U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–016 PDF 2006

APPORTIONMENT IN THE BALANCE: A LOOK INTO

THE PROGRESS OF THE 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM

AND THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 1, 2006

Serial No. 109–131

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

JOHN CUADERES, Staff Director

URSULA WOJCIECHOWSKI, Professional Staff Member

JULIANA FRENCH, Clerk

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 1, 2006 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Brenda S.

Farrell, Acting Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology

Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................... 8

Farrell, Brenda S. ...................................................................................... 14

Kincannon, Charles Louis ........................................................................ 8

Powner, David A. ....................................................................................... 37

Rector, Ralph, Ph.D., senior research fellow and project manager, Center

for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation; Andrew Reamer, Ph.D.,

deputy director, Urban Markets Initiative, the Brookings Institution;

and Margo Anderson, professor, history and urban studies, University

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ............................................................................... 126

Anderson, Margo ....................................................................................... 155

Reamer, Andrew, Ph.D. ............................................................................ 135

Rector, Ralph, Ph.D. .................................................................................. 126

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

Anderson, Margo, professor, history and urban studies, University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee, prepared statement of ............................................ 157

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

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 6

Farrell, Brenda S., Acting Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government

Accountability Office, prepared statement of ............................................. 16

Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 10

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

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 115

Powner, David A., Director, Information Technology Management Issues,

U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of ............... 39

Reamer, Andrew, Ph.D., deputy director, Urban Markets Initiative, the

Brookings Institution, prepared statement of ............................................ 137

Rector, Ralph, Ph.D., senior research fellow and project manager, Center

for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation, prepared statement of ....... 128

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 3

(1)

APPORTIONMENT IN THE BALANCE: A LOOK

INTO THE PROGRESS OF THE 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Turner, Foxx, Clay and Maloney.

Staff present: John Cuaderes, staff director; Ursula

Wojciechowski, professional staff member; Juliana French; clerk;

Adam Bordes and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff

members; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. TURNER. A quorum being present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on federalism and the Census will come to order.

Welcome to the subcommittee’s oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘Apportionment in the Balance: A Look into the Progress of the 2010

Decennial Census.’’ Today we will consider the status of the Census

Bureau’s preparations for the 2010 decennial census.

This hearing is a followup to our April 19, 2005, hearing last

year entitled, ‘‘Halfway to the 2010 Census: The Countdown and

Components to a Successful Decennial Census.’’ Since then the

Census Bureau has achieved and is nearing completion of several

key milestones. The Bureau has successfully carried out the American Community Survey for 1 full year. Additionally, the MAF/

TIGER Enhancement Program is nearing what we all hope will be

a successful completion.

As the Bureau continues its preparation for a short form only

census, it is undertaking two major contracts: the Field Data Collection Automation program and the Decennial Response Integration System. These two technology contracts have a combined value

of over $1 billion. These major contracts signal the first real ‘‘hitech’’ census, and the subcommittee will examine how the successful implementation of these contracts is critical to the 2010 decennial census.

Furthermore, the subcommittee will explore several other issues

such as the Local Update of Census Addresses [LUCA], program

and the intergovernmental partnerships required to facilitate the

program. There are a number of important issues that can impact

the successful implementation of the census, including personnel

2

and infrastructure matters, hiring and training temporary workers,

and establishing temporary field offices.

Testing for the 2010 decennial census is already underway. The

Bureau is testing policy and technology concepts in Travis County,

TX, and the Cheyenne River Reservation in South Dakota. Canvassing in Texas was to be completed in 6 weeks, and the subcommittee understands that this goal was not met. In today’s hearing, we will examine this issue, as well as the issue of using

handheld technology in the testing environment. It is our understanding that the handhelds failed to perform adequately and the

activity was concluded without finishing the address file that is

needed for the next test phase.

These issues must be resolved before the 2008 dress rehearsal.

I am eager to hear what the Census Bureau is doing to address the

problems of their tests and other issues related to the 2010 decennial census.

On our first panel, we welcome remarks from the Honorable

Charles Louis Kincannon, director of the Census Bureau. Then we

will hear from Ms. Brenda Farrell, Acting Director of Strategic

Issues, and Mr. David Powner, Director of Information Technology

Management Issues, both from the Government Accountability Office, regarding their assessment of the Bureau’s planning for the

decennial census.

On our second panel, we will hear from Dr. Ralph Rector from

the Heritage Foundation, Dr. Andrew Reamer from the Brookings

Institution, and last, we will hear from Dr. Margo Anderson, professor of history and urban studies at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. TURNER. With that, my colleagues on the subcommittee and

I welcome you and look forward to your testimony, and I now yield

to the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished Member Mr.

Clay, for any opening remarks that he may have.

Mr. CLAY. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s hearing to review the Census Bureau’s efforts for carrying out the 2010 decennial census. I welcome our witnesses, especially Director Kincannon of the Census Bureau.

I would like to begin by expressing my unwavering support for

the American Community Survey and its goals of delivering more

timely and effective data to the Bureau. As the ranking member of

this subcommittee, I am pleased to have been a part of the efforts

to bring the ACS into reality. The Census Bureau is now collecting

data in every county in the United States, and this effort will make

the 2010 census less complex and more efficient.

Information from the decennial census provides an important

benchmark for the formulas governing many of our domestic programs, thus helping us serve the needs of our citizens. The Bureau

continues to face pressing challenges, however, as preparations for

the 2010 decennial census begin in earnest. First, it remains unclear if their acquisitions for new IT infrastructure will be tested

and ready for the 2008 rehearsal of 2010 census. It will be difficult

to ensure an accurate census if we cannot rely on the new technologies being implemented to aid in agency efforts.

Furthermore, it remains unclear to me if past problems concerning the undercounting of minority populations or the accuracy of

the Master Address File have been remedied. With only 4 years left

until field work begins, plans and mitigation strategies must be established to ensure the most accurate and reliable census possible.

Once again, I look forward to learning more today about the

plans for the 2010 census and how we in Congress can be of assistance to the Bureau.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

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

6

7

8

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Clay. I appreciate your interest and

your professionalism on the committee and your work with the

issues of the census.

We will now start with the witnesses. Each witness has kindly

prepared written testimony, which will be included in the record of

this hearing. Witnesses will notice there is a timer with a light on

at the witness table. The green light indicates that you should

begin your prepared remarks, and the red light indicates that time

has expired.

It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn in

before they testify. If you would please rise and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TURNER. Please let the record show that all the witnesses

have responded in the affirmative, and we will begin with Mr.

Kincannon.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR,

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU; BRENDA S. FARRELL, ACTING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND DAVID A. POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON

Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and

on behalf of the Census Bureau, I want to thank you and the ranking minority member and the whole committee for inviting me to

testify. Today we are 4 years and 1 month from census day.

