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

53–847 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 111–635 

2010 CENSUS: A STATUS UPDATE OF KEY 

DECENNIAL OPERATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 7, 2009 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Staff Director 

VELVET JOHNSON, Professional Staff Member 

BRYAN PARKER, Staff Director and General Counsel to the Minority 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Chief Clerk 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Burris .................................................................................................. 12 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 15 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 18 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 33 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 35 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009 

Hon. Robert Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau ............................................. 4 

Hon. Todd Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce ............... 6 

Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Census Issues, Government Accountability Office ......................................................................................................................... 8

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Goldenkoff, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Groves, Hon. Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Zinser, Hon. Todd: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Groves ......................................................................................................... 81 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(1) 

2010 CENSUS: A STATUS UPDATE OF KEY 

DECENNIAL OPERATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m., in the 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, room SD–342, Hon. Thomas R. 

Carper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Burris, McCain, and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. The Subcommittee will come to order. Welcome 

one and all. Today’s hearing is, as you may know, a continuation 

of our oversight of the Census Bureau’s preparation for the 2010 

Census. 

The 2010 Census is rapidly approaching us with Census Day less 

than 6 months away. On April 1, April Fool’s Day, 2010, the Census Bureau will embark upon what many have described as the 

largest peacetime mobilization in American history. With nearly a 

$15 billion budget and an army of some 1.3 million census takers, 

the Census Bureau is responsible for ensuring that nearly 300 million residents here in this country are correctly counted. 

As my colleagues can probably guess, finding and accurately 

counting nearly 300 million individuals in the correct location is, 

of course, an extremely daunting challenge. Census taking has become even more challenging in recent years as our Nation’s population has steadily grown larger, grown more diverse, and grown 

increasingly difficult to find. For a number of reasons, people may 

also be more reluctant to participate in the census. 

Last year, for instance, the Census Bureau encountered serious 

technological challenges that threatened to jeopardize the success 

of the 2010 Census. Since then, the Bureau has put forth great effort in putting the census back on track. I am told that the Bureau 

recently completed its address canvassing well ahead of schedule, 

thanks in part to a highly proficient staff. 

The handheld computers that have received so much negative attention in recent months performed as expected, and the Bureau 

has begun already to open local census offices throughout our country. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
2 

Despite these successes, much more work needs to be done by 

the Bureau to put its operational plans in place and to execute 

them effectively. Connecting with young, mobile, and wired populations, establishing trust with skeptical populations, and integrating the major components of a complex operation are just a few 

of the challenges that lie ahead. 

Investigations conducted both by GAO and the Inspector General 

have revealed serious challenges with the contracting and implementation of key information technology systems at the Census Bureau. These reports have also noted the unreliability of the Census 

Bureau’s cost estimate for the total 2010 project. In the absence of 

adequate testing, the processes that will be used to follow up with 

non-responders is a serious concern as well. 

Given the sheer magnitude of an undertaking such as the decennial Census, a shortcoming in any one area can quickly have a 

domino effect on other operations. For example, a low mail response would increase the non-response follow-up workload, which 

in turn would increase the Bureau’s staffing needs and drive up 

costs. 

We look forward today to the expert testimony of our distinguished panel of witnesses before us. It is my hope that today’s 

proceedings will provide us with a clear assessment of the complications facing the Census Bureau and how Congress can best 

partner with the Bureau as it works toward achieving its goal of 

an accurate and cost-effective census in 2010. 

In closing, I would like to express my condolences to the family 

of William Sparkman. Mr. Sparkman, you will recall, was a census 

taker who was found in Kentucky a few weeks ago dead. Our 

thoughts and prayers are with him today and with his family 

today. 

I would like to thank all of our hardworking census employees 

who assist us in fulfilling our constitutional obligation of conducting this decennial Census and just to say to all of them 

through this panel that we value and appreciate their service. 

We have been joined by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Burris. 

I am going to recognize him at this time for any comments he 

might like to make. Welcome. Thank you for joining us. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to acknowledge our distinguished panel. But, Mr. Chairman, I beat my staff 

over here, so I am going to reserve my remarks because I have 

some deep concern about a package that my daughter received in 

the mail just last week, and my staff is bringing that material 

here. 

I am a former attorney general. If I am suspicious of this material, I can imagine what the public would be suspicious of. It is a 

20-page document. It is a survey, and it says it is from the U.S. 

Census Bureau. And it says it is mailed to an address, but it says 

that you are required by Federal law to fill out this survey and to 

send it back. 

So I am going to have that in a moment when my staff gets here 

with it, and I would love to double-check with our census people 

to see, number one, if they mailed this out. If I am suspicious of 

this document survey, trying to find information about individuals, 

I am just wondering what the general public who may receive these 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
3 

in a mass mailing would be curious about as to whether or not this 

is really being put out by the U.S. Census Bureau in terms of a 

survey seeking information this early. 

Senator CARPER. I am tempted to just go out and ask Mr. Groves 

to respond to this right now, but why don’t we wait till we see the 

information, ask you to take a look at it, and then I think that 

would be perfectly appropriate to ask some related questions. 

Let me take a moment or two to introduce our first and only 

panel of witnesses. We welcome each of you today before us and 

thank you for joining us. 

Mr. Groves was nominated by President Barack Obama about 8 

months ago. It seemed like long ago, not that long, but he was 

nominated by President Barack Obama to be Director of the Census, in April and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in July. Mr. 

Groves is an expert in survey methodology and has spent decades 

working to strengthen the Federal statistical system, improve its 

staffing through training programs and keep it committed to the 

highest scientific principles of accuracy and efficiency. Having once 

served as the Associate Director of the Census Bureau, Mr. Groves 

knows how the agency operates and what its employees need to 

successfully implement the decennial Census and other programs. 

Mr. Groves and I are today mourning the loss of the Detroit Tigers in yesterday’s one-game playoff in the American League Central Division. We are both big Detroit Tigers fans, so we will mourn 

here together. 

Todd Zinser serves as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Commerce. As Inspector General, Mr. Zinser leads a team 

of auditors, investigators, attorneys and administrative staff responsible for detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in 

a vast array of business, scientific, economic and environmental 

programs administered by the Department of Commerce and its 13 

bureaus. 

Mr. Zinser holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from 

Northern Kentucky University. Where is that located? 

Mr. ZINSER. It is right across from Cincinnati. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Near Fort Mitchell? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. OK. A master’s degree in political science 

from Miami University. Would that be Miami University in Oxford, 

Ohio? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Not many people guess that, do they? 

Mr. ZINSER. No, sir. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Robert Goldenkoff is the Director of Strategic Issues at the Government Accountability Office where he is responsible for reviewing 

the 2010 Census and government-wide human capital reforms. Mr. 

Goldenkoff has also performed research on issues involving transportation security, human trafficking and Federal statistical programs. He received his bachelor of arts in political science and 

master’s of public administration degree from George Washington 

University. 

I am going to introduce first for his testimony Mr. Groves, and 

we have, at your request, allocated a bit more time, and you have 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Groves appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

10 minutes to share your testimony with us. Try to stick within 

that time frame, and we will allow your entire testimony, and that 

of our other witnesses to be made part of the record and ask you 

to summarize as you see fit. Thank you. Please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ROBERT GROVES,1 DIRECTOR, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU 

Mr. GROVES. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

McCain, and other Members of the Subcommittee. I am really 

happy to be here, and thank you for your interest in the census. 

I want to begin the way you ended, Senator Carper. The census 

family was diminished recently by a death of one of our census 

interviewers. These are people who knock on doors. They are the 

engine of the data that we produce. And we are saddened by this 

event, and we send our condolences to his family. 

Upon my confirmation, I promised you and I promised Secretary 

Locke that I would spend the first month of my service examining 

the status of the 2010 Census. I did that with the help of former 

Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt, and John Thompson, a 

former principal associate director. 

I consulted folks at the National Academy of Sciences who have 

been on our panels and its technical staff. I then called in some 

academics from around the country with relevant technical skills. 

I talked to my colleagues here several times and their staff, and 

then I reached out to our principal contractors and got input from 

them. And then finally, I had tons of briefings with the leadership 

of the census, and it is on that basis that I want to report my findings. 

Let me begin by talking as a survey methodologist and imagine 

that we wrote down the specifications of the 2000 Census, and then 

the 2010 Census, and we compared the design features. I can tell 

you that I am firm in my judgment if you did that as an exercise 

that you would prefer the 2010 design. I have no doubt in my mind 

about this. I am sure my colleagues around the world would agree, 

and let me go through the reasons. 

The short form only census is a good idea that respects the burdensome job of filling out questionnaires and fits with the American public’s busy life. The bilingual form that is going to 13 million households is a good idea. We learned that in 2000 that it 

should increase cooperation among Spanish-only speakers. A replacement form will go out if you do not return your completed 

questionnaire. We know from years of research that this is going 

to improve cooperation. 

We have two questions on the questionnaire this decade that is 

going to be important because of the doubled-up housing problem 

related to foreclosures, and that is going to help us make sure that 

we have counted everyone in complicated housing situations. 

We have kept the address file up-to-date throughout the decade. 

That should make us a stronger file. And we are right now in the 

middle of a new operation to validate the group quarters list. This, 

too, should help us. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
5 

Finally, the stimulus funding allowed us to increase the level of 

partnership in advertising activities. This is a key component in 

the success of a census design that does not have an adjustment 

feature. We have to reach out to the public that is difficult to enumerate. 

So on the basis of this, I am very settled in my judgment that 

we have a better design, but the design is not the implementation. 

And I want to speak to two kinds of challenges we have, one, an 

internal challenge and the other external. 

