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

46–496 CC 1998

PROMOTION OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR CENSUS

2000

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT 

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 29, 1997

Serial No. 105–81

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

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 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director 

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MOSCHELLA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL

JUSTICE

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Chairman 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

ROBERT CHARLES, Staff Director 

MICHELE LANG, Special Counsel 

IANTHE SAYLOR, Clerk 

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 29, 1997 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of: 

Morgan, Michael L., commissioner, Department of City Planning, city 

of Milwaukee; and Leon A. Meyer, director, City Planning Department, 

city of Cincinnati, accompanied by Agnese Brienza, senior planner, 

Hamilton County, OH ................................................................................... 10

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

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 74

Hastert, Hon. J. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 5

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 67

Meyer, Leon A., director, City Planning Department, city of Cincinnati, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 27

Morgan, Michael L., commissioner, Department of City Planning, city 

of Milwaukee, prepared statement of .......................................................... 13

(1)

PROMOTION OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR 

CENSUS 2000 

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. J. Dennis Hastert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastert, Davis of Illinois, Barr, Barrett 

Cummings, and Turner. 

Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director; Michele Lang, special counsel; Ianthe Saylor, clerk; David McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk. 

Mr. HASTERT. The subcommittee will come to order. It is my 

pleasure to welcome our guests and witnesses this morning and 

good morning to Mr. Morgan, Mr. Meyer and Ms. Brienza, I believe. We will work on that. 

I also would like to extend a welcome to my friend and colleague 

from Illinois, Mr. Davis, who will be joining us from the full committee and who has asked to join us here today. 

The hearing is the first in a series of hearings we will be holding 

to review the Census Bureau’s preparations for the critical task of 

conducting the 2000 decennial census. Throughout the 105th Congress, this subcommittee will be taking a very close look at the activities of the Census Bureau and will be placing a particular emphasis on ensuring the accuracy, reliability and inclusiveness for 

all Americans in the census process. 

Today, we will begin with one of the most important elements required for accuracy in the decennial census, the conduct of an effective promotion and outreach program to ensure that every American understands the importance of participating in the census by 

completing his or her form. 

The General Accounting Office has reported to the Congress that 

voluntary participation is the cornerstone of the decennial census, 

because it is the voluntary public response rate through mail-back, 

which is the most important and accurate and effective and efficient source of census data. The significance of a large mail-back 

response is not just because it reduces the staff, time and money 

required, but that it produces the best quality census data. Thus, 

it is clear that the most fundamental and important task before 

this subcommittee as it exercises its oversight responsibilities to 

2

ensure an accurate census, is to examine the efforts of the Bureau 

to achieve a high response rate through promotion and outreach. 

Unfortunately, we enter the 2000 census with a historic trend of 

a declining response rate over the last three censuses. When coupled with the persistent differential undercount of minorities, the 

problem becomes even more serious. These declining response rates 

have focused and forced the Bureau to devote greater resources to 

nonresponse followup, a costly procedure which relies on sending 

enumerators into individual housing units to collect census data. It 

is estimated that in 2000, the Bureau will expend on an average 

of $25 million for each additional percentage point of nonresponse 

to the mailed out form. 

For every percentage point of mail response, there is $25 million 

less in resources to spend on promotion and outreach efforts in 

hard-to-count areas. 

However, not all the news is bad. Despite its problems, the 1990 

census was the most thorough census in history, accounting for 

98.4 percent of the population. The most notable and publicized 

failure of the 1990 census was the majority of persons in the 1.6 

percent of the population that were missed in 1990 were minorities. 

In a nation where the concepts of one person, one vote, and equal 

representation for all in government are sacred principles, it is imperative that these problems be resolved in the 2000 census. 

On the bright side, as reported by the National Research Council, 

half of the 1990 undercount was due to missed households; that is, 

households which never even had an opportunity to participate in 

the census. Why did this happen? In a nutshell, because of inaccurate address lists. Without an accurate address list, the Bureau 

was unable to get a census questionnaire to these individuals and 

didn’t know where to send an enumerator to count them. 

I am pleased to see that in the preparation for the 2000 census, 

the Bureau has placed a major focus on improving its efforts in address list development. While I still have some questions and concerns about this process, it appears that the Bureau has made 

great strides in ensuring major improvements in the master address list. Through these efforts alone, the Bureau has laid the important groundwork to eliminate up to half the problem of the 

undercount. 

However, where our real challenge lies, and the reason that we 

are here today, is to find out how we can reach the other half of 

the undercounted population, which is comprised of households 

which did receive census questionnaires but failed to return them 

for one reason or another. 

This challenge, while not new, is not beyond our capabilities to 

solve. In fact, one of my predecessors at this subcommittee, the 

former Chairman Sawyer of Ohio, offered some wise guidance to us 

on this subject back at a hearing in 1989. Mr. Sawyer stated then 

what is still true today: Minorities and the poor are more likely to 

participate in the census if they have genuine confidence that their 

participation will bring them a step closer to playing a more meaningful and fuller role in this Nation’s system of government. 

Today’s hearing is all about how we can translate that vision into 

a reality in time for the 2000 census. 

3

The key to realizing that vision is promotion and outreach at the 

local level. It should be the building block on which the 2000 census is based. Our success in promotion and outreach, and ultimately in the census as a whole, quite frankly, depends far more 

on local mayors, school districts, business and civic leaders and volunteers, than it does on Washington-based statisticians, administrators and consultants. 

These leaders in local communities, not statisticians with calculators, are the ones able to capture the unique characteristics of 

their community necessary to reach out and communicate the vital 

importance of individual participation in the census. 

We are lucky to have with us today three individuals who fill 

this vital role of community leader that will determine the success 

of the Census 2000 effort. They are uniquely qualified to address 

the issues involved with promotion and outreach, and can speak 

from experience as to what works and what doesn’t. 

To this end, we will focus on drawing their expertise out in three 

separate and distinct areas. 

First, we will revisit and review the local efforts of two communities which were very successful in the 1990 census. Conventional 

wisdom holds that minorities in hard to enumerate areas simply 

won’t return their census forms and thus are doomed to be undercounted forever. I am pleased to say that this just isn’t true. 

I commend Mr. Michael Morgan, whose efforts as the deputy director of the Department of Administration for Milwaukee, WI, in 

the 1990 census, were instrumental in Milwaukee’s achieving the 

second highest mail response rate of all metropolitan areas in the 

Nation. In fact, the response rates in Milwaukee for hard to enumerate minority areas exceeded the average national response rate 

for nonminority suburban areas. Through his efforts in developing 

a blueprint for promotion and outreach, responsible for obtaining a 

full and complete count of the citizens of Milwaukee, Mr. Morgan 

has created a national example that should disabuse us once and 

for all of all prejudicial notions about what is and isn’t possible 

when it comes to including all Americans in the census count. 

In another community, Mr. Meyer and Ms. Brienza of Cincinnati, 

are tremendous examples of how the dedicated efforts of local leaders in assuring a complete count at all local levels can result in $1 

million of increased Federal funding for a locality, funding that 

would have otherwise been lost had it not been for both their careful preparation for their census and a meticulous followup after the 

census was completed. 

Second, we will examine how well the Census Bureau has 

learned from their experience of 1990 and whether it has taken advantage of the knowledge gained through the successful techniques 

implemented by localities in 1990. As with most problems in our 

society, the real solutions are, and in this case, were found at the 

local level. I am most eager to see if these hard won lessons have 

been learned or if we are on a path to repeat easily correctable mistakes in the year 2000. The Bureau has indicated in written materials and at conferences that it understands the key role of building 

partnerships in the communities. 

4

Has the Bureau listened to the success stories of the localities in 

1990? Has the Bureau done a good job of communicating its plans 

to those at the local level who will be implementing it? 

By exploring the Bureau’s plans for 2000 from the perspective of 

local leaders who must actually implement them, we will be in a 

good position to answer these questions. 

Finally, we will examine the larger scope of Census Bureau activities for 2000 and determine how they measure up to the standard of increasing accuracy through greater voluntary citizen participation. This concern cannot be emphasized enough, because it 

strikes at the heart of whether the 2000 census represents valid 

data that can serve as a base for almost every government function 

for the next 10 years or whether it is just merely just another set 

of numbers whose validity is in question and is viewed by the public with the kind of skepticism usually reserved for political polls. 

Each of us should be asking at least three questions: First, 

whether the Bureau’s overall census plan encourages or discourages political empowerment in these hard-to-count communities 

through participation in the census? 

Second, does the Bureau’s overall plan work to overcome a deep 

mistrust in the government process which many of these hard-tocount communities hold? And third, through its actions, is the Bureau sending contradictory messages to the American people about 

the need for individual participation in the Census 2000? If these 

questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, there is a great cause 

for concern. 

I look forward to exploring these issues in depth today and at 

this time I would like to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, for his opening statement and 

also thank him for his bipartisan assistance in pursuing our common goal of having the best ever census in the year 2000. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. J. Dennis Hastert follows:]

5


g:\graphics\46496.001
6


g:\graphics\46496.002
7


g:\graphics\46496.003
8


g:\graphics\46496.004
9

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this first of a number of hearings we will hold on the important 

issue of the census. As we all know, the Constitution requires us 

each 10 years to hold a census so we can determine how many representatives we should have in each State in the country. 

Over the course of time, of course, we have also seen another reason for the importance of the census and that is because so many 

Federal dollars flow as a result of where the people live in this 

country. 

