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

36–680 PDF 2007

2+2 SHOULD NEVER EQUAL 3: GETTING

INTERCENSAL POPULATION ESTIMATES RIGHT

THE FIRST TIME

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM

AND THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006

Serial No. 109–244

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Deputy Staff Director

BENJAMIN CHANCE, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

JOHN CUADERES, Staff Director

URSULA WOJCIECHOWSKI, Professional Staff Member

JULIANA FRENCH, Clerk

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 6, 2006 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau ........................... 8

Swanson, David A., professor of sociology, director of the Center for

Population Studies, Chair of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi; Joy E. Phillips, Ph.D, associate director, State Data Center, District of Columbia Office of Planning; Ken

Hodges, chief demographer, Claritas Inc.; and Warren A. Brown, senior

research associate, director, program on applied demographics, research

director, New York Census Research Data Center, Cornell Institute

for Social and Economic Research, Cornell University .............................. 32

Brown, Warren A. ..................................................................................... 62

Hodges, Ken ............................................................................................... 56

Phillips, Joy E. ........................................................................................... 40

Swanson, David A. .................................................................................... 32

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

Brown, Warren A., senior research associate, director, program on applied

demographics, research director, New York Census Research Data Center, Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research, Cornell University, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 64

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

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 81

Hodges, Ken, chief demographer, Claritas Inc., prepared statement of ...... 58

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

Phillips, Joy E., Ph.D, associate director, State Data Center, District

of Columbia Office of Planning; Ken Hodges, chief demographer,

Claritas Inc., prepared statement of ........................................................... 43

Swanson, David A., professor of sociology, director of the Center for

Population Studies, Chair of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, prepared statement of .......................... 35

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

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

(1)

2+2 SHOULD NEVER EQUAL 3: GETTING

INTERCENSAL POPULATION ESTIMATES

RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Turner, Norton, Maloney, and Dent.

Staff present: John Cuaderes, staff director; Ursula

Wojciechowski, professional staff member; Juliana French, clerk;

Jon Heroux, counsel; Peter Neville, fellow; Kimberly Trinca, minority counsel; Mark Stephenson and Adam Bordes, minority professional staff members; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager.

Mr. TURNER. Good afternoon. A quorum being present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census will come

to order.

Welcome to the subcommittee’s hearing entitled ‘‘2+2 Should

Never Equal 3: Getting Intercensal Population Estimates Right the

First Time.’’ This is the fifth in a series of hearings on Census Bureau programs. Today’s hearing will examine the Bureau’s

intercensal population estimates program.

Intercensal population estimates are vital to the accurate allocation of hundreds of billions of Federal dollars. Unfortunately,

intercensal estimates are often inaccurate. As a result, the allocation of these Federal dollars is also often inaccurate.

Washington, DC, for example, has disputed the Bureau’s estimates every year since 2002, and has noted in a July 22, 2006

Washington Post article that the Bureau recently acknowledged

that they had missed about 6 percent of D.C.’s population.

Cities, counties and States can challenge the Bureau’s estimates

and have done so 91 times since the 2000 census. However, I am

concerned that numerous other local governments may not have

the resources or expertise necessary to challenge the estimates or

are unaware of the opportunity to challenge. As a result, these governmental units live with what may be inaccurate estimates and

inaccurate Federal funding allocations.

During this hearing, we will examine whether the Bureau’s

methodology results in reasonably accurate estimates and equitable

allocation of Federal grants; the importance of accuracy; opportuniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:30 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\36680.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

ties for improving the estimates; whether the Bureau’s challenge

process is transparent, fair and takes into account a community’s

ability to challenge; and whether the Bureau strives to continuously improve the estimates.

Before we move on, I would like to recognize Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, who certainly has

an interest in this issue. And I yield to her for any comments she

may have.

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

3

4

5

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only brief comments, beginning with thank you for both inviting the District of

Columbia to testify here and for inviting me, although a member

of the full committee, not of this subcommittee, to sit with you in

this very important hearing. It is always timely, but particularly

timely now, because while citizens may not know it, the census of

course has to begin preparing full throttle now for the regular census.

Mr. Chairman, your initiative here today may not produce what

most of us would like, an immediate increase in the per capita that

we receive, because now that you know there are more people, OK,

where’s the moola. But it is very important that the census not

have to essentially wait until 10 years to try to figure it all out,

and what is supposed to happen is greater accuracy because they

are doing it all along and we want to find out why that has not

occurred in so many instances.

Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, we may not get money or any

benefit from an intercensal new estimate. But it can do huge harm.

Everybody looks at these census figures to see whether, for example, businesses should move here, whether schools are growing or

losing population. These figures from the granddaddy of all figures,

the Census Bureau, all of us rely upon the Census Bureau and

honor the Census Bureau for its work. But to the extent that these

intercensal estimates are inaccurate, they can do huge harm to

local jurisdictions, which is why you see local jurisdictions rising up

in arms, not because they expect any change, immediate change in

Federal disbursements, but because they know everybody who has

anybody to do with their city in any fashion will look first here.

Now, when people rise up in arms about whether they are losing

or gaining population, everybody says, yeah, yeah, yeah, you’re

never going to agree that you’re losing. But we find out that the

Census, in its honesty, and that is what you have to congratulate

the Census most for, that it is non-partisan, it acts on the figures.

The problem we have is perhaps with its methodology. We knew

in the District of Columbia that we were one of the hottest cities

in the United States. We knew that people were moving into the

District, and we had to try to figure out why the Census said we

were continuing to lose population at a huge rate.

Who gets hurt, finally, Mr. Chairman? Think about who gets

money. Most people in the middle class do not get Federal grants,

ultimately. Who depends upon this per capita, and we are basically

talking about per capita grants, who depends upon it are the people who get food stamps, people who need Section 8 housing, so the

accuracy, particularly since much of the money goes directly to

needy recipients, could not be more important.

I thank you and congratulate you on starting us off with a serious look at this issue.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

I want to recognize Carolyn Maloney of New York, who just got

here. If you’d like, I can read the witnesses that are going to be

testifying as you get settled, and then return to you for opening

comments.

Mrs. MALONEY. That would be great. Thank you.

6

Mr. TURNER. On our first panel, we have the Honorable Charles

Louis Kincannon, Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. On our second panel we have four witnesses. They are: Dr. David Swanson,

director of the State Center of Mississippi and professor at the University of Mississippi; Dr. Joy Phillips, associate director of the

Washington, DC Data Center; Mr. Ken Hodges, assistant vice

president and chief demographer for Claritas Inc.; and Dr. Warren

Brown, research director of the Cornell Institute for social and economic research at Cornell University. We look forward to each of

the witnesses and their expert testimony today.

And with that, then, I would like to recognize Carolyn Maloney

of New York for her opening statement.

Mrs. MALONEY. I really want to thank the chairman and the

ranking member, Ms. Norton, for holding this. First of all, Mr.

Chairman, let me say that I am delighted to see so many New

Yorkers represented at the hearing today. Warren Brown from Cornell and Ken Hodges from Claritas are but two of the excellent demographers we have in the city of New York. And I am proud that

both the State of New York and the city of New York have been

at the forefront of the fight for an accurate census.

Absent today is Joe Salvo from the city planning department of

New York city. While Dr. Salvo is not in the room today, we cannot

discuss census accuracy without recognizing the leadership he and

the entire team at the Department of City Planing have demonstrated on this issue. Both Mayor Michael Bloomberg and

Giuliani before him have recognized the importance of an accurate

count. And the planning department has worked very hard to help

ensure it.

The 2000 census would have missed over a quarter of a million

people in New York City if the city had not forced the Census Bureau to correct its address list for the city. Since then, the planning

department has repeatedly challenged the Census Bureau’s estimates for New York City, and won every single challenge. The citizens of New York City are deeply indebted to the hard-working experts at the New York City planning department.

Unfortunately, the issue of the accuracy of census counts and estimates is not new. Following the 1990 census, the Census Bureau

made a political decision not to adjust the intercensal population

estimates for the net under-count observed in the 1990 census. The

2000 census results proved the folly of that decision.

The GAO reported that the 1999 estimates underestimated the

total population of the United States by 6.8 million people. Half of

that error would have been eliminated had the Census Bureau corrected these estimates for the observed net under-counted.

The 2000 census which is used as the base for the intercensal estimates since then is equally flawed. We are repeatedly told that

the net error in the 2000 census is almost zero. While that statistic

may be true, it hides the huge errors in that census. While the

Census Bureau has refused to produce estimates of the gross errors

in the 2000 census, that is the number of people missed in the census and the number of people counted twice, we know from its own

research that the gross error is at least 12 million.

The Census Bureau gets to zero error by letting the people counted twice substitute for those missed. That may work for statistics,

7

but it does not work for representation. The people counted twice

are not like the people missed. They are not the same color, they

do not have the same income, and they do not live in the same

places. Those errors are built into the estimates for 2001 through

2005.

As I mentioned earlier, New York’s 2000 census count is considerably higher than it would have been if the Census Bureau had

been left on its own. Instead, the city of New York took advantage

of a program mandated by Congress to review and correct the Census Master Address File for the 2000 census. The city identified for

the Census Bureau thousands of addresses that were not on the

census address list. Addresses not on the address list don’t get

counted. Making sure those addresses were on the list gave New

York City a more accurate count.

The story does not end there, as we will hear from the witnesses

today. The Census Bureau estimates are worse in cities like New

York, where IRS records do not adequately reflect changes in the

city’s population. As a result, New York City has repeatedly been

forced to challenge the Census Bureau estimates to get a fair

count.

However, the fair count for New York City comes at the expense

of other cities in the State. While the Census Bureau has repeatedly been forced into cooperating with State and local governments,

it has done so reluctantly. GAO reviewed the cooperative effort to

correct the census address list prior to the 2000 census and found

that effort was weak at best. Plans for a local updating of census

addresses for 2010 remains sketchy at best.