The internal challenges, first, we have a bright, well organized 

senior team, but they do not have the number of censuses under 

their belt that prior decades might have had. And to counter that, 

they have utilized a much more formal and structured risk management process, and that is helpful, in my judgment. I am going 

to keep on some of the external advisers we have had during this 

evaluation process to help me and help the team in ways that can 

fill in, and I think that will be useful to us. 

The second internal challenge is, as I mentioned in my confirmation hearing, the Census Bureau has experienced significant retirements in the senior ranks, especially mathematical statisticians. 

We need that kind of talent at some point during the census, and 

I will bring on some outside statisticians to help on this. 

Third, the movement from the handheld computer use to non-response follow-up had an effect on the need to develop software for 

the paper-based operations during non-response follow-up. GAO, 

my colleague down the panel, has recognized that the testing of 

that system is a critical path on the census. We agree. I have reviewed the testing procedures. I have brought in outside folks to 

ask the question, Are we testing the right core subsystems of that? 

And I have been pleased with the judgment on that score. We have 

a big test coming up around Thanksgiving time, which will be a 

load test on that, which will be an important milestone that we are 

all watching on. 

We also established an internal review team that has already 

paid off. It contains our chief technology officer (CIO) from the Department of Commerce and other experts. They have already proposed three changes. We implemented them immediately. We have 

brought in IT security specialists as part of the software development. We have built a bridge between the internal Census Bureau 

developments and the outside contractors for integrative purposes, 

and we are adding other testing into the process. So we are on this 

problem. It is a tight schedule. We have to come through on this, 

and it is an internal challenge. 

The fourth risk we will soon know about, and that is how good 

is our master address file. Senator Carper mentioned that we just 

finished walking every street of this country building the master 

address file. We are right now in the middle of evaluating that. In 

a few weeks, we will know how that looks, and it is an important 

step for us. 

Then finally, and something I am really quite personally concerned about, it concerns cost estimation and control. We need better cost estimation and better cost control at the Census Bureau. 

As you may know, the address canvassing operation had an overrun attached to it. The overrun, I believe, is related to weaknesses 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Zinser appears in the Appendix on page 50. 

in the cost modeling process. We are completely redoing the cost 

modeling for the non-response follow-up stage, which is the biggest 

next thing we do, and I am happy to talk about that, if you wish, 

during this hearing. 

We also have some external challenges that I am concerned 

about. The biggest is the uncertainty about the mail return rate. 

The behavior of the American public in March and April of this 

year is a big uncertainty with regard to that. Scores of millions of 

dollars will be spent following up for houses that did not return the 

mail questionnaire. It is important to hit that target, to estimate 

that target well. 

There are problems in doing this. One, the vacancy rate of American households is greater now than in prior decades. This is a concern for us because this has cost implications. Two, more and more 

families are doubled up in single-family houses. This is a concern 

to us because the burden of filling out a questionnaire for more 

people is larger and may affect return rates. Three, the rate of 

homelessness is greater, and there is a new class of homelessness 

in this country that we are new to as a data collection organization. 

And then finally, the public debate and the tension over immigration issues is ongoing, and this may affect the mail return rate 

among new immigrants. 

We are examining all the data we have in house to try to estimate this. As you may know, we continue to see declining participation rates in our sample surveys. This is a danger signal to us 

with regard to how people will behave come March and April. 

The second external challenge is the new media environment. 

The blogosphere causes us problems in getting our facts out. And 

third, we are worried about computer phishing that may affect people’s understanding of what is going on. 

I made a variety of changes to the design that I am happy to talk 

about. We have altered the design of the coverage measurement 

survey. We have added a master trace project. We will have an 

Internet test in this census, and we will do a post hoc administrative record census. 

We have some things upcoming. I want to warn the Subcommittee—and you can see this in my full testimony—that we 

have a variety of operations in the fall that are tightly scheduled. 

Some of these may have bumps. We will be transparent about 

those bumps. We will tell you when things are not going well. We 

are hopeful that things will go well. As Senator Carper mentioned, 

this is a sequential process, and each successive stage needs to go 

well for the overall census to go well. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Right on the money. Thank you. 

Mr. Zinser, you are recognized. Please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. TODD ZINSER,1 INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. ZINSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn, and 

Senator Burris. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the 

Census Bureau’s readiness for next year’s decennial Census. OverVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:39 Oct 18, 2010 Jkt 053847 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53847.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
7 

sight of the 2010 Census has been a top priority of my office since 

2002. Today I would like to summarize my testimony by making 

three points. 

First, the dye is cast on the decennial. No real opportunity remains to affect the 2010 decennial planning or make major course 

corrections. My office is focusing our oversight on the status of 

high-risk areas to see whether the implementation of existing planning, system development, and operations are on track. Key areas 

include the automated paper-based operations control system, validation of the address list for group quarters, the communications 

contract and partnership program, and various enumeration activities. 

My second point, Mr. Chairman, is that the decennial Census is 

the ultimate schedule-driven program with all of the inherent risks 

and consequences that you get with large, complex, schedule-driven 

projects. At issue is the continuing potential for rushed and incomplete requirements; time pressure to cut corners in program design, 

development and testing; uncontrolled cost growth and increased 

operational risks and quality risks. 

For example, while handheld computers were able to support address canvassing, the Census Bureau discovered that the handhelds could not support canvassing of large blocks. This caused the 

Bureau to implement a quickly developed contingency operation. 

And in an upcoming report, we will discuss limitations that prevented using the handheld computers to correct addresses filed late 

in the quality control process to add missed housing units or delete 

duplicates. These problems can reduce the accuracy of the address 

file. 

Moreover, the switch to paper for non-response follow-up, while 

a necessary decision, introduced schedule challenges of its own. 

Most problematic is the development of the paper-based operation 

control system which must now be developed, tested and deployed 

in one-third of the desired time frame. 

My third point, Mr. Chairman, is that there is one thing we can 

have confidence in, and that is the dedication of the rank and file 

census workforce. If you visit the census staff or a local census office, the dedication of the staff is clearly evident. In our view, a key 

factor in overcoming the setbacks and management lapses experienced is the focus and commitment of the census workforce, and 

this perhaps more than anything else increases our confidence in 

the success of the decennial Census. 

I would also like to commend the Subcommittee for its prompt 

action in confirming the director. The presence of a permanent director during the final period leading up to census day has immeasurable benefits. But no matter how successful the outcome, the 

many continuing risks associated with getting to the finish line for 

2010, the unacceptable cost growth, and the unknown toll on census staff working to cobble together a massive operation this late 

in the decade make it imperative that the experience of the 2010 

Census not be repeated. 

To this end and given where we are with the 2010 decennial, 

many of the recommendations that we have made represent lessons 

learned and look ahead to the 2020 decennial, which the Census 

Bureau has already started working on. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff appears in the Appendix on page 60. 

For example, the budget process for 2012, which begins next 

year, already is critical for laying the foundation for better cost 

controls and fundamental improvements, including a more robust 

research program. 

In summary, the Census Bureau is well on its way to completing 

the count next year, yet with major operations still to come and an 

immovable deadline, ongoing oversight remains critical. We commend the Subcommittee for its oversight, and we commend the efforts of all those in the Bureau, the Department of Commerce, and 

Congress who are working to make the decennial Census a success. 

Mr. Chairman, that is my summary of my testimony. I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Zinser. Mr. Goldenkoff, please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF,1 DIRECTOR, CENSUS 

ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am pleased to be here today to provide a progress report on the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s implementation of the 2010 Census. 

As in March 2008, we designated the 2010 Census a high-risk 

area, citing a number of longstanding and emerging challenges, including weaknesses in the Bureau’s IT management, problems with 

the performance of handheld computers that are used to collect 

data, and uncertainty over the final cost of the census, which is 

now estimated at around $14.7 billion. 

Overarching all of these concerns was the lack of a full-dress rehearsal which limited the Bureau’s ability to demonstrate critical 

enumeration activities under near census-like conditions as well as 

the lack of time to complete remaining work. Collectively, these 

issues raised questions about the Bureau’s readiness for the 2010 

Census. 

As requested, my remarks today will focus on the Bureau’s preparedness for the head count, paying particular attention to, first, 

the rollout of key IT systems; second, our preliminary findings on 

the results of address canvassing; and, third, the Bureau’s progress 

in improving its cost estimation abilities. 

My main point today is that the Bureau continues to make noteworthy progress in mitigating risks and in keeping the decennial 

on track. Further, we are encouraged by the seating of a presidentially-appointed Census director this past July as well as by the 

experienced advisers he has put in place to assist him. 

That said, a number of challenges and uncertainties still need to 

be addressed. The bottom line is that while there have been a number of positive developments over the last few months, the 2010 

Census remains a high-risk area because of the amount of work 

that still needs to be completed under a very tight time frame, as 

well as for the inherent uncertainties in managing such a complex 

enterprise. 

With respect to IT, the Bureau has made important strides in 

improving its oversight of this critical function. For example, the 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
9 

Bureau named an official to monitor the testing of various IT systems and has strengthened other aspects of its IT management. 

Still, we found that in some cases, requirements, and testing 

plans have not been finalized, and it is difficult to gauge progress 

because of vague metrics. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. Because of what? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Vague metrics. Further, several areas such as 

the control system that will be used to manage complex field operations face aggressive testing and implementation time frames. If 

any significant problems are identified during upcoming tests, 

there generally will be little time to resolve them before the system 

needs to be deployed. 

