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

88–017 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 107–1061

YEAR 2000 DECENNIAL CENSUS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 28, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

RON WYDEN, Oregon

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

BARBARA BOXER, California

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK BUSE, Republican Staff Director

ANN CHOINIERE, Republican General Counsel

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 28, 2001 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 17

Statement of Senator Hollings ............................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 4

Statement of Senator Kerry .................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES

Clay, Hon. William, U.S. Representative from Missouri ...................................... 37

Gonzalez, Hon. Charles A., U.S. Representative from Texas .............................. 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Ericksen, Eugene P., Professor of Sociology and Statistics, Department of

Sociology, Temple University .............................................................................. 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Evans, Hon. Donald L., Secretary of Commerce; accompanied by Mr. William

Barron, Acting Census Director .......................................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn, U.S. Representative from New York ............................. 50

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52

Miller, Hon. Dan, U.S. Representative from Florida ............................................ 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Murray, Dr. David W., Director, Statistical Assessment Service and Census

Monitoring Board, Congressionally Appointed Member ................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

Vargas, Arturo, Executive Director, National Director, National Association

of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund ......... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Wachter, Kenneth W., Professor, Chair, Department of Demography, University of California ................................................................................................... 64

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX

Article from USA TODAY ....................................................................................... 87

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to Donald

L. Evans ................................................................................................................ 87

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Sam Brownback to Donald

L. Evans ................................................................................................................ 75

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John McCain to:

Eugene P. Ericksen .......................................................................................... 81

Donald L. Evans ............................................................................................... 75

David W. Murray .............................................................................................. 77

Arturo Vargas ................................................................................................... 79

Kenneth W. Wachter and David A. Freedman .............................................. 76

(1)

YEAR 2000 DECENNIAL CENSUS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2001

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:28 a.m., in room

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry, presiding

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Senator KERRY. The hearing will come to order. We are going to

start just literally a moment early, because we are under the time

gun here. A number of our colleagues from the House have requested to testify early, and I appreciate that.

I wanted to try to accommodate it. The problem is, we also have

the Secretary under the same time pressure so we are going to try

to move as expeditiously as possible and not lose part of the hearing in doing so.

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for taking the time to come

up. We appreciate it. As the Members of the Committee know, the

census was something that a lot of us have been following very

closely, and I am grateful to Secretary Evans, who said during his

confirmation hearing in January that he would follow this closely

and be happy to appear before the Committee again on that, and

I appreciate his honoring that commitment today.

I am not going to go through my full statement.

Obviously, what is at stake here is the accuracy of the census,

which really is at the heart of a number of issues, not just redistricting and the adequacy of representation in the country, but also

the distribution of funds, and whether or not there is a sense of

fairness and inclusivity in the process by which we not only represent America but see that America receives its fair share of the

funds distributed federally.

There are roughly $185 billion a year that is distributed based

on population counts that come from the census over a 10-year period. You are obviously, therefore, looking at over $1 trillion to $2

trillion. That makes a difference in the lives of our fellow Americans, and so it is particularly important for people to have a sense

that this was done properly, fairly, and in a way that every American can have confidence that they are properly represented.

There are comments I would make with specificity about Demographic Analysis and other things, but I do not want to lose the

2

time now that we need desperately to move forward in terms of testimony and questions, and I will try to do it in the course of that.

[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSSETTS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the Chairman for calling this

hearing, and especially for managing to schedule it during what we all know is an

incredibly busy time for him. His willingness to arrange this hearing is reflective

of his excellent leadership and of his understanding of the importance of this issue.

As the Committee knows, the census is an issue that I have been following very

closely and that I am extremely interested in. I thank Secretary Evans for coming

again before this Committee to address our questions and concerns. When Secretary

Evans was before us for his confirmation hearing in January, the census and the

possibility of using corrected data to compensate for people missed by the census

were issues raised by several senators. During his confirmation hearing, the Secretary assured us that he would be happy to appear before this Committee again

on this matter, and I appreciate his willingness to honor that commitment and testify here today.

I know that we have many distinguished witnesses here, and I don’t want to delay

the Secretary or the House Members, who I know have very busy schedules to maintain. But I would, just briefly, like to make a few comments about what we’ll be

discussing this morning. First of all, I believe very strongly that it is critically important to understand the consequences of missing people in the decennial census.

I am quite pleased that the Census Bureau believes it has possibly achieved the

most accurate census ever. I know that it took the tireless efforts of over 800,000

people and significant resources to reach this goal, and I commend all of those involved for their excellent work.

More good news: earlier this month, the Census Bureau reported that it had dramatically reduced both the net and the differential undercounts from the last census. Again, I commend all of those who dedicated themselves to improving the census. But in the midst of this progress, we must not lose sight of the fact that at

least 6.4 million people were not counted in Census 2000. Blacks were missed at

twice the rate of Whites, Hispanics were missed three times as often, and American

Indians were missed five times as often.

The Bureau has spent $400 million on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation, or

A.C.E., which evaluates accuracy and corrects for any undercount. As we know, earlier this month the Bureau did not recommend releasing the A.C.E. for the purpose

of redistricting, and therefore, the official data remains the raw count, short over

6 million people.

It is my understanding that the Census Bureau has not yet released the complete

data that would tell us who the people are who were not counted, but if the 1990

census is any indicator, then we can be sure that they were predominantly poor and

predominantly minority. What can be gleaned from the 1990 data is that unless the

2000 census data is corrected to account for those missed by census takers, vast

numbers of poor, minorities in this country will be denied hundreds of millions of

dollars in federal assistance.

President Bush has often repeated that he is committed to leaving no child behind. I can think of no greater or clearer example of millions of children—literally—

getting left behind than not being included in the census and potentially being denied federal funding. Roughly $185 billion per year in federal funding is distributed

based on population counts derived from the 1990 census, to say nothing of the policy decisions that were made in states, cities, and counties around the nation based

on this data. We must do everything in our power to ensure that this situation does

not repeat itself. Indeed, the Census Bureau has worked hard to develop a methodology to respond to this situation. I sincerely hope that they are able to solve the

mysteries of this issue before the fall to ensure that no child is left behind.

My hope for this hearing today is that Secretary Evans will help to clarify the

Census Bureau’s March 1 decision not to use the corrected number for redistricting.

I am concerned that there is misinformation swirling about, there is an impression

that the Bureau ruled against the use of modern statistical methods in any census

data. I have read their recommendation, and I do not believe that to be the case.

My interpretation of their report—which I think is relatively clear—is that the Census Bureau needed more time to verify the accuracy of A.C.E. Further, the Bureau

stated that there is considerable evidence to support the use of corrected data and

3

that the majority of the evidence indicates the superior accuracy of the corrected

data.

The reason that both clarifying this point is so important and understanding

where the Secretary stands with respect to this process is so important, is that in

the fall the Bureau will release numbers for use in determining federal funding allocations. It is unclear to me who will make the decision about which numbers to use

and how that decision will be made. It is my sincere hope that the Secretary will

elucidate this matter for us.

Senator KERRY. Mr. Ranking Member, do you have any comments?

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Senator McCain and

yourself and, of course, the distinguished Secretary for being here.

My statement will go in the record. I have another hearing, as we

always do, so I will move to that and I will cut it short, because

we have got House Members who are trying to make a roll call.

But Secretary Evans, it is sort of good to harken the history of

the census count and the problems we have had in the 1990 census. President George Bush, Senior was in at that particular time

and, as to the count, the lawsuits broke out like the measles with

all of the undercounts and everything else. So we got the National

Academy of Sciences to see how best to get the most complete, the

most full, and the most accurate count possible. The Academy

belabored it and came up with the sampling solution, which of

course we have avoided thus far, but I feel very strongly in favor

of that approach.

Everybody knows the politician stands in the well and says the

Constitution says count everybody, which is totally impossible, yet

on the other hand you want to make the best endeavor that you

possibly can. Right to the point, what we want to avoid are headlines like today’s headline: ‘‘Cities’ Minorities Losing Census

Undercount.’’ But here we go again. In the famous words of our

leader, Ronald Reagan. Here we go again.

So that is what concerns this Committee. We thought we had the

right approach as developed, and that is why Secretary Mineta did

not want to make the decision on sampling. He left it to the professionals because he did not think he had expertise to analyze the

scientific studies which showed should be done, that is, use the

sampling approach.

So I wish you would consider that background and history, and

the present-day cries right now with respect to the problem we are

having, because nobody’s trying to get an overcount of anything.

There is no chance of that, but the best system that I know of that

has been devised so far, unless the Secretary has got a better one,

is that sampling approach. We do appreciate your appearance here

before the Committee, and I apologize for having to get to this

other Committee meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today. In addition,

I would like to thank Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans for appearing before us

4

today to honor a commitment that he made during my all-too-brief Chairmanship

of this Committee in January to return and have a frank discussion with us about

the Census.

Mr. Secretary, as I have told you before, I am a strong supporter of statistical

sampling. Even though some are calling the 2000 Census ‘‘the best Census ever,’’

I am of the opinion that no Census is good enough if it leaves more than 3 million

people uncounted.

I also believe that decisions regarding the use of sampling should be made by the

professionals not by the politicians. It is convenient for the Administration that the

professionals recommended against sampling, but I wonder whether the threat of

being overruled influenced that recommendation.

However, I do not want to play the blame game that we so often play here in

Washington. I want to look to the future. First of all, I would like to see the Census

fully release its Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.), upon which any adjustment to the Census numbers—any sampling—would be based. If the A.C.E. truly

is flawed, what better way to know than to allow independent statisticians to take

a look at the full data?

Second, I would like to encourage the Census to keep working to improve the 2000

data. Simply because the preliminary redistricting data has been released, the issue

of accuracy in the Census is not resolved. We use these data, adjusted from year

to year, as the basis for allocation of government funding. To that end, I applaud

the Bureau for continuing to work on finding answers to the questions that they

have about the adjusted data.

The issue of ensuring that the entire population is counted is very real, not just

for large cities like New York and Los Angeles, but also for my State of South Carolina. Nearly 2 in 5 households in my State did not mail back a Census form—the

Nation’s lowest response rate except for Alaska. I am worried that thousands of

South Carolinians were not counted. The State Budget and Control Board estimates

that each uncounted resident could cost the State $2,000 per person in Federal

funding. Overall, an inaccurate count could cost my State millions—and South Carolina is only the tip of the iceberg.

In conclusion, when groups and areas are undercounted, the strength of their vote

is diluted, they do not get their fair share of Federal funding, and they suffer economically when banks and insurance companies base their decisions on demographic data. So I hope that the Census Bureau and the Department will continue

to improve its data in order to achieve the most accurate count. That is the only

way to ensure justice and fairness are the guiding principles in this vital matter.

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Hollings.

Senator Inouye.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Senator INOUYE. Like my colleague, I will have to be leaving

soon, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I would like to hear the Secretary’s

testimony.

Senator KERRY. Mr. Secretary, let us, if we can, invite your testimony, and then we will try to get into questions and see if we can

incorporate some of the issues I talked about earlier.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD L. EVANS, SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. WILLIAM BARRON,

ACTING CENSUS DIRECTOR

Secretary EVANS. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to appear before this Committee again to discuss Census 2000. You have

my prepared statement for the record, but I would like to just briefly touch on some of the points from that statement here today and

then answer any questions you might have.

Senator KERRY. Thank you. Your full statement will appear in

the record.

Secretary EVANS. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate

that. I have said Census 2000 is the most accurate this nation conVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
5

ducted in the past 60 years, perhaps ever. Its success is a direct

result of the hard work and dedication of the employees of the Census Bureau and of hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of your constituents who worked on Census 2000.

Census 2000 was an operational success. The Census Bureau

met the deadline for releasing data, counted more residents than

ever before, reduced the estimated undercounts, and reversed the

trends toward smaller percentages of the population responding to

the census.

One of the major reasons for the operational success of Census

2000 was Congress’ commitment to provide full funding that

brought a number of improvements to bear on Census 2000. The

Census Bureau carried out an unprecedented outreach program

specifically targeted to groups that historically have had the highest undercounts. They reached out to families, neighborhoods, and

communities to encourage participation.

First, the Census Bureau developed an aggressive marketing

plan and partnership program. Partnerships with a variety of governmental community and educational groups, 140,000 in all, were

key to building support for census participation all the way down

to the neighborhood level. These helped the Census Bureau to

knock down obstacles that might get in the way of participation.

The bureau also greatly expanded its outreach into communities by using paid advertising for the first time, placing more than $100

million in ads to educate and motivate the public to respond, especially those who had been undercounted at higher rates in the past

censuses.

Second, the Census Bureau took its educational outreach program directly into schools, providing materials to classroom teachers so that they could teach lessons on the census.

Third, the Census Bureau made questionnaires more user-friendly, so they were easier to read and to fill out. They published questionnaires in six languages and provided materials to help individuals fill them out in 49 languages.

Another improvement that went a long way to Census 2000’s

success was the hiring of highly skilled staff on a temporary basis

to get the job done on time. Through its ‘‘Quality Counts’’ operation, the Census Bureau redoubled its efforts to ensure quality

and completeness in the count, identifying homes that should be

visited again to review and verify information or to fill in the

blanks.

In using the advanced technology, the Census Bureau was able

to process the data faster and to introduce quality assurance steps

to be sure that data were captured accurately. Along with other results, due to these efforts the Census Bureau achieved a higher response rate through the mail than was expected. In fact, people in

about 65 percent of the homes that were mailed questionnaires had

already responded by mail before it came time for the Census Bureau to follow up with its door-to-door field operation.

As the Members of this Committee know, the Census Bureau

conducted an independent survey of approximately 314,000 homes.

The Accuracy and Coverage, Evaluation Survey, or A.C.E., that

was designed to measure net census coverage according to the current estimates from the survey, Census 2000, achieved net covVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
6

erage rates for the total population of about 99 percent. The estimated coverage rates for individual ethnic groups were also extremely high. A.C.E. estimates support the conclusion that Census

2000 achieved both reduced net and differential undercoverage

from the 1990 Census levels.

Of particular interest, the national undercount for race and Hispanic origin groups was reduced from the 1990 census rate of 1.61

percent to 1.18 percent for Census 2000, a reduction of about 25

percent.

Throughout the planning for Census 2000, a major issue of concern to the Census Bureau was whether the results of the Accuracy

and Coverage Evaluation Survey could be used to make the census

counts more accurate. A committee of Census Bureau professionals

was formed to evaluate whether using the A.C.E. to adjust the census figures would improve the results for using redistricting.

The professionals serving on the committee collectively have 390

years experience as statisticians and demographers. Bill Barron,

the Acting Director of the Census Bureau, presented me with that

committee’s report and recommendation, along with his own recommendation, on March 1, 2001.

Mr. Barron agreed with and approved the committee’s recommendation that the unadjusted census data should be released

as the Census Bureau’s official redistricting data. The committee of

Census Bureau professionals reached its recommendation because

it was unable, based on the data and other information it had at

the time, to conclude that the adjusted data were more accurate for

use in redistricting.

The report of the committee is being made available for the

record. In a nutshell, the A.C.E. results could not be squared with

the population estimates derived from Demographic Analysis, a

long-accepted method of judging census quality. There were other

significant potential errors that might affect the accuracy of the

A.C.E. estimates.

After receiving the Census Bureau’s recommendation, I thoroughly reviewed the report and supporting materials, and I consulted with a diverse group of respected, non-Government statisticians and demographers in addition to Census Bureau professionals. On March 6, I announced my decision to release the

unadjusted data for use in the redistricting process. In making my

decision, I followed a process that was transparent, responsible,

reasonable, and fair, and took full account of the view of experts,

both career Government professionals, and professionals from outside Government.

As you know, the Census Bureau is obligated to complete release

of the redistricting data to the states by April 1, and it will do so.

I should emphasize that the committee of Census professionals

could not have resolved critical questions about use of adjusted

data prior to that deadline, or even soon thereafter, I am confident

that the committee did all that it could, and that it reached the

only reasonable conclusion.

Some have requested that the bureau release A.C.E. adjusted

data notwithstanding the committee’s recommendation to release

unadjusted numbers as official redistricting data. The Department

will not do so, because the A.C.E. numbers simply are not fit for

7

use. From everything we currently know, the actual head count

was extremely accurate. The A.C.E. projection would not be an improvement, and those estimates very well may change as a result

of the bureau’s ongoing analysis.

It would be irresponsible for the Department to release redistricting data for which it cannot gauge the accuracy. Over the coming months, the bureau will gather additional data and continue its

analysis of Census 2000 results. Before the end of 2001, the bureau

will determine whether or not to recommend statistically adjusting

the Census 2000 population estimates for use in other Census Bureau products, and as the basis for annual adjustments that will

commence in December 2001. Any such adjustment data may also

be used in the allocation of funds under Federal programs and for

other purposes. At the moment, there is really no basis on which

to predict what the outcome of the bureau’s further work will be.

The Census Bureau is determined to build on the success of Census 2000, and the Bush Administration supports that effort, as reflected in the President’s budget, details of which will be forthcoming. It funds continuing efforts for the Census Bureau to improve the census as we progress toward 2010.

I look forward to continuing to work with Members of this Committee and other interested committees and Members of Congress

to define and provide appropriate support for a total Census 2010

effort.

Mr. Senator, that concludes my testimony, and I will be pleased

to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Evans follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD L. EVANS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Committee:

It is a pleasure to appear before this Committee again and, on this occasion, to

discuss with you Census 2000.

CENSUS 2000: AN INVALUABLE ACHIEVEMENT

I have said that the 2000 Census is the most accurate census this nation has ever

conducted. A Constitutional mandate, censuses have been conducted every 10 years

since 1790—22 times in all. So the success of Census 2000 is a remarkable achievement. It is attributable to the hard work and dedication of the professional staff at

the Census Bureau and all the hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of your constituents, who worked on Census 2000. I commend them all. We

are indebted also to the American public, whose response exceeded expectations; to

the thousands of Census partner organizations; and to the Congress, for your oversight, support, and vision in providing sufficient resources to conduct Census 2000.

This is an exciting period for those who want facts to bolster their understanding

of our nation’s people. The Census Bureau began to roll out the results of Census

2000 just three months ago, with the release of the state population totals used for

apportionment. Again meeting the schedule set by the Congress, by the end of this

week, the Census Bureau will have released for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, population data—by age, race, and Hispanic Origin—that will

be used to redraw legislative districts.

Not only do these current data releases allow the redistricting process to begin,

but these are the first data from Census 2000 for counties, cities, towns, townships,

and smaller geographic areas. They are the first race and ethnicity data from Census 2000, and the first to show the effect of multiple race reporting. Not a day has

gone by in the last month without numerous news stories about the increasing diversity of our population and about which areas are growing in population and by

how much. I share the fascination: These data tell us so much about ourselves, our

neighbors, our great country. This gold mine of information will continue to yield

a wealth of information as the Census Bureau prepares and releases much more

8

data over the next two years. All of this attention focused on population data reminds us what an important national resource we have in the census.

CENSUS 2000: AN OPERATIONAL SUCCESS

Census 2000 was an operational success. The Census Bureau met or exceeded its

goals, including meeting the mandated deadlines for releasing data for use in apportionment and redistricting. This success can be attributed to the Congress’ commitment to provide full funding for a number of improvements, including unprecedented outreach programs to groups that historically had the highest undercounts:

• Marketing and Partnerships: First, the Census Bureau implemented a

multi-faceted, aggressive marketing and partnership program to encourage householders to include themselves in the census, by completing and mailing back their

census forms. Based on the experience of declining response rates over the preceding

three censuses, the Bureau had anticipated that fewer households would return

forms by mail in Census 2000. Partnerships—140,000 in all—with state, local, and

tribal governments; community and advocacy groups; the private sector; religious organizations; educational institutions; and the Congress were key to building support

and removing obstacles to participation in the census. The Bureau successfully implemented paid advertising for the first time in Census 2000, placing over $100 million in media buys designed to educate and motivate the public to respond. Paid advertising also allowed the Census Bureau to target ads to groups that had been

undercounted at higher rates in past censuses.

• Educating Families: As part of the Census in Schools program, the Census

Bureau provided lesson plans, wall maps, and take-home materials to classroom

teachers so they could teach lessons on the census.

• User Friendly Questionnaires: The Census Bureau designed the questionnaires so that they would be easier to read and fill out. The Bureau also sent advance letters and reminder cards before and after the questionnaires were mailed

out to increase response. The Bureau further offered multiple ways to respond, to

ensure everyone had a chance to include themselves in the census. These included

printing questionnaires in six languages and making available upon request materials in 49 languages to assist people in completing the questionnaire.

These cumulative outreach efforts were successful. The expected mail response

rate of 61 percent was significantly exceeded, reaching about 65 percent by the start

of the field operation to follow up on homes for which a questionnaire was not returned.

• Staffing: The Census Bureau hired and retained enough highly skilled temporary staff, throughout the course of the census, to complete all operations on time.

Because of a resourceful recruiting plan, research on pay rates and recruiting, and

the attractive wages that the Census Bureau could offer because of the full census

funding that the Congress provided, the Census Bureau was able to recruit some

3.7 million job candidates and eventually hire 960,000 people over the course of the

census. Over 500,000 worked on the operation to follow up on those homes for which

a questionnaire was not returned, and, through their hard work, the Census Bureau

was able to complete the enormous task of personally visiting 42 million homes

slightly ahead of schedule.

• Quality Checks: Because of the timely completion of the follow-up operation,

the Census Bureau had the time and resources to conduct other operations designed

to improve coverage, including additional re-enumeration efforts in selected areas.

The Census Bureau called these operations ‘‘Quality Counts.’’ Based on Census Bureau experience and using various quality indicators, the Census Bureau identified

about 10 percent of the Nation’s homes that it believed should be visited again in

these review, verification, and clean-up operations. If it had not conducted these additional operations, the Census Bureau would have provided an incomplete enumeration of the population. The ‘‘Quality Counts’’ operations helped improve coverage and the census count.

• Technology: For Census 2000, the Census Bureau used digital imaging and

optical-character recognition technology for the first time to recognize handwritten

answers in addition to marked circles or boxes. This was a vast improvement over

previous computer systems and allowed the Census Bureau to process the data faster and introduce quality assurance steps to be sure they had captured the data accurately. During the peak of questionnaire receipts, the Census Bureau’s data capture centers processed 3.3 million forms a day. Each bit of information on the captured census forms was transmitted over secured lines to the Census Bureau headquarters, where staff performed quality control checks to ensure they had complete

data. The improved data capture systems, with the ability to capture names, also

9

1 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical Methods to Improve the Accuracy of Census 2000.

meant that the Census Bureau could offer multiple options for responding to the

census with confidence that it could find and remove duplicate responses.

THE RESULT: A HIGHLY ACCURATE HEADCOUNT

The operational improvements not only contributed to the ability to meet legal

deadlines, but more importantly they also produced an improved count. The Census

Bureau conducted an independent survey of approximately 314,000 housing units—

called the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.)—that was designed to measure net census coverage. It was also designed to measure differences in coverage

rates for key groups.

The first chart attached to this testimony illustrates the remarkable job the Census Bureau did in counting people in Census 2000. According to current estimates

from the A.C.E., Census 2000 achieved a net coverage rate for the total population

of 98.82 percent. Even better, the estimated coverage rates for individual groups

were also very high. The coverage rate for Non-Hispanic Blacks was 97.83 percent;

for Hispanics, 97.15 percent; for American Indians and Alaska Natives on Reservations, 95.26 percent; for American Indians and Alaska Natives off Reservations,

96.72 percent; for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, 95.40 percent; for

Non-Hispanic Asians, 99.04 percent; and for Non-Hispanic Whites, 99.33 percent.

The A.C.E. results thus support the conclusion that Census 2000 achieved both reduced net and differential undercoverage from 1990 census levels.

Attached are two additional charts showing estimated net undercount rates for

key groupings of the population for 1990 and 2000. Chart 2 shows net undercount

rates for the total population and race and Hispanic-origin groups. Chart 3 shows

net undercount rates for age and sex groups, owners, and renters.

The A.C.E. estimates that the net national undercount was reduced from the 1990

census rate of 1.61 percent to 1.18 percent for Census 2000, a reduction of about

one-fourth. This reduction is substantial and reflects high census quality. The

A.C.E. further found that not only was the net undercount reduced, but there was

a substantial reduction in the undercount rates for certain groups and in the differential undercount. In 1990, minorities, renters, and children were differentially

undercounted, that is, undercounted at higher rates than the population as a whole.

While these groups still have higher undercount rates, the differential has dropped

considerably.

The estimated undercount rate for Non-Hispanic Blacks was cut by about half—

it dropped from 4.57 percent in 1990 to 2.17 percent in 2000; and the estimated

undercount rate for Hispanics dropped by about 40 percent from 4.99 percent to 2.85

percent. The undercount rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives on Reservations in Census 2000 was 4.74 percent, a reduction of about 60 percent from the

12.22 percent published for 1990. For American Indians and Alaska Natives off Reservations, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and Non-Hispanic Asians,

Census 2000 showed undercount rates of 3.28 percent, 4.60 percent, and 0.96 percent, respectively. The undercount rate for renters has dropped from 4.51 percent

to 2.75 percent and for children has been reduced by about half from 3.18 percent

to 1.54 percent.

THE QUESTION OF STATISTICAL ADJUSTMENT

Throughout the planning for Census 2000, a major issue of concern to the Census

Bureau was whether the results of the A.C.E. could be used to make the census

counts more accurate. In June 2000, the Census Bureau Director preliminarily decided that using the A.C.E. for this purpose was generally feasible, but to reach a

final decision, it would be necessary to consider operational data to validate the successful conduct of the A.C.E., to assess whether the A.C.E. measurements of

undercount are consistent with historical patterns of undercount and independent

demographic analysis benchmarks, and to review measures of quality.1 The Bureau

has long used demographic analysis as an independent check on the quality of the

count. Unlike the A.C.E., which is a sample survey, demographic analysis uses

records and estimates of births, deaths, legal immigration, and Medicare enrollments, and estimates of emigration and net undocumented immigration to estimate

the national population, separately from the census.

A team of Census Bureau professionals—called the Executive Steering Committee

for A.C.E. Policy or ESCAP-was formed to conduct the evaluation to determine

whether using the A.C.E. to adjust the census figures would improve the results for

use in redistricting. After extensive meetings and staff work and the review of many

10

2 Report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy:

Recommendation Concerning the Methodology to be Used in Producing the Tabulations of Population Reported to States and Localities Pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 141(c).

analytic reports, the ESCAP completed its report2, and Acting Director Barron submitted that report and recommendation, along with his recommendation, to me on

March 1, 2001.

As a member of the ESCAP and as Acting Director, Mr. Barron concurred with

and approved the ESCAP’s recommendation that unadjusted census data be released as the Census Bureau’s official redistricting data. The ESCAP reached its

recommendation because it was unable, based on the data and other information it

had at the time, to conclude that the adjusted data were more accurate for use in

redistricting.

The ESCAP found that both the census and the A.C.E. were of very high quality.

The primary reason for arriving at its conclusion that unadjusted data should be

released was the apparent inconsistency between A.C.E. and demographic analysis.

The demographic analysis estimates are significantly lower than both Census 2000

and the A.C.E. estimates for important population groups. The ESCAP investigated

this inconsistency extensively, but in the time available could not adequately explain it. The ESCAP noted that the inconsistency between the demographic analysis

estimates and the A.C.E. estimates is most likely the result of one or more of three

scenarios:

• First, that the 1990 census and the associated coverage measurement methodologies together undercounted the population by a significantly greater amount

and degree than previously believed, but that Census 2000 included portions of this

previously unenumerated population.

• Second, that demographic analysis may not have accounted for the full population growth between 1990 and 2000.

• Third, that Census 2000, as corrected by the A.C.E., overestimates the Nation’s

population.

The Census Bureau must further investigate these concerns before it can recommend that adjustment would improve accuracy of data for purposes other than

redistricting. It is also investigating other potential errors that could affect the accuracy of the adjusted numbers. All of these issues are discussed in detail in the

ESCAP’s report, which we are making available for the record.

After receiving the Census Bureau’s recommendation, I thoroughly reviewed the

ESCAP’s report and supporting materials, and I obtained advice from a diverse

group of prominent, non-government statisticians and demographers, in addition to

the advice of the Census Bureau professionals. On March 7, I announced my decision to release the unadjusted data for use in the redistricting process. In making

my decision, I followed a process that was transparent, reasonable and fair, and

took full account of the view of career professionals and outside experts.

I should emphasize that ESCAP could not have resolved the critical questions

about use of adjusted data prior to the April 1 deadline for completing release of

redistricting data to the states, or even soon thereafter. I am confident that the

Committee did all that it could, and that it reached the only reasonable conclusion.

THE ROAD AHEAD TO CENSUS 2010

As I have said many times, Census 2000 is the most accurate in our nation’s history. But we cannot rest on our laurels. The Census Bureau has already begun looking toward 2010.

While Census 2000 was an operational success and produced data of high quality,

the process was costly, many people felt burdened by having to answer the long

form questions, and the census was constantly at risk due to insufficient early planning and development, and disagreement on the design. If the Census Bureau has

adequate resources early to build upon the successes of Census 2000, then it can

reduce operational risks for the 2010 census and explore ways to further reduce the

undercount.

In a letter of January 17, 2001, from Mr. Chris Mihm of the General Accounting

Office to my predecessor, Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta, Mr. Mihm announced that Census 2000 had been removed from the GAO’s list of high-risk Federal government programs. That Census 2000 was on this list is a reminder of the

great challenges the Census Bureau faced and overcame in conducting a successful

census. In his letter, Mr. Mihm stated:

As the Bureau plans for the 2010 Census, it will be important for the Department of Commerce to ensure that the Bureau completes its evaluations of key

11

census operations as planned, and in a timely manner, explores innovative options that could help ensure a cost-effective headcount in 2010.

Completing Census 2000 evaluations will shed further light on what worked well

or did not work in this census. To build on the success of Census 2000, to reduce

operational risk, and to reduce the undercount even further, the Census Bureau

must improve the accuracy of its geographic database and Master Address File,

eliminate the long form from the decennial census by collecting those data in the

American Community Survey, and reengineer the census process through early

planning. The improved geographic systems will ensure that there is a complete and

unduplicated address list and will facilitate automation and electronic data collection.

