U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

27–215 CC 1996

Union Calendar No. 449

104th Congress, 2nd Session – – – – – – – – – – House Report 104–821

SAMPLING AND STATISTICAL ADJUSTMENT

IN THE DECENNIAL CENSUS: FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS

FOURTEENTH REPORT

BY THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
ii

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

DAN BURTON, Indiana

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR., New Hampshire

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

RANDY TATE, Washington

DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Maryland

SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin

CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina

LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New

York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia

GENE GREEN, Texas

CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

BILL BREWSTER, Oklahoma

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH CUMMINGS, Maryland

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

JAMES L. CLARKE, Staff Director

KEVIN M. SABO, General Counsel

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk

BUD MYERS, Minority Staff Director
(iii)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, September 24, 1996.

Hon. NEWT GINGRICH,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: By direction of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I submit herewith the committee’s

fourteenth report to the 104th Congress.

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr., Chairman.

v

C O N T E N T S

Page

I. Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

II. Background .................................................................................................... 3

III. Findings .......................................................................................................... 4

IV. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 16

VIEWS

Clarifying comments of Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr. ........................................... 19

Additional views of Hon. Steven Schiff .................................................................. 20

Additional views of Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ...................................................... 21

Dissenting views of Hon. Cardiss Collins, Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Hon.

Tom Lantos, Hon. Major R. Owens, Hon. Edolphus Towns, Hon. John

M. Spratt, Jr., Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Hon. Gary A. Condit,

Hon. Bernard Sanders, Hon. Karen L. Thurman, Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney,

Hon. Barbara-Rose Collins, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Hon. James P.

Moran, Hon. Gene Green, Hon. Carrie P. Meek, Hon. Chaka Fattah, and

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings .................................................................................... 23

Additional views of Hon. Thomas M. Barrett ........................................................ 33

Additional dissenting views of Hon. Carrie P. Meek ............................................ 35
Union Calendar No. 449

104TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2nd Session 104–821

SAMPLING AND STATISTICAL ADJUSTMENT IN THE

DECENNIAL CENSUS: FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. CLINGER, from the Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight, submitted the following

FOURTEENTH REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

On September 18, 1996, the Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight approved and adopted a report entitled ‘‘Sampling

and Statistical Adjustment in the Decennial Census: Fundamental

Flaws.’’ The chairman was directed to transmit a copy to the

Speaker of the House.

I. SUMMARY

The decennial census is mandated by the Constitution in order

to apportion the Congress. Census data are used by every State for

congressional and State redistricting. They are also used to enforce

the Voting Rights Act. Numerous Federal and State programs, distributing billions of dollars each year, use decennial census data,

or the intercensal estimates derived therefrom, for their implementation.

On February 28, 1996, the U.S. Department of Commerce and

the Bureau of the Census publicly announced plans for a ‘‘reengineered 2000 Census.’’ The plans call for the use of statistical methods in two separate instances: (1) to sample and estimate the final

10 percent of the population failing to respond in the actual enu-
2

1 ‘‘Actual enumeration,’’ for purposes of this report, means a count based upon physical evidence using methods such mail-out forms, administrative records, and enumerator visits. 2 In the 1970 Census, the Census Bureau did rely on sampling to a limited extent when, at

the 11th hour, it was discovered that a number of occupied housing units had been erroneously

listed as vacant. This was not repeated in subsequent censuses. 3Supreme Court of the United States, Syllabus, Wisconsin v. City of New York, et. al., No.

94–1614. Argued January 10, 1996—Decided March 20, 1996.

meration1 (‘sampling’), and (2) to use a separate sample of houses

to estimate those persons missed in the actual enumeration and

the sample for nonresponse and revise it accordingly (‘adjustment’).

Statistical techniques have been used by the Census Bureau to

assess the accuracy of census counts since 1950, but have never

been used to ‘‘correct’’ the original number for use in apportioning

Congress.2

After the Secretary of Commerce decided in July 1991 not to

make a statistical adjustment to the 1990 Census, over 50 lawsuits

erupted, culminating in the 1995 case considered by the Supreme

Court, United States v. City of New York. The Court’s decision,

handed down in March 1996, upheld the Secretary’s decision.3

The committee finds that the problems that surrounded the issue

of statistical adjustment in the 1990 Census also plague the plans

for the 2000 Census. This is compounded by the plans to incorporate sampling to complete the actual enumeration.

Findings

1. Sampling/statistical adjustment are inherently problematic

given the subjectivity in the various decisions comprising the methodology.

2. The legal provisions that concern the use of sampling for apportionment purposes, both in the Constitution and in Federal law,

are variously interpreted.

3. The inherent uncertainties of sampling/statistical adjustment

may undermine public confidence in the decennial census and reduce public participation.

4. The Commerce Department and the Census Bureau have not

clearly distinguished between the two statistical methods proposed

for the 2000 Census: (1) sampling for nonresponse follow-up, and

(2) sampling for the Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM); nor

have they clarified issues of accuracy respective to the two sampling techniques.

5. The sampling method for nonresponse follow-up introduces additional error into the process and may compromise the accuracy

of small-area data which are important for congressional and State

legislative redistricting.

6. The complexity of the two different sampling techniques being

planned for the 2000 Census adds a great deal of risk to the operational feasibility of the Bureau’s current approach.

Recommendations

1. Congress should work to clarify existing Federal statutes with

regard to the use of sampling to make statistical adjustments to

the census for apportionment purposes.

2. The Bureau should not use sampling methods to complete or

adjust the actual enumeration of the 2000 Census which is constitutionally mandated for purposes of apportionment.
3

4Martha F. Riche, testimony on behalf of the Bureau of the Census, before the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and

Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995. 5The Plan For Census 2000, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 5,

1996, p. III–34. 6The Plan, p. III–41.

3. The Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census

should prioritize the constitutional mandate of the decennial census—apportionment of the House of Representatives.

4. The Bureau should emphasize and strengthen its cooperative

relationships with State and local elected officials, as well as members of local organizations, who are vital in helping increase response rates to the decennial census.

5. The Bureau should strengthen its plans for a thorough quality

check of the 2000 Census and maintain open access to all processes

for internal and external review and analysis.

II. BACKGROUND

On October 25, 1995, Congressman William H. Zeliff, Jr., chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, held an oversight hearing to examine

testimony from Census Bureau officials regarding their plans for

conducting the 2000 decennial census. Witnesses included Dr. Martha Riche (Director, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce), Francis DeGeorge (Inspector General, U.S. Department

of Commerce), and Nye Stevens (Director of Federal Management

and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office). At the

hearing, the Bureau announced a number of new initiatives, including the use of statistical sampling to complete the actual enumeration.4

On February 28, 1996, Commerce Department and Census Bureau officials publicly announced that sampling would be used in

two different instances to compile the 2000 decennial census. The

first use of sampling would be for nonresponse follow-up. After

counting 90 percent of the population of a county by an actual enumeration, a sample would be selected from the remaining nonresponding addresses, at a rate of 1 in 10. (Sampling will not be

used to complete the enumeration on American Indian reservations, in Alaska Native villages, in the Virgin Islands, or in the Pacific Island territories.) 5 The results of this sample would then be

used to estimate the remaining 10 percent of the population.

The second use of sampling would take place essentially after the

Bureau has the first census number (based on the 90 percent actual enumeration plus the 10 percent sample for nonrespondents.)

This second sampling procedure, called an ‘‘Integrated Coverage

Measurement,’’ or ICM, would begin with a survey of 750,000

households. The Bureau would then match the responses in the

ICM survey to the initial census results, and ‘‘equitably

determine[s], for states and racial/ethnic groups, the number of

people and housing units missed or counted more than once.’’ 6 The

Bureau would then integrate these statistical adjustments to the
4

7December 31 of every decennial census year is the legal deadline for submission of the census numbers by the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress. 8The 1990 adjustment was to be based on a post enumeration survey (PES) of 150,000 households. A PES is a matching study in which an independent sample of households are interviewed at some point after Census Day. The information gathered is compared to census questionnaires from those same households to determine whether each person was correctly counted,

missed, or double-counted in the census.

initial results to produce a ‘‘one-number’’ census by the legal deadline of December 31, 2000.7

On February 29, 1996, the Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight held a hearing to gather testimony from Members

of Congress and outside experts regarding the Bureau’s new methodology. Witnesses included Senator Herb Kohl (D–WI), Congressman Thomas Sawyer (D–OH), Congressman Thomas Petri (R–WI),

Bruce Chapman (president, Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA), Dr.

Barbara Bailar (vice president, Survey Research, National Opinion

Research Center), Dr. Steve Murdock (director, Department of

Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University), Dr. Kenneth Wachter

(professor of statistics and demography, University of California at

Berkeley), Dr. Charles Schultze (senior fellow, the Brookings Institution), and Dr. James Trussell (director, Office of Population Research, Princeton University).

On June 6, 1996, the Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight held another hearing to air questions and concerns about

statistical methods planned for the Census 2000. The witnesses

were Dr. Everett Ehrlich (Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce), and Dr. Martha

Riche (Director, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce). Congressman Thomas Petri delivered a brief statement on

his bill, H.R. 3589, to prohibit the use of sampling in the 2000 Census. However, he did not receive questioning by Members of the

committee.

III. FINDINGS

1. Sampling/statistical adjustment are inherently problematic given

the subjectivity in the various decisions required

The committee is seriously concerned about the subjective nature

of sampling as an estimation technique. The basic decision involved

in any sampling methodology is the choice of the sample itself. The

determinations of exactly who is in the sample and exactly what

characteristics belong to those individuals are inherently subjective. The population and characteristics derived from a sample

drawn by one person could look quite different from those drawn

by another person.

For ICM, the sampling universe is divided into ‘‘post strata’’.

