69–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–88

2000 CENSUS MAIL OUTREACH IMPROVEMENT ACT

APRIL 13, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BURTON, from the Committee on Government Reform,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 928]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred

the bill (H.R. 928) to require that the 2000 decennial census include either a general or targeted followup mailing of census questionnaires, whichever, in the judgment of the Secretary of Commerce, will be more effective in securing the return of census information from the greatest number of households possible, having

considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment

and recommend that the bill do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Summary of Legislation ....................................................................................... 2

II. Background and the Need for Legislation ........................................................ 2

III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions ................................................. 3

IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony ................................................. 3

V. Explanation of the Bill ....................................................................................... 3

VI. Compliance with Rule XIII ............................................................................... 4

VII. Budget Analysis and Projections .................................................................... 4

VIII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office ...................................... 4

IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for This Legislation ................................... 5

X. Committee Recommendation .............................................................................. 5

XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104–1 ..................................... 6

XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104–4, Section 423 ............... 6

XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b) ................... 6
2

1 National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,

letter to Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, November 10, 1997.

I. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION

H.R. 928, the 2000 Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act of

1999, requires the 2000 decennial census to include a second mailing of census questionnaires, either targeted (to those households

who have not yet responded by mail) or general (to each household

included in the original mailing). This bill also gives the Secretary

of Commerce the authority to choose which method (targeted or

general mailing) will achieve the highest number of responses possible, and will be most feasible for the Census Bureau to carry out.

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Beginning in the early 1990s, the Bureau began planning for the

2000 Census and included the concept of a second mailing strategy.

According to the original Bureau plan, the procedure for the mail

survey during the first phase called for the use of a targeted second

mailing, where all households who had not yet responded to the

original census questionnaire would receive an additional form to

complete and return by mail. The Census Bureau believed that

using a ‘‘full mail implementation strategy’’ would increase mail response rates up to 6 percent.

Additionally, the Bureau’s intent to use the second mailing procedure was endorsed by recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), after Congress asked them to study and

provide ways to improve the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of the

census. They too supported the use of a second mailing strategy,

citing the Bureau’s own research which demonstrated that a replacement questionnaire (in a targeted mailing setting) would considerably increase response rates. The mail survey procedures were

very cost-effective because the increase in response rates would

provide savings in follow-up costs. Conducting a second mailing

could save up to $150 million by reducing field data collection costs.

These savings also outweighed the additional expenditures on mail

contacts, both direct and indirect costs such as postage and de-duplication of census forms from households who return two questionnaires.1

After consultation with contracting vendors, the Bureau concluded that a second targeted mailing could not be conducted due

to technological and time constraints. Rather, a second blanket

mailing (a replacement questionnaire to all households, regardless

of whether or not they have returned the original questionnaire)

would be more feasible. The NAS agreed again that the benefit of

increased mail response outweighs the cost of printing sufficient replacement forms and mailing one to each household.

In the 1998 Dress Rehearsals for the 2000 decennial census, the

second blanket mailing strategy was tested at two locations, and

met all of the standards for increasing response rates. According to

the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal Report Card, in Columbia, SC,

the response rate increased 8.6 percent for the short form, and 6.2

percent for the long form. Likewise, at the Sacramento, CA site,

the response rate increased 7.9 percent for the short form, and 5.2

percent for the long form. In May of 1998, the Bureau decided to
3

2 Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Decision Memorandum No. 54, May 11, 1998.

3 Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, ‘‘Decennial Census: Preliminary

Observations on the Results to Date of the Dress Rehearsal and the Census Bureau’s Readiness

for 2000,’’ July 30, 1998 (GAO/T–GGD–98–178).

eliminate the second mailing due to difficulties in handling the deduplication of questionnaires.2

In July of 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO) testified

before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs concerning

the results of the second mailing from testing in the 1998 Dress

Rehearsals. The GAO testified that, ‘‘ * * * the Bureau does not

currently plan to use in 2000 a key ingredient of the response rate

achieved during the dress rehearsal—a second mailing. According

to a Bureau official, concerns about public confusion have contributed to the Bureau’s decision not to use a second questionnaire

mailing in 2000. The preliminary results of the dress rehearsal

suggest that the Bureau may need to reconsider its decision. At

both the South Carolina and Sacramento sites, the Bureau obtained approximately a 7 percentage point ‘‘bump’’ in response

rates by sending a second questionnaire to all households located

in mailout/mailback areas. According to a senior Bureau official,

this 7 percentage point increase represents real additions to the

court and does not include duplicate submissions from households

that already had responded.’’ 3

The Congress is concerned with obtaining the most accurate census possible. H.R. 928, The 2000 Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act, reestablishes the second mailing to achieve this goal. To

best facilitate this endeavor, H.R. 928 grants authority to the Secretary of Commerce to choose which method, either targeted or

blanket mailing, shall be used in the 2000 Census.

III. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE ACTIONS

H.R. 928 was introduced on March 2, 1999 by the Honorable Dan

Miller (R–FL). The bill was referred to the Committee on Government Reform on March 2, 1999, and it was referred to the Subcommittee on the Census March 10, 1999. The Subcommittee held

a mark-up on March 11, 1999. No amendments were offered, and

the measure was ordered favorably reported to the full Committee

by a vote of 6–4.

IV. COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY

The Committee did not hold any specific legislative or oversight

hearings on H.R. 928. However, during an oversight hearing entitled ‘‘Oversight of the 2000 Census: Examining the America Counts

Today (ACT) Initiatives To Enhance Traditional Enumeration

Methods,’’ held on March 2, 1999, the issue addressed by this legislation was mentioned.

V. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL AS REPORTED: SECTION-BY-SECTION

ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘2000 Census

Mail Outreach Improvement Act.’’

Section 2. This section requires the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that a second mailing will occur after the original mailing of
4

census questionnaires in the taking of the 2000 decennial census.

The replacement questionnaire will be sent either to all households

included in the original mailing, or to each household who does not

respond to the original mailing. Whichever method is more effective

in securing the return of a completed questionnaire from the greatest number of households will be left to the judgement of the Secretary. In making this decision, the Secretary of Commerce shall

take into consideration factors such as the need for timely and accurate information, cost, and ease of administration.

VI. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause 2(b)(1) and

clause 3(e), the results and findings from committee oversight activities are incorporated in the bill and this report.

VII. BUDGET ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS

The budget analysis and projections required by section 308(a) of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are contained in the estimate

of the Congressional Budget Office.

VIII. COST ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, March 22, 1999.

Hon. DAN BURTON,

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 928, the 2000 Census

Mail Outreach Improvement Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen).

Enclosure.

H.R. 928—2000 Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act

In conducting the decennial census in 2000, the Bureau of the

Census will mail questionnaires to nearly 95 million households.

H.R. 928 would require the bureau to mail a replacement questionnaire either to each household that does not respond to the original

mailing or to all households. The bill would give the Secretary of

Commerce the authority to choose whichever option he believes

would result in the greater response rate.

Based on information from the Bureau of the Census and subject

to appropriation of the necessary amount, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 928 would cost either $110 million—if replacement questionnaires are mailed just to nonrespondents—and $275

million—if replacement questionnaires are mailed to all households. Based on the response rate for the 1990 census and information from the bureau, CBO estimates that around 40 percent of all
5

households will not respond to the original questionnaire. The bureau expects to spend about $160 million on postage for the original questionnaires and estimates that printing a second questionnaire for all households would cost $75 million. Based on the experience of the dress rehearsal of the 2000 census, CBO estimates

that the bureau would spend $40 million to process questionnaires

from a second mailing to all households. CBO cannot predict which

of the two options the Secretary of Commerce would choose for replacement questionnaires. Sending a second mailing to all households could increase the overall response rate more than a targeted

mailing because the bureau could reach nonrespondents more

quickly. However, it is unclear whether the difference in the overall

response rate would be significant.

In addition to the costs cited above, H.R. 928 could affect spending by the Bureau of the Census in two other ways, but CBO cannot estimate their effects. First, the bureau would likely incur additional costs to process more duplicate questionnaires if a complete

second mailing is done. During the dress rehearsal, the bureau

found that more than one-third of all second questionnaries that

were returned were duplicates of original questionnaires. Second,

because H.R. 928 could increase the rate of response by mail, it

could reduce the costs for having temporary employees telephoning

or visiting households that did not respond to the questionnaire.

H.R. 928 would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore,

pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 928 contains no

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state,

local, or tribal governments.

The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley. This estimate was approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget

Analysis.

IX. SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS LEGISLATION

Clauses 1 and 18 of Article 1, Sec. 8, and Article 1, Sec. 2 of the

Constitution grant Congress the power to enact this law.

X. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

On March 17, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee on

Government Reform ordered the bill favorably reported.

Date: March 17, 1999.

Summary: Final Passage of H.R. 928.

Offered by: Hon. Dan Miller.

Approved by Record Vote, 23 Ayes to 20 Nays.

Vote by Members: Mr. Burton—Aye; Mr. Gilman—Aye; Mrs.

Morella—Aye; Mr. Shays—Aye; Ms. Ros-Lehtinen—Aye; Mr.

McHugh—Aye; Mr. Horn—Aye; Mr. Mica—Aye; Mr. Davis of Virginia—Aye; Mr. McIntosh—Aye; Mr. Souder—Aye; Mr. Scarborough—Aye; Mr. LaTourette—Aye; Mr. Sanford—Aye; Mr.

Barr—Aye; Mr. Miller—Aye; Mr. Hutchinson—Not Voting; Mr.