In this regard, the American Community Survey will provide more frequent detailed data for small geographic areas and allow the Federal statistical system to

keep pace with ever increasing demands for timely and relevant data. And it will

revolutionize the way we take the decennial census by simplifying the 2010 census

requirements and allowing the Census Bureau to focus exclusively on the basic

count. However, early 2010 planning and development is necessary for a re-engineered process for the 2010 census, taking advantage of opportunities provided by

having improved geographic systems and the American Community Survey.

As reflected in the President’s budget, details of which will be released shortly,

the Administration supports the Census Bureau’s 2010 efforts. I look forward to

working with Members of this Committee, other interested Committees and Members of Congress, to define and provide appropriate support for the total Census

2010 effort. We cannot delay, as every day brings us closer to what will be an even

greater challenge to capture our increasingly diverse, vibrant population.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

12

13

Chart 2.—Estimated Percent Net Undercount for Race and Hispanic Origin Groups: 2000 A.C.E.

and 1990 PES

2000 A.C.E. 1990 PES

Estimation grouping

Net Undercount (%)

Standard

error (%)

Net Undercount (%)

Standard

error (%) Estimation grouping

Total Population in Households ................. 1.18 0.13 1.61 0.20 Total population1

Race and Hispanic Origin: ................ ................ ................ ................ Race and Hispanic Origin:

American Indian and Alaska Native

(on reservation).

4.74 1.20 12.22 5.29 American Indian and

Alaska Native (on

reservation)

American Indian and Alaska Native

(off reservation).

3.28 1.33 ................ ................

Hispanic Origin (of any race) ................ 2.85 0.38 4.99 0.82 Hispanic Origin2

Black or African American (not

Hispanic).

2.17 0.35 4.57 0.55 Black or African

American

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander (not Hispanic).

4.60 2.77 ................ ................

Asian (not Hispanic) .............................. 0.96 0.64 2.36 1.39 Asian and Pacific

Islander

White or Some Other Race (not

Hispanic).

0.67 0.14 0.68 0.22 White or Some Other

Race (not Hispanic)3

Notes: The race and Hispanic categories shown on the left side of this chart represent estimation groupings used in developing estimates based on the A.C.E. Survey and do not conform with race and Hispanic categories that will appear in the redistricting (P.L. 94–171) files and

other Census 2000 data products. In developing the estimation groupings used to evaluate the coverage of Census 2000, the principal consideration was to combine people who were expected to have the same probability of being counted in Census 2000. Consequently, the race and Hispanic origin groupings used to create the A.C.E. estimates of coverage are exceedingly complex. For a complete description of the esti- mation groups, see DSSD Memorandum Q-37, which will be provided on request.

In general, American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIAN) are included in that category, regardless of whether they marked another race or are Hispanic. A few exceptions apply, especially for those who do not live on a reservation, on trust lands, or in an AIAN statistical area. Similarly, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (NHPI) generally are included in that category, unless they lived outside of Hawaii and marked more than one race or marked Hispanic.

Hispanics are mostly in that category, unless they marked AIAN and lived on a reservation, on trust lands, or in an AIAN statistical area, or marked NHPI and lived in Hawaii. People who marked Black or African American are generally in that category unless they fell in the categories described above; similarly

those who marked Asian are generally in that category, unless they fell in the categories described above.

The final category includes most people who marked only White or only Some Other Race or marked three or more races but did not fall into the categories described above

The race and Hispanic categories shown on the right side of this chart represent selected population groupings used in conducting the PES

and do not conform exactly with race and Hispanic tabulations that were released from the 1990 Census.

The data in this chart contain sampling and non-sampling error.

1 Includes household population and some Group Quarters; excludes institutions, military group quarters

2 Excludes Blacks or African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians on reservations.

3 Includes American Indians off reservations.

14

Chart 3.—Estimated Percent Net Undercount for Age, Sex, and Tenure Groups: 2000 A.C.E.

and 1990 PES

2000 A.C.E. 1990 PES

Estimation Grouping (%)

Net Undercount (%)Standard Error

(%)

Net Undercount (%)Standard Error

(%)

Estimation Grouping

Total population in Households ........... 1.18 0.13 1.61 0.20 Total Population1

Age and Sex: ............... ............ ............... ............ Age and Sex:

Under 18 years ................................ 1.54 0.19 3.18 0.29 Under 18 years

18 to 29 years ................................ ............... ............ ............... ............ 18 to 29 years

Male ............................................ 3.77 0.32 3.30 0.54 Male

Female ........................................ 2.23 0.29 2.83 0.47 Female

30 to 49 years ................................ ............... ............ ............... ............ 30 to 49 years

Male ............................................ 1.86 0.19 1.89 0.32 Male

Female ........................................ 0.96 0.17 0.88 0.25 Female

50 years and over ........................... ............... ............ ............... ............ 50 years and over

Male ............................................ -0.25 0.18 -0.59 0.34 Male

Female ........................................ -0.79 0.17 -1.24 0.29 Female

Tenure: ............... ............ ............... ............ Tenure:

In owner-occupied housing units ... 0.44 0.14 0.04 0.21 In owner-occupied housing units

In nonowner-occupied housing

units.

2.75 0.26 4.51 0.43 In nonowner-occupied housing

units

Notes: The data in this chart contain sampling and non-sampling error; a minus sign denotes a net overcount.

1 Includes household population and some Group Quarters; excludes institutions, military group quarters.

Senator KERRY. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. We appreciate the testimony. Your testimony, incidentally, I read completely

last night just to get a sense of it and, indeed, you appropriately

point out the degree to which the census this year improved in

many ways. I mean, there was a very significant effort to do things

better, and I certainly want to acknowledge that.

I don’t think we should approach this in a contentious way that

suggests there was not a bona fide effort to try to do the best census possible. The problem is that even those who engaged in the

census, even those who undertook to do the best census possible,

acknowledge, as I am sure you do, that there still is an overcount

and an undercount. I mean, I assume you accept that even your

current census is flawed to some degree. The question is, to what

degree, is that correct?

Secretary EVANS. Right.

Senator KERRY. So we know there is some overcount, the

overcount generally being, according to most historical analysis, individuals who are generally white and affluent, because it winds up

being kids counted twice who are away at college, people who have

second homes, and those are the kinds of situations that lead to

double counting, whereas minorities, poor people, new immigrants,

people in the inner cities, tend by and large to be those historically

have been undercounted, and I assume you would agree with that.

Secretary EVANS. That is what the data seem to reflect.

Senator KERRY. Now, that said, Mr. Secretary, let me just kind

of throw the sort of historical background of this on the table and

ask you how we can proceed from here. This is a charged political

issue, and I think the effort ought to be by all of us to try to defuse

that tension, to uncharge it, but it has broken down largely along

partisan lines. I mean, I just want to sort of lay it out on the table

the way it is.

15

Democrats have tended to support the use of statistical sampling,

because it appears to be a method of more accurately counting the

minority population, those undercounted, and I guess if I were telling the truth about it, by and large, most people would say, ‘‘Well,

those folks tend to be of sort of Democratic proclivity,’’ whereas the

people double-counted and the people on the upside who would just

as soon see the formula not be as generous toward underserved

areas have tended to be Republicans. Republicans oppose, Democrats have fought for it.

Now, this started in the Reagan-Bush administrations. The issue

was precipitated by the Census Bureau decision of 1987 to use statistical sampling in the 1990 census in order to correct for the

undercount, and that is when the A.C.E. was first supposed to be

incorporated in the Census, but President Reagan’s Department of

Commerce overruled the bureau and attempted to cancel the funding for sampling. The funds were eventually restored, and plans for

use of the method proceeded.

Then in 1991, President George Bush’s administration appointed

a Census Director, Barbara Bryant, with the support of a 7–2 decision by the Census board, recommended to then-Commerce Secretary Mosbacher that statistical sampling be used to correct the

1990 census. That recommendation was rejected, and the 1990 census was the first census to be less accurate, as a result, than the

previous one.

The matter was then taken up by Congress, resulting in the 1991

passage of legislation directing the National Academy of Sciences

and Census Bureau to design a plan with higher accuracy, and

they came up with the extensive statistical sampling plan.

I might add that many Republicans, including Senator John

McCain and Congressman Gingrich, strongly supported statistical

sampling, and when the Republicans took over Congress after

1994, that is when you began to see a shift in their position.

Now, I say all of this as background, Mr. Secretary, simply to try

to see if there is not some way in this new year for a new administration and this Congress to diffuse some of the politics of this, and

to try to present America with a real bipartisan approach that has

the confidence of everybody that it is not one side trying to protect

its interest versus another, but rather, as Ranking Member Hollings said, we are trying to get the best count we can and the most

available data that gives people the best confidence in the country,

and I wonder if you might share with us, therefore, your sense of

how you proceed from here.

While I am not going to argue with you that you received a recommendation from an Acting Director to proceed in a certain way,

the rationale was that they felt they did not have time to resolve

the issues, and I wonder if you would therefore now say to the

Committee that you are prepared to give them the time, get this

analysis and discrepancy between the data between the A.C.E. and

the Demographic Analysis resolved so that we could see if we can

find a bipartisan acceptable understanding of how we proceed from

here.

Secretary EVANS. Senator, thanks for putting it in perspective,

and your points are well-taken. We have the most accurate census

in history, as I said in my remarks, vast improvement from the

16

1990 census, and I congratulate and salute all of those that were

involved in the effort for their efforts. I look at—and as you acknowledged, I think, as I said in my remarks when I was here in

January, I would look at this with an open mind, transparently,

would listen to the bureau and what their recommendations would

be, and that is what we did. We listened to the professionals, and

the professionals made their recommendation to us and to me and

I accepted that.

Senator KERRY. The recommendation is temporary.

Secretary EVANS. I have said, and I said in my testimony that

they will continue to evaluate the data, and they will continue to

make assessments as to whether or not statistical adjustment will

make the data, could make the data more accurate.

My point was going to be that the lower the undercount is, the

more difficult it is to say that you can statistically adjust the data

to a more accurate level. But will we take more time to evaluate

the data? Yes, we will. I have instructed Bill to do that, and he has

indicated to me that it will be sometime this summer before they

will be willing to be ready to come back to me with a recommendation as to whether or not the data should be statistically adjusted.

Senator KERRY. Well, let me try to put that in perspective. Number 1, you do agree that ESCAP did not decide that the uncorrected

data is more accurate than the corrected data. That decision was

not made, correct?

Secretary EVANS. Repeat that, Senator.

Senator KERRY. That the uncorrected data is more accurate than

the corrected data. That decision has not been made.

Secretary EVANS. Well, what ESCAP said was that at the point

that we made the decision, that they could not conclude that the

A.C.E. data would be more accurate than the data.

Senator KERRY. Well, quoting from the ESCAP report, it says,

‘‘While the majority of the evidence indicates both a continued existence of a

differential undercount of the population and the superior accuracy of the corrected numbers, the Committee has concerns, and until these concerns are fully

investigated and addressed, we cannot recommend using it.’’

Secretary EVANS. They could not recommend to me that it would

be more accurate to use the A.C.E. data at that point.

Senator KERRY. But at this moment we are, by everybody’s understanding, living with an undercounted number of Americans.

We know that. At this moment we know there are an undercounted

number of Americans, and the question is, are we going to find a

way to adjust for that, or are we prepared to live for the next 10

years knowing we have undercounted a number of Americans.

Secretary EVANS. Right, and that is what we are going to continue to work on and see if we can come up with a more accurate

number.

Senator KERRY. Would you make the following commitment to

the Committee: Would you make the commitment that we will have

a resolution of whether or not your department will use corrected

data for the purpose of allocating Federal funds? I mean, that is

really what this fight is about, and the question is going to be

whether or not we are going to have the opportunity for those Federal funds to be distributed in the most fair basis possible. I am

not asking for an overcount.

17

Secretary EVANS. I understand.

Senator KERRY. No one here is asking you to overcount, but we

simply know we cannot live with an undercount.

Now, can we have a commitment that this Committee will have

a chance to review with you that decision before those Federal

funds are allocated?

Secretary EVANS. Yes, you do.

Senator KERRY. And you would come back to us?

Secretary EVANS. Yes, I will.

Senator KERRY. I think that is very important. I appreciate that

enormously. I mean, look, it is in all of our interests to do this as

fairly as possible, and resolve the difference between the statistical

results. There are some people arguing the Demographic Analysis

may be in error, and the A.C.E. may, in fact, be more accurate, and

the question is, if that is true, there may be a way to resolve that,

and I suppose—my colleagues are here and I want to give them an

opportunity also, but let me just ask you this. Would you be prepared to release the A.C.E. data down to the block level so that scientists across the country can help make this judgment in resolving any undetected problems?

Secretary EVANS. Let me turn to Bill and let him respond to

that.

Mr. BARRON. Senator, we think at this juncture to release the

data down to the block level would be misleading to folks. In fact,

from the experts I have talked to, I do not believe they think they

need data at the block level to make this decision, but if someone

believes that to be the case we would be happy to entertain that

request. We provide a lot of data to the National Academy of

Sciences and others.

Senator KERRY. Well, I assume someone could FOIA it.

Mr. BARRON. I suppose they could, Senator.

Senator KERRY. Would it not be better to do this in a cooperative,

open way? I mean, if the data in fact supports the conclusion that

the quality was generally good, I would think you would want that

to be thoroughly analyzed and support your conclusion.

Mr. BARRON. Block-level data are notoriously noisy data sets.

Throughout most of this process I have had to defend every blocklevel adjustment, and we have had to say at that level the A.C.E.

does not improve data.

You have to start aggregating data above blocks to see the improvement that dual system estimation, or sampling, as it has become known popularly, brings to the process, so by emphasizing

block-level data we are really taking the worst part of the whole

process and putting it out on the street, and at this juncture, since

we have no confidence in those numbers, we do not want to do

that.

Senator KERRY. Well, let me come back to that. I want to be fair

to my colleagues.

Senator Brownback.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Senator Kerry.

18

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. First, thanks for the

great picture that you are showing America. It is on a regular basis

the people who are reviewing this data, and it really helps us to

look and see who we are today, and it provides the data and the

background. I think that is a very valuable thing. We can discuss

political issues here, and those are important to discuss, but the

picture you are showing to America is far more important, what

the people are seeing, and I think you have done a very nice job

of that.

One thing I want to ask you about in looking forward on the census and looking at the next census, and on your American community survey, was this year, this census for the first time since I

think we have conducted, or at least since 1880, we did not ask on

the short form about marital status, the first time since 1880 that

we have not asked that, and the reason I want to draw to your attention is that family structure has such an important impact on

what takes place to our children, what environment our children

are working in.

This is really very important and useful information for people

to be able to have, to study, and to look forward to what is going

to happen to our families and what is going to happen to our children. I am hopeful that as you look forward to the 2010 survey on

the short form you will reinstate that marital question. There was

a vote in the Senate last year unanimously in favor of doing that

and reinstating that marital status question, and I am hopeful that

you will do that.

Any thoughts? Have you had a chance to look at that?

Mr. BARRON. Senator, I was not at the Census Bureau when the

final decisions on the short form were made, but certainly what you

are asking for on a go-forward basis is exactly what we intend to

do. We will be working with the Congress, and I think the Office

of Management and Budget is coordinating that, but we have

heard you, and we will be working with the Congress to decide

what the questionnaire is going to look like for 2010 and in the

A.C.E.

Senator BROWNBACK. Good. I hope you will look at that issue, because it really does have a huge impact. The second item is on your

American community survey, which as I understand it is an ongoing, almost rolling survey that continues to be working. I have been

particularly concerned that the census long form did not do an adequate job of gathering the family structure in the country, such

that we have lost valuable data on what our families look like

across the country.

I want to draw your attention—I would ask you again here what

steps are being taken to ensure the American communities survey

improves and enhances data collection on family structure in America, and I would not be so pointed on this, except for this impact

on what is happening to our children and what happens on our

school system and what happens in crime, within all of the various

things that impact our society and impact our Government. We

need that information in a solid form.

Any thoughts on what you are looking at on the family data either, Mr. Secretary, or Mr. Barron?

19

Mr. BARRON. The answer would be the same, Senator. In the

2000 census there was a very narrowly applied rule that if it was

not explicitly required by law, or to support a legal purpose, then

the questions were not asked, but this time we will be happy to

work with the Congress to see if a broader approach could be

taken, and we will obviously keep your thoughts in mind as we go

through that.

Senator BROWNBACK. If you could. Senator Moynihan, before he

left the Senate, and I worked closely on statistical gathering, and

its impact on the country, and his point was that until we figured

out a way to measure economic data like unemployment, inflation

rates—we didn’t know how to change things.

To be able to change something you have go to be able to measure it, and probably one of the most valuable things we can do at

the Federal level is to be able to provide accurate measurements,

whether it is on economic factors or social factors, and you probably

have the lead tool for us on social factors of what is taking place

across the country, and for us to be able to move in a positive direction socially we have got to have better numbers here and be able

to provide it on a state-by-state, major geographic basis, and then

let communities react to those numbers.

That is probably the most valuable thing we could do, and he

and I were very strong on pushing that point. Thank you. I know

we are under a time line, and we are under a vote, so I would yield

to my colleague from California, or the chairman, and I will look

forward to working with you on these two issues.

Senator KERRY. I am going to go vote, and I will be right back,

Mr. Secretary.

Senator BOXER. Senator, do you want to put us in a recess?

Senator KERRY. If necessary.

Senator BOXER. Well, I do not want to miss the vote.

Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is nice to see you, and nice to see you,

Mr. Barron, and I look forward to working with you on this and

many other issues. I will be brief, because we do have this vote,

and Senator Brownback, please do not feel obliged to listen if you

have to leave. It may not be your favorite point of view here.

Well, my overriding principle has been from day 1 that we need

the most accurate count, and I know we all feel that way. I have

reasons to feel that way that go beyond just the fairness questions

to real pragmatics, which is what happens to California when there

is an undercount. With a population of 34 million people, we get

the worst of it. We usually do.

I will explain what happened in the last census and how many

dollars were shorted to my state for children, old people, transportation, and all the things we need. I do want to commend the bureau for producing a more accurate census in 2000 than was produced in 1990. However, I do share the concerns of many of my colleagues, Congresswoman Maloney and others, that the accuracy in

coverage evaluation (A.C.E.) used to measure the accuracy of the

raw counts shows there still remains a significant differential

undercount for our minority groups compared to others.

That means that in my state, which has large minority populations, many urban communities will not receive the Federal

funds they need desperately for basic programs, and their residents

20

will lack the proportionate representation that is their basic right

under the Constitution.

The Census Bureau has admitted that in the 2000 census at

least 6.4 million people were missed, mostly in the cities, and 3.1

million others were double-counted, mostly in the suburbs. According to a report in the New York Times, those numbers could be

higher, with the bureau having missed as many as 7.6 million people, and double-counting 4.3 million others.

Now, for my state, that is just not an acceptable result. As a re- sult of the 1990 undercount, California lost nearly $214 million in

Federal funds, and the city of L.A. alone lost $120 million in Federal and state funds. Millions of dollars are at stake for educating

our children, for title I, for health services, for the poor through

Medicaid, and for a multitude of other services like child care and

day care that allow parents to go to work and have peace of mind. For the 2000 census, $400 million was spent on improving the A.C.E. and $700 million spent on improving the raw count. That

is a lot of money, and Iam troubled by the fact, Mr. Barron, that

you are not interested in releasing these numbers. They are not the

secret property of the Census Bureau. They belong to the American

people. The American people spent a lot of money, and I think

these numbers belong to the American people. I would like to see

you reconsider your decision. I think it is going to happen anyway.

It is a democracy. It is going to happen.

Second, I would love to see the Census Bureau move with immediate haste to resolve the issues that have distorted the numbers

and provide Congress with adjusted numbers well before the fall

deadline for determining the distribution of Federal funds. As I

say, these are not luxury programs. They are very necessary services to people who are trying to grab the American dream. They

need these funds.

I certainly look forward to working with Secretary Evans. He and

I have a nice working relationship. I want to keep it that way, and

with you, Director Barron, and with my colleagues in Congress,

and with organizations like the National Association of Latino

Elected and Appointed Officials, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, so that we can reach a consensus on an adjustment to

the census that reflects an accurate count.

I have questions. What I will do is place them in the record, because immediately following the vote, I am due at a conference on

the environment. I have a few disagreements on little things like

arsenic and lead, so I will not be returning. However, I will be submitting these questions for the record, and again, I make these requests in friendship, in a spirit of cooperation.

I think we still have time to work together to put everything out

on the table and try to do our best to get an accurate count. Our

people deserve it. I think you know that. USA Today reports that

350,000 people in Texas could have been undercounted. In New

York, 300,000 may have been ubdercounted; in California a 1⁄2 million. These are not little side bars. These are living human beings

who, for the most part, deserve the services that we provide.

So thank you very, very much, and we will stand in recess until

Senator Kerry returns, which should be any minute now. Thank

you very much.

21

[Recess.]

Senator KERRY. The Committee will come back to order, please.

Mr. Secretary, thank you. You have been very kind to hang in

there. I am not going to keep you more than just a couple of minutes, because I know you are already late for your meeting.

Just one question. Mr. Secretary, I think we spent something

like $7 billion on the census itself, and some $400 million was

spent on the accuracy coverage evaluation. What does the bureau

allocate for the Demographic Analysis model?

Secretary EVANS. I do not know what that number is, do you?

Mr. BARRON. I do not. It is clearly smaller.

Senator KERRY. It is considerably smaller.

Mr. BARRON. I think it is $250 million for the A.C.E.

Senator KERRY. Not that the accuracy is obviously measured by

the amount of money we spend, is it not? I mean, is there some

reason to believe that, in fact, we may have a more accurate A.C.E.

model now than we do Demographic Analysis at this point? Is that

conceivable?

Mr. BARRON. I think the value of Demographic Analysis, Senator,

in part is that it is an independent check on the quality of the

A.C.E. It is not a system that has changed a lot over time, but except for one very important omission that I can talk about, the base

system of adding births and deaths is, we think, a pretty solid system. There is an issue with exactly what the solution is to improve

that in terms of money. We are looking at that, but I do not know

that on a go-forward basis we are going to have a proposal that we

are seeing, if money would improve this problem. We are not sure

it would.

Senator KERRY. Do you see any problems in terms of the timeframe we are looking at before we have to make judgments about

the distribution of funds that would be able to come to a public conclusion that can be sort of put to the test with respect to trying to

resolve the discrepancies between data sets?

Mr. BARRON. Senator, I think unlike the period we just went

through, where in essence we had to make a decision by March 1,

I think that by fall we are going to be able to go to the Secretary

with an analysis of the issues we encountered, not just on Demographic Analysis, but also with the accuracy and coverage evaluation survey, and make a recommendation. I am confident we are

going to be able to do that. If not, then I am going to have to come

up and tell you that I am not, and why I am not.

Senator KERRY. Well, Mr. Secretary, can I make a suggestion

that is made in completely good faith to try to resolve this? I can

understand why you made the decision you made, given the input

you had, given the time issue and you obviously had pressure on

you with respect to redistricting, needless to say, you have got to

make a decision. But on the other hand, I would hope you could

also understand the measure of concern and even skepticism that

a lot of people have about what may happen now, as we proceed

down the road.

It seems to me it is very much in your interest—I mean, to look

at the California potential lawsuit now, you look at the questions

raised, it just does not serve any of us well to have the country at

22

odds over the methodology by which we determine how many folks

are living here.

There ought to be some way of people acting in good faith to

come up with an agreement that the data is trustworthy, that the

methodology is trustworthy, and all we are talking about is a fair

count. I can assure you there is no way for me to be advantaged

or for the folks you are arguing for to be, quote, advantaged in this

because we are not going to get an overcount.

The only issue is, will the overcount issue be addressed in a way

that gives confidence to people this has been done fairly for the

purpose of the next 10-years distribution. I would think you would

want it to be done to the greatest capacity possible, and I sense you

do, but I just want to encourage you to consider the notion that if

the data is out there, subject to analysis, it will be subject to different people’s analysis. It is better, probably, to suffer that than

to have people saying you are hiding something, or you are unwilling to submit it to scrutiny, so I would strongly urge you to let

folks kind of pore over it.

I do not think that is going to resolve the issue completely, but

hopefully we can work together, Mr. Secretary, in the next months

to come to some conclusion about how we can avoid any controversy over this.

Secretary EVANS. Senator, we will give that consideration and

give it some thought. We share the same ultimate goal. We both

want the American people to believe that the data that we have released are fair and are accurate. But there is another component

to just the count, and that is the location, where these people live.

When you get into the statistical analysis and that portion of adjustment, it gets complicated and complex, and those are some of

the issues that I know that the professionals struggle with.

It is not only, having to say how many people, but you have to

determine where they live, all the way down to the block level. So

know that you and I share the same goal. We both want the American people to have the fairest and most accurate data that we can

provide them, and that is what I intend to do.

Senator KERRY. Well, I appreciate that commitment, and obviously, I mean, this is something people have struggled with for

long periods of time. I think the statistical sampling has become remarkably sophisticated. It is subject to huge amounts of scientific

statistical analysis and tends to be objected to, frankly, on the partisan lines I have described That is its own message, and I think

we need to be particularly sensitive to that message as we go forward here.

We have the scientific know-how about how to make up for this

undercount without at all abusing the other side of the coin, if you

will. There are ways even to weight that statistical sampling to

guarantee that you don’t abuse it, so it seems to me that the test

here is the test of good faith, and the effort to try to not live another 10 years with an undercount that everybody acknowledges

exists.

There must be some way to make up that undercount fairly and

thoughtfully. That said, Mr. Secretary, we have taken more of your

time than you had originally agreed to, and I am very, very appreVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
23

ciative for your doing so, and I apologize to whoever it is you are

keeping waiting.

Thank you very much.

Secretary EVANS. Thank you, Senator, very much.

Senator KERRY. What we will do is go to the third panel, and we

will just announce ahead of time we will interrupt that panel the

minute our Members of Congress come back. They have a vote, and

obviously have a distance to travel, so if we could invite Dr.

Ericksen, Dr. Murray, Mr. Vargas, and Dr. Wachter, we will commence, and then we will interrupt, as I said, at the appropriate

time.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. I appreciate your

participation in this hearing very much. I notice the hearing room

half-emptied as the Secretary left with members of the Commerce

Department. I do not know if we had the whole Census Bureau

here or what.

Dr. Murray, why don’t we begin with you, and we will just run

right across the table, and I appreciate your being here.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID W. MURRAY, DIRECTOR,

STATISTICAL ASSESSMENT SERVICE AND CENSUS

MONITORING BOARD, CONGRESSIONALLY

APPOINTED MEMBER

Dr. MURRAY. Thank you, Senator. I am Dr. David Murray. It is

a pleasure and honor to be in front of you, Senator Kerry and

Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear before you to

discuss the 2000 decennial census.

I serve as director of the Statistical Assessment Service here in

town. I am also here in my capacity as a congressionally appointed

member of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board. As you know, Congress created this bipartisan panel to observe and report on preparation and implementation of Census 2000, and I have written testimony which I will submit, and I also request one thing, Senator.

In my written testimony, I alluded to a report that our monitoring

board put out. I brought a copy of that, and if that is acceptable

I would like to also include that as part of my testimony.

Senator KERRY. Absolutely. We will make the full report a part

of the record.

Dr. MURRAY. Coming to grips with technical issues in the census

is obviously a challenge to all of us, and I think in particular for

Senators who have to quickly come up to speed on the issue. I tried

to prepare in my mind an analogy as to where we stand, and I

hope this is a reasonable and homiletic expression of what our difficulty is.

Every 10 years, as it were, the country has to balance its checkbook.

Senator KERRY. Pull the mike up a little bit.

Dr. MURRAY. Every 10 years, sir, the country has to balance its

checkbook, has to bring its accounts into rectification. It has three

ways of measuring and looking at what our balance might be, and

we have to do that with the census. Our fundamental problem is,

we cannot balance our checkbook this time. The three different

measures we have give us a different set of results.

24

Now, we can count our dollars. That’s the enumeration. That

gives us a sense. We can go back and look at the bank records and

our check register. That is what the Demographic Analysis (DA) is

roughly comparable to. It gives us a very different picture of what

our true balance is. Or we can take a sample of about 3⁄10ths of 1

percent of the households of our account and try to correct it based

on that.

We have three fundamentally different measures that in some

measure all of them have strengths and weaknesses. Each one has

a weak point. Each one has relative strengths, but they differ from

each other in a fundamental and inconsistent way that we found

could not reconcile, and as such we do not necessarily have one

number that is better than another.

We do not necessarily know that we can correct the census by

using, for instance, the A.C.E. What we have is different numbers.

The A.C.E. gives us a different number than the enumeration does.

The DA gives us a different number than the enumeration does.

Given that circumstance it seemed the most prudent course of action was to stick with the one, the devil we knew, rather than the

devil that we don’t, and it was a prudent and wise decision to go

with the enumerated numbers as the most accurate that occasion

the fewest number of costs to the system.

In some sense the A.C.E. began to be problematic, as is the DA,

and the sense that the cure may have been worse than the disease,

and let me just say a couple of formal things here. Where do we

stand with an estimated undercount of only 1.18 percent? That is,

we have a census that at the moment is 98.82 percent accurate. We

should realize that the cost-benefit ratio of our respective choices

begins to shift.

Given all the attendant legal and political difficulties that the

A.C.E. engenders, its saving grace was that it might be a good

technical fix, but now that is in question. The A.C.E. appears to

have levels of statistical noise in its probability fluctuations that

are greater in magnitude than this signal it was designed to detect

and correct, that is the 1.18 percent undercount is smaller in magnitude than the error range that we use out of the statistical sample. The probability fluctuation is greater than that.

Applying the adjustment to a census as accurate as the one we

have just completed begins to slide down the slope of diminishing

returns, technically, as well as in terms of governance consequences. We face a genuine dilemma which the ESCAP report

issued at the end of February well captured. The actual enumerated Census 2000 count placed us in a new and perplexing landscape, one unanticipated by the designers of the A.C.E.

The count of 281.4 million surpassed the best reckoning of the

population given by the Demographic Analysis by nearly 2 million

people. This is an anomalous outcome, since the DA has traditionally stood above the enumerated count and told us about the magnitude of the undercount in the enumeration.

Now, we have broken through the DA measurement. By the reckoning of the DA we actually have an overcount as the measurement that we get from the DA and the enumerated census. Perhaps, on the other hand, the enumerated census was, in fact, a

25

huge achievement, diminishing the undercount substantially, so

much so that it is the most accurate number we have.