As we will find out this morning, my home community, Milwaukee, has done an excellent job of counting people in our community and it has done so with the relatively high number of minorities. 

If you were to put together a black list or a Hollywood film you 

probably would want three elements in it. You would probably 

want money; you would probably want power and you probably 

want sex. I am not suggesting we throw sex into the mix, but we 

already have incentives for a good census, the issues of power and 

the issues of money. Because the number of representatives that a 

community will have or a State will have in Congress, of course, 

is dependent on the count, as is the number of Federal dollars they 

receive. 

So, I believe that there are built-in incentives for local units of 

government to do a very, very good job in counting the people in 

their community and for that reason I am very proud of the job 

that my home community has done. 

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the ranking member. We are very pleased 

to have three distinguished witnesses with us today: Mr. Leon A. 

Meyer, the director of the City Planning Department of the city of 

Cincinnati, and with him is Ms. Agnes Brienza, a senior planner 

with Hamilton County. 

Now, I would like to yield to Mr. Barrett to introduce the gentleman from Milwaukee, WI. 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I am very 

pleased to introduce Mike Morgan, who has come out on the same 

plane I did last night, to share his testimony with us this morning. 

As I indicated, Milwaukee did a fabulous job in 1990 in performing our census duties. There was a real local involvement that 

was spearheaded in large part by Mr. Morgan, and he played a key 

leadership role in performing the census in Milwaukee. He has 

been with the city for many years. He is a fine member of our community and a fine member of my neighborhood, and it is nice to 

have you here. 

Mr. MORGAN. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Mr. HASTERT. The Committee on Government Reform has in its 

rules that we swear in all of our witnesses. So would you please 

stand and raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HASTERT. Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Morgan, would you please lead off? 

10

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL L. MORGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, CITY OF MILWAUKEE; AND 

LEON A. MEYER, DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 

CITY OF CINCINNATI, ACCOMPANIED BY AGNESE BRIENZA, 

SENIOR PLANNER, HAMILTON COUNTY, OH 

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on 

National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, good 

morning. I am Michael Morgan, commissioner of the Department 

of City Development of Milwaukee, WI. 

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on 

this important subject. Eight years ago, as was indicated, I was responsible for getting a complete count of the citizens of Milwaukee 

during the 1990 census enumeration. We believe that our efforts 

succeeded. The district office of the Census Bureau that includes 

the city of Milwaukee had a mail response rate of 82 percent, the 

best in the United States. Metro Milwaukee’s mail response rate 

was 60 percent, the second highest of all metro areas in the Nation. 

The 1990 census found 628,000 people living in Milwaukee. State 

and Federal projections had estimated our 1990 population at only 

about 600,000. 

The additional people found by our efforts have meant tens of 

millions of dollars in additional State aid to the city of Milwaukee 

and helped preserve a congressional seat for the State of Wisconsin. 

Milwaukee is the 17th largest city in the United States, and 40 

percent of our population are minorities. Historically, minorities 

have been undercounted by the census, as has been indicated here 

today, and one reason we suspect that that is true is because that 

part of our community is very distrustful of government. 

Also, our minority residents are often poor. Their mobility makes 

them hard to find. What we found is that folks in the poorer community tend to move a lot and it is very difficult, from time to time, 

to find them. 

The city of Milwaukee, of course, wanted an accurate census 

count to ensure that we had fair levels of congressional representation and our fair share of State and Federal aid. 

Under the leadership of Mayor General Norquist, we aggressively pursued a complete count strategy in 1990 and our objective 

was to use local people to do people-to-people contact, to support 

the Census Bureau’s own data collection process. We needed to do 

three things very well: One, build trust among the minority community, regarding the census; and to reassure people, No. 2, about 

the confidentiality of census information; and then, No. 3, heighten 

the appreciation for the importance of the census among our citizens. 

Our complete count program actually began about a year before 

the census date. We got started by interviewing the dozens—interviewing dozens of local government officials and 50 neighborhood 

and social service agencies. We talked to staff at homeless shelters, 

community clinics, halfway houses, immigrant service organizations, food pantries, just among others. 

We asked everyone for their suggestions on how to reach the 

undercounted community, the minority community. Using the insights provided by these groups, we devised our complete count 

11

program, following some general principles, and I will go through 

them real quickly. 

No. 1, get census information to places patronized by target audiences and use languages they understand. We distributed literature in unconventional places like resale shops and currency exchanges. A local tortilla manufacturer put census promotional labels on 70,000 packages of tortillas. 

Our materials were printed in a variety of languages, and these 

are materials that we produced locally. We produced materials in 

Hmong, Spanish and Russian, just to name a few. We happen to 

have a fairly large Hmong and Russian population. 

We did presentations at community events like Cinco de Mayo, 

Black History Month presentations, Vietnamese new year, bamboo 

volleyball tournaments. We found that bamboo volleyball was very 

popular upon the Hmong and Vietnamese community, and at powwows. 

Our TV promotional ads featured Reverend Jessie Jackson and 

professional athletes, and rap singers. We even awarded gifts to 

the first baby born on census day. 

No. 2, we hired staff from the community that we wanted to 

reach. Our outreach staff was intimately acquainted with the 

neighborhoods and residents of Milwaukee’s central city. They were 

known and trusted. And we also referred qualified local residents 

to the Census Bureau in its search for enumerators. 

And No. 3, we recognized that the complete count required effort and money. The city of Milwaukee spent over $400,000 in cash and 

donated services and will have to spend about that much again in 

the year 2000 to ensure a thorough count in the next enumeration, 

census enumeration. 

Again, we started our effort almost a year before the Census Bureau did on April 1, 1990. Our project was kicked off with publicity 

in the fall of 1989 and we had an office opened in Milwaukee a full 

year before the Census Bureau was functioning in January of that 

year. 

We knew that our advance work was going to be real critical so 

we got started right away. 

I understand now that the Census Bureau has proposed many 

strategies to improve response rates to the 2000 census and we 

support these changes. We also offer the following suggestions to 

ensure the count—to ensure that at least the count in Milwaukee 

and Wisconsin, is complete. 

No. 1, we feel the Census Bureau ought to consider local complete count projects as part of the team. We should not be a separate and distinct—we shouldn’t have a separate and distinct Milwaukee or Wisconsin project. It should be part of a holistic approach to try to reach the undercounted population and the Census 

Bureau should be the lead agency on this team effort. 

Also, the Census Bureau should try to take advantage of local expertise, knowledge and expertise of the community. That means 

promptly sharing information about issues like mail response rate 

in particular neighborhoods so local complete count staff can provide help in reaching those areas. The certification of local outreach 

work to the census enumerators could help improve the Census Bureau followup rate also. 

12

No. 2, we feel the Census Bureau must hire local people who are 

well acquainted with census city neighborhoods for enumeration activities in those areas. We have to eliminate barriers such as newspaper ads indicating that enumerators would be subject to FBI 

checks, suggesting that a more onerous investigation would be conducted to check the background of potential enumerators. We want 

folks to be hired from the community in which they live. 

Now, we understand that the Census Bureau has to do a background check and that’s something that we are familiar with, but 

the mere fact that you mentioned that an FBI check is going to be 

performed tends to dissuade some folks, who may otherwise be 

qualified, from applying for a job with the Census Bureau. 

No. 3, the Census Bureau should offer appealing incentives for 

mailing in the completed forms. We did some very simple things. 

For example, we teamed up with local fast food restaurants and we 

made coupons available for people who turned in their census 

forms and it worked. 

And No. 4, we feel that Congress must understand that a peopleto-people count, we feel, is the most effective way of doing the census enumeration, and Congress must provide the resources necessary for such an effort. 

There really is no option, no other option, if we want a full and 

accurate count. 

I have submitted a written statement regarding some of the 

things that we did in Milwaukee in much more detail, more detail 

than I have already talked about here today, and I would ask that 

that written statement be part of the record. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Barrett, for inviting me 

here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morgan follows:]

13


g:\graphics\46496.005
14


g:\graphics\46496.006
15


g:\graphics\46496.007
16


g:\graphics\46496.008
17


g:\graphics\46496.009
18


g:\graphics\46496.010
19


g:\graphics\46496.011
20


g:\graphics\46496.012
21


g:\graphics\46496.013
22


g:\graphics\46496.014
23


g:\graphics\46496.015
24

Mr. HASTERT. Your written statement will be made a part of the 

record, as is everyone’s written statement will be made a part of 

the record. Thank you very much for being here and your excellent 

testimony, and we will have a few questions later. 

Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman 

and members of the subcommittee and guests. Thank you for inviting Cincinnati to come and be a part of the hearing. I invited 

Agnese Brienza to join me because she was the driving force behind the 1990 census. I had just gotten my job as planning director 

at the city of Cincinnati in 1989, right before the 1990 census was 

due, so I wanted to bring Agnese because I knew you would have 

some questions about how that was put together. She will be very 

instrumental in the year 2000 census as well. 

Your letter asked for information concerning the 1990 census experience in promoting census participation, hard-to-reach areas. I 

would summarize that up in one word, and that’s BLITZ. You find 

every agency, every organization, every church group, every member that you possibly can to be a part of this process. You also use 

every kind of communication device you can, TV, radio, handouts, 

brochures, et cetera. Then one of the very effective things we do, 

and I am sure everybody does, is the school system, when your 

children come home from school they can bug you pretty heavily 

about what is the right thing to do. So, the school system is a very 

important part of this. 