The success of the decennial census is the Census Bureau’s largest and most important priority. It represents 60 percent of the

President’s 2007 budget request for the Census Bureau. The budget

for the decennial census program covers the American Community

Survey [ACS]; the MAF/TIGER enhancement; and the 2010 census

activities themselves. Because of strong congressional support, the

American Community Survey is on track and moving toward its

goals.

We will release the first annual estimates from the full ACS this

August for approximately 8,000 communities with populations of

65,000 or more and, for the first time, data for every congressional

district in the country. In 2008, we will release data for communities of 20,000 or more, and in 2010, data for every census tract—

2 years before equivalent data would be available from a traditional census long form.

The ACS is crucial to the overall success of the decennial census

because it replaces the long form and allows us to focus our attention on a complete count of the American population.

Another critical component of the success of the 2010 census is

the address list and map. The Census Bureau is conducting an extensive nationwide operation to modernize and consolidate MAF/

TIGER. We are using GPS to align the streets of the TIGER maps

and working with communities to ensure that we do not miss a

new neighborhood. To date, we have realigned the streets and

roads for about 1,700 of the Nation’s counties, with about 1,600

9

more to go in order to reach completion by April 2008. We will complete this task on time.

We are also working to improve our most significant partnership

opportunity—the Local Update of Census Addresses program

[LUCA]. In 2007, we will invite the Nation’s 39,000 municipalities

to help update the address list for their communities for use in the

2010 census. Knowing that communities differ, we will offer different options for governments to participate, ranging from a full

review of the address file to a simple review of housing unit counts.

We are working to strengthen the infrastructure of the 2010 census through technology. As the chairman said, this will be the first

truly high-tech census. Our efforts have centered on two major systems: the 2010 Decennial Census Response Integration System

[DRIS], as we call it, and the Field Data Collection Automation system [FDCA]. These large information technology contracts together

total over $1 billion. The purpose of the DRIS contract, which was

awarded last year to Lockheed Martin Corp., is to ensure accurate

and protected collection and storage of Americans’ data whether by

paper form or handheld computer. The FDCA contract, which will

be awarded in the next month or so, provides automation resources

to support field data collection operations.

As we move forward, it is essential to remain on schedule. This

year, we will conduct a final test census in Travis County, TX, and

the Cheyenne River Reservation in South Dakota. These tests are

important to our ability to conduct a successful dress rehearsal and

ultimately a successful census. We will conduct the 2008 dress rehearsal in two locations: San Joaquin County, CA, and in nine

counties surrounding Fayetteville, NC. In fact, some aspects of the

dress rehearsal are already underway, including LUCA.

The dress rehearsal will use the technology we plan to use in the

decennial census, and this is quite important. No last-minute experiments. We will include a targeted second mailing of questionnaires to encourage households to respond and reduce costly nonresponse followup. We will also send a targeting mailing of Spanish-English bilingual questionnaires in selected neighborhoods.

It is important to note that many of the 2010 census operations

and procedures, and especially decisions, those involving technology, need to be in place before the dress rehearsal. The President’s budget recognizes that we cannot postpone improvements or

tests without introducing risk to the census.

All of this underscores the importance of congressional support

for all aspects of the 2010 decennial census program from the ACS

to the dress rehearsal. Thousands of individual operations and procedures must be successfully implemented before census day in

order to ensure the success of the census.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to provide an update to the Congress, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Ms. Farrell.

STATEMENT OF BRENDA FARRELL

Ms. FARRELL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clay, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Census Bureau’s preparations for the 2010 census. Full and comprehensive planning is crucial to the success of any large, long-term project, especially with

the costs, complexity, and high stakes of the decennial census. The

2010 census projected life-cycle costs span 13 years and total over

$11 billion, and its recruitment goals are similar to the 2000 census—21⁄2 million applicants could be recruited to carry out census

operations.

Given the escalating costs of the census in an era of serious national fiscal challenges, oversight will be particularly important. As

shown in the figures on the screen and on page 6 of the testimony,

the projected average cost is $72 per housing unit for 2010, and it

is nearly 51⁄2 times greater than the $13 it cost to count each

household in 1970 in constant fiscal year 2000 dollars.

My remarks today are based on findings from our prior report

and preliminary results from ongoing work that we plan to issue

in the near future. First, I will describe the overall progress that

the Bureau is making toward preparing the 2010 census. Second,

I will note some issues that pose a risk to a successful census. Most

importantly, the Bureau is further along in planning the 2010 census compared to a similar point in time during the 2000 census

cycle.

Early in this decade, the Bureau developed a promising design

to achieve its principal goals for the 2010 census. The fundamental

design of the census has the potential to control costs and improve

coverage and accuracy. Also noteworthy is the Bureau’s greater

willingness to outsource key census-taking operations that would

be difficult for it to carry out on its own. It will be important for

the Bureau to focus on its acquisition activities to help ensure the

2010 contractors fulfill the Bureau’s expectations.

While the Bureau should be commended for the progress that it

has made, it will be important for the Bureau to resolve issues that

pose a risk to a successful census. For example, the Bureau plans

to use handheld mobile computing devices to help develop the census address list and collect data from millions of households that

do not respond to the initial census questionnaires. These handheld

devices are an important step forward because they are designed

to replace many of the paper questionnaires and maps that were

used in past censuses and are a key element of the Field Data Collection Automation program, one of the acquisition contracts that

my colleague Mr. Powner will discuss.

The Bureau has never before used these devices in a decennial.

In tests held to date, census workers found the devices easy to use

for such things as using the electronic maps to find their assignment areas. On the other hand, the reliability of the devices proved

troublesome as the devices experienced transmission problems and

memory overload. The Bureau has taken steps to address these

issues, and next month the devices will be evaluated again, and we

15

will be onsite to assess the extent to which the Bureau has addressed these reliability issues.

Further, I would like to note that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

highlight the importance of contingency planning and examining

whether the Bureau’s existing operations are adequate for capturing the demographic and physical changes that have occurred along

the Gulf Coast. We have had a preliminary discussion with the Bureau on this topic and will continue to assess the Bureau’s contingency planning as part of our oversight of the 2010 census.

In conclusion, while the ramp-up to 2010 is making progress,

past experience has shown that Congress has every reason to remain vigilant. As we have done throughout the past several decades, we look forward to supporting the subcommittee in its decisionmaking and oversight efforts.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to

take questions from you or Mr. Clay at your convenience.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Mr. Powner.

STATEMENT OF DAVID POWNER

Mr. POWNER. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Clay, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on key acquisitions supporting

the 2010 decennial census. The use of automation will be critical

to the success of the upcoming census. Nearly a quarter of the 2010

respondents are expected to use the Internet. Key technologies will

be used to standardize responses, and field-based enumerators plan

to use nearly half a billion mobile computing devices.

However, acquiring technologies can present enormous challenges and risks if not managed effectively. These technology acquisition risks have been highlighted in numerous oversight hearings

by Chairman Davis at the full committee, and your early attention

to and leadership over the decennial acquisitions, Mr. Chairman,

will hopefully ensure greater Bureau and contractor accountability.

