‘The Honorable Dan Miller 3

3. You testified that there was a “significantly increased workload associated with a
census that does not use sampling.” Please describe this workload in detail. What
portion of that significantly increased workload will occur before January 1, 2000.

‘As mentioned above, the work load required for conducting NRFU for 100% of the
nonresponding units will be 50% greater than that expected in the current plan for Census 2000,
and it will require recruiting, hiring, and training enough enumerators to send to an expected
34.5 million addresses, rather than the 22.5 million addresses expected in the current plan. Most
of this work will occur subsequent to January |, 2000, with the notable exception of opening
130 temporary LCOs one year earlier than planned. This effort is already underway,

In addition to the significant increase in NRFU visits, a census that does not utilize statistical
sampling will require follow-up efforts on 100% of the incomplete questionnaires received after
the first phase of the enumeration. The current plan for Census 2000 requires only a computer
check of the questionnaires that are returned by mail for evidence that coverage problems exist.
Questionnaires flagged as having problems will be sent for a telephone follow-up to attempt to
resolve the discrepancies, and the Integrated Coverage Management operation will account for
coverage errors not corrected by this process. A plan that does not include sampling will require
more editing and follow-up work on the questionnaires. During the processing of mail returns,
phone-in responses, and check-in of enumerator-completed questionnaires at LCOs, the Census
‘Bureau would identify all cases that require additional contact to ensure the accuracy of the
reported information. These cases would include households that return a blank questionnaire in
the mail, questionnaires with a discrepancy between the total number of household members and
the number of people for whom census data are provided (for example, the questionnaire lists the
‘names of four persons but provides information for only two), and questionnaires with other
indications of coverage problems.

A traditional census will also require expanded partnership and promotion activities. The
promotion and outreach program is designed to motivate people to respond. The Census Bureau.
is considering additional partnership and promotion activities in a traditional census. However,
the time period for planned promotion activities will have to be extended to include a longer
NRFU period. Finally, the Census Bureau would need to hire additional staff to provide at least
one partnership specialist for each LCO.

4. Since November 15, 1997, which staff have been specifically hired to accomplish the
planning for the dual track? What are the names and job descriptions? What are
their dates of hire? What percentage of their workload has been devoted to the non-
sampling side of dual track preparations?


H EAs? 18:50:89 Vie Pax io
Republican
National
Committee
im Nicholson May 20, 1997
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL STATE CHAIRMEN
FROM: JIMNICHOLSON °‘
RE: THE CLINTON CENSUS

‘Lam conncting you to recruit your assistance in addressing an iscue of ueasual
importance to the future af Republican Party. At the heart of the matter is one of the
federal government's most fundamental Constitutional functions: the United States
census. At stake is our GOP majority in the House of Representatives, as well as partisan
control of state legiststures nationwide.

Parry's etcat congress majviy. The GOP woud sur a segstive effect in the
partisan’ '24 Congressional seats, 113 State Sento seats House
paseper ney do Is attached for your reference). Many of these

margins. An sdjusted census could provide Democrats the crucial edge needed to prevail”
in close contests to control several stats legislative chambers,

‘The census does have problems and improvements are needed to insure a successful
‘effort, but an adjusted census ignores the Constitution's call for #2 “actual enumeration”.
Republican leaders are committed to providing the needed resources for a complete count
as directed by the founders. Census adjustment raises many legs!, ethical, and technical
concemns, yet Democrats faithfully peomote it as the solution. Don't be fooled. An

Cortes + 310 Frat Sreet + Wanbingien, 0.5. 20003 + (202) 863-8700



COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York GARY A. CONDIT, California
STEPHEN HORN, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
Dc

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Mlinois
MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

Carolina
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JIM TURNER, Texas
THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas
BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)

Kevin BINGER, Staff Director
DanieL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director
Davip A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Lisa SMITH ARAFUNE, Deputy Chief Clerk
PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS
DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

RON LEWIS, Kentucky
EX OFFICIO

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Tuomas B. HOFELLER, Staff Director
LARA CHAMBERLAIN, Professional Staff Member

ERIN SCANLON, Professional Staff Member

KELLY Duquin, Professional Staff Member
Davip MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member
‘MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ab


68

Mrs. MALONEY. So we have really before us no alternative to cor-
rect the undercount unless we go forward with the plan put for-
ward by the National Academy of Sciences and the Bush adminis-
tration; is that correct?

*" Mr. HoLMEs. That's correct.

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to go to a point that has been raised
in this committee actually, and by some Members of Congress in
conversations that I have had with them. Some Members of Con-
gress seem to believe that the 1990 census was a tremendous suc-
cess in Milwaukee and Cincinnati. It’s my understanding that the
undercount in both cities was 2.2 percent and that is considerably
higher than the 1.6 percent national undercount and nearly 4 times
the 0.6 undercount measured in Ohio and Wisconsin. Is that cor-
rect? And if so, is that a model to be used in designing the 2000
census?

Mr. HoLMEs. The information that you stated, from what I’m
told, is correct; and I would agree that that’s not a model that
would yield the kind of increased coverage and more accurate cen-
sus that we’re interested in producing.

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is almost up, too. The light is on. I
would like to join the chairman in thanking you, Director Holmes,
for your many years of professional service at the Census Bureau.
I think you’ve done an outstanding job. And personally, I think,
Mr. Chairman, we should let the professionals at the Census Bu-
reau do their job and go forward with the plan that they have in
place on both tracks.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I look forward to following up. I was a little sur-
prised by Mr. Holmes saying there’s nothing you can do to help ad-
dress the Problem, and Mr. Schultz and others talk about a lot of
issues and suggestions, and I think we need to talk about that
some more.

Mr. Davis. That’s not really a can-do attitude, is it? Also your
plan is not the Bush administration plan, is it?

Mr. Homes. I’m sorry, I don’t understand.

Mr. Davis. Your plan is not the Bush administration plan, is it?

Mr. Homes. I’m not sure I understand your question.

Mr. Davis. Mrs. Maloney had talked about outside the Bush ad-
ministration plan you couldn't get this done, but the administra-
tion’s put their foot forward is not what the Bush administration
put forward.

Mr. HOLMES. What I—

Mr. Davis. The Bush administration, as I understood it, you
count as many as you could. You look at the PES and see if tl
helps, but you didn’t just stop and not do a full enumeration to
begin with.

Mr. HOLMES. Again, that was not my understanding of her ques-
tion. My understanding of her question was associated with the
Census Improvement Act that was passed by the Congress in 1971
and signed—I’m sorry, 1991, and signed by President Bush, that
directed the National Academy as well as the Census Bureau to
come up with the best way to do a census.

Mr. Davis. But that’s not a Bush plan. Let me say this. I looked
at some of these court decisions and, you know, each of the cases
that have been talked about that were contrary to the recent find-


79

For example, in a recent column in News Day, there’s a Repub-
lican pundit named James Pinkerton who made the following com-
ment:

If the Democrats can rejigger the census, they can recapture the House. And
while their task would be easier if the courts were to allow sampling, even if they
don’t, the Bureau is a big place, the few Republicans wandering around sampling,
and they are unlikely to find all of the statistical slights that the Clintonians have
up their sleeves.

Td like you to comment, Director Holmes, about this attack on
the integrity of the professional staff at the Census Bureau.

Mr. Homes. Well, again, Mr. Waxman, at the risk of getting
myself in trouble, personally I take that as an insult. I really take
that as an insult. It’s mind-boggling that anyone would think that
of the 13,000 employees that we have at the Census Bureau, and
there’s only one political appointee, that we could get enough peo-
ple together to form a conspiracy to do the kinds of things that are
being suggested. That’s idiotic, let alone being insulting.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Pinkerton also pointed out in his article,
quote, “Deadbeat dads and the criminals loom large,” end quote.
And the people missed in the census, it’s my understanding that
over half the net undercount was children. What do you think of
this characterization? Is this a correct characterization?

Mr. HOLMES. No, sir, it’s not.

Mr. WaxMAN. And, Mr. Shapiro, in your testimony you state that
the vast majority of experts at the national scientific academy sup-
port your plan for the 2000 census. What’s the basis for this belief?

Mr. SHapiro. Well, the basis is the endorsements of the use of
statistical sampling in the 2000 census by 54 major scientific and
professional organizations that really comprise virtually the entire
interested scientific community and community of stakeholders
with the Congress, including the American Sociological Association,
the Census Advisory Committees, the Chamber of Commerce Re-
searchers Association, the Association of Public Data Users, the As-
sociation of University Business and Economic Research, the Advi-
sory Committee on Professional Associations, the Housing Statis-
tics Users Group, Decision Demographics, the American Demo-
graphics Association, the National Association of Business Econo-
mists, National Association of —

Mr. Waxman. Are these people all Democrats?

Mr. SHaptro. No, no, they certainty aren’t, and this has never
been a partisan issue in the past and it was approached initially
in a bipartisan way by President Bush and the Democratic Con-
gress and Republicans in Congress in 1991; and certainly the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, which is the Nation’s most prestigious
national scientific organization is utterly nonpartisan.

There really was no debate about the conclusion. There was a lot
of debate leading up to the conclusion. Once the consensus was
reached, it has been self-evident to the national scientific commu-
nity. I'd be happy to submit for the record a list of more than
50—


15

ring to a letter he received from Speaker Gingrich urging him to
help raise money, and enclosed a memo from the chairman of the
Republican National Committee citing the political damage a fair
census would do to the Republican party.

The opponents of a scientific census have cloaked themselves in
the Constitution and then said, and I quote, “We don’t care what
the Supreme Court says. If they say it’s constitutional, we just
won't fund it.”

The opponents of a scientific census have attacked the mes-
sengers who proposed scientific methods to improve census accu-
racy. But they have never sat down and done the honest, hard
work of understanding the problem and proposing legitimate solu-
tions.

Today we will hear the D.C. court quoted again and again. I won-
der if any of the Members here today have read the decisions from
the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan or the Dis-
trict Court for the Southern District of New York or the District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all of whom have
said that the use of sampling to improve the census count is both
legal under Title XIII and is constitutional.

I would like to believe that today we will hear some ideas that
will improve the 2000 census, but I fear we will hear only more po-
ee nee thetoric and empty, insincere suggestions.

ank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:]


74

systematically misallocate our funds because the numbers aren't
right. It’s about providing the data that city and State and Federal
Governments use to implement every law, to evaluate every law,
to decide where to build schools, how many schools and hospitals
to build, where to put sewers. It’s really about the quality of the
daily life of every American. That’s why we are so committed to
Pursuing census that we believe will be most accurate.

And there are characterizations now of the President’s position
as political, as there have been characterizations of the opposition’s
position as being motivated merely by politics. I really hope that
we can step back from that debate and join in a common effort to
figure out how to get the accurate data that the American people
so vitally need.

Mr. MILLER. I hope so. I would agree. Let me ask quickly, you
speak of the dual track in a positive manner; right?

Mr. Shapiro, your comments were positive on the dual track, that
we are moving along in dual track.

Mr. SHAPIRO. I am positive about the sincerity and dedication of
the Census Bureau in following the direction of the Congress, yes.

Mr. MILLER. Is there a change of heart in this attitude as far as
a dual track? My impression was everybody was opposed to dual
track months ago.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Let me try to clarify it, Mr. Chairman. We believe
in the census 2000 plan. We believe that the weight, the vast, vast
weight of scientific evidence and analysis says that it’s the only
way to get truly accurate numbers on which so much rests. We are
sincerely dedicated to that plan. We are also sincerely dedicated to
carrying out the law. And the law has required a dual track prepa-
ration and we—the Census Bureau and the Commerce Depart-
ment—are as sincere about obeying the directives of Congress as
we are about promoting the most accurate plan for the census.

Mr. MILLER. Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your extending an
olive branch to work together, yet you continue to try to politicize
this and to really distract from the major policy decision that is be-
fore us. And there is no policy distraction. There is no distraction.

President Clinton has consistently stood up for getting an accu-
rate count. When he vetoed the flood bill because there was
antiscientific methods, antisampling methods—and I might sa:
that every editorial board practically in the Nation agreed witl
him, practically every scientific and professional organization
agreed with him, and the professional staff of the Census Bureau.
And I could add, many Republicans agreed with him, and we have
stacks of letters that have been reported in the press where certain
Republicans have wriften to the Census Bureau calling for sci-
entific methods to be used.

I respect the Speaker greatly, but there is a particular letter
from the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, calling for accurate
methods. So when the President vetoed the flood bill because they
tried to stop an accurate count, he was standing up for fundamen-
tal policy. Again when he would not go along with a budget that
had antisampling, antiscientific methods attached to it, he was
standing up for a fundamental policy belief that every American
should be counted.


32

Statement of Robert J. Shapiro
Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs
before the
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Subcommittee on the Census

September 9, 1998

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify before you on behalf of the U.S. Department
of Commerce concerning the progress of the Census Bureau’s preparations for
Census 2000. I know that Secretary Daley very much wanted to appear today but
was unable to do so.

At the outset of my testimony, Mr. Chairman, I want to express the complete
commitment of the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau to conducting
the most accurate, fair, and cost-effective Decennial Census possible in the year
2000. I know that everyone on this Subcommittee shares this commitment.

We believe, along with the vast majority of experts in the national scientific
community, that we can successfully meet these goals by complementing

traditional census operations with the use of statistical sampling methods in Census


103

8

means or for any purpose, “except as specifically provided by law.” The Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a (n), prohibits the sale or rental of an individual's name and
address, unless “specifically authorized by law.” It is arguable that either or both
of these provisions would prohibit postal employees from collecting name and
address information for the purpose of | iding it to the Census Bureau. Specific
statutory authority would be needed to remove any doubt as to the lawfulness of
the activity.

UNION

Because implementation of this proposal would clearly involve the
Union/Management Collective Bargaining Agreements that cover wages, hours,
and working conditions, the viewpoint of both the National Association of Letter
Carriers and the National Rural Letter Carriers Association would be crucial.
Neither union has expressed support for this proposal. It is possible that an
agreement would need to be ratified by the unions prior to implementation.

PRIVACY OF POSTAL CUSTOMERS.

It is a major concern of the USPS that if this proposal were implemented, the
public would associate the USPS with the collection and reporting of personal data
to others. It is the nature of USPS business to deliver personal items to people's
homes. These items can include anything from stocks, bonds and financial
statements, special interest publications, late payment ‘and/or legal notices, to
airline tickets, catalog m dise and regular correspondence. The USPS has
traditionally guarded this personal information carefully and is known for its
integrity in this matter. Broadly enlisting the letter carriers as census takers
would risk identifying the USPS, in the minds of the public, as a collector of
personal information for other governmental agencies. It would be easy for the
public to draw the conclusion that the USPS might provide personal information
about them to credit companies, the IRS or citizen associations. It is possible that
postal customers would feel uncomfortable with supplying personal information
about themselves to a letter carrier who delivers their mail every day and who
may be viewed as knowing too much about them already.

CONCLUSION

Our agencies have discussed at length the feasibility and acceptability of having
USPS letter carriers conduct actual data collection by following up on households
that do not return census questionnaires. Our conclusion is that the best way to
use the expertise of USPS letter carriers-is-not through the collection of actual.
census data, but rather to use their knowledge for the development of a complete
and accurate address list, for the delivery and return of census questionnaires,
and to assist in the identification of vacant housing. We will continue exploring
the feasibility of other ideas aimed at utilizing local letter carrier knowledge to
support and improve the 2000 census.


39

President. While this appeal proceeds, the Department of Commerce and the
Census Bureau will continue with the dual track preparations for Census 2000, as is
contemplated in last year’s Appropriation Act and as funded in the FY 1999
appropriations bills passed by both Houses of Congress.

We trust in and await the Court’s judgment. However the Supreme Court
tules, Mr. Chairman, the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau are
committed to conducting the most accurate, fair and cost-effective Census
attainable in the year 2000.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions.


64

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. Mr. Holmes, this may be
our last time, we don’t know, before the committee. I know they're
ving hearings next week in the Senate concerning the appoint-
ment of the permanent director for the Census Bureau, but it’s
been a pleasure working with you.

Mr. Hotes. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Shapiro, I’m not a lawyer either, but I did, you
know, read that document. I mean, you’ve raised the question. I did
read all 71 pages, I believe it was, and it wds a unanimous consent
decision by three judges, including one by a Clinton appointee, and
that specifically addressed the case where we only count 90 percent
of the population, rather than back in the 1990 census when it was
tested before as such, where we used it to really supplement the
full enumeration.

There is a difference. In fact, it bothers me when I see in the
media, when reporters say we're only going to supplement the full
enumeration. We're not. We’re only counting 90 percent of the peo-
ple, so there’s a difference between supplementing versus the full
90 percent.

‘ith respect to the money issues, let me comment on the 50 per-
cent, the problem was we couldn’t get information from the Census
Bureau. With Mr. Rogers and his committee, we’ve been trying to
get cash-flow information. When we had the markup, I think we
received the information that day or the day before. And we’re will-
ing to work, along with Mr. Rogers in the Appropriations Commit-
tee, to work out a cash-flow with the Bureau, and I think our staff
and your staff have been working on that number.

And I want to make sure you also know that we are aware of
the potential problem October 1 if there is a CR that week, and we
will do everything we can to make sure that—the amount is
ramped up for the beginning of October. We recognize that’s a
problem. we're willing to work on the cash-flow issue, and as I
say, I think our staffs have been in communication on that issue.

Mr. Suapiro. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. With respect to the budget issues and the money
issues and the sincerity of the administration, of the President,
moving this toward the dual approach, in his budget request ear-
lier this year, I’m going to quote from it, he said,

Funding in the Decennial Census request assumes the use of sampling in the
2000 Census. Funding is also requested for planning and testing census methodolo-
gies and requiring additional field offices in compliance with the Congress's two-
track approach. The administration has not included additional funding for nonsam-
pling census activities because that funding is not required by the agreement. The

administration remains fully committed to the use of sampling in the decennial cen-
sus.

When you see that statement, and I know neither of you all
were, I think, directly involved in the preparation of the budget,
but when you see that from the President, it doesn’t show sincerity
that they are really working for the dual approach and looking for
a full enumeration. How else can you interpret that, when they
say, “we're not working”? I mean, you know, “the administration
remains fully committed to the use of sampling,” and that is not
required to use for a nonsampling census. I keep getting this mes-
sage that we’re not interested in doing full enumeration.

Has there been a change since the beginning of the year?


35

Mr. Chairman, your letter of August 28 inviting Secretary Daley to testify at
this aftemoon’s hearing asked a number of questions about the technical and
operational components of the Census Bureau’s planning for conducting Census
2000 without the use of scientific sampling. As is appropriate, the Acting Director
of the Census Bureau, James Holmes, addresses these questions in his testimony. I
will direct my remaining remarks and limited time to two questions that fall outside
these parameters and to two additional matters of grave concern to the success of
the Census under either contemplated track.

First, you asked what funds the Administration is requesting for FY 1999 "to
be able to plan, test and be prepared to implement the 2000 Census" without the
use of scientific sampling. The vast majority of the planning, testing and
preparation activities that the Census Bureau will undertake in FY 1999, totaling
$812 million under the President's budget, involve activities and operations that
will be part of Census 2000 under either track. These activities form the core of the
Decennial Census, and include the development of the master address list;
preparation and printing of census questionnaires, notices and reminders; physical,
technological and organizational preparations for the electronic capture of census
data and the dissemination of the results; the network of census offices across the

country and the equipping and staffing of these offices; and extensive promotional
4


67

Some have suggested that increasing the advertising budget will
reduce the vacial bias that we saw in the 1990 census. I would like
to simply ask either one of you, will increasing the advertising
budget, reduce the racial bias that every American wants to correct?

ill it?

Mr. SHAPIRO. The advertising campaign is primarily directed at
raising public awareness of the census and increasing the mailback
rate. It’s much cheaper for the government to collect the informa-
tion if people will mail back their forms than if we have to send
enumerators out to knock on their doors.

Mrs. MALONEY. I understand that, Mr. Shapiro, but will that re-
duce the racial bias that we've seen?

Mr. SHAPIRO. No, no.

Mrs. MALONEY. It will not?

Mr. SHAPIRO. No, because advertising really is—cannot be tar-
geted—the problem of the undercount is not people who are not
aware of the census. The survey showed that virtually everyone, by
the time of the census, everyone is aware of the census. It’s really
designed—it’s a cost-effective measure to increase people’s inclina-
tion to mail back the form as opposed to waiting for an enumerator
to come to the door.

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. Well, I’m getting back to the point that ’'m
trying to make. How are we going to correct the racial bias that
we saw in the 1990 census. So I would like to ask, will increasing
the number of community outreach specialists reduce this racial
bias in the census? Will that reduce it?

Mr. HoLMEs. No.

Mrs. MALONEY. It will not?

Mr. HoLMEs. No, it will not.

Mrs. MALONEY. And why will that not reduce it?

Mr. HoLMEs. Because that’s an activity that we have had in past
censuses. It will give us a little bit of an advantage in terms of
reaching some segments of the community, but it’s clear that
there’s certain segments of the population that have no interest in
participating in the census, and hiring outreach specialists is not
going to cause them to change their mind.

Mrs. MALONEY. Will the use of administrative records reduce the
racial bias in the census? We know that nearly 4 times as many
blacks as non-blacks are missed. Will using administrative records,
which has been suggested, reduce it?

Mr. HoLMes. No, it will not. Again, we’ve used administrative
records in past censuses, and we’ve had mixed results. One of the
things that we all need to keep in mind when as we continue to
talk about administrative records is that you also raise the risk of
introducing more errors, which complicates the process.

Mrs. MALONEY. Will the use of Postal Service employees to con-
duct the census reduce this well-documented undercount and racial
bias in the 1990 census?

Mr. HoLmEs. No.

Mrs. MALONEY. It will not. In other words, none of the sugges-
tions on how to conduct the census offered by the opponents of a
scientific census would reduce the racial bias in the census; is that
correct?

Mr. HOLMES. That is correct.


104

Attachment 1

THE ROLE OF THE USPS IN THE 1990 CENSUS

The USPS conducted or participated in various activities to
support the 1990 decennial census. These are described below.

@ ADVANCE POST OFFICE CHECK (APOC)

me USPS verified and updated the census address list in three
ges:

* For most major urban centers, the Census Bureau purchased
commercial mailing lists, assigned the addresses to census
geography, and sent the list to the USPS for verification.
The USPS letter carriers checked each address on their
routes, made corrections, identified duplicate and
undeliverable addresses, and added missing addresses. This
operation, called the Advance Post Office Check (APOC) I,
was conducted in the Fall of 1988.

* For most medium and small towns and dense rural areas, the
Census Bureau compiled an initial address. list by having
census workers canvass the area to record mailing addresses
and physical locations. This information was keyed and sent
to the USPS letter carriers for verification and correction
as described above. The: checks were carried out in two
phases--APOC II in February 1989 and APOC III in April 1989.

During the three APOC phases, the USPS letter carriers verified
the accuracy and completeness of about 75 million addresses.

. CENSUS ADDRESS CHECK (CAC)

The USPS letter carriers reviewed Census Bureau addresses again
during the CAC in February and early March 1990, just before
Census Day (April 1, 1990). As in the APOC operations, addresses
were checked to identify missing, duplicate, and undeliverable
addresses. In this operation, the USPS letter carriers checked
about 88.5 million addresses.

‘© --— AUTOMATED SORTING “OF -MAIL- RETURNS

Questionnaires were returned to either a designated district
office (approximately 346 received mail returns directly) or to
one of seven processing offices for tabulation. To help ensure
the timely and efficient return of the census questionnaires,

the USPS assigned a unique ZIP+4 code for each census office.

The, Census Bureau printed these codes on the return envelopes and
postal facilities sorted the returns using their automated
equipment to read the codes. A USPS contact person was


45

4

studies we had obtained and adjustments we made during the Dress Rehearsal, our wage
rates were sufficient to attract workers, to achieve higher-than-expected job acceptance
rates, and to keep tumover rates significantly below what we anticipated. We are now
analyzing the recruitment and hiring data 1o determine how we can best use this
information to improve the Census 2000 experience.

Mail-Response Rates--In our Sacramento site, we projected a 50% response rate and were
happy with the 53.7% showing. In the Menominee American Indian Reservation site
(Menominee County, Wisconsin), we projected 40% and got 40.6%, while in South
Carolina we projected 55% and came very close with a 54.1% response rate.

Telephone Questionnaire Assistance--We were able to implement an effective telephone
questionnaire assistance operation in the Dress Rehearsal. About 96% of our callers
requested assistance in English. Only about 5% of all callers opted to provide their
census information by telephone. This was good news, since it is more expensive to
complete the questionnaire by telephone than to have respondents mail the form to us.

Nonresponse Follow-up--Linked with the ability to hire and retain adequate staff was our
ability to successfully complete this operation on time. Because the nonresponse follow-

up operation affects many subsequent programs, its success will help us in completing the
Dress Rehearsal on time and within budget.

Laptop Computers—There were some questions about the ability of our temporary field
staff to successfully operate and transmit the data obtained by using laptop computers
during the Integrated Coverage Measurement operation. But our temporary field staff
successfully used this technology and this will help us evaluate the use of laptops in the
larger-scale Census 2000 operations.

Scanning Technology for Questionnaires-~-We also conducted a successful dry run in
“real time” conditions of the scanning equipment that will be used to process Census
2000 questionnaires. The ability to digitally capture information from questionnaires will
improve both the accuracy and speed of the census.