Address canvassing, an operation where temporary workers 

known as listers go door-to-door to verify and update address data, 

finished ahead of schedule, but, as was already mentioned, was 

over budget. The Bureau estimated that address canvassing would 

cost around $356 million, but estimates of the actual cost are $444 

million, an overrun of $88 million or 25 percent. 

A key reason for the overrun is that the Bureau did not update 

its cost estimates to reflect the changes to the address canvassing 

workload. Further, the Bureau did not follow its staffing strategy 

and hired too many listers. 

The Bureau’s efforts to fingerprint employees, which is required 

as part of a criminal background check, did not proceed smoothly, 

in part because of training issues. As a result, over 35,000 temporary census workers, over a fifth of the address canvassing workforce, were hired despite the fact that their fingerprints could not 

be processed and they were not fully screened for employment eligibility. The Bureau is refining its instruction manuals and taking 

other steps to improve the fingerprinting process for future operations. 

With respect to costs, we are unable to verify the accuracy of the 

$14.7 billion cost of the 2010 Census because key details and assumptions are unavailable. The Bureau is taking steps to improve 

its cost estimation process for 2020, including training its staff in 

cost estimation skills. 

In summary, while the Bureau has taken a number of actions to 

mitigate risks and its overall readiness for 2010 has improved, considerable work remains to be completed under very tight time 

frames. Although the Bureau is to be commended for its efforts to 

get the census back on track, a successful census is a daunting 

challenge and even a small setback or a misstep could potentially 

derail the census. 

In light of this challenging operational environment, high levels 

of public participation and continued Bureau and congressional attention to stewardship, performance and accountability will be key 

to success. 

Chairman Carper, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes 

my remarks, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you 

might have. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Goldenkoff. 

We have been joined by Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn, both 

Senator Burris and I made brief remarks to open. Would you like 

to do that before we go to questions? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
10 

Senator COBURN. I will wait. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Let’s just start off by asking a question of Mr. Groves. This turns 

out a pretty timely question. 

But there is an amendment on the floor today, on the Appropriations Bill which involves the Commerce Department, that would 

prohibit the use of census funds for programs that do not include 

questions regarding U.S. citizenship and immigration status. And 

while I have some concerns about how this amendment might impact public participation in the decennial Census, I just want to 

ask Mr. Groves what thoughts you may have about the amendment. I think a copy of it has been provided to you today to consider; is that correct? 

Mr. GROVES. I have not seen the amendment. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. GROVES. I have not seen the amendment, but let me comment—— 

Senator CARPER. No, it is short. Let me just read it to you, all 

right? 

Mr. GROVES. OK. 

Senator CARPER. On page 110, line 7, ‘‘Strike the word activities 

and insert activities provided further that none of the funds provided in this Act, or in any other act, for any fiscal year, may be 

used for collection of census data that does not include questions 

regarding U.S. citizenship and immigration status.’’ 

That is the thrust of the amendment. 

Mr. GROVES. I would open with several observations. In March 

1790, the Census Act was passed that specified that all residents, 

citizens or not, would be counted in decennial censuses at the place 

where they usually reside. And every decade since then, we have 

done this. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. Every year since when have we 

done this? 

Mr. GROVES. Since 1790. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. GROVES. So it is indeed the case that if you read the history 

of this, of proposals to change that arise from time to time; this is 

not the first such proposal. 

There are logistical issues. It is now October 7, 2009. We have 

printed over 100 million forms; that is, the questionnaires approved 

by Capitol Hill. It does not have this question in it, and we are implementing that both because of this philosophy to minimize the 

burden on the American public and in concert with the tradition 

in the law of counting residents whether they are citizens or not. 

Senator CARPER. All right. A more general question. 

You have been in your position now for, what, about 2 months? 

Mr. GROVES. Something like that. 

Senator CARPER. About 2 months. 

Mr. GROVES. It seems longer. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, I am sure. I know you have been busy. And 

would you say, given what you have seen, are you encouraged 

about the ability of the Census Bureau to do the job that is presented to you by next year? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
11 

Mr. GROVES. Yes. One way to say this in a crisp way that is more 

memorable, I think if we knew right now two things that we do not 

know, but we will know soon, then I would have full confidence. I 

could even say something like it is sort of up to the American public now. That, we cannot control. And the two things are this software development that is going on that we are looking at very carefully. It must work, where it is very tightly scheduled. 

Senator CARPER. What kind of software development, for what 

purpose? 

Mr. GROVES. As a result of not using the handhelds for the nonresponse follow-up stage, we are going to use paper. We are writing 

software to keep track of all these pieces of paper and make sure 

we go only to the houses that have not completed the questionnaire. That is a set of software systems. 

Since that was a late change, the software development is late. 

The work is going on night and day, I can tell you. So far, so good, 

but it is very tightly scheduled. We will know more around Thanksgiving time because we have a big load test that we are doing that 

has been carefully laid out to answer the question is it up to snuff? 

And then we will have some other releases. 

Will that paper-based operation control system software work as 

desired? 

Senator CARPER. And roughly, when do you expect we will know 

the answer to that question? 

Mr. GROVES. Thanksgiving is a big date for us. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. GROVES. We will know more there. Then the first release will 

be in early January. One good thing is we will have some early 

tests of it on a small level to find some bugs. 

The second thing is the quality of the master address file. This 

is the list of addresses that will produce the mail-out questionnaires. A lot of the quality of the 2010 Census will depend on the 

quality of that file. We have the file. So far, so good. It looks pretty 

good in terms of its overall size, but we are doing all sorts of other 

diagnostics on it. And in a matter of weeks, I think by the end of 

this month, we will have those diagnostics in hand and I will feel 

better, or worse, about how that looks. 

Those two things in place, those are the key uncertainties internally. And the biggest uncertainty is something that we all worry 

about, and that is how will our fellow residents of the country respond when we send this questionnaire out. That determines a lot 

of subsequent operations. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Another follow-up question, if I can. This 

is with respect to IT systems testing. And you certainly have spoken to this, but I want to pursue this line of questioning just a little bit further, if I could. 

I believe since 2005, the GAO has reported on weaknesses in the 

Bureau’s management of its IT acquisitions and management in 

the tasking of key decennial systems. Given the numerous IT management weaknesses that GAO and the Inspector General have 

found in the Bureau’s IT acquisitions, what steps are you taking 

agencywide, Dr. Groves, to improve oversight and control of the 

Bureau’s IT management? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
12 

Mr. GROVES. So I take it this question goes beyond just the decennial Census. It is really an organizational thing. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Mr. GROVES. We have a new CIO, Brian McGrath, and we are 

meeting often about the structure of IT within the Census Bureau. 

We have also brought him in—he is the chair of this group, this 

internal oversight group of this software development. It is a wonderful integrative tool for a new leader of IT because he has seen 

these operations as they go on. 

There are various things that I think need to be put in place. 

One has to do with the moving picture of IT security during software development. The IT security regulatory environment is 

changing almost daily as the threats to IT security are changing. 

And we need to get better at this. We need to build in IT security 

as part of the software development, and indeed, that was one of 

the first changes we did to this paper-based operation software development. 

The other has to do with uniformity in IT operations, and those 

are the kinds of things we are discussing; can we structure IT operations and software development more carefully, more efficiently? 

Can we save money? Can we do the same things for less money? 

Then I think the third area has to do with the use of outside contractors for software development; how do we do that better than 

we have. When we have software development that is going to be 

done outside of the Census Bureau, what is the talent pool that we 

need inside the Census Bureau to do that well? It is not merely 

sending money to an outside contractor. You need talent inside to 

produce good software done by people outside. 

So those are the kinds of things we are focusing on. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. My time has expired. Dr. 

Coburn, please. 

Senator COBURN. I will yield to Senator Burris. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Fair enough. Senator Burris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURRIS 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have since received my material, and, Dr. Groves, I also 

learned that this is something, evidently, that is sent out by the 

U.S. Department of Commerce; that it arrived at my daughter’s address in Evanston, Illinois just as a no-name. But it is a form saying that this information comes from the American Community 

Survey. And naturally, being a former attorney general, I have 

dealt with a lot of mail fraud and identify theft, and I was not so 

sure that this—— 

Senator CARPER. You have done it or you have investigated it? 

Senator BURRIS. I have investigated it. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. For the record, I wanted to make that clear. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a survey of about 20 pages. I heard all this information 

about single-page census form. And so my daughter brought this 

over the weekend, and actually, when I was reading my briefing 

last night, I called her and said, ‘‘Would you fax me a copy of that 

thing that you supposedly received from the Census Bureau?’’ And 

she sent us that, and then I had my staff to try to run this down. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
13 

But this thing is a survey. It says you have to fill it out by law. 

It is not census information. It is a survey that is done randomly, 

and it is mailed out randomly. 

Are you familiar with this, Mr. Groves? 

Mr. GROVES. Yes, I could—— 

Senator BURRIS. And I call myself being halfway knowledgeable. 

My daughter who is a Ph.D. did not know what this was, and you 

are mailing this out randomly without any knowledge to the public. 

How do they know what they are supposed to do with this thing? 

And they tell you that if you do not fill it out and send it back, 

you are violating the Federal law. 

You have to do a better job, wouldn’t you, in getting information 

out to the public that this thing is coming randomly to your home 

and your address and that—you should really have a better explanation for it. I thought it really was a fraudulent document until 

my staff did the research and talked to somebody at the Census 

Bureau, because it just was not adding up. In all my knowledge 

dealing with the census, I have never seen one of these things, and 

no one else that I know of have seen one of these. And so do youall expect people to send these back? 

