Voss, Paul, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Linda Gage, California State Census Data Center, California Department of Finance; Donald Hernandez, Population Association of

America, Department of Sociology, SUNY-Albany; and Marilyn

McMillen, Chief Statistician, Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education .................................................................................. 41

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Barron, William, Acting Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 11

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 36

Gage, Linda, California State Census Data Center, California Department of Finance, prepared statement of ..................................................... 52

Hernandez, Donald, Population Association of America, Department of

Sociology, SUNY-Albany, prepared statement of ....................................... 61

McMillen, Marilyn, Chief Statistician, Center for Education Statistics,

U.S. Department of Education, prepared statement of ............................. 70

Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 4

Voss, Paul, Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 43

(1)

THE CENSUS BUREAU’S PROPOSED

AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY [ACS]

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Cannon, Barr, Clay, and

Maloney.

Staff present: Jane Cobb, staff director; Chip Walker, deputy

staff director; Michael Miguel, senior data analyst; Erin Yeatman

and Andrew Kavaliunas, professional staff members; Daniel Wray,

clerk; Tim Small, intern; David McMillen, minority professional

staff member; and Teresa Coufal, minority staff assistant.

Mr. MILLER. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to

order.

We will proceed with my opening statement. Mr. Clay is on his

way. If he does not come, then we will start with a video and then

at some stage allow Mr. Clay to have his opening statement. And

I apologize if I get beeped or such; I am in the process of a markup

in the Appropriations Committee just upstairs, so I just run upstairs and run right back. So I apologize in advance. The markup

was scheduled after this hearing and we could not change things.

Our census 2000 was a tremendous success. Because of the hard

work and dedication of thousands of Census Bureau employees

around the country, census 2000 was able to reach more of America’s population and the traditionally undercounted than ever before, and is the most accurate census in our Nation’s history. The

hard work of thousands of census employees and the dedication of

thousands of community volunteers nationwide made census 2000

a success.

As we leave last year’s census behind us, it is time to begin planning for our next decennial census in 2010. One of the means by

which the Census Bureau has proposed to improve the 2010 census

is by implementing the American Community Survey [ACS] as a

replacement for the decennial census long form. The American

Community Survey, if funded by Congress, will allow for the Census Bureau to conduct a much simpler and more accurate census.

Without the long form, the much talked about post card census

may be closer to reality. Not only will it be easier for the Census

Bureau to conduct, but it will also be easier and less burdensome

2

for the American people to respond. A higher response rate will decrease the need for costly followup field work and significantly reduce the overall cost of the decennial census operations.

The other major advantage of the American Community Survey

is its ability to provide up to date and timely social, economic, demographic, and housing data that tells us who we are as a Nation.

If and when fully implemented, the American Community Survey

will be distributed continuously to 250,000 housing units per

month and 30 million housing units over a 10 year period. Information collected by the survey will become available as early as 1 year

after it is collected. It will continuously provide annual data in

place of that which is now available only once every decade. This

will allow our Nation’s data users, community leaders, and policymakers to use much more current information as the basis for the

decisions they will make that will affect all of us.

While full implementation of the American Community Survey

has its definite advantages over the continued use of the census

long form, there are some concerns with the survey that must be

addressed. I hope we can get many of these issues into the record

today so that the Bureau can respond and give Congress the assurances we need to go forward with confidence.

One of the issues is cost. Based on the Census Bureau’s budget

estimates for fiscal year 2003, the year in which the full implementation of the American Community Survey is proposed, the survey

will not be cheap. The American Community Survey is projected to

cost some $130 million in that fiscal year. I would like to explore

what goes into this estimate and whether we can expect this figure

to change significantly over the decade.

We must also examine the content of the American Community

Survey questionnaire. The American Community Survey questionnaire currently being tested asks 69 questions. The census 2000

long form only asks 53. By what means will the questions be added

or subtracted from the American Community Survey questionnaire? I believe that without the establishment of a predetermined

and definitive process by which to alter the American Community

Survey questionnaire, the survey has the potential to become a

much more intrusive survey than the long form is or ever was. This

will not be acceptable.

I would also like to explore whether the American Community

Survey will generate the privacy concerns voiced over the long

form. Many of my colleagues’ offices here on Capital Hill have received calls from their constituents wondering just what the American Community Survey is and why they have to answer it when

they just received and answered their census forms last year. If responding to the American Community Survey is deemed mandatory, as is the decennial census, will the privacy concerns and people’s reluctance to answer the long form simply be redirected at the

American Community Survey? And should the American Community Survey be a mandatory survey like the census? What are the

implications if it were voluntary? Are we sure that the American

Community Survey will not duplicate other current, ongoing survey

work?

Ultimately, we must answer these and other questions in order

to determine whether the American Community Survey is the best

3

means by which to collect the demographic information required for

implementing our Federal programs and informing public policy decisions.

It was a little less than a year ago that we began the process of

looking forward to our next decennial census by holding our first

hearing on the American Community Survey. In the time that has

passed since then, however, many questions remain. This afternoon

we meet again to examine the American Community Survey to try

to answer some of the questions and to determine whether the

American Community Survey is the proper means by which to replace the decennial census long form and collect the demographic,

social, economic, and housing information that our Nation’s data

users and policymakers need to aid their decisionmaking.

With us this afternoon is the Acting Director of the Census Bureau, Bill Barron, and data users from across the Nation and our

Federal Government. Thank you all for being here today and I look

forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]

4

5

6

7

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Cannon, do you have an opening statement?

Mr. CANNON. No, thank you.

Mr. MILLER. As I say, I think we will go ahead and proceed.

When we get a break we will ask if any of the other Members have

opening statements. I think we have a video first, so we will go

ahead and proceed with the video.

[Video presentation.]

Mr. CANNON [assuming Chair]. Thank you all. I will be taking

over a bit for the chairman who is, as I understand, going in and

out of an appropriations markup of some sort.

I would like to welcome our first panel and our first witness, Mr.

William Barron. Mr. Barron is currently serving as the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Census. Prior to January of this year

he was the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Bureau. Before being called to the Census Bureau, Bill served for almost 30 years at the Bureau of Labor of Statistics, working his way

up from a management intern through the various positions to

serve as Deputy Commissioner for the last 15 years of his tenure

there. Mr. Barron has received numerous awards and honors for

distinguished and meritorious career civil service. He is known and

respected by his peers for his professionalism and integrity. And I

have had the pleasure of learning these qualities first-hand.

Bill, thanks for being here today. As is customary, would you

please stand and let me swear you in.

Mr. BARRON. If I may, Mr. Cannon, I would like to introduce my

colleague, Dr. Nancy Gordon, who is in charge of our demographic

work. She will be appearing with me today.

Mr. CANNON. Would you mind standing also and taking the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CANNON. Let the record reflect that Mr. Barron and Dr. Gordon answered in the affirmative.

On behalf of the subcommittee, we welcome you here today. Mr.

Barron, if you would like to begin with your opening statement,

you will have 10 minutes.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BARRON, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S.

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. NANCY

GORDON, U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Mr. BARRON. Thank you very much, Mr. Cannon. I have a

lengthier statement I would like to submit for the record and just

make some summary remarks if I may.

It is a pleasure to appear before you again, Mr. Cannon, and to

testify at this the second hearing that this subcommittee has held

on the American Community Survey. The subcommittee’s leadership in providing a public forum for discussion of the American

Community Survey is very important and it is greatly appreciated.

Mr. Cannon, the American Community Survey is one of three

key components of the Census Bureau’s strategy for re-engineering

the 2010 census. If the Census Bureau has adequate resources

early to pursue this strategy, we can buildupon the success of census 2000 and take advantage of lessons learned. Thus, we can reduce the operational risks for the 2010 census, explore ways to further reduce the undercount and improve accuracy, and provide

8

more relevant and timely data throughout the decade, as well as

ways to contain costs.

While our strategic plan for the 2010 census is still under development, we have identified what we believe are three main components: The first, improving the accuracy of our geographic data

base and our master address file; second, eliminating the long form

from the 2010 census by collecting those data in the American

Community Survey; and finally, re-engineering the census process

through early planning.

Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks at last July’s hearing on

the American Community Survey, you said: ‘‘Today we are here to

begin the process of eliminating the problematic census long form.’’ Mr. Chairman, the process of eliminating the census long form is

now well underway. The American Community Survey will simplify

the 2010 census requirements and allow the Census Bureau to

focus exclusively on the constitutional mandate for a basic count of

the population. It will provide more current and more frequent detailed data for small geographic areas, and it will allow the Federal

statistical system to keep pace with ever-increasing demands for

timely and relevant data. The ACS will allow businesses, Federal

policymakers, State, and local, and tribal governments to make decisions using more current and accurate data, and it will improve

the distribution of Federal funds.

Mr. Chairman, in your letter of invitation you asked that I address the issue of costs. Our initial estimates of life-cycle costs

demonstrate cost neutrality when we compare the estimated cost of

repeating census 2000 to the estimated cost of a re-engineered 2010

census, including an American Community Survey, a geographic

system modernization, and early planning. Mr. Chairman, to

achieve cost neutrality, and with further potential for cost savings,

while also providing a rich new source of local area and national

data on an ongoing basis throughout the decade, is a notable and

remarkable achievement. I do not believe it is an overstatement,

Mr. Chairman, to say that this is one of the most important developments in the modern history of the Federal statistical system.