This morning, as requested, I will summarize the importance and

status of two key acquisitions that are critical to the 2010 decennial and key management activities that the Census Bureau is establishing that are crucial to delivering this technology on time, at

cost, and with the promised functionality.

The Census Bureau has initiated efforts to acquire the Response

Integration System and the Field Data Collection Automation program. The integration system is intended to receive and standardize census data from the various response modes, including census

forms, telephone agents, and the Internet. It is also intended to

standardize data collected from mobile computing devices, which

are key to capturing non-response followup.

The mobile devices are part of the data collection program, which

is also expected to provide office automation for regional and local

census offices, as well as the telecommunications infrastructure.

The integration contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin and its

seven subcontractors in October, and the Field Data Collection contract was to be awarded at the end of this month. However, the Director’s testimony this morning indicates the contract will occur in

late spring. Both projects’ life-cycle costs are expected to total over

$1 billion. Both acquisitions involve ambitious schedules to deliver

the needed functionality to support the planned 2008 dress rehearsal and are absolutely essential to achieving the goals of the

decennial, including increased coverage, accuracy, and timeliness of

the data.

Key management activities and processes are needed to effectively manage these acquisitions. Last June, we reported to you,

Mr. Chairman, that the Census Bureau’s institutional information

technology management capacity still had room for improvement.

Given these weaknesses and the importance of the integration system and the Field Data Collection program, you asked for a detailed review of these acquisitions to assist in your oversight of the

decennial. While both projects have initiated steps to establish key

project management activities, neither has the full set of capabilities needed to effectively manage these acquisitions. Incomplete

management activities include those for requirements management, risk management, and contract monitoring. These increase

38

the risk that these projects will encounter problems in meeting cost

and schedule expectations.

Given the immovable deadline for performing the 2010 decennial

census, if unexpected problems occur, the Bureau will be faced with

two options to address these problems: one, throwing more money

at them; or, two, accepting systems with reduced functionality.

To address these program management shortfalls, my written

statement includes a number of specific recommendations that

focus on further defining exactly what is expected from these acquisitions, establishing robust risk mitigation programs that include

early escalation and quick resolution of risks, and establishing

clear metrics to oversee contractor performance.

The decennial management team appears to be dedicated to bolstering its management capabilities and have told us that they

plan to complete these important activities as soon as possible. I

would like to stress that these endorsed management activities ultimately are about placing the Government in charge of defining

what it wants, being on top of risks, and having metrics to measure

contractor performance. Relying on contractors for technical solutions is fine. Relying on them for requirements and performance

metrics is not.

Mr. Chairman, the Response Integration and the Field Data Collection program are crucial to the success of the decennial. Although we commend efforts to date to establish these key contracts,

additional management attention is needed to effectively oversee

these acquisitions. Establishing the recommended management activities are critical to ensuring that the Bureau is in the driver’s

seat as these acquisitions process forward.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your

leadership and oversight of the decennial census.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. I want to recognize that we have been

joined by Carolyn Maloney from New York. Thank you for being

here today.

Mrs. MALONEY. Nice to see you. I would ask permission to place

my opening comments in the record?

Mr. TURNER. Without objection.

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

115

116

117

Mr. TURNER. Recognizing that we have an 11 o’clock address by

the Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy, we are going to try to

conclude our questions to panel one within that time period, which

you have been very precise within the timeframe of your oral remarks, and I appreciate that, giving us what should be ample time

to ask questions.

I would like to start with Director Kincannon. Does the Bureau

have any plans to adjust the 2010 census count? This includes

working with any outside nongovernment entities to plan for adjustment.

Mr. KINCANNON. No, Mr. Chairman, we do not have plans to address the census results. We spent more than 3 years working on

what we thought was a well-designed system to provide improvements to the quality of the count. But at the end of that more than

3-year period of our best experts working on it, our conclusion was

that it was not possible with the technology and means at our disposal to adjust the census for the main products of the census

which required block-level statistics and place statistics. We simply

cannot do that. So we are not planning on doing that, sir.

We do plan to measure coverage for purposes of continuing to assess and improve the techniques we use in the census, however.

Mr. TURNER. Director Kincannon, I believe that in your written

testimony you did not talk about the power of the Internet and its

assistance it can provide in the 2010 census. Many response-driven

organizations have gone the way of the Internet as a way of collecting their data. Certainly other panel members have referenced the

Internet.

Will you share with us how the census will be harnessing the

Internet to allow people to respond to their census questionnaire?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I am aware that the Congress has much

optimism about the Internet as a way of reducing the cost of many

Government activities, and sometimes that has worked. Our experience with household surveys and with census tests has been that

it is not something that increases response or improves the quality

of the data that we get.

We tested this in the 2003 national census test. There was no

difference in the response rate in the panel that had no option to

respond by the Internet from the one that had the option to respond by the Internet. About 10 percent of the responses in the

Internet test panel came from the Internet, but it did not increase

response at all.

Furthermore, the concerns about the complexity of dealing with

the Internet make me very cautious in how much we would depend

on that. The well-documented effort that phishing and spamming

on the IRS Web site are a caution to me. I nearly fell victim to that

myself, and I can see how a person who tries to respond to the census might well be duped into providing information that would lead

to identity theft on the Internet. And if it does not increase our efficiency or effectiveness, increase our response rates, or measurably

reduce our costs, then the cost of protecting against that is probably not warranted.

We continue to explore and we contemplate having an option for

Internet response, but I do not see it as a main component of what

we will do.

118

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Farrell or Mr. Powner, would you like to respond to that, on the prospects of the Internet use?

Mr. POWNER. If I could, I think it is great that we acknowledge

the security considerations with using the Internet for this next

census, although some of the Bureau’s internal documentation

claim that up to a quarter of the respondents could, in fact, use the

Internet to respond to this upcoming census.

I think what is key is if you look in particular at one of the key

acquisitions, which is the response system, which the contract was

already let in October. You have a contractor that is working toward integrating Internet, phone, and paper forms, and it is very

important that, although I see where the Director is coming from

in terms of it may be lower than that quarter of the respondents,

it is very important that we be prepared from a systems perspective to respond to a higher number of Internet responses and that

the systems have the capability and the contractors are well prepared to integrate those Internet responses.

Mr. TURNER. There have been some concerns about the

handhelds and if they should fail in 2008 or 2010. Mr. Powner, are

you comfortable, or Ms. Farrell, with the Bureau’s contingency

planning with respect to the handhelds if they should not perform?

Ms. FARRELL. The handheld computing devices are a key part of

the design for the 2010 census, and to date, for the 2006 and 2008

dress rehearsal, we are not aware of any backup plans in the event

that there are widespread problems with these devices. If they fail,

it will cause serious operational challenges for the Bureau to back

these up with paper questionnaires or whatever else will be necessary for the verification for address canvassing.