But I would like to make three other main points. No. 1 is the 

census numbers and data has got to be user-friendly, and I will get 

into why in a minute. Getting buy-ins from the governmental and 

nongovernmental agencies that are being contacted is an absolute 

must. 

No. 3 is a local review program that’s been used in previous censuses must stay. If the one number census means that the local review program goes, I would suggest that we need to keep the local 

review program. 

User-friendly, the numbers must be user-friendly when they are 

done. Thirty-nine of the census tracks in the city of Cincinnati include both Cincinnati figures and county figures. We are in Hamilton County. Ms. Agnese Brienza is the senior planner with Hamilton County in Ohio. 

Thirty-nine of those census tracks in the city of Cincinnati have 

city figures as well as county figures. So, when we start to use this 

information, we have to take out the county numbers and keep the 

city numbers when we use the census information. This has impacts on performance measures and how we do those numbers. 

Every time we look at census information, we have to go back to 

ground zero and basically massage those numbers. If we could have 

census tracks that were completely within the city, that would 

help. 

Now, I realize that’s against history and the census information 

has used geological features as well as man-made features to establish those lines, but if you are really trying to get to municipalities 

you have got to make it easy for the municipalities to use these 

numbers. 

25

The next most important one is: Are we collecting these numbers 

for the Census Bureau to have a number or are we collecting them 

for us to use? And I think that’s the basic—that’s the basic question. 

For instance, Jacksonville, FL, which is ahead of Cincinnati 

when it comes to using performance measures, they have a booklet 

out, ‘‘Life in Jacksonville, Quality Indicators for Progress,’’ which 

I highly recommend to people if they are interested in that subject. 

They have a distinct advantage because their county and city 

have the same boundaries so they don’t go through this process of 

trying to eliminate figures that happen to be in the county and not 

in the city. 

This leads me to point No. 2, getting buy-in from governmental 

and nongovernmental agencies and businesses. In order to entice 

all areas of the country to be willing to perform this monumental 

task that we go through every 10 years you must illustrate how the 

census will benefit the area. The ‘‘what is in it for me’’ attitude and 

is really important in this situation. 

In 1990, the total population, the first figure was a little over 

352,000. We had done projections each year actually from 1980 to 

1990, and we were sure the number was higher than that, so we 

actually went out and counted all those census tracks that were on 

the borders of Cincinnati and came up with an additional 12,000 

people. That has translated into receiving an additional $4 million a year to the city of Cincinnati. Over a 10-year period that’s $40 million. 

That is one way to reduce the budget, but not a way that Cincinnati would like you to do, actually. 

In order to sell the idea of buy-in, the Census Bureau may want 

to collect a number of stories similar to Cincinnati’s and then put 

out a pamphlet and say, this is how the census, a correct number, 

can affect your community. 

I don’t want to leave the impression that I am blaming the Census Bureau for Cincinnati’s original undercount. It was an honest 

mistake, but one that needed correction, a correction that was accomplished through the combined efforts of the Census Bureau, the 

city of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. It was allowed to be made 

possible because of a local review program, which is my third point. 

The local review program is really important to keep or at least 

some way of doing that because there must be a way to refute and 

change incorrect numbers. That’s really so important in municipalities to get the correct number. So I strongly urge that some kind 

of local review program be kept. 

At hearings such as these, I know there is a tendency to emphasize the negative. However, I want to say a few positive words. I 

went to the Annapolis, MD, April 9 through 11 conference that was 

put on by the Census Bureau and it was well done in every aspect. 

The entire conference was well-planned, well-executed. There were 

even special dietary needs that were respected. 

The Census people obviously wanted to do a better, less expensive job of getting the right numbers, and there are four fundamental strategies for Census 2000: Partnership, simplicity, technology 

and statistical methods are exciting. It is the implementation of 

these strategies that I am somewhat worried about and my reVerDate jul 14 2003 08:39 Dec 05, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46496 46496
26

marks are intended to help in this process. Obviously, I am going 

to continue to work on this for the next 3 years and so is Ms. 

Brienza. 

We are open for questions any time you want. We can submit, 

if you like, more statements about how we did the 1990 census now 

that Mrs. Brienza is on board with me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyer follows:]

27


g:\graphics\46496.016
28


g:\graphics\46496.017
29


g:\graphics\46496.018
30


g:\graphics\46496.019
31


g:\graphics\46496.020
32


g:\graphics\46496.021
33


g:\graphics\46496.022
34


g:\graphics\46496.023
35


g:\graphics\46496.024
36


g:\graphics\46496.025
37


g:\graphics\46496.026
38


g:\graphics\46496.027
39


g:\graphics\46496.028
40


g:\graphics\46496.029
41


g:\graphics\46496.030
42


g:\graphics\46496.031
43


g:\graphics\46496.032
44


g:\graphics\46496.033
45


g:\graphics\46496.034
46


g:\graphics\46496.035
47


g:\graphics\46496.036
48


g:\graphics\46496.037
49

Mr. HASTERT. That would be very much appreciated, and we will 

put that in our record. 

I would like to ask a few questions. First of all, Mr. Morgan, you 

say in your testimony that you were motivated to pursue an aggressive census outreach strategy because of three things: One, 

without a full and accurate count Wisconsin might have lost a congressional seat; two, local reapportionment and redistricting were 

at stake; and, three, $3 million of Federal funds stood to be foregone. 

In fact, with the outreach efforts you conducted you found 28,000 

more people than State and Federal projections had estimated living in Milwaukee and, in fact, your mail response rate was the second highest, next to Indianapolis, of all metropolitan areas in the 

Nation. 

Do you think that other communities have to be on the verge of 

losing a congressional seat to be motivated like you were? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, you know, I can’t speak for what motivates 

municipalities and States, but I can state definitively what motivated Milwaukee and Wisconsin, and it is what is stated in both 

my oral, as well as my written statement. 

We found it so compelling of a challenge that we felt something 

had to be done. We couldn’t stand idly by and not put together a 

campaign to get as accurate a count as altogether possible. 

The city of Milwaukee had had some difficulty with its population before. After the 1980 census, we were very much dissatisfied with the counts that we got. We had a special census in 1985 

and once again we showed that the State projections in terms of 

Milwaukee’s population had been lower than the actual number of 

folks living in our municipality. So we had had sort of a running 

feud, if you will, with the State, in terms of how it estimated the 

population of the city of Milwaukee. 

When it came to the 1990 census, because we did have these 

compelling factors that we were faced with, we thought something 

had to be done and we decided to spend some money to put together a campaign to work with the Census Bureau. 

Mr. HASTERT. Do you think that, having been through the 1990 

outreach effort, which is now documented you say in several thick 

volumes of information, and we are looking forward to looking at 

those, that it will still be necessary to hire outside consultants to 

assist your efforts? 

Mr. MORGAN. The Census Bureau has proposed some things that 

I think will make the 2000 enumeration much better. It appears 

to be moving away from its policy of buying or asking for public 

service announcements to a more ad-specific professionally done 

approach to trying to reach the undercounted population. 

It appears to be moving toward working toward partnerships 

with local municipalities and States in terms of who it is that they 

will hire. It appears that they are going to continue to use the local 

review, which means that we will share information, so that if we 

have questions or if we can provide some assistance, we can do so 

very early on. So they have made some real, I think, progressive 

things with regard to the way that they will go about trying to 

count people in the year 2000. 

50

However, I still feel very strongly that municipalities and States 

have to take the bull by the horns and do whatever they can to ensure that the envelope is pushed and that they are getting as accurate a population as possible, particularly those municipalities like 

ours that have a high percentage of minority folks, who tend to be 

undercounted the most, who tend to be distrustful of government. 

Our poor communities tend to be very mobile. We really have to 

find those individuals in a consulting community, and we happen 

to know who they are because they helped us the last time. We 

need to find them to help us do a good job. So I think, yes, we will. 

Mr. HASTERT. You indicated for the 1990 you began your planning for outreach efforts almost a year before the actual census 

date. Is the city of Milwaukee thinking now about its efforts for 

2000? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, we are, in fact. Of course, your asking me to 

be here today prompted a lot of that thinking. We had exchanged 

a few memos. 

I am in the Department of City Development now. We are in real 

estate and business development. But the current director of the 

Department of Administration, I know, is looking at some of our 

volumes of old data and trying to decide now what our strategy will 

be for the 2000 census. 

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Morgan, your testimony stated that Milwaukee’s promotion and activity campaign was in full swing in the fall 

of 1989, while the census office was not even fully staffed until 

January 1990. 

Should Congress follow your lead by mandating and funding full 

field staffing and outreach programs to start in the fall of 1999 

rather than waiting until January 2000? 

Mr. MORGAN. I am not sure full field staffing would be appropriate that early in advance, but I think there are opportunities for 

the Census Bureau to begin to gear up a little bit earlier than they 

did the last time. 

We had a good relationship with Stanley Moore in the Chicago 

regional office, but they were a little bit late in joining with us in 

terms of our effort to try to get a complete count. So, we would like 

to see them talk to us much earlier, maybe participate in some of 

the planning to start to gear up before—and mobilize for the census count a little bit earlier than they did the last time. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. 

Mr. Meyer, what do you think about that? 

Mr. MEYER. It is interesting you should ask me because we started a year and a half ahead of time as well, and Ms. Brienza could 

probably speak about that more. But, I think it is absolutely important to start ahead of time. I think what you have to do is to get 

people’s attention. It may not be a full staff, but just get people’s 

attention so they do start ahead of time. I think that’s key. Just 

starting in January and going to April 1st is not enough time. 