Our goal in designing the American Community Survey was to

produce data comparable in quality to the decennial census long

form for the smallest areas such as a census tract. One decision we

had to make was how many years should go into the moving averages that would replace the long form estimate. We have decided

on a 5-year average for the American Community Survey that will

give more timely data throughout the entire decade, and will give

much better information about change over time than a once-a-decade measurement could.

Another decision is to determine how much sample is needed

each year so that the 5-year averages would have a sample size to

provide data of sufficient quality. We have chosen a sample size of

3 million because that will meet our goal of producing data based

on 5-year averages comparable in quality to the census long form

data.

The fact that the American Community Survey sample size and

design will not provide data for the smallest areas until 2008 has

led some to raise the concern that the American Community Survey may be treating rural areas and urban census tracts unfairly.

9

The Census Bureau takes this concern very seriously. Indeed, we

wish it were possible to begin by providing small areas with high

quality, current data right away. But that would basically require

replicating the decennial long form every year, and that is not an

acceptable option in terms of costs or burden on respondents. Once

again, as we have so many times in conducting the decennial census, we are faced with the need to balance competing demands.

The Census Bureau takes even the perception that small areas

are being treated unfairly very seriously and we have worked with

data experts to allay those concerns. Even the smallest areas will

have data 4 years earlier than if we had no American Community

Survey and we included a long form in the 2010 census.

So while concerns have been raised about the data for small

areas, the Census Bureau is confident that the American Community Survey design is going to yield a major improvement over the

existing situation. We need to understand the glass is more than

half full and to fill it all the way would require some unacceptable

tradeoffs in terms of costs and respondent burden.

We have designed the American Community Survey to provide

the same quality data as census 2000 for all groups, regardless of

size, and we plan to monitor the survey to make sure that this is

the case on an ongoing basis. Remember, the American Community

Survey does not count the population; it estimates their characteristics. To get accurate measurements, we need high response rates

from all groups.

We have devoted considerable time to discussing the question of

data for small population groups with our Race and Ethnic Advisory Committees. Working with them, we will focus on techniques

and strategies to ensure that small population groups participate

in the survey, such as exploring using language assistance guides,

revising the mailing package, and using public service announcements. The permanent staff of field representatives will establish

ongoing relationships with the communities they are working in,

thereby enhancing trust and willingness to participate.

The data collected by the American Community Survey will help

Congress evaluate and modify Federal programs and will provide

up-to-date information for congressional districts and States, as

well as smaller areas, enabling services to be targeted to maximize

the impact of available resources at all levels of Government. The

American Community Survey will provide a critical new source of

data that will allow the Congress to evaluate programs below the

State level and to determine and assess accountability. The up-todate estimates from the American Community Survey will benefit,

for example, welfare reform, funding for educationally disadvantaged children, and programs for the elderly.

The American Community Survey is providing current data from

21 of its 31 test sites to address real-life issues in rural and urban

communities. In my written statement, I have provided examples

of both Federal and State uses.

In conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, we

have also established a jointly chaired Interagency Committee

charged with balancing respondent burden with the legitimate information needs of the Congress and the Federal Government. The

Interagency Committee is working on reviewing the content of the

10

ACS in a process similar to what we did with the decennial census

long form for census 2000. OMB has asked relevant Federal departments and agencies to document their legal requirements for

these data, the level of geography that is required, and for what

population groups. This information is expected to be available to

us by the end of August.

The Census Bureau takes questions and concerns about intrusiveness and privacy very seriously. We are aware of the time pressures confronting people and of the concerns they have about privacy and confidentiality. The Census Bureau has a 60 year history,

going back to the 1940 census, of working to reduce the number of

questions and the number of households that would have to answer

the longer set of questions. Weighed against the ever-increasing demands for new questions, including requests from the Congress

and the executive branch, this is the evidence of the Census Bureau’s sensitivity to this issue.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, as part of a strategy to re-engineer

the 2010 census, the American Community Survey will improve the

way we take the census by eliminating the long form, simplifying

the 2010 census requirements, and allowing the Census Bureau to

focus exclusively on the basic count. It will provide more frequent

detailed data for all geographic areas regardless of size, so that

Congress and Federal agencies will have up-to-date information to

administer and evaluate programs. And it will contribute to a more

efficient statistical system and allow us to keep pace with ever-increasing demands for timely and relevant data.

Mr. Chairman, in my more than 33 years of service in the Federal statistical system, two issues of dominant concern have been

how to provide more current and more frequent small area data,

and how to improve the accuracy of the census population counts.

I believe the plan for re-engineering the 2010 census, including the

launching of the American Community Survey, addresses both of

these important longstanding concerns.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony and I will be glad,

with my colleague, to try and answer any questions that you may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barron follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Mr. MILLER [resuming Chair]. Thank you.

Mrs. Maloney, did you have an opening statement?

Mrs. MALONEY. I have questions.

Mr. MILLER. OK. Mr. Barron, let me ask a couple questions. First

of all, explain to me how low a level of geographic area would the

data be available and when?

Mr. BARRON. The lowest level of data availability, Mr. Chairman,

would be the census tract level. That data would be available beginning in 2005 if we were able to launch the survey in 2003, it

would then be available on an annual basis thereafter. There are

other data that we could make available to researchers below the

tract level, but the basic unit of publication, if you will, will be the

census tract.

Mr. MILLER. I have a question about the questions that are included in ACS. There are 69 questions included right now in ACS

which is more than we had in our long form. I know the debate

that always took place about trying to add questions; everybody

wants more information. I know the Bureau was always in the difficult position of trying not to add questions. Apparently, you have

already added some. How will you keep this from getting out of

control and the cost and the response rate that this has an impact

on?

Mr. BARRON. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that when we come out

of this process with the Office of Management and Budget we will,

first off, have a good redefinition and re-examination of all the

questions currently being asked. I am also hoping we can find a

way to partner with the Congress on the congressional view of the

questions we are asking and any needs for either more or fewer

questions that we think reflect the perspective of the Congress.

On an ongoing basis, I am hoping we could establish some sort

of interagency committee, perhaps with permanent congressional

involvement, to look at this on an ongoing basis so that we can

maintain a consensus as to how many questions we should ask or

not ask.

Mr. MILLER. Is this going to have the potential for eliminating

any other surveys or forms or any duplicative reports that would

fix cost but also get more accurate information?

Mr. BARRON. I think on an ongoing basis, once the survey is fully

established, we can look at that. I think for now, Mr. Chairman,

what we are learning is that agencies are seeing this as a way to

expand and improve their information. I know just recently we received some information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicating that with the data that would be available from the American Community Survey they are going to be able to greatly enhance their program of local area unemployment estimates which

currently is developed on the best data the BLS has but that it is

not very detailed data by area. So, for now we are hearing more

about ways to improve the accuracy of other datasets. I think down

the road we will have to turn to the question of are there things

we can eliminate. Right now we have not identified any candidates.

Mr. MILLER. The Current Population Survey, how does that relate and what are the duplication possibilities there?

Mr. BARRON. Right. The Current Population Survey is collected

by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is the

28

survey that provides the official Federal Government measures of

labor force activity, including employment and unemployment. It is

a national survey of about 50,000 households. It is designed to

measure month-to-month change in unemployment and other labor

force characteristics. It does focus on labor force activity.

The American Community Survey is going to have a labor force

component. But the American Community Survey is far more detailed in terms of its geographic reach, if you will. It is also designed to provide estimates on an annual basis. So the BLS is

viewing the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey, and I think I would agree with this, as complements.

They are going to be able to use the data from the American Community Survey to greatly improve the local area unemployment estimates that they are required to produce for purposes of distributing job training funds. They are going to be able to greatly enhance

the data quality of those estimates. Right now, they have, as I said

a moment ago, sort of a paucity of data to develop these monthly

estimates.

Mr. MILLER. For 2010, the post card census is what we are talking about, is that right, if ACS goes forward and is working?

Mr. BARRON. Mr. Miller, I think we are very close to a post card

census in terms of content. I do not know what particular mail instrument we would use to send it out to people, but we are essentially talking about the short form. I do not know whether we tested whether that would actually fit on a post card or not. I would

have to check on that. But in terms of content, we are talking

about a greatly reduced census.

Mr. MILLER. I just received a report the other day about the cost.

I just received it yesterday so I have not had a chance to really

fully evaluate it. But the projected cost for fiscal year 2003 is $131

million. Would you care to comment about this report on the lifecycle cost which like $500 million less total cost if we—— Mr. BARRON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, let me apologize. We

spent a lot of time working on that document and it is a very sensitive matter. It took us a lot of time to make sure all the appropriate bases were touched in terms of getting that document up

here to you. I regret that I was not able to get it here sooner.

I think it is a very important document. It basically is laying out

the fact that if we were just to take census 2000 and use some

standard assumptions about inflation, Federal pay, and pay for information technology contracts, and things like that, if we compare

the cost of taking census 2000 and moving it out 10 years inflated

by assumptions for those basic types of costs, it is going to approach $12 billion. And if we are able to re-engineer the census,

starting with early planning, starting with an improved and technologically enhanced master address file process, and, of course,

eliminate the long form, than in terms of annual appropriations,

we think there would be a cost avoidance of about half a billion dollars.