Mr. POWNER. Mr. Chairman, if I can expand on Ms. Farrell’s response, if you look at the FDCA contract, which is to be awarded

some time this spring—and handheld is a part of that contract—

it is very important to address the problems that have been identified to date that the Census Bureau specifies performance requirements. We have had serious performance issues with the

handhelds to date, so understanding what the availability of those

handhelds should be, what the response time is, what our peak

loads are, that clearly needs to be specified in these contracts so

that we could hold contractors accountable for those specific requirements. That ties to one of our management activities where

you look at the requirements management area.

Mr. TURNER. Director Kincannon, would you like to respond?

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, I would be happy to. The handhelds that

we have tested in the field to date have been ones developed at the

Census Bureau, and they have confirmed our opinion of a couple

of years ago that we were not able to develop a device that would

meet all the requirements for the dress rehearsal or the census ultimately. We simply do not have those technological capabilities.

We advanced in the process of procuring those services, and I am

happy to say that all of those companies who have sought to submit a bid have submitted devices, prototype devices, that exceed

what we were able to do and that appear that they can fully meet

the functional requirements, including security, ease of use, and

communications, both wireless and landline. So we are confident

119

that they will be able to meet the requirements that we have set

out.

Mr. TURNER. So if I could rephrase the question, my understanding of your answer, are you saying that you trust them enough that

you don’t believe that there is a contingency plan that is necessary

or your contingency planning has not been completed as you are

looking to trying to nail down the greatest efficiency of these units?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, it is the latter, Mr. Chairman. We do have

contingency planning, and we are concerned about that. But we are

now at this stage of things much less concerned than we were a

year ago about widespread failures. We will know that more when

the contract is awarded, I believe as GAO indicated, they will be

closely involved in understanding the capabilities offered and in

monitoring the testing of those capabilities.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director Kincannon, can you tell me what will be done to test the

Local Update of Census Addresses in the 2006 census test? Also,

can you update us with an outline of Bureau plans on what it will

do to help local governments prepare for the address correction program through the Local Update of Census Addresses program?

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, Congressman. We did use the LUCA process in preparation for the 2006 test, and we evaluated any problems that we identified in that. We did not consider it a test per

se because we have had a well-working LUCA process. We have already begun rolling out the steps for conducting LUCA for the

dress rehearsal, and we will continue to fine-tune that. But it has

proved a very useful process in 2000 and in the test censuses for

ensuring that we do not miss neighborhoods and that we have the

best local information incorporated in what we plan to do.

Mr. CLAY. Can you tell me about how you reach out to local governments and assist them or work with them?

Mr. KINCANNON. On LUCA?

Mr. CLAY. Yes.

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, sir. Well, we offer an array of options.

There are different degrees and sophistication of local governments

according to their scale and other factors, and we offer a variety

of options that they can choose within the LUCA depending on

what they think is their best way of checking those addresses. We

give them information in advance of LUCA about what materials

will be provided and how they might use them, and, you know, so

we work with them in that way.

Mr. CLAY. There have been many individuals forced to leave the

Gulf Coast after the hurricanes last fall. What efforts are underway to account for those who have left areas affected and include

them in the 2010 census? Will there be a measure to determine if

these individuals have left permanently or only on a temporary

basis? Have you all addressed that at Census and figured how you

are going to count these individuals?

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, Mr. Clay, we had procedures that have

been used in the past for persons displaced in hurricanes in the

census year. Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina pretty hard in

1999. A lot of people were displaced. For census 2000 we had procedures that we made sure we contacted both former residences or

120

sites that may have been temporarily or permanently abandoned

and people living in various shelters. We counted them where they

said they intended to be. That was identified their usual place of

residence.

We are farther away, and let us hope that with the best human

efforts and God’s aid that the people displaced have settled in a

permanent way either in their former homes or in new homes by

2010. But we do have procedures; they are arduous, and they cost

extra money. But we have procedures that work with persons who

are displaced.

Mr. CLAY. I am concerned about provisions in the President’s

budget that would lead to the elimination of the Survey of Income

and Program Participation [SIPP], as you call it. SIPP is the only

large-scale survey explicitly designed to analyze the impact of a

wide variety of Government programs on the well-being of some of

America’s poorest families. What justification can you offer us for

the elimination of the SIPP program?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, first let me give the context. We operate,

as always, in a setting of constrained resources. The Congress does

not give us all the money that we ask for. Sometimes the policies

that we follow in the executive branch mean that we are accorded

lower priorities than some other things. That is not surprising. We

know that.

In the formulation of the budget for 2007, we did not have room

within our allowance for all the things that we had done and wanted to do. Then we followed what is our practice and what is mandated by Congress over the last several years, which is to look at

all our programs, do the things that are of highest priority, deal

differently with things that are of lowest priority or troubled by

quality and so on.

When we assessed this within the Census Bureau, we realized

that the SIPP program is rather mature; more than 20 years it has

been in place. It has been useful. It has some chronic problems that

we either have not been able to solve or have not been resourced

sufficiently to solve, and that has troubled us.

So what we are looking for is in a world that has changed over

20 years, with new methods, much more successful means of using

administrative records from programs intended to assist those in

poverty or with other kinds of difficulties, and with the successful

appearance of the American Community Survey providing yet another source of data on the condition of families, that we want to

put together a new program, a re-engineered program that will

continue to meet the needs of Federal agencies for longitudinal

studies of income dynamics. This includes the HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, the Food and Nutrition Service

in Agriculture, the Administration on Children and Families, the

Social Security Administration, and other agencies that have as

their responsibility meeting the needs of people who may be disadvantaged or at risk.

So we want to re-engineer what we are doing, take recognition

and build on the new sources of data that we have, and find a way

to continue to meet those needs within the resource constraints we

have.

121

Mr. CLAY. Just out of curiosity, what were some of the difficulties

in gathering the data?

Mr. KINCANNON. The SIPP is a very complex survey deigned to

produce both cross-sectional and longitudinal data, and the need

for longitudinal data means that you have to continue interviewing

the same household over a period of a couple of years, actually.

Mr. CLAY. Four years.

Mr. KINCANNON. You are better informed than I am. Your briefing notes are better than mine.

Mr. CLAY. I am a speed reader. [Laughter.]

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I am being too long-winded if I am giving

you a chance to read all that.

It is very difficult, we have found, and increasingly difficult to

keep up the response of families, follow them when they move, and

so on over that 4-year period of time, so that there is severe attrition. And we need to find some way differently to address that.

Mr. CLAY. And you think you will come up with a more efficient

manner or condense the way you take the survey?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, we think that we can come up with a better model of using tools now available to us, both from survey results in the ACS and CPS and our gained experience in modeling

and improved access and capability with regard to administrative

records, and providing something that will help these agencies

meet their responsibilities.

Mr. CLAY. I thank you for your response. I appreciate it.

Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Foxx.

Ms. FOXX. I would like to followup on the question about what

do you do about people who have been displaced by something like

Katrina. One thing I am concerned about is it seems to me that

if people have been away from the home for 5 years, what does that

do to distort the numbers? But I would like to know something

about the cost of that. You said it is much more expensive. And

who is making the decision on the cost/benefit analysis of that program versus another program where we might be able to gather

better data? I am very interested in that.