Various scenarios to explain the irreconcilability have been proposed by the ESCAP report and by others, but no scenario has

achieved a reconciliation without introducing yet other anomalies.

We are somewhat like the person who has a sheet over us. We pull

the sheet up to cover our chin, and find our feet exposed. We pull

the sheet down to cover our feet, we find our chin exposed. Every

statistical adjustment that we try to bring to bear produces new

anomalies and new problems.

The emerging and tentative adjustment from the A.C.E. took us

even further away from solid ground, with an estimated result for

approximately 284.7 million. The gap with the enumeration count

is substantial, while the gap between A.C.E. and DA is fundamentally problematic, too large, in fact, to be reconciled by any scenario

yet deployed. Moreover, the A.C.E. itself contains internal anomalies that are difficult to engage with.

A.C.E. may be a valuable tool that tells us things about the

undercount, that tells us things about the quality of the census, but

the A.C.E. data cannot be shown to be more accurate than the

numbers which they would replace, the enumerated numbers. The

fundamental requirement of the A.C.E. was that it be superior to

the data which they would supplant. The deepest fear is that using

the A.C.E. numbers introduces error and irreconcilability, particularly at the local level, where apportionment decisions must be

made in redistricting.

As such, it may actually be a cure worse than the disease, producing more problems and more anomalies than we already have,

hence the prudent idea that we go with the unadjusted data as the

best course of action, and learn the lesson that basically an intensified census at the local level has a stronger chance to correct the

fundamental problem we address, the undercount.

We all care about the undercounted. We want to attain incorporating them into the system. It looks as if the best alternative

way of doing that is to intensify and strengthen the census count

itself, and not resort to an unproven method of probability that introduces more problems than it solves.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Murray follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID W. MURRAY, DIRECTOR, STATISTICAL

ASSESSMENT SERVICE AND CENSUS MONITORING BOARD, CONGRESSIONALLY

APPOINTED MEMBER

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the 2000 decennial census. I serve as the Director

of the Statistical Assessment Service and I am also here in my capacity as a Congressionally Appointed Member of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board. As you know,

Congress created this bipartisan panel to observe and report on the preparation and

implementation of Census 2000.

Rarely has a policy dispute generated a ratio of heat-to-light greater than did the

just-concluded census dispute over the use of statistically adjusted data for apportionment of political power. Because the matter is dauntingly technical, the press

faced a serious challenge in telling the story, no matter how many explanatory data

charts and expert consultations were available. Nevertheless, even given the difficulty of the task, the media’s performance over the last three years was (except

for a couple of stories from the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times) uniformly disappointing.

26

Most succumbed to the temptation to cast the story as purely political, with potential winners and losers resorting to raw clout as they disdained scientific accuracy.

In general, those who favored adjusted numbers were characterized as seeking to

‘‘count every American’’ (and incidentally aid their party’s representation), even

though their proposal was in fact to estimate, rather than actually count, missing

people. Alternately, those who expressed doubts were cast as opponents of ‘‘modern

scientific methods’’ seeking to preserve political advantage by deliberately ignoring

missing people, principally members of minority communities and children.

As the Houston Chronicle (Feb. 22) editorialized, ‘‘Some ideologues oppose correcting the numbers . . . The opponents of statistical analysis are mistaken, of

course . . . Those who oppose adjustments . . . either do not understand arithmetic,

or they understand it all too well.’’ The ‘‘whose ox is gored’’ story line built around

putative political motives nearly always won out over real engagement with the

technical complexities. As a consequence, numerous myths about the census adjustment process and its supposed consequences were introduced into the media bloodstream.

In the resultant morality play, adjustment advocates usually came off as earnest

advocates for the poor, who could be aided by a simple application of statistical justice. Those who favored an enumerated count, on the other hand, were often cast

as stubbornly refusing to use a readily available technical means to solve a social

problem—‘‘correcting’’ the undercount by statistics. Lost in the fracas were genuine

arguments about the feasibility and advisability of supplanting the standard enumeration with these technical means—a position ultimately validated not only by

the Supreme Court decision of January, 1999, but as well on February 28, 2001 by

the decision of the Census Bureau itself. The enumerated count prevailed for good

technical, not political, reasons.

At first glance, the undercount problem should have a simple solution. In the

1990 census, the net undercount was roughly 4 million people, about 1.6 percent of

a population of 248 million. That is, 98.4 percent were properly enumerated (in contrast, the 2000 census missed approximately 3 million, which represented just 1.18

percent of 281 million people—a 25 percent improvement). We knew about the

undercount because we could compare the enumeration to higher figures from Demographic Analysis, which were regarded as more accurate. We could have saved

a lot of money (the 2000 census cost over $6 billion, much of which goes to finding

that last percent) by simply adding a 1.6 percent ‘‘correction’’ to the overall population and calling it quits. But the census, unlike other government data, needs to

know two things about Americans—how many in the aggregate, and also, how many

in geographical (and demographic) distribution, in the smallest geography/detail.

That is, accuracy means not only getting the total count right, but positioning people where they actually reside, so that apportionment of political power can be congruent with their actual presence. And now the social problem gets tricky, because

the undercount (either the1990 1.6 percent or the 2000 1.18 percent) is not evenly

distributed geographically (it tends to cluster in a handful of counties nationwide—

mostly dense urban ones), nor is it evenly distributed demographically. This becomes the heart of the challenge.

In general, the likelihood of being undercounted is thought to be related to being

identified in various racial/ethnic groups (among other factors, such as home ownership). Members of minority communities are more at risk for undercount, other

things being equal, than are non-Hispanic Whites. This means that the 1990

undercount of 1.6 percent was actually composed of a 0.7 percent undercount rate

for non-Hispanic Whites, a 4.6 percent rate for Blacks, a 5.0 percent rate for Hispanics, all the way up to an estimated 12.2 percent rate for American Indians on

reservations. Because there are legal triggers involved in these disproportions—

there has to be a differential adjustment distributed proportionally, not a uniform

add-back. Doing this correctly, so that one actually improves accuracy rather than

introducing more problems into the count, is an enormous mathematical challenge.

Here we encounter the first media-generated myth—that the statistical adjustment was based on a proper sampling methodology, like we find in political poll taking, which could then be used to ‘‘correct’’ the undercount. This is only partly true.

The actual process of determining who was likely missed in the census derives from

wildlife biology, where it is known as a ‘‘capture/re-capture’’ form of ‘‘dual system

estimation’’ (DSE). Want to know the number (and the species proportions) of fish

in a lake? One could drain the lake and count the bodies, but a more viable process

is to cast a net, capture and count a sample of the fish, and then tag them. After

the fish are released, one makes another cast and re-captures some of the tagged

fish in another sample. By comparing the two catches, we can figure out the ratios

of those caught in this ‘‘dual’’ system and make good estimates about the real population of the lake.

27

Of course, the system isn’t perfect. Some types of fish are likely to be missed in

both the first and the second net cast. These are termed the ‘‘wily trout’’ about

which we can only make indirect guesses, if we already suspect that they’re ‘‘really

there.’’ So why do we suspect that they are really there in the population? Largely

by comparing our enumeration to another measurement, vital statistics records such

as birth and death certificates, which tend to give us a higher count of the population than those enumerated. These record provide what was introduced above, the

Demographic Analysis (DA—about which more in a moment), which serves to indicate our likely shortfall. (Some have wondered why we do not just rely on a Demographic Analysis-type census in the first place, based on a variety of administrative

records. The thought deserves consideration, but there are problems. For instance,

the DA itself depends upon an estimate, since the number of those immigrating and

emigrating must be modeled.)

Granting that there is an undercount, what is the best response? Some advocated

intensifying the enumeration, trying to reach all quarters (or at least substantially

reducing those missed). They have been substantially vindicated by the 2000 outcome, which saw the straightforward enumeration actually cut each of the differential undercounts by half or more—a genuine triumph. Others decided to try an experiment. The DSE methodology was thought sound enough that it could be incorporated into the census design, which would first take one cast of the net (the actual

count, which is in reality a sample of the population, since we know some were

missed), and then return to take another sample of 314,000 households, the denizens of which were ‘‘caught’’ again. This process was called the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.). By comparing the records for an address on the two captures, one can find correct ‘‘matches’’ (a person found both in the enumeration and

the re-capture), find overcounts (those found in the enumeration, not found in the

follow-up), and ‘‘find’’ undercounts (those appearing in the more intensive search of

the A.C.E., but not recorded in the enumeration). So far, so good. Matches and mismatches form the basis for a statistical model of how to adjust the whole population,

both upward and downward, for various groups.

But what about those ‘‘wily trout’’ that evade being caught in either net? That

remains a genuine dilemma, the technical name for which is ‘‘correlation bias.’’

There are people who are nearly impossible to reach no matter the methodology,

and they make up an unknown proportion of the undercount. Basically, you cannot

know what you cannot find. An attempted solution is to ‘‘model’’ those people based

on those you did find who were likewise hard to count, such as using anomalies in

the sex ratios of those found in certain demographic groups. For instance, if we assume women are easier to catch than the men who correspond to them in age and

race, and we find proportionally more women in our counts, we can estimate the

number of men who ‘‘should’’ be there as well. We can only hope that the sex ratios

provide a good model of the unknown; there is no way to demonstrate it.

Measurement errors in either of the two ‘‘samples’’ are a real threat (as is the

fact that some data are not based on actually touching someone’s nose, but are derived from information provided by proxy—a neighbor or even projected onto a

household from the characteristics of nearby community members with ‘‘similar’’

characteristics—this is known as ‘‘imputation’’). After all, even the perfect plan is

being implemented on the ground by an army of recently hired part-time census

workers who are as prone to mistakes and fatigue as any of us.

Even when all goes well in the field the greatest problem is the matching process.

Remember that we tagged the fish, presumably on the fin. This is not a popular

thing for the American government to do to the people who happen to be residing

here (the census counts citizens and anyone else present as well), no matter how

efficient it could make the census. Moreover, fish rarely all on their own suddenly

pull up stakes, as it were, and depart for another lake, nearby or across the country,

without letting us know. Hence, we’re never really sure that we’re catching and

matching the same fish when we make our DSE comparison, which we will then

project onto the whole population. (In an earlier incarnation of the A.C.E. design

attempted in 1990, a single mis-matched family of five led to nearly 45,000 people

being erroneously added into the adjusted population. This problem and other very

consequential mistakes in the earlier version—dubbed the PES, for Post Enumeration Survey—were only discovered two years after the 1990 census by a panel of

expert reviewers. Fortunately, the PES adjustment was not applied.)

But let’s put all those concerns aside for a moment, and presume that all went

well in the measurement process. Have we really taken a sample with the A.C.E.

that can then be used to correct the count? The answer is still, um, not exactly.

There are several remaining steps to go. There is first the problem of selecting the

314,000 A.C.E. households. Every pollster knows that a proper sample, which will

be used to extrapolate opinions ‘‘upward,’’ as it were, onto the entire population (not,

28

as has been noted, what the A.C.E. actually does), must guard against being skewed

or biased in its selection of participants. The best guard is to have a systematically

random probability process for the selection. But this can not be done exactly for

the A.C.E. design, since there are constraints on the sample that result in tradeoffs. For instance, there must be some households allocated to every one of the 50

states, and further, we must ensure that the households are ‘‘distributed’’ in such

a way that they represent demographic groups of interest.

When the households are selected, some weighting formulas have to be devised

to make sure that their members adequately represent the groups in question in

the overall sample. Skeptics of the process wondered just how much the selection

of the A.C.E. households and the weightings applied could pre-shape the kind of answers that the sample was inclined to provide. (Because of correlation bias, we believe that the A.C.E. adjustment is prone to report that certain demographic groups

were ‘‘undercounted’’ virtually no matter how good the initial count turned out to

be. That is, the A.C.E. process may itself be biased to ‘‘discover’’ an undercount for

certain types of people, perhaps even in conditions when the initial count itself was,

in the aggregate, already too high.) At any rate, thinking that the sample selection

and weighting was based on scientific grounds alone became a matter of (by all indications, properly granted) trust.

But the most important step was to divide up the 314,000 households into what

were termed ‘‘post-strata.’’ That is, the population in the sample was stratified and

assigned into multiple cells that, according to the A.C.E.’s sociology, represented appropriate ‘‘types’’ of Americans. The appropriateness of a type was related to the

probability that an individual in one of those cells would be missed in the enumerated census. The post-strata (think of the cells in an Excel spreadsheet) represented

the intersection of variables like race/ethnicity, sex, age, and tenure (homeownership or not), the whole apparatus further divided by four regions of the country and

by type of community (a range of larger-to-smaller metropolitan areas continuing to

rural). As it turns out, only the largest post-stratified type, non-Hispanic Whites,

were subdivided into the full set of post-strata distinctions. For most other types,

the cells had to be conflated because of small absolute numbers, meaning that Asian

Americans, for instance, were placed into two national cells (owner and non-owner)

without regional breakdowns.

That is, not all groups were post-stratified by the same criteria. Proportionally

larger demographic types (whites) could be subdivided more finely without seriously

affecting data quality, while other smaller demographic groups had to be treated as

broad bands across the whole country (that is, the data were national in the first

instance, and no effort was made to subdivide them by finer-grained distinctions).

This decision would have later consequences, such as being forced to ‘‘adjust’’ the

population of one state based on data actually derived from nearby, or even relatively distant, states. (This fact led some adjustment critics to argue that the

A.C.E. design seemed more consequential in shifting demographic shares within the

population rather than prioritizing the need for accurate state-by-state counts of all

demographic groups.) Other post-strata subdivisions, such as the number of agegroup breakdowns or the degrees of community density, were likewise collapsed for

some demographic groups where numbers were small, while for those under age 18,

the male-female distinction itself was dropped. (Representative examples of poststrata would be non-Hispanic white male homeowner between the ages of 18–29 living in the northeast in a large metropolitan area; Hispanic female renter between

30 and 49 living in a rural area anywhere in the country).

While at first glance a sample of 314,000 households (close to a million people)

is a huge number, providing reassurances about likely margins of sample error (the

larger the sample, the smaller the likely probability spread, ideally), the actual population of each post-stratum cell becomes mathematically problematic. There were

initially 448 post-strata in the A.C.E. (later conflated to 416). Hence, the 314,000

households divided by 416 post-strata actually yields only a little over 700 households per cell. That’s not a reassuring number for sampling margin of error purposes, especially when we realize that the total number of households were not

evenly divided among the post-strata. Because there are so few Americans in some

of the assumed demographic ‘‘types,’’ (example: Hawaiian or Pacific Islander female

aged 50+ renting a house-trailer in rural Wyoming), the cells representing them,

even when distributed regionally or nationally, are dangerously sparse.

Further, all of these purely quantitative concerns must be coupled with the apparent arbitrariness and uncertainty about the sociological assumptions underlying the

choice of American ‘‘types.’’ Were the assumptions actually legitimate models of the

probability of being enumerated? We simply don’t know. Overall, we must realize

that the census represents the intersection of sophisticated quantification (assumptions about numbers) with real human beings (assumptions about which are, unforVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
29

tunately, anything but a sophisticated science). The A.C.E. design represents the

place where two sets of very complicated models of the world derived from two very

different disciplines interact, with any errors (in theory or in implementation)

compounding each other. The results are then magnified by becoming the basis for

adjusting the data on 281 million other people, the A.C.E. being considered the last

word in accuracy, and hence, the benchmark standard for calibrating the entire US

data collection system. Suffice it to say, the stakes are high for such a probability

mechanism of unproven reliability.

And all that has been discussed above transpires before the results are released

to the public, and ultimately encounters the requirements of the legal and constitutional system, fundamental provisions of which contradict the A.C.E. activity on the

face of it. Finally, in a development beyond the scope of this discussion, we must

remember the indeterminacy added to this census by the first-ever multiple-race selection, cross-cutting the whole system with 126 possible choices of racial/ethnic selfidentification (which choices have themselves been acknowledged to be completely

arbitrary governmental categories with no basis in scientific fact; moreover, the

choices are unstable even in single individuals at different times).

What are the particular quantitative dangers of the post-strata? Demographers

realize that they are caught in their own statistical version of Heisenberg’s ‘‘uncertainty principle’’ when it comes to dividing samples into strata. You can pursue one

piece of information, but only at the expense of its counterpart. The twin problems

that must be balanced are ‘‘variance’’ and ‘‘homogeneity.’’ Let us start with the second one. If we were devising a statistical model to subdivide inanimate objects, such

as steel washers coming from an assembly line which we wanted to quality-check,

our sample need not worry too much about homogeneity. We can look for variation

in defects, let us say, while being reassured that most fundamentals would remain

relatively constant (the washers wouldn’t suddenly form into quartets and start

singing, for instance).

With humans (and somewhat less so for fish), that is not so clear. Homogeneity

is assumed whenever we expect a given cluster of people to react the same way to

some variable (in this case, getting counted). The larger the group of people chosen,

the less assured we are that they are reliably homogenous. Let us say we were interested in the likelihood of being missed in the census and we treated as alike all

Hispanic females nationwide older than 29 but younger than 50. Unfortunately, we

would be led to believe thereby that a migrant worker who did not finish high school

living in a colonia in rural New Mexico is as likely to have been missed in the census as a Member of Congress living in suburban New York City. That is bad sociology (moreover, the thinking is suspiciously akin to what in other contexts is

termed ‘‘racial profiling’’).

Rather obviously, the way to avoid over-homogenizing is to have the group to

which the assumptions apply be fairly narrow. The smaller the cluster of people, the

greater the likelihood that they genuinely share characteristics of importance. But

now we are settling onto the other horn of the dilemma. Groups small enough to

be reliably similar are also small enough to produce large variance (the statistical

‘‘spread’’ of the data) when their results are applied beyond the group. Hence, the

design problem for the A.C.E.: develop sufficient post-strata that every cell is composed of reasonably homogeneous members, but do not make so many post-strata

that small cells produce inherently unreliable sample data. Once again, a trade-off

is faced, trying to optimize a response to the twin challenges.

As it turns out, the National Academy of Sciences, which was routinely characterized by the press as having ‘‘endorsed’’ census adjustment, in reality only agreed to

the principle of statistical adjustment as quantitatively sound. Some members were

never enthusiastic about some particulars of the actual A.C.E. plan (much less its

field implementation), especially given that it was hurriedly developed in response

to a 1999 Supreme Court decision ruling against a much more ambitious version

of statistical adjustment, an effort to create a ‘‘one number census’’ based on an Integrated Coverage Measurement.

Let us grant for the moment that the A.C.E. design was adequate for our purposes (and you must not forget that our purposes include political apportionment

and redistricting, as well as the proper distribution of federal funds, over and above

the need to tabulate the aggregate numbers in the census). For all 416 (collapsed)

post-strata, the matching process between the enumeration and the A.C.E. begins

to tell us about which types were overcounted, which were undercounted, and which

are ‘‘just right’’ (once again, this must be a somewhat simplified description; there

are other complicated process to cause concern such as the unduplication of records

or imputations).

Now comes the adjustment activity. Based on the ‘‘signal’’ derived from the

A.C.E., we develop another weighting, regarded as a ‘‘correction factor,’’ which we

30

export back into the total population count after it has been likewise stratified to

match the A.C.E. types. (Again, critics argue over terminology. To term the factor

a ‘‘correction’’ appears to prejudice the case that the result is somehow more accurate than the original number to which it is applied. Accordingly, it may be more

valid to simply term the factor an ‘‘adjustment,’’ acknowledging that the A.C.E.

doesn’t necessarily produce a ‘‘better’’ number, just a different one.) Adjustment factors can be positive (we are adjusting an undercount by using a number higher than

one) or negative (we are adjusting an overcount by using a number less than one).

We then multiply the count for each group in the enumeration by their respective

adjustment factor, the product being what we record as their actual (adjusted)

count.

This latter process led to some surprise when it was realized that the effect was

to ‘‘delete’’ from the census actual people who had bothered to do their civic duty

and fill out a form. Being understandably sensitive about appearances, the Bureau

denies that anyone is deleted. They prefer to note that what happens is merely that

a negative record is imputed to the census count, in effect nullifying the count of

a real person that chose to participate. Whatever terminology we accept in this

issue, a study of the 1990 PES identified no fewer than 1.48 million such ‘‘nullifications’’ based on overcount assumptions. Preliminary data from the Census 2000

A.C.E. indicate approximately one million such nullifications would take place.

At any rate, we are now at a point in our analysis where we can adjust the census

statistically to ‘‘correct’’ the count. If a post-stratum has a positive number, such as

1.08, that means that we found more people in the A.C.E. survey in that stratum

than the enumeration had recorded. Rather than 100 people, let us say, the A.C.E.

is telling us there likely are 108 people. Hence, every time we find a record back

in the enumeration national census for some other one in that post-stratum, we do

not record just a one; we instead write down 1.08 for each one found. That means

for every group of 100 people we find anywhere in the country who fit this profile,

we ‘‘add’’ 8 more people of that type (where, exactly, do we put them? More in a

minute . . .). Now we are rolling at last. For every 10,000 found, we write down

10,800. For every ten million, well, let us see here, the model tells us we have got

800,000 more people just like that, which we have to place somewhere on the map,

even though we’ve never actually met nor counted them directly.

Moreover, some actual post-strata receive corrections that are hefty indeed. Hispanic males aged 30–49 rural non-owners in low enumeration districts, for instance,

receive a correction factor of 1.19; that’s nearly twenty percent, 120 for every 100,

60,000 for every 50,000. These are, in an important sense, virtual people, who must

nevertheless be awarded their ‘‘fair share’’ of very real political power and funding

(which are, by the way, zero-sum entities; if I give this finite resource to someone,

it can only happen at the expense of someone else in direct proportion). It follows,

of course, that for those receiving a negative correction factor, we write down for

every one we encounter a number less than one. So for the presumably overcounted

types, whenever we find them, we write down .92, for instance, and then add them

together. For every 10 million of these losers, of course, we only record 9,200,000.

Even more remarkable, we have just engaged in a process that is not really ‘‘sampling’’ at all, but rather another (and less supportable) statistical maneuver known

as ‘‘synthetic estimation.’’ Recall that the adjustment consists of comparing one sample (the enumeration) with another sample (the A.C.E. population) and seeking

matches. Based on the assumption that the A.C.E. results are always to be considered superior to the actual count (which may not be true, especially if the enumeration, which made a greater effort to activate local community outreach, was more

successful at coverage of the recalcitrant than was the more ‘‘professional’’ A.C.E.

re-contact, undertaken without the intensified community efforts), a set of ‘‘adjustment factors’’ are computed for each post-stratum. So far, so good, as far as statistical probability goes.

But then the adjusted numbers are applied to the entire national population with

each post-stratum receiving its proportional adjustment higher or lower. The overall

effect is a movement that goes in two directions. First the sample adjustments are

adduced upward, as it were, to the national totals, and then brought back down,

as it were, to the local level when the count is adjusted block-by-block.

It is this second movement back down from the aggregated total and distributed

onto the smallest components of the population groupings that causes statistical

concern. When we bring the totals from the national level back into the local aggregations we are engaged in what is no longer ‘‘sampling extrapolation’’ by any means,

but rather a different maneuver—the ‘‘synthetic estimation.’’ The fundamental (and

contested) assumption behind the ‘‘synthetic’’ part is that because a certain proportion or ratio of a population can be asserted about a whole group (the US popuVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
31

lation), therefore each distinct component of the aggregated whole likewise must

mirror those proportions or ratios in equal manner.

But what is true of a statistical whole is not necessarily true of each individual

component (statistics, after all, representing a summed average of many measures).

Imagine for a moment that I discover a ratio of females to males at a university

of thirty thousand students—females are 55 percent, males 45 percent. At the aggregate level, that is, the whole university, this can be accurate, without necessarily

implying that each classroom in the university replicates this exact proportion.

French classes, for instance, may not show the same ratios of female to male as

chemistry courses, even though when taken together they ‘‘average’’ the overall

ratio. To likewise expect every table in the cafeteria to exactly mirror the overall

ratio quickly leads to absurdity—we should expect, under the principles of synthetic

estimation, to find exactly 5.5 females and 4.5 males at every table of ten. Clearly

something is wrong.

And yet this is just what the census adjustment process leads us to formulate.

The adjustment factors for each post-stratum population found in the A.C.E. sample

are ‘‘nationalized,’’ as it were, and then applied down to the local level of neighborhoods, expecting the same ratios of under- and over-counted to apply at every level

of the population hierarchy—state, county, congressional district, census tract, local

block. As it turns out, the A.C.E. plan did, in fact, run into difficulty with this ‘‘synthetic’’ assumption, which further reflects the problems noted above in the discussion of assumed ‘‘homogeneity’’ of the post-stratum.

In actuality, we begin to see many difficulties with the operation of the A.C.E.

conceptually, over and above those concerns linked to problems of measurement

error and implementation issues. One of the central conceptual difficulties is that

the statistical estimation, incorporating, as it must, a certain probability margin of

error that is ineradicable (it being inherent in the operation of probability), only begins to ‘‘even out’’ its errors at certain levels of aggregation. That is, for the gross

level of the total population (the aggregate count of the total number of the population, roughly 281.4 million persons), the probability errors (the inevitable pluses

and minuses wavering from the actual target) do ‘‘average out.’’ For instance, for

every 100,000 measurement ‘‘pluses’’ that are too high there will also occur about

100,000 corresponding measurement ‘‘minuses’’ that cancel each other out. But a

lower levels of aggregation (state, county, district) the possibility starts to magnify

that they do not all ‘‘average out,’’ and we may well be left with residual error—

a less accurate count than we began with in the enumeration.

There is considerable dispute as to what level, exactly, we begin to lose ground

with that adjustment, and actually start introducing error by adjusting. It may happen at the state or congressional district level, especially for selected demographic

groups in the post-stratum (and perhaps worsened by the realization that we are

using gross regional or even national data to adjust populations within a state—that

is, we are not directly adjusting a state’s population based on data derived only from

that state). Whatever the eventual resolution of that dispute about the accuracy/inaccuracy threshold, everyone now agrees that at smaller levels of aggregation (in

counties with less than 100,000 people it becomes clearly problematic), on down to

the block level, we can no longer assure ourselves that the adjustment is superior

to the unadjusted numbers, and we begin to seriously suspect that the adjustment

is actually distorting our understanding by introducing error into the count.

Yet it is at the block level that politically important decisions must be made—

such as the boundary of an electoral district. Moreover, the hoped-for randomness

of the pluses and minuses canceling each other out is further belied by the practice

of the re-districters, who tend to accumulate together blocks of people who share

certain demographic characteristics, if for no other reason than their physical propinquity. Hence, if a particular demographic post-stratum is off within the margin

of error in one consistent direction, there will be no balancing out of the error because they will be grouped together with similar blocks likewise erroneous in the

same direction. The effect is to amplify the error in the redistricting result, rather

than having randomness producing a canceling-out effect.

Problems abound. By virtue of the adjustment design, we have generated estimated people (virtual people) who have never been contacted nor identified, yet

must be placed in some concrete location in an actual census block. The principle

for assigning them a ‘‘local habitation and a name’’ is arbitrary and based on

unproven assumptions. Yet their presence can have consequence in the apportioning

of political power and funding. Moreover, the Congressional-appointed members of

the Board further demonstrated in our report of September, 1999 that the effect of

adjustment is to fail to position the undercounted correctly and proportionally in the

communities where they were actually missed. By applying a ‘‘blanket’’ adjustment

to every sector across the country, the adjustment gives the illusion of a remedy,

32

because the actual undercounted are not uniformly distributed across the country.

Those communities that ‘‘lose’’ in the undercount do not receive a commensurate adjustment.

Further, it could be argued that the adjustment design, an effort to statistically

‘‘model’’ the population and then reformulate it, could have the effect of introducing

more political features into the census than are found in the actual enumeration.

Let it be noted that the ‘‘political’’ aspect of the census adjustment does not have

to necessarily imply the active intervention of partisan concerns. As with budgetary

or income tax battles, any process that is ‘‘assumption-dependent’’ is thereby open

for political debate. Whoever sets the assumptions, or establishes the criteria for

which factors are considered important (and in which order), can largely constrain

the possible outcomes of the strictly quantitative process. All census activities are,

of course, assumption-dependent, in this sense—witness the dispute between Utah

and North Carolina over the allocation of the last House seat based on population.

The issue hinged on whether or not overseas missionaries were assumed to be

equivalent to overseas military in terms of their state assignment. It follows that

every aspect of the census has political implications, in that it constructs political

definitions and quantifies what are properly political entities—human beings in

groups. Nevertheless, even given these caveats, census enumeration is relatively

more assumption-independent than is the alternative—modeling the population for

statistical adjustment purposes, where changed assumptions have the power to radically alter the entire nature of our national self-portrait.

A corollary of this reasoning is that the enumeration count will likely prove more

accountable to democratic processes in the long run, as well. Witness the difficulties

already encountered by policy makers and courts trying to understand and evaluate

the highly technical nature of the adjustment’s probability models. Who can truly

grasp them and interrogate them but a very restricted group of technical experts?

In this sense, an enumeration process, being relatively more transparent in its assumptions and enactment, may be not only more accessible and hence accountable

but also more prudently consistent with the spirit of self-government.

Finally, where do we now stand? In the first place, with an estimated undercount

of only 1.18 percent (that is, a census that is 98.82 percent accurate), we should realize that the cost/benefit ratio of our respective choices begins to shift. Given all

of the attendant legal and political difficulties that the A.C.E. engenders, its saving

grace was that it might be a good technical fix. But now that is in question. The

A.C.E. appears to have levels of ‘‘statistical noise’’ in its probability fluctuations that

are greater in magnitude than the ‘‘signal’’ it was designed to detect and correct (the

1.18 undercount is smaller than the margins of error range of the A.C.E. at certain

levels of application). Applying an adjustment to a census as accurate (by all the

evidence to date) as the one just completed begins to slide down the slope of diminishing returns, technically as well as in terms of governance consequences.

We face a genuine dilemma, which the ESCAP report issued at the end of February well captured. The actual enumerated count from Census 2000 placed us in

a new and perplexing landscape, one unanticipated by the designers of the A.C.E.

(and many other parties as well). The count of 281.4 million surpassed the best

reckoning of the population provided by the Demographic Analysis (DA) by nearly

2 million people. This is an anomalous outcome, since the DA has traditionally stood

above the enumerated count and told us the magnitude of the undercount in the

enumeration. But now we have broken through the DA measurement. By the reckoning of the DA, we actually have an OVERCOUNT in the enumerated census. Perhaps, on the other hand, the enumerated census is right on the mark, having itself

nearly eliminated the heretofore undercount. Various scenarios to explain this have

already been proposed by the ESCAP report and others, but none has achieved a

reconciliation without introducing yet other anomalies.