Post strata are demographic subgroups with certain characteristics

such as ‘‘black male renters age 30–49.’’ An undercount rate is estimated for each post stratum, then assumed to hold constant across

relatively large geographical areas. Failures in these assumptions

of constancy, called ‘‘heterogeneity,’’ caused major problems in the

1990 attempt to statistically adjust the census using a sample of

the population, called a post-enumeration survey (PES).8 Dr. Kenneth Wachter, who was a member of the Special Advisory Panel on

Census Adjustment of the Secretary of Commerce from 1989 to
5

9Kenneth Wachter, testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996. 10Memorandum No. 46, ‘‘1995 Census Test Results,’’ by E. Ann Vacca, Mary Mulry, Ruth Ann

Killion, Decennial Statistical Studies Division, April 1, 1996, p. 25. 11 Id., p. 38. 12Decision of the Secretary of Commerce on Whether a Statistical Adjustment of the 1990

Census of Population and Housing Should be Made for Coverage Deficiencies Resulting in an

Overcount or Undercount of the Population, July 22, 1991, 56 Federal Register 33582 at 33583. 13 Id.

1991, reminded the committee in his February testimony that heterogeneity impaired the results of the 1990 adjustment sample, and

he warned that it is still a problem which remains unsolved as we

approach the year 2000.9

There is also the question of the adjustment methodology itself.

For example, in its plans to implement the 2000 census ICM sample survey, the Bureau has yet to decide between two distinct estimation methodologies, ‘‘CensusPlus’’ and ‘‘Dual System Estimation’’

(DSE). In a Census Bureau document detailing the results and decisions of the 1995 Census Test, a discussion of these two methodologies gets to the heart of the problem. According to the memo:

The potential sources of error and the implications of the

quality of the raw data for the two methods are examined.

The effects sometimes are different for the two methods because the assumptions underlying them are different.10

(Emphasis added)

In fact, in a final comparison between the two choices for implementing the ICM, the Bureau memorandum states:

As designed and implemented in the 1995 Census Test,

dual system estimation (DSE) increases the estimate after

nonresponse follow-up in the traditionally undercounted

groups, primarily Blacks and renters, while CensusPlus

does not. However, both CensusPlus and DSE increase the

post nonresponse follow-up estimates for Hispanics. Only

DSE increases the estimate for Asians and Pacific Islanders.11

That a choice of estimation methodologies, or a change in assumptions, can so directly change the results of the survey, is very

disturbing to the committee. The inherent subjectivity of sampling,

and choices of estimation methodologies, whereby outcome can be

manipulated by a change in assumptions, bears directly upon issues of quality, accuracy, and fairness.

In deciding against adjustment in 1990, Commerce Secretary

Mosbacher expressed concern that ‘‘adjustment would open the

door to political tampering with the census.’’ 12 Secretary

Mosbacher noted the important distinction between actual enumeration and statistical adjustment. The unsettling danger of statistical adjustment ‘‘is that the choice of the adjustment method selected by Bureau officials can make a difference in apportionment,

and the political outcome of that choice can be known in advance,’’

while ‘‘the outcome of the enumeration process cannot be directly

affected in such a way.’’ 13
6

14The Plan, p. II–6. 15Secretary Mosbacher’s Decision, 56 Federal Register 33582. 16 Id., at 33583. 17 Brief of U.S. Senators Herb Kohl, Arlen Specter and Russell Feingold, as Amici Curiae in

Support of Petitioners, United States Department of Commerce, et. al., v. City of New York, et.

al., November 9, 1995, p. 18.

2. The legal provisions that concern the use of statistical adjustment

for apportionment purposes, both in the Constitution and in

Federal law, are variously interpreted

There remains an important legal issue of whether sampling/adjustment for apportionment among the States is actually permitted

by the Constitution. Article I calls for an ‘‘actual

Enumeration . . .’’ and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment reads:

‘‘Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of

persons in each State . . .’’. In addition 13 U.S.C., Section 195

reads: ‘‘Except for the determination of population for purposes of

apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several

States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the

use of the statistical method known as ‘‘sampling’’ in carrying out

the provisions of this title.’’ Interpretations vary with regard to

both the Constitution and Title 13.

In ‘‘The Plan For Census 2000,’’ the claim is made with regard

to statistical methods that, ‘‘[w]e are on solid Constitutional

grounds. Our proposal will withstand all legal challenges . . .’’ 14

The committee is concerned about the use of such claims when the

issue of the constitutionality of statistical methods has never been

decided by the Supreme Court—the final court for constitutional

questions. In addition, the issue of sampling for nonresponse to

complete the actual enumeration has never been before any court.

3. The inherent uncertainties of sampling/statistical adjustment

may undermine public confidence in the decennial census and

reduce public participation

Two concerns Secretary Mosbacher raised in his decision not to

adjust the 1990 Census were that: (1) the uncertainty of sampling

and the potential for political manipulation would erode public confidence in the census numbers; and (2) by making a statistical adjustment, participation would decline both at the State and local

levels and at the individual level.15 Committee hearings have

shown that these concerns still remain.

SAMPLING/ADJUSTMENT MAY ERODE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

In deciding against adjustment, Secretary Mosbacher found it

‘‘unsettling that a subjective choice of statistical methodology can

create such a dramatic practical difference in apportionment.’’ 16

The shortcomings generally inherent in statistical formulations are

that assumptions are the basis of any statistical formula attempting to establish precise populations. These assumptions are subjectively chosen and weighed, and thus potentially wrong.17 In addition, adjusted numbers are no more than estimates and—unlike

the actual enumeration, which is based on some verifiable physical
7

18 Id. 19Secretary Mosbacher’s Decision, 56 Federal Register 33582 at 33583. 20 Id. 21 Bruce Chapman, testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996. 22 Congressman Thomas Sawyer, testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.

evidence—entirely the product of statistical inferences with no

physical evidence for verification.18

Because the assumptions on which the statistical adjustments

rest are subjective, they are changeable. In comparing the two post1990 census adjustment results released by the Bureau, it was

found that minor technical differences caused substantial differences in results. The differences in terms of apportionment were

extraordinary. Under one method, two seats in the House of Representatives moved, while under the other plan, only one seat

moved.19

According to one expert reviewing post-1990 adjustment alternatives, among five reasonable alternative estimation methods,

none of the resulting apportionments of the House of Representatives were the same. Eleven different States either lost or gained

a seat in at least one of the five models.20

In the committee’s February 29, 1996 hearing, several witnesses

expressed concerns that the inherent uncertainties in sampling/adjustment may erode public confidence in the census numbers.

Bruce Chapman, former Census Bureau Director under President

Reagan, addressed the need to ensure that public perception is a

key component of the Census 2000 plan.

The current Census Director herself has spoken of the

three legs of the census stool that must dictate the process:

cost, accuracy, and public perception. The first two legs are

important, as I have acknowledged, but if the latter

breaks, the whole construction comes down. The term

‘‘public perception’’ could also be described as trustworthiness. In a time when public mistrust of government

is rife, I question a change that would introduce the invention of statistical persons into the census—robots constructed of sampled data and intellectual abstractions—to

stand in the place of real human beings.21

Congressman Tom Sawyer (D–OH) also underscored the importance of public confidence:

I think that the underlying question that touches every

one of the concerns that has been raised is one of confidence. If the count of the nation does not enjoy the confidence of the people that are being counted, it will not

work, no matter what techniques, technologies, or other

kinds of re-engineering take place.22

A ONE-NUMBER CENSUS WILL NOT AVERT POTENTIAL CRITICISM &

LAWSUITS

‘‘For 1990, the release of the figures from the original enumeration and from the Bureau’s statistical procedures and evaluations
8

23Kenneth Wachter, testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996. 24Martha Riche, testimony before House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25,

1996. 25 Congressman Petri, testimony on February 29, 1996. 26 Bruce Chapman, oral testimony on February 29, 1996. 27The Plan, p. III–55. 28Secretary Mosbacher’s Decision, 56 Federal Register 33582 at 33584.

were available for independent analysis.’’ 23 Skepticism and criticism of the statistical procedures became public knowledge from

many of those independent reviews. In addition, over 50 lawsuits

were subsequently filed over the 1990 census adjustment. However,

the Bureau believes that by incorporating the sampling/adjustment

procedures into the actual enumeration to produce a ‘‘one-number

census,’’ and avoiding a two-number census, such comparisons will

be precluded, lawsuits will be avoided, and public confidence will

not be undermined.

In Bureau Director Martha Riche’s October 25 testimony, she

stated, ‘‘we must produce a ‘one-number census’ that is right the

first time and allows the decennial results to be determined by

statisticians at the Census Bureau, not by lawyers and judges.’’ 24

Indeed, it is the thinking of many that after the 2000 Census,

there will be, as there was after the 1990 census, a flood of lawsuits because of the controversial use of sampling to adjust the actual enumeration. Congressman Petri stated in his oral testimony

before the committee on February 29, 1996 that:

It [adjustment] will not settle or end litigation; it will

just add to litigation, because you will have a floating

undercount estimated number added to the basic head

count, which then will be allocated on a political basis and

lead to endless litigation and uncertainty, meanwhile undermining the integrity of the whole process, increasing

cynicism, and reducing participation in future censuses.25

Former Census Bureau Director Bruce Chapman echoed the belief that more litigation will result from the Bureau’s efforts to statistically adjust the 2000 Census. Referencing a news article with

the Bureau’s claim that an adjusted ‘‘one-number’’ census would

help the Bureau get past the legal problems, he warned that,

‘‘. . . you at least ought to consider the possibility that you will

have far more lawsuits in the future if you undertake sampling.’’ 26

Somewhat contradictory to its claim that lawyers and judges will

not be determining the census totals, the Bureau’s Plan for Census

2000 acknowledges that the Bureau must allocate funding for anticipated lawsuits because, ‘‘regardless of the census design chosen,

the Census Bureau must prepare for legal challenges to census results and procedures.’’ 27