Mr. HASTERT. Not enough? 

Mr. MEYER. No. 

Mr. HASTERT. My time is up. I think we will go through a second 

round. But at this time I would like to yield to Mr. Barrett from 

Wisconsin. 

51

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you may know and 

as my democratic colleagues may know, Milwaukee and Wisconsin 

does come to this issue from a unique perspective because, as Mr. 

Morgan indicated, we were basically on the bubble in 1990 and we 

were very close to losing a congressional seat in addition to the millions of dollars that were discussed. 

After Milwaukee and Wisconsin did an excellent job in counting 

the residents of the State, we, in fact, earned some rewards or 

some plaudits from the Census Bureau for the excellent counting 

job that we did. After receiving those awards, we were then told 

that a statistical adjustment would be made and we would lose a 

seat. That led the State of Wisconsin, along with several other 

States, to become involved in litigation that went all the way to the 

Supreme Court, on the issue of whether there should be an adjustment made, a statistical adjustment. 

I mention that because I think the perception is out there that 

the Democrats are on one side of this issue and the Republicans 

are on the other side of this issue. 

I feel very strongly that you can have an accurate count, in particular in urban areas, if you take the type of aggressive approach 

that the city of Milwaukee took. Again, I applaud Mr. Morgan and 

our mayor, Mayor Norquist who recognized the reality that if Milwaukee is going to receive the dollars that is due it and the political representation that it is due it, it would take some aggressive 

and creative thinking. 

So, I was amazed during this period in Milwaukee to see this 

campaign, and it was literally a campaign, where local leaders 

were involved, where, as Mr. Morgan indicated, grass-roots citizens 

got very involved in this process. I think it not only helped the 

campaign, but I think it actually helped the community. I think 

what it does is it forces local political leaders sometimes to go to 

areas where they would not go as often, and I think what this does 

is it—whether the local leaders like to do it or not, it forces them 

to get in touch with the people. 

Just a couple of questions, if I could. 

Mr. Morgan, in your testimony you mentioned that one of the 

things that was effective was printing some of the information in 

other languages. We have in Congress pending legislation, Englishonly legislation, which, frankly, I think would make it far more difficult to have that type of outreach in other languages. 

How important was that for the drive in Milwaukee, being able 

to print those documents in other languages? 

Mr. MORGAN. I think that was extremely important for our efforts. It is real important that, particularly in our immigrant communities, that they feel comfortable with the way information is 

presented, because to give our Hmong population, for example, 

they are a little bit distrustful of government because of the repressive nature of the governments from the countries that they immigrated from. So, when they come here, it takes a little bit of time 

before they understand that our governmental system is a little bit 

different from maybe what they had back home. 

We thought it was real important that we put into the hands of 

the leaders of that community information in their native language 

52

that could be explained, that could be disseminated and understood 

about our community. 

So, I think it is extremely important that we have census information in the language of those communities in which we are 

working. 

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Meyer or Ms. Brienza, did you use any type 

of outreach in other languages? 

Ms. BRIENZA. No. In Hamilton County, it is not necessary. 

Mr. BARRETT. You don’t have the immigration population that 

you have in other parts of the country? 

Ms. BRIENZA. That’s right. 

Mr. BARRETT. In terms of local involvement in Cincinnati, did 

you use a lot of local people to get out? 

Ms. BRIENZA. Oh, yes. We started a year and a half to form the 

complete count committee. What we did, we had two honorary 

chairs, the mayor of the city of Cincinnati was then Charlie Luken, 

who was in Congress for 4 years, and the president of the county 

commissioner, who was Bob Taft, who is now the Secretary of 

State. Also, we have a chair from the private sector, Ray Clark, 

who was the CEO of the Cincinnati Bell. 

We did an incredible outreach and we documented in this thick 

volume all of the outreach we did, especially in the minority neighborhood, in the black and also other minority because in Cincinnati 

we have an Appalachian community. They don’t trust the government too much. We work very close to the Omnibus Coalition. We 

have at least 10 or 15 organizations directly or indirectly in the 

Omnibus, and we work with them very closely. 

Then we work with the press, all the schools, from the universities to the Headstart Program. We sent fliers home in each school 

district in Cincinnati. We have 22 school districts, two vocational 

schools, obviously two large universities and a large college. So, we 

used all the newspapers and newsletters. We used the Inquier 

Newspaper, the large newspaper in town, and the corporate community. We had incredible help from the corporate community, 

from Cincinnati Bell to Proctor and Gamble, General Electric and 

others. We had a cooperation with the CBC, which is a large group 

of CEOs that’s the Cincinnati business committee. The outreach 

was incredible. 

We designed our own logo. By the way, I would like to say that 

the office, the Census Office in Detroit Michigan, that’s our region, 

they were always very helpful, especially Dwight Dean, the director, who is still there now. And we had incredible help from them, 

too. 

We had our logo, that says ‘‘Count Me In,’’ in many size and 

forms, from stickers to large banners and on the buses, the metro 

buses in town. 

We also asked Public TV, Channel 48, to produce a 3 or 4 minute 

commercial and it was aired on the major stations for as a public 

service announcement. 

Mr. BARRETT. Did the local television stations donate time? 

Ms. BRIENZA. Yes, on public service announcement. 

Mr. BARRETT. At a good time or in the middle of the night? 

Ms. BRIENZA. Oh, no, no, a good time. Also Channel 48, obviously, did the production completely free. 

53

The press was incredible. We had a lot of editorial. In Hamilton 

County, it is a very diverse county because we have 37 municipalities and 12 townships. Obviously, the city of Cincinnati is the 

major city. We worked with each mayor of those 37 municipalities 

and each township trustee, so that the cooperation was great. 

We didn’t have a congressional district issue, but one issue was 

for some of the municipalities they would lose their city status if 

they were less than 5,000 so their effort was very incredible. 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

want to thank all of you for being here today. I want to also congratulate you on what you have been able to accomplish. 

Let me ask this: Fiscal year 1996, the Census Bureau asked for $6.6 million for promotion and outreach, but was funded at $1.2 

million. In fiscal year 1997, the request was $18.8 million and the 

appropriations was $8 million. You both, all of you indicated in 

your testimony, that a successful campaign must start early. It 

seems to me that this underfunding of the outreach and promotion 

process put us at a catch-up situation. 

What would you recommend to be done with regard to that issue, 

Mr. Morgan? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, as I indicated before, I think there has to be 

a realization that if we are going to reach those undercounted 

groups in our cities and in our rural areas, we are going to have 

to spend dollars. If Congress is serious about an enumeration that 

counts every individual, then we are going to have to get into the 

community, spend the dollars necessary, employ the techniques 

that we know have been successful and get the job done. 

So, I am not sure what spending level is appropriate. That’s 

something for Congress to try to understand. But there has to be 

an understanding that there is going to be a need for dollars. 

That community that we are talking about is a very difficult 

group to get at. Conventional techniques sometimes don’t work. So 

it becomes a little bit labor-intensive, hiring individuals to go into 

those communities or hiring individuals from those communities to 

go back into those communities to work and to find those individuals. 

So, the frustration and the balancing—the frustration may be 

that while on the one hand we don’t want an estimate, but we 

want a complete count, the dollars aren’t there to do those things 

that are necessary to get that complete count. There has to be a 

balancing and we need the dollars. You need the dollars. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I live in such a community, so I understand exactly what you are talking about. 

There is a tremendous distrust of the government and people, 

when they see anything coming from the government, it’s likely to 

be thrown in the trash unless it is something from IRS. I am just 

wondering, the workers who you all hire to go into difficult areas, 

who are they? I mean, how do you convince them that their job is 

very important? These are tremendous jobs. So you wonder about 

who it is that is being hired. And I am just wondering, how do you 

make sure that they are folks who—I mean, how do you get them 

up and get them excited about what they are doing? Because I 

54

think this kind of work can be rather—it is grunt work, and I am 

sure the pay is not extremely high. 

Mr. MORGAN. No, no, the pay is not. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How do you get them motivated? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, what we did was, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and hire workers to go into a community that had 

folks who were dedicated and working in their community, we suggested to the Census Bureau that they hire folks who work in the 

homeless community and to get into the homeless community and 

to get the count there, that they hire folks who work in social service agencies in the Hispanic or the Hmong or the African-American 

community to work in those communities. 

And you get two things: You get folks who are trusted by their 

community, who if they say that the information is going to be kept 

confidential, individuals in that community are likely to believe 

them because they tend to be leaders in that community. 

They know where these folks are. The individuals can’t hide from 

them. They understand the community. 

And the other thing, of course, is that to the extent that you are 

able to have the Census Bureau hire these individuals, sometimes 

that means extra dollars for that worker who may be working on 

an income from a social service agency so there is a little bit of a 

bump. There is an economic benefit for those individuals to work 

with the Census Bureau. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last question. 

Mr. HASTERT. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. You know, President Clinton has 

proposed that 4,000 people be hired from our welfare rolls to do 

this, do some census work. Do you all have any opinions on that? 

Mr. MORGAN. I have been monopolizing the questions. I will 

defer to someone else. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No, you go ahead. 

Mr. MEYER. Go ahead. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Brienza. 