Moreover, the emerging and tentative adjustment count from the A.C.E. took us

even further away from solid ground, with an estimated result of approximately

284.7 million. The gap with the enumeration count is substantial, while the gap between the A.C.E. and the DA (about 5 million) is fundamentally problematic—too

large, in fact, to be reconciled by any scenario yet deployed. Moreover, the A.C.E.

results themselves contain internal anomalies and inconsistencies, in addition to the

incapacity to be reconciled with either of the two other measurements.

It should be apparent to anyone seriously engaged with this problem that while

many specific details remain to be resolved, and further while the A.C.E. design has

a valuable contribution to make in helping us understand what transpired in the

census count, the inadequacies in concept and in practice preclude use of the numbers derived from the A.C.E. for the critical purposes of apportionment and redistricting. The A.C.E. methodology simply cannot met its primary obligation—being

demonstrably more accurate than the data which they might supplant.

33

We must acknowledge the wisdom in the ESCAP recommendation to the acting

Bureau Director (a recommendation accepted by Secretary Evans, and which moreover was endorsed by the previous Bureau Director Dr. Kenneth Prewitt) to regard

the unadjusted numbers from the Census 2000 enumeration as the accurate numbers, that are the most appropriate for the Constitutional uses to which they are

put. It was a decision made on the merits of the case as it was examined.

Let us not shun the larger lesson from this overall undertaking. The undercount

is a genuine American difficulty, to which we need genuine solutions. No one should

in principle be uncounted, and we must develop more effective remedies to ensure

that the principle of the census is fulfilled. By all that we now know about the enumeration process, we should recognize a striking achievement, which was to reduce

the differential undercount. The promise of that outcome is that we can close it yet

more by intensifying the enumeration, by forming local partnerships to accomplish

it, and by motivating people to find their way into full participation in the American

system. ‘‘All politics is local,’’ was wisely said. All censuses may likewise be local.

Let us properly invest in what works best.

Thank You.

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Murray.

Mr. Vargas.

STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO

ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS (NALEO)

EDUCATIONAL FUND

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Senator. My name is Arturo Vargas. I

am the executive director of the National Association of Latino

Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, and thank you

for the invitation to appear before you at this Senate hearing on

the decision to release the adjusted census data for Census 2000.

The NALEO Educational Fund is the nation’s leading organization that enables Latinos to participate fully in the political process. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit bipartisan organization with a bipartisan board of directors that took a strong position in support

of the most accurate census possible, and in support of the Bureau’s decision to use statistical sampling.

We were one of the organizations that worked with the Census

Bureau through a partnership to promote a full count, and we were

particularly proud of the mail-back response rates that we saw in

Latino communities throughout the country. We commend the Census Bureau for the many elements of the Census 2000 which made

it such an operational success, and we will be happy to share with

this Committee at an appropriate time our views on the elements

of the census that were particularly successful as well as the areas

where we believe that we could have improvement for the 2010

census.

Now, as we all know, the preliminary estimates of the undercount by the bureau indicate that there was, in fact, a differential

undercount, and that differential undercount does not fall equally

among all Americans. Latinos, African Americans, Asians, children,

immigrants bear the brunt of the undercount.

When the career statisticians at the bureau announced the recommendation against the release of the adjusted data, they based

their decision on three different methodologies that have been discussed by the Secretary and the Acting Director. These professionals unequivocally concluded that there is considerable evidence

to support the use of adjusted data. However, as has been indiVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
34

cated, they were troubled by discrepancies between adjusted data

and the results obtained by the Demographic Analysis.

Senator, Members of the Committee, I think the issue before us

is, we must permit the bureau to take the time it needs and the

resources it needs to resolve this issue. The ESCAP committee did

not conclude that the A.C.E. data were less accurate than the Census. The ESCAP committee merely concluded that at the time the

recommendation was required, they could not resolve the discrepancies. They did not say that the census data are, in fact, more accurate than the A.C.E. They did not say that the A.C.E. was more

accurate than the census data. They indicated that at the time of

the decision of their deadline, that they could not make that conclusion yet.

We should not be forced to live with a 10-year error because of

a 3-month deadline. As we heard Secretary Evans express here

today, the Census Bureau intends to continue its evaluations. I

think it is the major responsibility of this Committee to support the

professionals at the Census Bureau and ensure that they have all

the resources and all the time necessary to complete the analysis

of the Demographic Analysis, Census 2000, and the A.C.E. so that

in the fall they can make this recommendation as to whether or

not, in fact, Census 2000 can be corrected to compensate for the 3.3

million Americans who have been excluded from Census 2000.

Now, as an organization that works hard to ensure that Latino

Americans are able to fully participate in our political process and

in our society, the differential undercount has a strong, harmful

impact on that goal of Hispanic Americans. It has an impact on our

political representation, on the ability of institutions such as

schools to provide appropriate services and classrooms, resources to

children.

We cannot live with a 10-year error, Mr. Chairman, and I would

ask the Committee at this time to hold accountable Secretary

Evans for the commitment he made here today to this Committee

that in the fall Census Bureau professionals will be recommending

to him a full recommendation as to whether or not to adjust the

census data.

Again, I think the issue here is not that the A.C.E. was less accurate, or that the census itself was more accurate. The issue here

is that the ESCAP committee at the time they were required to

make their recommendations, did not have the time sufficient to

conclude one way or the other.

I think it is most important for the interests of this country that

we allow the Census Bureau professionals to do its job with the full

support of Congress, the full support of the administration, to ensure that when they make this new recommendation as to whether

or not the A.C.E. is more accurate or not, that this country can be

allowed to go forward for the next decade with the most accurate

decade available to it.

Thank you, and I have summarized my comments here, and we

have submitted our comments for the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas follows:]

35

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED

OFFICIALS (NALEO) EDUCATIONAL FUND

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Senator Hollings and Members of the Committee: I am Arturo Vargas, Executive Director of the National Association of Latino

Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today on behalf of the NALEO Educational Fund to discuss the full impact on the Latino community of the recent decision by Commerce

Secretary Don Evans to release Census 2000 data for redistricting that has not been

adjusted to correct for the differential undercount.

The NALEO Educational Fund is the leading national organization that empowers Latinos to participate fully in the American political process, from citizenship

to public service. The NALEO Educational Fund carries out this mission by developing and implementing programs that promote the integration of Latino immigrants into American society, developing future leaders among Latino youth, providing assistance and training to the nation’s Latino elected and appointed officials;

and by conducting research on issues important to the Latino population. The

NALEO Educational Fund is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan organization. Our

constituency includes the more than 5,400 Latino elected and appointed officials nationwide.

As a member of the Commerce Secretary’s Decennial Census Advisory Committee,

I am pleased to be able to discuss with you the decision to release unadjusted Census 2000 data as the official data for the purposes of redistricting.

The NALEO Educational Fund is committed to ensuring that our nation will be

able to rely on the most accurate data possible from the 2000 Census. Our organization, like hundreds of others across the country, mobilized to encourage all U.S. residents to answer the census. We are particularly proud of the mail back response

rates in several Latino majority communities which demonstrated the sincere desire

among millions of Latinos to make themselves count in 2000. We commend the Census Bureau for the many elements of Census 2000 which made it such an operational success, including its partnership program and commitment to work closely

with community institutions, its high quality outreach and advertising program, and

its efforts to hire an enumeration force that had the skills and capacity to carry out

this monumental task. We would be happy to share with this Committee at another

appropriate time our views on the elements of the census which were particularly

successful and those areas in which we would recommend improvements for 2010.

Our focus today, however, concerns the most basic element of the census, the accuracy of the data on which we will rely upon for an entire decade.

As we all now know, the preliminary estimates released from the Bureau indicate

that the differential undercount was not eliminated. While the Census 2000 was an

operational success, there was a net undercount of 3.3 million Americans. And many

of those missed were Latinos—over one million. That, Mr. Chairman, is more than

the entire state of Wyoming.

When the career statisticians at the Bureau initially announced their recommendation against release of the adjusted data, they based that decision on their

examination of three different methodologies used to determine our nation’s population: the traditional ‘‘headcount,’’ the statistically-adjusted data based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.), and the Bureau’s separate demographic

analysis. These professionals unequivocally concluded that ‘‘there is considerable

evidence to support the use of adjusted data;’’ however, they were troubled by discrepancies between the adjusted data and results obtained by the demographic analysis. They had to meet a deadline to make a recommendation regarding the release

of the adjusted data, and they simply ran out of time to examine and explain those

inconsistencies.

It is critical that we permit the Bureau to take the time it needs to resolve this

issue. We should not be forced to live with a 10-year error because of a three-month

deadline. If the Bureau determines that the adjusted numbers are more accurate,

the Bureau should release them for redistricting and other purposes. The connection

between redistricting and the Census goes back to the founding of our nation. The

redistricting process plays a key role in ensuring that our democratic process provides fair representation for our nation’s residents. The use of unadjusted data for

this process will result in inherently mal-apportioned districts. Because the

undercount occurred predominately among minority populations, Congressional and

state legislative districts with substantial numbers of minority residents will in fact

contain a much larger population than what the unadjusted data indicate. Thus,

those districts would in reality be comprised of a larger number of residents than

districts which are predominately non-minority. The differences between the size of

36

the actual population in such districts could exceed the deviation permitted under

the ‘‘one person, one vote’’ principles of current law.

We are also concerned about the negative impact unadjusted data could have on

voter participation in communities with language barriers. Section 203 of the Voting

Rights Act requires jurisdictions that meet certain criteria to provide language voting assistance to their residents. Jurisdictions qualify if (a) they include at least

10,000 voting-age citizens who belong to a single language community with limited

English-language abilities, or (b) such citizens comprise more than 5% of their voting-age citizen population. This is determined by census data.

For the Latino community and the nation as a whole, the repercussions of not releasing data adjusted to correct the undercount will extend far beyond our political

system. In general, accurate, corrected data are vital for all types of programs and

services. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there has been much discussion about the

dramatic growth of the Latino community, and its implications for this country’s

economic, social and political institutions. This is an important discussion, because

as a result of this growth, our community and nation will face many challenges.

Moreover, community providers, urban and rural planners and policy makers must

be equipped with the most accurate baseline data available to make the comparisons and assessments that are critical for their work.

A census undercount also drastically undermines access to quality education, a

particularly important issue for Latino families. The Census Bureau’s most recent

Current Population Survey data reveal that 36% of the Latino population is under

the age of 18. Decisions about the allocation of resources in school districts are

based on census data. We know very well who was actually missed in the 2000 census. In low-income communities, it was immigrants and children. What this means

to many Latino communities across this nation is that when school administrators

are determining where to build new facilities, the number of teachers they need, or

the number of school books to buy, they may mistakenly plan for 10,000 children,

instead of the 12,000 who actually reside and attend school in the district. Given

the extraordinary crisis in our public schools today, and their inability to adequately

educate the nation’s Latino children, this is an extremely critical juncture for our

nation’s future success.

So there is much at stake for the Latino community, not just politically, but also

economically. If the Latino population is not fully counted, the communities in

which they reside will likely lose funding for schools, hospitals and other vital social

programs. These communities will, in effect, be disenfranchised for the next ten

years.

What is even more pressing now, Mr. Chairman, is the recent revelation that the

Census Bureau has, using scientifically approved methods to correct the undercount,

produced a corrected set of numbers down to the block level for the 2000 census in

all 50 states. Today perhaps, Mr. Chairman, in this committee which has a tradition

of openness and full disclosure, we can receive a commitment from the Census Bureau and the Commerce Secretary to release the corrected data if the Bureau determines they are indeed more accurate than the traditional ‘‘headcount.’’ Our government may have spent as much as $400 million to pay for the A.C.E.

If the A.C.E. has produced the best numbers available, Congress and the American taxpayers should be entitled to this important information.

Mr. Chairman, we urge Secretary Evans to direct the Bureau to complete an analysis of the accuracy of the adjusted data as quickly as possible. If that analysis reveals that the adjusted numbers are more accurate than the unadjusted count, the

Bureau should immediately release the data for redistricting and other purposes. If

the analysis is completed after the data can be feasiblely used for redistricting, the

adjusted numbers should still be released, for public policy planning purposes and

to assist us in improving the way we conduct future census efforts. If the analysis

reveals the adjusted numbers are less accurate than the unadjusted count, the adjusted data should still be released to enhance our understanding of census enumeration methodology.

I thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and the Committee once again for

providing the NALEO Educational Fund with the opportunity to share our views

today on the release of the Census 2000 data.

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Vargas. As the

chairman indicated earlier, when the House Members got back

from their vote, we were going to interrupt this panel so that they

could present their testimony. Dr. Ericksen and Dr. Wachter, we

need to interrupt you and proceed with the House Members.

37

I do not know who wants to go first. Mr. Clay, would you like

to begin?

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM CLAY,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting us to speak before your committee today. As you know, the census is an issue of

great importance to every Member of the House of Representatives

every 10 years, this country has peacefully redistributed congressional power between the states based upon the census and remarkably only once in our nation’s history has this process failed

us. In 1920, Congress would not accept that the population change

had shifted the majority from rural areas to urban areas. This disbelief led to a decade of inactivity.

As a result, in 1929 Congress put an end to the decennial battles

in Congress over how the census would be taken and how seats

would be apportioned by approving legislation that established permanent authorization for the census, and a standing formula for

the distribution of seats among the states. In other words, Congress put an end to the political wrangling over the census.

Unfortunately, that legislation enabled another unsavory tradition, congressional districts of unequal size. By the time the Supreme Court ruled that these districts should be equal, the largest

congressional district was 10 times the size of the smallest. In this

decision, the court said such variances were blatantly unfair. The

Supreme Court, in righting the wrongs of redistricting, put this

census clearly in the middle of the political battles once again.

Voting rights and the census are subjects near and dear to the

hearts of African Americans. Historically, we have been shortchanged by both. The first census counted African Americans as

three-fifths of a person. That ugly tradition of part person, part

property, continued until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

In 1940, African Americans first made us aware of the errors in

the census when more African American young men registered for

the draft than the Census Bureau thought existed in the entire nation.

The realization that African Americans are routinely overlooked

at a much higher rate than whites has been the basis of fixing the

errors in the census. Even the Census Bureau’s own numbers show

that over 2 million African Americans were missed in the 2000 census.

Today, we find ourselves at the end of a 5-year political dog fight

over the census in that same unsavory tradition of the 1920’s. It

is time for this Congress to act as responsibly as the 71st Congress

did in 1929.

There is a very easy way to put an end to the arguments over

the quality of the 2000 census. Release all the numbers for public

scrutiny. If the 2000 census is as accurate as the Secretary says

it is, the numbers will show it. If there are flaws in the census, the

numbers will show that, too, and if there are flaws in the dual system estimates created by the Census Bureau, public scrutiny will

reveal those flaws as well. One thing is for sure, hiding the numVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
38

bers will only increase the public suspicion that the process has

been rigged.

Congress has a long and honorable tradition of standing on the

side of public disclosure of government information. It was Congress that broadcast the first Census results to the public, and it

was Congress that established the Government Printing Office and

the depository library program to keep the public informed. It was

also Congress that passed the Freedom of Information Act and the

Presidential Records Act, and it was Congress that said groups advising the executive branch should do so in the light of day, and

pass the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Congress has stood again and again for the right of the public

to know what its government is doing, and the 107th Congress is

obligated to carry on that great tradition. That is why I urge you

to join with me in calling for the release of all of the data from the

2000 census to do any less would deny the American public its

right to an open and honest government.

As a note of interest, representing the state of Missouri, we see

that according to Gene Ericksen, Missouri was undercounted by approximately 31,000 people. I think that it is only right that the

Census Bureau release the adjusted numbers for the states, because it is going to have a negative impact on the state of Missouri

as well as all of the other states where an undercount exists, and

I represent an urban-suburban district, and I am certain that those

31,000, the majority of them come from the area that I represent.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for taking the time to be with us and sharing your testimony with us.

Mr. Gonzalez.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and to the

other Members of the Committee for this opportunity to appear before you today. I am here today as chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Census and Civil Rights Task Force to share our

thoughts on recent actions and decisions affecting the 2000 census

and census data to be utilized over the next 10 years.

As we are aware, the 2000 census has shown the nation’s Hispanic population to be the largest and fastest-growing minority

population in the entire country. Unfortunately, it is also among

the highest undercounted populations. As such, I would argue the

nation’s Hispanic community has the most to lose if we continue

down the road in utilizing census data that by all accounts can and

should be greatly improved.

We can all agree that the 2000 census was vastly improved from

the past decennial censuses and that it was an operational success.

However, there remains much room for improvement, and we

should support a concerted effort aimed at identifying shortcomings

in those areas need of improvement.

On March 1, 2001, Acting Census Bureau Director William G.

Barron, Jr., who was here today—I am not sure if he is still here—

recommended to Secretary of Commerce Don Evans that

unadjusted data be released to the Census Bureau’s official redisVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
39

tricting figures to the states. Mr. Barron’s recommendation was

based on the report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy, referred to as ESCAP.

While that report did, in fact, recommend that unadjusted numbers be released as the Census Bureau’s official redistricting information, it also stated that the Committee believed that (1)

unadjusted census totals would reflect a national undercount,

which has been brought up by each speaker here today, (2) that

there was considerable evidence to support the use of adjusted

data, and (3) that further research may establish that adjusted

data would result in improved accuracy.

It is critically important to note that the Committee cited time

constraints and lack of sufficient information at that point in time

as key to its recommendation. In addition, in its report, the Committee was clear that although its recommendation was to release

unadjusted data, that decision did not mean or even suggest that

unadjusted data was superior in any way.

In a meeting on March 2, 2001, with Secretary Evans, just days

before the Secretary announced its decision to release the less accurate, unadjusted data as the official redistricting figures, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus requested that the Secretary require

the Census Bureau to complete its work on Census 2000, and to

subsequently make a recommendation regarding the use of adjusted data for other purposes, including the Intracensal Census.

Specifically, the Hispanic Caucus requested that the Census Bureau be afforded any additional time and resources necessary to

conduct further research into inconsistencies between estimates derived from outmoded Demographic Analysis tools and the modern

scientifically enhanced and supported accuracy coverage evaluation

estimates.

We believe that such an evaluation is critical to establishing the

modern day reliability of Demographic Analysis as a tool and subsequently to determine whether or not adjusted data would result

in improved census accuracy.

We further requested, and it has been requested here today by

the witnesses, in keeping with the Census Bureau’s longstanding

policy of openness, that the adjusted or corrected block level data

be made available.

I am going to make reference now to the ESCAP report on page

1 of 28, where it states, this report is also being released to the

public at the same time that it is being forwarded to the Secretary

of Commerce. Footnote 2, in addition to the requirement to make

the report public, the Census Bureau firmly believes that full disclosure in a vigorous and informed debate will improve both the

Census Bureau’s internal processes and the public’s understanding

of statistical adjustment.

So in keeping with the very spirit of the bureau and its policy,

and with that I would imagine the Secretary of Commerce would

also follow that spirit, we are asking today that that unadjusted

data be made available to anyone that would request it, and not

wait for a Freedom of Information Act or any other type of request.

Just put the information out there.

The Secretary in his testimony earlier this morning, sir, indicated that he did not believe that the information would be fit for

40

use. I beg to differ. It is all in the eye of the beholder. There are

statisticians and scientists outside of the bureau that may find that

information very useful for whatever purpose they choose. If there

is disagreement as to its utilization, then we will have an open debate in the marketplace of ideas, which is the best type of dialog.

So we are here today, and I am representing the caucus again

asking this Committee to please join us in the request of Secretary

Evans regarding that full resources immediately be applied to

reaching some conclusion on the discrepancy between the democratic analysis and the A.C.E. so that we can have the adjusted figures for all other purposes.

In the state of Texas, Senator, this impacts the Hispanic community like no other segment of the population. In Texas, it is

350,000. In my district, it could be 35,000, it could be 50,000, but

when it comes to education, when it comes to roads, when it comes

to libraries, when it comes to health care, all of it, we put a human

face on it, and all we are asking is for accuracy, with the tried and

proven scientific method.

This fight is still not over. We have characterized it as a civil

rights debate and issue of the decade, and we still believe it is, and

again, thank you for your courtesies.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS

My thanks to Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Senator Hollings and the entire Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation for inviting me to

testify today on an issue in which I, along with every person residing in the United

States of America, have a vested interest—the Census.

I am here today as the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Census and

Civil Rights Task Force to share our thoughts on recent actions and decisions affecting the 2000 Census and census data to be utilized over the next decade. As we are

aware, the 2000 Census has shown the nation’s Hispanic population to be the largest and fastest growing minority population in the country. Unfortunately, it is also

among the highest undercounted population. As such, I would argue that the nation’s Hispanic community has the most to lose if we continue down this road of

utilizing census data that by all accounts can and should be greatly improved.

We can all agree that the 2000 Census was vastly improved from past decennial

censuses, and that it was an operational success with higher than expected numbers

of people participating by returning their census forms. I particularly credit Census

Bureau employees nationwide, the thousands of communities and organizations

across the country that partnered with the Census Bureau to promote participation,

and the Census Bureau for devising and implementing its comprehensive plan, all

of which contributed to a better census.

However, there remains much room for improvement and we should support a

concerted effort aimed at identifying shortcomings and those areas for improvement.

It is only through this process that we will be able to ensure improved accuracy and

greater success in future censuses. Through this process we will also be afforded the

opportunity to establish the validity of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation

(A.C.E.).

In fact, it is my understanding that using the A.C.E. population analysis tool the

Census Bureau has now completed the process of producing adjusted census data

down to the block level for all fifty states. That data may be more accurate than

data derived using only traditional methods, but we simply do not know because

that corrected data has not been made public.

On March 1, 2001, Acting Census Bureau Director, William G. Barron, Jr. recommended to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, that unadjusted data

be released as the Census Bureau’s official redistricting data. Mr. Barron’s recommendation was based on the recommendation included in the Report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy (E.S.C.A.P.).

While that Report did in fact recommend that unadjusted data be released as the

Census Bureau’s official redistricting data, it also stated that the Committee beVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
41

lieved that (1) unadjusted census totals would reflect a national undercount, (2) that

there was considerable evidence to support the use of adjusted data, and (3) that

further research may establish that adjusted data would result in improved accuracy. It is critically important to note that the Committee cited time constraints and

a lack of sufficient information as key to its recommendation.

In addition, in its Report, the Committee was clear that although its recommendation was to release unadjusted data, that decision did not mean or even suggest that

unadjusted data was superior in any way. In fact, I believe that given the appropriate time and necessary resources to thoroughly and completely investigate the inconsistencies that led to what I consider to be a preliminary decision on the accuracy of adjusted data, the Committee would conclude, as it has already intoned, that

adjusting census data would in fact result in a more accurate, true, and reflective

evaluation of the nation’s population.

In a meeting with Secretary Evans, just days before the Secretary announced his

decision to release less accurate unadjusted data as official redistricting data, the

Congressional Hispanic Caucus requested that the Secretary require the Census Bureau to complete its work on Census 2000, and to subsequently make a recommendation regarding the use of adjusted data for other purposes, including the

Intracensal Census.

Specifically, the Hispanic Caucus requested that the Census Bureau be afforded

any additional time and resources necessary to conduct further research into inconsistencies between estimates derived from an outmoded demographic analysis tool

and the modern, scientifically enhanced and supported Accuracy Coverage Evaluation estimates. We believe that such an evaluation is critical to establishing the

modern-day reliability of the demographic analysis tool and subsequently to determine whether or not adjusted data would result in improved Census accuracy.

While Secretary Evans stated support for moving full steam ahead, it appears

that little if anything has been done by the Department of Commerce or at the Census Bureau to continue that evaluation process. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus

is deeply concerned by this inactivity, particularly given the importance of determining the final accuracy or inaccuracy of the census and the impact that will have

on Hispanic and other minority communities that were once again disproportionally

undercounted.

For them, the estimated 3.4 million Americans, including over a million Hispanics, who the 2000 census failed to count using traditional methods, this is the

civil rights issue of the decade. If we fail to do all that we can to correct the problems, then those 3.4 million people will simply not count for the next 10 years.

We should all take a step back and consider what this would mean for people living in each and every community where minorities and children were

disproportionally undercounted. It means a real and increased potential for another

decade of unjustly lost federal dollars to build schools, roads, day care centers, and

to fund countless other programs that rely on census data. It also means diminished

political power for each of those communities. That is hardly the level of justice and

fairness that we as a revered Democratic nation should aspire to.

Therefore, in the spirit of fairness to all, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, or economic status, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus fully supports and encourages the

Chair, the Committee, and the entire Congress to seek the release of the Census

Bureau’s adjusted census data so that it may be reviewed and where deemed appropriate applied.

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you for your

leadership of the Hispanic Caucus, and thank you for taking the

time to be with us here today.

Mr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN MILLER,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator, and thank the Committee for

allowing me to testify today. As you may know, I have been the

Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census since 1988, and I

have been deeply involved in the oversight of the 2000 Census from

planning through its execution.

Our public position on adjustment should not be a surprise to

anyone. I have always been concerned that adjustment introduces

more error into the census than it has the ability to correct, parVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
42

ticularly at lower levels of geography critical for the redistricting

process.

However, even if sampling errors were not the issue, there are

larger legal and public policy implications that should be giving all

of us very serious concern. Acting Director Barron outlined many

reasons for the success of the 2000 census enumeration when he

testified before my subcommittee several weeks ago. Among those

reasons, congressional support allowed the Census Bureau to hire

1⁄2 million enumerators at competitive wages during a time of

record low unemployment. This support also allowed for a firsttime-ever paid advertising campaign, more than 40,000 local partnerships, and an unprecedented effort to provide multilingual assistance.

In the end, it was emphasis on counting people, not making estimates, that made this census a success and reduced the differential

undercount of minority communities. We need to give a great deal

of gratitude for the great work the Census Bureau did on this, and

we should commend the efforts of the Census Bureau.

Supporters of adjustment say that success is not enough. They

will argue for the release of these inaccurate numbers in the name

of fairness and justice. I share their desire for fairness, but good

intentions do not justify bad public policy, and a statistically adjusted census is bad policy on many different levels.

Let me explain. Statistical adjustment is less accurate where it

is critically important to be accurate, at small geographic levels.

We have known for some time that statistically adjusted numbers

do not give us a more accurate picture of the population when describing smaller aggregations of the population such as small

towns, rural areas, and blocks. The bureau’s recommendation

against sampling reads, ‘‘analysis for counties with populations

below 100,000 people indicated that the unadjusted census was

more accurate,’’.

Since apportionment and redistricting go hand in hand, it is arguably illegal for adjusted numbers to be used for redistricting,

based on the 1999 Supreme Court ruling. Use of adjustment would

reduce people’s incentives to participate in the census, which would

degrade data quality and reduce accuracy. Why stand up and be

counted when you can sit down and be sampled?

It is also disturbing to me that under adjustment, some people

are counted as less than a whole person. Under adjustment, everyone is assigned to a category. One of these categories, for example,

is Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander women over 18 who own

their own home. If adjustment were to go forward, everyone in that

category would be assigned a value of .95. In other words, every

Hawaiian adult woman owning a home anywhere in the United

States who answered the census would be counted as little more

than 9⁄10ths of a person.

Adjustment assumes that all people in a certain category act

alike, or have the same likelihood of filling out their census forms.

These types of assumptions are something we should be moving

away from and not embracing.

Finally, I worry about the subjective assumptions that are inherent to the statistical adjustment process. A professor at Harvard

43

University put it very well in a commentary in the Wall Street

Journal on February 15. He said,

‘‘Unfortunately, statistical adjustment also gives much greater discretion to

the Census Bureau. The correction procedure is based on populations of groups,

and choosing them is very subjective. Do we treat all young, urban black males

as a subgroup, or do we separate them by region? How many ethnic groups do

we want to treat as distinct? This leads to a general point. As you allow for

more statistical sophistication, you put more discretion in the hands of the statistician.’’

This census and the Census Bureau have proven we can achieve

nearly 100 percent accuracy through a strong congressional commitment, strong Bureau management, improved technology, and

expanded local partnerships. By all means, there is still room for

improvement, but this and future Congresses should put a priority

on the methods that are legal, accurate, and ethical.

Finally, on the question of releasing adjusted numbers, census

data for Federal funding and other purposes, because of the errors

and the problems with their adjustment, I think it would be highly

irresponsible to release adjusted data for any official purpose.

One of the things we have heard for the past several years in the

Committee by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, listen

to the experts. Let us trust the experts. Well, we have this ESCAP

committee of Census Bureau experts, and the experts said there is

a problem with the data, and so let us listen to them. The data

should not be released at this time. Let them continue to work on

that data and if at some stage they feel they have accurate data,

then it can be released, but it would be irresponsible, in my opinion, to release that data now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAN MILLER,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for granting my request to testify before you today regarding the 2000 Census.

As you know, as Chairman of the Census Subcommittee since 1998, I have been

deeply involved in the oversight of Census 2000—from planning through its execution. My public position on adjustment should not be a surprise to anyone. I have

always been concerned that adjustment introduces more error into the census than

it has the ability to correct, particularly at lower levels of geography critical for the

redistricting process. However, even if the sampling errors were not the issue, there

are larger legal and public policy implications that that should give all of us serious

concern.

Acting Director Barron outlined the many reasons for the success of the 2000 census enumeration when he testified before my subcommittee several weeks ago.

Among those reasons, Congressional support allowed the Bureau to hire a half million enumerators, at competitive wages, during a time of record low unemployment.

This support also allowed for a first-time-ever paid advertising campaign, more than

140,000 local partnerships, and an unprecedented effort to provide multilingual assistance. In the end, it was the emphasis on counting people—not making estimates—that made this census a success, and reduced the differential undercount of

minority communities.

Supporters of adjustment say this success is not enough and they will argue for

the release of these inaccurate numbers in the name of fairness and justice.

I share their desire for fairness. But good intentions do not justify bad public policy. And a statistically adjusted census is bad policy on many different levels.