SAMPLING/ADJUSTMENT MAY DISCOURAGE STATE AND LOCAL

PARTICIPATION

In deciding not to adjust the 1990 census, Commerce Secretary

Mosbacher expressed concern that adjustment would remove the

incentive of States and localities to join in the effort to get a full

and complete count.28 Historically, the Census Bureau has relied

extensively on State and local leaders to encourage census partici-
9

29The Plan, p. II–2. 30 Id. 31Secretary Mosbacher’s Decision, 56 Federal Register 33582 at 33584. 32 Congressman Thomas Barrett, in questioning witnesses at the House Government Reform

and Oversight Committee hearing, February 29, 1996. The State of Wisconsin conducted a statewide public awareness campaign and a targeted outreach program which included a matching

grant program aimed at traditionally undercounted groups. As a result of State and local efforts,

Wisconsin had the highest voluntary mail response rate in the country—75 percent] compared

to 64 percent nationwide. The Census Bureau formally recognized Wisconsin’s efforts. Despite

the accomplishment, the post-census adjustment proposed by the Census Bureau would have

caused Wisconsin to lose a seat and a portion of its Federal funds. 33 Congressman Thomas Petri, testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight

Committee, February 29, 1996. 34Sawyer, testimony, February 29, 1996.

pation. Acknowledging that it ‘‘cannot accomplish its goals for Census 2000 working alone’’,29 the Bureau states that it ‘‘must build

partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments and community groups.’’ 30

Because the census numbers are the basis for political representation at all levels and Federal funding allocations, States and localities have a vital interest in achieving the highest participation

rates possible under traditional enumeration methods.31 However,

if civic leaders and public officials believe that statistical adjustments will remedy undercounts, it will be difficult for them to justify expending large amounts of money and resources on promotion

and outreach programs. Without their support in creating public

awareness and a sense of involvement in the census, participation

is likely to decline further.

Committee members and witnesses at the February 29, 1996

hearing also expressed concerns that sampling/adjustment would

discourage both State and local promotion and outreach efforts as

well as individual citizen participation. Congressman Thomas

Barrett (D–WI) stated in questioning the panel of Congressmen

that, ‘‘the attitude that I think many Wisconsinites have on the attempts for the post-census adjustment was that we got these beautiful awards from the Federal Government telling us what a great

job we had done and how proud they were of us, and that they

were going to take away millions of dollars and [a] congressional

seat as a result of the fine job that we did.’’ 32

In response to Congressman Barrett’s question of whether the

Bureau’s move toward a sampling/adjustment approach creates disincentives for States to conduct promotion and outreach efforts,

Congressman Thomas Petri (R–WI), asked rhetorically, ‘‘if the adjustment is going to be done in any event, why should they spend

any money at the local level to encourage compliance with the census procedures?’’ 33

Congressman Sawyer agreed with Congressmen Barrett and

Petri that ‘‘that kind of response, that kind of participation should

always be rewarded in a democracy, and [he] would not want to do

anything to undermine the importance of that in the public

mind.’’ 34 Congressman Petri later stated that:

We have an important national obligation, as a Congress, to attempt to overcome [the declining response rate]

through the best public relations campaign we can do of

emphasizing to people that this is a responsibility and

privilege of citizenship to be counted, and, if we think that

people are not participating in it, to reach out and commu-
10

35Petri, testimony, February 29, 1996. 36General Accounting Office, ‘‘Decennial Census: 1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental

Reform,’’ GAO/GGD–92–94, June 1992, p. 35. 37 Id., p. 36. 38 Id., p. 35. 39 Id., p. 5. The Bureau is planning a number of improvements to increase response rates, i.e.,

more user-friendly forms, multiple mailings, reminder cards, making the forms more available,

and forming partnerships with State, local, and community groups. 40 Everett M. Ehrlich, oral testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, June 6, 1996.

nicate more, and send people by, or try to get in touch

with their communities, and use 101 techniques to involve

them in the process, not just to give up and then try to adjust it through the political process and think that we’ve

accomplished something.35

SAMPLING/ADJUSTMENT MAY CAUSE FURTHER DECLINE IN PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION

Voluntary participation is the cornerstone of the decennial census because voluntary public response through mail-back is the

most accurate, effective and efficient source of census data.36 The

significance of a large mail-back response it not just that it reduces

the staff, time and money required, but that it produces the best

quality census data.37 When voluntary participation in the census

declines, the costs rise exponentially while accuracy decreases.

Each percentage point of mail-out nonresponse will cost an additional $25 million for the 2000 Census which is an $8 million increase over the cost of the 1990 Census nonresponse rate. Accordingly, a ‘‘high level of public cooperation is the key to obtaining accurate data at a reasonable cost.’’ 38

Although sampling for nonresponse to complete the count may

reduce the need for staff and reduce costs, the use of statistical adjustments may discourage citizen participation and erode public

confidence in the census numbers. While the Bureau’s research

shows that a number of demographic, socioeconomic and attitudinal variables affect public response rates, Bureau data also suggests that the public’s willingness to cooperate is, at least in part,

within the Bureau’s control.39 However, sampling/adjustment is not

an effort directed at increasing response rates, it simply is a response to declining public participation. The census questionnaire’s

length, complexity and intrusiveness have all been identified as

discouraging respondents from completing the form. The committee

is concerned that, if individuals believe they will be counted regardless, they will not expend the time and effort to respond, causing what Undersecretary Ehrlich referred to as ‘‘participation meltdown.’’ 40

4. The Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau have not

clearly distinguished between the two statistical methods proposed for the 2000 Census: (1) sampling for nonresponse followup, and (2) sampling for the Integrated Coverage Measurement

(ICM); nor have they clarified issues of accuracy respective to

the each of these sampling techniques

In the public document entitled ‘‘Plan for Census 2000,’’ revised

April 5, 1996, the Department and Bureau claim that sampling for

nonresponse follow-up will reduce cost and improve accuracy. Spe-
11

41 House Government Reform and Oversight Committee staff notes, Meeting of the Census

2000 Advisory Committee, May 17, 1996. 42The meeting on May 24 included committee majority staff, Jane Cobb; minority staff, David

McMillen, staff of Representative Carrie Meek, Ben Cohen; and Census Bureau officials Robert

Marx, Paula Schneider, and John Thompson, among others. 43 Congresswoman Carrie Meek, oral comments, House Government Reform and Oversight

Committee hearing, February 29, 1996. 44L. Nye Stevens, testimony of the General Accounting Office before the House Government

Reform and Oversight Committee, Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs,

and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995.

cifically, on page II–5, the public is guaranteed that this sampling

technique will ‘‘ensure that Census 2000 is built around a solid

core of field results, while reducing the cost and improving the accuracy of the data on the final increment of the population.’’ (Emphasis added) This statement would have the public believe that

the 10 percent sample of the hardest to reach populations will increase the accuracy of the count for these populations over a 100-

percent physical enumeration.

However, on May 17, 1996, at a meeting of the Census 2000 Advisory Committee, Bureau Director Martha Riche stated that the

10 percent sampling for nonrespondents was only meant to address

cost concerns; it was not an effort to address the differential

undercount.41 This statement was reiterated by other Bureau officials on May 24, 1996, in a meeting with committee majority and

minority staff. At that meeting, minority staff Ben Cohen questioned Bureau experts about whether their sample for nonresponse

would improve the differential undercount. The Bureau’s response

was that they had no hard evidence that quality would be improved, but they ‘‘assume’’ the quality would be improved; that the

sample for nonresponse was primarily an effort to save money.42

Congresswoman Carrie Meek (D–FL), at the February hearing,

stated that it concerned her that cost seemed to be the driving factor behind the push for sampling for nonresponse follow-up: ‘‘I am

very concerned that one of the motives here, Mr. Sawyer, may be

to save money. I don’t think this is the place we can save

money . . .’’.43 Indeed, as Bureau officials have stated, saving

money has been a primary element driving the Bureau toward use

of sampling for nonresponse follow-up.

5. The sampling method for nonresponse follow-up introduces additional error into the process and may compromise the accuracy

of small-area data which is important for congressional and

State legislative redistricting

In hearings before the committee, concerns were raised by both

Members and outside experts regarding the introduction of sampling error into the count. At the October 25, 1995 hearing of the

Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and

Criminal Justice, GAO testified that, ‘‘[t]he nature of sampling itself, however, increases the statistical uncertainty of the data on

nonrespondents at lower geographic levels. The magnitude of statistical uncertainty is dependent on the size of the sample, the

method used to draw the sample, and the size of the universe being

sampled.’’ 44 In other words, the uncertainty of the sampling methodology for nonresponse follow-up is inherent given the indeterminate configuration of the nonresponding households which comprise
12

45The Plan, p. III–35. 46Francis D. DeGeorge, testimony of the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce

before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995. 47The Plan, p. III–35. 48 Robert Murdock, oral testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996.

that particular sample universe and the method used to select the

sample households.

The Bureau itself admits the negative implications of the 10-percent sample for nonresponse follow-up. ‘‘The Plan For Census 2000’’

indicates:

Visiting only a sample of nonresponse housing units

raises issues of equity, reliability, and the size of the margin of uncertainty associated with the totals obtained.

These issues are particularly important for small population groups and for populations in small towns and

neighborhoods.45

The problem of accuracy was identified in testimony received at

the October 25, 1995 hearing of the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice. In his evaluation of the Bureau’s plans to conduct the 2000 Census, Commerce

Inspector General Francis DeGeorge testified that, ‘‘using a 1-percent sample of the entire population to represent the last 10 percent may introduce statistical uncertainty, producing lower quality

information. At 90 percent, the people who have not yet responded

are the hardest to count, so a disproportionate number of them will

be represented in the sample, possibly leading to missing information and thus introducing statistical bias.’’ 46

In its April 5, 1996 version of ‘‘The Plan For Census 2000,’’ the

Bureau admits also that, ‘‘[s]ampling for nonresponse will increase

the margin of uncertainty for estimates obtained from the sample

form data items.’’ 47 The sample form, or ‘‘long form,’’ which gathers

socio-economic information, goes to one in six households during

the decennial census.