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I can talk a little bit more along those

lines and would be very happy to followup with a special briefing

with more details, both about what we did in Hurricane Floyd and

about what we have done subsequently with Katrina victims.

We have, for example, in our current surveys, we continued in

the areas affected by Katrina and Rita and Wilma to keep up good

response rates, so we know how to find people when they have

moved and we have ways that are very successful in doing that.

In the American Community Survey, we have added some instructions—we did not change the questionnaire—to make sure

that people who were evacuated and staying in other people’s

homes do get identified and surveyed so that we can then tell from

the questions already on the survey something about their condition and in some limited circumstances about where they were before.

We plan to use those data to produce information on the characteristics of affected areas for the 8 months of 2005 before Katrina

122

struck and for the 4 months after. This should be of some use both

to Federal and local officials in assessing the condition.

We worked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to identify in a

similar way in the Current Population Survey people who had been

evacuated, and the Labor Department was then able to assess differential rates of unemployment for people who were settled differently.

The CPS is limited in sample size, and so it does not give for that

small a universe of people information below the national level.

The American Community Survey will be able to give more information at smaller levels.

Both of them are limited in that the Current Population Survey

does not address people who live in group quarters. They are not

handled in the labor force survey traditionally. The American Community Survey began covering group quarters only when funding

was provided for fiscal year 2006, so it will not be able to tell us

much about people who were in shelters and such like, but if they

are living in trailers, FEMA trailers and so on, yes, we will get information about them.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for calling this, and I would like to direct my questions to Mr.

Kincannon. But I would first like to ask Ms. Brenda Farrell—and

it is a followup of correspondence I have had with the GAO—to get

back to me in writing. Does the GAO have the technical expertise

to evaluate the Census Bureau’s techniques for measuring the accuracy of the 2010 census? If not, when do you expect to have that

expertise? This is a followup of letters that I have sent to GAO requesting this analysis. They say they are not capable of doing it.

If you could get back to me on what exactly—what hurdles they

need to go through so that they can have the technical expertise

to evaluate the accuracy of the 2010 census. I would get it to you

in writing, but I really want to get to Mr. Kincannon because we

have been called to a meeting right now, a very important one. We

have a foreign head of state who will be addressing a joint session

of Congress.

I would like a yes or no answer. Without SIPP, we will not be

able to adequately study many policy issues such as the long-term

effects of welfare reform or the effects of recent budget cuts and

program changes. Is the Census Bureau concerned about helping

Congress on both sides of the aisle evaluate public policy? Yes or

no.

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes.

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. Then going back to the question that was

raised by Ranking Member Clay about the decision to really stop

the SIPP program because of budget constraints, there is no guarantee that in the future the budget constraints will not be worse.

And many Members of Congress and really the scientific community—the research community is very concerned about the elimination of the SIPP program and recognizes that the Census will

not be able to replace such a unique and important survey with one

costing less. The SIPP took over 7 years to develop, as did the

American Community Survey, as you pointed out, and Congress as

123

well as private foundations, research institutes, have invested millions in understanding and processing the data.

My question is: Is there any other place that researchers can get

comparable information on program participation and income on a

sub-annual basis? And I again would like this answer in writing

because the research community is telling me and the scientific

community is telling me that there is not comparable information.

And I feel that this is very important. We need to know what is

happening in the country. We need to know what is happening

with our populations in certain areas, and the SIPP provided valuable information.

I know you mentioned American Community Survey and a lot of

other surveys when you responded to Mr. Clay, but the research

community is telling my office and me personally that this will not

give the same information. And so I would like it in writing, the

answer to this question, because I think this is so serious that we

should really look at it in depth.

I would like to note that Ranking Member Clay and I, along with

Members on both sides of the aisle, have sent a letter to the President—we are sending one to have this money reinstated to the

budget, because we believe this research is very important.

Would you like to elaborate? Is there one that gives you the exact

comparable information on program participation and income on a

sub-annual basis?

Mr. KINCANNON. The dimension that is missing in existing other

surveys than SIPP—that is, the CPS and the ACS—is the longitudinal dimension. We have to find a way to craft that element using

data from those surveys, but probably with follow-on surveys or

independent surveys, and using administrative records from the

programs affected.

We cannot describe now in detail exactly how that will be done.

We will work on that with the Federal agencies that have quite important needs, with the Congress, which has important needs and

we understand that. We are the servant of the Congress in this regard. My ‘‘yes’’ was not an idle yes. And we will work with the research community.

Whether we can replicate every topical nuance of the SIPP is another question, but we can find a way to substitute for the longitudinal element with a new longitudinal element, and that is quite

important to do.

I would also like to say——

Mrs. MALONEY. Before we abolish it, I would like to see in place

what it is you are going to put out there, because the longitudinal

is very, very important to understand where we are, where we are

going, where we have been in the past. And I just put that out

there for the scientific community.

I would like to followup that the Census Bureau has released at

least two memos discussing why they are discontinuing the SIPP.

In both cases, the memo states that the reason for eliminating the

SIPP have to do with the lateness of the data and the problems

with attrition and nonresponse.

This memo does not acknowledge that the SIPP’s nonresponse

rate is the same as the Current Population Survey, yet there is no

talk about getting rid of that, which is also conducted by the CenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:10 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27016.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
124

sus Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and that compared

to the two other national longitudinal surveys, attrition is lower

than the panel study of income dynamics and about the same as

the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.

Furthermore, data for 2004 was released prior to data from the

March Current Population Survey, so it appears Census has

worked hard to get the data out quickly. If these reasons for eliminating the SIPP are invalid, is the reason SIPP is being cut purely

due to budget constraints rather than research needs or substantive issues with the data?

Mr. KINCANNON. No, it is not solely for budget constraints. It

does stem from longstanding concerns about the robustness of

SIPP.

The Census Bureau field staff is extremely capable. They get a

higher response rate than almost anybody else working to collect

data, and I am proud of that. But, still, the attrition in SIPP is a

serious problem. Attrition is a characteristic problem of longitudinal surveys, but it has, in our view, become more serious here.

Our choice in a constrained resource environment was to cut everything in a kind of an unmanagerial, mindless sense, reducing everything equally, or to apply priorities, as the Congress instructed

us to do.

That is why after 2 or 3 years of asking Congress for funds to

cover 20 percent of the economic activity in this country between

economic censuses we finally stopped asking for that. We have not

stopped asking for money for longitudinal data on income dynamics. We expect to ask for a program of a substantial level to continue doing that, and we just have to accommodate the realities of

weaknesses in SIPP and what we will have in resources.

Certainly, in terms of priorities, we rank the censuses above others. The population and housing census and all the components, including the ACS, the economic censuses—these are fundamental.