Let me also just briefly mention some of the lessons leamed from the Dress Rehearsal. We
encountered some problems in the development of the address list and in the delivery of related
maps for the Dress Rehearsal. Most of these problems were due to two factors:

First, schedule compression resulting from the continuing resolution at the beginning of the fiscal
year delayed many address list development activities and the related map update operations.
This resulted in late detivery of some maps and address list-related products, including some
materials needed by locally designated officials who checked the address list during the Local
Update of Census Addresses or LUCA program. Some local participants were dissatisfied with


87

Mr. Davis. They’re not any harder to count than anybody else
who didn’t respond particularly; right? They're not necessarily mi-
norities or majorities.

Mr. HOLMES. They could very well be, yes.

Mr. Davis. But if it’s random sample out of the 35 percent—I’m
only comparing them to other people who don’t respond. I’m not
comparing them to the ones who do respond. Of the ones who don’t
respond, it’s simply a random sample——

Mr. Hotes. That’s correct.

Mr. Davis. They fit into whatever the profile of all the other
groups who don’t sample, who don’t return the form; correct?

Mr. HOLMES. That’s correct.

Mr. Davis. Now, we are taking great efforts. For purposes of
numbers, let’s say 35 percent don’t respond, which is what hap-
pened. The 25 percent you’re going to use every way you can to try
to get those people to respond. You're going to use increased adver-
tising, door to door-——

Mr. HouMEs. Did you say 25 percent?

Mr. Davis. Of the 35 percent, 25 and 10; 10 percent are sampled.
The other 25 percent, we're going after them in many different
ways——

Mr. HoLMEs. We're going out and knocking on their doors to get
that information.

Mr. Davis. Right. You’re doing that with all 35, with the total
35. * percent, or just 25 percent and sampling the other?

ir. HOLMES. Of the 35 that did not, 25 is what we will followup
on.

Mr. Davis. And the other-——

Mr. Hotes. I’m assuming that’s what you're getting at.

Mr. Davis. That’s what I’m asking. How accurate will that be?
You make every effort to go ahead and do that; right.

Mr. HoLMEs. Absolutely.

Mr. Davis. I’m trying to understand. What are the strategies
you're using to count those people and those blocks that didn’t re-
turn the sample? What are some of the additional strategies we're
going to employ that we didn’t employ 10 years ago or 8 years ago?

Mr. HoutMEs. Well, when you start—I guess again I want to
make sure I understand the question that you’re asking.

Mr. Davis OF VirGiNIA. Nonresponders?

Mr. HoLMEs. That is part of what we refer to as nonresponse fol-
lowup. That is where we hire the army of people to go out and
knock on doors and get that information.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. What additional tools are we using that
we didn’t use 8 or 10 years ago to try to get a better response out
of those people? Are you doing anything different or are we just
doing the “same old-same old”?

Mr. HoLMEs. Other than sending people to knock on the doors,
no. That’s the process.

Mr. Davis OF VIRGINIA. Are you doing any additional advertising,
additional lists, anything additional? It’s the “same old-same old”?

Mr. HouMEs. I wouldn’t say the “same old-same old”. The adver-
tising pieces, the mail treatments and those kinds of things are as-
sociated with encouraging people to respond.

Mr. Davis OF VIRGINIA. OK.


I understand that at a press conference yesterday many of these groups seemed
unwilling to work with Congress to repair the undercount except by using sampling. This
is unfortunate and clearly not in the best interest of their representative groups. To fight an
uphill battle for sampling and blindly supporting an Administration on the brink of ruin -- is
dangerous. Every day, week, month wasted irreparably delays the ability of Congress and
the Census Bureau to put in place new and improved enumeration techniques that will serve
to reach the undercounted.

I happily extend the olive branch to these groups and openly, today, seek their help
in developing innovative legal strategies to reach those undercounted in their communities.
To wait until the Supreme Court rules on this issue, I believe is unwise. The time for us to
work together is now, not the late winter or early Spring when valuable time will have been

lost.

I don’t expect the Administration to concede on the sampling issue. The political
problems of the President have so consumed the White House that they are only concerned
with their own political survival, as tenuous as it is at the moment. But the fate of the 2000
Census should not be the fate of the White House -- resigned to failure.

So today is the day for Congress and other groups to move forward_together to make
a full enumeration the top priority for Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the
Administration. If we work together and reach out we can reduce the undercount, restore
trust and accountability and deliver a fair, accurate, and trusted 2000 Census for the
‘American people.

‘Towards that end, I called this hearing today to learn the status of preparations for a
full enumeration. Congress needs to know how seriously this Administration has been

3


OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: REVIEW OF
CENSUS BUREAU PLANNING AND PREPARA-
TIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL
COURT RULING THAT SAMPLING IS ILLE-
GAL

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1998

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 Re in room
H1-114, O’Neill House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Miller, Davis of Virginia, Snowbarger,
Maloney, and Waxman.

Staff present: Thomas B. Hofeller, staff director; Thomas W.
Brierton, deputy staff director; Jennifer Safavian, chief counsel;
Timothy Maney, chief investigator; Lara Chamberlain, Erin Scan-
lon, and Kelly Duquin, professional staff members; Phil Schiliro,
minority staff director; David McMillen and Mark Stephenson, mi-
nority professional staff members; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief

lerk.

Mr. MILLER. Good afternoon. A quorum is present and the Sub-
committee on the Census will come to order. Let me begin with
opening statements by myself and my ranking member, and then
we will proceed to the opening statements by Director Holmes and
Mr. Shapiro.

I want to welcome everyone to the latest hearing of the Sub-
committee on the Census. I want to thank the Members for coming
back early so we can hold this important hearing on the state of
preparations for the 2000 census.

We are here today, as in the past, to demonstrate our unwaver-
ing commitment to making our 2000 census the most accurate in
the Nation’s history. Congress has an important obligation to elimi-
nate the undercount from the 2000 census within the bounds of the
Constitution and the rule of law. As this and other hearings will
demonstrate, we take that obligation very seriously. The Speaker
is on record that Congress will provide the Bureau with the re-
sources it needs to conduct an actual enumeration as required by
the Constitution and the Census Act.

Because of legal action taken by the House of Representatives
against the Clinton administration’s illegal sampling scheme, the
2000 census has been saved. This fact cannot be overemphasized.

ey)


42

PREPARED STATEMENT OF
JAMES F, HOLMES
ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Before the Subcommittee on the Census
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U.S. House of Representatives

September 9, 1998

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

‘Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the status of the Census Bureau's planning for a
census that does not use sampling for purposes of apportionment. Census Bureau planning
efforts throughout this year are based on the agreement reached last fall to pursue a “dual track”
for Census 2000. This agreement to fund preparations for both a sampling and nonsampling
census was first enacted in our FY1998 appropriations act, and again reaffirmed in both the
House- and Senate-passed versions of our appropriations bill for FY1999. While I continue to
believe that a census with sampling will be more accurate and cost less, we are on track to
conduct a census without sampling in the event that a decision to do so is made by next March.

Most importantly, I want to emphasize that the vast majority of the Census Bureau’s planning
efforts over the last 7 years have been and continue to be directed toward components that will be
used in either kind of census. To use a very simple analogy, the basic, common components of
the census are the tree trunk and the components specific to either a census with or without
sampling are branches. The trunk is massive and healthy and will be there no matter which
branch is taken next year. Furthermore, the vast majority of the activities we will undertake in
FY1999--address list development, questionnaire printing, data capture preparation, setting up
the field infrastructure, for example-are common to either census design, and { will have more to
say about that later.


73

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Shapiro, you previously talked about the role of
Congress in the census, and. I appreciate that. But in fairness, I
still don’t see a willingness on the part of the administration to
allow Congress to play a role in the decision. And what the fence
in effect does, it says we're going to make a decision together next
spring. Administration says, no, we don’t want Congress to be in-
volved in this at all. What the fence does, it just says the decision
we make next spring when we agree the decision has to be made,
the sooner the better.

But have you got any other suggestions of how to address this
so that Congress and the President jointly are involved in this?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think we have to begin with the commit-
ment that I believe all fair-minded people share, and that is the
sincere commitment to conduct the census in the most accurate,
fair, and cost-effective way possible. That’s the commitment of the
Department and the commitment of the Census Bureau, and I
know that’s the commitment of you, Mr. Chairman. And I have not
given up on the different parties to this discussion coming together
and figuring out a way to address the legitimate concerns of all
sides and agree to an approach to the census which is consistent
with the scientific evidence and consistent with People "the various
people's concerns. I offer my own services in whatever way I can,

r. Chairman, to facilitate that and I know that other members of
the administration do as well.

Mr. MILLER. You agree and I assume the administration agrees
that Congress has a role in this decision.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

Mr. MILLER. I don’t understand what the problem of the fence is.
We're going to make the decision next spring whether we need to
do a supplemental, which will be an act of Congress, or the full ap-
propriation.

Let me go back to Mr. Coehlo’s comments if I may, because this
is a difficult time for all of us here in the House and it will be over
the next days, weeks, months, and the issue is how we are strug-
gling with the President’s credibility. Mr. Coehlo makes such a di-
rect link between the President’s problems and the census. The
question is, how are we supposed to react? We’ve been told that,
what we suspected for a long time, the President is going to use
his veto not for substance but for distracting the country from his
own crisis in leadership. And I say this with sadness and regret.
But you are going to have a hard time convincing a lot of us that
we haven’t been dragged into a political damage control effort, com-
pletely unrelated to the census.

My question is, how do we go about addressing this credibility
problem with the administration? Because it’s out there in the
media now. You hear it: The veto is coming, because the President
needs to distract from his current problems. What can we do to
help the administration, the Census Bureau, the Commerce De-
partment, seriously address this issue?

Mr. SHapiro. If I can say so, Mr. Chairman, there has been too
much politics in this entire debate. This is really not a debate
about politics. The census is about much more important things.
The census is about our ability to distribute $180 billion a year in
Federal funds in accordance with the law and ensure that it doesn’t


82

Mr. WAXMAN. It seems to me that what we have is somewhat of
a partisan split on this whole question of the census, and we had
to compromise to try to test the census out in terms of its legality
in the courts, even expedite the Supreme Court to make a decision,
and testing it out at certain sites in the country. Any reason we
shouldn't go forward and test those two matters before we tell you
you have to go one way or the other?

Mr. SHAPIRO. No, there’s no reason—only so long as Congress
provides the necessary funds for the activities to pursue both dual-
track preparations and the core activities of the census.

Mr. WaxMaN. Well, the President agreed to that compromise. I
don’t know if he was under investigation. I suppose he’s always
under investigation. But the idea he wouldn’t stand behind his
agreement because he’s got some scandal—it seems to me that’s
somewhat of a low blow. Do you know any reason why the Presi-
dent should change his position and stand by an agreement that
he’s made with the Congress?

Mr. Suapiro. Absolutely not. I’m certain he would.

Mr. WAXMAN. Scandal notwithstanding.

Mr. SHapPiRo. Yes.

Mr. WaxMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. We'll do one more quick round, if anybody has ques-
tions.

Mr. Shapiro, you mentioned all these organizations. Have they
approved a plan or just a concept of the theory of sampling bein;
used, or approved this concept of the plan you actually develope
or the Census Bureau developed?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, it’s more than a concept, but you’re correct;
it is not the specific plan, which has 3,600 activities and is still
under final completion. That plan indeed will not be complete until
the evaluations from the dress rehearsal are complete.

Mr. MILLER. Let me go to issues of outreach and coverage im-
provement programs. Mr. Holmes, you want to explain what cov-
erage improvement programs are and what’s being done?

ir. HOLMES. Again, I’m not sure I understand your question.
Your question was associated with——

Mr. MILLER. What coverage improvement programs—that phrase
is being used by the Census Bureau.

Mr. HOLMES. You're asking what does that entail?

Mr. MILLER. Give me a couple of examples.

Mr. HOLMES. Those are activities that we take a look at to get
better coverage, whether it’s coverage of addresses, whether it’s
coverage of persons, whether it’s within household coverage. Those
are programs that are intended to help us in that.

Mr. MILLER. Will they differ between a sample or nonsample cen-
sus?

Mr. HOLMES. They could very well be. As a matter of fact, cov-
erage improvement issues happen to be 1 of the 20 teams that I
talked about earlier.

Mr. MILLER. Because based on this draft done back in March
1995, “The guiding principles for the regional census,” it specifi-
cally says, point 11, “do not conduct coverage improvement pro-
grams for which the ICM process can provide corrected data.” Is
that still a policy?


OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: REVIEW OF
CENSUS BUREAU PLANNING AND PREPARA-
TIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL COURT
RULING THAT SAMPLING IS ILLEGAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 9, 1998

Serial No. 105-174

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

oe

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-466 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
‘Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-057709-8



108

3+

5. The Postal Service shall attempt to retum the above information, in a format mutually agreed
upon, to the Cepsus Bureau within 45 days after receipt of address files in accordance with section
1,B. If the Postal Service is unable to meet this 45 day target, it shall notify the designated
representative of the Census Bureau (see section VI.B. below) of the reason for delay.

D. Correction of Maps.

Stage 1: Upon receipt of the information set forth in séction II.C. above, the Census Bureau shall
produce scale maps for a sample of the areas covered by the Census Bureau files for which
information was retumed, with the size of the sample to be mutually agreed upon between the
parties. Each map shall be accompanied by a list of the street information for which the Census
Bureau desires correction. With the maps, the Census Bureau shall provide the corresponding
segments of the TIGER file showing longitudinal and latitudinal information for all feature
intersections and endpoints shown on the maps.

Stage 2: The Postal Service shall correct the maps provided by the Census Bureau by sketching in
the locations of the Street information for which corrections were requested and annotating those
street locations with the appropriate ZIP+4 add-on codes and address ranges. The Postal Service
shall return a copy of the corrected maps to the Census Bureau. The Postal Service shall be
permitted to retain the TIGER file segments and copies of the maps for analysis.

‘The Postal Service and the Census Bureau shall attempt to complete each Stage of the map correction
process (Stages 1 and 2) within 45 days after receipt of the information specified for commencement
of that stage. If either pany is unable to meet this 45 day target, it shall notify the designated
representative of the other party (see section VI.B. below) of the reason for delay.

The maps and TIGER file segments described in this section shall not be considered confidential
information and are not subject to the nondisclosure restrictions of section III below.

D. Permitted Use of Address Information

Each party may use the information furnished by the other party pursuant to this agreement for
purposes of analysis, subject to the nondisclosure provisions specified in part III.

Il, NONDISCLOSURE OF ADDRESS INFORMATION

A. Nondisclosure of Census Bureau Files.

‘The following procedures, and the specific procedures set forth-in the attached fetter-from-Michael
Murphy to Dan Sweeney, shall be followed to ensure the nondisclosure .of any address files
submitted by the Census Bureau to the Postal Service:

‘The Census Bureau shall identify those types of access to Census Bureau files which raise
issues of confidentiality of information (hereinafter "access”).

‘The Postal Service shall furnish the names of all Postal Service and Postal Service contractor
‘employees wha shall have access to Census Bureau files.




109

-4e

The Postal Service and the Census Bureau shall take the necessary steps to make the persons
identified by the Postal Service Special Sworn Employees of the Census Bureau, with an
appointment for six months or less, for the purpose of handling Census Bureau files.

The Postal Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that once the Census Bureau’s
address files arrive at the National Customer Support Center (NCSC), access to those files is
restricted to Special Sworn Employees of the Census Bureau.

The Postal Service shall ensure that any address information provided by the Census Bureau
Pursuant to this agreement remains segregated from Postal Service address files.

The Postal Service shall not disclose to unauthorized persons any address files provided to
it by the Census Bureau pursuant to this agreement and shall take all reasonable steps to
protect against such disclosure.

By November 30, 1993, the Postal Service shalll destroy or return all address files submitted
by the Census Bureau, at the option of the Census Bureau. The Postal Service shall not
retain whole or partial copies of any such files.

The Census Bureau may, at its option, perform an audit to verify compliance with the
nondisclosure provisions specified herein.

B. Nondisclosure of Postal Service Files

The following measures shall be taken to ensure the nondisclosure of any address information
returned by the Postal Service to the Census Bureau.

Nv.

The Census Bureaus shall not disclose to unauthorized persons any address information
provided by the Postal Service pursuant to this agreement and shall take all reasonable steps
to protect against such disclosure.

‘The Census Bureau shall ensure that any address information provided by the Postal Service
pursuant to this agreement remains segregated from Census Bureau address files.

Within 30 days after termination of this agreement, the Census Bureau shall destroy or return
all address files furnished by the Postal Service, at the option of the Postal Service. The
Census Bureau shall not retain whole or partial copies of any such files.

The Postal Service may, at its option, perform an audit to verify compliance with the non-
disclosu i ified herein.

REIMBURSEMENT

‘All property and services furnished pursuant to this agreement shall be furnished without
reimbursement.


30

that fall outside these parameters and to two additional matters of
grave concern to the success of the census under either track.

First, you asked what funds the administration is requesting for
fiscal year 1999 “to be able to plan, test and be prepared to imple-
ment the 2000 census” without the use of scientific sampling. The
vast, vast majority of the planning, testing and preparation activi-
ties that the Census Bureau will undertake in fiscal year 1999, to-
taling $812 million under the President’s budget, involve activities
and operations that will be part of census 2000 under either track.

These activities form the core of the decennial census, and in-
clude the development of the master address list; preparation and
printing of census questionnaires, notices and reminders; physical,
technological and organizational preparations for the electronic
capture of census data and for the dissemination of the results; the
opening of census offices across the country and the equipping and
staffing of these offices; and extensive promotional and outreach ac-
tivities.

The fiscal year 1999 census budget will also support the final
stages and evaluation of the 1998 ss rehearsals, which provide
the core testing of census plans, and which included the South
Carolina site which tested census methodologies without the use of
scientific sampling. Indeed, only a very small fraction of the fiscal
year 1999 budget is for work unique to a census with sampling.

At the same time, the administration has requested additional
funds for planning, testing and preparations unique to a traditional
census for the first 5 months of fiscal year 1999, at which time the
decision on which track to take would be taken, to enable the Cen-
sus Bureau to preserve the option of doing a traditional census. If
we proceed with the traditional design for census 2000, the Depart-
ment of Commerce may ask the administration to request a supple-
mental appropriation to cover additional fiscal year 1999 costs for
such a census.

In April the Department of Commerce submitted a report on the
state of planning for a traditional census, and made a preliminary
estimate that if the decision were to be taken at that point in time
to conduct census 2000 using traditional methods, the additional
full year fiscal year 1999 funding requirements for such a census
could reach $276 million. The planning and preparation process
which has continued since that April report will enable the Census
Bureau and the Commerce Department to provide a precise ac-
counting of the funding requirements for the remainder of fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 if a traditional census without sam-
pling is conducted.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide some additional comments
on fiscal year 1999 funding, if I could. Whatever decision is reached
concerning the use of scientific sampling in census 2000, the suc-
cess of the census will be at grave risk fits funding is interrupted.
If funding is initially provided through a continuing resolution, it
is imperative that the decennial census be exempt from the normal
continuing resolution formula of continuing fiscal year 1998 fund-
ing on an average prorated basis, which in this case would mean
less than $33 million a month.

Decennial funding increased steadily throughout fiscal year 1998
and will reach $49 million in September 1998. Necessary funding



89

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WaxMaN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

During the research for the 2000 census, the Census Bureau at
the request of Congress conducted lengthy working sessions with
the Postal Service on using Postal Service employees to conduct the
census. Would you please tell us the conclusions reached from
those discussions? Was there a written report, and if so, would you
supply it to the subcommittee for inclusion in the record?

[The information referred to follows:)


84

Mr. MILLER. Well, let me switch on to another subject. I don’t
want to use all my 5 minutes. The impression is that is not as ran-
dom as we thought.

What can Congress do that can help? Whether it’s legislation or
waivers or access to information. Congresswoman Meek has pro-
posed to make it easier for people who are on some type of Federal
program to work with the Census Bureau.

Do you have any specific recommendations that we could do that
we could help to improve the ability for people to work in the cen-
sus or to get access to administrative records, whether it’s WIC
records—by the way, do you use WIC records at all?

Mr. HoLMEs. Again, that’s one of the administrative records, if
Tm not mistaken, that one of the teams is taking a look at. As of
now, no. It’s not something we have used in the past that I’m
aware of.

Mr. MILLER. But is there anything that you know of now that
you mentioned, that maybe you can followup with—that we can do
that legislatively—would make it a better census?

Mr. SHAPIRO. We will be—I’d be happy to get back to you on
that, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly if the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau
are required to conduct a traditional census without sampling tech-
niques, my expectation is that there would be a number of addi-
tional legislative actions that would have to be taken.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Holmes, do you have any recommendations?

Mr. HOLMES. Off the top of my head, Mr. Chairman, I don’t. The
one that you mentioned that’s associated with waivers of certain in-
comes that people receive from Federal programs, that, if there was
some kind of a national waiver, would make life a lot less com-
plicated than dealing with each of the individual States.

Mr. MILLER. That’s something that we can certainly work to-
gether in a bipartisan fashion to move along on.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. The post-enumeration survey showed
that nearly 4.5 million people were counted twice in 1990. In plan-
ning for a census without the use of statistical scientific methods,
what is being done to make sure that these errors of double count-
ing are not repeated in 2000?

Mr. Hotes. Again, one of the things that we’re looking at is
that the—the ICM survey that was mentioned earlier—we’re talk-
ing about a much larger sample size, and obviously the larger the
sample size, the more accurate—the more accurate the data itself.

Mrs. MALONEY. If you’re not allowed to use scientific methods,
then this overcounting will then just continue under the current
plans. OK. The attempt—we’ve talked about administrative
records—but the attempt to use them in the 1990 census, most no-
tably the use of records of persons on probation and parole, re-
sulted in nearly 60 percent of the 457,000 people being added in
error. :

Would you please explain the problems of using administrative
records to add people to the census, whether it is a WIC, or proba-
tion, or whatever administrative records.

Mr. HOLMES. There are a couple of issues that are associated
with it. One, the Census Bureau has never felt very, very com-


12

effort to restore credibility with Congressional Democrats. Mr. Coelho’s words, not mine.
But, ironically, there’s no credibility in sampling, a three judge panel said so. But it appears
as though that is where we are headed. Sadly, any veto threats from the President must be
looked at in the context of Mr. Coehio’s comments.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one thing we can count on. There will be a 2000
Census. The courts have said it will be a legal one. But if it is to be a good one than we
must begin, today, working together to make it happen. For to delay further by pursuing
unlikely remedies is to waste precious time, waste valuable tax dollars and place in jeopardy
the 2000 Census.

Congress is committed to a legal, constitutional Census and one that will correct the
errors of the past. I hope others are just as committed to an actual enumeration.


ne oR HEN COMGRESS reuaos carne:

Bouse of Representatives Ripeheuey ono

‘COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT Ea

2157 Ravounn House Orrce Bunn po ae
‘Wastinaron, DC 20515-6149 ene a ne

September 15, 1998

‘The Honorable James F. Holmes
Acting Director

Bureau of the Census

Room 2049, Building 3

Suitland Federal Center
Washington, DC 20233

Dear Acting Director Holmes:

‘Thank you for testifying before the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on the
‘Census on September 9, 1998, Because of time constraints, I was left with a number of
‘questions unanswered and I request that you provide responses to the following questions:

1. Please contrast the scope of the following activities performed in the Dress Rehearsal in
Sacramento, California with those in Columbia, South Carolina.

Advertising & Planning;
Quality Assurance; and
Marketing & Promotion.

‘As part of the contrast of the scope please detail the differences in the dollars spent and the
Bureau personnel resources expended. For the South Carolina site, please explain what
spending and resource increases were directly related to program enhancements implemented
because itis a non-sampled site.

2. Please explain why you feel it would be necessary to open 130 temporary local census offices
a year early if you were compelled to conduct non-response follow-up for the 10% of
households currently “set aside” in the Administration's 2000 Census Plan. Are these 130
offices in addition to the local census offices being planned for the 2000 census with sampling?
‘Would any offices be opened a year early if the Bureau continues with a sampled census?

3. You testified that there was a “significantly increased workload associated with a census that
does not use sampling.” Please describe this workload in detail. What portion of that
significantly increased workload will occur before January 1, 2000?

Congress of the Bnited States Eiceese


96

USPS-CENSUS COOPERATION IN PLANNING FOR THE
2000 DECENNIAL CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING -

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has played a key role in all modern decennial
censuses. Most notably, since the advent of the mail-out/mail-back census in
1970, the success of census taking has relied heavily on the USPS in the
development and improvement of the census address list and in providing for the
delivery and return of census questionnaires. In addition to these critical
operations, the USPS routinely conducts other activities that provide support for
the census. A description of the USPS role in the 1990 decennial census can be
found in Attachment 1.

In addition to the historical cooperation between our two organizations, there are
significant efforts underway to expand the involvement of the USPS in future
decennial censuses. In November 1990, the Census Bureau and the USPS
established an interagency Joint Committee for Census Planning. The purpose of
this committee is to develop a wide variety of opportunities for cooperation in the
2000 census effort. The committee meets on a quarterly basis. It focuses on the
use of USPS expertise and knowledge to support critical census activities. The
committee has established several subcommittees to work on the development of
specific opportunities. These are described in this report.

Areas of expanding cooperation include:
© development of a permanent residential address list,
© identification of vacant housing units,

° various geographic projects that include such things as identifying the
number of delivery points for each congressional district,

© reliance on USPS letter carriers for the accurate and timely delivery of
census questionnaires,

° collaboration on ways to encourage local efforts to convert rural
addresses to house number/street name style addresses.

We are considering other proposals that would translate knowledge and
expertise into improvements for the census. Examples of these include:

° using letter carriers to link mailing addresses to physical locations in
rural areas, a

© identifying drop delivery points for multi-unit structures,

© testing the use of letter carriers to provide minimal information
(occupancy status and number of occupants) about households that
could not be contacted by census enumerators. (This would not require
direct contact of the household by the letter carrier.)