In testimony received by the committee on February 29, 1996, issues of accuracy and the erosion of data quality were major concerns among the witnesses. Dr. Robert Murdock, a rural demographer and professor at Texas A&M University, testified that:

I am particularly concerned about this issue from our experience base in working in rural areas across the south,

because the areas that we have found it most difficult to

get an adequate sampling frame have been those areas

that have hard to enumerate populations, particularly

rural minority populations. In sum, about this issue, I am

concerned that the use of sampling to complete the census

count will lead to a degradation in the quality of statistics,

the quality of data from the census for small rural areas.

According to Census’ own figures, 48 percent of the 39,000

governmental units in the United States in 1990 had populations of less than 1,000. And two-thirds, more than 67

percent, had less than 2,500 persons.48
13

49Murdock, testimony, February 29, 1996. 50Thomas Sawyer, testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,

February 29, 1996. 51 Charles Schultze, testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,

February 29, 1996. 52Modernizing the U.S. Census, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press,

1995, p. 35.

Dr. Murdock observed further in his written statement that,

‘‘[s]ince these elements of inaccuracy would, in turn, likely disproportionately impact minority racial/ethnic groups, such problems could also impact the capability of the Integrated Coverage

Measurement procedures to produce accurate estimates of the level

of undercount.’’ 49

At the same hearing, Congressman Sawyer also expressed concerns about losing quality data with sampling. He states in his

written testimony that:

I am also concerned about the Bureau’s statement that

it plans to hold long form distribution to ‘smallest possible

sample of households’.... If, however, the sample is as

small as it can be, I have increased concerns about the use

of statistical methods in the completion of nonresponse follow-up in the final 10 percent of households. Long-form

data is used for a wide array of applications. It forms the

basis of important economic and societal models. The private-sector uses the data for broadly public goods—where

to place a 500-job factory, for instance. And local governments—the largest non-Federal user of census—use that

information to plan traffic patterns, locate schools and do

critical urban planning. A suspect result will compromise

expert and public confidence in these numbers that the nation needs to make myriad decisions on long-term planning.... Clearly, there are trade-offs in the use of statistical methods. The Bureau must work to limit any potential loss in the quality of the data.50

Dr. Charles Schultze, chair of the National Research Council’s

‘‘Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond,’’

while stressing the cost and difficulty of achieving accurate counts

in the hardest to enumerate places, admitted in his testimony that,

‘‘[o]n the other hand, the use of surveys and sampling techniques

will mean that the estimates for very small areas will have greater

variation above and below the true count.’’ 51

Dr. Schultze’s testimony centered around the findings of the Census 2000 panel, which produced a book entitled ‘‘Modernizing the

U.S. Census’’ (1995, National Academy of Sciences). According to

the findings of the panel, data accuracy is relative to the particular

size of the geographical or political area.52 In other words, a census

incorporating nonresponse sampling and an adjustment based on

the ICM sample could raise the level of accuracy for a numeric estimate at the national level (numeric accuracy). However, the degree

of error introduced by those techniques increases as the estimates

are applied to the State and then sub-state levels (distributive accuracy). This has implications for congressional and State legislative redistricting, as well as distribution of Federal funds at the

State level and below.
14

53Wachter, testimony, February 29, 1996.

Ultimately sampling, be it for nonresponse or ICM, does not

allow for knowing definitively the individual attributes of the population it is imputing into an area. In particular, sampling does not

allow for knowing where the people missed actually live, so the accuracy of the population distribution becomes inferior. For congressional redistricting and for local-area decisions that involve smaller

areas, the relative accuracy of the population count for blocks and

aggregations of blocks is very important. In sum, the committee

found overwhelming concern among Members of Congress and outside experts that sampling would compromise the quality of data

at the small, but critical, geographic areas such as blocks and aggregations of blocks.

Again, while driven toward nonresponse sampling primarily by

cost concerns, it appears that the fundamental constitutional purpose for the census—to apportion Congress—has been de-emphasized. The Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census

should prioritize the constitutional basis of the decennial census as

well as their use for congressional and State legislative redistricting. The Bureau should strive hardest for accuracy and fairness in

getting the proportional distribution of the population physically

right among geographical and political units in order to fulfill our

constitutional mandate, first and foremost.

6. The complexity of the two different sampling techniques being

planned for the 2000 Census adds a great deal of risk to the

operational feasibility of the Bureau’s current approach

In 1990, in the attempt to adjust the census, the Bureau sampled

150,000 households in what it called a ‘‘post enumeration survey,’’

or PES. The results of the survey were matched to the original

count to adjust for the estimated undercount/overcount. This was

one of the largest surveys ever undertaken, and it was not free

from error, as indicated below. For the 2000 Census, the Bureau

plans to sample 750,000 households, or five times the number of

households in the 1990 sample. The committee has concern about

the sheer volume of this sample and the capability of the Census

Bureau to operationally carry out a sample of this magnitude and

complexity in the time to meet the statutory deadline for completion of the census. The Members are concerned as well that there

are no plans for independent analyses of the survey to measure its

quality prior to its use in adjusting the census.

Dr. Wachter, who testified as an expert witness for the Government in the 1980 and the 1990 lawsuits over census adjustment,

expressed his concern at the February hearing about the complexity of the plans for the statistical adjustments to the 2000 Census:

The first priority should be a ‘Fail-Safe Census’. Statistical methods need to be simple and direct so that malfunctions will be detected and corrected. Unfortunately,

the Bureau’s plans for Census 2000 add further layers of

complexity onto the complications of 1990, and leave the

final numbers even more vulnerable to statistical error.53
15

54 ‘‘1995 Census Test Results,’’ Memorandum No. 46, by E. Ann Vacca, Mary Mulry, Ruth Ann

Killion, Decennial Statistical Studies Division, April 1, 1996, p. 28. 55 ‘‘1990 Census Adjustment,’’ General Accounting Office, GAO/GGD–91–42, March 1991, p.

16.56Wachter, testimony, February 29, 1996. 57The Plan, p. III–39. 58 Id., p. III–39.

Indeed, with either statistical methodology contemplated for

ICM, CensusPlus or DSE, the potential for added error appears

great when one considers the numerous sources of error. In the

Census Bureau memo detailing the results of the 1995 Census Test

(Memorandum No. 46, April 1, 1996), a host of error sources are

evaluated, and include: (1) contamination error, (2) reconciliation

bias, (3) outmover error, (4) rostering error, (5) combined data collection error, (6) CensusPlus residency coding error, (7) DSE

matching error, (8) missing data, and (9) sampling error.54

The importance of assessing the quality of a survey, or sample,

cannot be overstated. The General Accounting Office, in its 1991

report entitled ‘‘The 1990 Census Adjustment,’’ indicates that:

The difficulties in successfully completing the PES and

the fact that the PES, like all surveys, is subject to a variety of errors, underscores the importance of completing

sound and careful assessments of the quality of the

PES. . . . The value of the PES estimates will be appreciably reduced if the error in those estimates is considered

significant. Thus assessments of the PES form a critical

part of the data the Secretary of Commerce will need to

make the adjustment decision.55

Yet, under the Bureau’s concept for a ‘‘one-number census’’ there

will not be a set of figures for the actual enumeration (completed

with or without the sample for nonresponse) against which to independently evaluate the ICM estimate. Only the final ICM version

will be made available to the public. Dr. Wachter, in his testimony

before the committee, also expressed concerned about this issue.

‘‘The figures behind the final figures will not be available outside

the Bureau. If choices of detail shift a dozen seats in the House of

Representatives, we shall never know. If the problems of 1990 are

brought under control by the Bureau’s new initiatives, we shall

never know.’’ 56

BUREAU’S PLANS LIMIT QUALITY CONTROL

In addition, the Bureau, citing funding constraints, plans only a

limited quality control program compared to the 1990 program

where quality control was conducted for more operations and with

higher sampling rates.57 For the 2000 Census, the Bureau will implement quality control operations only to detect major errors in

data collection and processing operations. The most serious implication of this plan is stated by the Bureau: ‘‘Data collection and

processing operations may yield results of lower quality than those

achieved in the 1990 Census.’’ 58

Even with the quality control procedures in place for 1990, the

committee was reminded of a major problem that arose with the

1990 attempted adjustment. Senator Kohl stated at the hearing in

February that, ‘‘[i]n retrospect, we were extremely fortunate that
16

59Senator Herb Kohl, testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, February 29, 1996. 60Wachter, testimony, February 29, 1996. 61 Id. 62 Barbara Bailar, testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee,

February 29, 1996.

we did not adjust the 1990 Census. Several months after that contentious decision in July of 1991, the Census Bureau discovered an

error in the adjustment procedures that significantly reduced the

undercount.’’ 59

Dr. Wachter echoed this concern about potential errors. He recalled that, ‘‘If Secretary Mosbacher had decided to use the statistically adjusted numbers as 1990 census counts, a seat in the

House of Representatives would have been shifted from Pennsylvania to Arizona by an error in a computer program. It affected a million people in the count. It remained undiscovered for months after

the Secretary’s decision, buried under layer upon layer of complications in the statistical procedures.’’ 60

The computer coding error, according to Dr. Wachter:

epitomizes the problems of statistical adjustment in

1990. Complications were added in pursuit of incremental

gains in accuracy. However, many small gains can be offset by a few large errors. In 1990, the complexity of their

modeling systems made it hard for the Bureau to detect

big mistakes and uncertainties, until long after the critical

decisions had been made. Indeed, we and others inside and

outside the Bureau later found systematic errors in the

procedures originally used to evaluate the adjustment proposed to Secretary Mosbacher: the original evaluations

overstated the merits of adjustment. The more complex are

the modeling systems used, and the tighter the constraints

of time and money, the harder it becomes to make realistic

assessments of the statistical uncertainties in the model

outputs.61

Dr. Barbara Bailar, former Associate Director for Statistical

Standards and Methodology at the Census Bureau, testified about

her concerns for the ability to carry out quality control with the

complex plans for the 2000 Census:

I am concerned that the Bureau is instituting so many

new procedures and processing steps without having adequate quality control. Not that I am advocating quality

control for documentation purposes only, but I believe procedures should be built into the census processes that tell

the Census staff quickly if something is going wrong. That

the Bureau staff worrries that funding constraints limit

their quality control program makes me very concerned.62

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Congress should work to clarify existing Federal statutes with regard to the use of sampling to make statistical adjustments to

the census for apportionment purposes

The reason there are so many lawsuits over the issue of sampling/adjustment is because Federal statutes have been interpreted
17

in various ways. It is the desire of this committee to avoid the numerous lawsuits that came after Secretary Mosbacher’s decision

not to adjust the census. Litigation is expensive for the American

taxpayer. Though we do not have exact figures, we expect that it

has cost plenty for the Federal Government to argue its cases before the courts. Congress should clarify its intent with respect to

sampling/adjustment by amending 13 U.S.C., sections 141 and/or

195.