Ms. BRIENZA. I just want to say in 1990 we encouraged the Bureau of the Census, and they did, to hire local people. And so in 

our area, for instance, in Cincinnati, where most of the minority 

are, we have a very good organization already in place. We have 

a 52 community council. So we encourage—we did talk to each 

community council president to help us in the effort to count and 

include everybody, and also hire people from each community. So 

it was easy for them to be trusted. 

For the welfare, you know, the new goal that President Clinton 

has, I think it is in Cincinnati we already have something underway because we have a program that is called Cincinnati Works. 

It is lead by Mr. Phillips, who is a retired CEO. He works for $1 

a year. It is to revitalize the downtown. So the program, it is Cincinnati Works, they try to take people from welfare and train them 

for special work, and also provide baby-sitting, health insurance, 

all the other appropriate things. So what we can do, probably we 

can talk to Mr. Phillips and team up with him for the year 2000 

census. 

55

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Cummings, I would say, yes, I think we should 

look at welfare, former welfare recipients, as potential workers for 

the census. 

What we found in Wisconsin, through programs like New Hope, 

which is probably the best welfare reform proposed today, is that 

welfare recipients, if given an opportunity to work, if given adequate child care, if given adequate training, provide invaluable 

services to the community. And I see no reason why we shouldn’t 

look to that work force as a potential group to help us get a good 

enumeration in 2000. 

Mr. MEYER. I would like to respond to your first question, sir. 

I think you see the people who make this work sitting to my left 

and right. All you need to do is find a person like this in each community, and you’ll have your number by the time we’re done with 

the year 2000. 

I think that’s the trick is how do you get—how do you use your 

resources at the Federal level to find the commitment of a Mr. Michael Morgan and a Ms. Agnese Brienza. That’s the key right there 

because these people have put together the numbers for their 

areas, and the way they have done it is by their leadership is how 

it happens, how you trickle that down from the Federal Government, how you use the Federal staff to find these people, because 

I think that’s the easy way for the Federal Government to do it. 

They don’t have to do it themselves. Basically, the two people sitting to my right and left are the ones that did it in each of those 

two communities. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Can I say something? Also, I want to clarify one 

point. For the Complete Count Committee within Cincinnati, the 

in-kind stuff, our full time is so that—the person in Cincinnati Bell 

worked full time. We didn’t have any money. I mean, we didn’t 

have any budget. We just asked the corporate community, the private sector and they really helped. We asked for one company to 

do 1,000 fliers and another one to print it or design it. 

So we didn’t have any special budget for the Complete Count 

Committee. I don’t think money is the answer. Like we really need 

to look for people who have an interest and have love for the community and understand the importance of counting everybody. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Meyer, you make the point in your testimony that little is 

done these days because it’s the right thing. Our sense of truism 

seems to be weighing in the fear of citizens and for the majority 

of society. Our local communities must be able to see the relation 

to them of the census data with the resources. 

Do you have any other advice with the Census Bureau regarding 

ways they might effectively communicate the importance of the 

census in order to strengthen the willingness to participate in the 

outreach or promotion efforts? 

Mr. MEYER. I think that goes to my last answer is you’ve, again, 

got to find people that are really committed to the census number. 

I’m not sure how you do that. I think some people come on board 

because all of a sudden they’ve seen the importance of it. 

That’s why I suggested the pamphlet idea, to convince communities this is really important to them, and not just to the Federal 

Government just to find the right number and say, we now have 

56

so many billion people living in the United States. I think if you 

convince them it’s important to them, then you’ll get the right 

number. How you go about doing that, I don’t know. 

Mr. HASTERT. I’m sorry. Mr. Barr came in here. I’m sorry sir. 

Mr. BARR. That’s OK. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Morgan, to follow on questions you were responding to just 

a few minutes ago about temporary employees to assist in this particular effort, of course they can’t be compensated if they receive 

Federal assistance such as food stamp program, Federal housing, 

school, breakfast programs, job training partnerships and the Head 

Start. Have you experienced this prohibition as limiting the available pool of citizens that might otherwise be qualified to be hired 

by the Bureau for purposes relating to the 2000 census? Do you 

think that Congress should consider waiving this prohibition in 

order to make the pool of applicants as large as possible, as Congresswoman Carrie Meek, for example, has suggested in recent legislation? 

Mr. MORGAN. Congressman, I cannot recall those prohibitions 

you speak of as being a problem in 1990. Of course, that doesn’t 

mean it isn’t a problem, it just means I don’t have any present 

recollection that we had any real discussion regarding our inability 

to get folks who may have been on welfare or may have received 

the Federal benefits, some other Federal benefit, from working 

with the Census Bureau. 

It seems to me that to the extent that we would want to look at 

individuals in that pool as potential workers, we would do whatever we could to make our efforts successful in reaching out to that 

group so that if there is an opportunity, if there is a problem, and 

if there is an opportunity for waivers, I guess it should be considered. But I can’t say that that was a real issue for us in Milwaukee 

in 1990. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Do either of the other two witnesses have any experience or recommendation in that particular area? 

Mr. MEYER. I don’t really have any experience, but my immediate reaction is waive it. And that goes back to the idea that if 

we’re going to do this, we’ve got to get out of the box of our old 

way of thinking. You can’t do new things if you keep thinking in 

the same old ways. So, in this situation, as soon as you can ask 

the question, what came to my mind is, why not? I don’t see any 

reason why you shouldn’t do it. 

Ms. BRIENZA. I have to agree with Mr. Meyer, yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. 

Ms. BRIENZA. It’s one way to find people to really help, because 

it’s such a short time. So why not? 

Mr. BARR. I gather, both from reviewing some of you all’s written 

testimonies as well as just listening to some of the questions since 

I’ve got here, that you all believe that special outreach and promotion efforts are best left at the local level. Is that a fair statement? Do you all agree with that? 

Mr. MEYER. You certainly have to do them at the local level. 

Mr. MORGAN. I think the local municipalities should be equal 

partners with the Census Bureau in getting the outreach effort 

done. 

57

Mr. BARR. Mr. Morgan, I know that your effort was particularly 

successful in a lot of these areas in reaching some of the traditionally harder to reach groups in some of our communities; AfricanAmerican community, for example. Could you just very briefly tell 

me how you developed or perhaps how best we can develop a plan 

to target each individual ethnic and racial group so that we can 

best get that count? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, I can briefly recount what we did because we 

assumed that we didn’t know enough about those communities that 

were undercounted. What we did was we went to folks who work 

in those communities every day, who provide services for them, and 

we asked, what is the best way of going about counting individuals 

in that community? What are some of the challenges or obstacles 

to counting that community? And he told us what they were. 

We kind of, you know, had a, you know, an idea of what it might 

be based on, some writings on the part of sociologists around the 

country, and that is, you know, those communities tend to be distrustful of government. 

The confidentiality of the information gathered on the census 

form was really something that concerned a lot of individuals in 

the community. So based on that—and the other thing, of course 

is communicating with leaders in the community who then would 

communicate with others in the community. 

After gathering that information, we put together the campaign 

that we thought got at those challenges, began to erode some of 

those barriers, and we were fairly successful. 

I would hope that we would go through a little bit of the same 

process for the 2000 enumeration also; that is, make sure that we 

understand what’s going on in the community, what are those challenges, what are those barriers, and what are those best strategies 

for getting at that community. 

Mr. BARR. That would include, I presume, utilizing agencies such 

as social services agencies, United Way; agencies that are already 

active in communities working with those very citizens. 

Mr. MORGAN. Absolutely, Congressman. I think that’s the key. 

Even with the promotional efforts that we had in Milwaukee, we 

still found that the response mailed in from minority census tracks 

tended to be a little bit less than what we found in other census 

tracks. The real key, however, was getting workers into the community and finding those individuals, and getting those forms completed, and getting them back to the Census Bureau. That’s where 

their hard work is. That’s where you have to get in the trenches 

and have the foot soldiers out there, to use the military analogy. 

You get the foot soldiers out there and go house to house and door 

to door and get the information. 

Mr. BARR. OK. I appreciate the witnesses, and I appreciate very 

much, Mr. Chairman, your convening these hearings well in advance of when we’re going to have to be facing these problems so 

we can begin working now rather than later. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Can I say something? 

Mr. HASTERT. Yes. 

Ms. BRIENZA. I want to say two things. One, in Hamilton County, 

we were very concerned about counting the homeless. So, where we 

did organize lunches, I went a few times in the homeless shelter 

58

to have lunch with the homeless and all the appropriate organizations that worked with the homeless organization. So, they felt 

very comfortable to eat together and talk. 

And one other thing that was important in 1990 in Hamilton 

County, including Cincinnati, was the local review program. What 

the Bureau of the Census did in 1990, was give a chance to the 

community to check the housing unit and the number of people. As 

I understand from the literature that I received from the Bureau 

of the Census, for the year 2000, they’re going to eliminate the 

local review program, and I think that’s the most important program because it’s one way you can check the accuracy of the census. 

I don’t feel it’s that expensive. It shouldn’t be that expensive because we know that the technology today, a lot of communities are 

organized, and also, even if they do it with the land use map, they 

can easily double-check the census number. So, it seems to me that 

it’s going to be very detrimental to complete count to eliminate the 

local review program, which means check the census number after 

the April 1st count. 

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Morgan, one of the things that you had talked 

about and mentioned is you really did some—I think some probably 

unique thing, that is, put messages on the wrappers for tortillas. 

That was a real outreach which is a product of imagination and effort. So, that was a special effort. Each community, I would guess, 

is a little special in those regards. 