The economic censuses are the only time, twice a decade, when we

measure almost all the economic activity in the country. The other

years, we are making policy, the ES calculating GDP and so forth,

missing 20 percent of the economic activity in the country, and it

is the part in the service sector where jobs are being created much

more than in other sectors of the economy.

We have to make our best set of priorities within the constraints

placed on us by the Congress, among others.

Mrs. MALONEY. But you stated that attrition and——

Mr. TURNER. Mrs. Maloney, I hate to interrupt, but the House

and Senate will convene shortly in a joint meeting to receive the

Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy. Because House rules do not

allow committees to meet during a joint meeting of Congress and

out of respect for the Prime Minister, the subcommittee will be

recessing, subject to the call of the Chair. If you are unable——

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TURNER. I was just going to say, if you were unable——

Mrs. MALONEY. Point of personal privilege? May I make a request?

Mr. TURNER. I was just going to suggest——

Mrs. MALONEY. OK.

125

Mr. TURNER. I would just say if you are not able to—and we are

going to let this panel go, if it is OK with you. Perhaps if you could

take the next 2 minutes and ask your questions for the record to

which they could respond.

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. Thank you very much, and I will get them

in writing.

Again, last year, we asked for specific information on the plans

for measuring the accuracy of the 2010 census. After a long delay,

I got a document that did not provide very much information.

Please provide the committee, respectfully, with specific milestones

and deadlines for decisions on how you will measure the accuracy,

when the operational procedures for that measurement will take

place, and when you will report to Congress on the accuracy of the

2010 census.

Also, the Census Bureau is including a question on ancestry on

the 2010 census. Consequently, the Census Bureau will be in a position to provide agencies like the Department of Homeland Security with counts on the number of Greek Americans, Indian Americans, Arab Americans, Irish Americans on a block-by-block basis.

What is the Census Bureau’s policy on providing this kind of blocklevel information to law enforcement agencies?

Again, I thank you for your very difficult job. We rely on the statistics that you give us. I am particularly disturbed by the pattern

of the gap between the haves and the have-nots in our country. It

is growing in a way that I believe people on both sides of the aisle

are tremendously concerned. It is not good for the wealthiest people

in our country. It is not good for the poorest people. And that SIPP

program was the document that really gave the information of

what was exactly happening with this gap, and I think that is important for policymakers because we certainly want our country to

prosper, all of our citizens to prosper, and I think it is important

to track it.

So I just want to underscore that I really do not want to see it

eliminated unless you have in place something that really takes account for that data. And if you are going to eliminate it, I feel that

there would be members on both sides of the aisle that would do

a budget amendment that would restore specifically what was

needed for that data, and if you could get us the specific costs, we

could work on it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.

The subcommittee will now recess subject to the call of the

Chair. The subcommittee will reconvene immediately after the joint

meeting of Congress, and we will adjourn this panel and commence

with panel two when we return.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Ms. FOXX [presiding]. Thank you all for coming back after the

brief recess we had.

It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn in

before they testify, so I ask that the second panel of witnesses

please rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

126

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Let the record show that all witnesses responded in the affirmative.

Dr. Rector, we will begin with you.

STATEMENTS OF RALPH RECTOR, PH.D., SENIOR RESEARCH

FELLOW AND PROJECT MANAGER, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION; ANDREW REAMER,

PH.D., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, URBAN MARKETS INITIATIVE,

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; AND MARGO ANDERSON,

PH.D., PROFESSOR, HISTORY AND URBAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE

STATEMENT OF RALPH RECTOR

Mr. RECTOR. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a senior research

fellow and project manager in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for

Data Analysis. I participate in professional organizations that deal

with Federal statistical issues. However, the testimony presented

today reflects my own views, not necessarily those of the Heritage

Foundation or any other organization.

Research within Heritage’s Data Center focuses primarily on policy debates at the national level. As a result, I will limit my remarks to examples showing why census data are useful to researchers analyzing Federal policies. However, I want to begin by

discussing the overall importance of producing an accurate and

complete decennial census and for continuing the American Community Survey.

The constitutional Framers intended the decennial census to play

a key role in ensuring the representative nature of the Federal

Government. The Census Bureau relies on the MAF and TIGER

programs to produce an accurate and complete census. As explained more fully in my written testimony, the need to coordinate

MAF and TIGER programs raise serious issues. However, implementing the ACS can help in updating and verifying the systems

that are used to collect decennial census data.

These benefits will only be realized if the ACS is adequately

funded, and they will also only be realized if the Census Bureau

works closely with governmental entities and other groups at the

State and local level, and this is the reason why I think the program LUCA is so important.

In the remaining portion of my testimony, I summarize several

reasons why census data are so useful to nongovernmental analysts

who are studying national issues, and I illustrate these examples

with research conducted at the Heritage Foundation. Nevertheless,

I believe that these examples are typical of ways that many researchers, from a variety of political perspectives, use census data.

To begin, census data help localize national issues to regions that

are meaningful for decisionmakers and ordinary citizens. Traditionally, census long form data have been the primary—if not the

only—source of information for demographic and socioeconomic information for regions that interest policymakers and the public

such as congressional districts and Zip codes.

Social Security critics, for example, highlighted the program’s

general low rate of return. CDA economists used congressional disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:10 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27016.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
127

trict data produced by the census in combination with data from

other sources to estimate Social Security’s rate of return for retirees in each State and in each congressional district.

Census data are also important in evaluating the effectiveness of

Federal grants. CBO has indicated that researchers should control

for the independent effects when analyzing the outcome of Federal

initiatives. For this reason, CDA analysts often use census data in

their statistical evaluations of Federal programs.

Census data have also been used to analyze proposals that would

change Federal policies. For example, to examine the potential for

a Social Security reform plan intended to produce wealth for low

and moderate-wage earners, CDA analysts wanted to create a representative demographic profile, a set of those, from a data base

that was large enough to permit a very detailed set of classifications. Fortunately, the first national-level American Community

Survey, micro-file, was available, and using this micro-file, CDA

analysts developed up-to-date profiles that would otherwise not

have been available.

Finally, the ongoing ACS will benefit smaller but more detailed

special-purpose surveys administered by the Census Bureau, such

as the current Population Survey, the Consumer Expenditure Survey, American Housing Survey, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation [SIPP]. Analysts and research organizations

and universities routinely use these other census surveys to study

issues such as welfare, education, and taxes.

These smaller household surveys are adjusted to be consistent

with data from the Census Bureau’s population estimates program.

And the ACS provides a valuable source of information for updating these population estimates.

In conclusion, census data are the backbone of a constitutionally

mandated apportionment process, and census data are also vital to

information that analysts and policymakers at all levels uses.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

Ms. FOXX. Thank you.

Dr. Reamer.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW REAMER

Mr. REAMER. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am Andrew Reamer, deputy director of the

Urban Markets Initiative at the Brookings Institution, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss

the elements necessary to the design and implementation of a successful 2010 census.

UMI’s mission is to stimulate greater public and private investment in urban communities through improving the availability of

data for small areas, and in this regard, the single most important

data set is the decennial census. The vitality of America’s businesses and economy relies significantly on a successful census.