15

I remember one testimony before our committee where I believe
it was a representative from the NAACP gave the statement that—
Tl never forget it, I thought he hit it right on the head. He said,
“My definition of stupidity is to know you're doing something
wrong and to continue doing it.”

We know that the 1990 census was wrong, that people were
missed, and that most of the people that were missed were minori-
ties. So we can either continue missing people or we can work to
correct the plan. That is what Congress asked the Bush adminis-
tration to &. They asked the National Academy of Sciences to
come forward with a plan. The plan that the National Academy
came forward with is the one that Dr. Barbara Bryant began to im-
plement, which was followed by Dr. Riche, and is now being fol-
lowed by Dr. Holmes, with the adjustment Congress dictated of
having a dual track.

So I really resent your raising Monica Lewinsky at this hearing,
quite frankly. What we’re talking about is fundamental policy that
is important to this country, counting every American. And when
the President vetoed the flood bill, with every editorial board sup-
porting him, when he spoke up against the budget that had
antisampling, and again every editorial board supported him. I
think we need to get back to the substance and not cheap political
rhetoric.

I would like to ask the gentlemen, without scientific methods, to
followup with, really, Mr. Snowbarger’s comments earlier, what
kind of effort do you think it will take to achieve a count that is
more accurate in 1990 and that substantially reduces the persist-
ent disproportionate undercount of minorities and the poor?

Mr. SHAPIRO. I think it’s important to remember that the 1990
census was the best-executed census in American history. The
problems with the undercount did not occur because it wasn’t exe-
cuted well. It occurred because there’s a misfit between the tradi-
tional methods of collecting the data and the developments of
American society. We have seen no evidence that would lead us to
believe that the National Academy of Sciences was incorrect in its
judgment that, in effect, no matter what you did with traditional
methods, you would still have a very serious undercount.

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, specifically, Mr. Shapiro, Director Holmes,
how, many more census takers might you need to achieve that re-
sult?

Mr. Homes. Well, using the Census Bureau’s plan, we would be
looking at—and rather than talk about the number of people, let’s
talk about the number of households that we estimate that we’d
have to followup on. We're talking about following up on some-
where in the neighborhood of 22¥2 million households, using the
Census Bureau’s plan. In a non-sampling environment, we would
be looking at following up on at least 34 million. The number could
conceivably be even higher than that.

Mrs. MALONEY. Would we need to keep local census offices open
longer?

Mr. Homes. Yes, we would.

Mrs. MALONEY. And would you reintroduce coverage improve-
ment programs used in 1990 in an effort to improve coverage?

Mr. HOLMES. There’s a chance that we would.


36

and outreach activities. The FY 1999 Census budget will also support the final
stages and evaluation of the 1998 Dress Rehearsals, which provide the core testing
of census plans and which included a site in which the count was conducted
without the use of scientific sampling. Only a small fraction of the FY 1999 budget
is for work unique to a Census with sampling.

In addition, the Administration requested an additional $36 million for
planning, testing and preparations specific to a traditional census for the first five
months of FY 1999. This amount would enable the Census Bureau to preserve the
option of doing a traditional census.

If we proceed with a traditional design for Census 2000, the Department of
Commerce will ask the Administration to request a supplemental appropriation to
cover additional FY 1999 costs for such a Census. In April, the Department of
Commerce submitted a report on the state of planning for a traditional census and
estimated that, based on the preliminary information then available, if the Congress
and President were to determine at that point in time that Census 2000 would use
traditional methods, the additional full year FY 1999 funding requirements for such
a Census could reach $276 million. The planning and preparation process which
has continued since the April report will enable the Bureau and the Commerce

Department to provide a precise accounting of the funding requirements for the
5


telecommunication infrastructure to support the nationwide network of facilities; completing
software development and testing; finalizing preparations for data capture; and printing
questionnaires, notification letters, and other Census 2000 forms. Another critical activity to be
completed in FY 1999 is an evaluation of this year’s full-scale Dress Rehearsal. We also will
finalize plans for enumerating people without a traditional home and for making available
telephone assistance to answer respondents’ questions about the census process and
questionnaire. And our expanded partnership program will continue to work with state, local,
and tribal governments, as well as community-based organizations, local media, and other public
and private sector organizations to promote public awareness of this nationwide mandate.

‘These are all activities that will be necessary for a successful census under either design and if
any of them are seriously delayed, the census will be put at risk

Moreover, our address listing operations will be put in a state of failure by any delay in the
FY1999 funding stream in early October. We would have to release 1,800 supervisors and crew
leaders already trained and on the payroll. We would have to tel! 22,000 staff who list addresses
not to come to the planned training, as well as cancel all space accommodations for the training.
We would lose a significant portion of the staff we released as well as the listers we told not to
come to training, This would mean starting the entire recruiting process over again and would
result in a delay of at least one month in the second wave of listing. We would not be able to
recover from this and would not be able to complete the second wave on time.

Any delay of this magnitude will seriously impact subsequent operations including the third
wave of listing in rural areas and block canvassing in areas with city-style addresses. Each stage
of the field work for all operations must be completed on a timely basis so that we can meet the
absolutely critical July 1999 deadline for delivering to contractors an address file for labeling the
census questionnaires. Field activities must be completed on time if we are to meet this critical
deadline necessary to ensure the timely mailing of census questionnaires.

Answers to Chairman Miller's Questions

Mr. Chairman, [ will now address 9 of the 11 specific questions about our planning for a census
without sampling in your August 28 letter of invitation; questions 6 and 11 are addressed in
Under Secretary Shapiro's statement.

1 & 2, What resources and personnel have been assigned to date for planning? What

resources and personnel have been assigned to date to test methodologies?
The vast majority of the more than 750 people working on the decennial census are
involved in work on operations essential to either census design. In addition, over 100
people are working on the teams defining components specific to a nonsampling census.
The vast majority of the Bureau's FY1998 decennial budget (5390 million) isssigned to
activities related to either census design. Of that amount, we have assigned $13.5
million in FY1998 for planning efforts (including assessment and evaluation of


possible testing and any operational preparations defined by the groups analyzing the
census without sampling.

10. In FY1999, what programs, tests, contracts, or other expenditures are you planning to
implement for the Administration’s sampling plan that would need to be redone or
modified at extra cost or toss of time if the present injunction of the court remains in effect,
or if'a decision is otherwise made not to implement the Administration’s plan?
We are committed to continue implementing the agreed upon dual track approach to
planning for Census 2000, until a decision is made by March 1999. At that point, we
expect to be prepared to conduct a census with or without sampling. The bulk of our
work in FY1999, including address list development and supporting field offices and data
capture sites, is in support of either census design.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions.


49

methodologies) for activities specific to a census without sampling.

3. What tests have been made?
‘As I mentioned above, most of the Bureau’s research and testing program over the last 7
years has been directed toward components that will be included in either census design
This includes special purpose tests that looked at such issues as questionnaire design,
questionnaire content wording, and questionnaire mailing strategies; broad, general
purpose tests such as the 1995 Census Test, which looked at a wide range of census
implementation issues; and the Dress Rehearsal census, which as I mentioned earlier, in
which we are evaluating various aspects specific to a nonsampling census as well as
aspects related to either kind of census.

As mentioned previously, we have some 20 chartered groups assessing and evaluating a
broad range of issues conceming the potential components that could be in a plan for
conducting a census without sampling. Some of the potential changes might also be
adopted in the sampling design if the analysis justifies it. Again, most of the things being
considered are enhancements to components that could be in either census plan. As part
of the plan expected in November, we will know whether any testing of new procedures
or methods will be necessary or possible. We have provided each team’s charter to your
staff previously. { would like to discuss some of the issues that the teams are examining,
but keep in mind that not all of these ideas will end up in the final nonsampling plan.

Questionnaire Development — We have designed and tested a new mailback
questionnaire that would be required for the nonsampling census. This questionnaire
could also be used for the census with sampling.

Questionnaire Delivery Strategy — The group is investigating the optimal mail delivery
strategy that incorporates a modified mailing of a replacement questionnaire. Options
being considered include 1) targeting a replacement questionnaire to households that did
not return a completed questionnaire by a certain time, 2) sending a replacement
questionnaire to all census addresses in areas that have anticipated low response rates,
and 3) implementing a hybrid of the two approaches. The challenge is to determine a
strategy that can be implemented within a nonsampling census schedule that will
accomplish the purpose of increasing the mail response rate, thereby reducing the
nonresponse workload, without sacrificing accuracy.

Administrative Records Program — Coverage Improvement--The group addressing this
enhancement is investigating what files are available and usable to identify potential
missed housing units and individuals in the time remaining. The group is assessing
which files will provide the best address coverage and within-household person coverage.
The group is also reviewing state and other laws concerning the sharing of file to
determine what files can be made available to us and what files contain critical
information needed for matching, such as ZIP Code. To aid in these assessments, we are


78

Mr. Davis. Let me ask Mr. Holmes. Would you rather have what-
ever the courts are going to decide now or would you rather have
that decision 3 years from now?

Mr. HoLMEs. Again, I know this sounds argumentative, it sounds
evasive.

Mr. Davis. It is——

Mr. HOLMES. Again, please allow me to answer, Mr. Davis. I’ve
been doing this kind of work for—

Mr. Davis. You haven’t answered any question I’ve asked, but go
ahead.

Mr. HOLMES. Then I guess there’s no reason for me to say any-
thing, sir.

Mr. Davis. Go ahead. I’ll give you a chance.

Mr. Hotes. As I said, fre been doing this work for 30 years.
What I’m interested in as a civil servant is producing the best cen-
sus possible, the most accurate census possible.

Mr. Davis. We're all interested in that.

Mr. Hotes. I’m not interested in——

Mr. Davis. We're all interested in that. But ultimately you don't
determine that; the courts have a say in that. Do you agree with
that?

Mr. Hotes. That’s fine. Yes, sir.

Mr. Davis. Since the courts have it, wouldn’t you rather have
them determine that now rather than 3 years from now?

Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Davis, that is a “what if’ question. It’s clear
that right now we don’t have an answer to that question.

Mr. Davis. You don’t have an answer. I think it’s pretty evident.
I yield back.

Mr. MILLER. There’s no time to yield back. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WaxMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We’d all like
things resolved by the Supreme Court as rapidly as possible, but
the Supreme Court has to look at questions of standing and appro-
priateness of the case that may be frustrating.

Mr. Davis. The gentleman yield?

Mr. WaxMaN. No, I won’t yet. It may frustate the litigants but
it seems a time-honored way for the Supreme Court to act.

T yield to you now. Do you disagree?

Mr. Davis. I don’t know that I disagree with that. That wasn’t
my question. I wasn’t asking for a legal conclusion. I was simply
asking, as people who have to administer this, who are getting into
a sea of controversy they didn’t particularly ask for, would they
rather like to know what the rules are now and determine it now
or would they rather have them 3 years from now? And they
couldn’t even answer that question.

Mr. Waxman. I think that’s a question that all of us here who
make policy would answer in the affirmative. We—this ought to be
worked out——

Mr. Davis. They wouldn’t.

Mr. WaxMAN. Excuse me. It’s my time now and not yours. This
is the kind of thing that should have been worked out in a coopera-
tive bipartisan manner. We don’t seem to be there at this point. In
fact, we have pretty, seems to me, outlandish, sharp-edged state-
ments that have been made with regard to something that is as
ministerial as the census.


88

Mr. HoLMES. Now, if you want to talk about what we're doing
from a staffing standpoint, that’s—you know, obviously we're talk-
ing about paying people more and those kinds of things. That
doesn’t do anything for the people behind the door.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK.

Mr. HOLMES. Again, I want to make sure I understand your
question. Are you talking about our field staff or are you talking
about our people behind the door? '

Mr. Davis OF VIRGINIA. You’ve answered it. I’m comfortable with
where your answer is. The basic is that the groups that are sam-
pled, the 10 percent sample are simply a sample. It is a cross-sec-
tion of the nonrespondents, period?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes.

Mr. Davis OF VIRGINIA. Not any more difficult to reach than any-
one else. It’s a cross section of the people who failed to return the
forms?

Mr. Hotes. That’s right.

Mr. Davis. That’s what I was trying to get to.

Suppose the Census Bureau came up with three different meth-
ods of estimating the population, and in each method came up with
a different result in the 2000 census. Do I understand the position
of the department at this point would be that the Secretary of
Commerce could then simply choose whatever method he thinks is
the most reasonable of those?

Mr. Hotes. I have no idea, Mr. Davis. Rob, do you have any?

Mr. SHapiro. I would have to refer that. That’s again a legal
question, Congressman.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. in, my understanding, just for the
record, is that he could take the most reasonable, certify that result
to the President, and the Census Act would permit him to do that.
And J think, I mean, that’s the conclusion 1 draw from the argu-
ments that the administration has made. But you're saying it’s
legal, it’s above your pay grade, and you don’t have any informa-
tion.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I’m trying to be direct.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You don’t need to respond. I’m just giv-
ing you my opinion. That’s fine. That’s fine.

ir. WAXMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Davis OF VIRGINIA. I would be happy to.

Mr. WaxMaNn. Do you think it ought to be done in a different
way? If there’s several methods, do you think it ought to be done
in some other manner than the Secretary certifying it?

Mr. Davis OF VIRGINIA. He has the ability to certify the census.
Tm not sure right now, with the sampling methodology that’s bei
put forth, that’s the most accurate count we can get, and I thi:
we can probably go forward and do a better job of enumeration
than they’re currently planning to do.

And when the chairman asked, you know, is there anything we
can do to help you in terms of additional tools to enumerate, and
he said I will get back to you, that tells me that we ought to be
concentrating on doing the best enumeration we can and that we’re
probably not doing everything we could, if that answers the ques-

tion.
I yield back the balance of my time. My time is up.


43

Improvements in the Census Plan Since 1990

Through all our planning efforts over the last 7 years, our research and testing have identified
improvements that will be important components of either type of census. Let me just quickly
outline some of these improvements we have made in the decennial census process since 1990.

© First, to address the staffing issues that have seriously encumbered prior census efforts,
we have obtained private sector studies to establish wage rates higher than comparable
rates for the 1990 census that will give us a better chance of hiring the massive numbers
of temporary workers needed to take the census. These wage rates helped us achieve
success in hiring adequate staff for the Dress Rehearsal census and are essential to our
ability to hire staff under either design for 2000.

0 Second, through working with the U.S. Postal Service and state, focal, and tribal
governments, and with improvements in our own listing operations, we believe we will
obtain an address list that is more complete than the one for 1990. As I mentioned in
March, when J last testified before this committee. we have reinstated a 100-percent
verification activity in areas with mostly city-style addresses that we will conduct in
FY1999. This change was needed to ensure address list completeness and quality. This
fiscal year, we have begun our address listing in rural areas that do not have city-style
addresses and that work will continue next fiscal year.

© Third, we are using a user-friendly census questionnaire design that will be easier and
simpler for respondents to understand and complete.

© Fourth, for Census 2000 will implement a multiple mail contact strategy, which will
include a prenotice letter and a reminder card in addition to the questionnaire mailing.

© Fifth, respondents will have more ways to respond to the census than ever before. For
example, through the Be Counted program, we will make forms available in stores,
schools, civic or community centers and other locations. A well-publicized toll-free
telephone number will be available for those who have questions.

© Sixth, through contracting with private vendors, the Census Bureau will utilize the best
available data capture methodology in Census 2000. The 1990 census was microfilmed
and key entered. In Census 2000, the forms will be scanned directly into computers that
can read handwriting. The completed forms will be read directly into computer files
ready for tabulation. This last January, we awarded the contract for designing and
building centers to handle this data capture system, equipping the centers with office
equipment and supplies, and hiring, managing, and training about 6,000 employees.

© Seventh, we will use modem technology to spot and eliminate multiple responses from
the same household. Unduplication of multiple responses was not feasible in past


113

Mr. Homes. This is a paraphrase on my part, but it’s my under-
standing that the Postal Service suggested that having their em-
ployees collect census information would interfere with their job of
delivering the mail; that it would be more costly. There were also,
if I'm not mistaken, some issues that were associated with the
union.

And yes, there was a report that was issued. I don’t have a copy
of it with me, but I’m sure we could get a copy of it for you,
Waxman.

Mr. WaxMAN. Thank you. We would like to receive that report
for the committee’s record.

Several Members of Congress are particularly worried about the
accuracy of the census in rural areas. Would there be a special
problem of using Postal Service letter carriers to conduct the cen-
sus in rural areas?

Mr. HoLMEs. Yes, sir. It’s my understanding that as part of this
hearing, I think the president of the Rural Letter Carriers Associa-
tion reiterated some of the same points that I just made. And there
is a statement that we can get you that covers the concerns that
he raised about—about their involvement.

[The information referred to follows:]


CONTENTS

Hearing held on September 9, 1998
Statement of:

Shapiro, Robert J., Under Secretary, for Economic Affairs, U.S. Depart-
F. Holmes, Acting Director, U.S. Bureau

ment of Commerce; and James
of the Census ...
Letters, statements, etc., submitte y!
Hoimes, James F., Acting Director, si S. ‘Bureau of the Census:
Prepared statement of .
-_ Prepared statement of the Rural Letter Carriers Association
Maloney. 1 Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, prepared statement of . _
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,
prepared statement of ..
Shapiro, Robert J., Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce:
Information concerning sampling ...
List of organizations that support an accurate census using statistical
sampling ...
Prepared statement of .

(au)

29


106

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

AND
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

1. GENERAL

A Purpose

‘This memorandum sets forth an agreement between the U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau)
and the U.S. Postal Service (Postal Service) for a limited test of Postal Service matching and
correction of selected Census Bureau address files.

B. Background *

With the encouragerhent of the Subcommittee on Census, Statistics and Postal Personnel of the
House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the Census Bureau and the Postal Service are
exploring the possibility of sharing address information on a long-term basis to their mutual benefit.
Anticipated benefits of that long-term cooperative effort include: an improved linkage between
‘Census Bureau data and Postal Service geography, leading to a better understanding of the data each
maintains associated with that geography; cleaner addresses on Census Bureau mailings; improved
Census Bureau file accuracy and completeness; field verification of selected Postal Service address
files; and incorporation of geographical coordinates in Postal Service files.

C.— Authority
This agreement is entered into pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 411, which provides:

Executive agencies . . . are authorized to furnish property, both real and personal, and
personal and nonpersonal services to the Postal Service, and the Postal Service is authorized
to fumish property and services to them. The furnishing of property and services under this
section shall be under such terms and conditions, including reimbursability, as the Postal
Service and the head of the agency concemed shall deem appropriate.

Ml, SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS

A. Selection of Address Files

Initially, five 3digit ZIP Code areas shall be selected for testing. These 3-digit areas shall be
mutually agreed upon, with three areas to be selected by the Postal Service and two areas to be
selected by the Census Bureau. Areas shall be selected to represent a variety of different address
situations,

‘During the course of the test, additional address files may be selected for testing, not to exceed three
additional 3-digit areas. The number of additional files and the method of selection for any such


66

gest, again, that we’re not paying attention to it or that it is not
important.

Mr. MIL_er. Is the main plan still sampling?

Mr. HOLMEs. There’s no such thing as a main plan, Mr. Chair-
man.

Mr. MILLER. You're saying they're on an equal basis right now?

Mr. HoLMEs. What I’m saying is that we started the process for
planning census for 2000 7 years ago. The recommendations that
came from the statistical community and the professionals at the
Census Bureau said that if we wanted to get the best possible
count in the year 2000, we had to use sampling. That is what we’ve
been working on. And, again, we were not told until November of
last year to do something different. We are working very, very hard
to. have a plan for you come November that does not include sam-
pling.

Mr. MILLER. You know, the White House approved $36 million
in their budget but you asked for $123 million. What was the addi-
tional money for?

Mr. HoLMEs. Some of it, if I’m not mistaken, was associated with
staffing for some of those offices. But to be honest, as I said, I was
not here, so I can’t speak to all of the specific details.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Shapiro, you mentioned that if we go for a full
enumeration we're going to need an emergency supplemental,
right?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, what I said, Mr. Chairman, was that the ad-
ministration budget request only covered the first 5 months of fis-
cal year 1999 costs of preparation and planning for a traditional
census. And if the decision were taken at that time to pursue a tra-
ditional census, and the Congress provided only the funds that the
President had requested, the administration would have to request
a supplemental for the remaining 7 months of the year. I was sim-
ply describing the administration’s —

Mr. MILLER. The emphasis of the administration is still on sam-
pling, and this is a secondary approach which is only going to be,
most likely going to be the approach that we’re going to take, is full
enumeration. And you're still going to require congressional action
next year, and yet you're opposing the idea of a fence which re-
quires congressional action.

We've got to have congressional action if we do full enumeration.
It seems like you should have at least put that in the budget if
you’re sincere and serious about both options. I will tell you my
time is about up, so Mrs. Maloney?

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We all know that opponents of using modern scientific methods
have come up with several prgposals to counter the scientific plan
put forward by the National Academy of Sciences, put in place by
the Bush administration, put in place by Dr. Barbara Bryant, the
former Republican appointee at the Census Bureau, to correct the
undercount.

But I would just like to see and hear from you. We all know, and
it’s unrefuted, that the 1990 census missed nearly 4 times as many
blacks as nonblacks. Now, how are we going to correct this if we
don’t go forward with the plan put forward by President Bush, Dr.
Barbara Bryant and the National Academy of Sciences?


4 & 5, What preparations for implementation have been made? What resources have been
expended in these preparations?

‘As I have mentioned before, the vast amount of decennial census resources the Census
Bureau has used over the last 7 years have been spent on preparing to implement
operations related to either a census with or without sampling. In FY1998 alone, we
successfully conducted and are continuing to evaluate a full-scale Dress Rehearsal in
three sites; we have begun our rural address listing to ensure that we have a complete
address list in areas that do not have city-style addresses; we began the initial phase of
our address list partnerships with local governments to dramatically improve the address
list in areas with street addresses; we issued contracts for automated data processing and
telecommunications; we opened twelve regional census centers and the census field
offices needed to manage the address list development operations; and we dramatically
increased Census 2000 promotion and outreach efforts through awarding a contract to
manage the advertising program and to add the staff needed in our regions for
development of partnerships with state, local, tribal, and private sector organizations. All
of these efforts are preparations related to implementing either a census with or without
sampling.

Specific to a census without sampling, I have mentioned above our progress on
developing a nonsampling plan. Additionally, our FY1998 appropriations act provided
$12 million for buying equipment for the 130 temporary local census offices that will
need to be opened in early FY1999. In addition, we have spent $5.5 million for
telecommunications, furniture, and making the sites ready for the automated equipment.
We have also developed a management recruiting and training plan.

‘As mentioned earlier, we have also conducted work on developing a questionnaire that
would be used for the census without sampling, as well as for the census with sampling.

7. & 8. What planning tasks are you implementing for FY99?_ What testing procedures are

you implementing for FY99?
This November, we will be completing the assessments and evaluations of potential
‘components of a plan to take the census without sampling, developing interim cost
estimates, and constructing a master activities schedule. At that time, we will know
whether any testing of new procedures or methods will be necessary or possible. We will
complete the Dress Rehearsal program evaluations. In February, we will have a detailed
plan for conducting a nonsampling census.

9, What steps are you taking in FY99 to be prepared to implement in the 2000 Census?
The bulk of our work in FY 1999 is directed toward either census design including
address list development, review, and update; preparing for data capture; establishing and
staffing the field office infrastructure, questionnaire development and printing; and
marketing and partnership programs. In addition, we wi! conduct any necessary and


101

Other types of delivery that limit personal knowledge of the customer by the letter-
carrier are:

* Customers who rent Post Office Boxes may not live in the local area.
Because this mail is sorted to the box by postal clerks, the customer may
never have personal contact with any postal employee other than to pay the
box rent. Letter carriers will not have any personal knowledge about these
customers.

* The number of commercial mail receiving agencies (CMRA) is increasing.
Mail for the customers who use these agencies is delivered in bulk to the
business address of the receiving agent. This mail often arrives at the
delivery office already separated from the residential mail and does not
require a preliminary sort by the letter carrier. Again, letter carriers
would have no personal knowledge of these customers.

* — Some large high-rise office and apartment buildings provide "drophouse”
or mailroom service for their tenants. In these circumstances, letter
carriers have no opportunity to gain personal knowledge of the tenants.

* Resort, university or military communities, densely populated urban areas
and any other locations where there are continuous population shifts do not
provide opportunities for letter carriers to have personal knowledge of the
individuals they serve.

To further compound the issue, the census is a count of all people, some of whom
do not reside in regular dwellings with mailboxes. Carriers do not service
buildings that do not have mail receptacles and, based on their postal
employment, would have no idea of the number of people living in these
conditions.

We do not believe the USPS letter carriers have sufficient personal knowledge
about their postal customers to provide the minimum census information
required without making direct contact with the household. Therefore, to
implement this suggestion, letter carriers would need to conduct a follow up
operation for households that do not return a census questionnaire. We have
examined this idea thoroughly, the following paragraphs describe the issues

associated with implementing it.

‘This proposal would have a negative impact on the ability of the Postal Service to
deliver the mail.

Census work done while the carrier delivers mail to his or her regular route
would cause delays in, or curtailment of, mail delivery. Even if carriers were
instructed to begin census interviews at the end of their regular workday to avoid


26

T regard it my duty as Party Chairman to alert you to the consequences on this front, and
to request your assistance in stopping a census adjusvpent, Congress bas the ultimate
Constitutional federal

yeat 1997 Supplemental Appropristions Act). We anticipate an sttempt to strip this
legislation of language that preveats the use of estimates and sampling in taking the
census. Despite the concerns outlined here, adjustment proponents have been successful
in exploiting Members’ local concems related to federal funding and legislative
representation, A cenmus adjustment could shift some federal funding levels, but it should
‘be stressed that the language coming out of conference is planned to be specific for
epportionment, and not funding distribution purposes,

Ieis vital that Republicans be united in opposing an adjusted census. Therefore, 1am
calling on each stste chairman to urge your congressional delegation to support legislative
restrictions, and to vote against any amendment that removes such language from the
‘Supplemental Appropriations bil.