One of the issues I think is going to come down, a dialog that 

we’re having with the Federal Government and the Congress right 

now is that the Federal Government thinks, well, every community 

can’t be as unique as maybe Milwaukee was, so the easy way is 

just to take statistics and to figure out statistically where those 

people may be. 

I think that if you give communities the resources and the incentive to do the right thing, and that’s what the Constitution says, 

to count, to enumerate, you can get the job done, and even in a superior way. How do you feel about that? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, you know, our city hasn’t taken an official position, but I will tell you how I feel about it. 

Mr. HASTERT. I’m asking you for your feeling. 

Mr. MORGAN. At the end of the day, it seems to me the most accurate way of understanding who is there is to find that individual 

and count them. And understanding that that’s a hard thing to do, 

that you’re going to have to spend money to be creative, to get the 

job done, is something that I think that Congress needs to wrestle 

with a little bit in terms of you know what dollars are going to be 

made available to the Census Bureau and maybe even what dollars 

may be made available for local municipalities like Milwaukee. 

But it’s my feeling and I—you know, I’ve taken a look at some 

of the testimony, for example, that our Attorney General, Jim 

Doyle, made. It’s my feeling that constitutionally it seems that the 

best way to go about preserving the integrity of the process and understanding who is in our cities and who is in our States is to get 

out and count them. 

Mr. HASTERT. Do you feel that maybe a secondary benefit from 

this—and it’s probably a leading question, but I want your reaction 

59

to it, and, Mr. Meyer, you may react to this, too—is when you actually reach out, find that person, where he’s at, what his ethnic 

makeup may be or his beliefs, that you also reach out and find a 

person that the city can actually then help and make sure that the 

city or county or whatever agency is out there searching for those 

people, they can better serve. 

Mr. MORGAN. Absolutely. One of the things that statistical adjustments may not be able to get at is, right down to the census 

track, an understanding of actually who that individual is. With 

statistical analysis, and I’m not a statistician, it seems to me that 

you make certain assumptions, and sometimes those assumptions 

don’t lie on the census track level. 

In cities like ours where provisional services and dollars for social services are tied to the Census Bureau, it’s real important that 

you get down to that level in a way that you’ll never be able to get 

with that. 

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. MEYER. Yeah, I may echo that. Actually my first degree is 

with mathematics, and I have had some brush with statistics. 

What I would be concerned about is that you’re not really finding 

out who these people are. You might be able to count them and estimate the count, but when you get down to it, you want to know 

who they are. If we take that step down the road, there might be 

another step beyond that, which all of a sudden we’re doing just 

the statistical census in the future and not actually going out and 

trying to count as many people as possible. 

I’m real leery of a statistical census. I think we ought to use that 

information as a check, but I would be very concerned about getting rid of the local review program, as Ms. Brienza has stated. 

I don’t think we ought to use census as part of getting at the 

final number. We ought to use it as a check. 

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. BARRETT. Ms. Brienza, you indicated that there were corporate dollars for loaned employees. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Yes. 

Mr. BARRETT [continuing]. That were involved in that, which is 

an experience, I think, quite dissimilar from Milwaukee. I don’t recall Milwaukee using corporate dollars or loaned employees. 

My concern with that is do you think that there is any danger 

that if you use corporate dollars or loaned employees, that there 

might be areas where they don’t want to get involved. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Yes. I wasn’t clear. Mr. Ray Clark, who was a CEO 

of Cincinnati Bell, agreed to chair the committee. So after all, it’s 

very important for any corporation to have accurate census information, because, you know, they use it, that type information all 

the time from between the censuses. 

And the corporate—there was no corporate dollars as such. There 

was a budget with in-kind donations. 

I was asking to different corporations, because I had contacts in 

different places. They just agreed to help, but I don’t see any interest. See, their goal was to have a complete count with all the accurate information, you know, the socioeconomic information and others, the location, because that’s where they are. They sell their 

product. They install their phones. P&G sells their soap. You know, 

60

it’s good to have a complete count, good census information. It’s not 

only important for local government, but it’s very important for the 

private sector, too. 

Mr. BARRETT. Well, that underscores my concern a little bit, especially when you talk about the sale of products. For example, one 

of the controversies that I have been involved in is the sale of insurance and allegations that insurance companies may want to sell 

in one part of a community but not in another part of a community. 

So, if we accept in-kind contributions from a corporation that is interested in a very accurate count for one part of the community for 

sales or promotional purposes, but has no desire at all to serve another area, my concern is you may get corporations that say, well, 

these are the areas that we like to serve. Frankly, I think that the 

very area that we’re concerned about not reaching is the area 

where there’s not a lot of dollars, and so that the incentive is small 

up there to have an outreach. 

Ms. BRIENZA. They only help us to publicize the census, to make 

everybody aware that—you know, to answer the question, to answer the questionnaire. 

Mr. MEYER. Yes. I think one of the things you’re driving at is is 

there a conflict of interest here, and I don’t believe there is from 

the point of view that the corporation has helped us to get to the 

number. 

Now, if you get to the numbers in your scenario, and then the 

corporation is going to use that number in a wrong way, you’re 

going to still get to the number. Whatever you do, you’re going to 

have a number there, so you might as well get to the most accurate 

number. We can’t help how the corporations use it, whether they’re 

involved or not. So, they’re not involved from a conflict of interest 

point of view. They’re involved to try to get Cincinnati, and this 

was a community effort. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Yes. 

Mr. MEYER [continuing]. Community effort throughout the county and I think the city is even going to be more involved because, 

actually, we have a 40 percent African-American population ourselves, and I’m going to talk to this gentleman after we’re done 

talking to you all because he has a lot of good information that we 

can use. 

But to get back to the corporate thing, Cincinnati has always 

been a community that works closely with corporations. The community, the CBC, which is the CEOs for all the big companies 

downtown, and it’s probably lead by Proctor & Gamble as much as 

anybody, they’ve always been involved in the arts and in these 

kinds of developments, and they give us in-kind services, and it’s 

done in a manner that is not at all, I’m doing this and I want 

something back. I’m doing this for the community. And that’s really 

the flavor of it. I don’t have any problem with that in Cincinnati. 

Whether it would happen in another city, I can’t tell you. I don’t 

know that. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Can I clarify one thing? 

Mr. BARRETT. Go ahead. 

Ms. BRIENZA. In Cincinnati we have a program. It’s called Leadership Cincinnati. It’s on the 25th year, and I was a member of one 

of the classes. The Leadership Cincinnati is organized by the 

61

Chamber of Commerce. It’s also done in other cities. I don’t know 

if it’s in your cities—in your city. They have a class of 50—45, 50 

of the leaders of the community in different fields, and they are 

very—you know, they’re black and white; they’re men and women. 

They’re not necessarily—they’re people from a company. 

So when I called Ray Clark, who was then the CEO of Cincinnati 

Bell, I called him as an alumni of Leadership Cincinnati, he was 

my friend, because I knew that we have an organization. So it’s 

like a sorority in a sense. 

Mr. BARRETT. Yeah. 

Ms. BRIENZA. I wasn’t thinking about the company. I was thinking about the person. I knew he was a respected person in the community. People listen to him. And the public officials don’t have too 

much time to get involved in it. I called—so it’s kind of different. 

If I know some of the CEOs, it’s because I know them through the 

Leadership Cincinnati, not for what they sell or what they 

work——

Mr. BARRETT. OK. 

Ms. BRIENZA [continuing]. Only by what they want to give to the 

community. 

Mr. BARRETT. Chairman, I just have one other question. In 1993, 

Congress passed the Address List Improvement Act to allow local 

communities to review the census address list before the census. 

Has your community had any interaction with this thus far, this 

law? I have to admit I was in Congress, and it’s not one that jumps 

out of me. I thought maybe among census gurus it was one that 

sort of hooked in. 

OK. Mike. 

Mr. MORGAN. Well I can tell you this: I did a little bit of research, and I found that this had been passed, and I asked our demographer in the Department is that a good thing, and she said 

yes. 

Mr. BARRETT. OK. 

Mr. MORGAN. And as far as we’re concerned at this point——

Mr. BARRETT. OK. 

Mr. MORGAN [continuing]. It’s a good thing to have the ability to 

get the addresses. 

Mr. HASTERT. All right. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one final brief question. It’s my understanding that the Bureau’s current plan calls for 

direct sampling of nonresponses to begin within 14 days of census 

day. However, expert testimony that I believe was recently provided to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee cautions that 

the Bureau’s direct sampling scheme precludes making special outreach efforts at the sampling stage to hard-to-reach, hard-to-enumerate groups because those efforts would introduce bias into the 

nonresponse followup sample. I’m not sure all of that makes sense, 

but that’s apparently their view. 

The problem that I see is this seems to indicate that the Bureau 

will discourage special promotion and outreach programs. Mr. Morgan, do you have any familiarity with that or any comment on 

that? 

Mr. MORGAN. You know, I don’t have a lot of familiarity on that, 

but I would say that any policy that tends to discourage outreach 

62

into those hard-to-reach communities is not a good thing. You know 

what we should do and you know, I’m a little bit reticent to comment because I don’t really know if I understand your statements, 

Congressman, with regard to what the Census Bureau is proposing. 

Mr. BARR. I’m not sure I do either, but that was their testimony. 