Congress was told that the American Community Survey would

allow the Census Bureau to produce more accurate population estimates. We repeatedly asked for the details of just how that would

be done. But no details were forthcoming.

Congress has invested nearly half a billion dollars in the American Community Survey. I hope the Director’s testimony today will

tell us how that investment has improved the population estimates.

And Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are holding this hearing

today. The Census Bureau should be held accountable. However,

this problem is not new. When the results of the 2000 census were

announced in December 2000, one of the startling facts was that

the population estimates were seriously flawed. They were flawed

6 years ago, and they were equally flawed today.

Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. I want to thank both Mrs. Maloney and Ms. Norton

for their participation today, Ms. Norton for her representation of

our Nation’s capitol and Carolyn Maloney for her representation of

New York City. Both cities that we will see in our testimony that

have challenged the estimates, both of which have been undercounted. And the impacts on those communities are something we

are trying to address.

With that, I want to proceed with turning to Mr. Kincannon. As

everyone is aware, each witness has kindly prepared written testimony which will be included in the record of this hearing. Witnesses will notice that there is a timer light on the witness table.

The green light indicates that you should begin your prepared remarks, and the red light indicates that your time has expired. The

8

yellow light will indicate when you have 1 minute left in which to

conclude your remarks.

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

before they testify. So Director Kincannon, will you please rise and

raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. TURNER. Please note that the witness has responded in the

affirmative. And Director Kincannon, we will turn to you for your

statement.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR, U.S.

CENSUS BUREAU

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

on behalf of the U.S. Census Bureau, I want to thank you, Chairman Turner, and the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss our intercensal estimates program.

Population estimates provide important information for decisionmakers at the national, State and local levels, and are essential to

many Federal programs and initiatives. They are used to determine program eligibility and to ensure equitable funding for a large

number of Federal programs, including Federal transit grants, the

Crime Victim Assistance Program, Community Development Block

Grant program, medical assistance programs and many others.

The estimates are also used by the Census Bureau to provide

population controls for the American Community Survey, which

was fully implemented only last year with the support of this committee and the Congress. The American Community Survey replaces the long form of the census with annual relevant information for local communities. It provides vital information that describes how the population is actually changing, not just population

decline or growth. It also provides vital information on the occupancy rate, persons per household, international migration and domestic migration, all of which will help improve the estimates program. But this is the first year in which we have had nationwide

data covering all of the country that we will be able to use that.

The estimates are produced in cooperation with representatives

from each of the States. Each year, we produce more than 39,000

sub-national estimates of total population, including estimates for

every State, county and incorporated place or city. We also report

measures of the population by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin

for the Nation, States and counties.

The population estimates released annually by the Census Bureau are the product of a longstanding, valued partnership with the

States. This 40-year old cooperative is alive and thriving today in

every State as well as the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico

is a participating member. We work together each year to produce

a set of consistently, timely estimates for every State, county and

incorporated place.

Local areas also have an opportunity to revise their estimates

through a challenge process using one of several established approaches that may require additional data and take into account

local information. We provide guidance and assistance to help any

local community through that process. Normally, a community contacts us by phone, e-mail or letter to express their concern and reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:30 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\36680.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
9

quest a challenge package. The local government is invited to provide source material, such as building permits, utility hookups and

other data to supports its request for an alternative estimate. If the

data support an alternative estimate, we will send an acceptance

letter to the local government, notify relevant agencies and post the

new estimate on the Census Bureau’s Web site. This new estimate

becomes the official estimate and we notify the relevant agencies

of Government of this change.

Of the 39,400 official population estimates released for 2004,

there were only 38 challenges, most of which were accepted. The

challenges have been described in the media as Census Bureau

mistakes that it has been forced to correct. It’s not really that simple. The population estimates are the result of a cooperative effort.

We rely on information from other Federal agencies, as well as the

States, to produce one set of official estimates intended to serve all

customers. If documentation is provided that supports an alternative estimate, the original is revised, not because we didn’t get

it right the first time, but because working with the States and

tracking into account their additional documentation, we can arrive

at a more accurate estimate.

As we look to the future, we are re-examining our assumptions,

methodologies and source data and discussing these efforts with

our partners, especially the States that rely on the estimates for

funding allocations. Alaska, California and North Dakota are particularly interested in working with the Census Bureau and have

contributed to our research efforts.

During the past 6 months, we have sponsored two research conferences on population estimates, with participants from Federal

agencies, State partners and academia. In these conferences we examined how we could better improve the estimates for international migration, current assumptions and methodologies and

better meet user needs. Many users believe we should examine new

approaches and perhaps embrace alternative or multiple methods.

It is important as we proceed to consult with our State partners

and data users.

As Members of Congress, you are also an important partner, because your decisions affect what we do and affect every community

in America. As we study alternatives, I hope we will have a chance,

Mr. Chairman, to brief you in the future.

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Director Kincannon.

In looking at your testimony, there is one part of it that kind of

strikes me. In looking at the testimony that is to follow you and

in looking at several of the news articles that describe estimates

that have been made in estimates as a result of protests from cities, it’s clear that some of the issues that cities face, or communities that face that challenge of this data, is that once a challenge

has been made, once additional information is provided, it doesn’t

appear that the Census Bureau adequately reflects that change

that has occurred, or the change in methodology that would then

reflect more accurate estimates in the future.

And your statement here, knowing that’s part of the issue, that

it’s not just that you didn’t get it right the first time, but that it’s

not right the first time and then people have to repeatedly go back

to readdress the issue, your statement here strikes me, because you

said ‘‘many of the challenges we ultimately accepted were described

in the media as Census Bureau mistakes.’’ And it’s not that simple,

you say.

Well, if the data that you have is wrong and the estimates that

you had were ultimately proven to be not accurate, then it would

seem that they were mistaken, and if they were mistaken, that

would appear to be a mistake. And once that is identified, it would

seem that there would be a process by which the Census Bureau

would then modify its procedures and processes, so that communities would not have to continually be in a process of coming to

the Census Bureau and providing other data to reflect changes in

the estimation process.

Could you please describe, once a community objects, provides

you that additional data and it is accepted by you, what is done

by the Census Bureau to make certain that is adequately reflected

in the future?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, what we can do, and do, if we accept a

challenge, based on the evidence submitted by a city, that becomes

the new basis for this set of estimates that we have next year. So

we don’t throw away what they’ve given us. But new changes, additional housing units, additional developments of some kind, new

changes in group quarters, are not any more known to us in the

year plus one than they were in the base year.

So we really need the assistance of State and local officials in

making sure that the changes that don’t show up in the large scale

record data, administrative record data, for States and for counties,

can be taken into account.

Mr. TURNER. I have a letter that we’ve received from the North

Dakota census committee member, Katherine Strumbeck. And she

states in here, ‘‘North Dakota has experienced declining annual estimates in 12 of the past 15 years. The first 10 years of declines

were later invalidated by Census 2000, which showed we actually

experienced significant population gains.’’ Despite proven flaws in

the methodology, the 2001 estimates conflicted with the Census

2000 growth by dropping the North Dakota population below the

1990 estimate as if the growth in Census 2000 had not occurred.

So there are many individuals and groups, organizations, communities, that believe that current data is not necessarily reflected in

those estimates.

21

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I explained face to face with Governor

Hoeven and with Ms. Strumbeck that the 2001 estimates were not

changed to accept the results of the 2000 Census, because the process really takes longer to feed in. They were corrected for the next

years and were backward changed for 2001, I believe. Just a matter that between December of 1 year and we don’t have, perhaps

we should, but we did not have at that time a method of carrying

it down to the local level. So that lags by a year in getting incorporated.

Mr. TURNER. OK, I am sorry, I am confused. Because I had

thought that you had just said previously that the Census Bureau

does, when they get information that conflicts with their annual estimates, modify their estimate process to make sure that you don’t

have inaccurate estimates.

Mr. KINCANNON. The new census results are incorporated in this

estimate process as soon as they can be, which is not 6 months, but

I am sorry, for the year following that. The 2002 and the whole set

of records is corrected.

I understood you to be speaking of evidence that a city had given

to us or a town about new housing units or additional group quarters or other things that we do not measure directly ourselves, and

that we do incorporate in the base for the next year’s estimate.

Mr. TURNER. But the decennial census, you do not?

Mr. KINCANNON. We do, but it takes more than 6 months to get

it incorporated in there.

Mr. TURNER. I see, it’s an issue of time.

Mr. KINCANNON. At least it did in 2000. I will not be here in

2010, 2011, to make sure that they are incorporated then, but you

and Ms. Norton and Mrs. Maloney probably will be here and can

be vigilant and remind the then-director to make sure that preparation is made to take account of that.

Mr. TURNER. When we were putting this hearing together, there

was a sense that our staff received from local communities that the

process, the ability to object, to challenge, and the time periods for

filing a challenge and the technical expertise in able to be order to

do that may be something that is not widely understood by local

government communities. Can you please explain the census outreach and its ability to work with communities as they find that

the numbers don’t reflect what is accurate?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I believe I am correct in saying that when

we transmit estimates for an area to the official representative of

that jurisdiction, first at the State level, that we include first of all,

they have reviewed and consulted with us about that estimate at

the State level, but we still include in the materials that we send

to them, and they are also available on our Web site, not too difficult to find, I think, how you can register a challenge or a proposal for new evidence to be considered.

I believe the same thing is true when we publish the other estimates that we make clear that there is a process available if there

is local information that we don’t have that could improve our estimates. It may be that we need to review those lists and undertake

a direct mailing to targeted representatives in each county and in

each incorporated place. We do make contacts with representatives

of local government at other times, and if we are not reaching evVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:30 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\36680.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
22

eryone so that they understand this process, I will undertake to do

so.