Mr. GROVES. Yes. I could give you the background on this particular survey. Maybe the first thing to say is that our little organization, in addition to doing a census every year, every decade, does 

thousands of sample surveys. We do the unemployment, the current population survey, which produces the monthly unemployment 

rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases. We do retail 

trade surveys. We do all sorts of surveys. So we are actively engaged in measurement in all sorts of ways. 

On this particular survey, actually, this Subcommittee played a 

role in this survey in a real way in prior years. This is related to 

the decennial Census in its origin. In 2000, in addition to what we 

call the short form, which is now this 10-question questionnaire, 

about a sixth of the households got a questionnaire that sort of 

looks like that one. And in Census Bureau jargon, that was called 

the long form. 

Senator BURRIS. This is long. It is about 20 pages. 

Mr. GROVES. That is right. And one thing we discovered over the 

decades is that the rate of people responding to that long form during the decennial Census was much lower than the rate responding 

to the short form, but every one of those questions in that long 

questionnaire has a statute underlying it that requires the Census 

Bureau to collect those data in order that Federal programs be administered. 

So instead of doing this once a decade, this American Community 

Survey was invented on a sample basis rolling throughout the decade. And hopefully, your daughter received a letter in the mail that 

said you have been selected as part of this survey, this is the purpose of the survey, and look forward to getting this questionnaire. 

It is going to come in a few days. And then she would have gotten 

the questionnaire. And hopefully, the questionnaire and the letter 

has, 800 numbers if she was worried about the legitimacy of it to 

get more information. 

Senator BURRIS. My reaction to the 800 number was—I did not 

call it, but maybe I should have. You would call it and you would 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
14 

get somebody saying yes, this is a survey and it would all be part 

of the scam. 

Mr. GROVES. So the other thing, the letter that she would have 

gotten has the Census Bureau letterhead on it, and she could call 

for the information number. 

Senator BURRIS. And you are putting that burden on a taxpayer 

to go through all of this without some type of promotional advertisement information—— 

Mr. GROVES. Yes, let me speak to that. The promotion side is 

something that we have as a challenge throughout all of this. In 

fact, every one of our surveys faces this issue, how do we alert samples of people. About 2 million households get that a year out of 

the 134 million households. It is a small sample that gets it; how 

do we effectively advertise when a small sample gets the questionnaire, and that is a constant challenge for us. I accept that, criticism that we need to do better there. 

Senator BURRIS. How about it is just an address? I mean, how 

can you hold somebody legally liable if you just send something to 

the address, not directed to any party? So who is going to be violating the statute if it is not addressed to a party? 

Mr. GROVES. Let me tell you how this works. We actually do not 

know the names of people in the country. We do have a list of the 

addresses. So we mail this to the address. If a household did not 

return that questionnaire, we will attempt to contact them by telephone in order to take the data. A lot of people mistaken or misplace the questionnaire and we follow up by phone. And if we cannot reach them by phone, a sample of them, we will actually knock 

on the doors of those households and seek to collect the information 

from them that way. 

At the end of this process, about 98 percent of the households are 

measured that fall in this sample. So if you ask the question do 

people do this, about 98 percent of them do this. 

Senator BURRIS. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for failure to 

do this? 

Mr. GROVES. Not on the American Community Survey, no, not to 

my knowledge. 

Senator BURRIS. So would you take a look at this in terms of how 

we better can inform the public of this? I mean, if you have to go 

through those steps, the people knowing what this is or knowing 

that it is valid, it would appear to me there would be a better effort 

on the part of the Census Bureau to send out or either to—— 

Mr. GROVES. We can always—— 

Senator BURRIS [continuing]. Come up with some system that 

would alert people. I mean, I do not consider ourselves as the 

brightest people in the world, but I do not think my daughter and 

I are the dumbest people in the world. And I was taken aback because I was looking for a Census Bureau short form. It is coming 

so close to the census. And I said, well, the short form should not 

be coming out yet. I mean, it is too early. So it was coming at the 

time that the census is coming out, and this form is coming out. 

I said, well, somebody must be playing some games, so let me look 

into this. And I did not know I was going to be at this hearing 

today. But, Mr. Chairman, it surely worked out to give me the 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
15 

proper information in reference to—I guarantee you now she is 

going to fill it out and send it back because—— 

Mr. GROVES. I would appreciate that. 

Senator BURRIS. Now that you know that she received one, she 

might be the one to get prosecuted for failure to return it. 

Mr. GROVES. I hear what you are saying, and I appreciate it. 

Thank you. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Burris. 

We have been joined by Ranking Republican Member, Senator 

McCain. Welcome. We are delighted that you could come, and I am 

not sure whether I should yield to you or Dr. Coburn who is—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, the doctor is in, so why don’t we yield to 

him, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Let’s do that. Thanks. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Groves, what did it cost to print 100 million copies of the short form? 

Mr. GROVES. I do not know the full printing—— 

Senator COBURN. Does anybody in your staff know that answer? 

Mr. GROVES. We can get this answer. How much? 

Mr. MESENBOURG. All I know is $22 million under the original 

estimate. 

Mr. GROVES. The original estimate was $22 million. The current 

printing contracts are coming below estimated costs right now. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Well, first of all, I am very glad you are where 

you are. Thank you for serving. We had a great conversation in my 

office prior to your confirmation. 

We are now at $48 per person and growing to count people in 

this country. Just so my colleague from Illinois knows, I got one of 

those forms last year and I refused to fill out half of it, because I 

found it offensive and I found no basis in law for them to force me 

to answer those questions. I did return it, and I returned the pertinent information that the government should have an interest in, 

but I did not answer all of the questions. 

It is called the long form, and there is nothing in the Constitution, in the first article, that gives the power of the census the ability to do that. It does give the ability of the Federal Government 

to do enumeration but not to go into the detail of which the long 

form goes. So therefore, I stand guilty of not filling out completely 

the long form and will defend anybody that does not want to do 

that. It is a totally different matter when it comes to the short 

form, however, because we do have a responsibility to have a count. 

I want that number, and the reason I want that number is I am 

a co-sponsor of that amendment, Senator Carper. When the census 

was started, it is for resident citizens. It is not residents. The count 

is to be for citizens. The amendment that is going to be offered, 

which I am sure will be defeated, has a great impact and what the 

goal of everything you do is about, which is how do we apportion 

representative government in this country. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
16 

I want to enter into the record, actually based on what we know 

statistically, in California, if we do not just count citizens, California will have five extra seats that they, in fact, do not deserve 

on resident citizens. Illinois will have an extra seat. Indiana will 

lose a seat. Iowa will lose a seat. Louisiana will lose a seat. Michigan will lose a seat. Mississippi will lose a seat. New York will gain 

a seat. North Carolina will lose a seat. Oregon will lose a seat. 

Pennsylvania will lose a seat. South Carolina will lose a seat, and 

Texas will gain two seats. 

So there are two parts to this hearing. One is how are you doing, 

and I sleep a whole lot better at night knowing you are there. The 

second part is to do the intended aspect. I want to make one point. 

In your long form that I fill out, it asks the very question that Senator Vitter wants to have asked on the census, are you a citizen 

of the United States. I mean, you ask that in the long form. Every 

one that gets mailed out gets asked that question. 

I believe you would answer that affirmatively, correct? 

Mr. GROVES. That is in the American Community Survey. 

Senator COBURN. Yes, that is in the long form. So we do not have 

any problem asking it a million times a year in the country, but 

when it comes to the very purpose for which we do a count, which 

is to apportion the States, we have conveniently decided we are not 

going to ask that question. It is not about partisan issues, and it 

is really not about State. It is about doing what our Constitution 

says. 

I understand the concerns on the other side of the aisle, and I 

understand how that is. But States are going to apportion their 

representation based on what this gentleman and his department 

does. It ought to accurately reflect the true intent of the founders 

as is reflected in the long form. We are so far over budget on this 

census. We are $8 billion. We are 120 percent greater than what 

the last census is now, and what do you think it is going to end 

up costing? Do you think the $14.6 billion is right? 

Mr. GROVES. I can tell you what my aspiration is. 

Senator COBURN. What is your aspiration? 

Mr. GROVES. My aspiration is that the American public returns 

this questionnaire at higher rates than we have ever seen before 

and I give back and my associates give back hundreds of millions 

of dollars to the Treasury that we have in contingency funds, not 

knowing that number. That would be wonderful. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Well, I think there is a great way for us 

to help you do that. I think one is to get this amendment in so that 

we reestablish confidence in the government. And then two is to 

enroll us as Members of Congress to tell people how important it 

is to fill out this form because not only is it their duty as a citizen 

so we get an accurate count, but it is their duty to help us save 

money by returning the form. 

You were not present when Senator Carper and I had most of 

the discussions years ago on this issue. You and I had conversations about how we should plan for 2020 and the fact that we have 

it online. If you think about it, we are at $48 a person right now 

and counting. You can give everybody in the country a $25 stipend 

if they will just fill it out online for you, and we would still be less 

money than what we are going to spend right now. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
17 

So what I want us to do is to think forward as we learn from 

the mistakes that the GAO and the IG have done a great job in 

terms of trying to direct this. 

The software development programs you have ongoing now, 

which are critical to you carrying out a successful—I believe everybody agrees with that. That is a critical piece right now. Is that a 

cost-plus contract? 

Mr. GROVES. These are Census Bureau employees who are doing 

this work and—— 

Senator COBURN. None of that is outside? 

Mr. GROVES. Yes, the big change in the re-plan because of the 

handheld problem was to bring this inside, and so these are people 

who are literally about 30 feet from me. I see them every day. 

Senator COBURN. OK. So we do not have any outside vendors 

now doing any of this integration? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, we still are relying on outside contractors for 

pieces of software that were part of the original agreement. 

