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

29–501 PDF 2007

S. Hrg. 109–922

CENSUS 2010, OFF-LINE AND OFF-BUDGET:

THE HIGH COST OF LOW-TECH COUNTING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL 

SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 6, 2006

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

KATY FRENCH, Staff Director 

SHEILA MURPHY, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 14

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006

Hon. Louis Kincannon, Director, U.S. Census Bureau ......................................... 7

Brenda S. Farrell, Acting Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................................................................................ 9

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Farrell, Brenda S.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72

Kincannon, Hon. Louis: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 34

APPENDIX 

Charts submitted by Senator Coburn: 

‘‘After Inflation Cost of the Census: 1970–2010’’ ........................................... 31

‘‘Cost of the Census: 1940–2010’’ ..................................................................... 32

‘‘Percentage of U.S. Adults Online’’ ................................................................. 33

Questions and responses for the Record from Senators Coburn and Carper 

for: 

Mr. Kincannon .................................................................................................. 94

Ms. Farrell ........................................................................................................ 101

(1)

CENSUS 2010, OFF-LINE AND OFF-BUDGET: 

THE HIGH COST OF LOW-TECH COUNTING 

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Coburn and Carper. 

Senator COBURN. Good afternoon. The Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will come to order. 

I want to welcome each of our guests. 

I have an opening statement and Senator Carper will be arriving 

shortly. We will go on with our hearing and, dependent on when 

he arrives, we will allow him a chance to give an opening statement. 

I want to thank you for the preparation for this hearing and 

working with our staffs. It has been great to work with you. 

Usually, when we think about the census, we think about statistics. The Census Bureau has become the largest statistical agency 

in the country, if not the world. But behind its data collection is 

a steadily increasing price tag for the decennial census which, until 

recently, has managed to stay under the radar of Congress. As we 

approach the 2010 census, though, it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that costs are spiraling upward at a startling rate. 

The 2010 census is projected at the present time to cost nearly $12 billion. That is $5 billion more, an 80 percent increase, over 

the 2000 census. And that is the estimate which we are going to 

hear about today, the numbers behind that. The 2000 census, in turn, cost $4 billion more than the 1990 census, at the time a more than 100 percent increase. This is all part 

of a disturbing trend in recent decades which witnessed dramatic 

cost increases from one census to the next. 

Adding to our cost problem is a culture problem. The census 

seems to be operating under an early 20th-Century mentality when 

pen and paper were the only tools available. The Internet is now 

available. For the next census in 2010, the Bureau has decided not 

to offer an online option, choosing rather to stick with the system 

that is in place as of today. 

2

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

2The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 32. 

In an age when people do everything online, from shopping to 

banking to filing their tax returns, a record 70 million tax returns 

this last year were filed online, the Census Bureau is lagging behind, needlessly adding to its already high cost and also adding to 

its time delay. 

I think this is also a mission problem. Census is tasked with 

counting the population and it needs the help of all citizens to pull 

it off. Participation in the census would be easier to obtain for more 

people with fewer census personnel if an online option were available. 

The purpose of this hearing today is to examine what is behind 

the skyrocketing cost at the census and what can be done about it. 

I hope to get answers to questions as how well has the census been 

planning for the 2010 count? What assurances can we have that 

the cost overruns in the billions will not take place next time like 

they have so many times before? And why was an online option 

suddenly rejected? And what will it take to get that back into the 

plans for 2010? 

The best cost estimate being provided by the Census Bureau for 

2010 is $11.3 billion. Unfortunately though, if history is any guide, 

that estimate will bear little resemblance to reality in 2010. As you 

can see from the chart,1 from 1940 to 2010, the 1970 to 2000 cost 

for the census increased sharply. Some of that is related to Congress’ requests for increased data. 

Costs jumped most significantly between 1970 and 1980. Since 

1980 the cost of the census has doubled every decade. In 2010 it 

is shaping up to be the same story once again with a cost increase 

over the 2000 census of at least $5 billion and most probably $7 

billion. No one seems to be willing to apply the brakes. 

Some, including the Census Bureau itself, have blamed inflation 

and population growth, but what we need to do is look at the facts. 

After inflation cost of the Census, if you look at the next chart from 

1970 to 2010,2 in the decade between 1990 and 2000, when inflation was amazingly low, 27 percent, the cost of the census increased 154 percent. Between 2000 and 2010 with 10-year inflation 

numbers again expected to be low, the cost of the census is expected to be increased between 70 and 90 percent. 

The situation is the same when the population growth numbers 

are compared with census costs. In 1990, the census cost $10 a person and in 2000 it cost $23 per person. But in 2010, the census will 

cost a staggering, at a minimum, $36 per man, woman, and child 

in this country. 

That is much more than it cost to file your taxes electronically 

with the IRS, and yet the Constitution requires us to count the 

heads. 

The bottom line is that the census costs are shooting upward at 

an unacceptable rate. Many of the problems are with Congress and 

what we have asked for. But some of the excuses that we have 

been given are without merit. 

What then are the real causes of the large cost increase between 

2000 and 2010? The Census Bureau, through their testimony, atVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Jun 28, 2007 Jkt 029501 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\29501.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
3

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 32. 

2The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

tributes it to factors such as increased difficulty of finding nonEnglish speakers and people living in non-traditional housing. The 

Bureau also claims that as the population grows, counters will 

have to knock on more doors to make up for people that do not 

mail back their forms and that costs money. That is true. But when 

all these factors are accounted for, it still remains unclear how we 

get to a number approaching $12 billion to $13 billion. 

The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ watchdog agency, has analyzed the Bureau’s cost projection and was equally mystified. As a result, they recommended more than 2 years ago that 

the Census Bureau compile all its planning information into one 

master document to help Congress understand its long-term budget. Census agreed to do so but two appropriation cycles have now 

come and gone, and still there is no document. 

How is Congress supposed to fulfill our oversight duty effectively 

without understanding this basic information? Or is that the point? 

I assure you, we will not let this issue drop. There will be a planning document that itemizes the cost projections down to the dollar. 

Knowing projected costs is only the first step. You will see, on 

this chart,1 transparency is only the first step to accountability. 

Frankly, all of these issues should have been worked out after the 

2000 budget busting debacle. As late as 1998, the Bureau projected 

cost of $4 billion to $5 billion. When all was said and done, the 

final cost was more than $6.5 billion, a cost overrun over estimates 

of greater than 30 percent. If the 2010 census faces a cost overruns 

similar to that in 2000, it will put the final price tag at $15 billion. 

It is not simply a matter of possibility, it is an inevitability unless 

something is done right now to reassess the cost structure associated with the census. 

One of the most obvious solutions to long-term cost containment 

is for the Agency to join the rest of the world in cyberspace and 

offer the census online. As you can see from this chart,2 the percentage of American adults online now exceeds 72 percent. It is estimated that will be above 85 percent in the year 2010. An online 

census would allow the Census Bureau to virtually eliminate its 

paper intensive systems, to cut back dramatically on the need for 

house calls, and to allow faster data integration. 

In just the last 5 years, the Federal Government has made extraordinary strides with its e-government initiatives to the point 

that every citizen can now file their taxes online. Certainly, if citizens can file their taxes online, they can be counted on line. And 

so it is puzzling to me why the census has taken the online option 

off the table for 2010. 

To say an online option is not practical or cannot be done simply 

defies the plain fact that 73 percent of all Americans are already 

online and the Federal Government e-government sites are the No. 

1 place that they visit. 

Canada just last month showed us that it can be done and conducted its national census and offered it online to all of its citizens. 

4

This is not just something that we can do. It is something that 

must be done. 

In the medical world, we have a word for it when the number 

of cells in the body increases at a rate faster than the underlying 

conditions that usually govern cell division would predict. It is 

called cancer. The underlying factors governing the cost of counting 

Americans do not justify the staggering cost increases in the census. Americans get it. They get that it is easy to do things online. 

They get that it is not complicated for a Federal agency to know 

who they are and some basic information about them. 

The government, for the most part, already knows practically everything there is to know about us, from what is in our bank accounts to our health status in retirement. I simply cannot sell the 

cost increases that I am seeing to my constituents in Oklahoma, 

and I will not defend them to the constituents in this country. 

Americans are not buying it. 

There is still time to make mid-course adjustments for 2010. Our 

children and grandchildren cannot afford for us to punt these problems until 2020 or 2030. My hope is that this hearing will help get 

us back on the right track right away. 

[Prepared statement of Chairman Coburn follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COBURN 

Usually, when we think about the Census, we think statistics. The Census Bureau 

has become the largest statistical agency in the country, if not the world. But, behind its data collection is a steadily increasing price tag for the decennial census, 

which until recently has managed to stay under the radar of Congress. As we approach the 2010 Census, though, it is becoming increasingly apparent that costs are 

spiraling upward at a startling rate. The 2010 Census is projected to cost nearly $12 billion—that’s $5 billion more—

a startling 80 percent increase—over the 2000 Census. The 2000 Census in turn 

cost $4 billion more than the 1990 Census—at the time, a more than 100 percent 

increase. This is all part of a disturbing trend in recent decades, which witnessed 

dramatic cost increases from one census to the next. 