Mr. TURNER. One of the themes that seems constant is the conflict between the component method and the housing unit method

for determination of the estimates. Can you please describe that for

us and its application?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, the component method of administrative

records is based, as its name applies, on administrative records to

the extent possible. It starts with the preceding estimate or census,

if that was the last global estimate for the local area. It adds births

and deaths from vital statistics that come largely, but not exclusively, from States and are augmented by information from Federal

agencies, and are also estimated, because there are time lags that

are in the vital statistics process, the way they’re carried out in

this country, based on local administration of the program.

As an aside, one lag is introducing new racial categories that are

standard in the census and have been standard, some of them for

20 years, getting those introduced into particularly birth records at

the local level is difficult. That’s not the Census Bureau that does

that. And it’s a difficult problem to deal with it, but it is a concern.

In addition, we make an estimate of internal migration between

the States, using tax records. That is not perfect, but it’s a very

strong representation and was used in past years for very significant allocations of resources when there was a revenue sharing

program.

We also make an estimate of net international migration. The

administrative records on migration, as you know, are imperfect in

a number of ways. This is the most difficult component of our estimate. I am happy to say that with the American Community Survey, directly asking people where they lived 1 year ago, we will

have a new and independent, truly independent measure, of where

people lived the year before, whether in another State or in another

country. That should be a basis for improving our estimates of

international migration.

Mr. TURNER. One more followup question, then I am going to

turn to Ms. Norton. So knowing though that D.C. and New York,

two dynamic urban areas, have both had estimates that have not

accurately reflected their populations, what do you believe needs to

be done to improve either the methodology or the process that

you’re undertaking?

Mr. KINCANNON. We have held a couple of conferences talking

about the methodology used. And it seems clear that there’s more

openness now amongst users and our partners in making the estimates to considering whether different methods can be used for different areas. It has been a hallmark of our practice that we need

to be consistent and use the same methodology applying to D.C. as

to Utah. I could argue that case. But if we can make better estimates overall, modifying the estimates, the methods based on locally available records, we are willing to do that. We would proceed

prudently on that basis, but we are open to doing that.

Mr. TURNER. Is that your recommendation, that you believe that

should occur?

23

Mr. KINCANNON. I believe we should examine it thoroughly in cooperation with our partners and with users of the data and of

course with the Congress.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just fascinating.

I must say that what you just said about D.C. and Utah, I am

glad you used that example, we have a bill on the floor, Mr. Chairman, I wish you would look at, that would give both Utah and D.C.

a vote. And each would gain by what they learned, by what their

constituents learn and what people who want to do business there

learn. So you handed me that plug, sir, no, I’m sorry, our witness

handed me that plug.

But therein lies one of the great flaws. I discovered it only, sir,

when I asked another agency known for the same professionalism

that has surrounded you since you were created by our Constitution. I asked that GAO look at the structural imbalance problem

in the District of Columbia. And what they initially came back with

was the comparison between the District of Columbia, yes, and the

functional equivalent of Utah. And you’ve got the most skewed results.

So we said, could there be a problem in that there is a uniqueness to a city-state that means that the statistical model has to reflect that. That is hard to do. But you know what? The GAO went

back and with a great deal of statistical, use of the statistical

science and with fresh eyes about the huge differences between

every State and a state-city, they came back with an entirely different result. I just put that on the table, and would invite you to

speak with the demographers and others who worked on this very

challenging issue and the landmark report they did on the structural imbalance in the District of Columbia. Because I think it

points, indeed, I have huge problems with the statistics that say

that D.C., for example, which never had any factors of the highest

this or that disease rate, well, is that really right? Sometimes you

think, well, you compare city to city, but it still doesn’t come out

right, because it’s really not a city.

Anyway, this is fascinating to a non-statistician who still can

think analytically and wonder what is going on here. So I am really

fascinated by the work you are doing.

Let me just ask you an obvious question. Given what you said

to the chairman about even the time lag it takes to correct, you

said, well, you can’t do it in 6 months, you spoke of a year. Why

did it take the District of Columbia 4 years to get an acknowledgement from the Census Bureau that its estimates, which showed us

losing large amounts of population, were inaccurate? Why couldn’t

that have happened earlier? This was not a ‘‘lag by a year,’’ as you

said earlier in your testimony. This was a lag by at least 4 years.

And it did harm to the District of Columbia.

Mr. KINCANNON. First of all, I would like to say I know what you

mean that it does harm beyond the distribution of Federal funds.

Attracting business, attracting tourists, attracting all kinds of interest and investment in a locality depends on reliable statistics

about the population. And to show a shrinking population can send

a message that is not consistent with the vitality of the city.

24

Shortly, well, I am not sure exactly, but some time in my first

year after taking office in March 2002, I read a story in the Washington Post where Mayor Williams was critical of the Census Bureau’s latest population estimates. And they were words that many

a mayor has spoken, some with greater justification than others. So

I was interested in this, since I had the new responsibility, and I

lived in a city where I and my bosses read that same paper. I

asked the estimates folks, had D.C. appealed this or had they supported the claim, what evidence had been submitted. I was told

that D.C. had not been participating in the process.

I may have misunderstood that, but my understanding was that

D.C. was not participating in the meetings of the Federal-State cooperative program and had not formally challenged.

Ms. NORTON. So although they challenged for 4 years, they really

weren’t participating in the process? So it is their fault that they

didn’t get these census updates until 4 years later?

Mr. KINCANNON. Madam, I don’t know whose fault it was.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I need to know that, because if it is something that—look, we are not really here to lay blame, but in understanding how the responsibility is allocated. We need to look to the

States and localities to do what they are supposed to do, and of

course, we look to the Federal Government.

So your testimony seems to be that the District, for 4 years, was

not participating, not that it didn’t provide the information you

needed but were absent, and the mayor was complaining but not

having his people participate in the process you required in order

to get an update?

Mr. KINCANNON. I asked that our staff work directly with the

staff of the Government of the District of Columbia to engage them

in the process and to see if there was evidence that would enable

us to correct our estimates if justified. And that proved to be beneficial. And we came up with a significant——

Ms. NORTON. And 4 years later, I am just trying to find out what

accounted for 4 years.

Mr. KINCANNON. I don’t know what accounted for 4 years. I don’t

know how long it took to get the evidence and how long it took to

evaluate it. I will provide you with that information if I can.

Ms. NORTON. I would appreciate it. Because obviously I want to

make sure that the District by the next census in fact has accurately submitted its own data. So if I don’t know, from your point

of view, what happened, then it is going to be hard for me, the Federal official, to say to them, you better make sure you do X, Y and

Z. Because they are going to be here later, and I will ask them. But

they will give me their version. I need your version of why it took

4 years and your testimony here as of now is that it is their fault.

Now, just let me ask you this. If you don’t challenge, since they

did challenge for 4 years, is there any way to assure corrections

will be made at all? Here are the big cities who, after all, will find

the wherewithal. So suppose you are a small or mid-level city. And

you say, we know that is wrong, but when we look at our budget,

geez, to get the experts that can go up against a Census Bureau,

boy, those are expensive, even if we get them from our State university. So they say, well, we just hope they get it right the next

time.

25

How are we to sense the purpose of the intercensal estimates is

to assure that by the time you get to the annual census, it will virtually all be right? What happens to the great majority of jurisdictions who do not have the wherewithal, whatever that might be, to

challenge what they think are incorrect census figures?

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, first of all, I would not wish to characterize the District of Columbia as being at fault in this. The practice

of participation, to the best of my knowledge, had fallen into disuse. And we revived that use, there were new staff members, as

I understand it, in the District of Columbia. And when they engaged in that process, we learned a great deal from it, and were

able to make improved population estimates.

I am pleased at that. I don’t know if I may be misinformed or

I certainly don’t know how the situation came to pass that there

was not active participation. But there was no reason for their not

to be active participation, since we are all living in the same metropolitan area, and we can reach out particularly to the D.C. Government and ensure that you are cooperating with us.

Ms. NORTON. We wouldn’t even have to pay transportation to get

our folks here. So I am really concerned about those of you who live

a few miles away.

Let me move on.

Mr. KINCANNON. I did want to say, you asked about smaller cities, but 60 percent of our challenges came from cities with population, under 50,000 population.

Ms. NORTON. Say that again?

Mr. KINCANNON. Sixty percent of our challenges came from cities

with a population of 50,000 or less. So cities about a size are able

to organize their records about housing starts and about utility

connections and new construction and school records or tax records,

and make a case to us. They know a lot about their local data that

we don’t know and can’t know. So smaller cities are managing to

do that.

Ms. NORTON. Well, it should be a collaborative process. But it

sounds like the functional equivalent of get yourself a lawyer, file

a challenge and if he is good enough, he may prevail.

I was looking at page 9 of your testimony. In any vastly important enterprise like the Census, you are going to find the Congress

looking for who is ultimately accountable, and you are going to find

Chairman Turner going home and saying to his constituents in the

Dayton area what they are going to have to do. But ultimately, we

have to find some objective source to indicate who is responsible.

The Census is known for its objectivity, at least when it comes to

accounting.

But I noted on page 9 that you indicated, and I certainly accept

this, that you have to rely on information from other Federal agencies. Fine. So of course, if you do census, I am sure if I came to

you with some data, you wouldn’t say, thank you, Eleanor, let me

see if I can incorporate this. I am sure you use the Census expertise to get it, so OK, they provided it, I want you to run down who

those agencies are and tell me what you do about them. And then

you say, if the documentation is provided that supports an alternative estimate, the original revised, not because we didn’t do it

right here, is what the chairman referred to the first time, but beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:30 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\36680.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
26

cause, and here is the operative language, working with the States

and taking into account their additional documentation, we can arrive at a more accurate estimate.

So from that I get, who got it wrong were the Federal agencies

who didn’t always provide you with the best information. That’s

No. 1. And No. 2, States who had not submitted the additional documentation, but now that they have, we can arrive at a more accurate estimate. Who is coordinating this process so that up front,

without challenges, the legendary Census Bureau can assure that

in fact the data provided by the States is accurate, is responsibility

to lay nowhere ultimately in this system? Or if it is everybody’s job

then it is nobody’s job and nobody needs to feel responsible.