What we are also achieving though, Mr. Chairman, in having

done that is we would have an ongoing set of new data never before available except on a decennial census basis, an ongoing set

of products providing a rich dataset—an ongoing video, if you will,

of what is happening to America in terms of all the characteristics

29

that are collected on the long form. So you could look at it as cost

neutral but with a tremendous benefit in terms of the amount of

data provided. So that is basically what the life-cycle document is

setting forth for you. Depending on whether you look at net present

value or cost avoidance, it is either cost neutral, that is according

to net present value calculations, or a savings of about a half a billion if you look at funds that would not have to be appropriated in

the annual appropriations process. So I think it is a very important

finding.

Mr. MILLER. I think it was a very interesting document.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Barron. Mr. Barron, can you document the number

of times and the reasons for the Census Bureau putting out data

from the American Community Survey that subsequently had to be

retracted because of errors?

Mr. BARRON. From the American Community Survey?

Mrs. MALONEY. Yes.

Mr. BARRON. No, I cannot, Mrs. Maloney. Let me ask my colleague, Ms. Gordon, if there are any such documents that we have.

Ms. GORDON. I am not aware of retracting data from the American Community Survey. The one circumstance I think that you

might have heard about would be information for Bronx County in

New York where, because we did not have the American Community Survey in the last decade, our population estimates were not

able to take advantage of that kind of information and so the use

of the population estimates for that particular county resulted in

data that we thought was not as accurate as we would like. And

so those data have sort of a warning label on them. But the data

for all of the other sites that we have released we think are really

quite good and there have been no concerns that I know of expressed about them.

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. Mr. Barron, could you tell me under what

authority are you withholding information from the U.S. Census

Monitoring Board? Their enabling legislation clearly states that:

‘‘Each co-chairman of the board, and any members of the staff who

may be designated by the board under this paragraph, shall be

granted access to any data, files, information, or other matters

maintained by the Bureau of the Census or received by it in the

course of conducting a decennial census of population which they

may request subject to such regulations as the board may proscribe

in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce.’’

Mr. BARRON. I guess no one would ever give me an authority

that complicated because I would not be able to understand it. But

I think what you are referring to, Mrs. Maloney, is that as we

enter into the next phase of the process of looking at whether adjustment would improve estimates from census 2000, we were attempting to replicate the same process that I think we used very

successfully earlier in the year where we provided access to the

data that we were looking at on a real time basis. At the same time

we were looking at it, we provided access to the National Academy

of Sciences, to the Congress, and to the Monitoring Board. So we

thought it would be a good practice to try and replicate the same

thing.

30

Now, since all of the issues that you raise now were not raised

then, I am sort of surprised. But we are simply trying to be open

about what we are doing. We prefer to have people look at the data

that we are looking at at the same time. We are also aware that

the Monitoring Board will be having to issue reports early in the

fall and we would like to help them do that. We would like them

not to publish local area data, specific area data until we have.

That is basically the concern that we have. We would like to focus

on doing our work and not get caught up in a lot of external debates about local data until we have finished our work. And that

is what we are trying to achieve.

Mrs. MALONEY. The Monitoring Board, I believe there are members here from the Monitoring Board, would be glad to give you a

list of data that they would like the information. Under law, they

are entitled to it. I would like you to provide the committee a legal

memorandum that explains under what authority you are withholding any information. It is against the law.

Mr. BARRON. Well, I will go back and ask my attorneys to see

if they can defend me on this.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much. I have a few more questions. In your letter, Mr. Barron, to myself and Mr. Clay, dated

April 24, you stated that the ‘‘Census Bureau is preparing a plan

for examining demographic analysis, the ACE, and Census 2000

which will be available in the next month.’’ Can the committee get

a copy of this plan?

Mr. BARRON. I do not think the plan exists right now. But the

answer is, absolutely. When it does exist, we would be glad to provide it to the committee. It should be available very shortly.

Mrs. MALONEY. So you are saying that the plan does not exist?

Mr. BARRON. I know that a plan has been discussed internally

and it is being modified. As soon as there is a public plan, we

would be glad to give it to you.

Mrs. MALONEY. So, in your letter of June 8, you stated that it

did not yet exist, and now you are saying that it still does not exist.

Four months after the decision not to go forward with the corrected

data, you do not even have a plan done to review the differences.

Is that correct?

Mr. BARRON. We have spent a lot of time identifying problems

that came out of the last set of ESCAP deliberations, and we do

have a plan for that, those kind of data are being established. In

terms of a plan for how we will conduct our review over the summer, that is another stage of planning that we have not yet completed. It will be done soon. I am confident that by the time the

fall arrives we will have examined all of the issues that arose in

our initial set of ESCAP deliberations and, hopefully, we will arrive

at a recommendation that will be acceptable to everyone.

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, as you stated, you still do not have a plan

after 4 months. Then why are you embarking on a project to reconfigure the post-strata of the ACS if you have not even got a plan

to reconcile the differences between the corrected and uncorrected

data and the demographic analysis?

Mr. BARRON. I am not familiar with a project to restructure poststrata, Mrs. Maloney. We have a lot of work under way to assemble

the data that we need to continue our analysis. We have not proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:07 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75326.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
31

duced a plan on the actual conduct of that analysis, but that is

something that I think we can do in relatively short order. A lot

of effort is going into developing some way to understand the data

sets that we have. I think the Bureau, by October, will have a fine

report on this issue.

Mrs. MALONEY. And finally, the Census Bureau has told the subcommittee that it is conducting a study to identify duplicates in the

group quarters population. However, the Census Bureau has made

no effort to measure people missed in group quarters and has no

intention of doing such a study. Congress has repeatedly asked the

Census Bureau to pay attention to people missed in the group

quarters population and has been repeatedly ignored. How do you

justify this one-sided approach to measuring error in the group

quarters population? Is this a search for the politically correct

number, or are there other instances where the Bureau tries to assess the level of duplicates and does not count those missed?

Mr. BARRON. I am not sure I completely understand the question,

Mrs. Maloney. We are looking at group quarters and will, in fact,

soon be issuing the short form data and be working with State and

local officials. That is probably the most effective, nonpartisan, unbiased, open way to assess group quarter data quality since everyone in the country will have the data and will be able to assess it.

So I do not know really how to respond to the comment that we

are doing something that is not open and straightforward, but I regret you feel that way.

Mrs. MALONEY. Just to get to the facts. Are there other cases or

instances, past or present or historically, where the Bureau tries to

assess the level of duplicates and does not count those missed?

That is a reasonable question.

Mr. BARRON. I am afraid I cannot really answer that.

Mrs. MALONEY. Could you have your team look and try to get the

answer?

Mr. BARRON. Sure.

Mrs. MALONEY. I would be glad to meet with you and go further

in with it. We have a vote right now.

Mr. BARRON. I would be glad to meet with you, too.

Mr. MILLER. I believe we will have time. The second bell has not

gone. We have a vote on the floor, so we will have to run out shortly.

Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barron, I appreciate your being here, again. Of course, the basic constitutional

purpose of the census is the apportionment of congressional seats.

You and I are in a maelstrom over the difference between North

Carolina’s count and Utah’s count. Utah is missing a seat. So if you

would not mind, I would like to revisit some of those issues that

we have spoken about before.

The last time you were here I asked you several questions related to disproportionate counting of Americans overseas in the 2000

census and how that affected the State of Utah, and missionaries

of the Mormon Church, in particular. If you recall, I asked specifically about how the Bureau is progressing on a report and then a

final plan on how to count Americans overseas in the 2010 census.

32

At the time, I found the progress a little disappointing. But let me

pose that full question to you again.

Chairman Miller included in the Bureau’s fiscal year 2010 appropriations a requirement that the Secretary of Commerce ‘‘Submit

to the Congress no later than September 30, 2001, a written report

on any methodological, logistical, and other issues associated with

the inclusion in future decennial censuses of American citizens and

their dependents living abroad for apportionment, redistricting,

and other purposes.’’ What progress has been made on that report

since our last hearing with you, if any? And given the tremendous

and immediate interest in this issue, might that report be given a

greater priority by the Bureau?

Mr. BARRON. I think we have made a lot of progress, Mr. Cannon. We recently had a briefing up here, and I would like to have

staff come back and meet with your staff because I understand it

was not a convenient time for your folks and we want to make sure

that your folks are involved in it. I think we have made a lot of

progress in identifying the issues that we see in trying to construct

an accurate count of Americans overseas. One of the big issues, for

example, is whether we could rely on administrative records to do

that, whether that would be from a perspective of folks who are

very interested in this number, and whether that would be sufficient. We are also interested in trying to reach a consensus on uses

and whether it would be satisfactory to identify people who sort of

‘‘self-nominate’’ themselves as being an American overseas, or do

we have to go through some further degree of proof to determine

exactly who they are and why they are there and that sort of thing.

At any rate, we have made a great deal of progress. I do not

know if it is possible to speed up the September 30th report. I will

look into that and get back to you. I think maybe the first thing

to do might be to get with your staff and brief you on what we have

done.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. We will take you up on that. But even

if the report is on time, proceeding as you are now, how long do

you think before there is a final plan for counting overseas Americans in the next census?