Adding to our cost problem is a culture problem. The Census seems to be operating under an early 20th Century mentality, when pen and paper were the only 

tools available. The Internet is now available. For the next census in 2010, the Bureau has decided not to offer an online option, choosing rather to stick with a paper 

system. In an age when people do everything online from shopping to banking to 

filing their taxes, the Census Bureau is lagging behind, needlessly adding to its already high costs. 

This is also a mission problem. Census is tasked with counting the population and 

it needs the help of all citizens to pull it off. Participation in the census would be 

easier to obtain from more people with fewer Census personnel if an online option 

were available. 

The purpose of this hearing today is to examine what is behind the skyrocketing 

costs at the census, and what can be done about it. I hope to get answers to questions such as: How well has the Census been planning for the 2010 count? What 

assurances can we have that cost overruns in the billions won’t take place next time 

like they have so many times before? Why was an online option suddenly rejected 

and what will it take to get it back into the plans for 2010? 

The best cost estimate being provided by the Census Bureau for the 2010 Census 

is $11.3 billion. Unfortunately, though, if history is any guide, that estimate will 

bear little resemblance to the reality in 2010. As you can see from this chart, between 1970-2000 costs for the census increased sharply. Costs jumped most significantly between 1970 and 1980, going from $250 million to well over $1 billion in 

1980. Since 1980, the cost of census has doubled every decade. In 2010, it is shaping 

up to be the same story once again with a cost increase over the 2000 Census of 

at least $5 billion, and possibly more. No one seems willing or able to apply the 

brakes. 

Some, including the Census Bureau itself, have blamed inflation or population 

growth, but let’s take a look at the facts. [refer to posters] As you can see from this 

5

poster, even after inflation is accounted for, costs still climb from one census to the 

next. In the decade between 1990 and 2000, when inflation was an amazingly low 

27 percent, the cost of the census increased by 154 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, 

with ten-year inflation numbers again expected to be low, the cost of the census is 

expected to increase by between 70-90 percent. 

The situation is the same when population growth numbers are compared with 

census costs. In 1990, the census cost $10 a person, and in 2000 the Census cost 

$23 per person; but in 2010, the census will cost a staggering $36 for every man, 

woman and child living in this country. That’s much more than it costs to file your 

taxes electronically with the IRS and yet all the Constitution requires us to do is 

count heads here. The bottom line is that census costs are shooting upward at an 

unacceptable rate, and the excuses given are without merit. 

What, then, are the real causes of the large cost increase between 2000 and 2010? 

The Census Bureau attributes it to factors such as the increased difficulty of finding 

non-English speakers and people living in non-traditional housing. The Bureau also 

claims that as the population grows, counters will have to knock on more doors to 

make up for people that don’t mail back their forms—and that costs money. But, 

when all of these factors are accounted for, it still remains unclear how we get to 

a number approaching $12 billion. 

GAO—Congress’ watchdog agency—has analyzed the Bureau’s cost projections 

and was equally mystified. As a result, they recommended—more than two years 

ago—that the Bureau compile its planning information into one master document 

to help Congress understand its long-term budget. Census agreed to do so, but two 

appropriations cycles have now come and gone and there still is no document. How 

are we supposed to fulfill our oversight duty effectively without understanding this 

basic information? Or is that the point? I assure you, we will not let this drop. There 

will be a planning document that itemizes cost projections down to the dollar. 

Knowing projected costs is only the first step—you’ll see on this chart—transparency is only the first step to accountability. Then we have to figure out how to 

contain those costs. Frankly, all these issues should have been worked out after the 

2000 budget-busting debacle. As late as 1998, the Bureau projected costs of $4-5 billion. When all was said and done, the final cost was more than $6.5 billion—a cost 

overrun of more than 30 percent. If the 2010 Census faces a cost overrun similar 

to that in 2000, it will put the final price tag at $15 billion. This is not simply a 

matter of possibility, it is an inevitability unless something is done right now to 

curb the skyrocketing costs. 

One of the most obvious solutions to long-term cost containment is for the agency 

to join the rest of the world in cyberspace and offer the census online. An online 

census would allow the Census Bureau to virtually eliminate its paper-intensive systems, to cut back dramatically on the need for house calls and to allow faster data 

integration. In just the last five years, the federal government has made extraordinary strides with its e-Government initiatives to the point that every citizen can 

now file their taxes online—certainly if citizens can file their taxes online, they can 

be counted online. And so it is puzzling to me why Census has taken the online option off the table for 2010. 

I am deeply concerned that the Census is mired in a bureaucratic, ‘‘pen and 

paper’’ mentality that refuses to change the way things have always been done. To 

say an online option is not practical or cannot be done simply defies the plain fact 

that 73 percent of all American adults are online already. Canada just last month 

showed us that it can be done and conducted its national census and offered it online to all of its citizens. This is not just something that we can do, it something 

that must be done. I assure you that this subcommittee will not drop this issue. The 

2010 Census will be online. 

In the medical world, we have a word for when the number of cells in the body 

increases at a rate faster than the underlying conditions that usually govern cell 

division would predict—cancer. The underlying factors governing the cost of counting Americans do not justify the staggering cost increases at the Census. Americans 

get this. They get that it’s easy to do things online. They get that it’s not that complicated for a Federal agency to know who they are, and some basic information 

about them. The government for the most part, already knows practically everything 

there is to know about us—from what’s in our bank accounts to our health status 

in retirement. I simply can’t sell these cost increases to my constituents back in 

Oklahoma. Americans aren’t buying it. 

There’s still time to make mid-course adjustments for 2010. Our children and 

grandchildren can’t afford for us to punt these problems to the 2020 or 2030 count. 

I hope that this hearing will help us get back on track right away. I want to thank 

our witnesses for being here today and for their time and preparation.

6

Senator COBURN. And I want to thank you again for your efforts 

to be here and our thank you for our witnesses to be here. 

Let me introduce to you, if I can, our panel of witnesses. First 

is Brenda Farrell. She is Acting Director of Strategic Issues, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office. 

In November 2005, Ms. Farrell was appointed Acting Director for 

Strategic Issues, where she is responsible for overseeing three 

major bodies of work related to census, strategic human capital, 

and government regulation issues. 

Prior to joining Strategic Issues teams, Ms. Farrell was Assistant 

Director for Defense Capabilities in Management and led military 

personnel engagements encompassing bodies of work in military 

pay and benefits, Reserve and National Guard mobilization issues, 

and military officer requirements and career development. 

She began her career at GAO in 1981 and has served in a number of areas. In 2001, she was selected to enter the National Defense University Industrial College of the Armed Forces and earned 

a master’s degree in national resources strategy. 

She has also completed other specialized training in subject matter expertise such as defense manpower and force management. 

She completed the Leadership Development Program at Eckerd 

College in 2004. And in 2005, she completed the Senior Executive 

Fellow Program at Harvard University. 

Her numerous awards include Results Through Teamwork 

Awards in 2004 and 2003, an award for high quality products and 

client relations in 2003, and a GAO honor award for sustained extraordinary performance leading multiple highly complex defensive 

reviews in 2002. 

Charles Louis Kincannon is the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. He was appointed by President Bush and was unanimous 

confirmed by the Senate on March 13, 2002. 

He began his career as a statistician at the U.S. Census Bureau 

in 1963 after graduating from the University of Texas at Austin. 

Congratulations on that wonderful national championship. 

He held positions of leadership at the Census Bureau and also 

with the Office of Management and Budget. He served as Deputy 

Director of the Census Bureau during the 1980s and as Acting Director during the crucial final phase of preparation for the 1990 

census. 

Throughout his career with the Federal Government, Mr. 

Kincannon sought to strengthen relationships between statistical 

agencies as well as data users in order to produce timely, relevant 

data that informs public policy and decisionmaking. 

In October 1992, Mr. Kincannon was appointed as the first Chief 

Statistician in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD), in Paris to coordinate the organization’s statistical programs, as well as advise the OECD Secretary on general 

statistical policy. During that time, he encouraged cooperation and 

understanding amongst statistical agencies and underscoring the 

large relationships between the nations. 

I again want to thank each of you for your cooperation. Mr. 

Kincannon, we are going to recognize you first and give you an opportunity to speak. Take the time that you need. And then we will 

recognize Ms. Farrell. You are recognized. 

7

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon with attachments appears in the Appendix on 

page 34. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. LOUIS KINCANNON,1 DIRECTOR, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU 

Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me move this a 

little closer. 

On behalf of the Census Bureau, I want to thank the Chairman 

and presently Senator Carper for the opportunity to update the 

Senate on the re-engineered 2010 census program. The decennial 

census program is the Bureau’s largest activity and its highest 

budget priority. In fact, it is one of this Nation’s largest peacetime 

mobilizations and is mandated by the Constitution. 

In the past, the census provided comprehensive detailed information once every decade. Yet there is an increasing need for such 

data more frequently at the local level. The American Community 

Survey, one of the components of the re-engineered 2010 census 

program, will address this need. 