Is there anybody over this process? Is that the Census Bureau

or does Congress need to make clear, clearer than the Constitution,

clearer than the additional statutes, that accuracy lies someplace

and should we then spell out who it is?

Mr. KINCANNON. If the Congress wishes to make the Census Bureau and not local governments accountable for detailed knowledge

about local construction, utility connections, school enrollment and

the other, tax return filings and things like that, then I think this

Congress would have to support some kind of a census county

agent program with staffing in each locality to look at that.

Ms. NORTON. So you don’t, even with all your vaunted expertise,

you do not regard yourself as the ultimate arbiter of the accuracy

of the information you receive and how it is used?

Mr. KINCANNON. No, ma’am. We do regard ourselves as the arbiter of information we receive. But if we don’t receive it, we stand

with the estimates we are able to make from——

Ms. NORTON. We are going around in circles. You do receive it,

you don’t accept it, you go 4 years when it comes to the District

of Columbia before any changes is made.

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, let’s see what the records show.

Ms. NORTON. If you are going to tell me, don’t think I am not

going to ask the District of Columbia, you mean 4 years you just

refused to submit data, even though you were screaming that you

weren’t receiving—it just doesn’t make any sense. As long as there

is a Federal agency charged by the Congress of the United States

with doing an accurate census that can affect everything about

your economy, you are going to find the Congress laying blame

with the agency it funds. Now, that agency better find a way, since

it is getting our funding, not the States, not the localities, to make

sure that its peer agencies give it the right information and that

it gets the right information elsewhere. But you cannot rely on

Congress to say it is a shared responsibility, because there is nothing we can do about it. Every Member of Congress is affected by

what we are discussing here today.

Let me go on to another question.

Mr. TURNER. I do have some additional questions, I will get back

to you for a second round if this is an appropriate time.

Ms. NORTON. I have had my 10 minutes, OK.

Mr. TURNER. I will ask a couple of questions, then we will go

back to Ms. Norton. I don’t want to limit the substance of her questions. But she is on a topic that I also wanted to jump in on. And

first off, let me say that in the interest of time, I have questions

27

about the Master Address File and the TIGER enhancements and

the ACS and how it might be able to be used and/or is impacted

negatively by this process. And also questions concerning the funding that the Bureau has received to improve its estimates of migration and immigration that I will submit for written responses.

Following on Ms. Norton’s theme of the task that you have in

front of you, I have two things that I want to highlight and then

I will turn it to you. One of which is, out of all the examples we

got, this one is the one that was the most striking to me. We got

a letter from Sugar City, Idaho. Pretty small town. And this is the

letter that we received. It says, ‘‘I have been asked to write this

letter concerning the city’s need to challenge the Census Bureau’s

2004 intercensal population estimate. In the year 2000, the population of Sugar City was 1,242. In 2004, the population estimate

was 765. After challenging the population, it was at 1,448. If we

had left the estimate in 2004, the city would have only received 53

percent of its various State funds,’’ so basically 47 percent of the

overall population of this town was missed. And clearly, this is a

town that is not going to have the resources that D.C. has.

I wondered if the Census Bureau either does have or should have

a trip wire, if you will, in instances where the decennial census has

a number that shows a significant increase or the intercensal estimates have been decreasing that trip wire would cause an expedited review of the next estimate. And in this instance where the

estimate would appear that 47 percent of the population of this

small town was no longer there that the Census Bureau would take

an affirmative step, not just the step of waiting for challenges, but

an affirmative step of saying, wait a minute, this isn’t 5 or 10 percent of a place that has large numbers, but this is a large percentage of a population that suddenly has gone missing. And then perhaps we should work in partnership with those communities.

That’s the first one.

The second one is, to acknowledge that it is my understanding,

and you can correct me if I am wrong, that you do over 39,000 estimates with a staff of about 76 and that the Bureau has new management in charge of population estimates. What I would like to do

is if you could tell us about the new management team that is in

place, what Bureau changes might be occurring in the population

estimates area, and have you considered reorganizing the population division or the estimates branches, and if you could comment

on the enormity of the task that you have with the resources that

you have.

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, the first question, should we have a trip

wire for very small cities with large changes, like Sugar City, I will

take a look at that and see. I am not familiar with the Sugar City

case. It does appear that Sugar City mustered the resources to

challenge it and we accepted that challenge.

I guess we have a lot of more or less self-enforcing features in

our form of Government, and that depends on both the willingness

of people to obey certain structures and their vigilance in terms of

their self-interest. And even very small towns are even quite vigilant and effective in asserting their self-interest.

Mr. TURNER. Right, but their success, of course, can’t be considered as proof that therefore the system works. Because there are

28

a number of communities who either, by the fact that we don’t

have their data, it doesn’t mean that they have the expertise and

merely desired not to proceed. It is an example of a community

that clearly had small resources and had a significant miss in the

estimate.

So I wouldn’t say that the fact that they did go through the process shows blanketly across the country that every community

therefore has the ability to do it. But it clearly shows that some

communities have a significant miss. And my question is, shouldn’t

that cause something in the Census Bureau light bulb department

to go off and say, perhaps this is something where we should be

in greater partnership with the community?

Mr. KINCANNON. As I said, we will take a look at the trip wire

notion and see if it is applicable in a way that we could achieve

it within our current resources. Congress has not been un-generous

with its resources on this program, but at the same time, to assertively acquire or demand certain information from each and every

city and town, all 39,400 units, is a very big workload and is a burden on those bodies as respondents.

Maybe you are suggesting we could survey those with a certain

percentage decline or a certain percentage increase. Although we

have never had a challenge about an estimate being higher than

expected, we would have to be vigilant on the other side, I suppose,

of that, if we had a trip wire.

But we can take a look at that. I don’t believe, myself, that we

should mount a new data collection program from State and local

governments in that regard. But if the Congress thinks we should,

then we will take a look at it.

Mr. TURNER. Since you are aware, as I indicated, that there is

a new team in place for the population estimates on the management side, is there a reorganization that is anticipated, or do you

not see changes occurring in that division?

Mr. KINCANNON. I think what I believe will occur and hope will

occur is a thorough reexamination of the methods used in collaboration with academic experts, with our partners in the FederalState program and with users to see if there is a better way of

changing the methodology to produce better estimates. And that I

hope to have occurring in the new future. So we are going to take

a good look at it.

I don’t anticipate ex ante a reorganization of staff or that sort of

thing. We will see what methods may need to be changed, and then

if organizational changes make sense, that would go forward.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence. I have only two more questions.

One has to do with a change that is so clear and obvious, resulting in such huge miscalculations and over-payment of some jurisdictions and under-payment of others that—challenge is not what

this is about. This is about changes in our country regarding incarceration, where because so much of incarceration is now outsourced and therefore private prisons are used, or State prisons are

used from one part of the country to the other, some of the most

astounding, perhaps the most astounding figures I have seen have

29

come from a paper. I teach a seminar at Georgetown where I’m still

a tenured professor.

And a student did a paper on the way in which the census counts

inmates. It was astounding. It was much worse than anything we

have discussed here today. What it means is that there are rural

counties in the United States that are barely populated which offer

no services, which have the imported prison population counted in

their numbers. And so though it will be easy, especially for the census to figure out a way of finding where these inmates come from,

instead it uses a kind of blanket, easy for the census to do. But

taking real funds from where they are needed to say, county X, you

now have X more people than you thought you had, because we

count those people as residing there. Of course, they don’t get any

services. But somehow their population is increased.

Is that true, and would you explain that, how the census deals

with inmates and with the changes in incarceration in our country?

Mr. KINCANNON. We deal with prison and jail inmates as we deal

with residents generally in the community. That is, we count them

as we have for every census in the place where they usually reside

most of the time.

Ms. NORTON. And they reside while they are in prison all of the

time where they are incarcerated.

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. You see, this is my problem with the census. If I

have any problem with the census, it is my skepticism about

whether the census moves with the times and has updated its processes to reflect what is happening in our country. Now, would you

not say, sir, that it defies the intent of Congress that there would

be small counties that could register a 300 or 400 percent increase

in population to then have funds distributed that could not possibly

go to the prison population as they do not? And to have other

places under-counted?

I would almost rather have a neutral way of doing it than to

have funds to go where there are no people or very few people. And

what the student’s paper revealed was astonishing to me, because

it was not what the District and New York have been complaining

about, which is, let’s sit down and figure this out. It was like in

your face, anybody knows that this small county, which is essentially going out of business, and that is why they have a prison in

the first place, it doesn’t have any population. And the census says,

that is all right, that is the way we have been doing it since 1700

and I will be darned if we are going to change.

Don’t we depend upon you to figure out how to keep taxpayers’

money for food stamps, for Section 8 housing, from not going where

there are people but where there are prisoners who can’t possibly

under law take advantage of those Federal funds? Can’t you do

something about that?

Mr. KINCANNON. I hope that the Congress does not depend upon

the Census Bureau to ensure that there is not mis-allocation of

program money. The Congress establishes the rules——

Ms. NORTON. It is not program money. This is done on a per capita basis.

30

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, Congress still establishes those rules. And

if it doesn’t want the census numbers to include certain portions

of them, it can so do.

Ms. NORTON. Sir, this was thoroughly researched. This student

got a very good mark. This was a matter of your regulations. The

Congress leaves to you these matters. You are the expert agency.

I am going to ask you if you would at least promise me this. Because this kind of gross, palpable overpayment of money that could

be used for food stamps and for other necessities to jurisdictions

where there is not population cannot possibly have been the intent

of Congress. You are not arguing that is the intent of Congress, are

you?