2. The Bureau should not use sampling methods to complete or adjust the actual enumeration of the 2000 Census which is constitutionally mandated for purposes of apportionment

Congress should not allow sampling/statistical adjustment to

modify or replace the actual enumeration. The primary reason is

that a statistical adjustment is inherently subjective and open to

potential manipulation of the final count. It is also possible that

sampling/adjustment could undermine public confidence in the census and erode participation by State and local groups, and individuals.

3. The Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census

should prioritize the constitutional mandate of the decennial

census—apportionment of the House of Representatives

It appears that the fundamental constitutional purpose for the

decennial census—to apportion the House of Representative—has

been de-emphasized. However, this is the element that must take

precedence—regardless of cost. The Bureau should strive hardest

for accuracy and fairness in terms of getting the proportional distribution of the population physically right among geographical and

political units. The committee believes this can only be achieved by

performing an actual enumeration.

4. The Bureau should emphasize and strengthen its cooperative relationships with State and local elected officials, as well as

members of local organizations, who are vital in helping increase response rates to the decennial census

The committee recognizes and is concerned that there has always

been an undercount, and that in the 1990 Census there was an increase in the differential undercount of minorities. This is not the

fault of the Bureau of the Census. Socio-economic changes have impacted greatly on the ability of the Bureau to locate everyone. Additionally, there are more people who are skeptical of ‘‘government’’

and who refuse to cooperate with the census. These people exist in

all areas of this country, urban, rural, and suburban. However, noone is omniscient. We do not know for sure exactly what these people look like. We do not know, nor have we ever known, the ‘‘true’’

population.

The Bureau is spending considerable time and resources developing ways to improve response rates and encourage participation in

the census. A major effort will be in encouraging stronger relationships with State and local elected officials, as well as nongovernmental organizations, who can help educate communities about the

importance of the census to individuals personally. They know

their communities better than anyone. And it is clearly in their in-
18

terest to make sure everyone is counted. To embark on a program

of estimating the last 10 percent of the population would certainly

undermine this important effort.

5. The Bureau should strengthen its plans for a thorough quality

check of the 2000 Census and maintain open access to all processes for internal and external review and analysis

It is disturbing that the Bureau is so dramatically de-prioritizing

quality control in the 2000 Census. In doing so, not only is the Bureau jeopardizing the quality of the decennial census, but it is jeopardizing its reputation as the finest statistical agency in the world.

Resources must be made available to evaluate the complicated

steps in an undertaking of this magnitude. This country can ill-afford a $4 billion mistake.
(19)

CLARIFYING COMMENTS OF HON. WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR.

There are many subjective elements in the adjustment process,

including choices of adjustment methodology, statistical models for

estimation, post stratification, and sample design. Experience in

1990 showed these choices had substantial impacts, and introduced

undesirable, arbitrary elements into the census process. However,

with the probability sampling techniques used by the Census Bureau, given the sample design, the choice of the sample itself is objective.

HON. WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR.
(20)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. STEVEN SCHIFF

The decennial census and how it is conducted have always been

sensitive and controversial matters. The data from the final census

are used for a variety of purposes. The Constitutional mandate to

apportion the U.S. Congress is by far the most recognized purpose

of the Census. But, census data are also used in the allocation of

billions of dollars each year in Federal and State grants.

The Census Bureau has decided for the first time to use sampling techniques in the 2000 decennial census to adjust the actual

enumeration. With the stakes being so high for States and localities, this is undoubtedly a very important decision.

I agree with many of the recommendations in the committee’s report. I especially agree with the recommendation that the Bureau

should enhance partnerships with State and local officials in order

to provide the most accurate survey possible. This would be most

helpful for those areas, such as New Mexico, which have a significant percentage of the population who for a variety of reasons do

not wish to respond to the initial mail-out form. In my view, the

Bureau should make every effort in conjunction with State and

local governments to account for nonrespondents by physical

means.

All reasonable efforts should continue to be made to achieve a

maximum actual count of individuals. However, after such count is

complete, I believe that there is still additional room for finalizing

population numbers through the use of sampling.

No one believes that any process of individual identification will

produce a totally accurate result. Using reasonable sampling techniques, after a detailed count, will help us achieve a more accurate

final result, than by an individual count, alone.

HON. STEVEN SCHIFF.
(21)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

I have several comments about the committee report: ‘‘Sampling

and Statistical Adjustment in the Decennial Census: Fundamental

Flaws’’ which I am stating here for the record.

The report rejects the use of statistical adjustment to help address the undercount problem in the 1990 census, and in particular, the undercount of minority population. I believe that a statistical adjustment must be looked at as a possible way to improve

the census count, but that we must ensure that accuracy is not sacrificed in any adjustment for an undercount.

I am deeply concerned about a possible undercount in the next

census in 2000 which would unfairly impact on my home State of

Florida and other areas throughout the Nation with high growth

rates and high minority populations. The Census Bureau estimates

that the last census failed to count 340,000 people in Florida or approximately 2.6 percent of the population and over 60,000 people

or 3.0 percent of the population in Metropolitan Dade County. This

compares with a 2.1 percent undercount of the total U.S. population at the national level, and an undercount of 4.8 percent of the

black population and 5.2 percent of the Hispanic population

throughout the Nation.

This undercount costs Florida and other areas untold millions of

dollars in Federal funds. It is essential that the 2000 census be as

accurate as possible since it determines such important matters as

the size of each State’s Congressional delegation, its votes for President in the Electoral College, the boundaries of numerous districts

at all levels of government, and the determines the distribution of

government funding formulas.

I believe that the Census Bureau’s proposed plan for sampling

for nonresponse in the 2000 census needs further modification, especially in ensuring accuracy for small area population figures

which are important in assuring fairness in redistricting based on

the census figures. I have joined with my Miami colleague, Rep.

Carrie Meek, in co-sponsoring H.R. 3558 which would require the

Census Bureau to count 90 percent of the population at the census

tract level before sampling.

This approach of sampling at the census tract level is supported

by Chuck Blowers, Chief of Research and Oliver Kerr of the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning, Development and

Regulation. They agree that this requirement ‘‘will result in more

accurate census counts, especially in areas of minority concentration and those with many recent immigrants.’’
22

I strongly concur with the report’s recommendation that the Census Bureau ‘‘should emphasize and strengthen its cooperative relationships with state and local elected officials, as well as members

of local organizations, who are vital in helping increase response

rates to the decennial census’’. My local county planning officials

would appreciate having access to the Census Bureau’s address

listings by tract and block far enough in advance so that they can

make corrections to it prior to the next census.

HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN.
(23)

1Dr. Barbara Bryant, testimony before the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

July 16, 1991.

DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. CARDISS COLLINS, HON.

HENRY A. WAXMAN, HON. TOM LANTOS, HON. MAJOR R.

OWENS, HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, HON. JOHN M. SPRATT,

JR., HON. LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER, HON. GARY A.

CONDIT, HON. BERNARD SANDERS, HON. KAREN L.

THURMAN, HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, HON. BARBARAROSE COLLINS, HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, HON.

JAMES P. MORAN, HON. GENE GREEN, HON. CARRIE P.

MEEK, HON. CHAKA FATTAH, AND HON. ELIJAH E.

CUMMINGS

The majority has proposed a report that rejects sampling to

count the most difficult to count in the census, and adjusting the

census for those that cannot be found. Yet both have been proposed

by the Census Bureau to constrain the cost of the census and make

it more accurate. This outright rejection of sampling and adjustment, without any proposal for achieving the dual charge from

Congress of a more accurate and less expensive census, is untenable.

There has been considerable confusion about the proposals to use

sampling in the 2000 census. The Census Bureau has proposed two

uses of sampling: once 90 percent of the households have been

counted, the Census will draw a 1 in 10 sample of the remaining

households (commonly referred to as ‘‘sampling for nonresponse’’);

and second, a separate survey will be conducted to determine who

was missed or counted twice, and the population counts adjusted

accordingly (called Integrated Coverage Measurement by the Census Bureau). Several members have expressed concerns about the

implementation of sampling for nonresponse, for example, Rep.

Meek has introduced H.R. 3558 to constrain the geography used for

this sample.

Passing this report puts the committee on record opposing any

adjustment. If the 2000 census is not adjusted for the undercount

of minorities, it would continue a 60 year tradition of measuring

the problem, but doing nothing about it. Congress has repeatedly

called for a more accurate census. With the passage of this report,

we will be settling for an inaccurate census.