Mr. BARRON. Well, we are probably a pretty good length of time

away from having a final plan, Mr. Cannon. I think the issues are

daunting. Another thing we need to do, and I think we agreed to

do this in the briefing we held up here last week, is to meet with

the groups that are representing the folks who live overseas to see

what sort of reaction we can get from them in terms of the issues

that we have identified. So I do not want to commit to a timeframe.

It depends on whether we can get a consensus on the type of enumeration we can conduct and how that number would be used.

Mr. CANNON. Let me just jump on to the next question. It looks

like you are going to spend about $131 million on the American

Community Survey this next fiscal year. Can you give me a rough

estimate of how much the Bureau is spending this fiscal year to

put together the report and plan for counting overseas Americans?

Mr. BARRON. I would have to provide that to you for the record,

Mr. Cannon. It is a very small amount of money relative to the

budget request for the American Community Survey.

33

Mr. CANNON. I appreciate your responses to this line of inquiry.

I remain concerned that the Bureau is neglecting this core responsibility and devoting its resources to projects outside the core mission, it is a paramount mission in the Constitution, while leaving

unresolved these really difficult issues which we have been dealing

with for 70 years. So I would appreciate your getting back to us

on some of those things, and look forward to having our staff meet

with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Barr, we have a vote but if you

would like to proceed before the vote.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. Is this the survey that we are talking

about, the American Community Survey?

Mr. BARRON. I believe so, sir, yes.

Mr. BARR. This copy is 24 pages long. Is that correct?

Mr. BARRON. I think that is correct. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARR. How many questions including subparts are contained

in this?

Mr. BARRON. I believe there are 65 questions.

Ms. GORDON. It is approximately that many. You asked about including subparts, in many questions, for example, asking about

how much you pay in a mortgage, we need to first ask do you have

a mortgage. So we do not have a tally of the subparts available

right at the moment. But we could certainly provide it to you.

Mr. BARR. It would be interesting. I could go through and count

them all up. It is an awful lot more than 65. Do you have any concern that this is awfully intrusive?

Mr. BARRON. We are very concerned about it, Congressman.

Mr. BARR. Then why are you asking it?

Mr. BARRON. Well, the basic reason, Congressman Barr, is that

there is in back of each one of these questions a legislative requirement by a Federal agency. I want you to know that we are working

with the Office of Management and Budget this summer to review

each and every one of those requirements to make sure that it is

there and to assess that and to see if the question could be restructured. But, no, we are very worried about that. It is our staff who

go out and, in this case, talk to people face-to-face about filling out

the survey. So we want it to be as acceptable to the American public as we can make it.

Mr. BARR. What if somebody just does not want to fill all this

out. Is there anything he can do about that?

Mr. BARRON. Well, one of the issues that has been raised is

whether this should be conducted with mandatory reporting. Our

initial thinking, although we want to work with the Congress on

this, is that we think as part of the decennial census it should be

mandatory reporting.

Mr. BARR. All of this information?

Mr. BARRON. Yes, sir. That is consistent with the approach to

conducting the collection of the long form on the decennial census

which this is replacing.

Mr. BARR. But there are an awful lot of concerns raised about

that.

Mr. BARRON. Indeed, there were.

Mr. BARR. And this just perpetuates it.

34

Mr. BARRON. It does, but we also think, and we will do the review to make sure that we have got this down to the bare minimum, we also have found that when—— Mr. BARR. This is not the bare minimum, is it?

Mr. BARRON. I do not know, sir. I think that each one of those

was looked at prior to the 2000 census and it may be terribly close.

So I do not want to lead you astray and make a promise to you

that I cannot come close to keeping. I think each one of those

questions—— Mr. BARR. So 24 pages of detailed questions with numerous subparts might be the bare minimum?

Mr. BARRON. There is a legislative requirement that—— Mr. BARR. You are starting to smile. You cannot say that with

a straight face, can you?

Mr. BARRON. The reason I was smiling is I think that some of

the——

Mr. BARR. You are smiling because there is no way that it can

legitimately be maintained that this is the bare minimum information that the Government needs to get a handle on how many people are in this country.

Mr. BARRON. No, these are population characteristics, not numbers of people. I think some of the length is coming from the fact

that we do ask a set of questions for each person. That makes it

longer.

Mr. BARR. So what is it specifically that you are going to do to

pare this thing down?

Mr. BARRON. First we are going to meet with the Office of Management and Budget which has asked every Federal agency to examine the questions that they say are required by law in this form

and to explain back to the Office of Management and Budget is this

true or is it not true. We are going to examine that, we are going

to document it, and then I hope we can come back up to Capitol

Hill and share that with folks up here so that they understand that

this is the situation that we are dealing with.

Mr. BARR. And when you do that you will not just look at the

number of questions, but all of these cockamamie subparts. Some

of these questions go on for columns.

Mr. BARRON. I promise you that we will look at all the

cockamamie subparts.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. And I know that you are concerned about

this, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you to address the very serious privacy concerns that we have with this sort

of detailed information project. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MILLER. On the mandatory issue, is that a determination

that Congress will ultimately make on whether this is mandatory,

or will OMB or Census Bureau issue the decision?

Mr. BARRON. I do not know who has the ultimate authority on

that, Mr. Miller. Given the obvious sensitivity, we would come up

and talk with—— Mr. MILLER. What impact will it have on response rates and all

that?

Mr. BARRON. That is a worry. Our sense both from talking to our

staff who actually goes out and knocks on doors as well as the several times when this has been tested in the past, the sense is that

35

if it is not mandatory the response rates will go down and costs

would go up and accuracy would deteriorate. Obviously, that is a

very serious concern to us. The life-cycle cost document we have

provided you assumes, that the ACS has got a sample size now

that is right at the cusp of what is going to meet the important objectives that we think need to be met to provide local data. If it

gets cut further, we would be very worried. Similarly, therefore, if

response deteriorated further, we would be very worried.

Our concern is maintaining response and maintaining the ability

to provide accurate data.

Mr. MILLER. We have to go vote right now. But one question, and

I remember seeing the report on the 2000 census about all the long

form questions and the documentation, if it is going to be something that we can legislatively do to reduce questions and if they

are not essential, I think we need to revisit them. I know the only

question that was added since the 1990 census was one that was

added in the welfare reform about grandparents. So that is the

type of thing that is mandated by Congress that I think maybe we

need to revisit.

We will stand in recess for a quick vote.

[Recess.]

Mr. CANNON [assuming Chair]. The subcommittee will be in

order.

Mr. Clay, do you have some questions that you would like to ask?

Mr. CLAY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if you would

allow me to request unanimous consent to submit an opening statement.

Mr. CANNON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

36

37

38

39

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Mr. Barron, let me first thank you for

being here today and for your testimony. I am pleased that we are

able to focus on the American Community Survey in a bipartisan

spirit of inquiry. I hope you will take my questions in that spirit

and not as an attack on the ACS.

As we approach the full funding of the ACS in the fiscal year

2003, Congress must determine whether this expenditure is in the

best interest of the Government. We must ask if we are going to

invest $130 to $140 million a year in our statistical infrastructure

is the ACS the best investment we can make. There are proposals

before the Congress to create a registry of violent deaths, similar

in structure to the birth registration system. Others are urging

Congress to improve the collection of information on the service

sector. In fact, the Census Bureau is urging Congress to improve

collection of information on electronic transactions. Still others

would have us improve collection of information on the environment, or on energy supply and consumption, or on the supply of

fish in the ocean. Our questions today are to help us make the

judgment of whether we should fund the ACS or not.

Would you please tell us why you think that funding the ACS is

the best investment we can make today in the Federal statistical

system.

Mr. BARRON. Sure, Mr. Clay, I would like to try. I think it would

be the best investment for the Federal statistical system because

it is going to be a smart investment, an investment that is going

to have to be made in 2010. In other words, the plan that we are

proposing, when you look at all parts of it, not just the conduct of

the American Community Survey, but the fact that if we are able

to launch it completely, it would replace the long form. If you look

at the cost of a re-engineered census—which we can do if we start

now to plan it—if we improve our way of assembling a master address file and use new technology, and we are way behind local

areas in fact in terms of use of technology, and if we can replace

the long form with an ACS, we actually have a proposal that is cost

neutral. And while I know there are a lot of important statistical

needs in the other statistical agencies, and I know from my own

personal experience that is a very serious problem, I think one advantage we have over them is that we have a cost neutral proposal

to do something that, in fact, is a constitutional mandate.

So I think we have some important advantages that need to be

considered as we discuss this proposal with you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that. We will hear from witnesses later

today one of the primary purposes of the ACS is to provide small

area data that will replace the data currently collected as a part

of the decennial census. The Census Bureau has decided to provide

small communities with data which are somewhat less precise than

the long form in exchange for 5 year averages updated each year.

Can you explain to us why you believe this is advantageous to local

governments?

Mr. BARRON. Well, it is a tradeoff that we are making, Mr. Clay.

But it is a tradeoff that we think is providing data that is of good

quality, slightly less in terms of measures of accuracy, but very

comparable to the data that is available from the long form, in

terms of sampling error. In terms of nonsampling error, the fact

40

that we are going to have the data collected by an experienced enumerator, and we will be able to follow up—we think there are some

important data quality advantages in that process. And the fact

that we will have an ongoing stream of data is an important advantage.