• Statistical adjustment is less accurate where it’s critically important to be accurate—at small geographic levels. We have known for some time that statistically adjusted numbers do NOT give us a more accurate picture of the population when describing smaller aggregations of the population, such as small towns, rural areas

44

and blocks. The Bureau’s recommendation against sampling reads, ‘‘The analysis for

counties with populations below 100,000 people indicated that the unadjusted cen- sus was more accurate.’’ • Since apportionment and redistricting go hand-in-hand, it’s arguably illegal for

adjusted numbers to be used for redistricting, based on the Supreme Court’s 1999

ruling. • Use of adjustment would reduce people’s incentive to participate in the actual

census, which would degrade data quality and reduce accuracy. Why stand up and

be counted when you can sit down and be sampled? • It is also disturbing to me that under adjustment, some people are counted as

less than a whole person. Under adjustment, everyone is assigned to a category.

One of these categories is ‘‘Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Women over 18

who own their home.’’ If adjustment were to go forward, everyone in that category

would be assigned a value of 0.95. In other words, every Hawaiian adult woman

owning a home anywhere in the United States, who answered the census, would be

counted as little more than nine-tenths of a person. Adjustment assumes that all

people in a certain category act alike, or have the same likelihood of filling out their

census forms. These types of assumptions are something we should be moving away

from, and not embracing. • Finally, I worry about the subjective assumptions that are inherent to the statistical adjustment process.

A professor at Harvard University put it very well in his commentary in the Wall

Street Journal on February 15. He said,

‘‘Unfortunately, statistical adjustment also gives much greater discretion to

the Census Bureau. The correction procedure is based on population subgroups,

and choosing them is very subjective. Do we treat all young urban black males

as a subgroup or do we separate them by region? How many ethnic groups do

we want to treat as distinct? This leads to a general point: As you allow for

more statistical sophistication, you put more discretion in the hands of the statistician.’’

This census and this Census Bureau have proven that we can achieve nearly one

hundred percent accuracy through a strong congressional commitment, strong Bureau management, improved technology, and expanded local partnerships. By all

means, there is still room for improvement. But this and future Congresses should

put a priority on the methods that are legal, accurate and ethical. We should not

continue the pursuit of a costly, unlawful, inaccurate, and racially biased adjustment of our constitutionally mandated decennial census.

Finally, regarding the question of releasing adjusted census data for federal funding and other purposes, because of the errors and problems with the adjustment,

I agree with Bureau officials that it would be highly irresponsible to release adjusted data for any official purpose.

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Gonzalez, in the 1990 census, over 6 percent of the Hispanic

community in North Carolina was under-counted. During the last

10 years, according to the 2000 census, we have had almost a 400-

percent increase in the Hispanic population. I cannot imagine what

the undercount must be in this census.

You and your family, your dad, has been involved in the Hispanic

community and served as leaders in that community for a long

time. I wonder if you would talk a little bit about what impact

undercounting has, because these are real people. It affects their

lives. They are not numbers on a piece of paper. I wonder if you

would talk about the impact undercounting has on the lives of the

people who are not being counted.

Mr. GONZALEZ. I think in terms of city planners, Senator and in

terms of how you build, you know, smart growth and communities,

your school administrators and trying to anticipate the number of

students, and especially in a state like Texas, a city like San Antonio, 150 miles from the border, but all of the southwest states with

some of the greatest growth, your four largest growing cities, really, it is because of the Hispanic populations, and that is not even

to say what is going on in states such as yours.

45

But there is a practical application. These numbers are used to

plan ahead, not just for funding purposes, but to get accurate head

counts on what you need as far as medical facilities, our county

hospital, which has a tremendous burden of taking care of many

people that are not insured. Everything goes hand in hand here.

The uninsured problem, the number of people, we have to get an

accurate number.

How do you plan how many students are gong to be in class?

How many need Head Start? How many need meals? But it goes

beyond that, in roads and highways.

I was thinking the other day, even Meals on Wheels is predicated

on this. I had a meeting the other day with the Small Business Development Center in San Antonio. They service 79 counties in

South Texas with a heavy Hispanic population, and with the cuts

on the SBA, you can imagine how that is basically almost—the effect is multiplied, when we do not have accurate numbers.

We have reduced amounts in the budget. We are all talking

about keeping within budget caps, there is going to be reduced

spending. Every dollar becomes more precious. How do we apply

these dollars in the best way, the most economical and effective

way, if we do not have accurate numbers, and that is what the cities are faced with. That is what my district is faced with.

In talking to the University of Texas in San Antonio and their

community development center, they are telling me any cuts will

be drastic in trying to take care of the small businessman and

woman in 79 counties. It is important to have this information, and

have it now, so that we can have our experts look at this information.

And getting back to a very important point that my colleague in

Florida has pointed out, their big concern has been, is the scientific

method loses some of its accuracy at the block level.

If you believe in ESCAP, which I do, on page 27, block level accuracy is not an important criterion to evaluate either Census 2000

or A.C.E., so they made that conclusion. They have made that finding. They have addressed that concern.

This is all really important. I sit down with my city council, this

is what they are bringing to my attention.

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. It is so important

that we put a human face on this. These are not just numbers.

Mr. Clay, I wonder if you could comment, because I suspect some

these are some of the same concerns you might have in the African

American community.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman having spent 17 years in the Missouri

General Assembly, and having some experience with pass-through

Federal dollars that we pass on to local communities in Missouri,

it is so important, such as Head Start, we know how important it

is to get an accurate count of people throughout the state of Missouri.

It seems to me that in urban areas, especially the area that I

represent, that the needs are so great that you rob those communities of needed resources when you do not accurately count those

communities, so what happens is that those communities where

overcounts occur are usually the ones that get extra resources, and

46

the ones where the need is the most get the least of those resources.

Senator EDWARDS. For the reason that both of you have described so eloquently, I think it is critically important that we have

the census be as accurate as possible. I also have great difficulty

understanding why the adjusted numbers are not being released

and not subject to public scrutiny, which I believe they should be.

Senator Kerry, did you have questions? Mr. Miller, I think, had

something he wanted to say.

Mr. MILLER. Let me add a couple of comments. The question as

to the relief is whether they are accurate enough, and there is very

serious concern by the statisticians at the bureau, the professionals, not politicians, that at this stage it is not accurate enough,

so if we are going to trust the professionals, we need to do that.

One of the questions comes up about money. First of all, everybody agrees we have had a great census this time, and we really

should celebrate the census. The differential undercount for Hispanics and African Americans has been cut in half so we have really had a great effort, and Mr. Gonzalez has worked hard in his district, working with the Catholic Church, the Hispanic Church and

all of that, so we have done a good job in executing a better census.

With respect to the money issue, most of the money we are talking about is a zero sum game, and so everybody is saying we are

going to lose all this money. Well, if, for example, Meals on Wheels,

it is important in my district, lots of seniors in my district. There

is a set pot of money for Meals on Wheels.

The question is, you are not going to get more money. It is just

the total amount of money. That is a budget fight rather than a

census fight, so I just think sometimes it is distorting the thing to

say we are missing all this money. Well, if you add more money

in his district, you are taking money from my district, so it is really

a zero sum game when we are talking about money.

Yes, we need to have the most accurate census possible, and I

think we did a good one, and I think we should really be proud of

what the bureau did under the leadership of Dr. Prewitt and John

Thompson and the others at the bureau.

Thank you.

Senator EDWARDS. Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Clay, did you have any

comment in response to that?

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, I understand we all have competing interests. We represent our constituencies. But what if I just happen to

have a certain segment of the population that a certain program

is attempting to address their needs more so than another colleague. I can make that argument with census figures. I cannot

make that argument if I do not have accurate numbers.

And I know this debate really goes almost to a political philosophy, or whatever, and it should not be. It is really one about

sound science, and we are willing to debate that. If you want to go

to court we are willing to debate it in a courtroom. I can guarantee

you now that this will pass legal muster when it comes to scientific

methodology and what is accepted out there in the scientific community.

Thank you.

47

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, just to add to that, I would think that

the Census Bureau as well as the U.S. Government would want to

get it right, would want to be as accurate as possible.

I mean, as I stated in my testimony, we can go back to 1940

when the undercount was so drastic among African American

males that they did not realize that they had made an error until

these African American males showed up in greater numbers for

the draft for World War II, and then the U.S. Government realized

how severe the undercount was in that community, so that needs

to be corrected, and that is something that happened more than 60

years ago.

Senator EDWARDS. Mr. Clay, Mr. Gonzalez, I share your concern.

Mr. Kerry is now back and may have some questions for you.

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Edwards. Thank

you for relieving me for that period of time. I appreciate it.

Mr. Miller, let me just comment very quickly on your comment

about sort of the zero sum game. In one sense, yes, there is a specific amount of money, and it depends where it goes, but it really

runs a little deeper than that, because when you talk about where

it may go from, you are talking about the difference between affluent communities and communities that are struggling with resources, and you are talking about the difference of a community

that has no tax base for property taxes, and yet their schools depend on it, and here you have an allocation that may be dependent

on population as you do in certain school issues, or seniors, as Congressman Gonzalez has said, so it really is a question of fundamental fairness.

Secretary Evans acknowledged there is an undercount. I assume

if you accept the notion that there is an undercount, you accept the

notion that there is something unfair. Do you accept that concept,

if there is an undercount?

Mr. MILLER. The differential undercount is what we are all concerned about. Blacks, Hispanics, for example, are counted low, and

not as accurately as whites.

Senator KERRY. Do you think they should live with that for 10

years?

Mr. MILLER. No. We should try to get the most accurate census

we can, but if the adjustment is not accurate, if the statisticians

and the professionals and the career people in the bureau say the

numbers are not accurate, would we want to use inaccurate data.

Senator KERRY. But they are not saying that they are inaccurate.

They are trying to figure out where the distinctions may be. Now,

why would we not want competent professionals to view the data—

I mean, are you suggesting that some of these people sitting at this

table are not professionals?

Mr. MILLER. No. I think we need to wait for the bureau to continue doing their work. They want to release the numbers before

the bureau has certified the numbers.

Senator KERRY. Well, the problem is, we could run out of time.

We could run out of time to measure and come up with a solution

in which we share some thinking about how you rectify some of

these differences.

I mean, I would like to have outside professional help me to say,

well, Senator, here is how you could really do this in a fair-minded,

48

thoughtful way, but if we allow this to be behind closed doors for

the next months without any capacity to measure the data, then

we are stuck with whatever judgment is made.

Mr. MILLER. But the professionals should have a chance to look

at it, and they have reached an agreement between the bureau and

the Republicans, the Democrats, and other outside groups to have

a chance to look at it, and they have also contracted with the National Academy of Sciences, which is very independent, on doing an

analysis of the same numbers.

Unfortunately their analysis is not going to be ready until probably early next year, so it is a real mistake to try to use faulty data

until the bureau, until the National Academy of Sciences, until the

professionals sitting at this table and others have said they are accurate numbers. If you do not have accurate numbers, you are

making a real mistake playing around with potentially faulty data.

We do not know yet.

Senator KERRY. Does it mean anything to you at all that this is

so divided along partisan lines?

Mr. MILLER. It is unfortunate.

Senator KERRY. Is it more than unfortunate? Is there a message

there?

Mr. MILLER. I used to teach statistics. That is how I got to be

Chairman of this particular subcommittee, but we have to base it,

as we said all along, on science, and if the science says it is not

right, why would we want to do something wrong—it is like a medical test.

Senator KERRY. I do not want to overrule science, believe me. If

I started doing that for this, I would be in trouble on everything

else. None of us are asking to overrule science, but there are three

different methodologies here for how you arrive at the ball park.

One, you have the Demographic Analysis, which they acknowledge

has a problem with respect to immigration, You have the A.C.E.,

which we do not yet understand completely what the differential is,

then you have the actual count.

Now, if all of them are showing an undercount, it seems to me

it is like a court of equity, where a judge sits there and makes

some judgments. Well, how are we going to make up for that

undercount level we have counted? You are shaking your head, Mr.

Murray. You do not think we should do that? We are going to come

back to you.

But let me just ask Congressman Gonzalez and Congressman

Clay a question, sort of following up on what Senator Edwards

said. Your constituents, or the people in your districts who are cognizant already, or who have knowledge that there is not a count

that is not fair, I mean, do they come up to you and talk to you

about it?

Mr. GONZALEZ. Senator, as my colleague was indicating, we all

came together, the city council, commissioners, the courts, the

church, every social and civic organization, we came together to get

people to make sure they return their forms, answer the door, that

anybody who is not documented did not have fear of being arrested.

It was an incredible effort, and we did end up with a more accurate

result, but nevertheless one that is still inaccurate and leaves

many undercounted, especially in the minority Hispanic commuVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
49

nities. There is a very high awareness in my city that we are going

to be basically short-changed.

Senator KERRY. What is the impact of that? What is the effect

of that on the body politic?

Mr. GONZALEZ. As I have indicated, of course just planning——

Senator KERRY. Leaving out the planning.

Mr. GONZALEZ. The funds. We lost a substantial amount of Federal funds in the past 10 years because we missed 40,000 people.

We missed 16,000 children in San Antonio. We are part of a lawsuit The city council has authorized the city to go into the lawsuit—I guess it is out of Los Angeles, or whatever—regarding trying to get these numbers and having the adjusted figures utilized.

All of this impacts services to the neediest of all citizens, and we

are talking about, and some are not citizens but residents, and part

of this, Senator, is trying to figure out why we have this discrepancy. Everyone is shocked at the number of immigrants in this

country, of the number of undocumenteds. It has repercussions for

Immigration and Naturalization Service and Social Services, as I

have already indicated.

Senator KERRY. Well, let me ask you a very hard-nosed question,

if I may, and welcome, Congresswoman Maloney, thank you, and

let me just say to all of you, I apologize profusely, we have had to

go back and come back and vote, and I know how hard that is, and

I apologize for the interruption. It is just the nature of the beast

around here, and we all try to do the best we can.

I want to ask one last question, then I am going to try to——

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow what Mr Gonzalez

said, that also in the St. Louis community people are wondering

just when will they be counted. They have witnessed the fiasco in

Florida, where votes were not counted for the Presidential election,

and now they are witnessing a back-pedaling of sorts by the Census Bureau, and when will they count.

Senator KERRY. This brings me to my question, and I am going

to be sort of devil’s advocate here. You know, some people sit on

the other side of the fence, and they would say to uncounted people

and to you, ‘‘Well, wait a minute, they had a responsibility to fill

out their census form’’. We had the most broadbased outreach ever

in history, and others filled it out and they got counted. Why do

we have to make up for the seemingly unwillingness of these folks

to participate? That is the question you get, and what is your response?

Mr. CLAY. Well, the system was quit a bit better, as Mr Miller

says. I agree, the Census Bureau did a better job than in 1990.

However, there for systematic reasons African Americans were

missed in a disproportionate number, compared to the rest of the

population, as well as Hispanics. They were missed also, because

of system flaws, in just raw data, in counting people, so when we

know that there is an undercount it is incumbent upon us, as a

government, to go back and try to be as accurate as possible.

Senator KERRY. Would you say that to a certain degree that some

folks whose level of education may be higher, or whose communication skills may be better, or whose status and position in life are

better for whatever reason, that there may be sort of a disadvanVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
50

tage in life that at this point plays out in how the census in fact

is counted?

Mr. CLAY. Well, I would not go that far. What I would say is that

people earnestly made an effort to be counted. If some were missed,

we need to figure out why they were missed, and we need to go

back and get as accurate a count as possible.

Senator KERRY. Let me let your colleague have a chance.

STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN MALONEY,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Ms. T4Maloney. I just would like to add to the discussion that

the census is one of the great civic ceremonies that we all participated in and saw our responsibility to fill out our forms and be

counted, and it is important not only for our own families, but for

our neighbors, because if we are not counted, and we are left out

of Federal funding formulas to the tune of $185 billion a year that

are distributed on census numbers representation, which is the

true power in this country, and just plain good data to plan for the

future.

But we know that the people missed overwhelmingly are in

urban and rural areas, and that they are oftentimes minorities,

children, and the poor, and given the changing dynamics of America, the fact that some families are working two, three jobs, some

families are backed up in apartments where two or three families

are living there possibly illegally, and they do not want people to

know, sometimes there is a language barrier.

And given the extraordinary efforts of the Census Department

and the many organizations that partnered with the Census to

break through that barrier, it is still a barrier, and we know from

modern scientific methods that there is an undercount, there’s no

question about it, so the question is, do we correct it or not, and

we have the scientific ability to correct it, and why we would not

go forward with the most accurate numbers is something that I

cannot understand.

I congratulate you, Senator, for your interest in this, and for your

leadership in it. I consider it really the civil rights issue of the decade. It is representation from which all power flows, and if you are

not counted, then the school is not where it is supposed to be, the

health center is not there, and I would merely like to place in the

record a letter that has been signed by 107 colleagues of mine in

the House of Representatives calling for the release of the numbers.

The American people paid for it, the Congress allocated—over

$400 million was invested in this information, and it belongs to the

American people. Why are we not releasing it? It is absolutely unprecedented that such a valuable information should be withheld.

Furthermore, no community in our country should be left shortchanged. Every state, every city, every town, and every neighborhood is entitled to information about their area, and I do not understand any logic why they would withhold it. I would like really

to place into the record—we are all in different committee meetings

and voting on the floor—my comments, but I would like to make

them very short, but first of all the census has always been very

contested.

51

The first census director was Thomas Jefferson, and he wrote

Washington and said there was an undercount of a million people.

Washington took him at his word and put a million more in the

first census count. That is a true story.

Unfortunately, it has been much more contested in this Congress. It has regrettably been the most partisan of issues. It held

up two budgets. It held up disaster relief.

But it is very important, because it goes to the absolute core of

our democracy. If you are not counted, you are not represented,

and I just want to say that the so-called sampling method is known

in the scientific community as the dual system estimation, and it

is a proven statistical method that has been perfected by scientists

during the last half-century.

The 1990 sampling results have been the foundation of nearly

every major economic statistic of this country since the middle of

the last decade they are using modern scientific methods, and in

this A.C.E. follow-up we paid for a sample of 314,000 households,

which was then compared to the data collected from those same

households during the census itself, and the so-called accuracy and

evaluation, or A.C.E., is known as the census decennial report card,

and we should really have these results.

The census professionals in their report stated that they favor

the use of modern scientific methods, and I quote, ‘‘the committee

believes it likely that further research may establish that a judgment based on A.C.E. would result in improved accuracy,’’ and I

just want to underscore that even the opponents of sampling have

apparently blessed this methodology, although they may not really

fully realize that they have done so.

The administration has pronounced over and over again, we

heard it today, that the 2000 census is the most accurate in history, and it came to this conclusion because of the results of the

very scientific tool they oppose, the A.C.E. The A.C.E. program

demonstrated that the 2000 census reduced the undercount, as

compared to the 1990 census. As a result, they have decided there

is no need to use the A.C.E. for its full intended purpose, to correct

for the errors that remain in the Census 2000, and for the administration the A.C.E. is sufficient only to buttress their own political

argument against a more complete count.

Unless we have access to the A.C.E. data, we cannot prove that

the Census 2000 is, in fact, more accurate, so they really, really

should release it. Why the administration is keeping it under lock

and key, I do not understand. It is harmful to government, and to

government planners, and I might note, Mr. Chairman, that the

Census Monitoring Board released the net undercount numbers,

and I would like to know why they are releasing it before the bureau does, and they took this extraordinary step of presenting what

they believe are the net numbers for each state that were missed

in the census, because the Census bureau itself will not release

them.

I would just give the numbers for my own state. You can get

them for all the states from the monitoring board, and these numbers show that there was a net number of 291,000 New Yorkers

were missed in the census, and 188,000 in New York City alone,

merely because the Census Bureau ran out of time, and according

52

to an independent survey that was done by Pricewaterhouse this

would result in approximately a loss of $2.3 billion over 10 years.

That is a lot of teachers, that is a lot of police officers, that is

a lot of mass transit, and bridges, and roads, and to know that the

accurate numbers are there and that they are not releasing them

is just absolutely unconscionable. I, on behalf of my colleagues in

the House, particularly the 107 who signed the letter appealing for

the release and the many people in America who would like to be

counted but have been left out, we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

your attention to this and for this hearing, and for the time and

understanding you have put in it, and I congratulate you and

thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Maloney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CAROLYN MALONEY,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Thank you Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Hollings for inviting me to

testify today on the Census. Mr. Chairman, welcome to the ‘‘sampling debate.’’ By

that, I mean the national dialogue which has been held during the last decade in

search of ways to produce a better Census, one that would cure the national problem of the undercount and racial differential.

It is a problem that has existed in every Census, beginning with the very first

census conducted by Thomas Jefferson. The Secretary of State wrote to President

Washington and our ambassadors overseas saying that he felt that the just-concluded census may have undercounted the fledgling nation’s population by as much

as a million. Perhaps, because he was Jefferson, he was taken at his word.

In today’s modern census, the Census Bureau has to do more than assert the

quality of the census. It must demonstrate to Congress and the American public

that it knows with some precision about the accuracy of the so-called ‘‘head count.’’

The modern solution is sometimes derisively called ‘‘sampling,’’ but is better known

in the scientific community as ‘‘dual system estimation.’’ It is a proven statistical

method that has been perfected by scientists during the last half century. The 1990

sampling results have been the foundation of nearly every major economic statistic

of this country since the middle of the last decade.

In Census 2000, the Congress funded the most robust scientific measurement of

accuracy ever conducted. We paid for a follow-up sample of 314,000 households,

which was then compared to the data collected from those same households during

the Census itself. The Accuracy & Coverage Evaluation, or A.C.E., is known at the

Census Bureau as their decennial report card. The results are in for Census 2000,

and the bureau has announced that the A.C.E. worked extremely well and that the

Census staff believes as they made clear in their report, that it still favored statistical sampling, ‘‘The Committee believes it likely that further research may establish that adjustment based on the A.C.E. would result in improved accuracy.′′.

Even the opponents of sampling have apparently blessed this methodology, although they may not fully realize what they have done. The Administration has pronounced the 2000 Census the most accurate in history. It came to this conclusion

because the results of the very scientific tool they oppose, the A.C.E., demonstrate

that the 2000 Census reduced the undercount as compared to the 1990 Census. As

a result, they have decided that there is no need to use the A.C.E. for its full intended purpose, to correct for the errors that remain in Census 2000. For the Administration, the A.C.E. is sufficient only to buttress their own political argument

against a more complete count.

Now that may be a legitimate call, but unless all of us—the Congress, outside experts, the scientific community, and the American public—unless we all have access

to the A.C.E. data, we can not prove Census 2000 is in fact more accurate. And I

tell you Mr. Chairman, I have yet to meet any Thomas Jefferson’s in this Administration, so I am unwilling to just take their word for it.

So here we are today, holding this hearing to ask why the A.C.E. results are

under lock and key, known only to a handful of government employees, and when

even Congress itself has not been provided the data. Why is the Census Monitoring

Board releasing net undercount numbers before the bureau? They took the extraordinary step of presenting what they believe are the net numbers for each state that

were missed in the census because the Census won’t release them. Those numbers

53

show us that a net of 291,000 New Yorkers were missed in the Census, 188,000 in

New York City alone, missed because the Census ran out of time.

Apparently, the Administration fears that we will not understand the data, or it

may be used to advance political arguments the Administration opposes, or that we

should simply have to trust them to look out for our best interests.

Well Mr. Chairman, I think we understand the numbers release today very well—

Americans were missed in the Census and we should not stop until we get them

all included.

For another perspective on this debate Mr. Chairman, I direct you to remarks

made just yesterday by Chairman Greenspan before a meeting of business economists. His presentation was titled, ‘‘The challenge of measuring and modeling the

dynamic economy.’’ His address was, in part, a call for more resources to enhance

data collection methods. He said:

‘‘. . . the experience of the last 40 years underscores a fundamental dilemma

of business economics. Should we endeavor to continue to refine our techniques

of deriving maximum information from an existing body of data? Or should we

find ways to augment our data library to gain better insight into how our economy is functioning? Obviously, we should do both, but I suspect greater payoffs

will come from more data than from more technique.’’

[Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan ‘‘The challenge of measuring and modeling

a dynamic economy’’ At the Washington Economic Policy Conference of the National

Association for Business Economics, Washington, D.C. March 27, 2001]

What Mr. Greenspan knows and others often overlook, is that our key economic

indicators, such as unemployment, poverty, inflation, and consumer confidence are

all derived from ‘‘samples’’ of American households and businesses. This sample

data is collected through interviews every month, conducted mostly by none other

than the Census Bureau.

I agree with Chairman Greenspan’s main thesis. There is a greater payoff for our

country when we in Washington have more data, better data, complete data . . .

data like that produced by the A.C.E. Statistically sound data allows policy makers

and experts to calculate with more precision the true stories of economic or social

policies or as former Census Director Prewitt might say, allows us to get closer to

the truth. Mr. Chairman, it is time now for the Census Bureau to release all the

A.C.E. results. I urge you and both Houses of Congress to call upon the Director

of the Census to release those numbers today. I would like to put into the record

a letter sent yesterday to Acting Director Barron from 107 House Members urging

just that.

It is unprecedented that such valuable information should be withheld. Furthermore, no community in our country should be left shortchanged. Every state, every

city, every town, and every neighborhood is entitled to information about the demography of our country.

Together we made a four hundred million dollar investment in this information.

It belongs to the people and it should be given to the people.

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. None of

the Members of Congress need to feel obligated—obviously, I know

you will not, if you need to move on. I do not want to tie you down,

because I know your time is critical and you have got other things

going on. Is there any last comment any of you would like to make

as we move back, because I want to get back to the panel, if we

can.

Mr. MILLER. If I may make one last comment, Mrs. Maloney has

been the Ranking Member for the past 3 years on the Subcommittee, and she has said rely on the professionals. Well, the

professionals say the data is not accurate enough to be released at

this time, and in 1990, when they tried to do an adjustment, there

was a difference—it was not called A.C.E. back then, it had another name, but they went through several different iterations of

different sets of numbers.

So if you release them before you finalize the numbers you are

creating a problem. That is what the argument is over, whether

you release them now, or let the Academy of Sciences and let the

professionals like these gentlemen sitting here have the chance to

54

be sure they are accurate, so let us trust the professionals of the

bureau. They are the ones who say we are not finished with this,

we have got to keep working on it, and they have got the resources.

We certainly have thrown all the money that they need to continue that job, so we need to continue having them work, and once

they have made that decision, then we can decide what to do with

that data.

Ms. MALONEY. I just might, since money was mentioned, I certainly would like the opportunity to respond, if I could, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KERRY. It was mentioned with great credit.

Ms. MALONEY. The census professionals merely ran out of time,

and they stated that they favored statistical sampling, and I quote,

‘‘the committee believes it likely that further research may establish that adjustment based on the A.C.E. would result in improved

accuracy,’’ and what I have heard today from the very studied

questions of the chairman, I believe the chairman asked, when will

you release this, and it was not said when it would be released.

They said they may get the numbers by the summertime, but

never did I hear that they would be released, so what we are calling on is for the information to be released so that the scientists,

the government planners, everyone can look at it.

And then secondly, the chairman and others questioned whether

or not the numbers could be used for the distribution of federal

funds, and I have not heard a response on that, and silence is usually no, and if we know that we have a more accurate number,

then it is only fair and just that it be used for the important distribution of federal funds.

Senator KERRY. I think, Congresswoman, that—you may have

just departed for the vote at that point. I did ask him if we would

be able to get him back here to address their judgment in order

that we be permitted to apply these to the allocation of funds, and

he did consent to do that, and suggested they would be able to have

those numbers by the early summer, and so hopefully—and we

agreed to continue the discussion, so hopefully we will be able to

have a dialog that will permit us to make those judgments.

Now, you are correct, there was no consent to release, despite the

request to do so. There was a statement about why they saw difficulties in doing it now. I think we need to continue to press that

issue. I certainly intend to, and others will, and we want to explore

that a little bit with the panel of experts we have here in front of

us, and I intend to do that now a little bit, and so I am very grateful to all four of you. You have been extraordinarily gracious with

your time, and with the inconvenience, and I thank you very, very

much for doing so. Thank you for being part of this.

Now, had you all had a chance to testify? Not yet, so you are

waiting patiently. Dr. Ericksen, you are next in line, and then Dr.

Wachter. Thank you, and thank you all for your patience, too.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE P. ERICKSEN, PROFESSOR OF

SOCIOLOGY AND STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIOLOGY, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

Dr. ERICKSEN. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue. I think first we need to be clear about what we

55

mean by census error, because that is what determines whether or

not this is the most accurate census ever. The net undercount in

the 2000 census is estimated to be 1.2 percent, or 3.3 million people. That is not a particularly good way to assess the census.

A better way to assess the census accuracy is in terms of what

we call gross coverage error, which is the sum of the number of

omissions and the number of erroneous conclusions. The Census

Bureau, working with the A.C.E. data, has released estimates that

vary between 9.5 and 11.9 million.

The third criterion, which may be even better, is a differential

undercount, comparing the A.C.E. estimates in 2000 with the post

enumeration survey estimates in 1990. It appears that the bureau

was able to reduce the differential undercounts of Hispanics and

African Americans by more than half. All of these indicators place

great credit to the Census Bureau. They have definitely made an

improvement, but what we must be most concerned about is not so

much the error at the national level, but whether or not it creates

an uneven situation locally.

In the 1990 census, the Census Bureau estimated there was a

net undercount of nearly 8 percent among black renters living in

New York City, and in the same census they estimated a small

overcount of 0.23 percent among white homeowners also living in

New York City. According to these estimates the most undercounted congressional district in the United States is District 16 in

New York State, of 6.5 percent. The 3rd District in New York State

had an overcount of 1.3 percent, and so it is the variations in the

undercount and the overcount are what we should be concerned

with.

Now, the Census Bureau actually had tremendous discretion,

and made several important decisions in the manner of taking the

census. One very important decision is the program known as local

update of census addresses, LUCA. Millions of addresses were

added to the census, and as far as the research I have been able

to do, and the reports that I have read, lead me to believe, it could

very well be that this is the most important thing that the Census

Bureau did to improve the accuracy of the 2000 census.

The problem with LUCA is that it was not applied evenly. LUCA

was more effective in some areas than it was in others, and it could

have contributed to error, although it improved on the national

level.

A second decision that is important is the decision about what

we call whole person imputations. In the 2000 census the bureau

ended data collection at a much earlier date than it did in the 2000

census, and it appears that one of the outcomes of this early decision is that there is a greater use made of the computer in filling

out, I believe it is 5.5 million records. The comparable number in

the 1990 census was about 2.1 million.