Senator COBURN. And were those cost-plus contracts? 

Mr. GROVES. These were—these have incentive schemes in some 

of them and that—— 

Senator COBURN. But they are not true cost-plus contracts? They 

are a fixed-price contract with an incentive? 

Mr. GROVES. The key ones are like that, yes. 

Senator COBURN. OK. All right. 

So do you agree with the IG and the GAO, the real problem in 

the $88 million overage, do you agree with their assessment in that 

the reason we came in 25 percent over budget was the two critical 

factors, one, planning, and two is employing people that you did 

not need? 

Mr. GROVES. I would say it is—— 

Senator COBURN. And I may have heard that wrong. 

Did I hear that wrong? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. No, I think that covers it. 

Mr. GROVES. I think we agree, but I would say it slightly differently because there is another component that I find interesting 

and more diagnostic about what we should do to clean things up. 

The amount of work was larger than anticipated. You could say 

that should have been anticipated. You could debate that. The composition of the workload was different. In what way? Well, there 

were more deletes. We went out to a place, and there was not a 

house there. OK? More than anticipated. And when you diagnose 

that, so why didn’t we hit that right, that is about $30 million of 

the—— 

Senator COBURN. $38 million. 

Mr. GROVES. I put the blame on cost modeling strategies, and I 

think of this as sort of a top-down cost model versus a bottom-up 

cost model. That scared me because I am worried that non-response follow-up may be subject to similar logical errors. 

We have a new team in there. We have a new top-down cost 

modeling for non-response follow-up, and we are building a bottomup cost model. And we are going to look at how they agree or disagree. I do not anticipate that they will agree. But what usually 

happens is when you see the nature of the disagreement, you learn 

something about the assumptions of one or another of the proceVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:39 Oct 18, 2010 Jkt 053847 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53847.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
18 

dures. We are doing that now because we have to hit that right, 

and I am worried about that. 

Senator COBURN. Well, I am well over my time. Thank you. Are 

we going to have another round? 

Senator CARPER. Yes, we are. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Dr. Groves, I thank you for the good work you do, and I enjoyed 

our meeting that we had in my office, and I am especially appreciative of your candor. 

I think you made a step in the right direction by terminating the 

Bureau’s partnership with ACORN. I cannot tell you how many of 

my constituents contacted me about that issue. And as you noted 

in your termination letter to ACORN, the Bureau’s partnership 

with ACORN had ‘‘indeed become a distraction from our mission 

and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting the 2010 Census efforts.’’ 

Doctor, is the partnership terminated permanently or just for the 

census? 

Mr. GROVES. I am not sure. We do not have partnership—— 

Senator MCCAIN. That last over the—— 

Mr. GROVES. Yes, facilities in other ways. 

Senator MCCAIN. When an organization is terminated, is there a 

review process they have to go through if they want to become eligible to partner with the Census Bureau again? 

Mr. GROVES. Every partnership proposal is reviewed internally 

by our staff on all of the dimensions that you just mentioned. 

Senator MCCAIN. I was somewhat surprised that you have close 

to 80,000 partnership agreements with national and local groups. 

Mr. GROVES. Our aspiration is to get that way over 100,000. 

Senator MCCAIN. And that is wonderful, but how do you monitor 

that many partnerships? 

Mr. GROVES. We have over 3,000 partnership specialists in local 

census areas. Their job actually is to identify areas where we need 

to get the word out in ways that could be effectively done with local 

neighborhood, city level organizations that are trusted voices. So 

they do that outreach and working with them, collaborating with 

them. 

Senator MCCAIN. So you are confident that there is sufficient 

oversight of the partnerships that you have, that money is not 

misspent and there is not abuses? 

Mr. GROVES. The partners do not receive money from us. The 

partners agree to get the word out about the census for their particular group. 

Senator MCCAIN. Let me say this. So you are confident that they 

do not misuse their partnership with you? 

Mr. GROVES. This is part of our oversight of those activities. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am told by the doctor that you do pay for response follow-up? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
19 

Mr. GROVES. Sure. Do you mean when you do not return the 

form? 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes. 

Mr. GROVES. We then hire—these are different than partnership 

people. Partners do not do this work. These are census Federal employees who go through all the screening of all Federal employees. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Zinser, you made in your opening statement that the initial life cycle cost was 11.5 years but it is now 

14.7 years. 

What is your degree of confidence that 14.7 years is the final 

number? 

Mr. ZINSER. Thank you, Mr. McCain. I think a lot of the cost factors are still unknown, exactly how high that is going to go. Based 

on the variables that Dr. Groves talked about, we do not know 

what the response rate is going to be. We do not know if there are 

problems with this paper-based operation control system that require contingencies. That could increase the cost of the census. So 

I think at this point it is just unknown, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. We would agree with that, and there are two 

issues there, an internal one and an external one. Internal is the 

quality of the Bureau’s cost estimate itself and the Bureau’s ability 

to do adequate cost modeling. What we found is that with the cost 

estimates, they lacked a sensitivity analysis. There was very little 

in the way of documentation that we could look at, so it was very 

difficult for us to verify how good that number was because there 

was not a whole lot to look at. 

Senator MCCAIN. So your confidence level about there not being 

further cost overruns is not strong? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. No, not at all. And then externally, of course, 

as was said, the key is the response rate. If they get a higher than 

expected response rate, obviously, that will bring costs down. 

But another key unknown, part of the way the Bureau hopes to 

save some money on non-response follow-up is by removing late 

mail returns. If you send your questionnaire in late after the Bureau makes that initial cut of non-response follow-up, rather than 

send an enumerator out and then find out that you have already 

mailed it in, they will actually cross your name off the list. Well, 

that approach has never been tested before, and so that is an unknown. If that does not work, then there could be a lot of unnecessary visits to housing units. 

Senator MCCAIN. And you are obviously aware of this somewhat 

bleak assessment, Dr. Groves? 

Mr. GROVES. Yes, I am aware of that bleak assessment. 

Senator MCCAIN. But perhaps, Doctor, you could—— 

Senator CARPER. Just repeat your response. 

Mr. GROVES. I am aware of that bleak assessment. 

Senator MCCAIN. Perhaps you could for the record maybe submit 

to the Subcommittee some of the actions that you are going to take 

since it is clear that these issues are before us, that we need to at 

least salvage what we can. I mean, these are tough times in America and to already have at least a $3 billion cost overrun and more 

to come, I think we deserve tighter controls or better estimates, one 

of the two. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
20 

Senator COBURN. Would the gentleman yield for a second? 

Senator MCCAIN. Sure. 

Senator COBURN. I want to make sure that Dr. Groves is not held 

accountable because most of the consequences of the cost overruns 

we are seeing today, his hands are not on. And matter of fact, I 

would just tell my colleague that because he is there, it is probably 

going to cost less than what it would have had he not been there. 

So I think he should try to respond to us, but he still needs to 

be recognized that his fingerprints are not on the problems that he 

inherited. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, as I mentioned before, I appreciate Dr. 

Groves not only for his willingness to serve but his candor about 

the difficulties he faces. But it still does not relieve us of the requirement to ask you to give us a plan as to how you can minimize 

the damage, a lot of which was inflicted before you came. 

Mr. GROVES. I would be happy to do that and can do that orally 

or in writing, whatever way you want. 

Senator MCCAIN. I think perhaps in writing, if it is agreeable to 

you. I know you are incredibly busy, or if you would rather do it 

orally, whichever. I would rather make it easier for you. 

The other thing I do not understand—help me out here, Doctor. 

We now have means of communications that were unheard of as 

short a time ago as the last census, OK? I mean, we have these 

devices with us everywhere. Everyone has them. We can e-mail instantaneously at no cost, literally, certainly not the cost of a long 

distance phone call or even when we only had access to wired telephones. Every business, every industry in America that has adopted these new technologies have experienced dramatic cost savings. 

That is why they are so popular. 

Why in the world wouldn’t we have adopted some of these technologies, which give us the ability to not only communicate initially. If I e-mail somebody, they are going to e-mail me directly 

back. If I send them a letter and ask them to fill out a form, it is 

going to be a week, 2 weeks, a month, whatever, not to mention 

all the associated costs with it. 

Why couldn’t we and why can’t we employ technologies which 

allow us to communicate in breathtaking fashion with our citizenry 

in the conduct of this census? 

Mr. GROVES. There were decisions made before I arrived in this 

town that are relevant to our challenge that are too late to undo, 

in my belief. We are adding a test of Internet use as an experimental component because I agree with your premise. 

I can say that looking forward to 2020, and I have said this, that 

I cannot imagine—it is not—I do not have the capacity to imagine 

a 2020 Census without utilizing this technology. In the same 

breath, though, we all have to acknowledge that none of us know 

what the Internet of 2020 is going to look like. And therein lies a 

request for all of us. We need a 2020 developmental process that 

has faster cycle time. We cannot lock in to technology so early in 

the decade that it is old by the time—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Is it really too late, since we are conducting a 

census in 2010, to not employ some of these technologies? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
21 

Mr. GROVES. In my judgment, the answer unfortunately is yes, 

it is too late for some of these things, depending on how they are 

used. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would you set up some test programs? 

Mr. GROVES. We do have a test implanted, I am happy to say, 

that will be mounted in August 2010 to examine how people respond on a Web survey version of the short form versus a paper 

version. It is a critical component on this. But to get in place an 

Internet option, which I know several of you are interested in, in 

my judgment would be so risky now that it could hurt other things. 

Senator MCCAIN. You cannot make it up, that we have this technology and have had it for a number of years that incredible communicating capabilities, and we are still mailing people letters. I 

notice you are nodding your head, Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, the census that we are taking today is 

essentially the same census that we took back in 1970 in terms of 

we mail out a bunch of forms and the population mails the forms 

back. 