The American Community Survey (ACS), replaces the long form 

of the census, a crucial step in realizing a short form only census. 

In the past, we collected long form data as part of the decennial 

census. As such, it was costly and it complicated our effort to conduct a basic enumeration. 

The American Community Survey collects information on education, income, and other social and economic characteristics. Every 

question on the ACS is mandated by Federal law or fulfills Federal 

requirements. 

The ACS will provide timely, accurate information for every 

county, city, and neighborhood each year, not just once a decade. 

These data will help city and community leaders in every State and 

allow the Census Bureau to focus its efforts in 2010 on the core 

constitutional count used as the basis for apportionment and redistricting. 

The success of the 2010 re-engineered census program will also 

depend on the MAF/TIGER or geographic tools enhancement program, an extensive nationwide operation to modernize and consolidate the census address list and map. This is a multifaceted effort 

taking advantage of well-established technologies, such as GPS capabilities, to improve outdated error prone map systems currently 

in place. 

Much of this work is being done through a major contract with 

the Harris Corporation, estimated at $200 million in cost at the 

time of its award in June 2002. This activity is within budget and 

on schedule for completion in 2008. This geographic improvement 

program is important because ensuring the accuracy of the location 

of each address is the guarantee that political representation and 

resources can be distributed fairly to States, cities, towns, census 

tracts, and blocks as they are demanded. 

Our overriding goal for the 2010 census is to improve the coverage and accuracy of the census and to contain costs. In response 

to numerous GAO recommendations, we have developed a rigorous 

planning and testing program that includes many long sought census improvements such as bilingual questionnaires, a second mailVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Jun 28, 2007 Jkt 029501 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\29501.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8

ing of the questionnaire and targeted census coverage improvement 

programs. 

Another significant improvement is the expanded use of technology. Our efforts have centered on two major systems, the 2010 

Decennial Response Integration System (DRIS), and the Field Data 

Collection Automation System, or FDCA as we rather 

uneuphoniously refer to it. 

Both of these are IT contracts together totalling over $1 billion. 

The purpose of the DRIS contract, which was awarded last year to 

Lockheed Martin Corporation, is to ensure the accurate and protected collection and storage of American’s data, whether by paper 

form, handheld computer, or telephone. 

The FDCA contract was awarded this spring to the Harris Company. The purpose of FDCA is to capture directly the information 

collected by mobile computer devices during the personal interviews and non-response follow-up. This eliminates the need for 

paper forms, address lists, and maps for the major field data collection operations. The use of this technology is a revolutionary improvement in the way we conduct the largest and most expensive 

activity of the decennial census. 

All of this underscores the importance of Congressional support 

for all aspects of the 2010 decennial census. Thousands of individual operations and procedures must be successfully implemented in less than 4 years to ensure the success of the 2010 census. 

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

over $800 million. $512 million of that is for the decennial programs. In the course of the decade, we expect the re-engineered 

census will cost more than $11 billion, as the Chairman said. 

To understand the cost, consider the scope of the task. It is our 

responsibility to count every person in every community on every 

street and in every household. For the Census 2000, we sent questionnaires to more than 117 million households, 80 million of those 

households responded by mail. For the rest, we sent census takers 

to collect the census information. We opened 520 local census offices and hired more than 860,000 temporary workers. 

For 2010, we are projecting there will be more than 310 million 

persons living in America and that we will have to count them in 

more than 130 million households. 

Our increasingly diverse population is more difficult to count. As 

we plan and test new data collection efforts, we try to estimate the 

effect they will have on the overall response rate, since the high 

non-response follow up is truly the cost driver for the census. 

We have successfully tested and plan to implement bilingual 

questionnaires in selected communities, guided by the results from 

the ACS. A second mailing will be sent to non-responding households and automated field data collection is a device that, along 

with these others, are steps that will reduce cost and improve quality. 

We have also considered other data collection and methods, including Internet data collection. Based on our research, testing, experience, and the knowledge of experience in other countries like 

Canada and Australia, Internet data collection would not signifiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Jun 28, 2007 Jkt 029501 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\29501.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9

1The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell appears in the Appendix on page 72. 

cantly improve the overall response rate to the census or reduce 

field data collection costs. 

In 2003 and 2005, census tests offered an Internet response option. And in both cases the Internet response was low and did not 

increase the overall response rate. It merely diverted some small 

percentage, about 7 percent, from the paper medium to the Internet, not enough to substantially change our paper collection or field 

data collection costs. 

We are also concerned that utilizing the Internet could jeopardize 

other planned improvements that we know will save money. At this 

point in the decade, efforts to develop an Internet response would 

divert attention and resources from these tested and planned improvements that we know will increase the overall response rate by 

several percentage points and save money. 

A successful census is more than a technical achievement. It is 

the creation of a national resource that empowers decisionmaking. 

I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will agree it is a success worth supporting. 

I thank you for this opportunity to provide an update to the census and look forward to your questions. 

Senator COBURN. Ms. Farrell. 

TESTIMONY OF BRENDA S. FARRELL,1 ACTING DIRECTOR, 

STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE 

Ms. FARRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. It is hard to remember. 

Ms. FARRELL. I know, and I was warned beforehand, too. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to 

discuss the mushrooming costs of the decennial census, now estimated to be over $11 billion, as well as the actions that the Census 

Bureau is taking to contain those costs. 

Let me briefly summarize my written statement that is based on 

findings from our issued reports, as well as preliminary results 

from ongoing work that we plan to issue within the next few weeks 

on the Bureau’s efforts to build a complete and accurate address 

list, the foundation for a successful census. 

A cost effective decennial census is a monumental management 

challenge. It is long-term. The 2010 Census protected life cycle 

costs spans 13 fiscal years. 

It is large-scale. For example, if recruitment goals are similar to 

the 2000 Census, 2.4 million applicants could be recruited to carry 

out census operations. 

It is costly. As already noted, according to the Bureau, the next 

census will cost over $11 billion. 

It is a high risk, in that the Census Bureau has one opportunity 

to get it right on April 1, 2010. 

Further, we are closely monitoring the 2010 Census to determine 

if we should put it on GAO’s high-risk list. 

The sheer size of the census means that small problems can magnify quickly and bit problems could be overwhelming. For example, 

60 seconds might seem like an inconsequential amount of time. But 

10

in 2000, if enumerators had spent just one minute more at each 

household during non-response follow-up, it could have added almost $10 million to the cost of the census. 

My statement today is presented in three parts. The first addresses the extent to which the Bureau has developed timely and 

detailed cost data for effective oversight and cost control. Despite 

a history of cost increases, the Bureau’s most recent life cycle cost 

estimate does not reflect the most current information from testing 

and evaluation, nor provide complete information on how changing 

assumptions may affect costs. 

Given the cost of the census in an era of serious national fiscal 

challenges, it is crucial for the Bureau to provide Congress with 

more complete information such as sensitivity analyses about the 

likelihood—high, medium, or low—that certain assumptions would 

drive costs. 

For example, for the 2000 Census, the Bureau’s supplemental 

funding request for $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2000 primarily involved changes in assumptions related to increased workload, reduced employee productivity and increased advertising. 

The second part of my testimony addresses the progress the Bureau has made to reduce non-response follow-up costs. Since 2000, 

the Bureau has re-engineered the decennial census and has begun 

new initiatives to reduce non-response follow-up costs 

These initiatives include: One, using only a short form census 

questionnaire. Two, automating field operations. Three, using a 

targeted second mailing to households that fail to respond to the 

initial census questionnaire instead of sending an enumerator to 

visit houses that have not responded. 

These initiatives could reduce the workload and cost of non-response follow-up. While these initiatives show promise, the Bureau 

will be to address technological challenges with the handheld mobile computing devices that will be used to collect the data for nonresponse follow-up. 

Third and finally, Mr. Chairman, not withstanding the significant progress the Bureau has made to address lessons learned from 

the 2000 Census, I wish to note several challenges of, if not properly managed, could increase the cost of the census. These challenges include overseeing contractors responsible for conducting 

key census-taking operations totaling almost $2 billion in contracts; 

successfully updating address and map files; and assessing the resources that will be needed to update the address and maps for 

areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

We have made recommendations in our reports for each of these 

three areas and the Bureau has said that it is taking action on 

many of them. We will continue to assist Congress in monitoring 

the Bureau’s progress. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement and I will 

be happy to take questions at this time. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Let me go to Mr. Kincannon. And I want you to feel free to take 

time, if you heard something that you do not think is right, Mr. 

Kincannon, to address it. If you think there are assumptions that 

were made in her testimony or something I have said, please feel 

11

free to address those issues as we go through. This is about to get 

the information out so that we all know. 

Right now, we are talking about the 2010 Census costing $5 billion more than the 2000. What are the two or three biggest cost 

drivers in that that would account, other than inflation which is 

going to be about 25 percent. What are the two or three biggest 

cost drivers that are accounting for why this thing would increase 

by $5 billion? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Before we go to the second part of your question, our figures indicate that so-called Federal inflation, that is the 

inflation rate used by OMB to estimate out-year budgets, accounts 

for about two-thirds of the total cost increase between censuses. So 

it is not a quarter but two-thirds, unless we have a different set 

of figures in mind. 