Whether or not the whole person imputation, virtual people, if

you will, improved the accuracy of the census remains to be studied, but if it did improve the accuracy or degraded the accuracy, it

probably did that unevenly, because some areas had a greater incidence of these kinds of additions, and others, about half of the

races of the people are other than non-Hispanic white. In other

words, they are minorities.

56

Now, I have tried, using the data that are available to me, to

evaluate the differential undercount among areas. Among the

states, it appears that the deviations are not particularly great.

Those states where the minority percentages are higher tend to

have a higher undercount. Those states where the minority percentages are lower tend to have a lower undercount, but the differences between the higher states and the lower states are not

great, but they do exist.

There is another situation. I am from Philadelphia. Every year,

particularly once we have had 5 or 6 years go by the census, I get

phone calls from reporters. They want to know, why is the population of Philadelphia getting so small. Indeed, I believe that it was

thought that Philadelphia had more population loss than any other

city in the country.

Now, because the 2000 census did a better job of reducing the

differential undercount, it appears that Philadelphia did not lose as

many people, and so now we are in the anomalous situation that

the very improvement in the 2000 census creates errors in understanding the rate of population growth.

In order to figure this out, we need block-level data, because we

need not so much to estimate the growth of any particular block,

but we need to have the flexibility to put different combinations of

blocks together to understand and try to understand how much of

the change in population is real growth, or real decline, and how

much of it is simply changes due to the way they took the census.

So I think we are in a situation to say that the Census Bureau

did an excellent job. They had a lot more money to spend. I think

that the issue of Demographic Analysis is an important one. Unfortunately, while we spent so much money on the collection of the

data, it appears we have underfunded the Demographic Analysis

research at the Census Bureau.

My colleagues who have looked at this tell me that the Demographic Analysis agrees with the results of the A.C.E. pretty accurately for non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites The difference lies in the Hispanic population, which is probably due to

problems measuring immigration, which we know to be a very difficult thing to measure.

I will conclude at that point and answer questions, if there are

any.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ericksen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EUGENE P. ERICKSEN, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AND

STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

1. INTRODUCTION

I am a Professor of Sociology and Statistics at Temple University, where I have

taught since 1971. I teach courses on survey design and methods, general statistics,

and demography. Last year, I taught a graduate seminar on the United States census, with an emphasis on the nature, causes, and consequences of census error.

I completed my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan in 1971. In

this dissertation, I developed a method for calculating local population estimates

when census data are unavailable. The Census Bureau provided financial support

for this work. Since completing the dissertation, I have done substantial research

on methods of calculating population estimates, both in census and non-census

years. Over the past two decades, I have extended my research into the area of estimating local undercounts.

57

1 Howard Hogan, ‘‘The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: Operations and Results,’’ Journal of

the American Statistical Association, 88: 1047–1060, Table A.1.

In October 1980 I advised plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the City and State of

New York attempting to compel an adjustment of the 1980 Census. Between October 1989 and July 1991, I served as Co-Chair of a Special Advisory Panel appointed

by then-Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher to advise him on the possibility

of adjusting the 1990 Census. After completing my duties on the Advisory Panel,

I again advised plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to compel the adjustment of the 1990

Census. For both the 1980 and the 1990 Census, I conducted substantial amounts

of research on data relevant to the undercount.

In June 2000, the Census Monitoring Board, Presidential members, hired me as

a statistical consultant. My duties have included reviewing Census Bureau plans

and reports regarding the 2000 Census, and analyzing certain data from the census

that the bureau has provided to us. In particular, I have had access to the individual level data records of persons included in the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) samples used to estimate the levels of undercounting and overcounting

in the 2000 Census.

2. BASIC CENSUS CONCEPTS

There have been three major controversies of the 2000 Census. The first, settled

by a Supreme Court decision, was whether sampling could be used as part of NonResponse Follow-Up (NRFU). The second, decided by Secretary of Commerce Donald

Evans, was whether the results of the census should be adjusted to correct for the

differential undercount of minorities for redistricting purposes. The third, still undecided, is whether the adjusted results should be released for public use. I understand that the Census Bureau has already calculated block level adjusted counts for

the entire nation.

These controversies are intimately related. To discuss them, it helps to define two

terms, ‘‘net undercount’’ and ‘‘gross coverage error.’’ The net undercount is the difference between the number of people counted in the census and the bureau’s independently calculated estimate of the national population. The net undercount was

1.6 percent in 1990. The bureau estimates that it fell to 1.2 percent, or 3.3 million

people, in 2000.

These 3.3 million people are not the total number of people missed from the census. The net undercount is the difference between two quantities, omissions and erroneous inclusions. Omissions are people who should have been counted, but were

not. Erroneous inclusions are counts that should not have occurred. They are frequently duplications of the same person counted in the same place. They may also

be double counts at separate addresses. For example, college students may be counted not only at the dormitory where they actually live, but also by their parents at

home. A family with a second home, perhaps used for weekends and vacations, may

get counted at each address. It is conceivable that there could be large, but equal

numbers of omissions and erroneous inclusions. Should this occur, the net

undercount would be zero, and useless for the evaluation of census error. If the

omissions and erroneous inclusions occur at different locations, some local areas

would have overcounts and others would have undercounts even though the national

net undercount was zero. For example, in 1990, the Census Bureau estimated a 7.76

rate of undercount for Black renters living in New York City. In that same census,

there was an overcount of 0.23 percent among ‘‘non-Hispanic White and Other’’

homeowners also living in New York City1.

There were several million erroneous inclusions in both the 1990 and the 2000

Censuses. Since these must be subtracted from the number of omissions to derive

the net undercount, the actual number of people missed from the census is much

greater than the net undercount. The Census Bureau has asserted that 8.4 million

persons were omitted from the 1990 Census. The comparable number for the 2000

Census is between 6.4 and 7.6 million persons (see Table 1).

The ‘‘gross coverage error’’ is the sum of omissions and erroneous inclusions. In

1990, the Bureau told us that there were 8.4 million omissions and 4.4 million erroneous inclusions. The net undercount was 4.0 million and gross coverage error was

12.8 million. In 2000, the Bureau indicates that the net undercount was 3.3 million

and the gross coverage error was between 9.5 and 11.9 million people.

The national net undercount is not a good indicator of overall census quality. If

omissions and erroneous inclusions occurred in the same places, many of them

would offset each other. Because the geographic distributions of omissions and erroneous inclusions differ, they offset each other only partially. The gross coverage

error is a better indicator of census quality.

58

2These differentials are found whether we rely upon the A.C.E. or demographic analysis.

Omissions tend to be concentrated among poor, typically minority, populations.

They occur at especially high rates among the urban poor. Erroneous inclusions,

while present among the poor, frequently occur among the affluent. In 1990, there

were net overcounts among Whites living in owner-occupied housing units in the

Northeast. In 2000, there were net overcounts among White homeowners in several

post-strata located in the Northeast and Midwest.

Census taking is controversial due to the perception that some groups are disadvantaged because of counting errors. The best statistic for evaluating this possibility is the differential undercount. This is the difference in the net undercount between White and minority populations (see Table 2). In 1990, the net undercount

for Hispanics was 5.0 percent, for non-Hispanic Whites it was 0.7 percent, so the

differential undercount between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites was 4.3 percentage points. The net undercount for non-Hispanic Blacks was 4.6 percent and the

differential between non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites was 3.9 percentage points.

The results of the 2000 Census show considerable improvement in this statistic.

The net undercount for Hispanics was 2.8 percent, for non-Hispanic Blacks it was

2.2 percent, and for non-Hispanic Whites it was 0.7 percent. The differential between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites was 2.1 percent and between non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites it was 1.5 percent. These differentials for the 2000 Census

are less than half of the comparable numbers for the 1990 Census. This is real

progress, and I congratulate the Census Bureau.

However, from the data I have seen to date, it is clear to me that statistical correction of the census would improve the accuracy. There were a considerable number of errors in this census—at least 9.5 million by the Bureau’s own account. The

Bureau reduced the numbers of omissions more than the numbers of erroneous enumerations, and therefore reduced the net undercount. Although it reduced the differential undercount as well, important racial differences remain2, and these could

be removed by statistical correction.

3. THE STATUS OF THE CONTROVERSIES

The Supreme Court has settled the question of whether sampling should be used

for Non-response Follow-up. We do not need to return to it now. The Secretary of

Commerce, following the recommendation of the Census Bureau, has declared the

unadjusted count to be the official result of the 2000 Census. We similarly do not

need to return to this question. The remaining controversy concerns the release of

adjusted block counts.

I believe that these should be released. There are three main reasons for this. One

is that while the Census Bureau did reduce all of the net undercount, gross coverage

error, and differential undercount rates—important differentials remain. The American Indian undercount, while less than it was 1990, is at 5 percent. Both the American public and the scientific community need to understand the effects of the

undercounts on the census results they rely upon.

The second reason is that there are important ways in which the published census

results appear to be incorrect. Ironically, the very improvement in census coverage

that the Bureau accomplished creates error. There is confusion between the amount

of actual growth and the amount of coverage improvements. Many localities, especially those with large minority populations, may have inflated impressions of the

1990–2000 growth rates. The best way to fix this problem is to compare adjusted

1990 to adjusted 2000 census estimates. The use of adjusted data will reduce the

inconsistencies created by improved coverage in the 2000 Census.

The third reason is that both the American public and the scientific community

need to have access to the adjusted counts to make their own evaluations on the

nature of census error. There will be some purposes for which statisticians and

other data analysts may deem it best to use the unadjusted counts, and other purposes for which they will prefer the adjusted results. The Bureau needs to release

the adjusted data, along with their evaluations of these data, to permit these considerations.

We also need to have a better understanding of the geographic distributions of

gross error. Study of the gross error will help us to learn where there were important problems of census taking, and where improvements might have taken place

in the 2000 compared to the 1990 Census. For example, did the addition of addresses through LUCA reduce omissions? Finally, the scientific community needs to make

its own evaluation of the bureau’s estimates of the gross error rates.

59

4. STATE AND LOCAL UNDERCOUNTS

To illustrate the kinds of calculations and evaluations scientists need to make, I

have calculated undercount estimates for each of the 50 states and the District of

Columbia. I have also done this for five large cities, Atlanta, Chicago, New York

City, Philadelphia, and Houston, and the remainders of the states in which they are

located. I relied upon the A.C.E. data provided by the Census Bureau to the Census

Monitoring Board. Because I do not have access to the P.L.94–171 census count

data, I cannot match the estimates of these quantities that the Census Bureau

would calculate. I should be close, however.

The state estimates vary across a narrow range. All but 10 states have estimates

within one-half percentage point of the national average, 1.2 percent, i.e., and they

are in the range of 0.7 to 1.7 percent. States with larger shares of minority population tend to have higher rates of undercount, and the opposite occurs in states

with smaller minority shares. Holding the minority shares constant, rates of

undercount were higher in the West and lower in the Midwest. The main result,

though, is that between-state variations are moderate.

Turning to the cities, I have calculated rates of undercount for five of them. Although each of the cities includes large minority populations, the rates of

undercount are lower than in 1990. Each of these cities has a higher rate of

undercount than the remainder of the state in which it is located.

These calculations are possible with the limited amounts of data that the Census

Bureau provided to the Census Monitoring Board. To calculate comparable estimates for smaller areas, and to calculate the state and large city estimates with

greater certainty, we need to have the adjusted block level data.

5. ESTIMATES OF POPULATION GROWTH

With the reduction in the net undercount, especially of minority populations, we

have difficulty interpreting rates of local population growth. Use of the currently

unadjusted data leads to comparison problems. Because the level of undercount, especially in minority areas, was so much greater in 1990 than it is in 2000, use of

the unadjusted results of the two censuses leads us to overestimate population

growth. The problem is well illustrated by the case of New York City. Since 1990,

Census Bureau population estimates have indicated small increases, with a total

growth of 1.4 percent occurring between 1990 and 1999. Extrapolating to 2000, the

expected population count was 7,452,184, an increase of 1.8 percent since 1990.

The actual 2000 Census count was 8,008,278, an increase of 9.4 percent since

1990. This amount is nearly 7 percentage points greater than the expectation. The

result is implausible. Local experts believe that New York City has grown, but probably not by this amount. We cannot tell how much of the change is due to improved

census coverage, and how much is real growth. In addition, because New York City

added several hundred thousand addresses during the LUCA, this operation alone

could account for much of the apparent growth. LUCA was not part of the 1990

Census.

The New York City story was repeated consistently across the nation. I have calculated 2000 population projections simply by extrapolating the 1998—99 population

change forward to 2000. In Philadelphia, for example, the Bureau estimated a loss

of 17,367 people between 1998 and 1999. I simply assumed a comparable loss between 1999 and 2000. The resulting projection of 1,400,234 is 7.7 percentage points

below the 2000 Census count of 1,517,550.

I have made comparable calculations for all counties that had at least a 500,000

population in 1990 for which the Census Bureau has published 2000 Census tabulations of P.L.94—171 data (see Table 3). There are 66 of these counties and 60 of

them have counts that are higher than the population projections than I calculated.

Only 6 have counts that are below the projections. This skewed pattern of difference

reflects the fact that the 2000 Census counts are more complete than those of the

1990 Census.

I have divided the counties into four categories, depending on the percentage minority in the 2000 Census. Among those counties where this percentage was less

than 20, the average difference between the projected estimates and actual counts

was moderate, 1.72 percent. Fourteen of the 16 population estimates were too low.

Turning to the second category, where the percentage minority was between 20

and 29.9 percent, there were 22 counties, and 19 of them had estimates that were

too low. The average difference between the population projection and the actual

count was 2.35 percent.

The third category included 16 counties where the percentage minority was between 30 and 49.9 percent. Fifteen of them had projections that were too low. The

60

average difference between the population projection and the actual count was 3.78

percent.

The fourth and final category included 12 counties where the percentage minority

was greater than 50 percent. All of these counties had projections that were too low,

and the average difference between the projection and the actual count was 6.66

percent. These counties were spread across the country, with 5 of them located in

the Northeast, 6 of them in the South, and 1 in the West.

Overall, we see that the discrepancies between projections and counts are greater

where the percentage minority is greater. To understand these confusing patterns

of population growth and coverage improvement, we need to have both the adjusted

and unadjusted block counts. With these in hand, we can create our own combinations of local jurisdictions to study the extent to which the apparent growth is real

or the product of changed and improved methods of census taking.

6. SUMMARY

The 2000 Census is now complete, and its surprising results require analysis. The

Census Bureau must complete its evaluation of the demographic estimate, and assess its consistency with the A.C.E. results. Demographers and statisticians across

the country recognize this as a crucial project, and they would like to have their

own looks at the data. In addition to understanding the predictors of undercount

in the 2000 Census, the changing patterns of undercount between the 1990 and

2000 Censuses, we need to figure out why the demographic and A.C.E. results are

so discrepant.

We also need to understand the patterns of gross and net error. Although I have

not been able to carry out intensive research on the subject, much of the improvement in census coverage appears to be due to improvements in the census address

list. The Local Update to Census Addresses program was a big contributor to this.

If this were true, we would expect a substantial reduction in the number of ‘‘whole

household omissions’’ in the 2000 Census relative to 1990. If the address list is improved, then the number of entire households missed should go down.

On the other hand, many omissions occur in households where others are counted.

These ‘‘within household omissions’’ occur when people filling out census forms misunderstand the instructions, and such omissions are especially prevalent among persons distantly or unrelated to the heads of household. Because such errors are generally unrelated to the completeness of address lists, or even to the proficiency of

advertising and other outreach programs, we would expect the numbers of such

omissions to be similar to those observed in 1990.

Finally, we need good estimates of the numbers of omissions and erroneous inclusions. The Census Bureau has estimated that there were over 20 million nonmatches, but only 6.4 to 7.6 true omissions in the A.C.E. The Bureau also estimates

that only 3.1 to 4.3 million of the 12 million apparent erroneous inclusions are real.

Many of the apparent errors are due to missing data and other similar problems,

and the numbers of apparent errors overstate the problems. However, the Census

Bureau has not yet shared with us the logic behind these estimates.

There is a great deal of research that needs to be done to understand the 2000

Census. Some of it must necessarily be carried out at the Census Bureau, but the

bureau must make public all data relevant to this understanding so that researchers and academicians can draw their own conclusions.

Table 1.—Estimated Error Counts from 1990 and 2000

[In Millions]

1990 2000

Estimated total population ............................................................................................................................. 252.7 284.7

Census count .................................................................................................................................................. 248.7 281.4

Measured net undercount ............................................................................................................................... 4.0 3.3

Measured Gross Erroneous Enumerations ...................................................................................................... 4.4 3.1

Implied gross omissions ................................................................................................................................. 8.4 6.4

‘‘Gross coverage error’’ ................................................................................................................................... 12.8 9.5

Assumed Errors in Reinstated ′′Potential Duplicates′′ ................................................................................... ............ 1.2

Total assumed gross erroneous enumerations ............................................................................................... ............ 4.3

Implied gross omissions ................................................................................................................................. ............ 7.6

Implied ‘‘Gross coverage error’’ ...................................................................................................................... ............ 11.9

Source: Obtained from the Census Bureau on March 21, 2001.

61

Table 2.—Reduction in the Differential Undercount, 1990 to 2000

Group1

Net Undercount Rate Difference from nonHispanic WhitesRatio,

2000 to

1990 Difference (1990) (200) (1990) (2000)

Hispanics ........................................................................................... 5.0 2.9 4.3 2.1 48.8%

Non-Hispanic Blacks ......................................................................... 4.6 2.2 3.9 1.5 38.5%

Non-Hispanic Whites ......................................................................... 0.7 0.7 .............. .............. ..............

1 Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives were not included in this table as these racial categories were treated differently in 1990 and 2000.

Source: United States Commerce Release Wednesday, February 14, 2001.

62

63

64

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much.

Dr. Wachter.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. WACHTER, PROFESSOR,

CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF DEMOGRAPHY,

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Dr. WACHTER. I am joined in this testimony by my colleague,

David Freedman. We think there is widespread agreement on two

chief points: First, Census 2000 succeeded in reducing differential

undercounts from the 1990 levels. Second, there were serious questions about the accuracy of proposed statistical adjustments. The

bureau advised the Secretary to certify the unadjusted counts, and

we concurred, as did the Secretary’s other outside advisors.

As you have heard, Demographic Analysis and A.C.E. point in

opposite directions. Demographic Analysis is precious, because it is

independent of the census and A.C.E., tested over time, and rests

on fewer and simpler assumptions than A.C.E. While DA is hardly

perfect, analysis already shows that it would be a stretch to blame

Demographic Analysis for the whole or most of the discrepancy

with A.C.E.

Mistakes in statistical adjustments in the census are nothing

new. Our studies, David Freedman’s and my own, on 1980 and

1990 data, have described three kinds of error, processing error,

correlation bias, and heterogeneity. In the face of these errors, it

is hard for adjustments to improve on the accuracy of census numbers for states, for counties, legislative districts, and smaller areas.

Statistical adjustments can easily put in more error than they

take out, because the census is already very accurate. The changes,

as Gene Ericksen mentioned, to state counts from adjustment are

very small, measured in dozens of parts per million when you look

at those changes, so the chief question is, what went wrong with

A.C.E. in 2000?

Errors in responses to the survey, or in the statistical operations,

may from some perspectives have been under better control than

in 1990, but it appears that processing errors must have been

worse in other respects. Research is underway to pinpoint the difficulties.

The bureau is investigating a form of error called balancing

error. We suspect that troubles also occurred in a new treatment

of movers, and in detection of duplicates, which were especially numerous in 2000, and which occur for minority populations as well

as for nonminorities.

Correlation bias and heterogeneity are endemic problems that

make it extremely difficult for adjustment to improve on the census. Correlation bias is the tendency for people missed in the census to be missed by A.C.E. as well. Correlation bias in 2000 seems

to have amounted, as it did in 1990, to millions of persons. These

people cannot be evenly distributed across the country, so statistical adjustments create a distorted picture of census undercounts.

Heterogeneity means that undercount rates differ from place to

place within population groups treated as homogenous by adjustment. Heterogeneity puts limits on the accuracy of adjustments for

areas like states, counties, or legislative districts. Our studies,

65

1The bureau’s estimates from Demographic Analysis are presented in the B–4 Report; see especially Appendix Table 2. The estimated total national populations are as follows: Demographic

Analysis: 279.598 million; Census 2000: 281.422 million; A.C.E.: 284.684 million. 2The Demographic Analysis estimates for net undocumented immigrants and some other categories of non-citizen residents may be somewhat low. But, as the B–4 Report spells out on page

11, implausibly large revisions would be required to bring the totals into agreement with A.C.E. 3See, e.g., Freedman and Navidi (1992), Freedman and Wachter (1994), and Brown et al.

(1999). 4The Bureau’s research on balancing error is summarized on pages 24-25 of the ESCAP report.

along with recent work at the bureau, show that heterogeneity remains a serious concern.

We must keep in mind that the census is used to distribute representation and resources directly among places, not ethnic groups.

For A.C.E. to find an undercount of Hispanics or African Americans or Asian Americans, does not help if A.C.E. puts the missing

people in the wrong places, and that is what A.C.E. is likely to do.

Census 2000 achieved a high level of accuracy. Given that, and

given the problems with statistical adjustments, the Secretary s decision to certify the census counts was the right decision.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wachter follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. WACHTER, PROFESSOR, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT

OF DEMOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

I am joined in this testimony by my colleague David Freedman. We think there

is widespread—although by no means universal—agreement on two chief points.

First, Census 2000 succeeded in reducing differential undercounts from their 1990

levels. Second, there are serious questions about the accuracy of proposed statistical

adjustments. The bureau advised the Secretary to certify the unadjusted counts and

we concurred, as did the Secretary’s other advisors.

Statistical adjustment faced a new problem in Census 2000. Independent population estimates are derived by Demographic Analysis from administrative records,

including birth and death certificates and Medicare files.1 These estimates show the

Census overcounted the population by perhaps 2 million people. Proposed statistical

adjustments would have added another 3 million people, making the overcounts

even worse. Demographic Analysis is independent of the Census and the A.C.E. survey which underlies proposed adjustments. Demographic Analysis and A.C.E. point

in opposite directions. While Demographic Analysis is hardly perfect, it is a stretch

to blame Demographic Analysis for the whole of the discrepancy with A.C.E.2

Mistakes in statistical adjustments to the Census are nothing new. Our studies

of the 1980 and 1990 data have described three kinds of error: processing error, correlation bias, and heterogeneity.3 In the face of these errors, it is hard for adjustments to improve on the accuracy of Census numbers for states, counties, legislative

districts, and smaller areas. Statistical adjustments could easily put in more error

than they take out, because the Census is already very accurate.

What went wrong with A.C.E. in 2000? Errors in responses to the survey or in

the statistical operations may from some perspectives have been under better control than they were in 1990. But, it appears, processing errors must have been

worse in other respects. Research is underway to pinpoint the difficulty. The Bureau

is investigating a form of error called balancing error.4 We suspect that troubles also

occurred in a new treatment of movers and in the detection of duplicates, which

were especially numerous in 2000.

In July 1991, the Bureau recommended adjusting Census 1990 by adding 5.3 million people:

processing errors were estimated at 1.7 million (these figures are net, nationwide). The figure

for processing error later increased to 3.0 million, although independent estimates range up to

4.2 million. Our estimate is 3.6 million (Wachter and Freedman, 2000a).

In 2000, A.C.E. would add 3.3 million persons to the census count. The preliminary estimate

of processing error is 2 million, as may be seen by doing some arithmetic on the percentages

in Table 24 of the B–19 Report. That table allows 1 million for correlation bias. However, the

underlying model (B–12) repeats the error discussed in Wachter and Freedman (2000a). Compare page 16 of B–12, although page 46 of the B–1 Report acknowledges the problem.

Thus, the estimate for correlation bias needs to be increased, perhaps by another million or

so. If the population estimates from Demographic Analysis are approximately correct, the estimates for processing error will need to increase by several million, as in 1990.

66

5 Brown et al. (1999),Wachter and Freedman (2000a).

6 Adjustment assumes that coverage rates (i.e., rates of census undercount or overcount) are

constant within population groups called ‘‘post strata,’’ across wide stretches of geography. Failures in this assumption are called heterogeneity, or called ‘‘synthetic error’’ in the B-studies.

The Bureau’s research on heterogeneity is summarized on pages 22-24 of the ESCAP report. Our

work is described in Freedman andWachter (1994) as well asWachter and Freedman (2000b).

Correlation bias and heterogeneity are endemic problems that make it extremely

difficult for adjustment to improve on the Census. Correlation bias is the tendency

for people missed in the Census to be missed by A.C.E. as well. Correlation bias

in 2000 may have amounted, as it did in 1990, to millions of persons. These people

cannot be evenly distributed across the country. If so, statistical adjustments create

a distorted picture of census undercounts.5

Heterogeneity means that undercount rates differ from place to place within population groups treated as homogeneous by adjustment. Heterogeneity puts limits on

the accuracy of adjustments for areas like states, counties, or legislative districts.

Our studies, along with recent work at the Bureau, show that heterogeneity remains a serious concern.6

Census 2000 achieved a high level of accuracy. Given that, and given the problems with statistical adjustments, the Secretary’s decision to certify the census

counts was the right decision.

REFERENCES

Anderson, M. and S. E. Fienberg (1999). Who Counts? The Politics of Census-Taking in Contemporary America. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Breiman, L. (1994). The 1991 census adjustment: undercount or bad data? Statistical Science 9: 458-537 (with discussion).

Brown, L. D., M. L. Eaton, D. A. Freedman, S. P. Klein, R. A. Olshen,

K.W.Wachter, M. T.Wells, and D. Ylvisaker (1999). Statistical controversies in Census 2000. Jurimetrics 39: 347-75.

Cohen, M. L., A. A. White, and K. F. Rust, eds. (1999). Measuring a Changing

Nation: Modern Methods for the 2000 Census. National Academy Press, Washington,

D. C.

Fay, R. E. and J. H. Thompson (1993). The 1990 Post Enumeration Survey: statistical lessons, in hindsight. Proceedings, Bureau of the Census Annual Research Conference. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C.

Freedman, D. A. and W. C. Navidi (1992). Should we have adjusted the U. S. census of 1980? Survey Methodology 18: 3-74 (with discussion).

Freedman, D. A., P. B. Stark, and K.W.Wachter (2000). Aprobability model for

census adjustment. http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/census/557.pdf To appear in Mathematical Population Studies.

Freedman, D.A. and K.W.Wachter (1994). Heterogeneity and census adjustment

for the intercensal base. Statistical Science 9: 476-485 (with discussion).

Freedman, D. A., K. W. Wachter, D. R. Cutler, and S. P. Klein (1994). Adjusting

the census of 1990: loss functions. Evaluation Review 18: 243-280.

Prewitt, K. (2000). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: statement on the feasibility of using statistical methods to improve the accuracy of Census 2000. Federal

Register 65: 38373-38398.

Skerry, P. (2000). Counting on the Census. Brookings, Washington, D. C.

U.S. Census Bureau (2001). Report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy. Cited as the ESCAP report. The supporting

documentation consist of reports B–1 through B–19. All these reports are available

on the web. http://www.census.gov

Wachter, K.W. and D. A. Freedman (2000a). The fifth cell. Evaluation Review 24:

191-211.

Wachter, K.W. and D.A. Freedman (2000b). Measuring local heterogeneity with

1990 U. S. Census data. Demographic Research, an on-line journal of the Max

Planck Institute. Volume 3, Article 10. http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol3/10/

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, doctor. Doctor, in your

testimony I do not think you addressed the question of the immigration issue, in the DA. I mean, it is my understanding DA does

not measure immigration, it measures births and deaths.

Dr. WACHTER. That is right. The immigration component is an

assumption that is built in.

67

Senator KERRY. But isn’t it critical? I mean, we have read article

after article in the papers about increased numbers of immigrants,

particularly in urban areas, and more even in rural areas than we

previously thought, so would you not acknowledge that there is an

impact on the DA by immigration?

Dr. WACHTER. On the Demographic Analysis?

Senator KERRY. Yes.

Dr. WACHTER. Yes. In my complete testimony in footnote 2 we

take up this question. We believe that Demographic Analysis estimates for net undocumented immigrants and some other categories

of noncitizen residents may be somewhat low. But there are constraints from data on the percent foreign-born from the Current

Population Survey and elsewhere, which put bounds on the plausible adjustments that you can make.

We think you might be able to bring the Demographic Analysis

estimates up closer to the census counts to make the apparent

overcount in the census go away. But to make those estimates

come up anywhere near the A.C.E., to suggest that there is not

some set of major errors in A.C.E., seems really a great stretch.

There is not enough scope in plausible estimates for undocumented immigration. The apparent overcounts of some groups of

African Americans, younger African Americans, according to some

constructions of the multiple race issue also put constraints on how

much leverage you can get. So I do not know of anyone who believes the Demographic Analysis can be plausibly brought up to

agree with A.C.E. It may be brought up to agree with the census.

To bring it up to agree with A.C.E. is too much.

Senator KERRY. If the Demographic Analysis had reported a

higher number greater than A.C.E., would you have supported

using corrected data?

Dr. WACHTER. No, I would not. The major uses of the census are

in distributional matters. The important issue is in accuracy of distribution, and there are these endemic errors, including correlation

bias, which argue that A.C.E. or suggest that A.C.E. would be putting people systematically in the wrong places.

Representative Maloney has departed, but New York is a good

example. By our estimates the population share of New York State

would be brought down by adjustment, despite the strong presence

of urban central city minority groups. And this would have happened in 1990 also. We believe that the culprit is likely correlation

bias, that this adjustment in New York State would be a mistake.

It would carry the population shares in the wrong direction, because of distributional errors in the A.C.E. survey.

Senator KERRY. Dr. Ericksen, how do you respond to both answers with respect to the DA?

Dr. ERICKSEN. Well, first of all I think that there is a very serious problem in the level of research that has been done on Demographic Analysis. There simply has been enough done, but we may

be facing a situation where a good demographic estimate of the

population simply is not possible, because after all, undocumented

immigration is just that, and we can try to make assumptions after

assumptions after assumptions to change the number.

Senator KERRY. Is it a mistake to make assumptions because it

is undocumented?