Dr. Barbara Bryant, Director of the Census Bureau under President Bush, in testimony before the House Committee on Post Office

and Civil Service, said that the census had reached the limits of

what could be done with traditional methods. Congress has called

for a census that is less expensive and more accurate.1 Three separate panels of experts convened by the National Academy of

Sciences have recommended the use of sampling and statistical

methods to achieve these goals.
24

2 Hogan, Howard and Gregg Robinson, ‘‘What the Census Bureau’s Coverage Evaluation Programs Tell Us About Differential Undercount,’’ unpublished paper. 3Decennial Census: 1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental Reform, U.S. General Accounting Report GAO/GGD–92–94, June 1992. Other factors for declining mail returns, cited by the

General Accounting Office, include illiteracy, non-English-speaking immigrants, concerns about

privacy, the hectic nature of modern living, undocumented aliens, growth in commercial mail

and telephone solicitations, lack of confidence in civic institutions, and increasing numbers of

nontraditional households and family arrangements. 4The Plan for Census 2000, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1996. 5 Roll Call, May 6, 1996.

We agree that the plans laid out by the Census Bureau need further definition, and that the plans for sampling for nonresponse

need to be modified. Where we differ is the resolution. The Republican report offers no solutions. We must be sure that methods used

to improve accuracy and reduce costs are, as Dr. Kenneth Wachter

testified before this committee, ‘‘simple, direct, and fail-safe.’’ However, to prohibit new methods that could reduce cost or improve accuracy is premature.

FINDINGS

1.The fundamental purpose of the decennial census of population

is to account for all residents of the United States for the purpose

of apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives among

the States.

2. Sixty years of research on the census has shown that there

will always be some residents for whom the census has not accounted. The net undercount has come down from 5.4 percent in

1940 to 1.2 percent in 1980, but rose to 1.8 percent in 1990,2 suggesting that we may have reached the limit to which we can expect

the census to go using traditional direct enumeration methods.

3. It is unlikely that the census can account for the final 1 to 2

percent of the population without employing some type of statistical procedure. In order for these methods to achieve widespread

public acceptance, they must be simple. The results cannot be altered by changing the assumptions within the method, and they

must be subject to widespread independent review by both the public and the professional community.

4. The cost of a traditional census has increased dramatically,

doubling in constant dollars from 1970 to 1980, and increasing another 25 percent in 1990. Part of the cost increase is the result of

a declining percentage of forms returned by mail, from 78 percent

in 1970 to 75 percent in 1980 to 65 percent in 1990; however; the

largest increase in cost does not correspond with the largest drop

in the mail-back response rate.3

5. The Census Bureau has proposed a budget of $3.9 billion for

the 2000 census,4 with major savings achieved by accounting for

the last 10 percent of the population through a 1 in 10 sample.

However, Congress has shown a reluctance to fund the census at

this level. Both the FY 1995 and FY 1996 budget resolutions funded below the requested level, and the chairman of the Commerce,

State, and Justice Appropriations Subcommittee has indicated that

the Census Bureau will not be funded at the requested level for FY

1997.5 Both the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees

have proposed funding only about two-thirds of the increase requested to fund 2000 census activities in FY 1997.
25

6 ‘‘Minutes of the December 1995 Meeting of the Minority Advisory Committees’’, U.S. Bureau

of the Census, unpublished. 7White, Andrew A. And Keith F. Rust, eds., Sampling in the 2000 Census: Interim Report I,

Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census Methodologies, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, June 1996. 8L. Nye Stevens, Director of Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office. Testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee

on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995. 9Francis DeGeorge, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce. Testimony before the

House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995. 10The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 2. 11 Rich, Spencer, ‘‘Suit to Block Illegal Aliens From Census Count Voided,’’ the Washington

Post, May 10, 1989, p. A 17. 12 Biskupic, Joan, ‘‘Dodging Touchy Census Issue, House Passes Funding Bill,’’ Congressional

Quarterly, August 5, 1989, p. 2047.

6. The implementation of sampling to account for the last 10 percent has not received wide-spread public acceptance. Members of

Congress, as well as the Census Bureau’s African-American Advisory Committee,6 have expressed strong reservations about the

choice of geography and detrimental effects on the count of minorities. On the other hand, a National Academy of Sciences panel,7

convened at the request of the Census Bureau, strongly supported

sampling to account for the last 10 percent. In testimony before the

Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, both the General Accounting Office 8 and the Department of Commerce Inspector General 9 supported sampling.

BACKGROUND

Finding 1. The fundamental purpose of the decennial census of population is to account for all residents of the United States for

the purpose of apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives among the States.

The decennial census of population was created in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned

among the several States which may be included in the

Union, according to their respective Numbers, . . . The

actual enumeration shall be made within three Years after

the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and

within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.10

The Constitution makes no mention of any criteria for being included in the census other than residence. Both the courts and

Congress have affirmed that the census is to include all residents.

In 1990, the U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, PA threw out a lawsuit that would have blocked the Census Bureau from counting illegal aliens in the 1990 census. A similar suit was dismissed in

1980.11 In August 1989, Congress rejected an amendment to the

FY 1990 appropriations for the Department of Commerce that

would have required the Census Bureau to exclude illegal aliens

from the 1990 census count.12 Rep. Stephen Horn expressed these

sentiments at the February 29, 1996 hearing of the Committee on
26

13Transcript of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight hearing ‘‘The 2000 Census: Putting Our Money Where it Counts,’’ February 29, 1996, p. 48. 14 505 U.S. 788 (1992). 15 Hogan, Howard and Gregg Robinson, ‘‘What the Census Bureau’s Coverage Evaluation Programs Tell Us About Differential Undercount,’’ unpublished paper. 16 Ibid. p. 5. 17 Ibid. p. 5. 18The undercount for the census is always reported as a net figure which includes both people

counted more than once, and people not counted at all. In 1990 approximately 10 million people

were missed in the census and 6 million people were counted twice, resulting in a net

undercount of 4 million.

Government Reform and Oversight, ‘‘. . . as you know, the Constitution says nothing about citizens; it’s ‘persons.’ ’’ 13

In Franklin v. Massachusetts 14 the Supreme Court rejected a

claim by the State of Massachusetts and two of its registered voters. Massachusetts argued that the method used by the Census Bureau to count Federal employees serving overseas was consistent

with the constitutional language and goal of equal representation.

The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to define the boundaries of ‘‘usual residence’’.

Finding 2. Sixty years of research on the census has shown that

there will always be some residents for whom the census has

not accounted. The net undercount has came down from 5.4

percent in 1940 to 1.2 percent in 1980, but rose to 1.8 percent

in 1990,15 suggesting that we may have reached the limit to

which we can expect the census to go.

There has been marked improvement in reducing the undercount

since the first estimates from a Census Bureau program called Demographic analysis. Demographic Analysis is limited because it

only gives measures for the whole country, and cannot provide estimates for ethnic groups or racial groups other African-American.

However, it has a long history of research, provides more age detail

than other measures, and provides greater confidence in describing

differences in the undercount between groups.16 The table below

gives the net undercount for the United States from 1940 to

1990.17

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Total ............................................................................................... 5.4% 4.1% 3.1% 2.7% 1.2% 1.8%

Black .............................................................................................. 8.4% 7.5% 6.6% 6.5% 4.5% 5.7%

Nonblack ........................................................................................ 5.0% 3.8% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% 1.3%

Difference (Black - Nonblack) ....................................................... 3.4% 3.6% 3.9% 4.3% 3.7% 4.4%

While the net undercount for the United States has declined, the

black/nonblack differential has increased with each census, with

the exception of 1980, reaching the highest measured difference in

1990. This differential draws into question the equity of the census

data, especially when used for apportionment, and by extension the

electoral college, as well as for distributing Federal funds. It shows

clearly that the census does not account for all residents of the

United States. Over 4 million people were left out of the 1990 census.18

In addition to racial differentials, the undercount varies by geography. Following the 1990 census, the Census Bureau conducted a
27

19The estimate of a 1.6 percent net undercount is from the post-enumeration survey. The estimate of 1.8 percent is from demographic analysis. The two methods yield slightly different estimates for the same group, but there are no distinct differences. 20 Hogan, Howard, ‘‘The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: Operations and New Estimates,’’

paper presented at the 1992 Annual Meetings of the American Statistical Association, August

1992, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, and unpublished tables provided by the Bureau of the Census. 21 Chacon, Peter, testimony at the joint hearing before the Subcommittee on Census and Population of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and the Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, March

19, 1991, Serial No. 102–5.

‘‘post-enumeration survey’’ which provides more geographic detail

than demographic analysis as well as estimates for other racial and

ethnic groups.

The post-enumeration survey shows considerable differences in

the net undercount from State to State, from a low of 0.3 percent

in Pennsylvania to a high of 3.4 in the District of Columbia. The

undercount is often talked about in terms of the problems of enumeration in urban areas and the problems of high undercounts for

minorities. However, many non-urban States with a larger than average rural population have undercount rates above the national

average of 1.6 percent:19 Idaho (2.0 percent); Montana (2.4 percent); Mississippi (2.1 percent); North Carolina (1.8 percent); and

South Carolina (2.0 percent). Large undercounts also occur in

States like California (2.7 percent), Florida (2.0 percent); Louisiana

(2.2 percent), Maryland (2.1 percent); New Mexico (3.1 percent) and

Texas (2.8 percent).20

Finding 3. It is unlikely that the census can account for the final

1 to 2 percent of the population without employing some type

of statistical procedure. In order for these methods to achieve

widespread public acceptance, they must be simple. The results

cannot be altered by changing the assumptions within the

method, and they must be subject to widespread independent review by both the public and the professional community.

The demands of a statistical adjustment are severe. The census

counts people block by block across the country, and those counts

by block are used to build congressional districts, State legislature

districts, and to allocate funds for a variety of Federal programs

like the grants to school districts for disadvantaged children under

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Debate over the proposed adjustment for the 1990 census was

fierce. Dr. Barbara Bryant, Director of the Census Bureau during

the 1990 census, acknowledged that the procedures were ones over

which reasonable demographers and statisticians could disagree.