Terry—Aye; Mrs. Biggert—Aye; Mr. Walden—Aye; Mr. Ose—Aye;

Mr. Ryan—Aye; Mr. Doolittle—Aye; Mrs. Chenoweth—Aye; Mr.

Waxman—Nay; Mr. Wise—Nay; Mr. Owens—Nay; Mr. Towns—

Nay; Mr. Kanjorski—Nay; Mrs. Mink—Nay; Mr. Sanders—Nay;

Mrs. Maloney—Nay; Ms. Norton—Nay; Mr. Fattah; Mr.
6

Cummings—Nay; Mr. Kucinich—Nay; Mr. Blagojevich—Nay; Mr.

Davis of Illinois—Nay; Mr. Tierney—Nay; Mr. Turner—Nay; Mr.

Allen—Nay; Mr. Ford—Nay; Ms. Schakowsky—Nay.

XI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; PUBLIC LAW 104–1;

SECTION 102(B)(3)

H.R. 928 requires the Secretary of Commerce to include either a

general or targeted followup mailing of census questionnaires in

taking the 2000 Decennial Census. The Act does not apply to the

House of Representatives or to the Senate, thus H.R. 928 does not

apply to Congress.

XII. UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT; PUBLIC LAW 104–4, SECTION

423

The Committee finds that the legislation does not impose any

Federal mandates within the meaning of section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (PL 1044).

XIII. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT (5 U.S.C. APP.) SECTION 5(B)

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or

authorize establishment of an advisory committee within the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
(7)

1Kenneth Prewitt, Director of the Census Bureau, Memorandum for the Secretary, 3 (March

16, 1999). 2 National Research Council, Committee on National Statistics Panel on Alternative Census

Methodologies, Measuring a Changing Nation, Modern Methods for the 2000 Census, 22 (February 1999).

MINORITY VIEWS

H.R. 928, which requires either a blanket or targeted second

mailing of the census questionnaire, should not be supported. To

get a fair and accurate census, we must allow the professionals at

the Census Bureau to make the many critical decisions involved in

taking a census, based on their expertise and experience. Those

Census Bureau professionals have told us that conducting a second

mailing is a bad idea.

Current law requires that the census start on April 1, 2000, that

state population totals be reported to the President and Congress

by December 31, 2000, and that final population counts be reported

to the states by April 1, 2001. During that time, census takers

must assign 275 million people to 120 million addresses on a fixed,

single date, April 1, 2000—a task of mind boggling scope and complexity.

H.R. 928 compromises the ability of the Census Bureau to meet

these deadlines and would have the effect of blocking the use of

modern statistical methods in determining the final totals from the

2000 Census. The statutory deadline established by 13 U.S.C. for

the release of those totals is April 1, 2001. Any second mailing

would add a minimum of six weeks before nonresponse follow-up

could begin, making it impossible for the Census Bureau to use

modern statistical methods and meet the April 1, 2001, deadline.

The Census Bureau would be forced to release less accurate numbers on April 1, 2001, which were not corrected for overcounts and

undercounts.

The Census Bureau tested a blanket second mailing in a dress

rehearsal and it didn’t work. About 40% of the ‘‘second’’ forms returned during the dress rehearsal were duplicates. If that rate

were repeated at the national level in 2000, there would be over

11 million duplicates. As Census Bureau Director Dr. Kenneth

Prewitt explained, ‘‘For Census 2000, a work load of this magnitude would significantly delay data processing operations and potentially introduce significant errors into the data. In addition, our

dress rehearsal experience indicated that the public was confused

by the second mailing.’’ 1 In addition, a National Academy of

Sciences panel advises that a blanket second mailing could reduce

the accuracy of the census.2

There is also fault with a targeted second mailing. Dr. Prewitt

stated, ‘‘printing vendors informed us they would require at least

a month to send a second mailing targeted only to nonresponding

housing units. A targeted second mailing would, thus, have signifi-
8

3Memorandum for the Secretary, supra note 1, 3.

cantly delayed the start of the nonresponse follow-up operation.

Our experience and research indicate that the longer the delay between Census Day and the start of nonresponse follow-up, the more

inaccuracies are introduced to the census data.’’ 3

The value of a second mailing is substantially outweighed by the

risks that it introduces in other census operations and the delays

it would cause in achieving the most accurate census totals.

HENRY A. WAXMAN.

TOM LANTOS.

R.E. WISE, Jr.

MAJOR R. OWENS.

EDOLPHUS TOWNS.

PAUL E. KANJORSKI.

PATSY T. MINK.

BERNARD SANDERS.

CAROLYN B. MALONEY.

ELEANOR H. NORTON.

CHAKA FATTAH.

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS.

DENNIS J. KUCINICH.

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH.

DANNY K. DAVIS.

JOHN F. TIERNEY.

JIM TURNER.

TOM ALLEN.

HAROLD E. FORD, Jr.

JAN SCHAKOWSKY.

Æ