But I would agree with Dr. Groves that it really is too late to 

employ an Internet option now mainly because it is a lot more complicated than just putting a version of the questionnaire up on the 

Internet, a digital version of a paper-based questionnaire. 

Senator MCCAIN. Despite the fact that people pay their bills, conduct all their lives over the Internet—— 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. No, that is correct. I think a key question for 

the Census Bureau, is why can’t the Census Bureau do what IRS 

already does, what Amazon already does and thousands of other organizations—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Or even voting in some places. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. And people send very sensitive information 

across the Internet. But to do it at this late date because, for example, as the information needs to be kept confidential, so how do you 

protect the data? How do you archive it for over 70 years? How do 

you authenticate the people who are responding? How do you know 

that if I am responding to a questionnaire, that I am an actual 

household member? 

So those are things that really need to be worked out and probably not something we want to do in just the few months remaining. I think the Bureau has enough on its plate at this point, but 

it is certainly something for continued testing for 2020—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Did you want to add something? 

Mr. ZINSER. Senator, I would. We recommended in 2006 that 

they take college dormitories and test responses over the Internet 

with college dormitories. That remains an unimplemented, open 

recommendation, and you might have to put it in the law, sir. You 

might have to pass a law to get them to do it. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, maybe we ought to consider that, Mr. 

Chairman, seriously. 

And, Dr. Groves, if you would like to make a contribution to posterity, and I mean this in all sincerity, look forward and give us 

an outline and some plans for how we can utilize existing technologies in 2020, much less the technologies that we think will be 

available in the future. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
22 

So it is just kind of a shame that we are not going to have as 

reliable a census as we could have had if we had used existing 

technology to carry out, really, one of the fundamental requirements of democracy. And so, Doctor, I am sure you have a lot to 

do, but I hope that you will start thinking about that as well. I 

may not be around. I am afraid Dr. Coburn will be, but anyway, 

I hope—— 

Senator COBURN. It is a race at the end. 

Senator MCCAIN [continuing]. We can work it out. There you go. 

Do you have any comment? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, I can promise you, Senator, that this is foremost on my mind because, as was stated earlier, the use of these 

technologies is not just quality related, it is cost related. And the 

inflation of the costs of the decennial Census is of paramount concern to me. So I can give you a solemn promise that we are on this 

one. But for 2010, unfortunately, it is too late, in my judgment, to 

do something. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. The line of questioning that you have just pursued, Senator, reminds me of a line of questioning that Dr. Coburn 

and I pursued over a span of several years with Dr. Groves’ predecessor. And it is a source of real frustration. And we just heard literally the line of questioning all over again. I am encouraged that 

the—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, maybe Dr. Groves’ recommendation, maybe we should write it in law in some way if we can 

figure out a way to frame it so that it does not restrict the use of 

future technologies. That might be the challenge. 

Senator CARPER. One of the questions I had to ask, Dr. Groves, 

during your confirmation process was really a question just along 

the line that you are asking, to gauge for myself his interest in 

making sure that we do the next decennial in 2020; we get the 

number as accurate as we can, but we do it in a cost effective way. 

And I think we will all agree that the technology that we are using 

for the 2010 is not the most cost effective way. 

I am encouraged that we have at least an embedded test, a demonstration that we can build on. The important thing is that we 

build on it and you let us know what help you need from our end 

in order to make sure that we do use the technology that is available the next time out. 

I think it would be great if we could not only have a census in 

2020 that we could rely on in terms of the numbers of people we 

are counting but also actually be coming in not at $3 or $4 billion 

more than the last census but actually a couple billion dollars less. 

And speaking of aspirations, that would be a good one for all of us. 

In terms of cost drivers, Dr. Groves, my sense is one of the cost 

drivers—I almost said Dr. McCain but Senator McCain was asking 

about, certainty or assurance that we feel about, is it really going 

to be the number—what is it, $14.7 billion? How confident do you 

feel about it? 

One of the real cost drivers here is the—correct me if I am 

wrong—but it is the number of households who actually respond to 

the mail-out. That is the key. And can you give us some idea, for 

every percentage point, extra percentage point, that we have to go 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
23 

out and go door-to-door with enumerators and question the people 

who have not responded to the written survey—there is a cost associated. And I have heard the cost before. But can you tell us what 

that might be? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, the current number—this is a number I am 

scrubbing, too. But the current number is between $80 and $90 

million for every percentage point decline. So why does it cost that 

much? Well, you have to hire more people to knock on more doors, 

to travel more miles, and it is human costs on that. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

A question, if I could, for Mr. Zinser and Mr. Goldenkoff, please. 

And it is similar to one we have already asked Dr. Groves. 

But, gentlemen, given that there is very little time remaining to 

rest and develop the paper-based operation control system, what 

kind of problems are we talking about having if the system development and testings run late? 

Mr. ZINSER. If they run late, the first problem, I think, is that 

it shortens the time necessary to actually train the people that are 

going to be using the system. So the first problem you have is if 

they run late, they may get the system in place, but people have 

trouble using it. If it is later than that, then you have half a million or more enumerators out trying to conduct non-response follow-up operations, and the Census Bureau does not have a contingency plan right now in place on how they are going to manage 

that work force without this automated system. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Right. I would echo that 100 percent. If the 

software development runs late, it will affect the time that managers would have to familiarize themselves with the operation and 

using the software. If any changes need to take place in terms of 

the system or how to operate the system, that means more cost in 

terms of sending out errata sheets and the training manuals. So 

there is this sort of ripple effect for the downstream operations. 

Also, it could affect the need for employees to do work-arounds 

if those instruction manuals are not updated in time. The census 

employees start doing their own thing. So it could have both operational impact and cost impact. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Another question, if I could, for you, 

Dr. Groves. We talked already a little bit about non-response follow-up. But let’s talk about for a minute or two about contingency 

planning, and what are the Census Bureau’s contingency plans for 

addressing, we will say, a much lower than anticipated mail response rate next spring? 

Will the Census Bureau be prepared to increase the number of 

census takers substantially if that is needed? Would you modify 

your basic media campaign in order to get to target areas of the 

country where the response was especially low? 

Mr. GROVES. There are, I think, a couple of things to know about 

this. We have the return rates from 2000 day by day that we can 

track. So even though the mail return rate in 2000 was about 67 

percent, on April 1 of 2000, it was 57 percent. So it is an interesting fact that people tend to turn in their forms early. 

We are going to have this day by day. We will know if we are 

falling behind at that point. And we have held back some money 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
24 

in the paid media campaign as kind of contingency money to target 

it. We will actually know where, what areas are coming up shorter 

than other areas. We can re-target money pretty quickly. Now, it 

will be late. People will have forms in their house that they are not 

filling out, but that would be one thing. 

The second thing to note is that this is a very different labor 

market in 2010 or 2009 than it was in 2000. The unemployment 

rate, although creating great suffering for our country, has a benefit to the Census Bureau. The quantity and quality of applicants 

that we have seen both in address canvassing and in this operation 

going on now is unprecedented. These are people that are highly 

educated, highly skilled, highly motivated. They are putting in 

more hours than we got in 2000. 

So I think various things would happen if we had a lower mail 

return rate, and the input of new advertising did not help it. We 

would first utilize the existing staff and get more hours out of 

them. Second, we would hire more. The hiring would probably have 

some of our experienced people become supervisors rather than 

enumerators. We would kind of develop a more hierarchical structure to take the supervision in place. And the important thing, I 

think, we will know this early. We will know this by April 1 certainly, if we are in trouble. 

We start interviewing May 1, the non-response follow-up, and we 

will have a month, right, as the work-around month. April will be 

a big month for us if that happens. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Let me yield to Senator Burris. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Groves, I need to follow up on what Senator McCain just 

asked you. What was the Census Bureau’s relation with ACORN? 

Mr. GROVES. ACORN was one of these 80,000 partners. 

Senator BURRIS. And what do you mean by partners? What did 

that consist of? 

Mr. GROVES. Yes. You could go to our website, and everyone who 

is interested in becoming a partner fills out a form. The form—the 

whole purpose of the partnership is to find trusted voices in diverse 

communities around the country to get the word out. There are 

various things that partners can do. This is not a contractual relationship. This is a voluntary relationship on the part of the partnership organization. 

Senator BURRIS. So who made the decision to sever the relationship with ACORN and on what basis did you make that relationship? 

Mr. GROVES. I made that decision. 

Senator BURRIS. Based on what? 

Mr. GROVES. I made the decision because we are kind of in constant contact with our regional offices, and we were learning that 

the recruitment of other partners was inhibited by our partnership 

with ACORN. We were having trouble getting other trusted voices 

in communities because of this. The distraction that ACORN was 

causing in our own operations was sufficient to say that it was 

hurting the—— 

Senator BURRIS. Because of the erroneous news report that there 

were a couple of ACORN people who may have violated the law? 

Mr. GROVES. Those news reports were part of that—— 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
25 

Senator BURRIS. Based on that so-called Fox sting that was perpetrated, which ACORN now is suing some of those people about. 

Mr. GROVES. That was part of it. There were other—— 

Senator BURRIS. Did you give ACORN a hearing? Did you call 

anybody in and question that relationship at all? 

Mr. GROVES. We talked to ACORN about this matter on the day 

we made the decision. We informed them before going public. 

Senator BURRIS. You informed them, but did you question them 

about their relationship or you just informed them that you had 

severed the relationship based on news reports? 