Some, like the State of Wisconsin, argued that adjusting the census

would be unfair to those States that made an effort to get a complete count. Others argued for the fairness of an adjustment. Peter

Chacon, then chairman of the California State Assembly Elections

and Reapportionment Committee testified ‘‘I would close my testimony by urging the Subcommittee to do all in its power to impress

upon the Secretary of Commerce that he should order an appropriate adjustment of the 1990 census so that undercounted minorities can achieve the political representation to which they are entitled.’’ 21
28

22Transcript of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight hearing ‘‘The 2000 Census: Putting Our Money Where it Counts,’’ February 29, 1996, p. 21 and p. 44. 23 Ibid., p. 117. 24 According to Census Bureau figures, data collection accounted for 49.7 percent of the total

cost. Data processing and geographic support accounted for an additional 28.6 percent. The remaining 21.7 percent was for planning and direction (6.6 percent), data dissemination (5.8 percent), research and evaluation (4.4 percent), promotion and outreach (2.8 percent), and other activities (2.1 percent). 25The Plan for Census 2000, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, April

1996.

The fundamental uses of census data require that any shift from

the traditional methods be done with a clear focus on public perception. In his testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Rep. Tom Sawyer said ‘‘We are talking about

accuracy; we are talking about cost; and we are talking about confidence.’’ In answering questions he elaborated, ‘‘I think we need to

be able to adjust the techniques that we use, but we should do so

in a way that sustains the broad public confidence and improves

the accuracy.’’ 22 Dr. Kenneth Wachter echoed this sentiment when

he said ‘‘Statistical methods need to be simple and direct so that

malfunctions will be detected and corrected.’’ He went on to state,

‘‘. . . if statistical methods are to be given a role in the generation

of the Census 2000 counts, then those methods should be simple,

direct, and fail-safe.’’ 23

Finding 4. The cost of the census has increased dramatically, doubling in constant dollars from 1970 to 1980, and increasing another 25 percent in 1990. Part of the cost increase is the result

of a declining rate of forms returned by mail, from 78 percent

in 1970 to 75 percent in 1980 to 65 percent in 1990, however;

the largest increase in cost does not correspond with the largest

drop in the mail-back response rate.

Between 1984 and 1993, the Census Bureau spent $2.6 billion to

plan, conduct, process, and publish the 1990 census.24 The Census

Bureau and GAO estimate that the same census in 2000 would cost

$4.8 to $5 billion.25 The 1970 census cost $10 per household. In

1980, the cost per household, in constant dollars, was $20 per

household, and in 1990, the census cost $25 per household. The

$3.9 billion estimate would hold the cost in constant dollars to

about $25 per household.

At the same time costs have been escalating, participation in the

mail-out/mail-back portion of the census has been declining. In

1970 the Census Bureau began to use the U.S. Postal Service to

deliver census forms. During that census, 78 percent returned the

form by mail. In 1980, 75 percent of the households returned the

form by mail. For the 1990 census, the Census Bureau budgeted

for a 70 percent mail-back return rate, however, only 65 percent

were return by mail. Current research by the Census Bureau suggests that the comparable rate for 2000 will be approximately 55

percent. Response rates also vary by geography. Large metropolitan areas usually experience the lowest mail-back rates, and 23 of

the 32 largest cities had response rates lower than the national average. Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, New York, and

Washington, DC, all had mail-back response rates below 55 percent.
29

26 Edmonston, Barry and Charles Schultze, eds., Modernizing the U.S. Census, Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1995, p. 44. 27Dr. Everett Ehrlich, transcript of testimony before the Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight, June 6, 1996, p. 72. 28Op. Cit. p. 53. 29The Plan for Census 2000, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, April

1996.

The decline in participation, particularly in returning the form

by mail, is often identified as a major source of the increased cost

of the census. The National Academy of Sciences panel on census

requirements stated ‘‘A substantial decline in the population’s response rate to the mailed census questionnaire... has been an

important cause of the cost escalation, . . .’’ 26 Similarly, Dr. Everett Ehrlich, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce, at the June 6, 1996 hearing before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, said ‘‘The cost of the

census per respondent in 1990 dollars went up very dramatically,

particularly, in 1990, up to 25 1990 dollars per respondent, and it

did so because of this fundamental failure of design that I discussed earlier. That is, participation rates were falling, . . .’’ 27

The doubling of cost between 1970 and 1980 corresponds with a

3 percentage point decrease in the mail-back response rate. Between 1980 and 1990, the mail-back response rate fell 10 percentage points, but corresponded to a 25 percent increase in cost. The

National Academy of Sciences panel suggests that this anomaly

may be due to a more intensive effort to enumerate everyone

through labor-intensive measures, a decline in the quality of temporary personnel, and an increased demand for accurate counts at

small geographic levels.28

Finding 5. The Census Bureau has proposed a budget of $3.9 billion

for the 2000 census, with major savings achieved by accounting

for the last 10 percent of the population through a 1 in 10 sample. However, Congress has shown a reluctance to fund the census at this level. Both the FY 1995 and FY 1996 budgets were

funded below the requested level, and the chairman of the Commerce, State, and Justice Appropriations Subcommittee has indicated that the Census Bureau will not be funded at the requested level for FY 1997.

On February 28, 1996, the Census Bureau announced its plans

for the 2000 census. Innovations to past censuses include a redesigned ‘‘user-friendly form; plans to mail reminder letters and replacement forms to those who do not return their form by mail; a

plan to account for the last 10 percent of the population with a

sample (sampling for nonresponse); and an adjustment procedure

incorporated into the census called ‘‘integrated coverage measurement.’’ 29 The estimated cost for the 2000 census is $3.9 billion; just

under the $25 per household cost of the 1990 census. Sampling for

nonresponse accounts for about $500 million of the $900 million

savings over the estimated $4.8 billion cost of repeating the procedures from 1990.

Congress has shown a reluctance to fund the 2000 census even

at the $3.9 billion estimated by the Census Bureau. In FY 1994,

the first year of the 2000 census budget cycle, the Census Bureau
30

30 Roll Call, May 6, 1996. 31Transcript of testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, June

6, 1996, p. 25. 32Minutes of the joint meeting of the Census Advisory Committee on African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Hispanic Populations, December

11–13, 1995, p. 53. 33 Ibid.

requested $23.1 million for census 2000 activities, and was allocated $18.7 million by the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary. In FY 1995 the Census Bureau

requested 48.6 and received $42.1 million. The Census 2000 request for FY 1996 was $60.1 million, and the appropriation was

$50.6 million. In FY 1997, the Census Bureau has requested a total

of $105 million for the 2000 census activities. Following the Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the Census Bureau budget,

Chairman Hal Rogers was quoted as saying that the $3.9 billion is

‘‘entirely too much money’’ and said that he was ‘‘disinclined to

agree to the funding request’’ of $105.30 Both the House and Senate

Appropriations Subcommittees have proposed funding only about

two-thirds of the increase requested to fund 2000 census activities

in FY 1997. At the June 6, 1996, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight hearing, Rep. Gene Green said, ‘‘. . . you cannot have it both ways. If we are going to cut the budget for the census, we are going to have to sample more. . . .’’ 31

Finding 6. The implementation of sampling to account for the last

10 percent has not received wide-spread public acceptance.

Members of Congress, as well as the Census Bureau’s AfricanAmerican Advisory Committee, have expressed strong reservations about the choice of geography and detrimental effects on

the count of minorities. On the other hand, a National Academy

of Sciences panel, convened at the request of the Census Bureau,

strongly supported sampling to account for the last 10 percent.

In testimony before the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and

Criminal Justice, both the General Accounting Office and the

Department of Commerce Inspector General supported sampling.

The implementation of sampling to account for the last 10 percent has not received wide-spread public acceptance. At the February 28, 1996, announcement of the 2000 plan, the Census Bureau reported that following the second questionnaire mailing, it

would either phone or visit households that had not mailed back

the form, until it had counted 90 percent of each county. At the December 1995 meeting of the minority advisory committees, Dr. Robert Hill, a member of the African-American Advisory Committee,

commented that he ‘‘had not seen evidence that the Bureau would

do extra outreach activities in minority communities; distributing

paper advertisements will not suffice.’’ 32 Ms. Barbara Sabol, also

a member of the African-American Advisory Committee supported

his comments, and said that she ‘‘visualized a disproportionate

under representation of African-Americans. . . .’’ She went on to

say that ‘‘the Bureau placed more emphasis on reducing the cost

of the census than on reducing the differential undercount.33 Dr.

Juliette Thorpe Okotie-Eboh, chair of the African-American Advi-
31

34 Ibid. 35Transcript of testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight February 29, 1996, pp. 54–58. 36 Ibid., p. 31. 37 Ibid, pp. 42–43. 38Transcript of testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995,

p. 13. 39L. Nye Stevens, Director of Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office. Testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee

on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, October 25, 1995.

sory Committee, criticized the choice of counties as the geographic

level for sampling.34

At the Government Reform and Oversight hearing on February

29, 1996, following the announcement of the census 2000 plan, Rep.

Carrie Meek raised concerns about the use of sampling, and the

possibility of aggravating the undercount.35 Rep. Meek subsequently introduced H.R. 3558 which would require the Census Bureau to count 90 percent of the population at the census tract level

before sampling.

Others have been more strident in their criticism of sampling.

Rep. Thomas Petri said ‘‘As many members of this committee are

aware, I believe sampling techniques should be used only for guidance in conducting the census and not for adjusting the final numbers. To rely on sampling rather than the final census count would

be comparable to changing election returns if they are at variance

with public opinion polls.’’ 36 Rep. Thomas Barrett said ‘‘. . . it

seems to me that reliance on sampling, then, would allow—using

your statement of a bicoastal tendency—would allow Congress, the

House of Representatives, since you have much more electoral

strength in California, New York, Florida, those States, to use

mechanisms that we pass here in the House to benefit those States.