Mr. KINCANNON. I am arguing that the Congress established the

rules for funding and how they incorporate——

Ms. NORTON. No, sir, we——

Mr. KINCANNON [continuing]. Statistics of one order or

another——

Ms. NORTON. No, sir, this was researched, there was nothing in

the record to show that Congress had established this. These were

regulations of the Census Bureau. That is why I am putting the

question to you.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Norton, perhaps since we are going to leave the

record open and give the Director opportunity to answer written

questions, perhaps this is one that would be a great topic to provide additional data, and in a written question allow him to answer.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want

to go on with this, because I mean, the figures are clear. If he

wants to indicate that there are some changes in law that we

should try to get, I would do that. But I would ask you to look into

the regulations themselves, and if you would not mind getting back

to me your basis for continuing these huge overpayments, resulting

of course in underpayments elsewhere. I am aware that sometimes

it is more difficult to find, or you can argue that, where the prisoner really was from.

But you can designate, just like you designate that prisoner is

from some place 1,000 miles away, you designate that. Because it

happens to be there and because your regulations say, not the statute, say in the place where you spend most of your time, the Congress hasn’t said that, so I’m asking you as a regulatory matter to

look into that, get back to me with your sense of why you continue

to do that, whether you think legislation is necessary.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that on the District of

Columbia, and I am going to ask them to provide me with what

they submitted, they are going to have testimony here that talks

about an under-count of 572,000 for 2000, a reported population

count of 572,000 some in 2000. Then showing decreases in 2005,

they are going to talk about this beginning in 1990. What they are

discussing is the actual count in 2000 shows a population of

572,059 with a difference of 53,000 people. When you consider we

are talking about a city with not 600,000 people in it, you can see

the very serious concern we have.

I do promise you this, that I am going to do whatever it takes

to get the District to do what it must do if you will promise that

31

you will make sure that you do what you need to do. When the District tells me for example that one of the things you weren’t doing

was counting charter schools, all you have to do is read the Washington Post to know that we have the largest number of charter

schools per capita in the country and that they are 15 percent. I

mean, your folks reading the newspapers could have gotten that

one. But they reported a drop in public school population because

they ignored what was happening in charter schools.

That is what I mean by professionalism. We expect the Census

Bureau to be able to find those kinds of facts out, before it issues

estimates. Yes, sir.

Mr. TURNER. And that can be a great segue into our moving into

the second panel, if that is OK with you.

Mr. Kincannon, do you have anything you would like to give us

as a concluding remark, knowing of course that you are going to

be receiving additional questions in writing from us, and we do

greatly appreciate your time.

Mr. KINCANNON. I will only say, in reference to Ms. Norton, that

we did do a report about counting prisoners at the request of the

Appropriations Subcommittee. And I will include that in my response. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you very much.

We will then turn to the second panel, if they would please come

forward. Thank you, Director Kincannon.

We would like to welcome our second panel, which includes Dr.

David Swanson, director of the State Data Center of Mississippi;

Dr. Joy E. Phillips, associate director of Washington, DC Data Center; Mr. Ken Hodges, assistant vice president and chief demographer, Claritas Inc.; and Dr. Warren A. Brown, research director,

Cornell Institute for social and economic research, Cornell University.

We do have a policy that all the witnesses be sworn in. Before

I proceed with the oath, I want to confirm that on your table there

is the witness timing light that will give you the green light for you

to proceed. Yellow means that you will have 1 minute to conclude

your remarks and red is to ask that you kindly conclude your remarks as we move forward then to the next witness or to the question portion of the hearing.

Since it is our policy that we do swear in our witnesses, I would

ask that you please rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

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

responded in the affirmative. Mr. Swanson, we will begin with you.

32

STATEMENTS OF DAVID A. SWANSON, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR POPULATION

STUDIES, CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND

ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; JOY E. PHILLIPS, PH.D, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, STATE DATA CENTER,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF PLANNING; KEN

HODGES, CHIEF DEMOGRAPHER, CLARITAS INC.; AND WARREN A. BROWN, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, DIRECTOR,

PROGRAM ON APPLIED DEMOGRAPHICS, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, NEW YORK CENSUS RESEARCH DATA CENTER, CORNELL INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH,

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. SWANSON

Mr. SWANSON. Mr. Chairman Turner and honorable Members of

Congress, my name is David A. Swanson. My Ph.D is in sociology

with a concentration in population studies. I do research in the

field of applied demography and teach at the University of Mississippi where I am a professor of sociology and also serve as the

chair of the sociology and anthropology departments and director

for the Center for Population Studies.

I have been involved in applied demography more than 30 years.

My time as an applied demographer includes nearly 4 years with

the Population Enrollment and Economic Studies Division with the

Washington State Office of Financial Management, where I learned

the basics of the craft of applied demography by doing city and

county local censuses, developing city, county, municipal and special area estimates and generating population forecasts.

Drawing on my experience, I am pleased to provide my observations on the Census Bureau’s estimation program. My testimony

covers three areas: first, the major challenge faced by the Census

Bureau in providing timely, accurate and cost-effective estimates;

second, a suggestion for dealing with this challenge; and third, the

issues presented by my suggestion that need to be resolved.

First, the major challenge. Fueled by the proliferation of Federal

programs distributing benefits using decennial census data, and

the knowledge that Federal courts were now willing to consider apportionment cases, several lawsuits were filed against the Census

Bureau following the 1970 census, a practice that itself has proliferated over the past 30 years and now threatens to move into

other areas of the Census Bureau’s work, such as the annual estimates program.

The reason for much of this conflict is clear. Hundreds of billions

of Federal dollars are allocated each decade to States and local governments using census counts and intercensal estimates, and these

funds are allocated in a zero sum fashion. The situation will lead

to even more litigation and other forms of conflicts as the States,

cities and counties struggle to get their populations counted in the

decennial census and estimated during the intercensal periods.

This atmosphere of conflict is, I believe, the major challenge facing the Census Bureau’s decennial census and intercensal estimates programs. Within the Census Bureau, it not only serves to

foster a ‘‘defensive’’ working environment, but also takes important

resources away from production and research activities. As the deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:30 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\36680.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
33

fensive climate within the Bureau hardens, States and local governments feel even more frustration in their attempts to work cooperatively with the Bureau, and often turn to more confrontational

forms of communication. This is particularly attractive for local

governments in States lacking strong demographic centers.

Second, my suggestion. Breaking with the past, the Census Bureau decided to retain and update its Master Address File, the

MAF, for the 2000 census. The MAF is a critical resource for the

American Community Survey and its retention facilitates the planning and conduct of an accurate and cost-effective 2010 census.

Importantly, the continuously updated MAF also represents an

untapped resource for intercensal estimates and leads directly to

the potential to have timely, accurate and cost-effective estimates

done using a method that is not only simple to apply and explain,

but one that offers the potential for a meaningful role for States

and local governments to play in the development of this estimates.

What is this method? It is the well-known housing unit method. To

be successful, however, this approach needs a nationwide system of

State demographic centers that participate in a meaningful partnership with the Census Bureau.

Third, issues that need to be resolved. Turning now to the obstacles associated with my proposal for population estimates based on

the MAF and a set of strong State demographic centers, I will

begin with the issue of confidentiality. I believe this problem is not

insurmountable in regard to my proposal. The National Research

Council has issued recommendations to reconcile access and confidentiality. The Census Bureau itself has appointed a chief privacy

officer and worked to put effective procedures in place regarding

this reconciliation.

Another important obstacle is the financial cost of developing a

national system of State demographic centers, such that each State

center functions according to accepted standards. States need to

shoulder a share of these costs. After all, it is to their benefit to

have high quality State demographic centers. As such, I propose

that a funding mechanism involving Federal-State matching funds

be considered.

What about accuracy? Can the proposed MAF-based population

estimation system provide accurate data? In a recent report, the

GAO identified MAF/TIGER problems that needed to be solved in

order to have a good census in 2010. The first problem is to resolve

the address issues such as duplication, omission, deletion, incorrect

locations in the MAF, and second, implementing GPS-based

geocoding of housing units. These same two problems represent

sources of error in the proposed MAF-based system for population

estimates. Consequently, if the Census Bureau solves these problems, in regard to the 2010 census, it will do much in regard to the

accuracy of the proposed MAF-based population estimation system.

Given the experience gained by the Census Bureau in regard to

MAF/TIGER and widespread knowledge and use of the housing

unit method, and the capabilities of the best State demographic

centers, Alaska, California, Florida, Texas and Washington, for example, I believe that the timeliness and accuracy of MAF-based

population estimates based on a comprehensive system of State demographic centers, functioning at the level of the best State demoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:30 Aug 16, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\36680.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
34

graphic centers, would be sufficient for purposes of resource allocation, research, decisionmaking and planning for the national, State

and local levels. I believe it would also prove to be cost-effective

and equitable.

I note that the conflict-free system used in Finland to produce

annual population data has the type of State and national participation and cooperation that I propose. I believe that this arrangement goes a long ways toward keeping the Finnish system of producing annual population data both equitable and conflict-free,

even though, as in the case in the United States, these data are

used to distribute funds and other resources to regional and local

governments in a zero sum fashion.

With the exception of confidentiality, all the challenges facing the

development of a national MAF-based population estimation system are in the form of cost, technical problems or a combination

of both. The major technical tasks in building and maintaining a

MAF-based population estimation system come down to two areas:

address data collection and updates. The feasible way to effect a solution to these problems is to enhance the Federal-State cooperative programs already a part of the Census Bureau activities such

that local entities are compensated for helping to maintain the system. There are data collection activities in the United States that

already follow this model, vital registration systems, for one.

In conclusion, what I am proposing is that the Master Address

File be more fully exploited by using the housing method as a universal means of population estimation for all areas of geography,

and that State demographic centers be developed to uniform level

of capability, so that States and local governments play a integral

part in this system. I suggest that this proposal be supported by

State-Federal matching funds. This would lead not only to timely,

accurate and cost-effective intercensal estimates, but also to less

conflict, greater equity and there would be a uniformly higher level

of demographic human capital in the country. It also would be of

great use in developing information about the extent of large scale

natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina.