So we think that relative to providing data once a decade—by the

time the local area folks receive it it is often 12 years old—we

think that this has some very powerful advantages.

Mr. CLAY. It is my understanding that there are no new funds

requested in your 2002 budget to improve the demographic analysis estimates for the State and county estimates program. Have

you considered reprogramming some of the remaining decennial

census funds to improve these estimate programs in 2002?

Mr. BARRON. We have and we are still looking at it. We have not

made a final decision. We are also looking at future budget cycles,

but that is beyond the scope of what I could talk about today.

Mr. CLAY. When do you think you will make a decision?

Mr. BARRON. I think as we get into the summer and we go

through the next set of deliberations that the Executive Steering

Committee on Adjustment Policy needs to go through, I think we

in the Census Bureau are going to come out of that process with

a better insight as to what we have in terms of the demographic

analysis system. It needs to be improved. Whether we need more

resources or can use some existing resources in the short run is

really the issue we can look at in the summer. It does need to be

improved.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER [resuming Chair]. Mr. Barron, thank you very much

for being here today. I am glad we are planning ahead for 2010.

It just seems like we have not even finished all the data for 2000

and we are immediately planning for 2010, which is exactly what

has to be done. So thank you for the leadership you are providing

at the Bureau. Thank you for being here.

Mr. BARRON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. We will take a short recess till the next panel comes

up.

[Recess.]

Mr. MILLER. Our next panel consists of Mr. Paul Voss, who represents the Department of Rural Sociology at the University of

Wisconsin at Madison; Ms. Linda Gage, representing the California

State Census Data Center; Mr. Donald Hernandez, who is the

Chair of the Population Association of America; and Ms. Marilyn

McMillen is the Chief Statistician for the Center for Educational

Statistics at the Department of Education.

As is the procedure here in this particular committee, we have

you sworn in. So if you would all stand and raise your right hands

for the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. The witnesses have all answered in the affirmative.

We will begin with Mr. Voss. Welcome. If you would proceed with

your opening statement, please, sir. And if you see me get up and

leave, I have just been notified there is a vote upstairs on the appropriation committee. I apologize in advance for that. And we will

41

probably have another vote on the floor I am guessing in another

hour or something like that.

STATEMENTS OF PAUL VOSS, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON; LINDA GAGE,

CALIFORNIA STATE CENSUS DATA CENTER, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; DONALD HERNANDEZ, POPULATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, SUNY-ALBANY; AND MARILYN MCMILLEN, CHIEF

STATISTICIAN, CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. VOSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you tell us how

much time approximately you would like us to take.

Mr. MILLER. I think we would like to hold it 5 minutes. But your

full statement will be made a part of the record.

Mr. VOSS. Five minutes. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Clay, members of the committee, I appreciate your invitation to be

here today and to offer my comments on the subject of the American Community Survey. Specifically, I have been asked to reflect

on any implications the ACS might have on the quality of data for

rural areas and small population groups, and I will mostly confine

my comments to that topic. I am going to skip over roughly the

first half of my prepared remarks. That was the part that was

quite complimentary to the Census Bureau. I am now going to skip

to the other half. [Laughter.]

Mr. MILLER. We will include all your statements in the record.

Mr. VOSS. Basically, I work in an academic research setting focusing on rural areas. I am engaged on almost a daily basis on

data analysis and in providing data assistance to the hundred of

rural communities, rural agencies, rural small businesses in my

State. I also mentioned in my prepared testimony that because of

that particular interest in rural areas, small places, small population groups, I was, for a time, an early critic of the initial plans

for the ACS. But having now spent considerable time evaluating

the evolving ACS procedures and recognizing its potential ability to

yield timely and useful data for rural areas and small places, I

have pretty much now reached my peace with this new initiative.

With the changes in the ACS design that have been implemented

over the past several years, and having first-hand awareness of the

Census Bureau’s willingness to listen and respond to the data user

community, I now believe the ACS does have the potential to meet

rural information needs over the course of the decade better than

does the traditional census long form.

However, the durability of my peace with the ACS is contingent

upon the Census Bureau’s ability to base rural ACS data on a sufficiently large sample for the data to have a level of statistical precision similar to that provided by the census long form sample. This

has been the goal of the ACS all along. But in this regard, it is my

present option that the ACS is beginning to fall short of this goal.

In my view, the ACS, as currently moving forward in this critical

period of testing and evaluation, is extraordinarily fragile. The

over-sample for small places, which I mentioned earlier in my testimony, has been reduced significantly from that discussed by the

ACS team 3 and 4 years ago and is substantially below that used

42

for the census 2000 long form sample. I give two highly specific illustrations in my written testimony, but here let me summarize.

Not all that many years ago, the ACS team at the Bureau was

projecting that ACS estimates would have levels of uncertainty

around 25 percent larger than corresponding long form estimates.

That is a substantial difference in precision. Yet, regrettably, current plans at the Census Bureau are now aiming for uncertainty

levels around 33 percent larger than comparable long form estimates. Can the ACS still meet its goals with these sampling fractions and these levels of estimate uncertainty? I confess to having

considerable anxiety on this question.

Certainly there are efficiencies that can be gained by fine tuning

the sampling and estimation procedures. But my biggest fear as I

testify before you today is that the Census Bureau, in its desire to

convince the Congress that a fully implemented ACS is cost neutral

over the long haul, has the potential of not asking you for enough

money to actually fully support this important and exciting initiative. Any further reduction in funding, to a level below what I suspect is the Census Bureau’s already too modest goal, could well

place the quality of small area data from the ACS outside the

range of acceptability to the small area data user. And such an outcome likely could revert user preferences away from a weak ACS

and back to the traditional census long form.

Now let me be very clear. I am a supporter of the ACS and I do

not wish to see that happen. But my fear, if ACS data decline any

further in reliability, any further in precision, is that a groundswell

could develop around the notion that statistically more precise data

available only once each decade are preferable to less precise data

provided on a continuous basis. Or said another way, timely data

are important, but only if they are reliable, only if they meet certain minimum levels of precision. In its sampling design for the

ACS, and in a world of tradeoffs, in a highly responsible effort to

contain both costs and respondent burden in this initiative, the

Census Bureau has already sacrificed some of the statistical precision that communities of all sizes have come to appreciate in the

census long form data. This weakens the utility of the data for

small villages, for city tracts, for block groups, and for neighborhoods. Any further weakening will likely be the beginning of the

undoing of this exciting data innovation.

My fervent hope, then, for a sound ACS, as it moves into full implementation in 2003, is that the risk of truly ‘‘full’’ implementation

be tried; that the Census Bureau continue to work with its partners in the data user community and with its congressional partners to ensure sufficient funding for the ACS actually to do what

it promised almost a decade ago to do—to meet the continuing data

needs of all of America’s communities, to provide such communities

with annually refreshed, statistically reliable data for the small

areas that make up these communities, and thereby to enable

America’s communities to make better decisions for their people

and to use their limited resources more responsibly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to speak with the

subcommittee. I would be happy to take questions if there are any.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Voss follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. We will proceed with the statements. As

I said, everyone’s written statements will be included in the record.

Next we have Ms. Linda Gage from the California State Census

Data Center, California Department of Finance.

Ms. GAGE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today to represent the State of California in discussions about the American

Community Survey. The State of California, along with its councils

of governments, city, county, and tribal governments, relies on high

quality census data. Data from the decennial census not only help

determine the amount of funding the State receives from various

Federal programs but also supports a myriad of decisions throughout each decade on the allocation of funds and resources throughout the State. The data further support needs assessment for State

programs, site and size of service locations, and program evaluation.

It is our goal that official data published about the people of California, and used in policy and funding decisions, be as current,

complete, and accurate as possible. Since the early 1950’s the State

has invested in an independent demographic research program to

annually update the population and housing counts of our jurisdictions to allow us to more equitably distribute State subventions

and to plan and budget public services based on current demographic data. The State also devotes considerable support and expertise to the Census Bureau’s decennial census, and other demographic programs, to aid the collection and estimation of complete

and accurate information about the State’s residents.

We support the full development and rigorous evaluation of the

American Community Survey as a method to collect and provide

more complete and more current demographic information between

censuses. At this time we feel it is premature to endorse the ACS

as the preferred method for collecting long form data in 2010.

Our primary interests are in the prognosis for the full development of the survey, the plan and timeline for evaluation of the survey data, and the determination of the role of the ACS in the 2010

census.

Full development of the ACS is contingent upon adequate funding, maintenance of a current and comprehensive master address

file, and successful implementation of the survey for the next 7

years.

The survey is designed to publish annual 1-year estimates for

areas of 65,000 or more population beginning in 2001. This is fewer

than 2 percent of our cities and 24 percent of our counties. The survey would produce annual 3 year averages for areas between

20,000 and 65,000 population beginning in the year 2006. That is

only 6 percent of our cities. And annual 5 year averages for areas

and population groups of less than 20,000 population beginning in

the year 2008. This is over 92 percent of our cities and 43 percent

of our counties. On the current schedule, with no delays or shortfalls, the ACS will not be fully implemented with the data published until 2008.