‘Thank you, and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need further information
regarding this matter.


oe

Flower Iaduatces, Ine. = Pout Office Hox 1238 ~ Teomasville, Georgia 31799-1338 — (912) 226-9110

Anes Mate
Rite fn Boas
Ghd eancuive Offer RECEIVED

FEZ 24

February 18, 1998

ed

Just before the holidays I received a letter from Speaker behalf of the Southeastern Legal,
Founision regarding tbe upcoming eg Gulecge encom Coane 20 As you wosware te

create 27 million “mythical” for redistricting in
{vas souck by haw this benign sift in ald form of
sean beni sin ply could input our representative form 0

as lnvauto prohibit sampling was fied lat wek in Federal Court The
Foundation has called cpon me to brief business

[ong me ruitcatons! mal ak br your iaisad np

While the Foundton'sinteret inthe cons is purely costisionl and wo pein 70

the importance ipo oe, the

‘be interested in a memo from Jim Nicholson that discusses the on the
oor. “othe ata independent ely conducted fore RNC showed te Caton
census plan could result in:

© losing 24 oF more GOP Congressional seats,

© Jesing 113 GOP State Seasto seats,

¢ losing 297 GOP State House seats.
Many of these legislative district are in states where political majorities are held by only the narrowest of
margins. The Clinton Census plan could ‘Democrats the crucial edge needed to take over
Congress and also prevail ia contest fo contro veal Sate ese gaeng. A
copy of hat mem is foryourreferenes.

which will the Supreme Court, will cost close to a million dollars. Ia order to insure
teats edie iy nde iy ed cobs of 5,0, $10.02 £25,000 $30,000. Te
Soutbeamern Legal ‘oundatlon isa 5 S016) G), and aay conitos you ai comply
seater spores Tey unten whch pense Op of Poe mit ‘Your name or
vee arc til aot be publ ‘at any time without your express


105

established at each sorting facility to serve as a liaison with
the census offices. Arrangements for the timing and logistics of
the delivery of the sorted mail returns were coordinated at the
local level by USPS and Census Bureau personnel.

@ -DELIVERABILITY CHECKS FOR SEARCH/MATCH OPERATIONS

Several 1990 coverage improvement operations (such as the "Were
You Counted?" Program and the Parolee/Probationer Program)
resulted in census questionnaires that required matching to the
census address list. Over 3 million forms were processed through
a Search/Match Operation in an effort to ensure the correct
enumeration of persons at their usual residence. If the address
on the form could not be matched to the census address list, the
address was sent to the USPS for verification. Addresses (and
associated persons) classified as deliverable by the USPS were
then added to,the census.

@ CENSUS CLOSEOUT ADDRESS CHECK (CCAC)

In the 1990 census, the USPS and Census Bureau implemented an
operation called the Census Closeout Addreas Check. During the
final days of the Nonresponse Follow-up Operation, targeted
district offices were instructed to utilize the USPS to obtain
information about unenumerated addresses. These district offices
provided an address card for each unenumerated address to USPS
officials asking for a limited amount of information about the
household (type of structure, occupancy status on census day, and
number of occupants on census day). For legal reasons, the USPS
letter carriers were asked to provide the information using only
their own knowledge, and not based on information from mail
addressed to the unit.

Because the operation was conceived and implemented late in the
1990 census process, it did not undergo complete testing during
the planning cycle nor did it have the rigorous administrative
control that characterized other census operations. Only the
most difficult cases were sent to the USPS for information. The
results of this operation were that 142,356 address cards were
gent to the USPS and 35,078 were returned. Only 17% of the
returned cards provided the number of census day occupants. We
need to do much more controlled research to determine the extent
to wh: usps letter Carriers could supply basic information
about members of households.



34

without the use of scientific sampling, as well as with it.

The dual track planning and preparation process is designed to prepare the
Census Bureau to conduct a successful decennial census on whatever terms are
ultimately decided by the Supreme Court and the laws passed by the Congress and
signed by the President. It is the responsibility of the Census Bureau and the
Economics and Statistics Administration, which I direct, to ensure that the
Congress and the President have the full information required to reach this
decision. Therefore the dual track process is also designed to examine whether the
Census Bureau could achieve an accurate, fair and cost-effective census using
traditional methods, complemented by additional operations in place of scientific
sampling.

Throughout the planning and preparation stages for Census 2000, the
Department of Commerce and the Economics and Statistics Administration have
consistently deferred to the experts at the Census Bureau regarding the technical
and operational components of this planning and preparation. The Census Bureau
is the world’s premier data collection agency, with over 13,000 professional and
hard-working employees. These dedicated civil servants conduct the census, and
politics does not and should not play a role in their technical and professional

decisions.


115

and thereby eliminate any contact with the rural carrier.

Yor the reasons stated above, the rural carrier would have no
d@irect contact and limited knowledge of the customer. Obtaining
the basic census information would therefore be a hit or miss
proposition.

We also believe that the cost of using the full time rural
carrier to do specific enumeration is a confiscatory proposition in
that the average rural carrier is paid significantly more than the
average 1990 Census enumerator who was paid about $7.50 an hour.

Secondly, there is the question of trust and privacy of Postal
customers. The public now presumes that carriers handle their
financial documents including bills, payments and legal notices
with absolute confidentiality. In all of the customer satisfaction
indexes, rural letter carriers rank very, very high with their
Postal customers because today we protect their privacy and provide
good service. We are somewhat fearful that if you used us as
enumerators, that trust might be diminished at a time that we
believe it's particularly crucial for the Postal service to
maintain a high degree of trust with its mailing public.

If, in spite of these reservations, the Census Bureau thought
it was still advantageous to consider rural letter carriers ta’be
used as enumerators, we have an alternative suggestion. The
National Rural Letter Carriers Association represents about 45,000
backup employees. These are non-~career employees who cover routes
when the assigned carrier is absent. These backup employees are
paid approximately $12 an hour, much closer to the $7.50 an hour
that was paid in the 1990 Census for enumerators and much less than
the full time carriers. These individuals could possibly be used
over a period of time when they were not serving their routes as a
replacement to the assigned carrier. A customer might feel more
comfortable in that the interviewer is not the persén delivering
their mail daily, just one that they see on Saturday or when
they are serving as a leave replacement. :

We believe that the best use of rural carriers for the 2000
Census is, not serving as enumerators, but rather by using their
knowledge for the development of a complete and accurate address
list and using their specialized knowledge of occupancy/vacancy
information. If the Census Bureau desires to consider our 1
replacements, we would be glad to explore that feasibility with
Postal service and with the Census Bureau.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or the committee might have.

Now I would be remiss if I did not thank you particularly,
Chairman sawyer, Mrs. Morton, Mr. Myers, Mr. Petri for your
relentless determination to pass H.R. 4190, the leave replacement
bill, into law. - We are confident the President will sign it and
are very, very greatful to you for all your efforts in our regards.


The Honorable Dan Miller 2

2) Media costs are higher for the Sacramento site because the Designated Marketing Area
(DMA) has a larger population base. As an example, the cost on average to buy prime time
television in Sacramento is 232% higher than in Columbia.

Although fewer dollars were spent in Columbia, more television spots were purchased (3,263 in
‘Columbia versus 2,308 in Sacramento), and more radio spots were purchased (1,859 in Columbia
versus 1,388 in Sacramento). Newspaper insertions were greater in Sacramento (112) than
Columbia (23) due to the larger number of language and community specific publications in the
Sacramento DMA.

The Census Bureau, through Y&R, employed aggressive and innovative advertising strategies in
the Columbia site to extend the advertising into the nonresponse follow-up (NRFU) period in an
attempt to reach hard to count populations more effectively. The goal of this campaign was to
increase the initial response rate and to pave the Way for the partnership NRFU efforts by
increasing awareness of the Dress Rehearsal. An additional $400,000 was invested over the
original plan to extend the existing ads and develop new ads (for example, new billboards and
posters) that were placed in paid space in unique locations, such as check-cashing parlors,
convenience stores, and beauty salons. In these same types of locations, the Census Bureau
developed products, such as shopping bags, brochures, and posters distributed by vendors for
signage and give-aways. Examples of other nontraditional locations for ads included inserts in
subscription newspaper polybags, shopping cart advertisements, and signs at sporting events.
‘The Bureau also hired an additional Partmership Specialist out of the regional office dedicated
exclusively to the Columbia site in order to identify outreach and promotion opportunities.

2. Please explain why you feel it would be necessary to open 130 temporary local census
offices a year early if you were compelled to conduct non-response follow-up for the
10% of households currently “set aside” in the Administration’s 2000 Census Plan.
‘Are these 130 offices in addition to the local census offices being planned for the 2000
census with sampling? Would any offices be opened a year early if the Bureau
continues with a sampled census?

Itis the Bureau’s opinion that in a traditional census, the 130 temporary Local Census Offices
(LCOs) currently planned for Census 2000 will need to be opened one year earlier than
scheduled in order to begin recruiting the extra enumerators needed for the NRFU operation.
‘The current plan calls for collecting information from a sample of nonresponding addresses
drawn to ensure that information is obtained from at least 90% of the addresses in each Census
tract. This effort will require sending enumerators to 22.5 million addresses, In a traditional
census, enumerators will have to visit all of the expected 34.5 million nonresponding
addresses— an addition of 12 million, and an increase in the work load for NRFU of over 50%.


112

August 26, 1993

ROBERT W MARX
CHIEF GEOGRAPHY DIVISION
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
5001 SILVER HILL RO
SUITLAND MD 20746-5215

Dear Mr. Manx:

This is in response to your recent letter regarding the development of a file that
will relate ihe Census Bureau's TIGER data with the Postal Service's AMS data.

I believe a joint effort of this nature would produce many long term benefits for
the Census Bureau and the Postal Service. An up-to-date file that equates
postal ZIP+4 codes to TIGER data would enable both agencies to improve ~
customer service through more accurate and up-to-date products.

In view of the progress being made in our earlier joint project, we are looking
forward to this additional work sharing agreement. | have asked Don Nichols,
from the National Customer Service Center in Memphis, to contact Dan
‘Sweeney in order to begin the technical discussions for this project.

Sincerely,

se € D Qe’
Robert G. Krause
Manager
Address Management
cc Dan Sweeney, Census Bureau
Michael Murphy, NCSC
Paui Bakshi, Address Management
Don Nichols, NCSC
Mike Duncan, NCSC


76

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is up. I do have many more questions.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis. In terms of dealing with the substance and not the
cheap political rhetoric, I have read the letters from the Speaker
and others who wrote. Those letters, Mrs. Maloney, were about
money flowing into the States. It was not about the apportionment
at that point when those letters were written. And there were a
number of letters from Democrats that opposed sampling at that
point because they thought it would hurt their States. So I want
to put that in the appropriate political context which I think those
letters deserve.

Let me ask you this: To your knowledge, has there been any dis-
cussion in the Census Bureau or Department of Commerce about
the need for congressional action in order to use the sampling of
the 2000 census—maybe like the need to amend section 195, Title
13—any internal discussion on that?

Mr. SHAPIRO. No, not in the Commerce Department.

Mr. Davis. How about in Census.

Mr. HOLMES. Not that I’m aware of, sir; no.

Mr. Davis. Are you aware of anyone expressing the view that
there needs to be an amendment to Title 13 in order to proceed
with the sampling plan?

Mr. Suaptro. No, I’m not aware.

Mr. Davis. The attorneys, nobody ever targeted that?

Mr. SHapiro. No.

Mr. Davis. Wouldn’t you agree that Congress and not the De-
partment of Commerce—Congress ought to be making the ultimate
decision as to what numbers are used for purposes of apportion-
ment of the House?

Mr. SHAPIRO. I am advised that the law directs that the Presi-
dent determines which numbers to accept or not. But again, I am
not a lawyer and so I’m prepared to be corrected.

Mr. Davis. I know you're not a lawyer. The Constitution seems
to vest that authority in Congress.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes, it does. The Constitution vests the authority
to write the laws on the way the census—on the manner in which
the census is conducted.

Mr. Davis. Let me read a letter from a former assistant attorney
general:

We reiterate the procedural point that the ultimate authority in matters relating
to the census, and this includes statistical adjustments, lies with Congress. There
is no clear statutory procedure guiding this post-December 31 exercise in determin-
ing whether to adjust. Whatever decision the Secretary reaches is therefore subject
to second guessing by the Congress in this almost unique circumstance of executive
branch exercise of delegated congressional power.

That was from Stuart Gerson, Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division IJ, and Wendell Willkie, who was the General Counsel of
the Department of Commerce in 1991. That was before this admin-
istration took over. But that letter should have been there. I would
think someone would have pulled that up as they were talking
through the new census.

Let me ask this: Doesn’t the so-called one number census deprive
Congress of the opportunity to enact a reapportionment based on
the traditional head count?


28

Mr. MILLER. Vince, you don’t have an opening statement?

Mr. SNOWBARGER. No.

Mr. MILLER. Normally we only have the chairman and the rank-
ing member give an opening statement, but Mr. Waxman asked to
have a brief opening statement, about 3 minutes or something.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate the courtesy of
allowing me to have an opening statement. I might add I’ve been
in Congress 24 years, and every subcommittee I’ve ever been on,
all Members have a chance to make a statement. Usually they’re
limited to 5 minutes each, including the chairman and the ranking
member. But we're following a different practice, and I appreciate
your making this exception.

I just want to point out that the issue of the census is a com-
plicated one. It requires a great deal of understanding about the
complexity. And I appreciate the hard work that you, Mr. Chair-
man, and particularly Mrs. Maloney are providing to deal with this
matter. Many Members don’t want to take the time or give the en-
ergy that Mrs. Maloney has devoted to this issue, and I think it’s
a true service to the country and to the Congress.

Like most of my colleagues, I was surprised by the decision of the
last month’s court on the census because, as the judges themselves
pointed out, it ran contrary to all previous rulings on this issue.
Fortunately, when we decided on the agreement on a bipartisan
basis, we provided—on how to test out where we were going to go
on the census, we allowed for an expedited review by the Supreme
Court. The law is going to be determined by the courts and not by
Members of Congress. And it’s going to go to the Supreme Court,
and then we will know what the true law is on this question.

There was a bipartisan ement. And I think the criticism of
former Member Tony Coehlo is unfair, because he is saying the
President will stick to that agreement. And we hope the Republican
Members of the Congress will stick to the agreement.

Before we decided whether we were going to go to sampling or
not have sampling, two tests were to have been achieved; one was
a core test of the constitutionality of it, and that’s yet to be fully
determined. And the second was to have various tryouts through-
out the country to see how the two methods might work so we can
get the most accurate census possible. I find it hard to believe that
when we are going forward with that agreement to test in both
ways, whether we're going to have sampling or not, that those who
want to keep to that agreement should be accused of being exces-
sively partisan, because that was a bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your statements on wanting to reach
out, to extend an olive branch. Let us take that part of your state-
ment, and I won’t pay attention to the rest of it where you bash
Democrats who disagree with you. Because what we need to do is
to bridge these differences and make sure that the census we have
is as scientifically accurate as possible, because every American de-
serves to be counted.

It’s important they be counted, and there’s more to that census
than just apportioning Members for who is going to be in the
House of Representatives. There are Federal funds that are in-
volved. And I think it goes to the fundamental questions of our rep-
resentative democracy, and that’s all people that are counted.


94

Of course, we do agree that there are some areas in which we could work together
with the Census Bureau, For example, postmasters and pastal employees would be pleased to
assist the census in identifying vacant housing and in insuring completion and accuracy of
addresses. However, it may not always be possible for postmasters to match physical
addresses to post office box numbers since they may not always have that information. We
‘would also be pleased to provide space in the post offices for additional questionnaires or
other promotional material where space is available.

‘Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to comment on these issues. Please
let us know if we can provide you with any further infortiation.

‘Submitted on September 27, 1994


preparing to conduct a full count. Reports in the media indicate the Administration’s defiance
cof Congress and the court. We read that preparations continue to go forward for a sampling
Census,

Furthermore, the intense partisanship on the part of the Administration raises
concerns. Vice President Gore recently told an African American audience that
“Republicans don’t even want to count you.” Those types of comments are not only
dishonest, but destructive toward our goal of making this the most accurate census ever.

I sincerely hope that the Administration WILL NOT sabotage the 2000 Census to
score what it believes will be political points.

The Census Bureau requested an additional $123 million to prepare for a full
enumeration. The White House said “NO” and submitted a budget without the additional
fanding. Chairman Rogers and Congress, however, said ‘YES” and appropriated $100
million more despite the White House’s refusal.

So who is trying to save the Census and who is trying to sabotage it? Why would the
White House tum down the Bureau’s request if they were sincerely committed to preparing
for a fall enumeration?

The early indications from South Carolina, the location of the practice “actual
enumeration,” suggest that the Bureau DID NOT show-off its best stuff down there. The
hearing of the Census Monitoring Board in South Carolina showed problems —- easily
corrected problems -- in the implementation. The mailing list was terrible -- a whole zip
code was missed -— and the outreach efforts were seemingly mismanaged. In fact, even

4


77

Mr. SHaPtrRo. It would—yes, it would. It would provide, however,
in our view, the most accurate numbers for Congress to——

Mr. Davis. I understand.

Mr. SHaPIRoO [continuing]. Carry out apportionment.

Mr. Davis. Would you agree with the three-judge panel that
should the courts invalidate the census in 2001 or thereafter, the
one number census method would require the entire enumeration
to be reconducted at a cost of $4 billion; and, more importantly, the
new census would not be completed before the date Congress was
supposed to perform its constitutional duty regarding apportion-
ment?

ee SHaPIRo. I’m sorry, Congressman, again that’s a legal con-
clusion.

Mr. Davis. Let me ask Director Holmes. This is a factual conclu-
sion the Court made that if this was thrown out in 2001, you would
need a new enumeration, the cost would be $4 billion, and it would
not be completed on time. And I ask Director Holmes, who dodged
this the last time the Court came to this conclusion. I’m simply
asking if he agrees or not.

Mr. HouMEs. Again, I’m not an attorney. You’re asking me for a
legal opinion, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis. No, I’m asking you the factual opinion. Let me give
you an opinion. If this were invalidated in 2001, the courts invali-
date the census you're about to conduct, you would have to have
a new enumeration. The cost, they estimate, would be $4 billion,
and the Court says it could not be completed before Congress is
supposed to perform its constitutional duty regarding reapportion-
ment.

Mr. SHAPIRO. If I could just mention, Mr. Davis, as I understood
it, part of the reason for Supreme Court review of the plan is to
avoid that circumstance.

Mr. Davis. Well, to my next question. It’s true that the Com-
merce Department and the Census Bureau intend to argue in the
Supreme Court that the courts can’t review the legality of the sam-
pling plan before the census is conducted. Isn’t that true?

Mr. SHAPIRO. We don’t argue at all, Mr. Davis. The Solicitor Gen-
eral argues. And it’s——

Mr. Davis. Do you support the Solicitor General in that opinion?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Again, I’m not an attorney.

Mr. Davis. I’m not asking you as an attorney. I’m asking about
a matter of policy. It’s a policy issue, not a legal issue.

Mr. Suapiro. It’s been explained to me as a legal issue.

Mr. Davis. Let me ask you this: Would you prefer to have the
issue resolved now or would you rather have it resolved 3 years
from now?

Mr. SHAPIRO. I would prefer a resolution that enables us to con-
duct the most accurate, fair, and cost-effective census.

Mr. Davis. Wouldn’t you prefer to have it resolved now? What-
ever the decision, whatever the decision is, wouldn’t you rather
have that decision now than have it 3 years from now?

Mr. SHAPIRO. My commitment——

Mr. Davis. It’s easy; yes or no.

Mr. SHAPIRO {continuing]. Is to ensure that we have the most ac-
curate, cost-effective, and fair census.


83

Mr. HOLMES. Well, I guess the easiest way to respond to that is
that you don’t need to spend money on the same process twice. If
we do, the coverage improvement and there’s no need to do the
ICM, by the same token why do coverage improvement programs
and then go back and do the same thing in ICM? Remember, ICM
itself, one of the things that it measures is coverage. It gives us a
sense of the number of people that we’ve missed, the number of
people that were double-counted, and a range of other issues.

Mr. MILLER. You would agree that the 10 percent that we’re not
going to count are not the hardest-to-count 10 percent? It’s sup-
posedly a random 10 percent of the nonresponse; right?
war. Homes. I would disagree with your characterization, Mr.

ler.

Mr. MILLER. Oh, you would.

Mr. Homes. Yes, I would.

Mr. MILLER. Explain that to me.

Mr. HoumEs. Let me finish. I would disagree, if I understood
your question correctly—and your question is of that 10 percent—
yes, it is random; but keep in mind, we will be sending question-
naires to each and every household in this country. Everyone will
have an opportunity to complete those questionnaires. We will then
followup on a portion of those that did not return them. But it’s
clear that we are talking about people that did not return their
questionnaires so they’re different to start with. That’s why I said
T would disagree with the context in which you made that state-
ment.

Mr. MILLER. Well, let me make the statement again. I said of the
nonresponse, we’re going to end up with 10 percent of the popu-
lation we're not going to count; right?

0?

Mr. HOLMES. Go ahead.

Mr. MILLER. Explain to me what is the 10 percent. Who are the
30 0 percent? Are they the hardest-to-count 10 percent in this coun-

Oe HOLMES. I think it’s safe to assume that some portion of it
is hard to count, but I doubt very seriously that there’s any in that
population would be easy to count, because if they were easy to
count, they would respond in the first place.

Mr. MILLER. I’m a little baffled by that.

Mr. Hotes. Let me give you a practical example. I'll give you
the same example when I testified before, and this is associated
with your State which was part of our region, the region I worked
in in 1990. We had over 4 million households to followup on, over
4 million. Those were not people that voluntarily mailed their ques-
tionnaires in. Those are not people that stood up and said, Oh, this
is a very, very good thing, I want to be a part of. These are people
that for any number of reasons did not want to participate. So any-
one that doesn’t respond, that’s a difficult part of the population to
count.

Now, if you want a segment, that’s a different story.

Mr. MILLER. You're saying that the uncounted 10 percent is not
a random sample so——

Mr. HoimEs. No, that’s not—


5

to make it happen. To delay further by pursuing unlikely remedies
is to waste precious time, waste valuable tax dollars, and place in
jeopardy the 2000 census.

Congress is committed to a legal, constitutional census and one
that will correct the errors of the past. I hope others are committed
to a full enumeration.

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


pbtT

‘Vil, SIGNATURES AND EFFECTIVE DATE

‘The parties hereby agree to this Memorandum of Understanding, which shall be effective on the later
date of the two dates shown below.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE CENSUS.

Webudy) Moe siete

‘Signature and date)

ROBERT W. MARK
(Name)

Chief, Geography Division
Title) ‘

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

Y az js

(Signature and date)

Robert G. Krause
(Name)

Manager, Address Management
(Title)



81

CENSUS 2000: ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT AN ACCURATE CENSUS
USING STATISTICAL SAMPLING

~ Amencans for a Fair and Accurate Census, ine

President, American Jewish Commitice, -

President, American Sociological Assn.

President, Arab American Instinate

President, Assn. of Multi Ethnic Americans
President, Associaton of Public Data Users
Executive Director, Child Welfare League
President/Founder, Children's Defense Fund
Executive Director, Social Science Associations
President, Council of Professional Asmas. of Federal
Statisties

Member, Hapa Issues Forum Board of Directors

President, Mexican American Legal Defease and
Education Fund

Executive Director, National Asian-Pacific American
Legal Consortium

President, NAACP

~ Census Advisory Committee of
= Consus Advisory

a} Assos.
‘Committee on the African American

Populations

= Census Advisory Committee on the American Indian and
‘Alaska Native Populations

= Census Advisory Committee on the Asian and Pacific

Islanders Population
— Census Advisory Commnitice on the Hispenic Population
~ Consortium of Social Seience Associations
= Council of Chief State Schoo! Officers

= Council of Professional Asus. on Federal Statistics

~ Cuban American National Council, Inc.

= Decision

— Housing Staistice Users Group

= League of Women Voters of Los Angeles

Executive Director, National A. of Ce

=MANA-A 1 Latina On

President, National Assn, of Lptine Elected and
Appointed Officials
Executive Director,
Foundation
President, National Congress of American Indians
President, National League of Cities
PresideovCEO, National Urban League
President, U.S. Conference of Mayors
President, National Councid of La Raza
President, National Puerto Rican Coalition
President, Organization of Chinese Americans

~- Census 2000 Initiative, including:

President, NAACP

President, U.S. Conference of Mayors
President, Children's Defense Fund
President, American Jewish Committee
President, National League of Cities
President, Nationa) Council of La Raza

jon! Community Action

Officials

~A (Chamber of C R A

~ American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees

~ American Sociological Association

~- Americans for Democratic Action

~ Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO

~ Association of MultiEthnic Americans

= Association of Public Data Users

+ Association of University Businegyand Economic Research

~ Califomia Rural Legal Assistance

~ Mexican American Legal Defease and Education Fund

~ National Association of Business Economists

~ National Association of Counties

— National Associaton of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials

~ National Association of Regional Councils
= National Black Caucus of State Legislatures
— National Conmunnity Action Foundation

NOW Lega Defense end Boron Pend
= Office of Cv Rights, AFL-Ci
Orptinaen of Chine Acerant
1 puniyzed Veurum of America

‘Anti-Discrimination League
~- American Association of State Highway and Transportation —- Population Association of America
~ Rainbow Pash Coatition

~ Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

= Union of Needle Trade, Industrial & Textile Employees

United States Conference of Mayors

- Working Group on Ancestry in the U.S. Census

“‘Cltles, Counties, & States supporting sampling, include:
‘New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Los Angeles, CA (City and
(County); Denver, CO (City and County); Houston, TX;
Mian! - Dade County, FL; New Mexico, State of; San
‘Antonio, TX; San Francisco, CA (City and County);
(Oakland, CA; Stamford, CT



107

-2-
address files shall be mutually determined by the Postal Service and the Census Bureau,
B. Fumishing of Selected Files to Postal Service

For the selected 3-digit ZIP Code areas, the Census Bureau shall provide its address files to the Postal
Service at the following address:

Don Nichols

National Customer Support Center
US Postal Service

6060 Primacy Pky Ste 101
Memphis TN 38188-0001

C. Information Returned

1. The Postal Seniee shall return to the Census Bureau the following information:
A total count of Postal Service addresses for each 5-digit ZIP Code area within the test area.
A total count of Census Bureau addresses for each 5-digit ZIP Code area within the test area.