Thank you, I would be happy to answer any questions from

members of the subcommittee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swanson follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. For the rest of the individuals, I would

ask that you do try to keep it within the 5-minutes allocated. We

do have your written testimony, which we have had the opportunity to review. And the reason I am asking is so that we can get

to the opportunity for asking questions, which of course we expect

that you would have the opportunity to embellish your answers

perhaps with some of the text that you are unable to present in

your testimony. But we do have it in writing and it will be part

of the complete record.

Dr. Phillips.

STATEMENT OF JOY E. PHILLIPS

Ms. PHILLIPS. Good afternoon, Chairman Turner, Representative

Norton, members of the subcommittee and all in attendance. My

name is Joy Phillips. I am the Associate Director of the State Data

Center with the District of Columbia’s Office of Planning.

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this hearing. I am

here to testify about the District of Columbia’s experience with the

U.S. Census Bureau and its use pertaining to the intercensal population estimates.

My remarks will address the following areas: the challenge process, challenge problems, impact of underestimation and recommendations for improved estimates.

The challenge process. The intercensal population estimates and

its related products released by the Census Bureau each year are

undoubtedly invaluable pieces of data for various levels of government, businesses and of course the public. For the District of Columbia, the release by the Census Bureau of each intercensal population estimate since 2001 brought much concern. Mayor Williams

was concerned; so too were other District officials, managers and

members of the general public. In summary, the thinking was that

the census got it all wrong.

Published reports show that over the past 5 years, Washington,

D.C. has emerged as the strongest and most resilient economy in

the country, with over $13 billion worth of projects completed since

2001, and $7 billion more under construction. In essence, the District is in a state of economic renaissance with commercial and residential construction appearing in almost every neighborhood.

Against this backdrop, after the Census reported a population

count of 572,000 in 2000, it continued to report population decreases of approximately 4,000 persons each year, down to 550,000

in 2005. The pattern was similar to the 1990’s. The District government was not about to sit silently by for another 10 years and experience, among other things, an erosion of Federal funding due to

incorrect population numbers. With approval from the Mayor, the

District of Columbia Office of Planning decided to challenge the

census 2005 population estimates by using the housing unit method. Building permits and demolition data from 1999 through 2005

were collected and analyzed thoroughly. Our calculations resulted

in a population estimate of 577,900 persons for 2005, some 27,000

persons more than the Census estimated.

To supplement this information, we also submitted information

on residential utility connections, school enrollment, individual tax

filers, all pointing to either stability or increasing of the population,

41

and not a decrease to the magnitude suggested by the Bureau. By

now, everyone knows that we were successful in our bid to revise

these estimates.

However, our successful challenge was not without problems.

Among our many problems in preparing for the challenge were lack

of information sharing and labor intensiveness. On lack of information sharing, the gist of it was that the Census Bureau did not

agree to share their list of group quarter entities with us at the

State Data Center. We were quite surprised, given our signed

agreements as partners to, among other things, collect and disseminate population related data.

The Bureau invoked the agreements of Title 13, forbidding them

to share the list of group quarter statistics they used in the 2000

census count. Thus, the additional 7,000 persons in group quarters

in 2005 over 2000 were not included in the Census Bureau revision

of the estimates.

The labor intensiveness problem involved the amount of resources used up in legwork, new agreements, manipulating systems not built for retrieval of the data needed, and convincing external agency managers of the critical nature of our data needs and

so on.

The impact of underestimation. The impact of underestimating

the population in any given area goes beyond the importance of fair

representation of residents in Federal and State legislatures. There

is also a fiscal impact that is quite challenging to quantify. To date,

we have not identified any national data that exists on the fiscal

impact of population underestimation on States, cities or local governments. However, drawing from an analysis of information obtained from a survey of 34 cities, and data gathered from various

grants awarded to the District of Columbia from 2000 through

2006, some conclusions could be derived on the fiscal impact of population underestimates. Using either scenario, and being extremely

conservative, the District of Columbia seems to have lost at least

$5 million of direct funding over the period. And this does not take

into consideration possible funding loss through competitive grants

which may turn out to be quite substantial.

The impact of under-estimation in the District is of particular

concern since it affects resources available to our children. According to the Census Bureau, the District lost almost 19,000 children

between 2000 and 2005, and underestimating of children means

that a significant number of kids that need assistance are not even

included in the data used to distribute public funds. City governments must therefore maintain educational and social service programs to serve these children in the absence of financial support

from Federal agencies.

How can the Census Bureau improve on the reporting of our population estimates? Our recommendations are for more direct communication between the Census Bureau and the entities that collect and maintain key data items used in the tabulation of population estimates. Second, an approach using a compilation of population component method and the housing unit method.

In closing, we urge the Congress to support a more accurate population estimate by committing the necessary support and funding

42

now and in the future to the Census Bureau. The benefits of accurate population counts and estimates are clear.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Phillips follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Ms. Phillips.

Mr. Hodges.

STATEMENT OF KEN HODGES

Mr. HODGES. Thank you. I am a demographer with a company

that provides demographic information to businesses. For 24 years,

I have produced population estimates and been a user of the Census Bureau’s estimates.

Businesses are big users of demographic data, and they require

estimates for very small geographic areas, such as census block

groups. Census Bureau does not estimate population for block

groups, so we do that in the private sector.

Error can be high for block group estimates. It is about 15 percent on average. But it often drops to less than 5 percent with aggregation to larger areas, such as a trade area around a store or

a service area for a telecommunications provider. The reduction of

error based on aggregation depends on the accuracy of estimates

for larger areas, such as counties and cities. At these levels, most

private suppliers defer to the Census Bureau’s estimates, which are

produced with resources not available to us.

So businesses have a sizable stake in the accuracy of the Census

Bureau’s population estimates. The consequences of error are difficult to quantify, but with things like commercial development and

media measurement involved, large numbers of dollars and even

jobs can be at stake.

Revisions to some estimates are a reminder that they do involve

error. Some recent revisions have been large enough to raise questions about the Census Bureau’s estimates program. The Census

Bureau is aware of these concerns and recently held a conference

where external experts recommended flexibility in the use of new

data and methods and collaboration with local experts. The Census

Bureau is receptive to these recommendations and motivated to improve its program.

Currently, error is addressed through the challenge process, in

which a revised estimate can be issued for government units that

provide sufficient evidence of documentation for revision. But while

revisions can suggest how large estimation error can be, one cannot

judge the entire estimates program based on a few high profile revisions.

Most users have a rather narrow perspective on the Census Bureau’s estimates. For example, local governments focus on a single

estimate, and if they dispute that one number, the estimates program is a problem in their view, and very understandably so. The

challenge process responds to these concerns of local governments,

but can give the impression of an estimates program that is in serious trouble.

In my work, we use the Census Bureau’s estimates for all cities,

counties and towns and we use them every year. From this broader

perspective, the estimates have actually served us very well. For

example, they are the starting point for our own county estimates,

where back in 1990, we had an average error of about 4.1 percent.

By 2000, that error was down to about 3.4 percent. I would love

to take all the credit for that improvement in accuracy, but most

57

of it goes to the improvement in the Census Bureau estimates that

we are using as input.

The continued existence of problem estimates, though, points to

the need for further improvements. We do need to go beyond just

the improvements achieved through revisions based on challenges.

Governments do not challenge to get a lower population estimate.

All 89 revisions identified now in the Census Bureau’s Web site are

increases over the original estimate. So the revisions that we have

just now only correct for one type of error and certainly not all of

those.

And because the Census Bureau estimates all areas nationwide,

they face a zero sum constraint and cannot simply add population

based on local data and input. The Census Bureau’s estimates have

to sum to a realistic national total for U.S. population and therefore have to correct for estimates that are too low and for estimates

that are too high.

To conclude, some promising resources and new methods are

being proposed. The Census Bureau is determined to move forward

with its program. But users need to maintain realistic expectations.

Even with improved accuracy, the Census Bureau’s population estimates will still be estimates and subject to error. The frequency of

challenges and the magnitude of revisions may be reduced, but

some areas will still dispute their population estimates, and there

will be continued pressure for revisions. This is the imperfect nature of population estimates, and from that broader perspective,

those imperfect estimates will be of continued value to many business applications.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I look

forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hodges follows:]

58

59

60

61

62

Mr. TURNER. Thank you so much.

Dr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF WARREN A. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Chairman Turner, Ms. Norton, thank you for the opportunity to be part of this hearing on the Census Bureau’s population estimates. I direct Cornell’s program on applied demographics. I am a research director for the New York Census Research Data Center, which is a consortium of research institutions

in the New York Metropolitan Area and upstate New York. And I

represent New York State in the Federal-State cooperative for population estimates. I am a past chair of that group’s steering committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my observations regarding

the Census Bureau’s population estimates activities, and I’m drawing upon a number of years of experience working with the folks

at the Census Bureau and advocating on behalf of communities and

counties in New York State as well as aware of what is going on

in other States around the country.

My written testimony and a copy of a paper I co-authored with

Joe Salvo of the New York City Department of City Planning for

a Census Bureau conference on population estimates has been referred to numerous times so far today have been entered into the

record, or I have submitted them for the record.

There are two things from my written testimony that I would

really like to focus on. The first is error, then correcting those errors. Population estimates are not perfect. And as a decade goes

along, typically the errors mount up, and we get further and further away. I think it is unrealistic to expect an estimates process

to nail the subsequent decennial census right on the head.

That said, the Census Bureau has produced a research file that

allowed their current major methodology to work without the benefit of challenges, without the benefit of review from the States. It

was an opportunity to see how good is the administrative records

component method. It produced estimates for April 1, 2000. The estimates for the Nation were low, they were 6.8 million low. That

number or that percentage was a 2.4 percent error. If that error

had been equally distributed across all of the local areas, the cities,

the counties, the municipalities, then we might have had error in

the census, but at least they would have been equitable and they

would have been evenly distributed. They were not.