Mr. GROVES. Now, I want to say again that we are in contact 

with our regional offices whose job it is to reach out to other partners, recruit other partners to help us in this endeavor—— 

Senator BURRIS. Dr. Groves, you said you canceled the relationship. I am not talking about your other partners. 

Mr. GROVES. That is correct. 

Senator BURRIS. You advised me that you canceled the relationship. 

Mr. GROVES. That is correct. 

Senator BURRIS. So did you have any type of conference with 

them before you canceled it? 

Mr. GROVES. We had a conversation with them before we canceled it. 

Senator BURRIS. But you had made up your mind that you would 

cancel it based on news reports. That is what I assume. That is 

what I hear you say. 

Mr. GROVES. No, that is incorrect, Senator. Let me restate it. 

We get information from Census Bureau regional offices throughout the country who are now seeking and recruiting other partner 

organizations. We are in contact with them, and we are asking 

them how things are going. We had reports that recruiting other 

partners because of the distraction that ACORN was causing was 

causing them—— 

Senator BURRIS. Describe the distraction for me, sir. 

Mr. GROVES. These are reports when they are reaching out to 

form other partnerships that people said, gee, I am not sure I want 

to partner with Census because of the—— 

Senator BURRIS. Do you have any documentation on that? 

Mr. GROVES. What, documentation on what? 

Senator BURRIS. These other partners notifying you that they do 

not want to partner with the Census because the Census was 

partnering with ACORN. 

Mr. GROVES. These were telephone conversations among Census 

Bureau staff. I doubt if we have documentation, written documentation on that. 

Senator BURRIS. So what you are telling me is you get a couple 

people calling in—so I can take an organization—I can get 20 people to call into your organization and say that the XYZ group that 

you are partnering with, I do not want to partner with them. And, 

therefore, you would then turn around and cancel some other contract based on that? 

Is that what you are telling me, Doctor? 

Mr. GROVES. If a partner organization inhibits us from continuing to get the word out about census nationally, yes. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
26 

Senator BURRIS. OK. I am not one of those that support your 

canceling the arrangement with ACORN because I think ACORN 

is getting a very unfair assessment based on some agendas that 

have nothing to do with service to the community and probably the 

very best grassroots organization you could have helping you in 

these difficult communities. Especially in the minority and undercounted communities would be an organization with the reach of 

an ACORN. And I hope that you would look at that again, and I 

will be following up with you and probably would like to sit down 

with you individually and with some ACORN members to find out 

why this action has been taken based on a television news report 

that had another agenda. I am concerned about that, Mr. Groves, 

and I do not think that is a fair indication of any type of action 

for the Census Bureau to cut out an organization that has its roots 

in the—because I am concerned about the undercount in the African American and the Hispanic communities or even the poor communities. And the best group that you can get in those communities is someone who has their action or their feet on the ground 

or their ear to the ground in those communities is an organization 

such as ACORN. 

Mr. GROVES. The people that ACORN reaches out to and serves 

are very important for the quality of the census. We need the participation of all of those constituents, and we are striving to form 

partnerships in every locale that are trusted voices for those communities. And I would be happy to sit down with you. 

Senator BURRIS. Yes, I think we should. And I will have my staff 

to follow up with you because I am deeply concerned about this 

one-sided attack on an organization that really is at the heart of 

trying to deal with the problem that we are dealing with. And I am 

very familiar with ACORN in Illinois. 

I know any organization has some rotten apples in the barrel. I 

do not want to give my whole speech here about some of these government contracts and some of these other organizations, that 

cause somebody in the military personnel to be killed over in the 

war zone because of shoddy contracts. But they were paid billions 

of dollars of taxpayers’ money. We get an organization that in 15 

years gets $53 million, $2 million a year, from the Federal Government, and because of one TV report, they end up being just ostracized and criticized and turned out by government agencies. And 

I do not agree with my colleagues on the Senate vote to cut off the 

funds because I voted in opposition to that amendment to cut off 

the funds, and I do not agree with that. 

I have got to sit down with you and just find out what basis we 

are putting out an organization that can be very helpful in those 

communities in dealing with an undercount in getting into those 

households and reaching out for those communities that can give 

us what we need to make sure we get our population counted. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GROVES. [Nods affirmatively.] 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Burris. And I appreciate 

your willingness to sit down with Senator Burris and have some 

further discussion. That would be, I think, a good idea. Thank you. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
27 

I think this is going to be the first census in which the Bureau 

will fingerprint our temporary Census employees. Previously, they 

were only subject to, I think, a name background check. 

Can you provide an overview for us of the screening process that 

the Bureau uses to examine the employment suitability of temporary fieldworkers? 

Mr. GROVES. I would be happy to, Senator. It starts with a socalled name check, where every applicant’s name is submitted to 

FBI data resources, and we check whether there are any problems 

connected with that name. After that point, those who pass that 

name check and are in the applicant pool, and let’s say all of the 

other aspects of their application, gets them to training. 

On the first day of training, they are fingerprinted. And as you 

noted, this is a new step. We did not do this in 2000, and it has 

upped the scrutiny of the applicant pool for criminal background. 

There are two fingerprints that are done by two different finger 

printers. So they put these on cards, and so each applicant has two 

cards independently done by two different folks. Those are then 

scanned in our national processing center in Jeffersonville, Indiana 

and forwarded electronically to the FBI for checks. 

We did this in address canvassing, and there are various key 

quality issues that arise in this. One is how many of those fingerprints or what proportion of the fingerprints that we take can be 

read electronically at the backend by the FBI. We went into this 

thinking that would be about 70 percent or you could say 30 percent failed reads. The address canvassing experience was that that 

was about 22 percent of those that could not be read. 

The FBI processed those fingerprints on average in about 22 

hours, and for those that had a negative report, it took about 8 

days to get that. So that is a process that gives us on average kind 

of an 8-day time between taking the fingerprints and seeing whether there are any problems. And we are now doing this in operation 

and group quarters validation. 

We found various things that we did not like about that. We do 

not like the 22 percent rate. We would like that to be lower. There 

are procedures, several procedures, that are going on. The FBI— 

there are various things that are just logistical. Some people have 

drier fingers than other people. If you have real dry hands, fingerprints do not take as well. So we are using right now some lotion 

that the FBI suggested to pick up the prints better to try to reduce 

that rate. We have changed the training procedures for people taking the fingerprints. All of these things are driven towards trying 

to get that rate lower and trying to be more efficient in this. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just follow up, if I can. I think a little 

more than one out of five for address canvassing employees had, 

as we say, unclassified fingerprints and were only subject to name 

background check. The largest operation is non-response follow-up. 

In looking forward, let me maybe ask Mr. Goldenkoff. In looking 

forward, does GAO have any concern about solely relying on name 

check for people with unclassifiable prints? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Yes, because as was observed during address 

canvassing, name check alone failed to identify people who are unsuitable for Census employment because of a criminal record. 

There were 1,800 people actually who passed the name check but 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
28 

were caught using the fingerprinting approach. And of those 1,800 

people, about 785, roughly, were disqualified for Census employment because their criminal background made them unsuitable. It 

was serious enough. 

Senator CARPER. Give us some examples of why someone might 

have been deemed unsuitable. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Manslaughter, rape. So certain crimes if they 

happened a long time ago, if they were minor, that is OK, but, 

some of these were very serious crimes. And so if you take the percentage of those people who were unsuitable for Census employment out of those who were not caught by name check alone, it is 

possible that—we estimate that around 200 people—of those individuals whose fingerprints could not be classified, it is possible that 

200 of those had a criminal background that would have otherwise 

made them unsuitable for Census employment. 

Of course, because non-response follow-up is a much larger operation, until the Bureau figures out how best to deal with people 

with unclassified fingerprints, then you are going to have that 

many more people who would be unsuitable for Census employment working non-response follow-up. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I want to shift the focus just a little bit before we conclude by coming back to the issue of the undercount. In 

May, our Subcommittee held a field hearing up in Philadelphia on 

how the Census Bureau plans to address the challenges of obtaining a complete and an accurate counting, particularly in urban 

communities in the 2010 decennial. At that hearing, I learned that 

in my very own home state of Delaware, nearly 12,000 residents 

were missed in the 2000 Census. 

What makes these areas particularly concerning is their differential impacts on various subgroups. Minorities, renters and children, 

for example, are more likely to be undercounted by the census 

while more affluent groups such as people with vacation homes, 

families with kids in college out of State are more likely to be enumerated more than once. 

Dr. Groves, let me just ask specifically what strategies does the 

Bureau plan to implement or is trying to implement in the months 

ahead to maximize participation within historically hard to count 

populations living in urban communities? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, as you know already, this is one of our central 

concerns, and one of the things I have been doing over the last few 

weeks after I did this risk assessment is to visit the regional offices. And there are interesting things happening there under the 

direction of this new design, and they are very small area targeting 

operations. So we have these things called census tracts that you 

can think of as about 4,000 units in a tracts. And every tract in 

this country is being scrutinized by partnership specialists and operations specialists, and there is a special plan for every tract. 

Now, this is relatively new because we have targeting data now. 

We have this wonderful database at the tract level. We did not 

have this in the past. So for every tract in the country, there is a 

plan. The plan in the best of worlds is tailored, customized to that 

neighborhood. Sometimes it involves reaching out to certain neighborhood community groups. Sometimes it is an observation that 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
29 

there is a newspaper, a local newspaper, that hits a language 

group that populates that tract. 

So every plan is slightly different. The difference on this is that 

we are trying to tailor our methods to the problems at hand and 

doing different things in different places. I am hopeful about this. 

It is something new for us. It sounds right. It fits the notion of 

what we have learned over past decades, and that is a big effort 

that we are engaged in. 