Senator COBURN. The last census cost what? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The last census cost $7.6 billion in constant 

2010 dollars. 

Senator COBURN. No, what did it cost in dollars then? You cannot 

use both sides of the inflation number. If you are going to give me 

inflation-adjusted, it was $6 billion, $6.4 billion or $6.5 billion. 

Mr. KINCANNON. $6.4 billion, if you add together the dollars 

spent at each year in the 13-year cycle. 

Senator COBURN. We are talking 10-year periods. We are talking about the same thing. You are talking about, at a minimum $11 

billion, and probably more likely much greater than that. So we are talking $5 billion. 

The American public, if we are going to use cost-adjusted, then 

we need to use cost-adjusted all the way. And so we are talking 

real dollars. 

The fact is in 2000 dollars, it is a 50 percent increase in 2000 

dollars. If you are talking 2000 dollars. 

Mr. KINCANNON. If you are talking nominal dollars in 2000 and 

nominal dollars in 2010, then yes, it would be $5 billion. It is $6.4 

billion in 2000. 

Senator COBURN. We have had an inflation rate of under 3 percent each year. So at the most, we are going to have 30 percent, 

or 1.3 times, so you are going to have 33 or 35 percent. Why is it 

going to cost $2.5 billion more? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It costs more because of increase in population, 

increase in the number of housing units, an increase in the number 

of people per housing unit, which means that a housing unit is 

really the unit of work in the census. So those things go together. 

The increased difficulty in getting people to respond to Federal 

surveys or inquiries of any kind. 

Senator COBURN. So we know that as a fact, that there is a harder factor to get anybody to respond today? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, there are plenty of indicators that it is 

harder to get people to respond to surveys. 

Senator COBURN. And there is no economies of scale? If we have 

600 million people, we should keep rising, in terms of the cost per 

person to count them? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It will more than rise, in terms of the cost to 

count each person, if there are smaller housing units, smaller families living in houses or more elderly living in housing units alone. 

12

The smaller the housing unit, the less the productivity of getting 

data from each housing unit. 

Senator COBURN. The cost per person in 1970 was $1.22. At best, we are talking $36.57 per person, and probably more likely over 

$40 per person. In 2000 the cost per person was $23.45, which was 

130 percent more than in 1990. 

I do not think the American people are going to buy the fact that 

if we doubled the population we would get no economies of scale 

out of the census organization in terms of the numbers responding. 

If you are going to mail out a survey, what was your percentage 

in the 2000 Census, and terms of response to the mailing? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It was 67 percent, I believe, housing units 

mailed back returns. 

Senator COBURN. So you would not assume that you would get 

60-some percent out of 600 million, as you would out of 300 million? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think we will get a higher percentage out of 

the mail response in 2010, because we will have only a short form 

census. And I think people will be more cooperative. 

Senator COBURN. So there is cost savings associated with that? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It is not relevant to speak of the cost of counting a person because we do not count the person one by one. We 

count in housing units. So you go to the door with a questionnaire 

by mail, or in-person if necessary. So that is the relevant unit of 

cost. 

Senator COBURN. So if that is the relevant unit of cost, it costs 

$56 to do that in 2000 and it is going to cost $88 in 2010, based 

on your best estimates right now. 

And you are going to be using the short form on everybody. So 

explain to me why that is going to shoot up 50 percent, more than 

50 percent, on the cost per household, based on your own estimates 

of the numbers that you gave the Subcommittee? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I thought the numbers that we gave the Subcommittee, put in constant dollars, showed an increase of 35 percent. 

Senator COBURN. Let us just talk about dollars. You gave the Subcommittee $56 per household to $88 per household. So that is 

from $32 to $56. That is a significant increase. I will not quibble 

with the numbers. 

The question is you are going to the small form, the short form. 

You are going to have more numbers that are going to be returned 

because it is going to be a short form. How do you explain to the 

American people that the cost is going up $32 per household over 

10 years on a short form now, when a third or 10 percent of them 

used to be the long form. How do we explain them? How do we justify that? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, the cost per housing unit is a function of 

many things. But you have to get to the housing unit, you have to 

have the mailing list, the address list, the mapping all done. That 

is a big component of cost. And that is probably the single most important basic phase, as Ms. Farrell pointed out, to making the key, 

the foundation for an accurate census. 

Senator COBURN. I guess probably the reason I am asking these 

questions is because the planning documents have not ever been 

13

brought forward on how you are assessing these costs? How you 

are doing it? How do you measure it? How do we get a look at it 

so that we have a confidence level? 

I will tell you that I will be your best friend or your worst enemy 

when it comes to getting extra money for the census. Because if it 

is not efficient—every year between now and 2010, we are going to 

be looking to make sure that the planning and the efficiency that 

can be gotten is going to be gotten there. 

The itemization of costs as a part of the planning document that 

has been asked for two appropriation cycles, that still is not there, 

let us just go to that question. 

Where is that document? When is it coming? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I thought we had provided that information to 

the Congress in terms of the life cycle cost document, and quite a 

lot of dialogue about how we put that together and how we updated 

it. If we have not satisfied on that, then we need to get more specific. 

Senator COBURN. I will have staff follow up with you on that. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Let me make one other point. Welcome, Senator Carper. Glad you are here. 

According to our calculations from what we have gotten from you 

all, the non-response follow-up in 2000, from 2000 to 2010, by your 

own submission, will cost $1 billion more. But the overall costs are 

increasing by $5 billion. So if those numbers are right, 20 percent 

of the increase in costs is for the non-response. What is the other 

80 percent? 

I know you have $2 billion set inside for all of your mapping and 

the other programs. What is the other $2 billion? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The other $2 billion is composed of changes in 

the number of people per housing unit, the cost of hiring and paying people, and does not yet even factor in the probable increased 

cost in security that we will be dealing with in hiring the number 

of people that we need. 

If we have not given you the linkage between how we composed 

the cost for 2010, then we can do that and we will do that. 

Senator COBURN. That will be very helpful to us. I am not sure 

that we have got that. 

I am not going to hold you to this. I just want you to guess. What 

do you think the highest possible total cost for the 2010 census is 

going to be? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I would not expect a variance in real terms of 

more than say 5 to 7 percent. And I hope there will not be that 

much. That is a guess. That is not an administration statement. 

Senator COBURN. I understand that and you are on the record as 

a guess. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think it is important to look back at 2000 and 

realize that we did not have the kind of careful planning, testing, 

revision of plans, and systematic moving forward that we have had 

so far for this census. Among other things, with a year left before 

the census, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that meant 

the Administration at that time and the Census Bureau had to 

completely revise plans on the ground for taking the census. If you 

do that kind of change late in the cycle, without speaking to the 

14

wisdom of the change or anything else, then you do have sharp increases at the very end. I hope we are not going to have that kind 

of change again. 

Senator COBURN. I hope so, too. The itemization of costs is a part 

of the planning document, that is one of the things that we want 

to see is the itemization of how you got there. 

Part of our problem, as Members of Congress, is trying to get our 

hands around an agency that you have your hands around and you 

are somewhat familiar with. We have to try to become familiar 

with that. And so more information is better, rather than less. 

I think I will stop now and welcome my co-chair, Senator Carper, 

for a short statement and any questions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no statement that I will give, but I do have one for the 

record, if I could offer that. 

Senator COBURN. It will be made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

I want to thank Chairman Coburn for holding today’s hearing to examine the 

costs and the information technology components of the 2010 Census. Although Census costs double every decade, we must remember that the Census Bureau is tasked 

with an enormous undertaking—to count everyone in the United States. With the 

ever changing dynamics of the U.S. population, I believe the Cenus Bureau is doing 

the right thing by using information technology to help stream line tasks in the 

field. 

The questions that we will ask here today are whether or not those initiatives are 

being implemented in the most appropriate manner and through the most efficient 

means. Because information technology accounts for nearly 17 percent of the 2010 

Census’ total costs, poor oversight of various information technology components 

could have a disastrous affect on the success and cost of the Census. The Census 

Bureau has the responsbility to immediately address any risks before Census Day 

2010. 

The Census Bureau has also decided not to offer the 2010 Census online. This is 

surprising, since e-government is a leading priority for our Federal Government. 

Various agencies have implemented Internet initiatives to help invididuals better 

communicate and do business with the Federal Government. This year at the IRS, 

online tax filing reached record levels. 

I look forward to hearing, in detail, the Census Bureau’s reasoning for not offering 

the 2010 Census online and their decision to back-away from the e-government 

trend. Census Day 2010 is rapidly approaching. We each have a responsibility to 

ensure that the Census is conducted in the most efficient manner. I want to thank 

each of our witnesses for your service, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you.

Senator CARPER. I suspect the Chairman has already delved into 

this, but I am going to come back and revisit it anyway. 

In the last couple of months, we have witnessed in this country 

an effort to sign up literally tens of millions of senior citizens for 

Medicare Part D prescription drug program. A lot of that has been 

done on the telephone, people call, wait to get somebody on the line 

and call back and finally maybe get somebody. They call my office, 

and they probably call Senator Coburn’s office, as well, and we try 

to help, too. 