Mr. MORGAN. Right, but I guess what I’m saying is we should do 

whatever we can to ensure we’re communicating with that community and that we’re reaching out to them and encourage them to 

participate in the census. And anything that discourages that I 

think is a negative. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HASTERT. One of the questions that plagues me from time to 

time is that we send out short forms in the census, and relatively 

easy for people to answer. Then, I think 1 in every 7 or 1 in every 

8 forms is a long form. Especially, in the hard-to-reach areas where 

people are a little bit questionable about their trust in government, 

I’m afraid that those long forms probably don’t get answered and 

in the sense that maybe they are thrown away as Mr. Cummings 

has talked about. 

Could you tell us what your feeling is? Was it easier. My view 

of this thing is the job of the census is to count people, make sure 

we know what the accurate number of people are in this country 

and where they live. The long form tends to get into a lot of different details at some time—you know, does your water come from 

a well, or, do you have a septic system, and all these types of 

things that maybe some people would like to know, but really isn’t 

the necessary stuff that we have to have to count people and make 

an accurate census. What was your experience with the short form 

as opposed to the long form? 

Mr. MORGAN. Our experience was that the short forms worked 

very well in terms of getting the undercounted groups to respond, 

particularly as workers went into those communities. On the other 

hand, I have to say that for planning purposes, the information 

that you pick up on the long forms is fantastic information. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN. But, you know, I tend to agree with you, Congressman, and that is that I think the primary function of the census 

is to count people, and if we can do that and get the information 

on the long form and do it well, then that’s great. But we should 

come down on the side of doing those things that get an accurate 

count, and I think the short form tends to do that better than the 

long form, in our experience. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. MEYER. I would agree with that, except, being somewhat into 

demographics, we need that information to be able to plan for our 

cities with the information that’s supplied on the long form. The 

problem is when you allow people to voluntarily fill it out, you almost self-select certain things. You get certain people filling them 

out, so your information might not be that accurate. 

So, what you need to do is the way the Bureau is doing it is statistically just send a certain number out to the population so that 

we keep those numbers fairly accurate from a statistical point of 

view about who’s filling them out. I would like to keep it, but as 

you say, we need the numbers. 

63

Mr. HASTERT. Would you be in favor—and this is, I don’t know 

what the statistical ability to do this and how the use comes out, 

but to me we need to make sure that everybody fills out a short 

form. That gives the information. And among respondents, you can 

go back out after the fact then and ask them to fill out a long form. 

If they responded once, probably they’ll respond twice. But the 

quality of the census is not a threat here. Do you think that would 

be a possibility? 

Mr. MEYER. If you’re directing that question at me, again, I think 

that that would have a tendency to self-select to certain groups and 

probably be statistically inaccurate. Also, once you fill one form out, 

my guess is, just from personal view, I don’t want to fill out another form. I mean, I don’t mind filling out the long form to start 

with, and I would do that willingly, but after I do the short form 

and then later come back and ask me to do the long form, I don’t 

think I would. I don’t know how the rest of the population would 

relate to that. 

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Morgan. 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, I don’t think that I really have anything to 

add. I think Mr. Meyer summed it up accurately. I really couldn’t 

comment on that. 

Mr. HASTERT. OK. Great. 

Let me ask you, according to the Bureau’s own documents, it admits that smaller governments may have trouble finding the time 

and resources to participate in the PLS, which is the Postal List 

Service, so crucial to an accurate list. And the basis is that if you 

have the right list of addresses, that you can go out and find the 

people. 

Doesn’t this argue for a greater level of Federal activity or supplemental funding to assist communities in these efforts? I mean, 

what is your experience with this? 

Mr. MORGAN. Our experience is that that’s of crucial importance 

that we get good and accurate lists, that we cross-reference whatever sources that are available for getting addresses as early on in 

the process as possible so that we know where the people are, 

where the addresses are, and we can respond back to the Census 

Bureau. 

For example, in our city there are areas where we’re building, 

there are new addresses, and there are areas where we’re, quite 

frankly, not getting units of housing or buildings down. 

It’s real important that the Census Bureau have accurate information in terms of what’s there and what’s not there anymore. 

They need accurate addresses. They need to cross-reference. We 

need to be involved in the dialog in terms of understanding how 

those lists are put together. 

Mr. MEYER. One of the things we’re doing in Cincinnati, we’ve 

actually already started——

Ms. BRIENZA. Yes. 

Mr. MEYER [continuing]. For addresses, and one of the things 

that’s going to be very important for Cincinnati is we have a Cincinnati Graphic Information System, or for short GIS, who I’m sure 

you’ve all heard of across the Nation, but ours is one of the most 

accurate, I think, across the Nation. 

64

We’ve been working on the accuracy of the addresses for the last 

8 years, and it will be very accurate for the year 2000. I think the 

census ought to look at those particular lists, because depending 

upon the particular community, that could be your most accurate 

information. And we’re doing that for other reasons, so we have a 

reason to have it accurate. 

Cincinnati Bell, we have a consortium of the city of Cincinnati, 

Hamilton County, Cincinnati Bell and Cincinnati Gas and Electricity. So, you can see they want those figures and addresses to 

be accurate. 

The addresses, when you get into it, is a tremendously complex, 

difficult issue. I think people have a tendency to say, well, what’s 

the problem? You have one house, you have one address. We have 

some homes that have four or five different addresses for some reason or other. You don’t know why, but it happens. 

When you start dealing with these issues in these geographic information systems, you find how complex. The Census Bureau has 

had to deal with these issues for a long time. And so I would suggest that they really look hard at those as being a source of information for them. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you. 

Mr. MORGAN. For illustration, Congressman, if I could, we have 

fairly jagged borders with other neighboring municipalities in the 

city of Milwaukee, and what we found was that in working with 

the Census Bureau—and by the way, the Census Bureau was very, 

very helpful and very cooperative in the 1990 enumeration with the 

city of Milwaukee. We found that in cases, whole blocks of our city 

were moved over to neighboring municipalities. Of course we——

Ms. BRIENZA. That’s right. 

Mr. MORGAN [continuing]. We corrected those. 

So we have a GIS system also that’s fairly sophisticated, maybe 

not as good as Cincinnati, but we’re very proud of it. And to the 

extent that we can work together with the Census Bureau in understanding the addresses and what’s in the city and what’s not in 

the city, that’s real important early on in the process. 

Mr. HASTERT. I also would like to welcome Danny Davis, who is 

a member of the full committee, not a member of the subcommittee, but we would like to invite him to ask any questions 

he might want to. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t have 

a lot of questions, but I did indeed want to make a statement. But 

I certainly appreciate the opportunity. 

I note, though, that both Milwaukee and Cincinnati had undercounts that were perhaps larger than the national average. I happen to come from the experience of having lived all of my life 

among individuals who were hard to count. I mean, that is, I have 

deliberately lived in what would be poor areas, and those individuals seemingly have a greater bit of difficulty participating effectively in many components of life. 

In terms of the undercounting, did you find that it was pretty 

much relegated to certain areas or certain type population groups 

or certain communities? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, first, in terms of the undercounting in the 

city of Milwaukee, I think our undercount was less than the naVerDate jul 14 2003 08:39 Dec 05, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46496 46496
65

tional average. In fact, we did a pretty good job of getting to the 

undercounted groups. 

To answer your question, that the groups that tended to be 

undercounted are the groups that—African-Americans and other 

minorities, Hmong, Spanish in the city of Milwaukee. Russian immigrant groups tend to be undercounted, and poor people, and we 

knew that was the case. And that’s where most of our efforts and 

most of our success in terms of finding undercounted folks were. 

We worked directly in those communities, both in terms of trying 

to get a good mail response and then getting out and going door 

to door enumerating folks, filling out the forms with workers from 

those communities. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would you suggest that there was a difference in the 

African-American community that was say, ‘‘middle class’’ and an 

African-American community that had lower socioeconomic standards? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes. Poor people definitely were—whether they’re 

African-American or white or any other ethnic group tended to be 

a lot more difficult to find and to count. More middle class, more 

educated individuals tended to do better in terms of mail response, 

and we understood that. We understood that going in because we 

did a lot of work in preparation for doing a good job of enumeration. 

Mr. DAVIS. Then are their special targeting efforts——

Mr. MORGAN. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Here toward a particular group, and 

what might those be? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, what we did in the city of Milwaukee, was 

to go into the community and find those individuals who worked 

with what we knew were the hardest segment of our population to 

count. We asked the Census Bureau to hire some of them, we hired 

some of them, and we sent them back into the community to work 

with those individuals, to get them to respond to the census—the 

Census Bureau forms, to turn those forms and to complete the 

forms. 

We worked through a variety of outlets, homeless shelters, social 

service agencies, mill programs. You name it, we did it. We worked 

with boys’ and girls’ club. We invited folks in. We did special promotions, too, that provided coupons for folks who responded. We 

did a variety of things that were targeted for specifically that segment of the community. That’s why I think we were successful, because we knew the greatest gain was getting at that group that 

had been persistently over the years been undercounted. 

Mr. DAVIS. I just have one—the promotions, I assume that these 

were creative promotions that sort of emerged in many instances 

through interaction——

Mr. MORGAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. With the people themselves. 

Mr. MORGAN. Absolutely. 

It’s easy for us to impose a solution on a problem rather than 

going in and trying to understand the problem and having the folks 

who work in those communities come up with a solution to the 

problem. And that’s what we did. We went into the community. 