The plan for collecting long form data in the 2000 census was to

distribute a separate questionnaire to roughly 1 in 6 housing units

nationally. We heard this morning that the ACS is not designed

50

with the same sampling rate for 2000 through 2010. If the sample

size is smaller, is cut due to funding shortfalls, or remains static

as population and housing growth occurs in our Nation, the data

produced by the ACS may not be of sufficient quality to substitute

for the 2010 long form.

The sample size for the ACS and the effect of lower sample sizes

on the quality of data need to be specified in advance of a decision

to endorse the ACS.

Concerning the evaluation of the ACS, the State of California has

a longstanding concern about the accuracy of the Census Bureau’s

intercensal estimates of the State’s population. They have been

consistently lower than the independent estimates produced by the

State and less accurate than the State’s estimates when compared

to decennial census counts. Since the 2000 census data were released, we have additional concerns that the Bureau also underestimates the national population. The Bureau’s estimate for Census Day was 6.9 million persons lower than the number counted in

the census, a 2.5 percent underestimate. If the ACS is not controlled to accurate population estimates, the long form data produced will be seriously flawed. Evaluation of the intercensal estimates is a critical component in the evaluation of the ACS data.

We are concerned that success in the 31 comparisonsites and in

the Nation’s largest jurisdictions will be encouraging but not definitive. They may form a sufficient base to suggest the potential, but

not to demonstrate the ability, of the survey to collect high quality

small area long form data across the country 9 years from now.

We are concerned about how data that are released from the

ACS in the years 2006 and 2008 can be evaluated for accuracy

since they will be so far beyond the 2000 census. We are concerned

about whether these jurisdictions will have the same coverage and

quality as the 2000 decennial census and as the data published for

larger cities and counties.

There are case studies and anecdotes to suggest the usefulness

of the ACS; however, a continuous and systematic evaluation is

needed.

We recommend that continuing the successful partnerships created in the 2000 census process and expanding them to assist the

Census Bureau in planning and evaluating documented usage and

promoting the ACS.

As the role of the ACS is determined for the 2010 census, the

dominant issues are cost, coverage, quality, and confidence. We recommend that the 2010 census planning include a contingency for

a long form questionnaire until a positive decision to use the ACS

can be made.

And we strongly recommend that a decision date, along with

milestones and critical measurements, be established and monitored to support a recommendation and decision to use the ACS.

It should be monitored annually for variables, identified in advance, that are critical to its success. Such critical measurements

include cost, sample sizes, response rates, data quality, and the

status of the master address file.

It is our hope that an ACS that is appropriately funded for full

development will improve the 2010 census and meet the Census

51

Bureau’s goals to provide annual timely information to States and

local governments.

We offer our continued assistance in evaluating the procedures

and results of the 2000 census, the ACS, and in planning the 2010

census.

We certainly want to thank members of the subcommittee for

their continuing oversight of census programs and for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions

that you have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gage follows:]

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Hernandez, the Population Association of America,

from the Department of Sociology at State University of New York

in Albany. Mr. Hernandez, welcome.

Mr. HERNANDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

subcommittee, for this opportunity to present the position of the

Population Association of America and the Association of Population Centers on the subject of the American Community Survey.

I have submitted written testimony to the committee which I will

summarize this afternoon.

The PAA and APC strongly commend the Census Bureau for initiating the American Community Survey in 1996 and for vigorously

pursuing its development. The PAA and APC strongly endorse the

ongoing development and evaluation of the ACS. The ACS is a potentially cost-effective alternative to the decennial long form beginning in 2010. But to realize its potential, the ACS must be subject

to a thorough and scientific review with respect to its content, design, and estimation protocols.

The most important condition that must be met if the ACS is to

be successful is that the ACS must be fully funded for each year

during the present decade. This raises the question of what sample

size is required for the ACS if it is to provide timely, high quality

data for local areas. With continued population growth, a constant

sampling fraction implies that sample sizes would increase. Therefore, we recommend that the Census Bureau develop a sampling

plan for the next decade that takes into account population growth,

and that it develop a budget reflecting sampling needs for each

year. We also recommend that the Congress take necessary actions

to assure full funding for the ACS during successive years.

This brings us to five issues involved in evaluating the quality

and usefulness of ACS data: the organization of a full-scale evaluation; weighting and intercensal estimates; topical content; evaluation of test data; and response rate. In view of the limited time

available today, I will discuss the first two of these, the organization of the full-scale evaluation and weighting and intercensal estimates.

First, in view of the complexity and magnitude of the task of

evaluating the ACS and the substantial expertise available outside

the Census Bureau, we recommend that the Bureau implement the

following potentially fruitful mechanisms for organizing the evaluation. First, it should convene a standing committee of persons from

within and outside the Bureau to propose innovative evaluative approaches and analyses of existing and future ACS data. Second, it

should create a mechanism for identifying and funding researchers

both within and outside the Bureau to conduct these analyses.

Third, it should convene an annual conference devoted to the ACS

research, where these and other researchers share their analyses

and discuss data quality, idiosyncracies in the data, experiences

when sharing data with local community leaders, and so forth.

Fourth, it should publish these research results to foster wide distribution and comment. Fifth, it should develop a formal mechanism for making changes to the ACS in light of these research findings and experiences.

59

In view of the need for an evaluation that spans the years remaining in this decade, we recommend that the Census Bureau develop and promulgate specific, measurable benchmarks that will

allow the Bureau and the Nation to judge whether the ACS is moving successfully toward the goal of providing high quality data with

long form content. These benchmarks should include both the technical quality of the survey and the costs and benefits of the ACS

relative to long form data collection. We also recommend that the

Census Bureau report annually to the Congress on the ACS, and

whether it is meeting technical and cost-benefit standards that

would justify replacing the long form on the decennial census in

2010.

One of the most challenging technical issues for the Bureau will

be developing effective weighting and estimation procedures. The

ACS, like other Bureau surveys, must apply weights to the results

from a sample in order to derive population estimates for various

social and economic characteristics. These weights are based on

intercensal estimates developed by annually updating decennial

census data with results from demographic analyses. But the quality of these intercensal estimates deteriorates over the course of the

decade. Moreover, Census Bureau comparisons of 2000 Census results with intercensal estimates strongly suggest that the quality

of the migration component of the demographic analysis has declined during the past decade. The national statistical system is not

adequately measuring either the number of emigrants leaving the

United States or the number of immigrants in specific categories

which are growing in importance.

We commend the Bureau for planning to improve its intercensal

estimates, both by feeding ACS results back into its procedures for

updating intercensal estimates, and by improving the international

migration component of its demographic program. As the process of

developing these procedures begins, we recommend that the Bureau cast a wide net in seeking approaches that might prove effective. In particular, we recommend that the Bureau consider introducing new questions in the ACS to identify and estimate the number of foreign-born persons in various categories who reside in various communities in the United States. We want to emphasize that

improving intercensal estimates and hence sample weights for local

areas is essential to the success of the ACS.

The Census Bureau plans full-scale annual ACS data collection

in 2003. We commend the Bureau for its innovative plan to use 5

year moving averages as the foundation for estimates for small geographic areas and populations. This approach implies that a fullscale evaluation of ACS data for the smallest geographic areas cannot begin until the date for the full 5 years between 2003 and 2007

are collected and processed. We are confident of the Bureau’s capacity to make an assessment of whether the statistical properties

of the ACS are comparable to long form census data. But the evaluation of ACS data must also include considerable attention to the

utility of the data, a judgment that can be made only by decisionmakers, planners, and scholars who use data for specific purposes.

We recommend, therefore, that Federal, State, and local agencies,

as well as private sector users, be included among those conducting

60

evaluations of the quality and utility of the ACS when the full 5

year moving average results become available.

Not until evaluations are complete in 2008 or later will the Nation have the information required to know the quality of the ACS.

We recommend, therefore, that the Bureau continue to plan a 2010

census which includes full-scale long form data collection. We judge

the marginal cost of planning for long form data collection in the

2010 census to be small compared to the potential social and economic costs that would accrue if the ACS were not successful and

if long form data were not collected in 2010.

A third possibility should also be considered; namely, the continued collection of ACS data and collection of long form data in the

2010 census. This might be the best decision if, for example, the

ACS data are judged to be of acceptable quality and substantial

value for States, metropolitan areas, and other large population

groups, but of unacceptable quality for smaller geographic areas

and populations.

A fourth possibility should also be explored seriously—an experiment in the 2010 census that includes both ACS data collection

and long form data collection in some areas in order to permit a

direct comparison of results between the ACS and the long form.

Our recommendations are aimed at an accurate, well-run, and

responsive ACS that will meet the diverse and changing needs of

policymakers.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present the PAA and

APC position on the American Community Survey. I would be

happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hernandez follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Dr. McMillen.

Ms. MCMILLEN. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity

to participate in this hearing. In discussing my agency’s use of data

from the decennial census long form and our anticipated uses of

data from the American Community Survey, I would like to focus

on four areas this afternoon: the statistical reporting on critical

topics in education; the ways the ACS can help enhance our current data collection capacity; the ways the ACS can help enhance

the utility of ongoing data collections; and the importance of good

data to ensure fair and equitable distribution of funds for American

education.