A lot of people, though, signed on to the benefit online. For those 

who did not have the computer skills were able to find people in 

their senior center or their family to help them to sign up online. 

15

We have tens of millions of people who file their taxes in the 

month of April or other times during the year. A lot of those folks 

did that online, as well. 

When I was governor of Delaware, we began filing State taxes, 

accepting State tax filings, online as well. 

I understand that the Census Bureau has considered whether or 

not there is a business case that justifies doing the census or part 

of the census online. And I understand that you have concluded 

that there is not. 

I would just ask for you, Mr. Kincannon, to talk about that, particularly in light of the work we have done in other areas involving 

the Federal Government, Medicare, and IRS. 

And then I would ask, Ms. Farrell, if you would comment on it, 

as well. But Mr. Kincannon, if you would take it first. 

Mr. KINCANNON. The Internet is an enticing option and we use 

electronic reporting extensively in the business data that we collect. Businesses, particularly larger scale businesses, seem to find 

that a very efficient way of reporting for multiple establishments. 

So it is not as though we do not use the Internet and other electronic means of reporting when it seems to be received well by respondents. 

Almost all of the export data that we collect is collected in an 

automated form. And both the exporters and the Census Bureau 

like that very much because it is faster and more accurate, lower 

in cost for us and for them. 

We have tested Internet response to the short form only census 

because it is short, and it would seem like it would be an easier 

thing to handle online than an application for Medicare. And certainly—you send in your completed taxes based on commercial software that you file. You do not actually do your taxes online in most 

cases, although I guess in some cases they may do it with somebody’s online system. 

What we found is that when we offered respondents, in a test, 

a controlled test, the chance to fill out the short form online, a few 

people did. My recollection it was less than 10 percent, 7 to 10 percent. The total response rate of the people responding by Internet 

and by mail on paper was no greater than the control group. So 

we did not gain any net response. We did not do any more to reduce the costly non-response follow-up. That is the biggest cost 

driver in the census, and it is our target for trying to reduce that. 

When we conducted a test where we emphasized the importance 

of responding on the Internet, we sent people a letter or a card, I 

do not remember which, where we said we want you to complete 

this form. Go to this site, use this control number so we know who 

you are and where you are, what your address is. And if you do 

not have access to a computer or do not wish to use the Internet, 

call this number and we will mail you a questionnaire. 

The overall response plummeted. About 30 percent of people did 

file on the Internet, but the total response was less than half the 

universe that we expected. 

So looking at our experience there, we do not see that we gain 

any business advantage of reduced cost or being able to predictably 

reduce substantially our infrastructure for handling the paper 

16

questionnaires. I do not know why that is, but it is a fact that we 

have tested that, and that is the indication. 

It may be that the paper questionnaire, being only about 8 questions, tests takes about 10 minutes for a family of four to fill it out. 

The easiest thing to do is just to fill it out and mail it in. Or maybe 

people decide they are going to do it on the Internet and then do 

not get around to doing it. 

I do not know the explanation. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just interrupt you for a moment. 

Roughly how much does it cost per household to get them to complete and submit their questionnaire for the census? Can you attribute a cost of that? Is it $50, $60, or $70 for responders? 

Mr. KINCANNON. For people returning their questionnaires, for 

responders? I cannot. Do we know the cost? 

I do not know, but let us say it is $10. I do not know what the 

cost is. You print the questionnaire. You mail it. You pay the postage coming back, and you scan it in. It is very modest. 

Senator CARPER. Does that include all of the costs? Is there 

something missing there? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I do not know whether it includes all of the 

costs. It includes the operational cost of sending out and receiving. 

Senator CARPER. I think the Chairman said those are the variable costs. 

Chairman COBURN. Those are the variable costs. 

Senator CARPER. And are there fixed costs that you are able 

to——

Mr. KINCANNON. Sure. You have to have the maps, you have to 

have the tabulating software and all kinds of things to deal with 

that. And you have to have all of the receiving, scanning, and other 

kinds of equipment there to do. 

If you take responses also on the Internet, you have to have a 

means of converting those to the same compatible format with this 

other information. 

So that is all fixed costs. You have to do that if you get one back 

by Internet or two. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just continue on where I am going. 

Could you conceive of a situation where we could significantly increase the percentage of folks who would respond online by offering 

them, rather than just to say thank you but offering them some 

kind of financial remuneration for those who responded online? 

Mr. KINCANNON. There is a good deal of evidence in survey research literature that offering cash incentives or other kinds of incentives can have an effect on response. But it also costs something. 

Senator CARPER. Have you all ever looked at whether or not the 

amount of remuneration that might be called for would more than 

pay for itself? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I am not aware that we have looked at that on 

the census. We have examined it and do use incentives on household surveys. And we may have looked at it, but I am not aware 

of that. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for your responses. Let me turn to 

Ms. Farrell if I could, and your comments on these issues, please. 

17

Ms. FARRELL. The Bureau raises some important considerations 

regarding the security of the Internet and the cost savings. As technology has advanced, we know that Federal agencies have found 

the benefits of using the Internet and other collections. And it 

should be noted that GAO did put information security on our 

high-risk list back in 1997. But that does not mean that those obstacles cannot be overcome, and that they should not be explored 

to be overcome. 

We have not seen what the business case is behind the Bureau’s 

decision to drop the Internet. We have asked. We were told that 

there was not a business case made for that determination. But the 

decision was a sound business decision. 

Senator CARPER. Would you say that again, please? Just repeat 

what you said. 

Ms. FARRELL. In terms of the business case, we were under the 

impression that the Bureau had developed a sound business case 

to base that decision to drop the Internet from their contract that 

was let last October. But when we asked for such information, we 

were informed that we had misunderstood and that there was no 

business case that they had actually developed. 

I think it is important to note that the Bureau did explore and 

offered the Internet as an option for the 2000 census, and they had 

a low response rate. it perhaps could have been because of low advertising. We do not know. We have not seen what the Bureau has 

done to explore the use of the Internet from 2000. 

It has been puzzling to us, as to when the Bureau did mention 

its use of the Internet in its 2000 life cycle cost estimate, which is 

a very top level cost estimate without the itemized cost that you 

are referring to, Mr. Chairman, they referred to it as a possible 

cost savings. By the time they did a revision 2 years later, they 

noted that the response rate was not as high as they had anticipated it would be. 

But following that June 2003 referral to the response rate not 

being as high, was included—our understanding, in the contract 

that was let in 2005 to offer it. 

Thus, we just feel that the decision to drop the Internet has 

raised more questions about what the decision was based on and 

what the true facts are behind the response rate and how it was 

offered. 

Senator CARPER. We are not the only country that does a census. 

I presume most of the major countries in the world do a census. 

I do not know if they do it every 10 years. Can you just give us 

some idea, Mr. Kincannon, if that is the case? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Most countries throughout the world do conduct 

censuses, some at irregular intervals, some every 10 years, a few 

every 5 years. Increasingly, countries, particularly in Latin America and some European countries, are moving to activities somewhat like the ACS where a part of the census is taken on a continuing basis and if an enumeration is legally needed, they take 

that. 

A number of European countries no longer take a census. Either 

they rely on a population register or other kinds of administrative 

records as a basis for an estimate of population. And they may use 

18

that as a basis for surveys. You know we use our census as a basis 

sampling frame for surveys. 

We do not have a population register. We do not have any consistent or coherent set of administrative records that form the 

equivalent of a census. 

Most European countries, frankly, do not have very dramatically 

changing populations, either because of natural increase or immigration. So we face a different situation. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just ask, if I can, Mr. Chairman, just 

one follow-up question. Are we aware of some practices that other 

countries are following what we might want to consider emulating? 

Are there some best practices out there, that either of you are 

aware of, that we have borrowed from or maybe we ought to? Particularly with respect to the use of the Internet. 

Mr. KINCANNON. We have examined use of the Internet in some 

other countries, in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. In some 

cases they have a slightly higher return rate on the Internet than 

we have had in our tests. But in no cases, in their view, has it 

managed to save them money as an offset by increasing total response. Again, I do not know how to explain that, but it does seem 

to be a similar experience. 

Canada offered it to everybody because under Canadian law government communications must be available to people in Internet 

form, as well as other forms, and in two languages. But they found 

it cost them more and did not, as my understanding at this stage 

of things, that it has not increased overall response. 

We do look at what other countries do. There are systematic examinations, particularly done through U.N. bodies, where methods 

are looked at cross-country and shared. And we have, over time, incorporated some of the ways that other countries have improved 

their censuses and vice versa. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. Farrell, anything that you want to add to that, quickly? 

Ms. FARRELL. No, we have not looked at other countries. We are 

aware of the Canadians, but we have not actually studied them. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you both. 

Senator COBURN. I am a little bit aware. The Canadians just 

completed their first one. They had a 22 percent participation rate. 

That is three times what you testified that your test was. And the 

number that you all tested was, I think you will agree, an extremely small number in your test batch; correct? 

Mr. KINCANNON. 250,000 households. 