68

Dr. ERICKSEN. It depends on the amount of ancillary data you

have. Now, back in 1980 and 1990, demographers were able to

make good estimates of the amount of undocumented immigration

by looking at things like births and deaths in the areas where undocumented people were concentrated.

I am told by demographers looking at this problem that it is

more difficult to do now, and so I think there has to be a very large

question mark to the use of Demographic Analysis for anything

having to do with an immigrant population. I just do not think we

know.

As to the other issue, I think that I go back to my written testimony. In the state of New York you have both extremes. You have

minority areas in New York City where the undercounts are very

high. You also have non-Hispanic white areas outside of New York

City where you have just the opposite situation.

Now, how those two factors balance out is an interesting question. I do not know the answer to that question at this moment,

but it is not implausible that they should be canceling out to bring

New York State very close to, or just a little bit above, just a little

bit below the national average.

Senator KERRY. Now, you have heard a number of people today

cite the difficulty and inadvisability of releasing the A.C.E. data in

order to permit you and others to make some calculations, would

you comment on that question of advisability and necessity?

Dr. ERICKSEN. Well, I think there are two different points to

make. First, in terms of general policy, we actually have had some

debate in here today about how do we know the census is better.

Well, we know the census is better because of the A.C.E., but we

do not want to use the A.C.E. because we think it has errors in it.

We go around and around on that.

I think the way to get out of that vicious circle is to do an analysis. If the census is better in 2000 than it was in 1990, why did

that happen? What were the crucial decisions that people made?

I think that I have identified two of those decisions. One decision

was the use of the local update of the census address program. We

need to evaluate that. The only way that we can evaluate that is

to have local data to compare places where that program was successful, and where it was not put into place.

Secondly, there was a decision to close data collection earlier and

have a broader use of imputation. That also occurred on a local

basis. The only way we could evaluate the result of that is on a

local basis, so we need to have the block level data so we can understand the effects of that, and on the undercount, but we have

to be able to aggregate the blocks in different ways.

The other part of my answer is that there are a tremendous

number of localities across the United States who do not understand the census data, and they cannot understand their census

data because they do not know how much of the change is due to

real change and how much of it is due to the fact that the net

undercount of this census is smaller than the net undercount of the

last one.

Senator KERRY. What do you say to the notion that it is not

ready, that it is premature, that they need to do more work with

it?

69

Dr. ERICKSEN. Well, my understanding is the block level data

have already been calculated, and so they could be given out tomorrow.

Senator KERRY. So you are saying that that is just not a legitimate answer?

Dr. ERICKSEN. Well, I think that there might be a misunderstanding here, because there are two issues. One is, could the block

level data be released? The answer—I understand they have all

been calculated. They could be released. Two, are the block level

data more accurate? My understanding there is, the Census Bureau is contending that the research on the question needs to be

done, and we will see what their answer is.

Senator KERRY. Is there any harm done by letting other people

review that data now?

Dr. ERICKSEN. I think every one understands that the final decision on accuracy will be made sometime in the future, so as long

as people are cognizant of that, I do not see that there could be any

harm.

Senator KERRY. Do you have any way to make a judgment

whether additional research will show that the A.C.E. is more accurate as a way of measuring?

Dr. ERICKSEN. Well, I am very cognizant of my colleague to my

left, Ken Wachter. I am very cognizant of the opinions of other colleagues who feel differently. I think it is an open question.

Senator KERRY. Dr. Wachter.

Dr. WACHTER. It is an open question, and we need to research

it. I would presume that one issue in the minds of the Census Bureau in terms of the early release of the block level adjusted data

is the possibility that there is something like a computer coding

error, which we had in 1990, in the A.C.E. estimates, and if there

is, they would like to track it down before they put all these numbers out for the many uses that they would have. I do not have a

strong view myself on the release or nonrelease.

Senator KERRY. What is a fair amount of time within which one

ought to be able to do that? When would it be fair for people to

have an expectation that this data could be released so we could

avoid this controversy?

Dr. WACHTER. I should say I am not opposing the immediate release. I think there are scientists who——

Senator KERRY. Dr. Murray, you are opposing immediate release?

Dr. MURRAY. Senator, I want to be very careful here. For research purposes there are great uses and values to having A.C.E.

data available. You have to ask the question, for which purpose,

and it is important to recognize that there is some sense in which

the A.C.E. data are really not finished, finished in the sense of,

they are attached, each of them, each of the numbers that could be

provided has error bars attached to it, has a standard error that

is associated with it that is a fluctuation.

We have been, I think, provided a couple of misapprehensions in

this discussion about the standing of the A.C.E. data, and if I

might, just for a moment, explain, it has been treated as if it was

only a matter of time, and if only we had more time, things would

have been resolved.

70

The actual ESCAP report, the Executive Steering Committee on

A.C.E. Policy, recommended to the bureau that they not use the adjusted A.C.E. data, and the bureau Director, Mr. Barron, also said

very clearly we did not run out of time, we ran out of data. What

we have is an irreconcilability, and we may in the future be able

to resolve that.

Senator KERRY. I am puzzled by that.

Dr. MURRAY. Let me find a cite for you that says that.

Senator KERRY. I thought they specifically said that they needed

to more fully investigate. They just needed more time.

Dr. MURRAY. That is part of the issues, Senator. I appreciate you

reading it directly. Let me point to errors in the way we have had

this entered into the testimony. We have heard so far today that

the committee believes it likely that further research may establish

that the adjustment based on the A.C.E. would result in improved

accuracy. However, the very next sentence, which was not quoted,

says, however, the uncertainty due to these concerns is too large

at this time to allow for recommendation on adjustment.

Now, let us take that line over into the last page of the A.C.E.

statement where they say, the ESCAP is unable to conclude at this

time that the adjusted data are superior because—and here is the

critical concern—further research on these concerns could, in fact,

reverse the finding of the adjusted data’s superior accuracy. It is

indeterminate.

Senator KERRY. I understand that. Nobody questions that, but

the question is, why can’t other people be engaged in that similar

research so that there is a sort of countercheck?

Dr. MURRAY. What our concern, Senator, is that—I think the

concern here is that we cannot presume that the adjusted data are

somehow superior, or will be found to be superior.

Senator KERRY. I am not making that presumption.

Dr. MURRAY. What we might find is, the data are actually less

reliable than we expected, and here, as Dr. Wachter has said very

clearly, redistribution, the issue of distributive accuracy, of getting

the data correct at the levels of the local governments where they

are actually applied, is the census’ primary responsibility, and the

issue with the A.C.E., the concern we have is that the A.C.E. does

not put back the undercounted where they were actually lost. The

A.C.E. is indeterminate.

Senator KERRY. We have a confidence question here about

whether or not the undercount will be accurately reflected, put

back by whatever methodology is arrived at, and therefore the

question is, when is the appropriate time for that data to be judged

by people outside who do not have the same interests, or sort of

historical investment, if you will, in the process, who will look at

it independently and help give confidence in the numbers.

I would assume—it is a question I would ask of both you and Dr.

Wachter, that if you have 6.4 million considered to be undercounted, do you consider that very accurate, leaving out 6.4 million

people?

Dr. MURRAY. Mercifully, Senator, it is an improvement.

Senator KERRY. That is not what I asked you.

71

Dr. MURRAY. It is a gross error, and it is troubling to me, and

let me explain. It was my privilege, Senator, to live 9 years in Massachusetts, and you represented me.

Senator KERRY. Well, being represented by me and living there

means you can say whatever you want, and I will forgive you.

[Laughter.]

Dr. MURRAY. Thank you, sir. I learned something very directly

about you, which was your own passion and commitment to the

problems and needs of the undercounted communities, the underserved and underprivileged communities. Senator, let me assure

you, I share that, and have tried in every way possible to address

the problem that we face, the social problem of the undercounted

people. The heart of the question is, what is the best mechanism,

the best instrument that will help us reach and encourage and incorporate those people and give them a fair share and bring them

into the system?

Senator KERRY. I completely agree.

Dr. MURRAY. One of the difficulties is that the A.C.E.—oh, would

that it did work according to its promise, but it represents the triumph of hope over experience to think that A.C.E. actually solves

the problem. It has the tendency to introduce more error, to actually add people back into already overcounted communities and

worsen the problem, and to fail to put people back in the

undercount. It does not seem to solve our issue.

Senator KERRY. You are eloquently and forcefully making a case,

but you are simultaneously, it seem to me, making a case for having this data analyzed by more people in order to come up with a

fair methodology.

Dr. MURRAY. There is no principled or inherent reason not to

evaluate the data.

Senator KERRY. My question is, when can we anticipate fairly

that whatever adjustments need to be made, or judgments about

the data, so that it could be released in order to permit that review

before we all wind up with a decision that has been made and

there is no recourse? Could I anticipate—it is now the end of

March, or April. Could we have it by May?

Dr. MURRAY. In my discussions with bureau professionals who

are doing this task, they anticipate the need for more data from the

long form that will help them understand the foreign-born population, for readdressing this problem about whether or not Demographic Analysis is accurately capturing the undocumented, and

that they have spoken about a target of potentially this fall having

a better grasp of the problem one way or the other, and it seems

to me to be reasonable.

Senator KERRY. This fall is too late, which is why we have engaged the statistical sampling.

Mr. Vargas, what would that mean to you?

Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you for your leadership on this issue.

It would have a tremendous impact on the Latino population. Let

me just say that as a representative of the 33 million Latinos out

there who have been counted in the census, that we are speaking

for the 1 million that were missed, and these are 1 million who

would not have fair representation in congressional districts and in

72

state legislative districts. It would result in malapportioned districts, districts in the Central City of Los Angeles, for example,

that would be inherently larger than other districts in other parts

of the state.

Let me also bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, another

issue. I did not mention in my oral testimony that I am a member

of the Secretary of Commerce’s Advisory Committee on the Decennial Census.

With respect to this subsequent evaluation that the Census Bureau professionals will be doing with respect to the A.C.E., I asked

that when they make that recommendation to the Acting Director,

who will make the decision as to whether or not to further release

adjusted data? The Acting Director of the Census Bureau? Mr. Lee

Price, who is the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce, plainly said

that they did not know whose authority it will be to decide whether

or not in the fall to release adjusted data.

They indicated that Secretary Evans’ decision to rescind the rule

that his predecessor put in place, Secretary Mineta, to allow the

Department of Commerce—I’m sorry, the Census Bureau Director

to make the decision on the release of the data only pertained to

data for redistricting purposes, that if the professionals at the

ESCAP committee recommend to release adjusted data, that they

did not know whose authority it would be to approve that release.

They did not know if it would be Acting Director Barron’s decision

or the Secretary’s decision.

I think this is an issue that certainly this Committee should investigate, as to who ultimately has the authority to decide on

whether or not——

Senator KERRY. If I had had more time to be here with the Secretary, that is one of the questions I will ask, but we will submit

that question to him to try to determine that as a part of the record

of this hearing.

Before we wrap this up, Dr. Ericksen, Dr. Wachter, what is your

sense of what the timing might be able to be that would be able

to be effective here so we could try to not wind up—I mean, look,

my goal here is not to—I do not want an inaccurate count, but I

do not want to live with the estimate for 10 years that 6.4 million

of our citizens were left out.

President Bush has said he wants to leave no child behind. If you

do not count them, you do not have a prayer of not leaving them

behind.

Now, it seems to me there is just a fundamental judgment to

make here. If everybody has agreed there is an undercount, and I

have heard nobody suggest otherwise, there has to be a way

through smart application. I mean, you can improve the census any

number of ways, but statistical sampling has been the most accepted scientific method of trying to do it, so you are not just playing

Solomon and trying to cut it down the middle.

Now, what could we anticipate, fairly speaking, so that the transparency of this is sufficient that people will not feel that a Republican administration and a Republican-run Commerce Department

is trying to do what people saw a Republican administration do

previously in the Commerce Department when they denied the use

73

of statistical sampling? Everybody knows what the impact of that

is.

Now, I want to try to get away from the political gamesmanship

here. I do not want this to be political. I am not trying to have a

Democratic outcome, I am not trying to have a Republican outcome. I would like an American outcome, which is to count American citizens as fairly as we know how.

Now, is there some fair way for both of you, as sort of representing—I mean, one is a Republican Member, one is a Democratic appointee, but is there a way to come at this and have some

agreement about when the statistics could be subject to scrutiny at

large, so that people could make some judgments about the numbers that the American people have paid for to be gathered by an

American agency? What do you think?

Dr. WACHTER. I do not think either Gene nor I really comes from

a partisan political viewpoint on this, and we have often worked together in the Special Advisory Panel of 1990.

Senator KERRY. Do you know when that data might be able to

be subject to scrutiny?

Dr. WACHTER. For the 1990 census, by the beginning of the summer of 1991 most of the relevant data that we worked with was

there in good form. Isn’t that right, Gene?

There are apparently certain kinds of larger problems with

A.C.E. than there were with the Post Enumeration Survey in 1990,

so I have heard people talk about the summer. But as I said, from

the point of view of scientists like ourselves working with the data,

I would have no opposition to seeing the immediate release.

Senator KERRY. Dr. Ericksen.

Dr. ERICKSEN. I think it is a basic principle of science that we

make our data publicly available. Just to give you an example, the

Journal of Public Opinion Quarterly has a policy that we not publish an article unless the author of the article makes a questionnaire available.

In my view, the data should have been made publicly available

the day the monitoring board got them back in March. There is

only going to be improvement for having more people enter this debate. The more I analyze the data, the more I see questions to ask

the Census Bureau. For example, in every state that I have looked

at that has sizable numbers of blacks and Hispanics, the net

undercount there of those groups appear to be greater than they

are of non-Hispanic whites.

That is a very important question to know, because we want to

know about consistency, so the data in my view should have been

released in March or February, whenever they became available.

There is no harm whatsoever in engaging in the scrutiny. I also

think that people in city planning offices across the country would

be very interested in looking at the effects of a possible adjustment

on their localities.

That is a different issue than making the decision. I think the

mistake is to think nobody can look at the data until the decision

has been made, and we are arguing the opposite.

Senator KERRY. Well, I am arguing the opposite very strongly. It

seems completely inconsistent to me to be making the statements

that this is the most accurate census we have ever had, and to base

74

your judgment that it is the most accurate census you have ever

had because it is supported by the A.C.E., but you are not wiling

to let the information on which you make that judgment be scrutinized.

So I am going to press very hard with colleagues and others to

see if we can open this debate up. I mean, this is an important debate, and I have never known legitimate information, statistics to

be available to people. I know they can distort them, and I know

they can twist them, but there are a lot of folks out there who can

analyze this and begin to make some judgment about accuracy and

about where we go.

That is the nature of the American process, is to allow more information, not less, particularly information that number 1, that

the American people paid for and pulled together, and number 2,

that the American people are being asked to live with for 10 years

that has a profound impact on their communities and their planning, and lots of other public officials who would like to, I think,

have independent analyses of what happened in their community.

So I think it is very, very important to try to get that information

available, and to continue to have this debate.

I assume if we do not attempt t resolve this issue now, it will

be with us for 10 years, with a lot of acrimony and divisiveness

that is really unnecessary that should not accompany something

like this effort to simply count the people who are here living in

this country.

So with that said, unless there is an urgent need to add something, at this point I will leave the record open for 7 days for any

colleagues who may have additional questions, or for any additional testimony we want to gather in writing, and I thank you all

very, very much for taking time and for participating today.

Thank you. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(75)

A P P E N D I X

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN

TO DONALD L. EVANS

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, your testimony highlights a large reduction in the

undercount of minorities by the Year 2000 Census. However, some minority groups

still complain that the Census does not adequately count them. Could you please

describe what steps the Census Bureau took to reduce the minority undercount, and

how the Census Bureau intends to improve upon its 2000 results?

Answer. The Department of Commerce is gratified by recognition of the strides

made by the Census Bureau in reducing the undercount of minorities and others

in Census 2000. This was achieved by implementing many new and expanded procedures to improve participation in the census, including: expanded partnerships; paid

promotion, allowing both a visible national campaign and promotion targeted at specific population groups; increased availability of census forms and ways to respond;

involvement of local/tribal governments in updating the address listing to improve

housing unit coverage; tailoring special enumeration procedures to population

groups and geographic locations; enhanced language program; expanded recruitment

of census workers.

Further reductions in the undercount need to be addressed on several fronts.

While the Census Bureau is proud of the results of Census 2000, it intends to improve upon them. This will be increasingly challenging because the population is becoming progressively more diverse.

The Census Bureau plans to reengineer the entire census process, with improved

coverage as a major objective. The reengineering will be based on three strategies:

A significantly enhanced and improved Master Address File and the geographic data

base supporting it; Long form data collected and tabulated every year by the American Community Survey, and therefore not included as part of the 2010 Census;

Early planning and design of the 2010 Census to fully take advantage of opportunities made possible by the other two strategies.

To achieve these goals we will need the support and endorsement of Congress, in

addition to the necessary funding.

Question 2. The next major decision that you will have to take regarding the Census is whether or not to release adjusted data for federal fund allocation. I understand that you intend to make this decision in the middle of October. What processes have you set up and criteria you will consider as you make this decision?

Answer. The Census Bureau has prepared a plan for continuing the analysis of

the Census 2000 data over the next several months, a process which will lead to

a recommendation next fall concerning the use of adjusted data for use the intercensal population estimates program and for sample controls in demographic surveys. These data may also be used to allocate federal funds under various grant programs.

The plan contemplates that the Census Bureau will continue with its investigation into the quality of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.), the demographic analysis, and Census 2000. That investigation will rely on new data collected from the long form, as well as more in-depth reviews of the data and methodologies that supported the recommendation of the ESCAP Committee last March

to use the unadjusted data for redistricting purposes.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. SAM BROWNBACK

TO DONALD L. EVANS

Question 1. For the first time since 1880, the 2000 Census short form did not

gather data on marital status. As a result, important information on family structure, which is a vital indicator of child well-being, was lost. Last year, the Senate

voted unanimously in favor of a resolution expressing support for restoring the marVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
76

ital status question to the short form. Does your office plan to resume the gathering

of marital status data on the short form of 2010?

Answer. For Census 2000, in compliance with directions from Congress to reduce

the number of questions asked on the decennial questionnaires, the Census Bureau

undertook a comprehensive review of each question contained on both the short and

long form questionnaires, eliminating those which were not specifically required by

law. Through this process, the Census Bureau moved five questions from the short

form to the long form because these questions produced data that were not needed

at the block level. One of those questions was the item on marital status. The Census Bureau submitted its proposed questionnaire content for Census 2000 to Congress on March 31, 1998. Following this submission, the Census Bureau fully considered all expressed concerns about question topics before finalizing the questionnaire content. The Census Bureau received no comments regarding the content of

the marital category, and thus left that question on the long form only. When the

Senate’s resolution on the marital status question was passed, it was too late to consider changes to the content of census questionnaires.

The formal planning work for the 2010 census again will undertake a comparable

large-scale effort to elicit information from Congress and the public on what data

should be collected in the next decennial census. In addition, the American Community Survey (discussed in more detail in a later question), if funded, will provide important new and more relevant data on family structure in America.

Question 2. It is my understanding that collection of some vital statistics data

from the states can be spotty, and that the marital status question on the short

form of the Census was used to flesh out those numbers. Some demographers have

claimed that removing the question from the short form may impair the ability to

make accurate state and local estimates of the married population. Is this a concern?

Answer. The Census Bureau expects no data quality deficiencies resulting from

having the marital status question on the long form. The Census Bureau received

over 17 million long forms and believes that marital status information from the

long form, which is provided down to the census tract level, will be sufficiently accurate to provide demographers concerned with state and local estimates with the

data necessary for their statistical needs.

Question 3. What specific steps are being taken to ensure that the American Community Survey (ACS) improves and enhances data collection on family structure in

America?

Answer. Several questions in the ACS measure family structure, including questions regarding marital status, relationship, and births in the past year. The ACS

has many advantages over a single day snapshot taken every ten years because the

ACS provides more detailed measures of change. In addition, the quality of data collection, coding, and processing will improve through the use of a permanent, welltrained staff and continuous data collection.

Through the richness of the ACS content and the ability to create estimates for

small geographic areas, America will he able to study a variety of family issues,

such as matters related to children living in homes with a disabled veteran parent,

children relying on the financial support of grandparents, characteristics of children

living with immigrant parents who are not proficient in English, and other matters.

The Census Bureau expects the ACS to produce quality data to answer these questions at all important levels, including the national, state, city and town levels.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN

TO KENNETH W. WACHTER AND DAVID A. FREEDMAN

Question 1. You have just given testimony concerning possible causes of problems

in the A.C.E. methodology. How would you design a method for adjusting the Census data to account for correlation bias, heterogeneity, and processing errors?

Answer. Given the small level of error in the 2000 Census, as presently estimated,

we do not believe that adjustments can be designed which would improve on the

Census counts.

Question 2. The ESCAP cited the discrepancy between the A.C.E. data, actual

Census data, and Demographic Analysis as a major reason for releasing unadjusted

data to the states. What processes would you recommend that the Census Bureau

use to examine this discrepancy?

Answer. The most urgent need is for the Bureau to tabulate the results from

A.C.E., the Census, and the Demographic Analysis with a consistent set of categories of age, race, and sex. These tabulations will be helpful for deciding on the

next stages of analysis.

77

We recommend that the Bureau publish additional data for independent analysis

by the scientific community, including (a) the targets used in their loss function

analyses, and (b) the Census populations of Congressional districts by A.C.E.

poststrata and the residual population.

We thank the Chair and the Committee for their interest and attention.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN

TO DAVID W. MURRAY

Question 1. Some observers argue that it is important to release data adjusted

with the A.C.E. results to more accurately account for population growth and enhance our understanding of Census methodology. Given your concerns about errors

in the A.C.E. methodology, what would be the effect of releasing A.C.E.-adjusted

data?

Answer. The A.C.E. process does indeed have the capacity to ‘‘enhance our understanding of Census methodology,’’ and hence, studying the results of the A.C.E. in

comparison to Census enumerated data can make an important contribution to our

overall understanding of the country’s population growth during the last decade.

Similarly, studying the data captured in the Demographic Analysis could likewise

contribute to our understanding of both the A.C.E. process and the Census enumeration. The comparison of the three measures of the population is important particularly because the respective portraits of the population that they offer can not

be reconciled with each other, at this time and given currently available data. That

is, there is an important research role for the use of A.C.E. data (which role does

not necessarily require their ‘‘release’’ to the respective states).

Moreover, not only are the three data sets internally irreconcilable, they place us

in an historically unprecedented situation, in that the Census enumeration shows

a larger population than does the Demographic Analysis, a reversal of the expected

relationship. That is, from the perspective of the Demographic Analysis, the Census

enumeration data show a net overcount of the population, and not an undercount.

The A.C.E. data, at least at this preliminary juncture in the analysis, take us even

further away from an ability to reconcile the Demographic Analysis with the Census

enumeration, in that the A.C.E. data suggest a population count even higher than

either of the other two measures. Determining which measurement is giving us the

most accurate data is not self-evident, at this stage.

These remarks characterizing the respective population portraits refer, however,

only to the overall summary totals of the population, and do not address the even

larger challenge of determining distributive accuracy (the proportionally correct allocation of the population accurately positioned in correct geographical areas), which

is the essential function of the Census numbers. Given inherent uncertainties of the

A.C.E. adjustment process, it seems very likely that the Census enumeration data,

the unadjusted data gathered by a direct census, will prove to be the most correct

and accurate data for distributive accuracy, a consideration that appeared to prevail

in forming the recommendation by the ESCAP committee not to release adjusted

data as the official redistricting data file.

In addition, there appear to be misconceptions on the part of the public and some

public officials about the quantitative meaning of A.C.E. adjusted numbers. While

some people take the A.C.E. data as concrete, specific population counts, in reality

all numbers derived from a sampling process are subject to probability fluctuations.

That is, rather than deriving a single, stable adjusted count number (for a particular post-stratum), what a sampling adjusted process really gives you is the value

drawn from within a spread of values that varies in its range for various post-strata. Importantly, each of those estimated numbers must be accompanied by a Standard Error that expresses the confidence intervals for the value in question (confidence intervals providing the likely upper and lower bounds within which the

mean figure is believed to fall a high probability of the time).

For instance, for the Major Group ‘‘Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander,’’ we might

hear that the A.C.E. data for Census 2000 show a net undercount of 4.6 percent,

while the A.C.E. undercount figure for Asian Americans (non-Hispanic) is pegged at

.96 percent undercount (source: Census Bureau B–1 document, table 2a, ‘‘Percent

Net Undercount for Major Groups: 2000 A.C.E.’’). Some people improperly regard

those numbers as specific and concrete ‘‘findings’’ from the A.C.E. But in reality, the

A.C.E. process actually reports those undercount estimates along with a Standard

Error (SE) estimate, a plus/minus spread within which the true mean is felt to lie.

Hence, for Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, the actual A.C.E. data show an

undercount of 4.6 percent with an SE of 2.77 percent. That means that the actual

value for that post-stratum’s undercount could range from 1.83 percent to 7.37 perVerDate 03-FEB-2003 10:39 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 088017 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\COMMERCE\88017.TXT SSC2 PsN: SSC2
78

cent. Likewise, for Asian Americans, the .96 percent undercount has an SE of .64,

producing a range of values going from .32 percent to 1.6 percent. Which number

represents the ‘‘true’’ undercount adjustment which must be applied to any local

population?

Notice further that in these two cases, the SE is larger than half the value of the

estimate mean figure. In such circumstances, the probability fluctuation possible is

proportionately very large indeed, rendering our portrait of the population of those

post-strata relatively indeterminate within the overall range. With a strikingly accurate Census enumeration that materially reduced the undercount, including dramatic reductions in minority post-strata, we rapidly come to the point where adjustment begins to give us diminishing returns; that is, we begin to replace one relatively accurate enumerated figure (which albeit has an estimated undercount percentage) with a second figure, the A.C.E. adjusted figure, that is not better or more

accurate, just different. Moreover, its margins of error are in many instances as

large or larger than the undercount percentage that it seeks to remedy.

Yet many observers continue to think that the adjusted A.C.E. number is somehow a straightforward percentage correction that can simply be added in to the respective post-strata populations. This is not so. Releasing adjusted data sets to the

states could well abet this misapprehension, and even lead to ill-founded legal actions. Finally, the margins of error problem only increases as one approaches smaller and smaller geographical units, which it is the primary responsibility of the Census data to specify with accuracy for apportionment purposes.

Question 2. Some observers have suggested that a ‘‘sampling’’ method, such as the

A.C.E., would be helpful in accurately measuring previously undercounted areas,

such as parts of Arizona. Could you please discuss why the A.C.E. might lead to

an incorrect adjustment to an area that is largely rural and has a large minority

population?

Answer. Once again, we must keep foremost the importance of local level accuracy

for the Census to accomplish its purposes of accurately apportioning political power

and funding to actual people where they actually live. A serious difficulty encountered by the Census in rural areas, particularly those with a low density of a minority population such as found in Arizona, is the problem of inaccurate or incomplete

address files for residences. Getting an accurate enumeration is a challenge in such

circumstances, and, as the lessons of the Census 2000 amply demonstrate, requires

an active mobilization at the local level of officials, agencies, and field personnel who

are familiar with the geographical area, who have indigenous command of the respective languages and cultures of the area, who are trusted and accepted by local

people, and who have a stake in achieving an accurate count.

It appears to be an unfortunate by-product of the sampling adjustment process

that just such effective mobilization is not activated, and may actually be undermined by the process of statistical adjustment based on estimation assumptions for

an area that is sometimes derisively referred to as ‘‘fly-over country.’’ Rather obviously, ‘‘flying over’’ an area and adjusting it with estimated data derived from nationally-distributed samples cannot provide the kind of local knowledge, and community engagement, that a direct enumeration can accomplish.

The problem of an accurate adjustment is particularly acute when address files

are incomplete or inaccurate, since the A.C.E. design depends upon a matching process, comparing the count from the enumeration with the count for the A.C.E. sample

for each address covered by the sampling method. Errors in addresses lead to errors

in matching, and these together lead to erroneous adjustments.

As our September, 1999 Report to Congress (‘‘Unkept Promise’’) argued, the adjustment process has a tendency, particularly at local levels of geography, to misallocate the adjustment, adding people erroneously where they were not really

missed and, sadly, failing to provide a commensurate correction for areas where

striking undercounts actually occurred. Many undercounted communities remain

undercounted after adjustment, the missing persons erroneously having been allocated by the adjustment process to other areas, or spread across wide geographical

dispersions where they were not undercounted in the first instance. (Realizations

such as these may well have motivated the language of the ESCAP committee’s recommendation not to use adjusted data where they noted that, under any scenario

yet devised, adjusted data were less accurate than enumerated data for counties of

less than 100,000 people.)

Somewhat perversely, however, officials acquire the illusion that they have addressed their community’s undercount by adjustment, when in fact they have not

proportionally done so. Perversely, as well, it appears that the ‘‘unkept promise’’ of

adjustment substitutes for the very community based actions that have a far better

chance of actually locating the undercounted minorities, and even engaging them in

79

civic participation by the encounters and community mobilization required for a direct Census enumeration.

The difficulties of the address mis-matching are further amplified by the fact that

the post-strata adjustment factor applied to many rural minority communities suffer

from heterogeneity problems that the A.C.E. design could never sufficiently resolve.

This means that sociological assumptions about a minority post-stratum being homogenous throughout the country (in their probability of being counted or missed

in the census) were not born out in practice in actual communities.

As I noted in my earlier written testimony submission, one should not apply the

same adjustment factor to a recently-arrived Puerto Rican immigrant to New York

City as one applies to an Hispanic ranch owner in Arizona whose family has been

in the community for two centuries simply because both parties identify themselves

as Hispanic; yet this is exactly what the A.C.E. designs tries to do, using a nationwide post-stratum of Hispanics wherein Arizona state data are adjusted using data

actually derived from adjacent or even distant states. As a further example, it would

probably surprise many observers to learn that a post-stratum category that experienced one of the highest overcount rates was Native American male homeowners

not on reservations. Simply put, the Native American community, ranging from the

densely-clustered Hopi villages to the remotely distributed Navajo ‘‘outfits’’ to the

remarkably wealthy and modernized Connecticut community of the casino-owing

Mashantucket Pequot, has enormous heterogeneity in its actual social and economic

make up, a factor that introduces indeterminacy into the A.C.E. assumptions.