The complete and standardized address for each Census Bureau address that can be matched
against the Postal Service's files.

Identification of those Census Bureau addresses that cannot be successfully matched against
the Postal Service's files, together with diagnostic information indicating address problems
that are identified through the matching process.

For each 5-digit ZIP Code area for which the Postal Service determines that the Census
Bureau file meets the 90% completeness requirement of Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)
A920.4.0, the complete and standardized address for each Postal Service address that is not
included in the Census Bureau file.

2. Additionally, if the Postal Service determines that the Census Bureau file meets the 90%
‘completeness requirement of DMM A920.4.0 when evaluated for the sum of the five 3-digit ZIP
Code areas selected (rather than by individual 5-digit ZIP Code area), the Postal Service shall provide
the complete and standardized address for each Postal Service address that is not included in the
Census Bureau file for all five 3-digit areas.

3. Ifthe Census Bureau file does not meet the 90% requirement as described in paragraph.2. above,
the Postal Service shall identify the range of missing addresses and the number of missing addresses
for all Postal Service addresses that are not included in the Census Bureau's file, for each S-<digit ZIP
Code area for which the Postal Service determines that the Census Bureau file does not meet the
90% completeness requirement of DMM A920.4.0.

4. The Postal Service shall identify each address or address range provided under paragraphs 1., 2.,
and 3. above as residential, business (including other non-residential), or vacant, as appropriate.


92

ae,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTMASTERS.
GF THE UNITED STATES

AUBCANDRIA VA 2205-2000

‘TESTIMONY OF PRESIDENT DAVID GAMES
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTMASTERS
OF THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE

THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS, STATISTICS AND POSTAL PERSONNEL OF THE,
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

‘Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to express our views on the Postal
Service's role in planning the 2000 census. You have asked for information on the degree to
which postal employees might offer assistance with census procedures.

‘The National Association of Postmasters of the United States (NAPUS) represents
more than 42,000 active and retired postmasters throughout the country. As civic-minded
citizens, our members are pleased to cooperate with the Census Bureau. However, we must
temper our civic interest with our concems for prompt mail delivery and respect for the
privacy of our postal customers and their families, Therefore, we support the findings of the
Postal Service and the Census Bureau as presented in their November 5, 1993 report: USPS-

As the report indicates, we do not believe it would be feasible for letter carriers to
take on this data collection activity. While the city and rural letter carriers will certainly want
to address this issue thoroughly in their testimony, we can offer you our thoughts as postal
managers. First, we believe that the data collection activity will interfere with our primary
mission, which is the prompt delivery of the mail, and will unreasonably extend the-time

703-683-0007
FAX: 703-685-6820


60

‘There are approximately 205 staff members spending a considerable smoum of time working on
the development of a plan to conduct a traditional census. However, the vast majority of the
‘work being done on Census 2000 will apply to both a traditional census and a census that

quantify the percentage of time that suff spends working specifically on one plan or the other.

5, What specifically are the 20 chartered groups meationed in your opening statement?
‘What are the asnes and missions of these groups? Who chairs each group and what is
the phone number of each of these persons?

Allis of the 20 chartered groups, along with the charter (previously provided to your staff)
defining the purpose of each group and the issues they will address, is enclosed. For specific
information regarding the work that any of these groups are doing, please contact Anthony H.
Black, Chief of the Congressional Affuirs Office, at (301) 457-2171.

6. Whea will the Census Bureau have completed development of a census plan withont
sampling? You stated two dates ia your testimony - November 1998 and February 1999.

‘When the chartered groups mentioned above complete their examinstions of the various
components of a treditionsl census, Bureau staff will begin the process of integrating their
analyses. By the end of November of this year, the Bureau expects to complete this process and:
(1) ideatify specific elements to be inchided in a census without sampling, and (2) develop

cost estimates for the potential components of the plan. By the end of February of
1999, « detailed plan will be in place.

7. You mentioned in your testimony that the Censes Bureau has already developed »
management recruiting and training plan specific to a census without sampling. Please
produce a copy of that plan.

‘The Bureau’s recruitment and training plana, both of which are enclosed, apply to either a
‘traditional census or a census that utilizes statistical sampling. The difference is that more
‘eaumerators would need to be recruited and trained in a traditional environment. Under the
current plan, we would recruit and hire enough census takers for our nonresponse operations to
reach a total response rate of 90%, In a traditional ceasua, enough census takers would need to
be hired to complete NRFU operations for 100%, The Bureau’s recruiting and training plans
remain the same, but the number of people required increases.

‘The Honorable Dan Miller


11. During the recent dress rehearsal operations in both Sacramento, CA and Columbia, SC, the
Census Bureau was able to increase the mail response rate by approximately 7% and decrease
the need for costly nonsesponse follow up visits by using a second mailing. Please explain the
reasons behind the Bureau's decision not to conduct a second questionnaire mailing as a
‘coverage improvement method for the 2000 Census, including whether one of the reasons for
the removal of a second questionnaire mailing was the tight time frame needed to start and
complete the Bureau's proposed Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). You said in your
testimony the Bureau is investigating the use of a modified second mailing. ! understand that
there are time constraints on doing a targeted second mailing. Is the Bureau going to conduct
this operation?

12, lam working with Congresswoman Carrie Meeks to enhance local participation in the
Census process. We know that the Bureau is committed to hiring 10 percent of its work force
from welfare-to-work rolls, What legislation for waivers do you need to be able to increase the
number of welfare-to-work individuals hired for the 2000 Census?

Please provide responses to these questions by close of business, September 23, 1998. My
‘questions and your answers will be part of the official record of the September 9, 1998 hearing.
Again, thank you for your cooperation,

Sincerely,

Dan Miller

Chairman

‘Subcommittee on the Census

ce: The Honorable Carolyn Maloney


18

The plan put before us by the Census Bureau almost 3 years ago
remains the only plan on the table that will produce a census without the
racial biases of 1990 and at a cost in the same ballpark as 1990. Despite all
of the attacks, no one has put forward a better plan.

Let's look at some of the suggestions the opponents of a scientific
census have put forward to replace the National Academy plan. One
member suggested we do the 2000 census the way it was done in Milwaukee
and Cincinnati. Both of these cities devoted considerable local efforts toward
outreach. Even so, the undercount in both Milwaukee and Cincinnati was
2.2 percent -- higher than the national average, and nearly 4 times the
undercount for their home states of Wisconsin and Ohio. I don’t think that
is the result we want for 2000.

Another member suggested we use the Postal Service, even though the
Postal Service has said that it does not want postal carriers conducting the
census. To make matters worse, we would have to pay postal carriers 2 to
3 times what census takers get paid. Finally, in many communities, it just
is not practical. Postal carriers do not go door to door any more. In many
communities, they drive up to a bank of post boxes in the parking lot, deliver
the mail, and drive off.


47

use sampling, The lease negotiations for these 130 offices are nearly all completed and we will
award the contract for equipment for these offices in the near future.

Third, we have made substantial progress toward developing a plan specifically addressing
components of a census without sampling.
© We submitted to the Congress in April a “Status Report on Planning for a Decennial
Census in Year 2000 Without the Use of Scientific Sampling,”

0 We have reorganized our decennial management structure to accommodate dual track
planning successfully and we have hired staff to accomplish this planning,

© We have formed staff into some 20 chartered groups to address a wide range of issues
concerning programs and operations that might be components of a census without
sampling. These groups are exploring such broad issues as the use of administrative
records, questionnaire development and delivery strategy, coverage improvement
programs, ways to improve the nonresponse follow-up operation, and the marketing and
partnership programs. These groups are preparing operational analyses of the
‘components they are examining, which will be completed from mid-September to mid-
October; these analyses will describe how an operation should be conducted if it were
part of the plan for conducting a census without sampling. 1 will discuss these groups in
more detail later.

© After integrating the groups’ analyses, we plan to complete development this Novernber
ofa plan to conduct a census without sampling, an associated master activities schedule,
and interim cost estimates for the potential components of a plan. In February 1999, we
will have a detailed plan.

Critical Activities Must Be Performed in FY 1999

Mr. Chairman, before continuing with answers to the specific questions in your letter of
invitation, I want to emphasize that many critical activities vital to the success of Census 2000
must be conducted on schedule in FY1999. These activities, as I said earlier, apply both to a
census with sampling or without. A key activity is the continuing development of an accurate
Master Address File. In FY1999, we will begin and complete work to verify the estimated 94
million addresses that use house number and street name, commonly referred to as “city-style
addresses.” Also, we will complete the locating and listing of an estimated 22 million non-city
style addresses that do not use house number and street name, known as “rural address listing.”
We will also extend our efforts to validate the address list with state, local, and tribal authorities,
a program made possible by the Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 that authorized
these governments to review and validate the list.

Other key Census 2000 activities in FY 1999 include beginning the process of opening local
census offices in every congressional district; purchasing and putting in place the automation and


51

10

Marketing and Partnership Programs — The group is studying the augmentation of the
current advertising “one-message” approach. The current advertising campaign carries a
single message: to remind, educate, and motivate the public to mail back the census
questionnaire. The group is studying the use of two additional messages. One would be
used in hard-to-enumerate areas to provide information on the purpose of the census and
the community benefits to be derived from participation in the census. The other
message would be used during the nonresponse followup operation in 2000 to generate
public awareness about the operation and the importance of cooperating with
enumerators.

The group is also investigating additional and innovative types of media, such as banners
for city government buildings, shopping cart placards, shopping bags for commercial
establishments, theater billboards and backlit transparencies for display in convenience
store windows. Fact sheets, posters and promotional items would be expanded to include
messages tailored (0 educate and motivate historically undercounted groups.

Outreach efforts would likely be intensified. Ideas under discussion include 1)
imtensifying efforts with existing Non-Governmental Organization partners (NGO's) and
2) securing additional partners with special emphasis on community organizations,
businesses and churches whose constituencies are in hard-to-enumerate areas.

Post Census Review and Recanvass — This group is investigating the feasibility of
incorporating a review of the census results by local and tribal goveraments, with a field
operation planned to recanvass areas with potential coverage problems. Also
incorporated in the field operation would be areas identified by Bureau analysts as
potential problems. This post census review would give local and tribal governments an
important opportunity to review preliminary census results.

Enumeration of Special Populations and Areas — This group is looking at ideas that
could be used under both census designs as well as those that could be used only with a
census with no sampling. In the former category, are increased use of team and blitz
enumeration, which are intensive field enumeration techniques in areas with low mail
response; using special training modules in selected areas, such as those with
concentrations of recent immigrants; providing multi-lingual questionnaire assistance and
employing multi-lingual enumerators; and involving employers as partners in the census
by including inserts in pay envelopes. In the latter category, are augmenting the targeting
database to point staff to specific areas that may need special attention based on such
criteria as population density, income, or whether it is a rural or urban area; and mailing.
‘out a special letter to managers of mult-unit buildings or managers of hotels and motels to
gain awareness and cooperation with the enumeration.


80

Mr. WaxMAN. I think we ought to have that in the record. If the
chairman would permit, I would ask unanimous consent that it be
included in the record.

Mr. MILLER. Done.

[The information referred to follows:]


13

Mr. MILLER. And now I recognize Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hear-
ing, and I thank particularly Ranking Member Waxman for being
here today, although I must say I am puzzled over the specific sub-
ject.

Throughout the year, you have complained on the floor of the
House and in the media about the plans for the 2000 census. I
sense that we will hear more of the same today. We have an oppor-
tunity to use this time productively. To find solutions and to an-
swer questions. However, it seems that we are scheduled only to
review rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues have yet to propose a
credible alternative to the current plan. All you can recommend is
an increase in expenses and a decrease in accuracy. Throwing more
cash at the perceived problem will not create a more accurate cen-
sus. Scientific solutions will work where funding won't.

At the beginning of this decade, Congress in a bipartisan effort
scolded the Census Bureau for conducting a census that was less
accurate than 1980 and cost 250 percent more than 1970. Congress
demanded that the Census Bureau develop a plan for 2000 that
was more accurate and less expensive.

Our colleague, Representative Hal Rogers, urged Congress to call
on the National Academy of Sciences to spearhead a zero-based ef-
fort at redesigning the census. The Academy, Representative Rog-
ers said, and I quote, “is credible, experienced and, more impor-
tantly, independent.” He goes on to say that he was, and I quote,
“satisfied that they can pull together a panel of reputable minds ca-
pable of blending fresh policy viewpoints with an understanding of
statistical methods.”

Since then we have seen the opponents of a scientific census at-
tack both the National Academy of Sciences and individual mem-
bers of the Academy panels on the census.

As we were debating the Mollohan amendment to the Commerce
appropriations bill, one of my colleagues attacked the National

\demy recommendations by claiming that few of the panel mem-
bers on the census were members of the Academy, and therefore
the recommendations were not Academy recommendations. Had he
put a call to the Academy, they would have explained that nearly
all panels have only one or two Academy members, but that all
panel reports, when published, represent the recommendations of
the entire Academy.

Shortly thereafter someone fed the press information attacking
the reputation of one of the panel Chairs. The unsigned memo
claimed that because the company he worked for had accepted con-
fracts with the Census Bureau, his professional opinion was

ought.

These attacks on individuals and institutions are the doleful tac-
tics of those who hate the message but have no real recommenda-
tions with which to counter the Academy reports, the Academy’s
plan for an accurate census.

The plan put forward before us by the Census Bureau almost 3
years ago remains the only plan on the table that will produce a
census without the racial biases of 1990 and at a cost in the same


4, Since November 15, 1997, which stafT have been specifically hired to accomplish the
planning for the dual track? What are their names and job descriptions? What are their dates of
hire? What percentage of their workload has been devoted to the non-sampling side of dual
track preparations?

5. What specifically are the 20 chartered groups mentioned in your opening statement? What
are the names and missions of these groups? Who chairs each group and what is the phone
number of each of these persons?

6. When will the Census Bureau have completed development of a census plan without
sampling? You stated two dates in your testimony - November 1998 and February 1999.

7. You mentioned in your testimony that the Census Bureau has already developed a
‘management recruiting and training plan specific to a census without sampling, Please produce
a copy of that plan?

8. Could you please provide a direct answer fo the following question which was submitted to
you in advance of the hearing, but which you did not answer in your testimony: “In FY 1999,
‘what programs, tests, contracts, or other expenditures are you planning to implement for the
Administration's sampling plan that would need to be redone or modified at extra cost or loss of
time if the present injunction of the court remains in effect, or if a decision is otherwise made
not to implement the Administration's plan?” If there are no such programs, tests, contracts, or
other expenditures, please indicate this. Otherwise, please provide a list of all programs, test,
contracts, or other expenditures.

9. The Census Bureau provided us with a document entitled, “Status Report for Traditional
Census,” dated June 29, 1998. This document outlined plans for a traditional census, as agreed
to by Congress and the Department of Commerce, such as User-Friendly Questionnaires, 100%
Non-response Follow Up, more extensive enumeration activities, and expanded Local
Partnerships and Community Outreach. These programs are critical to a successful census.
‘What types of activities does the Bureau have in mind to enhance these programs? Has the
Bureau begun to plan for hese programs? If not, when will the Census Bureau make a decision
about whether these programs will be implemented?

10. One of the innovative features of the 1990 Census which was not included in the design for
the 2000 Census is use of administrative records, such as parolee/probationer. During the 1990
‘Census, the Burean used a parolee/probationer program designed to enhance the enumeration.
Have you been able to reassess this traditional census taking program which can significantly
compiement a full enumeration census? What efforts has the Bureau taken to implement this
program for the 2000 Census?


2

In fact, the court itself recognized the critical timing of the case,
writing in the unanimous decision. “If judicial review must be de-
ferred until after the 107th Congress is seated, the possibility of ir-
reparable harm, both monetary and nonmonetary, is likely, if not
certain.”

The implication here is crystal clear. Had we allowed the admin-
istration’s plan to go forward, a court ruling against sampling after
the 2000 census was completed would have been devastating to the
Nation at a total cost of more than $10 billion. Thankfully the lead-
ership of the House recognized their constitutional obligation to
conduct a legal census and took action. The leadership in the
House is to be commended.

Despite the efforts of the House to conduct a legal, constitutional
census and the support of a unanimous consent three-judge panel,
the 2000 census is still at risk. At risk because the administration
is still preparing for an illegal sampling census despite a Congress
and a special three-judge panel which have said no. This is of grave
concern to Congress and is why we are here today.

It is time to put the issue of sampling to bed. If the administra-
tion and the congressional Democrats want to revive this fight an-
other day, then so be it. But now is the time to put differences
aside and work together to improve the 2000 census and make it
the most accurate count ever.

So I hope this hearing marks the beginning of a new relation-
ship. I hope that if everyone in this room commits themselves to
working together on the full enumeration and placing the re-
sources, brain power and hard work toward that approach, we can
still have a successful 2000 census.

I'd like to send a clear message to the outside groups that sup-
port sampling. It is now time to come and work with Congress,
with the majority. No one here will ask that you denounce sam-
pling. Just recognize that the court and the Congress have spoken.
and that we will have an actual enumeration for the purposes of
positive apportionment in the 2000 census. I have chosen these
words carefully, the issue of sampling is an issue of apportionment
of representatives; not, I repeat not, the distribution of Federal aid.

I have instructed my staff in the coming weeks to reach out to
the various pro-sampling groups and solicit input on how to reduce
the undercount in their affected communities. Congress needs your
help to make the 2000 census the most accurate ever.

I understand that at a press conference yesterday many of these
groups seemed unwilling to work with Congress to repair the
undercount except by using sampling. This is unfortunate and
clearly not in the best interest of their representative groups. To
fight an uphill battle for sampling and blindly supporting an ad-
ministration on the brink of ruin is dangerous. Every day, week or
month wasted on sampling irreparably delays the ability of Con-
gress and the Census Bureau to put in place new and improved
enumeration techniques that will serve to reach the undercounted.

I happily extend the olive branch to these groups and openly
today seek their help in developing innovative legal strategies to
reach those undercounted in their communities. To wait until the
Supreme Court rules on this issue, I believe is unwise. The time


72

Mr. Homes. I didn’t say we’d provide you with a silver bullet.
Because our sense is even with all of these additional things, there
may only be some marginal improvements in coverage but those
marginal improvements will not come close to the kinds of in-
creases in coverages and accuracy that a census with sampling
would produce.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Apparently Secretary Daley is urging the
President to veto the bill. Are you recommending that the Presi-
dent veto the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill?

Mr. Homes. Again, I could only make the same statement that
Mr. Shapiro made. That’s the Secretary’s call. That’s not Jim
Holmes’ call.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. You agree with the Secretary’s call?

Mr. Homes. If it means that the kinds of things that we need
to do, for the most accurate and cost effective census for the year
2000, if that’s what it means, yes.

Mr. SHAPIRO. Congressman, if I could just clarify. The Census
Bureau kind of operates with inadequate C.R.; that is, inadequate
that a C.R. which provides a waiver for the vital activities that
would harm the census until the disagreement between the Con-
gress and the President on this—on Commerce, Justice, State were
resolved. So if the President does veto—if the bill contains that pro-
vision, provision that the President thinks would harm the census,
and to the degree that he believes justifies a veto, and he does veto
that, so long as the C.R. provides the funds for the vital activities
to go on, the Census Bureau can continue to operate until that
issue is resolved.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. So you’re recommending that the President
veto?

Mr. SHapiro. As I say, I don’t—the President hasn’t asked for my
recommendation. But if the Secretary did, I would advise him, yes.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Aren’t we looking at a Supreme Court opinion
to settle this difference between the executive branch and Con-
gress? And, if so, how long is that going to take and how long can
you survive on a C.R. that lets you barely get by and still be pre-
pared for the year 2000?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, we’re hopeful—the Solicitor General has filed
his notice of appeal and jurisdiction and there are some other
terms that, again, Mr. Miller and I may not know but others of you
probably do, and is hopeful for, I am told—I’m advised that we’re
hopeful for a November hearing which could bring a fairly speedy
Supreme Court resolution in December or January.

Mr. SNOwBaRGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence.
L yield back.

Mr. MILLER. Let me clarify something up, Mr. Holmes. When the
question was asked about veto—are you in effect saying that if it’s
not a sampling census, they should veto it?

Mr. HoLMEs. No, that’s not what I said. I didn’t refer to sampling
or non-sampling. What I referred to is the Census Bureau’s ability
to get the work done that we need to get done. That’s regardless
of what kind of a census we do. Again, remember I said earlier that
a substantial amount of the work that we’re doing is common to
both sampling and non-sampling.


a O0SS-SIE(PEY) © SZCUE VI) “VINVILY © SIST BLING » GVODY TFULDVA OPEC » NOLLVGNNO: IVOT] NUZISVBLLNOS,
NOLLVONNOS TVD2"] NWLSVIHINOS OL ETEVAYA 2QVH 38 CINONT NOLLNGRLLNOD BPALLINAEG-XV1 ENO A

(i wdopsaury s0f Bsyey yy °-° uEpy Wt] POPUNOT,,
}
]

SIAN ANVdW0D
Xv4 NOH
ssdudav
TVA aINVN
. PHO ooo'ols 000'S7$ doo'oss 000'001§

6 Jo Congr AUC. Aus PUY aseatd paso{ou “neamg snsu2y ot puS UOTE) WHOpHSady IswTETe Hos mey ojo sarTasd
it 2M) JO PauUosu] ous dooy aswajq “PUNY I8t19j9q] JeBI] KOOL sTBUID 94) OF KIDUNYURUES fersUTIR; B OYE OF EM | 594,

NOLLVONNOY TVS] NUZISVAHLNOG
i, GND ISNAIZ] 1VOAY QOOZ SASNAD

—

— _



70

Mr. Davis. Special surveys would not include anything to do with
the apportionment purposes?

Mr. HoLMEs. No.

Mr. Davis. If the courts were to set aside the 2000 census after
it was conducted, how long would it take you to reconduct the cen-
sus?

Mr. HotMEs. Repeat your question again.

Mr. Davis. If the courts were to set aside the 2000 census after
it was conducted, how long would it take to reconduct the census?

Mr. HOLMES. To be honest, Mr. Davis, I have no idea. Again, I
don’t mean this to be flip, but that is a “what if” question. It would
depend on the type of census that we would be required to do.

ir. Davis. All right. Why don’t you go through the various sce-
narios? If you had to do an actual enumeration, how long would it
take?

Mr. HoLMEs. If we’re talking about something comparable to the
plan that we’re talking about now——

Mr. Davis. Let’s talk about an actual enumeration first and
then——

Mr. HoLMEs. The plan we’re working on now, is an actual enu-
meration. And the time period for that census day would be April
1, and the time period fr delivering the counts to the President
would be the end of December.

Mr. Davis. So you could do it in, what, 8 months roughly?

Mr. HOLMEs. it I’m saying is that the collection portion could
be done in that time period. That’s what we’re planning to do, but
there’s an enormous amount of work that’s associated on the front
end. That’s why I said it’s difficult to play “what if.”

Mr. Davis. All right. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. I’m always baffled, not being an attorney, but the
administration’s argument against this whole issue is standing
rather than on the facts of the case, is standing and saying we
don’t want the thing decided until after 2000.

Mr. Snowbarger.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several
lines of inquiry here. I’m not sure which to start with and which
to finish with. I was taken by comments that both of you made
about the funding. And I think one of you went so far as to say
if there was even a delay of 1 day in funding, it would cause the
2000 census to fail. I guess my question to you: If funding is all
that critical, why are you suggesting that the President veto this
bill? Commerce, Justice, State?

Mr. SHAPIRO. Whether or not the President vetoes the bill, of
course, will be up to the President. We’re here simply to provide
the information to you, as is provided to all other authoritative par-
ties, of the consequences of a reduction in funding for the Census
Bureau on October 1.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Are you trying to suggest to me that you are
not recommending that the President veto the bill? Sign the bill so
that you'll have your funding available?

Mr. SHAPIRO. That’s above my pay grade, Congressman. I just
don’t make those recommendations.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Well, I think somebody in the Department has
made the recommendation for veto and that’s very inconsistent


‘The Honorable Dan Miller 7

Preliminary results from the Dress Rehearsal indicate that the second questionnaire increased the
response rate by 6-8%. However, there were a significant number of complaints from the public
when they received the second questionnaire, and 40% of the households responding to the
second questionnaire also responded to the first questionnaire. The Bureau does not yet have
good data to document and quantify the costs associated with unduplicating these records.