The greatest underestimate was the District of Columbia at

minus 9.3 percent, Nevada at minus 6.8, Arizona at minus 5.4, and

Rhode Island at minus 5.1. Clearly that methodology does not do

a very good job with areas as diverse as the District of Columbia,

Nevada, Arizona and Rhode Island.

The challenge process, it has been observed that there are a

number of challenges that have taken place, and yet of the almost

40,000 areas of local government, the fact that there were 38 challenges, successful challenges in 2004, it is an infinitesimal proportion of all area. Obviously there are errors out there.

When a challenge is successful, what are the benefits? What happens? The graph that I have submitted here shows the changing

nature of State population. This is a State as large as New York

63

State. I have expanded the vertical axes to accentuate the differences, if you will. But you can see that the estimates that were

produced in 2005 incorporated the challenges that were made in

2004. They incorporated them for 2004. So if you focus on 2004,

you will see that the number is substantially larger in the 2005 estimates than it was in the 2004 estimates. It reflects that adjustment.

The 2005 estimate was based on the same methodology and

shows a downturn in the population. As we have talked about the

perception of growth, change or decline, it is very important, and

what this tends to show is that we have a declining population in

New York State. We think the challenge that we are currently engaged in will correct that.

In summary, getting estimates right the first time or at least

with maximum accuracy, precision and equity, calls for fuller partnership between Federal, State and local governments. Thank you

for inviting me to participate in this oversight hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. First for questions we will turn to Ms.

Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me very quickly ask

a set of questions to the District of Columbia.

You say in your testimony, and here I am quoting from page 2,

‘‘The District of Columbia was not about to sit silently by for another 10 years and experience, among other things, an erosion of

Federal funding.’’ And then you say, after release of the 2005 population estimates in December 2005, the District ‘‘was ready to act.’’

Now, you heard me be very tough on Mr. Kincannon.

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes, I did. [Laughter.]

Ms. NORTON. And you heard me promise I was going to be fair,

and be equally tough on the District of Columbia. Perhaps you left

out something. But I asked him about 4 years and your testimony

seems to indicate a challenge to a place in 2005. Would you care

to comment on the disparity there, if any?

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes, I can. I can only speak for when I took the

job as——

Ms. NORTON. Well, that won’t do. He couldn’t get away with that,

and I have to tell you, all of us have to take, we can’t say, the

member who was here last messed up.

Ms. PHILLIPS. Right.

Ms. NORTON. So don’t blame me. This happened on the watch of

the Mayor of the District of Columbia.

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. He has been a good mayor. And I am asking you,

let me be specific, when was the first challenge filed to the 2000

census?

Ms. PHILLIPS. From my research, the first challenge was filed in

2005. When I took the job in February 2005, we began looking at

the information to file the challenge. When the 2005 population estimates came out in December, then we got the official piece together and the challenge was actually filed, I believe, in March

2006.

Ms. NORTON. OK, you know what, was it done with any guidance

from the Census Bureau?

Ms. PHILLIPS. It was done with guidance, and that is why I am

going back to, I can speak to when I came. When I came on board,

I realized there was a problem. I contacted the Census Bureau, and

they did engage in discussions with us as to what it entails in filing

a challenge.

As you have seen in my stated testimony, we did have that discussion at the regional office, the Washington Council of Governments. And we were still not pleased with the results of that discussion, and that is why we went ahead and did the challenge.

Ms. NORTON. I need you to go back and speak with the Mayor.

When was the Mayor elected?

Ms. PHILLIPS. Well, the Mayor has——

Ms. NORTON. He’s completing an 8-year term. When was he

elected?

Ms. PHILLIPS. In 1999.

Ms. NORTON. This is a mayor that has a very good reputation in

the Congress and he has a very good reputation with me.

Mr. TURNER. I can add to that, he has an excellent reputation.

74

Ms. NORTON. We have seen palpable improvements in the government. We are really not in the blame game, we are in the making sure that we get everybody doing his or her part. And then seeing, because you heard who I am going to hold responsible. I don’t

fund you to do this.

Ms. PHILLIPS. Right.

Ms. NORTON. We fund Mr. Kincannon.

Ms. PHILLIPS. That’s why I made sure when I came on board——

Ms. NORTON. So I need you to go back—I only have so much

time—I need you to go back and I need you to come into my office

with people who were there at the time, so that I can understand,

since the Mayor has been complaining about this virtually since he

took office, why no challenge was made. And the reason I want you

to do that really goes to my next question, which goes to our various experts.

Suppose the challenge isn’t made and the corrections made. However, perhaps the corrections are made without the challenge. I

wasn’t able to find that to be the case. But if you have an accumulation of time without corrections, does that mean, what does that

mean concerning accuracy or inaccuracy of the next decennial census? Do any of the experts care to focus on this?

The reason, the predicate for that question is that Congress is

spending money to have it done on a virtually, well, not an annual

basis, but to have it done often. And I thought the premise was,

the more often, the closer to the data and the change in the data,

the closer you get to accuracy, so by the time you get to the 10-

year period, you say, well, let’s look back, when all the witnesses

are gone and you get what Ms. Phillips just said, well, I wasn’t

there then, Congresswoman, you can then speak with the people

who have the responsibility.

So I am asking you what the net effect is, in your judgment, on

accuracy, if corrections are not appropriate made on a timely basis

by whatever, on whatever basis, challenged or not?

Ms. PHILLIPS. From the information we have, we can see that it

affects numerous programs.

Ms. NORTON. No, please, I’m asking this—they are going to call

time on me. I am asking this, I am not directing this to you, Ms.

Phillips, and I understand what the difficulty is. You are going to

get, you all are going to come in and see me. I don’t want a letter.

You don’t have to come far. And I am here to try to work with—

we are having a new mayor, Mr. Chairman. So I want to work with

whoever that new mayor is.

But I want to know from the experts now, the people who are

outside experts, objective experts, what is the cumulative effect if

the updates don’t occur on an active fashion? Yes, sir, Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Let me point to two areas. The address list that has

already been described as New York City was very successful in

getting a more accurate count by vigorously developing its own address list to compare against the Census Bureau’s address list, part

of the housing unit method and what David Swanson has been referring to as an ongoing registry of housing units and those addresses to be used in the estimates process is probably the single

most important thing you can do to ensure an accurate census

count.

75

So if you will, the estimates are like a dress rehearsal for the decennial census.

Ms. NORTON. As often as you can do them?

Mr. BROWN. Get your act together, get your resources together

and maintain a complete and accurate listing.

Ms. NORTON. So in your judgment, you will have a more accurate

census at the end of the period if you did that?

Mr. BROWN. Absolutely. And the second, which is almost like

closing the barn door after the cows have left, is during the review

process, did we get good coverage, because the States participated

with the Census Bureau in reviewing the Census 2000, is to compare the estimates to the count. If the estimates are low and the

count was low, it is not going to be surprising. But if the estimates

are high and the count was low, then it is going to cause concern

that maybe we missed something here. So getting that estimate

correct is incredibly important.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir, Mr. Hodges?

Mr. HODGES. Put another way, with some of David Swanson’s

recommendations for the housing unit method and the use of an

Master Address File, if one goes that route with the estimates, you

are then building estimates with sources that are more similar to

those that contribute to the census count itself. Whereas right now,

with the component method, as well as it works in some areas, it

is a very different process than that for the census.

So whether the ultimate census counts themselves are more accurate or not, you would have results that are more similar.

Ms. NORTON. Interesting.

Mr. SWANSON. If I could add one other point.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir, Mr. Swanson.

Mr. SWANSON. This goes back to my experience in Washington

State, which started its estimates program in 1942. The benefit of

having a housing unit method and having a registry for housing

that I suggested is that I have seen in action, when you use housing unit method estimates for cities, and there were 265 in Washington State when I worked there, is that when you had a dispute

with the local government, you had a method of self correction. The

elements that go into making the housing unit method work are

exactly the elements you need when you do a census count. And

the cities would provide the housing unit numbers to the State, the

State demographic center, as we started to develop the estimates

for the cities.

So the disputes usually, they would boil down to two issues, what

was the vacancy rate and how many persons per household were

there in each of them. And we could solve those easily with the

census and/or if it was a larger town where census was costly and

prohibitive from that regard, for example, Seattle, we never did a

census in Seattle, but we certainly did a lot of sample surveys to

update the information that we used in the housing unit method.

So what you get is a system that is self-corrective. In that regard, I am in full agreement with what Warren said and what Ken

said. It is one of the reasons I recommended looking into the math,

is that if you are using something like that, you have a head start

for having a pretty clear idea of what the census is going to come

about with.

76

Ms. NORTON. And that is a concern of the Congress, the accuracy

concern is, it is not a member, particularly in the House, which is

done by reapportionment.

Mr. Chairman, I just have two questions. One, I really am interested in, Mr. Brown, in page whatever it is in your testimony. As

I say to my students, number my pages, after all, I don’t count,

your grade is not based on the number of pages but on the content

here.

You name the jurisdictions that had the greatest underestimates,

the District of Columbia led. And I kept looking for what these jurisdictions might have in common, District of Columbia, Nevada,

Arizona and Rhode Island, in that order. Do they have anything

themselves in common, or how would you, what would be your professional judgment for the reason?

Mr. BROWN. Nevada and Arizona, rapidly growing, the two fastest growing States in the country. So the growth is just outpacing

our ability to estimate the population.

Ms. NORTON. Oh, well, that is what we pay the statisticians for.

But I hear you. I hear you, this is what, when I asked Mr.

Kincannon, I said, are you keeping up with a society that changes

overnight, and yes, we are going to expect the statisticians to be

smart enough to figure that out. But I hear you. That is not a criticism of you. But go ahead.

Mr. BROWN. The District of Columbia I think is sort of encapsulates everything that is a weakness in the administrative records

component method. College students, immigrants from abroad.

Ms. NORTON. Transients who come here to work.