The tortilla—we talked earlier about the printing of—you know, reVerDate jul 14 2003 08:39 Dec 05, 2003 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46496 46496
66

spond to the census on tortilla packages. You know, that wasn’t 

something that spontaneously came up during the course of a discussion between myself and the consultants, that was an idea that 

came up with Hispanics in the community that said, you know, we 

really ought to do something with this packaging because we know 

it’s reaching a large number of Hispanics. That’s just one example 

of a creative way of getting the message out to that hard-to-count 

population. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEYER. Yeah. I would like to respond a little bit to that. The 

undercount in Cincinnati was basically we just missed a bunch of 

dwelling units, or the census did. So we went back through, and 

we have a statistician that works for the city of Cincinnati, and we 

felt we knew pretty close what that number ought to be, and it was 

just off by too much, so we went back to find that. 

After being here today, though, and this is another way to communicate things, our population is 40 percent African-American, 

and you can bet we’re going to be talking to Mr. Morgan to find 

out how to make sure we get an accurate count out of that population as well. So, we’ll see what happens next in the year 2000. 

Ms. BRIENZA. One thing we did in 1990 for the complete count, 

we focused on the inner-city school and sent fliers home with each 

kid, and more than once. Also, we used all the community leaders, 

Boy Scout, Girl Scout, and—and also the Head Start program, the 

Community Action Agency. It’s very active in, you know, as a—

about 5,000 kids in the Head Start program in Hamilton County. 

So, it reached a lot of people. We encourage also the parents, you 

know, to participate. And we had different programs. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I assume that the schools were cooperative? 

Ms. BRIENZA. Oh, absolutely. The schools were absolutely, and 

also the Head Start school where most parents are anyway. So 

there was a lot of interaction. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my questions. I would ask for permission at the conclusion to enter a statement into the record. 

Mr. HASTERT. Without objection. Thank you for joining us today, 

and I just wanted to say that you weren’t here for the beginning, 

but Mr. Morgan’s city of Milwaukee was the second best city as far 

as getting information back in the whole Nation because of the efforts, and they actually did a better job than the Census Bureau 

did. 

I welcome a member of our subcommittee, Mrs. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. I would like to know if I could put 

my opening remarks in the record. 

Mr. HASTERT. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:]

67


g:\graphics\46496.038
68


g:\graphics\46496.039
69


g:\graphics\46496.040
70


g:\graphics\46496.041
71

Mrs. MALONEY. Right. Well, congratulations on doing so well, Mr. 

Morgan. The Census Bureau has been talking about spending 

roughly $100 million to advertise the 2000 census. Do you think 

this will help your local efforts? Would you recommend that most 

of the advertising be targeted at hard-to-count populations or directed to the general public? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, I—yes, it will help, it will help tremendously. 

And I think there has to be a balance between a strategy of broadly 

promoting the census and a strategy of a targeted efforts to promote the census in those undercount efforts. In fact, I would go so 

far as to say that the preponderance of the dollars should be spent 

in trying to get at that undercounted community because it is a 

very difficult community to get at. 

I think the Census Bureau should think strategically about the 

form in which it advertises to ensure that it is using outlets that 

will get to that community; that is, you know, the PSA sort of approach, public service announcement sort of approach, is good in 

terms of general knowledge about the importance of the census. 

But you really have to be a little bit creative in terms of getting 

to the undercounted community in a language that they understand with individuals that they trust. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Would other people like to comment? 

Well, you mentioned getting to them in a language that they understand. We’ve heard some reports that there were problems with 

translations used in the promotion materials of 1990. And did you 

experience, any of you, any such problems with translations used; 

and if so, would you describe the problems and how we would address them? You’ve brought up the point it’s important to reach 

them with people they know, with their language. Was there any 

problem with the 1990 census in that direction? 

Mr. MORGAN. You know, I’m happy to say that we worked well 

with the Census Bureau in getting the language, the information, 

translated into languages for those targeted communities that we 

had to reach. 

In fact, Stanley Moore was very helpful in working with us in ensuring that we had the information in the language, in the form 

that we needed it. 

Mrs. MALONEY. What in your opinion was the largest problem in 

the promotion of the 1990 census, and what would you do to correct 

it? 

Mr. MORGAN. Well I think a promotion, the area that we have 

to work the hardest is getting to a segment of the community that 

really doesn’t want to be counted, just doesn’t want to have a dialog with the government, or for that matter anyone else. This is the 

homeless community. These are poor people who move around frequently, particularly in their central city. These are folks who are 

distrustful of the government because they may have individuals 

living in the household who may be illegally living in the United 

States. 

So, the real hard part and the preponderance of the effort on our 

part in the city of Milwaukee was to have individuals go into the 

community and talk to those individuals, people who worked in 

those communities. 

72

So our effort was really—and I used the military analogy before—we had to get into the trenches. We had to get some foot soldiers out there to talk to these folks. No amount of promotion was 

going to convince that segment of the population to mail back the 

responses. We knew that wasn’t going to happen after a while, so 

we had to get folks out there to sit and to help get those forms completed. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, about 2 weeks ago, excuse me, you wanted 

to——

Mr. MEYER. Yes. Could I respond in a slightly different manner? 

I think what Mr. Morgan is talking about is, once you have a good, 

in-place organization like he heads up, to get to people, I think 

what the Federal Government’s level—and I made this comment 

before you entered the room—is how do you get to people like Mr. 

Morgan to head up counting people in the different communities? 

And I think that’s the Federal charge is, how do you make sure 

that each one of the municipalities, each one of the townships, each 

one of the cities, et cetera, actually has someone like Mr. Morgan 

that is out counting people? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Very quickly, last week we celebrated pay equity 

day, and women are still paid at 71 cents to the dollar. What was 

interesting is they got to the number by the census. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Census. 

Mrs. MALONEY. That’s how they reached that number. It’s an important number to me, it’s an important number to my constituents. This was gathered on the so-called long form. The long form 

gathers a lot of important information for the National Institute of 

Health, for pay, for demographics, for businesses actually. I have 

the Chamber of Commerce wanting Mr. Hastert to come down and 

talk to them in my district. So, the businesses are very concerned 

about what is gathered in the census. It happens very rarely, as 

you know, and it’s a very important time. 

We had a hearing last week where we talked about what would 

be on the short form and the long form. And we had interesting 

testimony that some of the scientists felt they needed consistent information so they——

Ms. BRIENZA. That’s right. 

Mrs. MALONEY [continuing]. So they could track what is happening in the country in certain areas. Yet, on the other hand, 

there is the need to really graph other information that really 

shows where we are as a Nation, and I use the example of the pay 

equity. And I just like to ask your opinion on the short and long 

form. There’s been some debate on it. I personally support both 

forms. They both have important information on it. But many of 

you have been on the front lines, and I would like to hear your response. Anyone on the panel. 

Ms. BRIENZA. I supported the long—the short and long form like 

you because all the information on the long form, they use it every 

day. For instance, I’m board member of the Community Action 

Agency, and we’re doing now need assessment for the 3- to 4-yearsold Head Start program. We used the long form from the Bureau 

of the Census to assess the children below the poverty level, so the 

long form it is very important. 

73

Also, it’s very important, like they say, to have community involvement because it’s only the community people who can make 

everybody answer the census, because in 1990 we received boxes of 

information from the census, but we had a lot of people were able 

to give out information in the flier because it wouldn’t serve any—

anybody any good just to keep the information in somebody’s office. 

But I agree with you, the long form is absolutely—it’s important 

for many, many things. But the community development program, 

for instance, every year, between census, we still use the 1990 census up to the year 2000 to qualify community. And the long form 

information, I use it. 

Mr. MEYER. There’s another interesting point that I didn’t even 

realize until the day before I came here, and I was talking to a genealogist who goes back and looks at the census information for over 

70 years ago, because it’s not made public for 70 years, and finds—

the other information that he finds on that, on what would be the 

long form now, probably the best information he can get in trying 

to trace people and trace his family. He’s probably traced thousands of relatives and done that a lot through the census. So, 

there’s another interesting aspect to this that I wasn’t even aware 

of. 

Mr. HASTERT. Well, I thank the panel and all the Members who 

are here today to contribute, and especially Mr. Davis, who is a visitor to our committee from the full committee. It’s clear that we’ve 

learned a lot. 

I think there’s probably three things that we’ve also gleaned from 

this. No. 1, it’s important that the community be committed and involved in trying to find the best way to reach the undercounts and 

to make sure that we have accurate counts of people living in our 

cities and other places in this country, and certainly Milwaukee 

and Cincinnati have led the way, and your testimony was very, 

very much appreciated today. 

Second, we’ve found that promotion and outreach is certainly one 

of the keystones to be able to get members and citizens counted in 

this country, and we need to do an adequate amount of that, along 

with trying to lay out the accurate information, especially in the 

address lists that we have to work on. 

And since we know that effective promotion and outreach can be 

done, we should certainly fully support those efforts and make sure 

that the funding is available in the appropriations process to do exactly that. 

The Constitution requires us to have a census every 10 years, to 

count the people in this country to make sure that this Congress 

is adequately apportioned, and many, many other things that go 

along with it. There’s a lot of extenuating results that come out of 

the census count, but I think the most important is to get the accurate count of the citizens of the United States. 

You’ve helped us very much today. I appreciate your testimony. 

Anything that you could add to the record would be greatly appreciated, and we would welcome that. And this committee is closed. 

Ms. BRIENZA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

74


g:\graphics\46496.042
75


g:\graphics\46496.043
76

Æ