12, 1 am working with Congresswoman Carrie Meeks to enhance local participation in the
Census process. We know that the Bureau is committed to biring 10 percent of its
work force from welfare-to-work roles. What legislation for waivers do you need to be
able to increase the number of welfare-to-work individuals hired for the 2000 Census?

In compliance with the Federal Welfare-to-Work initiative, the Census Bureau is committed to
hiring 4,000 welfare recipients by FY 1999, with additional hires in FY 2000. The States have
emphatically expressed their concem that exempting Census income from Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF) eligibility would be counter to the principle of “personal
responsibility” and the transfer of control to state governments embodied in the 1996 Welfare
Reform legislation. However, the States are not necessarily opposed to waivers determined by
their own governments.

In cooperating with the states in this matter, the Bureau is meeting with success in its efforts to
promote Welfare-to-Work initiatives through partnerships in lieu of legislative waivers. Efforts
include developing an arrangement with the Health Care Financing Administration to encourage
states to submit amendments to their Medicaid and Child Health Care Insurance Programs. This
will allow state governments to disregard temporary Census income in those programs. The
Bureau also secured a commitment from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
exempt temporary Census income from eligibility calculations for Public and American Indian
housing programs. In each case, the exception both supports Welfare-to-Work initiatives while
remaining consistent with the respective agency's program objectives. Finally, the Bureau is
also working with the Department of Agriculture to revisit the possibility of exempting Census
income from Food Stamp determinations.

‘Thank you for your interest in Census 2000.
Sincerely, -
NO, (AES A (ch

James F. Holmes
Acting Director

Enclosures

ce: The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney


20

them? If using administrative records is a possibility. why haven't we had
a hearing on it? If there are other ways to improve the address list. where is

the Subcommittee hearing to explore those methods?

The sad truth is that the resources of this Subcommittee have been
squandered trying to find the smoking gun that will prove that the 2000 plan
is really a neferious Democratic plot. They have failed because there is no

smoking gun.

From the beginning, the opponents of a scientific census have had only
a political agenda. In February of this year a Republican fund raiser wrote
to his colleagues soliciting 5 to 50 thousand dollars for the Southeastern
Legal Foundation challenge to the 2000 census plan. He began by referring
to a letter he received from Speaker Gingrich urging him to help raise
money, and enclosed a memo from the Chairman of the Republican National
Committee citing the political damage a fair census would do to the

Republican party.

The opponents of a scientific census have cloaked themselves in the
Constitution, and then said “We don’t care what the Supreme Court says. if
they say it’s constitutional, we just won't fund it.” The opponents of a

scientific census have attacked the messengers who proposed scientific


37

remainder of FY 1999 and FY 2000, should the Census Bureau be directed to
conduct a traditional census without sampling.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide some additional comments on FY
1999 funding. Whatever decision is reached concerning the use of scientific
sampling in Census 2000, the success of the entire enterprise will be at grave risk if
its funding is interrupted. If funding is initially provided through a Continuing
Resolution, it is imperative that the Decennial Census be exempt from the normal
CR formula of continuing FY 1998 funding on an average pro-rated basis, which in
this case would mean less than $33 million a month. Decennial funding increased
steady throughout FY 1998 to reach $49 million in September 1998. Necessary
funding will increase sharply again on October 1, as the operations for rural address
list development accelerate. Without an exemption, the Census Bureau will be
forced to suspend this operation and release some 22,000 temporary employees.
Even if full funding were restored in a few days, these steps would delay the
address list program by several weeks, which in tum would place in jeopardy the
Census 2000 schedule for printing and delivering questionnaires, opening Census
offices on schedule, paying leases, and, ultimately, completing the Census by
December 31, 2000.

An equally grave risk would arise from the "fencing" language of the House-
6


57

Washington, DC. 20233-0001

c> UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
f | Bureau of the Consus
SE

ocr? mie OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

The Honorable Dan Miller

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Census
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515-6413

“Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1998, transmitting the following questions
subsequent to the subcommittee hearing of September 9, 1998.

1, Please contrast the scope of the following activities performed in the Dress Rehearsal
in Sacramento, California with those in Columbia, South Carolina:

As part of the contrast of the scope please detail the differences in the dollars spent and
the Burean personnel resources expended. For the Sonth Carolina site, please explain
what spending and resource increases were directly related to program enhancements
implemented because it is a non-sampled site.

Itis difficult to draw a direct comparison between the Dress Rehearsals in Sacramento,
California, and Columbia, South Carolina. The sites were chosen to test operational capabilities
in different settings, not to assess the relative merits of a sampling versus a nonsampling plan.
‘The objectives of the quality assurance program were identical for each site, and creative
development for the advertising, which was contracted to Young & Rubicam (Y&R), was
uniform across all three Dress Rehearsal sites. The Bureau did not expect Y&R to break out
‘their activities for each site.

‘The Bureau does have figures for the media purchases in each site. $1,121,000 was spent for
media purchases in Sacramento, and $628,000 was spent in Columbia. More was spent in
Sacramento for two reasons:

1) Sacramento has more audiences, thus, more markets to buy. Columbia had two markets:
General and African American. Sacramento had seven markets: General, African American,
Hispanic in language (Spanish), Chinese in language (Chinese), Vietnamese in language
(Vietnamese), Filipino in language (Tagalog), and Hmong in language (Mien).


=m.

Page?

Legal Fodedien Man Glavin at 08.365 3500 cto You can contact the

‘President
404-365-8500 of you can listen to a recent conference

ce ld

icnow that you will give their request every consideration.


ny ~, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
By ‘The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs
Lona Washington, D.C. 20230

October 2, 1998

The Honorable Dan Miller

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Census
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515-6143

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed is the material I discussed during my testimony on September 9, 1998, before
‘the Subcommittee on the Census.

‘Transmitted herewith is alist of the professional associations that supported sampling and
a copy of statements from the National Association of Postmasters of the United States and the
National Rural Letter Carrier's Association regarding the use of postal carriers as enumerators. I
have also enclosed a related document, the Joint Report of the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S
Census Bureau, that describes the Postal Service's involvement in Census 2000.

Sincerely,

Robert J. =

Enclosures



44

censuses because available technology and costs permitted only a small subset of person
names to be data captured and unduplicated.

© Eighth, we have increased our partnership activities over previous censuses and are
working with state, local, and tribal governments and community groups to advise us of
opportunities to publicize Census 2000, help us correct census maps and address lists, and
tell us where to put questionnaires so people will find them. This summer, we began
mailing out, on a flow basis, address listings and maps to participating jurisdictions with
city-style addresses. We expect to mail most of these materials in September, completing
the balance in October. They have three months once they receive the listings to review
them. Next year, we will ask jurisdictions with noncity-style addresses to take part in this
review process.

© Ninth, we will for the first time use paid advertising to encourage the general
population to complete and mail back their census questionnaires and to better target our
messages to specific audiences that we believe will be difficult to enumerate. We
awarded the advertising contract last fall and utilized paid advertising in the Dress
Rehearsal census. Contracting agencies continue to design materials for use in Census
2000.

All of these elements are common to either a census with or without sampling, all represent
marked improvements over 1990, and all are on track for implementation for Census 2000.

Dress Rehearsal Census

Now I want to discuss the Dress Rehearsal census, which was our first opportuhity to see how all
the pieces of our plan fit together. As I testified before this Subcommittee in March, the Dress
Rehearsal is intended to work out the kinks in the census plan with the full expectation that there
will be kinks. I said then that the Dress Rehearsal would be a success if it provides us with
information about what worked well and what dida’t and how to fix those things that didn’t work
well. Before we began the Dress Rehearsal, there were widely reported concerns (in the reports
of the Commerce Department Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, for
example) that many of the components of the Dress Rehearsal were at risk. This included our
ability to hire sufficient staff, to obtain adequate mail response rates, and to complete operations
on time, among others.

1 can now report to you that the Dress Rehearsal was a success on many fronts, not only because
we were able to hire sufficient staff, achieve expected mail response rates, and complete
operations on schedule, but also because we did learn about some areas where we need to make
improvements and we have already put those improvements in place.

Stafling--We were very pleased to be able to hire and retain sufficient staff in all three
sites to implement the critical nonresponse follow-up operation. Because of the previous


85

fortable just adding people to the process based on a list. That’s one
of the problems we had with some of the double counting. There’s
an enormous amount of cost that’s associated with if you decide
that you’re going to add a person based on an administrative
record. If you’re going to do an independent verification of that,
that in itself increases the costs. Also, there are not a large number
of administrative records that I’m aware of that are useful in add-
ing entire households. There are not an enormous number of
records that can give us the kind of coverage—because records vary
from one State to the next—again, I hate to keep repeating myself,
but the administrative records issues is one that one of the teams
is looking at, and hopefully they'll have a different set of rec-
ommendations for us that we all can take a look at.

Mrs. MALONEY. Since we are in the appropriations process now
and it’s very important for the operation of a Census Bureau in
getting an accurate count, I would like to ask a few questions on
your appropriations, your finance. If you'd like to add in writing in
response to these questions, I’d appreciate it. I'd like to really clear-
ly understand where we are. You've touched on it in other ques-
tioning but I’d like to go through it.

Specifically, what would be the impact on the 2000 census if the
current House version of the Commerce, Justice, State appropria-
tions bill becomes law? And I am particularly interested in the lan-
guage that limits spending through March 1999 to half of the ap-
propriated funds.

Mr. SHapiro. As I mentioned earlier, in the Census Bureau
budget for fiscal year 1999, funding is highly concentrated in the
early months of the year because that’s the time in which the Cen-
sus Bureau is going out and, household to household, checking the
addresses of every rural household, and doing what's called block
canvassing for every urban household. This is the reengineering of
the master address file to ensure that we have a complete address
file. Completing that schedule on time is necessary in order to print
the questionnaires and the entire stream of activities. That’s con-
centrated in the early months of fiscal year 1999.

Major contracts for data capture equipment for the scanning
equipment, the opening, the leases for the census offices, including
the 130 offices being opened early for the dual track, for the second
track, all those contracts occur in the early months of the year.

As a consequence, 50 percent of the total year’s funding is con-
sumed sometime in January. The Census Bureau couldn’t stop in
mid-January. What this provision would require is that they
spread out those activities over the 6 months. That would introduce
delays into the census schedule that would probably make it impos-
sible to complete the census in the year 2000.

Mr. MILLER. My first statement, what I said was we’re willing
to work on that issue and it’s a cash-flow issue and unfortunately
the Bureau had not provided for cash-flow statements. We can
work through that issue.

Mrs. MALONEY. It is quite likely that Congress will pass a con-
tinuing resolution to fund all agencies through the targeted Octo-
ber 9 adjournment. What would be the effect on the census if the
C.R. funds it at 1998 levels?


62

‘One of the chartered groups mentioned above is currently addressing this issue. There has been
limited testing to determine if residential addresses from administrative records might enhance the
census address list. Under consideration as part of traditional census design is a plan to add
selected addresses from sdministrative les (for example, IRS, HUD) to the census address list

screening variables to use in selecting records that are most likely to be missed residents, and the
work loads expected for mich an operation.

Direct addition of administrative records to the census counts without confirmation by a follow-

up visit or call is not being considered st this time. The erroneous erumeration rate from the
1100 ParoleefProbationer Program (57%), and subsequent teting of administrative records in the
1995 and 1996 census tests, provides strong evidenoe that persons on administrative records that
do not maich census records are frequently not residents at the address on census day. Therefore,
adding administrative record information of unmatched persons without confirming evidence
would introduce errors into the census results.

11, During the recent dress rehearsal operations in both Sacramento, CA and Colambia,
SC, the Census Burean was able to increase the mail response rate by approximately
7% and decrease the need for costly noaresponse follow up visits by using 2 second
saniling. Please explain the reasons behind the Bureau's decision not to conduct
second questionnaire mailing as a coverage improvement method for the 2000 Cenaus,
including whether one of the reasons for the removal of a second qnestionnaire mailing
was the tight time frame needed to start and complete the Bareau’s proposed
Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). You said in your testimony the Burean is
investigating the use of a modified sccond mailing, J understand that there are time
constraints on doing a targeted second mailing. Is the Bureau going to conduct this
operation?

‘The decision to suspend the blanket second mailing of questionnaires in Census 2000 was based
on analyses that indicated that there is considerable risk that such an operation could reduce the
accuracy of the census. The Census Bureau asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and

other advisory panels to review a design that used a blanket second mailing strategy. Members of
the NAS commines expend concer tht sich an approach eould ert Ve flowing risk
increased costs for dealing with « large workioad of duplicate forms; greater insoouracy resulting

froin a significant incresse in duplicstion; and, adverse public reaction that could actually lower
mail response, resulting in more nonresponse follow-up and increased conta for field data
collection.

‘The Honorable Dan Miller


86

If there is a continuing resolution, what would happen to the
census if it were forced to operate for, say, 2 or 3 weeks in October
at_1998 levels?

Mr. SHAPIRO. The consequences wouldn’t require 2 or 3 weeks.
It would only require 1 day because continuing at 1998 levels
would require that the Census Bureau lay off 22,000 people hired
for the second wave of the rural address check. These are tem-
porary workers. They don’t receive benefits. They don’t have an at-
tachment to the jobs. If they’re let go, they will scatter. The Census
Bureau will then have to re-recruit, rehire, retrain thousands and
thousands of people.

In 1995 when there was an interruption in funding, there was
a special census Boing on in Arizona and there was a 5-day delay
in the funding. The Census Bureau had to release the people con-
ducting that survey. The final survey, the completion of the survey
was delayed by over a month.

Even a 1 day C.R. at 1998 levels poses a very grave risk to a suc-
cessful census, regardless of whether or not the final decision is to
do a census with sampling or without.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much. Again, my time is up. Di-
rector Holmes, I appreciate your testimony and your hard work at
numerous hearings. It’s been a pleasure listening to you today and
I congratulate you on your work.

Mr. HotMgEs. Thank you very much.

Mr. MILLER. Your comments about a C.R. gives all the more rea-
son why the President should not veto the Commerce, Justice bill.
As I said at the beginning, we understand that concern and we're
going to work—if there is a C.R. If we get the cash-flow needs from
the Census Bureau, understand what they are, we'll try to make
sure they'll be taken care of.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis. I’m trying to understand the 10 percent now that are
going to be sampled. As I understand it, these are people who did
not mail in the forms; is that right?

Mr. Homes. That’s correct.

Mr. Davis. They did not reply. What percent of the population
generally would not reply? About a third?

Mr. HOLMES. Well, to give you—I guess, put it in perspective—
in the 1970 census, about 78 percent of the households responded
by mail, and in 1990 that was down to 65 percent.

Mr. Davis. Let’s assume for a minute 65 percent respond. So the
10 percent sample is not part of that 65 percent?

Mr. HoLMgEs. No, it’s not.

Mr. Davis. You would take it out of 35 percent.

Mr. HoLmEs. That’s right, those who did not respond.

Mr. Davis. Would it be a random sample of the 35 percent would
be your 10 percent, or is it a specific group that you're targeting
of that 35 percent who did not respond?

Mr. Homes. It would be random.

Mr. Davis. What makes, then, of the 35 percent or the roughly
third, what makes that 10 percent any different than the other
groups that would not be sampled? There’s no difference, is there?

Mr. HOLMEs. When you say what makes them different, different
in what sense?


31

will increase again on October 1st as the operations for rural ad-
dress list development accelerate. Without an exemption, the Cen-
sus Bureau will be forced to suspend this operation and to release
some 22,000 temporary employees. Even if full funding were re-
stored in just a few days, these steps would delay the address list
program by several weeks because those employees would have to
be rerecruited, rehired and retrained, which in turn would place in
jeopardy the census 2000 schedule for printing and delivering ques-
tionnaires, opening census offices on schedule, paying leases and,
ultimately, completing the census by December 31, 2000.

This grave risk would be shared equally by a census with sci-
entific sampling or a traditional census without scientific sampling.
An equally grave risk would arise from the “fencing” language of
the House-passed fiscal year 1999 appropriation for the decennial.
That language provides 50 percent of the Bureau's funding to cover
operations through March 1999 or for the first 6 months of fiscal
year 1999. The budget and schedule provided by the Census Bu-
reau to the Congress documents that fiscal year 1999 funding is
concentrated in the early months of the year, when the personnel
costs for the rural and urban address file program are concentrated.
and large contracts are obligated.

As a result, 50 percent of fiscal year 1999 funding would be ex-
hausted by late January 1999. This “fencing” provision would effec-
tively force a 2-month delay in core operations on which the success
of the census depends, whether or not it includes scientific sam-
pling. Again, such delays would undermine the viability of census
2000, whether it is conducted in a traditional method or conducted
with the use of scientific sampling.

Mr. Chairman, you have also asked if there is any intention to
request future changes to the fiscal year 1999 appropriation in
light of the ruling in U.S. House of Representatives v. Department
of Commerce, et al. I am advised that the three-judge panel—I’m
not a lawyer, I should say, so I have to be advised by them on
these matters, and they advise me that the three-judge panel did
acknowledge that its interpretation of the Census Act ran counter
to the interpretation of that act by previous Federal courts, and
that memoranda prepared by the Justice Departments of President
Carter and President Bush, as well as President Clinton, are con-
sistent with the earlier court opinions. The Solicitor General has
appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, as you know, under
the provisions for expedited review approved by the Congress and
the President.

While this appeal proceeds, the Department of Commerce and
the Census Bureau will continue with the dual track preparations
for census 2000 as was contemplated in last year’s appropriations
act and as funded in the fiscal year 1999 appropriation bills passed
by both houses of Congress. However the Supreme Court rules, Mr.
Chairman, the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau are
committed to conducting the most accurate, fair and cost-effective
census attainable in the year 2000.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would be pleased to answer
any questions.

The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]


Despite the efforts of the House to conduct a LEGAL, constitutional Census and the
support of a unanimous three judge panel, the 2000 Census is still at risk. At risk because the
Administration is still preparing for an illegal “sampling” Census despite a Congress AND
a special three judge panel which have said, NO! This is of grave concern for Congress and
it is why we are here today.

It is time to put the issue of “sampling” to bed. If the Administration and
Congressional Democrats want to revive this fight another day, then so-be-it. But, now it
is time to put differences aside and work together to improve the 2000 Census and make it
the most accurate count ever.

So I hope this hearing marks the beginning of a new relationship. I believe that if
everyone in this room commits themselves to working together on a full enumeration and
placing the resources, brainpower and hard work towards that approach, we can still have a
successful 2000 Census.

I'd like to send a clear message to the outside groups that support sampling: It’s now
time to come and work with Congress, with the majority. No one here will ask that you
denounce sampling. Just recognize that the court and Congress have spoken and that we
WILL have an actual enumeration for the purposes of apportionment in the 2000 Census.
Thave chosen these words carefully for the issue of sampling is an issue of apportionment
of representatives pot, I repeat, not the distribution of federal aid.

1 have instructed my staff, in the coming weeks to reach out to the various pro-
sampling groups and solicit input on how to reduce the undercount in their affected
communities. Congress needs your help to make the 2000 Census the most accurate ever.


46

this process, particularly those in the South Carolina site where many localities have a complex
mix of address types and mail delivery situations.

Second, the newness of the complex automated systems we have been developing to improve our
address list development process required more review and repair time than we anticipated. This
has frustrated both our field staff and our local partners.

Asa result of these problems, we gained valuable experience and information that have allowed
us to improve our sofiware and processing systems. Further, we are simplifying and improving
many aspects of the address list review process in response to comments from our local partners.
Although we face many new challenges for Census 2000, including first-time use of a more
decentralized map production system and much larger production volumes for all products, the
Dress Rehearsal has been invaluable in preparing us to meet these.

In addition, last summer we determined that we needed to improve the planned address list
development process. We did this by reinstating a 100-percent field verification activity in areas
with mostly city-style addresses. This change was needed to ensure address list completeness
and quality. The timing of this finding was too late to allow us to add this new procedure to the
Dress Rehearsal without seriously compromising many other scheduled activities. We will get
an indication of how this lack of verification affected the completeness of the Dress Rehearsal
census later this year when evaluation studies are available,

We also learned that in working with community-based organizations in the Dress Rehearsal, it
is important to fill partnership specialist positions early to allow more time for including
community-based organizations in the planning and implementation phases of the census.

Activities Specific to a Census Without Sampling
Let me now address some activities related to planning specific to a nonsampling census:

First, we are conducting the Dress Rehearsal census in our South Carolina site without the use of
sampling and estimation procedures and including enhancements to nonsampling procedures.
These enhancements included increased advertising and partnership activities, increased quality
assurance, increased marketing and promotion activities, as well as 100-percent follow-up of
nonresponding housing units and of all addresses for which the U.S. Postal Service could not
deliver a questionnaire because the housing units were believed to be vacant, We have
completed all field work through nonresponse follow-up in the South Carolina site.

Second, in order to comply with the agreement to prepare for a census that does not use
sampling, it will be necessary to open in early FY1999 130 temporary local census offices to
‘manage and control the activities necessary to collect data from all households that-de“hot mail
back a questionnaire in 2000. It is necessary to open these offices a year earlier than planned in
order to prepare for the significantly increased work load associated with a census that does not



STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAN MILLER (FL-13)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS HEARING
SEPTEMBER 9, 1998

I welcome everybody to the latest hearing of the Subcommittee on the Census. I want
to thank the Members for coming back a little early so that we can hold this important
hearing on the state of preparations for the 2000 Census. We are here today, as in the past,
to demonstrate our unwavering commitment to making the 2000 Census the most accurate
in the nation’s history. Congress has an important obligation to eliminate the undercount
from the 2000 Census within the bounds of the Constitution AND the rule of law. As this
and other hearings will demonstrate, we take that obligation very seriously. The Speaker is
on record that Congress WILL provide the Bureau with the resources it needs to conduct an
“actual enumeration” as required by the Constitution and the Census Act.

Because of legal action taken by the House of Representatives against the Clinton
Administration’s illegal sampling scheme, the 2000 Census has been saved. This fact
CANNOT be overemphasized. In fact, the court itself recognized the critical timing of the
case writing in the unanimous decision,

“If judicial review must be deferred until after the 107th House is seated, the
possibility of irreparable harm — both monetary and non-monetary is likely, if not
certain.”

‘The implication here is CRYSTAL clear. Had we allowed the Administration’s plan
to go forward, a court ruling against sampling after the 2000 Census was completed would
have been devastating to the nation at a total cost of more than $10 billion. Thankfully, the
leadership in the House recognized their constitutional obligation to conduct a legal Census
and took action. The leadership in the House is to be commended.


40

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Holmes.

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-
committee. I will keep my remarks short as you requested, and as
I’m always reminded, and ask that my full statement be entered
into the record.

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the status of the Census Bureau’s planning for a census
that does not use sampling for purposes of apportionment. The
Census Bureau’s planning efforts throughout this year are based
on the agreement reached last fall to pursue a dual track for cen-
sus 2000.

This agreement to fund preparations for both sampling and non-
sampling for purposes of the census was first enacted in our fiscal
year 1999 appropriations act, and again reaffirmed in both the
House- and Senate-passed versions of our appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1999. While I personally continue to believe that a cen-
sus with sampling will be more accurate and cost less, I can assure
you that we are on track to conduct a census without sampling in
the event that a decision to do so is made next March.

Most importantly, I want to emphasize that the vast majority of
the Census Bureau's planning efforts over the last 7 years have
been and continue to be directed toward components that will be
used in either type of census, and the vast majority of the activities
that we will undertake in fiscal year 1999 are common to either
census design. These include address list development, question-
naire printing, the data capture preparation, and setting up the
field infrastructure, for example.

Through all of our planning efforts over the last 7 years, our re-
search and testing has identified improvements that will be impor.
tant components, again, in either type of census. These include
higher wage rates, address list improvements, simpler question-
naires, multiple contacts with households, more ways for people to
respond, innovative use of technology, increased partnership activi-
ties, and paid advertising. All of these elements are common to ei-
ther a census with or without sampling. They all represent marked
improvements over 1990, and all are on track for implementation
for census 2000.

The last time I testified before the subcommittee was at the be-
ginning stages of the dress rehearsal for the upcoming census. As

detailed in my written statement, the dress rehearsal was a suc-
cess on many fronts. We were able to hire sufficient staff, achieve
the targeted mail return rates, and complete operations on sched-
ule. We also learned about some areas where we need to make im-
provements, and we have already put some of those improvements
in place.

eve made substantial progress toward developing a plan spe-
cifically addressing components of a census without sampling. We
submitted a status report to the Congress in April of this year.
We've reorganized our decennial management structure to accom-
modate dual track planning successfully, and we’ve hired staff to
accomplish this planning.

We've formed staff into some 20 chartered groups to address a
wide range of issues concerning programs and operations that
might be components of a census without sampling. These groups


19

Still other members suggested that we impfove the address list and
cited GAO criticisms. What these members overlooked was that the errors
in the address list were the result of procedures insisted on by Congress --
the use of the Postal Service Delivery Sequence File and local governments.
To correct this, with the approval of GAO, the Census Bureau has gone back
to the procedures used in 1990, which produced an address list with less
than a 2.5 percent error.

The Republican Co-chair of the Census Monitoring Board has
repeatedly suggested that we use administrative records to improve the
census, and cites the addition of 1.3 million persons to the 1990 census
using lists for people on probation and parole. Again, the opponents of a
scientific census failed to do their homework. It wasn’t 1.3 million persons
that was added, it was 457,000. What is worse, the error rate for those
additions was nearly 60 percent. Is that how these people propose to

improve the census? It doesn’t sound like much of an improvement to me.

The fact of the matter is that the opponents of a scientific census have
not put much effort in to trying to solve the problem of a differential
undercount, and have repeatedly suggested that cost effectiveness need not
be a criteria in designing the census. This Subcommittee has been equally

irresponsible. If these are good ideas, why haven't we had a hearing on


14

ballpark as 1990. Despite all of the attacks, no one has put forward
a better plan.