Mr. BROWN. Transient population that is present perhaps in

Providence, Rhode Island, and since Rhode Island is a small State,

Providence dominates it. And we know that it is present in New

York City. So I think you have large urban center problems, you

have rapidly growing State problems. Not a common thread between the four States, but two threads that I would lump them

into.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. That is very helpful. This is what I’m

going to press the Census Bureau to understand. And I understand

all that you all have been saying about conformity, apples to apples. But then the science and the skill is in making that happen

while acknowledging differences. I think that is hard, and I say so

from the work the GAO did on the District and the structural imbalance. So I don’t see this as anything but very difficult, but a

wonderful challenge, it seems to me, for somebody in your profession.

Could I ask, experts, hey, look, is it almost always an underestimate? Do they ever go the other way? I know one time they do is

when they give people who don’t have a ny population but have a

lot of prisoners a lot of money for Title I, people who are not going

to school and can’t. But I am saying, in the general course of

things, is the basic rule that if they are going to err, they are going

to err on the side of what they consider caution, which is low, rather than high? Is that how it happens?

Mr. HODGES. Very briefly, there are a great many over-estimations among those of us who do population estimates. Warren

Brown mentioned the roughly 6 million——

77

Ms. NORTON. I am trying to find the frequency. Is the frequency

with, because I am sure everybody can find somebody. Is the frequency with too low rather than too high and how often would you

rate how often, knowing full well that you can’t give me a statistically accurate number. Is it rare for there to be more population

assigned than——

Mr. HODGES. Let me suggest, without having notes with me, that

probably varies from year to year. In the 2000 census, the estimates were lower than the count. In the 1990 census, if I recall

correctly, the count came in lower than the estimates. So that

while with 2000, there more likely would have been under-estimates, in 1990, quite the opposite may have been true.

Ms. NORTON. It certainly wasn’t true for the District of Columbia.

Final question, Mr. Chairman, then I am through. I wonder

whether particularly the experts have anything to say about what

Ms. Phillips said. She did indicate that there were difficulties with

data sharing. And I don’t know whether changes in statute might

be necessary or whether this data sharing, for example, on group

quarters was a matter of privacy, was it statutory, does it need to

be changed? I was not sure the meaning of that data sharing and

why, when the Census wants to get a collegial process going, there

would be that problem.

Mr. SWANSON. I can’t speak exactly to the Census Bureau, but

I know in some cases where I’ve dealt with population estimates,

some group quarters populations are extremely sensitive. For example, shelters for abused women. So you can understand why

they don’t want to share information.

Ms. NORTON. Just a number?

Mr. SWANSON. Well, I can just say for some types, there are

issues of sensitivity.

Ms. NORTON. But wait a minute. They are sharing it with people

in their own jurisdiction.

Mr. SWANSON. I have had people tell me in other States the same

thing, not the Census Bureau, but in my job as a State demographer in other places where people were hesitant to give that information to me.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, that is a demographer. I am saying, is there

any valid reason, perhaps statutory, that you know of why the Census would be cautious about sharing information such as group

quarters?

Mr. SWANSON. Yes. What we do as State demographers in the cooperative is we develop a list of every group quarters facility in our

State. We don’t track them all, but we track the major ones. We

identify where they are located and we give them the number of

people that are there.

The information flows to the Census Bureau. Once it becomes

part——

Ms. NORTON. So you know it, you can go in those places yourself,

then.

Mr. SWANSON. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. So you know what is in there. So what is the problem with data sharing, then, about group quarters? You give them

the information to say, in this homeless shelter there are, in this

78

abused, whatever, there are? That is where they get it from in the

first place.

Mr. SWANSON. The Census Bureau is quite proud of the fact that

it is a one way relationship, that because of Title 13, once data

comes into their records and becomes part of their information,

they cannot share it back.

Ms. NORTON. With the jurisdiction that provided the data?

Mr. SWANSON. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Phillips, is that what they told you?

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes, the Title 13, I wanted that list of group quarters so that I can compare 2000 with 2005. And they could not

share that list with me. So when I submitted my list, what they

were saying is my list was different from the list that they had in

2000, so they could not use the updated numbers.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I really would ask that matter be

looked at very—I did not have this question to ask the Census Bureau. That is why I asked about privacy and the rest of it. But I

am astonished that this kind of information, which the District of

Columbia can walk into any facility, all of them have to be licensed, all of them have to comply with the law. I don’t see the privacy issue. I don’t see any—the only thing I could see is there could

be something statutory. I will look at that.

But other than that, this is the kind of thing, if all I know is

what you all are telling me, it is what yields disrespect for Government. If you say, you provide the data and then we challenge the

ultimate data and say, we want to specifically see how you are

counting X data, which we earlier provided you, and we say, oh,

no, no, we can’t let you see that, even though we got it from you,

that is nonsense. And considering the testimony we have received

about the importance of group quarters, and the housing component of the census, it does seem to be a central question of data

sharing for the Census Bureau that says above all, it wants a collegial relationship.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Ms. Norton.

For the record, I want to note that my district, which is anchored

predominantly by Dayton, OH, according to the last estimates, lost

4.4 percent, reducing the community to 158,000. My district also

reaches down toward Cincinnati, and according to the Cincinnati

Post, they began with this headline that the city leads in population loss. It says that in the last 5 years, it has the highest rate

of any major American city as a result of recent estimates of losses

in population.

So we have identified the issue of Federal funds. We have identified the issue of businesses that locate in the area. But there is

also the overarching issue of perceptions of a community and the

impacts that it can have in long term strategic planning, based on

estimates that may or may not be accurate.

And I am going to conclude, I also want to recognize that Charlie

Dent of Pennsylvania has joined us, who has been very active on

this committee and in the issue of the census.

One of the issues that Director Kincannon seemed comfortable

with was the ability of communities to object, both their knowledge

and awareness of the process, their access to data and expertise

79

that could result in a successful challenge. I would like if each of

you would, in conclusion, as a conclusionary question, but I am

going to give you one opportunity also to add anything to the

record that you want, tell us if you believe that communities have

the accurate information of the process and the expertise generally

to go through the processes that New York City and D.C. have

been successful in.

And I want to highlight just one other thing that Director

Kincannon had said, that I think was perhaps not accurate, and

that is, he concluded that by the fact that there were communities

that were going through the process that therefore it must be available and accessible. We don’t necessarily have data about, unless

you can contribute that in this hearing, of communities that have

not gone through the process that have wanted to.

But if you would please comment on that.

Mr. BROWN. I would be happy to start. I think the State representatives in the Federal-State co-op need to do a better job educating their counties and their communities. I think the Census

Bureau charges us with that responsibility. We want to develop a

relationship with our counties and our communities that, I talk

more communities out of challenging that I do into challenging,

even though New York is one of the most active challenge States,

that I am sure that my friends at the Census Bureau think I go

around drumming up challenges, that we get communities that are

upset. We walk through the data with them and say, you don’t

have any grounds.

So anyway, I would say that if a community is not, in New York

State, is not aware, then it is my failing as much if not more so,

than the Census Bureau’s.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Hodges.

Mr. HODGES. I would hope that communities are aware of the opportunity to challenge and do have equal access to that opportunity. But I would be surprised if the ability to challenge and the

inclination were equal across the board for 39,000 government

units. That would be surprising.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Phillips.

Ms. PHILLIPS. I would agree with what the past two speakers

have said. The information is published on the Census Bureau’s

Web site, in terms of the challenge process. So anyone can access

it. But I think the problem lies with the resources that are available within each one of those jurisdictions. It does take a lot of

work to get the challenge through.

Mr. SWANSON. The key to answering that problem, I think, lies

with the State demographic centers. And there is a lot of weak

State demographic centers. In some States, they don’t exist. I think

what Warren said about New York puts that in a totally different

situation, where they are working actively with the local governments. That wouldn’t happen in Mississippi. We don’t have that

kind of activity.

Texas is a much better situation, because it has the capabilities

to do that. They are active partners in the Federal-State cooperative program for population estimates, and they have experienced

people there. But Alabama and Mississippi do not. And I think that

80

reflects down to the fact that the cities are not in a very good position to challenge because they lack that kind of a local contact.

Mr. TURNER. For each of you, before we conclude this hearing,

you have heard both the questions that we have had, the testimony

of Director Kincannon and the testimony of each of you, I want to

give you an opportunity, if there is anything you want to add to

the record before we close. Dr. Swanson, I will begin with you, if

there is anything that you would like to add to the record as a concluding remark.

Mr. SWANSON. The MAF, the MAF, the MAF. I think it is one

of the keys to having a good estimation system, and I think it will

tend to resolve lots of problems, including the one I am most concerned about, and that is the escalation of conflict between the

Census Bureau and all these other stakeholders.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Phillips.

Ms. PHILLIPS. What I wanted to add is in terms of my first recommendation, and that is for more direct communication. I refer to

it as that trigger that should indicate when there is some dramatic

increase or decrease in the numbers, that the Census needs to

reach out to the local community to sort of understand what is

going on at the grass roots level. I think that is quite important.

You referred to it as a trip wire. And I think if that something is

put in place to ensure that when these triggers occur, that there

is a followup with the local community, then we can arrive at better estimates in the future. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Hodges.

Mr. HODGES. Nothing to add. Thank you very much.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. In the 1980’s, the Census Bureau and individual

States jointly selected methods most appropriate for that State.

There was not a one size fits all approach. In the 1990’s, there was

pressure to streamline the process, to do it more quickly. I would

like to see us return to a more full and open partnership with the

States to find methods and input data that work best for the people

of that State and do it State by State.

Mr. TURNER. I would like to thank each of you for participating

today, both in the preparation that you have put forth in your written comments and also your participation here. I appreciate your

willingness to share your expertise and your thoughts on population estimates.

I would also like to thank all of my colleagues for their participation. In the event that there might be additional questions that we

did not have time for today, the record shall remain open for 2

weeks for submitted questions and answers.

I want to thank you all, and with that we will be adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay and additional

information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

81

82

83

84

85

86

Æ