Turning first to reporting. My agency, the National Center for

Education Statistics, is congressionally mandated to collect, collate,

analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of

education in the United States and other nations. To meet this

goal, we collect and disseminate data on all aspects of American

education from pre-school through adult education. Our collections

range from universe or census surveys of basic data, to cross-sectional and longitudinal sample surveys, to assessments of student

performance. While our universe surveys collect and report basic

data at fine levels of geographic detail, most of our sample surveys

where we get our rich data are restricted to national and, in a few

cases, State-level data.

In addition to our collections, we frequently use Census sample

survey data from the Current Population Survey to report on a variety of population measures, such as: drop-outs, educational attainment, limited English proficiency, usually all at the National

level.

One of the most frequent requests we hear from our data users

is a request for more data at State and local levels. We have used

the decennial census data to help fill this gap. Since 1980, data

from the decennial census have given a once-a-decade snapshot of

the economic and social demography of individual school districts

across the Nation. This Decennial School District Project produces

a special set of tabulations that describe the attributes of children,

families, and households in school districts. These tabulations are

then combined with school district education data that is collected

by the Center to give a more complete profile of the education enterprise in the United States.

We ask then, how can the American Community Survey help us

with these data? In a number of cases the overlap between the

ACS long form and the CPS questions will allow us to drill down

into more detailed levels of geography on key items. Just as one

brief example. The annual NCES report on dropouts draws heavily

upon data from the Current Population Survey. The ability to describe the young adult population out of school without a diploma

or the equivalent at the State or school district level would be a

major complement to the national data that are in this annual report.

In a different type of application, estimation models can be used

to combine detailed data from the CPS with data from the ACS to

create reliable estimates for small geographic areas. Each of our reports using national level CPS and decennial census data would

68

benefit from the availability of more current and more geographically detailed data on education and other population characteristics.

I would like to go back now to the decennial data. Even though

our Decennial School District Project provides detailed demographic, social, and economic data, that project has been criticized

because the data will be old by the time they are released in 2003.

If we implement the ACS beginning in 2003, it will provide the opportunity for us to obtain data for large school districts as early as

2006 and for all school districts by 2008, with annual updates after

that. Instead of waiting a decade for the contextual data from the

census long form, we will have the capacity to have these data updated annually. We see great value for our own uses and our users

community in the annual availability of these State, county, and

school district level data.

I would like to talk briefly about the ways the ACS can help enhance our current data collection capacity. There are a number of

important education topics that are of interest to researchers and

policymakers that involve relatively small or difficult to identify

populations. As one example, there has been growing interest over

the last decade or so in home schooling. While all reports suggest

that this phenomenon is growing, it is still a rare enough event

that it is difficult to measure with a typical household-based sample survey. Other examples of populations that can be difficult to

measure include: pre-school learners, a topic of great interest to

educators at this point, children and adults with limited English

proficiency, Native Americans, and recent immigrants.

How can the American Community Survey help in this arena?

We see great promise in using the ACS as a means of expanding

the range of topics about which we collect data. The proposed sample size of the ACS ensures that sufficient numbers of households

containing these rare populations could be identified throughout

the decade. More extensive, targeted surveys could then be conducted in the households apart from the ACS using the households

that are identified with the characteristic of interest.

Looking next briefly at the ways the ACS can help enhance the

utility of our ongoing data collections. Sample surveys are likely to

yield differences in estimates of basic population characteristics

and are likely to have some under-representation of hard-to-enumerate demographic groups. Differences in estimates can be a

source of confusion for some of our data users. One solution is to

use the best estimates available for the population characteristic

and post-stratify, or control, the population to these estimates.

How can the American Community Survey help us here? The official intercensal population estimates that you have heard about

this afternoon are developed from the previous decennial census

and are used for the controls in many surveys. In fact, we use them

in some of our surveys. Once the ACS is fully operational, the

methods that are used for official intercensal population estimates

will be able to incorporate data from the ACS to improve these estimates that we use as population controls in many surveys.

And I would like to turn last to the topic of funds distribution.

As the statistical agency within the Department of Education, we

are asked to help prepare and run programs for the allocation of

69

education funds. Within the Department of Education, $12 billion

are distributed, in whole or part, based on school district level estimates of the number of children ages 5 to 17 in families below the

poverty level. These data are currently only collected on the census

long form. In 2001, $8.6 billion of that $12 billion were appropriated for title I grants to local educational agencies. A number

of other large formula programs also allocate funds based on a

State’s share of title I or on census poverty data.

Beyond the Department of Education, the distributions of funds amounting to another $9 billion from other Federal sources are also

tied directly to census long form data. In addition, some States also

use the census long form data as a component of their individual

compensatory education formulas. This use of the long form data

is critical to the education enterprise.

Again, looking at how the ACS can help us. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires the use of updated

estimates of children ages 5 through 17 in poverty at the school

district level using the most recent census data approved by the

Secretary of Education. Currently, the Census Bureau uses modelling techniques that were reviewed and recommended for use by

the National Academy of Sciences to produce these counts. The

availability of ACS average annual estimates of poverty data at the

county and school district level has the potential for improving the

estimates of counts of children in poverty that serve as the basis

for the distribution of billions of education dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the importance and utility of data from the American Community Survey

to the education enterprise in America. I am submitting for the

record a document prepared by my agency that identifies the potential use of ACS data in fulfilling funds distribution and reporting responsibilities as specified in law for the Department of Education.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that NCES and the Department of Education have an ongoing need for data currently collected through the decennial census long form. We believe that if

the American Community Survey becomes a reality we will have

more current data at a finer level of geographic detail to use in a

variety of important education applications.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your consideration and welcome

the opportunity to provide additional information to you and the

subcommittee, if you should desire. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McMillen follows:]

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Let me thank all of you for being here

today. I did read your statements last night and thank you for the

effort you went to to prepare those statements.

You are basically a cross-section of the data user community. Dr.

McMillen is from the Federal Government side. How would you

rate, and how do you think your peers rate, the cooperation that

the Census Bureau has used in developing ACS, that you are allowed to provide input and they are adjusting it accordingly? Do

you and Dr. Voss feel comfortable from the small data concerns

that both you raised? Does it need to be more? Do you have other

specific recommendations of what the Bureau can do better to keep

close working relationships with the data user community?

Mr. VOSS. Well I will start with a brief answer. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I think that line of communication has been superb and

I say that on the basis of first-hand experience. In my testimony

I give three or four examples of where conversations between data

users and the staff developing the ACS within the Bureau led to

changes that improved the ACS design, and those lines of communication remain open. I am very pleased with that level of communication. I as a data user know who to call within the Census Bureau; I do not go through a large hierarchy of permissions to talk

with the staff, I know who those people are. We have good conversations and I think out of those conversations comes for the

data user community a better understanding of some of the difficulties the Census Bureau is facing, and on their part, some of the

needs of the data user community. I rank their cooperation in that

regard very highly.

Mr. MILLER. Would someone else care to make a comment?

Ms. GAGE. I would, Mr. Chairman. I would like to concur with

what Dr. Voss has said. Perhaps it is because the survey is in development, but the ACS staff has been excellent in seeking user

input and accepting it.

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Hernandez, you had a comment?

Mr. HERNANDEZ. I would certainly concur in that judgment as

well. I think the Census Bureau is very open and responsive to the

needs and interests of the user community. I would like to reiterate

that in view of the complexity and magnitude of the evaluation

task before the Census Bureau for the ACS that we do have specific recommendations for creating a process which would maximize

the amount of information that the Bureau receives and help to ensure that the Bureau makes the best possible decisions in the evaluation process and in providing information back to us as users

and to the Congress.

Mr. MILLER. For the other statistical agencies within the Federal

Government there has always been a good relationship, I think.

Ms. MCMILLEN. Yes. Yes. Most of the statistical agencies sit on

an OMB-organized committee that participates on a regular basis

in meetings.

Mr. MILLER. A question I raised with Mr. Barron is whether this

is duplicating, and I know we have to wait to fully evaluate ACS.

But do you envision the possibility, without a significant increase

in the number of questions, of combining—we keep referring to the

Current Population Survey—of combining other surveys into this? Mr. Barron said in the report that just came out that it is an $11

109

billion estimate for the 2010 census. A lot of money. But one way

some of my colleagues will look at it is to say, well, if we are going

to be able to consolidate some reports. Do you envision that is possible if this is successful and after we have a chance to evaluate

it? I guess the earliest we can evaluate it is probably 2008.

Mr. Hernandez, I will start down at your end.

Mr. HERNANDEZ. I think the issue does require substantial scrutiny. But based on my experience to date, I think it would be very

difficult to eliminate any other particular survey because of the

level of duplication. Although there is some duplication between

the long form and the CPS, for example, the two data collection

systems serve very different purposes. The ACS, the long form

data, provide a lot of very valuable information for local areas,

whereas the national surveys are focused at the national level and

can provide detailed information for only some of the larger States.

Because the national surveys with which I am familiar, including

the Current Population Survey, go far beyond the ACS or the long

form in their topical content, it is hard to imagine, how it would

be possible to obtain the information that has proven so valuable

from the CPS, if the CPS were eliminating without drastically expanding the ACS or the long form content, which would be problematic for a variety of reasons.

Mr. MILLER. Anyone else care to comment? Dr. McMillen.