As the title of this hearing suggests, the decennial census has an

even more essential public purpose: enabling apportionment and

redistricting. The decennial census is the platform on which we

build our democracy. Seats in Congress, in State legislatures, and

in city councils are allocated on the basis of the census, and the

census is the fundamental mechanism for re-creating our democracy every decade.

In my opinion, achieving a true and precise 2010 census depends

upon four elements.

First, we need a complete and accurate Master Address File.

Simply put, we cannot count people if we do not know where they

live.

Second, we require minimal coverage error, reducing omissions

and double-counting.

Third, we need a fully, consistently funded American Community

Survey. Taking the long form out of the decennial census will do

much to improve coverage.

And, fourth, we need to automate field data collection through

the use of handheld computers.

I will review each of these elements in some detail.

Regarding the Master Address File, the completeness and accuracy of the MAF was affected by three issues in 2000: difficulty in

capturing fast-growing areas; many group quarters had geocoding

and categorization errors; and numerous housing units in small,

multi-unit urban buildings were missed.

The good news is that the Census Bureau has in place the elements to address these issues, and there are five important elements to recognize.

The first is the Community Address Updating System [CAUS],

which uses American Community Survey field staff on an ongoing

basis to update addresses. Our understanding is that CAUS has

been successful.

Second, the Bureau has provided a thoughtful, detailed plan to

address issues regarding the accuracy of group quarters enumeration, categorization, and geocoding.

Third, Congress passed a law in the 1990’s to enable the creation

of LUCA, the Local Update of Census Addresses Program, and

LUCA provides a framework within which local governments can

give addresses to the Census Bureau and still improve accuracy of

136

the MAF; however, experience indicates that local government participation in 2000 was not nearly what it might have been. There

are several barriers to local participation, including a lack of staff

resources, capacity, and training. The smaller the community, the

greater the barriers. And it is clear that LUCA can be a much more

effective program for 2010, and achieving this potential is going to

require some active, cooperative relationship between the Census

Bureau and local governments, and getting LUCA underway by

late 2007 is really a tight window here for getting LUCA up and

going—late enough to capture addresses and soon enough to incorporate them into the census.

The fourth element for the MAF is the Update/Enumerate program to capture units in small buildings in urban areas, small

multi-unit buildings.

And, last, the Census Bureau should look at working with State

governments as a resource for updating the MAF to use detailed

administrative records the State governments have available to update address lists.

In combination, these five elements can bring about a more accurate MAF, and I would suggest that this committee, for its own edification, ask the Bureau to report on its approach for preparing the

MAF for 2010. With this full understanding, my hope is that Congress can provide the resources to make that happen.

With regard to coverage improvement, in 2000 there were more

duplicates and omissions than was optimal, and the Bureau has

embarked on a series of efforts to correct these problems, and we

at Brookings support these, including testing alternative short

forms and approaches for flagging households that have coverage

problems.

The American Community Survey, the value of that is that it removes the long form from the decennial census and in doing so allows the Census Bureau to focus entirely on doing an accurate population count. So full funding of the ACS in and of itself will help

a more accurate decennial census.

Last is the realm of technologies. It is time to apply 21st century

methods of data collection to the decennial census, and the use of

handheld computers should lower the cost of data collection quite

significantly.

So, in conclusion, an accurate census is vital to our democracy,

and I think these four elements will help make that happen. And

I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reamer follows:]

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

Ms. FOXX. Thank you.

Dr. Anderson.

STATEMENT OF MARGO ANDERSON

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you for inviting me to testify. I agree with

many of the comments that my colleagues have made, and so I will

elaborate on some new ones.

It is quite clear from the busy agenda that the Census Bureau

never really stops taking a census; rather, its work is cyclical, and

as they move from one plan to the next, they look back and forward.

Relatedly, the world in which a census is taken also changes.

Most notably the population grows, but often we are also quite surprised because not only does the population grow, it shifts in differential ways that means that the apportionment and redistricting

mechanisms and allocation mechanisms lead to policy changes as

a result of it.

In this context, the Census Bureau faces something of a catch–

22. Until the count is complete, the true dimensions of change are

not clear. And yet the catch–22 the Bureau faces is that it must

anticipate that change as it builds the plan, and that is the situation that we are in now.

I think we need to keep that dilemma in mind as we do discuss

the plans for 2010 and, in particular, keep the goal in mind of an

accurate, efficient, and useful census. And as a result, I agree very

much with the comments that my colleagues have made about the

need to make sure that LUCA stays on track, that the Master Address File has development technology, and so forth.

I want to make a few more comments about what I call risks and

surprises that I see on the horizon and I think others do as well.

The two big risks that are quite new and outside the realm of

the Bureau: one is, of course, the budgetary environment, which we

have heard much about today; and the second is that we may in

2010 be taking a census while the country is at war for the first

time. In other words, the United States has never taken a census

when the homeland was under threat, and we have little experience as a Nation anticipating if the war might affect the 2010

count.

We need, as my colleagues have indicated here, to maintain

funding in the development of ACS, and the risks to the 2010 count

if in some sense anything goes wrong with the ACS off stage, if you

will, are substantial, which is another reason to keep the funding

moving.

The long-term issue here is for the goal—even though we are

talking very much about operational issues at this point in the

planning process, is still accuracy and a fair count. And the historical record suggests that the Bureau does well when it has its planning processes under control and when stakeholders, be they Members of Congress, State and local government, advocates for particular demographic groups, feel that the process is a good one and

under control. If they do not, those stakeholders have alternative

mechanisms to affect the count, including filing lawsuits, changing

through legislation the plan, or challenges to participation. So the

156

building of trust in the operational plan is very, very important,

and it needs to be integrated into what we are seeing right now.

Some surprises that we already saw in 2000: The duplicate enumeration issue is a very new one for the census, and I would suggest that even now at the operational stages that we be looking at

that one in particular and say, OK, how are we going to solve the

problems of duplicates as we move toward 2010?

Group quarters is another one, which you have already heard

about.

Are we going to change the short term, in particular, the measurement of race and ethnicity, because the long form is no longer

there. There is discussion of moving the ancestry question to the

short form. What impact will that have?

Will there be pressure to add information about citizenship status or alien status of the population to the short form census?

In general, we need to sort of keep our eyes on the prize and continue to focus on evaluation of accuracy and fairness. That is always an open question. We can always do better. And I expect that

we will be talking about that a great deal in the next 4 years.

Thank you, and I will take questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much.

Dr. Anderson, the first question is for you. What is your opinion

of the Bureau’s efforts for the decennial census thus far? And you

mentioned the issue of trust in your testimony. Do you think the

Bureau is building trust for its operational plans with more testing

prior to this decennial as compared to the last?