Senator COBURN. 250,000 households. And that was done 2 years 

ago; is that right? 

Mr. KINCANNON. In 2003 and 2005. 

Senator COBURN. So it was done in 2003 and 2005. 

Mr. KINCANNON. That encompasses the control group and the 

test groups. 

Senator COBURN. So if, in fact, you just had a 22 percent re- sponse rate in the United States, you would save $300 million online. You said it is $10 variable cost to mail it out, to have them 

fill it out, pay the postage and bring it back and then code it in. 

To do that online, you would save $300 million if you only had 22 

percent. 

19

And then you divide that by $80 rather than $88 for a non-responder, and what you get is you can contact another 20,000 homes 

by the money that you could save, or 25,000 homes—no, 35,000 

homes, with the money you could save just if you had a 22 percent 

response rate. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Mr. Chairman, if we got a 70 percent response 

rate, we could pay off part of the national debt, I suppose. But we 

do not have that. 

Senator COBURN. No, we cannot. 

The point is that you are looking at the box as it is today, and 

I am wanting you to look at the box at what it can be on the Internet. Things have changed between now and 2000, in terms of the 

response rate. The Internet changes so fast. 

And the fact is that most people, if given the opportunity and the 

inducement, or at least the awareness through advertisement, I 

would guarantee if you just polled them. Would you rather fill out 

something online or fill a piece of paper out and put it in the mail, 

they would much rather—90 percent of the people who are computer literate in this country would rather send it the other way. 

So if, in fact, there are savings to be made by a small number, 

if you only got a quarter of the people doing it, you would tremendously save money both in terms of the variable costs, but also in 

terms of the non-responder cost. 

And so I do not understand why you take at a point in time now 

and say because we had this one test, that we are going to make 

an assumption that in 2010 we are not going to use the most modern communication methods that we have, that have all of the potential, and then try to promote them. Rather than to say work we 

are going to throw this out and we are not going to utilize this system that everybody already has, 74 percent of the households in 

this country already have this tool. If you had 74 percent of them, that is 100 million. That is $1 bil- lion that you would save if you could just get them online. That $1 

billion would come close to paying for a lot of the cost of the nonresponders. 

Mr. KINCANNON. The Canadian response rate, calculated in the 

same terms that we did, would be 14 percent, not 22 percent. If you 

take it as percent of the universe invited to respond, as opposed to 

the 22 percent, which is a percent of the actual responders. But 

still, the point remains. 

I would like to know what form your guarantee would take? You 

said you would guarantee that. 

Senator COBURN. A figure of speech. 

The fact is, where is the large test to see what you would do? 

You have done 250,000 people in 2003 and 2005 on a cost project 

that is $25 million. I mean, $25 million, you can put this package 

in. And you could utilize—$25 million compared to the cost that 

you all are going to spend to have a package that would allow people to do this, to me, seems a small price to try that experiment. And then if you promote it, what about just the $10 per household that you would save on the people that might file? That is not 

worth it? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The Canadians did not save any money either. 

Did they tell you they saved money? 

20

Senator COBURN. No, we have not finished with the Canadians. 

Mr. KINCANNON. We asked them about that. 

Senator COBURN. But the point is that this is the first year. 

Under the leadership that I see now, we are never going to get to 

the Internet on this because we are never going to be able to say 

in advance that we can get there. 

I would just tell you, step back for a minute and look at everything. People did not used to bank online. You could not trust to 

pay your bills online. You could not use a credit card online. You 

could not do any of those things. 

If the people would have had the same attitude, we would not 

be doing any of the stuff online now. 

What I am asking you to do is reconsider and relook at this. And 

I am interested in how is it that we cannot figure out some way 

to utilize this technology to save us money? And what you all have 

said is we cannot. You have not said maybe there is another possibility. You have not said maybe our data was wrong. Maybe we 

ought to take another look at it. You have said to heck with it for 

2010. And the next shot we get at it is 2020. 

And with the costs rising the way they are, this government cannot afford one penny overspending anywhere because we are stealing it from our grandchildren. 

And so for us to totally 180 degrees say no Internet, not going 

to do it on the 2010 census, says well then, when we get some visionary leadership in 2010, we are going to be 10 years behind. 

And what I am saying is there has got to be some minds out 

there that can figure out how do we utilize this technology in your 

area of expertise to save this country money? 

I cannot believe that we cannot create a way to do it. Whether 

it is incentivizing, as Senator Carper said. We will give you a $5 

Baskin-Robbins ice cream cone credit or something. 

Senator CARPER. I was thinking of pizza for four. 

Senator COBURN. I do not know. But the point is people respond. 

And to totally reject that, I am having trouble understanding why 

that has just been totally taken off the table when everything else 

we are trying to do is to move to that direction. So to me, it is not 

computing. 

What I hear, even the data that you give us, it is kind of like 

this: You have responded, in terms of the Census estimated life 

cycle cost. But there is no detail. You have got total cost, 

$1,707,000,000. No detail on American Community Service. MAF/

TIGER, $534 million. There is no detail where those costs are. All 

you are doing is listing out what the costs are. 

What we are asking for is where are the details of the costs? It 

is kind of what the GAO has said. What makes it up? Why is that 

not transparent? Why is it not online for all of us to be able to see 

what those costs are? 

That is where this government is going to move. The American 

people are going to be able to see every penny you spend at the 

Census department and why. And the same thing for where the 

GAO spends their money and why, and where we spend our money 

and why. It is going to become available. 

21

And so to not utilize this technology sets us back not just for the 

2010 census, it sets us back for the 2020 census and the 2030 census. And we cannot afford these cost increases. 

And I, quite frankly, do not buy that there is nothing to be 

gained. I think your testimony is 130 million households that you 

think we are going to have this time? Is that right? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Three hundred ten million people? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. And that there is no efficiency of scale. That 

there is nothing to be gained by a larger population. It is all totally 

offset because the mix and the complexity, and there is a rising 

number of seniors, that cost—and what is the one tool that we 

know that will not cost much to use, which is the Internet, and we 

are throwing it out. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Kincannon, before you respond, Mr. Chairman let me just throw something out, listening to this exchange. 

I do not know if there is something that they could do, the Census Bureau could do, in conjunction with the Census in 2010 that 

would enable us to test a number of different approaches to figure 

out when the next census rolls around in 2020, we will have had 

an opportunity to find out what works and what does not work, in 

terms of getting people to migrate to the Internet. 

That is just something I would throw out there for your consideration. 

Mr. KINCANNON. We can certainly test, and you do not wait until 

2010 to decide what you are doing about 2010. You do not wait till 

2020 to see if you examine the question of the Internet again. 

I think that we should continue testing that in the coming decade and see if we can find ways that either incentivize or people 

become more accustomed to it. 

There are a number of things that I would like to say about what 

you said. First, in the course of every decade, there is a period of 

time when you plan, when you test, and then you have to lock everything in. The time when we lock everything in always seems unreasonably early to people who sit up here in this neighborhood. 

Senator COBURN. I understand that. 

Mr. KINCANNON. But we have, as Ms. Farrell said, we have a 

high risk situation. We have one chance to succeed. And we have 

to make sure everything is tested and will work right in 2010. 

Even at that, it is a risky proposition because you do not know 

what may happen, what mood may strike the public and inflame 

their concerns on some particular aspect of it and make it difficult 

for you. 

We will have natural disasters during censuses, a big hurricane, 

a volcano exploding, all of these things have happened in Census 

times. And we have to cope with it. But they never affect the entire 

country. 

So we have tested, and these were extensive, significant tests. 

They do not show us how they are going to reduce significantly the 

cost of the census. 

And they do increase costs. You talk about we all do online banking. Me, too. I do online banking probably every week, 3 weeks out 

of 4, at any rate. And I do that with a well established set of softVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Jun 28, 2007 Jkt 029501 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\29501.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
22

ware and high security that is developed because the clients of that 

bank use that every week, and any of them every day, I am sure. 

We are talking about something that will be used once a decade. 

That means the investment in security costs particularly are going 

to be very substantial and not spread over long periods of time. 

Senator COBURN. You already have that investment in security 

on your American Community Survey that you are doing now. That 

is not secure? 

Mr. KINCANNON. We do not accept reports. We tested but it did 

not work out to use the Internet as reporting. 

Senator COBURN. But the point is was there not security associated with that? 

Mr. KINCANNON. There is security in the way that we collect——

Senator COBURN. Was there security associated with the other 

data that you collect? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, sir, but that is not the same thing as security on an Internet site. That is a separate set of issues. 

Senator COBURN. I am talking about the people who respond to 

you on the Internet now, like your testimony was earlier, that you 

collect two different sets of information now that are filed online. 

Is that not secure information? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It is. And those reports come to us on monthly 

and quarterly and even daily basis. So it is a system that is in constant use. 

Senator COBURN. I do not understand if somebody uses something once how that changes the complexity of the security of a system that would make it unusable for people in this country. 

Mr. KINCANNON. It is a different system because you are getting 

different inputs from different kinds of respondents. You would 

have to build something different for the 2010 census. 

Senator COBURN. The number of questions on a census survey is 

how many? 