They’ve got the votes here. Let’s just use a sampling that benefits

those areas of the country.’’ 37

On the other hand, a National Academy of Sciences panel, the

General Accounting Office, and the Department of Commerce Inspector General all endorse the use of sampling. Francis DeGeorge,

Department of Commerce Inspector General, testified before the

Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, ‘‘The bureau

has selected a design for the 2000 census that includes some sampling but does not go far enough. . . .’’ 38 L. Nye Stevens, Director

of Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, testified ‘‘We are particularly encouraged by the

decision to adopt sampling among the nonresponse population as a

basic foundation of the count. We have long advocated this step.’’ 39
32

40White, Andrew A. And Keith F. Rust, eds., Sampling in the 2000 Census: Interim Report

I, Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census Methodologies, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, June 1996.

In its first interim report, the National Academy of Sciences panel

on census methodology stated ‘‘We support the use of sampling procedures in the follow-up of households that do not respond by mail

(or telephone call) to the census. . . .’’ 40

HON. CARDISS COLLINS. HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN. HON. TOM LANTOS. HON. MAJOR R. OWENS. HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS. HON. JOHN M. SPRATT, JR. HON. LOUISE MCINTOSH

SLAUGHTER. HON. GARY A. CONDIT. HON. BERNARD SANDERS. HON. KAREN L. THURMAN. HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY. HON. BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS. HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. HON. JAMES P. MORAN. HON. GENE GREEN. HON. CARRIE P. MEEK. HON. CHAKA FATTAH. HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS.
(33)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. THOMAS M. BARRETT

I agree with the concerns expressed in this report about the sampling and statistical adjustments in the Census Bureau plan for the

upcoming decennial census, and the subjectivity involved with such

methodologies.

As the 1990 Census demonstrated, our current decennial census

methodology, based on actual enumeration, is far from perfect. The

1990 Census resulted in significant undercounts in many areas in

our Nation, specifically in communities with high numbers of minority residents.

The undercount problem must be addressed. The census determines how entitlement and other resources will be distributed and

plays the central role in the apportionment of Representatives in

Congress. The census updates the status and provides data about

who Americans are and how Americans live. The census forms the

base core of information that affects policy and planning decisions

in all levels of our public and private sectors. Census results affect

every American. For our Nation to obtain a useful accounting,

every American resident deserves to be counted. If we are to have

a fair and just society, the undercount problem must be resolved.

Yet, we know we will never be able to count absolutely everyone.

My concern revolves around how we remedy the undercount

problem. I strongly believe that we must mount a strong and dedicated effort to vastly improve our system based on actual enumeration. The way to do this is to spend the dollars necessary for an

accurate count.

In converse to actual enumeration, sampling would reduce incentives for States and local governments to strive for an accurate

count because they could rely on the inaccuracies of sampling to

make up for deficiencies.

In these politically volatile times, I do not believe we should go

down the road of picking and choosing a census methodology reliant on sampling and statistical adjustments which contain subjective criteria and assumptions. A methodology that may benefit minority groups today could be later modified or exchanged for another that could be designed to the detriment of specific minority

populations. As we well know, political and judicial winds do shift.

The people, however, do not go away; and their actual existence

cannot be politically modified. Therefore, we need to find ways to

actually count them.

Unlike many of my colleagues, I am not opposed to any and all

proposals to adjust the census. I also disagree with many of my colleagues who seem satisfied with the status quo. Those of us who

oppose the Census Bureau’s sampling proposal must put the money
34

where our mouths are and adequately fund the Census Bureau and

State and local entities involved with census efforts. I am disappointed that the majority of this Congress has expressed their

disagreement with the Census Bureau’s sampling proposals by

slashing the Census budget.

HON. THOMAS M. BARRETT.
(35)

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK

Not fully counting African-Americans in the decennial census

originates with the Constitution. Article 1 section 2 of the Constitution, as ratified in 1788, provides that only three-fifths of the actual number of slaves should be counted in the decennial census for

purposes of determining the number of Representatives each State

shall have.

While this constitutionally mandated undercount of AfricanAmericans was repealed in 1868 by the ratification of the 14th

amendment, we continue to see its legacy in the taking of the census. The committee’s report, unfortunately, takes a complacent

view of the continuing failure to count all African-Americans and

other minorities.

In August 1992, the Census Bureau reported that the 1990 decennial census had failed to count about 4 million persons—or

about 1.6 percent of the Nation’s population. This undercount was

not random. The Census Bureau further reported that the

undercount in the 1990 census was above average for AfricanAmericans and other minorities. For African-Americans, the

undercount was 4.4 percent. For Hispanics, the undercount was 5

percent. For American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts it was 4.5 percent. For Asians and Pacific Islanders, it was 2.3 percent. The committee’s report could have stated these simple facts about the

undercount, but inexplicably failed to do so.

When I was a teacher, I noticed some students sat in front and

always volunteered. Others sat in the back and never wanted to be

noticed. They were all important to me.

The Constitution now requires that we conduct the 2000 census

in the same way as a good teacher conducts a class. We must try

to count everyone, not just those who are easy to count.

The committee’s report attacks the use of sampling, but the report is unfair because it does not explain why the Census Bureau

is proposing use sampling in the 2000 census. Look at the six findings of the report. There is no finding explaining why the Census

Bureau has recommended two types of sampling for the 2000 census. There is no finding explaining that the Census Bureau is proposing to use sampling for two simple reasons: to come closer to

counting everyone and to reduce costs.

One type of sampling—called Integrated Coverage Measurement—calls for a sample of 750,000 households to correct for the

undercount that has been present in all past censuses and was

worse in the 1990 census than in the 1980 census.

This undercount deserves recognition by the committee as a serious problem. But the 21 page single-spaced report almost completely ignores the undercount problem.

There is no mention of the undercount on page 1.

There is no mention of it on page 2.
36

There is no mention of it on page 3.

There is no mention of it on page 4.

There is no mention of it on page 5.

There is no mention of it on page 6.

There is no mention of it on page 7.

There is no mention of it on page 8.

Pages 9 and 10 briefly refer to an undercount, but don’t explain

what the undercount problem is.

There is no mention of it on page 11.

On page 12 there is a brief discussion of whether sampling will

help solve the undercount problem, but there is still no explanation

of what the undercount problem is.

There is no mention of it on page 13.

There is no mention of it on page 14.

There is a one-sentence reference to undercount on page 15, but

again there is no explanation of what the problem is.

There is no mention of it on page 16.

There is no mention of it on page 17.

There is no mention of it on page 18.

There is no mention of it on page 19.

Finally, in one sentence near the bottom of page 20, the report

says the committee ‘‘is concerned that there has always been an

undercount, and that in the 1990 Census there was an increase in

the differential undercount of minorities.’’ That is the report’s entire explanation of the problem that led the Census Bureau to recommend the Integrated Coverage Measurement type of sampling

for the 2000 census.

The committee’s report is backward. The problem should be fully

explained at the beginning, not barely mentioned at the end.

Since the report almost completely ignores the undercount problem, it is important to remember the undisputed facts about the

undercount in the 1990 census.

The Census Bureau reported in 1992 that for some States the

1990 undercount was above the national average of 1.6 percent.

For example, in California about 835,000 people—or 2.7 percent of

the population—were not counted. In New Mexico about 48,000

people—or about 3.1 percent of the population—were not counted.

In Florida about 260,000 people—or about 2 percent of the population—were not counted.

The Census Bureau also reported in 1992 that the 1990

undercount for certain areas within a particular State was well

above the national average of 1.6 percent. For example, in Long

Beach City, CA, 17,000 people—or 3.7 percent of the population—

were not counted. In Dade County, FL, 74,000 people—or 3.7 percent of the population—were not counted. In Fairfax County, VA,

15,000 people—or 1.8 percent of the population—were not counted.

The other type of sampling proposed by the Census Bureau is the

so-called ‘‘sampling for nonresponse.’’ For the 2000 census the Bureau proposes taking a 1 in 10 sample of nonrespondents after 90

percent of the households in a county have responded. The Census

Bureau estimates that this type of sampling will save $500 million

as compared to trying to count everyone directly.
37

I have criticized the details of this proposal, and my bipartisan

bill, H.R. 3558, would require that the sampling be done within

census tracts and not within counties.

But criticizing the details of a sampling proposal is a far cry from

a wholesale condemnation of any type of sampling.

The committee’s report does not recognize that many experts

support the use of sampling in the 2000 census if it is done carefully. The June 1996 Interim Report of the Committee on National

Statistics of the National Research Council, entitled Sampling in

the 2000 Census, concluded that ‘‘A combination of sampling for

nonresponse follow-up and for integrated coverage measurement is

key to conducting a decennial census at an acceptable cost, with increased accuracy and overall quality, and reduced differential

undercoverage.’’ The September 1996 report of a panel of the American Statistical Association concludes that the use of sampling in

the 2000 census ‘‘has the potential to increase the quality and accuracy of the count and reduce costs.’’

The committee’s report is opposed by many groups whose members will use the 2000 Census. A letter form Ann Azari, the mayor

of the city of Fort Collins, states that the Advisory Committee opposes the committee’s report and supports the use of sampling to

improve the accuracy and reduce the cost of the 2000 census. The

members of the Advisory Committee include the American-Arab

Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Business Roundtable, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Towns

and Townships, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the

National Council of LaRaza, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Governors Association, the National League of

Cities, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Conference of

Mayors. The Japanese American Citizens League, in a separate letter, says it opposes the committee’s report because barring the use

of sampling in the 2000 census means that ‘‘the outcome of the

2000 census will be no different from those past: unequal and unfair.’’

In conclusion, the committee’s report is a one-sided attack on any

use of sampling in the 2000 census. The report does not fairly reflect the concerns of those members of the committee who believe

that the careful use of sampling in the 2000 census will help this

Nation erase the bitter legacy of the original constitutional mandate to not fully count African-Americans.

HON. CARRIE P. MEEK.

Æ