Let’s look at some of the suggestions the opponents of a scientific
census had put forward to replace the National Academy plan. One
Member suggested we do the 2000 census the way it was done in
Milwaukee and Cincinnati. Both of these cities devoted consider-
able local efforts toward outreach. Even so, the undercount in both
Milwaukee and Cincinnati was 2.2 percent higher than the na-
tional average and nearly 4 times the undercount for the home
States of Wisconsin and Ohio. I don’t think that is the result we
want for 2000.

Another Member suggested we use the Postal Service, even
though the Postal Service has said that it does not want postal car-
riers conducting the census. To make matters worse, we would
have to pay postal carriers 2 to 3 times what census takers get
paid. Finally, in many communities it just is not practical. Postal
carriers do not go door-to-door anymore, and in many communities
they drive up to a bank of post office boxes in the parking lot, de-
liver the mail and drive off.

Still other Members suggested that we improve the address list
and cited GAO criticisms. What these Members overlooked was
that the errors in the address list were the result of procedures in-
sisted on by Congress—the use of Postal Service delivery sequence
file and local governments. To correct this, with the approval of
GAO, the Census Bureau has gone back to the procedures used in
1990, which produced an address list with iess than a 2.5 percent
error.

The Republican cochair of the Census Monitoring Board has re-
peatedly suggested that we use administrative records to improve
the census, and cites the addition of 1.3 million persons to the 1990
census using lists for people on probation and parole. Again, the
opponents of a scientific census failed to do their homework. It
wasn’t 1.3 million persons that were added, it was 457,000. What
is worse, the error rate for those additions was nearly 60 percent.

Is that how these ple propose to improve the census? It
doesn’t sound like much of an improvement to me. The fact of the
matter is that the opponents of a scientific census have not put
much effort in trying to solve the problem of a differential
undercount and have repeatedly suggested that cost effectiveness
need not be a criteria in deciding the census.

This subcommittee has been equally irresponsible. If these are
good ideas, why haven’t we had hearings on them? If administra-
tive records is a possibility, why haven’t we had a hearing on it?
If there are any other ways to improve the address list, where is
the subcommittee hearing to explore these methods? Where is the
alternative to improve the undercount?

The sad truth is that the resources of this subcommittee have
been squandered trying to find the smoking gun that will prove
that the 2000 plan is really a “Democratic plot.” They have failed
because there is no smoking gun. From the beginning, | the oppo-
nents of a scientific census have had only a political agenda.

In February of this year, a Republican if ndraiser wrote to his
colleagues soliciting $5,000 to $50,000 for the Southeastern Legal
Foundation challenge to the 2000 census plan. He began by refer-


3

for us to work together is now, not the late winter or spring when
valuable time will have been lost.

I don’t expect the administration to concede on the sampling
issue. The political problems of the President have so consumed the
White House that they are only concerned with their political sur-
vival, as tenuous as it is at this moment.

So today is the day for Congress and other groups to move for-
ward to make a full enumeration the top priority for Republicans
and Democrats, Congress and the administration. If we work to-
gether and reach out, we can reduce the undercount and restore
trust and deliver a fair, accurate and trusted census for the Amer-
ican people.

Toward that end, I called this hearing today to learn the status
of the preparations for a full enumeration. Congress needs to know
how seriously this administration has been preparing to conduct a
full count. Reports in the media indicate the administration’s defi-
ance of Congress and the court. I read that preparations continue
to go forward for a sampling census.

Furthermore, the intense partisanship on the part of the admin-
istration raises concerns. Vice President Gore recently told an Afri-
can American audience “Republicans don’t even want to count you.”
Those types of comments are not only dishonest, but destructive to-
ward our goal of making this the most accurate census ever. I sin-
cerely hope that the administration will not sabotage the 2000 cen-
sus to score what it believes will be political points.

The Census Bureau requested an additional $123 million to pre-
pare for a full enumeration. The White House said “no” and sub-
mitted a budget without the additional funding. Chairman Rogers
and Congress, however, said “yes” and appropriated $100 million
more despite the White House’s refusal.

So who is trying to save the census and who is trying to sabotage
it? Why would the White House turn down the Bureau’s request if
they were sincerely committed to preparing for a full enumeration?

The early indications from South Carolina, the location of the
practice “actual enumeration”, suggest that the Bureau did not
show off it’s best stuff down there. The hearing of the Census Mon-
itoring Board in South Carolina showed problems, easily corrected
problems, in the implementation. The mailing list was terrible—a
whole zip code was missed—and the outreach efforts were seem-
ingly mismanaged. In fact, even supplies such as training materials
and forms were delivered late. These are the type of mistakes that
suggest sloppiness, and also suggest that the administration is not
committed to a full enumeration.

So today I hope to hear the status of preparations for a full enu-
meration, to hear about that. How has your planning changed in
light of the recent court ruling? What resources have you moved
from the sampling to the full count? What specific steps do you
plan to take in the next weeks and months to intensify the efforts
for a full enumeration?

Let’s be frank: This administration has credibility problems. For
months, my friends on the other side have claimed Republicans’ in-
sistence on planning for a full enumeration was hurting the census.
The uncertainty was bad for planning, bad for morale, and if the


110

V. MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION

‘A. This agreement may be modified only by mutual agreement of the Census Bureati and the Postal
Service through their designated representatives in writing.

B. Either party may terminate this agreement at will by written notice from the designated
representative of that party to the designated representative of the other party. Termination shall be
effective immediately upon receipt of such notice.

C. This agreement shall terminate automatically within six months after the first Census Bureau
address file is transmitted to the Postal Service pursuant to this agreement.

D. Each party shall destroy or return all address files furnished to it by the other party in accordance
with the nondisclosure provisions specified in part Ill

VI. DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES:

A. For the purposes of section V of this agreement, the designated representative of the Postal
Service shall be:

Paul S. Bakshi
‘Address Management, Customer Service Support
Room 5801

475 W'Enfant Plaza SW

Washington DC 20260-6802

B. For the purposes of section V of this agreement, the designated representative of the Census
Bureau shall be:

Daniel J. Sweeney, Jr.
Geography Division
Bureau of the Census
5001 Silver Hill Rd
Suitland MD 20746-5215


69

ing that dealt with the use of sampling to supplement a full enu-
meration, unlike the present plan which is only to enumerate 90
percent of the population. And, of course, all these cases precede
Wisconsin v. the City of New York where the Supreme Court stated
that Congress has not enacted legislation to compel a statistical ad-
justment to the census. Interesting, in the City of Philadelphia v.
Klitznick, the Court began with the conclusion that the framers
were not concerned with the manner of conducting the census, but
in an interesting footnote, they note that while statistical adjust-
ment factors may be used in arriving at the final census figures,
the Constitution would appear to require that the census at least
be based on raw data obtained by an actual head count.

So it seems to me that you can differentiate those other cases,
because here they were starting with a full head count first and
then supplementing it later. In this case we’re not even starting
with a full head count.

Mr. HoLmes. Again I—I’ll make the same statement that Mr.
Shapiro made. I’m not an attorney and that’s your interpretation.
There are people—and I don’t mean this to be ip. but there are—
at a much higher pay grade than mine that do those kinds of
things.

Mr. Davis. They just made a decision on that.

Mr. Ho.mes. I’m here as a professional statistician that’s worked
tor the Bureau for 30 years. I’m not interested in the law part. I’m
interested in Producing the best census possible.
ot. Davis. You are interested in the law part. Eventually you're
the law.

Mr. HoLMEs. I understand that. There’s no way I can debate you
on the merits of the legal issues at this point.

Mr. Suapiro. I’m not surprised to learn that lawyers disagree as
much as economists do. But——

Mr. Davis. Or statisticians.

Mr. Suapiro. Or statisticians. But lawyers have an advantage,
and that is, there is a court of final appeal. Economists don’t have
that. Neither do the statisticians. And we’re very eager to have the
legal issues settled by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Davis. Let me ask this. If 13 U.S.C. 141(a) refers—it refers
to special surveys; what are the special surveys? How are they
used? Are they used for purposes of determining the population for
apportionment purposes?

Mr. HoLMES. We do a series of special surveys. The first one that
comes to mind is the current population survey. I’m sure that most.
of you probably remember last Friday that the unemployment sta-
tistics for the country happened to be released. That’s one of the
surveys that we conduct. We also conduct surveys on housing
starts. All of these are sample surveys. The information that you
get that’s associated with a number of new homes that were start-
ed, the number of new homes that were sold, the costs of those
homes, value put in place, all of those are sample or special sur-
veys that we conduct.

Mr. Davis. Would any of those be used in determining the popu-
lation for apportionment purposes?

Mr. HoLMEs. No, those surveys are specifically designed for spe-
cial purposes.


THE MEDIA IS TALKING ABOUT
SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION’S

CENSUS 2000 LAWSUIT
“The integrity of the census count is every bit
3 critical to American
as the integrity of the ballot bax is to
honest and free elections,
We don't guess at the number of votes
in an alection, and wa should not guess at
the sumber af people tn Amarica ...
Count everybody, because in America,
everybody counts.”
Matthew Glavin, SLF Preskdent
February 12th News Conference
Announcing Lawsuit Piling,
‘Washington, DC
USA TODAY
“Census Fight,” “Barr, Legal Foundation
Feb. 13, 1998 challenge Clinton sampling
plan,” Feb. 13, 1998
The Atlanta Constitution The Boston Globe
“3 Georgians join suit on census method,” “Census Method Draws
February 13, 1998 Further Fire,” Feb. 13,1998
“Census Technique Target of Lawsuit,” “Lawsuit Filed to Stop Census
February 13, 1998 Sampling," Feb. 13, 1998
“More Squabbling Over 2000 Census,"
February 13, 1998

“Census Subcommittee Unveiled: Group Sues on Sampling," February 13, 1998



10

supplies such as training manuals and forms were delivered late. These are the type of
mistakes that suggest sloppiness —- and also suggest that the Administration IS NOT

committed to a full enumeration.

So today, | hope to hear the full status of the preparations for a full enumeration. How
has your planning changed in light of the recent Court ruling? What resources have you
moved from the sampling to the full count? What specific steps do you plan to take in the
next weeks and months to intensify the efforts for a full enumeration?

This Administration has credibility problems. For months, my friends on the other
side have claimed Republicans’ insistence on planning for a full enumeration was hurting the
Census. The uncertainty was bad for planning, bad for morale and if the Republicans would
just give-in, and let them plan for an illegal census, everything would be fine.

Now, I’m hearing a new message. Now that the Court ruled the plan illegal, the dual
track suddenly poses no problems for the Administration. I’m told most of the efforts
overlap, so there’s no reason to worry. If you proceed on a dual track the Bureau says they
will be ready to do a good job either way. But Charles Schultze, a senior fellow emeritus at
the Brookings Institution, and former Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Panel
on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 sees things very differently. He wrote in a June
‘7th op-ed published in the Washington Post,

“Most important, a census with sampling is not simply a tradi
sampling added but a very different thing ... To reach such hard to find groups
- . » [W]ithout the use of sampling to complete the count, a range of special
programs to track down the hard-to-find must be designed and integrated into the
census process.”

jal census with


29

We started off in the Constitution by saying some people didn’t
count as real people; those were the African Americans. But we
have now a constitution that says every person is equal under the
law and every person should be counted in the census.

And I thank you very much for giving me the chance to say this.
T look forward to accepting the olive branch, and I extend one to
you as well.

Mr. MILLER. We have before us today Robert Shapiro, Under Sec-
retary of Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce, and
James Holmes, Acting Director for the Bureau of the Census. I
want to welcome Mr. Shapiro for being here today and representing
the Commerce Department in Secretary Daley’s absence. I would
also like to welcome back Mr. Holmes.

Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Holmes, if you would please stand and raise
your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record confirm
that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

I understand both of you have an opening statement. Mr. Sha-
piro, would you like to proceed?

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT J. SHAPIRO, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;
AND JAMES F. HOLMES, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF
THE CENSUS

Mr. SHAPIRO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Maloney and
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to tes-
tify before you today on behalf of the Department of Commerce con-
cerning the progress of the Census Bureau’s preparations for cen-
sus 2000. I know that Secretary Daley very much wanted to appear
today but was unable to do so.

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to express the complete
commitment of the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau
to conducting the most accurate, fair and cost-effective decennial
census possible in the year 2000.

We believe, along with the vast majority of experts in the na-
tional scientific community, that we can successfully meet these
goals by complementing traditional census operations with the use
of statistical sampling methods in census 2000.

We are acutely aware, however, that many Members of Congress
and this subcommittee have questions and reservations about the
Census Bureau’s plans for census 2000. As you know, Congress and
the President reached an agreement in last year’s Commerce-State-
Justice jppropriations Act directing the Census Bureau to proceed
with a dual track planning process. This will allow the Census Bu-
reau to prepare to conduct the most accurate, fair and cost-effective
census possible, either with the use of scientific sampling or with-
out it.

Mr. Chairman, prior to this hearing you asked a number of ques-
tions about the technical and operational components of the Census
Bureau’s planning for conducting census 2000 without the use of
scientific sampling. The Acting Director of the Census Bureau,
James Holmes, will address the bulk of these questions in his testi-
mony. I will direct my remarks and limited time to two questions


3

agencies are matching selected addresses from the 1990-census Address Control
File to the USPS Delivery Sequence File to identify addresses missing from the
census list and streets that are missing from the TIGER data base. Following the
identification of missing streets, the Census Bureau will provide maps with
latitude and longitude information to the USPS for a sample of areas. USPS staff
will use the maps to sketch the locations of the missing streets to facilitate their
addition to the TIGER data base.

The Census Bureau and the USPS are analyzing the results of the pilot test to
determine the details of a full cooperative effort. This analysis will be completed
by November 1993. The two agencies are looking into legislative changes required
for each to make full use of the address information they share. The Joint
Committee for Census Planning established a Legislative Barriers Subcommittee
to develop proposals for specific legislative changes.

IDENTIFYING VACANT HOUSING UNITS

The misclassification of gory ied housing units as vacant can cause serious
coverage deficienties in the decennial census. To reduce the misclassification of
units in recent censuses, at least two enumerator visits were made to each vacant
address. On the first visit, during the follow-up of nonresponding households, the
enumerator made an initial classification of whether an address was vacant. The
second visit investigated whether the initial classification was correct.

‘The Census Bureau is working with the USPS to eliminate one of these visits by
using information supplied by local letter carriers when they cannot deliver
census mailing piece because an address is vacant. Besides eliminating a costly
second visit, there are other advantages, such as completing a significant portion
of the work earlier to improve data quality. A subcommittee, formed under the
auspices of the Joint Committee for Census Planning, is working on the detailed
planning for a test of this procedure in the 1995 Census Test.

GEOGRAPHIC WORK

The Census Bureau and the USPS are cooperating successfully in several other
related areas. These include:

* — The sharing of information to identify delivery points for each district of the
103rd Congress. As the districts are revised for the 104th and subsequent
Congresses, this interagency cooperation will continue.

* The Census Bureau is belping the USPS in the development
product that relates each ZIP+4 Code to a 1990 census block number.
Attachment a letter describing the agreement on this joint project. The
first step in this effort, to incorporate the ZIP+4 Codes into the TIGER data

base, has begun.



91

CENSUS 2000: ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT AN ACCURATE CENSUS.
USING STATISTICAL SAMPLING

~- Amencans for a Fau and Accurate Ceams, inchuding: = Census Advisory Committee of Professional Asus
President, Armerican Jewish Commitee = Census Advisory Commitee on the African American
President, American Sociological Assa Pe .
President, Arab American Institute ~ Census Advisory Commins on the American Indian and
President, Asso, of Multi Ethnic Americans ‘Alaska Native Populations
President, Associaton of Public Data Users = Ceasus Advisory Conamittee on the Asian and Pacific
Executive Disector, Chilé Welfare League Islanders Popolation
PresidenVFounder, Children's Defense Fund ~ Census Advisory Committee on the Hispanic Population
Executive Director, Social Science Associations = Consortium of Social Science Associations
President, Council of Professional Assns. of Federal © — Coumeil of Chief Stair School Officers
Sutistes ~ Council of Professional Assas. on Federal Stausnics
Member, Hapa Issues Forum Board of Directors = Cuban Atmerican Nations! Council, inc,
‘Navona! President, Japanese American Citizens League — Decision Demographica
‘Chaisperson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights — Houing Suatstics Users Group
President, Mexicen American Legal Defense and ~ Japanese American Citizens League
Education Fund ~~ Labor Couneil for Latin American Advancement
‘Executive Director, National Asian-Pacific American — Leadership Conference on Civil Rigbts
Legal Consortium ‘= League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
President, NAACP ~ League of Women Voters of Los Angeles
Executive Director, National Association of Counties — MANA - A National Latina
President, National Asso. of Latino Elected and = Merican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
‘Appointed Officials — National Academy of Sciences Panels on the Census
Execunve Director, National Community Acton = National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
Foundation National Association for the Advancement of Colored
President, National Congress of American Indians People (NAACP)
President, National League of Cities ~ National Association of Business Economists
PresideaCEO, National Urban League — National Association of Counties
President, U.S. Conference of Mayors = National Associaton of Latino Elected ané Appointed
President, National Coupei) of La Raza Officials
President, Natonal Puerto Rican Coalit - 9] Asrociation of Regional Council
President, Organization of Chinese Americans = National Black Caucus of State Legis

-~- Census 2000 Initiative, including! = National Coummnity Action Foundation
President, NAACP ~ National Confereace of State Legis
President, U.S. Conference of Mayors ~ National Congress of American Indiens
President, Children's Defense Fund ~ National Council of La Raza
President, American Jewish Commaitiee ~ National League of Cites
President, National League of Cites — National Puerto Rican Coalition
Presiden, National Council of La Raza ~ National Urban Leagne
President, MALDEF NOW Legal Defense and Béveation Fund
‘American Sociological Association — Office of Civil Rights, AFL-CIO

~ 2000 Census Advisory Committer = Onganization of Chinese Americans,

~ American Arab Anti-Discrimination — Paralyzed Veterens of America

League
~ American Association of State Highway and Transporatign ~ Population Association of America
Officials ‘Rainbow Pash Coaliti

Coatition
~ American Chamber of Commerce Researches Assocation — Teachers of English to Speakers of

‘Ober Languages
~ American Federation of Siate, County and Municipal ~ Union of Needle Trade, Industrial & Textile Eraployecs
Employees = United States Conference of Mayers
~ American Sociological Association Working Group on Ancestry in the U.S. Census
~ Americans for Democratic Action ‘Cities, Counties, & States supporting sampling, include:
Asian Pacific American Labor Aliaoce, AFL-CIO ‘New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Los Angeles, CA (City and
= Association of MuliEthnic Americans ‘Coumty); Denver, CO (City and County); Houston, TX;
~ Assocution of Public Data Users ‘Miami - Dade County, FL; New Mexico, State of; San

~ Association of University Business and Economic Research Antonio, TX; San Francisco, CA (City and County);
~ California Roral Legal Assistance ‘Oakland, CA: Stumford. CT


11

This is no longer a debate over sampling. This hearing is concerned with the

implementation of a full count, the special programs that Mr. Schultze spoke of.

Now that the courts have ruled sampling illegal, sound public policy says that if you
had to make a decision today you would go for a full enumeration. And suddenly the
Democrats and the Administration have become the champions of the Dual Track. It raises
the question of credibility of the statements coming from the Administration.

There has been tremendous speculation that the Administration will shut down the
government over this issue. It is hard to conceive the reasoning behind closing down the
government when the court told you the plan you wanted to implement was illegal. But these
are strange times at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and any diversion from the President’s legal
and moral dilemmas is probably welcomed.

Listen to the Democrats top appointee to the Census Monitoring Board, Tony Coehlo.
He said the President should veto the Census to help him out of his current scandal problems.
Let me quote from the August 26 White House Bulletin:

Coelho also put the issue in the context of the President’s current troubles,
is the ‘first Tinton must do to reestablish ; lous

Everyone in this room would agree, I assume, that the last thing the 2000 Census
needs is to get dragged into the President’s political problem -- the President’s last ditch

6



‘This paper, prepared jointly by the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Bureau of the”
Census, addresses the feasibility of using postal letter carriers to contact.
households-that do not complete and return their census questionnaires by mail.
The key question is whether this can be accomplished without being detrimental
to mail delivery, adding to the overall cost of the census (carriers are paid
significantly more than temporary census enumerators), or undermining public
confidence in the privacy of information entrusted to the postal system. We have
concluded that there is no methodology for having letter carriers coriduct the
nonresponse follow-up operation that can overcome these concerns. Despite this
initial conclusion, we continue to explore other ways that letter carrier knowledge
and expertise can be used to improve the census.

1, THE EXPANDING ROLE OF THE USPS IN CENSUS TAKING
ADDRESS LIST DEVELOPMENT

The census-takirlg process relies heavily on an accurate and complete address
list. This will be true even for the 2000 census which will be fundamentally
different from previous censuses in other ways. The USPS was instrumental in
providing information to ensure the quality of the address list used to conduct and
control the past three decennial censuses. Most of the 1990 census address list,
whether supplied by commercial vendors or compiled by census enumerators,
was checked by USPS letter carriers prior to the census and at the time of the
census questionnaire mailout.

Currently, the Census Bureau and the USPS are working on an agreement to

share address information. An innovative approach by the Census Bureau for the

2000 census is to start with the 1990 census address list as a base to develop a

permanent and continuously maintained list of addresses called the Master

Address File (MAF) linked to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding

and Referencing (TIGER) data base, with the USPS as an integral partner in this
fort.

‘The Census Bureau's main objective in seeking the assistance of the USPS to
develop the MAF linked to the TIGER data base is to utilize the fret-hand
kmowledge of the letter carriers--gained through their daily work of delivering the
mail--about the inventory and location of housing unit addresses nationwide.
During the course of their norma! duties, letter carriers record the existence of
every unit where mail is delivered on their route. These records are collected into
‘wWeingle national file of address information.Although the proposed

for sharing this address information is to match electronic files, it is the
information supplied by local letter carriers on which the USPS files ultimately

The Census Bureau and the USPS are conducting a pilot study on sharing
address information to evaluate the options for a full cooperative project. The
Memorandum of Understanding describing this study is Attachment 2. The two


102

the delay of customer mail delivery, these hours would be in addition to any
overtime necessary due to the normal fluctuation of mail volume over time. If
found to be legal, after a succession of 14 to 16 hour (or more) workdays, there is
no doubt that the performance of the carrier's regular mail delivery duties would
suffer, Personal safety is another serious issue for USPS letter carriers
conducting census interviews after dark.

Census Bureau enumerators required approximately 36 million hours in 1990 to
contact every household that did not return a completed census form by mail.
Even if one assumes no increase in the workload by the year 2000 (and this
unlikely given population growth) and the current number of carriers, this
translates into approximately 28 additional workhours per week per carrier route
for a five week period if census interviews were scheduled to remove conflict with
mail delivery.

Research of census methods worldwide reveals that no other country uses its
postal service to take a census. In countries that use other civil service employees
to take the census, these employees carry out census duties during periods when
they are available (such as teachers in India) or their normal duties cease during
the census taking period (such as municipal government workers in Sweden and
Spain). In fact, no other country uses postal employees to the degree already
established as the benchmark in the United States.

cosT

As noted above, Census Bureau enumerators expended approximately 36 million
hours to contact households that did not mail in their 1990 census questionnaire.
The hourly rate for those enumerators was considerably less than the hourly rate
of a letter carrier. On average, the pay rate for a 1990 census enumerator was
$7.33/hour, including benefits. On average, a USPS letter carrier is paid
$23.50/hour, including benefits, for regular time worked. The USPS letter
carriers are paid at time and 1/2 for overtime work. The implementation of this
suggestion would significantly increase the cost of the 2000 census. Obviously,
there is no advantage to the USPS, or its customers who bear its costs, to pay for
36 million additional hours conducting census interviews without
reimbursement.

In addition, because most rural carriers do not go to the customer's door for
normal deliveries, requiring that do so would be extremely expensive,
especially if multiple visits were needed to find a respondent at home. Further,
because of the special nature of the rural carriers compensation and payroll
system, the use of rural carriers would require the development of a special
reporting method for time spent on census data collection.

LEGALITY
There are two privacy-related statutes that could affect the ability of letter carriers

to serve as enumerators. The Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. 412, prohibits
the disclosure to the public of a mailing or other list of names or addresses by any


65

Mr. SHapiro. Well, the administration request, as I understand
it and as I analyze it, was the amount required to preserve the op-
tion of pursuing a traditional census, Mr. Chairman, and my expec-
tation is that certainly there would be additional funds requested
if the decision were taken by Congress to pursue a traditional cen-
sus, since the original budget request only covered the first 5
months of fiscal year 1999.

Mr. MILLER. After the court ruling, which plan is the main plan?
The main plan has been sampling; that’s been full speed ahead.
The Census Bureau are they still going full speed ahead for sam-
pling and just making a token effort for full enumeration, or are
you making a full effort for full enumeration now? Has it changed?

Mr. Hotes. Not that I want to be disagreeable, Mr. Chairman,
but I think it’s unfair to say that we have been giving less than
an honest effort to planning a census that does not include sam-
pling. As I described in my written statement, and we've said it a
few times here today already, there are a number of activities that
are common to both censuses, whether it’s one that uses sampling
or one that does not use sampling.

I think it’s also important to put in context what we’re talking
about—even though I was not here, it was not until November of
last year that the Census Bureau had any guidance from anyone
that we should be doing anything other than preparing for a census
with sampling, also keeping in mind that over the past 7 years the
census planning process has already gotten started.