Mr. KINCANNON. On the short form? It is about eight questions. 

Senator COBURN. All right, eight questions. And I want all the 

Internet designers out there in the world that are doing right now 

eight questions on 130 million homes, what does it cost, and what 

is the technology that has already been developed a number of 

times in this country, what is it banking on, or the IRS or everybody else that has already developed the security. 

That is not a satisfactory answer. That data, that technology is 

already out there. That is a $25 million cost at the most. We have 

already talked with all the vendors around the country. We spent 

the time doing it. That is not a satisfactory answer. That is not a 

reason not to do it. 

Again, I just go back, if it is a $10 cost, and it may not be $10. 

It may be $7. That may be why the numbers do not add up. But 

if your variable costs in mailing out a censuses is $10 per household, all you have to do is get eight households to file online to totally pay for one that is a non-responder. 

If it were me, I would be sitting there looking at how in the 

world do we get 80 million people in this country, 80 million households, to respond online? In other words, ask the question the other 

way? 

23

The technology is not a problem. You would agree with that. The 

technology can be gotten. 

Mr. KINCANNON. It can be gotten, but it is not cost-free. 

Senator COBURN. No, it is not cost-free but what was the contract 

cost that you had on the contract that you all terminated? 

What was the cost of the contract that you terminated for online 

Internet census? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I am not sure that we terminated a contract. 

Senator COBURN. A $7 million contract with Lockheed. 

Mr. KINCANNON. We spent $7 million for the first 2 years of work 

on this with Lockheed. 

Senator COBURN. What was the total contract price? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The total contract would have been an additional $30 million. But the price to pay for that also meant that 

they would not be able to provide the DRIS for the dress rehearsal. 

Senator COBURN. Do you mean, they could not do both? Lockheed 

could not do it? Or we just did not negotiate a contract for it? 

Mr. KINCANNON. They could not do both in that time schedule 

within the budget that was appropriated to us, of course. 

Senator COBURN. People who file their income tax returns, individuals, do it once a year. Once a year with the IRS, that is all they 

file. And you know, 70 million of them did that this last April. How 

do you explain that, when you say people cannot file once a year 

or every 10 years? They cannot negotiate the Internet to file a census return? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Ninety percent of those who filed had a considerable incentive because they were getting a refund. And in addition, they paid $30, $40 or $50 for the software provided by a private-sector firm to fill out. And then they reported to the software 

vendor, which then relayed it to the IRS. 

Senator COBURN. Right, and that is a 30-page form, and we are 

talking about a single page form with eight questions on it. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. So the cost difference is not there. I am still astounded. 

Mr. KINCANNON. The cost for that kind of filing is paid for by the 

filer of the taxes. 

Senator COBURN. Let me go back and ask a question. What is 

wrong with this question? How is it that we, at the Census Bureau, 

figure out a way to reduce the cost by incentivizing online filing or 

online participation with the census, so that we have a greater participation, less mail out, and less non-compliance? Where is the answers to that? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The answer to that is in 2011 and 2012, not in 

2010. We do not have time to test and prove and rehearse with a 

significantly changed method of taking in the data. 

Senator COBURN. When did we start looking at online? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Before, in 2001, I suppose because we——

Senator COBURN. You had a sample on it in 2000. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, then we looked at it before that. We had 

that evidence. I thought you meant for this decade. 

We started probably in 2001 getting ready for the test in 2003, 

which was the first of the quarter million size test of Internet. 

24

Senator COBURN. There is some question about your handheld 

devices for your enumerators and the accuracy and efficiency of 

those. Could you address those for me and tell me where we are? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, Chairman. We have awarded a contract 

this spring to the Harris Company to develop the handheld devices 

that will meet our requirements and will be tested in the dress rehearsal and used in 2010. We used devices that we made ourselves 

for testing leading up to that, so that we could test the different 

aspects of using it. 

The devices we built were far less efficient than those that can 

be provided by the private sector, but we learned from those tests: 

A, that someone else could do that task for us better than we could 

do it; but B, that the functionality could be handled on handheld 

devices both for address listing and update, for payrolling, for sending maps to enumerators, for revising their day’s assignment for 

non-response follow-up based on late receipts. 

In the test in Austin, we saved useless calls on people, 17,000 

cases, where households had sent their questionnaires back late. 

And so that saved more than—proportionately more than the Internet would save, if you are looking at that. 

Senator COBURN. So do you have a functioning model that works 

today? 

Mr. KINCANNON. We had a functioning model that was used in 

the test census in——

Senator COBURN. It was made by Harris? 

Mr. KINCANNON. No, we made that. I do not know who made it. 

Harris made it but it was not a production model, not the model 

that we want for the census. 

Senator COLEMAN. That is all going to be automatically 

downloaded; right? You are not going to hand-download that? That 

is going to go to a computer and be downloaded; right? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It will go to the computer and be downloaded, 

at the end of every workday, either wirelessly or overland line, depending on the circumstance and working conditions of that enumerator. 

Senator COBURN. What happens if they do not work? What is 

your plan B? 

Mr. KINCANNON. They will work. They have worked. You might 

as well ask me what happens if the Postal Service refuses to deliver the census forms. 

Senator COBURN. I am not asking it facetiously. I am asking you 

what happens if there is a computer glitch and these handheld devices do not work? What is the plan B? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The computer devices have been tested and 

proven to work. 

Senator COBURN. All I want you to do is answer my question. 

What if they do not work? 

Mr. KINCANNON. We have a big problem then. 

Senator COBURN. So are you going to have to hire more people 

to do the non-response? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I do not believe that condition will obtain, so I 

do not——

Senator COBURN. So there is no planning. So, as we have talked 

about this planning of what-ifs and——

25

Mr. KINCANNON. We could hire more people. Yes, we could hire 

more people, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Is it not true that GAO has said that this 

handheld device is a huge risk in their testimony? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I do not know the precise formulation of words, 

but they say there is a risk associated with using handhelds. 

Senator COBURN. So your testimony is to me that there is no alternative plan if that does not work? 

Mr. KINCANNON. We have no reason to believe that there is any 

systematic risk in all the handhelds. That system will work. 

Senator COBURN. Your testimony today is if that does not work, 

if GAO’s concerns happen to be borne out, there is no alternative 

plan if it does not work? 

Mr. KINCANNON. We would have to hire more people to conduct 

traditional pencil and paper non-response follow-up? 

Senator COBURN. As we did in 2000? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, and 1940. 

Senator COBURN. GAO has raised some concerns about the level 

of transparency within your budgeting process. Do you believe that 

your budget estimates are adequately transparent for long-term 

planning for you, but also for us to watch you and look at you? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think we can always have improvements in 

transparency internally for planning, and we endeavor to improve 

the collection of cost data, the documentation of cost data. But I am 

sure we still have room for improvement. I do not know, apparently 

we have not provided to this Subcommittee the degree of transparency that they want. 

We have provided a lot of information to the Appropriations committees on both sides, and maybe that same information could be 

useful to this Subcommittee. 

Senator COBURN. Let me raise just a couple of other questions 

and then I want Ms. Farrell to comment on it. 

You all have a PART evaluation, as every agency within the Executive Branch has. The PART assessment had some concerns that 

Census Bureau managers are not held accountable for cost containment. Is that a legitimate criticism? And if so, have there been 

steps made to adjust to that? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I do not recall that particular finding but I believe that managers in the Census Bureau are held accountable for 

cost containment. But that is a principle that we try to follow. We 

do not give money to people in plain brown wrappers for them to 

spend without accountability for doing that. 

Senator COBURN. I do not think that is what they are talking 

about. They are talking about systems. The PART assessment is do 

you have the systems and control to be able to effectively manage 

and measure and to have performance measurements to know 

whether or not you have cost containment and whether or not 

somebody is managing something effectively. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think that we do for large programs and for 

continuing programs, in general. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Are there going to be any consequences—and again, not holding 

you to your 7 percent, let us say 10 or 15 percent. Are there any 

consequences if you run to $15 billion? Should there be any conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:50 Jun 28, 2007 Jkt 029501 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\29501.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
26

sequences to the management inside the Census Bureau if it cost 

$15 billion instead of $11.3 billion? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I would think so, yes. That seems reasonable. 

Senator COBURN. OK, that is a great answer. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I mean, what do you want me to say? Detail the 

punishment or retribution or the guidance or what? 

Senator COBURN. What I am looking for is you have got a PART 

analysis that says you do not have great management systems in 

place to measure cost containment. And if you do not, and that is 

the assessment by the CFOs that look at the PART of each agency. 

They have this wonderful color-coded network and they are measuring performance on how everybody is improving every year to try 

to get to the point is if there is no consequences—in other words, 

should somebody be promoted? Should somebody not be there anymore if, in fact, we do not have good management. That is the 

question I am asking you. 

The philosophy is yes or no. I am just asking is there the management tools in there to say—you know it is the expectation of 

being held accountable. Just like you guys are going to be back 

here in 8 months to answer some of these questions and see where 

we are. Because we are not going to spend $4 billion more to do 

this. We are not going to do it. The next two generations are not 

going to pay for inefficiency in the Federal Government. 