It was considerations such as these that were reflected in the ESCAP committee’s

recommendation not to use adjusted data when they discussed remaining A.C.E. design difficulties termed ‘‘synthetic error.’’ A second set of concerns in the ESCAP report, referred to as ‘‘balancing error’’ and addressing the problems of differential

search areas in the Census and the A.C.E. for determining matches, represent an

additional problem for rural areas of low density and household dispersion, as do

the tendencies of some minority groups (such as Native Americans) to live in household groupings that do not coincide with traditional census assumptions about residence patterns, and the noted transience of workers in many rural minority communities.

For these reasons (among many), the A.C.E. process cannot be shown to be more

accurate for local communities than the Census enumeration data that they were

to replace, and may even encourage a false hope that the undercount problem has

been ‘‘solved’’ while simultaneously reducing the incentive to adopt Census enumeration strategies and practices that could prove more effective in ensuring that

undercounted communities are identified, accurately enumerated, and accordingly,

are provided with the political power and public funding that are their just expectation.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN

TO ARTURO VARGAS

Question 1. You have emphasized that over one million Latinos were missed by

the Census Bureau. What suggestions would you have to improve the Census Bureau’s enumeration process for counting Latinos?

Answer. The first place to begin in determining how to improve the enumeration

of Latinos for the next census would be to build upon those elements of Census 2000

which were particularly effective in this regard. From our extensive work in conducting community outreach and public education for the census, we believe the following efforts contributed to the relative success of Census 2000:

• The early waiving of the U.S. citizenship requirement for the hiring of enumerators helped ensure that adequate numbers of bilingual individuals were available

to be hired by the Bureau in areas with large non-English speaking populations.

However, there continued to be a shortage of bilingual enumerators in areas with

small and emerging non-English speaking populations.

• The Census in the Schools helped to convey the importance of the census to

families by using schoolchildren as key messengers.

• The paid advertising campaign in English and non-English languages helped

raise awareness in the census considerably.

• The partnership program was particularly successful in involving as many community leaders and organizations as possible in being messengers of the importance

of the census.

One of the major obstacles to ensuring a full census count of Latinos, however,

is a structural element of the enumeration process. As long as the Census Bureau

continues to rely primarily on the mail-out/mail-back method, Latinos and other

80

populations with higher rates of poverty than the general population, non-English

speaking populations, and groups of individuals who fear contact with the government, will be particularly vulnerable to being missed in the census. It is our understanding that the census enumeration method may be vastly different in 2010. Any

changes to the enumeration process should be specifically designed to remove these

inherent barriers to the counting of low-income populations, children, immigrants,

and others at historical risk of being undercounted. We understand that a fundamental aspect of ‘‘recreating’’ the census is the introduction of the American Community Survey (ACS), which will be able to provide annual data on the U.S. population and eliminate the need for the long form in the decennial census. We believe

that the ACS has particular promise in collecting data that will be critical in designing a more effective decennial census and targeting resources for outreach and enumeration in 2010.

Based on our experience with Census 2000 and information we have received from

other Latino organizations and leaders involved in census promotion and outreach,

we make the following recommendations:

• Promoting the census must become an ongoing initiative, and not an activity

that is left to being a decennial task.

• Congress should promote annual appropriations for the Census Bureau to carry

out sustained partnerships between the Bureau and the community, including

Latino organizations. The Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce have

expressed a commitment to maintaining these partnerships throughout the decade,

but it will depend on the willingness of Congress to support these partnerships

through appropriations.

• The Congress should support and monitor the American Community Survey, an

annual sample survey of the American population that is designed to collect the

data now asked in the long form. It is the Census Bureau’s plan to eliminate the

need for the long form in the decennial census through implementation of the ACS.

The ACS can also serve as an ongoing tool to reinforce the confidentiality of the census throughout the decade.

• The American Community Survey must be fully funded by Congress every year.

• Members of Congress should take a leadership role in promoting the census

through the public schools by encouraging the school districts in their states and

congressional districts to incorporate the census as a permanent element of the

school curriculum. Census in the Schools was a particularly successful element of

the 2000 Census outreach plan and should happen every year.

• The Congress should support and promote supplemental outreach funding by

cities and states in the decennial census. In 2000, jurisdictions such as California

and Houston allocated their own resources to census outreach and promotion with

considerable success in increasing their mail-back response rates.

• The Congress should advocate for funding for the Census Information Centers.

Several Latino organizations have been designated as Census Information Centers,

but are unable to raise the funds necessary to analyze, publish and distribute the

data they receive. Congress should appropriate resources to make these Centers viable.

• The Congress should carefully evaluate all aspects of the Census 2000 and work

with the Bureau and the community to improve those areas that fell short. Some

key concerns in Census 2000 include the following issues:

• As in 1970, 1980 and 1990, it again was difficult for the public to receive

the Spanish-language form in a timely and easy manner, which contributed to

confusion and frustration during the enumeration. We strongly recommend that

the Census Bureau determine how to make the non-English language census

forms more easily accessible to the public. For Census 2010, data from the ACS

on levels of English-language proficiency and non-English language use would

be especially valuable in identifying areas where non-English language forms

could be made more readily available, including by mailing the non-English language forms in targeted communities with particular non-English languages

predominate.

• While it appears that adequate numbers of bilingual enumerators were employed in areas with large Latino populations, such as Los Angeles and south

Texas, there was a severe shortage of bilingual census workers in areas with

emerging Latino communities, such as western Pennsylvania and western New

York. For Census 2010, data from the ACS on levels of English-language proficiency, non-English language use, and nativity would be especially valuable in

identifying all the areas where bilingual enumerators will be required.

• While the paid advertising campaign appeared to be successful overall,

there were limitations on the media outlets that were selected to broadcast the

81

spots. Future advertising should be distributed to those media outlets most

watched/listened/read by Latinos.

• The Congress should encourage and prod the Census Bureau to hire more

Latinos in key policy making position at the national office where Latinos presently

are significantly under-represented. Latinos also are under-represented in senior

management positions in the regional offices as well. Having Latinos in key positions throughout the Census Bureau is key to sustaining a successful decade-long

outreach effort in the Latino community.

Question 2. You also highlight the importance of an accurate Census count to the

Latino community. The Census Bureau says that there is a large discrepancy between their Demographic Analysis, official Census data, and A.C.E. results. What

factors should Secretary Evans consider as he reviews criteria for releasing adjusted

data?

Answer. We are particularly concerned about the discrepancy suggested by the

Demographic Analysis; we believe the Census Bureau should fully research possible

errors in this analysis. First, analyses of the 2000 Census data suggest that thousands of persons may have been counted in 2000 who were in the country on April

1, 1990 and missed by the 1990 Census. Second, it also has been suggested by the

analyses from Census 2000 and the A.C.E. that the assumptions about the levels

of immigration during the 1990s used the Demographic Analysis were significantly

miscalculated. These possible errors would have a particular impact on the Latino

population and we strongly recommend that the Secretary consider these possibility

of greater error in the 1990 Census than what has been assumed, as well as misassumptions about immigration levels during the 1990s, which may have flawed the

Demographic Analysis.

In addition, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate Committee the

recommendations on this point forwarded to Secretary Evans by the Secretary of

Commerce’s Advisory Committee on the Decennial Census. These recommendations

were forwarded by the Acting Chair of the Committee to Secretary Evans in a letter

dated April 6, 2001. The recommendations read as follows: (1) The Committee recommends that the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census complete

the work of evaluation of the Census 2000 and Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation

(A.C.E.) data, report the data as completely as possible including by race, ethnicity,

and geography, and complete the report expeditiously. (2) If the Bureau of the Census recommends adjusting the data, the Committee recommends that the Secretary

publish the adjusted data at all levels of geography and incorporate the adjusted

data into all data products. (3) If the Bureau of the Census does not find the adjusted data to be more accurate than Census 2000 data, then the Committee recommends that the adjusted data should be available for research purposes. (4) If

the Bureau of the Census makes the recommendation to adjust the data, and the

Department of Commerce decides to not release the adjusted data for official purposes, then the decision and the adjusted data should be made public.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN MCCAIN

TO EUGENE P. ERICKSEN

Question 1. The Census Bureau’s ESCAP Panel recommended against releasing

adjusted Census numbers, because of the large discrepancy between the Demographic Analysis, the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) sample, and the

actual Census data. What may have caused this discrepancy?

Answer. The national estimates of population provided by these three methods

are: Demographic analysis: 279.6 million; Census count: 281.4 million; A.C.E. estimate: 284.7 million.

The demographic analysis estimate is probably too low. There are indications that

the volume of international immigration, especially of the undocumented type, was

greater than the Census Bureau had estimated. I believe that the valid construction

of such estimates has become more difficult than it was in 1980 or 1990, and we

must consider the possibility that valid demographic estimates may not be possible

for 2000.

The census count is probably too low, but perhaps not by very much. As indicated

in the ESCAP report (see pp. 4–6), both demographic analysis and the A.C.E. indicate a Black undercount rate between 2 and 3 percent. Estimates for the non-Black

population provided by the two methods differ, primarily because they differ greatly

for Hispanics. Indications from the A.C.E. suggest that net undercounts for Hispanics and similar to those for Blacks; undercount rates for non-Hispanic Whites

and Asians are lower, but for Native Americans they are higher.

82

The A.C.E. estimate may be too high. My reading of the ESCAP report, and various backup reports, suggests that the possibility that the Census Bureau underestimated the rate of erroneous enumeration. The bureau features two factors leading

to this possibility. One is ‘‘balancing error,’’ resulting from an inconsistency in the

geographic search areas used in the P- and E-samples in the A.C.E. The other is

due to high rates of duplication in the ‘‘late census adds.’’

When deciding whether individual people were counted correctly in the A.C.E.,

the Census Bureau searches the block(s) surrounding each sample member’s address. For example, if a person were missed at her own address, but counted next

door, the bureau would not count such a person as an omission. Problems in locating

surrounding addresses in the correct blocks could have created an imbalance in the

searches. The Census Bureau is now investigating this possibility.

The Census Bureau used a sophisticated computer program, and other methods

to estimate that 6.5 million people had been counted twice at the same address. The

bureau removed them from the count. Upon later reflection, the bureau decided that

about 2.2 million of them may not have been counted twice, and they returned them

to the count as ‘‘late census adds.’’ It is likely that a substantial number of these

people were in fact duplicates although evidence for this is inconclusive.

I have been told that the bureau may have underestimated erroneous enumerations by as many as 2 million people (see ESCAP report, p. 25). Should this be the

case, the net undercount would be reduced to 1.3 million people. It is likely that

racial differential undercounts would remain, and that some groups would have net

overcounts.

Question 2. In your testimony, you argue that comparison of adjusted 1990 and

2000 Census data is required to accurately measure population growth. Why cannot

sets of 1990 and 2000 unadjusted Census data be used to measure population

growth.

Answer. My comments referred to estimates of population growth, for local areas,

where the rates of change are more variable than they are for the nation as a whole.

As I testified, the reductions in the net undercount between 1990 and 2000 are

much greater for minority than for the non-Hispanic White population.

Let us consider two cities of 100,000 true population. One, City A, is 90 percent

White and 10 percent Black and the other, City B, is 30 percent White and 70 percent Black. Let us further assume that the local undercounts in each place mirror

the national undercounts for each of the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. This is to say

that the White undercount is 0.7 percent in both years, but that the Black

undercount was 4.6 percent in 1990 and 2.2 percent in 2000.

The undercount in City A was 1.09 percent in 1990 and 0.85 percent in 2000, a

small improvement of 0.24 percent. For City B the comparable numbers are 3.43

percent in 1990 and 1.75 percent in 2000, a larger improvement of 1.68 percent. The

City A population count would appear to have grown from 98,100 in 1990 to 99,050

in 2000. The City B count would appear to have grown even more from 96,570 to

98,250.

For cities where the shares of rental housing are greater, the year-to-year discrepancies would be greater than this. As a consequence, a city’s or county’s population

could appear to grow even though its population had not changed, due to the fact

that the Census Bureau counted better in 2000.

Many of the population counts obtained in 2000 have surprised local officials, and

they are inconsistent with the Census Bureau’s local population estimates for 1998

and 1999.

I have taken these estimates and projected a 2000 estimate by projecting the

1998–99 change. For example if the Bureau’s estimate was 660,000 in 1998 and

650,000 in 1999, the expected 2000 estimate was 640,000. I then compared the expectation to the actual count. I did this for all counties with at least 500,000 people

in the 1990 Census.

As shown in the attached table, most of the expected values were lower than the

counts. This was especially true in those counties with large minority populations.

I obtained the following results:

Average Percentage:

Percent Black Or Hispanic, 2000: 40 percent or more/Difference, Estimate And

Count: 3.84 percent.

Percent Black Or Hispanic, 2000: 20 to 39.9 percent/Difference, Estimate And

Count: 3.09 percent.

Percent Black Or Hispanic, 2000: 0 to 19.9 percent/Difference, Estimate And

Count: 1.96 percent.

The difference is defined as (count–estimate)/count. A positive number means that

the count was greater than the estimate. Of the 97 counties in my studies, 86 had

83

positive discrepancies. The above results show that the discrepancies were on average large in counties with greater shares of Black or Hispanic populations.

84

Errors in Population Estimates for 2000 by Counties and Percent Minority

State County

Percent Hispanic or NH

Black

1990 Population 2000 Popu- lation 1998 Estimate 1999 Estimate 2000 Estimate Error

Texas ......................................................................... El Paso ..................................................................... 80.98% 591,610 679,622 694,603 701,908 709,213 -4.35%New York ................................................................... Bronx ........................................................................ 79.62 1,203,789 1,332,650 1,191,319 1,194,099 1,196,879 10.19Florida ....................................................................... Dade ......................................................................... 76.28 1,937,094 2,253,362 2,150,877 2,175,634 2,200,391 2.35Maryland ................................................................... Prince Georges ......................................................... 69.29 729,268 801,515 776,907 781,781 786,655 1.85District of Columbia ................................................. 67.31 ........................................................................ 606,900 572,059 521,426 519,000 516,574 9.70Maryland ................................................................... Baltimore City .......................................................... 65.74 736,014 651,154 645,664 632,681 619,698 4.83Georgia ...................................................................... De Kalb .................................................................... 61.71 545,837 665,865 592,870 596,853 600,836 9.77Texas ......................................................................... Bexar ........................................................................ 61.24 1,185,394 1,392,931 1,354,837 1,372,867 1,390,897 0.15New Jersey ................................................................ Essex ........................................................................ 55.72 778,206 793,633 748,322 747,355 746,388 5.95New York ................................................................... Kings ........................................................................ 54.21 2,300,664 2,465,326 2,266,242 2,268,297 2,270,352 7.91California .................................................................. Los Angeles .............................................................. 54.03 8,863,164 9,519,338 9,223,807 9,329,989 9,436,171 0.87New Jersey ................................................................ Hudson ..................................................................... 51.92 553,099 608,975 553,030 552,819 552,608 9.26Texas ......................................................................... Harris ....................................................................... 51.15 2,818,199 3,400,578 3,202,021 3,250,404 3,298,787 2.99Pennsylvania ............................................................. Philadelphia ............................................................. 51.07 1,585,577 1,517,550 1,434,968 1,417,601 1,400,234 7.73Tennessee ................................................................. Shelby ...................................................................... 50.98 669,018 897,472 867,804 873,000 878,196 2.15Georgia ...................................................................... Fulton ....................................................................... 50.13 648,951 816,006 737,222 744,827 752,432 7.79Texas ......................................................................... Dallas ....................................................................... 49.95 1,852,810 2,218,899 2,045,309 2,062,100 2,078,891 6.31California .................................................................. Fresno ...................................................................... 49.03 667,490 799,407 755,051 763,069 771,087 3.54California .................................................................. San Bernardino ........................................................ 47.94 1,418,380 1,709,434 1,635,967 1,669,934 1,703,901 0.32Illinois ....................................................................... Cook ......................................................................... 45.79 5,105,067 5,376,741 5,192,396 5,192,326 5,192,256 3.43Michigan ................................................................... Wayne ....................................................................... 45.69 2,111,687 2,061,162 2,116,540 2,106,495 2,096,450 -1.71California .................................................................. Kern .......................................................................... 44.11 543,477 661,645 631,615 642,495 653,375 1.25New York ................................................................... Queens ..................................................................... 43.93 1,951,598 2,229,379 1,993,172 2,000,642 2,008,112 9.93New York ................................................................... New York .................................................................. 42.45 1,487,536 1,537,195 1,546,508 1,551,844 1,557,180 -1.30California .................................................................. Riverside .................................................................. 42.19 1,170,413 1,545,387 1,480,708 1,530,653 1,580,598 -2.28Alabama .................................................................... Jefferson ................................................................... 40.77 651,525 662,047 660,039 657,422 654,805 1.09

............................................................................. .................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Average 3.84%

Texas ......................................................................... Travis ....................................................................... 37.21 576,407 812,280 709,182 727,022 744,862 8.30Florida ....................................................................... Broward .................................................................... 36.78 1,255,488 1,623,018 1,507,770 1,535,468 1,563,166 3.69Massachusetts .......................................................... Suffolk ...................................................................... 36.36 511,433 689,807 641,333 641,695 642,057 6.92Florida ....................................................................... Orange ..................................................................... 36.31 677,491 896,344 804,489 817,206 829,923 7.41California .................................................................. Ventura .................................................................... 35.21 669,018 753,197 732,143 745,063 757,983 -0.64North Carolina .......................................................... Mecklenburg ............................................................. 34.12 649,623 695,454 630,813 648,400 665,987 4.24California .................................................................. Alameda ................................................................... 33.60 1,279,182 1,443,741 1,397,050 1,415,582 1,434,114 0.67Wisconsin .................................................................. Milwaukee ................................................................ 33.07 959,275 940,164 911,536 906,248 900,960 4.17

85

Florida ....................................................................... Hillsborough ............................................................. 32.43 834,054 998,948 925,413 940,484 955,555 4.34Texas ......................................................................... Tarrant ..................................................................... 32.36 1,170,103 1,446,219 1,354,040 1,382,442 1,410,844 2.45California .................................................................. Orange ..................................................................... 32.26 2,410,558 2,846,289 2,723,782 2,760,948 2,798,114 1.69Arizona ...................................................................... Pima ......................................................................... 32.19 666,880 843,746 790,333 803,618 816,903 3.18California .................................................................. San Diego ................................................................ 32.18 2,498,016 2,813,833 2,766,123 2,820,844 2,875,565 -2.19Florida ....................................................................... Duval ........................................................................ 31.64 672,971 778,879 734,664 738,483 742,302 4.70Nevada ...................................................................... Clark ........................................................................ 30.79 741,459 1,375,765 1,161,259 1,217,155 1,273,051 7.47Ohio ........................................................................... Cuyahoga ................................................................. 30.59 1,412,140 1,393,978 1,380,428 1,371,717 1,363,006 2.22Tennessee ................................................................. Davidson .................................................................. 30.36 1,497,577 569,891 533,258 530,050 526,842 7.55New York ................................................................... Westchester .............................................................. 29.17 874,866 923,459 900,861 905,572 910,283 1.43Missouri .................................................................... Jackson .................................................................... 28.48 633,232 654,880 655,055 654,484 653,913 0.15Arizona ...................................................................... Maricopa .................................................................. 28.38 2,122,101 3,072,149 2,783,779 2,861,395 2,939,011 4.33Indiana ...................................................................... Marion ...................................................................... 27.89 797,159 860,454 812,662 810,946 809,230 5.95New Jersey ................................................................ Camden .................................................................... 26.96 502,824 508,932 504,268 503,093 501,918 1.38California .................................................................. Contra Costa ............................................................ 26.84 803,732 948,816 917,970 933,141 948,312 0.05California .................................................................. Santa Clara ............................................................. 26.62 1,497,577 1,682,585 1,641,848 1,647,419 1,652,990 1.76Maryland ................................................................... Montgomery .............................................................. 26.33 757,027 873,341 839,158 852,174 865,190 0.93Florida ....................................................................... Palm Beach ............................................................. 25.91 863,518 1,131,184 1,032,872 1,049,420 1,065,968 5.77California .................................................................. Sacramento .............................................................. 25.66 1,041,219 1,223,499 1,166,699 1,184,586 1,202,473 1.72California .................................................................. San Mateo ................................................................ 25.24 649,623 707,161 701,080 702,102 703,124 0.57Ohio ........................................................................... Hamilton .................................................................. 24.45 866,228 845,303 847,202 840,443 833,684 1.37Oklahoma .................................................................. Oklahoma ................................................................. 23.55 599,611 660,448 632,865 636,539 640,213 3.06Connecticut ............................................................... Hartford .................................................................... 22.65 851,783 857,183 827,706 829,671 831,636 2.98New Jersey ................................................................ Middlesex ................................................................. 22.18 671,780 750,162 712,638 717,949 723,260 3.59Maryland ................................................................... Baltimore County ..................................................... 21.77 692,134 754,292 721,556 723,914 726,272 3.71California .................................................................. San Francisco .......................................................... 21.67 723,959 776,733 745,756 746,777 747,798 3.73Connecticut ............................................................... Fairfield .................................................................... 21.48 827,645 882,567 837,476 841,334 845,192 4.23Illinois ....................................................................... Lake ......................................................................... 21.15 516,418 644,356 608,348 617,975 627,602 2.60Ohio ........................................................................... Montgomery .............................................................. 21.03 573,809 559,062 570,141 565,866 561,591 -0.45Connecticut ............................................................... New Haven ............................................................... 20.92 804,219 824,008 792,879 793,208 793,537 3.70Kentucky .................................................................... Jefferson ................................................................... 20.53 664,937 693,604 671,595 672,900 674,205 2.80Missouri .................................................................... Saint Louis ............................................................... 20.38 993,529 1,016,315 997,347 996,181 995,015 2.10Ohio ........................................................................... Franklin .................................................................... 20.01 961,437 1,068,978 1,021,578 1,027,821 1,034,064 3.27

............................................................................. .................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Average 3.09%

New York ................................................................... Nassau ..................................................................... 19.72 1,287,348 1,334,544 1,300,995 1,305,057 1,309,119 1.91Virginia ..................................................................... Fairfax ...................................................................... 19.41 818,584 969,749 927,895 945,717 963,539 0.64Rhode Island ............................................................. Providence ................................................................ 19.19 596,270 621,602 573,701 574,108 574,515 7.58New York ................................................................... Monroe ..................................................................... 18.66 713,968 735,343 714,936 712,419 709,902 3.46New York ................................................................... Suffolk ...................................................................... 17.10 1,321,864 1,419,369 1,370,549 1,383,847 1,397,145 1.57Oklahoma .................................................................. Tulsa ........................................................................ 16.81 503,341 563,299 543,417 548,296 553,175 1.80

86

Errors in Population Estimates for 2000 by Counties and Percent Minority—Continued

State County

Percent Hispanic or NH

Black

1990 Population 2000 Popu- lation 1998 Estimate 1999 Estimate 2000 Estimate Error

New York ................................................................... Erie ........................................................................... 16.03 968,532 950,265 933,702 925,957 918,212 3.37Pennsylvania ............................................................. Delaware .................................................................. 15.87 547,651 550,864 542,592 541,502 540,412 1.90Michigan ................................................................... Kent .......................................................................... 15.70 500,631 574,335 544,781 550,388 555,995 3.19New Jersey ................................................................ Bergen ...................................................................... 15.33 825,380 884,118 854,428 857,052 859,676 2.76Ohio ........................................................................... Summit .................................................................... 14.00 514,990 542,899 537,160 537,856 538,552 0.80New Jersey ................................................................ Monmouth ................................................................ 13.96 553,124 615,301 603,214 611,444 619,674 -0.71Florida ....................................................................... Pinellas .................................................................... 13.45 851,659 921,482 877,273 878,499 879,725 4.53Pennsylvania ............................................................. Allegheny .................................................................. 13.20 1,336,449 1,281,666 1,267,963 1,256,806 1,245,649 2.81Oregon ....................................................................... Multnomah ............................................................... 13.05 583,887 660,486 630,573 633,224 635,875 3.73Massachusetts .......................................................... Essex ........................................................................ 13.03 670,080 723,419 700,370 704,407 708,444 2.07Minnesota ................................................................. Hennepin .................................................................. 12.91 1,032,431 1,116,200 1,058,943 1,064,419 1,069,895 4.15Utah .......................................................................... Salt Lake .................................................................. 12.83 725,956 898,387 845,913 850,243 854,573 4.88Michigan ................................................................... Oakland .................................................................... 12.45 1,083,592 1,194,156 1,175,057 1,179,978 1,184,899 0.78Washington ............................................................... Pierce ....................................................................... 12.27 586,203 700,820 675,962 688,807 701,652 -0.12Illinois ....................................................................... DuPage ..................................................................... 11.98 781,666 904,161 880,996 892,547 904,098 0.01Washington ............................................................... King .......................................................................... 10.77 1,507,319 1,737,034 1,654,329 1,664,846 1,675,363 3.55Pennsylvania ............................................................. Montgomery .............................................................. 9.41 678,111 750,097 719,569 724,087 728,605 2.87Massachusetts .......................................................... Worcester ................................................................. 9.20 709,705 750,963 730,769 738,629 746,489 0.60Hawaii ....................................................................... Honolulu ................................................................... 8.94 871,768 876,156 871,768 864,571 857,374 2.14Massachusetts .......................................................... Middlesex ................................................................. 7.73 1,398,468 1,465,396 1,422,465 1,426,606 1,430,747 2.36Pennsylvania ............................................................. Bucks ....................................................................... 5.52 541,174 597,635 587,863 594,047 600,231 -0.43Massachusetts .......................................................... Bristol ...................................................................... 5.43 506,325 534,678 516,975 520,258 523,541 2.08Massachusetts .......................................................... Norfolk ...................................................................... 4.94 616,087 650,308 642,089 643,580 645,071 0.81Michigan ................................................................... Macomb ................................................................... 4.26 717,400 788,149 786,866 792,082 797,298 -1.16

................................................................................... .................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Average 1.96%

Source: www.census.gov/People estimates/County Population Estimates/ County Population Estimates for July 1, 1999 and the Population Change from July 1, 1998 to July

1, 1999/American FactFinder/Race Hispanic or Latino (2000)

87

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BARBARA BOXER

TO DONALD L. EVANS

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, I am requesting two things. First, for the Census Bureau to immediately release all the data collected and the adjusted numbers it believes are inaccurate so that independent experts can examine the numbers and assumptions.

Answer. In keeping with our goal of openness and transparency in decisions and

processes, the Census Bureau signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with

the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee

on the Census, the Census Monitoring Board, and the National Academy of

Sciences’ Committee on National Statistics, granting access to data to facilitate

independent review of Census 2000. Presently, a second MOU is under consideration by these oversight groups. This MOU provides the opportunity for outside researchers to study the A.C.E. Census 2000 and demographic analysis data while appropriately controlling access to sensitive data and protecting the ongoing deliberative process of Census Bureau staff and other officials of the Department of Commerce. The data now being made available under this MOU have been used by the

Census Bureau for assessing the accuracy of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation

(A.C.E) survey results. We believe that providing these materials will further the

oversight responsibilities of the Congress and the other above-mentioned entities as

well as satisfy the requests by many Members of Congress and other interested parties that the A.C.E. data be made available. Although the Senate had not previously

participated in this review process, we have contacted the committees of jurisdiction

to extend the same opportunity.

Question 2. Second, for the Census Bureau to move with immediate haste to resolve the issues it believes have distorted the adjusted numbers and provide Congress with adjusted numbers well before the Fall deadline for determining distribution of federal funds. Can you assure myself and the Committee that these requests

will be met?

Answer. The Census Bureau is currently engaged in a comprehensive research

and evaluation effort to address all outstanding issues and to resolve questions

raised by the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation

Policy (ESCAP) report issued on March 1, 2001. Our commitment to provide the

Congress and the public with the most accurate and statistically sound data remains our primary objective. As soon as possible, the Census Bureau plans to release its findings and make a recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce concerning the accuracy of the adjusted data. We will provide these findings to the Congress as swiftly as possible.

[From USA TODAY, March 28, 2001]

REPORT: CITIES, MINORITIES LOSE IN CENSUS UNDERCOUNT

(By Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg)

California could claim half a million more people, Texas another 350,000 and New

York 300,000 if the 2000 Census were adjusted to make up for the people who were

missed, according to a Democratic-backed, state-by-state undercount estimate out

today.

The undercount numbers for 50 states, the District of Columbia and five big cities

are the first to indicate where an estimated 3.3 million missed by the Census were

living.

The numbers, released by Democrats on the Census Monitoring Board, are likely

to put more pressure on the Census Bureau to release adjusted population counts

for all areas.

The Census Bureau is still reviewing the numbers.

The estimates were done by Eugene Ericksen, a statistics professor at Temple

University and a consultant to Democrats on the monitoring board. He used the

methods outlined by the Census Bureau in its own study of whether Census numbers should be adjusted.

His analysis shows the largest percentages of people missed were in states with

a high number of minorities and big cities. The net undercounts were smallest in

some Midwestern and Plains states.

Undercounts have broad implications for states and cities because Census numbers are used to redraw political districts and distribute $185 billion in Federal

funds annually.

88

Most Republicans are opposed to the estimates because they say it creates ‘‘virtual’’ people. Democrats say it’s the only way to correct the disproportionate

undercount of minorities and the poor.

‘‘At this point, we don’t have the confidence in (our adjusted) numbers to release

them,’’ says John Thompson, the Census Bureau’s associate director for the decennial Census.

Acting Census Director William Barron said he could not comment on Ericksen’s

estimates because he had not seen his methodology. Commerce Secretary Donald

Evans, who oversees the Census Bureau, is to testify about the numbers today before a Senate panel.

The estimates claim about 188,500 people were missed in New York City (2.3 percent undercount); more than 62,000 in Chicago (2.1 percent); 44,000 in Houston (2.2

percent); 21,500 in Philadelphia (1.4 percent); and 9,400 in Atlanta (2.2 percent).

Census 2000 was the most accurate count ever. Undercount estimates released

today show that 35 states—including the two biggest, California and Texas—had a

smaller undercount in 2000 than in 1990.

In 2000, officials said the Census missed at least 6.4 million and counted at least

3.1 million twice, a net undercount of 3.3 million. In 1990, it missed 8.4 million and

counted 4.4 million twice, a net undercount of 4 million.

The Census Bureau recommended against using adjusted numbers because it

couldn’t explain huge gaps between the Census, adjusted numbers and estimates

based on birth, death and immigration records.

89

Æ