So when I say I think it’s unfair to characterize our efforts as not
giving full support to planning for a census without sampling, what
Tm getting at is that we have put an enormous amount of effort
and resources over the past few months into preparing to do a cen-
sus that does not include sampling, if that’s in fact what we're di-
rected to do. And we’ve also talked about preparing a plan that we
will have for you. The fact that we’ve put together 20 teams to
work on this process does not suggest that we’re not taking it seri-
ously.

But I think it’s again unfair to characterize the fact that way.
The way it’s stated is as though we’re not doing very much. I don’t
think that’s a fair statement.

Mr. MILLER. You requested, what, $123 million in your budget
request to the White House for full enumeration, and they only
gave you $36 million; is that correct?

Mr. HoLmes. That's correct.

Mr. MILLER. Now, to me that indicates that the White House, I
mean, is not interested in doing a full enumeration. I mean, they
just don’t want to put the effort into it and they don’t want to even
request the money for it.

ir. HoLmEs. Again, I would disagree with that, Mr. Chairman.
The request that was made was based on the Census Bureau’s best
judgment of what we thought we might need under certain cir-
cumstances. But, again, based on what I think I understand about
the agreement that was reached in November of last year, that
agreement talked about leaving the option open. And the fact that
we are opening 130 offices, we’ve gotten funds for that, those are
the kinds of things that we have been looking at to move ahead
and be ready to do a census without sampling. That does not sug-


71

with what both of you are saying about the necessity of funding
continuing on a regular basis.

Let me go on to something else. I was also concerned by the lit-
any of programs that you find unable to deal with the undercounts,
and particularly those in minority areas. And I’m concerned about
a statement that basically said that it’s not a matter of people not
knowing about the census; it’s that they go out of their way to
avoid the census. I mean, that may be a little strong—

Mr. HoLMEs. No, that’s not too strong. That’s a correct state-
ment.

Mr. SNowBARGER. OK. When we talk about advertising cam-
paigns, I think we are trying to suggest that there may be ways
the census, as a project, should be sold that would want people to
participate in that. Has any effort gone into developing those kinds
of advertising?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes. As a matter of fact, there may have been some
misunderstanding of my comment and Mr. Shapiro’s comment.
We're not suggesting that those things are not part of the process
for 2000, but what we are saying is that that’s not the silver bullet.
That will not resolve the problem because there’s still segments of
our society that will not be interested in that message. It’s like—
it’s probably hard for some people to understand, but there are seg-
ments of our society when you walk up and say, I’m from the gov-
ernment and I’m here to help you—that do not believe you.

Mr. SNowsarGER. I’m fully aware of those segments of society.
My concern is that we’ve known about that aspect of enumerations
probably for as long as we’ve done census counts.

Mr. HoLMES. That’s true.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. We don’t seem to be making any progress to-
ward that undercount. You are now faced with probably better
than an even chance that you’re going to be doing an enumeration
if the Court holds out. That’s an if. But I don’t hear you making
any Suggestions or any comments about how you intend to address
the undercount. You've been critical of all of the other suggestions
that have been made, but frankly you shouldn't look at Congress
to make those suggestions. You guys are the professionals. You
may be stuck with a method you don’t like, but it would seem to
me that you need to come up with answers that are going to ad-
dress those problems.

Mr. Homes. Again, I appreciate your comments, Mr.
Snowbarger, but again I think there’s, again, a misunderstanding
or a misstatement. We’re not being critical of the Congress. All of
those issues that you raised are absolutely true, and that was part
of the reason that the plan was developed that we were looking at
to use sampling to augment traditional enumeration.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. But what if you're left without that option?

Mr. HOLMES. Well, again, as I mentioned earlier, we have some
20 teams that are working very, very hard to produce a plan that
does not include sampling, and that’s going to be available in No-
vember.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. So November you'll report to us what you have
proposed instead of advertising and instead of all these other
things you indicated are not the silver bullet? You'll provide us
with the silver bullet, I gather.


16

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE
CAROLYN B. MALONEY

September 9, 1998

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, although | must
say, | am puzzled over the specific subject. Throughout the year, you have
complained on the floor of the House and in the media about the plans for
the 2000 census. | sense that we will hear more of the same today. We have
an opportunity to use this time productively- to find solutions- and to answer

questions. However, it seems that we are scheduled only to review rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues have yet to propose a credible
alternative to the current plan. All you can recommend is an increase in
expenses... and a decrease in accuracy. Throwing more cash at the
percieved problem - will not create a more accurate census. Scientific

solutions will work...where funding won't.

At the beginning of this decade, Congress in a bipartisan effort, scolded
the Census Bureau for conducting a census that was less accurate than 1980
and cost 250 percent more than 1970. Congress demanded that the Census
Bureau develop a plan for 2000 that was more accurate and less expensive.
Our colleague, Representative Hal Rogers urged Congress to call on the
National Academy of Sciences to spearhead a zero based effort at

redesigning the census.


* — The Census Bureau will provide to the USPS a spécially formatted extract of
the TIGER data base (with enhancements added specifically to meet USPS”
requirements) for several test areas where the USPS will evaluate
automated route examinations. The first of these files was delivered on
September 9, 1993, with additional files to be delivered before October 31,
1993.

Since the 1970 census, the “mail-out/mail-back” method of census taking has been
used for a majority of American households, By the 1990 census, over 90 million
households received their census questionnaire through the mail, with
approximately 66 million households returning their questionnaire through the
mail. While planning for the delivery of census mailings, the Census Bureau and
the USPS work closely on development of the mailing package. The design, size,
and weight of the questionnaire, envelopes, and instructions are critical to the
successful delivery and return of the questionnaire.

The importance df the role of the USPS letter carriers in this cannot be overstated.
Accurate mail delivery of the blank questionnaires and return of the completed
questionnaires has allowed use of the self-enumeration method that research has
showa provides the most reliable data. By substituting mail data collection for
door-to-door visits by enumerators, the Census Bureau has been able to reduce the
number of hours that it would require for temporary census workers to collect
census data; this increases efficiency and dramatically reduces the cost of the
census.

STRATEGIES FOR RURAL AREAS

“Rural-style” addresses typically are rural route and box number, post office box,
or even general delivery, while “city-style” addresses are those with a house
number and street name (for example, 106 Main Street). Rural-style addresses
are problematic for both USPS and Census Bureau automated systems because of
difficulties in automated sorting of these addresses for more efficient mail
delivery and automated matching of these addresses for assignment of census

geographic codes.

Because city-style addresses allow more efficient routing of emergency service
vehicles (fire, police, ambulance), many areas are converting their rural
addresses to city-style. Both the USPS and the Census Bureau will benefit from
these conversions. The USPS and Census Bureau have formed a subcommittee,
“under the Joint Committee for Census Planning, to explore cooperative ways to
encourage or facilitate local efforts to convert their rural addresses to gy ‘style
addresses. The subcommittee will issue its first report in December 1993.


21

methods to improve census accuracy. But they have never sat down and
done the honest hard work of understanding the problem and proposing

legitimate solutions.

Today we will hear the DC court quoted again and again. | wonder if
any of the members here today have read the decisions from the District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, or the District Court for The
Souther District of New York, or the District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania -- all of whom have said that the use of sampling to improve

the census count is both legal under Title 13 and is constitutional.

I would like to believe that today we will hear some ideas that will
improve the 2000 census, but I fear we will hear only more political rhetoric

and empty suggestions.


evaluating various administrative records sources as part of the Dress Rehearsal by
matching the data on people and addresses from the administrative records to the Dress
Rehearsal results. We wiil verify cases that do not match this fall so that we can evaluate
the quality of administrative record sources for possible implementation in a census
without sampling.

Vacant-delete Check — Staff are defining the operational plan for verifying the
‘occupancy status of all cases originally identified by either the postal service or an
‘enumerator as addresses without occupants or addresses that no longer are housing units
The group is investigating whether it is preferable to conduct this check during the larger
nonresponse follow-up operation, or as a separate operation before or after nonresponse
followup

Nonresponse follow-up ~ This group is investigating the optimal duration and staffing
needs for the enlarged workload of a census without sampling. Timing for this phase of
the census is directly affected by the questionnaire delivery strategy. The group is also
looking at ways to improve quality control, such as enhancing the process of checking on
enumerators’ work by reinterviewing households.

Be Counted Program ~ The group has identified possible enhancements to the program,
such as using more generic sites (¢.g., libraries) at which questionnaires would be
available. Benefits and costs of expanding this program are being assessed. For
example, increasing the use of Be Counted forms must be weighed against the potential
increase in duplicate enumerations.

Coverage Improvement Program ~ This group is investigating the use and availability
of data sources (both intemal and external) to identify areas of high growth or of potential
housing unit undercoverage for a possible recanvassing operation. We are investigating
sources of addresses for new mobile home placements and information about clusters of
addresses. The group is also considering using information from postal checks and data
‘on requests for questionnaires to target areas for a recanvass operation. Additionally, the
‘group is examining the possibility of conducting a second postal check of addresses (in
addition to the one scheduled for late January) within two weeks of Census Day to
identify addresses in new housing developments built since January 2000. New
addresses would be followed up and enumerated.

Coverage edits ~ Within-Household Coverage~-Coverage edits involve examining the
questionnaires to determine if there are indications that a person has been missed. The
group is investigating what types of coverage edits can be performed on both mail-
retumed and enumerator-returned questionnaires and what workloads would be
anticipated. Households failing a coverage edit will be reinterviewed for a fine?
determination of a household’s composition.


95

PORE SERVICE

Letter of Transmittal

Members of the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Census Bureau
have repeatedly urged that the US. Postal Service be used in a more direct role to take the
decennial census. We are enclosing a report prepared jointly by our organizations that describes
the expanding irtvolvement of the USPS in census taking, and an analysis of the feasibility of
using letter carriers to collect decennial census data,

In considering the last idea, we analyzed both benefits and obstacles. The principle benefit is
having knowledgeable persons contacting households where they daily deliver the mail.
Obstacles include cost, conflicts with USPS mail delivery obligations, and privacy concems.

After weighing these factors, we conclude that it is not viable for letter carriers to take on this
large data collection activity. However, our discussions have led to consideration of other ways
that we can use the knowledge and expertise of local letter carviers to improve the quality of the
decennial census, and the timeliness of its enumeration activities.

We will continue, in our long standing tradition, to explore ways that our agencies can work
together to ensure the success of the 2000 decennial census.

For the U.S. Census Bureau:

A. Scarr
Acting Director

‘Customer Service and Sales

otra S Mis amanda! 1224


33

2000. This approach was recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in
Tesponse to a law passed by the Congress and signed by President Bush in 1991,
after the 1990 Census failed to count more than 8 million people. Virtually every
professional organization involved in this issue endorsed the limited use of
statistical sampling for the 2000 Census to improve accuracy. The Census Bureau
directly incorporated the Academy’s recommendations in its Census 2000 plan.

Mr. Chairman, we respect the constitutional authority of the Congress to
write laws determining how the Census is conducted, and recognize that Congress
has granted the Secretary of Commerce broad discretion under the Census Act to
decide the methods by which the decennial count is taken. In turn, the Secretary of
Commerce has delegated this authority to the experts at the Census Bureau,
directing them to develop a plan that will best ensure the most accurate, fair and
cost-effective census possible in the year 2000.

We are acutely aware that many members of Congress and this
Subcommittee have reservations about the Census Bureau's plan for Census 2000.
As you know, Congress and the President reached an agreement in last year’s
Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act directing the Census Bureau to
proceed with a dual track planning process. This will allow the Census Bureau to

prepare to conduct the most accurate, fair and cost-effective census possible either

2


17

The Academy, Representative Rogers said, is “credible, experienced,
and more importantly, independent.” He goes on to say that he was
“satisfied they can pull together a panel of reputable minds, capable of
blending fresh policy view points, with an understanding of statistical
methods.”

Since then, we have seen the opponents of a scientific census attack
both the National Academy of Sciences, and individual members of the
Academy panels on the census. As we were debating the Mollohan
Amendment to the Commerce Appropriations bill, one of my colleagues
attacked the National Academy recommendations by claiming that few of
the panel members on the census were members of the Academy, and
therefore, these recommendations were not Academy recommendations.
Had he but called the Academy, they would have explained that nearly all
panels have only one or two Academy members, but that all panels reports,
when published, represent the recommendation of the entire Academy.
Shortly thereafter, someone fed the press information attacking the
reputation of one of the panel chairs. The unsigned memo claimed that
because the company he worked for had contracts with the census, his
professional opinion was bought. These attacks on individuals and
institutions are the doleful tactics of those who hate the message, but have

no real recommendations with which to counter the Academy reports.


61

The Honorable Dan Miller 5

8 Could you please provide a direct answer to the following question which was
submitted to you in advance of the hearing, but which you did not answer in your
testimony: “In FY 1999, what programs, tests, contracts, or other expenditures are you
planning to implement for the Administration’s sampling plan that would need to be
redone or modified at extra cost or loss of tim the present injunction of the court
remains in effect, or if a decision is otherwise made not to implement the
Administration’s plan?” If there are no such programs, tests, contracts or other
expenditures, please indicate this.

As I tried to explain in my testimony, we will be prepared with a fully operational second track
by the time of any decision that might be made early next year not to use sampling in the

2000 census. We will not have to re-do or modify the work previously done on the first track
with sampling because the second track will stand on its own.

9. The Census Bureau provided us with 2 document entitled, “Status Report for
‘Traditional Census,” dated June 29, 1998. This document outlined plans for a
traditional census, as agreed to by Congress and the Department of Commerce, such 23
User-Friendly Questionnaires, 100% Non-response Follow Up, more extensive
enumeration activities, and expanded Local Partnerships and Community Outreach.
These programs are critical to a successful census. What types of activities does the
Bureau have in mind to enhance these programs? Has the Bureau begun to plan for
these programs? If not, when will the Census Bureau make a decision about whether
these programs will be implemented?

Alllof these issues are currently being explored by the chartered groups mentioned above, When
these groups complete their examinations, Bureau staff will integrate their analyses, and by the
end of November of this year, the Bureau expects to have a plan in place to conduct a census
without sampling. A detailed plan will be completed by the end of February 1999.

10. One of the innovative features of the 1990 Census which was not included in the design
for the 2000 Census is use of administrative records, such as parolee/probationer.
During the 1990 Census, the Bureau used a parolee/probationer program designed to
enhance the enumeration, Have you been able to reassess this traditional census
taking program which can significantly complement a full enumeration census? What
efforts has the Bureau taken to implement this program for the 2000 Census?



114

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee on Census,
statistics and Postal Personnel, we are pleased to have this
opportunity to give our views on the role rural letter carriers may
have in assisting the Census Bureau as it plans for the 2000
Censu:

Rural. letter carriers are privileged and proud to be public
servants that have regular contact with their customers on a daily
basis. Perhaps, we also have more daily contact with the public
than any other member of the federal work force and probably the
state, county and municipal work forces. Rural carriers welcome an
opportunity to cooperate with another branch of the federal
government, as that Bureau tries to execute their mandat:

Letter carriers’ prime duty is providing service to our
customers principally through the delivery of mail, but in the case
of rural letter carriers, we provide any services that can be
obtained through a Post Offi. sell stamps and money orders,
accept parc express mail and perform customer service as a Post
Office on wh

We are proud to say, today there are 52,000 rural routes that
provide a full coverage of services daily...We serve 24 million
customers a day and drive 2.7 million miles. As in the past, we
are glad that the Postal service and the Census Bureau have a
cooperative agreement in doing the planning, and the NRLCA is
pleased to be able to assist the Committee in their exploration of
how we as a part of the Postal service can assist them in their
next enumeration.

Rural letter carriers believe they could be most helpful in
address list completion. Rural letter carriers know almost all of
their individual delivery areas. Rural letter carriers also must
be familiar with addressing and delivery methods. Therefore, we
believe we can be helpful in determining for the Cénsus Bureau,
vacant housing units. Postal management and rural carriers can be
helpful in dealing with rural address problems which:are unique to
rural America. Thirdly, we believe that we can be helpful in
determining occupancy status. And all of those can be done without
any direct contact with individual households.

There is a larger question. Is there a more direct role for
rural carriers in conducting the 2000 Census? it has been
suggested by some that rural letter carriers could be helpful with
households that don't return data. However, there are sone natural
road blocks which we should point out, to obtaining data without
direct contact with those households: 1. Cluster boxes prevent
rural letter carriers from having a direct knowledge of many
households 2. In some rural communities there are long distances
between the customer's house and their mail box 3. Current
economic pressures require many households to become two income
families. Because the majority of the people work during the day,
there would be no one at home for the carrier to contact. In fact,
the families sometimes choose to receive mail in a Post Office box



116

Mr. WaxMaN. I would like to ask if you would send that state-
ment to us so that the chairman can consider putting it into the
record.

Mr. MILLER. Without objection.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, that completes the questions I
have. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER. On behalf of the subcommittee, I want to thank you
both for being here, Mr. Holmes, and we appreciate you, Mr. Sha-
piro, being here as well.

In case there are additional questions that the committee mem-
bers have for our witnesses, I ask unanimous consent that the
record remain open for 2 weeks to submit questions for the record,
and then the witnesses submit written answers as soon as prac-
ticable.

Without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members’ or witnesses’
opening statements be included in the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

The hearing is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

co)


4

Republicans would just give in and let them plan for an illegal cen-
sus, everything would be fine.

Now, I’m hearing a different message. Now that the court has
ruled the plan is illegal, the dual track suddenly poses no problems
for the administration. I’m told most of the efforts overlap, so
there’s no reason to worry. If you proceed on a dual track, the Bu-
reau says, they will be ready to do a good job either way.

But Charles Schultze, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institu-
tion, sees things very differently. He wrote an op-ed June 7th, pub-
lished in the Washington Post:

Most important, a census with sampling is not simply a traditional census with
sampling added but a very different thing. To reach such hard-to-find groups with-
out the use of sampling to complete the count, a range of special programs to track
down the hard-to-find must be designed and integrated into the census process.

There is no longer a debate over sampling. This hearing is con-
cerned with the implementation of a full count and the special pro-
grams that Mr. Schultze spoke of.

Now that the courts have ruled sampling illegal, sound public
policy says that if you had to make a decision you would go for a
full enumeration. And suddenly the Democrats and the administra-
tion have become the champions of the dual track. It raises the
question of credibility of the statements coming from the adminis-
tration.

There has been tremendous speculation that the administration
will shut down the government over this issue. It is hard to con-
ceive the reasoning behind closing down the government when the
court told you the plan you wanted to implement was illegal. But
these are strange times at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and any di-
version from the President’s legal and moral dilemmas is probably
welcomed.

Listen to the Democrats’ top appointee to the Census Monitoring
Board, Tony Coehlo. He said that the President should veto the
census to help him out of his current scandal problems. Let me
quote from the August 26th White House Bulletin:

Coehlo also put the issue in the context of the President's current troubles, saying
this issue is one of the “first things” Clinton must do to reestablish credibility with
House Democrats, who begrudgingly accepted this deal in the first place. Coehlo
said, “If he made a commitment to them, which he did, on this issue—specifically,
in person, at the caucus, and he has to reestablish his credentials with these peo-
ple—he ain’t going to renege on this one.”

Everyone in this room would agree, I assume, that the last thing
the 2000 census needs is to get dragged into the President’s politi-
cal problem, the President’s last-ditch efforts to restore credibility
with the congressional Democrats. Mr. Coehlo’s words, not mine.
But, ironically, there’s no credibility in sampling; a three-judge
Federal panel said so. But it appears as though that is where we
are headed. Sadly, any veto threats from the President must be
looked at in the context of Mr. Coehlo’s comments.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one thing we can count on. There
will be a 2000 census. The courts have said it will be a legal one.
But if it is to be a good one, than we must begin working together


93

necessary for route completion.

Second, we believe a large number of postal customers would perceive the conduct of
the carriers as a violation of their privacy rights. Postal carriers deliver bills, bank statements,
Jegal papers and other important and private documents to customers on a regular basis and
the postal service guarantees the public that these materials are kept private. If a carrier were
then to ask questions about such potentially delicate issues as financial or marital status, it
might bring this guarantee of privacy into question. We believe strongly that the customer's
privacy rights should be inviolable.

A third and extremely important issve is that of carrier safety. If carriers were
required to carry out data collection activities, particularly as part of their regular routes, it
could mean that these people would be out much later at night than normal. In some
neighborhoods, this might not be safe. We could not condone any activity that would place
the carrier's safety in jeopardy.

It was also suggested that carriers might be able to provide basic census information
without contacting postal customers. This is extremely impractical. Mail delivery has
changed considerably in the last two decades. Because more women work, fewer residents are
‘home during delivery hours. More people live in apartments, condominiums and other
multiple housing units. Also, people are far more transient. For these and other reasons,
carriers do not have the same level of personal knowledge about their customers that was
traditional within the Postal Service. Census information collected by carriers without resort
10 personal interviews would be basically guesswork and would be statistically unreliable.


38

passed FY 1999 appropriation for the decennial. That language provides only 50
percent of the Bureau’s funding to cover operations through March 1999, or for the
first six months of FY 1999. The budget and schedule provided by the Census
Bureau to the Congress documents that FY 1999 funding is concentrated in the
early months of the fiscal year, when the personnel costs for the rural and urban
address file program is concentrated and large contracts must be obligated. Asa
result, 50 percent of FY 1999 funding would be exhausted by late-January 1999.
This "fencing" provision would effectively force a two-month delay in critical core
operations on which the success of the Census depends, whether or not it includes
scientific sampling. Such delays would undermine the viability of Census 2000.
Mr. Chairman, your letter of invitation to Secretary Daley also asked if there
is "any intention to request future changes to the FY99 appropriation in light of the
tuling in United States House of Representatives v. Department of Commerce, et.
al." 1am advised that the three-judge panel acknowledged that its interpretation of
the Census Act runs counter to the interpretations of that Act by previous Federal
courts. Memoranda prepared by the Justice Departments of President Carter and
President Bush, as well as President Clinton, are consistent with the earlier court
opinions. The Solicitor General has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court

under the provisions for expedited review approved by the Congress and the
7


100

OTHER. AREAS OF RESEARCH

‘The Census Bureau and the USPS are exploring other ways of working together to
improve the-coverage and reduce the cost of the 2000 census. Many of these ideas.
are aimed at utilizing the local knowledge of the USPS letter carriers. Some ideas
currently being discussed include identifying delivery drop points where mail
delivery mix-ups may occur for addresses in multiunit buildings, the ase o of letter
carriers to provide minimal information (occupancy status and m

persons) about households that could not be contacted by census Sararstore,
and the linking of mailing addresses to residence locations where these are not
the same. Presently, we are working on the involvement of letter carriers in the
development of the address list in rural areas for the 1995 Census Test.

2, FEASIBILITY OF LETTER CARRIERS CONDUCTING CENSUS INTERVIEWS,
BACKGROUND

The USPS letter carriers visit neighborhoods almost every day to deliver the mail.
There is no other’ Federal workforce that has this kind of daily contact with the
public. Because USPS letter carriers have information about where most people
receive their mail and, in many cases, the places where they live, it is important
to consider how this knowledge could be used to improve the census. While many
of our efforts have been concentrated on address list development and the other
activities previously described, we also have looked closely-at.a more direct role for
the letter carriers in conducting the 2000 census.

It has been suggested that letter carriers be used to collect census data from
households that do not return a census questionnaire. A fundamental question
that must be answered to fully explore this proposal is whether or not the letter
carriers are familiar enough with their postal customers to provide basic census
information without needing to contact the household directly. Even for the
minimum set of data mandated for collection in the decennial census (age, sex,
race, Hispanic origin and household relationship), USPS letter carriers are
unlikely to know this level of information about the customers they serve. While it
is true that traditionally, letter carriers who regularly deliver mail to older
established residential routes have some personal knowledge of many of their
customers, the streamlining of mail delivery procedures in recent years has
reduced the level of contact with (and personal knowledge about) many postal
customers.

For ed tarocgh cosine ¢ all new by biel sete residential areas have been
serve or cluster it unnecessary

carrier to go door-to-door in the neighborhood unless delivering an accountable
piece of mail or parcel. A letter carrier in this type of delivery area rarely sees
most of the customers served, and often does not even see the housing unit Most
rural letter carriers do not go to the customer's door. They deliver to the
mailboxes located along roads that are often located long distances from the
individual housing units. In addition, all mail delivery is done during business
hours when many people are not at home.


41

are exploring such broad issues as use of administrative records,
questionnaire development and delivery strategy, coverage im-
provement programs, ways to improve nonresponse followup oper-
ations, and the marketing and partnership programs.

These groups are preparing operational analyses of the compo-
nents that they are examining, which will be completed sometime
between mid-September and mid-October. These analyses will de-
scribe how an operation should be conducted if it were part of a
plan to conduct a census without sampling. After integrating the
groups’ analyses, we plan to complete development by this Novem-
ber of a plan to conduct a census without sampling. An associated
master activities schedule, interim cost reports for the potential
plan, will also be included. In February 1999, we plan to have a
detailed plan for the Congress.

In closing, I want to emphasize that many critical activities vital
to the success of census 2000 must be conducted on schedule in fis-
cal year 1999. These activities, as I’ve said earlier, apply both to
a census with or without sampling. One key activity is the continu-
ing development of an accurate master address file, and I list a
number of others in my written statement. If any of these activities
are seriously delayed, the census will be put at risk. Moreover, as
I detailed in my statement, our address listing operations will be
put in a serious state of failure if any delays of fiscal year 1999
junding occurs in early October.

Mr. Chairman, I’ve answered the specific questions in your letter
of invitation in my written statement. This concludes my oral state-
ment, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you or
other members of the committee might have.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Holmes follows:]