Ms. ANDERSON. I think that they are—you know, as we are sitting here today, they are involved in—I mean, this hearing itself

is involved in that process. I would like to see, again, a bit more,

mostly because I am very sensitive to the fact that even, as I say,

issues off stage, as you heard in the first session about SIPP, have

a way of oozing back, if you will, into discussions of the decennial.

So I would like to see a more systematic approach to those issues

and how it would move forward.

I think the planning process for the 1990’s at this point is not

as good a guide for what we are doing in this decade simply because the planning process of the 1990’s was fraught by changes

in direction as the political makeup of Congress and the Presidency

shifted over that decade. The planning started with a Republican

President and a Democratic Congress, moved to a Democratic

President and a Republican Congress, a Republican President and

a Democratic Congress and so forth.

Right now we have what looks like a stable planning environment of moving forward. If that continues, it adds grounding to the

plan.

Personally, I would like to see a little more discussion of the

evaluation and adjustment issues, but that is, again, certainly a political decision that can be made by the administration and Congress together.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you.

This question is for all of you, but I will start with Dr. Reamer

and I will work backward that way. If the Bureau plans to start

LUCA in June 2007, does that give local governments adequate

time to confirm, correct, and add addresses before the decennial?

Mr. REAMER. I am not an expert in the process of the step-bystep process. My understanding from other people who are is that

it certainly would be sufficient. But I think a lot has to happen between now and June 2007. What happened last time, my understanding is the National Academy hosted a panel on LUCA that

the local governments were not adequately prepared for the LUCA

process. A lot of them are small and resource-poor. So I think a lot

of planning has to happen between now and mid/late 2007 so that

the local governments are aware of what their responsibilities are,

what their opportunities are, and how they might work with governments at a higher level, a town working with a county, a county

working with a regional planning council, so that the LUCA process—the burdens can be shared locally and participation could rise

as a result. So I would like to see a lot of planning between now

and 2007.

Ms. FOXX. Dr. Rector.

Mr. RECTOR. Well, like Dr. Reamer, I do not have immediate experience with the LUCA program, but I have heard concerns

raised. I think that the 2007 date, what I can tell, is sufficient, but

168

I would want to emphasize that it is important for the Census Bureau to do an effective job of communicating.

Some of the stories that I have heard indicate that it has not always been clear what information the Census Bureau is actually

requesting and how, in fact, the local communities are supposed to

supply it to the Census Bureau. And so I think the communication

is as important as timing.

Now, with regard to timing, I do think that the 2007 data is important for these local communities, particularly those that need

additional resources to actually take advantage of the LUCA program. They have to build that into their budget. And so it is not

just a planning of them assigning resources, but actually making

sure that there are sufficient funds available to cover the expenses

required. And so I think that as much lead time as possible is helpful, but from what I can tell, the 2007 date is sufficient.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you.

Dr. Anderson, do you want to add?

Ms. ANDERSON. A similar kind of response, which is that the

communication of the program and one thing that can be done

right now is find out how aware State and local governments are

that this is coming.

It is understandable that they were ill prepared before 2000 because the law was only passed in, I think, 1994. So there should

be a reservoir of experience that really needs to be built on, but it

is, again, that kind of integration. This is a very hard task to do

this national-to-local kind of communication and support. So anything you can do now to help it along, you know, will be wonderful

as we move toward 2000.

The places in the country that did take best advantage of LUCA

were ones that knew it early and were sensitive to it.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you.

One more question. Do you all agree that the short form census

will provide a more accurate census than a combined short form

and long form decennial census? I will start with you, Dr. Rector.

Mr. RECTOR. I think it certainly can, and given the plans that

the Census Bureau has put in place, I think that it probably will,

and the main reason for that is that they will be able to devote

their resources on the short form. And so I think that, certainly

given the programs that they have in place, should produce an accurate, complete census.

Mr. REAMER. I agree and will add a couple things, I think. The

ACS contributes in a number of ways to a more accurate decennial

census. One is, as Dr. Rector says, that by taking the long form activity out of the short form process, you can have staff at the census focus on counting people and not worrying about other things.

But, second, I think importantly is that the ACS itself has enabled the Census Bureau to put in the field a professional permanent staff so that for 2010 it can rely less on temporary workers.

It will still have to rely on temporary workers, but it will have a

professional staff in the field which will allow it to have a more accurate census.

And then the third aspect is back to the MAF. One component

of the American Community Survey is this CAUS program I mentioned, the Community Address Update program. So ACS staff

169

throughout the decade are updating the MAF through this program, and that also will lead to a more accurate decennial census.

So it is for those three reasons, I think, that we will have a more

accurate census.

Ms. ANDERSON. I think if the address listing and development

work proceeds well, yes, you are going to do better. Again, as my

historian says, there used to be only six questions on the census,

and in some ways that is what we are going back to. I would also

urge the Bureau to talk about that and to talk about what it is

doing, because for most of the American population, of course, this

is going to be a big surprise. I mean, they do not know about the

ACS and, frankly, are not very interested.

So, again, I also think that there is a programmatic and communications issue here that needs to be addressed.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. I am sorry. I do have one more question,

and it is for Dr. Reamer. The Community Address Updating System is part of the ACS and, as you said, aims on an ongoing basis

to use ACS staff to update address information.

As of this date, 1,475 county TIGER maps have been updated to

improve the Master Address File, and the contractor plans to deliver the remaining 1,758 county maps by 2008. Would you consider these two updating programs promising? And if you do, would

you still recommend that Congress fund the Census 2000 Experimental Update/Enumerate program for this upcoming decennial?

Mr. REAMER. Yes, I do think the two efforts you mentioned will

be very helpful, and I think the Update/Enumerate program is separate from those two and is, therefore, important in its own right.

It was found in the 2000 census that, particularly in urban areas,

small multi-unit buildings where there are not city-style addresses,

where there is a single mail drop-off, it was difficult to enumerate

because Census was not quite sure how many units were actually

in the building. And what Update/Enumerate does is actually targets neighborhoods in which those types of buildings are prominent

and then sends people in the field to actually go to the building and

go inside and count the doors.

So I think that there is a need over and above CAUS and the

TIGER updating for Update/Enumerate, and the 2000 experience

seemed to be quite positive in that there were—in the target areas

they added 14 percent—the number of addresses went up by 14

percent because of people in the field. They also deleted 6 percent

of addresses, but the result was there were more units to count. So

I would support funding for that?

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Do any of you have any brief closing remarks that you would like to make?

[No response.]

Ms. FOXX. Well, before we adjourn, I want to thank our distinguished panels of witnesses for their participation today. I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge, experiences, and

thoughts with us. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their

participation today. Clearly, there is a lot involved in planning the

2010 census, and I am pleased to see that the Bureau is making

every effort to ensure that the decennial census is the most successful yet.

170

However, we are not out of the woods yet. Clearly, obstacles remain, but I am confident that by working together we can ensure

that the 2010 census is the best ever.

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for their time today. In the

event that there may be additional questions we did not have time

for today, the record shall remain open for 2 weeks for submitting

questions and answers.

Thank you all. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

Æ