Ms. MCMILLEN. In the case of my agency, we actually are in a

situation where one of our projects is being melded into the ACS.

In 1980 and 1990, we had to undergo a major effort to remap each

decade all the school district boundaries in order to have the data

and then go to special efforts, at a considerable cost to the Government, to have the Census Bureau tabulate the data to the school

district boundaries. In part, because of the requirement that we

have biannual estimates of children in poverty to satisfy title I

funding allocations, we now are updating those boundaries on a

regular basis. Because those are there, that information is being incorporated into the ACS and they are now treating school districts,

as they did in the 2000 census, school districts are being treated

as a level of geography so it is no longer a special tabulation. We

will be getting data now, once the data come on line, we will get

data on a regular basis.

So there is one small example of a project that has been enhanced. We have better data more often and we will not have this

considerable buildup of cost and effort every decade in order to get

these data.

On the topic of the Current Population Survey, I think they are

very different surveys. The Current Population Survey can ask

questions in much more detail because of the nature of the survey.

It is, albeit over the phone, a personal interview. But I think there

is real value of having the two combined. As I said in my prepared

comments, if you have rich data from CPS on something like dropouts at the national level but you do not have district or county or

really State level data, then you can take the variable that overlaps

and drill down on that item to give the detail at the geographic

level. That is sort of the basic way you can use it. I think there

also is a lot of potential down the road as the data become available for doing modelling at the national level with CPS and then

110

combining those data with the ACS data to get a better idea of how

some of those things might be occurring at the local level.

Mr. MILLER. Ms. Gage.

Ms. GAGE. Mr. Chairman, we do not use a lot of the national surveys because they do not provide small area data. My concern with

trying to combine those data collections would be that the burden

would increase on the ACS and stress the number of questions that

are being asked of the public.

Mr. VOSS. I agree with the panelists in what they have said. You

did ask I think right at the end of that set of questions about when

we can sort of evaluate the ACS. I thought I would respond to that

part. Certainly, we do not have to wait till 2008. The ACS is already under evaluation in a very small group of counties. The year

2002 will be a very important year because the evaluation of the

ACS-like national supplemental survey can be compared with the

long form. That will be the first time we will have for the Nation

and for States and other large areas the opportunity to really compare the kind of data that the ACS delivers under slightly different

procedures and residence rules than does the long form. So 2002

will be important for large areas from that survey. And then from

around the country the 39 test sites will be able to use the ACS

data that has been gathered in recent years on an intensive basis

to compare against the long form for very different kinds of counties. They were very carefully selected so that different issues that

arise—for example, the ones that I am most interested in, counties

with highly seasonal populations, what does it mean when you are

looking at data that has been gathered over the course of a year

from a slice in time in April where Wisconsin counties are not as

populated as they are in the summer.

So those are the kinds of issues we will be able to look at in

2000. A phase-in will begin in 2003 and there will be data coming

out from the ACS every year. It will only be 2008 before the full

phase-in is brought in place.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is I guess for the entire panel. Why is the ACS not as precise as possible? If somebody could take a stab at that, at why do

you think it is not as precise as it could be. I heard you, Mr. Voss,

make the comment.

Mr. VOSS. Let us agree on what we mean by precise. I used the

words ‘‘precise’’ and ‘‘reliable’’ in my testimony in several places.

And what I basically mean by that is the level of confidence you

have in an estimate that comes from that survey. In polling terms,

an estimate that comes from a poll of 30 percent plus or minus 2

percent is a more precise estimate than 30 percent plus or minus

5 percent. So it is the level of confidence, the level of uncertainty

in that estimate.

The reason the ACS is not going to deliver estimates as reliable

or as precise as the long form is because the sample is not as large.

Right now, the long form went to roughly, I cannot remember, 1

in 6 I think.

Ms. MCMILLEN. Seventeen percent.

Mr. VOSS. Seventeen percent. Roughly 1 in 6 of the population.

Right now, with 3 million addresses per year, we are at about 1

111

in 8 in terms of the sampling fraction. And the sampling size and

the sampling design largely dictates precision and confidence and

the ACS simply is not as large, Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Let me ask Ms. Gage a question. Ms.

Gage, would you prefer the long form versus the ACS?

Ms. GAGE. I do not have an opinion at this time. In California

we do have two counties participating in the ACS. I have done

some very rudimentary examination of those data and as I compare

them to the Census Bureau’s current estimates that are controlled

by age, gender, and race-ethnicity, they are faring better on some

variables than others. They are not faring well on total population,

they are not faring well on the race-ethnic distribution in those

counties, and they are not faring well on the age distribution of our

younger populations.

So at this time, without an evaluation and track record of the

ACS, I would prefer a data collection that is comparable and equitable for all levels of jurisdictions.

Mr. CLAY. And a question that may be somewhat specific to California. It is my understanding that the residency rules for the ACS

require a person to be living at an address for 2 months to be

counted. Migrant laborers often are not at a single address for 2

consecutive months. Do you believe that the procedures in the ACS

are adequate to capture the migrant labor population in California?

Ms. GAGE. I do not know at this time, Mr. Clay. That is something we are certainly very concerned about. And although Tulare

County was chosen as a county with seasonal population, there has

not yet been enough study of those data.

Mr. CLAY. I see. Thank you.

Dr. McMillen.

Ms. MCMILLEN. To add to that. It is 2 months or if you have no

other usual place of residence you are counted at the place you are

at at the time. So that should help with the migrant labor problem.

Mr. CLAY. Well, some migrants do not have a permanent address.

Ms. MCMILLEN. That is my point. If they do not have a permanent—it is 2 months or if you do not have a permanent residence

you are counted where you are at the time. So that should help

with that.

Mr. CLAY. I see.

Mr. MILLER. Let me ask another question about the questions on

the survey. You heard Mr. Barr raise the issue and, as you know,

there was a little controversy when the long form came out originally. There is always the pressure to add more questions to get

more data. As data users, I am sure you would love to add a few

more questions. But it does affect response rates I believe, potentially it could affect response rates, and there is the cost factor.

How do you feel about the controlling of the number of questions

asked and the limitations on that? I think a couple of you would

love to have more questions asked.

Dr. Voss.

Mr. VOSS. Well I will try. I found Mr. Barr’s questions interesting. The questionnaire length is very long. And I mean no disrespect to Mr. Barr in this answer because I agree with him that

it has to be looked at. But the reason that the ACS form is 24

112

pages is not because each of us has to answer all 24 pages, it is

long in length so that families with many members will have an

opportunity to essentially count all of their members. In my household where there are two of us, I think I probably would have to

answer, if I answered fully, four or five of those pages.

So to count pages is not to really condemn the length of it. I

think if the major——

Mr. MILLER. It is a privacy question also that Mr. Barr was raising.

Mr. VOSS. Well, I agree. I think I will not try to speak to the privacy issue. I have several points on this. Let me make one more.

I think it was 1978, I may be off by a year, when OMB at the last

moment slashed the long form by about I think a third. And I recall the outcry that came from that; that a long form that omitted

that many questions could not meet the demands of the Federal

Government, of the laws that subcommittees like your own, Mr.

Chairman, had put into place. I think from that experience we

learned that cutting even a few questions is very difficult. And the

voices that were heard came not only to the Census Bureau but to

the oversight committee at the time. It was not an easy time because it was so late in that decade coming into the 1980 census.

The questions are there because there are laws behind them.

And making the questionnaire briefer is a challenge for everyone.

Mr. MILLER. Is the 2000 census the shortest one for the long

form questions? It is shorter than the 1990 census. Do you know

if it is going to be, of course, we do not have the data yet, but is

that going to cause any problems that we are aware of right now?

I am not sure what questions we may drop, but we did drop some

questions. The only one that was added was the one about grandparents taking care of grandkids or something that was a requirement of the Welfare Reform Act.

We do have a vote going on. Let me see if anyone else wants to

add a comment at all, a concluding statement.

Mr. VOSS. The questions that were dropped for 2000 were largely

on the housing side. I think that the users of those data have figured out that there is other ways that they might make use of

them. That is an example of how questions can be dropped. But a

question on marital status was dropped from the short form and

then immediately the Census Bureau was criticized for having

slipped that over to the long form. So it is a process that must be

done in consultation with the Congress.

Mr. MILLER. Let me conclude the hearing by saying, since there

is a vote on the floor, thank you all very much for coming today

and responding to our questions.

Before I conclude, Jane Cobb, sitting to my left, who is staff director, is leaving at the end of this week and moving to another

part of the Federal Government, over in FEMA, actually. She has

served a decade on Capitol Hill and she has done a great job. She

has been an invaluable member of the subcommittee and I appreciate her and wish her well at FEMA. I hope there are no disasters

that you help bring about over there. [Laughter.]

Let me say thank you again for coming.

113

I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ and witnesses’ opening statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the written testimony of Robert Hunter, executive director of Hillsborough County, FL County/City Planning Commission; and Greg Williams,

State demographer of Alaska; and Tom Gallagher of the State of

Wyoming’s Department of Employment.

In case there are additional questions that Members may have

for our witnesses, I ask unanimous consent for the record to remain open for 2 weeks for Members to submit questions for the

record and that witnesses submit written answers as soon as practical. Without objection, so ordered.

Thank you again. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

Æ