So the question is should there be accountability? Is there line 

management? Is there structure? Are there management tools 

there to measure? To know before costs get out of control that you 

know ahead of time that we are getting ready to lose control of 

costs? 

That is what the PART assessment is. It is not about personalities, it is about systems. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I do not think it is about personalities. I did not 

say it was about personalities. 

I will look at that particular PART finding. I am not aware that 

is there, but I will take a look at that and try to understand it better. 

Yes, I do think there should be——

Senator COBURN. When was the last time you looked at the 

PART system on your agency? 

Mr. KINCANNON. About 2 months ago. 

Senator COBURN. And you did not notice that was there? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I looked at summary level PART reporting, yes. 

Senator COBURN. Ms. Farrell, if you were to look at the Census 

Bureau right now, from what you all have looked at, and looking 

at costs for 2010, is there any one particular thing that you would 

recommend be done to control costs that are not being done today? 

Ms. FARRELL. It is back to what we have been discussing with 

transparency. It is difficult for us or for you to know where the Bureau is in their planning without more information behind how 

that $11 billion was comprised. 

At the same time, I do think it is important to note that the Bureau has designed this census earlier in this decade compared to 

where they were at the same point with the last 2000 census. But 

the question is, we do not know if that $11 billion, if it is over. It 

27

could be under. We really do not know because we have not seen 

what is behind it. 

Half of the costs are in the field data collection mechanisms. And 

what Dr. Kincannon said about the non-response is true, that nonresponse is probably one of the biggest drivers of the cost. 

So if you can get hold of that and find out why people are not 

participating or why it is so difficult to find them and make those 

corrections, you stand a better chance of increasing your response 

rate. 

Senator COBURN. It would make sense though, with the short 

form being the form used this time, that the response rate should 

climb significantly. 

Ms. FARRELL. The figures that the Bureau shared with us 

showed that the short form would probably increase the response 

rate, I believe, by 1 percent. 

The bigger bang for the buck is going to be with the targeted second mailing, which I think could be 7 or perhaps greater percentage in increasing that non-response rate. 

Senator COBURN. One concern I had, in reading your testimony 

and looking at this, is let us say we are about to get started planning. You are a year away from the 2010 census. And let us say 

we have the same unemployment rate that we have today. Where 

are you going to get 500,000 people to work on the non-responders? 

And what are you going to have to pay for them? That is a real 

problem that you are going to be faced with. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, we are still 4 years away and I am not 

aware that anybody is predicting the unemployment rate in 4 

years. If the labor market is very tight, it will cost us more to hire 

people. It cost us more in 2000 to hire people. 

But we live in a market economy. And if labor is tight, then we 

will need to pay to get that. We do not have any other source of 

labor than paying people a reasonably close to market rate. 

Senator COBURN. Typically, the people that you hire, are they 

underemployed somewhere else, unemployed or retired? What is 

the mix of the people that you utilize in this non-responder army 

that you have? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I do not have any statistical information at my 

fingertips and I am not sure how thorough that is anyway. We do 

attract people into the labor force who are not in it, people who are 

retired, in some cases. People have rather long retirements in this 

country now, and they like to do something that is interesting and 

constructive for a period of time. 

There are still not 100 percent of working-age women engaged, 

and some like to come back to work for a while. Some use it as a 

reentry point after childbearing years. There are still women who 

stay at home and take care of their children and they want a reentry and they find that useful. 

There are young people who may not have a very good job and 

they want to add something to their resume. 

This does not necessarily apply as much to the people working 

for a short period on non-response follow-up, but we still have tens 

of thousands of jobs that last a year or more in office work. So 

there are a variety of sources there. 

28

A lot of this work, the large number of people that do non-response follow-up, basically have to work in late afternoon, evenings, and weekends. So it is a second job. 

Senator COBURN. So they can catch people at home. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, that is right. 

Senator COBURN. I want to thank each of you. I want to give you, 

especially you, Mr. Kincannon, an opportunity to say anything that 

you want to say, and offer for the record anything where we have 

had a disagreement or anything, to make sure that you can put in 

what you want to have in the record to balance out anything where 

I might not have seemed fair or been fair with you. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think you are a hard salesman in your point 

of view. I would not call you unfair, at least not on this day. 

Senator COBURN. A lot of people do, so it is fine. 

Mr. KINCANNON. You are coming from a certain point of view and 

you push at it very hard. That is all right. 

I think that we have tested fairly the Internet possibility for response at the time that we had to make a decision for what we 

were going to do with that. That does not mean we foreclose that 

possibility in the future. And it may be that it will work better and 

we will learn better ways of incentivizing it in the future. 

I do not know whether the Congress as a whole would agree to 

incentivize something that is already a mandatory requirement in 

the law, but that will be your job maybe to sell that. 

So I disagree with your point of view that we have out of hand 

rejected something. We have tested it and not found it produced results that justified our going down that path. 

I believe that we have constrained cost in the census. And looking at the table of figures put into 2010 constant dollars, the housing unit cost increase in the decade of the 1980s leading up to the 

1990 census was half that of the increase in the previous decade. 

I was Deputy Director in that period. I did not do that alone, but 

a lot of people working in the Census Bureau were conscious of the 

need to constrain growth in costs. And we were successful. 

This may not meet your standard, but still it is cutting in half 

the rate of increase. And the projected rate of change for——

Senator COBURN. It is. Our chart shows that, as well. 

Mr. KINCANNON. So I think we have shown that we can be effective in constraining costs. It does not look like we or the Congress 

or whatever, the government, was as successful in doing that in the 

lead up to the 2000 Census. So it shows we can do that and we 

should continue to be as effective as we can. And avoid late 

changes in the way that we are going to process the census. 

Senator COBURN. Which have big impact on your costs. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Let me clarify something, just so those that 

work with you and your agency. I do not doubt the desires at all 

or the work ethic of the people who are there. We have a big problem in our country and we have got 9 years to fix it, a big asteroid, 

a financial asteroid is going to hit this country at 2016. And we 

cannot just look at the census. We have to look everywhere. 

You are not the only agency. This is our 36th hearing on oversight on waste, fraud, and abuse. How do we do it better? How do 

we get accountability, transparency, results? So it is not about the 

29

Census Bureau or their employees. it is about how do we get and 

create the same opportunities for our children and our grandchildren? 

I appreciate the fact that you have spent a lifetime of service to 

our country. And my questioning you does not demean that at all 

and it is not meant to do that, nor any of your employees. 

And I know a lot of the volunteers that worked in Oklahoma in 

the last census, and they put in a lot of time. They were happy to 

do it and felt a great part of our country. 

Nevertheless, every penny, every day that we can save is a 

standard of living change for our children and our grandchildren. 

And so we are not going to let up. We are going to keep working 

it. We are going to keep coming back. We are going to be still 

hounding you, asking questions. 

And we do want details. Sometimes inside the forest you cannot 

see the trees. And so different perspectives. My staff changes mine 

all the time when I am asking questions and they are asking questions of me. 

But this idea of transparency. Where do you get your budget 

numbers? What makes them? What are the assumptions that make 

those up? What are the components? Why cannot GAO see that? 

Is there a reason they cannot have that? Is there a reason we cannot have that? What is wrong with that? We have to create that 

kind of transparency. 

So your service is appreciated and the fact that what you are 

doing is very important. We understand that. We are anxious that 

it be done right but also efficiently. 

Ms. Farrell, any comments? 

Ms. FARRELL. Sir, I just would like to thank the Bureau for the 

cooperation we have received from them as we continue to monitor 

their activities, and to emphasize that we do agree with the Bureau 

that at this time any significant change to the design could increase costs. But it does not mean that we cannot still be looking 

for ways that there could be a greater payoff down the road. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you all, very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

30

31

A P P E N D I X 


29501.002
32


29501.003
33


29501.001
34


29501.004
35


29501.005
36


29501.006
37


29501.007
38


29501.008
39


29501.009
40


29501.010
41


29501.011
42


29501.012
43


29501.013
44


29501.014
45


29501.015
46


29501.016
47


29501.017
48


29501.018
49


29501.019
50


29501.020
51


29501.021
52


29501.022
53


29501.023
54


29501.024
55


29501.025
56


29501.026
57


29501.027
58


29501.028
59


29501.029
60


29501.030
61


29501.031
62


29501.032
63


29501.033
64


29501.034
65


29501.035
66


29501.036
67


29501.037
68


29501.038
69


29501.039
70


29501.040
71


29501.041
72


29501.042
73


29501.043
74


29501.044
75


29501.045
76


29501.046
77


29501.047
78


29501.048
79


29501.049
80


29501.050
81


29501.051
82


29501.052
83


29501.053
84


29501.054
85


29501.055
86


29501.056
87


29501.057
88


29501.058
89


29501.059
90


29501.060
91


29501.061
92


29501.062
93


29501.063
94


29501.064
95


29501.065
96


29501.066
97


29501.067
98


29501.068
99


29501.069
100


29501.070
101


29501.071
102


29501.072
103


29501.073
104

Æ


29501.074