Senator CARPER. The downturn in our economy has resulted, as 

in an increase in foreclosures and vacant housing units as well as 

persons that are doubling in households—I think you might have 

said that earlier today—and living in group quarters. 

What steps are being taken by the Census Bureau to try to better ensure that it fully counts individuals and families who have 

been maybe uprooted during the course of the recession and because of the foreclosure crises? 

Mr. GROVES. I think there are two components of that population 

that we are concerned about. One are the doubled-up houses that 

you mentioned and the newly homeless because of this problem. So 

let me talk about those separately. 

On the doubled-up thing, part of the communications, I think, effort that we are targeting tries to remind people that we count 

them where they usually reside, and we want people to know in a 

double-up house that we want the original residents and the new 

residents there when they do not have a usual residence somewhere else. So that message needs to be reinforced given what has 

happened as a society. 

On the newly homeless, especially on the West Coast, we are 

worried about folks who were actually quite well off a couple of 

years ago who are now homeless, and we are very interested in 

learning how to approach them. Many of them are living in cars, 

the only possession that they have retained. And we want to make 

sure that we are sensitive to their needs and sensitive to their concerns when we approach them, and that is a new population we 

have to worry about. So we are talking to people about how to deal 

with it. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks. Maybe one or two more and then 

I am done. 

What are the Bureau’s plan for counting Hurricane Katrina evacuees, those that are living involuntarily outside of the Gulf Coast 

because their neighborhoods still, after all these years, have not 

been rebuilt? 

Mr. GROVES. I visited New Orleans a few weeks ago to meet with 

local officials there who are very concerned about this. I had been 

there a year earlier, and New Orleans, I can say, has a sense of 

optimism that was not there a year earlier. 

Senator CARPER. Well, that is encouraging. 

Mr. GROVES. And building is happening, and they look forward 

to a bigger city. We, as Senator, count people where they usually 

reside. Some of the people who aspire to be back in New Orleans 

in the coming months are not there now. We are doing something 

extraordinary. We have changed our methods in several areas in 

the Gulf Coast. This affects Saint Bernard, Plaquemines, and Orleans Parish around New Orleans where we will hand deliver forms. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
30 

We want to hand deliver those forms because we want to make 

sure that addresses that were unoccupied in summer or unoccupied 

in fall but occupied in April will get a form and can report their 

residency there. 

For those who are not in those areas on April, we must say by 

law the census is a snapshot of where people are usually living 

around April of the census year. We must rely on this. 

I have talked to officials there about the need in the Gulf Coast 

and other areas to make sure we update our population estimates 

throughout the decade to reflect their success in rebuilding these 

cities, and I think that is an important obligation as a statistician. 

And the country needs to follow the progress of those rebuilding efforts, and we have, as something called a special census. We can 

redo the census in an area. We have done over 300 special censuses 

in this decade, and we can do that if funds are forthcoming. We 

also have a population estimates program that updates population 

size. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I am going to call on each of our 

witnesses. I will probably start with Mr. Goldenkoff. I will make 

you a doctor yet. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I have an honorary degree. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I will ask you if you have any closing thoughts 

given what we have talked about here, sort of the interaction, the 

responses that the questions we have asked and the responses you 

have given; if there is anything else you want to add before we conclude. 

Before I do that, Dr. Groves, I mentioned that in the State of 

Delaware, my own State, we believe that about 12,000 residents 

were missed in the 2000 Census. It is sort of ironic, I think, maybe 

a cruel irony, that it turns out there is an overcount in a census 

and there is an undercount in a census. And the overcount tends 

to fall amongst—and I used our own family as an example. We 

have two sons that are in college out of State. They may get counted in our own home in Delaware, and they may be counted in their 

respective colleges sort of where they attend. 

There are a number of people in Delaware who—a number of 

folks who come to our beaches to spend part of the year, maybe the 

summer or come out throughout the year. They own homes at 

Bethany Beach and Rehoboth and Dewey and Fenwick Island and 

Lewes, Delaware, and they live in Maryland or Pennsylvania or 

New Jersey or Virginia. But they are counted as residents in their 

own States, and then they are counted as residents in some cases 

in Delaware where they have a second home. 

So the irony of it is we have an overcount that occurs, but a lot 

of times it is among more affluent in our society. And the 

undercount that occurs—and I think it is probably in several million in number. But the undercount occurs among, if you will, the 

least of these and the people that are usually the lowest income 

and minorities, folks that are renters and in some cases, children. 

Are you able to help us with the national numbers? I know the 

number for Delaware is 12,000. But if you go back maybe to the 

2000 Census, the undercount and the overcount, and maybe the 

net. Can you help us with that? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
31 

Mr. GROVES. One of the methods we use to judge the quality of 

the census, as you know better than most, is a large sample survey. 

This decade it is called the Census Coverage Measurement Operation. And for the first time at State levels, we will estimate components, the overcount and the undercount separately and some 

other components. We will not have enough sample to do that at 

lower levels, but I think at the State level, you will get your wish 

this decade to decompose those. 

This is new for us. It depends on the quality of the sample survey. One of the interventions I have taken here is to try to beef 

up the measurement quality of that, but we should have these figures. I cannot wait to see them, actually. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Going back to 2000, the 2000 decennial, 

do we have any idea what the undercount and the overcount were 

and maybe the net difference? 

Mr. GROVES. We do not. That sample survey called ACS was not 

designed for these components. Now, one could go if you had the 

data and compute these, but this was not part of the official process. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Goldenkoff, any closing thoughts you would like to share 

with us? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, I think I would like to commend the Bureau for the progress that it has made since 2008 when we first 

put the decennial Census on our high-risk list. Certainly, it is still 

a high-risk area, but we are encouraged by a lot of the signs that 

we are seeing. We are much more optimistic now than we were in 

previous months. I think a lot of that credit goes to Dr. Groves. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Groves. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Dr. Robert Groves, yes. The tone starts at the 

top, and I have been involved with the census since 1997. And I 

will say this, there is a culture of transparency and openness that 

was not there before. Dr. Groves and I get together about once a 

month to talk about census issues, what is working, what is not. 

He has been very responsive to us. 

One of the things that is so important if you want to address 

problems, the first step is acknowledging that you have one. And 

as you heard today, there is a litany of things. I mean, some of the 

challenges that Dr. Groves mentioned, and that attitude was not 

always there in past years. We had a lot of pushback on our recommendations. We have been making these same recommendations 

about the IT, the acquisition management, some of the other operational issues, for years now, going back as far as 2004, and we 

have often experienced pushback. But now there is, I think, a willingness to listen to us, to embrace oversight from us, from Commerce IG, and I think that is very refreshing. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Groves, are you going to sit there and take 

that? 

Mr. GROVES. This brutal criticism is really—— 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for those comments. Mr. Zinser. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. I think I would agree with that, but I also 

would caution that type of transparency does not come natural to 

a bureaucracy to begin with. And I do not think it comes natural 

to the Census Bureau. I will give you one example. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
32 

This paper-based operation control system that they are working 

on, the approach they are taking, they call it a ‘‘just in time approach.’’ Now, for a businessman, that might be a good way to run 

your business with your inventory, but for software development, 

just in time is not very comforting. But they use these labels, or 

they tend to use these labels, and I would just encourage the Census Bureau as we go into these final months to be transparent 

about their problems. And I think with Dr. Groves at the helm, I 

think there is a good chance of that. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Any closing comments, Mr. Groves. 

Mr. GROVES. I mourn the Detroit Tigers today. 

Senator CARPER. So do I. We have a long time to opening game 

of next spring. 

We appreciate very much your being here today. We appreciate 

really the stewardship that each of you have brought to this challenge, counting the people in this country, trying to do it accurately, trying to do it in a cost-effective way, and your own responsibilities, whether it is with GAO or Inspector General or previously with the Census Bureau, now as its leader. I am encouraged, and I think my colleagues are as well, with what we are 

hearing here today. 

Not any time to just kind of sit back and rest on our laurels; 

there is plenty of work to do, obviously. But we are mindful of the 

progress that being made, mindful that a lot of good people are 

working very hard to help us achieve our goals, and confident that 

if we give it our very best efforts, we will succeed in doing so but 

also mindful that everything we do, we can do better. And I do not 

want to be sitting here 10 years from now and with Senator 

McCain, Senator Coburn, Senator Burris, and others and have to 

say why aren’t we using technology that others have been using for 

not only 15, but 20 years; why aren’t we using that technology to 

better count the people in this country? We have got to figure that 

out and do that right. 

Thank you so much. And with that, this hearing is—before we 

adjourn—you may receive some questions for the record from those 

who were here or were not here. And if you get those questions, 

just please respond promptly, if you would. And with that, this 

hearing is adjourned. Thanks so much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(33) 

A P P E N D I X 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.001
34 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.002
35 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.003
36 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.004
37 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.005
38 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.006
39 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.007
40 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.008
41 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.009
42 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.010
43 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.011
44 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.012
45 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.013
46 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.014
47 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.015
48 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.016
49 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.017
50 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.018
51 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.019
52 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.020
53 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.021
54 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.022
55 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.023
56 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.024
57 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.025
58 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.026
59 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.027
60 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.028
61 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.029
62 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.030
63 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.031
64 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.032
65 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.033
66 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.034
67 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.035
68 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.036
69 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.037
70 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.038
71 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.039
72 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.040
73 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.041
74 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.042
75 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.043
76 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.044
77 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.045
78 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.046
79 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.047
80 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.048
81 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.049
82 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.050
83 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.051
84 

Æ 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER53847.052